Is The Future Predetermined By Quantum Mechanics?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ค. 2024
  • PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
    ↓ More info below ↓
    Einstein’s special theory of relativity combines space and time into one dynamic, unified entity - spacetime. But if time is connected to space, could the universe be anything but deterministic? And does that mean that the future is predestined?
    Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
    / pbsspacetime
    Check out the Space Time Merch Store
    pbsspacetime.com/
    Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
    mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
    Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
    Written by Matt O'Dowd
    Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, & Pedro Osinski
    Directed by: Andrew Kornhaber
    Camera Operator: Setare Gholipour
    Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
    End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / @jrsschattenberg
    Special Thanks to Our Patreon Sponsors!
    Big Bang Supporters
    Sean Maddox
    Marty Yudkovitz
    Brodie Rao
    Scott Gray
    Robert Doxtator
    Ahmad Jodeh
    Caed Aldwych
    Radu Negulescu
    Alexander Tamas
    Morgan Hough
    Juan Benet
    Fabrice Eap
    Mark Rosenthal
    David Nicklas
    Quasar Supporters
    Justin Lloyd
    Christina Oegren
    Mark Heising
    Vinnie Falco
    Hypernova Supporters
    william bryan
    Nicholas Newlin
    Mark Matthew Bosko
    Justin Jermyn
    Jason Finn
    Антон Кочков
    Alec S-L
    Julian Tyacke
    Syed Ansar
    John R. Slavik
    Mathew
    Danton Spivey
    Donal Botkin
    John Pollock
    Edmund Fokschaner
    Joseph Salomone
    Matthew O'Connor
    chuck zegar
    Jordan Young
    Hank S
    John Hofmann
    Timothy McCulloch
    Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
    Astronauticist
    Summit137
    Darren Duncan
    Lily kawaii
    Russ Creech
    Jeremy Reed
    Max Bernard
    Magistrala Хемус [Kybrit]
    Bill Blair
    Eric Webster
    Steven Sartore
    James Younger
    David Johnston
    J. King
    Michael Barton
    Christopher Barron
    James Ramsey
    Mr T
    Andrew Mann
    Jeremiah Johnson
    fieldsa eleanory
    Peter Mertz
    Kevin O'Connell
    Richard Deighton
    Isaac Suttell
    Devon Rosenthal
    Oliver Flanagan
    Dawn M Fink
    Bleys Goodson
    Darryl J Lyle
    Robert Walter
    Bruce B
    Ismael Montecel
    M D
    Andrew Richmond
    Simon Oliphant
    Mirik Gogri
    David Hughes
    Mark Daniel Cohen
    Brandon Lattin
    Yannick Weyns
    Nickolas Andrew Freeman
    Brian Blanchard
    Shane Calimlim
    Tybie Fitzhugh
    Robert Ilardi
    Eric Kiebler
    Tatiana Vorovchenko
    Craig Stonaha
    Michael Conroy
    Graydon Goss
    Frederic Simon
    Greg Smith
    Sean Warniaha
    Tonyface
    John Robinson
    A G
    Kevin Lee
    Adrian Hatch
    Yurii Konovaliuk
    John Funai
    Cass Costello
    Geoffrey Short
    Bradley Jenkins
    Kyle Hofer
    Tim Stephani
    Luaan
    AlecZero
    Malte Ubl
    Nick Virtue
    Scott Gossett
    David Bethala
    Dan Warren
    Patrick Sutton
    John Griffith
    Daniel Lyons
    Josh Thomas
    DFaulk
    Kevin Warne
    Andreas Nautsch
    Brandon labonte
    Lucas Morgan

ความคิดเห็น • 4.5K

  • @DeclanMBrennan
    @DeclanMBrennan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +436

    3:21 "The wave function is real". Actually the wave function is complex. :-)

    • @flov74
      @flov74 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Lmao, yes it depends on complex variables indeed.

    • @DeclanMBrennan
      @DeclanMBrennan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +31

      @Astute Cingulus Way to kill a joke. :-)

    • @VladislavDerbenev
      @VladislavDerbenev 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@DeclanMBrennan dumb jokes don't deserve a life

    • @DeclanMBrennan
      @DeclanMBrennan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +45

      @@VladislavDerbenev I can just see all those poor little jokes shivering away as they are led out one by one to the Guillotine. The blade falls and the crowd roars: "Down with dumb jokes. This is a serious world for serious people".

