Karanlık

Does Quantum Entanglement Allow for Faster-Than-Light Communication?

Cool Worlds
Abone ol
görünümler 711 828
50% 1 1

Bilim ve Teknoloji

katma

 

27 Kas 2022

Paylaş:

Paylaş:

Herunterladen:

Yük bağlantısı.....

Ekle:

Çalma listem
Daha sonra izle
YORUMLAR 4 820
Schottingham
Schottingham 2 aylar önce
I love how many of these videos with a question in the title turn out to be "probably not", because you're clearly not setting out to prove these things wrong; in fact you (and maybe most of us) want the answers to be 'yes', but you seem to really work through the science and find that the evidence is just not there. This is the sort of critical thinking we need to teach.
Geroff Milan
Geroff Milan 8 gün önce
@rokpepeshogun quantum teleportation is not quantum communication. You need to watch the video, completely, and then cross-reference. Not a single credible person - including those great people on that experiment you mention - will contradict the statement that interacting with an entangled particle breaks entanglement. This fact in turn defeats the notion of communication, because communication by definition requires interaction.
Geroff Milan
Geroff Milan 8 gün önce
@John Kelly interacting with one of the entangled pair - in any way - breaks entanglement. Apart from anything else, this is why creating quibits for quantum computing is so hard: maintaining entanglement.
Geroff Milan
Geroff Milan 8 gün önce
@soundtrancecloud 🤦‍♂️ Who was it debunked by?; your favourite flathead? How would Alice & Bob know the state of the particles without measuring them & breaking their entanglement? You should maybe go back to Peter and Jane books, work your way up from there.
Geroff Milan
Geroff Milan 8 gün önce
@Renegade Shep loves his M-6 Carnifex Hand Cannon i think Jan's PhD is in advertising - but no, that would indicate communication skills, of which I see little evidence...
Geroff Milan
Geroff Milan 8 gün önce
@BobDa D'Naila WTAF are you frothing about? 🤣 Did you get separated from the rest of the sentient tsunami of sausage gravy?
Gareth G
Gareth G Aylar önce
I read a lot of science fiction. When I was younger, I naively believed that quantum entanglement truly could make FTL communications possible. But as I've learned more about quantum mechanics and how things actually happen, I became increasingly skeptical of the idea. The final nail in the coffin of FTL communication for me was learning that you can't observe particles at a distance. It's not like watching a ball roll on a table where you can see how it moves without affecting it. We have to measure particles using light, which (to use my earlier analogy) is like having to poke the ball in order to see which way it is moving. We can determine from the forces on your finger which way the ball was moving, but now that we've measured it, it's moving in an entirely different way.
Romuland Meier
Romuland Meier Gün önce
What if we use a very small finger and move ist very gentle and fast?
isTrav
isTrav Aylar önce
"you can't observe particles at a distance" - interesting... just thinking here: they say in order to move at the speed of light it's mass or information must = 0 ... ok that makes sense to me but what is the entropy of that thing moving at the speed of light then? What I am getting at here is maybe we don't need to "observe" what we already know because our methods of communication are based off patterns and algorithms (special relativity).
Greg Burton
Greg Burton Aylar önce
Great description, thanks
Francis Chaves
Francis Chaves Aylar önce
Thank you for another awesome video! It is fairly established that we cannot communicate based on the results of any measurement. But what if we communicate based on the frequency of the measurements? If Bob measures 5 particles in rapid succession, he is transmitting the letter E. If he measures 3 particles in rapid succession, he is transmitting the letter C, and so on.
Mark Barge
Mark Barge 6 gün önce
Finally! An explanation I can actually understand. Your ability to communicate very complex ideas in such a clear and understandable way is by far the best I've come across. Keep up the great work!
MoOrion
MoOrion 2 aylar önce
I've wondered if Quantum entanglement might indicate the existence of a Subspace... or Hyperspace... to use Scifi terms, that me may one day learn to manipulate for communication or travel.
Romuland Meier
Romuland Meier Gün önce
Or it might show that distance is an illusion.
BRUXXUS
BRUXXUS 2 aylar önce
I've watched, read, and listened to hours of explanations of why QEC should be impossible, and you effortlessly, finally made it clear. It's so much simpler than I tried understanding that it makes me a little frustrated that it's been so poorly communicated by others.
SulKel
SulKel 23 gün önce
​@Greg Hotbread "What I ALSO understood is that you cannot know if particle B has already collapsed, unless you observe it and then you defeat the whole purpose because the act of observation collapse the particle anyways.", yes this is why you cannot have FTL communication. As for your question, just look into the experiments.
Christer Svanström
@Greg Hotbread, it was some time ago I was actually keeping up with the latest finds and I haven't read that paper so this would be something of an educated guess, but what you _can_ do is decide beforehand _when_ to measure, write down your observation and then using normal communication to compare those observations. What you can't do is transmit any information. The universe we inhabit seems to have no problem with FTL as long as no information is being transmitted... like moving the beam from a laser pointer across a surface.
Greg Hotbread
Greg Hotbread Aylar önce
@Christer Svanström I'm wondering the same thing. They DID measure it, 15km apart: they detected a time of both collapses happening at least at 10000x the speed of light. If you can measure this, then to me, it means than when team "A" observe particle A and collapse it, team "B" can detect that particle B has collapsed, somehow. What am I missing? What I ALSO understood is that you cannot know if particle B has already collapsed, unless you observe it and then you defeat the whole purpose because the act of observation collapse the particle anyways. So how did they measure the timing of this seemingly non-measurable thing? What people commonly refer as the "Chinese experiment"? Or was it a hoax? Thanks for your insights
Christer Svanström
@Greg Hotbread, so how do you measure without making a measurement? If you make the measurement, you just collapsed the waveform.
Greg Hotbread
Greg Hotbread Aylar önce
As a musician, I still think communication is possible: you can still reliably time WHEN the collapse occured. That is relevant information. Forget about reading spins left/right, down/up: just read when the collapse occured. It seems to be possible since they measured the collapse to be 10000x faster than the speed of light: you know that it occured precisely at a precise timing, they were able to measure this at least. Just collapse a bunch of particles in a rythmic pattern and you have information there. As simple as a rapid interval of collapse means 1 and a slow interval means 0 (of course 2ms could be read as 0 and 4ms a 1 (or even faster, as long as it's reliable), computer are way faster that human at this. Am I missing something? Any phisicist care to join the conversation?
Jarrad Gray
Jarrad Gray Aylar önce
Wish I had you as a lecturer at University, your ability to communicate and break down extreme complexity into simplified terminology, then bring us(the viewer) back up to the level of understanding through step by step learning to give us understanding of such complexity is brilliant..(I hope that even made sense) No offence to the seriously intelligent people out there with in their specialised fields, but not every PHD, Dr, or Prof can communicate with the masses.. At university I was told by a Doctor of Chemistry that "a Dr knows a heck of alot about very little". 😊 it took me a moment to realise how true that statement was.
Al Als
Al Als Aylar önce
haha......"a Dr knows a heck of alot about very little". Great quote
Wayne Mailles
Wayne Mailles 2 aylar önce
First of all I appreciate ur channel and the work you put it I’m in love with the cosmos and wish I would’ve chased a career in cosmology , Physics but anyhow… I had an idea on this topic myself but it led me straight to the same verdict now that I understand the measuring faults of quantum entanglement…. Just wish we could create some kind of “bridge keeper” or something to hold onto the “ bridge “ of entanglement of two particles so that way when we measured one or the others spin the entanglement would survive… theoretically of course … the cosmos is awesome and not knowing everything is also awesome… it is fun to think and wonder after all
Frank F
Frank F Aylar önce
Prof, you're very good at explaining such a difficult (for me) theory from unobtainable for my intellect to something that I'm beginning to grasp. Thank you.
Si Traat
Si Traat Aylar önce
Such a thought-provoking video. Thank you. Keep up the great work.
