No, she thought she had the answer but she was entangled with the newfangled ideas.

yeet

Nope, this is called superdeterminism ! It’s a prediction !

I'm waiting for her head to start spinning around like Linda Blair in the exorcist.

This video proves Einstein (that guy) was wrong: Sabine sent a message back in time this year, when she learned the Nobel Prize winners, and told herself to make this video!

Seems FAR enough 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Here, take my angry like, I loved it and it's awful

@@vicca4671 Lol thanks

Hopefully will receive the award in absentia.

Yeap

I read a book, "Entanglement", by Amir Aczel; the book went into detail about Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, and their experiments. It wasn't that big of a stretch, to figure they would win the Nobel Physics prize.

Spooky at any distance!

@@starguy2718 Aczel is deserving of great respect. Much more so than poseur/ass Brian Greene

​@@starguy2718 like picking a trifecta in a three horse race (you still have 5 ways to get it wrong)

I want an entire range of T-shirts based on this channel.

Yes yes yes!

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into this :)

@@SabineHossenfelder I will throw more money at this channel for t-shirts!

I’ll buy that Einstein t-shirt!

I feel the same way, most of the time I understand about 5% of what she’s talking about but I can’t stop watching.

Those of us (well, me at least), who are interested non-specialists in this sea of complexity, speculation and inconsistent expert opinion, need to find a few people in the field whom we decide to trust, who don't talk down to us, but neither do they oversimplify. Sabine is, obviously, someone I view in that light.

Theres nothing to understand. Anything which beggins with "quantum" is bs. Quantum theory- its bs. Quantum computing- bs. Quantum teleportation - hmm let me think...more bs ?

@@GamesBond.007 Then prove it bs and pick up your Nobel Prize. Oh wait, you're just talking out your ass. Stfu.

Probably the best deep science channel on YT, although PBS Space Time is excellent too.

i wanna discover a new species of animal, so i can name its feces, "quantum hyperspace warp drive teleporter"

I’m so confused right now… the title says Nobel prize 2022 but the video was published one year ago 😵😵

@@zyzhang1130 I think she just changed the title now, and the yt algorithm likes it better this way :)))

@@stefanbalauca7481 ohh didn’t know u can do that (even for thumbnail) after the video was posted 😯😯thanks for the info！

Nevertheless good prediction! Maybe the Sabine in the past is quantum entangled with the Sabine in the future? 🤣

This video is not “timely” because it was put up by Sabine more than a year ago. So it is actually spooky action at a distance (in time).

@@robertbutsch1802 Well it could be timely if it violates causality in that the Nobel prize this year sparked the making of the video.

@@robertbutsch1802 In time and in place because that video was made in some place in space where the Earth (and the entire solar system with the Earth) will NEVER come back to! Even if the solar system does a full circle around the galaxy, the galaxy itself would have moved entirely from that spot! A KZfaqr named Dialect has a video about this very topic! Called "Why you can't travel backwards in space" and I'm inspired from there!

Seems odd to me that Sabine hasn't made a video directly addressing the fact that local realism has been demonstrated to be false.

Indeed :/

Unfortunately, this understanding is incorrect. In entanglement there is no communication of information, instantaneous or not.

@@david203 Unfortunately, it's not. Watch the video again. "Your Honor, my client has not technically violated causality."

@@david203 Actually there is. But you cannot make use of it to send information you want. The particle decides on the information it wants and then sends it faster-than-light to it's partner. That's what the bell experiment suggests.

@@georgelionon9050 No, the Bell experiments do not suggest that. Give me a reliable reference.

@@georgelionon9050 Unfortunately, she didn't explain how the information is "mixed" with the entangled particle. But in any case, her measurement of it after that creates a "hash" of what the information is. That's why she has to send how she measured it to the other end. When that same measurement is used, the "hash" reveals the information she mixed in the first particle. To understand how that works is not really what she explained, just that it can work. It's still very confusing, but the principle is that the information itself is never sent, so it can't be intercepted in any way. The information about her measurement could be, but it's no help to the interceptor because they have no access to the second particle. In this sense, it's a foolproof encryption. There is no communication between the particles.