    • @KipIngram
      @KipIngram 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Heh heh... Too easy...
      Actually the wave function doesn't *have* to be complex - the use of complex arithmetic there is just a handy way to cram a pair of Hamilton's equations into one equation. Just equate real and imaginary parts and see what you get - it's just an instance of Hamilton's equations for a conjugate pair of variables. Use of complex math was just a "convenience."

  • @ilmbrk6570
    @ilmbrk6570 3 ปีที่แล้ว +163

    "Wubba lubba dub dub" Damn Matt, i'm so sorry to hear this, I hope you feel better in the Future. I know these are tough times but i just want you to know that we will always be here for you :)

    • @yuotwob3091
      @yuotwob3091 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      He'll feel much better if you get in his booth.

    • @iAmNothingness
      @iAmNothingness 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I bet that's how his brain feels when speaking to stupid humans like us

    • @yuotwob3091
      @yuotwob3091 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@iAmNothingness Rick's a compassionate person, the dumb ass have nothing to fear from Rick, or the Universe which is the promised land of the stupid.

  • @jasonchastain9826
    @jasonchastain9826 3 ปีที่แล้ว +89

    I've learned so much from this show. And yet, every time an answer spirals out from an exploded question, two more new questions also are discovered. I love it, thank you for all you do at PBS Space Time.

  • @brixen0623
    @brixen0623 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    I love the face he makes when he reads a line that kind of breaks the brain. Like he's trying to keep his head from exploding. It's the best.

  • @yvesdoesnotexist
    @yvesdoesnotexist 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1206

    Out of all the episodes of Space Time, this one is the one that left me feeling like a caveman the most.

    • @Biogenesiss
      @Biogenesiss 3 ปีที่แล้ว +19

      Time to get augmented.

    • @PattyCali
      @PattyCali 3 ปีที่แล้ว +46

      How this not complicated? Quantum mechanics is known for being complex..

    • @IamMrJerrySoFU
      @IamMrJerrySoFU 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      @Jacob Turnbaugh It's like with the cat, but in this case, something can be and not be complicated at the same time by different observers even thought the wave function already collapsed. But don't quote me on that, I found this video complicated. And by complicated I mean not being able to grasp all the information and reasoning as the video plays, not in a way that I would be able to retell it later - I would have to sit on it first and deduce what he said by myself - which is still not calculus, but is doing things, which, by what you wrote, makes it complex. Also your presumption that english somehow makes it not (less) complicated doesn't apply to non native english speakers.

    • @JesusFriedChrist
      @JesusFriedChrist 3 ปีที่แล้ว +82

      Grug throw rock. Rock break deterministic wave function. Grug no understand.

    • @barrywatts8501
      @barrywatts8501 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Lol. You like mammoth?!

  • @lewisleslie2821
    @lewisleslie2821 3 ปีที่แล้ว +946

    “We’ll have plenty of time for time, another time, on space time.” You’ve gone too far this time!

    • @fffUUUUUU
      @fffUUUUUU 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      Never enough

    • @jttcosmos
      @jttcosmos 3 ปีที่แล้ว +50

      Also cannot help but notice that very short, slight grin of satisfaction when he delivered the line without messing it up

    • @AyaJuni
      @AyaJuni 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      He has to much power!

    • @dominikbeitat4450
      @dominikbeitat4450 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      "Ain't nobody got time for time!"

    • @mishael1339
      @mishael1339 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@dominikbeitat4450 My time is up, goodnight ya'll

  • @deriansilva368
    @deriansilva368 2 ปีที่แล้ว +42

    Sometimes I think our physics is just from human perspective and at times is limiting to our overall interpretation of the world. I think an advanced enough society may look at physics outside of their own perceptions which would probably mean they’re beyond war as conflict solution.

  • @sephirothjc
    @sephirothjc ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I'm learning more and more about this (bit of advice, watch more than one video on the same subject and rewatch videos too) and it is honestly changing the way I understand my own existence more than anything else ever has.

