Well, you're in all the universes, but only here you are happy.

@@pierfrancescopeperoni It depends on how do you define "you".

In my universe, we look like trees

I mean it’s alright but I bet there are other universes where I’m way happier.

@@goviczek Sure. The definition I use the most for "you" is "everyone".

Absolutely. Bryce DeWitt was a great guy but I fear his nomenclature didn't do the theory many favours. At least outside of popular science.

Same! So many people, even scientists and science communicators, dismiss MWI because it seems absurd that every quantum event should create an entire alternate universe. And yeah, that would be absurd. But if the entire multitude of possibilities exists as one sort of megaverse that contains every potential outcome, nothing needs to be created -- only selected.

This actually helped me wrap my head around the existentiality of "many world" more than anything else I've ever seen/heard, so thanks for that! Layered superpositions of probabilities and outcomes makes much more sense to me than the alternate "infinite branches" sort of idea.

I think that makes a lot more sense than the ‘new universe created at every quantum event’ version of the theory. I don’t know that I’d even call that a multiverse theory, more of some sort of universal wave field theory.

Bingo. I really hate it when Many Worlds is introduced as making new universes every time you flip a coin, because that's obviously ridiculous. I think it would be worth changing the name at this point. "One Big World" is okay, but I just tend to call it "Quantum Mechanics".

you have to admit it is a funky word

sounds gross dont like it

it sounds like something you should get checked out if you find it on your foot and get cut off

@@mikebarnacle1469 Despite it being decades since I was a teenager, I still have Corpuscles on my back.

Am I the only one bothered by Matt's odd pronunciation of the word, though? I've always heard it with the stress on the first syllable: COR-puscle, not the second syllable: cor-PUS-cle.

Huh?

Dovetail? Like the bird? What does this video have to do with birds? I once fed a family of blackbirds, I hope they do well.

A Dovetail is a kind of joint that holds itself together surprisingly well even without glue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovetail_joint

The theories are conceptually mutually exclusive so more confused BS from PBS Space Time, as usual.

​@@markabererIt's a fairly common figure of speech for joining two topics together (based on the woodworking joint of the same name, which is of course named because it resembles the tail of the bird).

All the sci-fi multiple worlds I've seen usually happen in the same space though.

I'd agree. I read David Bohm's books and struggled to understand Pilot Wave Theory for a long time. This describes it super clearly.

I disagree. Spacetime always makes it seem that the many worlds theory is possible or alludes it has any truth when in fact it's so fringe and cringy, it isn't funny. All best known credible physicists know Many Worlds Theory is trashy AT BEST yet this supposedly educational channel does not mention that the top physicists know Many Worlds is just garbage. I'm sorry but not mentioning a disclaimer that Many Worlds theory is absolutely trash. Therefore this is extremely clickbait, because MWT is absolutely fringe.

Yeah but.... The particle creates the wave function and its an excitation of the guiding field and that is totally ignored here simply to make it seem like MW and PW are similar. They're not, they are nothing alike. The guiding function is calculated via the memory function which is the sum of the particles previous position backwards in time with all other wave functions in the measured area. It turns the uncertainty from amplitude and frequency to one of space and time. The accuracy of your future prediction is determined via the size of the area measured and the length of time it was measured. The larger the area, for the larger amount of time, the more accurate your future prediction is for a given particle over a given time. This video is gobbledygook simply to make MW people feel better about their pseudoscience theory".

@@shawnchong5196 That... doesn't really address my comment at all. I was talking about their pedagogical skill, not the specific topic. Regarding the interpretations themselves, they all have issues. Obviously Copenhagen is by far the most widely-accepted, but they *did* acknowledge that at the start of the video. However, anyone who says that the Copenhagen interpretation is definitively the Truth is not a serious scientist who has grappled with the issues. The fact is that we don't have an entirely satisfactory interpretation for quantum mechanics yet. There are open questions, as there are for all areas of science.

