I keep being impressed by how precise Brian describes everything when he formulates the questions. He never oversimplifies too much. It's great

This is better than anything on streaming services right now and Brian Greene is dropping 🔥🔥🔥 for FREEEE

I love Dr Crulls energy. Super excited. Like me trying to explaine the new videos at work lol. Thank you both greatly

Brian Greene is one of the best Science communicators ever!

This popular education work that you are all doing (you both and your team(S)!) is respectble and potentially essential work. Thank you so much!

Thank you for all you do Dr. Greene!

That was enlightening and wonderful all at once! Great questions and great responses!!

Elise is a brilliant science communicator!

"Elise Crull received a B Sc (Honors) in Physics & Astronomy from Calvin University, and holds an M.A. in Philosophy and Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to City College, Dr. Crull held post-doctoral fellowships at the University of Aberdeen and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducting research into the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. In addition to history and philosophy of science, Crull frequently ponders (sometimes aloud in front of audiences) philosophical problems associated with quantum theory: the quantum-to-classical transition, quantizing gravity, understanding quantum causal models, the metaphysical nature of entanglement (including temporal entanglement!) and, as of late, interpreting the alternate quantum formalisms used in quantum computing. She also has the occasional thought about quantum cosmology. While these questions keep Prof. Crull in conversation with physicists, she also loves a good metaphysics chin-wag. Topics of special interest there include ontology, meta-ontology, and mereology. Since her research interests are fundamentally interdisciplinary, Crull often finds herself engaging with related "meta" issues, such as the ethics of emergent techno-science, science in the public sphere/ in education, and the nature of the science-theology-philosophy triad."

What epic timing. Last one week I have been researching about black holes and quantum entanglement, even accidently watched the show 3 body problem which had quantum entanglement in it.

This is SO AWESOME! What a wonderful conversation and love the enthusiasm!

Excellent discussion!

I have read his books , but Greene in this program is even better along with his colleagues. How great is it to have access to such programming!

Elise Crull is an excellent teacher!

I would say yes.. if we imagine time like waves from droplet Round or like a ocean current maybe.. its connected throughout time yes? An maybe the past resonates through time. Having a littel hard wrapping my mind around it but think theres something to be said about the theory?

very insightful

This one will be fun cannot wait to watch it tonight :) In the Ender's Game books they used a device called the Ansible that could communicate across many light years. The term was first used in a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1966 and some other authors also borrowed the term. In Enders Game this is how it worked (From wikipedia) It involved a fictional subatomic particle, the philote. The two quarks inside a pi meson can be separated by an arbitrary distance, while remaining connected by "philotic rays".This concept is similar to quantum teleportation due to entanglement; however, in reality, quark confinement prevents quarks from being separated by any observable distance.

I love the way my brain explodes when you talk about quantum entanglements reaching through time . Thankyou ❤

15:58-Don't we see a similar level of probability distribution across far distances in space and time at the macro level as well? Meaning, when we observe a star or galaxy here on Earth we are measuring it, so it's in a relatively fixed position. But if we were to travel to it's location to directly interact with it, would it not wildly fluctuate in speed and position on our way there? Mirroring the same pattern of behavior we see at the atomic scale?

Amazing stuff

Brian Greene explains complex concepts in simple terms with a clear and likable voice!!

I so wanted a video on this ❤️

Fascinating

I believe that our brains are quantumly entangled through time!!!

Just listen Brian, don't read the comments, unbelievable how much can i relax with this show.... Thanks for my mom that she beat me to learn English.

As always, most stimulating! Quick questions: since entanglement is so ubiquitous, can I create entanglement in a kitchen counter experiment? If I have a liter of water at room temperature on the kitchen counter, what percentage of the water molecules should I expect to be entangled at any given time?

