Your statement can be true :p 85% didn't understand. Then that same 85 watched twice (because if you understood you wouldn't watch again) and still didn't understand so 100% is true.
I saw this video when it first came out and thought it was really interesting, now I’m in college and just finished taking classes over quantum physics and laser physics and I actually recognize/understand a lot of the concepts and math here which is so cool to me! Thanks for inspiring younger me to go into physics!
Me too man. I saw this video when I was, like, 15 and understood jack shit of any of this, but now after haven taken both a EM, QM and an optics course I just can't see what's paradoxical here
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
I loved this video and occasionally watch it. It is also the subject of the 2022 Nobel physics prize and one of if not the best explanations of it I've seen so far. By the way, the contributor of the last paper shown as an example of the studies about the bell theorem is the Nobel Laurette Anton Zeilinger. I really hope this video gets more watch man, thanks a lot!
It’s a crap explanation. You don’t even need polarisation to explain it. Just complicates it. See Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody
@@lukeno4143The paper you referenced www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf is far less intuitive than sunglasses, my dude.
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
Speaking as an accountant: Financial reports are largely unaffected by the laws of physics and most university-level mathematics. Both US GAAP and IFRS seek to create a system which ignores Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as a side effect of preventing technically-legal financial chicanery).
What if the filters are changing the orientation photons that pass through them? A photon that passes through A but does not pass through C might suddenly be able to pass through C after passing through B if B changes the orientation of the photon just enough to make it able to pass through C.
that's what I was thinking. but the experiment with entangled photons seems to negate this possibility, I think? But I don't know how that experiment was done. the video just suggests that it has been done.
It does, but not physically. It's the act of observing that does it, not the filters themselves physically. The filters themselves cannot change the orientation of the photons, only block them.
@@AveryHyena arrr you sure? because, a mirror or a prism change the orientation of light that gets reflected or refracted, why wouldn't a polarizing lens be able to do so? Then the classical solution makes perfect sense.
@@Alkimi Because all a polarizing lens does is block light. You suggesting mirrors or prisms and then saying "so why wouldn't a polarized lens be able to do so?" makes no sense. They're completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. It's like you're saying "apples grow on trees, so why wouldn't a cat be able to do so?". Also, that's not the kind of orientation we're talking about here. We're talking about the orientation of the photons, not the classical direction of where the light is shining from.
@@AveryHyena you misunderstood. i wasn't referring to the direction of the light radiation, I was referring to the polarization, is that not the "orientation" we're talking about? It has 180° of range, and then there's a phase variance. When light is reflected, the direction changes of course, but it is also polarized to an angle perpendicular to the plane of incidence. That's why polarizing filters get rid of reflections. A mirror was a bad example since it's reflecting all light in all directions, I meant the reflections in a window, they get "polarized by reflection" according to Brewster's Law.
photons are units, so if I made a really dim light, instead of the light getting dimmer and dimmer, eventually it will just hit in as single photons less and less often. Bell's inequality is sort of how it takes more gas to drive the same distance in less time. When you have three polarizers 22.5 degrees apart, more photons come through than two 45 degrees apart; the photons do not have to change their polarization as much in each step, so it would take less energy, but since photons are quantum, they get through less often instead of having less energy. It is analogous to carrying a pile of bricks, if I asked 100 students to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in a single trip, no one would be able to do it, but if I allow more trips, more people will be able to do it, if there is no limit to the trips everyone can do it.
Their argument (and Bell's) seems flawed. Say we know that from position A a robot can shoot a basketball into a hoop hung at B 12 feet away 85% of the time (or symmetrically from B to A at 85% also). From position B the robot can shoot to position C 12 feet away from B also with 85% success (or from C to B at 85% also). Also, experiments and theory have shown the robot can shoot from A to C 50% of the time. [note we haven't said where C is relative to A] Say we carry out an experiment analogous to the description in the video: Two similar robots decide if they will both go to position A or position B except that one goes to one part of earth and the other to the opposite part of the planet. (the two courts are set up the same way as goes A B and C etc.) The experimenters recording the data at the two locations can't beforehand see where the robots position themselves, but they can independently at the same time direct the nearby robot to shoot at A, B, or C. Once the robots shoot, the experimenters will know the positions and can record hit/miss and tally %s over many trials with many new sets of robots. Later they compare notes. They find the 85% and 50% (and 100%) hit rates mentioned in the video, depending on where shoots were taken. Now, this experiment was not with quantum particles but just like the eye glasses and beards in the video, we can use it as an analogy to explain the set theory. Except that the Venn diagrams apply to properties that presumably can both be true at a moment. But this is not true for these experiments. The particles cannot go through multiple filters and start in multiple states (that was the first half of the video and it was a flawed argument). Same for the robots, each pair of robots goes to exactly one location and shoots exactly once. It's only when tallying many such trials that we can see the overall effect (like when we see an interference pattern through slits). So we come to the flaw: even though the set logic implies properties like beards and eye glasses must obey the constraints and cannot be at the 50% level (.85*.85>.5) -- this limitation follows because set logic includes transitive law, for example -- with the experiments we cannot link the AC polarizer filtering (or shooting) to the AB and BC cases the same way because the latter would take 2 shots. The AC details are not implied by AB and BC. If the robot shoots from A to B and then shoots from B to C, we can bound the odds they make both shots (.85*.85). That is what the Venn diagram says. BUT we CANNOT bound a single shoot from A to C by knowing AB, BC. To show how silly it would be to try, we never specified where C was. If C is 2 feet from A (ABC as a triangle), then AC % would be very high. On the other hand if the robots aren't that strong and if C was 12 ft from A, then AC might be 0%. The point is that we cannot put tight bounds on AC, hidden variables or not, based on AB and BC results. It's more than conceivable that a particle might easily slip through an opening at 22.5 degrees from its position yet have a very difficult time going through a 45 degrees adjustment, for example. And this has nothing to do with hidden variables or for that matter quantum mechanics (we can see that macroscopic waves can have interference patterns and other quantum wave properties). Conclusion: the Venn diagram argument puts bounds on a third result that can follow transitively from two other results (ie, all be true at once), but it can't put a limit on a third action (going from A to C) based on two other distinct actions (AB, BC). After all, going from A to C likely doesn't follow the path taken from A to B and then from B to C any more than shooting a basketball from A to C is done by shooting at basket B and then getting the ball to go back up in the air after going through the B hoop but without hitting the ground -- ridiculous. How can we conclude Bell was correct? The video and Bell made a valiant effort to preserve the Copenhagen interpretation, but that needs to die. It's the 21st century for goodness sake. [In both related and unrelated news, Schrodinger's "cat" is either dead or alive, not both or neither, IMO]
This is much better than other explanations because it explains the main idea. Take this video as a great heuristic explanation. It doesn't pay to get stuck on the details of polarization filters and what could be going on inside them... What these creators do so well: They try to make the whole scenario intuitive rather than stuffing everything into equations and relying on mysterious integral tricks and suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's the style I was used to from undergrad physics. Thank you, keep up the great work.
Intuitively, it feels like the polarizing filter doesn't just block light of a different polarity, but also aligns light that does manage to pass through to its own polarity. So, if, say, 50% of polarized light passes through a filter that's misaligned by 45°, then going 45° again should allow 25% of all light to pass. There has to be a mechanical analog that might support this idea. If you had some linkages (or perhaps cams, gears, or flexures) that moved in a wavelike pattern along one plane, and were perfectly rigid perpendicular to that plane, then you could expect them to move in perfect unison and have 100% power transmission (assuming negligible friction). If you could then misalign a portion of them radially, but keep them aligned axially, then it would be like you're constraining a portion of its vertical stroke, you're virtually shrinking the height of that linkage. The amount you're shrinking it by would not be linear; it would follow a cosine function. And the amount of power you're therefore able to transmit is also limited according to that function. Energy would be lost in the form of friction. Perpendicular means the mechanism jams, with zero power transmission, equivalent to cos(90°). It makes intuitive sense, because you're moving about a circle. If you introduce more stages that are only gently tilted relative to each other, then you should see more power transmission and less mechanical resistance, in proportion to the product of the cosines of their respective angles. Now, given that photons are quantized and cannot just have their energy reduced without also changing their wavelength, then reducing power transmission through polarizing filters must be probabilistic, and successfully passing through would mean a photon with a new polarity comes out the other side. But on a macroscopic scale, only X% of energy is being transmitted as if the amplitude of that light was constrained, and the polarity has been twisted. If you could have the light perfectly in phase, as in a laser, then effectively, you ARE decreasing the amplitude of light in exactly the same way as our mechanical analog. The energy lost would either be in the form of back reflection or heat. I don't know enough about quantum physics to understand if this somehow introduces a hidden variable, but it doesn't feel like it would. It's just some spooky dice rolls like any other quantum phenomenon.
@Luke Fabis - You are 100% right, if a photon passes a polarizer, its polarization gets aligned accordingly and that gives a complete and correct explanation of the first experiment. As for a single photon passing a series of filters, this clip is a total misrepresentation of Quantum Mechanics.
@@PragmaticAntithesis Look at 12:05 You suppose entanglement exists if you want to explain why photons appear to behave probabilistically, under the assumption they actually depend on a hidden variable. The hidden variable hypothesis could just be wrong, in which case entanglement does not exist and whether or not a photon gets absorbed by a polarized filter is entirely up to chance.
I've got some kind of issue at 5:00 We have the 45° blocking 50% of light, no problem here. Then the 22.5° appart ones above: In the video we have 100% light comming in (btw 100% light isn't comming out of A but for the sake of the example lets consider it 100 for the rest of the manipulation), then 85% out of lens B, to finaly 70% out of C. 100-15-15=70 But as far as I understand, the light filtering probability happens independently between two filters and not a whole set. Therefore the calculation should be 100% - 15% between A and B Then again 100% (of what is left after B) - 15% between B and C (A and B have 22.5° diff and same for B and C) Since we know 85% is left after going through B we can extrapolate the result by converting the 15% of 100 to a "15%" of 85%: 15*85 / 100 (cross product) 12.75 So in the end we have 100-15-12.75 = 72.25% left out of C Even though A and C have 45° diff, because of the presence of B at 22.5° the filtering probability is "reset" and therefore has a different result than just going through C directly. This is my personal understanding and could be flawed. I haven't seen the rest of the video as posting this so I don't know yet if this is addressed later on.
Commenting to get a notification if anyone comes to prove you wrong. I really appreciate people like you in comment sections. Thank you for taking the time to not cut corners and write your thoughts out in full detail, and being venerable to being wrong
The probability resetting idea is much like saying you have a 50% change of flipping 200,000 tails in a row since each flip does not depend on the previous result and the probability is "reset". I do agree with the 72.25 though. In an experiment with 200 photons, 3 filters, and perfect probability: 100 pass A, 85 pass B, and 72.25 pass C. With only 2 filters: 100 pass A, 50 pass C. Therefore filter B changed 22.25 photons from being C-blocked to being C-passed. The answer to the mystery lies in how polarization and filtering affects photons and their angle and the fact that a photon does not need to be 100% aligned with a filter to pass even with perfect theoretical filters.
@@iplay9s This. Because if it was any other way the order of the filters wouldn't matter. But it does. No information is learned from this experiment at all... I really don't know why some people see it as proving or disproving anything other than confirming the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...
Just a fun fact, the first person to have designed - and conducted - an experiment to show what is described at 9:10, was Allain Aspect. He had met with Bell, talked about it, and Bell told him to publish his idea. He later on got money and realized the described experiment.
Actually, this video and many others inspired me to study physics at university. And I'm now a phd student in Alain Aspect's group, doing experiments I coudn't even dream about!
@@trucmuche8174 Serious question: (11mins.50secs) "There is literally no way to accurately represent all 3 of these proportions in a diagram like this". Why is it right to try to explain Bells' Inequality using a 2 dimensional diagram? Is it possible Bells Inequality becomes 'equal', or can be explained in another dimension. This is probably nonsense but......???
Fun fact: John Bell in his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" did not conclude that his theorem debunks "hidden variables" but only states that if they exist it would imply nonlocal effects. Bell in his paper "Against Measurement" criticized the "no hidden variable" approach saying that it places too much emphasis on measurement (and thus observer) dependence and thus makes it impossible to imagine how the theory could be scaled up to large systems. He then, in his paper "On the impossible pilot wave," became a major contributor to Bohm's pilot wave interpretation, which posits that nonlocal hidden variables can explain quantum mechanics intuitively, and further Bell expresses his frustration in that paper that people aren't taking such ideas seriously. When you actually learn the history of Bell, you realize how bizarre it is that this video presents Bell's theorem as a disproof of hidden variables and then calls a nonlocal interpretation (which was Bell's own interpretation of his own theorem) as "crazy," not bothering to address any of Bell's arguments against it (or Einstein's, or Schrodinger's, etc).