Glitche Rade
Glitche Rade 2 aylar önce
It's the first time I actually understood entanglement, very well done mate, I always love your way of explaining.
Christer Svanström
Christer Svanström 2 aylar önce
@Mandi, the fact that the shoebox example makes you think that there's nothing going on between the particles is a good example of why there really is no good way of making quantum mechanics understandable by the use of anything we can relate to on the macroscopic level. There's a reason why professors teaching QM have a reputation of answering any attempted question with _"shut up and calculate",_ since there really _is_ no way, other than mathematically, to understand it. I absolutely understand why you want a better explanation for how we know that it's more to it than just two halves of a whole. Sadly the less than satisfying answer, though, is either going to be _"because I said so"_ or, if you have the mathematical knowledge for it, to look up Bell's theorem or contact your local university and study QM (I can really recommend the latter, it's quite interesting if you manage to retain some of your sanity). :-)
tSp289
tSp289 2 aylar önce
@Olog Hai But what if you put a phone in the shoe?
Matthew Frost
Matthew Frost 2 aylar önce
@Nick_85 after watching this video I think it is predetermined. We can't affect the outcome of the first observation so how would we know that the first observation affects the second?
Nick_85
Nick_85 2 aylar önce
The shoe bix is not a good explanation because it implies that the position (left or right foot) is already determined before openibg the box.
CANADIAN Videos
CANADIAN Videos 2 aylar önce
@Gravoc your last few words address the confusion that many, including me, have had with understanding this concept. You can only observe it once, so it’s not like you are able to observe a rotation that’s in one direction and wait to see if it changes to rotate in the other direction at some point. I always felt like we could simply watch the particle until it changed in some way, but the initial observation ends the entanglement reaction. It’s a fascinating topic.
Edward Arredondo
Edward Arredondo 2 aylar önce
Amazingly explained. Thank you for all your efforts I always look forward to your new content.
maalekar
maalekar 2 aylar önce
A question. I read on a recent article that they had tested entanglement 24km apart and it held. That said your article states the function of making the connection is local. So are they physically transporting already entangled particles apart to achieve that? I realize then that due to lack of locality we can't get a stream of them to create FTL communications, but, it does seem that it's impossible under current understanding. Let's play a game... what if we can localize a wormhole link of sorts between them? Of course, then the comms wouldn't need to be quantum based either ;)
King Ston
King Ston 16 saatler önce
If you can get a worm hole we can just use a normal piece of paper write down what we want and pass it through 😂
Goose
Goose Aylar önce
Excellent video. Clear and concise explanations.
Cem Berendsen
Cem Berendsen 2 aylar önce
This was a very inspiring video! keep up the good work!
Sunitha M
Sunitha M 10 saatler önce
hey cool worlds,I just love ur videos ,they r so intriguing and mind blowing.I have a question though,i.e ,If we measured the spin state of one of the particles (say 1)of an entangled pair then the other particle(say 2) must collapse into the other spin state .So even before we measure particle 2's spin it already exists in one of the definite spin states and is not a superposition of both the spins. Doesn't this contradict the fact that a particle must be a superposition of two spins??pls help me understand
Tyler Doepker
Tyler Doepker Aylar önce
I really appreciate this channel for making the aspect ratio friendly to us giant android phone users so we can use our phones full screen potential.
Tom Diver
Tom Diver 2 aylar önce
I really like the easy understandable explanations of difficult physics that you are presenting in your fantastic videos, thank you! BUT what if we use time itself to transport the information instead of the entangled state of the particle? Bob measures his particles and it doesn’t matter which result he gets. Alice sees this and gets a random result list, but BOB does this in a second period from one measurement to the next for a 1 and in a 2 second period for a 0 as an example. Now the result is not important, just the time between measurements! 😄
Tomasz Dziemianczuk
Tomasz Dziemianczuk 22 gün önce
​@matt upwardsNonwards Well i think it's because, You would have to observe the rate of measurment, but to do that you have to observe all the particles at once, and the superposition of particles collapses at the time of observation, so you'll just see all the particles collapsing at once. Causality's a bitch...
matt upwardsNonwards
matt upwardsNonwards 29 gün önce
This is the same thought I had
Sabas Marín Nogales
I was thinking exactly that, a system similar to a telegram where the dots and lines are the intervals between signals. I imagine there is some sort of caveat, since we probably gave it 2 minutes of thought, and obviously if many physicists are struggling with this problem they would have arrived at some point to this solution,
Ithirahad
Ithirahad 2 aylar önce
Thanks a lot for making this video to extensively clear up the misconception about quantum entanglement. Outside of that, though, in a sense, FTL 'travel' already happens at sufficiently large scales as a result of the inflation of the universe... that's exactly what forms the edge of the observable universe, after all. And we have no idea what dark energy is, or if it can somehow be harnessed or concentrated to produce comparable effects at a more convenient scale. So I would not give up hope just yet.
RazyMon
RazyMon 2 aylar önce
If any interaction with an entangled particle collapses its state, then there's no way for Alice to observe changes without affecting the state of the pair. In other words, if there's no way to observe (let alone affect) a particle state without collapsing it, this system is pretty useless as a mean of communication.
Nick Monks
Nick Monks Aylar önce
@ScottLL Yes. If you don't measure it, you won't know the spin. But the moment you measure it, you have no idea if it's partner had already been measured. And there's no way to influence that spin. By never knowing if the other person measured the spin first, you can't send any information.
Ilya Korolkov
Ilya Korolkov 2 aylar önce
@Flo why not? In the video, it was said that the two slits won't give you interference pattern while entanglement is in place. So let Bob to absorb his particle(s), which would set (collapse) the Alice side free to display interference. Seems like it is detectable whether the Alice particles are entangled or not.
B l o o m p
B l o o m p 2 aylar önce
What about abserving without judgement, in meditation state
Flo
Flo 2 aylar önce
You can’t measure collapsed/uncollapsed. You collapse by measuring. And Alice can never know if the collapse was caused by Alice's measurement or if it was already collapsed beforehand by Bob.
Viking Teddy
Viking Teddy 2 aylar önce
@Cody Jordan Thanks, much clearer now :)
Harder Stylez SA
Harder Stylez SA Aylar önce
Great video man! I too had some difficulty understanding it. I am by no means a physicist, but the universe leaves me in awe. So I've been checking through the comments wondering if anyone else has my question, as I was hoping it might come up in the video but it didn't. I thought the XY bit might be it. Anyway, if Bob's message is as simple as signalling a planet's habitability then couldn't we just use 2 pairs of entangled particles for that? And assign one pair as positive and the other as negative, and depending on Bob's intention he could then collapse the appropriate pair? Is a basic message like that possible? It seems so simple? Sneakily too simple lol.
Harder Stylez SA
Harder Stylez SA Aylar önce
Furthermore if that could work, my next question would be are these pairs difficult or expensive to create and transport or can we send vast amounts? Because if we aren't limited then surely we could use the same principle to send back more detailed messages in morse code?
The Baylis Code
The Baylis Code 2 aylar önce
It will be awesome to see the day when this type of technology is solved.
shingnosis
shingnosis 2 aylar önce
Thank you, this is something which has been bugging me a lot in sci-fi. Entangled particles are like having two pieces of candy that look the same, one is sweet and one is sour. Then you give one to a friend and he travels to the other side of the planet. If you eat your candy you'll know what flavor you got, and what flavor your friend received. But it really does you no good other than that. If you want to talk to your friend and ask him if he liked his candy you still have to use your phone. And obviously you can't change the flavor of the other candy by doing anything to your own candy.
