The universe has't been officially released, this is a leaked version.

just like no man's sky :/

I'm just glad we're not getting all the 404 errors that plagued the first leak.

nonamae2009 oh god i don't want to be reminded of those

+Smerlin and i had beeb told we were out of beta and releasing on time...

*insert elitest comment saying how wrong you are* p.s. I hav no idea

Hahahahh

Every time I look it must be invisible. It must be outside the range of human senses. Can my dog see it?

i got a reason to stare at my phone with my eyes closed.

Parakmi I lol good one :)

Same.

This describes my thoughts perfectly xD

Its true

@@madcow5833 Thank you for this

Why take anything down because it has been debunked? There is still usefull information here and it shows the process of science. There is also nothing on the internet that has an obligation to be truthfull to you.

This comment is criminally underappreciated. 1k likes from me to you.

@@hillarysemails1615 Sir. You are not authorized to give 1k likes here. We restricted your contribution to a number of 1 like.

😆😁😇@@Blacksoul444

Dgaf brapman 😅👍🏻 me too

Haha same. I use 2 try open the fridge fast or slow or sneak look at it. Found out there was a fuckn botton and found how stupid I looked haha

Excellent comment.

There is no fridge

Hidden variable

I feel you brother, this shit is too valuable not to learn

I don't know how I got this far in life not knowing this. I'll never look at the world the same way again, innocence lost. I feel so much older and wiser knowing this. I'm ready to take on the world now, look out world I know some real shit now. I don't have a clue what the fuck it means, but I know it :)

I'm on my 5th go

You have to watch this many times because the meaning keeps changing. ;)

I like to tell kids learning physics is like fighting a hydra

@@douglaswinters9695 every time you cut a head, another 2 show up sprout in its place ?

It can and is 😂

nope its complex variable that doesnt allow to see its properties

Excellent comment.

Underrated comment🍆

#BlameIsAnInteger Pass it on. #Dust

The creators of the simulator have control systems in place

Debunked

This is absolutely right. We glossed over some details, but will expand on this in an upcoming video.

This is super important information, especially when it comes to interpreting what the results mean.

Lol you call that "some details"? You should be ashamed to call yourself scientists.

+SemperAugustusBubble Dude, they are going to talk more on it in a later video, wait for that before you say shit like that

hahahah

Made me laugh out loud

And still attractive, in spite of the added height, ay?

human?

wll physicists outsmarted their selves. This interpretation is based on a logical fallacy. arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4522.pdf

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Quantum Mechanics are based on empirical data anyways. Shortly said: It is made up from theoretical facts.

@@ethhics Sure, but the interpretations of the quantum eraser is factually wrong.

​@@ethhics btw ''theoretical facts'' is an oxymoron. We use facts to construct our theories.

Yet the universe kicks everyone's teeth in after the experiment.

Kevin Laity that's a very good question, I've been wondering the same. any comment from other physics folks round here?

Could you also use entangled pairs as a type of 'switch'? I.e. If the particle hits an area that would normally be in an interference peak, make the switch spin one way to indicate 1, and store that info. If it hits an area that would normally *not* be in a peak (i.e. indicating noise), make the switch spin a different way to indicate 0. Collect all of the responses and see if they match up to the final result on the screen - is it an even amount of 1s and 0s to indicate detection, or does the data show an interference pattern but the screen show noise?

I don't think you would receive "10101" in the first place, because you later changed it to "010101". This experiment should be done though, even if it's a much smaller scale.

entanglement cannot be used to send messages, both particles must be measured first

As far as I know the measurements on the entangled photon have no effect on the pattern. Or else you could have instant FTL communication between two distant locations by placing the light source half way between them. In fact I believe there is no interference pattern overall in this experiment, which can be explained if entanglement is physically equivalent to measurement. The patterns related to 'erasure' at C and D are obtained by looking only at photons corresponding to just C measurements, or just D measurements. You have to have the measurements to know which photons to look at. The sum of these patterns (which is all you have in the absence of that information) is not itself an interference pattern.

