My Ghost Particle is a unique electronic experiment created by Tristen Gran… Read Full Bio ↴My Ghost Particle is a unique electronic experiment created by Tristen Grant (drummer for The Kamin Project). He wanted to try something new and different. Maj orly inspired by Boards of Canada, an 'out of tune' sound and that old record player he has created a musical sound unlike many others. All sounds have been created electronically using samples found from old music and film.

Imagery inspired My Ghost Particle as well, taking inspired from old black and while photos, faded images and almost anything collecting dust. So far he has one CD released entitled 'when day breaks' and is currently working on a second CD. Both CDs will be released online for FREE and will NOT be in stores. This is because he feels that music should be free being that is is a creative outlet.

This music may be strange but it is real.

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Distance
My Ghost Particle Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Gordon Panther

2y↑8

It is true that from light's "point of view", there is no passage of time. Quantum comms are still 'spooky' though, in that all macroscopic phenomena are limited by the speed of light - to anything with mass, time does exist, and light speed is a limit to transfer of information - yet quantum information travels infinitely fast. So how is it travelling? It's not by light - because as Don explains, that's been tested for and ruled out - it travels 'instantaneously'.

However, the whole thing has never seemed too bizarre to me. The universe started from a single point of space-time, so it doesn't seem too implausible (to me) to suppose that stuff going on 'under the hood' has remained 'connected' in some fashion. And as Don says, it doesn't break relativity because we can't use this mechanism to break the speed of light limitation on movement of mass or information.

And then too, I always found John Cramer's "Transactional Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics to be more plausible and pleasing than the unreasonably-popular "Copenhagen Interpretation" (which has hung around well beyond its sell-by date mainly because of that bloody silly alive-and-dead cat being sexy to layman types). In addition to that, TI is mathematically more aesthetic - by interpreting 'negative time' solutions as being "information travelling back in time", rather than ignoring it as "obviously nonsense" (as Copenhagen and other interpretations do). Kids get told off for ignoring 'the other' root, and imaginary numbers seem to be 'used' in the universe, so it seems dodgy to not try to interpret them.

Those signals ('advanced waves'), travelling back in time can form atemporal 'handshake' communications - which neatly explain a lot of 'spooky' stuff like the double slit experiment, that bloody cat, and perhaps spooky action at a distance, all in a more (to some, anyway) philosophically pleasing way, i.e., without requiring infinitely branching universes (Many Worlds), or the existence of intelligent (?) observers to actually make anything happen or the universe exist.

See Wikipedia < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation > or the 1995 book "Schrodinger's Kittens (and the Search for Reality)" by John Gribbin.

Biosciboy

Hi Don, and thank you for your wonderful videos.
You said : "Does quantum information travel at speeds faster than the speed of light? Yeah, it seems to. But it doesn’t invalidate Einsteins theory of relativity, because we cant control

it. We can do both measurements and the outcome will seem random and we’ll only
know that the 2 were opposite when we compare the measurements. And all that
information can be transferred no faster than the speed of light."
My apologies again, I don’t understand fully those things:

-“it doesn’t invalidate Einsteins theory of relativity,
because we cant control it”. Is this a scientific proof? If we cant control
something, it doesn’t invalidate Einsteins theory of relativity. Or is it a
theorem? Something we accept without proof.

- Sure we will know that the 2 measurements were opposite only when humans compare it. And sure that information can be transferred no faster than the speed of light. But are these
2 statements a proof that quantum information does not invalidate Einsteins
theory of relativity?

Don Lincoln (or somebody else) can you help?

Javier Arvelo-Cruz-Santana

Yet, some would have us believe that government is not capable of anything.

Fermilab is under the US Dept. Of Energy.

That makes Dr. Lincoln one of those "bureaucrats."

He is a scientist. I'm very proud to see my tax dollars go to this national lab. This is a national treasure.

Keep up the great work.

Old Anime

4y↑1

Fermilab
I have six questions about defining the mass of dark matter particles
This is in order to place new restrictions on dark matter so that researchers can determine the mass of dark matter
In order for physicists to be able to choose one of the candidate particles
for dark matter such as sterile neutrino particle and Axions
and the X17 particle
and WIMPs particles
The first question is how much will the temperature of the material be in galaxies if the candidate particle is chosen?
The second question, how fast will the rotation of galaxies be if the candidate particle is chosen?
The third question, how will this filter particle affect the formation of galaxies?
Fourth Question: How will this filter particle affect the curvature of light and the gravitational lens?
Fifth question, how will the filter particle affect the cosmic background radiation?
The sixth question concerns the winning body among the filtered particles for that dark matter
Is it an X17 particle or a sterile neutrino or WIMPs or axions ?
We hope that you send the six questions to physicists and researchers at the Space Research Center

Questions about the dark matter

All comments from YouTube:

Black Dog

4y↑167

Dr. Don, It literally makes my day when I see a new video of yours has been uploaded. Thank you VERY much for all that you do!

Matt Steele

2y↑36

A physicist friend of mine said this to me about the subject, and I'll never forget it:

"It's only 'spooky' if you think about the behavior from a human's temporal point-of-view. Because for the photon, the events of entanglement, separation, and measurement effect all occur at the exact same time."

Gordon Panther

2y↑8

Covid19 Alpha 2 Variant TURBO Championship Edition

1y↑5

as a skeptic, I wonder if you even have "physicist friend"

Joe B

1y↑4

If you watched the video that is called hidden variables and has already been accounted for and disproven so your 'physicist friend' is wrong

jonz23m

It's made up by mathematicians.

