Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

由 AI 自動生成
  • Henry:  If you have polarized sunglasses, you have a quantum measurement device.

    亨利:如果你有偏光的太陽鏡,你就有一個量子測量裝置。

  • Grant: Each of these pieces of glass is what's called a "polarizing filter", which means

    格蘭特。這些玻璃中的每一塊都是所謂的 "偏振濾鏡",這意味著

  • when a photon of light reaches the glass, it either passes through, or it doesn't.

    當一個光子到達玻璃時,它要麼通過,要麼不通過。

  • And whether or not it passes through is effectively a measurement of whether that photon is polarized

    而它是否通過,實際上是對該光子是否被偏振的一種測量

  • in a given direction.

    在一個特定的方向上。

  • Henry:  Try this: Find yourself several sets of polarized sunglasses.

    亨利:試試這個。給自己找幾套偏光太陽鏡。

  • Look through one set of sunglasses at some light source, like a lamp, then hold a second

    通過一副太陽鏡看一些光源,如燈,然後拿著第二副太陽鏡看。

  • polarizing filter, between you and the light.

    在你和光線之間有一個偏振鏡。

  • As you rotate that second filter, the lamp will look lighter and darker.

    當你旋轉第二個過濾器時,燈看起來會變亮和變暗。

  • It should look darkest when the second filter is oriented 90 degrees off from the first.

    當第二個濾鏡的方向與第一個濾鏡偏離90度時,它應該看起來最暗。

  • What you're observing is that the photons with polarization that allows them to pass

    你所觀察到的是,具有偏振性的光子使它們能夠通過

  • through a filter along one axis have a much lower probability of passing through a second

    濾光片沿一個軸線通過的概率要低得多,因為它可以通過第二個軸線。

  • filter along a perpendicular axisin principle 0%.

    沿著垂直軸線的過濾器 - 原則上是0%。

  • Grant: Here's where things get quantum-ly bizarre.

    格蘭特。這裡是事情變得量子化的奇怪之處。

  • All these filters do is remove lighttheyfilterit out.

    這些過濾器所做的就是去除光線--它們 "過濾 "了光線。

  • But if you take a third filter, orient it 45 degrees off from the first filter, and

    但是,如果你拿著第三個過濾器,把它的方向與第一個過濾器偏離45度,並且

  • put it between the two, the lamp will actually look brighter.

    把它放在兩者之間,燈實際上會看起來更亮。

  • This is not the middle filter generating more lightsomehow introducing another filter

    這不是中間的過濾器產生更多的光--以某種方式引入另一個過濾器

  • actually lets more light through.

    實際上是讓更多的光線通過。

  • With perfect filters, if you keep adding more and more in between at in-between angles,

    有了完美的濾鏡,如果你在中間的角度不斷添加更多的東西。

  • this trend continues – more light!

    這一趨勢仍在繼續--更多的光!

  • Henry:  This feels super weird.

    亨利:這感覺超級奇怪。

  • But it's not just weird that more light comes through; when you dig in quantitatively

    但是,更多的光亮出現並不只是奇怪;當你從數量上進行挖掘時

  • to exactly how much more comes through, the numbers don't just seem too high, they seem

    確切地說,還有多少是通過的,這些數字不只是看起來太高,它們似乎是

  • impossibly high.

    不可能的高。

  • And when we tug at this thread, it leads to an experiment a little more sophisticated

    而當我們拽住這根線時,就會引出一個更復雜的實驗

  • than this sunglasses demo that forces us to question some very basic assumptions we have

    比起這個太陽鏡演示,它迫使我們質疑一些非常基本的假設,我們有

  • about the way the universe workslike, that the results of experiments describe properties

    關於宇宙的運作方式--比如,實驗的結果描述的屬性是什麼?

  • of the thing you're experimenting on, and that cause and effect don't travel faster

    實驗的東西,而且因果關係的傳播速度並不快。

  • than the speed of light.

    比光速更快。

  • Grant:  Where we're headed is Bell's theorem: one of the most thought-provoking discoveries

    格蘭特。 我們的方向是貝爾定理:最發人深省的發現之一

  • in modern physics.

