Astrum Space - The 9 Experiments That Will Change Your View of Light (And Blow Your Mind)

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

A look at the double-slit experiment, the Bell experiment, quantum eraser, the delayed choice experiment, the photoelectric effect, the three-polariser paradox, and more! Prepare for your world to be turned upside down.Astrum's newsletter has launched! Want to know what's happening in space? Sign up here: ⁠https://astrumspace.kit.com⁠A huge thanks to our Patreons who help make these videos possible. Sign-up here: ⁠https://bit.ly/4aiJZNF

Introducing the new best skin ever ultra-slim precision concealer from Sephora Collection. It's full coverage with a matte finish and perfect for any look, whether you're building it up for a full glam moment or targeting correction for a more natural vibe. At only $12, it's great for affordable touch-ups on the go. Get this new must-have concealer at Sephora or at Sephora.com today. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually

interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. There is much of science that we understand. If I threw a ball into the air and was given the right data about the forces acting on it, I could tell you exactly where it would land. Science explains through chemistry the molecules that make the ball up. We can predict the energy levels of the sound it would make when it lands.

Much like a candle being held up in the dark, science illuminates our view of the world around us, but there is a limit to how far the light currently. falls. Even today, when it feels like there is so much of the world and the universe that we can explain, there is darkness too. Answers we don't have yet. And worse, confusing results that erode our confidence in what we think we do know. There are experiments that seem to suggest that light is lying to us and call into question the very nature of reality. Are we real? Is time linear? Perhaps not. But are you ready for the comforting veil of understanding to be torn away,

and for the strangeness at the edges of our understanding to be brought into the light? If so, I have some experiments for you. I'm Alex McColgan, and you're watching Astrom, and in today's Supercut, I will show you nine experiments that will challenge your understanding of the fundamental laws of physics in a way that will almost certainly leave you with something between a headache and exasthenial dread. You have been warned. And curiously, almost all of these experiments have something to do with light. Light is so much stranger than you might think. Sure, it may seem simple enough, traveling around the universe, delivering energy from one place to another. It helps us see. It provides life to plants, and thus to our planet generally.

It has a reputation for being very fast. And yet, for a source of energy that has become synonymous with greater understanding, light is surprisingly difficult to understand. Light helps us see other things better, sure, but when scientists tried to look at light itself, it was surprisingly difficult. No, I don't mean that they started staring into any lamps. Please don't do that at home, but experiments in the last 200 years or so have proven that what light appears to be and what light is are actually two different things. The first experiment on our list highlights the following mystifying fact. Light behaves differently when you're not looking at it compared to when you are.

But to understand that, let's begin with the basics. What is light? In the early 1700s, Isaac Newton theorized that light was made up of tiny little particles that he called corpuscles. But in 1801, nearly 100 years later, a man named Thomas Young discovered that light must actually be more wave-like than particle-like. He proved this, using an important method known as the double slit experiment.

He set up a source of light and chung it through two narrow slits onto a board. Young noticed that rather than getting two bands of light on the other side of the slits, a strange striped pattern was forming. This was known as an interference pattern and was incontrovertible proof that light had been traveling as a wave. Why? Let's talk about waves for a moment. When waves travel, they oscillate up and down.

But when two waves try to oscillate the same point in space at the same time, you get something known as interference. Imagine you had a bathtub with a rubber duck sitting on the surface. Two waves reach the duck at once. One wave tries to raise the duck up, at the exact same time, the other wave tries to drop it down. What happens? Provided the waves are of the same magnitude,

and are perfectly out of face, they will cancel each other out, and the duck would not move at all. This is called destructive interference. Similarly, if the waves both try to raise the duck up at the same time, the duck would be raised twice as high. This is known as constructive interference. Because waves tend to expand in a circle, two waves next to each other will start to both constructively and destructively interfere with each other.

