I have done quite a few videos in which I've tried to demystify quantum mechanics, because many things people say are weird about quantum mechanics aren't weird, like superpositions or entanglement. No, really, they're not weird, just a little unintuitive.

But now I feel like I may accidentally have left you with the impression that quantum mechanics is not weird at all. But of course it is, and that's what we'll talk about today.

Before we talk about quantum mechanics, big thanks to our Tier 4 supporters on Patreon. We greatly appreciate your help, and you, too, can help us keep this channel going. Go check out our Patreon page or support us right here on YouTube by clicking on the join button just below this video.

Now let's talk about quantum weirdness. First, I'll remind you what's not weird about quantum mechanics, though you may have been told it is. In quantum mechanics, we describe everything by a wave function, usually denoted with the Greek letter $\psi$. The wave function itself cannot be observed; we just use it to calculate the probabilities of measurement outcomes—for example, the probability that the particle hits the screen at a particular place.

Some people say it's weird that you can't observe the wave function, but I don't see anything weird with that. You see, the wave function describes probabilities. It's like the "average person"—you never see the average person; it's a math thing that we use to describe probabilities. The wave function is like that.

Another thing that people seem to think is weird is that in quantum mechanics, the outcome of a measurement is not determined. Calculating the probability for the outcome is the best you can do. That is maybe somewhat disappointing, but there's nothing intrinsically weird about it. People just think it's weird because they have beliefs about how nature should be.

Then there are the dead and alive cats. A lot of people seem to think those are weird—I would agree, but of course we don't see dead and alive cats.

But then what's with particles that are in two places at the same time, or have two different spins at the same time? We do see those, right? Well, no, we actually don't see them. When we see a particle, when we measure it, it does have definite properties and not two at the same time.

So what do physicists mean when they say that particles can be at two places at the same time? It means they have a certain mathematical expression called a superposition from which they calculate the probability of what they observe. A superposition is just a sum of wave functions for particles that are in two definite states. Yes, it's just a sum. The math is easy; it's just hard to interpret.

What does it mean that you have a sum of a particle that's here and a particle that's there? Well, I don't know. I don't even know what could possibly answer this question. But I don't need to know what it means to do a calculation with it, and I don't think there's anything weird with superpositions. They're just sums. You add things, like $2 + 2$.

Okay, so superpositions of particles which are in two places are just a flowery way to talk about sums. But what's with entanglement? That's non-local, right? And isn't that weird?

Well, no. Entanglement is a type of correlation. Non-local correlations are all over the place and everywhere; they're not specific to quantum mechanics, and there's nothing weird about non-local correlations because they are locally created.

See, if I rip a photo into two and ship one half to New York, then the two parts of the photo are now non-locally correlated. They share information, but that correlation was created locally, so nothing weird about that.

Entanglement is also locally created. Suppose I have a particle with a conserved quantity that has value zero. It decays into two particles. Now all I know is that the shares of the conserved quantity for both particles have to add to zero. So if I call one of the shares $x$, then the other one has to be $-x$, but I don't know what $x$ is. This means these particles are now entangled. They are non-locally correlated, but the correlation was locally created.

Now, entanglement is, in a quantifiable sense, a stronger correlation than what you can do with non-quantum particles, and that's cool, and it's what makes quantum computers run. But it's just a property of how quantum states combine. Entanglement is useful, but not weird. And it's also not what Einstein meant by "spooky action at a distance"—check out my earlier video for more about that.

So then what *is* weird about quantum mechanics? What's weird about quantum mechanics is best illustrated by the bomb experiment. The bomb experiment was first proposed by Elitzur and Vaidman in 1993, and it goes as follows.

Suppose you have a bomb that can be triggered by a single quantum of light, a single photon. The bomb could either be live or a dud—you don't know. If it's a dud, then the photon doesn't do anything to it. If it's live: boom! Can you find out whether the bomb is live without blowing it up? It seems impossible, but quantum mechanics makes it possible. That's where things get really weird.

Here's what you do: you take a source that can produce those single photons, then you send those photons through a beam splitter. The beam splitter creates a superposition, so a sum of the two possible paths that the photon could go. To make things simpler, I'll assume that the weights of the two paths are the same, so it's 50/50.

Along each possible path, there's a mirror so that the paths meet again, and where they meet, there's another beam splitter. If nothing else happens, that second beam splitter will just reverse the effect of the first, so the photon continues in the same direction as before. The reason is that the two paths of the photon interfere like sound waves interfere. In the one direction, they interfere destructively, so they cancel each other out; in the other direction, they add together to 100%.

We place a detector where we expect the photon to go, and call that Detector A. And because we'll need it later, we put another detector up here where the destructive interference is, and call that Detector B. In this setup, no photon ever goes to Detector B.

But now, now we place the bomb into one of those paths. What happens if the bomb's a dud? That's easy: nothing happens. The photon splits, takes both paths, recombines, and goes into Detector A, as previously.

What happens if the bomb's live? If the bomb's live, it acts like a detector, so there's a 50% chance that it goes boom because you detected the photon in the lower path. So far, so clear.

But here's the interesting thing: if the bomb is live but doesn't go boom, you know the photon's in the upper path. And now there's nothing coming from the lower path to interfere with, so then the second beam splitter has nothing to recombine, and the same thing happens there as at the first beam splitter—the photon goes both paths with equal probability. It is then either detected at A or at B.

The probability for this is 25% each, because it's half of the half of cases when the photon took the upper path. In summary, if the bomb's live, it blows up 50% of the time, 25% of the time the photon goes into Detector A, and 25% of the time it goes into Detector B.

If the photon is detected at A, you don't know if the bomb's live or a dud because that's the same result. But here's the thing: if the photon goes to Detector B, that can only happen if the bomb is live and didn't explode. And that means quantum mechanics tells you something about the path that the photon didn't take.

That's the sense in which quantum mechanics is truly non-local and weird—not because you can't observe the wave function, and not because of entanglement, but because it can tell you something about events that didn't happen. You may think that this can't possibly be right, but it is. This experiment has actually been done, not with bombs, but with detectors, and the result is exactly as quantum mechanics predicts.

This video was sponsored by Brilliant, which is a website and app that offers interactive courses on a large variety of topics in science and mathematics. Watching videos is fun and gives you an idea of what quantum mechanics is all about, but if you really want to understand what's weird about quantum mechanics, you have to actively engage with the subject.

Brilliant is a great place to do that. All their courses are interactive, so you are challenged with questions and can check your understanding along the way. For this video, for example, I recommend their courses on linear algebra and quantum objects. To support this channel and learn more about Brilliant, go to brilliant.org/sabine and sign up for free. The first 200 subscribers using this link will get 20% off the annual premium subscription. Thanks for watching. See you next week!