# Can Particles be Quantum Entangled Across Time?

### Summary

TLDR本视频脚本深入探讨了量子力学的基本原理，包括量子物理的概率性质、量子与经典世界之间的神秘联系，以及量子纠缠所带来的非局部特性。这些特性不仅是量子物理学的核心，也是现代科技应用的基础。视频还提出了量子力学可能对理解时空本质的影响，引出了量子力学与广义相对论结合的挑战，以及量子力学在解释宏观现象时的局限性。通过精彩的对话，观众将对量子力学的哲学维度、量子概率波、测量问题，以及量子力学与现实本质的关系有更深入的理解。

### Takeaways

- 📚 牛顿的运动定律在宏观世界中非常成功，但在微观世界（分子、原子和亚原子粒子）中失效，这导致了量子力学的发展。
- 🚀 量子力学的核心特征是概率论，与牛顿决定论的世界观不同，量子力学不预测物体的确切未来状态，而是预测可能性。
- 🌌 爱因斯坦虽然对量子力学的某些非定域性特征持批评态度，但量子力学已被实验以惊人的精度证实，并用于开发惊人技术。
- 🤔 量子力学的某些方面，如量子概率和量子纠缠，对我们的日常经验来说仍然是个谜，科学界仍在探索其对现实本质的意义。
- 🧬 量子纠缠是量子力学中的一种非经典关联，其中两个或多个粒子以一种方式相互关联，以至于一个粒子的量子状态不能独立于其他粒子的状态来描述。
- ⏳ 量子退相干是解释宏观世界中为何不观察到量子效应的一个重要概念，它涉及粒子与其环境的相互作用，从而抑制量子概率的某些方面。
- 🔍 量子力学的解释和实验验证仍在进行中，包括探索量子力学如何从描述宇宙内部的系统扩展到描述整个宇宙。
- 🌐 量子力学可能需要新的科学范式，而量子纠缠可能是理解时空结构的关键，它挑战了我们对经典物理世界的看法。
- ⚙️ 量子计算机的开发依赖于量子比特之间的纠缠状态，这是量子力学非经典关联的一个实际应用。
- 📉 海森堡不确定性原理是量子力学的基本原理之一，表明某些物理量（如位置和动量）不能同时被精确知晓。
- 📈 量子力学的发展和理解对我们未来探索宇宙、开发新技术以及深入理解物理现实具有重要意义。

### Q & A

### 牛顿的运动定律在什么情况下开始失效？

-牛顿的运动定律在20世纪初科学家开始探索分子、原子和亚原子粒子的新领域时开始失效。在这些微观尺度上，牛顿的预测无法描述观测到的数据。

### 量子力学与牛顿力学在描述现实方面有何根本不同？

-量子力学与牛顿力学的根本不同在于量子力学是建立在概率概念上的。在牛顿力学中，给定物体当前的位置和速度，可以通过方程预测其未来的运动。而在量子力学中，虽然我们知道物体当前的状态，但方程提供的是未来可能状态的概率。

### 为什么在日常生活中我们观察不到量子力学的概率性质？

-在日常生活的宏观尺度上，与原子和粒子相比，概率分布被扭曲，使得一个结果几乎成为确定的结果，即牛顿力学的结果。但在考虑更小的领域时，概率分布更广泛，使得牛顿力学的结果只是多种可能性中的一种。

### 爱因斯坦对量子力学的哪些方面持批评态度？

-爱因斯坦对量子力学中的某些方面持批评态度，特别是它对现实的非决定性描述，即宇宙以一种数学上精确的概率游戏演化，这与爱因斯坦的直觉不符。

### 量子力学是否是现实的终极理论，还是仅仅是一个过渡性的理论？

-量子力学目前是描述系统非常精确的理论，但科学家们仍在探索它是否是现实的终极理论，或者它只是一个更基础描述的垫脚石，仍有待发现。

### 量子力学的发展对我们理解物理宇宙有何深远影响？

-量子力学的发展对我们理解物理宇宙有深远的影响，因为它提供了一个与日常经验截然不同的世界描述，这要求我们重新考虑物理现象的本质和现实的性质。

### 量子力学中的双缝实验揭示了什么？

-量子力学中的双缝实验揭示了粒子具有波动性，即粒子可以像波一样干涉，形成特定的干涉图样。这个实验支持了量子力学中物质被描述为概率波的概念。

### 量子纠缠是什么，它为何如此重要？

-量子纠缠是量子力学中的一个现象，其中两个或多个粒子以一种方式相互关联，以至于一个粒子的量子状态不能独立于其他粒子描述。它的重要性在于它挑战了经典物理学中关于局部性的概念，并对我们理解宇宙的基本结构提出了新的问题。