are two waves in water. See these lines? These calmer patches are where the waves are canceling each other out. This is the effect we see with light travelling through the two slits. As the light from one slit propagates, it cancels out the other wave of light at certain points, creating the interference pattern that Young noticed on the board. So the mystery was solved. Light was a wave and not a particle. Except there is more to this experiment than meets the eye. Let's fast forward another 100 years to 1905. Scientists around this time had become puzzled by something known as the photoelectric effect. It turned out that when you shone a light on a metal surface, electron-like particles were coming off it. This was deduced to be because

electrons in the metal were getting knocked off it by the increased energy the light was imparting. Imagine it like a fruit on a tree. If you pull the fruit off the tree, you need to use a certain amount of energy. Once the energy is greater than the strength of the fruit's connection to the branch, the fruit pops off. This was happening with the light and the electrons. Once the light hit an electron and gave it enough energy to pass the threshold, it broke free from the metal. However, what surprised scientists was that if you increased the intensity of the light, they had expected the electrons to be knocked away faster. If you pull the fruit off the tree harder, it would come off faster. More energy equals

more departing kinetic energy. However, this did not appear to be the case. Instead, increasing the frequency of the light increased the velocity of the departing electrons. The intensity of the light didn't affect the departing electrons velocity at all, but did affect the quantity of electrons being emitted. It was a bit of a puzzler. Albert Einstein was the man who solved the puzzle. He deduced that light must be travelling in little packets of energy, so sending more of them, increasing the frequency, was the only way to increase the energy going to the electrons.

He called these packets photons, and later earned a Nobel Prize for his work. Light, it seemed, was more like a particle again. Or both a wave and a particle at once? Of course, even this is not the full. full picture. To be honest, we aren't completely sure about the full picture even now. Instead, we have more results that are contradictory. Let's go back to the double slit experiment. Armed with the knowledge of photons, physicists once again took a look at the double

slit experiment. Experimental techniques had improved in the last 100 years, and it was now possible to emit a single photon of light at a time. So, the double slit experiment was done again. This time, only a single photon would be sent through the slit onto a detector on the far side. When this was done, the detector registered the arrival of the photon at just a single point. So light was behaving like a particle again. But then, why had it interfered with itself in the previous version of the experiment? Scientists had an idea. They sent through multiple photons one at the time and plotted the result on the detector.

And this is where the result became really strange. Once again, the detector started seeing the photons arriving at single points, one at a time. But bafflingly, the arriving photons started creating a pattern. It was the interference pattern. The proof that light behaved like a wave. But strangely enough, this was only occurring when a single photon was going through at time. Somehow, the single photon, which was leaving the detector like a particle and was arriving

at its destination as a particle, was apparently in some way travelling through both slits at once, enough to then interfere with itself on the other side like a wave. If light was just a particle, then when it went through the slits you wouldn't see this pattern. You would only see two blobs of light, one for particles that went through the slit, and one for particles that went through the other one. And yet, here was the interference pattern with its multiple lines of light disproving that. Scientists tried to pin light down. They set up the experiment, but this time with two more detectors at the slit,

so that scientists could observe whether it was indeed passing through both at the same time. It didn't. But at the same time, it stopped creating an interference pattern on the furthermost detections. And from this, scientists began to realize something. Light cared about being observed. To be clear, it didn't matter whether it was observed by a human eye or a machine. The moment light was interacted with in some way by any particle, which is the only way we can detect light, there's no other way to observe it, it started behaving differently

than if it hadn't been detected at all. It was if light was snapping into focus any time the universe asked it the question of where exactly it was. When without the scrutiny, it appeared to relax into something a little more nebulous. Bizarrely enough, to me this seems to imply that light actually is more like a wave of probability rather than any discrete particle or wave. Any time it was asked where it was, it confidently provided a definitive answer. It was at this point on the detector.

