Haha

Jesus: Hold my hand.

@@voidremoved :))))))

👌🏽😔

No, not a few trillion. "Infinity"!

These funny interpretations come when they try to minus God from the universe

Gabriel Velasco clever and a good way to remember the concept

Good one!

Are you telling me that we all percieve reality as we want to percieve it? Or atleast how we "think" we percieve it? So.. if things pan out scalably, my logic doesn't violate your. We will litterally change reality with the shere power of our will, given we all survive eachother and we level up our technological capacities.

Nikola Milovanovic not really. It’s more like the reality we already have is given a list of facts resulting from a quantum interaction that are then incorporated into itself. We don’t have control over the facts about that interaction, nor do we have control over the quantum state of our own reality. Our perception of reality is a product of reality itself, not the other way around, and so our perception remains consistent with our observations.

Elaborate on “Knowledge of quantum...” sentence, is this true that “information” in the quantum sense is defined by systems and relationships and not by individual states?

so in other words multi worlds is like a stereo glasses filter, next we live in separate filters (or frequencies) that can't interact with eachother and sees different results (right/left eye) of the same mixed events (stereo movie screen).

This comment should be pinned on the top.

kushami

You barely cohere

Cant be. We observed you.

Does that mean you are in a superposition of being in a superposition and also not being in a superposition at the same time until you are measured? But if measured you wouldn’t be in a superposition so you can never be in a superposition?

Lol

since cats are liquids, they just try their best not to evapurrate!

I feel like that so often, maybe I'm the one who is entangled with your cat :s

Schrodinger had a lot of experience with cats, his Cat is a lab report, not a thought experiment.

LOL

Quantum entropy!

Cutting edge gravity theories link it to entanglement(See Susskind on entanglement and gravity)

Von Neumann entropy

ive almost solved it im nervous asf

This literally is the basis of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is just an emergent phenomenon from quantum interactions.

The implication that quantum effects only happen in cold/dry environments has been silly this whole time. Obviously they are easier to observe in very simple closed systems (cold, vacuum, tiny number of total particles, etc.), but I've heard really smart people talk about this stuff and they often mistake their observational limitations as the limit of physical interaction.

.

Even if you went to school the whole way, it's likely you'd have never covered this stuff unless you're in a very specific degree. You're about as capable as every other non-physicist/mathematician in understanding this kind of stuff :)

Get back to work… before I call up your employer & share how you have been watching videos & leaving long comments instead of focusing on your job. Customers want things done in a timely matter, with quality. Not a poor job done by someone who’s distracted. This also raises safety concerns that I could report to OSHA. Get your @$$ back to work… Now.

@@macysondheim Robert, the guy who made that comment killed himself 2 years ago.

*nods head emphatically*

So that's how I've been watching a 19 minute video for 45 minutes.

You in an Alternate Universe: How does the classical world tixEnter the quantum portAls (0-point worm "wHoles") of Quantum States/Statements existing inBetwixt parallel realities & their timelines/timecables? W0rmholes in Hyperspace are accessed & chrono topologically Hamiltonian Stabilizer-enCoded. The framework of wormhole technology gives way to antigravity. A sustained wormhole that back into itself is at the heart of all UFOs & human-made Levitating Aerial Craft (LAC). Wormhole tech, using Earth as the Force Field ground for recurrent particle entanglement, has led to Timeline shifts. For example: Pittsburg in 1 Universe. :˙: Pittsburgh in One('s) Multiverse.

Step 1: Quantum underwear. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit!

@@larkstonguesinaspic4814 Yeah, I backed it up about 10 mins four times myself from that point..Still only get a vague sense of understanding..Or a feeling of that last gasp of air, when you are in over your head, and you cant swim...

Right. So the act of “measuring” is really just the act of joining a wave function. That’s a neat way of looking at it!

@@Smerpyderp Well, “measuring” is just an interaction with a purpose. Interaction is just two particle colliding, which is basically the 2 wave functions of those particles adding up, creating new wave functions. Quite straightforward, if you think about it.

