That Win moment when you're so smart even your mistakes are brilliant.

Einstein: *makes a mistake* Everyone: Incredible job

This is one of the better explanations of this topic for the general public and it's still hard to grasp. I wrote a paper about the EPR paradox over 20 years ago for a philosophy course. It was my first introduction to quantum mechanics and my mind was blown. Impressive blast radius; I'm still picking up the pieces.... "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING BUT THE ANIMATIONS WERE SO COOL

I will have to watch this several more times before my brow un-furrows

That sad moment when you don't understand even after the narrator patronizes you

I think like half of this went right over my head...

great video but they somehow managed to write "spukhafte Fernwirkung" with 3 typos at 2:45

Man. Even Einstein's "wrong" paper launched whole new branches of science. What a mind.

Alain Aspect got Nobel Prize in Physics for his experiments on Bell's Inequality. Truly amazing.

Einstein , the man who was right even when he was wrong!

'Ferwirklung' is not a word in German. It's 'Fernwirkung', which means 'action at a distance'.

2:43 That sign should say "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" Funny enough the jibberish creation "Ferwirklung" almost works as a portmanteau of "Fernwirkung" and "Verwicklung" (entanglement)! A brilliant mistake on the side of Chad Orzel?

When I took undergraduate physics at university there were a handful of results that still stay with me now that I'm not at all involved in hard sciences. Two of the most mind boggling quantum phenomena involved simple experiments with light. So imagine you have a long rectangular prism about a metre long but otherwise fairly narrow. Shaped like a box for storing a dozen roses. It's black all over and completely blocks out all light. At one end you have a variable laser that you can adjust so that its intensity is so low it's guaranteed to be spitting out photons so slowly there's only ever 1 photon in the whole tube at any given time. Near the other end is a piece of card with two vertical slits and at the very end there's a light detector. If you did quantum in school you'll know light interferes with itself so you get these waves on the light detector if the light has to go through two slits. However, this experiment shows that the light will still interfere with itself as long as there are two slits even though there's only ever one photon in the tube! So the photon somehow 'knows' there's another slit on the card that it's not going though! I never got an explanation that I could follow as to why this works. Of course if you replace the two slits with one slit the pattern changes to the standard Gaussian distribution with no interference.The other really cool result you can try for yourself if you have three polarizing sunglasses. So polarizing sunglasses work by filtering out light if it's not aligned the right way. If you hold up the lens a particular way it might let through 100% of the up-down oscillating rays, 50% of the 45 deg incline rays and 0% of the side to side oscillating rays. Now if you get two pairs of sunglasses you can put the lenses next to each other and turn them until you find all of the light is being blocked (one lens blocks all the up down and the other blocks all the side to side). However, as the orientation of the light is probabilistic, once the light passes through a lens it updates its probability of what orientation it is travelling in. So if you get a third lens and stick it between your first two lenses, by carefully turning the middle lens you can actually get some light making it through all three lenses when two of them would have blocked ALL the light.

TED-Ed you made a mistake @2:45 its not "Spuckhafte Ferwirklung" its "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" your made 3 mistakes in 2 words. WELL DONE

What I understood : nothing absolutely nothing

Maybe they are connected through the extra dimensions that string theory suggests which is why they seemingly can get the information there faster than light but since we can't detect the dimensions we can't see it? And Before anyone jumps on me yes I'm talking out of my ass and have no idea if its true or even possible but hey, just an idea. :)

whoever the narrator is...he's smooooth. good to listen to. clear, articulate.

1:59 to 2:04 - "IF both particles are measured at 0, the relationship will always hold." I do not understand why that implies that they are entangled. This is no different than we would expect. IF one particle is measured at 0, THEN it will always remain as 0 (unless there is an intervening measurement of A/B)... and if the second particle is also measured at 0, then it will always remain at 0. So IF the particles HAPPEN to match the first time they are measured... then they will always match. Would we expect anything different? Wouldn't the corollary also be true? If one particle measured at 0 and the other measured at 1, then they will always be opposite no matter how far apart you move them, no? More information is needed to explain why this indicates an entanglement between the two particles. For instance, if we have one source of a dozen particles and measure the first particle at A, does that mean that we can predict with 100% accuracy that the remaining eleven particles will also be A? In which case, it seems that a property of the source is determining whether all the particles emitted from it are A or B. Also, if we then measure the first particle at 1, does that then mean we can predict with 100% certainty that all the remaining eleven particles are also 1? Better yet, suppose we measure particle X at 1, and particle Y also at 1... Then we measure particle X at A... does that then give us a 50% chance that particle Y will change from 1 to 0? Or is particle Y not scrambled by the A/B measurement to X in the same way that X is scrambled? In which case, did we not just disprove that X and Y are "entangled" and proven that they were only the same in the original measurement by chance and would expect them to remain the same until an intervening A/B measurement caused them to change 50% of the time?