@@seditt5146 Exactly. Spacetime channel has released some very disheartening psuedoscience and questionable episodes that is very clickbaity and it's science sits on a table missing three legs. This video is a massive letdown as its pseudoscience sold as science without clear statement that everything stated here is just hocus pocus to most physicists but makes for good discussion For those that want real science, watch Dr. Lincoln's videos from Fermilab, no hocus pocus, just states facts and the general consensus of real physicists that have strong backing. MW is psuedoscience at its best, and many of the top physicists (incl. Penrose) have stated that MW is extremely murky at best. As soon as someone say Schrodinger's cat as a truly phenomenal potential reality = non-physicist. MW is basically this. Pilot theory though flawed at least isn't the hocus pocus of MW socery made famous from some book writers. Though the many research papers themselves gives very interesting insights.

But why spend much time on de Broglie-Bohm theory other than seeing it as the “Introductory Inspiration” for more modern theories that don’t have its limitations (non-relativistic, etc)? As a physics professor you should be fortunately equipped to grasp the “Weltanschauung” of the modern variants. There are multiple conferences that have many hours of videos on these topics. Some from Nobel Prize laureates.

Which subject did you have taught the most?

@@RockBrentwood One must be cautious about criticizing de Broglie-Bohm theory as it generates identical results to the orthodox theory that it is derived from because it is “effectively” identical! The “Oops” that you suggest are also not particularly within the scope of the “effectively mathematically identical parent theory” so what you are suggesting as fundamental problems are more about the overarching aspects of a “reality” based theory (whatever flavor of that it might be)! To address all your concerns in the context of the “new flavors” of “reality based” theories requires one to be conversant in these significantly more complex and sophisticated “flavors”. I use the term “flavor” as they mostly only borrow an “inspiration” from the “quasi-real” aspect of the original de Broglie-Bohm theory. I am not a defender of the de Broglie-Bohm theory as it is hopelessly antiquated and basically irrelevant in the context of your criticisms. If you are going to criticize “pilot-wave reality based theories” one really should put the “oops” in the context of the more modern “flavors”. Unfortunately, there is not much of a unified consensus on what that flavor should look like, so the comparison is challenging. The vary fact that a particular flavor has not gained much traction suggests the complexity of the “problem space”, but that should not hinder an open minded individual from pondering upon the possibilities of reality based theories. Personally I find my inspiration in Quasi-Hydrodynamic Quantum Field “Analogs” for want of a better name. There are variations of these “flavors” that fully subsume the “Standard Model”. The final trick would be to …

@anolakes I agree with you more than it might appear. I was of the same mind in my teaching of the subject. Learn/teach how to use the science/mathematics to describe observations. Leave the more abstract and philosophical interpretation for later after you have mastered the basics. Yet it is still interesting to me to be familiar with these interpretations.

@anolakes “ALL” interpretations not explaining “HOW” is rather inclusive! So you want a theory that has explicit “real” mechanisms to explain all QM phenomena (especially for nonlocality)! And while the big brained theory “contrive”ers are at it, to have mechanisms to explain all the “dark” stuff and be able to “compute” the values of all of those pesky experimentally “measured constants”. AND of course the theory needs to be “complete” and inclusive of General Relativity and thus deal with extreme energy densities at the Planck scales and handle “singularities” gracefully. It seems like that is a tall order considering the state of “ORTHODOXY” within the QM & GR communities and their “INTRANSIGENCE ON INCOMPATIBILITY” between themselves! What you are pointing out as issues have significant implications with regard to “FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING”. It will be a great day when we have that clarity of understanding BUT the preexisting state of affairs probably preclude that in the relatively near future. It is always entertaining (and sometimes educational) to listen to those promoting a “NEW INTERPRETATION”. There are some interesting newer concepts out there in the “fringes” that get to the “MEAT” that I suggest you peruse. It is always a fun endeavor as a hobby.

there are a handful of channels that really just make my afternoon fun & informative, and PBS pretty much never disappoints.

You're just jealous of her

@@talananiyiyaya8912 Sabine?👀

Well, the Writers Taha Dawoodbhoy & Matt O'Dowd I suppose

Wait...in which world? 😅

If you can practice this presentation in less than three takes, your a genius. 💪

I'll take your word for it, because I still have no idea what's going on.

And it's a pity I can't understand half of it.

Isn't all those worlds way more fluffy than all the other interpretations?