That makes sense, especially when you consider that photons are supposed to have no time. So playing around with them in our time may just mean for them that different body parts of the whole four dimensional existence is touched in their single moment which is it eternity for it (excuse the metaphorical time words for a non-time being photon)

​@@michael5764so photons are this 4d all knowing entity that exist everywhere in time. Sounds so far fetched. Infact continuity of time itself breaks down and all math that derives itself from this continuity. 😅.

Or the experiment

Simulating a quadrilion photons as a wave is exactly how simulations are programmed

@@JZSIX very creepy stuff.. seems to point to the universe being a program with subatomic optimizations.

Hey I know Matt says it's like the wave function goes back in time if we are looking at it. However, I know that there are beam splitters and prisms being used, I know that light actually slows down when it goes through a prism, would it possibly be the reason that it looks like it goes back in time is actually just some of the light being slowed down by going through the prism and some of it 'hits' the detector without being interfered with (compared to the light that goes through the prism?)

If there is a way to observe a large number(let's say 1%) of all photons then we are essentially stress testing the universe.

@@taichiwinchester1102 Crash the simulation!

Philosophical implications came to my mind when they talked about splitting photons. Are we supposed to have photon halves?

@@bethanyudonome4219 How so? were not supposed to have anything. Things just are, photons are photons and by splitting them were not violating any laws of physics or anything

@@benl8962 also by cloning you're not violating any laws of physics. I said a moral dilemma, not a physical law. Morals, Ethics- do you have any?

@@bethanyudonome4219 yeah alright, but you havent answered my question. Why is it a moral dilemma to split a photon? Nobody gets hurt by doing so....

@@bethanyudonome4219 like wtf, you are questioning my morals because i dont see a problem with splitting photons?

Matt lied to you. The conclusions that Matt presents have been debunked.

Maybe the screen becomes the detector...and influences whether a particle is reflected or passes through. Voila, no retro-explanation required. That makes me wonder🤔. What would happen at the eraser end if the Which-Way polarizers are added?

Exactly. That's why I believe time travel has no paradoxes, because from the universe's perspective there is no such thing.

@@Hallowed_Ground And what if we are the universe and do not end in the tip of our fingers?

@@fabriciopereira9366 You have it there. There is no such thing as "separation." We are all, everywhere, everywhen, part of that which began as One, then expanded, to try to understand what it meant to be not alone.

Man, this was part of the start of a very weird journey. 4 years later still weird and getting weirder

Each like gets us closer to home time travel 😂

Nice reply. See mine above. That's the nub, isn't it? The observer has to be entangled with each particle. But is it before or after? There's something going on with apparent determinacy at the point of interaction. Collapsing the wave function is really poor terminology. Decohering target entanglement through interaction would be more accurate. This implies reversing the interaction could recohere an entangled state, which seems sensible.

@Pupsi: Yes, why isn't that an obvious question to ask (?) What's the answer (?) Let's say it takes 1 second for the particle to reach the interference screen . . . but 5 seconds to reach detectors A and B. So what appears on the interference screen at 2 seconds (?)

@@QED_ I might be wrong on this one but I think it's not possible to extract any conclusive or.. "predictive" data from the interference screen at shorter time frames. I'm just guessing the way the experiment is actually done is to shoot individual particles one at a time for a long period and then compile a BIG amount of data at the end to see the patterns from the chaos. One particle hitting the interference screen won't tell anything, it'll just look like a random point. The time to shoot enough particles and to process the data from the interference screen needs way more time than 3 seconds (5 sec - 2 sec) IF the experiment is done this way. Don't know how else it would be done though. So what appears on the interference screen at 2 seconds? I'm thinking it seems just random at THAT moment..... until long long after when the data analysis is done

@@Pupsi Well suppose in theory we could increase the time to reach detectors A and B to over the time it takes to fire enough photons, then what?