  • @Veramocor
    @Veramocor 3 ปีที่แล้ว +213

    Col. Sandurz: Now. You’re looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
    Lord Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
    Col. Sandurz: We passed it.
    Lord Dark Helmet: When?
    Col. Sandurz: Just now. We’re in now now.
    Lord Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
    Col. Sandurz: When?
    Lord Dark Helmet: Now!
    Col. Sandurz: Now?
    Lord Dark Helmet: Now!
    Col. Sandurz: I can’t!
    Lord Dark Helmet: Why?
    Col. Sandurz: We missed it!
    Lord Dark Helmet: When?
    Col. Sandurz: Just now!
    Lord Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
    Col. Sandurz: Soon.

    • @Llamapuncher
      @Llamapuncher 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Goddammit, I read that in George Wyner and Rick Moranis's voice. On that note, looking at the currently low number of thumbs up, maybe we're a little old for many youtuber's to realize Mel Brook's brilliant humor.

    • @nameismetatoo4591
      @nameismetatoo4591 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@Llamapuncher "...they've gone to plaid!"

    • @TheGrunt76
      @TheGrunt76 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Those instant cassettes are a real breakthrough in home video!

    • @timjohnson979
      @timjohnson979 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Llamapuncher Mel Brooks?... Just kidding. I am that old.

    • @alanfoxman5291
      @alanfoxman5291 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I remember when he was just a writer on Get Smart. (The original. Not the god awful remake).

  • @anarchyantz1564
    @anarchyantz1564 3 ปีที่แล้ว +138

    Yes, this episode was pre-determined to make my head hurt.

    • @crumble2000
      @crumble2000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      But it was also predetermined to not make your head hurt. You just happen to experience being the version of you that has their head hurt.

    • @lordgarion514
      @lordgarion514 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@crumble2000
      That would mean there's a version where the show was predetermined to not be made.
      I feel sorry for that version of me.

    • @anarchyantz1564
      @anarchyantz1564 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@lordgarion514 That would truly have been a loss to the cosmos in that version. I normally put these on repeat in the background while I build settlements in Fallout 4 and eventually my brain becomes less like grey goo.

    • @i.c.rivera154
      @i.c.rivera154 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Right there with you. 😂

    • @luantuan1653
      @luantuan1653 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm in the same universe of the multiverse than you. My head has blown up!

  • @marcovallejo3
    @marcovallejo3 3 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    I find fascinating I believe I can grasp what's going on the last two episodes even though I studied philosophy and not physics. These series are probably the best content now available on TH-cam. We are fortunate to live in a time where such quality content is available for "free" (not considering you still have to pay for the internet service most of the time). Thank you very much Dr. O'Dowd, you've become a science heroe for me.

  • @dpreetam
    @dpreetam 2 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    I'm glad I found this episode. Yesterday I had the thought that maybe time has always existed and time just behaves in a way that we really can't perceive like how a 2d being couldn't comprehend 3d and so forth. If all of time and space expanded from a singular point, time could be like a series of snapshots in which we can't perceive the breaks in like a picture book being flipped to make a short animation. Every possibility making up the multiverse. The big bang or great expansion being a multiversal expansion and not just our universe. I'm glad to hear others have thought up similar things.

  • @Stern-warning
    @Stern-warning 3 ปีที่แล้ว +556

    So it doesn’t matter what Lottery numbers I pick as long as I pick them at the right time and have enough orange cats watching me. Got it.

  • @blackbearstudio666
    @blackbearstudio666 3 ปีที่แล้ว +431

    Is it possible that I live in another branch of reality than my wife? So many times we cannot agree on our common past light cone...

    • @megamanx466
      @megamanx466 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Lol. It's possible I guess, because sometimes I feel that way about my past light cone compared to others. :P

    • @danieljensen2626
      @danieljensen2626 3 ปีที่แล้ว +41

      No, but human memory is not as good as we think it is. It is possible to "remember" things in detail even though they never happened, or obviously to forget things that did happen.

    • @encyclopath
      @encyclopath 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      The future may be predetermined, but not the past, it seems

    • @Theraot
      @Theraot 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      No, you and your wife are tightly coupled.

    • @stardolphin2
      @stardolphin2 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      @@danieljensen2626 Which is why police detectives still get all the physical evidence they can, no matter *how* many witnesses there were...