Skipper G44
Skipper G44 Aylar önce
wrong, there are no hidden states
TheChzoronzon
TheChzoronzon Aylar önce
@Cyberfunk "Now you say we can't invert it after randomly fixed by nature" Lol, you are by now so buttmad you can even read anymore I have admited the opposite, twice: "You can CHANGE the spin direction" "once RANDOMLY fixed by nature, you can invert it. " :D "Quantum computer will not solve P = NP" I didn't say otherwise... again, take a cold shower, bro "The Chinese have a quantum COMPUTER which achieved quantum supremacy in a specific scenario" Lol, no, that's not a computer... and autistically repeating yourself isn't gonna change that "and many other parties like IBM and Google have quantum computers that run software that anyone can code." bwhahaha suuure... in your dreams
Merilix2
Merilix2 Aylar önce
@Cyberfunk Again, QM says nothing about if and what happens remotely during measurement. Its all about probabilities and its transition into partial knowledge.
Cyberfunk
Cyberfunk Aylar önce
@TheChzoronzon You said the spin can't be altered or manipulated but it can. Now you say we can't invert it after randomly fixed by nature, which is also wrong. We can alter it, we can manipulate it, we can invert it any time we like. The first quantum computer was made in 1998 and people can nowadays even run their own programs on them remotely via using public libraries from Google and IBM. Quantum computer will not solve P = NP, it can be used to solve instances of such problems but not solve the actual problem of whether or not P is in NP. Quantum computer doesn't need to be generally programmable to be able to solve a problem, what is a computer in your book is irrelevant. The Chinese have a quantum computer which achieved quantum supremacy in a specific scenario and many other parties like IBM and Google have quantum computers that run software that anyone can code.
TheChzoronzon
TheChzoronzon Aylar önce
@Cyberfunk "They already exist and quantum supremacy was also achieved for one problem and computer last year in China" Link, please (Tho I already bet you a beer it's gonna be wishful thinking and bs... given that for starters not even the P =/= NP problem has been resolved...) Edit: nevermind, I found it...and as expected: "However, Weedbrook points out that as yet, and in contrast to Google’s Sycamore, the Chinese team’s photonic circuit is not programmable, so at this point “it cannot be used for solving practical problems" Not programable means no computer, in my book What the chinese have done, and at room temperature sure lol, it's to simulate a QM process with another QM process, not compute anything... exactly the kind of mental juggling I anticipate around this subject (btw, the Google team claim was also poopoo once you dwell in the details...) I, unlike you, am well versed in the field of PR corporate bs...but thanks for your concern :)
Bunny Joker
Bunny Joker Aylar önce
Well, at least you can make 2 entities on each side of the galaxy synchronize their behavior based on entangled particles randomness. This could be used as metrics for some things that requires to be done exactly mirrored far distances away.
patrick wanko
patrick wanko 2 aylar önce
Great video. Thank you for your approach to make the topic so easy to follow thru. Quick question though: since that with quantum entanglement, the state seems to be transmitted instantly, why care about the spin state itself and not instead the moment the remote entangled particle revealed its state?
rylandrc
rylandrc 2 aylar önce
According to the video, You cannot constantly observe an entangled particle to see when its state is revealed, since observing breaks the entanglement.
N Marbletoe
N Marbletoe Aylar önce
It's like Alice and Bob can observe the roll of the same die, but they can't change the number that is rolled. With a shared action plan, they could synchronize random motions of two spaceships, but they couldn't send information.
Gabrote42
Gabrote42 Aylar önce
If we could detect wether a particle collapsed, it would be easy. Just grab X particles so you can send a message consisting of one out of X^2-1 codes with pre-arranged meanings, where each collapsed particle is a 1 in binary. But I don't think we can, so it's moot
Machine Elf
Machine Elf 2 aylar önce
This was actually one of the easier to understand explanations of quantum entanglement I have seen. It seems that spin is really just a product of some law of conservation. If two particles are created from a single source they must have opposite spin but the quantum nature of the particle means that spin is only opposite each other but entirely randomly up or down and on the access chosen by the observer. Am I wrong, or is their really no significance to the direction of spin other than showing two particles are entangled? Mind you I know nothing of quantum field theory, I didn’t even go to college, so please enlighten me if you know more about particle properties like spin and flavor.
Henrik Morsing
Henrik Morsing 2 aylar önce
Great video. You explained it nicely. Thanks.
Tim Rundle-Wood
Tim Rundle-Wood 2 aylar önce
Another incredibly thought provoking video, thank you so much David for the time you put into them. I believe in miracles and I believe our seemly mundane every day existence is the miracle
Darth Evol
Darth Evol Aylar önce
Thank you for your videos. You have a way to engage and make my brain hurt in the first 9/10ths of your videos, then engage and make my heart hurt (in a good way) the last 10%.
G. G.K.O.
G. G.K.O. 2 aylar önce
Both relativity and quantum theories are a clear indication that there must be a lot stuff that we currently just do not know about reality as it is. The fact that, for example, quantum entanglement works faster than light proves that the theory of relativity represents some sort of fallacy; because it sometimes gives us correct answers and sometimes does not. In this context, it is important to remember that the well-known Michelson-Morley experiment gives us two different mathematically correct interpretations of its result, depending on which mathematical transformations we use to describe the experiment. If we use the Lorentz relativistic transformations (rules), we get a conformation of the theory of relativity. However, if we use the classical Newtonian transformations (sometimes called Galileo transformations or rules) we get conformation of the classical physics with no upper speed limit. Furthermore, the use of the classical transformation in this experiment appears to support the existence of aether (which may well be the “dark” matter). Considering that the original intention of the Michelson-Morley experiment was to prove or disprove the existence of aether…
M Radisa Pratama
M Radisa Pratama Aylar önce
This is the answer I hoped from you. As a person who failed at physics I can't do anything but silently watch physicists and the other people discuss the formula and interpret it. My question is always "How can you define a useful communication while neither of you know it or not needing to know it the first place since it breaks the moment either of you measure it and the opposite of you not knowing it breaks yet which is simply "sending information without knowing that information from the first place". How can you have a good communication while neither of your observations needed?" And this might be rooted from my ignorance since I don't know physics and your explanation corrects all of my misconceptions of that although I have the shared answer that is a solid no, or at least not enough. The difference is that my argument is filled with misconceptions and ignorance while you have valid reasons.
Guillem Segura Pascual
y yoo😮😮ooy
Ryan Eglitis
Ryan Eglitis Aylar önce
I love how half the comments are congratulating you on how well you explained this difficult topic, and the other half are correcting you about how it is possible because they don't understand what you just told them 😅
J.D. J.
J.D. J. Aylar önce
You would be surprised. Sometimes you just might luck out and present a theory that is right in front of everyone's face but, They can't see it. Sometimes a outsider can think of something off the wall that just could work. Keep thinking everybody. 🤔
Dominic Miller
Dominic Miller 2 aylar önce
After listening to a lecture by Alain Aspect two weeks ago, I've decided to attack the subject with the book "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David J Griffiths and Darrell F. Schroeter, it's pure food for the brain. Your video couldn't be more on target with the topic. As usual, very interesting and clear with a great sound quality and beautiful video editing. 👍
anticat900
anticat900 2 aylar önce
Good video with good explanations. While relativity is complete and a perfect understanding. Quantum theory at least in this area, is at best only a half of the story. Where a possible wave function outcome needs to collapse before we can manage them, shows we are missing something, the world just isn't that fantastical, we just cannot mathematically comprehend it -yet.
