💀💩💩

Haha there should be a No-Bell prize in the name of Bell for negative results to promote and give recognition to all hard work in experimental science and research, not only "lucky results"

That's one Aspect.

All need a secret before u can experience Jesus healing energy. The Illuminati aka fallen angels aliens NASA what ever you want to call them in there flying tin cans. Can't get out of lower orbit because of the vacuum. Universe is only 77 thousand SQ miles big breathable air through out space angels have to breath. Mars is only 250 miles away sun an moon are much closer an only a acre big. Heaven is on Mars moon that's what all the thrusters are for space x Star ship try to punch through the vacuum and destroy Mars moon heaven. I cleaned out hell left the light's on so no use for hell. I ripped the soul out the devil after he went dragon just to make it a fair fight. Now souls can be destroyed. True compassion for your fellow man is the only way. Now all are allowed black an white sheep to experience Jesus healing energy all old aches and pains will be washed away takes 30 minutes best to relax and shut yr eyes. Or I'm lying an u won't feel a thing

No-Bell for Bell 🔔

I have, and it hadn't 😂

@@DavidGPeters Same, man. Same.

So accurate

They usually claim and state a lot, but when one takes the time to think and verify, one finds a contradiction, logical fellacy or incompletedness... like the makers of those videos don't know themselves what is actually meant and why it worked that way. When I looked at the Bell's theorem discussion the last time, it started out by: - Einstein claiming hidden variables - another guy saying hidden variables would violate blahbla - third guy proving blahbla is violated - fourth guy saying violation proves Einsteins claim wrong. I invested a lot of time determining what was wrong and came to the same conclsuion Sabine did.

​​@@skeltek7487erhaps this difficulty that we're experiencing is the same as physicists lol. I bet even they are basically believing what they want to believe at this point. Simply because quantum mechanics is such a complete mystery. So much theories postulated but over time, only a few of them are actually proven.

Clever

@@rsh650 "Physics" is...physics. "Deep" is the depression you have when you see you can´t understand half of it.

@@purpleman1974 this comment is indeed very deep

I kind of half understand about 5% but only if there are diagrams. But I keep coming back because her videos are the wildest thing you can experience this side of the Controlled Substances Act!

This is self-deception. If you offer any listener here the most elementary problem, not one of them will even find the right way to solve it, let alone the solution as such.

Very useful...thanks !

And yet a ‘continuous’ spacetime is only macroscopically valid, so we might need a discrete definition of local causality as well. However, it might be necessarily probabilistic, such as ‘nature is most likely to act from A to B along the path of least edges’.

Yes! So if QM ppl things reality is non-local, then the first thing they shud do is to reproduce entire QM without calculus. Or, they shud shut up about shut up and calculate.

@@anywallsocket Only if you assume Relativity is wrong and Quantum Physics is right. Space-Time might be continuous and there might be Hidden Variables, and the lumpiness of Quantum Physics is a flaw, a limitation. If my friend, Prof Tako, is right, we might have a new theorem on this. It's a modification of Bell's Theorem, called...

​​@@anywallsocketo one knows this. Some Quantum Physicists only erroniously claim this. Yet they never managed to demonstrate "non-continuous" nature of space-time. Rather the fact that the speed of light is same for all wavelength and actually for all massless particle is a rather strong evidence that space-time is most likely continous.

Wait, what? How does that work, exactly? 🤔 Shouldn’t it make you feel LESS intelligent, rather than more? 😱 Otherwise, why would you need to put in that little bit more effort to understand something? 😳 Or am I missing something here?

@@aaronperelmuter8433Feelin like you’re on the verge of knowing the fundamentals of the universe makes him feel smart, and I feel the same way.. I never fully understand it, but for every video I have a new sentence or two of information that I am able to retain and that adds up

@@aaronperelmuter8433 self delusion is a useful tool to achieve happiness

​@@andrewpaulhartI LOVE that magical feeling of incipient understanding; but believing you finally understand something when you don't is not necessarily delusional; you might just be incorrect. True delusion requires believing you are correct even after Sabrina has proven you wrong. When watching Sabrina's videos, I quite often experience what I call Sabrina's-magical-5-minute-illusion. Her delivery is so logical and her explanations are so elegant that at the end of her video I truly do believe I understand something... for about five minutes.

@@2ndfloorsongs I stand corrected. … therefore better informed, which I’m convinced will contribute to making me more intelligent. It all works out in the end.

Describing it with more words does not make it valid. e.g. if the wave function describes a tree of alternative outcomes, and you "update" it, then you're just pruning the tree, making a shape it would never naturally grow into.

@@DavidByrden1 Sabine is a super-determinist, so there isn't a wavefunction-collapse problem for her. But she fails to deal with the implications of super-determinism. All roads lead to insanity.

Kendra- “all roads lead to insanity” sounds like a Werner Herzog documentary

I heard someone describe it as “the moment a wave becomes ‘aware’ of the environment.” But they weren’t suggesting that the wave was conscious.

The collapse of the wave function was a rather ad-hoc invention in the early days of Quantum Mechanics to have a rule at hand for computing measurement outcomes. It doesn't make the general QM descriptions invalid at that particular incident of time. For instance, in decoherence theory, it is possible to follow and describe this kind of "collapse", and in quantum optics and QED, that's possible too. If I'm not mistaken, there are even remarks on that topic in John von Neumanns old book about quantum mechanics, in the chapters where he describes the interaction of test species system and environment - but I'd have to check that again.

Quantum Mechanics is a self telling joke and laughably stupid no clown or comedian required

@@off6848 "Tell me you didn't understand the video without telling me you didn't understand the video."