  • @equious8413
    @equious8413 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    I've always felt like this waveform collapse is a quantum "tree falling in the forest" and the uncertain fuzziness prior to observation is just another way of saying "we can't be sure, but probability states there should be a noise".

  • @celebratedrazorworks6732
    @celebratedrazorworks6732 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    This is absolutely one of the most interesting segments I have seen. In all of this I really do wonder if there isn't much more "spookiness" going on in how reality unfolds. Things like entanglement, synchronization, vortex math.. Etc. This was an outstanding and intriguing way to weave many other complex systems and theories together. I love that he simply posits on the wonderful possibilities. Well said.

    • @ct-hv1uz
      @ct-hv1uz ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yeah how do I explain pointless dancing of endless variety I could make in evolutionary or biochemistry or physics terms alone? I feel like our world is wonderful beyond our understanding. It’s awesome! I love living. I love seeing more unfold, I love taking more actions.

  • @crumble2000
    @crumble2000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +83

    11:46
    "There are other interpretations that deserve mention, but [they don't deserve it enough to actually be mentioned]"

    • @badlydrawnturtle8484
      @badlydrawnturtle8484 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      They deserve it fine, and pilot wave theory deserved a much deeper dive than the "honorable mention" given. Matt is letting his bias on which interpretations emotionally appeal to him dictate the conversation. It's especially funny when he uses "pilot wave theory is having trouble integrating with special relativity" as the excuse for why he didn't give it more time here, since integration with general relativity is still a problem with the entirety of quantum mechanics, but that hasn't stopped it from being the topic of this video.

    • @spinor
      @spinor 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      @@badlydrawnturtle8484 you know there's a huge difference between integrating it with special relativity and integrating it with general relativity right?

    • @neeneko
      @neeneko 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@badlydrawnturtle8484 As interesting as pilot wave interperation is, it really is way behind the other system in terms of working with special relativity. This can potentially be explained by having fewer people working o it, and could potentially be rectified and catch up, but it means that for the moment it is still stuck in the past and has not been meshed with newer discoveries as the dominant frameworks have.

    • @wevedonethisbefore8729
      @wevedonethisbefore8729 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@badlydrawnturtle8484 Imagine thinking a hand picked, good looking host is in charge of PBS.

    • @513morris
      @513morris 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@badlydrawnturtle8484 - What evidence do you have that these interpretations "emotionally appeal to him"? That's a strange assertion.

  • @DrSlipperyFist
    @DrSlipperyFist 3 ปีที่แล้ว +497

    I have PhD in Chemistry and absolutely love this stuff. Having taken quantum physics, as an undergrad and P. Chem as a grad student, much of this content is vaguely "familiar", and in my mind I put it together with everything else floating around in there.
    What blows my mind (even more than the amazing content) is the mass appeal and genuine interest from non-scientists.
    This is high level stuff; if I have a PhD and it's only sorta making sense. Kudos to anyone seriously interested in this without the STEM background - I imagine everyone's mind is blown in a different way, based on their background....but everyone's mind is definitely blown by what's being suggested here (and in all these videos).

    • @thealifexablecreed9811
      @thealifexablecreed9811 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      He's basically talking about perspective of the universe from higher Dimensions right? What consciousness would be vs now in 3D. This higher consciousness pattern of selection of possibilities? I don't have PhD in anything. So you think I am close to the jist what he's talking? Looking for affirmations.

    • @KipIngram
      @KipIngram 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      I totally agree with you, DrSlipperyFist. I do have a STEM education (PhD in engineering), but I'm not a physicist. I loaded up on math in grad school, because I knew I'd want to learn more as the years went by, and I've hammered away at this stuff for DECADES, and like you say, it only "sort of makes sense." It is indeed heavy duty stuff and my hat is also off to non-stem folk who care enough about it to learn.

    • @enigma7791
      @enigma7791 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Agreed...I am a software engineer and logic is my world. I came here looking for answers after living in a house that had a little girl in that wasn't my child. And yes at first I thought I was working too hard, until my wife and I saw her at exactly the same time. I cannot comprehend scientifically what I saw. Hence I am asking questions now!