This feels like the sort of puzzle you encounter in a phone game that makes you go "this is dumb it's not possible" but there's always an answer. There is always an answer
answer me this It is regarded that an Upwards direction is a higher place; towards what is above. To a higher figure or amount. Towards something which is higher in order, larger, superior etc. If you was asked to point your arms UP in the air , every person would do just that so why do we subconsciously say when travelling or moving Northwards as "up north" " Hi Im Jock and Im from way up in the scottish highlands "and Southwards "down south" "I drove my car all the way down to cornwall from london today to lizard point the most southerly point in th UK and Why is it Australia known universally as "down under" because according to the planet upwards is skywards , and downwards is into the earth ,also north, east , south and west on a sea journey would equal to Bow - Straight Ahead (Forwards, Bowled[cricket] ) , Astern or Stern (meaning From the rear or behind ,Not Backwards as boats cannot travel in reverse/Backwards) Port (to the left) and Starboard (to the right), also according to Science The Zenith is the highest point on a sphere and The Nadir is the opposite from a fixed earth point, but from MY own personal perspective my zenith (directly above my head) is unique to my own flesh and blood , everywhere where I go my Zenith and my Nadir go with me.
And what about dimensional movement relative to the dimensional state of the matter under consideration? Can you have quantum entanglement between dimensions that explain directional movement of light?
@@flatline-timer there is no need to hostile, if my comment triggered your response and then was too difficult for you to comprehend, that is purely your personal issue, so please do not project that old gaslighting technique onto myself with your intention to smear my character with the "druggy" stigmatta
I love these kind of explanations, great job and thank you! There are many things I don't understand, but the top one is at around 10:30, when 2 entangled photons are measured at the same time and different locations, especially the wording "photons passed through ... were blocked at ...". How I see this with my naïve self is like this: suppose there are 400 entangled pairs of photons in each test... - the AA case, only 200 pass through both sites through the A filter and 200 are blocked by both - the AB case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the B filter at 22.5 degrees from A, but 30 that are blocked by A are passed at B and 30 blocked at B are passed at A - the BC case, 200 pass through the B filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 22.5 degrees from B (45 degrees from A), but 30 that are blocked by B are passed at C and 30 blocked at C are passed at B - the AC case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 45 degrees from A, but 100 that are blocked by A are passed at C and 100 blocked at C are passed at A The "quanta" nature of quantum physics is weird as hell, but the all or nothing aspect of it allows for my naïve explanation in my head - since many, many way smarter people than me have pondered over this for the past 85 years there certainly is something wrong with my explanation, I just can't put my finger on what... can anyone help me telling me where I'm mistaken?
I am becoming increasingly convinced that quantum mechanics are just nature's way of fucking with us. Like nature just got bored one day and turned to its buddy and was like "Dude, check this out, the humans think they've got it figured out... let's see how they deal with 7 extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, and wave-particle duality!" Nature's Buddy: "Nice, but what if we also made 96% of all matter and energy in the universe completely undetectable unless yoi just look at how it interacts gravitationally... but then just to fuck 'em up more we'll hide the graviton!" Nature: "This is so gonna go viral." Bastards.
Hahaha, you're not the first thinking about that. A quote from Douglas Adams, a sci-fi/comedy writer. “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I like this duck's witty mind. Pretty handy to avoid going nuts. Like when I'd finally learned about physics and it being _everywhere_ , feeling great about my increased knowledge, and then discovering quantum mechanics. Grrrr.
Josue Dominguez Yep How about 4...polarised lenses.....and then utilising a convex, concave, plain lenses, with camouflaging effect material! The problem with that was when I went for lunch I could not find the experiment when I came back. I put that down to time travel though!
You know polarized glass was invented first and then used for sunglasses and not the other way around, right?. Like someone discovering polarized glass by playing with sunglasses.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the filters aren't transparent to each other. That is to say, Filter C doesn't "see" Filter A through Filter B. It can only interact with the photons after they make it through Filter B.
Kind of true. No photons get through any filter. They are all absorbed and new one are emitted. It is a sequential process not showing up in a Venn diagram.
As a college educator, you eventually discover that that when teaching people about anything, your task is to convey information in a way that it easily "lubricates" entry into the mind, taking advantage of the cognitive aspects of how brains work. This can be hindered by a dozens of factors, one of which is when the speaker goes too fast. For as great as this video is in its method of using Venn diagrams to convey what a Bell inequality is, it goes too damn fast. Even though I have an advanced physics degree, and I already understand this topic pretty well, I still had to set the playback speed to 75% in order to be able to watch it without having to pause it. My interest in watching was two-fold. First, I wanted to see how 3B1B explains this topic, as he does such a great job with clever lucid explanations for so many other topics. Second, I was hoping that I might be able to refer my non-physics scientists to this video when they ask me about this topic. I can still recommend this video to them, but will have to tell them to set the playback speed to 75% or maybe even lower, which, unfortunately, ruins the audio. In fact, I'd have to say that even college math majors have to pause and rewind many of 3B1B's videos to "get" or process the content. I can usually watch those straight through without pauses or slowdowns. However, knowing the typical modern college student, I can say *with certainty* that most math and science students will not be able to watch this video without pausing and rewinding multiple times. The distraction culture that modern students have been raised in reduces their inclination to stick with learning something if it isn't presented to them in a way that they can consume without a lot of effort. Their loss. Thanks for your time.
The baby is sleeping, so the volume was turned down, the captions turned on, the video paused, and I stepped through the video with my arrow key caption by caption. Mostly concentrated on the captions, not so much on the diagrams. I saw a lot of effort spent defining the outcome of the assorted polarizing filters, but I didn't get any insight into how the quantum quandary works.
So if I’m understanding this correctly... if I like minute physics and wear glasses, but don’t have a beard and then decide to grow one, I will no longer need to wear glasses. Got it.
My theory is that a horizontal filter forces light to oscillate vertically. The second filter at 45 degrees, reorients the vertical light into components oscillating in a grid system that is transformed 45 degrees. Now that the components of the light are oscillating in a 45 degree orientation, when you pass it through a vertical filter, the vertical components of the 45 degree light is blocked, but the horizontal components of the 45 degree light are allowed through. I may be crazy, but I was not surprised by this video... it made perfect sense to me in my head before I even watched the video...
For those who think this video only overcomplicates the problem: The point is not to explain the phenomenon of light polarization itself, but to introduce the Bell's theorem by the example of light polarization. It is indeed much easier to understand polarizers using classical wave mechanics. However, today we know that light actually consists of energized particles named photons. Quantum mechanics explain this by applying the math of wave mechanics on each photon and saying each of them is in a superposition of eigenstates (x- and y-polarized) and each measurement (in this case passing each photon through filters) gives one of the eigenstates to a certain probability. This is very hard to accept in our classical macroscopic view and that's why Schroedinger's cat is so popular and some geniuses like Einstein tried to preserve the deterministic view of nature, e.g. using a hidden variable theory. What the Bell's theorem tries to say is that quatum mechanics isn't just insufficient to study these hidden variables, but both concepts are mutually exclusive.
Then they probably shouldn't have focused so much on polarizing filters. I didn't even know about this phenomenon before watching the video, and it seemed perfectly obvious and intuitive to me that the filters don't just stop light, but also affect its polarity. Honestly they lost me about the time they went into the entanglement experiments, because they hadn't convinced me at that point that there was actually anything strange going on. But then I don't claim to get quantum physics.
StraightOuttaJarhois I don't think you understood the video. Why should three filters block _less_ light than two? The key thing to understand is that you can't have half a photon. That's what planck discovered, that's what experiments confirm, that's why quantum physics isn't classical.
__ _ No, I absolutely don't understand quantum physics. But light acts as both waves and particles, and if you look at it as waves it makes perfect sense that, if the filters don't just block light, but also align its polarity, an intermediate filter will increase transmission. The math checks out too.
StraightOuttaJarhois Please watch the first video (the one by 3blue1brown). It explains the math. What your saying makes sense in a classical world--the filter would just take the component of the vector aligning with the filter. But that doesn't happen in reality because _you can't have half a photon._ So sending diagonally polarized light through a vertically oriented filter _doesn't_ just absorb the horizontal component of the light while letting the verical component through, which is what you'd expect classically. Why? because it's magnitude would then be sqrt(2) (if the original photon was 1, by the Pythagorean theorem), which isn't allowed by quantum physics. Measurements confirm this---electromagnetic radiation is quantized. The first video explains all this in more detail, complete with clarifying animations.
i just want to make a "dark" room using those double layers as a wall to make it "black", and then if a person wears another glasses with that lens, he will be able to see outside the room😂 really wanna try that🤣
That's an awesome idea, but the "third" filter must be placed in between the two others, the person's glasses would be a third filter after the two others, it would still be 100% dark
If two polarizing filters block the light completely, adding a third one BEFORE or AFTER them will not magically reveal the blocked light. You need to insert the third one between the two to make the light visible.
I watched Arvin Ash's video that provided great context and general conceptual understanding of Bell's theorem and then the magical CZcams algorithm directed me here to such a wonderful practical example that really drove home what I learned in the first video.
I read that polarizing filters don’t just block photons with certain orientations, but also change the orientations of photons. Would that explain why a middle filter lets more light pass through? That the photons are sorta deflected (or tilted?) so that they can now pass through the third filter?
I think this is exactly right. If the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded out/sifted/blocked then there is no paradox, it's fully explained.
Yes, there's nothing weird for a single photon, but things get more interesting for entangled photon pairs. You can google for the Bell experiment, which is not explained in detail at 9:10 .
If you're a physicist, maybe you can answer a question I had about this video: The "paradox" disappears if we assume that the middle lens can modify the light in some way that makes it more likely to pass through the third lens, but given that this wasn't mentioned, I'm assuming that it's not possible. Why not?
He is creating a sloped gradient change in the lights orientation because of inputting a middle glass. The 2nd glass orientates the light 22.5 degrees allowing the light to pass throw the 3rd glass filter with higher probability. It's not as weird as they are pretending it to be. Kinda like bouncing a basket ball off of the backboard to make the shot.
Really great video! Enjoyed how you broke everything down! Could you maybe slow the pace a small amount so I can catch up next time? Hope you two collaborate more. I could listen to a podcast of you both discussing math and physics!
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
I shared this with one friend and we talked about it, I then shared it with another and then the first friend stated we never talked about it. Then after that conversation with the first friend, the second friend asked what we were talking about.
You and your friends( if real) miss the point that actually mentioned in the video. You see, after you share dialoge that you had with your first friend( I really hope that you have that conversation with someone) you change past and now your second friend thinks you are crazy and you are crazy because you just killed your first imaginary friend just by sharing this info by your second imaginary friend but relax, its OK. Now you know why.
@Risto Paasivirta ... you mean 22.5°. If you tilt your head 45° you understand half of it ... unless someone in front of you tilts their head 22.5°... then you understand 70%.
The cosine square at 4:08 in the video comes from Malus's Law. The polarizer blocks the E field via cosine, but the transmitted energy, hence photon flux, is proportional to E squared.
I have watched this video three times. Once on release, once a few years later, and now after having read the book Quantum. Now that I can finally grasp the concept, I have to say that this is one of the best videos I have seen on the platform period. I also love everything about the post video discussion.
TheBobiaan shrodingers cat is a zombie cat that is both alive and dead until you look at it. But if you can look at it with a triple filter sunglasses from the movie They Live, you can see their lying reptilian eyes are secretly zombie eyes. And if you look closer you can see Michael Jackson doing the thriller dance leading a zombie cat uprising that is here to quantumly entangle us all!!!
Qantum is bullshit. Thats why your head hurts. It's your instincts battling the mind control. Go and study magnets. It won't hurt. Youll understand the universe very easily.
I will just add. Photos are not real. They are only theoretical. No one has ever give them a mass, there are no photographs. But they make the maths work...
Photons may twist/torque when polarized. Say sn 80° photon hits a 90° filter with a certain probability of passing. This photon is the main character so it passes, but passing the filter at a -10° angle outputs the photon at a +10° angle. The now 100° photon has a larger chance of passing the next filter at 112.5° than if it had stayed at 80°. You would also see 100° photons be torqued into 80°, so you would see no abnormal distribution using just 2 filters, like trying to plot a line given only one point. But when you add a third filter, you give the system a vector and direction which results in more photons being torqued into the direction of filter C than away from it. Don't know if any of this is true but it's one explanation for this "paradox".
