# The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don’t Want You to Know

>> GLECKLER: Hi everyone. I’m Arthur Gleckler

and I’m happy to introduce Dr. Ron Garret here, who’s going to be speaking about quantum

mechanics today. He’s a former Googler from the very early days of the company, around

2000. He was the lead engineer on the first release of AdWords and the original author

of the Google translation console. He also wrote the first billing system that Google

used. Also, for many years, he worked at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, specializing

in AI and robotics. I’m hoping to convince him to come back and talk about his experiences,

debugging spacecraft 250 million miles from the earth. Here’s Ron.

>>GARRET: Thanks. So I’m told that my abstract caused a little bit of a kerfuffle so let

me start out with a couple of disclaimers upfront to kind of manage expectations. The

title of the talk was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. There is no actual conspiracy, at least, as

far as I know but there is a fairly big disconnect between what you read about quantum mechanics

in the popular press and what the actual underlying truth is, and that’s what this talk is about.

I am not a physicist. Do we have any actual physicists in the crowd? Oh, boy, okay. You

can make sure you keep me honest. I’m a software engineer. I came upon this about actually

20 years ago when I read an article in Scientific American and I thought, “This can’t possibly

be right.” And it took me 10 years to finally find a physicist at Caltech who could explain

to me why in fact it wasn’t right and at that point, everything just kind of clicked and

quantum mechanics made a lot more sense to me than it did before. And that’s what this

talk is about. It’s about–it’s about a different way to think about QM that hasn’t gotten very

much attention and dispels this idea that quantum mechanics is sort of intractably weird.

Somebody has said to me once that quantum mechanics obeys the law of conservation of

weirdness. And to a certain extent, that is true. There is a certain amount of–quantum

mechanics extracts a toll on your intuition and some of that will never go away. But I

don’t think that quantum mechanics needs to be fundamentally any more incomprehensible

than, say, relativity which most technical people seem to have no trouble wrapping their

brains around nowadays. So with that sort of expectation management out of the way,

I want to start out by inviting you to think about the question, “What does it mean to

‘measure’ something?” So, imagine that we’re sitting here doing some experiment. We have

some system–let me grab a pointer–that we want to measure some property of it so we

have some, you know, sensor here like a camera, and it gathers some data and we feed it to

a computer, and that data shall pop up from the screen, and we look at that with our eyes,

and we form some mental image in our head, and how do we know that this mental image

that we form in our head actually corresponds to underlying physical reality? Well, one

indication that we have of this is that we can do experiments more than once and observe

that we get consistent results. So, for example, what color is this?

>>Green.>>GARRET: Green, yes. So we can observe through

our common everyday experience that the results of measurements are consistent across space

and time. And, I mean, this is really a very reliable aspect of our universe, but it’s

actually a very deep mystery why this is so. And Einstein famously said that, “The most

incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” We can actually

do experiments and get results that are consistent across space and time and we don’t really

know why that, any inherent reason, why that should be the case. Now, there is one very

plausible sounding explanation of why this is the case, and that is that the results

of these measurements are actually an accurate reflection of some underlying metaphysical

reality. That reality, that there really is a universe out there and when we measure it,

we’re getting back actual information about that underlying physical reality. And that

is the reason why these measurements are consistent because reality sees to it that that’s the

case. Well, it turns out that we can demonstrate that that’s not true. I’m about to lead you

down a rabbit hole but my purpose in leading you down this rabbit hole is to do it in such

a way that you can find your way back out again. So I’m going to do it very carefully,

step by step, and tell you in advance where we’re going. I’m going to start out by reviewing

the usual QM story. What you will read if you go to a popular account of quantum mechanics

that you read, you know, pick up at Amazon or a bookstore or read about it in Wired or

whatever. I’ll then show you how that story can’t possibly be true, because if that story

were true, it would lead to a violation of relativity, in particular, it would lead to

faster-than-light communication. And it doesn’t do this in the usual way that most people

think that it leads to faster-than-light communication, it does it in a more subtle way that really

hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. So you physicists in the room, bear with me. Then, I’m going

to walk you through some of the actual underlying mathematics of quantum mechanics, in a way

that is accessible to anyone who knows–can do basic algebra and knows what algorithm

is. And finally, tell a new story based on our understanding of what the underlying mathematics

actually says about what’s really going on and hopefully we’ll achieve enlightenment

at the end of that. So, is there anybody here who has not heard of the two-slit experiment?

All right, good. I will just blast through this very quickly. So, we have a–this is–you

have a laser that shines through two-slits, and you get an interference pattern that shows

that light is a wave and can interfere with itself like any other wave. And there are

two strange things about this. If you look at the results of this experiment with very

low intensity light, what you find is, and this isn’t showing up very well, but this

top image here shows just some dots scattered randomly. And then dots get denser and denser

and denser until down here at the bottom you have a dense enough pattern of dots that you

can start to see this interference pattern start to emerge. And this is an actual photograph

of laser light going through a single slit and going through two slits. And you can see

this interference pattern here, this is actual, an actual photograph of the same experiment,

this particular one happened to be done with electrons but the underlying physics is the

same. And the–the thing to notice here is that the total amount of light that you get

in this pattern when there are two slits is brighter than the overall amount of light

that you get with one slit which is what you would expect but that there are some places

here where you have these dark bands that were bright up here when you only had one

slit. And this is the interesting part that you want to kind of focus your attention on

because what this means is that there’s a spot here where light was shining and then

you open up an extra path for light to get to the screen and that spot goes dark. And

that is the manifestation of interference. But the strange thing about it is that this

is not a continuous phenomenon, it’s an accumulation of all these particles. Now, I can actually–I

used to think that this was a fairly subtle experiment that you need a specialized equipment

to conduct this experiment. It turns out it’s not true, you can actually do this experiment

yourself. These are some pencil leads that I’ve taped together with scotch tape and this

is an ordinary laser pointer. And if I pass these, and there’s just some very narrow gaps

between these leads, so you can actually see this happen if I pass the leads in front of

this pointer, you can see the light start to spread out. And if you’re close enough,

you can actually see the interference bands. I don’t think you can see it in the back.

But if you’re interested, after the talk, come up, I’ll give you a closer look at it.

You can actually see the interference pattern. The point here is that this is not a subtle

phenomenon and it’s not something that you need expensive equipment to reproduce. This

is an everyday experience for modern humans, at least. Okay, so this is not yet intractably

weird, because there are all kinds of explanations that we can postulate about how this might

be happening. So, for example, photons and electrons might be real particles that have

real locations and velocities like our intuitions about particles that might be pushed around

by some kind of underlying wave. And–oh, I forgot to mention–whoops–the location

where these particles accumulate is random, there’s no known way to predict other than

statistically where these particles are going to end up on the screen. So, the randomness

might just be due to some underlying real physical property that we just don’t know

how to measure. But it turns out we can eliminate this possibility as well. And the way we do

that is by asking–by trying to track the path of a particle and ask with–on its way

to the screen, on its way to producing this interference pattern, which of these two slits

did it go through? And we could do that. We can add detectors to the slits and we can

measure which of the two slits a particle went through. But it turns out that when we

do that the interference pattern goes away and the phenomenon that we were trying to

get a better grip on has changed. And it turns out that this is an inherent feature of quantum

mechanics, that any modification that we make to this experiment that allows us to determine,

even in principle, which of these slits this particle went through destroys the interference.

This is the famous wave particle duality, any modification that allows us to determine

even in principle–yeah?>>You ask people in the VC to mute their

mics so…>>GARRET: So, I’ve been asked to ask the

people on the VC to mute their mics, did I get that right? Okay. Okay, anyway, so the

conclusion from this observation is that something has to be–something has to be at both slits

in order to produce interference. And the reason we know that is because we don’t actually

need both of these detectors, one of them is enough, because if we have one detector

and it fails to register that we know the particle went through the other slit. Now,

that particle going through the other slit, it never interacted with anything, the particle

never interacted with anything, but because it allows us to know where the particle was

even though we didn’t actually measure it, that’s enough to destroy the interference

and so this particle that’s over here must somehow have known that we were looking over

here even though the particle itself wasn’t there. So, something must have been there

to be able to tell that we had a detector here, but we don’t know what that is. Now,

it turns out, this is again, this is a universal property of quantum mechanics. It holds for

any kind of particle–in practice, that means photons and electrons because that’s all there

is in this universe unless you start getting into nuclear physics. And any kind of measurement,

and any kind two-slit experiment, any experiment where you provide two different paths for

the particle to potentially go down and bring it back together without knowing which way

it actually went will produce interference and any modification that you make that lets

you figure you out where it went will destroy that interference. Now, this is still not

intractably weird because we can still tell a reasonable story about why this might happen.