@@BTFranklin whatever helps you sleep bud

if the spin of a particle is measured , then it is flipped , why should it be measured again?

@@BTFranklin 🤣💯

A fellow Science Asylum viewer I see.

As a quantum physicist, I agree with everything she said. BUT - What she failed to emphasize here (although she did in her other video about free will) is that measurement independence is something any sane (typical) person would say must be true if the two measurement locations are separated by thousands of miles (or metres). So, when the three No-Bellists did their experiments with far-separated detectors, it does seem very strange that they see the results they do if one 'believes' in measurement independence at a distance. The more you think about this, the stranger it seems. That is, it is impossible to 'understand' how the world can be the way it is. I don't call that thought 'woo,' it is physics and points to a still unclear aspect of the theory called the quantum measurement problem. Google that if you like.

Its still quantum woo. Her envelope analogy is incorrect. A proper analogy would be to put +1 and -1 in one envelope, and the same in the other envelope. Remember, they are in both states at the same time. When Alice opens her envelope, its -1, and John’s is +1. That’s very weird.

@@astrumimitari7467 Is her analogy truly incorrect? Wouldn't placing both a +1 and a -1 in each envelope equate to placing two particles in each envelope? This is simply the left-or-right shoe analogy other physicists use to describe entanglement, albeit with different names for the parts. Or is that frequently-used analogy also incorrect?

@@fantalimon1454 No, not two particles in each envelope necessarily. I mean yes, but each particle is in two states. The +1 and -1 are not particles, they are states of the particle. Since each particle, before measurement, is in two states at the same time, then those two states need to go in each envelope. Two unmeasured particles have 4 states.

Don't let @schmetterling4477 catch this comment or you will get roasted about how there has been no misinformation by physicists and all of them apparently explain spooky action at a distance just like she does. Physicists don't explain it as two entangled particles actually being able to affect each other from mass distances instantaneously according to him. Apparently they've all been saying what Sabine said in this video the whole time and we have just somehow mistakenly perceived them as saying something else. Again this is according to @schmetterling4477, not me.

Thank You Sabine , … You CONSTANTLY EXPLAIN HOW ALL QUANTUM PERCEPTION IS THE INTER-EXISTENCE OF QUARKS WE ARE ALL COMPOSED OF … PARTING MUON PHOTONS OF LIGHT WITH ALL THE OTHER QUARKS YHWH CAUSED TO EXIST IN THE ENTANGLED BEGINNING OF TIME … more than 20 billion years ago . SO COMPRESSED IS THAT LATTICE , THAT THE MERE PERTURBATION BY ANY THOUGHT EVOKES THAT INSTANTANEOUS ENTANGLEMENT THE GREATEST MINDS CALLED “ SPOOKY “. Bell , pondered it , … Einstein , resisted it , and You , Sabine , ARE IN LOVE WITH THIS MYSTERY . This is Delightful to Watch ! You are GOING TO LOVE THE PERMANENCE THE LORD Creator Elohim , is going to WRAP YOU CONSERVATIVELY IN …WHEN YOU PERCEIVE YOUR UNLOSEABLE FOREVER , PERMANENT ENTANGLEMENT IN HIM . Ecclesiastes 3:14-15 “ For I know that whatsoever God doeth , it shall be forever ; nothing can be put to it , nor anything taken from it , and God doeth it that all men should fear before Him . For that which is , is the same as that which was , and that which was is the same as that which shall be ; for God requireth that which is past.” Psalms 36 : 9 “ In Thee , O LORD , is the wellspring of Life , and in Thy Light we shall see Light “ . Danke Fraulein

I love that she delivers absolutely everything at the exact same tone and cadence so it always takes me just a moment to catch that she made a joke, which is so much funnier than somone like Matt O'Dowd (who I also love)

Existential Physics: surprising, excitng, entertaining and hopeful. One of the best books I read in the last 15years.

I like her dry Humor also. But I am dismayed that she is a Materialist-Determinist who is grasping at straws. 'Super-Determinism' and 'Unknown Variables' are the Physicist's version of 'God works in mysterious ways'. Like all Materialist-Determinists she cannot admit that she is wrong and so she wants everyone to ignore the centurys worth of experiments in Quantum Mechanics and accept that we just don't understand 'God'.

I enjoy Sabrina’s teaching style as well

​@@augustadawber4378 I look forward to reading your published results on the topic.

but a line is the shortest length between 2 points, which can be through a portal, locality itself is relative

@@Xerion404 Right - if you happen to have a wormhole handy, otherwise not so much.

Not just the concept, Tammy. Bad AI! One would think that a being purely based on the interpretation of causality would catch on a bit quicker.

+1 and -1 = 0 this is zero-sum-math, but our reality is a non-zero-sum-game in energy, biology, industry and security. I bought "The Feynman Lectures" in 1969 and in 2011 the NEW MILLENNIUM Edition. I don't know if i should realy read them or just buy brilliant/Sabine?

Nice one :)

Indeed, a good scientific experiment is one which asks nature a very specific question. If you ask her vague questions you’ll get vague answers.

Great video Sabine. I subscribe to the concept that all of the universe is fundamentally made of pure energy. What we refer to as “particles “ are nothing more than discrete packets of energy and the interactions forming larger complex particles are the result of interactions which form positive feedback loops leading to stability. Obviously this is already the basis of solving the equations which lead to the standard model. However once we threw the statisticians into the mix everything became overly complicated. The statistical studies really apply to the properties of the particles and not so much the fundamental existence of the particle. Here we are talking about information. It is observation that is probabilistic, not the particles themselves nor their actual properties. It is the forcing of our perception into the equations which has lead to the proliferation of statistical analysis and information theory. I hold that reality is all deterministic and based solely on perturbations in energy fields which can collapse into stable particles when they are in the state of positive feedback. Interactions of particles are again the process of recombining into a new positive feedback state. All this other gobbledygook is fundamentally about our ability to observe this simple phenomenon and not the particles themselves.