That was covered in the video. The idea was put forth that the filter was changing the photon in some way. This was actually a large part of the second half of the video.
@@gregsonvaux4492 i didnt quite understand the second part with the entanglement experiments. Have they basically proved that the photons arent being twisted/changed/effected when they pass through one filter? if so, i think it all boilsdown to the Heisenberg uncertainty equation. Light passing through a filter means light passing through a grid at atomic levels (Glass/silicon crystals). And the more dense the crystal grid structure is the less certain does it become to determine which vector/angle/twist a lightwave will have, hence it becomes unclear/uncertain to tell that the lightwaves that passed through have a certain twist to them. This therefore wouldn't be actually a nrw paradoxon but rather the same paradoxon as the Heisenberg uncertainty but just as another experiment?
@@QuinnTheTailor the entanglement argument goes as folows (I think): It doesn't really show that in the single particle case no twisting happens, but it rather shows, that in a different scenario (when paving two entangled particles A and B), the same numbers emerge, and now in this setting we cannot fix the explanation by saying that the photons get twisted by a filter: Prepare particles A and B entangled such that they are polarized in the same direction (i.e. when shooting each of them through their own filter, pointing in the same direction they will both pass with 100%) Now let A fly to alpha centauri and choose to measure in direction X (it passes) this now means that A is polarized in direction X Immediatly "afterwards" sent B on earth through a filter in direction Y=/=X It passes with a probabality equal to what we would expect if it were polarized in direction X This implies, that if we set particle A to direction X, by letting it pass a filter in that direction, that its entangled partner B will also be set into this direction. We can imagine that A is "twisted" into this direction X, but then we have to accept that somehow information of this twisting process is transferred to Particle B *immediatly*, s.th. B is also twisted into the same direction *immediatly*, somehow implying "fasterthan light" travel
Great video. Love the Venn Diagram approach, it makes it much clearer than standard approaches as to what hidden variables are and how they are ruled out by the theorem.
The Venn Diagram is misleading when it comes to probabilities. The filters play an active role in the process that is not displayed. A single pair of entangled photons tells you very little about entanglement. Do the experiment with filters yourself and you will see what I mean.
I remember doing this with three sunglasses lens when my daughter was about 7 showing her how weird it is.... And of course she wanted to know how the light could 'jump' though space and appear out of the third lens... Which obviously I can't explain in a way where a 7 year old doesn't stick a pen in my eye... It is amazing more people aren't aware of this.
We wouldn't want to teach our children to believe in the outcome of scientific experiments instead of what we want to believe, that would be terrible 😀
Just a question, this might sound stupid, but can't the problem simply be that the photons get excited with the filter, then "de-excited" in another wavelength, so it would react differently the more filters it goes through. I'm not educated much in quantum physics just very basics, so I'm mostly asking why this isn't the case so I can understand
Biggest problem in the video, they wait to talk about entangled particles until 8:45 . Particles that are entangled act the same way, passing through b makes it more likely to pass through c, so if there is an 'excitement' answer, it transfers information faster than light (anti locality over anti realism) Entanglement on its own seems like an obvious anti locality problem, but there are a lot of other examples like how observation changes outcomes, or the uncertainty principle that make it muddier
also the direction of the filter could allow the protons to get more of a nudge. imagine driving a car on a race track, don’t touch the wheel, at some point the car will hit the wall and make the left turn regardless. This couldn’t happen if the track was a hard right angle. The car would hit the wall and stop. Maybe the car/photon is getting a nudge from the filters? there is a physics theory or whatever that says something like, a filter or sieve of a certain size will trap smaller particles than it’s supposed to be cause of minor pulls /clumping at the filter points. van der wall doesn’t sound right though. Anyway, maybe instead of the particles getting smashed into the filter, they get slightly angled the right way to be able to make it through the next filter?
The assumption that things are “filtered” aka stopped is based on a physical understanding that things something moving up/down will be more likely to pass through a narrow slit oriented up/down…. But I think what you are saying is it will still pass through but with only the measurable effects in one direction. The other photons are just “invisible” to our measurements. When they hit the next filter, their orientation can be brought back into our visible space (aka, whatever we don’t see happening in extra dimensions is brought back to our space). On the surface, this feels like a possible violation of energy conservation within our known dimensions, but it also makes me wonder if there is some interactions between (now made invisible) particles in the extra dimensions. Leading to some of the oddness with FTL communication (since we wouldn’t have an understanding of how these extra dimensions Exist meaning perhaps ftl communication is possible aka wormhole theory only on a universal/fundamental level). Without fully understanding quantum mechanics, I’ve often thought there is a missing piece between our understanding of discrete/continuous (in the same way math gets weird at “orders of infinity”, or the walk from a to be b paradox where in some representations the distance between you and the end point gets smaller and smaller but you never actually get there). Not necessarily related, but could explain part of what’s broken with our current understanding.
First of all, it is to be noted that as you rotate one filter relative to the other, and do so in a linear consistent manner, the change in light intensity passing through, is NOT linear. You can verify this with a Malus Law Calculator. Now imagine the the spin of a photon is not merely spatial, but also extends across the time dimension. So it also moves back and forth across time to a degree, and its polarity changes while doing so. Thus what is important, is what photons passed through the first filter, considering that photons move back and forth across time. Not all of them that passed thorough, were able to pass through in real time rotational position. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.
For those already initiated in QM I repeat here some comments previously made to similar videos. They may clarify debatable points. The Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE) when applied to a wave representing an initial state of, say, an electron bound to a proton and together forming a hydrogen atom, predicts and retrodicts all the future and previous states of the electron wave, in the same fashion than the evolution equations of classical mechanics predicts the movement of the Earth around the Sun. Note that the STDE is energy conservative, that is, the initial state as well as the predicted and retrodicted ones all have the same energy. As is well known the bound electron has a completely different conduct. Whatever the initial state and in absence of other interactions an excited electron will settle in a stationary state radiating energy (in the form of a photon) along the way. If the stationary state is the ground state the electron will stay there forever (in absence, as said before, of other interactions). Otherwise the stationary electron state is ephemeral and will be abandoned to radiate a photon and assume a new stationary state of even lower energy. This "down the staircase" process repeats until the ground state is reached. There is no manner to adapt the STDE to this physical process. This inconsistency was discovered by none other than Niels Bohr, as can be inferred from the report of Werner Heisenberg. See our note www.researchgate.net/publication/356193279_Deconstruction_of_Quantum_Wave_Mechanics After discovering the tremendous inconsistency between the equation and the atom it would have been natural to announce that the STDE contradicted physical facts, and ask for a correct equation. I assume as true, but only know from hearsay very long ago, that in Einstein's viewpoint the correct deterministic time dependent wave equation had to be non-linear in contrast with the linear STDE. References to this historical detail would be appreciated. It is hard to believe but, against reasonableness and common sense, Bohr decided to adopt the STDE as correct and that continuity, causality and determinism of physical processes were wrong because they contradicted the STDE. Apparently mathematical equations on paper were more relevant than the experience of the whole human race. Then a series of new and fanciful "quantum physical principles" were adopted. In my opinion the powerful quantum establishment dogmatically defends Quantism and strongly rejects any attempt to correct its misdeeds, even if the correct deterministic time dependent wave equation is available. With best regards to all Daniel Crespin
I studied light in my degree for laser electro optic. It doesn't have to do with them being quantum objects it's because light Scatters Transfers Absorbs and Reflects (S.T.A.R.). As the light hits the filter some of it absorbs and some of it transfers (and some of it scatters and some reflects). Light waves are 3d and when you add the 3rd filter it actually allows the light to bend easier into those filters thus why it moves through them easier. You're also giving it more distance to allow it to bend (3 filters stack longer than 2 filters). If you took enough filters (359) and set them all 1° apart in the same direction you'd actually filter out the filters because most of your light would be able to spiral through. It's because light is both wave particle and photon packet.
@@aikendrum3228 i see a lot of these comments that seem to be based on the first 2 minutes of the video, so they apply high school physics to the polarizer part and ignore the rest of the video. Ahh, science.
When i click a video like this, i usually NEEED to understand what its talking abt, but in this case i just dont and its driving me up the wall. So thank you for using your perfectly clear language using words that i DEFINITELY understood
That's because they don't actually make sense, here. The classical explanation for the three-polarizer problem is that as the light passes through each polarizer, both its amplitude AND its polarization change. These are two independent properties of a photon, but they're bringing in "entangled particles" for no good reason, muddying the water. Bottom line is, the video is Just. Plain. Wrong. Don't waste your time; find a better video to explain this.
Actually, the middle filters are introducing a rotation into the polarization. When Filter B is added, it introduces a rotation to the light from Filter A, making it more likely to pass through Filter C. Thats why it doesn't work when B is before A or after C. Having the two 90° filters next to each other blocks everything, you need to introduce that rotation to make A's light pass through C.
That's what I thought too. I get Bells Formukas but confused why they didn't show light coming from nothing. That is what I thought they were trying to show.
That is one way to look at it but if one also remember that a linear polarization can be described as a sum of 2 (or more) rotational polarized lights it might be more easy to explain. The rotational ones are only partially let through by the filters.
Yeah I wonder the same thing. I mean, it seems there must be some scientific explanation for why this doesn't happen, since I feel like someone would have thought of this before as it seems like the most obvious explanation.
Very cool video! To resolve the paradox: thinking about it as if the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded-out/sifted/blocked makes it so there is no paradox, it's fully explained. No need for fancy entanglement or hidden variables. So the statement in 0:51 is not totally correct in saying "all these filters do is remove light" since these filters actually shift the light, setting up the audience to what may be a misleading way of thinking about it.
All I got from this, is that we are living in a Matrix and the raytracing algorithm is only considering 2 consecutive filters' rotation at a time: If ray passes through filter look ahead for another filter and calculated the resulting chamge in brightness and polarity then move on. Seems the devs didn't have enough ressources to keep looking ahead for more and more filters. Maybe they will patch it in the future, or maybe they will leave it in as an easter egg (or a way for them to determine if they are in the real world or the Matrix, like a totem in Inception)
The video reminded me of my BSc thesis. I worked with my mentor on proving Bell without the inequalities using entanglement. It was super fun. The polarizer idea was a superb way to show how things sort of work :)
Well this isn't easy material, and I didn't personally think this video was easy to follow because it was too fast and there were too many things to track at the same time (even though I've learned this material before!) Many famous physicists had a hard time coming to grips with this theorem -- that's why it's such an earth shattering result because it really shows that we needed a different way to describe states. It is still debated philosophically.
Hey, we're smart enough to watch the video and try to understand it. And, remember, this is QUANTUM PHYSICS. So remember... while others were watching cats and worldstar, you were watching science.
Usually the answers to the most complex questions are the most simplest...quantum theory does my head in ....but this really portrayed how there may be a sub science to our science...like know all your scales...then forget them and just play...🙂
Two EE degrees, decades of experience. Whenever I start to feel like an expert - or smart - I come watch one of these videos and get a nice dose of humility.
Actually, this three-lenses issue is more simply explained if you use the wave model of light. Basically, when a wave of light passes through a polarizing filter, it gets twisted to the angle of the polarizer and shrunk depending on how much it was twisted. Thus, when there's only two lenses, the light out of the first filter (polarized the same way as it) shines onto a filter perpendicular to it; a filter at this angle reduces the wave to zero, so no light goes through. However, if the third filter goes in between, the wave now goes through two 45-degree twists instead of a 90-degree one, which will not reduce the wave to zero. In general, splitting a twist into multiple smaller ones increases the amount of transmission, for the same reason. The problems only ensue when you try to work this with individual particles, as described in the video.
In addition, if you're wondering about the questioning of realism and whatnot, they're only relevant at quantum scales. The effects get diluted at higher scales, and basically vanish at the human scale; classical physics exists and has realism and whatnot for a reason, specifically that they work at the human scales we function on. It's honestly depressing how many people fail to properly understand this, or communicate it if they do.
K1naku5ana3R1ka there is actually a glimpse of this that you speak of in the animation of the light wave. But i was confused why they didnt say a thing about it. If it wasnt for you i would still be super confused
Great video. I love how polarized filters can demonstrate quantum effects, something I noticed decades ago. One thing was unclear to me in this video: are entangled photons involved in these results? If no, is there a way to create entangled photons with polarized filters?