### 量子退相干是什么，它如何解释宏观世界中的确定性结果？

-量子退相干是一个过程，其中量子系统的相干性由于与环境的相互作用而丧失，导致量子概率中的干涉项被抑制。这解释了为什么我们在宏观世界中观察到的是确定性结果，而不是量子力学所描述的概率性。

### 量子力学中的不确定性原理是什么，它对我们理解物理现象有何影响？

-量子力学中的不确定性原理表明，某些物理量（如位置和动量）不能同时被精确知道。这个原理对我们理解物理现象有根本性的影响，因为它表明在量子尺度上，我们无法像在宏观世界中那样精确预测事件。

### 量子力学中的多世界解释是什么，它如何改变我们对现实的看法？

-量子力学中的多世界解释提出，每当一个量子事件发生时，宇宙都会分裂成多个版本，每个可能的事件结果都会在不同的宇宙中实现。这种解释改变了我们对现实的看法，因为它提出现实可能不是单一的，而是由多个并行的宇宙组成。

### Outlines

### 😀 牛顿力学的误导性

第一段落主要讲述了牛顿力学对科学几百年的影响，以及它在20世纪初对分子、原子和亚原子粒子的预测失败。牛顿的运动定律在日常生活中非常准确，但当科学家探索微观世界时，牛顿的预测不再准确。这导致了量子力学的诞生，这是一种基于概率的新理论框架，与牛顿力学的确定性预测不同，量子力学预测的是事物未来状态的概率。爱因斯坦虽然对量子力学持批评态度，但实验已经证明了量子力学的惊人精确度，并且科学家们利用它开发出了令人惊叹的技术。

### 🧐 量子力学对现实的挑战

第二段落探讨了量子力学对人类理解物理宇宙带来的挑战，特别是它与我们的日常经验大相径庭。讨论了量子力学的哲学维度，包括量子概率波和测量问题。强调了物理学家寻求更深层次解释的愿望，即便数学模型能够描述数据，但如果不能提供对宇宙行为的洞察，那么它就没有解释宇宙的本质。

### 📚 量子力学的现状与挑战

第三段落讨论了量子力学目前的发展现状和面临的挑战。提到了量子力学的局限性，尤其是在普朗克尺度上，广义相对论与量子场论之间的不协调。强调了哲学家和物理学家之间的合作，以及量子力学中尚未解决的谜题，例如量子概率是否是现实的内在特征，以及量子力学如何从宇宙内部系统的描述扩展到整个宇宙。

### 🤔 量子力学的解释难题

第四段落深入探讨了量子力学的解释问题，包括量子退相干和量子纠缠。解释了为什么在宏观层面上我们看到的是确定的结果，而在微观层面上量子力学表现出其概率性。量子退相干是解释宏观世界中量子力学奇异性不显现的一种方式。同时，段落还提到了量子计算的希望和挑战，即如何保持量子比特的纠缠状态，以避免退相干。

### 🔬 量子纠缠的历史与发展

第五段落讨论了量子纠缠的历史和概念发展，从1935年薛定谔首次命名开始，到爱因斯坦、波多尔斯基和罗森（EPR）的论文，以及量子纠缠在空间和时间上的性质。强调了量子纠缠的非经典关联，以及它如何挑战我们对物理现实的传统理解。

### 🌌 量子纠缠与时空的本质

第六段落进一步探讨了量子纠缠，包括它在时空中的作用和可能的含义。讨论了量子纠缠可能指示时空本身的量子性质，以及这可能如何影响我们对时空结构的理解。还提到了量子纠缠实验，如希伯来大学在2012-2013年进行的纠缠交换实验，展示了即使在不同时间存在的粒子之间也可以存在纠缠关系。

### 🎓 量子物理的现实与未来

第七段落总结了量子物理的基础知识，包括量子物理的概率性质、从量子力学到经典世界的转变，以及量子纠缠的非局域性质。强调了量子纠缠可能是时空结构的关键，并且可能是物理学其他领域所建议的时空纠缠性质的证据。最后，鼓励听众继续探索量子现实系列的下一次对话，其中将讨论量子力学的多世界解释等主题。