@@oaksnice please title

I believe in multiverse theory, so instead it’s causal, if we would ever eventually detect which slit it went through, we are forced down the ‘no interference pattern’ branch, and if we don’t, then we’re forced down the ‘interference pattern” path, no backwards time travel information for me here unfortunately

I just wrote almost the exact same comment. I love you too now.

I am sorry, we have operating quantum computers, and from their operation, it seems the correct answer is the multiple worlds interpenetration. That the particle going through the second slit, is a particle located in another dimension. And not to mention Dr. Hammeroffs work, he had shown, the bing in consciousness is the collapse the the wave function in Micro Tubules. I know there is not a lot of transnational research, however there should be. Photo synthesis, cannot operate without QM either.

@@stage274 In the multiple worlds interpretation, there is no wave function collapse :/

Ironic.

Agents have been dispatched.

Simulation is defined as hypocrisy, meaning your mind is perceptively the only source of any simulation. So fix yourself first, attack the source. Hypocrites at least know they are simulating, but the ignorant simulator is a hypocrite without realizing, without understanding of that which is the correct path. Which is more dangerous? Legalism creates simulators, which are controlled by elite hypocrites.

Ok I will go fix it

It is not a bug, it is meant to be this way so that the computer can save some ram by not having to render something real within the program unless it is being observed

@@MrHHVV hahaha, good one....wait what?!

... By the end of the video, I had far more questions than I came in with. =_=

+YuTe3712 That's science for ya

+YuTe3712 That's the fun part of quantum mechanics.

its just faster than light information exchange which he says re-writes past maybe. tl:dr if you will

+YuTe3712 That's not untypical for science

Sadly this experiment and most channels are lying to you. Watch Sabine Hossenfelder who debunks their bullshit.

@@Anonimowany1 I know, but the concept remains the same in that by viewing or measuring an experiment you may affect the outcome and even if the methods used in this experiment are outdated it’s still an interesting concept

The double slit experiment

@@timpowers6876 yes… that’s what it’s about…

Well then im sorry to tell you but this video is just clickbait Try "The delayed choice quantum eraser, Debunked" by Sabine Hossenfelder here on YT She is an actual scientist and will explain why this video is just total nonsense

@@platzpropeller858 I watch Sabine s lot. I've also read Feynman's lectures. I'll go watch Sabine's vid, but it wasn't the quantum eraser that made it click specifically. It was everything prior to that, and how it mixed with previous content from Feynman, mostly. Sabine is great though. Edit: watched Sabine's vid and funny enough this was my original assumption on how it worked. If he meant it actually "changed the past", I misunderstood and took that as a simplified shorthand. To elaborate on what I got out of this in a quick way, waveform collapse is similar to measuring a single vector out of n vectors that make up the wave. A useful (but inaccurate) way to think of this is as if we measured x vector, but we can understand it was measurable due to n - x vectors making up the wave.

I did too...but in 6th grade. Very young for that problem

Quantum physics also gets my nuts in a twist.....

Ah.. the strangulated hernia..

Lol you guys 🤣

5th grade for me

Because it deliberately let us observe it.

there aren't agents knocking on your door simulations and programs follow reality I guess, rather than the other way around, since maths is a core property of not just the universe but existence itself...or at least they could...so you've really got to leave your intuitions about living 'in code'

@@jorgepeterbarton not realy Maths is just the way humans thing. Dogs and cats dont know of mathmatics nor does a planet or a star yet they existed before humans invented maths...

This is exactly what I was going to write...

gotohell Mathematics is not exclusive to humans. We just define it better. If you put 1 piece of food on one side of a dog and 2 pieces on the other side, which side do you think the dog will choose to go? Even if animals don't realise it, they are doing maths. Maths is just a language used to apply logic. Since logic is a fundamental requirement for self-awareness, it is a core property of the universe. For example Boltzmann brains can spontaneously come into existence purely by entropic chance.

