(Non-)Locality, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, and Bell's inequality

In this video, I discuss how the winners of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics have shown that the world is NOT LOCAL. This means that, at least in principle, it is possible for an action taken somewhere on Earth to have an effect arbitrarily far away, even in the most remote corners of the universe. The Nobel Prize winners achieved this by proving that an inequality, called Bell's inequality, is violated in nature. In this video, I describe the argument made by John Bell that a violation of Bell's inequality implies that there is no locality. This argument starts from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen "paradox" (EPR), which I describe as well.

This video was filmed at the Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University in Piscataway, NJ, on October 29, 2022.

Very special thanks go to Sasha Pohle for helping me produce this video, as well as to Sheldon Goldstein, Michael Kiessling, Lawrence Frolov, Andreas, Hans, Lucy and Tania Jauslin, and Shadi Tahvildar-Zadeh for their useful feedback and comments.

Photo credits:
A. Einstein: AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, W. F. Meggers Gallery of Nobel Laureates Collection
B. Podolsky: AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Physics Today Collection
N. Rosen: AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Physics Today Collection
J. Bell: CERN
A. Aspect: Ecole polytechnique Université Paris-Saclay
J. Clauser: AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Gift of John Clauser
A. Zeilinger: Jaqueline Godany

00:00 Introduction
00:47 Locality
04:01 The EPR "paradox"
12:03 Bell's inequality
15:13 Comments
17:28 Conclusion

[aaronnowack]

Your videos are the only ones I've found that go into this level of detail on Bell's inequality and is clear to understand, subscribed!

[ExistenceUniversity]

Damn when my attention was held for a minute and decided to just click on the video, I was expecting this channel to be way bigger than it is. Have a sub.

[siqueirabarros]

The Universe may not be local. But it is surely loco.

[valentinussofa]

Finally I found this amazing channel. Thank you so much🙏

[mikebethune]

Finally…I finally get it. Been struggling with this entanglement issue for some time and time as you pointed out is the missing piece for me. Thanks Great job !

[LaboriousCretin]

2:12 Prime for entanglement being left out. Also, you're not explaining how bell links into larger many body systems.

Test to do. A tunable metamaterial for slits and the orbital shell energy levels in the tunable range. Not to get into the other variant and manifolds.

[gilleseveloy]

What if: when you create 2 entangled particles their respective spin called s is defined as s1=rand(t)/|rand(t)| and s2=-s1?

[SnoopyAKQJT]

5:40 same idea with a coin that is spinning in a vacuum non-stop. In order for observer Alice (top) or Bob (bottom) to see either head or tail, the coin must first collapse (ie stop spinning) into an eigen state. Prior to the collapse, the coin is in a superposition state.

[siqueirabarros]

It seems that some mathematicians claim Bell' Inequality Theorem is bad math. Actually wrong math. Do you know something about it? Does it (this criticism against Bell's) have any grounding?

[quantumentanglementsolved]

A new article on entanglementsolved pointed out a flaw in quantum mechanics, EPR paradox, and Bell’s theory.

[rockapedra]

Instead of billiard balls, could use a pair of shoes. There is always a right and a left one, one to one. +1 and -1.

[kooros]

Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen; Three Stooges

[williamwalker]

Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.

According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.

Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.

This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.

Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.

Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.

The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.

*YouTube presentation of above argument:

[JuxtaposedNmotion]

ah yiss, the ruler of omicron persei 8 has finally made it to a physics thought experiment!