Are the hidden variables already determined before the measurement?

@@wiesawnykiel1348 I think so, just as they were in Dr Sabine's envelopes. The point of having hidden variables, that are real but about which we are ignorant, is that particles don't have to affect each other instantaneously.

Except that it’s not correct. Sabine is wrong. QM is a locally causal theory. It’s hidden variable models that must either be non-local or violate measurement independence.

You learnt some hard concept there. Congrats

@ToddDesiato If you understood what SH said, maybe you could explain to me how it works in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (from about 16:40). If a photon hits beam splitter 1, does that mean it only has one of two "hidden variables"? Either "hidden variable 1" (then it "reflects") or "hidden variable 3" (then it "transmits")?

@@wiesawnykiel1348 Yes, that is correct.

@@ToddDesiato What if, after leaving beam splitter 1 (the photon had "hidden variable 1" and was reflected from BS1), we insert mirrors and direct the photon at beam splitter 2, which means that interference must occur?

think of as AM FM radio. If you set the antenna to a particular voltage transmission, you can compose a message by modulating the repetition frequency of this particular voltage on and off, which is how Amplitude-Modulation radio works, tuning, listening to the repetition differences of a particular voltage. If you set the antenna to vibrate with a particular repetition frequency, you can compose a message by modulating the intensity of the voltage higher or lower, which is how Frequency-Modulation radio works, tuning, listening to the voltage differences of a particular frequency repetition. This means, beyond any mechanical physical properties interactions, the Universe fundamentally have two formal ways to act non-locally, either by tuning to a voltage (charge) intensity amplitude, listening to a bandwidth range of frequencies, or by tuning on a vibration (pulse) repetition frequency, listening to a sequence of different intensity amplitudes. Which makes of, understanding all of these, to really question the very basic needs of quantum wave, and particles interpretations. Good night. Have fun, Anna. Let's not break the collapsing function. (note: Yes, you cannot do anything at speeds faster than light, but yes, you can do anything in space at light-speed. You will figure this out.)

I am confused? What is measurement independance?

@@WackyJackyTracky The part about Measurement Independence 16:34 needs its own video.

@@WackyJackyTracky At a certain degree beyond applied sciences, tenured researchers and professors are just twirling their thumbs and fingers... until they feet their stomachs growling and then they go eat. In other words, it's mostly "clever" linguistic BS. Oh, they know "real math" and such. But sound math, sound astronomy, sound physics, etc. aren't really involved in these nonsense (eg., "string theory" and how it's gonna usher in the next phase of science, "what's going on inside a black hole," what IMAGINARY things, particles, energy like "dark matter," "dark energy," etc are or are made of...) Us, little, uneducated people questioning these "string theory experts" and such is like farmers of Classical Greece questioning Greeks' "most learned scholars," asking them to explain what they meant when they said "the world is made of FIRE, EARTH, WATER, AND AIR. The answer, then, would have been: Oh, you poor souls... you have neither education or natural intellect to understand deep things like these. You should just put your head down and farm and leave the deep thinking and real science to the really learned ones... Today, you ask what "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" is... ZERO of these guys who have graduated at the top of their classes from Caltech, MIT, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, etc. in the last 50 years.... know ANY CONCRETE idea or detail of what they are talking about. But they swear up and down their "Ivy Tower" corridors they've found the deepest BS. Remember, in the early 1900s (when crazy Fritz Zwicky first came up with this "dark matter" BS, when Hubble was still trying to see of Andromeda was another galaxy or just a smutch of the Milky Way)... the "best and brightest" people like Sir Arthur Eddington had declared he and a few other deep intellectuals HAD already discovered all there's to know about the Universe... only post docs were needed to work out the tiny, less important details. Remember, that kind of BS, again, has been going on since BEFORE the Rise of Athens. And, again, early 1900s, the Milky Way was the only known galaxy in the Cosmos... and these crazies had already declared they knew everything on earth and in the Universe! By the late 1990s, too, remember.... 100% of the "best and brightest" in SCIENCE (astronomers, mathematicians, cosmologists, etc) were 100% sure the Universe was SLOWING DOWN... and poorly paid post docs, again, simply needed to work out the exact rate of deceleration... And this was NOT a very complex issue, compared to some others... as it was a binary situation: yes-no, true-not-true, accelerating-decelerating, etc. And virtually 100% of them got it wrong, when the average, random person on the street had a 50-50% probability of getting it right... ALL THIS is to say: Take most of these "deep stuff" with a very healthy amount of potassium salt: ----- "Planet Vulcan".... "ether".... "universe is not as you think it is".... "dark matter" .... "dark energy" .... "string theory" .... "quantum loop theory".... "inflation" .... "super-inflation".... Jesus/Dad & Uncle Allah vs. their former Archangels now known as Satan, Lucifer, the Devil.... "time ticked SLOWER at the beginning of birth of space-time/the Cosmos".... "the Cosmos has no center, because everywhere exactly the same... everywhere started at the same time and while the Cosmos is EXPANDING, it is expanding by CREATING space that was not there seconds before... but we are NOT expanding into nothingness out there," etc. I giggle silly, when well educated people use THE EARTH as an analogy to explain why or how there's no "center" to it (nor to the Cosmos): yes, there is! The Earth has a CORE and that's its center! It doesn't matter that you "can't find" a certain to earth while floating on a raft in the Pacific Ocean.. but earth DOES have a center to it.... because it is a SPHERICAL object... And if the Cosmos has a radius, or a diameter (doesn't matter which), of "93B light years" ---- so that, even within the 13.8B of our small patch of it, it is the same in every direction you look --- THEN it has a center to it (even if you have no idea where it is, from your tiny patch of space-time... like someone on a raft drifting in the ocean, in the Bronze Age, wouldn't know whether Earth had a center or not... because, you never know, it could have a point at some edge, where you "fall off" the face of the earth, as some legends had it...) It doesn't matter whether space-time is "flat," or it had a "negative" or a "positive" curve to it.... whether it is "spherical" or rectangular or any other shape or structure..... if the Cosmos is SAID to have a 13.8B or a 50B or a 93B or a 500B light year radius/diameter to it... then it has a CENTER to it, even if we will never be able to find it...

