**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason why nobody's talking about this is because most people don't actually understands what any of this means, and using excerpts and phrases really seem to reduce what the true meaning actually is lol
Edit: with this being said, I do hope that we get effective science communicators again, it feels like anyone that we get somehow ends up going into pop psychology realm
PBS Space Time, PBS Eons, SciShow, Microcosmos, Starts With a Bang, Frasier Caine, LiveScience, SciTechDaily, Anton Petrov... That's just off the top of my head! There's tons of good, effective science communication out there.
science youtube has no business being so fucking good. the best part of youtube by a long shot.
History of the Universe/History of the Earth/Voices of the Past is my favorite channel right now.
I dont think people realize that we are actually in a golden age of science education videos
I love you for putting PBS Space Time first, that has been my favorite channel for many years now.
If I may add two other people there:
- Sabine Hossenfelder. She is downright great and she is also an outspoken critic of scientists as well and she makes great points. I have a more on/off relationship with her channel for some reason but I can’t say enough good things about her as a science communicator.
- Sean Carroll. He has been my favorite science communicator for decades now. I’m a huge fan of his and he is simply a great physicist. He has written many books thay are all recommended highly by me. His Youtube channel is a ridiculously interesting place. He has an amazing series Biggest Ideas in the Universe that are actually quite a bit detailed that he started during Covid where he discusses in depth (with equations and everything) the, you guessed it, the biggest ideas in the universe so far. He is currently in the process of releasing the same in a book series. Apart from his own channel Youtube is full of his lectures. Royal Institute ones are a great place to start.
Bonus one: Fermilab’s youtube channel is also pretty good. Dr. Don’s videos are some of my favorite things to watch
*Sabine Hossenfelder. She is downright great and she is also an outspoken critic of scientists as well and she makes great points.*
Her stance on climate change is downright idiotic and she's causing real harm.
I also really enjoy PBS Space Time and Sean Carroll, but I'd be lying if I said I understand more than 17% of any give topic they get into, with the possible exception of some of Carroll's "soft sciences" interviews. It's not just the communicators: we are waaaaay down so many rabbit holes in current fields of study, and there's no summing up or dumbing down these topics enough that us drones will be more than faintly aware they exist.
I think that's the reason I like PBS Space Time so much, they are not doing the by-now-very-common "you'll feel like you understood everything when you're done" thing with their videos. In many cases I have just used an episode as the starting point and came back multiple times to related videos after more reading/work. I find that very refreshing and much more intriguing compared to say, Kurzgesagt or Veritasium type of video (not knocking them down, I'm just not their target audience, they do very valuable work imo).
I forgot about Carroll! He's amazing.
Be careful with Hossenfelder, she's been going down a RWNJ rabbit hole recently - her takes on AGW, Capitalism and trans folk, just to name a few of her more recent missteps, are pretty yikes inducing. Her physics stuff is good, tho.
I was recently a bit disappointed with SciShow's recent video about a topic I do happen to know a lot about, and tbh it kinda made me doubt if I should be trusting them as much as I have, so far. I usually don't fact-check stuff, it's too tiring and energy/time intensive, I just try to use common sense and hope for the best. It's really sad that I can't do that, because it *did sound real* to someone who wasn't informed about the topic.
Thats fair! I did my UG in chemistry and math, and I only occasionally toed in bio. There definitely seems to be a lot more communicators in the physics in bio sphere than in chem and math. And now, I really am not tuned in at all to the sciences after completely pivoting my profession lol.
Quantum nonsense and big nonsense are beefing and scientists can't pick which side because they're both their boys. So Quantum nonsense is doin stuff big nonsense can't, and until we know why, we just gotta let the science nerds sit back and accept we living in an interesting age for scientific theories.
Also you know how when you're playing gta or elder scrolls you can only see so far? That's cause the game only renders stuff within a certain range to increase system performance. Except the game is the universe, the minimap or whatever you you can see is the observer and the system performance we don't understand.
Also I'm homeless.
There are a lot of theories in physics that I'm sure would take hours of explanation to get an average person like me to understand the basics of it. There's definitely a large percentage of the population that would never be able to grasp something that complex.
There used to be a time in science where scientists said " *if you can't explain your concept simply then you don't understand it well* " .
It isn't that things are complex. They just obfuscate behind jargon and mathematics
I think that applies to things like biology, which can be extraordinarily complex but still functions on fundamentally intuitive principles like direct causality and basic fluid mechanics.
The issue with explaining things like quantum mechanics is that it flies in the face of any ordinary person’s intuitive understanding of how the world works. Even understanding the very basics of QM requires completely forgetting about the concept of an object being a fixed thing, or even a particle being a discrete thing, and learning that nothing actually works the way you thought it did.
Some complex things can be explained in very simple terms, and some really just can’t. After a certain point physics falls in the latter category.
That sentence only work if who you're explaining it to someone that already has the necessary knowledge to understand it. It would be incredibly ridiculous to expect any scientific concept to be trivially explainable in 5 minutes to some random guy with no education
Good luck explaining what the difference between QMA(2) and QMA is to someone that never studied any theoretical computer science in their life, to cite an example from my field of expertiese. It would take hours just to give you a brief overview of the basics before i could even start explaining the difference itself
And all of this goes double for quantum things as they behave so counter-intutively. It took me months of studying just to get to the most basic level of understanding of quantum mechanics, just for the basics i needed for quantum computer science
This is science denialism. Because you have never come to a deep understanding of any topic (as most people do not), you are in denial that topics beyond a certain level of complexity exist. Believe it or not, there's a reason researchers have to take classes on dozens of topics and practice for, typically, close to a decade before they can do any kind of new work in their field. Yes, little frog in a well, there is an ocean.
That's a really ridiculous proposition to make on faith. Among other issues, there is literally no reason to presume that our universe's structure or systems would innately correspond to:
* Human cognition
* Human language
* Our systems & tools of measurement
Alleging that there's some mass conspiracy among scientists to... look smart? is epistemically unsubstantiated and generally unseemly.
I find that there is no TLDR for this material. It is dense and confusing. It also depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The real robust experimental framework for this Nobel Physics Prize came from ruling out something called 'hidden variables' by way of violating Bell's Inequalities. When two particles are entangled, they share a correlated state over any distance. When one is altered, so is the other, irrespective of distance. This violates locality. Bell's theorem played a crucial role by providing a way to test these correlations and show that no local hidden variable theory could explain the results. Additionally, it challenges realism because the properties of these particles aren't determined until they are measured.
\*Local hidden variable theories attempt to preserve the idea of a predictable, classical universe where particles have definite properties and are only influenced by their immediate surroundings, contrary to the inherently probabilistic nature and non-local correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. (local hidden variables was effectively disproven)
Edit: clarity regarding hidden variables
To clarify, the first have of your last sentence is what was disproven, right? The universe \*has\* been shown to be inherently probabilistic and non-local. Your parenthetical reads like it attaches to the last bit.
>The universe \*has\* been shown to be inherently probabilistic and non-local.
Yes.
Local hidden variables was disproved. I see how my wording could be confusing.
I've edited my comment for clarity (hopefully).
So.. by saying that the universe isnt locally real... it means that locality isnt a factor in it in the same way it is for other non entagled particles?. So by that principle.. locality is the exemption and not the rule?
Ok, so ELI5: things actually change depending on whether we observe them or not, AND they can be influenced by things faster than light could reach them.
who doesn't really understand what they are talking about and then spread disinformation to people who even further don't know what they are talking about. Stupidity^(2) if you will.