    在現代物理學中。

  • To appreciate it, it's worth understanding a little of the math used to represent quantum

    為了欣賞它,值得了解一點用來表示量子的數學。

  • states, like the polarization of a photon.

    狀態,如光子的偏振。

  • We actually made a second video showing more of the details for how this works, which

    實際上,我們製作了第二個視頻,展示了更多關於如何工作的細節,其中包括

  • you can find on 3blue1brown, but for now let's just hit the main points.

    你可以在3blue1brown上找到,但現在我們只說說主要內容。

  • First, photons are waves in a thing called the electromagnetic field, and polarization

    首先,光子是一種叫做電磁場的東西中的波,而偏振

  • just means the direction in which that wave is wiggling.

    只是指該波擺動的方向。

  • Grant: Polarizing filters absorb this wiggling energy in one direction, so the wave coming

    格蘭特。偏振濾光片在一個方向上吸收了這種擺動的能量,是以,波的到來

  • out the other side is wiggling purely in the direction perpendicular to the one where energy

    在另一邊純粹是在垂直於能量的方向上搖擺。

  • absorption is happening.

    吸收正在發生。

  • But unlike a water or sound wave, photons are quantum objects, and as such they either

    但與水或聲波不同,光子是量子物體,是以它們要麼是

  • pass through a polarizer completely, or not at all, and this is apparently probabilistic,

    完全通過偏振片,或根本不通過,這顯然是概率問題。

  • like how we don't know whether or not Schrodinger's Cat will be alive or dead until we look in

    就像我們不知道薛定諤的貓會不會活著或死了,直到我們看一看

  • the box.

    盒子裡。

  • Henry: For anyone uncomfortable with the nondeterminism of quantum mechanics, it's tempting to imagine

    亨利。對於任何對量子力學的非確定性感到不舒服的人來說,都很容易想象到

  • that a probabilistic event like this might have some deeper cause that we just don't

    像這樣的概率事件可能有一些更深層次的原因,只是我們不知道。

  • know yet.

    還不知道。

  • That there is somehidden variabledescribing the photon's state that would

    有一些描述光子狀態的 "隱性變量",它將

  • tell us with certainty whether it should pass through a given filter or not, and maybe that

    確切地告訴我們,它是否應該通過一個特定的過濾器,也許這

  • variable is just too subtle for us to probe without deeper theories and better measuring

    如果沒有更深入的理論和更好的測量,我們就無法探究這個變量。

  • devices.

    設備。

  • Or maybe it's somehow fundamentally unknowable, but still there.

    或者,也許它在某種程度上是根本不可知的,但仍然存在。

  • Henry:  The possibility of such a hidden variable seems beyond the scope of experiment.

    亨利:這種隱藏變量的可能性似乎超出了實驗的範圍。

  • I mean, what measurements could possibly probe at a deeper explanation that might or

    我的意思是,有什麼測量方法可以探測到更深層次的解釋,可能或

  • might not exist?

    可能不存在?

  • And yet, we can do just that.

    然而,我們可以做到這一點。

  • Grant:...With sunglasses and polarization of light.

    格蘭特:......用太陽鏡和偏振光。

  • Grant: Let's lay down some numbers here.

    格蘭特。讓我們在這裡列出一些數字。

  • When light passes through a polarizing filter oriented vertically, then comes to another

    當光線通過一個垂直方向的偏振濾光片,然後來到另一個

  • polarizing filter oriented the same way, experiments show that it's essentially guaranteed to

    偏振濾光片的方向相同,實驗表明,它基本上可以保證

  • make it through the second filter.

    使其通過第二個過濾器。

  • If that second filter is tilted 90 degrees from the first, then each photon has a 0%

    如果第二個過濾器與第一個過濾器傾斜90度,那麼每個光子有0%的

  • chance of passing through.

    通過的機會。

  • And at 45 degrees, there's a 50/50 chance.