This idea that particle 1 and particle 4 are entangled through time, is thin at best. As all of the opposite qualities of 1 are alive in 2, and you use 2 to flip the spin of 3, which is entangled with 4. There is no spooky action backward through time. You measure the spin of 1. That value doesn't change when you measure 4. It's no surprise they agree because you made that happen normally through time.

Elise, Thank you for what you do. I would take your course since the description of what you teach applies directly to my interests. I loved your enthusiasm! Another example of correlation over time comes from a version of the double slit experiment wherein a single photon or particle at a time is emitted, yet a wave pattern still forms. Q1. What does universal entanglement, should that be the case across spacetime, imply about the probabilistic nature of reality? Indeed, no one discusses how two spatially separated entities could communicate. (In the absence of any other explanations, I postulate that they do not see spacetime (a photon also does not). This possibility (somewhat outside the box - but others have questioned the existence and/or nature of spacetime) means there is no separation and no "communication" between the entangled particles. They remain two sides of the same coin. Q2. How is decoherence manifested in the double-slit experiment? Are the peaks somehow lower than they ought to be? Q3. How does relativity affect the wave function? Q4. What do you think of Donald Hoffman's work?

That´s a very good question.

5:06 This is the best description of Quantum Mechanics, that explains exactly, the relation between the "everyday" perception of the reality and the scientific approach to the "real" reality, the scientific perception of the world! Dear Professor Mr. Brian Greene, thank you, so much for this. I think this description is what we all (the amateur scientists), need to have in our minds to be thinking more "clear", about all this. And thank you Elise Crull, you are presenting the Quantum World with the philosophical background we all the amateur scientists need to have in our minds when we trying to understand "Quantum Theory" and all those wonderful abstract ideas around "modern" or synchronous Science! World Science Festival: You are the Oasis in the Desert of this World! 💚Thank you All! 🌈

During measurement what kind of interaction happens? Is it from the wavelength of the light? Is the measurement changes the energy of the object? Is scale of measurement matters? What would happen if we measure the object from small perspective?

Thank you Elise.

The idea discussed is the only thing that makes me consider ghosts being a scientific plausibility. Cool to see this question get covered!

She was passionate 👏✌️👍🏼

Dr Crull's magnificent hair is physics-defying!

Great discussion, and well moderated (as usual).

Thee question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete has been a subject of significant debate and discussion in the field of physics. This debate was sparked by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR), which questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics and argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory. In their paper, EPR argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of physical reality They proposed a criterion of physical reality, stating that in a complete theory, there should be an element corresponding to each element of reality, and a physical quantity should be predictable with certainty without disturbing the system . However, the debate surrounding this issue has continued, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward. Some have argued that the quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena fulfills all rational demands of completeness within its scope, particularly when viewed from the perspective of complementarity . The EPR paradox and its implications have been the subject of extensive analysis and debate, with important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The debate has also involved significant exchanges between Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning the completeness and locality of quantum mechanics . In summary, the question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete remains a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within the field of physics, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward.

RE entanglement, what if you applied conformal mapping to the spatial framework of the particles? Then in some transformed geometric sense you could end up with particles that are closer together or overlapping and would no longer have nonlocality from a non-Euclidean perspective. I mean I'm not a mathematican, but seems plausible?

Your own chart indicates that particle 1, existed in T3, and therefore was able to convey or transfer information to particle 2, in T3 which in turn conveyed to particle 3 and thus to particle 4. There was no disconnection.

'The Ship of Theseus' come to mind when thinking about these sorts of things. As well, the idea of the "spime" of every Human life (look it up if you don't know, it's pretty cool). Hard to define oneself as a singular entity when we're always sloughing away particles, eating biomatter and shitting it out, regrowing hair and tissues, et cetera... All things are in a constant state of metamorphosis: select which state you wish to observe

So, if the universe is spooky and weird at Planck length, does it become weirder/spookier, or more ordered at incomprehensibly large scales?

Elise Crull and Brian Greene try so hard to communicate theories that reveal the uncertainty of how the universe works. I don't understand them but I get a sense of how connected and complex the universe is.

