I didn't even notice the dog until you mentioned him, that's hilarious :D

The dog is trying very hard not to notice Joe's quantum state, so Joe can get the shot on camera. Good doggy!:)

Hahahahha XD genius

@@angelarch5352 Good one son!

Some dogs are just reserved and quiet in nature. Rest assured, it still is greatly amused while looking at him.

Joetinger's Pants?

@@bagelmaster2 I am so so sorry that I can only like that once! 😂👍🏆 ✋👇👖

Can the hand be inside if there are no pants?

@@rgerber Well, yes, but then the questions become "inside what?" and "does Joe want to know enough to look?"

Schrödinger's Hand lol

Lol the juxtaposition of this and the video of DMX actually using a computer.

I read that as Attenborough.

Even though you said British, I still read it as Morgan Freeman lol

Morgan Attenborough

@@isaacturnercreativeideas that is something that *must* happen. We just need some top scientists and blood samples from mosquitoes preserved in amber.

This have me some Stanley Parable vibes

Living your best life. Love it.

Yea Joe, cause I’m wearing his pants...

@@johnnyappleseed79 I'm wearing your mum's...

Zedds Dead Baby Mmmmm... ok, that escalated quickly :)

As soon as i read that my pants disappeared , wth?

You can if they dont know they are being filmed

@@SuperLusername lol wonderfully creepy comment haha

TRUE FACTS ! 📽 📸 people definitely behave differently when they know they're being filmed [even security surveillance has proven that fact 😅] I'm a Photographer & Videographer, mainly been doing Event Photography at raves for the past 14 years, and because of the fact that people act differently when in front of a camera, I became a "self-proclaimed Master" of Candid Photography ! Because catching people in the element is my favoriteeee ! 😻

@@SuperLusername Are they really being 'filmed' ? People are using digital format for quite awhile now. They are being 'recorded'. It's a video, not film. It's a recording, not footage. Just saying.

@@your_average_joe5781 ok average Joe

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iLemaKaHqrKrY4k.html

Materialism is dead.

Simulation

Yup. Like measurement error.

Yes! That's exactly how I often feel.

@@carpathianhermit7228 Oh, that's kind of theory that can explain everything without explaining anything. How would "simulation" solve the fact that the first pair of photons end up being polarized because their counterparts are polarized, which prevents interference? No, of course, we can speculate, that there's probably an algorithm that calculates the universe infinite time ahead on each step of Plank's time for each particle, but don't you think it's too much to ask?

the secret is ... if science can not measure it, they say it does not exist. This experiment prove sciences = scienctism.

Charles Uwakwe lol just noticed the puppy 🐶 ^.^

Simple. All particles and all matter exist as a waveform before the fact of observation by a human. The fact of observation makes it a particle. Animals can not do it, by the way. It's been tried, actually.

@@sd789sd so... whoever is observing has to be aware that they are observing, and that they are observing the way the light will react? Like, what about say... a 3 yr old child that doesnt know what they're supposed to do?

@@SeeMeRolling Nope. It is a fact of observation itself. Has to be a human though. 3 years old will do if we somehow make 3 years old interested enough to watch. )) it is our attention that manifests energy as matter. If you serious, there are couple books you can read. )

@@sd789sd sir, what are those books?

@@sd789sd But what about animals that have the intelligence of a 5 year old human? Perhaps a crow, or an elephant?

Yes in the delayed choice quantum eraser the particles that had their information scrambled did not collapse

@Svenson c+d did get an interference pattern due to their path not being measured. That's what was explained.

There is no "collapse" in quantum mechanics.

Exactly, wise Plank

Lol love the name

All matter has particle and wave properties at the same time. You get the same results with electrons or protons in these experiments. FYI

Lmao

Hate to be old here, but what does that little block icon signify? Been seeing it around more and more.

😂

SPLIT UP!

Physics joke ftw

bartender says "what'll it be?" A tachyon walks into a bar.

@@zaphodbeeblebrox2817 we are honored by your presence

Yes agent : Smith will take care of this , just as soon as he has taken care of the rebel "Neo"

Yeah the devs are really behind on updates. Like half of the players are still experience the chronic depression bug and it's soooooo annoying. 🙄

At best the devs are furloughed at this point smh

It’s in the backlog somewhere

They will unlikely fix this one. Maybe fixing it would cause more problems than it solves.