This is as hard as it can get.

Schroedinger's particle basically

So Einstein himself opposed his theory so he is always correct.

This video is the most clear explanation of Entangled States.

Specifically regarding the portion of the video from about 1:00 to 1:20... how do we know that the state (1 or 0) is not determined until the measurement is taken? Also, suppose we take a measurement and find that it is 1, why would we find it strange that when we measure it again later, it is also 1? Why would we expect it to change from the first measurement to the next? Something seems to be missing in the explanation.

yeah tbh i don't get this at all

The animation is very good,so cute particler! kids can understand Quantum entanglement with it.Hi and love from Sweden !

Amazing thoughts right there. And the thought about quantum computers is just out of my comprehension. But with the little information i'm given and i understand, i'd like to point something : if there are only 2 states available for each particule, doesn't it mean that there are not only 2 entangled particles, but perhaps a lot more at the same time ?

2:44 Not sure if “Spukhafte Ferwirklung” was purposely spelled wrong, which is interesting because the second word can be treated as “Verwirkung” meaning “forfeit”, “Verwicklung” meaning “entanglement” and the “correct” word “Fernwirkung” which means “action in distance”.

The lesson went over my head

I like that 'for now' bit... I'm still waiting for those quantum routers.

And it's the latest paper. ‘Quantum teleportation-based state transfer of photon polarization into a carbon spin in diamond’

WOW! That is DEEP! Great video.

I still don't know what they are exactly measuring. All I'm getting is that they measure something about 2 particles, don't know how the two relate, and determining what "state" they are in. And that if you measure 1 then you know the state of both which could help with faster communication if they could control it... but they can't. This is like the 3rd video of this but still not 100%. I get the concept but not the details

Nice video. Just a qn if its ok. Got here due to curiosity abt how Einstein was said to be wrong with his "spooky action at a distance". So the qn is why do we know that the measured physical properties of entangled particles aren't predetermined prior measurement? Did look up some wiki pages about hidden variables and Bells Theorem etc but didnt feel like I learnt much from them except how his inequalities were violated etc.. Alot of it sounds overly complicated and round about. I get how the properties are random and we have to measure to know it and how entanglement led to correlation. But not sure how that concludes as Einstein being wrong. For instance, the properties that are unknown until measured surely can be considered a "hidden variable" even though that may not be exactly what he meant when he said that. I guess its more like a known variable whose value or state is indeterminate but I guess I just need to know why is it necessarily assumed to have meant to be uncorrelated based on what Einstein said? Any good clean way to explain it all? Forgot to add. My unds of the topic is obviously weak. For instance I seem to unds that entanglement suggest definite correlation between physical properties of a particle pair but I somehow still feel that if I changed the properties of one particle, somehow, the entanglement nature will fall apart? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, so does making measurements count as external influence or interaction somewhat similar as how I would make a change in a physical property?

If the tool u use affect the measurement, then how reliable result can u get?

물리학자들 사이에서 양자역학이 논란거리가 되었다는 사실은 알고 있었지만, 아인슈타인도 양자역학을 부정했다는 점을 이 영상을 보고 처음 알게 되었습니다. 이런 영상들을 보며 세상은 우리가 생각하는 것보다 훨씬 복잡하다는 것을 항상 느끼고 있습니다. 앞으로도 좋은 영상 기대하겠습니다.

Thank you i get information a lot

Can it be that four dimensional spacetime is infinitely curved in higher dimension and by entanglement particles can interact through the higher dimension resulting the action to be correlated and instantaneous regardless of spacial distance?

I wish everyone had access to these kind of videos.

This is what EDI explains to Shepard in how the Ilusive Man comunicates with the Normandy

There's a typo in "spukhafte Fernwirkung". "Spuckhafte Fernwirkung" as written in the video is "spitting-kind-of effect over distance".