So, maybe measurement does something to this system. These are after all very small particles

and very delicate systems and so maybe it’s just physically impossible to make a measurement

without disturbing the system in a way that is the cause of the destruction of this interference.

Maybe the wave function collapses and becomes a particle somehow, this is the famous Copenhagen

interpretation of quantum mechanics. But it turns out that we can rule out that possibility

as well. And the way we rule out that possibility is by asking, “How and when does this collapse,

this purported collapse, happen?” Collapse has a number of features that ought to make

us very suspicious of it just at priority without even doing any experiments. It’s a

discontinuous and nonreversible phenomenon that once you know that a particle has gone

through one slit or the other, you can’t go roll back time and undo that. And if you look

at the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which we’ll get to later, there’s nothing in the

math that’s discontinuous. And more than that, all the math is actually time reversible so

we can make a–hypothesize that this collapse happens, but this is fundamentally at odds

with the mathematics of what quantum mechanics–of how quantum mechanic says that our universe

works. So we can actually do better than that. We can actually do an experiment to show that

collapse, if it happens, is a much subtler phenomenon than it would’ve first appear and

this is the famous–this is the quantum mystery number two, the famous quantum eraser. Now,

I–this is a two-slit experiment that I have now reduced to something more abstract. So

we have some particle source, this can be photons or electrons. We have some abstract

way of splitting up particles so that it has two different paths to go down and some abstract

way of recombining that particle so that both of those paths end up in the same place so

that we get interference. And here notionally, we have one detector at one of these dark

fringes and another one at a bright fringe so that if we introduce some kind of an abstract

measurement on one of these branches then the interference pattern fusses out, that

we now have the path, the amount of light, in each detector. So now we don’t have fringes

anymore, we have the spread-out pattern that we saw and the single slit version of the

experiment. Like I said, there are lots of different ways that you can do this–actually,

let me go on to the next one. So it turns out that you can erase this, that there are

physical ways that if this measurement, certain kinds of proto measurements, that you can

do here, you can then go back and erase after the fact and restore the interference. And

here’s a concrete example of that. If we depolarize light and–I’m actually going to show you

this in just a second, so bear with me if you don’t understand what I’m about to say,

you use polarized light and you do the measurement by rotating that light 90 degrees and then

erase it by filtering it 45 degrees, that is an actual concrete example of a quantum

eraser. And I can’t show you the interference part of it but I can show you the erasure

part. So what I have here is some Polaroid film, this is the same stuff that you find

in polarized sunglasses. And, I first want to convince you, has anyone not played with

this stuff before? Okay, so again, real quick. If the–if the axis of the film are aligned

then you can see through it. Can everybody see through this? And if I rotate it at 90

degrees then you can’t see through it anymore and that effect is independent of the absolute

orientation of the film so the light that’s going through to your eyes starts at unpolarized

over here, it gets–passes through this film and becomes polarized, let’s say in this direction,

and I can demonstrate then that it has become polarized in that direction by filtering it

out using a filter at 90 degrees. And there’s also this cool adjunct to the experiment that

you can do by adding a filter at 45 degrees. If you put it in front or behind, nothing

happens which is pretty much what you–what you’d expect. But if you slide this in between,

then suddenly you can see through it again. Pretty cool, huh? And the reason for that

is because if you start out with polarized light and you filter it at 45 degrees then

some of it gets through and it’s now polarized in this direction. And now I can do the same

operation again, which is now the relative orientation of these two are 45 degrees so

some of it gets through again. But that’s not what I want to show you, that’s not the

cool part. Cool part is this stuff. This is what they didn’t show you, what they didn’t

show you in high school. This film is actually a polarization rotator. If I’d stick this

in here, I can actually take this light that’s polarizing this direction, I can rotate it

to 90 degrees that it’s polarizing the same direction as this film. And the thing to notice

here is that the apparent brightness here in the center is the same as it is up here.

There’s before, if we did the high school version of the experiment–whoops–you’ve

gotten quite a bit of loss.

So, I really can take–I can take light and I can polarize it and I can take that polarized

light and I can rotate it by 90 degrees and so I can create two different paths so I can

tell which way the light went through. I can tell whether the light is going through here

or whether the light is going through here. Actually, let me back up a step. My claim

is, without this filter, it’s a little hard. My claim is that the light that’s coming out

of here is different than the light that’s coming out of here, so I can tell which way

it went. And the way that I can demonstrate that to you is with this measurement apparatus

that lets me filter out this light and tell which way it went. So this is a measurement.

This should collapse the wave function according to the Copenhagen interpretation. But I can

undo this, and the way I undo it is by filtering at 45 degrees. And now, I have to ask you

for a little bit of suspension of disbelief because this is not high precision optical

equipment and my angles aren’t aligned just right. And if you look very closely, you will

actually be able to tell the difference between these two paths, but the difference is now

much less than it was before. See that? Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize there are people

over there. Okay, I’ll just show you all this at close range afterwards. So there’s a measurement.

There’s an erasure of that measurement. The light is going this way so the–in time, the

erasure has to happen after the measurement. And if I actually had a laser to shine through

this, I can demonstrate to you that the interference would go away and would come back. So again,

these are not subtle effects and they’re not effects that you necessarily need high precision

equipment to reproduce, it’s an everyday experiment. This is $30 worth of polarizing film. So this

leaves us with the philosophical conundrum that is embodied by Schrodinger’s cat. If

there’s no collapse, then if we set up a radioactive source that triggers some kind of a mechanism

that will break a bottle of poison that will kill a cat that’s in a sealed box, can this–what

happens? Quantum mechanics says that this cat isn’t a quantum superposition of being

alive and dead which is intuitively absurd but as far as we can tell, that’s really what

happens. So if that’s not intractably weird enough for you, this is the third quantum

mystery entanglement which is usually described as sort of an ancillary phenomenon to all

these other mysteries. And, oh, yes. It’s sort of–oh, by the way, has everybody seen

this picture? Has anybody not seen this picture before? Okay. This is what the production

of quantum entangled photons really looks like. You take a–this is not–this is not

an actual photograph, this is a drawing. But this is an actual photograph of the output

of one of these gadgets. There’s an ultraviolet laser that shines through a crystal of some

material called beta barium borate, details don’t matter, and this crystal has this interesting

property that it will absorb photons of ultraviolet light and reemit them in–and that it’ll kick

an electron up to an excited state, and then that electron will drop back down to its ground

state and it will do it in two steps. And so it will kick up in one step, down in two,

and in the process of coming back down, it will emit two photons instead of one so what

comes out of this system is visible light. And the photons always come out in pairs and

they come out in matched sets because of fundamental conservation laws. We have law–conservation

of energy and momentum and so–and electron–a photon that, say, comes out over here is a

red, photon will be matched by one that comes out over here as a blue photon, and the same

thing over here. And in the middle, you get this band where you get photons that come

out at the same wavelength and it just matched in position so a photon over here will be

matched by one over here. And they’ll also be matched in polarization as it turns out.

So this is the way it’s depicted conceptually. You have these ultraviolet lasers. It’s called

a down convert–this crystal is called a down converter, and you send these photons off

to opposite sides of the universe and what–and then you measure some property out of them.

Let’s say, we split them according to polarization or position them in, it doesn’t matter, any

quantum state variables, as long as you can filter them that way and what you find is

that they’re perfectly anti-correlated because of the conservations laws. So if you get a

photon up here, on the right side of the experiment at the upper detector, that will always be

matched by a photon over here on the left side of the experiment at the down detector.

