it would be much better if have at least upload videos that deals with your own idea rather than proving what is wrong. and beg for fund. doesn't sound polite at all.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to strive for truth in any subject. It would be more of a shame for people to keep wasting resources on faulty assumptions. They should at least spend the money on inventions that are going to help the world. I'm not sure why everyone is so angry about this post.
1.) It's a thought experiment - not a proof
2.) I'm simply pointing out an alternative way to interperet entang. experiment results.
You are playing with wooden blocks and cardboard, is this some kind of joke or humour that doesnt come through, or do you seriously believe this to be a quantum mechanical experiment?
The experiment is no longer valid once you measure. Anyway, a block of wood cannot be entangled with another block of wood. Repeat your experiment with actual entangled electrons.
Why is it that more people are inclined to vote this one down? I'm sure there are many reasons to be found by every person. I voted it down because he did not present a real experiment to prove his claim against quantum entanglement. Instead, he constructed an analogical depiction of what HE THINKS is going on with two entangled particles. Try this again sir, but this time use a real experiment to prove your point and not artifacts of representation!
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about. First and foremost, a quantum theory could NOT be proved, disproved, or represented by a "simple experiment that anyone can replicate."
This headless man is insane! He Obviously doesn't understand that you cannot match the actions of individule atoms with a wooden block. SHAKING IT IN A CARBOARD BOX? How on earth does this prove anything. Its like me trying to prove that wind isn't made up of elements crashing against other elements, whilst doing the pointless experiment with a water current... CONCLUSION... what your saying is bullshit.
u cant prove quantum states with macro experiments. quantum stuff and macro stuff behave differently, thats basic quantum physics. until you experiment with ACTUAL entangled particles, you wont know either way for sure.
also, entanglement isnt the only thing "driving" quantum comps. superposition is another phenomenon which is being taken advantage of for use with quantum computations.
trying to make the world a better place is NEVER a waste of money. QC are the first step to a better world
Wooden blocks act like electrons?? Your experiment can not even be called that! The wooden blocks, by random action not entanglement, actually proved entanglement to your dismay. Yet either way that is no proof for or against. The wooden blocks were synonymous to flipping coins not electrons, that would be elementary statistics. You are a very simple person or a paid shill.
@azmanabdula who knows...I am of the theory that as a civilization...we are still pre-schoolers trying to grasp calculis...maybe in time all will be revealed
This entire video is based upon you saying at the beginning that an electron is not in an uncertain state, and then showing that if that is true, entanglement is a rather simple phenomenon. What you fail to do is address the true issue of entanglement, which is the evidence that suggests that neither electrons can be said to have a defined state until measurement, which is the reason for the "spooky action at a distance" necessarily following that definition of a wave function. Thanks.
u r a fucking idiot, anyone can dick around with wooden blocks like they're tinker toys, it doesn't prove shit about Quantum Entanglement though. there's clearly a reason why Mr. Lazaridas has 150 million dollars or w/e to invest in research and why u found whatever the fuck u have in ur house to model electrons...
Yea...I'm not going to get into a long winded argument about a topic I do not have a deep understanding of. However I can tell you this, you do not understand the idea of quantum entanglement....at all....or even spin for that matter.
ok so what about when they change the spin on one and it instantly changes the spin of the other electron this all happens long after entanglement i thought that was the mind bending part what you have discussed is complementary spin hypothesis can you see ?
Ingenuous for what is an advance concept of physics. There is a lot going on, as it seems Time & Space is quantum entangled--as long as it is not blocked. Even two starships approaching each other at the speed-of-light (c), has approaching each other only at the speed-of-light (not 2x speed c); this seems to be a form of entanglement as time & space distorts before you ever arrived there. The Universe is entangled with itself, many unanswered questions remain.
You don't understand QE. Macro (or classical) objects are not electrons. You can't prepare the state of your "classical electron" as a superposition (up or down simultaneously)...
...this is only possible at quantum level. At classical level, you can prepare a state s (up or down exclusively), and after a 100 measurements you'll get always s... but at quantum level, you can prepare your state as a superposition (%75 up and 25% down, for example), and after 100 measurements you'll get 75 "ups", 25 "downs" approximately (in a randomly fashion way :) )
The difference lies in that the quantum world is NOT deterministic (because of ramdomess), and the classical world is (mostly) deterministic (there's no chance for ramdomess, everything has a cause and a effect).
wow ! forget researching quantum entanglement !!! forget spending lots of money !! just give this kid some cardboard and some wood and he will discover all !!! GTFO !
You should read the EPR paper, since you exactly sound like them. You should also read about Bell's Inequality and many experiments done to prove its correctness. Quantum effects don't exactly translate to macro particles in the same way they are observed in micro particles. The uncertainty you're talking about is in the knowledge of the observer, which is different from the uncertainty of the quantum state before you measure and collapse it.
Someone obviously doesn't understand QM. But thats ok it was an interesting video but QM effect only apply to sub atomic particles, and one of the basic tenants of QM is that by merely measuring the experiment the affect the outcome which is why in all QM equations there is no single answer be but a range of correct answers. And it has been proven you can shift the quantum state of one particle to another particle a distance away hence quantum teleportation.
lol the interconnectedness of everything, shows us information is a dimension. Information is exchanged on the cellular level because everything operates with conscience and purpose
seriously. they teleported information last year (and proved it can be encrypted). lol. people (realinventor) need to realize their country (canada) isn't the only place spending money on scientific research. i mean what. just because you don't know how much your country spent on CERN means you don't care as much? it only uses like 7 TeV (can you pay for 7 TeV of electricity on your own?)
I can't believe you come onto youtube and attempt to debunk a topic that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of. Your ignorance is breathtaking. I don't care how many inventions you have, you don't know dick about quantum mechanics. Your "experiment" demonstrates nothing but your willful lack of knowledge. If you ACTUALLY want to know something about QM, feel free to PM me, but since you didn't take the time to learn about QM before you made this vid, I highly doubt you will now.
Whoa there! 2:08 Schroedinger's cat was either dead or alive? Surely the whole point of QM experiments has always been that the wave function is a measure of probability and it acts in a way that only a wave based on probabilities would act. It really isn't one way or the other before measuring. From Young's slits onwards we don't see 'dead or alive' behaviour.
Also 4:00 "This is absurd." QM is absurd. Anyone who doesn't think so has missed something. Unfortunately it is proven beyond doubt.
i don't want to say you suck without posting more information to the contrary but...... i just don't think wood blocks are the best choice to disprove something that we know works.
My understanding of the problem is that you 'affect' one electron by looking at it, revealing what state it was in all along and thus know what state the other one is in. BUT since you don't know what state your own electron was in to begin with it's hard to use this information for anything but encryption keys. It's not like you can - after looking at the electron - change its state and also change the state at the other end.
ah didn't they already do experiments that prove entanglement? like with those irradiated chips separated by much distance and when they effected one of the chips, the other responded the same instantly.
crawl back into your cave you ill informed idiot, thank goodness any qualified informed scientist who may happen to watch this video will laugh even louder than I did and I am an amateur !
i'm no expert in physics, or quantum physics, but its my understanding that they are mutually exclusive. meaning the laws that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles are completely different from the laws that govern larger than atomic objects. for example, a baseball can only exist in one place at any one time, but an electron can exist in multiple places at any one time unless being directly observed. since your blocks of wood are not electrons, it seems your experiment proves nothing.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It has been shown time and again in EPR experiments and theory that measurements of entangled particles display statistical correlations that cannot be explained by the probabilities of classical physics or of any theories of hidden variables. It's called the Bell Inequality. When one particle is measured, its entangled partner immediately responds by changing its quantum state accordingly, violating the inequality.