    • @Sk8OppOsiTe4life
      @Sk8OppOsiTe4life 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      I don’t think people necessarily need a stem background to grasp some of these concepts though. Yes stem trains and disciplines the brain to identify and comprehend mathematical problems like an artist sees shapes/colours, however what makes someone like Einstein and his body of work so relatable and easy to conceptualise is that he used abstract perspectives and abstract patterns of thought to help provide sense in the nonsensical. In that same manner, I think non stem focused disciplines are able to draw influence or growth (giving them that mind blown feeling) from these similar abstract thoughts. Hence where I feel my understanding of this topic comes from. My own personal ability to explore abstract thoughts beyond what my senses and logical processes can inform and make me aware of.

    • @ekothesilent9456
      @ekothesilent9456 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@enigma7791 similar experiences here my man.

  • @platypuspracticus2
    @platypuspracticus2 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Love how this kinda glosses over the fact that a conscious observer collapse would imply a very high significance of our existence given that not everything can cause that collapse. Not quite deific but not far off given a direct impact on the shape of reality itself. Also probably why a deterministic multiversal solution feels the most right: clearly we're not gods. Despite what some people may think.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Some folks just can't pass a heap of bullshit without diving into it. ;-)

    • @PlayedbyInstinct
      @PlayedbyInstinct ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Remove 'conscious observer', insert 'frame of reference', of which some include a conscious observer. Still deterministic, just dependent on your frame of reference (you don't cause the collapse, you observe it).

  • @janicepedroli7403
    @janicepedroli7403 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I just can't tell you how much this presentation has changed my life. It has even started to change personal relationships. Thank you so much.

    • @savioartwork
      @savioartwork ปีที่แล้ว

      Janice, this is so interesting.
      May I ask, how did that work for you ?
      What changed, and how did it change ?

    • @avinashreji60
      @avinashreji60 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dude don’t change anything, this doesn’t affect anything. Whether everything is deterministic doesn’t change anything about us

  • @MarcdeSaint
    @MarcdeSaint 3 ปีที่แล้ว +88

    What is predetermined is me watching this every week

    • @korpen2858
      @korpen2858 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      True, good one

    • @ZomB1986
      @ZomB1986 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Unless, like in my case, some TH-cam update disabled the slider for receiving updates about subscribed channels, by itself,, and then me thinking it's just calm on YT because of corona, and then finding out the mount I have to binge watch to catch up.

    • @iordanneDiogeneslucas
      @iordanneDiogeneslucas 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      The first person to ever ponder predetermination had no say in the matter

    • @iJosiah
      @iJosiah 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Uhhh, English..?

  • @Does_it_come_in_black
    @Does_it_come_in_black 3 ปีที่แล้ว +73

    Me: time to go to bed. I need to get up in couple hours for work
    Also me: Great here we go down the rabbit hole once again

    • @ntactime_w3488
      @ntactime_w3488 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Every time

    • @timo4258
      @timo4258 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Bruh I'm jealous, I'm too sleepy and super tired after just 2 hours of sleep. My work is in 5.5h

    • @Does_it_come_in_black
      @Does_it_come_in_black 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@timo4258 dammm all bad dog

    • @andreabelle478
      @andreabelle478 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      This is fun!!! Thinking about so many things at once. On one hand your got your pillow on the other your thinking prehaps what this dude is talking about and then you go dreaming pretty neat o.

  • @OuroborosVengeance
    @OuroborosVengeance 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I have re-seen this several times now. Its so interesting, every time i see it again i go to different places in my mind

  • @numinous2506
    @numinous2506 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I listen to these over and over until I understand them.
    Thank you for expanding my mind.
    What a gift that could never be repaid with any crude matter, but I'll chip in some bones when I get paid. You've earned it.

  • @iheartcornwall
    @iheartcornwall 3 ปีที่แล้ว +159

    My two year old watched this with me and was very into all the cats, saying "another cat!" and meowing at each of them.

    • @radaro.9682
      @radaro.9682 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      My five year old watched it with me. She nods along like "yes, I understand. Tell me more" and I just can't help but laugh.

    • @dannydevito7000
      @dannydevito7000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      @@radaro.9682 Turns out she's actually a genius the likes of which the world has never seen
      One day she says "Daddy I made a working model of quantum gravity"

    • @radaro.9682
      @radaro.9682 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@dannydevito7000 Would not put it past her.

  • @Iangenker2
    @Iangenker2 3 ปีที่แล้ว +167

    What is mind?
    Doesn't matter.
    What is matter?
    Never mind.
    - Homer Simpson.