This is a good way of putting it. Now, keep that thought experiment going. What does this mean all the way up for the entire universe? Ask yourself, what are the philosophical implications of this?

@@monkieassasin I’d say it means solipsism is more literal than I thought previously. It means that you are quite literally the center of the universe, and not just from your perspective, but even the laws of the universe seem to think so too. I’d have to give it more thought, but I think it has more questions than implications. I guess you could think of the universe as more like fractals of little smaller realities that interact with each other. I feel like there are many more ways to look at this. I’d be curious to know what you think. Maybe someone wiser than I could open me up to possibilities?

@@monkieassasin Not much. On macroscopic level, it doesn’t have much implications. You can approximate it very well using regular particle models.

*Leonardo DiCaprio

or rather his quantum entangled version

And here we have a little particle, but it needs a friend. Everybody needs a friend. So you can entangle it with anything you like.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw him too!

@@bartektrusewicz5718 😂😂😂 Thank you, you almost made me spit out my beer.

Quantum superposition of understanding

As short as I can understand it, the moment you measure something it becomes classical. When you measure, you unwittingly allow the rest of the universe to entangle itself with what you look at. The universe then selects a chosen state to be the one, or not if there's multiple universes endlessly splitting.

Based on this and the episode on decoherence, the way i see it is there are at least two levels of "reality", the "underlying" one, existing always in a state of superposition, lets call it a fundamental one, and he one on the "surface", or the way i like to call it, the "perceived" one. As Mat mentioned, if the probability wave function is the wave upon which we "surf", then the manifestation that we measure in our "classical" notion is a single point along the front. We certainly perceive (and measure) a state of that wave, but by no means is that state all the states in which that wave exists "at the same time". That's at the least the way i try to picture in inside my head. Or the closest i can and still drawing analogies based on "mundane physical" reality. I could be WAY wrong though.......

It is simple, everything lies to you, but especially politicians. Do not expect your senses to tell you the truth and you will not go far wrong.

@arvinash does a great job at explaining the same concepts in simple ways.

Then you haven't seen much.

This was a beautiful analogy. Also means we have to liberate our minds, bust out the Matrix, and fight the machines...!!

So we're living in a simulation where the timeline can be scrubbed back and forth somewhat at the smallest resolutions? 🤦🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️😏🤣🤣🤣 Interesting idea.

You make it sound like Simulation Theory is real... And I can't deny it.

OMG! Plausible and convincing argument in favour of the idea we are living in a simulation!!! Love it!

I thought about this as well 🤔

Refer to the Stern-Gerlach experiment if you want some experimental observations for quantum spin. It provides a nice example that can help smooth out your understanding and also leads to some of the fundamental math (eigenvectors and such) that explain this problem.

I'll use Quantum Spin effects available to your human neurologicAl system & nerves to help you observe Quantum Spin happening between Parallel Universes (Timelines). But you have to Ask the Question differently, as a Quantum Question, to get a Quantum Answer. In Parallels: How does the classical world tixEnter the quantum portAls (0-point worm "wHoles") of Quantum States/Statements existing inBetwixt parallel realities & their timelines/timecables? W0rmholes in Hyperspace are accessed & chrono topologically Hamiltonian Stabilizer-enCoded. The framework of wormhole technology gives way to antigravity. A sustained wormhole that back into itself is at the heart of all UFOs & human-made Levitating Aerial Craft (LAC). Wormhole tech, using Earth as the Force Field ground for recurrent particle entanglement, has led to Timeline shifts. For example: Pittsburg in 1 Universe. :˙: Pittsburgh in One('s) Multiverse.

The way I resolve this is that the superposition of any quantum system is irrelevant. On a macroscopic level, we observe the entire entanglement web. Similar to how we understand that an up spin can be defined as a super position of the left/right spin, our entire entagled web (macroscopic observer reality) can be defined as a superposition of the orthogonal orientation (wave function reality).

@@emrey.551 I am very familiar with that experiment. It's not an explanation of spin I need, but the details of how the atom became entangled without affecting the phase of the electron. It just seems like there's still a lot of magic thinking, only it's pushed down the road a little bit.

