Quantum Physics: Entanglement Part One

[footinxs]

strings

[Zanmatt2g]

hmmm sounds like a load of old voodoo hooey to me

[minion6500]

sigh................ gross analysis.........

[yourboycal]

i think quantum mechanics is the door towards gods blue prints.

[tomasaguiarftw]

@yourboycal There is no god.

[guiliano4]

no way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wintblash]

google Doe's Account, its mindblowing.

[xdrlivingstonex]

wow this shit was pointless.

[JordenLuke]

It is more like an add for the website at the end but really tells you nothing about entagnlement

[ZERE0N]

any one of three can happen depending the positron and an electron

and how they collide and witch what they flush (spin)

[leanuue]

absolute waste of time, shit pointless video.

gtfo off with these videos loser.

[oxyman728]

i thought if a positron and an electron collide they destroy echother or just neutralize eachother....?

[diademonster]

convert into photons

[bloodanddirt]

they release energy in the form of light, the matter disappears in the explosion but is completely converted to photons as described in the famous equation E=mc^2

[amrosik]

wow, very useful.

[kennykiller911]

video is leaning torwards fail.

[gekko505505505]

bullshiat.

[Kabir1024]

PLOP!!!

[9Charnel]

bullshit, you don't know shit about entanglement

[tangnatalaga]

Think of it this way, when you shoot a photons at a semi mirror, sometimes you would have one reflected back and one that went through with same orientation. In quantum that means it is the same photons because of that. You can't say in quantum that they are different photons with exactly same orientation. They are the same photons at two different places, and thats hard to grasp.

[JoeWyley]

What the fuk is pindeed

[ganggreensoldier]

this is bullshit

[jimmo42]

What exactly do you find "bullshit"? What evidence do you have to support you believe? Is it simply that it is too complicated for you to believe? Or is it that you "refuse" to accept it? These exerperiments can be and are repeatable, what the cause it is not the issue, but rather the fact that these things DO happen.

[davidthemann]

Spot on mate.

[bigabs18281]

@jimmo42 its bullshit because it goes for 10 fucking seconds then its over.. it doesnt tell you shit about anything... its like the start of something interesting then it fucking ends!!!! WTF was the point of this vid????????????????

[evo1776]

Hey whats the song on this video?

[ketanovas]

spam. flagged

[JuGgala22]

FLAG IT FOR SPAM!

[Rahulioo]

it does make sense buddy.

[crepplin159]

TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[apheonixheart1]

We just watched this video as I was looking up the theory of entanglement for my children. Kind of wrinkling my eyes at the video, but we all loved the music. Can anyone tell me who the group/musician is?

[apheonixheart1]

ran across this video while trying look up some information on the theory of entanglement for my children. Kind of wrinkling my eyebrows at the video, but we all loved the song. can anyone tell me who the group or musician is?

[amarijayamari]

I just watched What the #$*! do We Know and if you haven't seen what the directors do to the theory that Science has its own narrative form, then watch it.

Too bad about the script but Marlee Maitlin does an excellent job at glueing all the disparate strands of religious, scientific and philosophical discourses together.

[kobasica]

i think i just found the gayest video on youtube

[jypensetoujours]

take this crappy video off youtube, its a disease!

[Fullperson]

you kidding? positron and electron make one

[amersi]

Dear video owner.

the second part of the video is someone to fuck you how made this video and put it in youtube i guest who called dankeebs ,,

your Sincerely

[GoDiMoNsTeR]

bulllshit video

[FB0102]

wtf happened here?

[nos1lig]

lol ?

[richd506]

Has the principle of locality been debunked? I was just wondering if anyone knew.

[PandemicMadness]

is that song in hebrew?

[EZC012]

cool

what song

[reevesc1986]

what the hell? and whats with the stupid music...

[kegean]

The Hell with this stupid ass New age nonsense. What a rape of entanglement.