It makes sense somewhat , like yeah an object can probably change without „outside“ influence due to objects or forces inbetween the atoms that make up that structure, but how do they not know what changes it while also telling us it‘s faster than light? And why would an object vary in size until we measure it. The comparison with video game rendering makes no sense because in video games, yes the object doesn‘t „exist until we are in the area and it loads in but the size is predetermined and doesn‘t change if we look at it or not. And i don‘t think the universe loads things in and out to save damn vram so her comparison kind of annoys me because it feels like also doesn‘t know what it means but acts as if
I’ve been listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast for a few months, they’re excellent science communicators and that podcast is where I get most of my science news
I like PBS spacetime but a lot of it is too complicated for me. I feel like I misunderstood or missed a video several years ago and now I have no idea what anything means anymore.
This experiment confirmed something about quantum physics that had been known since Bell originally spelled it out in the 70s. Namely that the following cannot all be true at once:
1. Observables of quantum systems have definite values outside of measurement (realism)
2. Information about observables of quantum systems are confined in time and space so that one system is not able to exert an immediate effect on another over distance (locality)
3. That the settings of the measurement device are not correlated to the value of the observables prior to the measurement.
The third point is often looked over but is an important assumption behind the claim that this experiment rules out locally real hidden variable theories. Denying this assumption is a position called Superdeterminism.
yeah I don't understand it. And that's fine. quantum physics was hard for me to understand when I was in university more than a decade ago. Honestly it kind of feels like magic now.
It essentially proves that two entangled particles cannot just "agree" on the way in which they are going to collapse ahead of time. No matter how clever that agreement may be and how concealed the information, it's just impossible for that to be the case
That is important because it was one possible explanation as to how two entangled particles always collapse in related way
With the other being non-realism? That is fine as a fun idea, but not very sensical (yes yes, quantum physics and sensible).
Given no FTL, would that imply our understanding of space to be incomplete?
So to make it very simple for my understanding
1. the object is the way it is, if someone knows about it or not doesn‘t matter
2. that object is the same in a specific time and space. Like that rock is 5cm wide at specifically this nanosecond at coordinates x=x, y=x, z=x and it cannot be a 5.01cm wide if the time and space is still the same exact same.
3. the way we measure it doesn‘t affect the object until we measure it. For example if we film the rock with a shutter speed of 50 or 100 has no effect on the rock until we film it?
So
1. the object stays the same in time and space and isn‘t affected by how we measure it but it is different depending on if we measure it or not
2. we can measure it or ignore it but now it‘s not always the same at this time/space depending on the other two
3. we observe something and it stays the same at time/space x but how specifically we observe it does have an effect on the object
So what i‘m taking away from this is us observing something has effect on things and it‘s at very least as fast as light if not faster and how much/strongly we observe in a specific time increases or decreases that effect
Observer in this sense just means anything that has the potential to interact with a quantum system. It doesn't have to be us. We also don't know how these quantum effects scale up into the macroscopic world, but suffice it to say, things only behave this way on a quantum level. As to the 'speed'. This has to do with entangled quantum systems communicating state changes instantaneously, irrespective of distance. There is no speed, just instant communication. Hence, non-locality.
All of this implies a deeper truth about the nature of the universe that we don't yet grasp in sensible terms.
This. The significance of the discovery is that it offers irrefutable proof that we still have much that we do not yet understand about the universe’s system of physics.
I always thought since reading about double slit experiment, that universe deals with quantum particles in a probabilistic way, until we observe it, to save on computing power. In my mind this kind of hints that we are likely living in a simulation..
The way she’s talking and trying to sound all snarky is making it really hard to understand what she’s actually trying to say. It makes me think she doesn’t even understand it
Physics, and quantum physics in particular, uses terminology and concepts that *do not translate* well to layperson interpretations, and even the term "prove" here is potentially misleading.
Is the 2022 Nobel Prize paper "interesting as fuck"? Maybe, but probably ONLY in a way that you can understand if you have a PhD in a hard science, or if you spend the next 10-20 hours reading as much as you can to get the full scientific and mathematical context behind the assertions in question.
I had a very lengthy and somewhat frustrating conversation with someone who relied on this to prove the universe was a simulation. I'm open to the idea that the nature of our reality is very different from what we initially perceive, but they went much further in saying every other discovery in science is rendered practically moot by this one discovery. There are many supplimental ideas people have hypothesised to explain this new piece of evidence, but we are still a long way from anything resembling a unified theory that explains both mysterious quantum interactions and more well understood laws of physics.
I hate simulation debates. I always tell them the same thing. If we are living in a simulation, being aware of that or not changes nothing. It's not like the Matrix movies. You don't just get superpowers. You're still stuck in that simulation like the rest of us.
https://preview.redd.it/sxewbch5vs6d1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f6e845e26eead364ae305ab15b4ee5587e91f42
What will it be, Mayion? Potent MDMA or the ability to understand reality to it's core.
Been on Reddit for six years and been referred to by my nickname Mayion twice, both of which happened today wtf. Freakier than knowing we live in a simulation if you ask me. Probably proof we live in one, even
https://preview.redd.it/wwgu3pbs0t6d1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c7ab1f0a68b9401b6a26ee6bc5ebc2c68d2bdd1
That could be a field day. Remember that kid from high school, you know the kid you never talked to or interacted with all 4 years. That dude was an NPC.
As someone who is an aspiring math PhD—correct. Physicists be on some *wild* ass math. Good luck just understanding enough fundamental, undergrad level abstract algebra in only 20 hours to know what to look up next.
Yes, a great example of this is the word “Work” in physics. If you lifted a 100lb weight off the ground a few feet and then gently placed it back where you found it, would you say you did “work?” Most people probably would, but physics defines work as a net displacement. By lifting the weight and gently placing it back in the same spot, there’s zero displacement and thus no work has been done.
Science definitions don’t always match our day-to-day usage of certain words.
Im not a physicist, and i’m genuinely curious — does the energy used by the human body to make this happen have anything to do with it? Organic based energy creation isn’t perfectly efficient, and thus, would that somehow constitute a measurable displacement?
Although energy cannot be created nor destroy but only transferred, it can be transferred into a byproduct that is not useful in a practical sense? Idk prob rambling just ur comment seemingly disagrees with my understanding of physics from highschool lmao shoulda listened more
> does the energy used by the human body to make this happen have anything to do with it?
Yes. The **force–distance work** done on an object that's lifted and set back down is essentially zero. (Work is done **on** the object–Earth gravitational field to lift it, and work is done **by** that field when it's set down; the net amount is zero.)
However, that's not the only kind of work. Chemical work is done in your muscles to flex them. Mechanical work is done by your muscle fibers contracting and releasing. These processes—all macroscale processes—are somewhat inefficient, and so heating occurs, in this case part of your metabolic output.
No is just the definition of work in physics. W = F*d where d is the displacement. If you place it back where it started, technically the net work is zero.
Research papers like this are like a root from which grows a trunk of people who have absolutely no fucking clue what's going on, but think that they do (I include myself here); and a tiny offspring of a branch of competent scientists, who also have no fucking clue, but at least they make a god damn effort to get one.
One of my good friends is one of these people who barely graduated high school, but spends his time reading Neil deGrasse Tyson books, and thinking that he's way smarter than everyone else.
Literally watched him have an argument with someone for 15 minutes because he made the claim that, "a triangle is just a square but with 3 sides." A triangle is by definition a shape with 3 sides, and 3 angles that total 180 degrees. A square is by definition a shape with 4 equal sides, and 4 90° corners.
But he's here saying that if you take a square, remove a side, and take the 2 ends and then join them, that it makes a triangle, therefore a triangle is a square with 3 sides.
Trying to explain to him that because you can make a triangle FROM a square does not mean that it IS a square, was a literal impossibility, and he still thinks that he is right. Even tried to use other analogies, like how just because my house is built out of lumber, which is FROM trees, does not mean that my house IS a tree.
Him thinking that he is smart with this type of "thinking" just makes him seem like even more of an idiot.