    而在45度,有50/50的機會。

  • Henry: What's more, these probabilities seem to only depend on the angle between the

    亨利:更重要的是,這些概率似乎只取決於與 "我 "之間的角度。

  • two filters in question, and nothing else that happened to the photon before, including

    這兩個濾波器,而之前發生在光子身上的其他事情,包括

  • potentially having passed through a different filter.

    可能是通過了不同的過濾器。

  • Grant: But the real numerical weirdness happens with filters oriented less than 45° apart.

    格蘭特。但真正的數字怪異現象發生在濾光片的方向相距小於45°的情況下。

  • For example, at 22.5 degrees, any photon which passes through the first filter has an 85%

    例如,在22.5度時,任何通過第一個過濾器的光子都有85%的

  • chance of passing through the second filter.

    有機會通過第二個過濾器。

  • To see where all these numbers come from, by the way, check out the second video.

    順便看看所有這些數字是怎麼來的,請看第二個視頻。

  • Henry: What's strange about that last number is that you might expect it to be more like

    亨利:最後一個數字的奇怪之處在於,你可能期望它更像是

  • halfway between 50% and 100% since 22.5° is halfway betweenand 45° – but it's

    由於22.5°是0°和45°之間的一半,所以它是50%和100%之間的一半。

  • significantly higher.

    顯著提高。

  • Henry: To see concretely how strange this is, let's look at a particular arrangement

    亨利:為了具體瞭解這一點有多奇怪,讓我們看看一個特殊的安排

  • of our three filters:  A, oriented vertically, B, oriented 22.5 degrees from vertical, and

    我們的三個過濾器。 A,垂直方向,B,與垂直方向成22.5度,和

  • C, oriented 45 degrees from vertical.

    C,方向與垂直方向成45度。

  • We're going to compare just how many photons get blocked when B isn't there with how

    我們要比較的是,當B不存在時,有多少光子被阻擋,有多少光子被阻擋。

  • many get blocked when B is there.

    當B在那裡時,許多人被阻擋。

  • When B is not there, half of those passing through A get blocked at C.  That is, filter

    當B不存在時,一半通過A的人在C處被阻擋。

  • C makes the lamp look half as bright as it would with just filter A.

    C使燈看起來比只用濾鏡A時的亮度低一半。

  • Henry: But once you insert B, like we said, 85% of those passing through A pass through

    亨利:但是一旦你插入B,就像我們說的那樣,85%的通過A的人要通過

  • B, which means 15% are blocked at B.  And 15% of those that pass through B are blocked

    B,這意味著15%的人在B處被阻擋,而通過B的人中有15%被阻擋了

  • at C. But how on earth does blocking 15% twice add up to the 50% blocked if B isn't there?

    但是,如果B不在那裡,兩次封鎖的15%究竟是如何增加到封鎖的50%的?

  • Well, it doesn't, which is why the lamp looks brighter when you insert filter B, but

    嗯,不是的,這就是為什麼當你插入過濾器B時,燈看起來更亮,但

  • it really makes you wonder how the universe is deciding which photons to let through and

    這真的讓你想知道宇宙是如何決定讓哪些光子通過和

  • which ones to block.

    哪些是要阻止的。

  • Grant: In fact, these numbers suggest that it's impossible for there to be some hidden

    格蘭特。事實上,這些數字表明,不可能存在一些隱藏的

  • variable determining each photon's state with respect to each filter.

    變量確定每個光子相對於每個過濾器的狀態。

  • That is, if each one has some definite answers to the three questionsWould it pass through

    也就是說,如果每個人都對 "會不會通過 "這三個問題有一些明確的答案

  • A”, “Would it pass through B” andWould it pass through C”, even before those measurements

    A"、"會不會通過B "和 "會不會通過C",即使在這些測量之前

  • are made.

    做出。

  • Grant: We'll do a proof by contradiction, where we imagine 100 photons who do have some

    格蘭特。我們將做一個矛盾證明,我們想象100個光子,他們確實有一些

  • hidden variable which, through whatever crazy underlying mechanism you might imagine, determines

    隱性變量,通過你可能想象的任何瘋狂的基本機制,決定了

  • their answers to these questions.