The dog is used to Scott acting nutty, in a way no sensible dog would act. Is Scott's dog smarter than Scott?

The dog is like: oh boy... my pet has its crazy day again

Noticing the dog watching makes the whole scene extra funny imho. :-)

Humans should not keep pets. It is essentially slavery of a lower lifeform. The animal has no choice, often no balls, no true freedom and is trained to please.

I take it as proof that yes, he does act like that off camera.

😂

@@adamflores4206 lol

vibe check

But it's not a glitch. It's just something we don't understand yet.

"They," I imagine, LOL at a lot when watching us.

Jeremy Kolassa Great, you've collapsed the episode, happy ?

@@tomf3150 Nice! We can non-temporality in action

I wish I could say I was that clever. I was actually waiting for the sponsor to approve the sponsor message.

Hand down your pants*

THATS cool.

Lmao, I just like to drink beer and watch his videos. No hands in my pants, but I could use a shower. Lol

To be fair i was scratching my balls like a minute ago

seriously, who wears pants?

Quote of the year

“Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.” ― Rick Cook

"No single thing abides; and all things are fucked up." - PKD

@@burningpapersun1 Other than The Dude. The Dude always abides.

Justin D. Whitehead itself a reference to this kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9icecx2ypy3Ymg.html

Sadly, he got it wrong, so you are pointing people to bad information. The pattern on the screen does NOT change depending on what happens to the entangled partner. Their states are entangled and you can see correlation when you measure everything later, but it doesn't work like he described here.

@@Tony-dp1rl any reason I should believe you over him?

@@Tony-dp1rl also this was from a year ago are you okay ?

Phosphorus51 you gotta keep it warm 😄

Same here 😢

Same here, but was scratching... stuff...

10% you say 🤔

In my defense it was resting on my hip, not in my crotch.

Ok... But how you explain the experiment at 8.41 with two detectors A and B that can be far away but you will always obtain no interference pattern in the screen if they are on. Seems like information goes back in time.

So when do we get to read your entire paper? And surely you have a theory on how to prove this without variables with the act of the observation removed? Let me know please. I think you may be on to something.🇺🇸💪🇺🇦🖕🇷🇺

Sign me in

Uh... Yes please!

Might I recommend subscribing to Lindybeige. He is full of random interestingness AND dance tips

Y'all gon' make me louse my mind!

Yes please

Get an iron and iron out the stretch marks

@Sticky Steve Mine are just from when I grew fat as a kid, not much honor in that other than honoring all those who came before us who gave us something close to abundance I guess.

😂 that's great

I wish I could truelly dive deep into this topic . It used to be a struggle for my wife . Now it's her mark maturity.

@@texasdeeslinglead2401 Stretch marks absolutely destroyed my wife's self esteem after our first child. It still bothers her badly to this day but there's nothing I can do to help her feel any better about it. Just have to wait until we have the technology to erase them I guess.

Up in here?

@@joescott up in here.

@@joescott sabine hossenfelder has a nice little video that explains the mistake everyone has been making about the quantum eraser.

that sums up joe :)

That means you understand it I think

I think I understand what he was saying....that doesn't mean what he said made any sense....quantum physics is *WEIRD.*

"if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"

That traveling back in time is my favorite!

....so is a convertible in a state of super symmetry or super positioned

Finemann actually suggest once that there might be only one photon in existance going back and forth through time. Turned out to be wrong but still... :)

Or in quantum world the time itself is subject to tunnel effect / is quantizied.

Unfortunately it still sounds crazy to tell people that you experience/sense time non-linearly.

Problem is, the delayed choice quantum eraser should work in this way also if You consider quantum particles with mass and that therefore actually "experience" time...

I'm not sure but this might have been tested with other particles like electrons too. I think it applies to any particles in a superposition and entangled state. Electrons, protons and atoms certainly don't travel at the speed of light so they do experience time in the traditional sense. So in theory, anything in a superposition would experience this bizarre effect, even macroscopic objects, assuming you can set them into a superposition.