Nice video, but if you zap your first block and switch its state, the second block automatically switches its state regardless of the distance between them.
No, it doesn't. What you said was that a particle physically changes state based on the remote measurement of the state of its "entangled" counterpart. If this is what you think entanglement is, then I'm sorry you are ill informed. The popular description of QE is a remotely induced collapse of a wave-function, this is what you're trying to refer to, and I'm saying this interpretation may be wrong.
@RealInventor You are ill informed. Quantum entanglement does not happen at the macroscopic level. And what's one of the first things you say? "We use a macroscopic model to demonstrate Quantum entanglement." Quantum computers are already being realised through Josephson Junctions and Abrikosov vortices.
@myrdale No they cant prove this, they can only prove this on earth, or the dimension earth is in. You may find out that this effect works in the same gravity field, dimensions of energy or gravity and not time, work better for this. Energy is the structure of the dimension, c is the constant of this dimension, that is why time can differ in it, and time is regulated by the amount of gravity produced in the dimension...my thoughts only.
No, it doesn't. What you said was that a particle physically changes state based on the remote measurement of the state of its "entangled" counterpart. If this is what you think entanglement is, then I'm sorry you are ill informed. The popular description of QE is a remotely induced collapse of a wave-function, this is what you're trying to refer to, and I'm saying this interpretation may be wrong.
It was proven statistically that the entanglement is not pre-programmed and is actually generated at the moment the wave function collapses. I'm not saying it can carry information instantaneously, only that your premise that everything is defined at the moment of the entanglement (an idea Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen tried to use against quantum mechanics) was proven to be wrong by people way smarter than you and me, like John Bell and people in the Aspect experiment.
If I have a white and a black ball, put them both in boxes, randomly give you one and move to Mars, then when I open the box and I find, say, the white ball, I immediately know you have the black one. This is completely classical and is NOT quantum entanglement, but it's exactly what your demonstration describes.
This video is obviously nothing more than an advertisement:
"I have an extensive portfolio of inventions spanning several fields.... which with the proper funding can drastically change the way people live and interact with real world applications"
Obviously this guy wants to discount a theory/process for something NOT in his "extensive portfolio of inventions" It's exactly like a detergent commercial saying they are better than Brand X. How can any one take him seriously?
"Einstein and many others believed that when one entangled particle is measured it instantaneous sends a message to the other particle."
Excuse me? Einstein was an OPPONENT of quantum entanglement. That's why he called it "spooky". He believed it would be proven to be simply errors in the calculation.
It seems this guy does not know what he is talking about.
Quantum computing has never been predicated upon transmitting information thru entanglement..........only upon using the correlation due to entanglement......
back to the blackboard with your analysis please.....
This guy is playing like devil's advocate. He really does know about quantum mechanics and then try mess with quantum entanglement. Nice job bro u have made people explain what they know about quantum physics. ^ ^
Wow.... The video guy really demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. .. Those aren't electrons... They're wooden blocks! If you don't understand why this makes all the difference you probably shouldn't be passing comment. Also, quantom entanglement is experimentally verifiable and is used in loads of applicatios already. The can "teleport" photons over distance by utilising the effects of entanglement.... You make yourself look a fool.
Sir, who do you think you are. What makes you more qualified than the scientists who say quantum computing is possible. They HAVE done quantum calculations (albeit simple ones). The current problem is that the atoms must be at near absolute zero temperatures, and are extremely fragile. All we need are more stable quantum bits.
You cheated! You preset your electrons into an either 100% or 100% down state by matching them under the cloth. You 'pre-measured' them. So of course you got the results you wanted. Electrons are not coins like your wooden blocks, and do not have definite spins before you measure them. By your cheating 'pre-measurement' you gave them a definite spin before your 'official measurement'.
Yes, you are right. When he put his hands under the cloth, he preset the "spins" on the blocks. So when the cloth was removed they had the "spins" he set!
It is really hard to grasp quantum mechanics without mathematics, unfortunately for most of us including me, we don't really enjoy mathematics that much specially calculus in which one must know in dealing with high level physics. This guy on the video is not a physicist, he is a philosopher, hahahahaha he belongs in politics not in science.
WHo the hell are u to compare ur knowledge with famous scientist who've worked on quantum mechanics for years. this is five minutes im not getting back
grick31 ur an idiot, you cant control what the particles spin is going to be, its random. hence no signal can be sent fast than light. so no information actually travels faster than light, just knowledge
this eexperiment isnt accurate and doesnt really prove anything. people arent looking at one particle and then employing the knowledge that they know what the other particle is, the use is that you can choose what one paricle is, by measuring it in a certain way, which is then useful as you know what the other particle is, effectivley instantaneously sending information. this effect has caused physicists to look differently at spatial dimensions
uhmm.... i thought we all ready have created and computed with Q-bits... it wasn't alot, but still.... and it was used to solve a Sodoku puzzle for the demonstration... just search around for it.... waste of money, i think not... well... not really, it is necessary for security issues..
In quantum mechanics, a particle that has exactly the same orientation is the same particle as the other one simply put. You obviously don't understand it. You better stick to politics where you are good at. Unfortunately politicians brain don't function like physicist. To bad they have to rule our country.
There is actually reason to believe that all matter is actually a single electron/positrion going forward and backward in time repetitively. Read Physics of the Impossible for some interesting info on quantum phys. I'm a physics and computer science major, so I can expect to take some classes on this in a couple years :)
Until then I'll continue ignoring the math and attempting to gain at least an elementary grasp on quamtum theory's applications
I read a lot about extreme physics. I aint a physicist, but I am an electronic engineer. One of my greatest interest is quantum mechanics. Superposition, parallel universe, quantum teleportation, quantum computers etc. I also read about negative energy, and all that.
you dont know shit about entanglement. as you should know the laws of physics do not hold true for quantum physics. its a new set of law so i dont know what you are trying to prove here. what you fail to see is ur up spin block and your down spin block are in fact the same wave function, at least thats how quantum physics works.
In quantum mechanics, if two paricles have the same orientation then it can't be distinguished, and therefore they are the same one. This guys simply don't get it. His brain function like a politician. He think he understand but he doesnt.
When electrons are being measured AGAIN, you also change their state AAAAND CHANGE THE STATE OF THE OTHER PAIRED ELECTRON...THATS WHAT IS INTERESTING.
You're not making sense. It doesn't matter whether a message is sent or not. The cause of it is irrelevant. We are simply taking advantage of the effect.
From what I think I understand, Schrodinger's cat is an analogy and is of course actually existing in only one state at a time(especailly due the cat observing itself). The particles observed in entaglement, or rather before they are observed, actually are in two states simultaneously as can be observed in the gold foil or beam splitter experiments. Firing a cat through a passage without looking at it has not created a wavecat pattern on the other end in my experience.
I'm not a physicist, but as a computer scientist I can see a lot of similarities to classic computing. For example in computing we use bits that can have two states 0 or 1. Here you said that we have either a spin up or spin down state. Therefore, why can't we use this information in the classic manner?
E.g - Spin up = 1
Spin down = 0
The advantage I imagine is that information would travel instantaneously.