What sorts of properties are they talking about measuring? And how are they actually measured? Also, what makes 2 particles be entangled with each other. Is it the fact that they were emitted by the same thing?

spukhafte Fernwirkung not spuckhafte Ferwirklung! = remote action

And things get even stranger when I understand each word but have no idea what this video is trying to tell me.

Does entangled states become less entangled over time due to interactions? Because, is Big Bang were to be true, then all the particles came out of one flash of energy which is equivalent to a prepared initial state implying everything is entangled with everything else... Or does this only work for matter - antimatter pair?

If A is 0 must i look at B in the same moment to find out it's 0 too? The video places the measurements apart in time a millisecond or so, how long is the same state kept between particles?

I'm not german, and I'm just relying on Google Translate, but @2:45 "spuckhafte ferwirklung" translates to "spitting effect," whereas "spukhafte fernwirkung" translates to "spooky long-distance effect."

So a source can "spit out" two "particles" (light spits out as a particle and a wave) that are always correlated anytime you measure them. If one is 0 then the other is B, if one is 1 then the other is A, but they always change their status between 0,1 for first and A, B for the second. No matter where particle 1 and particle 2 are, even a million km apart, there is always an instant correlation between them however and when they are measured. For instance, light (source) acts either as a particle (particle 1) or as a wave (particle 2).

What about transmitting information this way: You measure one particle A) in 1 direction, and the other, B) in that same direction plus another one. Since A is measured solely in one direction, it will remain the same. So, if B is measured again in the original direction it wil yield the same result, always. Now, if we stop A for a moment and don't measure its properties, B will be free to be in whichever state it so desires, so we will sometimes see an opposite value. If measured often enough, this bit of information can be very reliable. And if A was to change according to B, we can flip the whole thing over: if A measures continuity, B is not being measured and if A measures 2 different values, B is being measured. So does this mean that we CAN send information this way?

So, if I were to take two particles that are entagled and smash one of them in a particle accelerator; would the other one explode, too?

There's a mistake at 2:44: It's called "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" and not "Spuckhafte Ferwirklung"

Can anyone tell me what exactly these "paired particles" are and how did they got them?

I seriously did not understand a word that was said... Good there are people who does! =)

2:44 I really dont think it's spelled like that.

What if there were two observers at both ends, continuously observing the states of the two entangled particles simultaneously after fixed time intervals? Would the states of two particles be opposite to each other every instant of time both of the observers measure their states? Let's suppose "A" and "B" are two states, and measurement time instants are 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. And assume that the states measured by first observer for instants 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 are A, B, A, A, & B respectively. Would this imply that for the second observer, measured states for instants 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 be B, A, B, B, & A respectively? If that's the case, then the notion of quantum entanglement is pretty bizarre.

I am curious, I know they meant these measurements in a broad sense, resulting in the same results. But what exactly were these measurement? Weight? Energy? Proton counts? Size? Movement pattern? Exactly what is identical between the two particles? What happens to the other particle if the entangled particle it was attached to is turned into energy, would this mean energy and matter still retain information together? Or does the particle simply find a different particle to attach to? I realize asking HOW this happens would be something that is probably we won't know til decades, hundreds of years if ever. But I will still ask... just incase we do actually know.

Regarding "spooky action at a distance" (and undefined superposition states in general), Einstein (a pantheist/pandeist) famously said "God does not play dice!" Niels Bohr, in arguably one of the greatest roast responses ever, replied "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

why they have to send a signal to each other? I didn't understand why necessary they communicate? if they only exist like opposites and similar things?

And if you start with two, entangled pairs, and carry them apart such that their lines-of-sight intercept (line-through-line at a point)-do the pairs interfere, with each other....

Can somebody also detect a typo around minute 1:00? The number of measures and property confused me a lot. EDIT: That was the only thing that confused me in the video xD

Is this similar to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

How are particles measured? How can these paired particles be "moved" to another location in order to be measured? I Googled it and found out that entangled particles are created when a photon is split into two. This made me more confused with more questions like how can a photon be further split, etc.