It was not at any other point. But with no one checking up on it, light seems to be travelling in all directions at once, in accordance with certain probabilities. If you ran the experiment multiple times, you could quantify those probabilities, discovering that it was more likely to be on the bands of the interference pattern and less likely to be in the gaps. But any time a single photon of light was asked, it gave an unconstitutional. answer that was 100% concrete. This is highlighted through something known as the Three Polarizer

Paradox. Consider for a moment a pair of polarizing sunglasses. Obviously, these reduce the amount of light that can pass through them, usually by about 50%, depending on the type of lens and the wavelength of light. They work by being formed of thin chains of molecules that run lengthways across the lens. Any light that oscillates in the same orientation, as this lens gets absorbed. Any that is perpendicular to the chains can pass through without trouble. The interesting case occurs when a single photon is passed through an orientation that's diagonal to the lens. In this case, you don't get half a photon going through. Apparently, you can't just absorb part of the oscillation that is parallel to the lines and let through the other part

that is perpendicular. Instead, the photon snaps into either the one orientation or the other. It either is completely absorbed or passes through entirely, but now with a new perpendicular polarization to match what it would have to have been able to pass through easily. How do we know that the photon wasn't this orientation all along? Because of what happens when you start adding more lenses. When you place a second lens behind the first, you can block out the light entirely, provided the two polarizations are perpendicular to each other. Let's say we rotate the second lens 90 degrees compared to the first one. Any light that gets through the first lens has a 0%

chance of getting through the second, like trying to post a letter through a chain-linked fence. As a result, we see only black. But add a third lens and place it at a 45-degree angle between the other two, and bizarrely light starts making it through all three lens. again. This may seem counterintuitive. How does adding more blockages increase the amount of light that makes it through? But this result actually rules out the possibility that the light has a fixed orientation. It must be snapping into focus at each new lens, rolling a quantum dice each time to see if

it was the right orientation all along or not. If it makes it through the first lens, a 50% chance, it only did so because it was oriented perfectly perpendicular to the lens's polarization. Which means once it reaches the second, it's coming at it from a polarization that's diagonal. So once again there's a 50-50 chance that it makes it through. It rolls a quantum dice again and once again has a 50-50 chance of proceeding. If it gets through this hurdle too, then it again snaps to the new orientation, as if it were that new orientation all along, which it obviously was.

Which means that now it's polarized diagonally relative to the third lens, meaning that it now has a final 50% chance of getting through. Of course, some photons do not make it through all three of these probabilistic gauntlets, only about 12.5% of them make it. But that's more than 0%, which is what was happening previously when you only had two lenses. Light likes to behave in discrete quantities. It is quantum. It seemingly snaps to a discrete value when observed, and honestly, we don't really know why.

If you think about a wave, there is no reason why you couldn't simply have half a wave. You could half it again and again an infinite number of times and still have an answer that makes mathematical sense. And yet, it seems that down on a low enough quantum scale, you can't half light past a certain point. can't have half a photon, or even one and a half photons. And if you try to do so, the photon instead snaps to one or the other nearest integer, based on probabilities, but only when it's asked.

Otherwise, it's quite content to exist probabilistically, interfering with itself like a wave as it travels along, before jumping to an answer when later asked exactly where it is. is going on here. This is still being theorized about. The closest comparison we have to it is something known as harmonics, where on a bounded string only a certain number of waves can exist. On a guitar string you can have one wave or two or more, but never a number that isn't a whole number.

It seems that light works in the same way. Perhaps something pinches the beginnings and the end of the path light travels down, though, what this might be and what mechanisms drive it are unknown as of now. Fundamentally, though, perhaps the craziest thing about all of this is that this isn't just about light. Although we focused on light behaving like a wave and behaving probabilistically, all particles of matter do the same. Light is just another form of energy, and energy and matter are linked. Particles of matter, atoms, and even complex molecules, have been shown to have wavelengths. Electrons are just as quantifiable and just as driven by probabilities as photons are.

We are apparently all driven by probability if you scale things down small enough. So what is everything truly made of? What makes up energy and matter that causes it to behave in the way it does? What is going on under the hood of reality? Why is the universe behaving different when looked at compared to when not? And what does it imply to think that even you are on some level probabilistic? What this all means is anyone's guess. The person who figures it out will be the Einstein of our time.

