Hidden Variables—How We Know They Don't Exist In Quantum Mechanics

Watch other popular videos from my channel
Gömböc—The Shape That Shouldn't Exist

Shooting a Nerf Gun Backwards While Driving At The Bullet's Speed Forward

Superhydrophobic Knife Slices Water Drops in Half

Real-Life Invisibility Cloak Can Hide Anything! How Does It Work?

What's Inside the Worlds' Fastest Heat Conductor?

Can You Use Umbrellas Instead of a Parachute?

Opening a Bottle of Liquid Nitrogen Under Water!

Warning: DO NOT TRY—Seeing How Close I Can Get To a Drop of Neutrons

*Any experiment you try is at YOUR OWN RISK. The Action Lab assumes no responsibility for any injury if you attempt anything you see in this video or on The Action Lab channel.

[TheActionLab]

Let me clarify something that a few people are getting caught up on. The 1, 2, 3 polarizers are not the order in which the photons are going through the polarizers. They are representing the information that the photon would need to have predetermined beforehand about the polarizers. If there were hidden variables, then the photon would need to "know" beforehand what polarizer it could go through regardless of whether or not we were planning on doing an experiment with them. For example, if there were hidden variables, if you put the polarizers in this order +45° then 90° then a single photon might make it through if it had the hidden variable 1, 4 or 5 assigned to it but not 2, 3, 6 or 8. Another example, if you have +45° then 90° then -45° polarizers in that order then some light gets through, but if you have +45° then -45° then 90° then no light goes through. If there are hidden variables that are predetermined then a photon needs to have decided before any experiment whether or not it can make it through +45°, 90°, and -45° polarizers regardless of what order we decided to put them in.

[damiencouturee]

For anyone coming from today's short, skip to about 2:00 for the answer, the beginning is pretty much covered in the short. Or just watch it all cause That Action Lab is awesome lll

[giancarloantonucci]

Bell’s theorem proves that you cannot have local hidden variables. Nonlocal hidden variables are allowed.

[tHEuKER]

The hidden variable (ie, the unknown input that made the system's outcome vary) was your finger preventing one of the strings from moving. The strings being intertwined is not a variable, but just an initially unknown feature of the system's nature.

[mdtarequzzaman]

*THIS MAN'S SHIRT WILL BE THINKING UNTIL THE END OF SPACE-TIME*

[CodeKujo]

"These are the only bits of information that it can have" @8:05
Reducing the behaviors of polarizing, filtering, and entangling to these simple booleans seems error-prone to me. All that Bell's Theorem demonstrates to me is that it's not that simple, but I feel like I already knew that because of the way polarized filters can twist polarization.

[somethingsinlife]

There are many problems with QM...First thing, we don't even know how exactly the light is being blocked. Second "Probability of reality is not reality", QM is literally just Probability and Statistics and we shouldn't be stretching it this far into Real Events.
3. The rest of the Universe is deterministic, the highest chances are that we don't really know what's going on at the smallest scales so we have no choice but to use probabilities. However, it is very likely that it is deterministic down there too.

[mattofbum]

Maybe, I'm missing some things, but here are some questions I have about the example:
-How do we know that the polarizers are independent? That is, maybe if the photon can pass through 2, it must also be able to pass through 3 (and could never be blocked by 3).
-How do we know that the polarizers don't alter the photons in some way?
-How do we know the weightings of the possibilities of the "pieces of information that that [hidden] variable can have"? The example seems to imply that all possibilities are equally likely.
-How do we know that the entanglement of the photons doesn't also contain hidden information that might affect this example?

[ldrago]

You keep me inspired to learn more and more, 🔥

[nathanielburns]

Me watching the first minute: we’ve been tricked, we’ve been backstabbed, and we’ve been quite possibly bamboozled.

[PittCougar]

This reminds me of how a group psychology works. If a single person is placed in a situation, it's very difficult to predict their reaction to that situation. But if a crowd of people are together, it's much easier to predict it's reactions. The larger the crowd, the more predictively it will react.

[fuseteam]

i think you're polarizer example was a bit vague this time, while it is true that 25% goes through the second one, you didn't talk about why that is weird; that you'd expect the second one to block everything since the light coming through should be polarized vertically and thus should be blocked by the 45° angled one. i know you have a video on this maybe you should've plugged it xD

[TheAverageDev]

I am actually dying, when in the beginning, he pulled the left side, and then both bottoms went up, and he went. HUH?
Time Stamp: 1:30
Edit: I don't even know why lol.

[michaeldamolsen]

@3:55 Fun fact: When New York Times interviewed Podolsky and wrote that article, Einstein was absolutely furious! He blamed Podolsky for leaking the work prematurely and without his (Einstein's) authorization, and never spoke to Podolsky again. Rosen on the other hand was still in Einstein's favor, and they went on to write another famous article on wormholes in general relativity together.

There is now theoretical work that combines the EPR paper about quantum entanglement with the ER paper on wormholes, theorizing that entanglement is the structure that binds spacetime together in a manner similar to the wormholes Einstein and Rosen described.

[EdwardUnthank]

Doesn’t this assume we have a STATIC variable, UNCHANGED by passing through 1 into 2? What if the hidden variable is DYNAMIC and affected by these interactions? E.g., moving as waves.

[Spartan]

Still feels like we're making a lot of assumptions here. Assumptions that can't be demonstrated.

[danielpapania]

Full disclosure, I don't know anything about photon polarization.

In the 8 possibilities, surely only options 1, 2, 4 and 5 are possible outcomes. Option 3 can't happen because the two diagonal filters (let's call them filters B and C) are mutually exclusive since they are at right angles to each other, in other words, if a photon can't go through filter B then it will have to go through C, so you can never have a photon that can't go through either B or C. Option 6 says that the photon can go through B but not C, the only way this is possible (since they are at right angles to each other) is if the photon is perfectly lined up with B, in which case it should still have some component of its vibration which can pass through A, but option 6 says it can't go through A which is not possible. Similarly for option 7, again for it to pass through one diagonal filter but not the other implies that the photon vibration is perfectly aligned to filter C and hence should pass through A as well, but option 7 says it can't, so option 7 is impossible. Finally, option 8 makes no sense since surely a photon will be able to pass through one of the 3 filters, especially since 2 of them are at right angles to each other.

The other thing is that if we consider all of the possible photon orientations, in most cases the photon will be able to pass through all three filters unless it happens to be at right angles to one of the three.

Also, why no horizontal filter? If so, wouldn't we get the 25% probability

[rodrigoappendino]

4:37 Wait. P for photon instead of gamma? Triggered!

[broncokonco]

Could it be that the entangled particles aren’t perfectly entangled?
Or could there be a hidden variable in the polarizer rather than in the particle?
Have those assumptions been disproven?

[sharadthecurioustardigrade]

Why is your channel so good?




There must be some *Hidden Variables*