The issue is one of whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. At the ensemble level the Schroedinger equation makes predictions correct to one part in 10^12, and I think we can take it for granted that this could just as well be one part in 10^100 or well beyond the Planck level. There is nothing like a viscosity term to be added to the SE. Modification of the SE is prohibited, which applies also to the Dirac or any similar equation. QM would be an easy subject if it were permitted, and any sensible natural philosopher will realise the unlikelihood of such permission being given. QM is complete at the ensemble level. At the level of the discrete or individual event, we obviously need some other idea to get an outcome where a cat is either dead or alive, and never in a mixture of states. This other idea needs to be orthogonal to the SE in some way. Without knowing anything about Bell's Theorem, we need to be looking at the superluminal world anyway. There is more than one way to travel faster than light, so the SE could describe an oscillation in the way that exchanges spacelike and timelike intervals. We can have tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way, which can induce a broken symmetry when the entity interacts with two or more detectors, so only one detector gets the prize. This is an idea for computer simulation using a random number generator and there is a long way to go. Other ideas are welcome, but please be aware of the basic principle that we cannot modify the SE.

I'm hoping that one day, we can figure out a pattern in the randomness (its incredibly unlikely, as they are the most random things ever) but if we can, it would mean the possibility of instant transmission of data. Just my hope, but kinda out there lol

Actually I was hoping an explanation for How and why the Entangled states exist/work.

Erm... It's a bit hard to wrap my mind around... like most of quantum strangeness of our world... So if we have a pair of particles originating from one source and we measure 1-st particle as "1" if we measure second particle we get "1" (that if the entanglement correlation is "always equal", other way we might get a pretetermined "0") But if we measure 1-st particle on it's different property we get random result "A" or "B" and at the same time we reset the "1"/"2" proberty to being undetermined again. So if we measure 1-st particle on "1"/"2" and keep those measurements if someone performes an "A"/"B" measurement we get a 50% chance to get a different result on first particle. Right? So if we perform like 100 measurement per second on first particle, and check - if all measurements yelded the same result - we can count this as "0 transmitted" And if during this second we get some spontanious result change we can count this as "1 transmitted" and this way have a binary datastream that is limited by it's banwdth speed (1b/s in this example which is a crappy speed), but is totally independant of distance. True - this relies on the itea that out of 50 subsequant measuments with undeterminder results some will yeld different results which is not certain ofcource, but after all convetional binary data transmissions we have now are also not 100% reliable and thus we have methods of identifying and fixing occasional bit-leacks in datasteams using encodings...

maybe is like a program which can change everything since is sending signals to particles directly instead of make particles sending mensages each others....

Hmmm... is there also a possibility that it might also be linked to multiverse... where that particle communicates to the other particle because it is at that exact moment at the exact time that it was measured in the other universe?

Albert Einstein dismissed this as Spooky Action At A Distance, or SAAAD. This is because he was SAAAD it was not Halloween.

This is the coolest thing ever

what if there is a athor dimension that isn't relative to the three space dimensions. this way it can have the same effect as a wormhole. but than not by bending spacetime but by an crossing fift dimension.

Einstein made a mistake but mistake was brilliant! What can you say about this man... Respect!!!

I love these vids so much!!!!!

good animation

can someone correct me on this but is it no just that they seem entagled because of giving the right results could it not be from the big bang giving birth to particles all same time that they stay same property

This can also explain Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle

I don't know why I find spooky action at a distance so fucking funny.

*Help* I dont know how to make the Square Root sign or the Squared sign how do I? I usually just copy and paste the symbol thingys like √ that which I just stole from the internet but I usually do a slash / and the 2 I dont know either and dont copy and paste I use a normal 2 which is actually confusing but not confusing if you think its confusing and than think if its not confusing and just look at it for 1 second and realize *Oh hey thats simple* cause the end would be 2 like obviously and Im not typing about the answer but that is what I could be typing about but Im so like not cause if it were 22=4 like duh it wouldnt be 22=42 because 2x2 isnt 42 and 2x2 isnt 2 cause that wouldnt make sense and like -2x-2 wouldnt be 2 because it would be the same answer!! *I just need help typing the sign on IOS so yeah dont go through my long speech about realizing that nothing doesnt make sense*

why is it that the first measurement goes away once you take a different one?

Por favor, subtitularlo al idioma español!!

This video is the perfect cure for constipation. Just watching it makes my stomach hurt.

probably the only ted-ed video i didnt understand 😅😅

you can't send information faster than light, but you can devise game playing strategies that rely on entanglement such that the outcome when compared later is better than could have been achieved via classical (light speed) communication. that's spooky ;D

Are the two particles; aside from being measured against each other; completely unrelated?