This video is pretty good too: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZtuZbNKn17fZe3k.html

I agree. I’ve been thinking about this stuff for a long time. I think were onto something. The particles almost certainly experience zero time in my opinion it’s the most logical conclusion.

first time ive read this explanation for it, and i gotta say that makes a ton of sense. surprised more people havent talked about this

This is invalid afaik, as even though they are not evolved in time, the distance between them has increased. If you and your friend are imitating each other and suddenly you both are accelerated at the speed of light in opposite direction and are taken far away from each other, you will have no idea you are travelling or anything has changed, but the moment we stop you from your point of view you friend will no longer be able to imitate you, So there is no way your solution *completely* solves the problem. Again this is only my understanding and I can be wrong.

And again electrons also exhibit this property and they are not going at the speed of light.

If somebody can explain this.... The observation thing is still confusing for me. Is it our knowledge about the observation that decides the outcome? If so then what if, in this experiment, the outcomes on these detectors are observed by some conscious person who don't know what to interpret form it. Will the path information be considered as known or unknown. How the result might come in this case. Please clear this doubt.

Po

Yeah brain no likey 😂 raise that consciousness!!

If you've read "The Day of the Triffids" you already knew this.

Weston Hettinger makes no difference.. a photon (relatively speaking) only ever appear at their destination instantaneously.. so even the ones that to us have taken millions of years to travel from source to get to us over vast distances .. for the photon this is irrelevant .. relativity! 😉

Donald Piniach .. that’s ok.. it’s just relativity.. as you approach the speed of light (c) time slows down, so imagine if you were actually able to travel at “c” time would effectively reach “0” .. time just stoops.. & stays stopped for you until you reach your destination... but for people living on the surface of earth your journey could have taken millions of years (in earth time) Here’s a cool video that might help: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d9eChMJqmNGqe6c.html

@@TimberWolfmanV6 But, I was told you can do this experiment with protons and other non electromagnetic things. If you do it with protons it should not work the same way since you can't send a proton at the speed of light, thusly time moves for them... Very slowly, but still.

@@TimberWolfmanV6 I don't understand why distance will not matter. Speed of light is insignificant on a galactic scale. We just have to dealy the second photon long enough to confirm.. even a few nanoseconds would do.

rupak rokade .. no delay for the photon whether it appears a billion light years from source -or- if it appears only a meter from source .. both from the perspective of the photon are instantaneous regardless of distance.

It doesn't work that way because the interference pattern you see is from firing single particles over time, Impossible to tell with only one because in reality of the "Interference screen" in real time would show up at 1 dot, you can't see if its a interference pattern or blob with only 1 dot on the screen. In theory lets say one dot didn't show up as a dot and magically showed up as the information of Pattern or Blob, I wonder if it would actually "re-write" time if you could see the screen before the twin reaches the detector and then what the screen says after it actually hits the detector, if it would change. The universe has no business changing the position of particles while your looking, seeing the screen just turns YOU into the detector and oops you collapsed the wave function just by observing it instantaneously, that's what's weird here. It doesn't rewrite time or what happened, with observation collapsing the wave function its impossible, the question you should be asking is, when your not observing are the particles really there or do they just choose to be there when you observe, which ties into these new videos they have about "does consciousness create reality/the universe" so the weird thing is, consciousness/measurement/observation because you can't have measurement without consciousness I consider them all to be the same or alike, if you consider machine measurement to be the offspring/branch of biological/conscious measurement. It was created by it and can only form from it or an observer in our case (us hoomans). So since they are the same they play by the same rules so cameras are like branches of us, forms of measurement discovered/created by us so that's why the universe will still lol "boot in" even when your not there looking and only a machine is, but if its Not a measuring device, who knows if its really there or not. Makes you feel special, if you understand, anyways the key variable in the quantum eraser is the half silvered mirrors, if your Giving each particle the choice of 50% pass or reflect didn't you technically just make another which way "double slit" but in a different way? why not use the special crystals in place of the Half silvered mirrors? Because then it would create two particles from one, the quantum eraser experiment is worthless but the Which way experiment is amazing.