### Mindmap

### Keywords

### 💡牛顿运动定律

### 💡量子力学

### 💡概率

### 💡薛定谔的猫

### 💡双缝实验

### 💡量子纠缠

### 💡量子退相干

### 💡量子计算

### 💡贝尔不等式

### 💡量子引力

### 💡多世界解释

### Highlights

艾萨克·牛顿的洞察为科学设定了数百年的进程，但他的见解在某种程度上也极具误导性。

牛顿的运动定律在日常生活中我们所经历的事物运动中得到了体现，它们定义了物体的位置和速度。

牛顿的算法能够预测现实如何展开，正确预测了月球、行星的位置以及抛出的球的落点。

20世纪初，科学家开始探索分子、原子和亚原子粒子的新领域，牛顿的预测未能描述数据。

量子力学的发现和发展是20世纪20年代晚期科学家们创造的新范式，其核心是概率概念。

量子力学与牛顿力学不同，它不是预测事物将如何发展，而是描述事物发展的概率。

量子力学表明，宇宙以一种数学精确的概率游戏演化，爱因斯坦对此感到不满。

量子概率是现实的一个基本特征，而不是方法的局限。

量子力学在宏观层面上，与我们的直觉和日常经验相符，但在微观层面上，概率分布更广泛。

量子力学的许多问题至今仍未解决，例如量子概率是否是现实的内在特征，或者量子力学是否只是更基本描述的垫脚石。

量子力学是对我们对物理宇宙理解的最深刻冲击，因为它描述的世界与我们的日常生活经验截然不同。

量子力学的哲学维度，包括量子概率波和测量问题，是物理学家探索的重点。

量子力学的局限性和它如何映射到现实世界是当前物理学和哲学研究的热点。

量子力学的100周年纪念在2025年，至今仍存在关于数学如何映射到世界的难题。

量子力学与广义相对论在普朗克尺度上的不兼容性，是当前理论物理学中一个重要的问题。

量子纠缠是量子力学中一个非直观的特性，它表明即使两个系统不再相互作用，它们也不能独立于对方被描述。

量子纠缠可能暗示着时空本身的量子性质，包括时空的量子纠缠关系。

量子力学的非定域性质，即量子纠缠的粒子即使在空间上相隔很远，也能瞬间影响彼此的状态。

量子力学的实验验证了其惊人的精确度，并且科学家已经利用它发展出了令人惊叹的技术。

### Transcripts

[Music]

[Applause]