    他們對這些問題的回答。

  • And let's say all of these will definitely pass through A, which I'll show by putting

    讓我們假設所有這些都將肯定通過A,我將通過把

  • all 100 inside this circle representing photons that pass through A.

    這個圓圈內的所有100個代表通過A的光子。

  • Grant: To produce the results we see in experiments, about 85 of these photons would have to have

    格蘭特。為了產生我們在實驗中看到的結果,這些光子中約有85個必須有

  • a hidden variable determining that they pass through B, so let's put 85 of these guys

    一個決定他們通過B的隱藏變量,所以讓我們把這些人中的85人

  • in the intersection of A and B, leaving 15 in this crescent moon section representing

    在A和B的交匯處,在這個新月部分留下15個代表

  • photons that pass A but not B. Similarly, among those 85 that would pass through B,

    同樣地,在那些會通過B的85個光子中,有多少個會通過A,而不是B。

  • about 15% would get blocked by C, which is represented in this little section inside

    大約15%會被C擋住,這在這個小部分中體現出來。

  • the A and B circles, but outside the C circle.

    在A和B圈內,但在C圈外。

  • So the actual number whose hidden variable has them passing through both A and B but

    是以,實際的數字,其隱藏變量有他們通過A和B,但

  • not C is certainly no more than 15.

    不是C肯定不超過15。

  • Grant: But think of what Henry was just saying, what was weird was that when you remove filter

    格蘭特。但想想亨利剛才說的,奇怪的是,當你去掉過濾器時

  • B, never asking the photons what they think about 22.5 degree angles, the number that

    B,從不問光子對22.5度角的看法,這個數字是

  • get blocked at C seems much too high.

    被擋在C位似乎太高了。

  • So look back at our Venn diagram, what does it mean if a photon has some hidden variable

    所以回頭看看我們的維恩圖,如果一個光子有一些隱藏的變量,這意味著什麼?

  • determining that it passes A but is blocked at C?

    確定它通過A但在C處被阻擋?

  • It means it's somewhere in this crescent moon region inside circle A and outside circle

    這意味著它是在這個月牙區域的某處,在圓圈A內,在圓圈外

  • C.

    C.

  • Grant: Now, experiments show that a full 50 of these 100 photons that pass through A should

    格蘭特。現在,實驗表明,這100個通過A的光子中,有整整50個應該是

  • get blocked at C, but if we take into account how these photons would behave with B there,

    在C處被阻擋,但如果我們考慮到這些光子在B處會有什麼表現。

  • that seems impossible.

    這似乎是不可能的。

  • Either those photons would have passed through B, meaning they're somewhere in this region

    要麼這些光子已經通過了B,意味著它們在這個區域的某個地方

  • we talked about of passing both A and B but getting blocked at C, which includes fewer

    我們談到的A和B都通過了,但在C處受阻,其中包括較少的

  • than 15 photons.

    超過15個光子。

  • Or they would have been blocked by B, which puts them in a subset of this other crescent

    或者他們會被B所阻擋,這使他們處於這個其他新月形的子集之中

  • moon region representing those passing A and getting blocked at B, which has 15 photons.

    月亮區域代表那些通過A並在B處被阻擋的光子,它有15個光子。

  • So the number passing A and getting blocked at C should be strictly smaller than 15 +

    是以,通過A並在C處受阻的數量應該嚴格小於15+。

  • 15...but at the same time it's supposed to be 50?

    15...但同時又應該是50?

  • How does that work?

    這怎麼能行呢?

  • Grant: Remember, that number 50 is coming from the case where the photon is never measured

    格蘭特。記住,這個數字50來自於光子從未被測量的情況。

  • at B, and all we're doing is asking what would have happened if it was measured at

    而我們所做的是問,如果在B處測量,會發生什麼?

  • B, assuming that it has some definite state even when we don't make the measurement,

    B,假設即使我們不進行測量,它也有一些確定的狀態。

  • and that gives this numerical contradiction.