An unfortunate artifact of the English language that words “left” and “lower” both start with

a letter L so I’m going to switch back and forth between them. This is what the–what

Einstein famously called, “Spooky action at a distance.” If you take this phenomenon,

this isn’t controversial, this is an experimental–an undeniable experimental result, this really

does happen, combine that with a fact if there is no collapse with the wave function and

the inescapable conclusion seems to be that as it was put in Wired as recently as last

June, that when an aspect of one photon’s quantum state is measured, the other photon

changes in response even when the two photons are separated by large distances. And this

would seem to be impossible because it would seem to violate relativity because it’s an

instantaneous effect and we know that we can’t communicate information faster than light,

because if we could do that then we could communicate information back within time and

that would cause all kinds of problems with causality and just be a horrible mess. So

these instantaneous effects are supposed to be impossible but there is one thing that

comes to save us and that is this quantum randomness. We don’t actually have any control

over whether the photon on one side ends up at the upper detector or the lower detector

and so we can’t actually send information up here to there, we know that if we see the

photon up on the upper detector over here, then our counterpart across the universe must

have seen it at the lower detector over there but we haven’t transmitted any information

from A to B. And you can actually prove this mathematically that it’s impossible to transmit

information using this phenomenon. But it turns out that the proof of the impossibility

has a loophole. So that is the end of step one. I’m now going to on the step two and

show why the story that I’ve just told you can’t possibly be true. So let’s summarize

and take stock. A split/combine experiment produces interference. Any which-way measurement

destroys that interference, there’s some which-way that the proto measurements that we can go

back and erase after the fact and restore the interference and measurements on entangled

particles are perfectly anti-correlated. So the quantum conspiracy is that all of these

things cannot possibly be true and here’s why. So this is a thought experiment. This

experiment has not actually been done that, again, with tongue slightly in cheek, I’ve

done the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Garret paradox, and it’s two-slit experiments that are fed

by quantum entangled photons produced by one of these down converter setups in the middle,

and I want you to consider the question of if we measure on the left, do we destroy the

interference on the right? So, if the answer is yes, then we have faster-than-light communication

because this interference is a macroscopic effect. It’s really easy to see if you have

interference or not. You just look at it with your eyes. You don’t need any kind of delicate

detectors or anything so you just measure over here and take measurement away, measure,

take the measurement away, and over there on the other side of the universe, this interference

pattern will come and go and you can send Morse code instantaneously. That’s obviously

impossible, so the answer must be no. But if the answer is no, then we know the position

of one particle but we have interference regardless and that contradicts the fundamental principle

of quantum mechanics, which is that we can’t know the position of the particle and still

have it interfere. Now, this is not yet an iron-clad argument. There is one other possibility

that I have not mentioned here. Can anybody think of what it is? Any of the physicists

in the crowd? Oh, good. So, this one last possibility, and that is that if there was

no interference to begin with. It might be that entanglement sort of counts as one of

these subtle proto-measurements that destroys the interference so we didn’t have any interference

to begin with. But it turns out that doesn’t get us out of this faster-than-light conundrum

because, fine, if that’s the case, then we can still produce faster-than-light communications

by putting in a quantum eraser and destroy the entanglement. Entanglement is a very–is

a very delicate property. Physicists work very hard to produce it and maintain it. It’s

very easy to destroy. So, just destroy the entanglement and produce interference where

there was none before and, again, we have a faster-than-light signal-ly mechanism. Now,

that is a very compelling argument that the story that I have told you, the usual quantum

story is wrong. That argument is, in fact, correct. The story that I have told up until

now is, in fact, wrong, and that’s why.>>You said this experiment hasn’t been done,

why not?>>GARRET: Because all physicists know what

the outcome will be. And I’m about–I’m about to tell you what the outcome will be. And

by the time I finish telling you, you will be convinced enough that the outcome is what

I tell you that it will be that you won’t need–feel the need to do the experiment either.

I promise you–hmm?>>GLECKLER: Why don’t you repeat the question.

>>GARRET: Oh, I’m sorry. The question was, why hasn’t this experiment been done. Yeah?

>>So the entanglement is about polarization, in which way it goes through a splitter, is

that about exactly the same polarization, we know they’re the same?

>>GARRET: That’s right. So, I assuming here, like I said, there are lots of different ways

that you can do the split-combine experiments. You can use some thing called a Mach-Zehnder

interferometer. You can use something called a Stern-Gerlach device. You can, you know,

lots of different ways. When I talk about polarization, the way that the splitting is

done is with the device called the polarizing beam splitter, which is exactly like one of

these, except instead of just absorbing half the photons and letting half the–half of

them go through, it reflects them. So it look like a mirror, a half-silvered mirror, and

what comes out this direction is photons that are polarized one direction and what gets

reflected at the other direction are photons that are polarized in the opposite direction.

Okay, so we are now in the depths of the rabbit hole and now, it’s time to find our way back

out. We’re going to do some math. Don’t panic, it will not be as bad as you think. This is

the mathematics of quantum mechanics right here. This is the famous Schrodinger wave

equation. It’s–this is the free variable here is this thing called psi. Psi is the

quantum wave function and it obeys the dynamics of this partial differential equation, which

those of you who are proficient in partial differential equations, will recognize as

a wave equation like any other equation that describes waves, and that’s why these particles

seem to propagate like wave because this is the map that describes how they propagate.

The point here is that these, the dynamics of this thing, are continuous and time-reversible.

All wave equations have continuous time-reversible dynamics. And the second part of quantum mechanics

is that you take this quantum wave function, which is a function of position and time and

is a complex number, you take the norm, the magnitude of that complex number and square

it, and that gives you the probability of measuring a particle at this position X at

a time T. That’s really all you need to know about the mathematics of quantum mechanics.

There are some things to note about this. There is this distinction between the underlying

amplitudes, which are complex numbers, and the probabilities, which are of where we find

these particles, which is the only thing that we can measure which are real numbers. And

the reason that particles can interfere is because complex numbers with magnitudes greater

than zero can add to zero. You can have a complex number that points off in this direction,

another complex number that point off in that direction. They always have magnitudes greater

than zero but they can add and destructively interfere. The dynamics are continuous, time-symmetric,

fully deterministic and hence, reversible, and so there’s no place where you–there’s

no place you can find anything that resembles collapse in this math. And no randomness either,

by the way. Going from amplitudes to probabilities by taking this wave function and squaring

it has no physical justification or whatsoever. It’s purely a hack. But it’s a hack that works

really, really well. So here’s what the actual math looks like for the two-slit experiment.

This is, and if you go to actual papers on quantum physics you won’t find this in the

popular press, this is what you will find in physics journals. This is–or physics texts–this

is the state, the amplitude of the photon being at the upper detector. This is the amplitude

of photon being at the lower detector and we have to divide by the square root of two

in order to make the total probability come out to be one. So to figure out the probability,

we take this number, which is a complex number, and take the modules and square it. And when

we do that, it’s almost exactly the same as just squaring A plus B in 8th grade algebra

class, you get A squared plus B squared plus AB plus BA. You have to take these complex

conjugates because they’re complex numbers, and the square root of negative one pops in

there to do some weird things, those kind of details don’t matter. The point is this

is a complex number, psi U is a complex number. Its magnitude is a real number and when you

square it it’s a positive real number. So here we have a positive real number, here

we have another positive real number, the sum of those two has to be a positive real

number. But over here we have two different complex numbers and two different complex

numbers that were multiplied together so this sum can be negative. So this is–this is where

the interference comes from. This is the mathematical manifestation of interference in quantum mechanics.

That’s what it looks like in terms of Greek symbols. So, what happens when we add detectors?

Well, when we add detectors, the amplitude starts to look like this. We have the amplitude

for the photon to be at the upper detector times the amplitude for the detector to be

in the state where it shows that the particle is at the upper detector and the same thing

at the lower detector. So this is just the mathematical description of that. And when

you–when you–when you take the amplitude to that and square it, here’s what you get,

same thing as before, psi U squared plus psi L squared. And this, which looks an awful

lot like an interference term, right, which is weird because I just got though telling

you that if we have a detector that we know–tells us which way the particle went, that destroys

the interference. Well, there’s this subtle difference here between what we have now-what

we have before, and that’s this weird notation here, which is called the rock–bracket notation.