@@ricomajestic They are surely fluff, because you can't witness them, but their premise is as boring as it gets. It doesn't take a huge leap for beings who exist within a strand of silk, to argue that their strand isn't the only one that exists. The rest of the many worlds interpretation is basically just a string that consists of all the strands that could ever exist, slowly disentangling themselves into smaller and smaller strings until eventually every single strand is on its own.

Biology of the 1920s

Same 😂

Corpuscles in the Aether are the only way to sense which direction the celestial spheres are turning. 😂

Excitedly bouncing up and down. It hears a car coming down the road, someone walking up to the front door. Is it my photon friend? Or just the mailman? We won't know for sure until they hit the detector!

The electron can't see the photon coming, it's already moving at the speed of information. The photo can't look forward to seeing the electron, it doesn't experience time at all.

It's probably that single electron in your head

If I understand correctly, as ridiculous as it is, single electron theory is still compatible with both pilot wave and many worlds; QM would simply mean that the spacetime path of that single electron (or positron, in its backward trips) is either simply guided by the pilot wave in the first case, or exists in a superposition of multiple possible paths in the second case.

it's kind of odd how the main argument seems to be that the core concept just sounds too fantastical to be real, and yet it seems to be the most physical closely related to the math. I never liked the hand wavy "and then the wave function collapses and that's just how it is" of copenhagen and the weird, almost mystical role it gives to consciousness, a biological phenomenon. Frankly I'm not educated enough to disregard it of course and most physicists seem to be on board so what do I know. I don't know if Matt himself is an adherent of MWI but if he's not it sure seems hard to make it sound unreasonable

​@@FelixPiseckerCopenhagen doesn't give any special consideration to consciousness. That's a common misconception. Observation does not require a conscious observer. Any system that the wave interacts with counts as an observer and any interaction as an observation. Also, consciousness is not from biology. It's from philosophy. It is a subject of psychology, but it's not so much a thing as a hallucination created by other things, with the big mystery being unconsciousness.

@@FelixPisecker IMO, the problem with Many Worlds isn't that it's too fantastical. It's that it's useless. Assume that there are many worlds: *so what*? That doesn't get us closer to understanding anything. It gives up on an explanation. Copenhagen at least has the half-credit of claiming that the world is fundamentally probabilistic, which is a claim that can have consequences. But Many Worlds has no consequences. It has no utility. "Fantastical" is an applicable word for describing that, but I prefer "pointless".

​@@Duiker36there is no such problem, if both manyworlds and Copenhagen are equivalent. Any prediction about observables that Copenhagen makes is also made by manyworlds and vice versa. I.e. for any claim with a point they make the same predictions, they are either both pointless or both useful

@@davidwuhrer6704 If you have a particle in a superposition of up and down, and you set a second particle to measure it, you empirically get a superposition. Not a collapse. This is a testable prediction. Collapse doesn't happen in just from several particles interacting.

That's a great question.

The color of the material that the slits are cut into will give you some information about which photons were absorbed or reflected. And of course for each experiment you could check which colors were shone at the slits. I wouldn't expect much more interesting than 'slightly heated up the material' or 'bounced off of it' but it would be interesting to know all the details of what it does.

The photons that miss the slits usually aren't detected, they're blocked and count as 'failures', null detections. With the right choice of materials this can be minimized, such as using a diffraction grating rather than two slits. You CAN pair measurements of photons that miss the slits and the slit detectors, this shows that if a photon misses both slits then it doesn't go through either, which is what you'd expect. This has often been tried in 'blocked slit' experiments, where one slit had something to attempt to detect the passage of a particle, to see if that collapsed the possibilities. (And it seems to, no cheating there.)

As a physics professor, I am certain that both pilot wave theory and many worlds are utter nonsense. Not even wishful thinking. They are simply far beyond the bounds of plausibility.

​@@stevenverrall4527honestly every time people say many worlds. I say so nome of it matters then because how will we ever see the other without ripping space to apart to an infinite amount of worlds. Infinite energy and infinite negative energy. I'm just a 23yr old that likes learning new things I'm probably far off on my assumption but what are your thoughts

​@@stevenverrall4527 still better nonsense than Copenhagen for sure

​@@stevenverrall4527Copenhagen sucks

Well I hope that after watching this video you now understand that Pilot Wave Theory is really just Many Worlds in a state of chronic denial.

you mean that many world preferred timeline is given by where entropy increases the most?