@@WackyJackyTracky ​ @WackyJackyTracky first understand they are measuring particle spin, which is actually a charge intensity magnetic momentum angle on a pulsed repetition frequency. Now, after watching @Mavrik9000 answer on this video segment, then, one can infer as a) the energy pulse repetition on the first filter split into two different frequencies with charge of two different magnetic angle, b) after the energy radiation bounce off the two mirrors and pass thru the last filter, it recombines back into its original energy frequency repetition, forcing the magnetic momentum of the carried charge to align back to its original magnetic angle. There one still ask, what happen on the detector A? On the last filter, the radiation energy as it pass thru at different frequency repetition, and charged at distinct magnetic angle but same intensity value (or amplitude), these frequencies interfere on each other creating a bandwidth range of frequencies with magnetic mix angles but a uniform charge. Not the result expected to see in the detector A. Therefore, in principle, the experiment is not a failure, it is actually the concept, the interpretation of "waves" of "particles" for actually energy "pulses" repetition of "charges" intensity.

"... because you've already watched 20 videos about it, and it didn't help" ... more like 200 for me :D

also 16:30: "Wow you're still with me, that's lovely" made me lol-irl.

Quantum measurements are anti information, in the sense that they partially destroy the quantity being measured. The implication being, no measurement can physically be made without producing uncertainty. One framing of the problem is to drop the assumption of measurement independence, another way to frame it is to add the assumption of fundamental non determinism. Non determinism must be in the observation, because the observer produced it! Measurement independence is a demonstration of why perfect information in the universe is a paradoxical concept. It's not just scientists that fail the measurement independence test, fundamental particles do the same. Consequently, variations of determinism that posit perfect information in the universe should be abandoned. They're potentially descriptive, but not predictive. All our predictions now take the form of probabilities that account for uncertainty. As it should be. As a non determinist that thinks the universe emerges from noise, it seems to me that the strength of quantum mechanics is that it embraces and describes non deterministic physical processes, in a way that even determinists must accept.

@@ywtcc Team RNG let's goo! (the concept of all these complex structures, life etc emerging from random noise is just the coolest thing ever to me!)

​@jamesnicholl4730 - But even though the collapse is fundamentally random, it is still heavily weighted to certain outcomes. I like to think if it as determinism by large numbers, if you get what I mean. Over time, you will get the most likely outcome repeated over and over, so it still looks deterministic because of the statistical probabilities

@ElectronFieldPulse Couldn't have said it better. Just wanted to point out the fundamental non-determinism, it is the only way we know of to create truly random numbers.

@@ywtcc it's like trying to measure the speed of a car by hitting with another car

l

Indeed this video is a gem! I still have to chew on some steps, but gives new (to most of us) perspective on an extremely controversial topic, with the only things sure about it that it has been misinterpreted in the vast majority of cases.

nonlocality is real because we can remote viewand have precognition and clairsentience. those things i do all the time and it is more convincing to me than any theory..

Actually mind transcends matter .. i can appear to people remotely . what i dont know is whether i could move objects at a distance. i can appear to move objects and i know if objects are moved at a distance.. i just dont know if i can actually move an object at a distance. i did experience a friend moving an object in my house from a distance. its far more interesting experimenting with reality than theorising.

@@mythtree6348 What watching too much Star Wars will do to a mf

Of course every children was worried of "spooky actions on a distance" was a problem that kept me awake at night.

I agree 100% Sabine did an outstanding job explaining this segment. I have heard about entanglement so many times before but it never really clicked until now. Thank you!

@@filosofiahoy4105 I wonder what Einstein had to say about the monster under my bed.

as it turns out "spooky actions at a distance" was just a baby monitor

Yes! God doesn't play dice with the universe. It's the universe that plays the dice, while we play God.

'hard to follow'.... i must admit i'm at an intellectual minimum today... maybe next week ?

@@scene2much There's no shame in rewinding some part several times to gain a sufficient understanding. Had to do it plenty of times. Knowledge is often a challenge against the self.

It's likely fake or something, politically speaking science has become somewhat suspect. The degree=validity system of social interaction only came into existence when the federal government banned employers from ability testing their own prospective employees to help realize the civil rights mandate, companies then used college degrees as the next best costly signal indicating qualities they could no longer test for. Physics ran out of things to do after the Standard Model proved entirely correct and now needs to protect it's considerable financial endowments, it's in a similar situation to Southern Poverty Law Center who have long since defeated the KKK but need to find reasons they're still taking people's money. Meanwhile I feel for quantum computers what most probably do: There's no one deserving of this power, no good will come from anyone having it. Physics is proving to be more trouble than it's worth, it's theories are either performative falsehoods or a symphony of doom heralding some new way for science to humiliate mankind and endanger continued life on earth. Physics is perhaps best not studied, that will be the majority opinion among even atheists before this woman is even dead probably. The fact the first quantum computers will be used for the surveillance of dissidents is exactly why the human scientific story needs to come to a plateau beyond just mere fearful Luddism.