Gordon Panther

1y↑3

@jonz23m That's nothing. The entire universe is a figment of my imagination, and no one can prove me wrong, so it must be true! 😁

9 More Replies...

W.A. Peden

1y↑2

Thank you Professor for all the time and creativity you put into these videos! I sincerely appreciate the effort you spend on presenting scientific information that unfortunately is not being taught to a majority of our American high school and even Associate Degreed students. Please continue your work and hopefully you can encourage other members of your scientific peers and community to present what they have learned and are willing to share in a ‘free format’ openly to the public.

Nachannachle

4y↑30

That was the most original (and unusual!) way of breaking down QE I've ever witnessed.
Dr Lincoln's creativity is simply as infinite as the Unobservable Universe! <3

Courtney Ford

3y↑4

I knew if I kept revisiting this subject I would eventually I’d gain a greater understanding. Thank you for being the first I’ve seen to break down vital details necessary for the average person (interested in this) to understand more meaningfully. You have been so helpful!

Al Nabhani

2y↑1

Thank you Dr. Don, you are an exceptional person and scientist.
I'm grateful for the thoughtful and clear explanation .

Olivia Ruden

3y↑21

I love this guy. I understood maybe 20% of the information he talked about, but I 100% know he’s the man .

Kababalax

2y↑2

As they all say, before the measurement you CAN'T know what the configuration of the particle is. In other words they cannot prove that this phenomenon is real. Attempts at proving that the phenomenon is real have only been carried out by varying a measurement of an already set configuration, so there is no proof at all that this phenomenon is real.

Daywork

2y↑1

He is definitely one of the man that ever exist

TerranIV

4y↑9

I was actually pleasantly surprised to NOT learn something new from one of your videos (for once)! This makes me feel like I have a decent grasp of this topic. I don't think this is going to hold for the quantum teleportation video! :) Could you also do one about quantum encryption? I feel like that would be both fascinating and enlightening. Thanks for the great videos!!!

Tesu Kim

1y↑1

I've been wondering about the quantum entanglement for years. This is the best explanation ever. Great script and animation for easier understanding. I appreciate people worked on this great video.

Rationalific

2y↑11

This was fascinating, and very well explained for the most part. I really like that you just didn't explain it, but you also explained the experiment. Although it's still hard to wrap my mind around it, it's definitely better than not knowing how this was measured at all. (I'd still like to know more about how those two lines colored lines on the graph differ, though!)

Doctor Steve

2y↑5

Yes I understand why hidden variables gives the graph that it does but not 100% sure why quantum physics would predict the other graph. That would be a nice video for the future

sayan roy

1y↑1

For that same reason, I actually did not like this particular video. TBF, I didn't find a video yet which explains the experimentation and meaning behind it properly, just the inferences of the experiments, analogies and what it means for the phenomenon of Quantum Entanglement.

Rationalific

1y↑1

@sayan roy Yeah, I get you. It's a complex topic and there were some good explanations, but the graph itself is not explained, and I'd like to see how those differing lines are arrived at (which was not done here...or apparently, anywhere else that is easily assessible and made for regular people).

sayan roy

1y↑1

@Rationalific Hey, I got one Veritasium video which made me understand quite a bit, of course, after pondering a lot on that by myself. The video is 7 years old and you can search by quantum entanglement or spooky action at a distance. There is a video of Sabine as well but not as good as Veritasium's, on the details we want.

Rationalific

1y↑1

@sayan roy Thanks! I'll check it out.

Alexandra Hopkins

3y↑12

Thank you. This is the very best explanation that I've heard as to how Bell's Theorem detects that entanglement is not due to hidden variables. Great explanation!!!

D. I.A.

4y↑6

I watched many videos on these. This is the most explanatory one. Thank you Dr. Lincoln and FermiLab members who made this possible.

nerdophile

Yeah same here.

Duane Oestreich

2y↑5

Very well done Dr. Very enjoyable. I just got my PhD in Cosmology. I used a few of your lectures at the beginning of my studies. Yes, I did give you credit in my thesis, which was stolen from the internet and has already shown up on the Science Channel!!

datapro007

You do makeup?

x_abyss

4y↑21

What blew my mind about quantum entanglement is that entangled particles have the same wave functions not just in space but also in time. Thanks for posting a video about it Prof. Lincoln.

onehit pick

4y↑4

Drop a pebble in a complex (real+imaginary) pond at low signal levels and square-law quantizing detectors, and un-blow your mind.

Stefano Pinchetti

4y↑2

Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 It is not interesting to regard the history of physics with the aim of deciding who was the best, a champion is not enough for physics. E.g. Schrödinger's articles published after EPR are an essential contribution to our understanding of entanglement. What would have been QM without von Neumann (hence Hilbert), Dirac, Feymann, just to name a few and not mentioning too many?
From our perspective what is relevant is all the contributions of those people, and we are lucky to have all of them.

David Spector

There are no sine wave functions in this explanation.

fgc vt

1y↑1

This is the best of your videos. You explained entanglement so clearly and thoroughly. I 'almost' understood it. The most valuable part for me was the explanation of how entangled particles are generated. I looked everywhere for a detailed explanation, but all the videos I watched left out that most crucial piece of information.

The rest of the video is also crystal clear, and I hope you will upload an update addressing the recent discovery that entanglement and wormholes are the same (or are they?)

Mara

2y↑3

Listen, I'm still in high school and hadn't had physics in about 3 years. The last time I had it I almost got a D on my report card. For some reason I gained an interest in quantum physics.
I would like for you know Dr. Don that your videos are amazing! I watched a lot of them and learned so so much! You explain it so well and eventhough English is not my native tounge I can understand and follow them very well. Thank you so much for these great videos. They make to facinating world of quantum phyics so much more accessable! Thank you.