❤keep digging brother, when you get to bottom and the top it’ll be beautiful and ridiculous at the same time. Maybe even disturbing lmao.

​​​​@@drgetwrekt869no. There is no preferred timeline. There's many parallel ones, and (by the definition of microstate and definition of many worlds interpretation) there will be many more worlds with identical macrostates that correspond to different microstates with more possible configurations (ie "bigger" macrostates) than other identical but smaller macrostates, and these bigger macrostates correspond to the entropy increasing.

Entropy increasing does not make time going forward, otherwise in your fridge time would go backwards.

Definitely an interesting line of thought.

What do you think, having watched it now?

You're not gonna be happy lol

This video did nothing but demonstrrate anti-pilot wave bias. Pilot wave is still the best theory.@@captainbeefheart5815

Perhaps this "mess of waves" represents entropy?

Yeah, it's unclear what happens when particles are created and annihilated. Pilot wave seems hard to extend to QFT. And don't get me started on Unruh effect where the very notion of a particle seems observer-dependent.

that explains why its so hard to move through space to get to work

​@@drgetwrekt869 "Sorry boss, the density of guiding waves in my bedroom was especially high this morning, and they all led me back to bed. It was CRAZY!"

@@thedeemon Oh yeah, special relativity. Wouldn't that require that the guiding wave of the oberserver-dependent particle is dependent on the guiding wave of the observer? Sounds like quantum woo to me.

Agreed! Taking Quantum Field Theory (QFT) at face value seems to suggest that a "particle" is just an excitation in a field at a specific point. I am curious whether we could take QFT so straightforwardly that we do not even have to admit the existence of particles, except as a convenient abstraction!

I remember seeing a fringe science youtube video a year or more back talking about something like this. They invoked superconductivity, not sure if literally or by analogy, to describe that "locus of action" sort of transfer of energy we would call a particle interaction. It would squeeze through the particle the same way I think of an octopus squeezing through a bottle opening.

@@Kowzorz I might be confused by what you are saying. Also how I understand the whole particle wave thing is likely wrong. Also I might not be expressing my thoughts clearly. What I'm saying is that particles are just the points where the fields are interacting. The wave or waves collapse onto the point where they interact. The point where information or energy is exchanged. Similar to how static charge suddenly collapses into a bolt of moving charge. Don't know how energy squeezing through a particle connects to my thoughts...

In PWT you ditch locality. In TI you ditch one-way time. In TI, the wave function really goes off in all directions and entangles with the universe, but at arbitrary places of entanglement, a single particle travels backwards in time down only one path, so you get the appearance of PWT (looking at it forward in time) plus an intuitive explanation of the non-locality. There are a few catches to it. (1) The creator & advocates for TI even themselves don't think it's a realistic model. It's just a heuristically very useful one because it's easy to imagine & get an intuitive explanation for everything, and (2) it's in basically the same situation as PWT where it's contained inside of the MWI, where all the other worlds are still there and we're just privileging one of them because of our perspective. (2) In my view, the fact that PWT and TI are both "contained within" MWI, but not vice versa, as well as the informational interpretations (consistent histories, quantum Darwinism), basically all of them except objective collapse theories, speaks very much in favor of MWI.

Sorry! Your timeline explodes into nothingness after nuclear war. Or alien invasion. Or someone pluls the plug on the simulation generator. Whoopsie!

Health and safety in the quantum field is a nightmare! Theoretical quantum kneepads are a joke as you can't get the damn things to break super position and they end up all over the place.

My wave completely collapsed after about six minutes…

Check out Veritasium's pilot wave theory video if you want to learn more :)

How can you be sure you understood 80% of it without knowing what 100% of it looks like?

@@danieljmarvin because I watched 100% of the video and understood 80% of it. Basic math, I guess.

@@rlstine4982 I'm messing with you. There is a good answer but I wanted to see what you thought. I don't think your point addresses my question though. I suppose You can get away with it by using definitions where 80% means times wise. But i think that's boring. For example, how do you know the the information at each moment of the video has the same importance?