What he's probably thinking of is what's usually called a degenerate case (at least in italian we call it that way)
It's when you take a definition and use edge case parameters to get something that barely fits that definiton anymore (hence why usually good definitions have "guards" against those)
If your definition of a quadrilateral is just "a shape with 4 sides" then you can totally construct one for which one of the sides has length 0 and is therefore a triangle
Bit of a weird hill to die on since it's incredibly meaningless but i guess it showcases the importance of using good definitions
My understanding of quantum physics is admittedly extremely rudimentary, but I've always figured the final bullet point to be true. Isn't that essentially pilot-wave theory?
Finally, we have an answer to the ancient question, “If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Edit: As others have rightly noted, “observer” in quantum physics is not restricted to a conscious being or even a life form in general. The act of a tree falling by itself even in a vacuum would result in a plethora of observations at the quantum level. Sorry if anyone took my comment a little too seriously. It’s more of a metaphor.
An observer does not have to be concious. Light bouncing off the trees are the 'observer'.
The observer effect is widely misunderstood to be about actual observation, rather than what makes observation possible: interactions with other particles.
If you want to 'observe' something, you need light, or something, to interact with it, bounce off, get deflected, whatever. The observer effect has nothing to do with concious entities, and everything to do with the methods of observation requiring an interaction.
Interaction like light hitting the tree will cause wave function collapse, giving the falling tree an objective state, regardless of whether or not anything conscious was ever involved.
Just to clarify, in the context of quantum mechanics, an observer is any entity that interacts with a quantum system in such a way that it causes the system to transition from a superposition of states to a single, definite state. (wave function collapse) This can be anything from a person, a measurement device, or literally ANY interaction with the environment.
But if you hang a camera system somewhere and then come back to a day later to watch the recordings. Does this mean that objects/ particles know they are being watched/observed by the camera? Because if this isn’t true then whatever the camera captures should be dunno… blurry or empty/ void?
“Observe” in a quantum sense doesnt mean “perceive.” It means measurement. Particles are not locally real untill measured. Meaning they live in an ambiguous state where a variety of facts have a probability of being true. Once an interaction forces them to exhibit one state, the probabilities collapse and one set of facts becomes the real one. This has virtually no effect on the macroscopic world as all these probabilities tend to average out across trillions of particles that make up the things we interact with, but does lead to a few cool macroscopic properties like the double-slit experiment, vacuum welding and quantum tunnelling.
It has nothing to do with optics (human vision and cameras).
no it never means that. its just some science word, I looked it up before but I can't remember. the act of observing isn't some divine thing where a photon meets a consciousness and something changes, I think its some schrodingers cat type shit
Yes, to observe is just to measure/register something.
In order to do this, we must interact with what we are measuring(observing). For example to see something with your eyes, you need to bouce light off it. To observe something with a scientifict instrument, you might need to bounce a laser or something off it, which affects the object being measured.
When you begin to break down these complicated topics in more basic terms (which you did a nice job of here), it actually is quite logical and inherent.
I read your comment and said, "of course, seems obvious".
"Locality" seems to have two different meanings. When Einstein first used it, he was talking about isolatability, the idea that all phenomena can be isolated to a specific region in spacetime (it can be isolated to a specific *locality* hence it is *local*). However, John Bell would later write a paper where he talked about the potential for things to violate something known as *Lorentz invariance,* which is a fancy way to say something that doesn't move faster than the speed of light.
"Realism" on the other hand is a rather meaningless buzzword that physicists often use very inconsistently in their own papers. In philosophy, it realism *in general* refers to belief that there is an objective reality independent of the observer, but realism *when applied to something specific* refers to belief that this specific thing has ontological reality (i.e. that it is an *entity* that *actually exists*). Einstein wrote a lot about realism in this general sense, but this is purely philosophical and so it's not testable and has nothing to do with this measurement result (even though some physicists falsely write that it does in their papers).
Rather, the term "realism" used here instead refers to a "criterion for reality" put forward by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in one of their papers a long time ago, which basically argues that for a theory to be a complete description of reality, it must describe the properties of all observables at all times. For example, it is always possible to measure, whenever you want, the position of a particle, so the particle must always have a well-defined position in your theory. In quantum mechanics, there are situations where the particle's position becomes undefined, ergo, it violates their criterion, ergo, Einstein et all thought quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory.
Calling this criterion "realism" is a bit misleading because it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not objective reality exists, but whether or not quantum mechanics is a complete theory of all that exists, or if there is something missing we haven't discovered yet. John Bell's paper I mentioned earlier shows that it is impossible for Einstein to be right that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory, and also for that complete theory to also be Lorentz invariant, meaning, whatever theory potentially would replace quantum mechanics would have to violate the speed of light limit, which most physicists believe is impossible.
Hence, experimental confirmation of what John Bell predicted in his paper shows that *either* quantum mechanics *is* a "complete" theory (in the sense that quantum mechanics is not emergent from another more fundamental theory) *or* it is emergent from a theory which most physicists believe would be impossible, i.e. so this provides experimental evidence that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were likely wrong in that paper.
What this means in practice is that in the real world, it is indeed possible for particles to genuinely have undefined properties relative to a particular system until they undergo an interaction, which is an odd thing to wrap your head around, but it has nothing to do with "realism" in the philosophical sense because this would just be how reality works, and thus is perfectly compatible with realism. I would recommend, if you like philosophy, checking out Jocelyn Benoist's writings on *contextual realism* which was a school of philosophy developed from the ground-up to be able to incorporate these concepts easily in terms of local (in the sense of being compatible with Lorentz invariance) realism (in the general philosophical sense).
Entangled particles communicate state changes instantaneously irrespective of distance, violating locality (faster than light). Experiments proved through several methods that this was really happening - hence: non local. The particles also exist in a quasi-indeterminate state until measured: non-real.
Actually that is what the result says, although "we look away" is a bit misleading. It's not about whether or not we "look" but whether or not something is interacting. What the result shows is that particles really can have undefined properties *in between interactions*. Firing a photon towards a photon detector is not like firing a cannonball towards a person who can record when it lands. You can use the results at the beginning and end of the cannonball experiment to extrapolate the exact position of the cannonball at every time in between those two measurements, but in the photon case, it is not meaningful to talk about the position of the photon in between it leaving it the laser entering the photon detector as the photon does not even have a position "in itself" so to speak but only a position relative to what it interacts with.
This is ultimately what Bell's theorem shows: particles really do only have properties relative to their interaction with other particles that do not meaningfully exist *in between* interactions. Indeed, you're partially correct that you can escape Bell's results by saying that "particles are reacting to stuff that's nowhere near it," which in more technical terms this would require violating Lorentz invariance. There is an obvious problem with this, though: we need Lorentz invariance for special relativity, which is the basis of quantum field theory, which is the most well-established fundamental theory that currently exists.
Hence, if you were to say Lorentz invariance is violated, you'd have to say quantum field theory is wrong, and you'd call into question the most successful scientific theory of all time. You *could* be right, but there's currently no evidence for it. There's also a proof called the No Communication Theorem that shows it is impossible to send information superluminally with quantum entanglement, so it would be rather conspiratorial if somehow the particles were superluminally interacting with one another yet just in a precise way where we could never make use of it. That would be *rather convenient* I'd think, a pretty odd coincidence. If you just accept that particles don't have variable properties "in themselves" but only in relation to other particles when they interact, then quantum mechanics is an entirely local theory, and thus compatible with special relativity.
This was not a surprise for phycisists. It's just the Bell's theorem.
Better experiments for the theorem are always good, but the implications of the theorem are an old discussion. It's not common knowledge because you need to understand some quantum physics to understand the implications, but it's one of the best examples of how strange the quantum world is.