Problem is, If you know turn over one of the blocks, according to entanglement, the other one will instantly turn over too, even at a distance. Therefor information is, in a sence, being transmitted.
manmitch is correct, they aren't trying to send any information through entanglement, the information is still sent via classical channels, after entaglement has assisted in speeding the speed of calculations.
Nice job on the video though.
Perhaps a trip to Wikipedia can help you iron some of these ideas out before you go through all this trouble. They have a whole section on quantum computing which answers the questions you raise.
Its a good thing the researchers at IQC already know that you can't use quantum entanglement to transmit data. This isn't what quantum computing is trying to accomplish. This demonstration does a pretty good job of explaining entanglement, but money is not being wasted on attempting to achieve something proved impossible a long time ago.
you're right. NO information can be transferred using entanglement. That's not how quantum computers work, though. They calculate using the superposition principle, and entanglement is used as a way to figure out the result after the calculation has already been done.
manmitch, Thank you for your response. I've never heard quantum computation explained that way before. I'm going to revisit material I've read previously and read it from this perspective (i.e. entanglement as an observation tool, not as a calculation tool).
This is the response I've been waiting for... thanks!
Could you please reference a paper that discusses this concept?
I think manmitch may have hit the proverbial nail on the head, but I'm not going to retract my statement without further exhaustive research, which I'm more than willing to do. Nothing would make me happier than to learn that QE computers are valid and the large amount of research dollars are in fact not being wasted.
one hole in your experiment. were all the particles in one of your wooden blocks the entangled particles to the other block? theres no way to know. this is the problem with interpretations of modern theories. since the birth of quantum physics there were theories then experiments to prove or disprove, then change theories to an experimental outcome. thats what we should be doing. your experiment proved nothing because you didnt have any entangled particles, if they exist.
I agree with soulhunter, the spins on electrons are always complimentary therefore only two possibilities exist, not four, so the model is immediately wrong in that respect. ALso you're confusing quantum mechanics with classical physics which is what your model is obviously based on. Another point is that Einstein was never a quantum theorist, the only relation he had with nuclear energy was his E=MC(squared) which is base to nuclear energy, but irrelevant to Entanglement.
Your right, it is a debate of interpretation. Does particles exist in an absolute state regardless of measurement or are they in "all states at once" until they are measured? While mathematically, Q.superposition is necessary, I simply choose to believe the former. I don't feel that a systems lack of knowledge about a particle has any effect on the particle state. This 5 minute video helps describe my interpretation, not justify it. Rediculous is spending money on QE computation. WASTE!!!
Whether or not some hidden variable interpretation revealing that there is objectivity in these quantities takes a prominent position in quantum mechanics or not is not something that you're IDIOTIC analogy can solve in 5 minutes. Back to the drawing board fool.
You cannot make that assertion using your simple macroscopic wooden block analogy! That is one of the largest debates in the field of quantum mechanics and has for the most part been over ruled by probabilistic interpretations. The whole complexity of quantum theory arises from the idea that particles do not have objective properties until measured. Measuring one assigns it a property in the real world, thus forcing the entangled particle to take complimentary measurement. You are a fool.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! the fact of the matter is that in a entangled system, you know that your 2 particles have complimentary spin. Applying schrodinger's equation to either of the particles yields a probabilistic result for that particle's state. The assertion that the particle is stateless in classical terms until measured and that the act of measuring assigns a classical state is what results in entanglement. You are arguing that the state of the particle is an objective fact...
Your cardboard and wood block prototype is impressive. However, I believe the soda can and string model provides far more conclusive evidence in favor of entanglement.
I live in the U.S. and I work in Washington D.C. for the DoD. I see wasted investments (both by tax payers capital and that of VC's) all the time, which is what drove me to make this video.
you act as if you're the first to look at it from that perspective. you act as if wooden blocks have the same properties as wooden blocks. then in the last 30 seconds your agenda becomes clear.
that is not enough to deny the quantum entanglement, it is not always correct to challenge the authority by merely showing i have the courage simply reject it
quantum superposition tells gives us a range of possibilities for that particle's position. if you found out a particle's exact position, you couldn't find out it's velocity or direction as well, since time is "stopped" in that observation.
A question if I may. For your experiment to be valid, you would need to show that wooden blocks have the same properties as electrons. Are you aware of this? And if so, please show your reasoning behind it. I have never seen or heard anything to back up suck a statment. I would like to know what you have.
"the interference pattern disappears when which-path information is obtained, even if this information was obtained without directly observing the original photon, but that if you somehow "erase" the which-path information, the interference pattern reappears. In the delayed choice quantum eraser, the pattern reappears even if the which-path information is erased after the signal photons hit the primary detector."
if Quantum entanglement isn't capable of logical computations then how can you explain how it's allowing you to have logical computations in your own mind, and is the building blocks of a very logical universe
Yeah, you know exactly "what" you manipulative deceptive coward. Gotta feel all big shot like you're in control and have all the answers do you, but you're living with a sense of false power bro. You got nothin, you're a pawn in a bigger game. And you just earned another negative star
Man, if you were trying to sell your idea I think you could have spent more effort in your presentation. How about some slide show or something? I think your experiment lack substance, firstly because you cannot represent quantum mechanics with wooden blocks..
Sometimes $1 is all it takes. $150M will still not yeild a QE computer. It simply can't work because no information is transferred between the entangled particles. You need information transfer for computation to work.
Second the experiment is not performed on the quantum level as the physics applied there are completely different to the macro world. Third even though basically every thing is made out of particles the nucleus of protons and neutrons completely nulls this as they have measurable mass.
ps sorry about the double post I went over the 500 character limit
This is one of the most inaccurate experiments that I have ever seen. Quantum entanglement, weather in photons or electrons, is between QUANTUM particles and as far as I know they are not made out of wood and so would not have the same properties.
ok in my humble Computer Systems Engineer opinion that experiment doesn't demonstrate anything because, from what I've been reading about, the entanglement concept only applies at the quantum level. Your experiment used wooden blocks that are not part of the quantum level. Forgive me if I'm wrong though is not my field but i think that to demonstrate entanglement in its true way you have to do it at a quantum level. Any scientist in the field please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're DoD, obviously you removed the comment I was replying to, typical manipulative behavior I can expect from my government's employees. Take away the initial offense and leave the reply to make the replier look crazy is it.. pff DoD I bet you don't even know what AES is, until you google it of course and come up with this all knowing answer. Go back to communist russia if you want to manipulate and play mind games.
I don't know TOO much about quantum theory... but with all do respect considering the fact that it hasn't been around for very long at all, wouldn't one presume that experimentation is a GOOD idea considering that it has sorta been responsible for every scientific advance since... we could say the word science?
I also heard of experiments with photon pairs many years ago. Their results as well as the implications of infinity got me curious about some aspects of reality.
In the experiment I heard about, one photon of a pair was passed through a polarizing filter I believe, which instantaneously affected the other photon. To me that just meant that they were still connected in one or more dimension that we don't understand yet, which of course is not the same as information going through normal space.
to clarify my last comment: what I have read about two entangled particles changing state simultaneously (which is the very essence of entanglement) was not in regards to electrons, but photons. When the two photons are CREATED together they remain in an entangled state. This is easily done by colliding an electron with a positron. Because they come from one event, their spin must remain opposite. When one spin is changed, the other photon's spin changes accordingly, experimentally verified
lzep1n:"When one spin is changed, the other photon's spin changes accordingly, experimentally verified"
Please reference said experiment, I have looked hard and haven't found such an experiment. People do jump to that conclusion however. Though if it were really possible then someone could send information faster than the speed of light and no one has ever done that.
