That's also the reason why Jocelyn Bell never received the prize.

Yeah the fact that it is so coincidental is a bit of its own spooky action at a distance.

@@CalvinHikes co incidents be like that

Talking about spooky, Sabine Hossenfelder got it right 1 year ago!

Brady's channels are a thousand times better than the rest of KZfaq. He should get a knighthood at some point.

It was pre-determined... 😉

"Probabilistic" just means that there are still unknown factors that are having effects that we are not understanding and not predicting. It just means that we are still not seeing things with enough "resolution", meaning that these things that you believe are the fundamental building blocks are still not the base level of construction of reality and there is yet another layer of construction below sub atomic particles that are actually constructing the sub atomic particles themselves. Its easier to think of it on a higher scale as an analogy: If you were to look at any one molecule of gas in the atmosphere and try to predict exactly what it is going to do next or even project it into the future, your answers would be very probabilistic; because there are local factors, there is the influence from all the other gas in the atmosphere, there is the gravitation of the Moon, there is even the heat from the sun while on the other side of the Earth, etc: that all have effects on what any one molecule in the atmosphere does, and that's why predicting the weather is so difficult past a given stretch of time. There is "probability stacking" (aka tolerance stacking in the machining world), where there are too many possibilities happening, one after the other, for the 'reaction chain" to every be predictable. But at the same time, we still understand that what is happening in the atmosphere at the molecular level is very deterministic. Everything has a cause and effect and it is all interacting in a very predictable way, but with unpredictable outcomes due to the probability stacking. I believe it's possible that this same sort of thing is happening in these experiments; that there are far more complex things happening below the surface, and all that we are even able to see are the effects, but not the actual causes. Just imagine I'm standing in a dark room with a ball on a string and I'm swinging it over my head, and maybe if you add heat I'll spin it faster, or cool the room and I'll spin it a little slower at times, maybe I swing that ball left and right or towards the floor, anywhere I want to. If you were to snap a photo in the dark -- you would see me swinging this ball around, but you could never know where that ball was going to be until you look. This is the "probability" that you speak of -- it's simply us being in the dark about certain parts of reality. You could continue to snap pictures in that dark room, some times the ball would be to my left and sometimes to my right, etc.. so you could say that it's actually everywhere in that room at once, until you snap that picture and know for sure. But to us it's a very simple situation, because we know that I'm just a person standing in the dark swinging the ball around -- so we can make sense of the pictures. When you're looking at photons or even sub atomic particles, you have no idea what is really going on in that dark room--- all you can see are the snapshots and their probabilities; but this says nothing to what is actually going on in that dark room of reality.

Agree completely

​@@calholli No, it's not about resolution. Bell's Inequalities literally defines a way to test between results produced by a truly random probability distribution, or one produced by unknown Hidden Variables that we cannot see or find yet. An experiment proving Quantum Mechanics using Bell's Inequalities disproves the existence of any resolution problems or information problems being involved in a fundamental randomness. Unless the Hidden Variables can update with regard to information recieved faster than light (since Bell's Theorem assumes that isn't possible).

It means "excluding any external influence on the experiment". The system is statistic, but that may change if there is some external influence.

@@framegrace1 That's incorrect, as I understand it. Locally means no "spooky action at a distance." Hidden variable theories can satisfy Bell's inequality if they allow for non-local action, i.e. if they allow for "spooky action at a distance." At least, that's what I've picked up from many other videos I've seen on the topic.

They are referring to the fact that Bell’s inequality disproves hidden variable theories that are local. They stress “at least locally” because a global hidden variable theory is still a valid explanation

Locality can be saved with the Many World interruption, which suggests that all possible outcomes happen, but only outcomes which are consistent (or in phase with one another) will continue to interact with one another. But this removes realism since there's no longer a single shared universe. Realism can be saved with Pilot Wave interruption, which suggests that things like super positions aren't real, but are the result of a shared hidden variable. Local Realism can be saved with Super Determinism, which attacks the statistical independence of measurements made. Basically saying that the only measurements which can be done, are the ones which create this correlation. Most physicist have major objections to Super Determinism, as it requires almost conspiracy level thinking to think that universe would work this way. But there are serious and adamant defenders of this hypothesis.

“local” just means “lightspeed or slower”

I work as an engineer and this really makes me wanna go back to university and get a physics degree :D

The thing is, how could the existence of global hidden variables ever be confirmed?

Also: Superdeterminism.