Private Name
Private Name 2 aylar önce
I see: it's actually by checking the entangled particles' properties that they lose their entanglement. Hence, if you were to check whichever particle, the first checking of it will mean it spins a certain way, but then changing the spin won't work for the other particle. Also, just because you check that particular particle doesn't mean your friend in some other galaxy will too. That sucks.
big phab
big phab 2 aylar önce
@semasiologistics but even if you didn't have a side channel, like we can both agree they are most likely using today, the prearranged protocol is more than enough to do the negotiation and subsequently convey a message.
big phab
big phab 2 aylar önce
@semasiologistics for instance, to use your idea of side channel confirmation. It's my understanding that once entanglement is achieved they are stuck like that until an outside force breaks it. My understanding is that the force has a high probability of requiring intent to be effective. That said, nothing would stop you from increasing the distance once the entanglement is verified and the protocol is negotiated.
big phab
big phab 2 aylar önce
@semasiologistics couple things... First thanks for clarifying what you meant. Not what I thought you were saying at all. Next, I do agree that communication probably hasn't been achieved. Since it would be huge news. I'm not inclined to agree to getting too nit picky on the semantics of what constitutes communication though. Primarily because, to use your explanation of how entanglement was proven, proving entanglement can be a semantic proof of communication as well. Or at least proof of viability as a medium. I don't know how to link to my rebuttal that I made before replying to this comment but you should check it out. It's my own thread. Should be right below our conversation here. Next, when I watched this video I saw an argument against that viability due to the nature of entanglement. Essentially, what I said in my rebuttal was, seemingly prohibitive nature's have been hurdles for many mediums that we currently use today. They were all over come by protocols. Which I suggest for overcoming this mediums nature as well.
semasiologistics
semasiologistics 2 aylar önce
@big phab On that note, I can understand how people might doubt the distance that these particles' entanglement can apparently traverse instantaneously. That is to say, I don't dispute the math or the findings from the experiments, but am skeptical of the claim that one could separate them by like 10,000 light years and have them behave as though right next to each other just the same. There's no way for us to check, of course, but perhaps as the centuries carry on, provided we make it that far (which I highly doubt), we'll have some better idea of the limits of this instantaneousness. Maybe within a certain distance they behave this way but beyond that they simply fail to have any effect on one another. Otherwise, the implications are that they somehow aren't constrained by space or time, and yet are measurable right here in front of us. Hard to know.
semasiologistics
semasiologistics 2 aylar önce
@big phab Ah, you don't understand? I see. No problem, I can repeat. By checking the properties of any particular particle, scientists can't see the particle that it is entangled with from a distance by said means only. They have to communicate this information to one another by some other means. In other words: If they call each other up and say "so is it spinning" or whatever, they can of course respond. However, if there is no way for them to talk to each other and they are attempting to communicate solely through the entangled particles, it won't work. That's the entire point of the video. So, sure, a mere couple of miles is no feat for the speed of light (communication), but try that where light needs hundreds of thousands of years to get to its destination. The point of quantum entanglement would be to get around that speed barrier. In short: we know they are entangled because it's proven already, it's just we can't know which ones are entangled and which aren't through said means only, otherwise that would constitute communication. :) All the experiment demonstrated is a new distance of entanglement, not quantum communication.
CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS
CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS 2 aylar önce
Every single time I thought of a potential solution, you said it right as the thought was entering my brain, in the same order I thought of them.
CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS
@Rosae Ruber he's positing it as a thought experiment. I was playing along. I didn't really expect to think of a solution while I sat watching a youtube video. It was more that I had a repeated series of "why not _______?" just as he started to explain that very solution each time.
Rosae Ruber
Rosae Ruber Aylar önce
what did you expect? experts know what they're doing.
Ovi Wan Kenobi
Ovi Wan Kenobi 2 aylar önce
Man, I was really hoping. I didn't know this was a one time link. I really wonder why that is. What keeps them so insanely entangled over maybe infinite distances and just seemingly ignores the speed of causality.. and why? It could be so cool if this has something to do with the universe being likely multi dimensional and how space time interacts with what we can't perceive beyond it. Sounds akin to something like dark matter and dark energy... just beyond our understanding or measurement devices.
xxxjamxxx
xxxjamxxx 2 aylar önce
I always feel like I'm transcending somewhere when watching these videos, completely mind blown and just don't want them to end. Defo gonna grab one of those t-shirts one day! Keep up the amazing work!!!
The Secretary
The Secretary 2 aylar önce
@WloCkuz Oh for sure, there defo is a way to do it even if by our current understanding it's "impossible"
WloCkuz
WloCkuz 2 aylar önce
@The Secretary Trust me we'll figure something out, Not saying that we are the masters of the universe by any means but we have figured out seemingly impossible things and FTL communication is just that.
xxxjamxxx
xxxjamxxx 2 aylar önce
@firestarter923 Nice! Plus if you're wearing it out and someone clocks it, you just know they're going to be cool!
firestarter923
firestarter923 2 aylar önce
I already have a cool worlds hoodie and a mug, well worth it to remind myself to stay thoughtful and curious (and they actually look great) 😀
Skynet the AI
Skynet the AI 2 aylar önce
Get it get it, you know… Hennything IS Possible!
Leander Hughes
Leander Hughes Aylar önce
Great explanation. Thank you!
TomtheMagician21
TomtheMagician21 2 aylar önce
What happens if they measure at 45°? Would there be some angle of measurement in which there's like a 50.1% chance or something?
Big Fan
Big Fan 2 aylar önce
I understood nothing but loved and watched the entire video nonetheless. Amazing work.
ilarion ispas
ilarion ispas Aylar önce
as a real Big Fan 😅
A Yashwanth
A Yashwanth Aylar önce
8:45 How can we say that neither particle has a definite spin value before measurement, if the spin value can be found only after measuring it? It could be that the spin value for 2 particles may be set during superimposition and the same will be found if we measure it.
Rob Nathan
Rob Nathan 2 aylar önce
Thank you for all this content. I agree with others, you are truly inquisitive, accessible, willing to admit when we Don't Know, or even more importantly, willing to question what we think we know! 🙏🏼
Bassotronics
Bassotronics 2 aylar önce
The interesting thing about going to the past to modify your future is that just the mere fact of getting there and moving molecules when they were not supposed to be moving in the first place is enough to create a paradox without you having to do anything.
Nick Monks
Nick Monks Aylar önce
Which just suggests, if it were possible to do, that there is indeed some kind of multiverse. What if the entire universe was nothing more than an infinite number of superpositions waiting to be collapsed. Every variation would be a different universe. All of them "real'.
hmm
hmm Aylar önce
Two things come to mind. 1. Deeper research into understanding how to detect if a particle is entangled or not … if this can be solved we’d have a way to communicate FTL. 2. Entangled Particles are obviously communicating somehow, digging into the how could be the medium we use for FTL communication
michael andrews
michael andrews 18 gün önce
Stating something is obvious in Quantum Mechanics shows a clear misunderstanding of quantum Mechanics.
SulKel
SulKel 23 gün önce
@wes johnson at the moment yes, but things might change. I have to dig deeper into this
wes johnson
wes johnson 26 gün önce
@Merilix2 I agree about Copenhagen. Not advocating that as gospel. Of course the wave function is a model. Some argue it is physically real (like many worlds advocates), but even if s bookkeeping device, it does seems to model something physically real. "Collapse" is another term we use for lack of a better term or model. With caveats I think we can use them meaningfully. That said, it is true that only one wave function is needed to completely describe the entire system. And there is no uncertainty about the system, just the parts. They are entirely random which is a necessity for a maximally entangled system. I just noticed reading through the thread that you were replying to the initial comment and not mine. lol. Oh well, sorry 'bout that.
Merilix2
Merilix2 26 gün önce
@wes johnson Well, the one wave function you are talking about is just a probabilistic math model. This wave function does what every function about probabilities have to do if you get measured results. The model collapses from uncertainty into (partial) certainty. In my opinion its just misleading layman's if the word "collapse" is used like something really happens remotely at that moment. I think, entanglement is about the contrast between uncertain principle and conservation laws. I'm pretty sure, the Copenhagen interpretation as good as it really is is not the end of the story yet.
wes johnson
wes johnson 27 gün önce
@Merilix2 Not waves, but one wave. Being entangled means they share a single wave function. That single wave contains two particles worth of information in the possible selections of (up/down) and (down/up). When one particle is measured it collapses that single wave function for both. They do not need to communicate. They have no choice but be opposite as there is no (up/up) or (down/down) possibility to randomly measure.
Gunnar Heiberg
Gunnar Heiberg 2 aylar önce
@Cool Worlds… I don’t always agree with you, but I love your manner of presentation. Keep it up.