@@fqed I don't get exactly why the superpositions are culled as the web of entanglement grows. Why shouldn't it continue in its superposition?

Merry Christmas

that faint ticking noise from the monkey on his back turning the crank...

In this episode I totally didn't see it coming.

The only part of this episode I understood

@@gabor6259 You can always tell when he starts a long sentence using a lot of the key words from the episode and it isn't clear where he's going with it.

This version of you can. but what does that say about other coherent versions are they more or less likely to have the same ability

I would assume this is what you're asking: Two particle are entangled and they states are in superposition. After the measurement we thus destroy the superposition and entanglement. The question is, what happened if the two particle is "re-entangled" ? Well, simple answer is it would become a new entanglement. If the states of the two particle is in a superposition, it would be a new one.

I think it's just entanglements layered on top of entanglements. The universe has a lot of memory and processing power.

@@hafizajiaziz8773 Like a man not being able to step twice into the same river, "because the second time it's not the same river and it's not the same man"?

@@NajwaLaylah exactly

@@sIXXIsDesigns maybe. But I'm in Copenhagen camp. Perhaps I'm wrong in my understanding.

Can't wait to apply this to my day to day decision making.

@@calebmauer1751 how?

America is is #1 at everything, ugh🙄 ... We'll see ur 20k and raise u 1 million.. poker terminology... in all seriousness, hope u guys are well

Get well soon Italy.

Hi there, greetings from quarantined Spain.

@@Trozomuro hola amigos, I see that you've joined us. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

@@TS1336 But not each other fingers... that'd be counterproductive Edit: typo

Greta?!

I have to imagine everything is entangled with everything else. Perhaps that's what the universe is - a distinct set of quantum objects entangled together

@@thijs2906 "Because that is assuming that both particles are different from the beginning, which they are not." I understand that this is the assertion being made, but it is a nonsensical one. You are claiming that something behaves differently when we aren't measuring it, which is both untestable by definition and in violation of Occam's Razor. "In your case, assume that the 2 marbles each have a 1/2 probability of being either blue or red." Which, from my perspective, is exactly what happens with actual marbles in an actual cup: I don't know which one I grabbed, so I must assume a 1/2 probability each of it being blue or red. "The moment I or you grab a marble from the opaque cup, and measure it's color, the other one instantly assumes the other color," I can't tell if you're honestly arguing that the state of marble in my closed hand changes color when you look at your marble, or if you just don't understand the hypothetical. From your perspective of probability, yes, you can know from the moment you check your marble that the marble I took is the other color. You can be sure that when I look, if I do, I will find it to be the color that your marble is not. But your observation has not ACTUALLY changed anything. From a global perspective, the universe has already decided which marble I had the moment I grabbed it; the change in probability when you measure your marble is only a matter of knowledge based on your perspective, not a literal change in actual properties of any objects. Again: Why should we take this untestable, unnecessarily complicated position that the particles are different while they're not being observed? It would appear to violate multiple basic tenants of logical reasoning, and you've just repeated the assertion without justifying anything.