Ditto!

Can Superdeterminism be summarized in every point of the universe already knows of every other point in the universe (because of common big bang history) and in effect be "holographic" in the original sense, as that from any slice contains (theoretical) the information of the whole? If that's case, I must say, it's a sorrow attempt to save locality.

Sabine post her papers in the arxiv, and coments them in her blog, backreaction, if you are interested.

@@eljcd I've also had discussions about it with Sabine and other commenters on Backreaction. It was a fair bit to get my head around when I started digging in more.

@@georgelionon9050 Particles don’t have knowledge. Super determinism is just that when you add the measurement into the equation it causes a statistical correlation that collapses the wave function. In other words, now we observe more information about the particle we can better predict its outcome. Surely all particles may have been entangled in some way during the Big Bang. After all, Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the some of the parts make up the whole. That doesn’t mean that by measuring one particle we can calculate the universe. Superdetermism is really not about preserving locality or quantum entanglement. If information can be transferred faster than the speed of light, then let’s prove its mechanism. Let’s transfer information faster than light … even if it requires us to entangle particles and initially send them away less than the speed of light. Instead of just saying spooky action at a distance just is.

Isn't everything in space?

Boring ☺️

Happy you like it!

@@SabineHossenfelder 6:14 money? (Could you please elaborate)

@@soundtrancecloud5101 many, not money

not research standard text book material

I wonder if Bob and Tom are enjoying their knot that Alice agreed with Bob about?

Greetings back to Rio!

If this is an accurate analogy, it really helps me understand it. What I don’t get is why quantum teleport something at all when you still have to send other information classically? Is it only useful for encryption and that’s it?

Of some reason this reminds me of how some shopkeepers in Baldur's Gate shared their inventory. So you could sell an item to one merchant and then buy it back from another... 😉

@@thurston2235 Well, presumably it's physically *unhackable* encryption, which has it's value. And though the cost of the quantum computers needed to do it would exceed most practical expenses, I can see it being worth it for governments handling top secret data. Say, nuclear weapons codes. The other potential benefit depends on the "key" size versus the size of the message. If the "key" is "smaller/shorter" than the message, then that might be useful. There's a great lecture on this site by Microsoft computer scientists explaining the math of it all. It's under 2 hours and is actually *very* approachable.

Teleporting cat bellies to be precise should be the ultimate goal

There are millions of youtube videos that teleport cats into the conscious minds of cat lovers

Nobody needs cats. Or dogs.

Indeed, I like that suggestion.

@@SabineHossenfelder No no no, REMOTE *QUANTUM* CLONING!

@@SabineHossenfelder : The name "remote cloning" would fail to draw attention to the destruction of the original.

@@brothermine2292 Good point. "Teleportation" seems to make more sense.

@@loweel2897 Who are you even talking to?

Why does superdeterminism make more sense to you than nonlocality?

@@brothermine2292 Because nonlocality implies faster than light interactions without faster than light communication in order to not violate Einsteins' General Relativity

@@Davidsasz1239 there are many thing that happen at a quantum level, that are impossible at a macroscopic level, so why not non-locality.

@@Davidsasz1239 : Nonlocality does NOT imply something traveled faster than light. We don't understand space or spacetime well enough to know that there aren't shortcuts (for example, wormholes) connecting distant points of space or connecting distant points of a quantum field.

It's a medal that can be either a Nobel Prize or a subway token, but you can't tell which until you open the box and look at it. :-)

A 50-50 chance of getting the prize

@@sicfxmusic Wait, EA is sponsoring the Nobel prize now?