[eye4me]

that was ultra gay

[n00bMonkel]

Actually Einstein's theories are pretty sound. However quantum entanglement has not been proven at all and is a very new theory developed directly on observartion (which is not a very sound way to develop theories). I'm assuming that you saw 'What the bleep do we know' FYI That video barely has any credible sources including a bunch of people who take physics as a hobby and invest their time in superstitious theorem.

[dankeebs]

I saw "What the Bleep" *AFTER* I had learned about Entanglement. So that's not my source. My main source is the book I cited in the comment below.

Also, just wondering if you actually SAW "What the BLEEP" or if you just read about it. 

I agree, not all of their stuff is proven science - but still thought-provoking nonetheless.

[Spike32472]

@dankeebs

I've seen it maybe 3 times with different people. The more I watch it, the more I realize how full of shit it is.

For example, you know that entire segment about words shaping water crystals is somewhere between gross negligence and an outright lie? The man behind the project was an artist, and he made no attempts to hide that fact. Somebody along the line just decided what went on and put it in a movie without a source.

How about the precognition portion? Was there a source?

[UglyPopstar]

read about the EPR papers, bells theorem and later experiments done in the 70s and 80s, alain aspect is a name that comes to mind... it was the prediction of entanglement that caused einstein to believe quantum theory was incomplete

[CptBork]

Entanglement is real. "What the Bleep" is crap. It is indeed possible to both have your cake and eat it too. Look it up, Wikipedia these days has a huge number of articles on this stuff.

Like UglyPopstar says, entanglement was experimentally proven by Alain Aspect in the 1980's. Many experiments have confirmed it since. Relativity isn't violated, and in fact quantum entanglement doesn't send any information so it has nothing whatsoever to do with that psychic con artist new age nonsense.

[xHizukax]

@n00bMonkel Quantum Entanglement is now a reality. It is being used in IBM to produce quantum computer

[frazzzer8888]

@n00bMonkel

Quantum entanglement HAS been proven you ignorant blowhard donkey.

[TaylerKnox]

Respond to this video... More properly, which century do you believe you are addressing Mr. Noob-Montel?

[Chowzoo]

that was gay

[doorgone]

"when to entities", should be 'two'.

You will be eating crow soon. Even Einstein said

action at a distance is bunko.

[shippoCY88]

Einstein might be wrong. He was human after all. In fact, this topic was part of the huge debate between him and Neils Bohr. And Einstein did make mistakes, as evident with the cosmological constant which he put in his equation to fit the model of a static universe.

[dankeebs]

Yes, very true. A lot of Einsteins' stuff has been disproven (or understood differntly) by now.

However, Entanglement is a well known, well tested, and well evidenced phenomenon.

In fact, a lot of technology today runs on the concepts involved in Entanglement.

Check out "Entanglement" by best-selling author Amir D. Aczel. (ISBN: 0-452-28457-0 if you want to look it up).

[shippoCY88]

Thanks for the suggestion! I'm very intrigued with the concept of entanglement. I have a few seniors working on this, and I'm still fascinated with it!

[dankeebs]

Just so you know, the book I suggested is not a textbook.  It's more a narrative of the discovery and development of Entanglement around Einstein's time.

[shrunkensimon]

Einstein was not the genius he is made out to be, and alot of his stuff has been disprove already, yet the mainstream refuses to acknowledge this. Relativity is only an abstraction.

As Tesla said, how can matter curve space, when space is not tangible! Space is a concept, it is not reality.

[xekusion]

@shippoCY88 but haven't they proved the validity of the cosmological constant?

[shippoCY88]

@xekusion Hmm, but the thing is, Einstein put the constant in for the wrong reason. He assumed the Universe was static, and he put it in to stop what would be an expanding universe. However, we later learn that the universe appears to be expanding in an accelerated rate, and hence, we put in the cosmological constant again. In a sense, we need a cosmological constant, but not for the reason Einstein first thought up. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

[doorgone]

I will go head to head with any of you numbnuts concerning elementary particles and their assorted energies and lifespans. I matched wits with John Wheeler for thirty years. Bring it on. (this is for giving me negs.)PEACE.