​ @Thizzeh "I'm not claiming that something behaves differently when we are not measuring it - I'm just saying what quantum mechanics tells us, which is that before observing a particle, it exists in a wave of probability," No. This is flat false, as you would understand if you actually paid attention to the very videos this conversation is happening under. Quantum mechanics does NOT claim that the particle actually exists as a wave of probability, any more than probability theory tells us that the marble in my closed hand is a wave of probability until I open my hand and look at it. "It has however, been proven countless times, over and over, working out all the loopholes that 2 entangled particles, split from an original, will always assume opposite properties when either is measured, independent of location in spacetime." Which is PRECISELY the behavior you would expect if you assume that the particles have already taken those properties before they are measured, as the marbles already have definite, yet unknown, colors. "If you're questioning why something so absurd and counterintuitive is happening, then you must understand that the universe and its workings have no obligation to make sense to you." That is not remotely at issue, here. Go ahead and point to the part where I argued that it's wrong because it's counterintuitive or absurd... I didn't. I argued by use of analogy and reference to accepted rational principles. "Occam's razor tells us that we should not theorize or try to explain things that can not be empirically proven or need too many assumptions to make it work, because that would be unnecessary." ...Rational principles which you apparently don't understand. The words in that definition are somewhat correct, but they're jumbled up and combine to the wrong compound idea. Occam's Razor is the principle that we should attempt to minimize the number and scope of our assumptions. In this case, "the equations of quantum theory tell us what we're likely to measure at a given time and place" is a simpler assumption than "the equations of quantum theory tell us what we're likely to measure at a given time and place, and ALSO particles behave in a different way when we aren't looking (proposing an extra behavior unnecessary behavior for particles) and ALSO if this unobservable behavior is a thing we have to account for the instantaneous transfer of information (a significant complication that requires yet more assumptions to make sense of). "However, countless experiments have empirically proven that entangled particles, in fact, do behave in a way that is explained in the video." Again, this is impossible, because the claimed behavior is something that supposedly only happens when we aren't looking. The actual observed behavior is explainable WITHOUT the additional assumption of this unique, unobservable state.

@@thijs2906 You have an incomplete understanding of the argument at hand. You, first off, continue to assert something while simultaneously admitting that the thing you are asserting is unknowable, and secondly, overstate the position of your interpretation in modern scientific discourse; polls of actual particle physicists have found that the interpretation you claim to be the consensus is a plurality position at best, not a majority (as in, more like 30-40% than the 95% you would need to reasonably claim consensus), and that most particle physicists don't even know the details of the argument and just kind of take it for granted.

Thanks for reminding me of that game!

Well there wouldn't be any contradictory states... if I understand correctly, before measurement, C would be in a state that would reflect the possibility of A's state and B's state (that is it either agrees with A's state or B's state). This sounds a lot like one of those arguments that were being thrown around at the begining of the theory... cheats to learn 2 types of values at once (like both position and momentum at the same time). However in all these cases, when one parameter is adopted, the other becomes less accurate or even random. When you finally measure C to get the results, you'd get the effect of A or the effect of B but they would not disagree with one another on any contradicting state. Any system that requires a contradicting state to pick one result would exclude the other, even if the mesurement is after the fact. Try looking at Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser to blow your mind on that one.

If I understand your question correctly, I think the answer from this video is that you _cannot_ know the state of a quantum system without becoming entangled with it. Where entangled simply means that the observer and the observed have become a single quantum system with their respective states superposed.

This might be true within another type of multiverse, and it's not sure that physicists can even exist within a really classical world (without quantum mechanics, chemistry doesn't work the same as it does in our universe). The quantum type manyworlds is not about many kinds of laws of physics but many possible outcomes within the known set of laws of physics.

@@jensphiliphohmann1876 But I am not talking about different laws of physics. I am thinking about one wehre all observable quantum mechanical effects due to chance seem classical. Imagine the double slit experiment yielding just two stripes on the detector screen due to chance.

@@ilmbrk6570 Multiverse with Many worlds... interesting.

This is my personal problem with the many worlds, essentially that has to mean there are infinite worlds. There are worlds where you suddenly and spontaneously turned into a cat or worlds where Chuck Norris isn't...this doesn't seem possible, or testable.

@@dustinjenkins8215 That's a misconception of the many worlds hypothesis. Every "world" follows the laws of physics, only the things that could happen can happen, so there wouldn't be a world where you spontaneously turn into a cat. There certainly could be a branch where Chuck Norris doesn't exist though. Sean Carrol is pretty interesting to listen to on this subject, he was on Lex Fridman's podcast, and he talks about precisely these things, as well as testability. Also It's not necessarily infinite, it could just be really large, but finite, that's not something we know.

@@tanta1519 So why couldn't, say, all of the carbon atoms in my body suddenly turn into nitrogen if a proton quantum tunneled into each of my carbon atoms all at the same time?

@@dustinjenkins8215 that's another question entirely. I'm not a physicist, I'm certainly not an expert on QM, nor am I even necessarily a proponent of the many worlds interpretation(it's just an interesting hypothesis, that lines up with the math). I don't know whether what you described is physically possible, so all I can say is if it is, then there's an incredibly remote chance that that happens, if it's not then it can't.