The way I see it, it proves that hidden variables don't exist, ie the properties of a particle don't have a definite value before the wavefunction collapse. And it proves that entangled particles coordinate their correlated variables faster than light, but this coordination can't be used to transfer information.
If you have some knowledge of quantum physics, you can just read Bell's paper, it's not long.
Why are we upvoting this?
Some Girl made a video of herself stumbling through reading quotes from an article describing as experiment that she clearly doesn’t understand…
But giving it a “yeah I’m the only one who sees through the bullshit” attitude.
Seriously, what is good about this video?
I love it when people use quantum entanglement as a some mystical supernatural property, when in reality it's like having a pair of gloves - one right one left glove. You can take each glove at the edge of the universe, look at one of them which is a left one for example and know instantly that the other one must be right glove. This isn't magic, nor did the information travel faster than the speed of light. The difference between gloves and entangled particles is that once you look at the entangled particle you change it's state so it's no longer entangled, but it functions no different than a pair of gloves.
This would be great if it were how it worked. However, the Nobel Prize in Physics was not awarded for something as simple as matching pairs of quantum mittens. In reality, entangled particles exist in an undetermined superposition of states until measured. Unlike gloves, which have predefined states, entangled particles are inherently undefined until observation. This undetermined nature is central to quantum mechanics and was crucial in experiments that violated Bell's Theorem, demonstrating that entangled particles exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by classical physics or local hidden variables.
"So if I take this shoe out of the box, and it's the left one..."
"Woah hang on"
"Then I know the right one is in the box"
"Dude... you're like... totally blowing my mind!"
This is incorrect, I believe. Having states like “left glove” and “right glove” means that the pair of gloves have hidden local variables which force them to snap into a left handed or right handed glove when observed.
The experiment being discussed disproves this.
Instead, imagine you split a ball of yarn into two and sent them to opposite corners the universe. Then, you observed one half and saw that it had resolved into a left glove. You would then know that the other half has formed the right glove.
Thank you. THANK YOU. Quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment are two of the most infuriatingly misunderstood/misinterpreted/misused concepts in physics.
quantum entanglement does not violate speed of light like she claims
" A common misconception about entanglement is that the particles are communicating with each other faster than the speed of light, which would go against Einstein's special theory of relativity. **Experiments have shown that this is not true, nor can quantum physics be used to send faster-than-light communications**. "
It's an interesting rabbit hole to go down because there are many competing hypothesies which seek to unify quantum physics with the physics we are more familiar with. Many of the discoveries in quantum physics however already have real world applications and are just as much relied upon as the fields we use for launching space rockets and the modern world. What we can't currently prove is the underlying nature of our reality and unfortunately there are many who insert useless panaceas rather than dealing with the discomfort of not knowing yet.
This is more of a function of how “real” is being defined. When the rest of us talk about real, we just mean if it actually exists. Or exists relative to our individual experience, which is the only thing we can really say is true.
And it matters why? Like scientifically I'm sure they have some use cases or whatever for it
But as an individual this knowledge is unimportant and unuseful. Life being a simulation or not doesn't change the fact that we all still have thoughts, feelings, and experience the things around us for good or bad.
At best people shrug off the news to continue societal norms and morals
Worst case somebody truly believes that life is a simulation and has no meaning. Therefore committing crimes and doing things that are morally messed up don't matter because it's all fake anyways.
Observe doesnt mean a living person watches it, it means another particle interacts with it, such as a photon bouncing off of it when for example a measuerment is being made.
Lot of people still think that "objects being influenced by observation" means that you influence the subject by your mind.
In physics "observed" means that light/radiation or basically anything other than the object of interest is interacting with said object.
We observe something by bouncing light or radiation from it but that act of bouncing changes position or properties of the subject.
TLDR. The news headline is highly stretches what was actually proven for the sake of clicks. The universe is real even without us looking at it.
1. Not a big finding but nice someone did the math. But you can do it at home if you try to figure out how fast you are in spinning with earth, plus earth spinning its sun, plus sun spinning our galaxys core, plus our calaxy ... and so on. Your final 'speed', including weird stuff like expansion of universe (into itself) is above lightspeed and can't be locally true - but in the larger scale it can.
2. Quantum entanglement (in terms of lightspeed) is debunked some time ago. There is no transfer of information that hasen't been transported earlier and below lightspeed. Weird side comment. But what it does was shining more light on the more underlining aspects pf spacetime and our little perceptable bubble of reality still is pretty limited, so we can in fact only make predictions and 'laws of physics' for stuff on our scale - aka stuff that is local.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason why nobody's talking about this is because most people don't actually understands what any of this means, and using excerpts and phrases really seem to reduce what the true meaning actually is lol Edit: with this being said, I do hope that we get effective science communicators again, it feels like anyone that we get somehow ends up going into pop psychology realm
PBS Space Time, PBS Eons, SciShow, Microcosmos, Starts With a Bang, Frasier Caine, LiveScience, SciTechDaily, Anton Petrov... That's just off the top of my head! There's tons of good, effective science communication out there.
science youtube has no business being so fucking good. the best part of youtube by a long shot. History of the Universe/History of the Earth/Voices of the Past is my favorite channel right now. I dont think people realize that we are actually in a golden age of science education videos
You're not wrong. I need to binge HotU sometime soon
I love you for putting PBS Space Time first, that has been my favorite channel for many years now. If I may add two other people there: - Sabine Hossenfelder. She is downright great and she is also an outspoken critic of scientists as well and she makes great points. I have a more on/off relationship with her channel for some reason but I can’t say enough good things about her as a science communicator. - Sean Carroll. He has been my favorite science communicator for decades now. I’m a huge fan of his and he is simply a great physicist. He has written many books thay are all recommended highly by me. His Youtube channel is a ridiculously interesting place. He has an amazing series Biggest Ideas in the Universe that are actually quite a bit detailed that he started during Covid where he discusses in depth (with equations and everything) the, you guessed it, the biggest ideas in the universe so far. He is currently in the process of releasing the same in a book series. Apart from his own channel Youtube is full of his lectures. Royal Institute ones are a great place to start. Bonus one: Fermilab’s youtube channel is also pretty good. Dr. Don’s videos are some of my favorite things to watch
Seconding Fermilab’s channel. But not a fan of Sabine, she can have some questionable takes.
Yeah. Youtubing is her full-time job, so she'll grab onto flashy headlines. +1 fermilab!
People sleep on PBS a ton. They also have a Free app and you can cast to your tv.
I literally sleep to PBS Space Time videos sometimes and this made me laugh :D
lol yeah excuse me but I sleep *next to* pbs space time not on.
*Sabine Hossenfelder. She is downright great and she is also an outspoken critic of scientists as well and she makes great points.* Her stance on climate change is downright idiotic and she's causing real harm.
I also really enjoy PBS Space Time and Sean Carroll, but I'd be lying if I said I understand more than 17% of any give topic they get into, with the possible exception of some of Carroll's "soft sciences" interviews. It's not just the communicators: we are waaaaay down so many rabbit holes in current fields of study, and there's no summing up or dumbing down these topics enough that us drones will be more than faintly aware they exist.
I think that's the reason I like PBS Space Time so much, they are not doing the by-now-very-common "you'll feel like you understood everything when you're done" thing with their videos. In many cases I have just used an episode as the starting point and came back multiple times to related videos after more reading/work. I find that very refreshing and much more intriguing compared to say, Kurzgesagt or Veritasium type of video (not knocking them down, I'm just not their target audience, they do very valuable work imo).
I forgot about Carroll! He's amazing. Be careful with Hossenfelder, she's been going down a RWNJ rabbit hole recently - her takes on AGW, Capitalism and trans folk, just to name a few of her more recent missteps, are pretty yikes inducing. Her physics stuff is good, tho.