Sheriff John Bird

Thanks Don, you're the only one that explained this in a way that I was finally able to understand. You're the man!

Vikram Garg

Brilliant explanation of a very complex topic. Keeping the focus on the wave function and angular momentum helps to get a grip on a really mind bending part of modern physics. And topped off by a wonderful plot of predictions by two competing explanations. This video is of value not simply for the specific topic of entanglement, but also how scholars deal with highly complex and non intuitive phenomena.

Stef Bon

Hi, even I'm a master in mathematics, the pure fysics is hard for me. Thank you for your videos. You help me understand relativity and quantum mechanics a lot. I've got a question about the use of the mathematical tools like differentation and integration in physics. While these are great, and for example the speed of an object is the location differentiated to the elapsed time. Now you can use things like dx/dt in formulas, and as far as I can tell this derivation is used a lot. But this calculus is proved to work when assuming there is an inifinite small (taking the limit to zero). This is absolute ok in theoretical math, but does not apply in the world we live in. You cannot say for the full 100% differential equations apply for physics. In every day llive, every day measurements the error is very very small, but with quantum physics this may be not the case. Better are stochastic equations I think. How do you look at it?

michael blacktree

4y↑220

I'm curious to see how/why hidden variables yields straight lines, whereas quantum mechanics yields a sine wave.

Vici Moore

4y↑25

Lack of data points so they join the points with straight lines (isnt this what plagues all physics?); at a more subtle level this is fundamentally what is wrong with Quantum Physics we only have data at the points of measurement he he

neuronpool

4y↑14

I thought I missed the explanation at first for the straight line prediction, but I researched and didn't find it

TheNasaDude

4y↑87

The mathematical functions for hidden variables and quantum mechanics are continuous, so there's no need to join points or "extend the function".
The real difference is that the QM function is probabilistic, and as such yields a gaussian distribution. The HV function is fully determined by initial conditions, so there is no probability game into play and the percent of what's measured (amount of measurement agreement) increases linearly to 100%, then decreases the same way.
Given that QM yields a line that fits the experimental results much more closely, the scientists conclude that QM is better for describing the phenomenon and making predictions about it.

LaserFur

4y↑24

I see it as a problem with how they are imagining the hidden variables. If you have a random vector being detected it has a probability as well so Hidden variables can create sine waves.

Barry Kort

4y↑23

If you assume the hidden variable is not time-varying, you get the anticipated straight line. But if you allow time-varying hidden variables, and admit that time-keeping varies from one location to another, then the time-varying hidden variables drift in and out of sync (e.g there is a non-vanishing "beat frequency'), and the straight line model gives way to the one we actually find in experimental measurements.

43 More Replies...

John Nordstrand

Thank you for a great video. I'm a physics teacher and this is very useful as inspiration and help in my classes.
Aren't the spooky action at a distance an argument for the many worlds theory? As the wave function collapse at the observation of one of the particles the entire universe instantanioulsy "collapses" into one of the possible states for both particles. As we measue one of the particles we turn out to be living in the universe where that one is up and the other one down.
I can't say I have any deep quantum mechanic understanding so it would be interesting to hear anyone elses thought about that (or explination why I'm terrably wrong).

Sofía T Garcia

4y↑18

I'm just a cabinetmaker and writer of novels, but I love that you explain physics in a way I can understand. (mostly lol)

Geoffrey Tobin

3y↑2

Multi-skilled!

Jim Clark

2y↑1

This helps a lot. I’ve taken several science for dummies courses on physics including his Theory of Everything with the Teaching Co. (No, I don’t even know anyone working for them.) However, I’ve struggled to understand this even after five or six courses for science dummies. This is simple and fascinating. By the way, it’s hard to blame Einstein for being bewildered by this and calling it spooky action. And he had a very human overreaction to it by not liking quantum mechanics or theory. (Dr. Lincoln gave a reassuring explanation that would probably reassure Einstein (and the rest of us) that he could appreciate his relativity and quantum mechanics.) Thanks for a great video!

Doctor Steve

2y↑1

This is one of the best plain language explanations of Bell's inequality ever done. Thanks!

Aaron Chu

Dr Lincoln can you make a video explaining the work done by Chinese scientists involving quantum computing? Ive been hearing about it recently and I think we would all benefit from your insights. Love your videos, keep up the good work!

SE Michigan Andy

4y↑5

This is the clearest and most understandable explanation of the topic that I've encountered. Thank you.

Colbert Philippe

It would be useful for entanglement specialists to collaborate to write a book on "entanglement at large" . I've read a few articles about entanglement on many bodies simultaneously. I have a background in computer-science so I imagine that there could be situations of entanglement 1) one-to-one and 2) one-to-many and 3) many-to-many. In any case, a book on this complex topic would be useful.

David Spector

Yes, more than two objects can be mutually entangled.

Biers Adajew

You're such a great teacher, thank u so much for making this so clear!