It would be nice if they had a Nobel for Basic Science Research in general. There's no Nobel for Biology. Medicine, yes, but not general biology. There should be Nobel prizes awarded to Ecology research, for example, that have nothing to do with medicine.

isn't that more of a Temporal Nobel?

Don't put down your ability to understand my friend! Currently, nobody understands Quantum Mechanics! It is illogical, because using incorrectly defined fundamental elements. Everything starts making sense when the fundamental elements are correctly defined. Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@@valentinmalinov8424 Thanks for that I'm bi polar & don't think much of myself these are my escape from humanity as I don't quite fit in

@@stevealston201 Honestly, one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of Sabine is that she is not like other 'normal' people, and neither am I, nor are many people who are good friends of mine. I hope you find fellow nonconformists to spend time with online and in the flesh. And have patience with learning this stuff, it does add up over months, I've found. I am slightly less of an idiot than I was this time last year. :-9

@@stevealston201 bipolar is one of the most common misdiagnoses for someone who is autistic and has childhood trauma. as such if you feel like the bipolar treatment just seems to make you feel worse and less relatable you might want to do some research on autism and you might find out you're not as alone or different as you think. just with the wrong people.

When you can't understand a topic and Sabine's flair is a welcome distraction XD

@@CAThompson I can't undertstand science as I am a Zebra.

Looking at her blouse? Bad boy. Ha ha. :-)

Her blouse works. Works well.

I believe ‘Go’ is in the middle. Is she a player? Lol

My is fried yet

It's a case of turning the theorizing and turning it into practical applications. Even then such applications need to be commercialized to make it worthwhile for a company to bring them market.

That's one way to put it, yes.

Good question.

Sigh... no. Except for maybe something like a cypher key to decrypt information. All "quantum teleportation" does is give you a formula to derive the same results of observation on a similar object's state. An analogy is that Alice and Bob have the same exam questions on a test (entangled pair). Alice sends Bob a cheat sheet of the answers to the questions. Bob can now ace his exam without even looking at his test.

​@@jamestheotherone742 I "love" it when scientists just hand wave over this kind of understanding and treat it as some form of magic.Why? Why do they do this? What's their end game?

@@jamestheotherone742 what killjoy James is actually trying to say is that as far as we know you can’t actually transmit “more” information “faster.” As far as we know, but Sabine herself didn’t commit to that, which is telling. What we know now is that it is a more secure way to send certain information, like encryption keys.

火鍋大王，在中國就不要翻牆了啦

de fato, é possível que ela estivesse falando de outra coisa mas não sei dizer com certeza.

Here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/etJmd9yK1ravfXk.html

I think she ment that the spooky action is passing the speed of light with entanglement not the entanglement itself.

Exaktly! I thought the exakt same thing. Also that entanglement were like sending one sock; you know depending on the one you got, the other one

Maybe the cat didn't flee, did you look? Maybe the cat is now in a superposition of having fled or not.

@@georgelionon9050 EXACTLY! This IS a site about our inability to truly KNOW DEFINITEIVELY anything, anyway! Besides, kittamons DO already understand their orientation in our Universe!

@@georgelionon9050 Ha! Y're a wit.

she's still traumatized from schrödinger

One should not mention cats in the context of quantum mechanics - this is widely regarded as politicaly incorrect. Nowadays, one uses lawyers for that purpose.

No, anyone can do it. It takes a true expert to get it right. In the case of physics, almost all physicists get something wrong when it comes to explaining QM experiments for the simple basic reason that our natural physical intuition was not created by functioning the tiny domain of the atom or smaller. It took me a long time to accept such widespread ignorance in physics, because it attempts to be so rigorous and because its primary tool is mathematics, which actually is rigorous and always correct since it is based on the concept of proof. Physics is necessarily based on theory, observation, and correction (the scientific method).

@@david203 am I correct in assuming you've never heard of quantum biology?

@@UsernameXOXO No, what makes you think that? I am especially interested in how QM makes photosynthesis much more efficient.