This is only true in a pristine environment. If after said event, one of the entangled particles is affected by it's environment (i.e. runs into another particle) it could lose it's spin (polarization) without the experimenter even knowing it. When the measurement is taken, said entangled particles will not have the expected spin.
The "bigger" point is that the experimenter must already know the result in order to verify the entangled state. Thus, this is useless for performing computations.
Yes, I did put the "virtual particles" together with my hands; you missed the point of the demonstration. It doesn't matter how they come together (randomly falling together, or I could've used two magnets), the point is that at some point the particles become aligned. This alignment is all that exists between real entangled particles (or waves); regardles of how the particles are united.
You seem to be confusing the combining or joining of particles with entanglement. You put them together and refer to that as entangling them. Entanglement is the idea of those particles retaining a relationship AFTER they're separated. You're suggesting that QE is like knowing the state of one thing because it's being joined with another in the only possible way (like knowing the position of a key that's put in a lock), but that's not really what QE is.
Yes, I do imply that QE is just a means of bypassing uncertainty. It's a matter of how physicists interpret both mathematical models and experimental results. In any QE experiment, measuring the state of one particle, instantaneously giving you the state of the other. However, if you alter the state of the particle just measure, the second particle does not change state accordingly. I, and several others view this a strong evidence that QE is merely alignment of state, not a conduit of info.
"if you alter the state of the paricle just measure[d], the second particle does not change state accordingly." are you sure about this? So far every source I've found says the opposite. the book entitled "The Elegant Universe" by Robert Green, is in complete contradiction to your statement. As is a host of videos on youtube, nova, and the science channel. That's a significant list to contradict. Can you explain this inconsistency? I mean merely to learn, not to challenge your view.
it would be much better if have at least upload videos that deals with your own idea rather than proving what is wrong. and beg for fund. doesn't sound polite at all.
thewebxplorer 8 months ago
@thewebxplorer
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to strive for truth in any subject. It would be more of a shame for people to keep wasting resources on faulty assumptions. They should at least spend the money on inventions that are going to help the world. I'm not sure why everyone is so angry about this post.
1.) It's a thought experiment - not a proof
2.) I'm simply pointing out an alternative way to interperet entang. experiment results.
Crimeny!
RealInventor 7 months ago
lol...
You are playing with wooden blocks and cardboard, is this some kind of joke or humour that doesnt come through, or do you seriously believe this to be a quantum mechanical experiment?
Soulless99 10 months ago
The experiment is no longer valid once you measure. Anyway, a block of wood cannot be entangled with another block of wood. Repeat your experiment with actual entangled electrons.
ElGatoLoco698 10 months ago
Blockhead.
lnordgra 10 months ago
The only thing missing is The Observer (Consciousness).
TheStar395 11 months ago
atoms can have a up spin and a down spin at the same time
christheamazing 11 months ago
Why is it that more people are inclined to vote this one down? I'm sure there are many reasons to be found by every person. I voted it down because he did not present a real experiment to prove his claim against quantum entanglement. Instead, he constructed an analogical depiction of what HE THINKS is going on with two entangled particles. Try this again sir, but this time use a real experiment to prove your point and not artifacts of representation!
peter2f6 1 year ago
Wooden blocks aren’t electrons, damn hippy.
downloadstuffgames 1 year ago
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about. First and foremost, a quantum theory could NOT be proved, disproved, or represented by a "simple experiment that anyone can replicate."
ReasonHelpUs 1 year ago
what's 150 canadian dollar's worth anyways?
roemelvs 1 year ago
This headless man is insane! He Obviously doesn't understand that you cannot match the actions of individule atoms with a wooden block. SHAKING IT IN A CARBOARD BOX? How on earth does this prove anything. Its like me trying to prove that wind isn't made up of elements crashing against other elements, whilst doing the pointless experiment with a water current... CONCLUSION... what your saying is bullshit.
britainnotasia 1 year ago 3
This guy speaks truth!
Quantum physics screws
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
u cant prove quantum states with macro experiments. quantum stuff and macro stuff behave differently, thats basic quantum physics. until you experiment with ACTUAL entangled particles, you wont know either way for sure.
also, entanglement isnt the only thing "driving" quantum comps. superposition is another phenomenon which is being taken advantage of for use with quantum computations.
trying to make the world a better place is NEVER a waste of money. QC are the first step to a better world
shiznak55 1 year ago
This was a joke... right?
UnitedCorpOfAmerica 1 year ago
Wooden blocks act like electrons?? Your experiment can not even be called that! The wooden blocks, by random action not entanglement, actually proved entanglement to your dismay. Yet either way that is no proof for or against. The wooden blocks were synonymous to flipping coins not electrons, that would be elementary statistics. You are a very simple person or a paid shill.
UnitedCorpOfAmerica 1 year ago
perhaps the way in which quantum particles communicate is still an unknown
Metamorphosis33 1 year ago
@Metamorphosis33 joined on an unknown dimension?
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula who knows...I am of the theory that as a civilization...we are still pre-schoolers trying to grasp calculis...maybe in time all will be revealed
Metamorphosis33 1 year ago
@Metamorphosis33 i fucking hope so..........
people say a universe in which we know everything is boring......
not quite.......
then we could craft whatever from the universe........you know, as we please......
compared to not knowing............id hate that.........i despise not knowing.....
like forgetting a word..........its a splinter in the mind.......
peace
azmanabdula 1 year ago
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman
peking18 1 year ago
@peking18 i never liked that comment.....
to me it sounds like they are just confusing the public and making money.....
but we must remember that quantum physics is counter intuitive
peace
azmanabdula 1 year ago
obvius joke video XD
NovaNixEternalFlame 1 year ago
"hey fella's! A guy on youtube says it won't work! Shut it down!"
Dirtboy101 1 year ago
You realize they aren't using it for computation but they are using it to communicate between computers...
PinkProgram 1 year ago
That's a nice entanglement chamber.
derman077 1 year ago
This entire video is based upon you saying at the beginning that an electron is not in an uncertain state, and then showing that if that is true, entanglement is a rather simple phenomenon. What you fail to do is address the true issue of entanglement, which is the evidence that suggests that neither electrons can be said to have a defined state until measurement, which is the reason for the "spooky action at a distance" necessarily following that definition of a wave function. Thanks.
lcrone5 1 year ago
u r a fucking idiot, anyone can dick around with wooden blocks like they're tinker toys, it doesn't prove shit about Quantum Entanglement though. there's clearly a reason why Mr. Lazaridas has 150 million dollars or w/e to invest in research and why u found whatever the fuck u have in ur house to model electrons...
jspryguy88 1 year ago
old video dont know do u reply any more but ... have you heard of transatlantic experimrnt between france and usa... seem that theyr right.
bezvezeceda 1 year ago 2
Yea...I'm not going to get into a long winded argument about a topic I do not have a deep understanding of. However I can tell you this, you do not understand the idea of quantum entanglement....at all....or even spin for that matter.
goobergel 1 year ago
ok so what about when they change the spin on one and it instantly changes the spin of the other electron this all happens long after entanglement i thought that was the mind bending part what you have discussed is complementary spin hypothesis can you see ?