... those legs are a quantum thing ..he does and doesn't have them ..or, they could be the property of StreXcorp ..or, as the most biggest thinker would say ..there's no way to know, nobody knows *chuckle *chuckle

There was a video about electric cars where he tried to hook up with a woman in the intro. He did have legs there

Ahhhh...I see what you did there.

got it.

Thanks, Kathy Newman. :p

I believe this is the only thing for science should be working on

monkeygirl000 Thanks. I low-key love myself!

Just don't observe which slit they went through.

Unfazed

Joe's a freak lol

Did you think I was lying about that being my normal state?

lol. you danced for the camera as if it was operating with a quantum eraser. And does your staircase have pictures of a staircase hung on it?

Maybe because it's nothing out of the ordinary to him lol

Hey, that makes about as much sense as any of the leading explanations 🤷‍♂️

Actually very reasonable. Only calculate collapse wave functions when they matter, otherwise just use the mean value of stuff.

Can you explain that a lil bit

The simulation answer is a non-answer.

I think you are absolutely correct. Only render it when someone is focused on it, otherwise just use an approximation and you can cut down on the computation load.

I just bought that book, thanks!

Some would say say information has no weight. It's just a pattern. What if light, just like information isn't a things, just a pattern. Or maybe I'm overthinking it... :-)

@@autohmae If it is a pattern why does it takes the shape of a particle when measured?

@@autohmae A pattern is just another way of saying a wave form.

@@chrisfuller2069 Yeah, that's why I changed my tune at the end... I'm overthinking it.

Actually he is thinking, "I was going to tell him the answer to Quantum Physics if he took me for a walk like he promised but oh no, he just had to start recording a video again. Welp thats it, I am instead going to share it with the cat, not that the cat cares really".

Lemar Reyes I just noticed the dog 🐕 ^.^

That dog is hysterical. His head followed his every movement, like he was studying something absolutely fascinating. I felt the same way....

lol i didnt even notice the dog

Joe should create a separate video for this

But were they in your pants before you threw them up?

Not a smart guy here, but I think since splitting the entangled particles failed they had to split it a couples more to change the point of origin. Splitting one entangled particle will not technically separate them as they act like they share the same WiFi signal. But detecting half of the particle on the measuring device does not give them any new result since the other half is still reacting no different. Kind of like someone pretending to be 2 different people on 4chan but in the end they're just using the same ip address and you can see that. So why not he use his computer with his WiFi. Pull out his tablet and pair it with his neighbors WiFi and then on top of that use his phone with its mobile data. It looks like multiple people are sh!t posting but little do I know, it's all synced up to one device. I would not know that so I would go on arguing with 3 people not ever knowing its just one.

Ah, but what if there's a cat inside a box, does it need to render the inside of the box, or even the cat itself?

silly humans...assuming the rendering of the universe is going forward in time

Not even that... just the moment to moment subjective experience of thinking you're in a real world.

@@etahydri That's assuming that subjective experience CAN be "rendered". Maybe it's not possible to simulate consciousness, or it's extremely hard to do so. Anyway even if possible, this would still be prohibitively expensive to compute.. I mean, to simulate a single experience of a human in 2019 you would have to go through the evolution of the whole observable universe up until that point. So what would be the difference from the "real thing"? None.

Well, and the spawn chunks

It is not actually accurate. There's an element missing. Look up The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Debunked by Sabine Hossenfelder video. She explains the wave patterns from each side when combined produces the full scattering appearance because they're slightly apart. The "no interference pattern" is actually two interference patterns combined together, slightly offset, to produce a full field. That's something Joe and many others missed.

I bet you also have a number between 0-10(12?) fingers.

Because of Joe?

You exist, it existed to you the moment your pretty little eyes viewed it and inevitably measured it. Now it exists to me as well, have a wonderful day ❤

Miss J oh god

@Kevin w But you thought about looking at it, remember what measuring actually is... Muahahahahahah :D

Both eyes or all eight?

Miss J - What if someone can’t read, would it still exist.. Or do we have a paradox.

Or it's blind.

The dog is patterns on the wall and Joe is detectors being moved to and fro

How is this 3 hours ago????

