Your saying entanglement appears less as complexity appears more? Or as energy becomes more complex it becomes more simple entanglement.
@helicalactual4 күн бұрын
What about likely entangled? Would that be more specific?
@nebylet8 күн бұрын
Funny parody opening
@AltrrxOfficial4 ай бұрын
cool
@AltrrxOfficial4 ай бұрын
speedrun
@crimsonmorrow70010 ай бұрын
It looks like, if this theory is true, you could say that more and less entanglement is corelated to more and less entropy, which is tied to the second law of thermal dynamics. Sounds very curious to me. I wish a smart person reads my comment and confirms or denies my hunch lol
@thedeemon10 ай бұрын
In QM entropy and entanglement are indeed related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_entropy And entanglement tends to spread similarly to how entropy grows. You have a good intuition.
@crimsonmorrow70010 ай бұрын
thank you so much for your answer @@thedeemon ! And thank you for the link :)
@amihart926910 ай бұрын
He just straight-up lies to the audience when he says "the worlds were already there." No they aren't. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory that uses statistical analysis to predict certain effects that show up in large sample sizes that we do not fully understand how they are caused. There is nothing inherently magical about probability theory, just because you have two possible predicted outcomes assigned two different probabilities does not mean those two probabilities happen. You could apply this same line of reasoning to any classical theory that relies on statistical analysis and probability distributions as well and no one would accept it, but we're supposed to accept it because quantum mystical woo or something? Let's not forget that Hugh Everett was a mystic who was convinced he was immortal. What passes for serious "science" these days is just sad.
@thedeemon10 ай бұрын
QM has different interpretations, Sean is talking about one of them that treats the wave function as a real object, and thus all its parts are actually present somewhere (in this interpretation).
@vitulus_9 ай бұрын
1. These effects show up at any sample size. This is particularly clear in quantum computing where a qubit can have complex calculations done while it is in superposition, until eventually returning to a state of 100% likelihood. 2. People don't say two things happened because we have assigned two possible outcomes. They say it happens because they believe that the wavefunction is the underlying reality, in the sense that there is no mechanic more fundamental than what is predicted by the Schrodinger equation. Such perspective fully explains the experimental results, and is completely consistent. 3. No you can't apply that line of reasoning to any classical theory, because one of the outcomes very clearly happened. Compare this to experiments such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. In fact, viewing it as an ignorance of the underlying variable is a violation of the Bell inequality. 4. Evertt was not a mystic. What...? He never even writes about him being immortal, and it has only been documented in private conversations. Also, what is the relevance of this?
@ekekonoise3 ай бұрын
The mystic one he's referring i think it's bohm
@amihart92693 ай бұрын
@@vitulus_ The wave function is just one of many ways to mathematically represent the same thing. It is not even mathematically necessary to get the right answer, it is just useful in certain contexts where some formalisms make it easier to solve a particular problem over others.
@amihart92693 ай бұрын
@@thedeemon If you accept his interpretation then his interpretation is correct.... Obviously, that's circular, my point is he straight up lies to his audience by pretending quantum mechanics already demonstrates his interpretation to be correct, when it is in reality just speculation based on a very specific mathematical formalism, one of many, that is interpreted in a way that would be laughed at in any other field.
@dennisgorelik Жыл бұрын
There are very few children in this video. 10:20 10:45 11:37
@thedeemon Жыл бұрын
they have better things to do, in air conditioned homes ;)
@dennisgorelik Жыл бұрын
@@thedeemon There are plenty of adults on the streets, outside of the air-conditioned home.
@thedeemon Жыл бұрын
@@dennisgorelik Adults have things to do outside, kids - not so much. ;)
@wordysmithsonism8767 Жыл бұрын
How is decoherence possible if the universe is one wave function?
@trevoidc985911 ай бұрын
good question that is what i was thinking. Many worlds is not accepted by many scientists just so you know, this guy is in the minority.
@amihart926911 ай бұрын
Yes, Many Worlds is a fringe idea that crackpots like to laughably pass off as "just accepting the math that's already there." It's like if I flip a coin many times and calculate the probability, I will get 50% heads and 50% tails. If I decided to carry out some action depending on the next flip, there would be two possible futures because there are two possible outcomes. What Many Worldists do is insist we should accept the two possible futures are actually real without any justification. There is no reason to believe quantum mechanics is anything more than probability theory, there is no reason to assume if we replaced the coin with electron spin or photon polarization it should be any different. All the interpretations that go beyond probability theory are just guesses, there is no reason to assume the two possible futures actually exist. Maybe they do, but to pretend that it's "already there in the math" is just Sean deliberately lying to the audience to make his claims seem more believable to those who don't have a background to understand it and assume he might be right.