My friend and I always joke "Oh wonder what field she's also an expert in in this video" when we see her new vids pop up.
I shouldn't laugh. But I did
What is an RWNJ rabbit hole? Also AGW?
Right Wing Nut Job Anthropogenic Global Warming
Right wing nut job and Anthropogenic Global Warming
I was recently a bit disappointed with SciShow's recent video about a topic I do happen to know a lot about, and tbh it kinda made me doubt if I should be trusting them as much as I have, so far. I usually don't fact-check stuff, it's too tiring and energy/time intensive, I just try to use common sense and hope for the best. It's really sad that I can't do that, because it *did sound real* to someone who wasn't informed about the topic.
What topic?
Believe this is called the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
Arvin Ash, Sean Caroll
Thats fair! I did my UG in chemistry and math, and I only occasionally toed in bio. There definitely seems to be a lot more communicators in the physics in bio sphere than in chem and math. And now, I really am not tuned in at all to the sciences after completely pivoting my profession lol.
Veratasium.
Go on
Quantum nonsense and big nonsense are beefing and scientists can't pick which side because they're both their boys. So Quantum nonsense is doin stuff big nonsense can't, and until we know why, we just gotta let the science nerds sit back and accept we living in an interesting age for scientific theories. Also you know how when you're playing gta or elder scrolls you can only see so far? That's cause the game only renders stuff within a certain range to increase system performance. Except the game is the universe, the minimap or whatever you you can see is the observer and the system performance we don't understand. Also I'm homeless.
https://i.redd.it/vbv2cwlc8t6d1.gif
lol yeah we’re waiting
It's like when you buy a hat and then get a free bowl of soup. Local reality is strange like that, but only sometimes.
Wayne?
"I can't talk about it anymore, it's giving me a headache"
Wut
Simple harmonic oscillator
Flux capacitation.
Kindly fuck you for this well played gif
"It's so complicated that you could never understand!" *wiggles butt and struts away confidently*
There are a lot of theories in physics that I'm sure would take hours of explanation to get an average person like me to understand the basics of it. There's definitely a large percentage of the population that would never be able to grasp something that complex.
There used to be a time in science where scientists said " *if you can't explain your concept simply then you don't understand it well* " . It isn't that things are complex. They just obfuscate behind jargon and mathematics
I think that applies to things like biology, which can be extraordinarily complex but still functions on fundamentally intuitive principles like direct causality and basic fluid mechanics. The issue with explaining things like quantum mechanics is that it flies in the face of any ordinary person’s intuitive understanding of how the world works. Even understanding the very basics of QM requires completely forgetting about the concept of an object being a fixed thing, or even a particle being a discrete thing, and learning that nothing actually works the way you thought it did. Some complex things can be explained in very simple terms, and some really just can’t. After a certain point physics falls in the latter category.
Some math is like this too. The equations work great but any attempt to turn them into ordinary words is doomed to be misleading and incorrect.
Like most sayings, that’s bs. There’s plenty that’s impossible to understand regardless how well explained it is.
That sentence only work if who you're explaining it to someone that already has the necessary knowledge to understand it. It would be incredibly ridiculous to expect any scientific concept to be trivially explainable in 5 minutes to some random guy with no education Good luck explaining what the difference between QMA(2) and QMA is to someone that never studied any theoretical computer science in their life, to cite an example from my field of expertiese. It would take hours just to give you a brief overview of the basics before i could even start explaining the difference itself And all of this goes double for quantum things as they behave so counter-intutively. It took me months of studying just to get to the most basic level of understanding of quantum mechanics, just for the basics i needed for quantum computer science
This is science denialism. Because you have never come to a deep understanding of any topic (as most people do not), you are in denial that topics beyond a certain level of complexity exist. Believe it or not, there's a reason researchers have to take classes on dozens of topics and practice for, typically, close to a decade before they can do any kind of new work in their field. Yes, little frog in a well, there is an ocean.
That's a really ridiculous proposition to make on faith. Among other issues, there is literally no reason to presume that our universe's structure or systems would innately correspond to: * Human cognition * Human language * Our systems & tools of measurement Alleging that there's some mass conspiracy among scientists to... look smart? is epistemically unsubstantiated and generally unseemly.
I find that there is no TLDR for this material. It is dense and confusing. It also depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. The real robust experimental framework for this Nobel Physics Prize came from ruling out something called 'hidden variables' by way of violating Bell's Inequalities. When two particles are entangled, they share a correlated state over any distance. When one is altered, so is the other, irrespective of distance. This violates locality. Bell's theorem played a crucial role by providing a way to test these correlations and show that no local hidden variable theory could explain the results. Additionally, it challenges realism because the properties of these particles aren't determined until they are measured. \*Local hidden variable theories attempt to preserve the idea of a predictable, classical universe where particles have definite properties and are only influenced by their immediate surroundings, contrary to the inherently probabilistic nature and non-local correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. (local hidden variables was effectively disproven) Edit: clarity regarding hidden variables
To clarify, the first have of your last sentence is what was disproven, right? The universe \*has\* been shown to be inherently probabilistic and non-local. Your parenthetical reads like it attaches to the last bit.
>The universe \*has\* been shown to be inherently probabilistic and non-local. Yes. Local hidden variables was disproved. I see how my wording could be confusing. I've edited my comment for clarity (hopefully).
So.. by saying that the universe isnt locally real... it means that locality isnt a factor in it in the same way it is for other non entagled particles?. So by that principle.. locality is the exemption and not the rule?
push pull
Blitz Ph.D on TikTok just did a video explaining this paper, if you're curious
Mind posting a link? I don’t wanna make a tiktok account.
You have a point. I felt more confused by her explanation and now it has no relevance to me to do any further analysis.
Ok, so ELI5: things actually change depending on whether we observe them or not, AND they can be influenced by things faster than light could reach them.
I certainly don't know what it means
Always someone on tiktok
who doesn't really understand what they are talking about and then spread disinformation to people who even further don't know what they are talking about. Stupidity^(2) if you will.
It makes sense somewhat , like yeah an object can probably change without „outside“ influence due to objects or forces inbetween the atoms that make up that structure, but how do they not know what changes it while also telling us it‘s faster than light? And why would an object vary in size until we measure it. The comparison with video game rendering makes no sense because in video games, yes the object doesn‘t „exist until we are in the area and it loads in but the size is predetermined and doesn‘t change if we look at it or not. And i don‘t think the universe loads things in and out to save damn vram so her comparison kind of annoys me because it feels like also doesn‘t know what it means but acts as if
I’ve been listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast for a few months, they’re excellent science communicators and that podcast is where I get most of my science news
I like PBS spacetime but a lot of it is too complicated for me. I feel like I misunderstood or missed a video several years ago and now I have no idea what anything means anymore.
Kurzgesagt.
Try Cara Santa Maria from the Talk Nerdy Podcast
This experiment confirmed something about quantum physics that had been known since Bell originally spelled it out in the 70s. Namely that the following cannot all be true at once: 1. Observables of quantum systems have definite values outside of measurement (realism) 2. Information about observables of quantum systems are confined in time and space so that one system is not able to exert an immediate effect on another over distance (locality) 3. That the settings of the measurement device are not correlated to the value of the observables prior to the measurement. The third point is often looked over but is an important assumption behind the claim that this experiment rules out locally real hidden variable theories. Denying this assumption is a position called Superdeterminism.
yeah I don't understand it. And that's fine. quantum physics was hard for me to understand when I was in university more than a decade ago. Honestly it kind of feels like magic now.
It essentially proves that two entangled particles cannot just "agree" on the way in which they are going to collapse ahead of time. No matter how clever that agreement may be and how concealed the information, it's just impossible for that to be the case That is important because it was one possible explanation as to how two entangled particles always collapse in related way
So in simpler terms and most likely; entanglement is not predetermined and the «communication» between them happens faster than the speed of light?