Nguyen Van : comes out early for Patreon members 🤓😉

Nguyen Van Quantum time machine

The act of meeting one neighbor automatically makes the other neighbor a stranger. Stranger is RIGHT!

"It's quantum fields, Joe! Wait! I mean it's Planck level synchronicity! You know: strings!"

@@WildBillCox13 Yeah. That's the ticket! :)

I don't see a question there. It's a little difficult to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics require that in order to exist, an object must interact with the universe. It must engage in one or more of the four fundamental physical interactions: Strong Nuclear Force, Weal Nuclear Force, EM, and Gravity, or it just is not real. An object comes into existence when it is realized, for example, in a Hawking interaction at the event horizon of a black hole. Let's think of perspective, for a moment. We are creatures of electrons and mass, so to us the universe, although quite sparse, is alive with gravity, chemistry, and light. Consider the perspective of a Neutrino, though. To it, Gravity is almost non-existent. It only feels the effects of Gravity to any noticeable affect near a Neutron Star or Black Hole. Light doesn't exist at all, and we humans, even the entire Earth are so ghostly as to be almost imaginary phantoms. Stars are a bit like fluffy clouds: definitely there and not totally insubstantial, but more like a low density foam than a massive object. Our aforementioned friends the Neutron Stars are definitely quite solid, and while a black hole probably can't tear a Neutrino apart the way it can a human body, or even an atom, it is still a daunting object. To exist, then, is to be affected by some force. A force, however, is taken to be an exchange of Gauge Bosons. When one charged particle passes another, its path is altered by their electric and magnetic field interactions, mediated by virtual photons. We can infer the position and momentum of the charged particle by observing the particle's effect on the other particles near it. In doing so, however, we alter the very things we wish to measure, since the object not only affects the test particles, but the test particles also affect the object in question. In this scenario, we are not observing the object directly, but rather through its affect on other objects. The point is, whether the interaction we observe is direct or indirect, the fact the object exists means it not only affects the universe, but it is also affected by the universe at each and every interaction. The fact is there is no such thing as a direct observation, but If we want to observe the object a bit more directly than inferring its properties from the effects on the rest of the universe, we can employ a real Vector Boson, rather than a virtual one. (We can, of course, also employ collisions with non-gauge particles, but we can set that aside for now.) Any Vector Boson might be employed, depending upon the nature of the object, but let's just talk about light. If we want to know the position of a particle, we can send out a barrage of photons and see which one bounces back, pinpointing the particle. That, or if the particle is self-luminescent, we can just wait for it to emit a photon, and see from where the photon came. There are two problems, however. The first is the photon has a finite spatial extent quantified by its wavelength. We can only pinpoint the particle's position at the time it emitted / reflected the photon with an accuracy no better than the wavelength of the photon. If the photon has a wavelength of 1000nm, then we only know the position of the particle to within 1000nm. In order to nail down the particle's position better than that, we must employ a photon of shorter wavelength. Practical matters may intervene, but theoretically there is no finite limit to how accurately we can measure the position of the particle. That brings up the second problem. Even if the particle was at rest when it emitted / reflected the photon, it isn't any longer. By conservation of momentum, we know the particle's momentum must change after interacting with the photon. What's more, the amount of change in momentum depends upon the momentum of the photon. The greater the momentum of the photon, the greater the change in the particle's momentum. Since the particle's position cannot be known precisely, this also means the momentum cannot be known precisely. Furthermore, the shorter the wavelength of the photon, the greater the uncertainty of the momentum of the particle. This leads directly to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but the point here is the observational limits are not just an empirical hardship, but are in fact the fundamental nature of the universe, and of space-time itself. In the very deepest sense, reality *IS* observation.