Try the pause button.

Clearly you missed the advertisement for Brilliant 😂

Nope. Your need more examples of something if you don’t understand.

Can anyone ever explain who is the "measurer" and dose it have to be a sentient being?

So you think violation of measurement independence is not mysterious ? I suggest you think again

I know Sabine is big on superdeterminism, but I think she underestimates how philosophically repugnant it is to most physicists. That's the real reason most don't take it seriously.

@@jameshart2622 I'm fine with measurements affecting results in some way.. But I'm not fine with that measurement affecting the result of an entangled particle light years away. If I understand it correctly, superdeterminism would imply that the particles somehow knew which measurement was to be made at the time of entanglement.. Thats much harder to bite then non-locality or non-realism.

@@jameshart2622 That's an interesting statement since during the early development of quantum mechanics, one of the things that classical physicists found repugnant about quantum mechanics was that quantum mechanics (in the Copenhagen interpretation) is non-deterministic unlike classical Newtonian mechanics. In the early years of Newtonian mechanics, many philosophers and scientists found the determinism of Newtonian mechanics to be repugnant since it precluded free will, which is what many philosophers and scientists nowadays find repugnant about superdeterminism. In the 18th and 19th centuries, with the development of thermodynamics and classical statistical mechanics, philosophers and scientists consoled themselves with the fact that since predicting the states of all of the matter, energy, and forces in any given closed system at some time in the future required exact knowledge of the states of all of the matter, energy and forces in that closed system at some time in the past or present, which could not be known exactly by anyone operationally due to practical measurement errors, then the future was operationally not predictable exactly, but through statistical mechanics, it could be predicted statistically. Those in the free will camp accepted this compromise because it meant that since no individual could predict the past influences on nor the future outcomes of their or others actions exactly, individuals were operationally free to choose their actions even though the actions and outcomes for a collection of individuals could be predicted statistically. Those in the determinism camp accepted this compromise, since mechanics was still fundamentally deterministic if one had all of the necessary exact information. Development of chaos theory for classical mechanics in the 20th century just reinforced how the measurements of the initial states had to have exactly zero errors in order for the states of many bodied systems to be predictable beyond a certain time in the future without large errors since small errors would grow exponentially with time. Chaos theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz who stated, "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future." I think that the philosophical repugnance of superdeterminism is widespread only among the previous generations of physicists still living because they were indoctrinated with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the promise of free will through indeterminism in that interpretation of quantum mechanics. The fact that Bell and others at the time did not even realize that measurement independence was an assumption underlying Bell's interpretation of the meaning of his inequalities is evidence of how indoctrinated they were. Even after this tacit assumption was pointed out by Shimony, Horne, and Clauser (1976) about a decade after Bell's proof of his theorem was published in 1966, rather than questioning this assumption, it was elevated to the status of an axiom. It should be noted, that there are essentially two ways to reject the measurement independence assumption. One is to suppose a common cause in the past that determines both experimental settings and experimental outcomes, as in the work of Shimony, Horne, and Clauser (1976). This sort of account has been called superdeterminism. Another avenue was suggested by Costa de Beauregard (1977), in a comment on the interchange between Bell and Shimony, Horne, and Clauser. Costa de Beauregard objected that the discussants were disregarding the possibility of retrocausality, a possibility that he had advanced earlier (1976). If causal influence from future to past is admitted, then, even if the settings are regarded as free variables, they could influence the state of the system at the moment of preparation, contravening the assumption that the preparation probability distribution be independent of experimental settings. In the interchange between Bell and Shimony, Horne, and Clauser mentioned above, Bell makes it clear that no metaphysical hypothesis of experimenters exempt from the laws of physics need be invoked. What is needed is something considerably weaker than the condition that the variables not be determined in the overlap of the backward light cones of the experiments. What is needed is that they be “at least effectively free for the purpose at hand.” Bell argues that a deterministic randomizer that is extraordinarily sensitive to initial conditions would suffice to provide the requisite independence, and that variables of this type may be treated as if they have implications only for events in their future light cones. The upshot of the interchange was substantial agreement between Bell and Shimony, Horne, and Clauser. Shimony, Horne, and Clauser consider the assumption of independence of settings and the state of the particle pairs to be justified, even though relativistic causality does not mandate this independence. Thus, although Shimony, Horne, and Clauser initially questioned the measurement independence assumption, they ended up accepting the assumption as being justified, but not mandated. As an interesting and somewhat related aside, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics challenges an assumption of Bell's analysis that is different from the measurement independence assumption. Though it might seem that this goes without saying, Bell's entire analysis is predicated on the assumption that, of the potential outcomes of a given experiment, one and only one occurs, and hence that it makes sense to speak of the outcome of an experiment. The reason that this assumption is worth mentioning is that there is a family of approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely, Everettian, or “many-worlds” approaches, and some variants of the relational approach, which hold that all outcomes occur in what are effectively distinct worlds. The many-worlds interpretation is local and deterministic since it consists of the unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse of the wavefunction. It can generate correlations that violate a Bell inequality because it violates an implicit assumption by Bell that measurements have a single outcome. In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the many-worlds framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single outcome. Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes. (See Deutsch, David; Hayden, Patrick. "Information flow in entangled quantum systems". Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 456 (1999): 1759-1774. and Brown, Harvey R.; Timpson, Christopher G. "Bell on Bell's Theorem: The Changing Face of Nonlocality". In Bell, Mary; Gao, Shan (eds.). Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 years of Bell's theorem. Cambridge University Press. (2016) pp. 91-123.) I think younger theoretical physicists are willing to at least acknowledge that measurement independence is an assumption that can be questioned rather than an axiom that must be accepted. Once this happens (and it does seem to be happening now), then the consequences of accepting or rejecting this assumption, and if rejecting this assumption, whether it should be rejected based on superdeterminism or retrocausality, will be worked out by theoretical physicists. Then theoretical and experimental physicists will collaborate on ways to experimentally test this assumption. If acceptance or rejection of this assumption does not lead to testable predictions, then it is not a legitimate constituent of scientific theory, but it is, instead, philosophy and specifically, metaphysics. As such, one may accept or reject a metaphysical belief based on the subjective feelings that it engenders like repugnance or delight, which should be irrelevant in deciding to accept or reject a scientific theory. In any event, from a historical viewpoint, this is just another chapter in the age old debate between free will and determinism (with the possibly new wrinkle of adding the third choice of retrocausality to the debate). Interestingly, Bell's argument that "a deterministic randomizer that is extraordinarily sensitive to initial conditions would suffice to provide the requisite independence" sounds eerily similar to the compromise between free will and classical determinism engendered by the development of statistical mechanics and reinforced by the development of chaos theory, to which I alluded earlier.

