NEW RESULTS! Cosmic Quantum Bell Test - Videos

Wait, I'm confused now. I thought the problem with using quantum entanglement for communication was that you couldn't check the particle on both ends because you couldn't be sure that the spin hadn't changed from the first check to the second..

Something I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around is, whether the photons being used to randomize the instrument had a specific state 600 light years ago or whether the photons present state at time of measurement is what determined the randomness.
The source star may be 600LY away, but the photon itself is already here, made it through our atmosphere, through the lens of the telescope, and was processed by the instrument to determine the randomness.
So, is it a factor then, now, or both which influenced the experiment?

For this to ever be useful (and totally convincing) you'd need to have an entangled pair that you can do repeated measurements on and you need to know the state they're in before you touch them (which is the problem, as far as I remember).

I'm not exactly sure what they were doing here, with the polarized light, but if one detector measures an 'entangled' particle and it has a horizontal polarization (and it came from a beam splitter) wouldn't the other part of it have a vertical polarization anyway?

If there would be much more women like you, instead of selfie addicted, Kim Krdashian wanna be dolls, this world would be way better for living….

oo? Where's the purple?

Hi Diana,
Why do sub-atomic particles need to be "spooky"?

Please, can you demonstrate why we need to believe that a particle has to ACTUALLY EXIST in a superposition and change upon observation, rather than the idea that particles are one way or the other (even if we don’t know yet because we haven’t observed it) and that the only thing in a “superposition” is OUR UNDERSTANDING of the particle in question. (Why can’t it be that when we open the box, we simply find out if the cat was dead or alive all along?)

This does not preclude the idea that two particles of a common origin could consistently be found – upon observation – to be 'mirror pairs', ‘up & down’ or ‘left & right’ so to speak.

If you send my boots to two recipients in different galaxies in two opposite directions, each guy could only guess if he got the right or the left boot. But, upon opening the box, he will – in that very instant – know, with certainty, which boot his buddy has received two galaxies away! and the same can be said for the other guy…

What is the practical difference; under what circumstance, would it make a difference?
I would love to hear your thoughts.
~Bill

5:29 It's Bryan Cranston aka: Walter White in Breaking bad 🙂

Hey..,can someone tell me the name of the author of that INTRODUCTION TO MECHANICS book on diana's table..?

U r good

Of course cats can be in multiple states at multiple times. They are our overlords.

Wasn't there a theory within quantum mechanics that says particles are not necessarily in multiple places at once? I think PBS spacetime did an episode on it.

Cud u xplain all Physics topics from A – Z?!

I love the facial expressions of scientists as they slowly digest that they don't have the universe in their hands as they love to think.

even Quantum physics couldn't fully explain "what's light?".

How come those telescopes have a true picture of those stars? I mean, the atmosphere itself would add a lot of noise that would really distort the light that gets to the lens of the telescopes.
The atmosphere would ruin all the accuracy of all the experiment.

Or am I totally wrong…?

so quanthom is 2 universe in the same place?

+Physics Girl
So how do they check that the instrument sending the particles are not causing the rotation? Or Earths rotation?

If you don't know in what state a particle is, how do you know it didn't had a defined state before the observation?

sound mixing is fucked. Otherwise great video <3

Just like Mr Trump leaking a secret to the Russians, its a secret and its not at the same time, once revealed its just political gibberish

Supurrposition: https://vimeo.com/164631894

mass effect 2, in the normandy, meeting room, there is a quantum entanglement communicator.

Physicists don't lose their sh#t when somebody dares to question "settled science." Good theories and good scientists welcome challenges.

? photons are massless particles? Wouldn't firing them give them a relativistic mass through a "sea" of other particles randomly bombarding with those energies changing the results regardless? I mean you didn't fire them through a vacuum which still has enough virtual particles to push two dielectric plates together. Just seems the patters of bits would end up a particular way because of the environment it was sent through wouldn't it?

Do you have a Patreon account? I couldn't find you.

The problem with people observing these laws is that we think in 3 dimensions (plus time). Maybe there is another dimension where the particles are directly linked, but we don't observe that dimension, just the results. That is just one hypothesis. The point is that we may not be able to see the whole picture and if we could it may very well instantly make sense.

Hi Physics Girl.
I really like your physics, I find it perfect.
I always watch you, sometimes pause and rewind scenes

Hey Dianna! Can you please explain why planets revolve in ellipses? Love this channel and all the videos!

Great video, the wild card and source of doubt in my mind is the actually source of the entangled photons,

Cool new logo.

was that yellow book "Vibration and waves" by AP French on your table?

Ce logo c'est… c'est… MÉLANCHON!!!!

Can you do a video at some point that delves further into the experiment, specifically how they produced the entangled photons?

So if Einstein's description is so overquoted thank god good you quoted it again 😉

take two kittens. put them anywhere in space. both kitties automatically get entangled with anything they encounter. kitten entanglement is built into the fabric of the universe. QED

For a coherently generated (or counter-generated) pair, it seems like there should be a remote correlation (or anti-correlation) in observations. Why would we expect otherwise? Somebody's going to complain about hidden variables here, but I really don't see why there shouldn't be a correlation in any framework. I'd be more surprised if there weren't a correlation.

could it prove that everything is moving at the speed of light . reality might be digital

Check out my LIVE street INTERVIEWS with college students regarding NASA & a motionless earth model. Cheers

without coffee there's a 90% chance I'll be asleep even though I appear awake. of course this depends on the position of Earth's star and whether Dianna uploads a video.

Does the randomness in the starlight come from the star itself, 600ly away, or just its passage through our atmosphere?

My brain must have eaten dodgy food because it won't stop farting at this LOL

Can you be my E&M professor? Haha Your enthusiasm rubs off very well that I want to study Physics right now lol and I'm not gonna lie, a teacher's enthusiasm and approach on teaching the subject can make or break the class.

yüce ırkım nasıl burdan mahrum kalır? asıl burada olmak lazım.

People who have been very intimate with each other and parted from each other retain a 'connection' whereby one can often know what the other is either doing or thinking. Wonder if that is not somehow another example of quantum entanglement .

Please never stop wearing tight, nearly sleeveless t-shirts.

I posit that: There are no particles. There are only waves. Superposition is constant. The illusion of a “particle” existing in a single position is a limitation of the observer’s ability. Spooky action is not spooky at all. Everything is connected, even though we can’t (yet) completely observe the connection. In other words, two observable instances that seem to interact in tandem are doing exactly that because they are connected by some kind of actual transaxle. Because we can’t (yet) detect the invisible transaxle, there appears to be no connection between the two instances, so, we can’t understand how they share information.