    而這就給出了這個數字上的矛盾。

  • Grant: For comparison, think of any other, non-quantum questions you might ask.

    格蘭特。作為比較,想想你可能會問的任何其他非量子問題。

  • Like, take a hundred people, and ask them if they like minutephysics, if they have a

    比如,找一百個人,問他們是否喜歡微小的物理學,是否有

  • beard, and if they wear glasses.

    鬍子,以及他們是否戴眼鏡。

  • Well, obviously everyone likes minutephysics.

    嗯,顯然每個人都喜歡分鐘物理學。

  • Then among those, take the number that don't have beards, plus the number who do have a

    然後在這些人中,取沒有鬍子的人數,加上有鬍子的人數。

  • beard but not glasses.

    有鬍子但不戴眼鏡。

  • That should greater than or equal to the number who don't have glasses.

    這應該大於或等於不戴眼鏡的人數。

  • I mean, one is a superset of the other.

    我的意思是,一個是另一個的超集。

  • But as absurdly reasonable as that is, some questions about quantum states seem to violate

    但是,儘管這很荒謬地合理,但一些關於量子態的問題似乎違反了

  • this inequality, which contradicts the premise that these questions could have definite answers,

    這種不平等,這與這些問題可能有明確答案的前提相矛盾。

  • right?

    對嗎?

  • Henry:  Well...Unfortunately, there's a hole in that argument.

    亨利:嗯......不幸的是,這種說法有一個漏洞。

  • Drawing those Venn diagrams assumes that the answer to each question is static and

    繪製這些維恩圖時,假定每個問題的答案都是靜態的,並且

  • unchanging.

    不變的。

  • But what if the act of passing through one filter changes how the photon will later interact

    但是,如果通過一個過濾器的行為改變了光子以後的互動方式呢?

  • with other filters?

    與其他過濾器?

  • Then you could easily explain the results of the experiment, so we haven't proved

    那麼你可以很容易地解釋實驗的結果,所以我們還沒有證明

  • hidden variable theories are impossible; just that any hidden variable theory would have

    隱性變量理論是不可能的;只是任何隱性變量理論都會有

  • to have the interaction of the particle with one filter affect the interaction of the particle

    讓粒子與一個過濾器的相互作用影響粒子的相互作用

  • with other filters.

    與其他過濾器。

  • Henry:  We can, however, rig up an experiment where the interactions cannot affect each

    然而,我們可以建立一個實驗,在這個實驗中,相互作用不能影響彼此。

  • other without faster than light communication, but where the same impossible numerical weirdness

    在沒有比光速更快的通信的情況下,另一個人也可以在這裡進行通信,但同樣不可能的數字怪異現象

  • persists.

    持續存在。

  • The key is to make photons pass not through filters at different points in time, but at

    關鍵是要使光子不是在不同的時間點通過過濾器,而是在

  • different points in space at the same time.

    在同一時間,空間的不同點。

  • And for this, you need entanglement.

    而為此,你需要糾纏。

  • Henry: For this video, what we'll mean when we say two photons are "entangled" is that

    亨利。在這段視頻中,當我們說兩個光子被 "糾纏 "時,我們的意思是

  • if you were to pass each one of them through filters oriented the same way, either both

    如果你以同樣的方式將它們每個都通過過濾器,那麼,要麼都是

  • pass through, or both get blocked.

    通過,或者兩者都被擋住了。

  • That is, they behave the same way when measured along the same axis.

    也就是說,沿同一軸線測量時,它們的行為是相同的。

  • And this correlated behavior persists no matter how far away the photons and filters are from

    而且這種相關的行為持續存在,無論光子和過濾器離我們有多遠

  • each other, even if there's no way for one photon to influence the other.

    互相影響,即使一個光子沒有辦法影響另一個光子。

  • Unless, somehow, it did so faster than the speed of light.

    除非,以某種方式,它的速度超過了光速。

  • But that would be crazy.

    但那會很瘋狂。

  • Grant:  So now here's what you do for the entangled version of our photon-filter experiment.