The New HeartH

That is a great explanation of the quantum entanglement theory! Thank you! It is in deed an amazing phenomenon and mind blowing at the same time. Makes me wonder and think of two things. I really liked the graphics explaining how the measurement of the spin influence the result. First thing that came to my mind, is that it really shows how the measurement (which might be also identified as an observer) influence the result. Yet, a second thing, is that even though it influences the result, there is still a harmonic order in which the particle acts. So in a way, the observer influences the effect to a certain point, but the higher order has its own rights. I believe this is something that perhaps quantum mechanics represents. Also another thing that came to my mind is that when we measure the spin in one defined direction, the other is exactly opposite, which might be a proof of duality of nature. But only, as the example shows, when we determine the direction of the measurement upfront. Maybe I missed something, but is there a way to measure the spin without defining the direction? That would probably rather be an observing act. Perhaps it was said, but does that mean, that if the measurement direction is not defined, the particle may spin in any possible direction? Does this have anything to do with quantum superposition? It is all so fascinating 🤩I have just subscribed this channel :)

David Spector

Your questions cannot be answered quite as you stated them, since there are some basics that you would need to understand first to word each question in a way that can be answered. Robert Heinlein (I think) wrote, "in order to ask a question, one must already know most of the answer."

The New HeartH

@David Spector thank you for your comment. Due to the duality of nature, I agree that every answer has a question and likewise (on a conscious or unconscious level). Surely, I am not a physician, I am just a curious explorer. I believe that exploring means asking different questions as even if we don't know the basics, we still observe reality and every question leads to another question and another and so on, leading us to answers. So to speak, as we ask questions with a child's curiosity we open up a space for the answers to come. As all the answers are in the quantum field, aren't they? We are just connecting with them. I didn't know Robert Heinlein, so thank you for introducing this interesting person 🙏 good day 🍀

David Spector

@The New HeartH You use the expression "duality of nature" without defining it, so I'm curious what you mean by this term. If you are starting from an assumption of duality rather than nonduality, you may be open to different understandings, so your meaning for "duality" is important to know (of course, you don't want to use words that have no meaning at all).

As for asking lots of questions, yes, that is a stage in our development in life. Another stage is acceptance, where we try to learn without questions. There is something to be said for both approaches. Asking questions is probably not the best approach if we don't really ever understand the answers, due to the frustration or anxiety that is left behind.

William Ogilvie

That was a very clear and easy to understand explanation of quantum entanglement. There is some kind of link between entangled particles. When that is understood, other mysteries will be revealed.

Mikkel Højbak

I don't agree that the video is long at all - longer videos suit me better. It's easier to learn everything and make the connections that help you retain it when you have things fresh in your mind. The more fragmented it becomes, the harder it is to learn.
Thanks for sharing this one - great stuff.

jakeyandhisbass

4y↑12

I see that the quantum entanglement “red bell curve” is different in shape than the hidden variables “blue pyramid”; however, I don’t understand WHY they’re different. I think that extra bit of information would’ve been great to help us compare the predictions made by both interpretations, but perhaps it would’ve taken too long to go into the math that determines those probability predictions?

David Zarate

4y↑1

That's letf out because the only way to explain it is with math i think.
This guy explains that part in his video
https://youtu.be/-WSWz1H3mJg

Max Stirner

quantum entanglement can be mesured as data and hidden variables are posibilities, so it's a perfect "line", data vs predictions

Taff Jones

4y↑2

I have been fascinated by physics all my life but sadly I am a bit thick and can't do maths. Love your visualisations. Thank you.

How do you go about actually measuring spin of a single particle? I assume lasers and liquid Nitrogen are involved somewhere. Stay safe Doc.

David Spector

2y↑1

Nope. Spin is measured using two specially-shaped long magnets. The particles travel between and along the magnets (not touching them) and are spread apart, depending on the direction of their spin. The spreading happens because the shapes make the magnetic field inhomogeneous. The device is called a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Lasers can only shoot beams of photons, which would be way too powerful and spread out to measure the spins on individual electrons, which are extremely tiny.

Taff Jones

@David Spector Thank you. Fascinating, amazing and baffling. Thanks for taking the time.

David Spector

@Taff Jones Not sure why you find the measurement of spin baffling. What baffles me is the fact that the electron always HAS a spin, and its orientation is fixed and its angular speed is constant. Spin is easy to measure, but it is hard to understand since it has no correspondence in our common sense, like so much of quantum mechanics.

Bill Oddy

6:15 - 8:08 This is probably the most important educational physics video on YouTube, by virtue of the concept it explains, and especially the apparent paradox it reconciles.

Brandon LastName

4y↑1

If the quantum information between the 2 entangled particles is passed instantaneously doesn't it imply they are somehow connected in a higher dimension (5th dimension) and in that dimension you can reach anywhere spatially instantly?

What happens if one of the entangled particles falls into a Black Hole, but before it reaches the singularity? Would it still be entangled?

EarthCulture21

This man's explanation is the best i've seen. Thank you so much!

ROBERT R Penny

4y↑1

Well said as usual Dr Don. This QM entanglement seems similar to the Pauli Exclusion principle. Which says electrons in same orbital must spin in opposite directions. Are these the same concept or just similar in appearance?

David Spector

I think it is the same principle: adding two spins in the opposite direction gives a net spin of zero.

Mosern1977

4y↑300

I would really have liked an explanation on why the wave function and hidden variables hypothesis gives different prediction of probability at say 20 degrees angle?

Copydot

4y↑34

Think about it in terms of rotating both detectors instead of just one. If you rotate detector B 20 degrees you get X% difference, if you rotate it -20 degrees (i.e. 20 degrees in the opposite direction) you get the same X% difference. So if you assume hidden variables, then rotating detector B 20 degrees and detector A -20 degrees should yield no more than 2X% difference (since the particles are just following their hidden variable programming and neither has any idea what's happening at the other detector).

If you picture both detectors rotating simultaneously in opposite directions, the percentage difference should be a linear progression as the difference from detector B is always equal to the difference from detector A. But quantum mechanics predicts greater than the 2X% difference (based on the overall angle of separation between both detectors), which is impossible unless the particle at detector A "knows" the angle of detector B and vice versa.