    • @worldshaper1723
      @worldshaper1723 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That's a great joke!

    • @simoncollins69
      @simoncollins69 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      this used to get stuck in my head as i walked to school.

  • @0ptimal
    @0ptimal 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This one of the best videos y'all have made.

  • @nhannhan4406
    @nhannhan4406 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I need CC english subtitle in this video, really like all your video. I've learnt so much about our universe in your channel. Thank you.

  • @SteyrR
    @SteyrR 3 ปีที่แล้ว +265

    One thing is a certainty; I am going to watch this video.

    • @morkovija
      @morkovija 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      as an observer from the past - how did that go? I guess our future was determine from where i'm standing!=)

    • @Science__Politics
      @Science__Politics 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@morkovija he was struck by lighting

    • @Dipsomaniac
      @Dipsomaniac 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      At least one version of you will that's for sure.

    • @kevin6293
      @kevin6293 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Maybe you already watched it. 😐

    • @encyclopath
      @encyclopath 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You already will

  • @0xc0ffea
    @0xc0ffea 3 ปีที่แล้ว +188

    That moment when a boltzmann brain is the simplest explanation.

    • @WWLinkMasterX
      @WWLinkMasterX 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      I mean, is any material model for consciousness distinguishable from a Boltzmann brain?

    • @VanBurenOfficial
      @VanBurenOfficial 3 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      In the extreme far future, the same process that will give rise to a boltzmann brain will create the greatest, dankest, fattest, smoothest, most dubealicious blunt the cosmos has ever seen, and I intend to be there to blaze it.

    • @lordcirth
      @lordcirth 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@WWLinkMasterX Yes. If Boltzmann brains come into existence, the vast majority of them will experience the most likely scenario: only the brain existing, and for only a short span of time. Since we see a massive, coherent universe around us that seems capable of creating us, we are either in one of the most unlikely Boltzmann brain scenarios of all - or we aren't one, which makes much more sense.

    • @WWLinkMasterX
      @WWLinkMasterX 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@lordcirth Fair, but that isn't a distinguishing argument, it's an argument from likelihood.

    • @Beastman5K
      @Beastman5K 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@VanBurenOfficial MY DUDE

  • @King-jx3kx
    @King-jx3kx 3 ปีที่แล้ว +89

    scientist: "discovers entanglement"
    Will Smith's wife: I cheated because of entanglement. It's predetermined.

    • @LieutenantStandby
      @LieutenantStandby 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      When I'm unbanned on facebook, your comment is the first thing I will post and I'm going to quote you with this video.

    • @mvtito2711
      @mvtito2711 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'm sorry I laughed at will smith's wife

    • @rajatchandra3209
      @rajatchandra3209 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      😂😂😂

    • @eprofessio
      @eprofessio 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Is that why will smith hates white people? Asking for a friend.

    • @mvtito2711
      @mvtito2711 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@eprofessio lmao that's not true

  • @Volamek
    @Volamek 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The first 30 seconds of this video just 100% light bulbed the entire previous episode. I'm hooked.

  • @mstandenberg1421
    @mstandenberg1421 3 ปีที่แล้ว +74

    The universe is infinitely predetermined, which is to say finitely unknowable, thus it makes no difference unless you’re outside it in something bigger and stranger.

    • @hillarysemails1615
      @hillarysemails1615 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      I was only the 7th Like and this is over a year old? Shame people. This deserved over 100!!
      This comment should have been in the vid. "An Infinite series of predetermined universes, means a pseudorandom experience for any given observer."

    • @christiangonzalez7438
      @christiangonzalez7438 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Im taking this as an universal wisdom quote.

  • @elaranlovesyou8220
    @elaranlovesyou8220 3 ปีที่แล้ว +122

    Juan.

    • @didact777
      @didact777 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      lel

    • @TheTuttle99
      @TheTuttle99 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @The Unblinking Eye is he really? I was actually pretty taken aback by his appearance. He looks sick man :(

    • @timothyletwin5911
      @timothyletwin5911 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      What's with the judgment ? Looks like a normal man too me. He's trying to teach you something.