@@jameshart2622 I could be wrong, but in my humble opinion,ones preferred philosophical stance should have no bearing on what direction physics takes. Whether one finds the theories philosophically palatable or not, should have no bearing on physics. Physics is not philosophy.

Wait, it's arrogant to think that because we can't explain a phenomenon it has to be governed by another law that we might one day discover, but isn't it arrogant to think that we'll never be able to accurately measure the phenomena of the universe on an absolute level because there's randomness?

Exactly what I was just thinking to myself. Sabine finally convinced me that Superdeterminism probably describes reality in another recent video. It's something I'd struggled with for years and the single point that was making me resist the idea was the fact that it doesn't allow for free will. The reason I had difficulty letting go of the idea of free will is that I'd always believed that was the entire purpose of sentience/consciousness/awareness. So, that's the area I had to focus on and I eventually managed to come up with a reason for the existence of sentience that doesn't involve free will. I won't go into what my conclusions were here... it would take too long, but the point is, I succeeded (btw... the answer is not flattering). Watching this latest video has only reinforced the case for Superdeterminism in my mind. As difficult as this concept may have been to accept, the alternative is even more out there (spooky indeed!). I don't have any problem at all with the concept of hidden variables. All it means is that Quantum Mechanics is not a complete description of reality, just as General Relativity isn't a complete description of reality. General Relativity gives us equations that are very useful for describing the Universe at the scale that we can directly experience and observe (the macro). But what General Relativity describes very well emerges from another level, it does not describe that level at all so it tells us nothing useful about the internal properties of black holes, how the Universe came into being or the quantum world. This is where Quantum Mechanics comes in. QM gives us equations that are very useful for describing the reality that gives rise to the macro world that General Relativity describes but is not useful for describing the world at the macro scale. I have no difficulty in accepting that QM may be limited in the same way that General Relativity is limited, in that it doesn't describe what underlies the emergent properties of the quantum world (the hidden variables). I'm very much inclined to believe that, as Sabine suggests here, the wave function describes a feature of our knowledge, not objective reality. If I toss a coin and let it drop to the floor, what's the chance that it will land heads up? Most would say 50% (50/50) but this is not so. In reality the chance is either 100% or 0%. There is no in between, it's just that we don't know which value applies before we see the result. Not knowing an answer does not make that answer unknowable. That would be a rather arrogant conclusion, even for me! 😅

@@antonystringfellow5152 I think it is equally, indeed, several times more arrogant to assume that determinism (a theory created by the human mind) is true at some level that we cannot know or be sure of the existence (just assume) than to assume that the universe it has an uncertain nature that escapes our ability to know.

It feels wrong that stuff like the spin of an single particle will correlate with what I try to detect before I decided what to do. Even if everything is super-deterministic shouldn't that sort of thing be pseudo-random?

@@lubricustheslippery5028 Yes, exactly thats what I am saying to the other of Sabine's videos about superdeterminism. Even if we assume superdeterminism is true, this doesnt solve the problem. Still, on average, you should get random events and not those corelations. Since you are getting those corelations between what you choose to measure and what you end up measuring, then you still have to make some laws that explain those corellations. Otherwise you can disregard all laws, and say that everything derives from superdeterminism.

So I see it as well, Sabine multiple times says.. yeah non-independence is a thing, but does not explain what it means if you got that route.. (say you do the experiment with different angles to measure spin, what does it mean, its all predetermined and thus independent, what angles you measure, especially if you say use the CMB as source for your "random" decissions.. so its all connected? great way to "rescue" locality having it abolished completely by saying every part knows everyhting anyway)

​@@georgelionon9050 Exactly. To quote Bell again, "apparently separate parts of the world would be deeply and conspiratorially entangled"...

@@mahasamatman12 Maybe asking for an interpretation what non-independence actually means, only gets a "shut up and calculate" answer again, okay.. but then nothing gained by this either.

@@mahasamatman12 but they are entangled according to QFT where the electron and EM field are coupled together throughout the universe.

@@BarriosGroupie Sure, but that is not the entanglement Bell is talking about in the above quote. He is talking about the type of mysterious conspiracy that would be needed for the measurement independence to be violated, i.e. for the 2 photons to "know" from the start what Alice and/or Bob will chose to measure.