Someone smarter can feel free to correct me, but I think that's the gist of it :)

SharkBait42

4y↑1

@Copydot could we not measure one particle in a certain position and hold for a specific amount of time and then measure the other in all directions and use the angles to send information? (This is assuming that the angle as stated in the video is a real angle and not an analogy to explain stuff easier)

Risto Paasivirta

4y↑11

@SharkBait42 Once you measure the particle you change it's state (the wave function collapses). So after you measure the spin against the chosen alignment you cannot inquire any further what the particle's spin was before the measurement. Think of it trying to put a piece through a shaped hole. Either the piece fits through the hole and becomes the shape of the hole or it doesn't and becomes the exact opposite. Either way it can no longer be changed.
edit: fixed my analogy a bit just to make it super clear

MrCptjsparrow

It’s the same as his explanation for 90 degrees in the video. The point is that it doesn’t matter how you measure the second particle, it will have the opposite spin from the measurement of the first particle.

24 More Replies...

LOKESH

Hey, loved your content, i have a thought on Hidden variables vs Quantum mech. as it is showed in the graph, Q.M. graph was - cos wave, which strikes to me the obvious implementation of hidden variable theory, as that means probability is directly proportional to cos component (component of new measurement direction projected to vertical direction).
I think the Q.M. graph is implementation of hidden variable with vectors and other blue line as scalar implementation of it.
I guess i have messed up somewhere 😅.
would love to know where i went wrong.

David Spector

Would love to explain to you where you went wrong, if I could only understand what you wrote. The variation from linear is not a sine wave, just looks a bit like one.

Andrea Ferrante

So good, so clear, despite of the complexity and weirdness of the matter... thanks a lot

TByrom

4y↑1

Thanks a million!! I finally am able to dismiss a sneaking concern I’ve had along the lines of Einstein’s about hidden variables. THANKS FOR THIS!!!👍

David Spector

Einstein's concern was not primarily about hidden variables! His concern was about "spooky action at a distance", nonlocality. That is what Bell's work is about.

Thunder Boruto

I like the way you simplified your explanation making it easier for more people to understand easily. :D

Mar Tijn

3y↑2

Awesome explanation. One thing I did wonder after seeing this: since they discovered that the entangled particle’s spin was measured as the opposite 100% of the time, did they also try to see it that was always the case at ever larger distances? I.e., is it “transferred” instantly, or is there some upper bound, that we haven’t determined yet.

MakJnx

2y↑1

It extends to the length of the Universe. It doesn’t matter how far they are. This is an established fact of QM.

Sarah Hamby

I’m wondering this also. They say it was measured at 10 billionth of a second & it was determined to be faster than light, but how much faster than light? We know that light takes longer to reach its destination in larger distances than others, so would this be the same? Or are they connected in another way we can’t understand? 🤔

David Spector

Yes, it is a repeatable measurement. No, there is no upper bound to separation distance, since no information is being communicated.

David Spector

@MakJnx It is a presumed fact of QM. It is impossible to measure, so it is not a fact.

David Spector

@Sarah Hamby Nothing here is measured as faster than the speed of light in a vacuum! Dr. Lincoln stated that clearly.

Michael Elbert

4y↑5

Quantum entanglement blew my mind at one time .then I started believing in simulated universe theories and everything started making sense.

Justadude

Well shit.... That does make alot of sense.

Michael Fox

I cannot give thanks enough for these clear explanations and illustrations. But thank you, nonetheless!

Jason Biwer

I'm still confused. If we took an entangled particle on a ship to proxima centauri, and agreed to measure (or observe) the particle's spin once the ship arrived safely, how long would it take for that measurement (the other entangled particle's spin direction) to reach earth? Would it take the speed of light (4.22 years), or would it be instant?

Nate

4y↑2

Your whole explanation about hidden variables went right over my head.
Nevertheless, I am interested in quantum mechanics

Millennium Poise

I want to get there in my studies some day. It is great to find a video like this in a situation where my instructors only killed my interest in physics.

Varun Kr Yadav

I would love to understand the maths behind making measurements faster than speed of light! That's fascinating.

David Spector

No one has ever made measurements faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Where did you get that idea?

cavalrycome

4y↑102

You explained everything except the most important part, which is why the hidden variables and quantum mechanical predictions are different.

viper king 65

4y↑1

are you talking about the pilot wave interpretation?

NathansHVAC

4y↑3

The triangle wave is linear. But the wave function is sinusoidal. Linear would be two separate clocks where you reading them at the same time. The graph is linear because you're dividing. Say 12 divided by 1 oclock.

Ori Levenglick

4y↑6

The idea is (as far as my layman mind can grasp it):
Hidden variables tells you that the two spins are in opposite directions, and the first one is "closer" to spin up than the second, but you can't know the actual, original spins.
Quantum Mechanics says that when you measure the first spin to be up, the other one BECOMES spin down - without any probability weirdness. So you don't need to integrate over all possibilities - there is only one. And thus the result is different.

Avery Lemons

4y↑1

Pepe el Pollo

4y↑5

There's a video that explains it !! its from veritasium ,and he explians the experiment, and how the probabilities work

6 More Replies...

John Le

I came here because I was thinking to myself if Quantum Entanglement can be used in communication since its instantaneous. Imagine if you had were on a different planet or star system and you are able to communicate with someone on Earth and the messages are instant. I'm glad that the video said they are already researching this.

As I See It...

Thank you!! One of the best no bs explanations of entanglement and Bell's Theorem!

