Quantum Entanglement Lab - by Scientific American

---
SA editors George Musser and John Matson pay a visit to Professor Enrique Galvez of Colgate University, who has built a machine to observe quantum entanglement, the strange phenomenon that Einstein called "spooky action at a distance."
---

[xxACIDVIRUSxx]

I came looking for a quantum entanglement explanation, but I’m as lost as before I started watching this video.

[antoncourtois]

I been reading and seeing a lot about this entanglement and I cannot figure out why paired photons could not have been the same from the start?! The that I measure one obviously makes the other the same since they were the same from the start. 
I think Bell's Experiment did confirm that they had an uncertain polarization at the start, but I don't really get how this had been done... Explanation would be great if someone has one!

[marklee]

this video needs more detail to explain it. Make some block diagrams of the experiment. THe video practically goes from saying the laser is uv to then talking at a whiteboard - without "breaking it down" as promised". could try harder 3/10

[michaelgardner]

the fact that you entertained the possibility that brains are entangled, tells us something, the fact that other's have come to the same conclusion, and even other's have been playing with this, suggests that all information is shared, when conditions are right what you propose or extrapolate is possible, developing an ability to focus and recognize what has been there all along. - my comment is in direct response to the question posed by the two guys at the beginning of the video !

[mrpregnant]

Quantum Entanglement is pervasively known as The God Effect, it’s the synchronicity between spatially separated particles on an infinitesimally subatomic scale regardless of their distance. When entanglement occurs, there’s a correlation between their momentum, velocity and spin in their state of entanglement, and their speed in which information propagates between particles seem instantaneous, regardless of their fluctuation in space. An inseparable relationship first introduced by Erwin Schrodinger in 1935.

[devonfunk]

[This is my reply to a comment earlier but thought others would find it useful] I know this is late but the best explanation comes from quantum mechanics founding principles which more or less says particles don't have a definite state unless measured. Particles aren't what we think of particles as when they aren't being observed but rather a wave that allows them to exist in multiple states. This video addressed it with Schrodinger's cat which IS BOTH alive and dead at the same time. the act of observation is what makes it become one of the two states. So even if they have the same conditions, they don't have to have the same measured observations because quantum mechanics in nature is probabilities not exact positions. Quantum entanglement is having both the observations linked. The example given is that two particles have a 50/50 chance of passing through the lens; So, you flip a coin and heads it goes through and tails it doesn't. A pair of entangled particles means if one decides to flip the coin (on its way through the lens where it has to) the other has gets the same coin flip. This is important for what shown in the video because if the particle passes through A then the entangled partner has the same chance of passing though B (even though this is the only lens it goes through) as if it went through A first.

[mike]

around 5:35 they start to say bell discovered it's not done by proximity, i don't really understand? how is reality not defined by proximity

[ElLenadorLA]

Finally wrapping my head around this concept thank you!

[vinaysrivastava]

My Theory : The photons don't split in pairs but join in fourth dimension hence creating a four dimensional photon. Obviously if you change the polarization of one will change it for other, by re twisting itself through the fourth dimension.

[TheTigero]

Doesn’t this just prove that when a photon is “split”, both halves maintain the same polarization?

[jackpret]

Maybe there is an unseen "negative" photon (like holes in electric flow) that moves in the opposite direction that influences the origin of the fired photons hence influence the other.
That would have implications on the direction of time! i.e. What must still happen has already happened. Its just that we view time in a "forward" flow with no way of knowing that it actually flows both ways!

[qualquan]

clearly describes entanglement from 6:10 onwards
information between entangled particle does travel faster than light and is actually instantaneous
Einstein should not have said "information" cannot travel faster than light. Only that matter (mass or energy) cannot.

[SkpalTube]

How does this experiment prove wrong Einstien's analogy of a pair of gloves? What if at the time of entanglement, the spins were already determinate or opposite, so act of measuring has nothing to do with the outcome of the other?

[AnnaelleD]

6:03 We measure the state of the first particle but how can we know the second one's state without measure it as well?

[FerAdventures]

I would have been nice to get a diagram. The explanation is loose.
I understood that you have to thin crystals "stacked up"? If they have different polarisation light won't go throw both, so I don't really understand what is going on here.

[twitteking]

Your explanation is gradual and clear, I only wish you got into the actual data of the tallies/coincidence rate

[MyComedyStore]

How do they know that taking the measurement isn't causing the particles to appear entangled when they really aren't?

[andrewclark]

Why can't television channels, like discovery and the science channel, show anything remotely intelligent like this?

[BLeverkusen]

I think the problem we are facing now is how we always interpreted their (sub particles) world the way/ the best we can explain. I mean quantum world is far I'm concern is more complicated than we're expected.

For example, me and my buddy had this discussion about how viruses are so resilient in hard condition temperature. Now, I'm thinking how on earth we could tested this validity but our species are evolved from their point of perspective.

I mean, these viruses had "more experience" dealing with hard condition temperature than we are possibility know. That is why we are here today. It is like trying to solve a problem with the answer in limited domain. I think getting an opinion from outside the box is really crucial.

[edsoderlind]

one of the best spooky explanations yet
thx