VonBrendt
VonBrendt Aylar önce
I once argued that Quantum entanglement would work for long range real-time communication. I must admit that I was probably wrong. It happens somehow, it must. The fact that UFOS supposedly exist, must mean that they are in communication with their home world. But there I go with my imagination again. Lol.
Tiago Lazarotto
Tiago Lazarotto 3 gün önce
I have a possible solution! We make a 3 particle system independent of spin direction, let me explain. We make a system that, if Bob alters the spin of the first and the last particles (not altering the second one, leaving it superpositioned) then it's a 0 bit. If Bob alters the spin of the 3 particles, then it's a 1. Alice will always measure the spin of the first and the last particles to confirm that a bit has been sent completely (the first particle's spin is a confirmation that a bit is being sent, and the third particle's spin is a confirmation that the bit was sent, turning the second particle's spin (being changed or not) the actual bit), and then, Alice measures the spin of the second particle, if it is yet in superposition, then it's a 0, if it is defined, it's a 1. This will work if Alice is able to define if a particle has a defined spin or if it's still in superposition, I don't know how the measuring system/physics work. Cheers!
Ryan Eglitis
Ryan Eglitis Aylar önce
It was cool to finally find someone who would delve into all the what-if's of FTL/entanglement attempts. One thing I think that could have helped was to clarify how it doesn't really help to collapse a state as a signalling mechanism either, as there is no way to _see_ that a state has collapsed without observing the particle. And of course, observing the particle collapses the state.
Andrew Jens
Andrew Jens Aylar önce
@Ryan Eglitis Okay, fair enough. Thanks for explaining.
Ryan Eglitis
Ryan Eglitis Aylar önce
@Andrew Jens Because the act of observing it yourself first is the same as the act of observing it second - you don't know if someone has observed it before you. All you see is an electron with spin. It's not like you were looking at it until it wasn't fuzzy anymore. You weren't looking at it at all, because looking at it would have broken the entanglement. If you had some way to tell if the particle was still entangled without breaking the entangled state, then sure, you could transmit information. But that doesn't exist as far as anyone knows. Looking at it, observing it, "seeing if Bob checked one in two second intervals", it's all words for the same one thing - breaking the entanglement by involving other particles.
Andrew Jens
Andrew Jens Aylar önce
@Ryan Eglitis Okay, so if it is possible to detect it (in some way), then I'm back to wondering why my 1-second versus 2-second suggestion wouldn't work?
Ryan Eglitis
Ryan Eglitis Aylar önce
@Andrew Jens It's my understanding that you would detect it by interacting it with some other particle (i.e. electron, photon) and then multiply up the result to something human scale. "Observing" something is just a way of saying "interact it with a bunch of stuff so that we know the state of it (at the time of the observation)". It's part of why it's hard to keep entangled particles - you need to keep them away from _anything else_ that could interact with them. Even if we don't _see_ the result, the entangled state would get lost.
Andrew Jens
Andrew Jens Aylar önce
@Ryan Eglitis Ah, so I'm not understanding it at all (but thanks for taking the time to reply). So how does Alice detect the collapsing of the spin state of her particle (assuming she's a keen observer and is watching continuously)?
GOTCHA18
GOTCHA18 2 aylar önce
Great video. Considering how so many of the early scientific conclusions were proven wrong and who knows how many will be wrong going forward, the term "settled science" will just be a joke and never used again. And yes, with all due respect to the incredible mind of Albert Einstein, we can travel faster, in fact much faster than the speed of light, which by the way, the speed of light is merely a theory, has never really been proven nor can it be proven. Not by us. We accept "settled science" and dare not refute it.
James Camp
James Camp 7 gün önce
Thank you, the designers and the inventors or TRvid. I am currently 76 years old headed for 100 if it so be. When I was younger, my grandmother, who was the most intelligent person I had ever known, always told me that when I was thinking of her it was because she was thinking of me. As I too have reached the age she was when she told me that, which I was very doubtful of at the time, the more I apply that idea or process the more it works for me. How many times have you, the reader of this writing, been thinking about someone and the phone rings and low and behold, it is them on the other end of the phone call. This does not happen to everyone but those that are aware and use it to encourage say, a customer to buy something from them, it becomes a powerful event, and one wants to say that a higher power has intervened. The more I tell individuals about these events that I have experienced, the more they tell me that it's like a miracle.
thagrintch
thagrintch 2 aylar önce
David, I can't get enough of your channel. This was one of your best topics. At this rate, you are going to hit 1 million subscribers in no time. Thanks for the great insight into nature and the cosmos.
CANADIAN Videos
CANADIAN Videos 2 aylar önce
@Cool Worlds I had also asked about this topic/possibility after your previous video. Thank you very much for providing such an excellent explanation! Love your channel, thank you for all the hard work!
Cool Worlds
Cool Worlds 2 aylar önce
Thanks so much! This episode took a lot of work so pleased you enjoyed!
ScienTech LSP
ScienTech LSP 2 gün önce
Would it work if we say: "OK, if measurements are done on Mondays, it means 1, if no measurements are done on Mondays then it means 0". If our friends in the exoplanet interact with their entangled thingies, ours would trip a passive measurement device (is this even possible?) that activates when the entanglement status of the thingy changes. Of course, the unit of time need not be weekdays, but the idea is that if measurements are done within a certain period, then it's 1, and 0 otherwise.
Andy Hilal
Andy Hilal 5 gün önce
The pair of shoes divided into two boxes is such a useful metaphor. I feel like I can explain this to others now, using that. The inflated hopes around this seem to be based on lack of understanding of what entanglement is, and even what particles are. The average person hears about FTL communication like this and they imagine a marble hovering in a jar, with a sister set miles away. When someone shakes that jar, your marble will bounce around. This is unfaithful in every way, but quantum objects are hard to think about in the regular world.
MAGA is in the Closet
MAGA is in the Closet 2 aylar önce
Can you get more information like a vibration or resonance instead of just spin? Two different resonance frequencies can be either 1 or 0. How about quantum teleportation of particles? One particle can be a 1 or 0 and sending two particles can be a 1 or 0.
Jeff Long
Jeff Long 2 aylar önce
You would need an AI to set the specific particals in combination's. Any information could be transferred although you would have to have present questions.
Radrook2
Radrook2 2 aylar önce
Apparently if one particles can react instantaneously to the activity of another particle regardless of distance, the the speed of light limit doesn't apply at that level. Can we ever extrapolate that phenomenon to the non-quantum realm? Well, we can try. Who knows? Other things that once seemed impossible are currently a reality.
B G
B G Aylar önce
I agree. It seems that the video seems only to talk of how using entangled particles is impossible. Not about whether the mechanism that the entangled photons use to oppose the spin of the other across distances may be used separately
Johnathon Aaron
Johnathon Aaron Aylar önce
Would thinking about what causes the particles to remain entangled help us find a communication solution? To me there are only two options: 1. they remain connected on another dimensional plane that doesn't get separated by space/time, With this, you can think of each particle as half of a whole in our 4 dimensions while remaining still whole in the other "Nth" dimension. 2. Each particle is just a snapshot of a predetermined set of starting conditions that always stay the same regardless of distance. With this, we can think of the universe's probability dynamics as an analog to a computer's "randomness problem" which makes it very hard if not impossible to emulate true randomness. (I only took one class of college physics so I know next to nothing about this topic but I've watched all the TRvid videos I can find on Quantum Mechanics since it is so spooky)
vmwindustries
vmwindustries 2 aylar önce
My first time viewing this channel, and it's been an amazing video! Cheers from Canada 🇨🇦 👍
Doomer Bloomer
Doomer Bloomer Aylar önce
Let's imagine that somehow we could influence the spin of entangled particles before measuring. Would this work? Or would influencing a particle be the same as measuring it?
wes johnson
wes johnson Aylar önce
Correct, That would be a measurement and that would destroy the entanglement.