You don’t need to concern yourself with it. Just take my word for it when I tell you that

this quantity here is the amplitude for the detector to spontaneously switch between indicating

that the particle is at the upper slit and the lower slit. In other words, it’s a measure

of the reliability of the detector. That just comes out when you do the math. And if the

detector is working properly, that value–oops–this–this value is the amplitude for it to spontaneously

switch between UNL and spontaneously switch between L and U, those are both zero so this

term goes away. That’s the math of how measurement destroys probability. And the interesting

thing about this is that measurement is a continuum. It’s not a dichotomy. The math

tells us that we can measure just a little bit or we can measure mostly but not quite.

And we have vary–it’s a varying levels of interference that we get depending on whether

the measurement that we’re making is reliable or not. That’s what the math says. So what

about entanglement? Well, this is, if you go to a physics paper that talks about entangled

particles, this is what you will see as the mathematical description of a pair of entangled

particles. What this means is that you have an amplitude for the particle on the left

to be in the up state and the particle on the right to be in the down state superimposed

with an amplitude for the particle on the left to be in the down state and the particle

on the right to be in the up state; again, divided by the square root of two. Now, this

looks a lot like the–or the unmeasured two-slit description. But there’s some notational sleight

of hand going on here because this is shorthand for this and it’s an unfamiliar notation.

This vertical bar, followed by the bracket, this is a term. So you got–this is a quantum

wave function here. This is another quantum wave function here. This is the wave function

for the upper particle. This is a wave function for the lower particle. Another way to write

that is–you don’t have to use arrows, that’s just a notational convenience, so I could

call this the left upper particle and the right downward particle, and the left downward

particle on the right upper particle. And this is just another way of writing this Psi,

this quantum wave function. So this and this are the same thing in different notations.

And this should now look familiar. This is exactly the same as–oops–as this, the two-slit

experiment with the detector, module of a few labels. And so, that is now the answer

to the first part of the EPRG Paradox. In fact, entanglement does count as a proto-measurement

that destroys interference. But it’s actually much deeper that that. According to the math,

entanglement and measurement or the exact same phenomenon, the math is exactly the same,

and that is why entanglement destroys interference because entanglement is measurement. And I

have a lot more to say about that later in the talk. So okay, so there’s no interference

but now what about this last–the idea of creating the interference using a quantum

eraser. So let’s take another look at our–I’m running little short on time so I’m just going

to blast through this. This is what the state equation looks like for the quantum eraser

after the so-called measurement but before erasure. So you have an upper photon that’s

horizontally polarized because we’ve–let’s assume we start with a vertically polarized

light going in here and we measure by rotating 90 degrees. So we have now the upper photon

rotated from vertical to horizontal and the lower photon still vertical and this you will

now–you should recognize as a measured and therefore non-interfering state. And it turns

out that if you filter now at 45 degrees this is the state function, the quantum wave function,

that you end up with. You now have a photon that’s either in the upper or lower slit and

that’s either horizontally or vertically polarized, and this kind of makes sense because if you

think of these as vectors and you have a horizontal polarization plus a vertical polarization,

that’s a 45-degree polarization, which is exactly what you would expect to see if we’re

filtering it 45 degrees, right? But remember the square root of two term here that I told

you was there in order to make the total probability to come out to be one? Now, that’s a two root

though, and if you run the math on this you find out that the total probability is not

one, it’s one-half. So either we’ve made a mistake or half our photons have gone missing.

Well, in fact, half our photons have gone missing which is also shouldn’t be too surprising

because we filtered–we put this 45-degree–we put this filter in place. This filter is filtering

out half the photons that go through it. If it–if they come in at 45 degrees then half

of them come out polarized this way and the other half get blocked. So it turns out that

the other half, the half that didn’t get through, have a different wave function that has a

negative sign over here, which again, makes intuitive sense because the filter lets these–the

filter is at 45 degrees so it lets this axis through and this axis, which is the H minus

V axis it blocks. And these photons interfere with themselves and these photons also interfere

with themselves. So the photons that passed through the filter display interference fringes

and the photons that don’t pass also display interference but it turns out that they’re

anti-fringes. They’re exactly like the bright spots in the interference fringes for the

photons that got filtered out, exactly lined up with the dark spots of the fringes for

the photons that were let through. And they sum together to produce what we perceived

when we look at it as non-interference. So this quantum eraser doesn’t actually erase

anything and it doesn’t produce interference, it just filters out interference that was

actually already there all along. And it turns out that we can actually do this in the EPR

experiment too. And the way that we–but in order to do it, we have to transmit classical

information from one side of the other in order to do the filtering. The way it works

is you make a record of all the photons that you collected over here and keep it in order

so you’ve got this record of first photon was at the upper detector, the second photon

was at the down detector, and so on and so forth, and over here you keep track of which

photons ended up where on your screen, and then you take this record and you transmit

it over here by some classical slower-than-light channel. And you look at all the up photons

and sure enough there’s an interference pattern, and you look at all the down photons and sure

enough there’s an interference pattern. But the only way to see that is to take classical

information and move it from here to here. And that is the last nail in the coffin. I

was very disappointed when I learned this 10 years ago because I was really counting

on winning a Nobel Prize and taking over the world but, oh, well, this is the next best

thing. So the take-home message up to this point is measurement and entanglement are

the same phenomenon, and what you will find in many, many accounts and even some professional

accounts, is that they’re completely different. That measurement is this common everyday thing

that we can sort of intuitively grasp and entanglement is the quintessential quantum

mystery and in fact they are really the exact same thing. Now, having come to that realization

we can now tell a different story about quantum mechanics that to my software engineer’s mind

is much more intuitively pleasing than any of the other competing alternatives. So Copenhagen

is the most popular but as we’ve seen it, it’s scientifically untenable. There just

is no collapse. Their–the next most popular interpretation is the so-called “many worlds”

interpretation where it says that anytime that a particle can go multiple ways, the

entire universe splits and the math actually supports that, but I personally find that

that takes a heavier toll on my intuition than I’m really willing to concede. There’s

another thing that nobody’s ever heard of called the “transactional” interpretation

by fellow named Cramer at the University of Washington. Actually, if you’re really interested

in this stuff, I encourage you to take a look at because it is kind of interesting. It postulates

that the backwards in time solution for Maxwell’s equation are physically real and if you make

that assumption then you can explain a lot of stuff, but I don’t have time to get into

that. What I want to talk about here is the quantum information theory which I have dubbed

the “zero-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. It’s an extension of classical

information theory with complex numbers and if you run through that math you get some

very interesting results. So here is a lightning introduction to classical information theory.

It’s the study of this quantity called the Shannon entropy of a system A, which can be

in any one of a number of classical states, and it’s defined as the sum of the probability

that the system is in sum state A times the log of that probability and then you take

a negative sign. And intuitively, it’s a measure of the amount of randomness that’s in the

system A. So just to simplify things for the purpose of this talk, if the system has an

equal probability of being in one of N states, then the entropy is just the log of N. So

when N is one and the system is definitely in one state then the entropy is zero. And

if it can be in one of two states with equal probability and we take this log base two,

we measure information content in bits, then it has one bit of randomness in it. You can

define all kinds of other derived quantities like the joint entropy of multiple systems

and the conditional entropy, and this quantity here which is called the information entropy

which is a measure of how much information a system A contains about a system B, and

the interesting thing to note about it is it’s the sum of some of these other quantities

that had been defined up here. And the information entropy ranges between zero and one, where

zero means that this system has no–system A has no information about system B, they’re

completely uncorrelated, and one means that they’re perfectly correlated. So for example,

because they’re sums we can describe these quantities as Venn diagrams. So this circle

here on the left is system A and this circle on the right is the system B, and the total

entropy is contained inside these circles, the total entropy for each system, and the

information entropy is here in the intersection, and that leaves the conditional entropy out

here because the information entropy is the system’s individual entropy minus the conditional

entropy, just simple addition. This is the important part. If we flip two coins so that

they’re completely independent of each other, this is what the numbers end up looking like.

The conditional entropy, the coin A has one bit of randomness and coin B has one bit of

randomness so the total entropy in the system is two bits of randomness. The system as a

whole of these two coins can be in one of four states, the log of four is two, and there’s

no information that one coin contains about the other. By way of contrast, if we have

a coin with a sensor, just looking at that coin telling us whether it’s landed heads

or tails then–and the sensor is working properly, then we have one bit of information entropy

because the sensor gives us perfect information about the coin and vice versa by the way.