But for now, all we can say is that when it comes to reality, it seems the universe is playing dice. You and the world around you might be a lot less certain than you might have thought. So completes our first few experiments highlighting the strangeness of light. Take a breather for a moment, give your brain a chance to unnot itself. From here on, it's only getting weirder. If there's one thing I've learned about light, it's that for unthinking energy, light seems to love messing with us. As I just showed you, scientists debated about whether it was

a particle or a wave, because it keeps exhibiting elements of both, seemingly unable to settle. Bizarrely, it behaves one way when you're looking at it, but a different way when you're not. But at least its speed is consistent. Light travels at the speed of light. No matter your frame of reference, that one thing remains the same. I have some bad news for you. It turns out the constancy of light speed might not be right either, and the next few experiments I'm about to show you proves it. Light might go slower than physics would predict in certain circumstances, and no, I'm not just talking about light slowing down in denser mediums like glass, although that's what I originally intended this video to be about. We have an

explanation for that. I'm saying that in some circumstances, light seems to travel a path through time and space that has it either going slower or faster than the speed of light, even if dense mediums aren't present. But the really weird thing is that it ends up at the same destination in space and time anyway. Let me show you what I mean. Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second. According to relativity, this is the only speed light can travel at, and interestingly, seems to stick to that number regardless of your frame of reference. Two people could be traveling through space, one at 1% the speed of light,

and the other at 50% the speed of light, but if they both look at the same beam of propagating photons, they will see them traveling at the same speed. Time and distance would seemingly rather warp than allow you to see anything other than light traveling at light speed. Of course, when scientists say this, they are only talking about light traveling in a vacuum. We've known for a long time that as soon as you get matter in a vacuum. involved, light gets bogged down and travels slower. Light travelling in air only goes at 299,705,000 meters per second, a full 87,458 meters

per second slower than light in a vacuum. Light in water goes around 225 million meters per second. But going through glass caps out at around 200 million. The reasons for this are intriguing, but fairly well understood, and certainly not physics breaking. When light travels through matter, it's constantly waving electromagnetic fields, gets the electrons within the matter to start moving, like ships bobbing on water. But as electrons moving up and down also generate an electric field that in turn creates

A magnetic field, a second light wave is created by these moving particles that crucially overlaps the waves of the original light, albeit one that waves at a slightly different pace to the original light. Exactly what speed varies depending on the material. When two waves meet, they interfere with each other. They take an average, sometimes interfering constructively to build each other up, and sometimes working against each other. So when you take the grand total of all the ups and downs of each wave, you actually end up

with a new wave, one that travels at a different speed to the other two, and one that goes slower than the speed of light. Eventually, this propagating wave can reach the edge of the blocking material, and without those electrons interfering anymore, you're left with just the original light again, which is then free to travel along its original path again, at its original speed as if nothing had ever happened. Scientists have had a lot of fun with this concept over the years. Researcher Lenei Howe at Harvard in 1999 was able to slow down light to an astonishing 61 kilometers per hour by sending it through a cloud of sodium atoms that had been cooled

to one billionth of a degree above absolute zero. Two years later, Howe managed to slow down light speed to zero before warming up the cloud and sending it on its way again. You might find that result surprising. However, strange things have happened in the opposite direction too. In 2000, researchers at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, sent a pulse of light through a cloud of cesium atoms. Alarmingly, when they tried to see how quickly the pulse exited the cloud, it seemed that it exited before it had entered.

While this might appear to mess with causality, how can you leave a building before you go inside it after all, fortunately there was a simple explanation that saved us from creating too many paradoxes. Although the light pulse travelled faster than light, the light itself did not. This was more an optical illusion than a refutation of Einstein's relativity. Let's take a closer look at a photon of light. As Einstein showed us, each photon represents a tiny packet of waves, moving up and down. The speed the waves inside the packet propagate is known as its phase velocity, while the speed

at which the packet as a whole is travelling is known as the group velocity. You can also have a wavefront velocity, which is how fast the first photon in a wave of photons can travel. This is a little heavy in its terminology, so let's explain it with an example. Think of a crowd of people doing a Mexican wave. The wave that the people are doing is the phase velocity. You can see the wave traveling along through the crowd. It might look like it's traveling quickly, but the crowd itself isn't going anywhere,

So our wave's true speed is zero. These people are the group velocity, or possibly the wavefront velocity. Let's imagine that we wanted to send our crowd marching. They could do so and could keep doing a Mexican wave as they traveled. But although their waving hands might make the wave go really fast in the direction of their travel, it would vanish whenever it reached the front of the crowd. exchange couldn't go faster than the walking speed of the crowd itself, regardless of how fast the peaks in the wave seem to be travelling.