@vitulus_9 ай бұрын
Decoherence actually makes Everett's interpretation even stronger. It explains why we can have a universal wave function whilst avoiding the "preferred basis problem." It makes it stronger because decoherence causes quantum states to lose coherence and converge on a few classical states. These classical states is what is colloquially known as "worlds," although that wording is problematic.
@elliot-morningstarАй бұрын
I'm sorry but I'm in high school and just learned that energy can't be created or destroyed, for there to be many worlds wouldn't we need alot of new energy? 🤷 😊
@hieudang1789Ай бұрын
@@elliot-morningstar Well i'm no scientist but if many worlds is true, then maybe the energy conservation only applies to the energy of each of the world, meaning you cannot create or destroy energy within a world. doesn't say anything about outside of it, i don't know if that makes any senses
@stoictraveler1 Жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@shivangprasad Жыл бұрын
the process in how it turns Quantum to classical if the last step of the process results a classical perspective is this process an opposite of the process of coherency?
@5hape5hift3r Жыл бұрын
Real projective plane would be neat, similar looking to this but only one convergence point for rays.
@lukatolstov5598 Жыл бұрын
2:56 *Straight, not traight.
@uncolorr Жыл бұрын
Ok that wormhole triggered some inner fear I had cause wtf
@CrazyElephantBanana Жыл бұрын
It was Impulse Tracker for sure!
@lukatolstov5598 Жыл бұрын
You can go in black hole in this sim?
@thedeemon Жыл бұрын
Not inside, only around it
@lukatolstov5598 Жыл бұрын
@@thedeemon Why?
@thedeemon Жыл бұрын
@@lukatolstov5598 Here we create a "funnel" whose inherent curvature corresponds to curvature of a slice of space around a black hole. But directly at the event horizon it becomes vertical. If we take horizon radius as 1, the funnel is a result of rotation of function 2√(r-1) which for r < 1 is a square root of a negative number. This doesn't give us a surface to walk in.
@lukatolstov5598 Жыл бұрын
@@thedeemon Ok.
@tannitozzz71342 жыл бұрын
This is 15 years ago, holy shit
@Daijobustory2 жыл бұрын
Meanwhile in all which path experiments, photon literally got bounced around bbo crystal countless of times and never decohere until they hit the sensors.
@sylles-sylles33372 жыл бұрын
1:28 what movie is that lady watching?
@thedeemon2 жыл бұрын
Looks like "Isle of Dogs" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mtqPks6azJ60hok.html
@sylles-sylles33372 жыл бұрын
@@thedeemon oh okay, thank you
@MattTheSpratt2 жыл бұрын
hi 2006 i hope y'all are enjoying halo 3
@PlasmaMongoose2 жыл бұрын
Anyone else discover this video from the comment section of The Science Asylum's _"Could Flatland be curved?!"_ video?
@astroceleste2922 жыл бұрын
i don't like how the squares are mapped because they are not actually squares according to the rules of each geometry. they are just projections of euclideian squares, a bit counter intuitive. i like it more when "more space" is visualized with more squares of equal area, not with stretched rectangley things
@thedeemon2 жыл бұрын
Well you can't cover a sphere with actual squares
@SCWood2 жыл бұрын
Could you theoretically make a torus where you can't "see" the other side? Or will the light always curve around it?
@thedeemon2 жыл бұрын
If we make the torus size very big it will look almost like a flat plane locally. But if you look far ahead you'll still see the light going around, yes.
@ralphclark2 жыл бұрын
That lecture theatre was ridden with Covid-19
@odeia182 жыл бұрын
this is breathtaking!!! thank you!
@MrPeanutSniper2 жыл бұрын
There are a lot of available graphics on the outsides of shapes in spherical space (and this demonstration is among the best), but I can't seem to find anything detailing what it would be like to exist on the inside of an S3 or similar shape. I understand the primary association of alternate geometric exploration to cosmic bodies, and there are no inside-out planets, but I'm wondering for a project and have no experience with programming to implement such a feature into the visualizer you provided. Assuming any light refraction still pulls light rays toward the surface (gravity and density higher toward the wall of the inside space, would it look fairly similar to an outside perspective, just with the periphery of vision warping away from the viewer instead of toward them? And assuming an R approaching zero, would the horizon look like a shrinking hole in the sky? It would also be interesting to see the effect with obolid and egg-like shapes.
@thedeemon2 жыл бұрын
If I understand correctly, this video is very close to what you describe: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r79peqSqr9rZemQ.html
@chr0me22 жыл бұрын
Calming... So calming...
@justsomerandomname20672 жыл бұрын
Such a cool video! Not going to pretend like i really got it, but i get the general idea and its a certain kind of experience watching videos like this, i really like it. Btw, if youre reading this comment and want to watch something similar heres a link to a really cool video with the same idea but much shorter and more simple kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r79peqSqr9rZemQ.html
@INSPIRINGTRIPS3 жыл бұрын
Great video 📹 👏 👏 Full support :)
@En_theo3 жыл бұрын
That guy is crazy, he's constantly driving on the left side... forcing everyone to do the same to avoid him. Where is the police ?
@TheMorc3 жыл бұрын
Look at that raytracing!!!
@sirpootsman10483 жыл бұрын
life be like
@sirpootsman10483 жыл бұрын
poggggggggers!
@vasamatijasevic19483 жыл бұрын
That space got some curves doe 🥵🥵
@user-vv7gt2hu7p3 жыл бұрын
Cool but why is this 240p?
@thedeemon3 жыл бұрын
It's not.
@whoatemywendys3 жыл бұрын
I feel like this guy just jumps on to whatever the creative people within physics are thinking. He never actually formulates an independently creative idea. He’s smart, maybe brilliant, but that’s about it.
@ralphclark2 жыл бұрын
He’s a science populariser. He does have a modest publication record, he’s not useless. But his greatest talent is explaining advanced physics concepts to a lay audience which he does very well because he *understands* a broad range of physics better than most physics teachers. I’d much rather listen to him than the oily Brian Greene who comes across more like a rubbish TV chat show host
@zombieinjeans2 жыл бұрын
This isn't really true though. He's released some really fascinating papers recently. I thought his paper on Mad Dog Everettianism is pretty compelling.
@tiromandal63992 жыл бұрын
@@zombieinjeans YUP!!
@tiromandal63992 жыл бұрын
What? You expect every physicist out there to be Noble Laureates?! What are you?! This guys has more IQ than everyone in your bloodline combined!!
@madalincalamanciuc66562 жыл бұрын
If you bother to check his Google scholar profile you will see that he is a respectable theoretical physicist, i have no ideea how you come up with that reasoning…
@demonbot66173 жыл бұрын
accurate
@roccoleader2793 жыл бұрын
Wait, if this is personal stuff, did you actually create this!?
@thedeemon3 жыл бұрын
Yes, links in the description
@bogdanostaficiuc63853 жыл бұрын
7:57 an donut
@e8root3 жыл бұрын
Does this prove earth is flat? IT looks pretty flat to me :)
@bragapedro3 жыл бұрын
Great video! Would just be a little better if you walked faster
@marinadela13613 жыл бұрын
you could have at least used software that's not from the 90s geez
@thedeemon3 жыл бұрын
No existing software can render it properly. I had to code my own. The links are in description.
@justsomerandomname20672 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r79peqSqr9rZemQ.html Try this video its a similar idea but the quality is better (although it is much shorter with much less variety)
@charlesrosenbauer31353 жыл бұрын
Great video, though I would have liked to see hyperbolic space show up as well
@justsomerandomname20672 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pr6Hhbyhyb_HZ4U.html Heres a link to a video with hyperbolic space, if you want (there are other similar videos on that channel, i really like it)
@aaaa-mm2mo3 жыл бұрын
milestone
@lphdyt3 жыл бұрын
Just had it on the KZfaq start page
@FireyDeath43 жыл бұрын
Noice. But a bit slow...
@ico-theredstonesurgeon43803 жыл бұрын
This is gonna become another flat earth shit
@macromachina73393 жыл бұрын
....... if earth was round this would be it ...... an its HOT..... lol an if the earth was flat it would look like mine craft ....but ower earth looks like a floppy pancake. get dunked on smooth brains. like god an Cthulhu somethings you just cant see are under stand ...... that is why we have math.<3