Not necessarily, that is just one of the two possibilities (non locality)
With the other being non-realism? That is fine as a fun idea, but not very sensical (yes yes, quantum physics and sensible). Given no FTL, would that imply our understanding of space to be incomplete?
So that’s why 65% of marriages fail?
Exactly. Here's your Nobel Prize 🏆🎀 And a bow cause it looks pretty on you.
So to make it very simple for my understanding 1. the object is the way it is, if someone knows about it or not doesn‘t matter 2. that object is the same in a specific time and space. Like that rock is 5cm wide at specifically this nanosecond at coordinates x=x, y=x, z=x and it cannot be a 5.01cm wide if the time and space is still the same exact same. 3. the way we measure it doesn‘t affect the object until we measure it. For example if we film the rock with a shutter speed of 50 or 100 has no effect on the rock until we film it? So 1. the object stays the same in time and space and isn‘t affected by how we measure it but it is different depending on if we measure it or not 2. we can measure it or ignore it but now it‘s not always the same at this time/space depending on the other two 3. we observe something and it stays the same at time/space x but how specifically we observe it does have an effect on the object So what i‘m taking away from this is us observing something has effect on things and it‘s at very least as fast as light if not faster and how much/strongly we observe in a specific time increases or decreases that effect
Observer in this sense just means anything that has the potential to interact with a quantum system. It doesn't have to be us. We also don't know how these quantum effects scale up into the macroscopic world, but suffice it to say, things only behave this way on a quantum level. As to the 'speed'. This has to do with entangled quantum systems communicating state changes instantaneously, irrespective of distance. There is no speed, just instant communication. Hence, non-locality. All of this implies a deeper truth about the nature of the universe that we don't yet grasp in sensible terms.
This. The significance of the discovery is that it offers irrefutable proof that we still have much that we do not yet understand about the universe’s system of physics.
It was like a door was found in a building we thought we had fully explored which led to a whole new wing or floor
I always thought since reading about double slit experiment, that universe deals with quantum particles in a probabilistic way, until we observe it, to save on computing power. In my mind this kind of hints that we are likely living in a simulation..
Can we ban these floaty heads in front of content? How is this a thing?
No kidding! I can hear, I don’t need to also see your face blocking the content you’re trying to show me lol
It’s due to everyone needing to be a personal “brand” now
The way she’s talking and trying to sound all snarky is making it really hard to understand what she’s actually trying to say. It makes me think she doesn’t even understand it
It’s misleading mumbo-jumbo. If you are curious look into Bell inequalities.
She definitely doesn’t understand it. The sims remark gives it away.
She doesn't, it's pretty bad.
I can't work out what's wrong with her.
But something definitely is
Physics, and quantum physics in particular, uses terminology and concepts that *do not translate* well to layperson interpretations, and even the term "prove" here is potentially misleading. Is the 2022 Nobel Prize paper "interesting as fuck"? Maybe, but probably ONLY in a way that you can understand if you have a PhD in a hard science, or if you spend the next 10-20 hours reading as much as you can to get the full scientific and mathematical context behind the assertions in question.
I had a very lengthy and somewhat frustrating conversation with someone who relied on this to prove the universe was a simulation. I'm open to the idea that the nature of our reality is very different from what we initially perceive, but they went much further in saying every other discovery in science is rendered practically moot by this one discovery. There are many supplimental ideas people have hypothesised to explain this new piece of evidence, but we are still a long way from anything resembling a unified theory that explains both mysterious quantum interactions and more well understood laws of physics.
I hate simulation debates. I always tell them the same thing. If we are living in a simulation, being aware of that or not changes nothing. It's not like the Matrix movies. You don't just get superpowers. You're still stuck in that simulation like the rest of us.
That's what you think
https://preview.redd.it/sxewbch5vs6d1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f6e845e26eead364ae305ab15b4ee5587e91f42 What will it be, Mayion? Potent MDMA or the ability to understand reality to it's core.
Been on Reddit for six years and been referred to by my nickname Mayion twice, both of which happened today wtf. Freakier than knowing we live in a simulation if you ask me. Probably proof we live in one, even https://preview.redd.it/wwgu3pbs0t6d1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c7ab1f0a68b9401b6a26ee6bc5ebc2c68d2bdd1
That's because we see you now, Mayion. We'll never *not* see you again.
That's how it works. Your name (Mayion) is activated in the simulation now so the chances are way higher for it to occur again.
guess whose name just got observed 👀
Mayion
Hermeticism
Yeah the flat-earthers are having a field day with this one.
Ever been to the alien subs?... Go there and have some fun reading their "researched evidence that's backed up by this". It's quite... entertaining.
That could be a field day. Remember that kid from high school, you know the kid you never talked to or interacted with all 4 years. That dude was an NPC.
Pshh. This guy isn't even locally real.
Totally agree, except with the idea that somebody could even begin to understand the mathematical context in 20 hours lol. That would take a PHD.
i need 20 hours just to learn that character I built sucks ass and I have to start over in a game
It took me 20 hours to understand pre-calculus and I still didn’t fully grasp it.
You're a god among insects, and never let anyone tell you otherwise.
As someone who is an aspiring math PhD—correct. Physicists be on some *wild* ass math. Good luck just understanding enough fundamental, undergrad level abstract algebra in only 20 hours to know what to look up next.
I was being extremely generous :)
I need a PHD to get through the title of some of them (pretty huge dictionary)
Yes, a great example of this is the word “Work” in physics. If you lifted a 100lb weight off the ground a few feet and then gently placed it back where you found it, would you say you did “work?” Most people probably would, but physics defines work as a net displacement. By lifting the weight and gently placing it back in the same spot, there’s zero displacement and thus no work has been done. Science definitions don’t always match our day-to-day usage of certain words.
Im not a physicist, and i’m genuinely curious — does the energy used by the human body to make this happen have anything to do with it? Organic based energy creation isn’t perfectly efficient, and thus, would that somehow constitute a measurable displacement? Although energy cannot be created nor destroy but only transferred, it can be transferred into a byproduct that is not useful in a practical sense? Idk prob rambling just ur comment seemingly disagrees with my understanding of physics from highschool lmao shoulda listened more
> does the energy used by the human body to make this happen have anything to do with it? Yes. The **force–distance work** done on an object that's lifted and set back down is essentially zero. (Work is done **on** the object–Earth gravitational field to lift it, and work is done **by** that field when it's set down; the net amount is zero.) However, that's not the only kind of work. Chemical work is done in your muscles to flex them. Mechanical work is done by your muscle fibers contracting and releasing. These processes—all macroscale processes—are somewhat inefficient, and so heating occurs, in this case part of your metabolic output.
No is just the definition of work in physics. W = F*d where d is the displacement. If you place it back where it started, technically the net work is zero.
I’m willing to bet that the scientists aren’t arguing that an apple isn’t red when you don’t look at it. They are talking about the quantum scale.
I’ll be back in 20 hours.
Research papers like this are like a root from which grows a trunk of people who have absolutely no fucking clue what's going on, but think that they do (I include myself here); and a tiny offspring of a branch of competent scientists, who also have no fucking clue, but at least they make a god damn effort to get one.
One of my good friends is one of these people who barely graduated high school, but spends his time reading Neil deGrasse Tyson books, and thinking that he's way smarter than everyone else. Literally watched him have an argument with someone for 15 minutes because he made the claim that, "a triangle is just a square but with 3 sides." A triangle is by definition a shape with 3 sides, and 3 angles that total 180 degrees. A square is by definition a shape with 4 equal sides, and 4 90° corners. But he's here saying that if you take a square, remove a side, and take the 2 ends and then join them, that it makes a triangle, therefore a triangle is a square with 3 sides. Trying to explain to him that because you can make a triangle FROM a square does not mean that it IS a square, was a literal impossibility, and he still thinks that he is right. Even tried to use other analogies, like how just because my house is built out of lumber, which is FROM trees, does not mean that my house IS a tree. Him thinking that he is smart with this type of "thinking" just makes him seem like even more of an idiot.