Risenangelicaegis 1 year ago
Ingenuous for what is an advance concept of physics. There is a lot going on, as it seems Time & Space is quantum entangled--as long as it is not blocked. Even two starships approaching each other at the speed-of-light (c), has approaching each other only at the speed-of-light (not 2x speed c); this seems to be a form of entanglement as time & space distorts before you ever arrived there. The Universe is entangled with itself, many unanswered questions remain.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
You don't understand QE. Macro (or classical) objects are not electrons. You can't prepare the state of your "classical electron" as a superposition (up or down simultaneously)...
kernel83 1 year ago
@kernel83
...this is only possible at quantum level. At classical level, you can prepare a state s (up or down exclusively), and after a 100 measurements you'll get always s... but at quantum level, you can prepare your state as a superposition (%75 up and 25% down, for example), and after 100 measurements you'll get 75 "ups", 25 "downs" approximately (in a randomly fashion way :) )
kernel83 1 year ago
@kernel83
The difference lies in that the quantum world is NOT deterministic (because of ramdomess), and the classical world is (mostly) deterministic (there's no chance for ramdomess, everything has a cause and a effect).
Sorry, my english is not very good. ;)
kernel83 1 year ago
Schrodingers cat was both
Madsponge 1 year ago
watch?v=9lOWZ0Wv218&feature=related
tgoolsby2 1 year ago
You're ill informed.
tgoolsby2 1 year ago
yeah for it being proved
hat045 1 year ago
wow ! forget researching quantum entanglement !!! forget spending lots of money !! just give this kid some cardboard and some wood and he will discover all !!! GTFO !
WONDOCTORJ 1 year ago
You should read the EPR paper, since you exactly sound like them. You should also read about Bell's Inequality and many experiments done to prove its correctness. Quantum effects don't exactly translate to macro particles in the same way they are observed in micro particles. The uncertainty you're talking about is in the knowledge of the observer, which is different from the uncertainty of the quantum state before you measure and collapse it.
cartonn30gel 1 year ago
i dont totally understand this science but no way can you expect the huge macroscopic world to function the same way as the subatomic world
Zurround100 1 year ago 2
so did he contact you?
tubestick00 1 year ago
Someone obviously doesn't understand QM. But thats ok it was an interesting video but QM effect only apply to sub atomic particles, and one of the basic tenants of QM is that by merely measuring the experiment the affect the outcome which is why in all QM equations there is no single answer be but a range of correct answers. And it has been proven you can shift the quantum state of one particle to another particle a distance away hence quantum teleportation.
liffei420 1 year ago
lol the interconnectedness of everything, shows us information is a dimension. Information is exchanged on the cellular level because everything operates with conscience and purpose
brydonjesse 1 year ago
holy. ****.
shotox21 1 year ago
so if u shake 2 pieces of wood in a box, they both land the same way?
theoriginalJASONXYZ 1 year ago
seriously. they teleported information last year (and proved it can be encrypted). lol. people (realinventor) need to realize their country (canada) isn't the only place spending money on scientific research. i mean what. just because you don't know how much your country spent on CERN means you don't care as much? it only uses like 7 TeV (can you pay for 7 TeV of electricity on your own?)
amh1230 1 year ago
@RealInventor
I can't believe you come onto youtube and attempt to debunk a topic that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of. Your ignorance is breathtaking. I don't care how many inventions you have, you don't know dick about quantum mechanics. Your "experiment" demonstrates nothing but your willful lack of knowledge. If you ACTUALLY want to know something about QM, feel free to PM me, but since you didn't take the time to learn about QM before you made this vid, I highly doubt you will now.
TBucker 1 year ago 2
Whoa there! 2:08 Schroedinger's cat was either dead or alive? Surely the whole point of QM experiments has always been that the wave function is a measure of probability and it acts in a way that only a wave based on probabilities would act. It really isn't one way or the other before measuring. From Young's slits onwards we don't see 'dead or alive' behaviour.
Also 4:00 "This is absurd." QM is absurd. Anyone who doesn't think so has missed something. Unfortunately it is proven beyond doubt.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
i don't want to say you suck without posting more information to the contrary but...... i just don't think wood blocks are the best choice to disprove something that we know works.
foxman796 1 year ago
you're a narrow minded dickhead
mitchtheguitarguy 1 year ago
I dont think wooden blocks in a box, is helping anyone.
colbyseattle 1 year ago
I can't take a thought experiment disproving a theory seriously if it's really just a plea for funding.
InsertSh33p 1 year ago
My understanding of the problem is that you 'affect' one electron by looking at it, revealing what state it was in all along and thus know what state the other one is in. BUT since you don't know what state your own electron was in to begin with it's hard to use this information for anything but encryption keys. It's not like you can - after looking at the electron - change its state and also change the state at the other end.
Is it??
CrystalblueMage 2 years ago
ah didn't they already do experiments that prove entanglement? like with those irradiated chips separated by much distance and when they effected one of the chips, the other responded the same instantly.
ex0gen 2 years ago
@ex0gen Cool
Roshkin 1 year ago
crawl back into your cave you ill informed idiot, thank goodness any qualified informed scientist who may happen to watch this video will laugh even louder than I did and I am an amateur !
1 star for you !!!!
baldricksnosehairs 2 years ago
You think quantum bullshit is science? Good god.
Individualism101 2 years ago
i'm no expert in physics, or quantum physics, but its my understanding that they are mutually exclusive. meaning the laws that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles are completely different from the laws that govern larger than atomic objects. for example, a baseball can only exist in one place at any one time, but an electron can exist in multiple places at any one time unless being directly observed. since your blocks of wood are not electrons, it seems your experiment proves nothing.
L84sch0ol2 2 years ago
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It has been shown time and again in EPR experiments and theory that measurements of entangled particles display statistical correlations that cannot be explained by the probabilities of classical physics or of any theories of hidden variables. It's called the Bell Inequality. When one particle is measured, its entangled partner immediately responds by changing its quantum state accordingly, violating the inequality.
Yaridovich370 2 years ago
Now if the Krispy Kremes would have reappeared in the box, I would have been impressed.
Dreg64 2 years ago
Nice video, but if you zap your first block and switch its state, the second block automatically switches its state regardless of the distance between them.
Your ill informed.
myrdale 2 years ago 7
"You're" ill informed.
myrdale 2 years ago 17
No, it doesn't. What you said was that a particle physically changes state based on the remote measurement of the state of its "entangled" counterpart. If this is what you think entanglement is, then I'm sorry you are ill informed. The popular description of QE is a remotely induced collapse of a wave-function, this is what you're trying to refer to, and I'm saying this interpretation may be wrong.
RealInventor 2 years ago
@RealInventor You are ill informed. Quantum entanglement does not happen at the macroscopic level. And what's one of the first things you say? "We use a macroscopic model to demonstrate Quantum entanglement." Quantum computers are already being realised through Josephson Junctions and Abrikosov vortices.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@myrdale No they cant prove this, they can only prove this on earth, or the dimension earth is in. You may find out that this effect works in the same gravity field, dimensions of energy or gravity and not time, work better for this. Energy is the structure of the dimension, c is the constant of this dimension, that is why time can differ in it, and time is regulated by the amount of gravity produced in the dimension...my thoughts only.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
No, it doesn't. What you said was that a particle physically changes state based on the remote measurement of the state of its "entangled" counterpart. If this is what you think entanglement is, then I'm sorry you are ill informed. The popular description of QE is a remotely induced collapse of a wave-function, this is what you're trying to refer to, and I'm saying this interpretation may be wrong.