Einstein in relativity never claimed that phase velocity couldn't exceed light speed. He just claimed that information couldn't travel faster than light. And if you're trying to deliver a message to someone by sending a crowd of Mexican waivers in their direction, it really doesn't matter how fast they're waving, until the first person in the crowd arrives, no information can be delivered. Still, this difference between the waves within light and the speed of light itself will become interesting in our next experiment. And this is where things start to get a little weird. Oh, you thought it was weird already? Oh no. This is the really physics-defying part.

Let's think back on the double-slit experiment. There, research has explored, how light can sometimes behave like a wave and sometimes like a particle. However, in 2023, researchers from the Imperial College figured out a way to separate the slits of this experiment, not in space, but in time. The way they did this was simple. They took a transparent material called indium tin oxide that, under specific conditions, can be made to be reflective. Indian tin oxide is the stuff they use in most mobile phone screens. They fired a laser at it, and then rapidly changed the material from transparent to reflective and then back again.

This left only a slim window, a few femtose seconds where the laser was reflected. They called this a time slit. They recorded what the laser looked like after it had been reflected, and found that its frequency had spread out a little bit in the process, but other than that, nothing too crazy had happened. The weird thing was what happened when they sent two laser pulses through these time slits in rapid succession. The position of the emitter, the mirror, and the receiver remain the same. The only thing different was the time the lasers went through. Oddly enough, when two went through, an interference pattern happened. This was not to.

an interference pattern in the same sense as with the regular 3D space double slit experiment though. This was an interference pattern that it affected the laser's frequency. Certain frequencies of light within the laser faded out, exactly in line with the way intensity faded out in the regular version of the double slit experiment. To visualize why this might be happening, let's draw out this experiment in regards to time. The time slit experiment, experiment can be drawn in a similar way to the double slit experiment, except we are going to need to visualize the change in the experiment over time. To do that, let's create a 4D graph where space is along the x-axis and time is along

the y-axis. This is easy enough to do. It just looks like this. The photon leaves the emitter to the left, hits the time slit, is reflected, and arrives at the receiver. I've drawn this as a continuous line just to make things simpler later, but the idea works just as well either way. Later, a second photon is released from the emitter.

It reflects and arrives at the receiver at a slightly later time, represented in how it takes place higher up further into the future on our time graph. If light behaved normally, travelling along at the speed it was supposed to go at, this would be the end of it. Instead, light is interfering with itself. This means it must be travelling along a path that takes it through the other slit as well as its own. This is the only way that light could come in with the pattern that we see. And just like in the double slit experiment, it's likely happening on the other side of the slits too. As for why, it's frequency and not intensity that's being messed with here, think about the implications of what you might

see if light did indeed come in at a different angle like this. Photons come in little packets of waves, as I've previously mentioned. Now look at what happens if you change the angle at which those waves arrive. Here's how it normally might look. I've added a black timeline here and have highlighted every time the receiver receives a new peak in the wave. Here's what happens when you alter the direction of the waves' arrival. Suddenly, the peaks are coming in much more frequently.

The frequency of a wave over time is very much connected to the colour we perceive light to be. Lower frequency light is redder in colour. Increasing the frequency shifts light's colour towards blue. So this colour variation makes sense. What makes less sense is what's going on with the paths this light is taking through time. Remember, the straight lines we started with represent the two. 299,792,458 meters per second that we see light travelling. So what can we say about the photons

that are travelling along these paths? For some parts of their journey, they are travelling slower than the speed of light, taking more time to arrive at a destination that's the same distance away, and yet, for other parts of their journey, they are travelling faster than causality ought to allow. from their perspective, they are travelling backwards in time. As a reminder, these two emitters on the left are actually the same one, just at different points in time, the same for the receivers on the right. It is a mind-bending result.