@@realdarthplagueis I think this video explicitly ruled out super determinism

​@@billoddy5637 Wasn't superdeterminism created as a solution to Bell's inequality with hidden variables? Even with local hidden variables. The thing is that people view things like that like crazy. But to me the idea that the universe is producing true randomness is more scary. That means the universe is capable of doing something that cannot be done on a Turing machine. Essentially meaning the universe can hypercompute, no? It might be one of the simplest hypercomputations on the face of it, but it's still beyond normal comutation. If hypercomputation can exist, then personally I think that just completely throws maths into disarray,

These experiments prove that QM is probabilistic, not deterministic-a hidden variable is an invalid description of the regimes QM describes.

amazing that question of assumptions was seemingly not asked/addressed

@@TheDirge69 Some of the assumptions are rather weird, such as measurement contextuality, so it is not unlikely that most physicists disregard it.

Bell's Inequality and other so called "no go theorems" are rejected by almost all physicists except those making Pop Sci hype videos on KZfaq. Gell-Man rejected it, t'Hooft, Hartle, Omnes, Griffiths, Streater all reject it. It was pointed out by Itamar Pitowsky in the 80s that Bell's Inequality is just a restatement of Boole's Inequality in Probability Theory and only holds if one assumes that all observables involved are defined on a common probability space - which we in fact know upfront not to be the case, so there is absolutely nothing meaningful or surprising about electron spins not obeying it. It tells us nothing about realism vs non-realism as realism is not a required assumption to derive it - already pointed out by Eberhard in the 70s. It tells us nothing about locality vs non-locality as locality is a redundent assumption, pointed out my many including Pitowsky, Fine, Streater, Philipp, Hess and many others beginning in the 80s. If one assumes a joint probablity space (or a classical state space that implies such) then BI will hold and throwing in nonsense like non-realism and or non-locality does not change that fact and such mechanisms cannot be used to explain why electron spins disobey BI. Accepting that not all probability distributions can be represented as marginals of a single joint distribution (a purely mathematical fact having nothing to do with physics) does explain it.

Yep. People like Nima Arkani-Hamid at Princeton put forth pretty convincing arguments that QM+GR are emergent, and nothing gets broken re: locality or unitarity("space time is doomed"). "Every time in science we've had a conflict of two fundamentally well established concepts, there has been some emerging new science from which these concepts emerged." Lenny Susskind out of Stanford basically agrees with this re - "Conflicts of Principes".

@@NuclearCraftMod If you are referring to those who reject critiques of Bell et al because they think contextuality is weird, then such people have a deficient understanding of formal mathematical probability. Dependency of measures (in the sense of measure theory and probability theory) on context is ubiquitous. It's one of the known pathologies of Kolmogorovian probability theory and certainly comes into play when dealing with probabilities relating to incompatible observables. There is a whole area of research regarding this. To see a Nobel prize being awarded to a bunch of hype mongers promoting "quantum weirdness" that spits in the face of those working in the mathematical foundations of QM is very disturbing. The Nobel prize in physics has been dragged down to the same laughable level as the Nobel peace prize.

🤣

i think the only way to not feel uncomfortable with it is to just stop thinking about it. it's a basic feature of the human mind to always look for cause and effect. quantum mechanics only follows that if you look at the wavefunction itself and not the probabilities it describes. maybe one day we'll have a more intuitive description of how it all works.

Yeah, most “probabalistic” things we usually think of could probably be modeled well enough to predict the outcome, except QM. Very interesting.

Why can't there just be sub states of these systems that we can't observe interacting to appear not deterministic? What if a higher dimensional shape has an attribute that can only interact in a dimension we can't observe, but a physical shape we can see in 3d space? That shape stays still to us, but collides at a higher dimension, changing the sub state at that level, and then propagating that back to the realm of observability. Would that not just be determinism with more steps? I don't get why it must be non deterministic yet.

It's worth noting that Bell's Inequality only rules out LOCAL hidden variables. John Bell himself admitted that GLOBAL hidden variables are still possible and compatible with the theory. But afaik nothing has come of that so far.

@@ArawnOfAnnwn what would global hidden variables imply? some property present everywhere in space at once?

This bothered me too!

Nah, all that information doesn't exist, which horse wins or loses is entirely probabilistic. lol, Do they even listen to what they are saying? Has modern science become yet another echo-chamber?

Yep, I noticed that too. The analogy was all sorts of wrong.

As I understood it, kinda - except that the very reason we can't have sufficient information is that QM simply doesn't allow us, and this rules out any local hidden variables that would contain this information. Thereby making the system ultimately non-deterministic

@@erik-2820 too many classical physics laws absolutely function at (1) the macro level and (2) non-relativistic speeds for a horse race to be non-deterministic due to QM.

couldnt have said it better! ^__^

If the hidden variables are non-local, there’s no reason the two entangled systems can’t instantaneously make use of shared hidden information to recreate the predictions of QM.

My very basic understanding is that until the entanglement experiments are done at a huge distance, outside influences cannot be ruled out completely. But at the distances tested, it doesn't seem to be the case

@@barcodebarcodebarcode Bell’s theorem tells us that a _classical_ theory which recreates the result would have to be non-local, not that QM actually _is_ non-local.