RealInventor 2 years ago
@myrdale agreed.
ElevenDancingRhino 1 year ago
HahahaHAHA. Funny skit, bro. This guy has potential.
ebola111 2 years ago
I don't claim to be an expert, but I bet you 50 bucks those aren't anywhere near like real electrons :P
snow111111 2 years ago 2
It was proven statistically that the entanglement is not pre-programmed and is actually generated at the moment the wave function collapses. I'm not saying it can carry information instantaneously, only that your premise that everything is defined at the moment of the entanglement (an idea Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen tried to use against quantum mechanics) was proven to be wrong by people way smarter than you and me, like John Bell and people in the Aspect experiment.
mfunke 2 years ago
If I have a white and a black ball, put them both in boxes, randomly give you one and move to Mars, then when I open the box and I find, say, the white ball, I immediately know you have the black one. This is completely classical and is NOT quantum entanglement, but it's exactly what your demonstration describes.
Alzareon 2 years ago
This video is obviously nothing more than an advertisement:
"I have an extensive portfolio of inventions spanning several fields.... which with the proper funding can drastically change the way people live and interact with real world applications"
Obviously this guy wants to discount a theory/process for something NOT in his "extensive portfolio of inventions" It's exactly like a detergent commercial saying they are better than Brand X. How can any one take him seriously?
jimmo42 2 years ago
"Einstein and many others believed that when one entangled particle is measured it instantaneous sends a message to the other particle."
Excuse me? Einstein was an OPPONENT of quantum entanglement. That's why he called it "spooky". He believed it would be proven to be simply errors in the calculation.
It seems this guy does not know what he is talking about.
jimmo42 2 years ago
This guy isn't as crazy as this other guy on YouTube. Search for "Einstein's Idiots" and watch his videos - now that's crazy.
nickwalnut 2 years ago
Quantum computing has never been predicated upon transmitting information thru entanglement..........only upon using the correlation due to entanglement......
back to the blackboard with your analysis please.....
phxfreddy 2 years ago
you dont understand the pricipels of quantum physics, luckely you dont have any saying in where you government should spend money.
quantum computers will change the world, and quantum internet even more.
zimmond 2 years ago
This guy is playing like devil's advocate. He really does know about quantum mechanics and then try mess with quantum entanglement. Nice job bro u have made people explain what they know about quantum physics. ^ ^
cielonagel 2 years ago
Wow.... The video guy really demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. .. Those aren't electrons... They're wooden blocks! If you don't understand why this makes all the difference you probably shouldn't be passing comment. Also, quantom entanglement is experimentally verifiable and is used in loads of applicatios already. The can "teleport" photons over distance by utilising the effects of entanglement.... You make yourself look a fool.
Kezara 2 years ago 2
Sir, who do you think you are. What makes you more qualified than the scientists who say quantum computing is possible. They HAVE done quantum calculations (albeit simple ones). The current problem is that the atoms must be at near absolute zero temperatures, and are extremely fragile. All we need are more stable quantum bits.
You fool.
chessami92 2 years ago
You cheated! You preset your electrons into an either 100% or 100% down state by matching them under the cloth. You 'pre-measured' them. So of course you got the results you wanted. Electrons are not coins like your wooden blocks, and do not have definite spins before you measure them. By your cheating 'pre-measurement' you gave them a definite spin before your 'official measurement'.
mrazrad 2 years ago 27
@mrazrad
I agree. This was pre--measurement.
penzman 1 year ago
@mrazrad They were wooden blocks not electrons.
UnitedCorpOfAmerica 1 year ago
@mrazrad
Yes, you are right. When he put his hands under the cloth, he preset the "spins" on the blocks. So when the cloth was removed they had the "spins" he set!
thexMechanic 1 year ago
@mrazrad People who UNDERSTAND this are the ones investing money in the research, not trolls like the OP.
ReasonHelpUs 1 year ago
Hey guy you can't explain quantum mechanics with cardboard box hahahahaha go talk about politics where you belong.
tangnatalaga 2 years ago 3
It is really hard to grasp quantum mechanics without mathematics, unfortunately for most of us including me, we don't really enjoy mathematics that much specially calculus in which one must know in dealing with high level physics. This guy on the video is not a physicist, he is a philosopher, hahahahaha he belongs in politics not in science.
tangnatalaga 2 years ago
I would suggest trying it with magnets. And a few coils to measure the field.
snoplopolist 2 years ago
WHo the hell are u to compare ur knowledge with famous scientist who've worked on quantum mechanics for years. this is five minutes im not getting back
koby10r 2 years ago
You know nothing about which you speak and you have proved that at least.
phaedres 2 years ago
grick31 ur an idiot, you cant control what the particles spin is going to be, its random. hence no signal can be sent fast than light. so no information actually travels faster than light, just knowledge
TroyNavy0134 2 years ago
this eexperiment isnt accurate and doesnt really prove anything. people arent looking at one particle and then employing the knowledge that they know what the other particle is, the use is that you can choose what one paricle is, by measuring it in a certain way, which is then useful as you know what the other particle is, effectivley instantaneously sending information. this effect has caused physicists to look differently at spatial dimensions
gricka31 2 years ago
uhmm.... i thought we all ready have created and computed with Q-bits... it wasn't alot, but still.... and it was used to solve a Sodoku puzzle for the demonstration... just search around for it.... waste of money, i think not... well... not really, it is necessary for security issues..
REZJT 2 years ago
In quantum mechanics, a particle that has exactly the same orientation is the same particle as the other one simply put. You obviously don't understand it. You better stick to politics where you are good at. Unfortunately politicians brain don't function like physicist. To bad they have to rule our country.
tangnatalaga 2 years ago
There is actually reason to believe that all matter is actually a single electron/positrion going forward and backward in time repetitively. Read Physics of the Impossible for some interesting info on quantum phys. I'm a physics and computer science major, so I can expect to take some classes on this in a couple years :)
Until then I'll continue ignoring the math and attempting to gain at least an elementary grasp on quamtum theory's applications
ThorsDecree 2 years ago
I read a lot about extreme physics. I aint a physicist, but I am an electronic engineer. One of my greatest interest is quantum mechanics. Superposition, parallel universe, quantum teleportation, quantum computers etc. I also read about negative energy, and all that.
tangnatalaga 2 years ago
you dont know shit about entanglement. as you should know the laws of physics do not hold true for quantum physics. its a new set of law so i dont know what you are trying to prove here. what you fail to see is ur up spin block and your down spin block are in fact the same wave function, at least thats how quantum physics works.
TheRaindog1988 2 years ago
In quantum mechanics, if two paricles have the same orientation then it can't be distinguished, and therefore they are the same one. This guys simply don't get it. His brain function like a politician. He think he understand but he doesnt.
tangnatalaga 2 years ago
WHAT?!
THIS DOESNT PROVE ANYTHING, srry man!
When electrons are being measured AGAIN, you also change their state AAAAND CHANGE THE STATE OF THE OTHER PAIRED ELECTRON...THATS WHAT IS INTERESTING.
Nice playing with paper and wood though :P
have fun!
ispaniola 2 years ago
You're not making sense. It doesn't matter whether a message is sent or not. The cause of it is irrelevant. We are simply taking advantage of the effect.
onlyontuesdays99 2 years ago 2
"Tangled Up in Blue" Who knew what that title really meant?