Brava👏🏼👏🏼 what a woman.. Brian Greene being a boss as always

Nice😊😊. I hope to attend WSF when my degree ends.

I love Brian Greene!

One thing I saw as missing is discussion of the axis about which spin is measured. I think, or my understanding is, that such spin is inherently aligned (up or down) with an axis of random choice. As such, it seems that spin is occurring about any and all axes simultaneously until measured. To me, that's not trivial. Doesn't this arise from the Stern-Gerlach experiment? How wrong am I?

Bro just dropped the hardest physics intro edit at the beginning.

Question: could the field itself be the intermediary between entangled particles, bypassing any FTL requirement?

Questions regarding wave probability collapse due to measurement: how precise (localized) is the collapse? Shouldn't the precision of the localization itself have an uncertainty (related to the energy exchanged with the field quanta being measured)?

The thing about entanglement is there were some thoughts that it was like a pair of gloves. If at the end if a party I go home with one glove and my friend accidentally took the other.... if I have the left hand glove I immediately know he has the right hand glove. These properties were known to exist before the so called entanglement of two gloves...this quality is always entangled for the pair.... but its pre-existing...of course if I measure left i immediately know you measure right. But an experiment by a guy named Bell in the 1960s showed statistically that the entanglement qualities we measure are not pre existing like a pair of gloves. More than this is cannot explain but its been shown entanglement is not a pre-existing quality but really is only determined when measured.

A good example of quantum entanglement in real world is our last names. We cannot describe someone completely or define their state without knowing their last name. Therefore, we, the children of our parents, are defined by our parents - an entanglement that exists across time, regardless of the existence of one or the other in their frame of reference. What is interesting is that the entanglement can be adopted by a completely strange person, not related to the individual, because each of us can have more then one entanglement. During our self-measurement state, we can choose who to entangle with; And the extent of the entanglement is such that it changes our DNA, our composition and make up.

Since many years i had no problem with considering particles as waves and going along with the distribution pattern. The one thing i struggled with was to sort of accept the notion that these probabilistic waves ( are they physical? ) interacted with each other. If this sort of interaction was hard to imagine even in space like when you use multiple particles but it was even more difficult with the one particle where this interaction would have had to happened across time and the only idea that can come close to explaining that was entanglement across time. So it was more of a necessity 😂

Why so short? Is this being uploaded part by part?

"Undulating waves of probability." That line tripped me out a little.

Love scientists speaking about the limitations.

@ 18:48 Brian says "all of those interaction (petting the cat, etc.) affect the quantum description of the cat, and… those interactions suppress the very parts of the quantum probability that are at odds with our experience, which is why our experience is as it is …" All that this statement is saying, which should not be too difficult to accept as reasonable, is that the function of the "conscious" human participant in these "interactions" is, first to 'map' them with his body's intelligent 'on-board, sensory-environment mapping computer' (or "conscious brain"), and then to use that map (and likewise previously derived/constructed related maps) to direct his body's subsequent momentum routing decisions (actions), thereby affecting the probability (by increasing some and reducing others) of the specific sequence of quantum 'detection' events which (in toto) constitute those 'self-perceived behavioral (inter-)actions', and thus of the set of 'quantum particle location- manifestations' that (in toto) comprise the structure of that perception. This boils down to recognition that the human observer's "sensory [self and his actions]-awareness waveform" is this otherwise purely random quantum probability wave universe engaged in its own "intelligent" (and hopefully soon to be "more intelligent") self-design and self-construction / configuration. I propose that the _structure_ of "the material universe" that we find ourselves participants in is comprised of the 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") of an otherwise structureless 'Scale-Uniform' superfluid Medium (SUM) -- Einstein's "spacetime", the 'stuff' whose otherwise featureless flow appears to "curve" with proximity to a gravitating particulate mass. The overall geometric "structure" of this otherwise structureless fluid's "pure" self-relative motion is that of a "particulate" horn toroidal fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole"), which -- apparently, by some means and mechanism [intimately related to and/or involving "the speed of light"], can 'self-fractalize', and/or generate the "appearance" of doing so. So, welcome to 'The Graviton', and let's recognize our [hopefully soon to be] intelligently self-aware human societal network (HSN) as a higher order extension and expression of the 'distributed network of "momentum" (or self-relative SUM-flow) re-routing particulate I/O devices' that "It" has apparently "selected" (or de facto "settled upon" if you prefer) as the foundational architecture (and operating principle) of its "self-organizing" mechanism.

