Quantum ‘spookiness' explained

Quantum physics has never made much sense. Einstein never liked the idea that separated particles could influence each other - ‘spooky action at a distance’ - but a new variation on a famous experiment may have proved its existence once and for all. Nature Video dives into a world where quantum entanglement and quantum superposition seem to defy all laws of common sense.

[Epoch]

This is a nice video, but it does not explain ANYTHING. It is like saying that a car runs because it has an how does the engine work?

I would love to see a video that truly attempts to describe the new and improved Bell experiment and what are the parameters that are used to judge whether indeed there was communication between the electrons. How do we know that the information was not already stored within the electrons themselves?

[thomasmartin]

FOR THOSE WHO REALLY WISH A FAR BETTER UNDERSTANDING:

From watching this oversimplified video, many commentators understandably think the issue is trivial: "The particles are already in that state before you looked" That intuition is (of course) precisely what Einstein thought, and precisely what the Bell experiment definitely disproves. The Bell experiment shows the observed statistics are thoroughly inconsistent with the particles having a predetermined state. That is why it one of the most remarkable results in the history of science.

For those willing to watch, here is a video that gives a far more detailed and (moderately) mathematical explanation:

[nmlewan]

This kind of visual explanations is science at its cutest.

[TheTrueHolyDarkness]

The best analogy I ever heard was to simply think of how two gears move together.

[Rugbystu]

I know this might sound weird but if someone could explain it to me it would be much appreciated. How do they entangle particles and them move them apart? I mean it's not like they can put them in containers and then take them different places. I really want to understand it because it baffles me.

[MarkoKraguljac]

This is such a fertile ground for all kinds of bullshit.

[SpaceTime_Ninja]

When I think of it like this: you have two balls, a green one and a red one. You let someone put each of the balls in a box. You don't know which ball is where, so you could say that the balls are both green and red at the same time. When you open one box, and it's the red ball, you know instantaneously that the other box has the green ball. (No need to open it, but it doesn't matter if you do or not)
As I see it now, there's no need for some transfer of information, or influence, between the balls. It simply follows from the information you had (i.e. green or red ball) and the new information (i.e. opening a box). So why is it spooky?

Maybe my analogy is just wrong, in that case, please explain me why.

[CovertMessiah]

in entangled pairs if one is up, then the other MUST be down. So measuring one will tell what the other one is. That doesn't mean that the one that was not measured was influenced from a distance at all. It just solved an algebraic equation a+b = c. If a is 1 and b is 2, and c is 3, if you know that a is 2 then b must be 1, if a is 1 then b must be 2. SHOW ME AN EXPERIMENT WHERE YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE SEPARATED PARTICLE IS DEFINITELY INFLUENCED FROM A DISTANCE. For example separate many entangled particles and force its state to up or down, every time, and see if that influences the other particle.

[earthculture]

Information between the particles is traveling faster than light. No usable information can be communicated faster than light at the moment. But that doesn't mean the particles are not communication with each other. Correlation is communication. Something is happening faster than light. It is happening absolutely instantaneously.

[oscargalaviz]

Inserts theory of living in a simulation....

[inoxck]

Every bit of space within the universe is influenced by the rest of the universe. If something happens here, the rest of the universe will behave accordingly as if everything is in one place.

[theblackbladeofdisaster]

Let's say we have two boxes and one contains a green ball and the other contains a red ball, but we don't know which ball is in which box. We then separate the boxes by 1.3km. We then open our box and find a green ball so we instantly know the other box must contain a red ball. We wouldn't then say that our ball being green changed the state of the other ball to red, because the balls were never in a superposition of red and green, they were either red OR green. We just didn't know which until we checked. It would be ridiculous to say the green ball influences the red ball. So why can we say electron A influences the state of electron B? I don't get it

[thomashan]

*Einstein WAS NOT WRONG*
Einstein's Universal Speed Limit stated *"No object with mass can travel with the Speed of Light in Space."* Which means:

1. Particles with no mass can travel with the speed of light

2. Space-time itself has no mass, so it can travel (or send information) with the speed faster than light.
In fact, Einstein was One of the First People who introduced Quantum Mechanics. The name "Quantum Spookiness" was given by Einstein himself.
Einstein was actually TOO RIGHT.

He taught us how Gravity works on Space-time fabric. We could only prove "Gravitational Waves" in almost 100 years after he passed away.

He taught us that Mass and Energy are related, that what we knew Mass, actually is a Concentration of a Hugh amount of Energies.
He taught us that "Light" not only is a wave, it can also exist as a Group of Particles.

His paper "Photoelectric effect" stated that .. Light DO HAVE the Quantum properties. He was TOO DAMN RIGHT. >_<

[adamsheldrick]

I'm not a science graduate nor do I have any formal education in quantum physics so I'm not surprised that this is well beyond comprehension to my un educated mind, but how does one isolate such particles from all of the noise and how do they know the state of the particle before they even observe it? what I'm getting at is can they be certain they are even looking at the desired particles?

[Lexyvil]

Really interesting stick presentation!

[winstonchang]

There is no such thing as SAME TIME other than just human observation as same time....

[tchaffman]

2 questions:
1) What do red and green ACTUALLY mean?
2) Does the state of the 2nd election actually change once we've observed it, or was the electron already in that state and we're only able to make final determinations through observation? Is 'Spookiness' the measurement problem?

[seblingtonw]

One particle doesnt influence the other instantaneously, they are both part of the same and unique system

[kennethstudstill]

So when each electron is entangled with a photon and those photons entangle, then the electrons become entangled, changing the electrons' possible states.

Is this correct?

[ndleinahaystack]

maybe I'm missing something here but how do we know that the manipulation of one particle affected another at a great distance away? Isn't it possible that the other particle was already in that state? Why are we only focusing on only one particle; what if millions of other particles are also affected also if this is actually factual?