I think it's impossible to describe the "simplest" story about the math. But many worlds certainly works the best for me conceptually.

Many worlds sounds simple because they threw the baby out with the bath water and that's why they can't tell what's happening

@@prophetrobThere was no baby, just a superposition of quantum excitations in bathwater.

It's because these videos all ignore the ACTUAL simplest interpretation which is the ensemble interpretation. The Many Worlds Interpretation relies on two arbitrary assumptions that are not justified. First, it interprets the probability distributions encoded in the wave function of where a particle can go as all real physical paths it actually takes, which is not justified at all. It then has to explain how, if the observer can be on many different branches, how do they predict which branch they will be on? To answer this, the MWI then has to copy/paste the Measurement Postulate from the Copenhagen interpretation and claim that you just update which branch you're on based on the result of the measurement, which is logically identical to the "collapse" in Copenhagen that says you just update which value is selected from the wave function based on the measurement result. MWI has equally as many postulates as Copenhagen, and pretending otherwise is just being intellectual dishonest. Both Copenhagen and MWI rely on a variant of the Measurement Postulate because both of them rely on an arbitrary additional assumption that the beginning: that the probability distributions described by the wave function all physically occur. There is no reason to assume this, that we wave function has any ontic existence. Quantum mechanics is just a form of statistical mechanics, it is probability theory, the probabilities describe where you _think_ it might go in reference to your knowledge. It is a predictive tool, entirely epistemic, and the paths it does not take has no physical existence _at all._ Whether or not pilot wave is inherently broken like this, to me it would depend on whether or not pilot wave could be reinterpreted as an epistemic theory rather than an ontic one, that the "ripples" each individual corpuscle creates does not equal the whole pilot wave, but that the pilot wave can only be derived from a summation of all the ripples from all the corpuscles (i.e. they would each have a pilot wave that is a subset of the one predicted by the Schrodinger equation where the full pilot wave can only be derived from a large sample size that converges towards the pilot wave predicted by the Schrodinger equation). That would get rid of these "phantoms" because they'd never exist in the first place, although I do not know enough about the mathematics underlying pilot wave to whether or not it could be reformulated as an epistemic theory. Epistemic interpretations, i.e. _ensemble_ interpretations (sometimes called statistical interpretations) are the most sensible, but they are always ignored. Everyone wants to assign borderline mystical entities to probability distributions and then argue over which entities are "the simplest," when none of them have justified why we are assigning these entities in the first place. The ensemble interpretation does not introduce any new axioms that were not already in classical theory. We just accept the probability theory in quantum mechanics is what it looks like: probability theory, and nothing more, and then you no longer have a Measurement Postulate like Many Worlds and Copenhagen do, nor do you have bizarre entities like infinite universes or whatever. Like in any probability theory, there is no reason to posit hidden variables because the whole point of statistics is to account for the fact you don't know the hidden variables, you do not even have to posit things like "pilot waves" but you leave it as an open question that no answer can be justified unless it can also be falsified (which none of these other interpretations can be).

@@amihart9269 what are the drawbacks of the ensemble interpretation? I suspect that if it really resolved all issues, we would talk about it more.

I once saw a holographic storage system where a single piece of film held multiple pages of text. When the reader moved, a new page would replace the previous one.

I have a question, friend Why do you and many others want to summarize all of physics in one theory?

I appreciate this analogy

Physicists favorite interpretation of qm is Shut-up-and-calculate and was. Hidden variables have the possibility to change physics, we don't know for sure yet.

It's not ideology, we have a mathematical theorem about certain inequalities that hold or not hold depending on whether local hidden variables are present, and we have many experimental results testing those inequalities, basically ruling out either locality or local hidden variables. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

@@frun right… however I was wondering if all hidden variabile hypotesis are 100% unknowable or somehow testable.and so honourable theories one day

@@thedeemon But it IS ideology to choose to dismiss hidden variables instead of locality.

@@massimoc3442 Some physicists consider HVT to be likely unknowable, but not 100%. On one occasion i read, that one physicist considered it to be plausible.

thinking about it from this perspective, would some sort of reverse causality where the future influences the past avoid this problem?