Isaac Newton's insights set the course

of science for hundreds of years but

there's a sense in which Newton's

insights were also deeply misleading

Newton's famous Laws of Motion codify

what we all experience in everyday life

things move and as they do they sweep

out trajectories defined by position

where something is and velocity how fast

and in what direction Something is

moving indeed reality in this framing

comprises these very trajectories by

providing equations to delineate these

trajectories how the position and

velocity of an object change over time

Newton provided an algorithm for

predicting how reality

unfolds and the algorithm Works Newton's

Laws correctly predict where the moon

should be at any moment where the planet

should be at any moment where a ball

should land when

thrown but in the early part of the 20th

century as scientists began to probe the

newly accessible realm of molecules

atoms and subatomic particles newtonium

predictions failed to describe the data

and this failure was not one of f detail

that might suggest a simple refinement

to Newton's equations the failure was

epic suggesting to some that an entirely

new paradigm might be

required that intuition proved

correct and remarkably by the late 1920s

a single generation of scientists

produced that new paradigm with the

discovery and development of quantum

mechanics

an essential feature of the quantum

Paradigm is that the theory is built

around the concept of

probability that is unlike the Newtonian

picture in which we specify how things

are now and the equations predict how

they will be later on in the quantum

picture we specify how things are now

but the equations do something entirely

different they dictate the probability

of how things will be later on and

according to our best understanding the

Reliance and probability is not a

limitation of the approach but rather is

a fundamental feature of

reality the universe in a manner that

Einstein found

unpalatable evolves according to a

mathematically precise game of

chance so why don't we see these

probabilities in the course of everyday

life well the large scales of the

everyday compared to atams and particles

skew the probabilities making one

outcome the almost certain outcome and

that outcome is indeed the Newtonian

outcome but as we consider smaller

Realms the probabilities spread more

broadly rendering the Newtonian outcome

just one among many possibilities whose

likelihoods are governed by the

equations of quantum

mechanics Einstein may have been the

most vocal critic of this direction

physics had taken but even ardin

proponents have struggled to grasp what

quantum mechanics really means for the

nature of reality although experiment

has confirmed quantum mechanics to

astounding precision and scientists have

used it to develop stunning

Technologies many of those questions are

still with us today are quantum

probabilities an intrinsic feature of

reality or an artifact of the quantum

for

formalism how does the world transition

from the haze of possibilities Allowed

by the quantum description to the single

definite reality of common

experience how do we extend quantum

mechanics from description of systems

within the universe to the universe as a

whole is quantum mechanics The Rock

Bottom theory of reality or will it

prove a mere stepping stone to a more

fundamental description still awaiting

discovery

as WE peer into the future insight into

these questions will be essential for

navigating the quantum

Universe good

afternoon thank

you all right so our our subject today

is quantum mechanics and arguably

Quantom mechanics is really the most

profound disruption to our understanding

of the physical universe that our

species has ever

encountered and part of the reason for

that is the description of the world as

we just saw in the piece and as we will

explore here today the description of

the world is so different from our

everyday experience and in a sense

perhaps we should not be surprised by

that because after all our

minds evolved in order that we could

survive and survival and the intuition

that allows us to survive it does not

need to know about the behavior of

electrons and atoms and subatomic

particles this juncture between how we

experience the world and how we

understand the world through observation

and experiment will really be what will

guide our discussion here today we've

got a number of wonderful scientists to

help us think through some of the key

issues we have Elise Kow we have Sean

Carol we have Carla relli and let us now

turn to the first of those

conversations with Elise koll who is an

associate professor of philosophy at the

City University graduate Center and City

College her research explores the

philosophical dimensions of quantum

mechanics caal models as well as

relativistic and temporal

entanglement thank you

so just just to jump right inise I think

all of us are familiar that you know

prior to say

1900 we had a pretty good understanding

of physics right through the ideas of of

Newton and Maxwell and so forth and then

it began to to crumble right and as it

began to crumble a new paradigm came on

the scene

I want to explore that Paradigm but

you've written on the history of the

subject and I think many people perhaps

don't fully appreciate how much of a

psychological and emotional upheaval

this time was for the discovers of these

ideas can you just give us a sense of

what it was like sure um well I can try

I've felt that sort of cognitive

dissonance myself so there's some

first-person experience but um yeah

there was a famous speech given by Sir

Arthur Edington or S not Edington uh

Lord Kelvin thank you Lord Kelvin um one

of the guys in the history of physics

they're all the same yes he said there

were just a few clouds on the horizon

and we've nearly solved it all you know

we have boltzman manian statistical

mechanics we have Newtonian mechanics um

we've we've got um Maxwell's

electromagnetism uh there's just a few

issues and one of those issues was black

body radiation and that's just basically

if you've seen in an oven um whe there

was a known correlation between the

color or the heat inside of it and um

and how it radiated back out and there

was no good model for it and so uh plank

uh sort of looked at the the uh

empirical data and said I don't quite

know what the underlying story is here

yet but I can Cobble together a

mathematical structure I composite uh

this idea that light acts as though

quantized um quantized little little

pieces in bits yeah not just a wave as

it had been thought um and this captured

you know the empirical data correctly

but plank hated it because he said I

don't know what my own math really means

and it took until Einstein in 1905 and

then in 1909 uh to sort of provide that

background story and Einstein wasn't

happy with the background story either

because it required two terms in the

equation to solve black body reation one

of the terms was wav like continuous the

other term had H Plank's constant it was

quantized it was about bits and there

they were sitting together in this

equation uh and that's how we know it to

be today now is there something odd

about the idea of not being happy with

the mathematics after all if the

mathematics describes the data and

that's ultimately what physics is meant

to do why why would someone be unhappy

with it oh because I think uh we're

interested in the deeper explanations