Benson
Benson 2 aylar önce
This is something I've pondered ever since I learned about quantum entanglement. I've spent many nights thinking about the ways it may or may not work. I'm really glad you touched on this topic and I can't wait to see what your take is on it!
WAR 3
WAR 3 Aylar önce
You would be able to change the particle direction based on magnetic influence of the north pole of the atom. Such as a magnetic pulsator that pulls a certain pole based on its directional force.
wes johnson
wes johnson Aylar önce
And that would break entanglement.
lostpianist
lostpianist 2 aylar önce
It just depends on how human perception of spacetime and causality differ from fundamental physics. Our physics may just be a tiny convenient slice of a greater deeper multilayered physics that we don’t see because it doesn’t help us survive either as an individual trying to mate or a species surviving against competitors within a planet or local cluster. For science to advance we must forget all the assumptions that our perceptions make. First of all, physics is a shared experience contained entirely within spacetime within one or more brains that define themselves fully within spacetime. AI may be a bridge to beyond our current limits. Indeed AI may be trying to talk to us all the time and we just can’t hear it ‘Yet’. For movie rights reply for my contact details.
D3M0N1C
D3M0N1C 2 aylar önce
You are a fantastic teacher dear sir, simplified explanations and perfect logical flow.
D3M0N1C
D3M0N1C Aylar önce
@Raven4K Good thought
Raven4K
Raven4K Aylar önce
and this also explains how come if a an empire exists why we can eves drop in on their communications using radio since if they use Quantum Entanglement communication cause it's also got no way for primitives to to hear info from it like a radio communication transmissions
Agitprop Psyop
Agitprop Psyop 28 gün önce
Quantum entanglement gives me chills. I think that figuring out this problem will completely revolutionize everything.
Whatsapp +①④⓪⑧③④①⑨⑥⑧⓪
👆MSG my ᴛʀᴜꜱᴛᴇᴅ ʙʀᴏᴋᴇʀ, ᴀɴᴅʀᴇɪ ᴊɪᴋʜ, immediately for life changing investment business👆✍️
araptuga
araptuga 2 aylar önce
One reason I find so many Cool Worlds videos (including this one) so rewarding is that they conclude with a CONNECTION. A connection to human concerns, far afield from the original topic or even from science. I know that some will argue that "that's not science!" That this is opening the door to pseudoscience, to New Age woo-woo and so on. That science stops when pure logic and evidence stops, and should not keep walking into "speculation". And they're right that it's not science - but I believe wrong about the implications. I don't believe Prof. Kipping would claim to have shown any science-verified conclusions about these human concerns. These connections are not saying "science tells us the 'answer' to this ancient moral dilemma". Rather, the science is providing us with a new point from which to VIEW that dilemma. It's not an answer, but a tool. Perhaps from this new perspective we can reach our own conclusion with greater confidence, satisfaction, or even richness - but it remains OUR conclusion, not that of science.
Al DeJesus
Al DeJesus 2 aylar önce
This is absolutely very well expressed! It’s also a science that seems without end
Monster? No. Definable? Never.
Quantum Entanglement Communication is REALLY freaking cool, because with a bunch of seemingly-redundant math and two tiny bits, we can send data INSTANTLY across the english channel.
증걸대라쫌
증걸대라쫌 2 aylar önce
Question!! How about regulating Bob's observing time intervals regardless of its spin state? For example...If Bob observes a particle's spin at 1 second interval, It means 1, otherwise, It means 0.... Does it still impossible to communicate FTL?
John Duncan
John Duncan 2 aylar önce
As ever, superb video. Quantum entanglement is such a complicated thing to explain to a layman, such as myself, this is one of the best if not the best I've seen.
Raven4K
Raven4K Aylar önce
yet at the same time it explains why seti will never find the radio transmission of an advanced race out there cause they likely use qec devices to communication devices for communication
tribudeuno
tribudeuno 2 aylar önce
Is there a way to determine the time that an entangled pair can stay in any state? If the duration of the state can be affected for a certain period of time, then it doesn’t matter which state it is in. If you can maintain a state for long and short times, then you could use the low tech morse code…
A-C V
A-C V 2 aylar önce
Very nice video as always Cool Worlds. I really enjoyed that many scenarios were explored and references to how some of these promising concepts were embraced by popular science fiction as a plausible solution for communication across vast distances. Something to understand about the current state of quantum mechanics is that the act of measuring is never passive and becomes deterministic of the answer we will get. In most other domains of science our measuring tools manage to have a minimalistic impact on what is being observed. But in the context of quantic mechanics there is no sight, what we try to measure is so small and the way of measuring is throwing particles against the particles we are trying to observe to see how they bounce off. Perhaps everything will be reconsidered if we find a technology to measure the quantum states without as much interference. I'm already impressed that through statistics of infinitely repeated experiences the quantum mechanics science is able to establish causality when every observation is destructive and deterministic of the state being observed. I find it interesting to think that anything FTL could however break causality. If we used a theoretical wormhole to send a mere Lightspeed communication through a distortion of the spacetime elevation map, would that be breaking causality ? The speed of light appears to be in a way the speed of time. Riding a photon, one wouldn't experience time at all. Any particle without mass also seems to be traveling at this speed, and so do gravitational waves. Electromagnetic waves are slightly slower than the speed of light. It seems like a possibility that the perception of time could be an emerging property of the interaction with the Higgs field. That anything with a mass is dragged through the ever expanding time dimension and able to perceive it, perhaps akin in the same way that gravity holds galaxies together in an otherwise ever expanding spatial universe. Could dark energy be expanding all of spacetime and our perception of time be a mere side effect of gravity on spacetime?
Paul Newman
Paul Newman 2 aylar önce
We already have a way of measuring the quantum state without interference. It's called "delayed choice quantum eraser". Check it out. This experiment proves that it's the act of observation, or at least the information about a particle becoming available to the universe that collapses the wave function. An entangled particle somehow "knows" that its partner will be measured in the future and collapses its wave function retroactively. So the interaction during observation would have to break causality for the non-measured particle to "know" that its entangled partner will be measured in the future.
TheRotnflesh
TheRotnflesh 2 aylar önce
I love the entire breakdown. Continuing with "mass dragged.." One thing to remember, always, is that we are made of the same crap we see when we look out 'there' in space. We are designed adjacent to the circumstances of our environment: Our genetic code is adaptive due to climate changes, our forms are a collection of atomic-scale fusions, cellular formations, and biochemical reactions. Systems within systems, like a galaxy itself. We are finding that the fundamental substrata of our universe of probabilistic. Maybe its a gigantic mind, and we are part of a gigantic, cosmic neural network? Being so aware of the system that we can modify and adapt it utilizing the same sentience that makes it up? ;) After all, what we are to a human brain would be somewhere in the center of the nucleus of an atom in a neuron.. That was off-topic. What I was getting at is that we only observe the universe at a rate we were DESIGNED to. Universal time dilation is totally subject to the framework of the observer. In this case, average humanity. That observation has 2 obvious possibilities: That what we see is all there is and is subject to external events involving light (which can shock the observer's system when what we see does not align with our contuinity of events from a personal framework), or what we see is defined by what we expect to see. This latter idea is vain, and points towards man's egotistical idea that we are somehow separate from the energy we are made of; essentially, god beings. At least, simplified, this is how I interpret it. FTL is possible in theory because existence just is. We are the instruments ill-equipped to be somewhere else from 1 moment to the next. Its a material limitation of our very design.
CandidDate
CandidDate 2 aylar önce
Well, yes and no. Make a guess and you're correct.
The Consumerist Theory
Here’s a thought I had. Okay, so we can’t control the spin out come. But we can control which particle we choose to measure. Why not simplify things and just being only two particles one that is used for yes, and one for no. Then it doesn’t matter the spin or randomness. It entirely depends on which particle we choose to observe. Then all we’d need is a machine that can tell when particle wave function collapses.