And yet, according to the results of this experiment performed by a research team at the Imperial College in London, this is what is occurring. The implications of this are startling. light always travels the path of least time, the route that allows it to arrive at its destination along the path closest to 299,792,458 meters per second. The fastest anything in the universe apparently can go. And yet, it seems to me, in its efforts to locate exactly what path that might involve,

light is testing the waters, putting out feelers that check to see if other paths, and seemingly other paths through time itself might present a more viable solution. These feelers are interfering with photons that travel alongside it, but also with photons that travel a little ahead or behind it in time. To be clear, we never actually detect photons taking any of these other paths. We don't see photons coming in from the future. We never see photons traveling slower than the speed of light, provided there is no supercooling gases providing an explanation for why they slow down.

And yet, for interference patterns to occur, to at least some extent, light must be trying out alternative routes through time. Perhaps it's like lightning, testing many different directions to find the optimal path for its destination, before finding the one that works and collapsing down that path in one giant boom, all other feelers vanishing and collapsing. Or perhaps some other phenomenon is at play, who can say? For now, all we know is that light has proved once again that it doesn't play by anyone's rules,

at least not rules that we can figure out. Again, now might be a good time to pause and reflect. This experiment we just saw hints that not everything in the physics world goes through time the way we might expect. Light might be playing a little fast and loose with the linear nature of reality. We are comfortable with causality, with the idea of things happening one after the other, and things in the past influencing things in the future, rather than the other way round.

This last experiment could be interpreted as throwing a bit of a spanner in that. But sadly, for our aching minds, it's not the only experiment to do so. Okay, break time over. Can information travel backwards in time? It's the sort of thing that would be really useful if it were true. You could tell your past self not to eat that burrito that didn't agree with you, or you could reveal to yourself the winning lottery numbers. But it just doesn't happen.

The resulting paradoxes alone would make the whole thing laughable. In our universe, time always seems to flow in one direction, forward. The idea of travelling backwards in time, or even simply communicating with your past self seems so outlandish, it can't possibly be true. So why is it that on the quantum level, information seems to be doing just this? Alex, stop, you might be saying. You've already shown us that the solid universe around us might be nothing more than probability waves, and that light has some weird element to it that causes it to interfere with other light in its past and its future.

But this? Surely it's impossible for information to travel backwards in time. I understand the sentiment. It goes against all intuition, and by all accounts, it doesn't seem possible. In previous videos, I mentioned that objects would require infinite energy to even go fast enough to reach the speed of light. So how could something go so fast as to reverse the usual direction of time and arrive at a destination just not instantly, but before they left?

Not even light can do that, and it's the fastest thing we know of. Well, this rule about causality speed limit seems to mostly apply to the macro-scale universe. And by macro-scale, I mean everything significantly larger than an atom. But down on the quantum level, time might be obeying different rules, or at least the speed of causality seems to come with some significant caveats. And to demonstrate this idea, we need to look at a man called John Stuart Bell and quantum entangled particles. I should apologise in advance for what I'm about to do to your understanding of causality. Okay, but what are quantum entangled particles?

In quantum physics, it's possible to hit two particles together in such a way as to link them together so that by measuring the one particle, you learn things about the other. For instance, if you know that the particles originally had a total of zero momentum and you learn the momentum of one of the newly quantumly tangled particles, you know the momentum of the other particle will be the exact reverse, making sure the total remains zero. Effectively, by measuring the one particle, you can learn things about the other. This works for other particle properties too, such as position, polarization or spin.

On the surface, there's nothing too weird about this. It's no different from me meeting up with a friend and discussing our plans for the evening. We agree to go out and we agree that I will pay for the evening and my friend won't. Then, no matter how far we go on our night out, or even if at some point separate, I know I will be paying and my friend will know. that he won't. This is how Einstein thought it worked, only it turned out that Einstein was wrong. Because as it happens, me and my friend did not discuss in advance who would be paying, and the strangest of all, we still both agree with each other anyway, 100% of the time,

no matter how far apart we are. This is the strange thing about quantum entanglement, and quantum physics in general. We like to think of particle, as having fixed properties. However, our penultimate mind-bending experiment shows that particles only have properties when you detect those properties. Yes, it's like the double-slit experiment again, only that was focusing on a photon's position. It seems that particles are also kind of vague about the whole properties thing. Instead, only relying on probabilities, as defined by a quantum wave equation. This doesn't make sense in change. intuitively, looking at a thing shouldn't be what gives it properties, right?