How about, the passing through the lens alters the angle of the wave itself since it's a material blockage thus when passing through B the angle alters even more and so when reaching C the photon waves have an angle compatible with Lens C and are able to pass through the molecules of material within the lens. Waves reflect from every surface so it makes sense that the angle of the wave changes when it passed through molecules of reflective material which continually shift the direction of the waves until it finally mazes outside the labyrinth of molecules, this would make it very plausible that the new angle of the wave will then have a different reflective reaction than originally intended and that could be where confusion lies. Somewhere between knowing too much about physics and not enough about chemistry and biology since those are the sciences that focus on molecular structure. Glass is indeed nonreflective but that is not the case when it comes to polarised glass, in the mind of a physicist it's a Pandora's box but maybe the answer lies in deeper sciences. Just to clarify, none of what I said is researched or backed up by any sources, this is my thought process and answer to an interesting question which I could be wrong about. I follow physics and chemistry yet know a bit about biology so putting all that I know into consideration I came up with this solution
I really appreciate the effort you guys put into trying to explain this stuff to us knuckleheads. I'm not sure if it's working but I still appreciate the effort.
They do get a little confusing when they start to show the Venn diagrams and rapidly go through the explanations of them. That would never have happened in my physics class.
@@wayneyadams just imagine it like water equilibrium and awareness. Or like gas in the car scenario. Im driving somewhere and idk how much gas I used until I get there. Locality. Information travels as fast as the car. Realism. I will know how much gas if I can account for all the variables.
The problem is you are assuming the light isn't passing through and that it's completely blocked. There is indeed the possibility the the waves are still passing through but are affected by the filter in a way that loses our ability to perceive them. If the filter was constantly absorbing photons the filter would be expected to have a physical change in itself I would think. Such and heating up.
Gadzooks. I am a medic and came here learning about polarised and non polarised dermatoscopes for melanoma detection. I would love to learn more about this stuff. Many thanks!
At 4:14 is where you miss the answer. If 0º is 100% and 45º is 50%, at 22,5º is should be halfway, and it is. It is not halfway aritmeticaly, nor is it geometricaly, but it is halfway trigonometricaly (twice). And it makes sense: the photon have to reorient itself while it cross the filter, and the chance to succed equals the cosine of the angle. But the photon is a electro-magnetic wave, so we just have to apply this chance to both fields. cos22.5º · cos22.5º = 0.85
If the filters, based on orientation to the source, can block or reorient the waves passing through then how does effect the information carried by the source? I mean, instead of using entangled pairs, what if the source is a fiber optic cable carrying information. How much information would be passed, reoriented, or lost? Also, if the source can be reoriented through all the filters, then no information is lost at all.
@@vincent_hall prescription is reality reality is perception why is this hard to understand? All entropy , none entropy and reverse Motion entropy IS information positive Neutral Negative , the universe doesn't work in binary function, that is an observation Error , we learned that the observer Changes the outcome DECADES ago .Our Inheritantly euclidean geometry of Genetic code and Binary function of Brains distorts the data, simply by observation...The Universal Theorum is Therefore Ochams Razor , The Universal Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Frequency Code is Tertiary A Paradigm, Not Binary...
If I were to build a quantum engine or a quantum motor based on the principle of our sun and our planet I would simply build a three phase tertiary based electromagnetic axial spin armature surround it with a palladium polonium rhodium skin representing the atmosphere introduce hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon and helium 3 in a plasma Arc reactor form representing the solar rays from the Sun on one side of the armature at which point you use a secondary klystron coil wrapped around it to literally suck all the electrical energy from the reaction now because it's so high voltage you will have to step it down at which point you will have to make a reverse marks generator which is just a series of capacitors in 369 formulation very useful for making a herf gun or a plasma rifle or a rail gun which is just lenze law of propelling aluminum rounds suspension of electromagnetic angular direction.. everything is I can power City with something like that with the device the size of a golf ball humans are way way off have a good day.
I don't know if I m missing something but it seems to me there is a simple explanation that explains all of these results. I have not conducted any experiments and I'm not sure I fully comprehend everything here and also I am making a supposition about how particles become entangled and also the property of the space they exist in.
Thank god for the red circle and arrow on the thumbnail, otherwise I would have completely missed it. And also, they are clear markers of quality content, as the internet well knows.
The problem is with the term filter. Actually, filters are not filters and it is not that all they can do "is remove light". They actually change the polarization of some photons.
My thought in their experiment is that the filter is actually refracting light in certain directions that when two filter are used together at same angle, they refract the same amout of light. Rotating those turns the angle of refraction away from the perspective thus blocking the light. Adding the third one catches the refracted light and turns the angle towards the perspective. Hope it makes sense. It's just my idea.
@@jemengullo This type of inconsistencies is eliminated by measuring two single filters at different points in space. Which show the same result. The calibration of the machine also confirms 100% entanglement before hand to eliminate that error as well.
@@Patalenski ....Yes they do. Have you read literally any of the research data behind this? Maybe you are confused, I can help explain. What are you confused about?
OHPA OHPA, The photons behave like one, so the two-separate-filters setup with two entangled photons is equal to the consecutive filters setup with just one. Watch the video - they say that the results from the first filter are *normalized* to 100%, hence the results from the second filter, with the second photon, are as if it is the first photon passing through another filter. If the filters don't block but actually *twist* the polarization of the light, attenuating its volume by cos(phi), then the photons will just *appear* to communicate with each other, when they simply follow a series of conversions of their initial parameters.
I always assumed that the waves were more like a twisted ribbon, rather then just a vertical or horizontal wave. And that we just measure it on certain axies
Electromagnetic waves always have 2 waveforms perpendicular to each other. This is (and I am explaining it badly) because you can convert back and forth freely between a magnetic force and an electrical force (this is how electro magnets work, and electric motors, and generators etc). So increasing amplitude in one axis immediately effects the opposing force in the other axis which is why the waves are presented this way. The orientation of the wave can vary yes but the relationship between the two forces will always be perpendicular to each other.
@@JathraDH thank you for the answer, it made perfect sense. if I were to visualize what your saying. Like how it is in the real world. Are the two waves then automatically aligned with the earths gravity, or do they twist together while staying perpendicular? Or is it dependent on the material used, like a copper coil we try to measure. I guess I’m in simplest form. I’ve always been curious if they twist, and that twist looks like a wave on a 2 dimensional measurement tool. I hope I’m conveying what I want to ask properly.
@@lowkey213 As per current understanding of science, the waves can be orientated in any direction/rotation but the forces will always be perpendicular to each other. I am not sure how this orientation can twist with regards to anything else, but if it does twist both axes will twist at the same time and remain perpendicular to each other by necessity. Hope this helps!
Universe: can we have math please?
Quantum physics: we have math at home
Math at home: 15+15=50
Quantum physics alaways make me laught, cause i don't understan it XD
That is common concealed core math
500th like
Professor : The test is easy
The test : 15+15=50
Actually it's 15+15*0.85=50
There is an 85% chance you will not understand this video if you watch it once, and a 100% chance if you watch it twice
But a 0% chance if you watch it 3 times, and 15% if 4, then .01% if 5
@@hyhena-gaming9986 I've watched it 100 times, and I think I understand baking now.
Your statement can be true :p 85% didn't understand. Then that same 85 watched twice (because if you understood you wouldn't watch again) and still didn't understand so 100% is true.
It all depends of the polarization of your mental filters in fact.
@@Gr3nadgr3gory I've watched it 12 times and now I can play a guitar.
I saw this video when it first came out and thought it was really interesting, now I’m in college and just finished taking classes over quantum physics and laser physics and I actually recognize/understand a lot of the concepts and math here which is so cool to me! Thanks for inspiring younger me to go into physics!
This video is only 5 yrs old
@@klimmensus6962 he was 14 , now19
Great comment to read. Well done
Me too man. I saw this video when I was, like, 15 and understood jack shit of any of this, but now after haven taken both a EM, QM and an optics course I just can't see what's paradoxical here
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why.
You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler.
John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it.
According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
I loved this video and occasionally watch it. It is also the subject of the 2022 Nobel physics prize and one of if not the best explanations of it I've seen so far. By the way, the contributor of the last paper shown as an example of the studies about the bell theorem is the Nobel Laurette Anton Zeilinger. I really hope this video gets more watch man, thanks a lot!
It’s a crap explanation. You don’t even need polarisation to explain it. Just complicates it. See Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody
@@lukeno4143The paper you referenced www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf
is far less intuitive than sunglasses, my dude.
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why.
You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler.
John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it.
According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
@@lukeno4143ok undergrad
I heard they're patching this in the universe v2.0 update
The 22nd Century DLC will be awesome even though some of us won't be able to play anymore
Yes, and I heard that they’re preparing to reset the universe to prepare for this update
When's that coming?? Has it reached Beta yet? It better not have as many bugs as this launched with.
Ya just fixing bugs
Mith take some decades
IRS: Your accounts don't balance.
Company: Turn the Balance Sheet 45°
Exactly 500 likes? I couldn't ruin this perfection...
I have sad now :(
we did, but we put a third sheet at 22.5° inbetween
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
Speaking as an accountant: Financial reports are largely unaffected by the laws of physics and most university-level mathematics. Both US GAAP and IFRS seek to create a system which ignores Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as a side effect of preventing technically-legal financial chicanery).
13:35... Hey that guy Anton Zellinger got the Nobel prize today!
What if the filters are changing the orientation photons that pass through them? A photon that passes through A but does not pass through C might suddenly be able to pass through C after passing through B if B changes the orientation of the photon just enough to make it able to pass through C.
that's what I was thinking. but the experiment with entangled photons seems to negate this possibility, I think?
But I don't know how that experiment was done. the video just suggests that it has been done.
It does, but not physically. It's the act of observing that does it, not the filters themselves physically.
The filters themselves cannot change the orientation of the photons, only block them.
@@AveryHyena arrr you sure? because, a mirror or a prism change the orientation of light that gets reflected or refracted, why wouldn't a polarizing lens be able to do so? Then the classical solution makes perfect sense.
@@Alkimi Because all a polarizing lens does is block light. You suggesting mirrors or prisms and then saying "so why wouldn't a polarized lens be able to do so?" makes no sense. They're completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. It's like you're saying "apples grow on trees, so why wouldn't a cat be able to do so?".
Also, that's not the kind of orientation we're talking about here. We're talking about the orientation of the photons, not the classical direction of where the light is shining from.
@@AveryHyena you misunderstood. i wasn't referring to the direction of the light radiation, I was referring to the polarization, is that not the "orientation" we're talking about? It has 180° of range, and then there's a phase variance. When light is reflected, the direction changes of course, but it is also polarized to an angle perpendicular to the plane of incidence. That's why polarizing filters get rid of reflections. A mirror was a bad example since it's reflecting all light in all directions, I meant the reflections in a window, they get "polarized by reflection" according to Brewster's Law.
The second time watching this video, I tilted my head 90 degrees -- and forgot everything.
photons are units, so if I made a really dim light, instead of the light getting dimmer and dimmer, eventually it will just hit in as single photons less and less often. Bell's inequality is sort of how it takes more gas to drive the same distance in less time. When you have three polarizers 22.5 degrees apart, more photons come through than two 45 degrees apart; the photons do not have to change their polarization as much in each step, so it would take less energy, but since photons are quantum, they get through less often instead of having less energy. It is analogous to carrying a pile of bricks, if I asked 100 students to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in a single trip, no one would be able to do it, but if I allow more trips, more people will be able to do it, if there is no limit to the trips everyone can do it.
@@christiancastruita9053 100 people to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in one run?
Their argument (and Bell's) seems flawed.
Say we know that from position A a robot can shoot a basketball into a hoop hung at B 12 feet away 85% of the time (or symmetrically from B to A at 85% also).
From position B the robot can shoot to position C 12 feet away from B also with 85% success (or from C to B at 85% also).
Also, experiments and theory have shown the robot can shoot from A to C 50% of the time. [note we haven't said where C is relative to A]
Say we carry out an experiment analogous to the description in the video: Two similar robots decide if they will both go to position A or position B except that one goes to one part of earth and the other to the opposite part of the planet. (the two courts are set up the same way as goes A B and C etc.)
The experimenters recording the data at the two locations can't beforehand see where the robots position themselves, but they can independently at the same time direct the nearby robot to shoot at A, B, or C. Once the robots shoot, the experimenters will know the positions and can record hit/miss and tally %s over many trials with many new sets of robots. Later they compare notes. They find the 85% and 50% (and 100%) hit rates mentioned in the video, depending on where shoots were taken.
Now, this experiment was not with quantum particles but just like the eye glasses and beards in the video, we can use it as an analogy to explain the set theory.