Kidding.
dylanlives 2 years ago
From what I think I understand, Schrodinger's cat is an analogy and is of course actually existing in only one state at a time(especailly due the cat observing itself). The particles observed in entaglement, or rather before they are observed, actually are in two states simultaneously as can be observed in the gold foil or beam splitter experiments. Firing a cat through a passage without looking at it has not created a wavecat pattern on the other end in my experience.
PenguinJin 2 years ago
I'm not a physicist, but as a computer scientist I can see a lot of similarities to classic computing. For example in computing we use bits that can have two states 0 or 1. Here you said that we have either a spin up or spin down state. Therefore, why can't we use this information in the classic manner?
E.g - Spin up = 1
Spin down = 0
The advantage I imagine is that information would travel instantaneously.
Just a thought.
mak19801980 2 years ago
Problem is, If you know turn over one of the blocks, according to entanglement, the other one will instantly turn over too, even at a distance. Therefor information is, in a sence, being transmitted.
ljdp 2 years ago 3
manmitch is correct, they aren't trying to send any information through entanglement, the information is still sent via classical channels, after entaglement has assisted in speeding the speed of calculations.
Nice job on the video though.
Perhaps a trip to Wikipedia can help you iron some of these ideas out before you go through all this trouble. They have a whole section on quantum computing which answers the questions you raise.
Circumvenscion 3 years ago
Its a good thing the researchers at IQC already know that you can't use quantum entanglement to transmit data. This isn't what quantum computing is trying to accomplish. This demonstration does a pretty good job of explaining entanglement, but money is not being wasted on attempting to achieve something proved impossible a long time ago.
bstocco 3 years ago
This is a hoax? watch?v=6BQdyHj66wE
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
you're right. NO information can be transferred using entanglement. That's not how quantum computers work, though. They calculate using the superposition principle, and entanglement is used as a way to figure out the result after the calculation has already been done.
manmitch 3 years ago 2
manmitch, Thank you for your response. I've never heard quantum computation explained that way before. I'm going to revisit material I've read previously and read it from this perspective (i.e. entanglement as an observation tool, not as a calculation tool).
This is the response I've been waiting for... thanks!
Could you please reference a paper that discusses this concept?
RealInventor 3 years ago
I do hope that this is an joke right...
because quantum mechanics does not work on a macroscopic scale and is at first sight not very logical at all.
And actually after you have taken a good look still isn't
vndlst 3 years ago
Get them to prove you wrong before you feel obliged to take notice of everything everyone says is wrong.
Make the scientists prove you wrong, coz if they can't.
My my will it get interesting!
SabretoothSnowMan 3 years ago
I think manmitch may have hit the proverbial nail on the head, but I'm not going to retract my statement without further exhaustive research, which I'm more than willing to do. Nothing would make me happier than to learn that QE computers are valid and the large amount of research dollars are in fact not being wasted.
Thank you for your response!
RealInventor 3 years ago
one hole in your experiment. were all the particles in one of your wooden blocks the entangled particles to the other block? theres no way to know. this is the problem with interpretations of modern theories. since the birth of quantum physics there were theories then experiments to prove or disprove, then change theories to an experimental outcome. thats what we should be doing. your experiment proved nothing because you didnt have any entangled particles, if they exist.
gerjammer 3 years ago
-irrelevant to entanglement "theories", rather than entanglement itself.
GodspeedX 3 years ago
I agree with soulhunter, the spins on electrons are always complimentary therefore only two possibilities exist, not four, so the model is immediately wrong in that respect. ALso you're confusing quantum mechanics with classical physics which is what your model is obviously based on. Another point is that Einstein was never a quantum theorist, the only relation he had with nuclear energy was his E=MC(squared) which is base to nuclear energy, but irrelevant to Entanglement.
GodspeedX 3 years ago
MY GOD! i cannot get over how ridiculous this is!
thesoulhunter666 3 years ago
Your right, it is a debate of interpretation. Does particles exist in an absolute state regardless of measurement or are they in "all states at once" until they are measured? While mathematically, Q.superposition is necessary, I simply choose to believe the former. I don't feel that a systems lack of knowledge about a particle has any effect on the particle state. This 5 minute video helps describe my interpretation, not justify it. Rediculous is spending money on QE computation. WASTE!!!
RealInventor 3 years ago
Your response was actually refreshing-the most accurate one I've received yet; regardless tone. It is indeed a hot debate.
So, please provide a link to a paper that discusses the reversability of Quant. Entanglement. This is a requirement for computation, is it not?
You won't find one because QE isn't reversable. It's simply one way (albeit erroneous) to describe quantum state.
It is IDIOTIC to waste money on a computation method that inherently can't fascilitate computation.
RealInventor 3 years ago
Whether or not some hidden variable interpretation revealing that there is objectivity in these quantities takes a prominent position in quantum mechanics or not is not something that you're IDIOTIC analogy can solve in 5 minutes. Back to the drawing board fool.
thesoulhunter666 3 years ago
You cannot make that assertion using your simple macroscopic wooden block analogy! That is one of the largest debates in the field of quantum mechanics and has for the most part been over ruled by probabilistic interpretations. The whole complexity of quantum theory arises from the idea that particles do not have objective properties until measured. Measuring one assigns it a property in the real world, thus forcing the entangled particle to take complimentary measurement. You are a fool.
thesoulhunter666 3 years ago
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! the fact of the matter is that in a entangled system, you know that your 2 particles have complimentary spin. Applying schrodinger's equation to either of the particles yields a probabilistic result for that particle's state. The assertion that the particle is stateless in classical terms until measured and that the act of measuring assigns a classical state is what results in entanglement. You are arguing that the state of the particle is an objective fact...
thesoulhunter666 3 years ago
Your cardboard and wood block prototype is impressive. However, I believe the soda can and string model provides far more conclusive evidence in favor of entanglement.
Kayputk 3 years ago
common sense doesn't apply on the quantum level.
dmix09 3 years ago
Move to U.S. Obama will give you a grant for your research
in Ameros!
dicknaboxxx 3 years ago
I live in the U.S. and I work in Washington D.C. for the DoD. I see wasted investments (both by tax payers capital and that of VC's) all the time, which is what drove me to make this video.
RealInventor 3 years ago
yes it is clear realinventors intelligence is artificial, I will now prove that apples are not oranges.
dicknaboxxx 3 years ago
What?
RealInventor 3 years ago
Realinventor is an idiot to believe that it wont work!
jkingiv 3 years ago
So... why will it work then?
RealInventor 3 years ago
TEH INTERNET IS A SERIES OF TUBES
secobi 3 years ago
up, down; on, off; one, zero; same difference.
secobi 3 years ago
you act as if you're the first to look at it from that perspective. you act as if wooden blocks have the same properties as wooden blocks. then in the last 30 seconds your agenda becomes clear.
ContainsIt 3 years ago
that is not enough to deny the quantum entanglement, it is not always correct to challenge the authority by merely showing i have the courage simply reject it
davidwizard2006 3 years ago
Now I see your point, but if you have the proof of this, please share it, this topic is very intriguing.
housemandoc23 3 years ago
I'm not a super smart guy, but I thought you can't know the exact position of a particle at all?
housemandoc23 3 years ago
quantum superposition tells gives us a range of possibilities for that particle's position. if you found out a particle's exact position, you couldn't find out it's velocity or direction as well, since time is "stopped" in that observation.
and vice-versa.
cobaltdan9 3 years ago
Give a mathematical proof and submit it for peer review.