    • @TheTuttle99
      @TheTuttle99 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@timothyletwin5911 what judgement? Or were you referring to the now edited top comment? I'm a little concerned to be honest. Matt looks like he's lost a TON of weight :/

    • @aguasanta
      @aguasanta 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@TheTuttle99 Well, to be honest, this year have been hard for everyone

  • @janicepedroli7403
    @janicepedroli7403 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Love this video. Changed my life and the way I relate to my grown children. Now there are many free will choices they can make. They create the choices.

  • @tavishubbard6731
    @tavishubbard6731 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I just read a book trilogy called, "The Three Body Problem." Highly recommend this book! It plays with multiple topics that this show is famous for. Also an episode about the sciences involved in the books would be epic!!

  • @azure6743
    @azure6743 3 ปีที่แล้ว +52

    "Einstein's theory of special relativity combined space and time into one unified thing - spacetime"
    *show ends after 9 seconds*

  • @chillyman1459
    @chillyman1459 3 ปีที่แล้ว +87

    What is the difference between an observer and just any old regular particle interaction? If an observer is just made of particles, and the particles the observer uses to interact are doing the observing, wouldn't that mean every particle interaction collapses the wavefunction?

    • @markiv2942
      @markiv2942 3 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      Yes, don't just tell this to anyone, it would make too much sense.

    • @zeton2000
      @zeton2000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      yes

    • @db7213
      @db7213 3 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      In the many worlds interpretation, different observers have different wave functions for the same particle. So even all particles are observes and collapse the wave function, their interactions don't collapse the wave function for other observers (unless the observers are entangled).
      Example: we have particles A, B, C and D. When particle A interacts with B, A's wavefunction of B, and B's wavefunction of A collapse (and A and B become entangled which means they now share wave functions), but C and D's wave functions of A and B are unaffected. When C and D interacts with each other, their wave function collapses and they become entangled. When A or B comes in contact with either C or D, then A/B's wave function of C/D collapses and vice versa, and all particles are entangled.
      So as you can see, the wave function collapse becomes a chain reaction (which is what causes the many worlds).

    • @badlydrawnturtle8484
      @badlydrawnturtle8484 3 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      You've just intuited the fundamental problem with the Copenhagen interpterion, which despite having this obvious issue has managed to keep going for ages because even physicists get emotionally attached.

    • @mertertrern
      @mertertrern 3 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      Gotta remember the part about there necessarily being only a single observer in the entire Universe in order for the interpretation to work. I'm not landing on either side of that question, but I wanna imagine that self-aware consciousness has some privileged position in the pecking order of wave function collapsing. It's possible we're collapsing this sea of quantum possibility into the manifest reality we perceive in real-time through unconscious processes we haven't even begun to uncover yet. You never know. New ideas are usually considered wrong by a lot of respectable scholars until some new discovery comes from out of nowhere that changes the tide.

  • @guillaumemaurice3503
    @guillaumemaurice3503 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you for sharing this that was very interesting. I enjoyed it.

  • @nostalgia63
    @nostalgia63 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Nice video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible (intervals) and measurable.

  • @philochristos
    @philochristos 3 ปีที่แล้ว +73

    "We'll have plenty of time for time next time on Spacetime." That's just brilliant writing right there.

    • @iamchillydogg
      @iamchillydogg 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks for ruining it for the rest of us.

    • @Gamer-is6ew
      @Gamer-is6ew 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@iamchillydogg Why read the comments first place then before watching the intire video throughout? It is you responsibility since you're already agreeing non-verbally to that - when you open that comment section your bound to be exposed to spoilers...

    • @iamchillydogg
      @iamchillydogg 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Gamer-is6ew
      Your comment is the one that shows up before you open the comments section.

    • @Gamer-is6ew
      @Gamer-is6ew 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@iamchillydogg time to burn down YT's HQ for this!

  • @JanKowalski-wb2fv
    @JanKowalski-wb2fv 3 ปีที่แล้ว +72

    If the future means watching PBS Space Time then yes, it's predetermined

    • @RagaarAshnod
      @RagaarAshnod 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      For me, it was reading and replying to this comment!