@@barcodebarcodebarcode It's a fair point, but I think this is ultimately due to John Bell's wording. Since the context is that of hidden variable alternatives to QM, "local" implicitly means "classically local". If you look at what's happening from QM's point of view, there's nothing non-local going on.

My understanding is that a non-local variable would be a global variable. Perhaps a scalar field that determines the up and down nature of spin experiments.

same!

Yeah I was looking for it so hard like, what did I miss?!

Yeah I also FIRST looked into the outlook tab, THEN rewound the video to check :D

There could be some hidden correlation between particles that is independent of distance. They could both, for instance, have instant access to some value anywhere in the universe. I.e. spooky action at a distance.

@OddPotato only when you do that last step of using the Born rule, but that can be derived in QM, it's not fundamental, as it's about trying to relate QM to our classical understanding of the world

as if there was anything wrong with superdeterminism...

I thought color was an intrinsic property of matter. Until I learned that at suficiently small scales, visible light can't interact with objects at that scale, so most stuff are "invisible". Using that analogy, maybe, things just become probabilistically fuzzy when we go to quantum scales. At least as long as we are talking physics. All of physics are just approximations anyway. That doesn't mean that the world really works that way. But until we develop a better tool, if probabilities explain that phenomenon better (and make our internet faster), that's the way to go. The irony is that many people that wanted to discredit QM, actually contributed to its foundation. Even if it conflicts with our existing beliefs and axioms, after a century of disdain and doubt, I think we can at the very least grudgingly start accepting the probabilities are here to stay (like Gödel's incompleteness theorems). Btw, I prefer determinism too. Anybody claiming that he likes the probabilities in QM is a flat out lier.

@@JamesSarantidis I have no problem accepting probabilities as the best way so far to describe what's going on, but that would be a quality or limitation of knowledge, not of ultimate reality (can we even truly know reality except what we assume about it?). So when the last professor says nature itself is probabilistic, not deterministic, I'm very curious as to how he or the Nobel prize winners reached that conclusion. AFAIK determinism isn't a discovery or a statement about knowledge, it's an assumption about reality itself, required by modern science. I'm sorry but I don't think it's the same as your color analogy, because color is just being used as a name for something we can't describe, except by comparison to something else with similar properties. Unless I missed your point.

There is much evidence that some quantum processes happen with undetermined outcomes. Assuming that all probability comes from a lack of information is a leap of faith that determinism must ultimately be true regardless of the current evidence.

@@Nighthawkinlight I'm very ignorant of quantum processes, but evidence can't prove or disprove determinism, it's an a priori assumption. That's like an experiment showing that evidence is meaningless or the scientific method is flawed, scientists can't shoot themselves in the foot. Even if all evidence points to probability best describing reality, it can't prove they happen outside determinism (unless I'm missing something, which is very likely).

@@danfg7215 Bell's inequality assumes two things, locality and realism, one of those has to be wrong, but it doesnt have to be the realism. Nonlocal hidden variable interpretations are still viable, like De Broglie Bohm interpretation. Bell knew this, but not many in physics today seem to. In 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ``observer,'' could be eliminated. ... But why then had Born not told me of this ``pilot wave''? If only to point out what was wrong with it? ... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice? --John Bell

Yes, Bell assumed that his idea of hidden variables was unassailble but that in addition QM was non-local and that non-locality explains QM violations of his inequality. Except he failed to realize that locality is a redundent assumption and that the inequality is derivable solely from his unthinkingly assuming that there is a such a thing as a single joint probability distribution that one can use to average over. Realism is also redundant, as Eberhard showed any theory whether with hidden variables or not that simply treats the observables as being defined on a such a common probability space produces BI and will be inconsistent with QM.

These guys are like the Wu-Tang Clan of physics

@@Olhado256 They should put that on their business cards.

That's called superdeterminism

That is why I accepted Our Lord von Neumann into my life, and why you should, too. ;-)

Noble prize winners are a joke nowadays.

Definitely: Quantum Entanglement of Thoughts

Chaos is deterministic.