Alice is hot

That's right. I mentioned "spooky action at a distance" after I talked about the measurement, which is the same I said in my earlier video.

information cannot travel faster than light, on the other side, you don't' need to know how fast it travels.

No, you need the measurement outcome from one side and send it to the other side. You don't know what the outcome is in advance.

To further elaborate, sequence of measurements needed to be done on the receiver side depends on the measurement outcome in the sender side. So it doesn't help receiver at all to know what sender does

No you can't, because you can't force the outcome of the measurement. But if the sender and receiver later meet up and compare notebooks, they'll see that they match.

I was thinking it still wouldn't be faster than light because of the information exchange that took place earlier happened slower than light, but still an interesting idea to turn something small into something big -- quantum compression? :)

Probably something like "Do you measure the polarisation in the horizontal or the vertical axis".

Yes, it would be nice knowing, but no one really knows 😂

Ya, okay, would be comfortable, but they aren't really hard to find. You got the authors name and the title. Do you really need shire it was published in?

Sure, but that exponential rise in papers is still citing that particular study. So however you look at it there is exponentially more work being done from that particular foundation.

Someone should plot the ratio between the amount of papers written and the citations of this one paper

yea that’s sort of the her point haha. people are doing research…. also i don’t think nuance on the topic is lost on her she’s just making a point. you have an anime pfp sit down.

@@billyt8868 - i agree she knows this, but she should mention it, since it totally undermines her point. Almost everything paper will be cited more as time goes on, because there's exponentially more papers to do the citing as time goes on.

Very good point though, but its on the news too. So may be there's some actual rise of citation after all.

Great video for a Physics student for sure!

Congrats your dream comes true!

Excellent, that is precisely how 80 trumptards approach everything.

science is the answer to everything. what was you question?

Jesus is the answer. A+ my son. Carry on.

Then you have to look back

Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

Yes. "spooky action at a distance" was a singularly poor analogy for the concept Einstein was trying to express. Almost as bad as Schrodinger's Cat. It enabled quantum mechanics literalism instead of disputing it as was intended.

@@jamestheotherone742 That's what Sabine explained in an earlier video about the measurement getting updated rather than the entanglement itself.

@@valentinmalinov8424 sounds like there will be lots of half-explanations in that book

@@mudkip_btw He's a quack.

"no superdeterminism" is one of the assumptions for Bell's theorem. So with superdeterminism, it doesn't work, basically.

@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks :)

@@SabineHossenfelder Dear Sabine, will you marry me? I love you!

@@Schokland2007 She's already married, and there is no reason for anyone to want to marry some random on the internet. Ew.

@@CAThompson serious guy you are!

"Quantum" buzzword is needed when "temporal" buzzword is insufficient.

And in fantasy it's now because of quantum magic.

Did I transmit my nonplussed state to you, or vice versa?

Perhaps. And there is no alternative.

Quantum Mechanics start to make sense only if you have correctly defined fundamental elements. Modern science is using incorrect defined fundamental elements and is running in "puzzles" and "mysteries" Quantum entanglement is very easy to be understood. If you are interested, just find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@@valentinmalinov8424 My point is not about how easy or difficult QM is to understand, it is about seeing it in the correct perspective.

@@cowlinator The 'alternative' is being studied, but that work is not seen in the correct perpective (IMO). The 'ocean' includes the Higgs Boson, the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, the 'vacuum', black holes, the ultra cold, gravitational waves and mass, none of which have a quantum definition. Reality is not made from sparkles, it is made of spacetime.

@@AmbivalentInfluence Yes my friend, but unfortunately, they - (not me) is the ones who say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics. I am offering correct fundamental principles, which on easy therms explaining all these currently unsolved puzzles. Regards

She does have a ridiculous amount of knowledge.

@@CAThompson She may be a “mentat”

@@gjolau Wouldn't surprise me. :)