9 HN users recommended this explainer9 months2015–2022score 10
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN recommends it as one of the clearest layman explanations of Bell's theorem.
Veritasium explains quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance, walking through Bell's inequality and the experiments that rule out hidden variables, in under ten minutes.
“It's my favorite video for explaining how we know that the state is not determined until it has been measured.” (HN, 2015)
I can't recommend Veritasium and CGP Grey enough. They are amazing YouTube Channels! Check out this video where Veritasium explains Quantum Entanglement. [this video] It amazes me how he explains something so difficult in less than 10 minutes!
Explains a difficult quantum topic in under ten minutes.
Check out [this video] It's my favorite video for explaining how we know that the state is not determined until it has been measured. It's not just a decision we thought up on paper. It is real and well proven.
Shows why quantum state is undetermined until measured.
If quantum-entangled particles exist (they do) you can use them to coordinate in a way that's impossible within a "hidden variable" model of the universe. You can dig into this by searching for "bell's inequality" or "bell test experiments", there are a few different experiments that have been done many, many times. There's a pretty good Veritasium video that explains one such experiment in non-physicist terms: [this video]
Explains a Bell test experiment in non-physicist terms.
I don't think that explanation is clear. It takes a bit more work to get something which proves the experimental difference. One of the better explanations I've seen is regarding measuring spin with three state detectors: [this video] This would give specific probabilities to certain outcomes (not just 50/50) IF there were a local hidden variable. (Note: the word local is important there. It means information encoded and carried by or with the particles themselves.)
Clear explanation using spin measurements with three detectors.
If you watch for more than 4 minutes, this 9 minute video explains how Bell proved that the particles can't have been given opposite "ball colors" at the time they became entangled. [this video] It's quite clever how he proved it, and that it's actually possible to rule out "information that we're just not aware of".
Nine-minute explanation of how Bell ruled out hidden information.
> it's both simply because it hasn't been measured ... Meaning it's either one or the other A common misconception about quantum superposition is that the particle "has" some state, and we only use superposition to model that we "dont know". This is called the hidden-variable theory ( [link] ). It's been proven that this hidden variable theory can't be true because of [link] . This is completely non-intuitive. See this video for a laymen's explanation: [link] (you may also need to watch the prev. video about the EPR paradox [link] ). Edit: actually, this is a much better video [this video] - less technical and more visual.
Less technical, more visual layman's explanation of Bell's result.
Your example is akin to the Hidden variable theory (in the example the hidden variable will be the fact the two letters are copies). Bell's inequality tests have ruled out the hidden variable theory. Veritasium has a good video explaining Bell's inequality - [this video]
You understood correctly that quantum mechanics cannot be based on some hidden variable we haven't or cannot find. (Edit: oops, I re-read your comment and it seems you say the exact opposite thing? The point is that Bell's theorem rules hidden variables OUT. Here's an easily digestible video about this: [this video] ) About probability: no one knows. It might be that there is a "wave function collapse" that has a probabilistic outcome. But it might be that there is no such a thing. Quantum mechanics that remain in the "quantum" realm are not probabilistic, it's only when you cross over to the classical world. So it might be equally well, that the Everett interpretation (so-called "many worlds interpretation") is true, and the probability is something physicist Sean Carroll calls "self-locating uncertainty": [link] That is, there are multiple "yous" that experience different outcomes, and you don't know which branch of the wavefunction you find "yourself" in, which "you" you are.
Easily digestible explanation that Bell rules out hidden variables.
So, then is it correct to say that an outside observer can never tell if a particle he/she is looking at is actually entangled? This outside observer would simply observe that the particle has spin "up" or "down" but would never know that it was entangled earlier by someone else. This observer would never know it was in a superposition unless they had knowledge that someone had previously done this. Only the person who entangled the particle can clue the observer in on the fact that they were entangled. I can give you a particle, tell you it's in a superposition but you'd have no way to verify this. If you observe the particle, perhaps you'd see it's in spin "up" but that would be meaningless because that observation wouldn't tell you anything about whether it was entangled or not. You only know about its current state. There is nothing in your observation that shows "hey the particle just changed from superposition to spin up" Thanks for the replies! I watch "word science festival" and similar videos and I am fascinated by the quantum world but I have wondered these questions for a while and didn't know anyone who could answer them. I saw this great Veritasium video about measuring quantum particles but it still left me with the questions above [this video]
Video on measuring quantum particles that left lingering questions.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
10 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more
Read more
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more