For some reason this seems to somewhat support the "simulated universe" theory, where our universe is a simulated one, and it does not simulate to the quantum level, instead reverting to computational "shortcuts". It would actually simulate things with more detail when it is being observed, I.E. when we are testing it. I feel like these differing results are the result of the universe going into a sort of "low-resolution" mode, similar to many games only rendering the things the player is looking at, and replacing textures with simpler, less intensive textures at larger distances. Of course, this entire thing is a theory, and simply being capable of wondering if we are in a simulated universe may prove we are not in one... my brain hurts!!!

Hey Matt, that is 100% what I've thought for most of my life. I've said it many times but have never worded it in such an easily digestible way as you did. Very nice.

how does being capable of wondering prove that?

Matthew Smith it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. It's also an untestable hypothesis, so think about it all you want but I wouldn't invest too much into this idea. Also us being able to think about something is not evidence. It's like when religious people say that since the idea of God is in our head therefore God exists. It's circular logic and bad science.

no worries, its just a glitch in the matix

That's an interesting idea I'd like to hear some input on that!

The effect works the same for massive particles, so that doesnt really apply. Besides, even if photons themselves experience no time, they still take time to propagate in our reference frame

Oh man, I just typed my comment and then saw this one! Haha, we're thinking the same thing!! *high five*

I'm a little late on this one. IIRC no observer can move at light speed, so the idea of "from the photon's perspective" doesn't really make sense.

It will probably still gonna give the same results but yet still worth trying

Then Agent Smith will come knocking on your door.

nah, its a bunch of bologna and you know it!

We are unable to single handedly compute all that we know because not only can our processor not handle it but our memory bank along with our ability to observe it in open tabs just like a computer does, is very minimal ( unless you are obsessed with it and disciplined enough to study it day and night which I have yet to do properly ).

it's not easy to organize the mind in terms of folders, because our subconscious does that job on its own.

I was thinking the same thing. I'll have to watch this a few times...

I spent half the day at it, and I'm still at it.

Funny story: this is actually what they did. In the original experiment the researchers didn't bother with detector B (or D3 in the paper). However in order to isolate the photons that traveled down any given path you need coincidence electronics connected to both the screen and the detector. That means that, without detector B, photons associated with that path a indistinguishable from any hits on the screen due to background photons or screen detector noise. However if you could somehow eliminate the noise then theoretically any photons not hitting A, C, or D must have traveled down the B path. That's which-way knowledge, so should leave a non-interference pattern.

So... what if you can't eliminate all noise, but you can give noise an upper bound? Say that you know that less than 10% of the photons hitting the screen is noise. Would you gradually get a more non-interference like result as that percentage approaches zero..? Because surely you can make some estimation of this bound under any well controlled circumstance (even though the percentage might come out high if this elimination is hard to achieve)? Basically: wouldn't it be possible to calculate this upper bound even for experiments that *did* show interference patterns? Implying a gradual transition for the observed results? (We have a bound on how many photons we have which-way knowledge for - but we don't know *exactly* which of the photons we have that knowledge on - only a percentage of total photons.) Interesting implication would be that the amount of noise is directly related to what pattern would be observed.

+PBS Space Time how can you rule out the rule of averages in this is you don't do it with one photon in a magnetically isolated vaceum at a time? the effect could be caused from the screen sending information through the entanglement link or just at light speed with photons or magnetic waves? on the other hand, if the outcome is retroactive, dies that mean it changed from one outcome to another? was it a wave pattern one instant and a blob the next? is it possible that happened because the link transferred existing and inevitable outcome data and not physical information that can be affected by c ?

+monoham1 err i mean to say, or if the result in the screen and the detection in the detectors happened at the same instance is it possible the information went fatter than c?