Except that the Venn diagrams apply to properties that presumably can both be true at a moment. But this is not true for these experiments. The particles cannot go through multiple filters and start in multiple states (that was the first half of the video and it was a flawed argument). Same for the robots, each pair of robots goes to exactly one location and shoots exactly once. It's only when tallying many such trials that we can see the overall effect (like when we see an interference pattern through slits).
So we come to the flaw: even though the set logic implies properties like beards and eye glasses must obey the constraints and cannot be at the 50% level (.85*.85>.5) -- this limitation follows because set logic includes transitive law, for example -- with the experiments we cannot link the AC polarizer filtering (or shooting) to the AB and BC cases the same way because the latter would take 2 shots. The AC details are not implied by AB and BC. If the robot shoots from A to B and then shoots from B to C, we can bound the odds they make both shots (.85*.85). That is what the Venn diagram says. BUT we CANNOT bound a single shoot from A to C by knowing AB, BC. To show how silly it would be to try, we never specified where C was. If C is 2 feet from A (ABC as a triangle), then AC % would be very high. On the other hand if the robots aren't that strong and if C was 12 ft from A, then AC might be 0%.
The point is that we cannot put tight bounds on AC, hidden variables or not, based on AB and BC results. It's more than conceivable that a particle might easily slip through an opening at 22.5 degrees from its position yet have a very difficult time going through a 45 degrees adjustment, for example. And this has nothing to do with hidden variables or for that matter quantum mechanics (we can see that macroscopic waves can have interference patterns and other quantum wave properties).
Conclusion: the Venn diagram argument puts bounds on a third result that can follow transitively from two other results (ie, all be true at once), but it can't put a limit on a third action (going from A to C) based on two other distinct actions (AB, BC). After all, going from A to C likely doesn't follow the path taken from A to B and then from B to C any more than shooting a basketball from A to C is done by shooting at basket B and then getting the ball to go back up in the air after going through the B hoop but without hitting the ground -- ridiculous. How can we conclude Bell was correct? The video and Bell made a valiant effort to preserve the Copenhagen interpretation, but that needs to die. It's the 21st century for goodness sake.
[In both related and unrelated news, Schrodinger's "cat" is either dead or alive, not both or neither, IMO]
My dog died in 07 RIP Kitty
Well duh, when you turned your head 90 degrees all the information fell out of your head.
Love the peaceful music while you light my brain on fire
One time I cooked with habaneros and used the restroom without washing my hands and I lit something else on fire
hate the annoying music while you light my brain on fire
@@__spacejunk__ Cool! Thank you Sagar Sapre.
Seriously this video just broke my brain
Okie
This is much better than other explanations because it explains the main idea. Take this video as a great heuristic explanation. It doesn't pay to get stuck on the details of polarization filters and what could be going on inside them...
What these creators do so well: They try to make the whole scenario intuitive rather than stuffing everything into equations and relying on mysterious integral tricks and suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's the style I was used to from undergrad physics.
Thank you, keep up the great work.
Intuitively, it feels like the polarizing filter doesn't just block light of a different polarity, but also aligns light that does manage to pass through to its own polarity. So, if, say, 50% of polarized light passes through a filter that's misaligned by 45°, then going 45° again should allow 25% of all light to pass.
There has to be a mechanical analog that might support this idea. If you had some linkages (or perhaps cams, gears, or flexures) that moved in a wavelike pattern along one plane, and were perfectly rigid perpendicular to that plane, then you could expect them to move in perfect unison and have 100% power transmission (assuming negligible friction). If you could then misalign a portion of them radially, but keep them aligned axially, then it would be like you're constraining a portion of its vertical stroke, you're virtually shrinking the height of that linkage. The amount you're shrinking it by would not be linear; it would follow a cosine function. And the amount of power you're therefore able to transmit is also limited according to that function. Energy would be lost in the form of friction. Perpendicular means the mechanism jams, with zero power transmission, equivalent to cos(90°). It makes intuitive sense, because you're moving about a circle. If you introduce more stages that are only gently tilted relative to each other, then you should see more power transmission and less mechanical resistance, in proportion to the product of the cosines of their respective angles.
Now, given that photons are quantized and cannot just have their energy reduced without also changing their wavelength, then reducing power transmission through polarizing filters must be probabilistic, and successfully passing through would mean a photon with a new polarity comes out the other side. But on a macroscopic scale, only X% of energy is being transmitted as if the amplitude of that light was constrained, and the polarity has been twisted. If you could have the light perfectly in phase, as in a laser, then effectively, you ARE decreasing the amplitude of light in exactly the same way as our mechanical analog. The energy lost would either be in the form of back reflection or heat.
I don't know enough about quantum physics to understand if this somehow introduces a hidden variable, but it doesn't feel like it would. It's just some spooky dice rolls like any other quantum phenomenon.
The problem comes with the entangled photons: How do the dice rolls get correlated when (thanks to relativity) they can't communicate.
@Luke Fabis - You are 100% right, if a photon passes a polarizer, its polarization gets aligned accordingly and that gives a complete and correct explanation of the first experiment. As for a single photon passing a series of filters, this clip is a total misrepresentation of Quantum Mechanics.
@@PragmaticAntithesis Look at 12:05 You suppose entanglement exists if you want to explain why photons appear to behave probabilistically, under the assumption they actually depend on a hidden variable. The hidden variable hypothesis could just be wrong, in which case entanglement does not exist and whether or not a photon gets absorbed by a polarized filter is entirely up to chance.
This is like 17 episodes of minutephysics in 1
no wonder if lost attention since i can only pay attention for 1 min at a time
That explains the smoke coming out of my ears.
Thue Morse 17.34*
more like 14 episodes the rest is just an ad.
well each ep has is own ad so i'll let you do the math.
Querez 17.57*
Channel- minutephysics
Video- 17 minutes
And every minute of it was physics
Technically correct :D the best kind of correct
Noone says "one minute"
Everything is relative
mind - blown
hotel - trivago
It’s physics man. They don’t care how long it is because of relativity theory lol 😂
I've got some kind of issue at 5:00
We have the 45° blocking 50% of light, no problem here.
Then the 22.5° appart ones above:
In the video we have
100% light comming in (btw 100% light isn't comming out of A but for the sake of the example lets consider it 100 for the rest of the manipulation), then 85% out of lens B, to finaly 70% out of C. 100-15-15=70
But as far as I understand, the light filtering probability happens independently between two filters and not a whole set.
Therefore the calculation should be
100% - 15% between A and B
Then again 100% (of what is left after B) - 15% between B and C (A and B have 22.5° diff and same for B and C)
Since we know 85% is left after going through B we can extrapolate the result by converting the 15% of 100 to a "15%" of 85%: 15*85 / 100 (cross product) 12.75
So in the end we have 100-15-12.75 = 72.25% left out of C
Even though A and C have 45° diff, because of the presence of B at 22.5° the filtering probability is "reset" and therefore has a different result than just going through C directly.
This is my personal understanding and could be flawed. I haven't seen the rest of the video as posting this so I don't know yet if this is addressed later on.
Commenting to get a notification if anyone comes to prove you wrong. I really appreciate people like you in comment sections. Thank you for taking the time to not cut corners and write your thoughts out in full detail, and being venerable to being wrong
@@aaronrdaniels same here
The probability resetting idea is much like saying you have a 50% change of flipping 200,000 tails in a row since each flip does not depend on the previous result and the probability is "reset". I do agree with the 72.25 though.
In an experiment with 200 photons, 3 filters, and perfect probability: 100 pass A, 85 pass B, and 72.25 pass C.
With only 2 filters: 100 pass A, 50 pass C.
Therefore filter B changed 22.25 photons from being C-blocked to being C-passed. The answer to the mystery lies in how polarization and filtering affects photons and their angle and the fact that a photon does not need to be 100% aligned with a filter to pass even with perfect theoretical filters.
@@iplay9s This. Because if it was any other way the order of the filters wouldn't matter. But it does. No information is learned from this experiment at all... I really don't know why some people see it as proving or disproving anything other than confirming the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...
@@insu_na yeah ur right my bad for not being familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and asking a question so I could learn.
I am so not used to Grant rushing his usually slow narrative in order to keep up with Henry. What a great video!
"This is weirder than you think."
I don't know. How weird do you think I think it is?
No, this is weirder than you CAN think!
@Alan Barnett but is it weirder than how you think
But I think even weirder
The only wierd part I see is how the supposed math paradox arrives from ignoring one of the simplest observable possibilities
@@worsethanyouthink what possibility is that?
Just a fun fact, the first person to have designed - and conducted - an experiment to show what is described at 9:10, was Allain Aspect. He had met with Bell, talked about it, and Bell told him to publish his idea. He later on got money and realized the described experiment.
And he won a Nobel prize today!
Actually, this video and many others inspired me to study physics at university. And I'm now a phd student in Alain Aspect's group, doing experiments I coudn't even dream about!
@@trucmuche8174 👍🏾🤘🚀
@@trucmuche8174 Serious question: (11mins.50secs) "There is literally no way to accurately represent all 3 of these proportions in a diagram like this".
Why is it right to try to explain Bells' Inequality using a 2 dimensional diagram? Is it possible Bells Inequality becomes 'equal', or can be explained in another dimension.
This is probably nonsense but......???
Fun fact: John Bell in his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" did not conclude that his theorem debunks "hidden variables" but only states that if they exist it would imply nonlocal effects. Bell in his paper "Against Measurement" criticized the "no hidden variable" approach saying that it places too much emphasis on measurement (and thus observer) dependence and thus makes it impossible to imagine how the theory could be scaled up to large systems. He then, in his paper "On the impossible pilot wave," became a major contributor to Bohm's pilot wave interpretation, which posits that nonlocal hidden variables can explain quantum mechanics intuitively, and further Bell expresses his frustration in that paper that people aren't taking such ideas seriously. When you actually learn the history of Bell, you realize how bizarre it is that this video presents Bell's theorem as a disproof of hidden variables and then calls a nonlocal interpretation (which was Bell's own interpretation of his own theorem) as "crazy," not bothering to address any of Bell's arguments against it (or Einstein's, or Schrodinger's, etc).
This feels like the sort of puzzle you encounter in a phone game that makes you go "this is dumb it's not possible" but there's always an answer. There is always an answer
answer me this It is regarded that an Upwards direction is a higher place; towards what is above. To a higher figure or amount. Towards something which is higher in order, larger, superior etc. If you was asked to point your arms UP in the air , every person would do just that so why do we subconsciously say when travelling or moving Northwards as "up north" " Hi Im Jock and Im from way up in the scottish highlands "and Southwards "down south" "I drove my car all the way down to cornwall from london today to lizard point the most southerly point in th UK and Why is it Australia known universally as "down under" because according to the planet upwards is skywards , and downwards is into the earth ,also north, east , south and west on a sea journey would equal to Bow - Straight Ahead (Forwards, Bowled[cricket] ) , Astern or Stern (meaning From the rear or behind ,Not Backwards as boats cannot travel in reverse/Backwards) Port (to the left) and Starboard (to the right), also according to Science The Zenith is the highest point on a sphere and The Nadir is the opposite from a fixed earth point, but from MY own personal perspective my zenith (directly above my head) is unique to my own flesh and blood , everywhere where I go my Zenith and my Nadir go with me.
T Ti ⟂ iT π Pi⫫ iP Itiptipi EYE PITY IT
@@DJ-Brownie-UK man whose supply are you smokin
And what about dimensional movement relative to the dimensional state of the matter under consideration? Can you have quantum entanglement between dimensions that explain directional movement of light?
@@flatline-timer there is no need to hostile, if my comment triggered your response and then was too difficult for you to comprehend, that is purely your personal issue, so please do not project that old gaslighting technique onto myself with your intention to smear my character with the "druggy" stigmatta
I love these kind of explanations, great job and thank you!
There are many things I don't understand, but the top one is at around 10:30, when 2 entangled photons are measured at the same time and different locations, especially the wording "photons passed through ... were blocked at ...".
How I see this with my naïve self is like this: suppose there are 400 entangled pairs of photons in each test...
- the AA case, only 200 pass through both sites through the A filter and 200 are blocked by both
- the AB case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the B filter at 22.5 degrees from A, but 30 that are blocked by A are passed at B and 30 blocked at B are passed at A
- the BC case, 200 pass through the B filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 22.5 degrees from B (45 degrees from A), but 30 that are blocked by B are passed at C and 30 blocked at C are passed at B
- the AC case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 45 degrees from A, but 100 that are blocked by A are passed at C and 100 blocked at C are passed at A
The "quanta" nature of quantum physics is weird as hell, but the all or nothing aspect of it allows for my naïve explanation in my head - since many, many way smarter people than me have pondered over this for the past 85 years there certainly is something wrong with my explanation, I just can't put my finger on what... can anyone help me telling me where I'm mistaken?