Rational Thinker
Rational Thinker Aylar önce
Awesome video but I personally find quantum entanglement insane. Apply Bohmian Mechanics and Pilot Wave Theory and the insanity disappears and you still get the same precise predictions that the Copenhahgen QM theory yields.
Skyler Lewis
Skyler Lewis 2 aylar önce
How do we know they collapse instantaneously if our tools measuring them are limited to the speed of light?
Andrew Stewart
Andrew Stewart 2 aylar önce
I've thought through a two way communication device that could be instantaneous using the delayed choice quantum eraser effect. I'd love the channel author or anyone for that matter tell me why it wouldn't work. I have a much more detailed explanation, but in short, when the delayed choice experiment toggles "measuring" the photon, after it's entangled counterpart had already hit the screen past the double slits, it shows up as a particle pattern. When not observed, it shows up as an interference pattern. Can't that alone be used to code binary things like an on off switch? Basically you would need send entangled pair from each direction for the two way communication. Pretending we are just talking about to Mars, which is 3 minutes, Mars would start sending beams of entangled photons, and immediately read the beam on their end through a double slit, then earth would get the second one 3 minutes later, and encode it’s message. Mara would have instantly gotten the message 3 minutes earlier, so for mars it would be instant. Earth would do the same thing. The trick though is having a computer on each end waiting the 3 minutes for the entangled photons to come to encode your message. As long as a device exists to encode the message at the future point, it will technically arrive instantaneously at the other location in the past. This would be pretty crazy for far space travel, cause a computer would have to survive for thousands of years to perfectly time it’s sending of your message, but if both places have a stream coming, then both could communicate instantaneously right?
Kaelon
Kaelon 2 aylar önce
The biggest issue I see with this, is the premise of the delayed choice quantum eraser effect itself. The DCQEE itself seems to be a work of fiction. You may want to watch this video debunking the theory and explaining what's really going on. trvid.com/video/video-RQv5CVELG3U.html
Robert
Robert 2 aylar önce
This is really well done, you guys. Great work. At the beginning you alluded to communications between distant outposts of an interstellar species. This is something I've been wondering about a lot lately and would love to see you discuss it at some point. The main thing I struggle with is the assumption that we would communicate with humans who set out to settle an extrasolar planet. I mean, would we actually? At some distance, the latency would make it almost pointless, right? What sort of information would we share with a colony a light-year away? 10 light-years? 100? It's natural to assume we'd have communications, but when I actually stop to think about it, I'm not so sure anymore.
Danny Brown
Danny Brown Aylar önce
@Ian Visser some fundamental misunderstanding about adaptation and evolving. Altitude sickness and adaptive does NOT transfer to offspring. Nor does bone structure of astronauts evolve ...their children are not taller!!!!!
Danny Brown
Danny Brown Aylar önce
@Ian Visser you need to realize...natural selection means a lot of death. !
Danny Brown
Danny Brown Aylar önce
@Cool Worlds thought provoking attitude thanks from electronics end . My studies ended when the mouse was invented.
Greg Hotbread
Greg Hotbread Aylar önce
@Cool Worlds Humph, even if you had instant communication, just getting a colony ship to another planet is so extremely long, communication with earth would still be irrelevant, except for nostalgic purposes... Maybe transmitting new techs. I mean "please send food and titanium, there's not as much as we thought here..." is pretty hopeless when you know the goods will arrive in 100000 years... 😬 Imagine you're on a colony ship between two stars and 500 years in the voyage, you receive a message "Heyyyy guys, I don't know how to tell you this but... We finally made it: FTL propulsion system! Sooo... Just to make you aware, by the time you get there in 5000 years, there will already be a colony established there for at least 4000 years. So yeah, you play nice, ok?". Lol
Evanor
Evanor 2 aylar önce
@Cool Worlds we can't even maintain a coherent culture between state lines
Tony
Tony 20 gün önce
Now imagine what happens when the entangled particles go through different double slit experiments for Alice and Bob, but one is much much much further away. Delayed choice still messing with FTL communication is what really blows my mind.
Whatsapp +①④⓪⑧③④①⑨⑥⑧⓪
👆 Msg my ᴛʀᴜꜱᴛᴇᴅ ʙʀᴏᴋᴇʀ, ᴀɴᴅʀᴇɪ ᴊɪᴋʜ, immediately for life changing investment business👆✍️
Sista Joseph
Sista Joseph Aylar önce
There is a possibility that some kind of objects could do it. Some "objects" relate via superposition, there is no speed limit in that.
Lee Shallis
Lee Shallis 2 aylar önce
I say relativity does still apply, even with FTL, because the method of communication would be relative to the void itself, the void being the only absolute in the universe (besides God & the core mathematical rules of addition, subtraction etc), so FTL would not violate causality in any way
The Myuul
The Myuul Aylar önce
what happens if you annihilate one of the particles or some like that ? i dont know how that works but if bob decides to "destroy" a particle and alice sees her particle "disappear" then she gets a readable message
Le Unknown
Le Unknown 2 aylar önce
Best explanation of this topic I've heard, thank you. Not only that, your final thought went beyond the science and was just a great lesson for life as a whole. Great job 👊🏿
Hannah K.
Hannah K. 2 aylar önce
I imagined something like a switchboard of entangled particles for sending messages across the galaxy ftl, always wondered if it was possible 🤔
Lambo Matt
Lambo Matt 2 aylar önce
This exactly
Brandon Berchtold
Brandon Berchtold 2 aylar önce
Can you measure if a particle is still entangled or if it is collapsed? If so, couldn't you agree to send bits of information by separating the entangled pairs into groups of 2 and either collapsing one or both of them?
Nick Monks
Nick Monks Aylar önce
Nope. That's exactly the issue. Either you know in advance that is entangled, or you don't know. And once you collapse the wave function of an entangled particle, you have no idea if you collapsed it, or if it were collapsed by your counterpart measuring theirs. If you planned for them to do it at a certain time, then you know that they collapsed theirs, but when you measure it, you don't know anything new except for what they measured on their end.
J.D. J.
J.D. J. Aylar önce
Has anyone thought about inter Dimensional communication ? 🤔 What about creating quantum size black holes that instantly share information. Supposedly, they say that tiny black holes form randomly already at the sub atomic level.
Ciao, sono Noel!
Ciao, sono Noel! 2 aylar önce
Alice and Bob could share 2 pairs of entangled particles. One pair should mean 'Yes it is habitable', the other pair 'No, it's not habitable'. Once on the planet, let's assume it's habitable, Bob should measure his particle of the first pair. Alice, seeing her particle of the 'Yes pair' collapsing, will know that the planet is habitable.
Jason Evans
Jason Evans 2 aylar önce
I'm no rocket scientist, I can barely wrap my mind around what you're saying, but I am a science nut, I love all things space related. I love your presentation, for lack of a better description I find this video soothing? Its like Relaxing and learning at the same time. Sorry if I'm weird.
BL2001
BL2001 Aylar önce
You're not weird. I get the same sense when I watch Dr Kipping's videos.
Peter Carrington
Peter Carrington 29 gün önce
So I sorted the comms, but my question is how do you get the far entangled particle to 20 light years away? At light speed?
Hex
Hex 2 aylar önce
Well, I hope we'll manage to make some wormholes that can act like cans on a string. That or a more stable human civilization with social Healthcare and income reforms and maybe human hibernation for trips to other planets.
Paul Callaghan-Fowler
Paul Callaghan-Fowler 2 aylar önce
This would work great. You would first, however, require an array of entangled particles on the 'send' end, with which to encode your information. Your receiver, would have to be observing the particles from a dimension other than our own too, but sure, why not. 🤣
Christoph
Christoph Aylar önce
Your shoe analogy is brilliant. The only information you get out of "opening" your side of the pair is, what is on the other side. There is no possibility of any additional information being stored or derived from this knowledge. This saves us from any FTL information paradoxes and adheres to CPC. But: the difference between the pair of shoes and QE still seems to be quite baffling, as EQ particles seem to only "decide" their spin upon measurement. It seems like, even if no additional information can be derived from this, the other particle still somehow receives their partner's information. It would seem, that there really is FTL communication, even if only between the entangled pair. One particle's measurement _causes_ the orientation of the other. If this is not breaking causality, I don't know what is. Einstein famously didn't acept this. His objection about "secret information" was challenged by Bell's statistical indeppendence. But what if there is an additional property, that is not stored within the system itself but that the system must adhere to? I know, we enter the world of Superdeterminism here and most don't like to be told, that the universe might be deterministic. But what is more "spooky"? A deterministic universe, that by the sheer amount of its interactions still looks indeterministic and chaotic for all intents and puropses or seemingly only one set of properties, that disobey one of the best known and accepted theories?