Well, how would you know? If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? According to quantum physics, not necessarily. Let's talk about the Bell experiment. The maths for this is pretty complicated, but bear with me, it's worth the ride. The experiment was first conceptualised by John Stuart Bell, who wanted to know if part of particles really did have secret properties that they carried around with them, known as hidden variables, or whether they really were making some of it up on the spot.

He noticed an interesting mathematical fact about the spin of particles. Before we go any further, I should probably mention that quantum spin isn't the same as normal spin. Misleadingly, quantum spin actually defines whether a particle is influenced, pushed or pulled, by a magnetic field. The name isn't important, but it is important to note that these particles aren't actually spinning and so can have different spin values in almost any given direction. Now let's take two quantum entangled particles, and let's say that we've arranged it

so that their spin adds up to a total of zero between them. This means that if one particle would be pulled by a field, the other will be pushed by it, an equal amount along that direction, with the understanding that this doesn't tell you anything about their spin in other directions. One of the features of quantum spin is that if we measure an entangled particle spin in any given direction, let's say up and down, it will have a 50% chance to be spinning up and an equal 50% chance to be spinning down. But remember, once you measure the other entangled particle, it will have to be spinning up.

a 100% chance to be spinning in the opposite direction to the first particle. On this fact alone, there is no way to tell if the two particles already knew their spin, or are somehow deciding it on the spot and conferring it with each other now that they've been asked. But Bell noticed a clever thing by asking a clever question. If you measured two quantum entangled particles from two randomly selected directions, What are the odds that their spin for different directions would match? Now, let's define that at any time a particle is spinning towards a detector, it spin is up, and any time it is spinning away from a detector, it spins down.

What are the odds that both particles would be spinning up, up, or down-down when tested, and what are the odds that they would contrast? Let's formalize this with a little experiment. Here we have two entangled particles, with three detectors reading their spin in different directions. If particle A and B are both red with the top detector, then one of their spins will be up and the other will be down. They are entangled.

This is what we looked at previously. However, if particle A is red using the top detector, while particle B is red with one of the other two, these two directions of spin. aren't opposites, so particle B has flexibility in which way it goes. Quantum physics claims the particles are making up their attributes on the spot. So once you'd measure the spin of particle A using the top detector, it was a 50-50, whether the spin on the other particle using one of the other detectors would match or contrast. But this is not what classical physics predicted.

Let me show you what I mean. Classical physics claims that particles each carry around secret information defining their spin in any given direction. So for our three tested directions, each particle would have a value already. They aren't making it up on the spot. Let's say hypothetically our particle's hidden information states up, up, down for particle A and down, down, up for particle B, as B must be opposite. it to A for each of the directions 1, 2 and 3.

Let's pick out a random detector for A. We select Detector 1. Detector 1 tells us that A is spinning up. Now let's select a random detector for particle B. We select 1 there too. This detector gives us a reading of down. 1-1-up-down. We can actually map out all the possible outcomes of this process.

of random selection in the graph. There are nine possible outcomes if you were to only measure from two detectors at a given time. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, and so on. For each of these possible selections, we have fixed hidden variable results that we know already, because we hypothetically define them earlier. Let's fill them in now. Of course, if you detect particles using the same detector on both particles, you'll get a

contrasting result because they're entangled. But we're not interested in these results. Classical physics and quantum physics both agree on this. So let's remove them. What are the odds that two different detectors for particle A and B will see the same result, and what are the odds they'll differ? Remember, quantum physics expected it to be 50-50. Articles are making up their values on the spot, and so it's perfectly random which they'll choose,

as they aren't confined by the opposites rule here. But in this table, classical physics says that contrasting results only happen a third of the time. The other times, they're either both up or both down. If we do this many times, assigning different directions each time, and ignore exceptions, for instance, where this is, spins of the particles are all up, up, up, or down, down, down. Once you crunch the numbers, the important thing to take from all of this is that according to the maths, classical physics predicts a matching outcome 55% of the time, while quantum physics continues to simply predict 50%.

