I am.

I've known about the theory for a while but for some reason I found myself desperately wanting to properly understand the underlying logic because our fundamental understanding of reality hinges on this proof. So thank god for this video because I finally get it.

Well good that Bendy understood it. I did not understand it at all and so I watched it almost ten times to find out why I did not under stand it. The crucial point is at minute 15:30 where suddenly the experiment done was changed. Before, it was clear that A and B choose detector settings 1,2 and 3. So this should result in 9 different situations, because A can choose settings 1..3 and B likewise. 3x3 is 9 different situations. But now you switch to results being same or different for settings 1..3. When you say 1 is same, what does it mean? Is this the polarizer setting for A or for B or both? If its only A, then what is the setting for B? That's the confusing point.

I see a big part of your problem. It is not a 3*3 Combination Matrix. It is a 2*3 Permutation Matrix, where on one side you have either it did or did not pass through the Polarizer (Yes No) and on the other side you have 3 Polarizers each set at different angles (1 2 3). If you list out all the possible Permutations you get a total of 8: YYY (1) YYN (2) YNN (3) NNN (4) NNY (5) NYY (6) NYN (7) YNY (8) There are no others. Also, notice (1) and (4) are statistically meaningless since either the photon will go through all 3 (1) or it will go through none (4). That leaves 6 outcomes that are of interest. But this table is meaningless by itself. We need to extrapolate another table that allows us to conclude the probabilities that yield a value of 33% To do that we need to remind ourselves of the actual experiment. Alice and Bob each receive one of a pair of matched photons that each have the same polarity. Alice and Bob will each choose a Polarizer at random (1 2 or 3) and then see if their photon goes through it or not. If they randomly choose polarizers that not from permutations (1) or (4) then we can see that 1/3rd of the time they will get the same results. eg 1/3rd of the time the photon will go through for both Alice and Bob. The other 2/3rds of the time they will get different results, eg it went through for Alice but not for Bob, or vice versa. This is the heart of Bells Inequality. It means if you run enough tests then 33% of the time Bob and Alice will get the same results if "Hidden Variables" is how the Quantum world works. But that's not what they get. they get the same result only about 25% of the time, which is what Quantum Mechanics predicts in a universe where entangled particles are in a super-position wave of possibilities right up until the moment you detect them (eg did it go through or didn't it). If you did this same experiment with pairs of gloves, which are left or right handed right from the start, Bells Inequality is not violated. This means we live in a fucked up universe where very small things don't seem to follow common sense.

ps. To be explicit about the value of 1/3 lets consider permutation (2) YYN. There are 3 polarizers, 1 and 2 will let the photon pass through and the 3rd one will not. Alice and Bob must randomly pick one of the 3. If they pick the same one, then the result of the test will be meaningless, but if they pick different ones, then it will be useful. The only combinations that matter are 1 and 2 (YY) 1 and 3 (YN) 2 and 3 (YN). From this list of 3 possibilities 1 of them will yield the same result (YY) and the other two will yield different results (YN). Hence we get a value of 1/3 or 33%. This holds true for all the other permutations except (1) and (4).

Did this explanation ring a BELL then?

@@happylittlemonk cling

You have to be kidding? Clear as Mississippi mud!

You could have read Bell's original paper instead of wasting your time. At the very end of his paper Bell himself noticed that he wasted all of his effort because the actual physics of these systems is relativistic. Non-relativistic derivations will produce nonsense like Bell's inequalities. ;-)

It starts _off_ as a good explanation, then becomes long-winded, errors creep in, they are corrected... And that's fine. But as the comments indicate, there is either something systematically wrong with the thing, or the S/N is getting incomprensibly low.

Hi there. I am big fan of the way you deliver (convey) the message. But this time, I felt as if you had to give a try, indeed. It is not your fault of course. Things here start to become unstable, we may all more or less guess, so it is not your fault at all. Would you like to have a look at my Open Letter where I express question as for QM convincibility? Perhaps it will provide you some ideas. Thanx!

Well, I pressed 'like'. Could not do otherwise.

This is an important correction!!

To distinguish between polarisations of photons.

Yes I think that's the whole point. An individual one would display the component at that angle. Classically we actually get the component as a number between 1 and -1. Quantum particles instead show up as as probability of a qubit as in 1 or -1 discretely distributed per the component. Thus take this new state where the previous measurement outcome is erased. The recommended particle in an entangled pair shows correlation similarly as with measuring a particle twice, yes? Its worth mentioning of course that to infer a probability many repeated tests must be done the more the better. So it could never be done on a single particle much as without examining a coin used for a coin flip we would just have to flip the coin many times to get a probability. Although a coin could be examined and determined to be of a shape and weight distribution we can infer in many classical systems their pseudo random nature we cannot look at featureless particles in this way

My exact question plz some one explain

See also www.academia.edu/5927513/The_Spacetime_Wave_Theory Richard

Fourth possibility, the Electric Universe Theory is correct, faster than light communication is possible.