"Probabilistic" just means that there are still unknown factors that are having effects that we are not understanding and not predicting. It just means that we are still not seeing things with enough "resolution", meaning that these things that you believe are the fundamental building blocks are still not the base level of construction of reality and there is yet another layer of construction below sub atomic particles that are actually constructing the sub atomic particles themselves. Its easier to think of it on a higher scale as an analogy: If you were to look at any one molecule of gas in the atmosphere and try to predict exactly what it is going to do next or even project it into the future, your answers would be very probabilistic; because there are local factors, there is the influence from all the other gas in the atmosphere, there is the gravitation of the Moon, there is even the heat from the sun while on the other side of the Earth, etc: that all have effects on what any one molecule in the atmosphere does, and that's why predicting the weather is so difficult past a given stretch of time. There is "probability stacking" (aka tolerance stacking in the machining world), where there are too many possibilities happening, one after the other, for the 'reaction chain" to every be predictable. But at the same time, we still understand that what is happening in the atmosphere at the molecular level is very deterministic. Everything has a cause and effect and it is all interacting in a very predictable way, but with unpredictable outcomes due to the probability stacking. I believe it's possible that this same sort of thing is happening in these experiments; that there are far more complex things happening below the surface, and all that we are even able to see are the effects, but not the actual causes. Just imagine I'm standing in a dark room with a ball on a string and I'm swinging it over my head, and maybe if you add heat I'll spin it faster, or cool the room and I'll spin it a little slower at times, maybe I swing that ball left and right or towards the floor, anywhere I want to. If you were to snap a photo in the dark -- you would see me swinging this ball around, but you could never know where that ball was going to be until you look. This is the "probability" that you speak of -- it's simply us being in the dark about certain parts of reality. You could continue to snap pictures in that dark room, some times the ball would be to my left and sometimes to my right, etc.. so you could say that it's actually everywhere in that room at once, until you snap that picture and know for sure. But to us it's a very simple situation, because we know that I'm just a person standing in the dark swinging the ball around -- so we can make sense of the pictures. When you're looking at photons or even sub atomic particles, you have no idea what is really going on in that dark room--- all you can see are the snapshots and their probabilities; but this says nothing to what is actually going on in that dark room of reality. ;;//

Did you know most of his audiobooks can be found on youtube? Had great fun during my convalescence.

9 times out of 10, but yeah.

Have you failed to grasp any other concepts?

A hidden variable, as so called, would be more like some currently unknown physics, which is at some level deeper or more comprehensive than currently known physics, and that acts (from our own current-physics perspective) like some magic Oracle (per Greek legend not the database) that tells currently known physics how to behave in any given specific quantum measurement event. From a DE perspective, you can say that classical physics is well described for the most part in terms of differential equations, but a side effect of that classical physics model is that it looks like a clockwork system that you set up once and all future physics behavior is then known if you only had infinitely accurate computers to simulate it on. But at a certain level the classical physics fails, and thus we get quantum physics. Now it turns out that differential equations also figure prominently in quantum physics (via the wave function), except (by orthodoxy anyway) you're supposed to take the key equation as expressing the probability of one of many measurement results happening, and per Copenhagen Interpretation anyway, a measurement event collapses the wave function. A hidden variables theory would ostensibly be some more complex deeper theory (that may or may not involve differential equations) that is the true determinant of what happens in a measurement event, but whose results are approximated very well by the differential equations and collapse of the current DE-based quantum theory, which in turn asymptotically approaches classical physics in suitably large-scale but low-enery physics. We can't say whether a hidden variables theory has differential equations in it, because it probably doesn't exist, and if it does exist, we don't know what it is yet.

What an excellent question!!!!!!!! Can I have your Instagram to discuss more?

Hawking radiation?

You can't use entanglement to transmit information superluminally, which is what is required to observe the interior of an event horizon, so the remaining particle won't behave any differently from a non-entangled particle. This is no different from what would happen if you shot one of the particles into space and lost track of it. Entanglement only matters if you measure both particles.

Exactly. You don't really know a thing until you can not only teach it to others, but break it down into it's simplest forms of relevancy and explain it in simple terms that anyone can understand. THAT'S when you really know something.

It's how they avoided acknowledging that the Nobel Prize-winning results vindicated NON-LOCAL interpreations of quantum mechanics.

Very fitting comment. U Vienna figures prominently in past and ongoing Bell experiments on photons.

I can't speak for the video authors, but since there are multiple of them, it would not surprise me if they represent multiple opinions about what's the best QM interpretation. There are a dozen or more - I know, I took Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics class twice and each one is more confusing (and better in some sense but worse in some other sense) than the last. If they tend to focus on the Copenhagen Interpretation, it is probably since that is the most well-known interpretation among general physicists who do not specialize in entanglement or quantum information theory, and perhaps among amateurs as well. I agree with your critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation and its collapse of the wave function mysterious event. I don't like it either. Let me quote your key sentence: "I can't help but think non-collapse is the more natural interpretation, and the appearance of collapse is likely just an emergent phenomenon." I kind-of think that if we had enough really smart physicists/mathematicians/logicians we could sponsor a project that would eventually prove the functional equivalence of some subset of the dozen or so QM interpretations. The ones not in this subset would either be cast on the heap of discard interpretations, or perhaps on the list of "yet to be proven equivalent."

Yeah, non-collapse is the only way to preserve determinism and locality.