The coin gives us perfect information about the sensor, there’s no directionality here,

and the total entropy in the system is one bit so it’s only going to be in one of two

states, heads and sensor says heads, or tails and sensor says tails. If we extend, do the

same math again except using complex numbers instead of real numbers then you end up with

something called the Von Neumann entropy which is called S and this hairy-looking equation

over here, which I don’t have time to go into, but the intuition is kind of the same as it

was before when we talked about how interference was produced. Because we’re now dealing with

complex numbers rather than real numbers, the information entropy is no longer restricted

to the range zero and one. And, in fact, entropies are no longer restricted to be positive real

numbers, they can be negative. And this turns out to be, if you do the math, the entropy

diagram for a pair of entangled particles. You get a negative bit of entropy over here.

And the information entropy, the amount of information that one particle quantum information

now, that one particle contains about the other is two bits. So you can think about

two entangled particles, the math is telling us that these particles are now, somehow,

better than perfectly correlated. They have become super correlated and the total entropy

of this system, the sum of all these numbers, is zero. There’s no randomness. That’s not

yet the cool part. What happens when we take a measurement? Well, when we take measurement,

we have a particle that becomes entangled with a macroscopic system of particles. So

what happens if we have three mutually entangled particles? You end up with a Venn diagram

that looks like this and if we assume a two-state system then the actual numbers come out looking

like this. You’ve got one bit of information entropy between A and C, one bit between A

and B, and you’ve got this negative, this weird negative entropies over here and it’s

all kind of mind-boggling. But let’s imagine that this particle down here is the one that

we’re measuring and this is our–these two particles here are our measurement apparatus.

And let’s look just at the measurement apparatus and ignore the fact that we’re actually measuring

a particle here. So we’re going to take this particle C, we’re just going to throw it out

for a minute. It turns out that ignoring C is exactly what is represented by this trace

operator here that ends up showing up in the math. Look what happens. This one bit of information

entropy–we lose this boundary so this one, the negative one, cancel out and become a

zero, same thing over here, and what we have is if we ignore this is exactly the same system

from an information theoretical point of view as a coin with a sensor, we have two classical

particles that are perfectly correlated with each other in a classical sense. I should

remind you of the experiment that we did at the beginning of the talk where everybody

agreed that that’s something was green. And we can get that from quantum mechanics, we

get these two systems that are in classical correlation. But we did that not by actual–not

by having an objective physical reality that we reflect but actually by ignoring the thing

that we’re measuring, or that we think we’re measuring. As it turns out that this extends

to any macroscopic ecosystem. If you add an arbitrary number of particles the entropy

diagram ends up looking exactly the same. So, this is now the mathematical description

of a quantum measurement. You have the system that you’re measuring. It’s particle Q. It

interacts and gets entangled with A particle, which is in the parlance of the theory called

an ancilla which is why they label it A, and that ancilla then gets entangled with a macroscopic

measurement apparatus in system of 10 to the 23 particles, and the entropy diagram ends

up looking exactly the same where this entire system has the same quantum information, theoretical

information content, as the third particle in a three-particle entangled system. So,

that is now a description of what measurement looks like purely in terms of quantum mechanics.

And the interesting thing about that is it describes all of the microscopic phenomenon

that we see that we naively observe about classical measurements but it’s purely in

terms of quantum mechanics, which means that it’s reversible. So, their–so, somehow, we

ought to be able to undo an actual physical classical measurement but in practice we can’t

seem to. And the reason for that is because in order to do that–in theory, it’s possible,

but in practice we would have to undo all of the entanglements in this macroscopic system.

So, for me, to now go back in–back in time, you know, we aren’t really going back in time,

but for me to erase all of your memories of having seen this green thing on the screen

and agreed that it was green at the beginning of the screen, I would have to undo this enormous

web of entanglement that has since proliferated at the speed of light. I have to bring all

those particles back together and recombine them. And in principle, that’s possible and

in practice, obviously, it’s not, which is why classical measurement seems to be irreversible

despite the fact that the physics of the universe say that everything is reversible. So, this

has some philosophical implications. I call it the zero universe interpretation of quantum

mechanics. If you really–if you buy this as a description of what the physics of the

universe is really like, then it tells you unambiguously that it is not the case; that

the reason that measurements are consistent across space and time is because there’s a

real underlying metaphysical reality out there. It tells you in fact, the exact opposite,

that what we really are is, as David Mermin puts it, “correlations without correlata.”

We are not made of atoms we are actually made of bits. We are our thoughts and these thoughts

actually reside, if you will forgive stretching a metaphor to the breaking point, we are a

simulation running on a quantum computer. I’m going to skip that. So, the take-home

message is, going back to this Einstein quote that, “The most incomprehensible thing about

the universe is that it’s comprehensible.” Here’s an explanation in terms of physical

theory of why the universe is comprehensible. Quantum mechanics actually predicts a comprehensible

universe but at the cost of forcing you to believe that what you perceive as physical

reality is not actually real it’s actually an illusion. And the motto here is that “spooky

action at a distance” is no more and no less mysterious than the “spooky action across

time” that lets us perceive the universe as consistent from one moment to the next. They’re

both produced by the exact, same physical phenomenon, namely entanglement. And I’ll

leave you with this quote from an ancient Japanese Zen master and open the floor for

questions. Uh-oh, the physicists are walking out. Yeah?

>>So you have the three particles when you remove from the shell what the main two look

like and they were building to the point in the sensor. Why not leave the–what happens

when you leave a third particle away? And if you’re taking that as another thought experiments

and say, “Well, this is equivalent too.”>>GARRET: Yeah. Well, this is–so these are

all just math, right?>>Right.

>>GARRET: So, these are all mathematical manipulations, the results of which we interpret

in order to tell stories about what our world is like. And if you leave it in, then what

you have is a description of the unadulterated underlying physical reality, which is quantum.

And the reason that’s hard to wrap your brain around is because your brain is classical,

everything that you are is classical. You’re made of classical bits that ones–or you’re

a Turing machine, you’re not a quantum computer, but you’re made out of a quantum computer.

And that’s why there’s this fundamental disconnect that will always take a toll in our intuitions

that will never go away because they’re really fundamentally different. The difference between

real numbers and complex numbers, the underlying reality is complex, but the thing that is

processing the information that lets you think about these things is real. It’s made of real

numbers. That’s really the underlying–the pithiest way I know of summarizing this so

it just depends on what point of view you want to take.

>>I’d like to make a short pitch for the multiple universes and hear your response.

The multiple universes, one way to look at it is the natural equation, it allows for–because

it’s linear, you can have things occurring that live in the same equation and sometimes,

say, with the dead and a live cat, you can see that you can actually sort of separate

them, each goes its own way, they don’t interact much, so a very good approximation is to consider

them one at a time. However, when real quantum effects go then you cannot do it this way.

So, there are–there are some things that you can separate and some not. So, now, you’re

saying that you have an interpretation of a one universe so…

>>GARRET: No, not one. Zero.>>Zero, all right.

>>GARRET: Very important distinction. One universe, one classical universe really is

untenable.>>Well…

>>GARRET: You can–you can–that’s Copenhagen.>>Yeah.

>>GARRET: You can–you can–yes, the–so the question was, what do I think about multiple

universes? Multiple universes are just as tenable, according the math, as zero universes.

The only thing that’s not tenable is one classical universe, that’s–that’s the only thing that

the math tells you unambiguously does not exist. And it’s a matter of taste. You know,

I personally–one of the things that the–that the math tells you if you think about it in

terms of multiple universes, is that once you get beyond a certain level of separation

these universes are forever inaccessible to us, even, you know, to any reasonable degree

of approximation. And then there’s this philosophical question of is the thing actually real and

the analogy that–the best analogy that I’ve heard is imagine a photon that leaves the

back of the sun and goes away from us and so it’s forever outside our light cone, is

that photon real? And my reply to that is there’s a difference between the photon that

leaves the back of the sun and travels away from us because there’s always the possibility

that somewhere out there’s a mirror that’s going to reflect that photon back to us and

we won’t know that until that mirror actually reflects it and it comes back and we can see.

But in the case of multiple universes, we know unambiguously the math tells us so that

once another universe splits off, it’s never coming back. There’s no way to bring it back.

>>After a concurrent time, it will.>>GARRET: Excuse me?