I don't see a question there. It's a little difficult to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics require that in order to exist, an object must interact with the universe. It must engage in one or more of the four fundamental physical interactions: Strong Nuclear Force, Weal Nuclear Force, EM, and Gravity, or it just is not real. An object comes into existence when it is realized, for example, in a Hawking interaction at the event horizon of a black hole. Let's think of perspective, for a moment. We are creatures of electrons and mass, so to us the universe, although quite sparse, is alive with gravity, chemistry, and light. Consider the perspective of a Neutrino, though. To it, Gravity is almost non-existent. It only feels the effects of Gravity to any noticeable affect near a Neutron Star or Black Hole. Light doesn't exist at all, and we humans, even the entire Earth are so ghostly as to be almost imaginary phantoms. Stars are a bit like fluffy clouds: definitely there and not totally insubstantial, but more like a low density foam than a massive object. Our aforementioned friends the Neutron Stars are definitely quite solid, and while a black hole probably can't tear a Neutrino apart the way it can a human body, or even an atom, it is still a daunting object. To exist, then, is to be affected by some force. A force, however, is taken to be an exchange of Gauge Bosons. When one charged particle passes another, its path is altered by their electric and magnetic field interactions, mediated by virtual photons. We can infer the position and momentum of the charged particle by observing the particle's effect on the other particles near it. In doing so, however, we alter the very things we wish to measure, since the object not only affects the test particles, but the test particles also affect the object in question. In this scenario, we are not observing the object directly, but rather through its affect on other objects. The point is, whether the interaction we observe is direct or indirect, the fact the object exists means it not only affects the universe, but it is also affected by the universe at each and every interaction. The fact is there is no such thing as a direct observation, but If we want to observe the object a bit more directly than inferring its properties from the effects on the rest of the universe, we can employ a real Vector Boson, rather than a virtual one. (We can, of course, also employ collisions with non-gauge particles, but we can set that aside for now.) Any Vector Boson might be employed, depending upon the nature of the object, but let's just talk about light. If we want to know the position of a particle, we can send out a barrage of photons and see which one bounces back, pinpointing the particle. That, or if the particle is self-luminescent, we can just wait for it to emit a photon, and see from where the photon came. There are two problems, however. The first is the photon has a finite spatial extent quantified by its wavelength. We can only pinpoint the particle's position at the time it emitted / reflected the photon with an accuracy no better than the wavelength of the photon. If the photon has a wavelength of 1000nm, then we only know the position of the particle to within 1000nm. In order to nail down the particle's position better than that, we must employ a photon of shorter wavelength. Practical matters may intervene, but theoretically there is no finite limit to how accurately we can measure the position of the particle. That brings up the second problem. Even if the particle was at rest when it emitted / reflected the photon, it isn't any longer. By conservation of momentum, we know the particle's momentum must change after interacting with the photon. What's more, the amount of change in momentum depends upon the momentum of the photon. The greater the momentum of the photon, the greater the change in the particle's momentum. Since the particle's position cannot be known precisely, this also means the momentum cannot be known precisely. Furthermore, the shorter the wavelength of the photon, the greater the uncertainty of the momentum of the particle. This leads directly to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but the point here is the observational limits are not just an empirical hardship, but are in fact the fundamental nature of the universe, and of space-time itself. In the very deepest sense, reality *IS* observation.

Thank you for this comment. I was confused. By "observe", I thought he meant "to look", but the sensors were actually interacting with the beam of light in order to measure it. Now, it makes sense that it would behave differently under "observation".

Interference while measurement doesn’t explain or account for the strange behavior that occurs during the experiments that measure and then “forget” the measurements. Though measured and interfered with, the light particles somehow reacquire superposition, which is plain nuts.

if an entangled particle can affect the other instantly through space it makes sense it can do it through time - time is another dimension much like space, we just seem to be moving at c through it.

AND, if there really is no "Arrow-of-Time" & reverse time-travel is possible, how wld that infl. particles? For instance, does baryonic-matter, traveling backwards thru time, turn into anti-matter? Cld that solve the "Missing Antimatter Problem"? Just one tweak to our Assumptions & all kinds of stuff comes tumbling out...

THE DOUCHEBAG Funny cuz it’s true. True that some people actually believe that! 😂

@@crownspecialties there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove it without the "aliens" actually interfering from outside. I'm not sure why you find it laughable. You have no evidence to disprove it, and that fact should make it a little humbling. What if the Bible (Either Hebrew scriptures or New Testament, take your pick) might be about beings coming to interfere in our simulation. Almost any religion can be re-interpreted this way. Think about it.