Biosciboy

Giuseppe Fasanella

4y↑1

Thanks for this video: it's clear and accurate. I have a question concerning the impossibility of sending a message via entanglement. Is it because one cannot control the collapse of the wave function "here", so one cannot decide in advance what message to send "there"? Am I seeing things in the right angle? Cheers

Brian Boyle

3y↑1

Yes, no message can be sent due to the `here` measurement being inherently probabilistic. However if you are defining a message in its minimal interpretation, one can still see the `message ` of sorts that the wave function `here` has undergone a collapsing event - in other words, has been interacted with. Hence the interest in entangled particles as `alarms` for potential compromising/listening events in otherwise secure communications systems.

Mattagast The Green

4y↑1

Isn’t entanglement a fundamental result of the two particles sharing the same wave function? Does entanglement hint at ‘sub-space’ (Trekkie ref) or multiple dimensions (String theory)?. Great video; also enjoying Don Lincoln’s ‘The Theory of Everything’ videos on The Great Courses Plus.

David Spector

Answers: 1, yes: the wave function has a peak for the first particle and another peak for the second particle. 2, No subspace, no string theory hints.

linkin543210

4y↑558

That was really helpful, can you just explain that part again about everything?

Helene L

4y↑18

Me too. It would help if my mind wasn't blown by the video. But heck, if Einstein found it weird...

Mark Burch

4y↑8

Lol. I would appreciate it if he focused more on each sentence he said.

Red Bat Racing

4y↑5

Is that you Fry?

SinJim Smythe

4y↑9

Hahahaha

The top two comments I was like, wait. Who the fuck are these people and what language are they speaking and I’m jealous. And then this comment. Thank god for it

WildWiley

4y↑2

Rewind the video

51 More Replies...

Atila The son of Danubius

excellent explanation!!! It took me to watch several videos until I found this one and now I can understand it much better.

CVBrennan

1y↑2

I think this is the best video I've seen on the subject. I'm not a physicist but I enjoy learning. I'm semi frustrated that I don't understand the logic behind the "spooky" and at the same time I trust the experts... I just wish I could see the logic. Most physicists describe the principle in simple terms but I honestly don't understand how the probabilities aren't simply inheriant upon the birth of the paired particles. At any rate I enjoy the videos and the challenge. Thanks for that!

johannesincalifornia

Best video on quantum entanglement I've seen so far. Well explained for dummies as well as deep facts for physicists.

Jeff Jordan

2y↑1

I have a simple question. If you are constantly looking at 2 entangled particles with known opposite spin direction, and you changed the direction of one particle's spin, would the other also change even though you did nothing to that particle?

David Spector

You can't do that experiment. As soon as you measure a particle's spin, the particle is absorbed. All you can observe are the statistics of millions of particles.

Zenobi Kraweznick

Brilliant and spooky at the same time, thank you!

Achint Gupta

4y↑7

When we measure the spin of any particle we are actually interacting it with field which means there are other particle involved ( meausuring device), thus measurement is another entanglement.

Menkster

3y↑1

Oh boy

John B. Cook

Dr. Don -- Great explanation. No; I still struggle and it gives me comfort to know that Einstein did also, but it seems a topic with little that is intuitive even if mathematically justified.

David Spector

Not all of Einstein's concerns have been resolved, just spooky action at a distance, which really happens.

Craig Brown

I'm a huge fan of your videos! I'd love to see a video on just entanglement and how it is produced. Are entangled particles only produced by a larger particle decay? What is known about the physics of the actual decay? Second, I agree with Mosern1977 below. You went too fast over why WF and HV theories produced different predictions at odd angles...then you declared the hidden variables must be false! Hidden variables is a very attractive idea as you yourself noted along with Einstein and as my own intuition says. "Falsification of Hidden Variables" deserves it's own video!! (at least!). Thanks again for all your hard work.

David Spector

You can have hidden variables (like the initial positions of particles), but the resulting experiments will always show that QM is nonlocal.

Studio 427

4y↑1

You deliver your things so well, as always :)

David Spector

And his things are so nice and clean and shiny, too.

Hans Egil Hansen

Damn! Not many covers do better than the original, but this blew me right off my chair. I couldn't believe my ears. Keep it comin' guys. AWESOME!

David Spector

2y↑1

I especially liked the drummer.

David Porthouse

If you want to do a computer simulation of this behaviour, then you must find a way to shift information faster than light. The information to be shifted is in the nature of a one-time pad rather than a book, and some sort of Vernam cipher is a possibility. It is recommended that anyone interested makes the Vernam cipher and the one-time pad part of their general knowledge before proceeding.

subliminalvibes

4y↑25

I just read an article this morning about how the distance record for entanglement has reached a record breaking 50km (30 miles) with the help of fibre optics.

Chris Siriska

4y↑1

That's actually really F*cking cool

kuldeep

Me too

Mark Burch

4y↑1

And according to the video its useless.

Mark Burch

4y↑1

John McKay ...you clearly didn't watch the video. Dr. Lincoln said you can't transfer information faster than light.

astrol4b

John McKay umhh instead of blaming modern physicists propose your own model to some review. It's not their fault if they lack creativity.

6 More Replies...

B for Boris

Great video as usual! Now I don't have much knowledge about quantum mechanics but I have two questions, firstly has there ever been an experiment that proves that information is transmitted faster than the speed of light ? and if so how was it conducted?
Secondly, if hypothetically, there was a way to take a bunch of entangled particles and store one of each pair in a way in which they couldn't interact with anything else, separate them by a lightyear or whatever and have two people measure their spin in only the vertical direction. The two people agree to measure their particle, say every second but the second person measures it 0.5 seconds after the first person. Couldn't the first person's measurement ( UP or DOWN), be read as ( DOWN or UP) by the second person and if they agree that UP is 1 and DOWN is 0 or vice verca, wouldn't that enable them to communicate in Binary instantaneously over great distances? There must be some information I'm missing out on but if someone could explain why it isn't possible that would be cool :)

J - Note

Astounding in every respect. I am particularly impressed with the fact that we can make faster than light measurements.