@@tanta1519 my point is, in many worlds, it certainly has happened.

As far as I'm aware, "spin" isn't really like a traditional physical property at all, but if you just imagine that the thing can be one way or another, and that scientists have found the easiest metaphor to draw to that information is "spin", then I think it's a little easier to grasp. Not saying I'm an expert though, but that's my understanding :P

Spin is only a quantum mechanical concept, rising from a particle’s magnetic moment. It is analagous to the particle spinning, and spin up/spin down represent the particle spinning anti-clockwise or clockwise.

There is no spoon, ops, There is no 'real' spin

Grateful for your replies, but no closer to understanding

I'm still not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be, but as far as I know, quantum "spin" bears little resemblance to the usual concept of spin. It's more like a metaphor for different mathematical states.

A cable with a pointer going up or down, didn't you watch the video hehe

When we say we make an observation that means we made a measurement.

what you just asked is actually the point of this video and several previous videos. "What is measurement?" has no universally agreed upon answer. That's the measurement problem.

@@liggerstuxin1 I guess my question is more general. About all of the particles around us, we're seeing all of them in one position, the world is not a cloud of quantum superpositions when we close our eyes right? My question is, is us experiencing the universe, the measurement itself? Sorry in advance if my question sounds stupid.

In the most essential sense, when we observe some phenomenon, we are collapsing the wave function into a single eigenstate (farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node40.html). This is caused by an interaction between the quantum mechanical phenomena and the external world (Us in this case). Note that the wave function itself is a superposition of multiple eigenstates (Eigenstates here are analogous to quantum spin, which can be represented as matrices) so one observation can have multiple possible outcomes (Again relating to quantum spin, up or down, left or right). Talking in more vague terms, the particle can potentially exist in multiple states, which we do not know beforehand; when we observe it we no longer are in the unknown and since we know that it can exist only in a singular state, it must and thus those appear as one of these potential outcomes. For the observation itself per se, that would mean either direct observation (Magnified reflection of light off of the particle and into our eyes) or some other measurement such as electron microscopes.

Rishabh and you win the Lottery every time you play.

She said no in many different ways. Sorry buddy! 😣😣

in some other world I died by eating raw chicken while sleep walking but then I came back to life for no reason

Actually quantum mechanics forbids this

Give a thanks to Hugh Everett when meet him in that other reality!

nice

...yes

It's already entangled when you first use it

Exactly like a video game does.

Obviously, since we live in a simulation.

Except they are not approximated but pretty precise(carrying way more info than the classical model).

No, because every interaction is a measurement. It's not waiting for some human to see it. The universe is a plenum, there needs to be little stuff where nothingness is not, and so everything interactions and everything measures.

Yes you are

You can only spoon feed people so much, at some point they have to learn to take responsibility for their own learning. As a participant in the Internet though, I do realize this may be asking too much of people.

Well... My friend, we are tuching here the fabric of the uniwerse itself. It won't be clear, no, it will be more and more abstract. However I understand your anger and overall arguments. Fizic got beyond magic at this point.

@@flameendcyborgguy883 that's a cop out. If it's been proven scientifically, then there ought to be a way to explain it clearly. Vonnegut himself wrote that any scientist who can't explain their work to a child is a charlatan. And I maintain that a test group for their material will be essential as the subject matter grows in complexity.

@@anthonydunn729 So for example explain me clearly what is Gravity, such that outside knowlege is not needed.

This, needs to go viral

darkmath100 when your sum contains both the dead and alive state, why should the dead state be always kind of preferred over the alive state?

@@blackhole3298 In our classical world some quantum states overpower others. To use a crude analogy multiply a bunch of positive integers together and then multiply by -1. No matter how many or how large the positive numbers the result will always be negative.

Ask China

Entanglement has been tested in much the way described 4:40. So it's absolutely, definitely not untestable, quite the opposite.

We can perform the relevant experiments with small no.1 of individuals particles.

@tapksa Exactly.