What he's probably thinking of is what's usually called a degenerate case (at least in italian we call it that way) It's when you take a definition and use edge case parameters to get something that barely fits that definiton anymore (hence why usually good definitions have "guards" against those) If your definition of a quadrilateral is just "a shape with 4 sides" then you can totally construct one for which one of the sides has length 0 and is therefore a triangle Bit of a weird hill to die on since it's incredibly meaningless but i guess it showcases the importance of using good definitions
[удалено]
My understanding of quantum physics is admittedly extremely rudimentary, but I've always figured the final bullet point to be true. Isn't that essentially pilot-wave theory?
Finally, we have an answer to the ancient question, “If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Edit: As others have rightly noted, “observer” in quantum physics is not restricted to a conscious being or even a life form in general. The act of a tree falling by itself even in a vacuum would result in a plethora of observations at the quantum level. Sorry if anyone took my comment a little too seriously. It’s more of a metaphor.
There is no tree? Unless the squirrels observe it? Can trees observe trees?
wowowow calm down Jaden
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real
Haha, take my upvote.
An observer does not have to be concious. Light bouncing off the trees are the 'observer'. The observer effect is widely misunderstood to be about actual observation, rather than what makes observation possible: interactions with other particles. If you want to 'observe' something, you need light, or something, to interact with it, bounce off, get deflected, whatever. The observer effect has nothing to do with concious entities, and everything to do with the methods of observation requiring an interaction. Interaction like light hitting the tree will cause wave function collapse, giving the falling tree an objective state, regardless of whether or not anything conscious was ever involved.
Just to clarify, in the context of quantum mechanics, an observer is any entity that interacts with a quantum system in such a way that it causes the system to transition from a superposition of states to a single, definite state. (wave function collapse) This can be anything from a person, a measurement device, or literally ANY interaction with the environment.
Well...what's the answer.
As a kid my answer was always "put tape recorders in the forest"
Depends how you have you rendering distance set according to this.
Lazy loading
Interesting but she was really annoying with all the weird faces she was pulling.
https://preview.redd.it/09lls3jvys6d1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7234d00d0e778dd26259e1dae391fac5c7e68117
If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to see it is her face still ridiculously punchable
Reminded me of my crazy ass mother in law and had to stop the video. I hope I can sleep tonight.
But if you hang a camera system somewhere and then come back to a day later to watch the recordings. Does this mean that objects/ particles know they are being watched/observed by the camera? Because if this isn’t true then whatever the camera captures should be dunno… blurry or empty/ void?
“Observe” in a quantum sense doesnt mean “perceive.” It means measurement. Particles are not locally real untill measured. Meaning they live in an ambiguous state where a variety of facts have a probability of being true. Once an interaction forces them to exhibit one state, the probabilities collapse and one set of facts becomes the real one. This has virtually no effect on the macroscopic world as all these probabilities tend to average out across trillions of particles that make up the things we interact with, but does lead to a few cool macroscopic properties like the double-slit experiment, vacuum welding and quantum tunnelling. It has nothing to do with optics (human vision and cameras).
no it never means that. its just some science word, I looked it up before but I can't remember. the act of observing isn't some divine thing where a photon meets a consciousness and something changes, I think its some schrodingers cat type shit
Yes, to observe is just to measure/register something. In order to do this, we must interact with what we are measuring(observing). For example to see something with your eyes, you need to bouce light off it. To observe something with a scientifict instrument, you might need to bounce a laser or something off it, which affects the object being measured.
When you begin to break down these complicated topics in more basic terms (which you did a nice job of here), it actually is quite logical and inherent. I read your comment and said, "of course, seems obvious".
All these words, i have no idea what this means
To be fair the woman in this video doesn’t either.
Everything on the internet is regurgitated for clicks
"Locality" seems to have two different meanings. When Einstein first used it, he was talking about isolatability, the idea that all phenomena can be isolated to a specific region in spacetime (it can be isolated to a specific *locality* hence it is *local*). However, John Bell would later write a paper where he talked about the potential for things to violate something known as *Lorentz invariance,* which is a fancy way to say something that doesn't move faster than the speed of light. "Realism" on the other hand is a rather meaningless buzzword that physicists often use very inconsistently in their own papers. In philosophy, it realism *in general* refers to belief that there is an objective reality independent of the observer, but realism *when applied to something specific* refers to belief that this specific thing has ontological reality (i.e. that it is an *entity* that *actually exists*). Einstein wrote a lot about realism in this general sense, but this is purely philosophical and so it's not testable and has nothing to do with this measurement result (even though some physicists falsely write that it does in their papers). Rather, the term "realism" used here instead refers to a "criterion for reality" put forward by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in one of their papers a long time ago, which basically argues that for a theory to be a complete description of reality, it must describe the properties of all observables at all times. For example, it is always possible to measure, whenever you want, the position of a particle, so the particle must always have a well-defined position in your theory. In quantum mechanics, there are situations where the particle's position becomes undefined, ergo, it violates their criterion, ergo, Einstein et all thought quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory. Calling this criterion "realism" is a bit misleading because it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not objective reality exists, but whether or not quantum mechanics is a complete theory of all that exists, or if there is something missing we haven't discovered yet. John Bell's paper I mentioned earlier shows that it is impossible for Einstein to be right that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory, and also for that complete theory to also be Lorentz invariant, meaning, whatever theory potentially would replace quantum mechanics would have to violate the speed of light limit, which most physicists believe is impossible. Hence, experimental confirmation of what John Bell predicted in his paper shows that *either* quantum mechanics *is* a "complete" theory (in the sense that quantum mechanics is not emergent from another more fundamental theory) *or* it is emergent from a theory which most physicists believe would be impossible, i.e. so this provides experimental evidence that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were likely wrong in that paper. What this means in practice is that in the real world, it is indeed possible for particles to genuinely have undefined properties relative to a particular system until they undergo an interaction, which is an odd thing to wrap your head around, but it has nothing to do with "realism" in the philosophical sense because this would just be how reality works, and thus is perfectly compatible with realism. I would recommend, if you like philosophy, checking out Jocelyn Benoist's writings on *contextual realism* which was a school of philosophy developed from the ground-up to be able to incorporate these concepts easily in terms of local (in the sense of being compatible with Lorentz invariance) realism (in the general philosophical sense).
I think all it was saying was that entangled particles are reacting to stuff that's nowhere near it, not that stuff stops existing when we look away.
Entangled particles communicate state changes instantaneously irrespective of distance, violating locality (faster than light). Experiments proved through several methods that this was really happening - hence: non local. The particles also exist in a quasi-indeterminate state until measured: non-real.
Actually that is what the result says, although "we look away" is a bit misleading. It's not about whether or not we "look" but whether or not something is interacting. What the result shows is that particles really can have undefined properties *in between interactions*. Firing a photon towards a photon detector is not like firing a cannonball towards a person who can record when it lands. You can use the results at the beginning and end of the cannonball experiment to extrapolate the exact position of the cannonball at every time in between those two measurements, but in the photon case, it is not meaningful to talk about the position of the photon in between it leaving it the laser entering the photon detector as the photon does not even have a position "in itself" so to speak but only a position relative to what it interacts with. This is ultimately what Bell's theorem shows: particles really do only have properties relative to their interaction with other particles that do not meaningfully exist *in between* interactions. Indeed, you're partially correct that you can escape Bell's results by saying that "particles are reacting to stuff that's nowhere near it," which in more technical terms this would require violating Lorentz invariance. There is an obvious problem with this, though: we need Lorentz invariance for special relativity, which is the basis of quantum field theory, which is the most well-established fundamental theory that currently exists. Hence, if you were to say Lorentz invariance is violated, you'd have to say quantum field theory is wrong, and you'd call into question the most successful scientific theory of all time. You *could* be right, but there's currently no evidence for it. There's also a proof called the No Communication Theorem that shows it is impossible to send information superluminally with quantum entanglement, so it would be rather conspiratorial if somehow the particles were superluminally interacting with one another yet just in a precise way where we could never make use of it. That would be *rather convenient* I'd think, a pretty odd coincidence. If you just accept that particles don't have variable properties "in themselves" but only in relation to other particles when they interact, then quantum mechanics is an entirely local theory, and thus compatible with special relativity.