    格蘭特。 所以現在你要做的是我們的光子過濾器實驗的糾纏版本。

  • Instead of sending one photon through multiple polarizing filters, you'll send entangled

    與其將一個光子送過多個偏振濾鏡,不如將糾纏的

  • pairs of photons to two far away locations, and simultaneously at each location, randomly

    將成對的光子送到兩個遙遠的地方,並同時在每個地方隨機地

  • choose one filter to put in the path of that photon.

    選擇一個過濾器放在該光子的路徑上。

  • Doing this many times, you'll collect a lot of data about how often both photons in

    這樣做了很多次,你會收集到很多數據,比如說,這兩個光子的頻率是多少?

  • an entangled pair pass through the different combinations of filters.

    糾纏的一對通過不同組合的過濾器。

  • Henry:  But the thing is, you still see all the same numbers as before.

    亨利:但問題是,你仍然看到所有和以前一樣的數字。

  • When you use filter A at one site and filter B at the other, among all those that pass

    當你在一個站點使用過濾器A,在另一個站點使用過濾器B時,在所有通過的

  • through filter A, about 15% have an entangled partner that gets blocked at B.  Likewise,

    同樣,在通過過濾器A時,大約15%的人有一個糾纏的夥伴,在B處被阻斷。

  • if they're set to B and C, about 15% of those that do pass through B have an entangled

    如果它們被設置為B和C,那麼,在通過B的人中,大約有15%的人有一個糾纏的

  • partner that gets blocked by C.  And with settings A and C, half of those that through

    而在設置A和C的情況下,有一半的人通過了A和C。

  • A get blocked at C.

    A在C處受阻。

  • Grant: Again, if you think carefully about these numbers, they seem to contradict the

    格蘭特。同樣,如果你仔細思考這些數字,它們似乎與之相矛盾。

  • idea that there can be some hidden variable determining the photon's states.

    認為可以有一些隱藏的變量決定光子的狀態。

  • Here, draw the same Venn Diagram as before, which assumes that each photon actually does

    在此,請畫出與之前相同的維恩圖,其中假設每個光子實際上是

  • have some definite answers to the questionsWould it pass through A”, “Would it

    對 "它是否會通過A"、"它是否會通過B"、"它是否會通過C "等問題有一些明確的答案。

  • pass through B” andWould it pass through C”.

    通過B "和 "會不會通過C"。

  • Grant: If, as Henry said, 15% of those that pass through A get blocked at B, we should

    格蘭特。如果像亨利說的那樣,通過A的人中有15%在B處被阻擋,那麼我們應該

  • nudge these circles a bit so that only 15% of the area of circle A is outside circle

    把這些圓推一下,使圓A的面積只有15%在圓外。

  • B.  Likewise, based on the data from entangled pairs measured at B and C, only 15% of the

    B. 同樣地,根據在B和C測得的糾纏對的數據,只有15%的

  • photons which pass through B would get blocked at C, so this region here inside B and outside

    通過B的光子會在C處被阻擋,所以B內和B外的這個區域

  • C needs to be sufficiently small.

    C需要足夠的小。

  • Grant: But that really limits the number of photons that would pass through A and get

    格蘭特。但這確實限制了通過A並得到的光子的數量。

  • blocked by C.  Why?

    被C擋住了,為什麼?

  • Well the region representing photons passing A and blocked at C is entirely contained inside

    那麼代表光子通過A並在C處受阻的區域完全包含在

  • the previous two.

    前兩個。

  • And yet, what quantum mechanics predicts, and what these entanglement experiments verify,

    然而,量子力學的預測,以及這些糾纏實驗所驗證的。

  • is that a full 50% of those measured to pass through A should have an entangled partner

    是指那些被測量通過A的整整50%應該有一個糾纏的夥伴

  • getting blocked at C.

    在C處被阻擋。

  • Grant: If you assume that all these circles have the same size, which means any previously

    格蘭特。如果你假設所有這些圓都有相同的大小,這意味著任何以前的

  • unmeasured photon has no preference for one of these filters over the others, there is

    未測量的光子對這些過濾器中的一個沒有偏好,有

  • literally no way to accurately represent all three of these proportions in a diagram like

    從字面上看,沒有辦法在這樣的圖表中準確地表示所有這三種比例。

  • this, so it's not looking good for hidden variable theories.