right um or at least that's what

physicists tend to be drawn to uh and

mathematical mapping like capturing of

the phenomena is a part of it surely um

but how that mathematics is supposed to

lend insight into the real behavior of

things um if that's missing then you've

solved a puzzle but you haven't

explained the nature of the universe and

that's sort of the driving uh the

driving motivation I think for many of

these and and we'll get into the details

of you know Quantum probability waves

and issues like the measurement problem

just a moment but given that well

articulated view of what physicists are

trying to do where would you say we are

right now today with quantum

mechanics uh that's a great and large

question uh so I mean I'm primarily a

philosopher so I'm I I get sort of this

perspective uh so don't take it

personally if I say something you don't

like um but I think it's actually a

really exciting time because we're

seeing exactly the limitations of models

we've been working with for nearly a

century now I mean the 100th anniversary

of quantum mechanics is in

2025 um and there's still puzzles

enduring puzzles about what uh how the

mathematics really maps onto the world

and how to explain a lot of the data we

have uh and this gets even more uh

apparent when we get to the plank scale

the very small where our very well-

confirmed theory of general relativity

no longer sits well with our very wellc

confirmed theory of uh Quantum fields

and so on uh and so and the plank scale

just to give you people a sense of how

small that is 10 Theus 33 cm is a number

that we often kick around so it's

fantastically small yeah extraordinarily

small um but I don't know it keeps me

awake at night to think that these two

theories don't don't play well at that

level um but it's it's an exciting time

as a philosopher with with physics

training

because there's more engagement between

philosophers and physicists because

we're talking about theories of quantum

gravity and theories of quantum field

theories and so on that uh not every

piece of them is empirically uh testable

or at least we haven't figured out how

or maybe maybe in principle testable so

some of this is questions of how

brilliant are engineering how clever we

can get about shielding our systems from

external fields and so on um but part of

it is just asking can we have a broader

notion of what evidence we might look

for can we think about for instance

whether there are systems we understand

very well in a different realm of

physics like hydrodynamics or something

that might yield insights into how

Quantum gravitational systems might work

but how do you an analyze the science of

a analogy right how do you know when the

explanation from this one field that's

well known whether it's really saying

something about this other unknown uh

bit of the world or whether it's just

biasing the way you're describing the

narrative that you're telling about the

world and it can go both ways sure so so

getting in a little bit to the details

in the background in the Newtonian

picture if I tell you the initial

conditions you know the the speed and

the location from which a ball say is

thrown the velocity to be more precise

Newton tells us where it will land and

quantum mechanics comes along and says

that's not the case right so in quantum

mechanics there are many locations where

say an electron could land given the

same initial conditions and that leads

to this idea of a probabilistic

description of the world where you don't

say where it's going to land you just

give the probabilities of where it might

be so one way that that scientists were

taken to this picture of matter is of

course with the famous double slit

experiment where you know you're firing

particles at a barrier with two slits

you'd think that the particles would

land on the detector screen in two lines

that are aligned with the two openings

but when you actually do the experiment

of course as we now know for over a

hundred years you don't find just two

lines on the detector screen in fact you

find many lines many bands in a very

particular pattern which scientists were

able to explain by thinking of particles

as waves and as the waves hit the two

openings and they carry on they

crisscross and they interfere with each

other and through that interference we

get a pattern just as in the data if we

interpret of course the waves as waves

of probability where the wave is Big

many of the particles will land where

the wave is small very few will land so

this this now takes us to this this new

paradigm that particles matter should be

described as undula

waves of

probability did it take people a long

time to accept that change because I

would consider that I mean we'll talk

about other things but that's like the

dominant new idea that comes into the

story well Brian I'd argue that there

are many people who still haven't

accepted that what we what quantum

mechanics are saying is that we have a

an irrevocably probabilistic Universe um

and so there are many interpretations

that are offered of this mechanics there

are supposed was to fill this Gap

explain why it is that the formalism

that's sort of shared amongst the

interpretations the sort of core bit of

explanatory work maybe what you read in

your quantum mechanics textbooks which

you all have at home and we'll study

later this evening right um but H the

story there is that yeah we get we get

we have the born rule which is this rule

that tells us how what sort of

probability to expect which outcomes

yeah but no thoroughgoing causal story

of how we get from point A to exactly

point B A well- Defined localized spot

or measurement and that that that story

that you're referring to would start

with this new

probabilistic idea electron 30% here 22%

there 19% there and so forth go from

that which we don't experience somehow

transitioning to when we measure the

electron we find it at one location it's

a kind of schematic representation where

the height of this wave is meant to

indicate you know the likelihood of the

particle being at one location or

another that's the story that we don't

experience but then we go and measure

that electron let's just do it together

3 2 1 measure that electron oo wow that

felt very powerful to do that but now

the probability has spiked because now

we've measured the electron we know it's

at that particular location how in the

world do we go from this weird

probabilistic description

upon measurement to a definite outcome

well I uh that is a deeply unfair

question he's asking me to resolve the

interpretation problem for you um and

you know or even just tell us why it's

so hard yeah well um so first of all I

just want to clarify something a little

bit I mean it's true that at the

macroscopic level of cables and chairs

and other people we do see what look to

be definite outcomes but if you're doing

measurements on smaller systems you do

you can measure what are called

interference terms and we call those

sort of the residue of the wav like

features of those systems uh and so

they're there and we're getting better

at testing like keeping interference

terms coherent to higher and higher

levels so the idea is if we had really

brilliant uh engineers and really good

shielding we could send an elephant

through a double slit experiment and see

the elephant sort of give us a a

interference pattern on screen um but