It’s not obvious whether it’s interaction that’s not T symmetric, or the laws themselves.

Yeah, the main question then is who are "we" in this picture and how the heck do we see any changes in our world at all. Values of the wave function are not observable from within a "world" and in Schrodinger equation those values are the only thing that changes with time.

That is more or less exactly my feeling on the matter. Really it seems like all of the maths and physics is pointing to this description, and it is solely due to many physicists being uncomfortable with it (for no scientific reason) that it isn't more widely excepted.

Yes indeed. The idea that the universe "splits" or "makes copies of itself" at each measurement point is completely unnecessary baggage to the theory. It can be simplified to exist without that baggage - that there aren't multiple copies of the universe, but only one universe that exists in a superposition/wave function state. Our entangled states simply prevent us from "accessing" other parts of the wave function.

​​@@thedeemon We can't know the exact properties of the particle but we can measure a range of possible values (our error in the measurement) and end up ruling out any possible states which don't produce that outcome. I don't know what you mean by "we". I presume you're asking if there is some sort of indivisible unit that you can attach to your observations to but in many worlds you just splinter the wave function and know what subset you're a part of. There's no way to observe just "yourself".

Silly as it might sound to you, the idea of new universes springing from every quantum event is exactly what Many Worlds proposes. Your preferred theory that there is a true universe only works if there is a Great Observing Device whose observations determine which universe among the superposition of universes becomes real.

Sadly no. The choice of which "world" you end up in at any splitting event is exactly as non-deterministic as the wave function collapse from Copenhagen. You can assert that there is some world that would reduce exactly to classical mechanics if someone could trace all the interactions closely enough, but you can't know whether or not you happen to be in that world (and given that MWI splits into infinitely many worlds, your probability of being in the exactly classical one approaches zero very quickly).

It could be that you have it backwards. And that these interpretations are the only real theories. Or to say it in another way, if you don't have understanding, then you don't have a theory.

@@mmandrewa2397 I disagree. A theory is only about predicting - including _post hoc_ predicting (aka explaining).

I wouldn't consider pilot wave theory to really be an "interpretation" since it is not just a way to visualize the mathematics of quantum mechanics and what it means, but posits a whole new theory of what underlies quantum mechanics and a whole new body of mathematics to describe how these new entities behave. Bohm also stated he thought you could come up with experimental tests with it, such as he thought that even though knowing a particle's position precisely is not possible, if you repeated an experiment many times in rapid succession under an isolated environment, you might get close enough to the same starting point on some of them that you could see violations of the Born rule. I put pilot wave theory in the same realm as string theory, it is not an interpretation but a whole new theory, just one without any evidence for it so there's no reason at the moment to replace any well-established theories with it.

@@amihart9269 I sort of agree with you, but the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Pilot Wave Theory, and the Many Worlds Interpretation all predict more or less the same thing. I don't think we can really say that one is more established than the others. If you're talking about popularity, yes, the Many Worlds Interpretation is the most popular theory. But I don't think that makes it any more well-established than the others . (And then there are the other theories we aren't talking about.) And by the way on the subject of the Copenhagen Interpretation, that theory depends on something called an 'observation' and something called the 'collapse' of the probability distribution when an 'observation' occurs. And neither one of those ideas is well-defined. That's why some people would say that the Copenhagen Interpretation is not a true theory. If you have key concepts that are not objectively defined, then that's a problem.

@@mmandrewa2397 MWI and Copenhagen are not theories. They are interpretations, they try to come up with ways to think about the mathematics of quantum mechanics and what it means, but are not introducing some a whole new theory "deeper" than quantum mechanics and to my knowledge no advocate of them has ever even suggested it might be testable.

But what is the basis for rejecting essentially infinite real worlds, apart from your persistent experience of only a single one (as would be expected given the many worlds interpretation)? Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity.

👍🏼

I believe veritasium said himself that wasn't a fully accurate representation of pilot wave theory, just the closest he could reasonably make. My guess is that if the guiding wave was generated by the corpuscle, then some interferences between different parts of the wave function would act differently than they do in reality.