    這一點,所以對於隱性變量理論來說,情況並不樂觀。

  • Henry:  Again, for a hidden variable theory to survive, this can only be explained if

    亨利。 同樣,對於隱性變量理論的生存,只有在以下情況下才能得到解釋

  • the photons are able to influence each other based on which filters they passed through.

    光子能夠根據它們所通過的過濾器而相互影響。

  • But now we have a much stronger result, because in the case of entangled photons,

    但現在我們有一個更強大的結果,因為在糾纏的光子的情況下。

  • this influence would have to be faster than light.

    這種影響必須比光速更快。

  • Henry: The assumption that there is some deeper underlying state to a particle even if it's

    亨利:假設一個粒子有一些更深的基本狀態,即使它是

  • not being probed is calledrealism”.

    不被探知的情況被稱為 "現實主義"。

  • And the assumption that faster than light influence is not possible is calledlocality”.

    而比光速快的影響是不可能的這一假設被稱為 "定位性"。

  • What this experiment shows is that either realism is not how the universe works, or

    這個實驗所顯示的是,要麼現實主義不是宇宙的運作方式,要麼

  • locality is not how the universe works, or some combination (whatever that means).

    局部性不是宇宙的運作方式,或者說是某種組合(不管那是什麼意思)。

  • Henry: Specifically, it's not that quantum entanglement appears to violate realism or

    亨利:具體來說,不是說量子糾纏似乎違反了現實主義或

  • the speed of light while actually being locally real at some underlying level - it the contradictions

    光的速度,而實際上在某些基本層面上是在地真實的--它的矛盾在於

  • in this experiment show it CANNOT be locally real, period.

    在這個實驗中顯示,它不可能是在地真實的,期間。

  • Grant: What we've described here is one example of what's called a Bell inequality.

    格蘭特。我們在這裡所描述的是所謂的貝爾不平等的一個例子。

  • It's a simple counting relationship that must be obeyed by a set of questions with

    這是一個簡單的計數關係,必須服從於一組問題,有

  • definite answers, but which quantum states seem to disobey.

    明確的答案,但量子態似乎不聽話。

  • Grant: In fact, the mathematics of quantum theory predicts that entangled quantum states

    格蘭特。事實上,量子理論的數學預測,糾纏的量子態

  • should violate Bell inequalities in exactly this way.

    應該正是以這種方式違反了貝爾不等式。

  • John Bell originally put out the inequalities and the observation that quantum mechanics

    約翰-貝爾最初提出了不等式和量子力學的觀察結果

  • would violate them in 1964.

    將在1964年違反這些規定。

  • Henry: Since then, numerous experiments have put it into practice, but it turns out it's

    亨利:從那時起,無數的實驗將其付諸實踐,但事實證明,它是

  • quite difficult to get all your entangled particles and detectors to behave just right,

    要讓你所有的糾纏粒子和探測器表現得恰到好處是相當困難的。

  • which can mean observed violations of this inequality might end with certainloopholes

    這可能意味著觀察到的對這種不平等的侵犯可能以某些 "漏洞 "而告終

  • that might leave room for locality and realism to both be true.

    這可能為地方性和現實主義都是真的留下了空間。

  • The first loophole-free test happened only in 2015.

    第一次無漏洞測試只發生在2015年。

  • Grant: There have also been numerous theoretical developments in the intervening years, strengthening

    格蘭特。在這幾年裡,也有許多理論上的發展,加強了

  • Bell's and other similar results (that is, strengthening the case against local realism).

    貝爾的和其他類似的結果(也就是說,加強了反對局部現實主義的理由)。

  • Henry: In the end, here's what I find crazy: Bell's Theorem is an incredibly deep result

    亨利:最後,我覺得瘋狂的地方在這裡。貝爾定理是一個令人難以置信的深刻結果

  • upending what we