What if something does limit the distance between particles and is just currently hidden?

Entanglement of energy between two carbons with double bonds results in the loss of an electron from a nearby halogen or transition metal. This is photosynthesis and photoelectric molecules. We use this night vision goggles solar panels and photo etching of circuits on plastic as computer chips. Entanglement and emergence was a surprise to Einstein in the 1950s.

Bell didn't show that there aren't hidden variables (that there's no "pre-measurement" state of the entangled system). He showed that quantum mechanics isn't local, whether or not there are hidden variables.

I could only understand this with being high on Hemp, my mind has turned into supercomputer

He called it spooky 😂

Make a video on 'why spokes are used in wheels and why they are cross each other?? '

Hidden variables are ruled out IF locality is preserved. Non-local hidden variables are not ruled out by Bell.

I love that cartoon "Relativity Police" I need a tshirt of that !!

Why cant u send message by that?. For example u want to send signal from one planet to another. Receiver was told to use only first measurement. But sender: tries to switch measurements to the point when first measurement result changes. Thats all signal sent. But randomnes does not ensure signal speed. It can take infinite time to send signal. I have no idea about quantum mechanics, I just came up with that from this explanation.

What's the latest development in this? Can anything travel faster than light? Tell me, I'm curious!

Oh the possibillities if it were true... the new questions it wouldve opened up... imagine quantumly linked particles thrown into a collider. Could the collision sever the entanglment of the paired particle? Would that severance have created a measurable force!? The possible applications in study would have been groundbreaking

What if the particles are not entangled but they all are the same? That's why it seems like they can transfer information so fast...but actually what's happening is we are looking at different manifestations of the same particle? Omnipresence?

I don't get this, but it's spectacular! (I guess..) But, what if the measurements are not precise enough to predict the outcome? Have we considered relativity in the way we measure things? What if our means of measurements are ever-so-slightly inacurate, hence creates the illusion of entanglement? I don't know man, i just throwing out ideas that pops up on my tiny brain.

IMVHO, trying to make sense of QM. Space is a useful concept., however it is the product of evolution giving various species two eyes. Similar to how space seems to appear in a computer monitor when one dons a pair of 3D spectacles. Consider viewing the Earth from space above the N. Pole and observing a satellite in a circular orbit around the Earth. If the satellite moves through space more slowly : quickly on opposite quadrants of the orbit, then we can assume that the satellite is moving along an ellipse through another 'unseen' 3rd dimension. ie, 'higher' dimension can be described as rotations in 'lower' dimensions and thus the rates (time it takes) for objects to move through space in lower dimension. The fourth dimension can similarly be thought of as moving through space through another higher dimension. Professor L. Susskind has 'entertained' the concept that below Planck scales , the multi-verse might be a single rotating point. (AFAIK this is NOT something Prof. Susskind posits in his work, but was something he gave as a reply to a student in one of his lecturers as an unverifiable possible) . If this is the case, then spooky action at a distance becomes less problematic as a concept.. this also makes sense of what phase space is, a (the product of sub measurable) rotation series that is so 'complex', that we can only model it statistically. The above does not in itself give us anything very useful, except perhaps a possible interpretation.. and perhaps the possibility of modelling a mini universe as rotations.. either as simulations or as an object that can be programmed with a rotation series. ie, giving us a readable value/calculation, (an equivalence to interactions of objects in space time). Consider also that this fits with Zeno's concept of 'infinitely' divisible time, space, position.. and a single point/ geometry being a more accurate description of what reality actually is. Not to mention how the above also fits nicely with Fourier transforms.. Plz also note that without space, the concept of a rotation is not the same as that in classical physics, in that there is no radius. However, the equivalent of a radius value can be generated with rotations in other direction/axis . something else that seems to fit is the way in which a solar system can be modelled as a series of rotations (processions etc). As I say, I am not a physicist, PLZ consider the above as a way that some difficult concepts and mathematics can possibly be made into something more elegant/ understandable.. food for thought, even if it relies on hypothesis/speculation. Something else that seems to fit with the above too.. is that wherever we go in the universe, it is the same universe, rotated and scaled.. not another random universe.

Actually it's "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" and not "Spuckhafte Fenwirkung" (that's actually quite funny since "Spuck-" is derived from the verb "spucken" -> to spit; so it would be spitful/spitting action at a distance)

"standing on the shoulders of giants" everyone has a small part to play