Thanks for clearing that up (and also for mentioning it again in the latest video :) ). Sounds super weird but also plausible at the same time^^ I always thought in order to collapse the wave function you have to directly observe the photon. But obviously the information about which path it took is enough since that means you no longer have a set of probabilities.

Man you need some medication and a place to live

O.K. I can talk hypothetically, how about this for a theory... Question with theory, does all that material passing to outside of the universal event horizon, (the edge of the observable universe) cease to physically exist because there is now no way of proving its existence and so the materials are collapsed back to their wave like existence? then the expanding universe isn't getting physically any bigger just expanding from internally out to the edge and therefore I assume all the energy that crosses the universal event horizon gets recycled for use in expanding the currently existing space in an infinite cycle? using similar principles to quantum entanglement the energy could re-emerge anywhere its needed in the observable universe and universal energy is conserved. No big-bang now just the impression of one & an eternally existing finite universe? does this sound feasible? and then totally out of my understanding can a new theory of Dark Energy be uncovered by this Idea? Now I'm wondering how the C.M.G. fits into this picture? More pondering to do....

Carl CIFER Can i live in your pants?

Peter Davey Hm i don't know much about all that, but it sounds pretty interesting xD

Paulo Andre Azevedo Quirino Me either, I just thought of it & decided to throw it out there.... I made it up, lol.

And now i'm thinking... Aren't my 2 eyes analogous to the 2 slits? So is it my brain thats collapsing the wave function every time I look at something?

Everfall6t9 Professors of Physics still entertain the notion that consciousness collapses the wave function and Its totally untrue: The double slit experiment [DSE] "interference /diffraction pattern" caused by observation is BS: Prove it to yourself by doing the DSE and getting the diffraction pattern as usual: Now simply remove the slits: Yes remove the slits from the "experiment" but keep the partition where it was the first time: Fire the laser /photons again and guess what; you get the same results ~ a diffracted pattern which is NOT caused by "Consciousness" nor by Two Magic Slits; but simply because the light is going around the edges / passing the partition and striking the screen: If you dont like this information you may be brainwashed: Or havent yet tried a triple slit nor a quad slit experiment: So you will hardly attempt the simple experiment I have just stated which works:

@sk0sH I think on such small scales time acts very strange, result in strange phenomena

@@Everfall6t9 Cyclops disagree

The universe came into existence when the first metaphysical mind observed it.

That is brilliant. This could be done, I believe. Do you mind if I talk with some of my professors?

But the same goes for electrons which (as said) experience time

Ramy Hanano electrons actually don't move at the speed of light. about 99.9% but not exactly. theorecticly, if something moves at the speed of light, it does not experience time.

oh right, and buckyballs as well... hmmmmmmm

That's what I'm saying ... electrons experience time because it does not move at the speed of light, yet the interference pattern (and wave function thing) are applied though

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/490828/can-there-be-interference-between-a-proton-and-an-electron

mind blown

I like your idea. I hope someone else responds to you who knows what they are talking about.

Same

It seems great minds think alike. ;-) Alas I don't have the skills to pursue that idea.

Interesting perspective m8, but know in the future that it's spatial, not "spacial". :)

+Zack Of Rivia thank you, was typing on mobile I will fix the comment

So what your saying is...

@@jaredgarbo3679 Interference continues, no delay choice ad seen by D1 and D2. The confusion is given by D3 clump pattern, which is also an interference pattern BUT is not seen because it is the addition of both interferences ( D3 = D1 + D2 data). The clumping pattern is due to shifted highs and lows of each interference which "dilutes" the high - lows. NO time weirdness, no future acting the past, JUST interference all the time, seen clean on D1 - D2 and diluted on D3 - D4. The clue is entangled photons by BBO crystal and the alternating mixture of them. Hope this is more clear to you, Regards

Di, D2, D3 graph can be seen very clearly on video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q5-Si9KdtKylcmw.html BUT he doesn't explain why. The reason is the combination of phases by entangled photons

Totally agreed. This video is MISLEADING, and trying to SENSATIONALIZE the experiment in a very unscientific way. I'm totally disappointed. The interference patterns were NOT observed directly at D0. They are COMPUTED by a coincident counter, by associating ONLY photons captured at D0 with those captured at D1 or D2. There's no rewriting of the past implied by the result of the experiment.