Cuvtixo D Believe in any crazy thing besides the obvious, that we and the universe were created by god. Of course I can’t disprove aliens and I never said they don’t exist. If Aliens do exist on some other planet who started saying that they were the ones that created us, that’s so far-fetched. And why do we need to live in a computer simulation, this is real life you’re talking about a movie. We have zero proof that Aliens exist and tons and tons of proof beyond common sense that we were created by something intelligent. We have the Bible!! The Word of God. We are a design. This universe is a design. It didn’t just happen accidentally. Something intelligent planned this out then meet us. And that something is the God of the Bible. But most people don’t like what the Bible says most people just want to be their own guards and seek sinful pleasures to obtain temporary happiness.

@@crownspecialties prove the existence of god or the bible's correctness, then we can talk.

@@crownspecialties idk bro ufos are real so like...

segue

coffee didn't help me at all, And I didn't think the segue worked, it was incredibly clumsy. And I hate BigMacs. we're so totally different. It's like you're a particle and I'm a waveform. (BTW Segway is the two wheeled electric scooter. Segue is the word for a transition in presentations)

Ohhhh, I learned a new word today too! Thank you! I don't know how I missed that one.

@@squirlmy I don't like BigMacs. It is a play on my last name. 😁

@@diyeana No problem. Understandable mistake. The segway is something you ride. The company that makes it used the off spelling as a play on words. A segue takes you from one subject to another. The Segway takes you from one place to another.

It erased my brain

so many don't realize this it's insane.

Well, what's your interpretation? The particles more or less take similar paths, the only difference being that in some cases we can't tell which was path was taken and in some, we can. The physical systems in both cases are basically the same, so what actually changes from the perspective of the photon that makes it act differently?

From the photons perspective the interaction with the physical experiment and the physical means of the observer detecting the photon. In general what I’m saying is that we don’t “know” squat. The theory is either incomplete or wrong.

Even more generally, just because the maths work doesn’t mean it’s right in describing what’s happening in our physical world. If a math equation doesn’t have a corresponding physical explanation that can be pointed at then I am automatically skeptical. ( constants and other non physical values)

@@calebstone22 In engineering, the same concept is referred to as blackboxing (reproducing the output of an unknown system without the fundamental understanding of the underlying logic) as opposed to whiteboxing (reproducing the logic of a system by its design document or a description of its logic).

But if you observe him, then he will no longer be in your home.

That was not a naive audience. They laughed because they got it.

That's the problem In the quantum universe you say "Ah, yes, that's how it is!..... Or isn't!"

@@rogerstarkey5390Right! ... or wrong.

Duh yaaa

@@Millennium7HistoryTech It's both! At the same time!

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Or both!

Photons have no mass. The energy they carry does.

It actually weighs bcz light has momentum

@@anandsuralkar2947 The momentum the light carries doesn't mean it has mass, it means it has energy. Even though mass and energy are somewhat interchangeable, it's not accurate in this case because in order to move at the speed of light you need to have either no mass or infinite energy.

@@armchairgravy5148 energy doesn't have mass. What book are you reading lol There's a few specific reasons a photon in a mirrored box seems to weigh something vs. a photon in an unbound state. The main reason is relativistic mass vs. rest mass. However even photons with zero net momentum still seem to weigh something in a mirrored box despite not having any real mass.

@@ericalbers4867 E=Mc2, energy has mass. It does depend a bit on what sort of mass you are talking about though.

ur grandmas kewl

As a schizophrenic your grandma was schizophrenic

@@informitas0117 There is a theory that on the bell-curve of human intellectual evolution; the minority of people who are most highly developed will most likely be found in mental institutions. Well, that was back when mental institutions existed. Now they might be in prisons.

@@garysutherland9706 this speaks to me

Cant like bcuz theres 69 rn

How would you define magic though? I mean, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

@@M4RC90 Something that isn't technological at all. It might be explained by science, sure, but if it has a purely biological source, it's not technology.

@@Nanokarp no it's still technology. Living creatures are technically machines. Just biological ones. Also if science can explain it's mechanism then it's still science and still natural. Magic would have to fall outside of the natural universe. It couldn't be explained in any way.

@@ericalbers4867 Your and my definition of magic and technology differs apparently.

@@Nanokarp I don't know how they differ since magic refers to the supernatural. The very premise of anything supernatural is right there in the word.