I am becoming increasingly convinced that quantum mechanics are just nature's way of fucking with us. Like nature just got bored one day and turned to its buddy and was like "Dude, check this out, the humans think they've got it figured out... let's see how they deal with 7 extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, and wave-particle duality!"
Nature's Buddy: "Nice, but what if we also made 96% of all matter and energy in the universe completely undetectable unless yoi just look at how it interacts gravitationally... but then just to fuck 'em up more we'll hide the graviton!"
Nature: "This is so gonna go viral."
Bastards.
Lmao dude
Hahaha, you're not the first thinking about that.
A quote from Douglas Adams, a sci-fi/comedy writer.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
*shrug* Whatever, universe. Empiricism ftw. ;)
This is so gonna go viral LMFAO
I like this duck's witty mind. Pretty handy to avoid going nuts. Like when I'd finally learned about physics and it being _everywhere_ , feeling great about my increased knowledge, and then discovering quantum mechanics. Grrrr.
I can't help but damn humanity for ever being curious enough to put two or three different sunglass lenses together.
Someone tried to be very edgy by wearing a lot of sunglasses
Josue Dominguez Yep How about 4...polarised lenses.....and then utilising a convex, concave, plain lenses, with camouflaging effect material! The problem with that was when I went for lunch I could not find the experiment when I came back. I put that down to time travel though!
You know polarized glass was invented first and then used for sunglasses and not the other way around, right?. Like someone discovering polarized glass by playing with sunglasses.
2:05 "photons are waves".
Well, that settles it.
Photons are waves, so wave good bye to your sanity.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the filters aren't transparent to each other. That is to say, Filter C doesn't "see" Filter A through Filter B. It can only interact with the photons after they make it through Filter B.
Kind of true. No photons get through any filter. They are all absorbed and new one are emitted. It is a sequential process not showing up in a Venn diagram.
Can't wait for next year's show: hourphysics
I like that
It will be a 1 1/2 days long
Does that mean I missed planckphysics?
LOL So true!
I literally can't wait for 2021's Yearphysics episode.
17 minutes?
That's some minute physics.
If you pas a minute through a filter it comes out to be 17 minutes... Quantum!
It's called time dilation, must have been recorded in an event horizon before the monkey fell in.
That's slightly over a dozen minutes physics
17 of them, to be precise
This video is WAY too convoluted, taking forever to explain nothing, over and over and over again.
the idea that adding an additional filter enlightens the result sounds almost more social than physics.
Thanks guys, I loved this video.
Very interesting, complex, but well explained. Thanks for sharing.
As a college educator, you eventually discover that that when teaching people about anything, your task is to convey information in a way that it easily "lubricates" entry into the mind, taking advantage of the cognitive aspects of how brains work. This can be hindered by a dozens of factors, one of which is when the speaker goes too fast. For as great as this video is in its method of using Venn diagrams to convey what a Bell inequality is, it goes too damn fast. Even though I have an advanced physics degree, and I already understand this topic pretty well, I still had to set the playback speed to 75% in order to be able to watch it without having to pause it. My interest in watching was two-fold. First, I wanted to see how 3B1B explains this topic, as he does such a great job with clever lucid explanations for so many other topics. Second, I was hoping that I might be able to refer my non-physics scientists to this video when they ask me about this topic. I can still recommend this video to them, but will have to tell them to set the playback speed to 75% or maybe even lower, which, unfortunately, ruins the audio. In fact, I'd have to say that even college math majors have to pause and rewind many of 3B1B's videos to "get" or process the content. I can usually watch those straight through without pauses or slowdowns. However, knowing the typical modern college student, I can say *with certainty* that most math and science students will not be able to watch this video without pausing and rewinding multiple times. The distraction culture that modern students have been raised in reduces their inclination to stick with learning something if it isn't presented to them in a way that they can consume without a lot of effort. Their loss. Thanks for your time.
The baby is sleeping, so the volume was turned down, the captions turned on, the video paused, and I stepped through the video with my arrow key caption by caption. Mostly concentrated on the captions, not so much on the diagrams. I saw a lot of effort spent defining the outcome of the assorted polarizing filters, but I didn't get any insight into how the quantum quandary works.
I was gonna read more but then I clicked read more
"Distraction Culture" lmao. That's the funniest thing i've heard in possibly my entire life.
TL/DR
Kidding. What you've written is dead-on.
So if I’m understanding this correctly... if I like minute physics and wear glasses, but don’t have a beard and then decide to grow one, I will no longer need to wear glasses. Got it.
Yeah! Something like that
What if I already have a beard and glasses?
@@FosukeLordOfError then you shouldnt be here watching minute physics unless op shaves
Not if you are blind.
Well, I think there’s a 15% chance you won’t need glasses…
My theory is that a horizontal filter forces light to oscillate vertically. The second filter at 45 degrees, reorients the vertical light into components oscillating in a grid system that is transformed 45 degrees. Now that the components of the light are oscillating in a 45 degree orientation, when you pass it through a vertical filter, the vertical components of the 45 degree light is blocked, but the horizontal components of the 45 degree light are allowed through.
I may be crazy, but I was not surprised by this video... it made perfect sense to me in my head before I even watched the video...
I've been trying to wrap my head around this kind of stuff for over thirty years now. Thanks for trying! ;)
Have incredibly tiny gnomes been ruled out?
NeilIsBored gnomes are what makes the genome 🧬
I think they’re testing that at the large hadron collider
I was going to make a lame joke about genomes but thought better of it
I like gnomes so I will say no.
WHERE ARE MY WEE MEN
For those who think this video only overcomplicates the problem: The point is not to explain the phenomenon of light polarization itself, but to introduce the Bell's theorem by the example of light polarization.
It is indeed much easier to understand polarizers using classical wave mechanics. However, today we know that light actually consists of energized particles named photons. Quantum mechanics explain this by applying the math of wave mechanics on each photon and saying each of them is in a superposition of eigenstates (x- and y-polarized) and each measurement (in this case passing each photon through filters) gives one of the eigenstates to a certain probability.
This is very hard to accept in our classical macroscopic view and that's why Schroedinger's cat is so popular and some geniuses like Einstein tried to preserve the deterministic view of nature, e.g. using a hidden variable theory. What the Bell's theorem tries to say is that quatum mechanics isn't just insufficient to study these hidden variables, but both concepts are mutually exclusive.
Well if you introduce it with the wrong theory you loose the audience on that point, so don't fucking go there in the first place.
Then they probably shouldn't have focused so much on polarizing filters. I didn't even know about this phenomenon before watching the video, and it seemed perfectly obvious and intuitive to me that the filters don't just stop light, but also affect its polarity. Honestly they lost me about the time they went into the entanglement experiments, because they hadn't convinced me at that point that there was actually anything strange going on. But then I don't claim to get quantum physics.
StraightOuttaJarhois I don't think you understood the video. Why should three filters block _less_ light than two? The key thing to understand is that you can't have half a photon. That's what planck discovered, that's what experiments confirm, that's why quantum physics isn't classical.
__ _ No, I absolutely don't understand quantum physics. But light acts as both waves and particles, and if you look at it as waves it makes perfect sense that, if the filters don't just block light, but also align its polarity, an intermediate filter will increase transmission. The math checks out too.
StraightOuttaJarhois
Please watch the first video (the one by 3blue1brown). It explains the math.
What your saying makes sense in a classical world--the filter would just take the component of the vector aligning with the filter. But that doesn't happen in reality because _you can't have half a photon._ So sending diagonally polarized light through a vertically oriented filter _doesn't_ just absorb the horizontal component of the light while letting the verical component through, which is what you'd expect classically. Why? because it's magnitude would then be sqrt(2) (if the original photon was 1, by the Pythagorean theorem), which isn't allowed by quantum physics. Measurements confirm this---electromagnetic radiation is quantized.
The first video explains all this in more detail, complete with clarifying animations.
i love the visual for your chat at the end, so simple and clean and effective... oh yeah so cool video, interesting topic :D
Awesome collab! Please do some more. 😀👍
God: "It's just a bug."
Exactly
@@arch4223 why have you forsaken me, in your heart forsaken me, in your mind FORSAKEN MEEEE OH
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
@@tomwhipp3245 easter egg
Gonna fix it in the next update, sorry guys!
i just want to make a "dark" room using those double layers as a wall to make it "black", and then if a person wears another glasses with that lens, he will be able to see outside the room😂
really wanna try that🤣
Maybe the light would filter into your eyes and then not into the rest of the room ;)
That's an awesome idea, but the "third" filter must be placed in between the two others, the person's glasses would be a third filter after the two others, it would still be 100% dark
@@lapidations damn i need to watch the video again, i havent paid much attention to it
so, are there any sunglasses that can adjust the light that comes to the eyes by the user?
If two polarizing filters block the light completely, adding a third one BEFORE or AFTER them will not magically reveal the blocked light.
You need to insert the third one between the two to make the light visible.
Thank you for this video. Really helped me to understand the findings that won the Nobel Price for Physics in 2022.
I watched Arvin Ash's video that provided great context and general conceptual understanding of Bell's theorem and then the magical CZcams algorithm directed me here to such a wonderful practical example that really drove home what I learned in the first video.
The longest minute of my life
What do you expect? It's minutesphysics now😝
no, it’s a synonym of smallphysics
We can only rue the wasted opportunity: this wasn't an epi on special relativity ;)
that's what she said
Longest minute of my life
Gregory Dixon seriously dude, find something better to do with your time, then being salty about the title of the video. geez man
Ponk 80
It was a joke. geez man
I think you were near a huge gravitating body or travelling near c m/s.
Ponk 80 you mad?
Minute means small
finally a COMPLETE explanation of the paradox! thank you :D
It’s not a paradox
@@TaylerKnox I hadn't thought so either.
I read that polarizing filters don’t just block photons with certain orientations, but also change the orientations of photons. Would that explain why a middle filter lets more light pass through? That the photons are sorta deflected (or tilted?) so that they can now pass through the third filter?
What is a photon?
Yes, that's totally true.
I think this is exactly right. If the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded out/sifted/blocked then there is no paradox, it's fully explained.
Exactly. This is not paradox. Also these filters break the entanglement state immediately. Spooky action at a distance don't exist.
Yes, there's nothing weird for a single photon, but things get more interesting for entangled photon pairs. You can google for the Bell experiment, which is not explained in detail at 9:10 .
I'm sadly not smart enough to even be confused by this.
xD
like that vine, im jus like ":) okay"
If you're a physicist, maybe you can answer a question I had about this video: The "paradox" disappears if we assume that the middle lens can modify the light in some way that makes it more likely to pass through the third lens, but given that this wasn't mentioned, I'm assuming that it's not possible. Why not?
Matt Kilgore I'm with you here, I wanna know too
just remember that 15+15 doesnt equal 50
This kind of videos makes CZcams worth visiting.
You should have a look at this video: czcams.com/video/ZQAvVgnreWk/video.html
These* kinds*
He is creating a sloped gradient change in the lights orientation because of inputting a middle glass. The 2nd glass orientates the light 22.5 degrees allowing the light to pass throw the 3rd glass filter with higher probability. It's not as weird as they are pretending it to be. Kinda like bouncing a basket ball off of the backboard to make the shot.
+Ryan Franks [citation needed]
Robert B what's the other kind(s) of videos? Why would Mateja's statement NEED to be pluralized? :-B
This is really a nice video which shows a complex aspect with simple presentation
Really great video! Enjoyed how you broke everything down! Could you maybe slow the pace a small amount so I can catch up next time? Hope you two collaborate more. I could listen to a podcast of you both discussing math and physics!
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why.
You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler.
John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it.
According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
I shared this with one friend and we talked about it, I then shared it with another and then the first friend stated we never talked about it. Then after that conversation with the first friend, the second friend asked what we were talking about.
You sir are a comedic genius.
No way. Really.
You and your friends( if real) miss the point that actually mentioned in the video. You see, after you share dialoge that you had with your first friend( I really hope that you have that conversation with someone) you change past and now your second friend thinks you are crazy and you are crazy because you just killed your first imaginary friend just by sharing this info by your second imaginary friend but relax, its OK.
Now you know why.
I don't normally make diagram jokes but Venn I do...
Plot twist: they're Euler diagrams.
there's 3 different kinds 1 thats funny 1 that's a pun and 1 that's kinda between
At first this joke didn't get through to me. Then I tilted my head 45 degrees and understood 85 percent of it.
@Risto Paasivirta ... you mean 22.5°. If you tilt your head 45° you understand half of it ... unless someone in front of you tilts their head 22.5°... then you understand 70%.
no... just no...