I would have been very upset if I was paying attention between the time this experiment's results were published and it being debunked. Reading about the quantum eraser drove me mad for a few days. I was starting to rework my entire world view.

Scientists just love the middle finger from nature. It is what spurs them on to achieve the impossible.

God is trolling hard.

God reminds brilliant minds just who their daddy is in a spiritual sense.

Pretty much yeah. QM is like trying to read a book where you can only see half the letters of a word, one word at a time, and you only get to look at a single page once.

and the book is in another language that no one knows how to read it...

I think it should be possible to have a continuum like you said, because qubits work the same way. When you measure the spin of an electron across whatever axis you want, the probability of collapsing the spin "up" or "down" depends on the angle of the underlying spin. So if the actual spin is 45° relative to your measurement axis, there's a 75% probability of collapsing to "up" and a 25% collapsing "down". A 90° angle gives you a balanced 1/2 probability for both outcomes

Can I asked, what if A and B detectors were placed with a longer path than the target screen. Now lets run it 1) without the eraser and 2) with the eraser, what are the outcome?

lol no

Exude lol yes

The study of physics defines itself as looking for timeless agents, since those are the ones with predictive power...no need for experiments to "tell us" that one :P "Time exists for us because we are subjected to the laws of physics" Umm...? Time exists for us because the information we receive is not identical with the information driving the actions of the world (i.e. precisely because our minds are "subjected to" something other than the laws of physics...however that works)

WOW, dude that's some heavy shit, man I gotta sit back and think about that one :/

blob darkass When a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around, does it make any noise ?

Ar Con to get to every side.

To figure out every path possible and choose it?

To exhibit dual nature

To WAVE from the other side , LOL

To bounce one wave and make it's dual nature.

The problem is that you can't have the pattern with just one photon, it only leaves a single point of light. So there's no way for a single photon to trigger the door accurately. The door detector in effect replaces the detectors the door closes off, making it have no effect.

This is exactly what I wanted to know too. It just made me feel that the experiment results as given by this and other similar videos are not entirely true. So far we are only seeing videos and explanations from third parties. Where is the video of the actual original experiment? Why are they not available?

@@boontecklee592 How do they win the Nobel price without something to convince people, that's weird. I agreed with you. All these video only true in a particular case.

I didn't expect that, but holy shit did that made me bust out

Like religion

+Cams250 Thanks for this unpredicted twist, we will transfer you to someone who gives a damn....

+Madridy1996 Lol you mad? the example is ironic.

+Cams250 You had to bring it didn't you!

Madridy1996 Round one, FIGHT!

As soon as you see what happens on the screen you've observed it, your question is a paradox with no answer

This is actually good.

Woah, this is the only clever one I've seen

I don't get it. 😢

+Ismael Ochoa orange = visible wavelength, that's a LOT less red shifted than the 3K radiation of today. A LOT less red shifted cosmic background radiation means a LONG time ago.

best comment I've read in a long time!

He talks about it from 9:42

Rohan Nampalliwar haha... yeah, I was actually looking for a more comprehensive look at observation in quantum systems, including the Measurement Problem, the process of Wave Function Collapse, decoherence and the definition/importance of the Observer in that context. Honestly, I took his “perhaps” comments at 9:42 as a *teaser* for that discussion. It’s a huge and open question in QM and probably would take a few episodes to explore.

We'll talk later about it... And this episode is sponsored by Audible :)

We got a nothing burger.

Herne Webber actually, they came back and covered the topic this year. Watch this episode and the following one, if you’re interested: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebpnhsyDztevXYU.html

"the quantum world is absurdly large" 👀