Dr.svenskpatriot

2y↑1

i believe its purely theoretical

Covid19 Alpha 2 Variant TURBO Championship Edition

@Dr.svenskpatriot indeed - hence the term Theoretical Physics

Wordy Smithsonism

I appreciate your clear explanations.

Shannon T

Thank you for the video it was very clear and I actually managed to pay attention for most of it.

Jesse Goetsch

I know the actual spin detection is beyond my current knowledge, but how do you manage to certify that each observe in separate locations are actually observing these particles at the same time. To extend upon this, the idea is that when you move an object, such as the observed particle, away from the entangled particle, the particle is hence traveling faster than the other. This would result in a (very very) small ammount of time dilation, but considering that the particles spin is only in the instantaneous moment of observation, how do you ensure that the entangled particle opposite of the observed particle is indeed spinning in opposite directions at the same period in time? Would the time dilation cause the particle, being distanced away from the other, to actually be at different times from one another, or is this accounted for/negligible in the measurement?

Magic Hands

4y↑5

Isn't it easier to assume we lack knowledge about (opposite) rotation, than to assume things travel faster than light? Couldn't said particles be set off in specific opposing rotations that we lack insight of?

Eric Deck

4y↑1

No, that would be hidden variables

Magic Hands

@Eric Deck Instant communication good, hidden variables bad?

Paul Michael Freedman

That is what is called determinism.

Cesar Omiste

One of best general explanations of quantum entanglement I've seen on the web.

Javier Arvelo-Cruz-Santana

Victor Nunnally

As the sun rose on April 14, 1561, over the German city of Nuremberg, the residents saw what they described as some kind of aerial battle take place in its glare — complete with the erratic dance of orbs, crosses, cylinders, and the appearance of a large and mysterious black arrow-shaped object — all followed by a crash-landing somewhere beyond the city limits." Public Domain

Could that recorded event been a Quantum Entanglement?

Fredrik A

Is it possible to messure the spin of particle ”a”
twice, before messure the spin of particle ”b” ?
And if so, can the spin change between the messurements, or is it ”fixed” ?

Thanks for a great vid🤗

David Spector

Good question. No, it is impossible. When you measure a spin, you absorb the particle. Spin measurements are always statistical, on millions of particles.

Willie Smith

Hello Dr. Don Lincoln, recently have become a huge fan, love the research your office does with neutrinos... but I have a question that may be a bit “abstractly impossible,” heheh please humor me... in quantum physics, if a particle is rendered into a vacuum state for any reason, is it at a halt in all possible realities? Dimensions? I’m asking because the quantum realm is perplexing enough but, I mean if Black Holes can evaporate...🤔🤷🏿‍♂️

maakuda

4y↑10

I'd like to thank Jada PS for bringing me here. Now I learnt something new and now I understand what she was talking about...2 particles in a single wave pattern. Brilliant!

Najat Abdulkarim

4y↑3

LMAOOO

Gadavillers Panoir

That's freaky action at a distance, not spooky (unless you are Will of course).

Tyler Faraday

If you separate two mirrors equally from a source, they both will be simultaneously reflecting something coherent, "Plato's cave" kind of. We normally agree with reality being a projection. I like to believe quantum mechanics is us decoding it.

Shahab méteor

Thank you for the video. one question appeared to me please.
Can't we say that the two measured particles are being "NOT" when they are entangled, so whenever we measure particles it looks like opposite ?
Like two random variables with an opposite logicial random generator at given time measured:
Generator variable X: 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 with probability distribution p1
Generator variable X': 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 with probability distribution p2
where p1=p2 which can be like wave functions in these cases

RTOD

Not advanced math literate, but is there any "offset" in the wave function? Could the second function be the inverse of the other?

Your talk is the best explanation I've heard so far, BTW. Thanks!

David Spector

The wave function of the two particles has two peaks, one for each particle.

poesboes

Would be nice if we could force a spin direction on the one particle and the opposite respond to that. Only that would send information faster then light and construe real spooky action at a distance imo. Now we just learn at the same time how an historical event from the past turned out. The splitting of the spin 0 particle.

e8root

Could you make a video describing why the shape of "hidden variables" prediction is triangular?Einstein explanation seems like something that makes more sense but of course I wouldn't expect him to be always on the spot with equations the first time and that hidden variable theory can produce sinusoidal pattern if different variables are taken thus making bell inequalities test proving nothing. Other thing which interrest me is correlation between subsequent measurements of first particle eg. vertical then horizontal vs measurement of second particle eg. horizontal and results for that. I assume those to be 50/50 random for such test because we do not talk about this, is this correct?