The cosine square at 4:08 in the video comes from Malus's Law. The polarizer blocks the E field via cosine, but the transmitted energy, hence photon flux, is proportional to E squared.
Thank you very much for explaining this topic so well. It is easily one of my favourite videos!
I'm in a superposition of understanding this
Clearly the answer is it's all a simulation and this bug was shipped as a "feature"
mastermclovin 🤗
Universal Engine Code Obfuscation, but it won't stop us from making our reactionless engines!
@Harry Kiralfy Broe It just works.
The Universe is in beta test.
Humanity will colonize space with the equivalent of wall glitching in Halo.
I have watched this video three times. Once on release, once a few years later, and now after having read the book Quantum. Now that I can finally grasp the concept, I have to say that this is one of the best videos I have seen on the platform period. I also love everything about the post video discussion.
I liked the 'plain-language' post video credits/comments/shoutouts section. Classy.
Tries to understand quantum physics one more time.
Head explodes.
Back to cat videos for me.
check out schrodingers cat then
TheBobiaan shrodingers cat is a zombie cat that is both alive and dead until you look at it.
But if you can look at it with a triple filter sunglasses from the movie They Live, you can see their lying reptilian eyes are secretly zombie eyes. And if you look closer you can see Michael Jackson doing the thriller dance leading a zombie cat uprising that is here to quantumly entangle us all!!!
Household Dog lol
Qantum is bullshit. Thats why your head hurts. It's your instincts battling the mind control. Go and study magnets. It won't hurt. Youll understand the universe very easily.
I will just add. Photos are not real. They are only theoretical. No one has ever give them a mass, there are no photographs. But they make the maths work...
I'm just gonna call this magic & move on till we actually find the answer
Me2
“What ever that that quote is about science being magic”
“Whenever humans don’t understand something, they call it magic and try to explain with science.”
Magic is just science we don’t yet understand.
People in the 3rd century be like
So how do we know the photons are not being twisted when passing through a filter?
What do you mean twisted?
Photons may twist/torque when polarized. Say sn 80° photon hits a 90° filter with a certain probability of passing. This photon is the main character so it passes, but passing the filter at a -10° angle outputs the photon at a +10° angle. The now 100° photon has a larger chance of passing the next filter at 112.5° than if it had stayed at 80°.
You would also see 100° photons be torqued into 80°, so you would see no abnormal distribution using just 2 filters, like trying to plot a line given only one point. But when you add a third filter, you give the system a vector and direction which results in more photons being torqued into the direction of filter C than away from it.
Don't know if any of this is true but it's one explanation for this "paradox".
That was covered in the video. The idea was put forth that the filter was changing the photon in some way. This was actually a large part of the second half of the video.
@@gregsonvaux4492 i didnt quite understand the second part with the entanglement experiments. Have they basically proved that the photons arent being twisted/changed/effected when they pass through one filter?
if so, i think it all boilsdown to the Heisenberg uncertainty equation. Light passing through a filter means light passing through a grid at atomic levels (Glass/silicon crystals). And the more dense the crystal grid structure is the less certain does it become to determine which vector/angle/twist a lightwave will have, hence it becomes unclear/uncertain to tell that the lightwaves that passed through have a certain twist to them. This therefore wouldn't be actually a nrw paradoxon but rather the same paradoxon as the Heisenberg uncertainty but just as another experiment?
@@QuinnTheTailor the entanglement argument goes as folows (I think):
It doesn't really show that in the single particle case no twisting happens, but it rather shows, that in a different scenario (when paving two entangled particles A and B), the same numbers emerge, and now in this setting we cannot fix the explanation by saying that the photons get twisted by a filter:
Prepare particles A and B entangled such that they are polarized in the same direction
(i.e. when shooting each of them through their own filter, pointing in the same direction they will both pass with 100%)
Now let A fly to alpha centauri and choose to measure in direction X (it passes)
this now means that A is polarized in direction X
Immediatly "afterwards" sent B on earth through a filter in direction Y=/=X
It passes with a probabality equal to what we would expect if it were polarized in direction X
This implies, that if we set particle A to direction X, by letting it pass a filter in that direction, that its entangled partner B will also be set into this direction.
We can imagine that A is "twisted" into this direction X, but then we have to accept that somehow information of this twisting process is transferred to Particle B *immediatly*, s.th. B is also twisted into the same direction *immediatly*, somehow implying "fasterthan light" travel
Great video. Love the Venn Diagram approach, it makes it much clearer than standard approaches as to what hidden variables are and how they are ruled out by the theorem.
The Venn Diagram is misleading when it comes to probabilities. The filters play an active role in the process that is not displayed. A single pair of entangled photons tells you very little about entanglement. Do the experiment with filters yourself and you will see what I mean.
I remember doing this with three sunglasses lens when my daughter was about 7 showing her how weird it is.... And of course she wanted to know how the light could 'jump' though space and appear out of the third lens... Which obviously I can't explain in a way where a 7 year old doesn't stick a pen in my eye...
It is amazing more people aren't aware of this.
@Hagogs 😂
@Hagogs oh do please elaborate. This should be entertaining.
We wouldn't want to teach our children to believe in the outcome of scientific experiments instead of what we want to believe, that would be terrible 😀
God the ending made me want a podcast with these two
Yes please! They worked so well together.
Just a question, this might sound stupid, but can't the problem simply be that the photons get excited with the filter, then "de-excited" in another wavelength, so it would react differently the more filters it goes through.
I'm not educated much in quantum physics just very basics, so I'm mostly asking why this isn't the case so I can understand
Bump ⬆️ My brain immediately went the same place. Looking forward to someone’s reply proving both of us wrong. :)
Bump ⬆️ Me too I wondered that very same thing.
Biggest problem in the video, they wait to talk about entangled particles until 8:45 . Particles that are entangled act the same way, passing through b makes it more likely to pass through c, so if there is an 'excitement' answer, it transfers information faster than light (anti locality over anti realism)
Entanglement on its own seems like an obvious anti locality problem, but there are a lot of other examples like how observation changes outcomes, or the uncertainty principle that make it muddier
also the direction of the filter could allow the protons to get more of a nudge. imagine driving a car on a race track, don’t touch the wheel, at some point the car will hit the wall and make the left turn regardless. This couldn’t happen if the track was a hard right angle. The car would hit the wall and stop.
Maybe the car/photon is getting a nudge from the filters? there is a physics theory or whatever that says something like, a filter or sieve of a certain size will trap smaller particles than it’s supposed to be cause of minor pulls /clumping at the filter points. van der wall doesn’t sound right though.
Anyway, maybe instead of the particles getting smashed into the filter, they get slightly angled the right way to be able to make it through the next filter?
The assumption that things are “filtered” aka stopped is based on a physical understanding that things something moving up/down will be more likely to pass through a narrow slit oriented up/down…. But I think what you are saying is it will still pass through but with only the measurable effects in one direction. The other photons are just “invisible” to our measurements. When they hit the next filter, their orientation can be brought back into our visible space (aka, whatever we don’t see happening in extra dimensions is brought back to our space).
On the surface, this feels like a possible violation of energy conservation within our known dimensions, but it also makes me wonder if there is some interactions between (now made invisible) particles in the extra dimensions.
Leading to some of the oddness with FTL communication (since we wouldn’t have an understanding of how these extra dimensions Exist meaning perhaps ftl communication is possible aka wormhole theory only on a universal/fundamental level).
Without fully understanding quantum mechanics, I’ve often thought there is a missing piece between our understanding of discrete/continuous (in the same way math gets weird at “orders of infinity”, or the walk from a to be b paradox where in some representations the distance between you and the end point gets smaller and smaller but you never actually get there).
Not necessarily related, but could explain part of what’s broken with our current understanding.
This is so simple concept but you guys made it look so complicated!
Minutephysics and 3Blue1Brown?
All we need now is Vi Hart and the ultimate trio would be complete
or Sen Zen maybe
Ha!
+Boco Corwin mmmmm...... Venn pie-agram
Sleepy Dog Pi Day Pizza Pie-agram.
Boco Corwin Vi Hart and Venn Diagrams 😍
I love how youtube recommends this to me almost 2 years later.
It's a trend... I get a few videos seven years recommended.
Three years now
3 years for me, after I leave my physics postdoc job.
What's so special about that?
Wow! Very well presented. Thank you.
First of all, it is to be noted that as you rotate one filter relative to the other, and do so in a linear consistent manner, the change in light intensity passing through, is NOT linear. You can verify this with a Malus Law Calculator. Now imagine the the spin of a photon is not merely spatial, but also extends across the time dimension. So it also moves back and forth across time to a degree, and its polarity changes while doing so. Thus what is important, is what photons passed through the first filter, considering that photons move back and forth across time. Not all of them that passed thorough, were able to pass through in real time rotational position. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.
"that would be crazy" - continues to explain.
Man: you can't confuse me
Universe: hold my really big beer
I do actually remember seeing a video on here somewhere that states there IS indeed a nebula composed entirely of alcohol or ethanol. Not lying.
wow
@@MikinessAnalog i don't think thats quite possible
@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 phys.org/news/2014-09-alcohol-clouds-space.html#:~:text=Yes%2C%20there%20is%20a%20giant,isn't%20suitable%20for%20drinking
oh really?
@@MikinessAnalog I came here to write this exact thing haha. it's indeed true. though, in space, you can find just about anything.
For those already initiated in QM I repeat here some comments previously made to similar videos. They may clarify debatable points.
The Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE) when applied to a wave representing an initial state of, say, an electron bound to a proton and together forming a hydrogen atom, predicts and retrodicts all the future and previous states of the electron wave, in the same fashion than the evolution equations of classical mechanics predicts the movement of the Earth around the Sun. Note that the STDE is energy conservative, that is, the initial state as well as the predicted and retrodicted ones all have the same energy.
As is well known the bound electron has a completely different conduct. Whatever the initial state and in absence of other interactions an excited electron will settle in a stationary state radiating energy (in the form of a photon) along the way. If the stationary state is the ground state the electron will stay there forever (in absence, as said before, of other interactions). Otherwise the stationary electron state is ephemeral and will be abandoned to radiate a photon and assume a new stationary state of even lower energy. This "down the staircase" process repeats until the ground state is reached. There is no manner to adapt the STDE to this physical process. This inconsistency was discovered by none other than Niels Bohr, as can be inferred from the report of Werner Heisenberg. See our note
www.researchgate.net/publication/356193279_Deconstruction_of_Quantum_Wave_Mechanics
After discovering the tremendous inconsistency between the equation and the atom it would have been natural to announce that the STDE contradicted physical facts, and ask for a correct equation. I assume as true, but only know from hearsay very long ago, that in Einstein's viewpoint the correct deterministic time dependent wave equation had to be non-linear in contrast with the linear STDE. References to this historical detail would be appreciated.
It is hard to believe but, against reasonableness and common sense, Bohr decided to adopt the STDE as correct and that continuity, causality and determinism of physical processes were wrong because they contradicted the STDE. Apparently mathematical equations on paper were more relevant than the experience of the whole human race. Then a series of new and fanciful "quantum physical principles" were adopted.
In my opinion the powerful quantum establishment dogmatically defends Quantism and strongly rejects any attempt to correct its misdeeds, even if the correct deterministic time dependent wave equation is available.
With best regards to all
Daniel Crespin
I studied light in my degree for laser electro optic. It doesn't have to do with them being quantum objects it's because light Scatters Transfers Absorbs and Reflects (S.T.A.R.). As the light hits the filter some of it absorbs and some of it transfers (and some of it scatters and some reflects). Light waves are 3d and when you add the 3rd filter it actually allows the light to bend easier into those filters thus why it moves through them easier. You're also giving it more distance to allow it to bend (3 filters stack longer than 2 filters). If you took enough filters (359) and set them all 1° apart in the same direction you'd actually filter out the filters because most of your light would be able to spiral through. It's because light is both wave particle and photon packet.
How does that explain the experiments with entangled photons?
@@aikendrum3228 i see a lot of these comments that seem to be based on the first 2 minutes of the video, so they apply high school physics to the polarizer part and ignore the rest of the video. Ahh, science.
If it were just down to the distance between filters, someone would have noticed before handing out the Nobel Prizes.
When i click a video like this, i usually NEEED to understand what its talking abt, but in this case i just dont and its driving me up the wall. So thank you for using your perfectly clear language using words that i DEFINITELY understood
That's because they don't actually make sense, here. The classical explanation for the three-polarizer problem is that as the light passes through each polarizer, both its amplitude AND its polarization change. These are two independent properties of a photon, but they're bringing in "entangled particles" for no good reason, muddying the water. Bottom line is, the video is Just. Plain. Wrong. Don't waste your time; find a better video to explain this.
