How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 EXPLAINED
0:00 The 2022 Physics Nobel Prize
0:51 Is the Universe Real?
1:58 Einstein's Problem with Quantum Mechanics
5:09 The Hunt for Quantum Proof
7:37 The First Successful Experiment
11:06 So What?
#Einstein #nobelprize #entanglement
Interested in what I do? Sign up to my Newsletter.
100% free forever and good for the environment.
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv
All Comments (21)
I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.
I think it will be a very long time before anyone can explain what this video is trying to explain in a manner that actually does explain.
Excellent explanation. Thanks for putting complex concepts available to “normal” people. I am an engineer and I like these topics, but it is really hard to find someone who can explain with simplicity and with beauty like this video did.
Listening to Robert Edward Grant earlier and he posits that the speed of light is just our current perceptual boundary and not the final measure for what's possible in terms of (quantum teleportation?) He's really doing some fascinating work on using mathematics to redefine what we know as reality. Thank you for explaining this so well for us arm chair physicists Dr!
What a digestible video. Thank you so much for your explanations! I still had to look up terms such as "quantum teleportation," but now I have a much better understanding of how the particle's units can "teleport" information to each other and do so randomly/probabilistically(?). Superdeterminism is making me question if the universe really is probabilistic or not, so I'm probably going to fall into another rabbit hole of reading about that XD
Thank you for this! Clears up, for me, a lot of misrepresented popularized interpretations of laypeople with major "Tartuffe"-like confirmation biases. And, yet, you explained such technical information in a very accessible way for those of us with limited knowledge of the subject. Much appreciation!
I can confirm this with my daily observations. I can place an object on my table, countertop etc. It appears stable and should not fall over. The moment I turn my back, at a random interval of its choosing, the object will fall over, or end up on the floor. Initially, I believed it to be poltergeists, but I'm now convinced it's Matthew McConaughey
I believe that theoretical physicists such as Einstein would be very impressed with the work carried out so far and lend their knowledge and know-how to help to try to explain more.
The entanglement paradox should take into account the transit time of seperating the particles after the entanglement event.
An uncomfortable result is whether the measurement determines the result when you are using deduction and not simultaneous detection on both of the entangled particles.
I have never heard anyone explain things in such an understandable way. I need to watch more of your videos.
I work with fluorescence anisotropy looking at proteins binding DNA so I really appreciated your polarizer demo- very cool! I wonder if you have made a video on double slit experiment and it's many variations esp. quantum eraser and delayed choice?
Regarding particle spin, with one particle splitting into two, there is a theoretical way they can both have the same spin, versus opposite, which is if they split along the axis of spin, versus perpendicular to it. Like in the video example, you have the two particle split away along the "equator", from which logic would dictate that they should not maintain identical spins. But if they instead split apart separating from the north/south pole, it would be intuitive for them to have the same spin, and counterintuitive for them to have opposing spins.
I couldn't imagine a bigger flex than having gotten the Nobel Prize for keepin' it real.
It doesn't necessarily break locality if both objects are always next to each other because an object that small can be in 2 places at once. So the object that is moving to the right doesn't just exist to the right, but it also exist at least at the starting point, if not also at every measured interval when it started moving.
Couldn’t we develop a theoretical system in which it identifies for example “right spinning” particles as 1’s and “left spinning” as 0’s in a form of quantum binary code? Wouldn’t such a system create zero latency and instantaneous results?
Maybe in another multi-verse I understand, but in this one the concept went right over my head. I will revisit this again in some other time and place.
Quantum entanglement of two particles could be defined by time. One moving forward through time and the other moving backwards through time. This would give absolute duality in all things and give the illusion of being connected. The further the distance between two particles could, counterintuitively, mean the duality becomes stronger the further away they are from each other because distance = time. I'd also guess that these entangled particles emerged into the universe at the same time in the same place. Created in pairs. Or what if it's only one particle, and it is simply being observed by us from two different points in time, giving us the illusion of two particles acting in duality.
Niels Bohr, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, did not believe that the universe is not real. In fact, he believed that the universe is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the way we observe and measure it.
Bohr believed that the physical world is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the constraints of our measurements and observations. He argued that we should focus on the pragmatic and experimental aspects of quantum mechanics, rather than trying to understand the underlying reality behind it.
As someone who pays attention to quantum theories, my feeling is that the universe has infinitely more details and twists the more we look. It’s basically making details up the more we look, keeping up with what we’re capable of measuring.
not too well versed in physics, but i respect this research and am fascinated with it because this is something ive unknowingly been obsessed with. its this repetative pattern of manifeststion taking place on all dimensions to existence. the communication between all of the matter in space is effected by some kind of a magnetism or underlying invisible charge or wavelength that influences the nature of reality. our perceptions, i believe, are influenced by this intense phenomenon. its almost overwhelming and exhausting to know about it in human thought. it makes you question the authenticity of peoples emotions and your own. because you always know that every thought you have, will soon be comtrasted. the opposition always reveals itself. and it never stops trying to oppose everything.