You would be advised to look up Professor Jean Bricmont's numerous youtube talks on Bell's Inequality. Here is his response to Sabine: Jean Bricmont Ok here is my response (you may post it): I am not sure that SH really understands what statistical independence means (although other people have already tried to explain it to her). To quote S. Goldstein, T. Norsen, D.V. Tausk and N. Zangh\`{\i}: Bell's theorem, {\it Scholarpedia} 6(10): 8378 (2011) (which is quoted in my book Making sense of QM): ``if you are performing a drug versus placebo clinical trial, then you have to select some group of patients to get the drug and some group of patients to get the placebo." But for that to work, you have to assume ``that the method of selection is independent of whatever characteristics those patients might have that might influence how they react to the drug". If, by accident, the people to whom the placebo is given were exactly those that are cured spontaneously, while those to whom the drug is given are so sick that the drug has little effect on them, then of course the study would be biased. And no matter how ``random" the chosen sample is, this will always remain a logical possibility. This is an example of what is called statistical independence. But the same sort of assumptions is used throughout science. Turning to the EPR-Bell experiment, statistical independence means that the properties of the incoming particles (electrons or photons) are independent of the direction in which their spin or polarization will be « measured »; but since the latter can be chosen in an arbitrary way (by random number generators, by the digits of pi, by the letters in the Bible or the analects or by the evenness of the number of stars in a portion of the sky) even when the particles are in flight, denying , statistical independence means that one assumes incredible correlations between the properties of the incoming particles and not only the method used to choose the direction in which the spin or polarization will be « measured », but also with the properties of the random number generators, of the digits of pi, of the letters in the Bible or the analects, of the evenness of the number of stars in a portion of the sky or of any other system used to make that choice. This is the same problem as the one with the placebo mentioned above, only much much bigger. Some people think that what SH assumes is just universal determinism, à la Laplace. But no! She is assuming very subtle correlations whose existence does not follow from mere determinism. For example, one can say that there is no correlation between the amount of rice produced in China and the number of car accidents in France, in a given time period, even though both are determined (in a deterministic universe) by the initial conditions of the universe and one can multiply such examples ad infinitum. In fact, if one accepts the correlations that SH assumes, one can « save » any superstition one wants. Take astrology: most of its predictions are never checked, but when they are (taken at random) they usually fail. But one might argue, à la SH, that there is a subtle correlation between the fact of checking an astrological prediction and its veracity, so that all astrological predictions are true except the ones one checks. In the end, SH assumption is no different from the Duhem-Quine thesis in philosophy of science: any theory can be held true if one is willing to make sufficiently ad hoc assumptions in one’s system. So there is nothing new here and Bell’s inequality and its verification do prove the existence of actions at a distance, at least according to normal scientific reasoning. Best, Jean

​​I don't know this guy you are talking about, but violating statistical independence, doesn't mean there is a magical process that correlates the settings of the measuring devices with the results. In the example you gave, the settings of the random number generator function *literally* are "incredibly" correlated with the results of where the placebo is distributed. The settings literally decide where the placebo is distributed, deterministically. There is no reason why this couldn't also happen in a quantum experiment, between the settings of the measuring device and the collapsing.

@@giorgosg4032 Quantum Physics Professor Jean Bricmont (expert on Bell's Inequality): "The mere assumption that there are pre-existing values leads to a contradiction when one takes into account the statistics of the results when the directions are different....But nevertheless, some action at a distance does take place" History of Quantum Mechanics or the Comedy of Errors (Published by International Journal of Quantum Foundations on March 28, 2017, Volume 3, Issue 2, pages 31-64) by Quantum physics Professor Jean BRICMONT: "The goal of this paper is to explain how the views of Albert Einstein, John Bell and others, about nonlocality and the conceptual issues raised by quantum mechanics, have been rather systematically misunderstood by the majority of physicists...In any case, refusing to face a problem is not the same thing as solving it. One thing is certain: nobody has yet proposed a local explanation for those perfect correlations, and indeed nobody could do so, since Bell has shown that it is impossible. quoting from S. Goldstein, T. Norsen, D.V. Tausk and N. Zangh`ı: Bell’s theorem, Scholarpedia 6(10): 8378 (2011) note 14: J. S. Bell, Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality, 1980, available online, reprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge, 2004, p. 149-150 (p. 10 in the online version), emphasis in the original. John Bell quote (also quoted by Bricmont): "Let us summarize once again the logic that leads to the impasse. The EPRB correlations are such that the result of the experiment on one side immediately foretells that on the other, whenever the analyzers happen to be parallel. If we do not accept the intervention on one side as a causal influence on the other, we seem obliged to admit that the results on both sides are determined in advance anyway, independently of the intervention on the other side, by signals from the source and by the local magnet setting. But this has implications for non-parallel settings which conflict with those of quantum mechanics. So we cannot dismiss intervention on one side as a causal influence on the other." Back to quantum physics Professor Jean Bricmont: "Finally, one should emphasize that Einstein’s speculations, which looked purely philosophical or even “metaphysical” to many, have led to what is probably “the most profound discovery of science”, to use Henri Stapp’s apt phrase [62, p. 271], namely the existence of nonlocal effects in the world. And the EPR and Bell papers laid the foundation for the quantum information revolution. This should be a lesson for “pragmatists”. Professor Jean Bricmont - Bell and nonlocality lecture posted on youtube channel (see below) "each side sees a perfectly random sequence...whatever the measurements are, that's true...But, if each person tells the other what measurement they've made WITHOUT telling the result... Then they both know which result has been made on the other side...which is some form of information, of joint information....some sort of nonlocal transmission of information has taken place." 2.2K views 10 years ago Quantum Theory without Observers III - Talks This is a talk held at the conference "Quantum Theory without Observers III" (ZiF, Bielefeld, 22.04.-26.04.2013). see also on youtube: Jean Bricmont, Université Catholique de Louvain talk What Did Bell Really Say? 2014 Metaphysics Within and Without Physics Conference June 7-8, 2014, Western University, posted on Rotman Institute of Philosophy youtube channel and Jean Bricmont: Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky (EPR), Bell and Nonlocality 3 years ago Summer School on Paradoxes in Quantum Physics Summer School on Paradoxes in Quantum Physics September 1-6, 2019 posted on John Bell Institute youtube channel So Bricmont explains the de Broglie-Bohm Theory gives the rational complemention of Bell's Inequality nonlocality since it "represents the positions of the particles that exist, independently of whether one “looks” at them or one “measures” them. ...the result of any quantum measurement will be determined beforehand by the quantum state and the configuration of the “mea- suring device”. ...This is related to (and explains) the nonlocal character of the de Broglie-Bohm theory....This is one of the ways that the action at a distance manifests itself in the de Broglie-Bohm theory....The fact that the de Broglie-Bohm theory is nonlocal is a quality rather than a defect, since we just showed that any theory accounting for the quantum phenomena must be nonlocal."