>>After a concurrent time, it will.>>GARRET: Okay, in any amount of time that

we have any practical reason to care about. So, yes, if you’re thinking cosmologically,

multiple universes is a–is a tenable interpretation. If you’re thinking in terms–if–if you want

a story that you can help you to understand how the universe works in terms of your everyday

life and what your fundamental nature is, I personally find that I gravitate more towards

the information theoretic point of view and believing that–that I’m–I–the universe

that I exist in is a very good high-quality simulation. But that’s a matter of taste.

>>So do multiple universes conserve mass energy?

>>GARRET: That I don’t know. I have to defer that to the physicists. That’s a very good

question. I don’t–I actually don’t know the answer to that.

>>Could you amplify a bit more for what does a zero universe mean?

>>GARRET: This–oh, by the way, the question back here was do multiple universes conserve

mass energy. It’s a very–a very good question because–and I don’t know the answer. I should–I

should ask–I need to ask a physicist who…>>I’ve asked this question of “many worlds”

proponent and the answer I got is, yes, that you’re not actually doubling the amount of

mass, you’re dividing the amount of mass into two effectively but…

>>GARRET: Oh, okay. So somebody in the audience is saying that when universes split, the total

amount of mass in the universe gets evenly divided between the two universes and I’m

guessing that math works out in such a way that if you reduce the amount of mass in a

classical universe uniformly by one half, that everything ends up working out the same

as it did before. But I’m going to have to think about that.

>>So this is just even one universe does not conserve mass energy with anything. Universes

as whole…>>GARRET: Okay.

>>And yet, in one–in the universe we’re in, we don’t seem to see this mass dwindling

away.>>But it’s, you know, because we’re doing

the same…>>GARRET: Yeah. So in that, we are now beyond

the limits of my knowledge of this stuff. Yeah?

>>For those of us who are intrigued and teased, where can we learn more?

>>GARRET: So, I have paper about this. It’s on the web. I highly recommend David Mermin’s

book, Boojums: All the Way Through, where he doesn’t actually talk about this but he

talks about the Bell inequality in a very accessible way, which is also–I didn’t have

time to talk about that but it’s very worthwhile knowing about. Or send–send me an email.

I can actually put you in touch with the guys whose research this talk is based on. They’re

down at Caltech, I think. Yeah?>>So is this an entirely local theory that

all interactions are interacting locally propagating at the speed of light, or is it?

>>GARRET: Well, so this get–so, the question was is this a local, purely local theory.

It’s quantum mechanics. And whether quantum mechanics is purely local is the subject of

debate. And it depends–it depends on what you mean by purely local. Classically, it’s

not, and quantum mechanically, it is. You know, I–this sheds no extra light on that

question. Okay, I guess, that’s it.

It's sonic geometry

That lady with a big tray of food!

It has occurred to me that a theory of reality which nobody understands, even those who invented said theory (per Feynman), cannot be a true representation of reality. Case in point – the paradox of the "double slit experiment". In college I once had a physics professor who told us that when you encounter a paradox in a theory of physics (or anything), then you can be certain that you are asking the wrong question. The value of the paradox then is to shine a light on a fundamental fallacy of the theory which has produced the paradox.

To me the central and obvious paradox in the double slit experiment is the idea that electrons and photons are by definition point particles with no dimensionality in space. If they have no dimension then how can they occupy space? And then how can you fire a “single electron” at a particle detector when a single electron doesn’t exist in our universe? I submit that you can’t. Once you admit this then the paradox gives way to the understanding that QM is deeply flawed.

At his point someone always says, "But wait, QM is the most successful physical theory ever devised." But is it? There are a score of QM values not intrinsic to the theory which have been derived from experiment and entered by hand. Wouldn’t we expect such an ad hoc construct to be accurate? This seldom mentioned though glaring deficiency proves that QM cannot be considered a fundamental physical theory. Instead QM is just a toolbox of tricks that let us make calculations which, in turn, let us build better iPhones.

EXISTANCE ONLY COMES INTO BEING BY BEING NAMED..FROM NO-THING TO SOME-THING..NAMING GIVES REALITY SUBSTANCE..BUT THE TRUTH IS REALITY IS JUST NO-THING..PRETENDING TO BE SOME-THING..IT DOES NOT EXIST INDEPENDENT OF NO-THING..OR SOME-THING..IT IS TEMPORARY….NO-THING IS THE STATE OF UNIVERSAL PERMANENCE..

I think the interference will be absent in the EPRG setup regardless of what happens to one of the 2 photons. Consider the delayed choice experiment. In this modification of the double slit experiment each path in front of the detector screen is equipped with a downconverter (a device that absorbs 1 photon and emits an entangled pair at 2x wavelength) Of the 2 emitted photons one is directed towards the interference screen (signal photon) and the other is sent a long long happy journey to another setup. There are 2 downconverters that can each send a photon (the idler). Which downconverter sends to photon on a trial provides which path information, so if we put detectors in a double slit setup downstream of the downconverters to catch their idlers when they arrive the interference pattern is disrupted in the 2 slit setup. The interesting part comes with the strategy of how we process the idler photons. Instead of directly sending them to 2 corresponding detectors each is first sent to a 50% mirror. The 2 mirrors are arranged in a way that if a photon happens to be reflected (which happens randomly, 50% of the time) by one mirror or transmitted by the other the photons end up in a detector that is shared by the 2 downconverters WHich is to say if a photon shows up either of these shared detectors we have no way of knowing which downconverter it came from and therefore we don;t have which path info for the double slit. However, if both of the idler photons are transmitted (or both are reflected) by the 50% mirrors these photons end up in detectors that are dedicated to only one of the 2 converters. Detection by these detectors then reveals which path info. Consequently, we expect that whenever we find an electron on the shared detector, an interference pattern should be building up on the screen, and when we detect in the path-specific detectors the interference is absent. If this experiment is performed there is no interference seen on the screen at all. However, if we were to color the impact sites of the photons that arrived on the interferece screen on the specific trials when the idler arrived in the shared detectors (when no which path info was actually gained) then the we find a nice interference pattern.(The reason why we don;t see a "faint" interference pattern formed despite of half the trials having formed interference is interferece patterns that are being created when the idlers hit the 2 shared detectors are pi/2 shifted in phase and cancel each other). Since (amazingly) the detectors can be placed very very far away from the screen what happens to the idlers influences what happens at the screen EARLIER in time ! Does this mean sending information back in time of communication with faster then c ? No, because we need to send the info about which trials were which to the screen to resolve the interference/non interference distinction, and that is limited by normal time order and speed.

WHat does this have to do with Garrett ? Let's apply Garrett's logic here for the possibility of violating the speed of light limit of communication by manipulating the conditions that control the formation of an interference pattern. If he was right we could alternate the structure of the receiver system between one that does and one that does not disrupt interference pattern. We could be doing this at a far away location say in 2020 affecting the interference pattern on the screen here on earth in 2019, ie.: sending information back in time (also meaning faster than light). But as we have seen, interference pattern is by default blocked by the placing the down converters in the 2 path. It;s only that on 50% of the trials the which path information was "erased" AT THE MOMENT when the idler landed in the common detector. But this did not restore the interference patter because it remains obscured by the other trial's photons until we recover it using slowly transmitted information. Consequently we cannot use entanglement to communicate faster than c using the trick of manipulating the events of a double slit detector.

Garrett's main, broader argument is that there is a mutual incompatibility between the limit of c for information transfer and conventional double slit interpretations. He argues that there are two possibilities in his EPRG paradox setup:, detection of which path choice in one double slit setups either does or does not destroy interference in to other. If it does than he claims that faster than c communication can be achieved by controlling the events of one of the detectors. If interference is not lost than which path info can be obtained without destroying the interference, so there is no "magical" superposition, wave function "collapse" etc. But the analogy with the delayed quantum choice eraser suggest that in the EPRG setup there will be no interference at all in either setups regardless of how the trials are manipulated on one of the 2 sides so no faster than c communication can be achieved with his trick. The 2 setups will exhibit perfect (anti-)correlation with respect to which path choice but this choice will not be controllable by the experimenter so no information can be transmitted using antangelment. And since there is no superposition to begin with the fact that we can obtain which path info does not violate QM assumptions.

the speaker needs a new set of vocal chords !