Alberto González Téllez

4y↑8

Newton's gravitational force was also "spooky action at a distance"

Jens Nöckel

4y↑3

That's what I tell people as well. People seem to misunderstand Einstein's comment, thinking that he was somehow scared. In reality, he called it "spukhafte Fernwirkung" in clear reference to what you mention. In German, Fernwirkung is legitimate physics terminology for the forces of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., forces acting instantaneously over finite distances. Wirkung in this usage comes from the old times, when even Newton was calling forces "actio." Given the context, I would assume that Einstein really meant it as a derisive description by putting a quantum phenomenon in the same category as a discredited idea from classical physics. The "spooky" is just added to emphasize the joke, to make it clear that he didn't really think that's what's going on.

espacio hexadimencional serna

4y↑1

@Jens Nöckel I still think that Einstein is wrong by saying that light is constant, light is proved by quantum entanglement not to be, whene they say that 2 atoms are in 2 places at the same time, they see such effect because light goes IN then goes OUT way to fast that in a matter of a very, very, very small fraction of a second it comes and goes to where it needs to go so they only see the atom whene it stops in one side then whene it stops in the other side cause the atom acts as a marble in a band that goes in one direction then stops to change to the other side. Atoms entangled are like a band whene the up side goes left the bottom side goes to the right.

espacio hexadimencional serna

@Jens Nöckel light dobles each time that is why gravity in a free fall the speed doubles each second. The serie PHI goes kind about the same but not realy, you now 1pluss 1= 2, 2 and 1= 3, 3 and 2= 5 and so on that in a matter of few times passes light speed anlist the numbers.

Alberto González Téllez

4y↑1

@Jens Nöckel vielen dank for your comment, I like the original version of "spooky action at a distant", to foreigners it really sounds "scary" :-)

Alberto González Téllez

4y↑3

@Mtf gravity is the results of space-time bending and the variations of the bending (gravitational waves) propagate at the speed of light. Relativity sets the "speed of light" as the speed limit of causality, this is why quantum entanglement is out of rule.

3 More Replies...

G

I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder's channel for physics. Although she's German, she's far more articulate (in English) than most native speakers. She's also very intelligent, so her understanding and explanation of topics is at a significantly higher level than what you typically find on YouTube.

Two cool dudes

Certainly helps me visualize quantum entanglement. Well done.

1kreature

What if you use sequences of measurements to create statistical skew?
If you use 3 entangled pairs and measure the first one for up/down spin it would be 50/50 until you measured it. As would the 2 others. If you got a up, you measure the second while knowing the other end measurements on the entangled particles would be a down for the first one. If the second is an up as well, you measure the third. You thus only perform all 3 measurements if the first two are up's. Measuring on the other end will then give a 50/50 spread for first value always, but you will know that if you get a down, the second measurement will be determined as opposite of the first since it will also have been measured. The same goes for the third assuming second was also a "down". Depending on how you look at this you are either picking possible outcomes, or you are just increasingly less likely to measure. I am wondering if the odds of measuring downs on second and third coupled measurements are affected by this decision or if the outcomes are still 50/50 but you now know what they were in first set of measurements.

lanimulrepus

Super presentation as always... Would like to get the exact reference to Einstein referring to "quantum entanglement" as "spooky action at a distance"...

Creature of the Universe

Is it possible to induce a change in a particles spin direction? If an entangle pair has their spin direction identified are their spin directions now considered known and set for the rest of the existence of the universe? So if it were to be entangle again with a new particle, wouldn't it now look like it was entangled by hidden variable.

HoboLobo

4y↑6

This is such an underrated channel.

AsherAhmed1

So the thing is that when a single photon splits into two, the entangled photons have exactly the opposite spins.
If the photon shot has zero spin then the other two would have opposite spin to cancel them out.
When one photon is measured, the other turns out to be exactly the opposite. I don't know about math stuff but what is spooky in this common sense.
If it turns out to be a different spin (not opposite) then that should be spooky because the total spin is not zero now.

samprity datta roy

hello, Dr. Don Lincoln could you make some mathematically based videos? your explanation really makes topics easier to comprehend.
thanks

David Spector

A video that is mathematically-based could not be seen with the eyes. It would be too abstract to interact with your computer.

Old Anime

4y↑1

My Say

Should we discuss why exactly quantum entanglement cannot be used in the transfer of information? Is the claim that if the spin is changed for particle 1, the spin of particle 2 is unaffected, and no longer entangled? And what happens if all spin directions are tested at the exact same time for the first? Or does it work like lines of computer code where only one line of code is executed at a time? This then leads me to the ultimate question: Does this prove we exist in a simulation?

Mark Wallin

The faster than light speed limit applies only to matter, but according to General Relativity, there is no limit to how fast space can move or expand relative to other space. Is it not therefore possible that the entanglement effect does not utilize matter at all (particles, etc.) but is only a spacial process?

BainesMkII

4y↑26

The video doesn't cover why the hidden variable must result in that particular probability line. At a surface level, it feels like there should be forms of hidden variable(s) that would deliver a curve similar to quantum mechanics.

TheNasaDude

4y↑10

You can't use a random function for describing any hidden variables. In this particular case, you have a result (value of measurement for the second particle) fully depending on the measurement on the first particle (because at the beginning there are only 1 blue and 1 red balls, so if one is red/spin up, the other must be blue/spin down). So the equation needs to be y=-x or more in general y=ax+b, which is a straight line equation

Piperfect

Yes, I thought very similar.

Piperfect

4y↑1

@TheNasaDude You just explained what I disagree with.

Culvea Solvere

Spooky action at a distance proves one thing, (and yes they've proven that two particles share everything in an experiment) It proves that there is a subspace where this information goes in order for both particles to interact across vast distances, as if distance is an illusion. (I've always believed distance was an illusion and that photons were not the only means of communication across lightyears technically can happen instantaneously) we just have to create the technology.

marcelino galicia

You mentioned quantum teleportation, is it possible for something let's say a physical building to be teleported from another parallel world, into this one? whether done intentionally or inadvertently.

Jan Kadlček

What is spooky is the 100% reliability of the spin measurement in case of 0 and 180 degree. I mean, come on: there is always some strange outlier. And suddenly here, in the world ruled by probability, you have something certain.

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now