SPRoubi2020 3 years ago
A question if I may. For your experiment to be valid, you would need to show that wooden blocks have the same properties as electrons. Are you aware of this? And if so, please show your reasoning behind it. I have never seen or heard anything to back up suck a statment. I would like to know what you have.
yourwingman 3 years ago
You are thinking classicaly.
Delayed choice quantum eraser.
entanglement
"the interference pattern disappears when which-path information is obtained, even if this information was obtained without directly observing the original photon, but that if you somehow "erase" the which-path information, the interference pattern reappears. In the delayed choice quantum eraser, the pattern reappears even if the which-path information is erased after the signal photons hit the primary detector."
abram730 3 years ago
if Quantum entanglement isn't capable of logical computations then how can you explain how it's allowing you to have logical computations in your own mind, and is the building blocks of a very logical universe
Shakeitupyes 3 years ago
you are simply to stupid...
Urdarmani 3 years ago
LOL
cobaltdan9 3 years ago
I am simply too stupid and you can't even spell Too??? Go suck yo mammas titties you elementary retarded freak.
Shakeitupyes 3 years ago
What?
RealInventor 3 years ago
Yeah, you know exactly "what" you manipulative deceptive coward. Gotta feel all big shot like you're in control and have all the answers do you, but you're living with a sense of false power bro. You got nothin, you're a pawn in a bigger game. And you just earned another negative star
shakeitupyes2 3 years ago
OK, thank you for your feedback.
RealInventor 3 years ago
Man, if you were trying to sell your idea I think you could have spent more effort in your presentation. How about some slide show or something? I think your experiment lack substance, firstly because you cannot represent quantum mechanics with wooden blocks..
glymusic 3 years ago
150 milliol dollars vs a kid with 1.00 worth of material?lol you created the intention of your out come so its not valid in short
PARKEREAL 3 years ago
Sometimes $1 is all it takes. $150M will still not yeild a QE computer. It simply can't work because no information is transferred between the entangled particles. You need information transfer for computation to work.
RealInventor 3 years ago
I'm no expert but shouldn't a quantum experiment be done at the quantum level?
leejw00t354 3 years ago
It's a thought experiment intended to explain, not collect data.
RealInventor 3 years ago
Sorry corection for last post. I ment the nucleus of an atom that contains neutrons and protons.
superguy2876 3 years ago
Second the experiment is not performed on the quantum level as the physics applied there are completely different to the macro world. Third even though basically every thing is made out of particles the nucleus of protons and neutrons completely nulls this as they have measurable mass.
ps sorry about the double post I went over the 500 character limit
superguy2876 3 years ago
This is one of the most inaccurate experiments that I have ever seen. Quantum entanglement, weather in photons or electrons, is between QUANTUM particles and as far as I know they are not made out of wood and so would not have the same properties.
superguy2876 3 years ago
It's a thought experiment, not emperical.
RealInventor 3 years ago
you simply don't know what your talking about, sorry...
tonyrueb 3 years ago 4
ok in my humble Computer Systems Engineer opinion that experiment doesn't demonstrate anything because, from what I've been reading about, the entanglement concept only applies at the quantum level. Your experiment used wooden blocks that are not part of the quantum level. Forgive me if I'm wrong though is not my field but i think that to demonstrate entanglement in its true way you have to do it at a quantum level. Any scientist in the field please correct me if I'm wrong.
zerocooldr 3 years ago
Agreed.
Vejita12 3 years ago
same goes for you bitch
Shakeitupyes 3 years ago
What?
RealInventor 3 years ago
You're DoD, obviously you removed the comment I was replying to, typical manipulative behavior I can expect from my government's employees. Take away the initial offense and leave the reply to make the replier look crazy is it.. pff DoD I bet you don't even know what AES is, until you google it of course and come up with this all knowing answer. Go back to communist russia if you want to manipulate and play mind games.
shakeitupyes2 3 years ago
It's a thought experiment, not emperical.
RealInventor 3 years ago
I don't know TOO much about quantum theory... but with all do respect considering the fact that it hasn't been around for very long at all, wouldn't one presume that experimentation is a GOOD idea considering that it has sorta been responsible for every scientific advance since... we could say the word science?
thetimmons 3 years ago
I also heard of experiments with photon pairs many years ago. Their results as well as the implications of infinity got me curious about some aspects of reality.
In the experiment I heard about, one photon of a pair was passed through a polarizing filter I believe, which instantaneously affected the other photon. To me that just meant that they were still connected in one or more dimension that we don't understand yet, which of course is not the same as information going through normal space.
tempus8080808 3 years ago
to clarify my last comment: what I have read about two entangled particles changing state simultaneously (which is the very essence of entanglement) was not in regards to electrons, but photons. When the two photons are CREATED together they remain in an entangled state. This is easily done by colliding an electron with a positron. Because they come from one event, their spin must remain opposite. When one spin is changed, the other photon's spin changes accordingly, experimentally verified
lzepln 3 years ago
lzep1n:"When one spin is changed, the other photon's spin changes accordingly, experimentally verified"
Please reference said experiment, I have looked hard and haven't found such an experiment. People do jump to that conclusion however. Though if it were really possible then someone could send information faster than the speed of light and no one has ever done that.
potsandwich 3 years ago
This is only true in a pristine environment. If after said event, one of the entangled particles is affected by it's environment (i.e. runs into another particle) it could lose it's spin (polarization) without the experimenter even knowing it. When the measurement is taken, said entangled particles will not have the expected spin.
The "bigger" point is that the experimenter must already know the result in order to verify the entangled state. Thus, this is useless for performing computations.
RealInventor 3 years ago
why not show ur face fatty
musicthingz 3 years ago
It's my eyebrows. They're simply too bushy.
RealInventor 3 years ago
your hands were in that box for a while, you but the blocks how you wanted them, proving only your a fucktard
loser0214 3 years ago
Eloquently put.
Yes, I did put the "virtual particles" together with my hands; you missed the point of the demonstration. It doesn't matter how they come together (randomly falling together, or I could've used two magnets), the point is that at some point the particles become aligned. This alignment is all that exists between real entangled particles (or waves); regardles of how the particles are united.
RealInventor 3 years ago
You seem to be confusing the combining or joining of particles with entanglement. You put them together and refer to that as entangling them. Entanglement is the idea of those particles retaining a relationship AFTER they're separated. You're suggesting that QE is like knowing the state of one thing because it's being joined with another in the only possible way (like knowing the position of a key that's put in a lock), but that's not really what QE is.
matein1 3 years ago
Yes, I do imply that QE is just a means of bypassing uncertainty. It's a matter of how physicists interpret both mathematical models and experimental results. In any QE experiment, measuring the state of one particle, instantaneously giving you the state of the other. However, if you alter the state of the particle just measure, the second particle does not change state accordingly. I, and several others view this a strong evidence that QE is merely alignment of state, not a conduit of info.
RealInventor 3 years ago
"if you alter the state of the paricle just measure[d], the second particle does not change state accordingly." are you sure about this? So far every source I've found says the opposite. the book entitled "The Elegant Universe" by Robert Green, is in complete contradiction to your statement. As is a host of videos on youtube, nova, and the science channel. That's a significant list to contradict. Can you explain this inconsistency? I mean merely to learn, not to challenge your view.
lzepln 3 years ago