Modern science mindset is brainwashed by Time, Money and Mathematics. Modern scientists project their current values and material knowledge upon old prescience civilizations to evaluate or understand them. No can do. For more:

1. For Brain-Mind Complex

Click https://youtu.be/myxVwrqf0co

2. For Mind Sciences

Click https://youtu.be/X0KLgar5o58

It took many years of research to prepare the material.. Your comments will be helpful as feedback.. They are forward thinking.

I don’t want to get hacked by math tricks, I want to be given concepts and experiments

thanks Google for helping to keep the lies going

Good thing is he is based on reality. QM is as real as a information passing through a fiber optic channel.

leave it to a bitch to be eating during a talk

i would refuse to continue my talk till that bitch stopped eating or she left. what the fuck is wrong with some people

when a non scientist google employee trying to debunk well proven theory. reported for misleading.

One of the best lectures that relieves my pain worrying about spooky entanglement. Entanglement=measurement => anti-correlation does not imply non-locality – the wave function “collapses” at the very beginning when the two “entangled” particles are being created, and measuring one does not mean that the other “changes it’s mind and decides what it’s need to be” – no, it’s always been what it will be measured to be. Any experiment that disproves this scenario? Until then I declare entanglement is a scam. There is no spooky action at a distance, Rest In Peace Mr. Einstein

Who are those idiots interfering with the sound. I cannot stand this always knew Google was rubbish.

I know what it is but Im not telling you lol

He's not a physicist? Lecturing a bunch of actual physicists about QM.

That's like a psychologist lecturing a bunch of dentist about tooth pulling.

"Anyone can do it"……

I expect this guy means well and believes he has some point to make but it's tragic how little he understands about basic physics, never mind quantum mechanics. I nearly cried when he did his laser & pencil lead demonstration. He clearly doesn't understand that the point of the double-slit experiment is that interference patterns emerge despite single photons (or electrons, depending on the apparatus being used) being sent, one after another. The guy uses a laser and of course gets the classic interference pattern because millions of photons are being delivered at the same time. So of course they interfere. This "demonstration" has nothing to do with the quantum double-split phenomenon and serves only to demonstrate the guy's total lack of comprehension of basic physics. So he starts out badly and goes straight downhill from there. I suspect he'd be happier focusing on "who really killed Kennedy" theories, or perhaps just selling ice-cream to children.

manipulation for a lens you figuration new particles , and the laser different light is new imformation

I hate it when this happens…

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/threelly-ai-for-youtube/dfohlnjmjiipcppekkbhbabjbnikkibo

Lost me when it was asserted that the extended form of Einstein's second postulate must be true. If that's the basis of your physics you might stick to coding.

Wow. Shouldn't we be able to make some money from the "more perfect than perfect" correlation of things? We made a few bucks from discovering that time can correlate to how you move around in space and Einstein's correlation between matter and energy. Every time we gain the insight of another correlation of things, we get a bit richer.

There is only one person who understands this material completely and Dr. Gull Able is in a Mental Institution claiming its all fake and the Jesuits paid him to confuse everyone as much as possible. He started a group in his ward with 17 other inmate physicists who agree with him. Now, NASA is asking them to work on a new cosmology of beyond Black Holes into the super mysterious realm of Heavenly White Holes. They claim this is into the realm of no proof and where faith and trust become essential to understand and graduate from Jesuit Universities.

Obvious. He's talking in three dimensions. Simply go to more dimensions!

A very good video on the rudiments of QM. Keep it up!

Wow! The explanation under the description is way easier to understand than this guy talking all night: we are a TINY fart in a BIG toilet. Think I'm gonna flush now… X

But surely and absolutely true. Plain and simple, quantum mechanics "was" a very clever way to explain the the, previous referred to but nonexistent, thing called random world we live in, without having to explain time travel and everything else Tesla figured out. The Tesla that the government sent the head of M.I.T. in too collect his belongings. Did anyone hear the rumor that the head of M.I.T. was a man named John Trump… I personally cannot prove this, thus a rumor, but the rumor also makes Donald and John VERY close, Nephew that highly regarded his Uncle John.

possibility outlines probability. Anything is possible but only a few things are probable.

for a photon to have any possibility of coming out of the front of the sun photons leaving the back of the sun must exist.

Programmer, could you just go and do your AdWords thing, and leave these stuff to physicists?

Shilly McShilster

The fact that hes from GOOGLE, makes me feel like theres a hidden agenda and they may be trying to influence the public's perception of QM by knowingly putting out false information in order to get ahead in the technological world. When Quantum physics becomes more defined, and Entanglement is proven, Google may want to be the first to produce technology based on these discoveries.

"We haven't done the experiment, but we know the results"

Really, that is boneheaded.

Do the experiment.

So many times scientists assume they know the answer, yet when the actual experiment is done, they get baffled.

Ridiculous presentation on assumptions and suppositions…We know the answer ,but not the question !

"Popularizers" of Quantum Mechanics? Yeah, QM is shooting to the Top of the Charts – With a Bullet!

I'm not worried about QM. I am, however, very concerned about that poor kitty trapped in the box!

Make a click-bait title then disown it

MILES MATHIS SCIENCE SITE OBLITERATES TWO SLIT EXPERIMENT. READ MILES MATHIS "HIDDEN KINGS" AND KARL MARX BIO FOR TRILLIONAIRE GENOCIDAL IMPOSTERS.

This bloke's complete lack of understanding of what QM is supposed to be amply demonstrates that QM is a complete and utter load of bollocks.

The gentleman who came to the microphone to ask a question was first interrupted and then ignored

quantum physics is the only way to

~~pretend that you are smart~~get mindfucked.Friendly neighborhood google

Being an outsider, he may be more objective than a physicist, who may have a vested interest in the debate.

So the title is clickbait. I don't like vids that start off as a lie. If you feel you need to use deception to get viewers then go back and find something you can be honest about. I have no respect for you now. I will try to remember your name so I can avoid your future videos. I suppose this is to be expected with Google.

@24:00 to 24:20

Man…. you are so hard to follow. You lack the skill of cognitive dissonance

1:00:00 The guy at the end wanted to say that many qm system can't be represented by venn diagrams. The guy didn't answer the question.

Everything is local! Particles can't look into the future. Any theory that suggest that needs a very good reason.

If one observes a google employee googling during a google talk does that mean they are both googling and googled at the same time?

The audio is TRASH!🗑

hmm first words out of this kuck face are gee I am not a physicist buuuuut

fucking google bullshit again

#possibilian

This man is definitely on to something but he seems confused. Maybe got a nice google-injection when he left. By the way, every physicist knows that the nobody knows the real speed of light…

I feel smarterer now.

Define energy. Define consciousness. And then, even if you can ‘describe’ it, you have only to conclude that you didn’t create it, but you are certainly ‘entangled’ with it. Can you change the laws that seem to be attributed to it, and even if you could, of what value is that – you’d likely just create some cataclysm that would destroy humanity and the universe. Then all of your probing and experimentation will have been only to satisfy your selfish curiosity, and will be worthless as you don’t exist any longer to benefit from your descriptions. Interesting, but worthless musings about reality, unless you want to ‘play God’ – which is lucifer’s problem actually.

All your QM bases are belong to us!

The answer is actually simple. Einstein and Schrodinger were right. There is no such thing as particles in reality. Particles are simply our interpretation of a measurement. We assign mass, location, momentum and spin to measurements of things that are not actually particles. Hence the need to apply the Born equation. The Born equation is simply to particalize the measurement results for us humans who want to interpret the results as the measurement of a particle with a location, momentum, spin etc. The phenomenon (which is actually a wave) has none of these properties in the way us humans interpret it. Schrodinger's cat is dead if the geiger counter detected the phenomenon (that us humans are interpreting as detection of a particle) and not dead if not. There is no collapsing of a wave function or multiverses. It is just our incorrect interpretation of our measurements as particulate when they are actually just waves. Everything is waves, interacting with other waves. There is no locality as there is no particle. Hence the ability for entanglement at an apparent distance; as the waves can interact over a field not across two point locations between two non-existent particles with two non-existent locations.

I was just wondering yesterday if folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are still influenced by Jack Parson’s occultism. By the conclusion of this talk, the answer was clear: yep, they are. Bunch of satanists.