The guiding wave is the interaction potential that the rest of the universe presents to the corpuscle and each interaction updates and propagates through the system relativistically The veritasium experiment was flawed in that all parts of the system weren't making their own contributions to the guiding wave. The system wasn't self-interactive enough

@@prophetrob yes the droplet experiment is an example I didn't mean to say it was exactly like that. The question is why the corpuscle is not affected by the wave function but only by other corpuscles. This could be reasoned by having the corpuscle itself generate the wave function. Also, in QFT there is clearly a self energy term, meaning that the corpuscle is in fact influenced by its own potential

Is Pilot Wave the same as Everett? No. It's simple Parapsychology, Godels Theorems and Non-local Hidden Variables refute his philosophical nonsense. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rJuUkrapm8DMZZ8.htmlfeature=shared

The Heisenberg uncertainty is a property of our measurement methods. 3brown1blue explains that pretty well.

@@diogoduarte4097 I know of this thought Experiment that heisenberg i think came up with to explain the principle, where you hit the particle with high frequency light to measure its position accurately, thereby giving it a lot of momentum etc. But I allways thought that okay, this is a nice explanation of how the principle may manifest itself, but its not the whole reason for it. I mean can you rule out that there is some way of measuring that doesnt have this flaw? I allways thought that its very fundamental, like it really is impossible for These things to be fully defined without uncertainty. And that it mainly comes from the way the wavefunction works. Ie, for waves there is this tradeof between space localization and frequency localization. So you can not have only one frequency (which would be momentum here) without the wave being sort of everywhere. (You can Show all of this using the fourier transform and the gaussian wavepacket). Anyway, so I thought the principle arises from the math behind the wavefunction and that its very intrinsic, so I am Puzzled about where it should be in pilot wave theory. But perhaps it is a part of the measurement process?

​@@diogoduarte4097no, it is a fundamental inequality of wavelike reality that we can also observe in Fourier transform.

Yeah, gravity waves proves the existence of the "ghost" waves. I think folks have trouble conceptualizing what Bohm did, but all he did was add a single term to account for harmonics in the field.

A good way to think of what Bohm did is if you were trying to put an equation on a boat and you had some equation for it but there was some variable that always made your equation probabilistic.. and what Bohm did was he came along and added a single term that he explained as harmonics in the configuration space... So basically in this example it would be like saying your boat equation needs a term for the ocean. No matter where you look at on the boat you'll never find the ocean

The specific analogy Bohm uses is actually a plane flying through electromagnetic fields, and the electromagnetic fields being processed by the plane's electronics in order to guide the plane's flight in autopilot. That's the magnitude of the energy differential he wanted to emphasize--how tiny field fluctuations we couldn't detect with natural senses could be 'active information' guiding much larger masses.

so corpuscles somehow influenced the wave back then but don't do it now?

According to this theory, corpuscles don't influence or modify the waves that guide them, so they couldn't form the waves.

@@ubergroov they don't influence their own guiding wave because the guiding wave is just the potential of everything outside the corpuscle that the corpuscle experiences

And the ensemble interpretation. I would like to see more epistemic interpretations. He only seems to cover ontic ones.

As an aside, the "Perfect Knowledge" stock image guy looks like what would happen if the dumba$$ HC "ancient aliens" bonehead was actually a real sciee. A scientist with high functioning brain cells... And decent hair.

you look like niels bohr

You're one the right track but a few details are off. The branches of the wave function are not another dimension on the spacetime manifold. Instead the way to think of it is that our 4D spacetime is a submanifold embedded in the larger space of all the states the universe could be in known as Hilbert space. Hilbert space is an infinite dimensional flat manifold in which each normalized point in Hilbert space corresponds to a possible configuration of our 4D spacetime and its contents.

The Born Rule is pretty simple and doesn't have anything to do with more dimensions. In QM one needs to sum up all possible values for the wave function. The waves have a component e^(i w t) which is called a "phasor." The phasor is a complex number in the complex plane. All solutions can be in any phase in QM. The phasor does not change anything about the solution but does increase the number of solutions. All the solutions in QM can be found in any one of an infinite number of phases. The wave function (with just say the x component) without the phasor included is just a line but with the phasor it sweeps out a circle. The area of a circle goes up as the square of the length of the line (which is the radius). The line (wave function) compared to the circle when in the complex plane would need to have the absolute value squared then times Pi. Solutions in QM are normalized so the Pi can be ignored. Normalized means the total value of the whole solution is integrated to be exactly 1. Why do physicists say the Born Rule is unexplained? Because you can't "prove" it experimentally. The question also moves from "why is it absolute value squared" to "why is the wave function having to do with probability at all?" Physicists also call the Schrodinger Equation "empirical" when it's just the kinetic energy + the potential energy = the total energy.