Could it be that what we perceive as probabilistic properties of the quantum world be in reality the result of complex relations or entanglement with other particles ? In that senses if we could know of all the past or distant network of entanglement with other particles we could deduct the next position of an electron or whatever properties we identfy now as probabilistic ?

The answer to the question posed @16:00 is NOT solely quantum mechanical. It lies within the combination of Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity. Aka Quantum Field Theory. This combined understanding of reality reveals our universe is a block-timed reality fundamentally emerging from fields of energy that span all of space and all of time.

Could it be that at that level subatomic particles are capable of illuminating linguistic prepositions that define their location in regards to a body?

Thank you. Very intelligent woman :) I have been getting stomped on for ages for even remotely suggesting that space-time may have some form of fundamental agency. When we change our context/perspective and allow the agency of space and time to have effect on on the material universe many of the unanswerable questions appear to fall into place. > I accept that it is difficult for humans to think or conceptualize complex ideas in 4D. It takes training to separate the classical human thinking out of the paradigm and it is not easy. The most difficult part is holding a thought containing an infinite number of event horizons in that 4D abstraction, but simplifying that abstraction down to a single and then just a small number of those event horizons makes it possible. Explaining to another person via a 2D or 3D realm is extremely difficult if not near impossible as the 4D context is immediately lost thus destroying the understanding that we are attempting to relate. > 2 good staring points are the spherical time histograms showing 3D space as flat spherical shells or layers of moments of the 3D in time. There are many hidden points of singularities as well as event horizons that are not immediately obvious. The other being that of the past and future light cones representations which also contain a large number (if not infinite) of intersecting singularities and event horizons. The 4 most notable being the event horizons at the side of the cones, the infinitely small intersect of the light cones past and forward event horizons at an infinitely small point in the "Now" present. and the depiction of the 2D plane that slices the "Now" moment at that intersect. That depiction of the "Now" plane in time is the event horizon where the quantum world is unfolding from moment to moment. There are an infinite number of event horizons (light cones) intersection at an infinitely small point across that 2D event plane. . So, we are at the question of what is connecting the intersect of ALL of those infinitely small points (light cone intersects) across that plane, that moment in time, that event horizon? We know if 2 or more of those intersecting points touch we have a classical interaction between particles in space at that event horizon in time, but what is the connection "across" that time plane for all entangled particles for that moment in time? The particle has no awareness of another particle outside of its infinitely small event horizon in that now moment. > I find myself separating that plane into a static moment of time (event horizon), and when that plane is progressing the concepts of relativity such as gravity and mass emerge and are knowable in the past light cone (in the wake of and trailing the event horizon of the time line).

If everything is quantum waves in Einstein's time-space understanding the quantum entanglement of particles is closer to the advancement of overall physics. May the pioneers keep pushing forward. I especially like the equal and opposite spin after the measurement. I am exploring spin propulsion

Non-locality is like a mirror: The electron, when recorded, is simply expressing parity.

TIME to watch this. :D

If we ever did find a way to communicate using the underlying mechanism of entanglement (instantaneous communication between entangled particles) that would also allow us to communicate through time. If you took one end of the communicator (e.g. a group of entangled particles in one location) and accelerated it enough for it to experience noticeable time dilation relative to the other end of entangled particles (the other end of the communicator) then you would be able to communicate through time. Probably another reason why its likely impossible to ever communicate using entanglement.