You’ve drawn no conclusions about the nature of the universe when one of your premises is that the experimental instruments change the outcome. All you’ve proven is that the universe is defying your efforts. That doesn’t mean that we’re living in a simulation. It means that the universe has an intelligence that can evade your scientific observations, forcing you to do math (a subjective input-based computation) to draw that occultic conclusion.

All I wanna know is whether the universe can run Doom.

56:00, bad news: you are not a turing machine.

The mistake is to take the mathematics of physics and mistake it for reality. QM is a description of the real world, it's not the real world. Interpreting QM to decide what reality is the wrong move. QM should describe reality but it is statistical, probabilistic, while the reality is not. Uncertainty and certainty are properties of human thought not of fundamental reality. If you think probability of wave function show some sort of intermittency in the world then you need to explain how the wave function can be so precise. How could the probabilities be so tightly constrained if something isn't constraining it?

Didnt Copenhagen coin entanglement? Which the Chinese used to teleport a particle?

There is no misconception regarding entanglement. QM is not strongly local. Period. See Bell’s Theorem (which is surprisingly absent in this presentation.)

Quote from the linked paper: “[The] idea of measurement as described in the QM story leads directly to a physical impossibility, specifically faster-than-light communication.”

[end quote]

Fact: No matter how you redefine measurement, via information theory or otherwise, there is absolutely no question that entanglement is real, actually happens, does not require any conscious observation or measurement. It does not require any measurement apparatus, and does not require two or more ‘classical’ observers to compare notes and verify the entanglement.

Fortunately, nature is not required to behave in a way that we consider ‘physically possible’. Fortunately, nature is more interesting.

Yhh man when someone is about to talk about something like QM, and i hear him say during the presentation that "details don't matter" it kinda discredits the whole thing…

Ok, one more quote from the linked paper…

[quote]

Because the effect is instantaneous and the two sides of the experiment can be separated by an arbitrary distance the result would be a faster-than-light communications channel. Note that this is more than just spooky-action-at-a- distance (which really does occur). In this case performing a volitional action (choosing to take a measurement or not) on one side of the apparatus causes an instantaneous observable change (presence or absence of interference) on the other side. We could use this phenomenon to transmit classical information faster than light, which would violate relativity.

[/quote]

Neither scientist can know what the other scientist is doing. There is no superluminal communication channel. If the presenter actually believes that QM predicts such a channel, he is mistaken.

Basically, that’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.

Despite the stupid title and lack of background of some implications you presents an interpretation which is consistent with the Math and explores philosophical implications of QM that trouble many. Good talk.

But have you just moved the collapse back a step? Why do we perceive one universe?

if

everythingin our reality is reversible, wouldn't that mean that "free will" is nothing more than an illusion?Nobody understands QM, but by the time they are PhD's they have to act like they do.

13 minutes 14 seconds. All I could stand with the miserable audio feedback that someone in the audience told them how to fix, yet they decided instead to make it unbearable to endure. I actually wanted to know what this guy was going to say. FUG.

really google, shitty audio quality

Yup we are in a simulation. Just watching the double split experiment told me that, without the fancy math.

Spooky action at a distance is easy to understand from a digital simulation viewpoint. On a TV there is distance from corner to corner, but from the processor view there is not and led's light instantaneous across the screen. Now imagine the universe is like a giant tv screen and the processor a quantum computer non physical to our universe. Computer scientists like this are going to make all the breakthroughs in science because reality is digital, physicists have plainly ignored completely what the double slit is really telling us, and have made a religion on QM that doesnt jive with reality, oh and dont get me started on string theory.

So at q and a they all ask or give examples of classical physics and not the information based system the speaker was talking about. These souls have cognitive dissonance and will never understand their reality is digital, we are just bits.

I gift you a new emerging word/concept free for you to enjoy have fun adding your definition for the word. Jeffree of the lovevolution

Lovevolution Love – vo – lu – tion {luhv = vuh – loo – tuhn} a noun

Your definitions: fill in the blank for this new word 1._

_______________Examples: 2. Unites science and spirituality philosophically into a holistic concept of purpose.

3. The process in time of bringing together or gravitating energy or information, towards higher order and coherency and lower entropy creating ever more complexity via information feedback loop towards love. *

4. The light of light emerging developing as an expanding network of connected information of light into higher orders of consciousness and real love.

* resonancescience.org, book Cosmometry by Lefferts

Is there a version of this video that won't give you eye cancer ?

Love the double pun at the very beginning, "…wide spectrum of views…"!

two words, primer fields

If it's from Google you know one thing for CERTAIN…the information is suspect.

Bad presentation. After all, it is not clear, which part of the presentation is the author's attempt to reproduce the common understanding of QM (by the scientists), which part of it presents the original ideas of the author and which part of the presentation is "What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know".

First of all, poplularizers of QM don't expect you to know QM and here you could stop.

So all the sensation is – most of the people who read pop-science garbage do not know QM to all the details which are known to scientists? Mostly to any important detail at all. Good, what then?

As for the author's own ideas, there are so many non-professionals with their most rightful understanding of any scientific problem. Let them discuss their views among them. It's just a shame google gave stage to such ridiculous attempts to correct the science by a non-professional talking to other non-professionals.

Faster than light communication has already been proven.

Entangled particles? How about disjointed wave forms? Same deal, an abuse of the English language.

Quantum Mechanics = Quantum Physics = Utter Bollocks

There's no randomness in probability distributions? Psi times it's complex conjugate yields a probability distribution.

Dark Intelligence… less than zero. Entropy squared.

If this video leaves you confused, welcome to the club. Excellent smokescreen…thank you, Google!

If this is to be considered seriously, it must be presented in a peer reviewed journal. Let the physicists have a good look at the concepts. This speaker doesn't have the luxury to overturn the Copenhagen interpretation on the internet without proper peer review.

Relativity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZdBXcG2xk

The title of this talk should be, "Solipsist misunderstands Quantum Mechanics in detail".

i love quantum mechanics from 29.45

Hallelujah! Finally a smart guy taking on the topic, at least from a mathematical/schematics point of view. He still misses all of the relevant physics, though. The correct explanation for all of this rests in the fact that there is no non-relativistic quantum mechanics and that all systems are open, which means that any system is nearly infinitely entangled with outgoing wave functions that can not be stopped by any conceivable technological trick, i.e. the classical notion of a closed lab or a closed box in which experiments happen is false. For some experiments (like the ones he shows) this doesn't matter, but for the transition to "classical physics" it does. The universe is simply continuously measuring itself, which removes quantum correlations from almost all practical systems in a very short amount of time. That is why "reality" seems classical, even though all of the underlying physics is based on ONE quantum field.

Irritates me when people say "it's as if . . ." I want to hear what it is not what it's as if.

Psyhobabble?

"im not a fizzne sys'=ai,ad word'human'pro'act'drama'topologic graphic 'robot'core main man spells?English new tones? kUdos multi verse.

It's been 8 years since this was posted! Duh! Don't you think that there has been some advancements yet? You guys are in the stone age!

So….bottom line….no spooky action at a distance…but we do have entanglement…..which is of practical use in quantum computing. No "spooky action at a distance " is involved….no faster than light communications. Einstein was correct. The Godless physicist hate that.

Ok so this guy not only doesn't understand QM, but he doesn't understand what we DO understand about QM. This is a video for people who can't accept that you have to think non-lineraly to understand even the most simple thing about QM, its for all of the dummies who think just because they don't understand that its bullshit.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson. . .the universe is under no obligation to make sense to YOU.

Your lack of understanding or belief in something doesn't render it invalid. This is a pretty pathetic lecture to people with pathetic minds.

Does anyone else think it's not a coincidence that some guy that used to work at Google gave his talk and extremely clickbaity title?

At 19.57 he says, "if I actually had a laser to shine through that…."

But, He began this lecture with a laser and some graphite sticks.

What the hell kind of ignorance inducing b.s. is this company trying to spawn?

sooooooo, his bottom line: 1) he likes the 0 worlds interpretation (because he can wrap his mind around it); 2) we are living in a Simulation (as he smiles his software engineering smile). Hmmmm, did I miss anything?

Stupid stupid quantum bs. There’s not such thing. Ether lives !!!!