Pretty table be damned. This percentage difference was the key. By quantumly entangling particles and running this test over the very, the number of the test over and over again, you could now see which percentage was correct. And it turned out the winner was quantum physics. Particles were just apparently making up their spin results on the spot, which is spooky. Because not only does that call into question our perceptions of reality itself, but that also means that the moment one particle decided on its spin result, its quantum entangled partner instantly knew that that decision had happened.

You could test both particles at once, no matter the distance, and this same result would come back. Somehow, information had travelled from the one particle to the other in no time at all, far faster than light itself. So already, something strange was going on here. This result disproved Einstein's predictions. and show that some information does seem to go faster than light. But we can take this one step further, and have information going back in time. There is another experiment, our last experiment, known as the delayed choice test. Its primary purpose was to explore the fundamental nature of light,

whether it was a wave or a particle, and to figure out when it decided to be one or the other. Unlike the double-slit experiment, though, this test was more about that last part, trying to identify the moment the waveform collapsed down into something discrete. In the double-slit experiment, light seemed to choose a different path through space, depending on whether it was observed or if it wasn't. In 2006, a number of scientists asked an interesting question. What would happen if you tried to observe the light after it had to pick a path? Consider this experiment.

A single photon is sent into a beam splitter, with a 50-50 chance of either being allowed to carry on its way along path 1 or getting reflected up along path 2. Once on either path, the photon is bounced off mirrors, with both paths reconverging here, where the other beam splitter is inserted. Once again, the photon has a 50-50 chance to go either way, with an even one of the other side. chance of arriving at one of the two detectors. If light were just a particle, sending a single photon into this experiment would give you an even chance of it arriving at one detector or the other.

You'd not be able to tell which way it went, as the two beam splitters make that impossible to know. But you could see where it ended up. However, this does not occur. When the second beam splitter is present, the light produces an interference pattern. indicating that the single photon went down both paths, ultimately bumping into itself before moving on to both detectors. This seems like strong evidence that light is a wave, it certainly behaves like one here,

but what happens if you remove the second beam splitter? Suddenly you know which path the light travel down. If light arrives at the top detector, it must have arrived from path one. If it arrives at the side detector, it must have come along path two. And something about this knowledge spooks the light. It stops going down both paths, and suddenly each photon only arrives at one detector. Here's the question. What happens if you insert the beam splitter after the photon has already started down either

one or both routes? This is why the test is called delayed choice. If you delay choosing how exactly you intend to detect the photon, whether by knowing which part it came down, or making that ambiguous to you, what happens to the light? What happens is a very strange thing. When this experiment was performed, it was done multiple times, with the beam splitter randomly being inserted or not, but always being inserted after the photon had entered one or both paths.

And yet, the results came back unequivocal. If the beam splitter was present, the photon suddenly, and seemingly retroactively, stopped picking a path. If the beam splitter was removed, the photon seemingly knew it would later be detected and picked a specific path to accommodate. Somehow, the beam splitter being added or removed in the future changed what the photon did in the past. So what is happening here?

Is it really true that particles suddenly? somehow saw the future? Did the experiment cause information to be sent back into the past? Or is there some other principle at play here that explains this whole thing, that accounts for the instant transmission of information between quantum particles, and allows it to be perfectly rational that light could travel down one path or both at the same time? Personally, I'm inclined to think that this is more likely. We clearly don't understand what is happening here, but it must be admitted.

If we don't understand what is happening, there's nothing to say that causality isn't being ignored. In some way, maybe on the quantum level, time really is more fluid than it is up here in the larger universe. Maybe space and time simply do not apply down there. And maybe one day, someone will be able to come up with a theory that allows all these strange phenomena to finally make some sense. Until then, we'll just have to keep asking the same question. Can information travel backwards in time? Until then, we'll just have to all agree on one thing. Quantum physics is strange.

Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed this Supercutt, be sure to check out my others in this playlist here. And a big thanks to my patrons and members. If you want your name added to this list too, plus a bunch of other perks, you can support the channel using the links in the description. All the best and see you next time. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals

because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank.