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.

thank you so much for your answer @@thedeemon ! And thank you for the link :)

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).

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?

The mystic one he's referring i think it's bohm

@@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.

@@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.

they have better things to do, in air conditioned homes ;)

​@@thedeemon There are plenty of adults on the streets, outside of the air-conditioned home.

@@dennisgorelik Adults have things to do outside, kids - not so much. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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? 🤷 😊

@@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

Not inside, only around it

@@thedeemon Why?

@@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.

@@thedeemon Ok.

Looks like "Isle of Dogs" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mtqPks6azJ60hok.html

@@thedeemon oh okay, thank you

Well you can't cover a sphere with actual squares

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.

If I understand correctly, this video is very close to what you describe: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r79peqSqr9rZemQ.html

It's not.

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

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.

@@zombieinjeans YUP!!

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!!

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…

Yes, links in the description

No existing software can render it properly. I had to code my own. The links are in description.

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)

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)