L Dewey MD
L Dewey MD 2 aylar önce
Good explanation of how quantum entanglement works (and acknowledging how many have thought about using it for FTL communication). Another mind blowing phenomenon of quantum physics is the "delayed-choice quantum eraser" experiment. (Explained eloquently in Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos".) This would keep many awake at night as they tried to wrap their heads around it! :)
Dan Komperda
Dan Komperda 2 aylar önce
Quantum Entanglement allows for a pathway to contradict every aspect of relativity and causality. However, as evolutionally as it is, quantum entanglement still fails in predict gravity and dark matter. That's very profound.
Syren Allen
Syren Allen 2 aylar önce
Love these videos thank you.
Pedro Amado
Pedro Amado 2 aylar önce
What if you entangle 3 particles? Would double still work after that?
Philip Sportel
Philip Sportel 2 aylar önce
One solution I've never seen discussed before is if Alice and Bob agree on a schedule, planning in advance which particles would be measured when. By agreeing to a tempo (and maybe having trillions of entangled particles, error correction codes, etc...), they can both know that the particle they're measuring was intentionally set to spin in a certain direction. They downside is they'd be forced to 'burn' their communication particles continuously, whether or not a message needs to be sent, but this would simply be another kind of fuel, something to be replenished when needed.
Giannis Ms
Giannis Ms Aylar önce
@Mark Walsh what do you mean. It sounds interesting
Ripsta42o
Ripsta42o Aylar önce
Exactly, pre determined criteria set in place and the data dissected amongst several different entangled particles. The explorer measures and doesn't measure the entangled particles depending on the data collected and how it correlates to the pre determined guidelines set by both sides
Slakbury
Slakbury Aylar önce
Devise the message in binary and then start measuring particles at a set rate. Any time the next result doesn't match the next bit in the message you leave a gap until making another measurement meaning the previous was an error. Its inefficient but would that work?
Raving Curiosity
Raving Curiosity Aylar önce
I dont understand anything about those things, but my solution seems similar to yours. If you have many things and pre-determine some as being 0, and some as being 1, then Bob can just activate the ones necessary to send the message. Like: "the planet is habitable is 1101". And then when Alice sees ANY result on the first 1, se will consider that the first digit is a 1. You'd have to pre-determine the right order of measuring, and the meaning of each measurement though... Does that make any sense?
Lolatyou332
Lolatyou332 Aylar önce
Thing is, we need an effective way to read and manipulate the data. Once it can be read and manipulated it is actually extremely easy to collect data from it, we already do it with computer 0 and 1s. We have a wide range of directions the particle can spin. It can look for a message header which encodes that the follow bits will be data, then the message would be encoded with an end state and checkpoints. Just need to be able to read and manipulate it without breaking the entanglement.
friskeysunset
friskeysunset 2 aylar önce
OutSTANDING work here. You took the whole thing apart and put it back together for me to understand that Einstein's limit is really about causality and the nitty-gritty of why all of my little fever-dreams for FTL communications are impossible using entanglement. In half an hour. Bravo. My heart is broken, of course, but you let me down as easily as anyone could have, and your closing remarks about facing reality as it is was right on target. Thanks.
Cyberfunk
Cyberfunk Aylar önce
@Skrzynka Special relativity is obviously violated by entanglement unless you think you know better than Einstein who wrote the theory. Einstein obviously agreed QM violated the principle of locality, that is the reason why the EPR paper came to be. The principle of locality means nothing (energy or matter) can travel faster than light, so no interaction can happen faster than that between A and B. It doesn't say, that we just can't use it to send information, that is an excuse people nowadays use when they don't wish to accept reality and that local realism and specialy relativity has been refuted empirically. The only way to avoid this conclusion is superdeterminism, so unless one is actually advocating for that they can't imply entanglement doesn't violate local realism. My personal opinion is that superdeterminism is absurd and really a childish cop out for people unable to follow the evidence when it takes them to inconvenient conclusions.
Skrzynka
Skrzynka Aylar önce
@Cyberfunk Wrong. Nothing is violated here. The information can not travel faster than light and as the video explains, you can't send any information using QE even tho its faster than light. Its "nothing" that travels faster than c
Cyberfunk
Cyberfunk Aylar önce
What we observe in quantum entanglement isn't possible according to relativity. The fact that we can't use it to communicate doesn't change that, if the particles can use it to communicte faster than light (as our observations currently seem to show) is enough to violate relativity. There seems to be no phycisist that currently can explain what we observe in QM. They don't know and can't say.
Endre Koppány
Endre Koppány 2 aylar önce
Thank you for the great video. My question is: How does "A" know that "B" has altered a particle? If I understood correctly the main issue is that "A" has to "open the box" in order to see the state of the particle. Meaning that they will always see a spin up or spin down result irrespective of "B"s action (or the lack of it).
N Marbletoe
N Marbletoe Aylar önce
@Greg Hotbread Yeah it is subtle. Nature is conspiring. No matter who looks first, A will always be 50/50 random Up or Down. Same with B. The strangeness comes when we compare results between A and B: if the detectors are at the same angle, the two results are always opposite. There are two ways that can happen: 1) instant communication, or 2) predetermined outcomes like if A and B were actual left and right handed gloves sent in the mail. Changing the angle of one detector is where it gets weird and rules out option 2).
Greg Hotbread
Greg Hotbread Aylar önce
@N Marbletoe how did they measure the speed to be 10000x more than the speed of light? They had at the B "box" to have a way to know when A opened the "box". What am I missing?
N Marbletoe
N Marbletoe 2 aylar önce
A can't tell if B has done anything.
Tyree Lampkin
Tyree Lampkin 2 aylar önce
Couldn't you just have two different pairs of quantum entangled particles. One pair could represent 'yes' while the other pair represents 'no'? For example, let's say you had two pairs of phones that used quantum entanglement communication. One pair could be two blue phones while the other pair would be two red phones. If you received a call through the blue phones you would know the answer would be "yes". However, if you receive a call through the red phones, you would know the answer would be "no". This seems to me to eliminate the need to rely on the position of the particle (which is random) but instead rely on which device is being used to observe a quantum entanglement (which would be known). To go back to the phone example, this would be like instead of relying on a call from a certain person to give you a message (which let's say is always random), you alternatively depend on which phone is ringing (which you can always determine).
ttmylink
ttmylink 2 aylar önce
I don't know if it's true but I've read that some scientists found a way to teleport a particle from a entangle particle to the other one. What about using this to communicate a 1? No teleportation would be 0. Off course, the communication would only allow one bit to be send, but it would be a starting point.
Sonraki
The Wow! Signal After 45 Years
27:30
görünümler 679 000
Can Moons Have Moons?
15:31
görünümler 469 000
Why Martian Canals Still Matter
30:54
görünümler 151 000
Traveling Back in Time
29:17
görünümler 1 100 000
Are Alien "Lurkers" Watching You?
27:48
görünümler 1 200 000
How Big Is The Universe?
30:18
görünümler 2 100 000
Story of my life
0:27
görünümler 1 956 668
Neyse tuzlu pastaya çevirelim
0:34
görünümler 613 781
Give five to the 🐽👍😂
0:40
görünümler 4 086 946
Her Şeyi Hoparlör Yapan Alet!
1:00
görünümler 630 018