"And that's pretty cool!" Elise evokes a good Jodie Foster from Contact (1997).

The problem with trying to define particles that are entangled that never lived at the same time is in our definition and understanding of Time and the lack of a proper model for time that facilitates this necessary understanding. If you truly understand time, then you'll know that it doesn't matter what timestamp any particle carries since they do not truly exist solely in the type of "time" that current science has defined it as and may not at all. That's perplexing isn't it? Stay tuned for the philosophical explanation and model.

Note that in a double slit experiment individual electron do form 1 dot on the screen. It is that only when many many many electrons go thru the slits, potentially with a gap of even a day between each electron passage, that collection of dots forms a banded pattern which scientists calls interference pattern. However, in a classical, water wave the interference pattern forms at the same instant in time. But like I described above the banded pattern can form over 10 thousand days formed from the dots of 10 thousand electrons passing one electron per day for 10 thousand days. So why should we think that the electron interfered with itself. It did not. So I do not think the language describing the DSE is formulated correctly.

Thanks for the nice video. But, I would not call that experiment as being entanglement in time. Entanglement involves a superposition of states that cannot be factorized and I do not see what states are entangled at different times in that experiment due to the measurements. The best example of entanglement in time is the Franson interferometer. One has two photons created at the same time by down conversion and sent each along a path to the left and to the right that each go through a 50-50 beam splitter that delays the photon or lets it go straight through. Then you detect each photon and see did the left come before the right, the right before the left, or both at the same time. For the ones not at the same time, there is only one way they occur, so the probability is a constant. But for the ones that go on the long long or short short options, they form a superposition and interfere. By changing the phase of one of the photons, on either path, you can get the coincidence to go from 0 to a maximal value. This is true entanglement in time, as we have a superposition of two pulses at physically different times, but they interfere simply because we do not know when they were created. Truly mind bowing in my view. And of course the big question is what happens to probability conservation if the coincidences can have varying probability. Think carefully and you can sort that out as well.

18:43 Isn't decoherence "shrouding/veiling" it, rather than "suppressing" it??

So if the universe is probabilistic then at the “beginning”, can we really speak of “initial conditions” since instead it must have been “all possibilities” what does that tell us about entropy at the Big Bang? Wouldn’t that qualify as maximum entropy?

Never having taken a science class, self taught, such as it is, one mystery, amongst many, that I will take to the grave with me, is why so many Physicist purported to have knowledge of QM , just seem to not understand the “Black Body Radiation Problem”, and what exactly Planck proposed as a solution. For instance, one, of many, Planck never believed or proposed that light consistent of particles and in fact later found such an idea nonsensical. An amazing distortion of the history of physics, by both Brian and Elise. Einstein gets full credit.

are the particles in the double slit hitting the sides of the slit's and altering their path's and how would you know they are not

Possibilities are endless

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.

I alwayas had the title's question 🤔🤔

I'd like to see what happens to the frequency of a photon that goes through the double slit experiment in time but must pass through the gas cloud that slows light down on one of the times the photon is fired at the director. Also what would happen if the detector was wired to the placement of an object

Here is a thought: Could it be that the totality of our "illusion of Certainty" is the Quantum Uncertainty Realm of a Higher levels of existence and then would not our mathematical certainties be the "fog" of Possibilities that would be available to be measured from the point of view of entities existing at those upper levels?

Although entangle particles are non-local in 3 dimensional space, they are indeed local in 4d spacetime (i.e. they are touching). So we shouldn't be surprised that entangled particles can behave this way.

Just curious, isn't entanglement proof of higher dimension? I postulate that the information is actually travelling on or is connected via a different plane or higher dimension beyond our accessible 3-dimensional space, perhaps the higher dimensions begin to manifest at smaller and smaller scales of our 3D universe. I'd be keen to hear a string theorist opinion on this. Thanks for the informative clips.

32:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties. P.S. 0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough. Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). 1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock. 2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt

Brian Greene is super

Haven't watched yet, saw the title and mind went "is this what is meant by retro causality? lol I have no idea 😅

This is better than anything on streaming services right now and Brian Greene is dropping

Hence the concept that reality is a perceptual event, thus giving individuals the ability of choosing their reality {within the parameters of their endocrinal responses) all of which is very spooky.

I just realized near the end with the wooden rubiks cube, that even if entangled particles are separated in 3 or 4 dimensions, they could still be next to each other in the 5th or 6th dimensions...

A thought experiment I posed in Sabine Hossenfelder's comment section (which was mysteriously deleted for whatever the reason?) Here's my thought experiment: (non-existent technology is proposed for explanation purposes only) A one light second circumference race track is constructed (186,272 circular miles). An observation tower sits stationary at the center of the track. A light speed race car and driver set out and approach 99.9999% light speed. The driver then turns on his 1 second flashing strobe light with a 10 millisecond 'on' duration. Q: Will the driver experience time dilation? Q: What will the tower observer see? (Remember, there is no distance change between observer and driver) Qualify your answer in plain language. Assume the tower observer has a super telescope mounted on a rotating swivel where he is able to see the driver and his strobe light as they circle around the tower observers position. There is a part 2 to this T.E...

Is there quantum entanglement over vast distance as a result of Hawking radiated particles that lost half their identity into an event horizon? Does charge of a black hole bias in favor of positive or negative charge of the radiation, which would sift matter from antimatter, depending.

I like the dart board bit. If the board were swinging on it's nail and the dart were moving in a straight line; it's eventual position on the board would be a probability, like a wave function. But if the frequency of the board and speed of the dart were at the speed of light then they would inevitably meet. There would be a simultaneity.

At 26:43 for any of you younggins out there who do the PlayStation thing. During the PlayStation 2's lifetime they the company were playing around with this idea. Not sure if they're still using the spooky theory but in PlayStation 2 console it made some of the games I feel way better. While watching this I wonder if anyone's correlated information perhaps new eyes type of thing. Be well everyone, never stop being the chaos engines you are.

Dr Crulls reminds me of Jodie Foster's character in Contact

In the double split experiment, it have quantum probability is it change when you change the way that each particular group A have it own physic properties like it magnitude and it direction in complex sin wave put it force on another each particular in group B with some different patterns direction on the surface particular group b in the very small amount of time like 1/trillion milliseconds emit particular in group b in some different patterns that go straight or diagonal through the split that make more than 2 line on other side of the split. In your experiment have you try change the properties of group A and B like the number of electron, proton, neutron, the force magnitude, direction, moving pattern of group A on group B make group B emit, will it make the change on number or the properties of lines like the height, width, the colors, the number of particular on each line that you get? Have you tried it?

Thank ux2

I always get into thinking - (when the two slit experiment is done) there is information send yes/no if observing or detecting is done or not done. Information is a part of phenomen and stays in sistim. Or it leaves the systim when it is observed. So there must be difference. I'm not that super≈savvy in this kind of concepts. But does anyone know what i try explain? ( or mis‐understand ) And i always liked to believe that time is fuzzy at the smallest interval or scale. So that point between future +history is not infinite small .

where is part 2?

How many times has that across time entanglement been replicated??

To my less educated mind, it seems to me that if 2 things can be entangled over massive distance it suggests to me that space has to be illusory. And if space and time have such a close relationship that they are referred to as spacetime, then time must be illusory too. Emergent maybe. It is still going to be interesting to discover the rules relating to it's apparent existence though.

Learning about quantum physics is mental edging.

Nice to see the shout out to Grete Hermann at 22:11

Question would be to ask where electron of ball will land ?

The question is odd given spacetime is an integrated phenomena and separation in space implies separation in time, lest we accept time has an absolute reference frame