@@simonruszczak5563 Hi Simon. I don't know about the electric universe theories but the observations of entangled systems suggest that the requirement would be for instantaneous communication. This is a more difficult requirement than 'faster than light'. This is why I prefer to think of the measurement of the entangled system as being the cause of the change of state of the entire distributed system. Actually the idea of an instantaneous effect acting over a distance requires the specification of the frame of reference (Ref: SR/GR) in which the instantaneous effect takes place and this frame of reference is the CMB rest frame.

6 years or so late, but the answer is... the 3 slit options are all 120 degrees from each other. 1st slit is 0 degrees, 2nd is 120 degrees, 3rd is 240 degrees. The real trouble with this experiment is, similar to your assumption that a photon passing through one can't pass through the other, there's only a CHANCE the photons pass through the differing polarizer selections. There are bound to be instances where the photon passes through one but not the other, which is not to say that COULDN'T have passed through it, just that it didn't in that particular instance. And for the instances when this happens the experiment ASSUMES that the photon COULDN'T have passed through it, marking it as such in the data. Similarly, when a photon pair successfully passes through a pair of polarizer selections, the experiment assumes the photons HAD TO pass through them, supposedly due to this "hidden variable determining outcome" hypothesis.

Exactly my thoughts.

Rule number 1 and 8 already added. Each one of the 8 rule has 1/8 probability of occurrence. 1 and 8 rule has 100% probability of same result. From 2 to 7 there is 1/3 probability of same result. So, total probability of same result is 1/8 + (1/8)(1/3) + (1/8)(1/3) + (1/8)(1/3) + (1/8)(1/3) + (1/8)(1/3) + (1/8)(1/3) + 1/8 for rule number 1 to 8 respectively. So it would be 1/8 + 1/4 + 1/8. And thus 0.37. 0.37 is greater than 0.33 and that is what the rule says. Probability of same result >= 1/3. Hope this helps

@@mananpanchal261/8+1/4+1/8 is not 0.37 ! It would be 0.5

Plz some body explain

Sina Gohary For each trial, no matter what the combination of polarizer is, the 2 photons share one set of hidden variables. For each combination of polarizer there are 4 sets of variables that can make a SAME observation, that makes a probability of 0.5, for each trial of the experiment. Based on this, We can forget about the probability for having each combination. So the whole statistical probability of SAME observations is 0.5. Yet In real life, the number of trials is limited, which means if the experiment never encounters hidden variables 1or8, (the number of SAME observations /the number of all observations) will be something like 2/6. Since The observed probability is less than 1/3, the hidden rules are already proved not likely to exist. I think DR might mean something like that. Please reply if you find anything suspicious.

Doesn't matter if they are possible, what he wrote down are all 8 classical possible options and if you say options where polarizers 2 and 3 have same result are not possible this just means options 1, 4, 5 and 8 are not possible, but the remaining options 2, 3, 6 and 7 still have a probability of 1/3.

Not unless you are prepared to throw out conservation of angular momentum and many other conservation laws. One example of entanglement is the consequence of a particle with no spin decaying into 2 particles with spin, such as an electron and a positron. Conservation of angular momentum requires that they have opposite spin. Yet, uncertainty requires that each one's spin is all possibilities until it is measured. Only then does the wave function collapse. Entanglement means that it collapses for both particles at the same time. Put another way, these properties are probabilistic until they are measured. The spin of an electron could end up either way depending on when it is measured. It didn't start out with an up spin and it's partner a down spin. Measuring it makes the spin definite and makes its partner's spin definite at the same time.

+Eric Reiter There are several (pairs of) properties exhibiting complementarity and a full knowledge of x and y spin is one. It isn't really my strong point but as I understand it, any pair of properties that could tie an electron (say) down to being fully a wave or fully a particle will exhibit uncertainty. At the risk me of being totally wrong, I would suggest that full measurement of the pairs you mention would result in the electron being reduced to all particle, whereas fully knowing the spin characteristics would result in it being all wave.

I don't think any A Level courses cover Bells Inequality. All my A Level vids are in the playlist on A level revision.

Show me the math.

Be careful. That is how a religion starts.

you basically just stumbled upon ER=EPR (google it)