if all of qp ever "sat right with you" you didnt understand it. At it's core qp is nonintuitive. Something that tells me this intuitive misunderstanding is common is the inate misunderstanding a lot of people have of wave function collapse. They believe the math has power..that wave colllapse is a "force" as it were. It isnt. The math doesnt determine when you know a particles state. It explains why you didnt have the data before that point. It is explanatory not predictive

@@charlesreid9337 I disagree that measurement and apparent "collapse" is part of quantum physics. Quantum physics is perfectly intuitive as long as you don't insist on wave function collapse.

@@psychohist it requires a lot of education before you realise the universe operates on statistics and it becomes intuitive though. At least for me. I agree about collapse humans gavee a bad tendency to think mathematics cobtrols or creates physics. It doesnt..it predicts it. It helped me a lot when a mathematician described it as an incredibly logical and predictive a language. in sumole algebra you can convert certain questions directly to algebra. In programming languages convert english to math and operations

Unfortunately, no.

Absolutely! The direction of measurement, or some kind of mode of measurement is ESSENTIAL for Bell's inequality. It means nothing without it, and would say nothing otherwise; abosolute zilch. I watched all this...waiting for mentioning why this is NOT a pair of envelopes. Unless is (uh...excuse an analogy) a pair of envelopes if alice open one 90 degrees to bob's and finds its 50/50 chance of being the opposite of bob's but opening it the same way up, would be 100% chance of opposition. HMM, well envelopes don't tend to work like that... So Bell's inequality is about whether this direction mode is determined first or at measurement, not the specific -1 or +1 spin at all! In an experiment we can assess the total probabilities can't we, not generally the specific -1/+1 spins and it would be not possible to pick out the difference at 0 degrees or 90 degrees, giving the same total probabilities of -1 or +1 for either theory. If we measure inbetween, however we get very different probabilities. is the number >2 is the question. At 45 degrees we get an answer of more than we expect than with a hidden variable theory*. Its more correlated to the CHOSEN direction at the time of measurement always, so we know along the CHOSEN direction it must satisfy +1 and -1 for each particle....not the potential for any random possibility of +1, or -1 each 50-50 (because in the case of the hidden variable, our measurement doesn't affect outcome, so the direction picked could be the wrong one, the right one, or any angle inbetween because it would have had to be determined first. this simply isn't the case.). *of course there are OTHER hidden variable theories that fix loopholes...well, wormholes in fact such as ER=EPR?

​@@jorgepeterbartonI REALLY don't s e how that analogy proves anything. Imagine the information written on that type of polarized image cards, in which there are two images depending on the angle. Great, so one direction of measurement tells you nothing, because you don't actually know the spin yet, do you?; the other gives you precise information on the spin of one, so you can logically deduce the other's.

Yes and creating models that help us make predictions. But the models are just models, they are pretty good most of the time but there are always improvements to be made to them.

Well, you were initially right. That's indeed what physics is. It's when you throw in the word "quantum" that theory and knowledge come into the mix, allowing for some interesting manipulations, gymnastics, and straight-up lies. I really like Sabine's no-nonsense approach to quantum mechanics because it feels like she's calling out the ways that scientists have fooled the layman into believing theories that have no basis in reality.

Because you eventually do measure them. You know the flip didn't affect the other particle because when you eventually measure them both, their spins agree, where if you do it without flipping the particle, their spins are always opposite.

Yes! Damn

Many thanks from the entire team!

Is it wormholes connecting entangled particles?

I'm going to be honest, this sounds like a lot of the perpetual motion machine ideas. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm a bit skeptical when you give no information and what goal you have by writing this out.

@@Alexander_Grantwants to have an experiment. Better than most people who come up with their own TOE.

Can anyone ever explain who is the "measurer" and does it have to be a sentient being?

@@reasonerenlightened2456 No. Sentience is irrelevant. Measuring sub atomic particles requires interacting with the system, such as putting energy into the system and seeing what changes, its not possible to observe quantum mechanic as an 'outside observer' and that is the problem. Basically, its not like watching an argument between two people through binoculars, its more like trying to stand in-between two people arguing, your presence will change the dynamic and likely the outcome. So the "act of measuring" will influence the outcome, because it injects new variables into, or changes existing variables in, the system.