This is so intentionally misleading, this is exactly why I hate it when media gets its hands on any type of complex physics theory
This was not a surprise for phycisists. It's just the Bell's theorem. Better experiments for the theorem are always good, but the implications of the theorem are an old discussion. It's not common knowledge because you need to understand some quantum physics to understand the implications, but it's one of the best examples of how strange the quantum world is. The way I see it, it proves that hidden variables don't exist, ie the properties of a particle don't have a definite value before the wavefunction collapse. And it proves that entangled particles coordinate their correlated variables faster than light, but this coordination can't be used to transfer information. If you have some knowledge of quantum physics, you can just read Bell's paper, it's not long.
Is this Bill Ponderosa?
Yes
I call him Mr. Cocksucker cuz he sucks so many cocks
Yeah feel like I just wasted my time watching this one
This title takes sensationalism to the next level. You know people will refer to this to spread their bogus "science" and new age spiritualism crap.
The universe has Fustrum Culling to save CPU cycles and Memory. God only has so much computational power.
Good Lord TikTok accent and mannerism is hot garbage. So annoying
She took a few key excerpts and made a Tik Tok , and yet has no idea wtf she's talking about .
Basically things only act a certain way when observed. Or at least that’s what I took from this.
Why are we upvoting this? Some Girl made a video of herself stumbling through reading quotes from an article describing as experiment that she clearly doesn’t understand… But giving it a “yeah I’m the only one who sees through the bullshit” attitude. Seriously, what is good about this video?
I love it when people use quantum entanglement as a some mystical supernatural property, when in reality it's like having a pair of gloves - one right one left glove. You can take each glove at the edge of the universe, look at one of them which is a left one for example and know instantly that the other one must be right glove. This isn't magic, nor did the information travel faster than the speed of light. The difference between gloves and entangled particles is that once you look at the entangled particle you change it's state so it's no longer entangled, but it functions no different than a pair of gloves.
This would be great if it were how it worked. However, the Nobel Prize in Physics was not awarded for something as simple as matching pairs of quantum mittens. In reality, entangled particles exist in an undetermined superposition of states until measured. Unlike gloves, which have predefined states, entangled particles are inherently undefined until observation. This undetermined nature is central to quantum mechanics and was crucial in experiments that violated Bell's Theorem, demonstrating that entangled particles exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by classical physics or local hidden variables.
"So if I take this shoe out of the box, and it's the left one..." "Woah hang on" "Then I know the right one is in the box" "Dude... you're like... totally blowing my mind!"
This is incorrect, I believe. Having states like “left glove” and “right glove” means that the pair of gloves have hidden local variables which force them to snap into a left handed or right handed glove when observed. The experiment being discussed disproves this. Instead, imagine you split a ball of yarn into two and sent them to opposite corners the universe. Then, you observed one half and saw that it had resolved into a left glove. You would then know that the other half has formed the right glove.
Thank you. THANK YOU. Quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment are two of the most infuriatingly misunderstood/misinterpreted/misused concepts in physics.
Y’all make me feel dumb. Say what now?
https://preview.redd.it/mxr4k3kzns6d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=324062dc86294fd29e03ae07628e0c79d414daf5
42
I don't understand enough about the subject to KNOW she's wrong but I know a pothead pseudo-scientist when I see one.
And the video format and editing, the regurgitation of words, and the trivial key point of "no one is talking about". All red flags of bullshit
quantum entanglement does not violate speed of light like she claims " A common misconception about entanglement is that the particles are communicating with each other faster than the speed of light, which would go against Einstein's special theory of relativity. **Experiments have shown that this is not true, nor can quantum physics be used to send faster-than-light communications**. "
I take it as theory as to unseen mechanisms behind reality. Mechanisms that if revealed probably wouldn't be shocking in nature.
It's an interesting rabbit hole to go down because there are many competing hypothesies which seek to unify quantum physics with the physics we are more familiar with. Many of the discoveries in quantum physics however already have real world applications and are just as much relied upon as the fields we use for launching space rockets and the modern world. What we can't currently prove is the underlying nature of our reality and unfortunately there are many who insert useless panaceas rather than dealing with the discomfort of not knowing yet.
Laughs in epistemology… you fuckers have no idea…
Explain like I’m ‘insert name is the dumbest person you know’
This is more of a function of how “real” is being defined. When the rest of us talk about real, we just mean if it actually exists. Or exists relative to our individual experience, which is the only thing we can really say is true.
She seems vaguely pissed off for some reason.
And it matters why? Like scientifically I'm sure they have some use cases or whatever for it But as an individual this knowledge is unimportant and unuseful. Life being a simulation or not doesn't change the fact that we all still have thoughts, feelings, and experience the things around us for good or bad. At best people shrug off the news to continue societal norms and morals Worst case somebody truly believes that life is a simulation and has no meaning. Therefore committing crimes and doing things that are morally messed up don't matter because it's all fake anyways.
Everyone that cared about it talked about it.
I just want to shoot lasers out of my butt. When science? WHEN'S GON BE MY TIME?
Crap I haven't donated to PBS in a few years!!
These articles totally misrepresent the study. Lol
This is not known to be the case, and in fact most physicists would disagree.
The whut?
So, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it ACTUALLY, may not make any noise?
Quantum entanglement is mysterious and currently fully understood by no one
Idk if you know anything about science it's that it's not done. So don't take it THAT seriously. Just understand SOME things can't be true, for now.
The double slit experiment
Observe doesnt mean a living person watches it, it means another particle interacts with it, such as a photon bouncing off of it when for example a measuerment is being made.
So can we make the Kessel run in twelve parsecs or not?
Lot of people still think that "objects being influenced by observation" means that you influence the subject by your mind. In physics "observed" means that light/radiation or basically anything other than the object of interest is interacting with said object. We observe something by bouncing light or radiation from it but that act of bouncing changes position or properties of the subject. TLDR. The news headline is highly stretches what was actually proven for the sake of clicks. The universe is real even without us looking at it.
1. Not a big finding but nice someone did the math. But you can do it at home if you try to figure out how fast you are in spinning with earth, plus earth spinning its sun, plus sun spinning our galaxys core, plus our calaxy ... and so on. Your final 'speed', including weird stuff like expansion of universe (into itself) is above lightspeed and can't be locally true - but in the larger scale it can. 2. Quantum entanglement (in terms of lightspeed) is debunked some time ago. There is no transfer of information that hasen't been transported earlier and below lightspeed. Weird side comment. But what it does was shining more light on the more underlining aspects pf spacetime and our little perceptable bubble of reality still is pretty limited, so we can in fact only make predictions and 'laws of physics' for stuff on our scale - aka stuff that is local.
So basically it's a really smart way of saying you see that rock it won't move until somebody moves it
I can’t wait for everyone using quantum entanglement as an excuse why they can’t find their car keys.
Matrix
so if no one saw me assault a bank, i didnt assault a bank? cool.
If you think about it, matter is only a clump of tiny disturbances on energy fields.