1) Nonlocality: Pilot wave theory is inherently nonlocal. The motion of one particle can depend instantaneously on the position of another particle, regardless of the distance between them. This is because the pilot wave, which guides all particles, depends on the positions of all the particles. This nonlocality allows the theory to reproduce the quantum correlations that violate Bell's inequalities, despite being deterministic. 2) Agreement with Quantum Mechanics: Pilot wave theory yields the same predictions for experimental outcomes as standard quantum mechanics. So, it also predicts violations of Bell's inequalities just like standard quantum mechanics does. In other words, while it introduces hidden variables, those hidden variables don't lead to results that are at odds with the quantum violations of Bell's inequalities. 3) Hidden Variables: It's worth noting that Bell's theorem doesn't rule out hidden variables per se. Instead, it rules out a specific kind: local hidden variables. Pilot wave theory is explicitly nonlocal, so it's not in conflict with the implications of Bell's theorem.

Thanks. When writing the question I missed the fact it was nonlocal.@@thedeemon

A version of you lands in each timeline and each is a continuation of your past self. From a subjective perspective it seems random because you(a continuation of your past self) only experience one of the possible outcomes but the other outcomes are being experienced by other equally real continuations of your past self.

@@Piranath so does the question "is the universe deterministic" even make sense in Many Worlds since all possible outcomes happen? Or do the timelines split the moment that Laplace's Demon has enough information to determine what will be the outcome? Does that mean that when a Laplace's Demon starts existing all timeline splitting that would happen in the future happens in that instant?

@@Wesyan1999 From my understanding the timeline splitting(sections of the waveform de-cohering) happens regardless of observation/knowledge. Observers(like us) will percieve it as being related to observation because they are observers but that isn't the fundamental reality. If you consider the universe the waveform as a whole then it would be accurate to say it is deterministic because all possible outcomes happening is in fact the only possible outcome{ie it is impossible for any possible outcome to not occur} of the waveform as a whole.

The One World interpretation has always seemed to me to be the most obvious in terms Occam's Razor. "Only one happens, our theory just enumerates all of them." seems much simpler than trying to invent some elaborate mechanism to square the circle of translating the determinism of particles into the probability of waves.

@@aelolul the beautiful symmetry! i shouldn't have commented, oh sit..

@@aelolul But then, how do all the ones that don't happen have an affect on the one that does happen?

Many people I talk to, wrongly think that many worlds = multiplying by an infinite number of extra things and hence failing Occam's razor when, in fact, it is just one thing for the purposes of the razor and hence simpler than all the other explanations.

​@@N.i.c.k.HI think they're both simple enough that Occam's razor doesn't really mean much here... It's like saying that there's definitely just one universe because adding another one will increase complexity. Nonsense....

Sabine Hossenfelder is incredible ignorant about the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Because it is explained better.

@@scottslotterbeck3796 It's also covering a lot of topics that aren't in most undergraduate physics programs. Easier to be better than nothing.

it isnt if you have only a finite resolution of how much you can measure. but fundamentally it is. tho its essentially not computable.

@@drgetwrekt869 Please see Norton's Dome. That thought experiment alone seems to suggest that Newtonian physics is NOT deterministic fundamentally.

Well, it’s the correct interpretation after all! ;-)

These new ChatGPT video summaries are great.

Sure, if the multiverse can hold infinite information somehow.

@@pajander What if it didn't have to hold infinite information to have infinite possibilities? Not sure how that'd work but anything too far out there would cancel out leaving only what's there.

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.

Not really. It has no better solution to measurement than any other interpretation.

@@sjzara The video explains it, its solution to measurement is that the entire detector becomes entangled with the particle which is measured and joins the superposition.