Actually, the middle filters are introducing a rotation into the polarization.
When Filter B is added, it introduces a rotation to the light from Filter A, making it more likely to pass through Filter C.
Thats why it doesn't work when B is before A or after C. Having the two 90° filters next to each other blocks everything, you need to introduce that rotation to make A's light pass through C.
That's what I thought too. I get Bells Formukas but confused why they didn't show light coming from nothing. That is what I thought they were trying to show.
I was so happy to have understood something, then you came and shattered by brain again
That is one way to look at it but if one also remember that a linear polarization can be described as a sum of 2 (or more) rotational polarized lights it might be more easy to explain. The rotational ones are only partially let through by the filters.
Seems like this shouldve been mentioned in the video. A pretty real local mechanical explanation?
Yeah I wonder the same thing. I mean, it seems there must be some scientific explanation for why this doesn't happen, since I feel like someone would have thought of this before as it seems like the most obvious explanation.
Very cool video! To resolve the paradox: thinking about it as if the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded-out/sifted/blocked makes it so there is no paradox, it's fully explained. No need for fancy entanglement or hidden variables. So the statement in 0:51 is not totally correct in saying "all these filters do is remove light" since these filters actually shift the light, setting up the audience to what may be a misleading way of thinking about it.
All I got from this, is that we are living in a Matrix and the raytracing algorithm is only considering 2 consecutive filters' rotation at a time: If ray passes through filter look ahead for another filter and calculated the resulting chamge in brightness and polarity then move on. Seems the devs didn't have enough ressources to keep looking ahead for more and more filters. Maybe they will patch it in the future, or maybe they will leave it in as an easter egg (or a way for them to determine if they are in the real world or the Matrix, like a totem in Inception)
The video reminded me of my BSc thesis. I worked with my mentor on proving Bell without the inequalities using entanglement. It was super fun. The polarizer idea was a superb way to show how things sort of work :)
Sort of work?
Today I learned I am not smart.
Well this isn't easy material, and I didn't personally think this video was easy to follow because it was too fast and there were too many things to track at the same time (even though I've learned this material before!)
Many famous physicists had a hard time coming to grips with this theorem -- that's why it's such an earth shattering result because it really shows that we needed a different way to describe states. It is still debated philosophically.
Amen
Hey, we're smart enough to watch the video and try to understand it.
And, remember, this is QUANTUM PHYSICS.
So remember... while others were watching cats and worldstar, you were watching science.
Usually the answers to the most complex questions are the most simplest...quantum theory does my head in ....but this really portrayed how there may be a sub science to our science...like know all your scales...then forget them and just play...🙂
We are just starting.....
Beautiful video, thank you for sharing! :)
Two EE degrees, decades of experience. Whenever I start to feel like an expert - or smart - I come watch one of these videos and get a nice dose of humility.
This is one of the most interesting videos I've seen all year. Thanks for showing me a phenomenon I never thought to look for, and how it works!
Greg Orcutt +
Have my like
Half century completed
Actually, this three-lenses issue is more simply explained if you use the wave model of light. Basically, when a wave of light passes through a polarizing filter, it gets twisted to the angle of the polarizer and shrunk depending on how much it was twisted. Thus, when there's only two lenses, the light out of the first filter (polarized the same way as it) shines onto a filter perpendicular to it; a filter at this angle reduces the wave to zero, so no light goes through. However, if the third filter goes in between, the wave now goes through two 45-degree twists instead of a 90-degree one, which will not reduce the wave to zero. In general, splitting a twist into multiple smaller ones increases the amount of transmission, for the same reason. The problems only ensue when you try to work this with individual particles, as described in the video.
In addition, if you're wondering about the questioning of realism and whatnot, they're only relevant at quantum scales. The effects get diluted at higher scales, and basically vanish at the human scale; classical physics exists and has realism and whatnot for a reason, specifically that they work at the human scales we function on. It's honestly depressing how many people fail to properly understand this, or communicate it if they do.
And there is probably some (normal?) distribution of angles of light which pass through the each filter.
Thank you! This is why wave particle duality is so important. I've tried to explain this to people before, but no one seems to get it.
K1naku5ana3R1ka there is actually a glimpse of this that you speak of in the animation of the light wave. But i was confused why they didnt say a thing about it.
If it wasnt for you i would still
be super confused
That explanation works for the initial experiment but 9:10 and onwards explain why it can't actually be the correct explanation.
Great video. I love how polarized filters can demonstrate quantum effects, something I noticed decades ago. One thing was unclear to me in this video: are entangled photons involved in these results? If no, is there a way to create entangled photons with polarized filters?
How about, the passing through the lens alters the angle of the wave itself since it's a material blockage thus when passing through B the angle alters even more and so when reaching C the photon waves have an angle compatible with Lens C and are able to pass through the molecules of material within the lens. Waves reflect from every surface so it makes sense that the angle of the wave changes when it passed through molecules of reflective material which continually shift the direction of the waves until it finally mazes outside the labyrinth of molecules, this would make it very plausible that the new angle of the wave will then have a different reflective reaction than originally intended and that could be where confusion lies. Somewhere between knowing too much about physics and not enough about chemistry and biology since those are the sciences that focus on molecular structure. Glass is indeed nonreflective but that is not the case when it comes to polarised glass, in the mind of a physicist it's a Pandora's box but maybe the answer lies in deeper sciences. Just to clarify, none of what I said is researched or backed up by any sources, this is my thought process and answer to an interesting question which I could be wrong about. I follow physics and chemistry yet know a bit about biology so putting all that I know into consideration I came up with this solution
My same thoughts.
As a physicist and a photographer, this video was supremely satisfying and interesting.
Thank you both Henry and Grant.
I really appreciate the effort you guys put into trying to explain this stuff to us knuckleheads. I'm not sure if it's working but I still appreciate the effort.
They do get a little confusing when they start to show the Venn diagrams and rapidly go through the explanations of them. That would never have happened in my physics class.
@@wayneyadams The "rapid" part is my sole gripe about Minutephysics videos. One does need to rewind multiple times to digest.
It works for me.
@@avhuf but we can rewind tho
@@wayneyadams just imagine it like water equilibrium and awareness. Or like gas in the car scenario. Im driving somewhere and idk how much gas I used until I get there. Locality. Information travels as fast as the car. Realism. I will know how much gas if I can account for all the variables.
Made my evening more thoughtful as i was observing the sunset which has a natural lens on a rainy day.
The problem is you are assuming the light isn't passing through and that it's completely blocked. There is indeed the possibility the the waves are still passing through but are affected by the filter in a way that loses our ability to perceive them. If the filter was constantly absorbing photons the filter would be expected to have a physical change in itself I would think. Such and heating up.
Gadzooks. I am a medic and came here learning about polarised and non polarised dermatoscopes for melanoma detection. I would love to learn more about this stuff. Many thanks!
Oh thanks for the bug report, I'll fix it in the next patch
At 4:14 is where you miss the answer.
If 0º is 100% and 45º is 50%, at 22,5º is should be halfway, and it is. It is not halfway aritmeticaly, nor is it geometricaly, but it is halfway trigonometricaly (twice). And it makes sense: the photon have to reorient itself while it cross the filter, and the chance to succed equals the cosine of the angle.
But the photon is a electro-magnetic wave, so we just have to apply this chance to both fields.
cos22.5º · cos22.5º = 0.85
If the filters, based on orientation to the source, can block or reorient the waves passing through then how does effect the information carried by the source? I mean, instead of using entangled pairs, what if the source is a fiber optic cable carrying information. How much information would be passed, reoriented, or lost? Also, if the source can be reoriented through all the filters, then no information is lost at all.
Is NO ONE going to talk about the collab? How cool is it to have both of them in one video, come on!
It doesn't matter nothing is real apparently
this sort of things happen literally all the time infinitely
@@el0j Yes. But those two though.
The outro was great too! It was a great collab 👍💯
Theyre just people. No need for eceleb worship.
"First, photons are waves,"
Einstein and Planck: Yes, but no
So that's a superposition of right and wrong?
😂
@@vincent_hall Yesn't
@@vincent_hall prescription is reality reality is perception why is this hard to understand?
All entropy , none entropy and reverse Motion entropy IS information
positive Neutral Negative
, the universe doesn't work in binary function, that is an observation Error , we learned that the observer Changes the outcome DECADES ago .Our Inheritantly euclidean geometry of Genetic code and Binary function of Brains distorts the data, simply by observation...The Universal Theorum is Therefore Ochams Razor , The Universal Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Frequency Code is Tertiary A Paradigm, Not Binary...
If I were to build a quantum engine or a quantum motor based on the principle of our sun and our planet I would simply build a three phase tertiary based electromagnetic axial spin armature surround it with a palladium polonium rhodium skin representing the atmosphere introduce hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon and helium 3 in a plasma Arc reactor form representing the solar rays from the Sun on one side of the armature at which point you use a secondary klystron coil wrapped around it to literally suck all the electrical energy from the reaction now because it's so high voltage you will have to step it down at which point you will have to make a reverse marks generator which is just a series of capacitors in 369 formulation very useful for making a herf gun or a plasma rifle or a rail gun which is just lenze law of propelling aluminum rounds suspension of electromagnetic angular direction.. everything is I can power City with something like that with the device the size of a golf ball humans are way way off have a good day.
I understood that reference
I don't know if I m missing something but it seems to me there is a simple explanation that explains all of these results.
I have not conducted any experiments and I'm not sure I fully comprehend everything here and also I am making a supposition about how particles become entangled and also the property of the space they exist in.
Thank god for the red circle and arrow on the thumbnail, otherwise I would have completely missed it. And also, they are clear markers of quality content, as the internet well knows.
i have glasses and a beard but i am still very confused.
If you are not too fat you'll probably be able to squeeze yourself thru this mess. Don't worry.
I think that means 50% of us must also be wearing your glasses, or that 85% of my beard can communicate with yours faster than light, or something
It's because they restate the same thing in different words about 50 times.
Get yourself a white lab coat and a bow tie and you will understand everything.
try a mustache & red frames ; )
The problem is with the term filter. Actually, filters are not filters and it is not that all they can do "is remove light". They actually change the polarization of some photons.
My thought in their experiment is that the filter is actually refracting light in certain directions that when two filter are used together at same angle, they refract the same amout of light. Rotating those turns the angle of refraction away from the perspective thus blocking the light. Adding the third one catches the refracted light and turns the angle towards the perspective. Hope it makes sense. It's just my idea.
@@jemengullo This type of inconsistencies is eliminated by measuring two single filters at different points in space. Which show the same result. The calibration of the machine also confirms 100% entanglement before hand to eliminate that error as well.
OHPA OHPA, No, they don't!
@@Patalenski ....Yes they do. Have you read literally any of the research data behind this? Maybe you are confused, I can help explain. What are you confused about?
OHPA OHPA, The photons behave like one, so the two-separate-filters setup with two entangled photons is equal to the consecutive filters setup with just one. Watch the video - they say that the results from the first filter are *normalized* to 100%, hence the results from the second filter, with the second photon, are as if it is the first photon passing through another filter. If the filters don't block but actually *twist* the polarization of the light, attenuating its volume by cos(phi), then the photons will just *appear* to communicate with each other, when they simply follow a series of conversions of their initial parameters.
I always assumed that the waves were more like a twisted ribbon, rather then just a vertical or horizontal wave. And that we just measure it on certain axies
Electromagnetic waves always have 2 waveforms perpendicular to each other. This is (and I am explaining it badly) because you can convert back and forth freely between a magnetic force and an electrical force (this is how electro magnets work, and electric motors, and generators etc). So increasing amplitude in one axis immediately effects the opposing force in the other axis which is why the waves are presented this way.
The orientation of the wave can vary yes but the relationship between the two forces will always be perpendicular to each other.
@@JathraDH thank you for the answer, it made perfect sense. if I were to visualize what your saying. Like how it is in the real world. Are the two waves then automatically aligned with the earths gravity, or do they twist together while staying perpendicular? Or is it dependent on the material used, like a copper coil we try to measure. I guess I’m in simplest form. I’ve always been curious if they twist, and that twist looks like a wave on a 2 dimensional measurement tool. I hope I’m conveying what I want to ask properly.
@@lowkey213 As per current understanding of science, the waves can be orientated in any direction/rotation but the forces will always be perpendicular to each other.
I am not sure how this orientation can twist with regards to anything else, but if it does twist both axes will twist at the same time and remain perpendicular to each other by necessity. Hope this helps!