    • @syngyne
      @syngyne 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Also predetermined that I will only ever understand about 2% of any one video

  • @tiantu9830
    @tiantu9830 2 ปีที่แล้ว +105

    My problem with non-deterministic idea of these "unknown" qunatum probabilities, is that it is still ultimately deterministic. Think about it, if you are reading a book series and it is unfinished. From the perspective of the characters in the books, yes, the future is unknowable, but that does not mean the characters in the book get to influence the outcome of their future. All it means is that whatever force(in this case the author) that drives the future, has not made a determination yet. But that does not make the book itself non-deterministic.

    • @s.31.l50
      @s.31.l50 2 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      The book analogy is one of my go-to analogies for determinism, happy to see someone else with the same idea.

    • @johanneskrv
      @johanneskrv 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      So you're basically smuggling god into this by assuming an author. What if there is no book at all? What if there is no all seeing point of view?

    • @typhoonf6
      @typhoonf6 2 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      @@johanneskrv he said a force... It does not have to be a deity. Could be probability or some other level of physics we don't know about. You are the one that made the assumption.

    • @Zargabaath
      @Zargabaath 2 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@johanneskrv The author could just be time, or whatever determines, well, determinism. You made a leap, and an illogical one. Why would someone who thinks determinism is the answer believe in a god? Especially the christian god, which I'm assuming is the main deity you're surrounded by, seeing as christianity is all about free will.

    • @johanneskrv
      @johanneskrv 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@Zargabaath No i didn't make any leap. The reason is the following: in all these models an all seeing point of view is assumed from which the block universe (time+space) can be examined. From this point of view of course everything in the block universe is always deterministic. But assuming the possibility of this point of view means assuming something outside the universe. Colorfully stated this means assuming god.

  • @monsterlair
    @monsterlair 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    “We’ll have plenty more time for time, another time, on space time.” Best valediction yet. 😆

  • @Wetefah
    @Wetefah 3 ปีที่แล้ว +51

    "the answer depends on your favorite flavor of interpretation" - I'll interpret this as "nobody has the slightest idea"

    • @MarsJenkar
      @MarsJenkar 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      I'd say more like, "We've got a few ideas about this, but we're still trying to puzzle out which, if any, is right."

    • @badlydrawnturtle8484
      @badlydrawnturtle8484 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      It's more like "the interpretations that make more sense logically are less appealing emotionally, so we like to downplay the part where we're supposed to find the truth, here".

    • @maythesciencebewithyou
      @maythesciencebewithyou 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Many people desperately want to believe that the universe is not deterministic or at least that there is a version of them that lives the life they dreamed about.

    • @alram8143
      @alram8143 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@badlydrawnturtle8484 cynicism is also emotional. It also doesn't advance scientific discussion. Saying "we don't know" is not a failing.

    • @paulperkins1615
      @paulperkins1615 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      There is a huge range in between "the exact answer is known beyond any doubt" and "nobody has the slightest idea" and I don't think I really like anybody who is not comfortable living in that in-between range.

  • @AbbeyRoadkill1
    @AbbeyRoadkill1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    When I saw the notification for a new Space Time video I knew I was going to have to click on it, so... yes, the future is predetermined.

    • @dwighthawkins5955
      @dwighthawkins5955 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I seriously need a revitalized definition of "predetermined" as there was no way I could watch this video without toweling off first.

  • @XIIchiron78
    @XIIchiron78 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Doesn't the speed of light + relativity of simultaneity "fix" the 2nd example? Observers in your "present" can't gain any information that isn't within their light cone and therefore can't collapse your future wave function by learning about it from an observer in your future path. Or do I misunderstand?

    • @loturzelrestaurant
      @loturzelrestaurant 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I have the (silly) hobby to ask people if they'd like some recommendations;
      especially science-channel and such. Yeah, its random and i'm often called Robot for it,
      but who cares? I live for those few who say 'Yes thanks' (though No thanks is also nicer than calling me non-alive...)
      and i wont stop asking around.
      I wanna spread Education, so i recommend edu-channel, duh!

  • @johnwoodhouse2360
    @johnwoodhouse2360 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Very well explained. Have wondered if them life moments when feeling uncomfortable with life direction could be anything to do with a gravity pull to your timeline but am understanding much clearer now that this concept is probably unlikely because every possiblity is happening but we are only experiencing one path of time but this leads me to another thought. If as 3d beings we can see everything in a 2d world. Does that mean they might be 4d beings that can see everything fully in our 3d world and is 4d time? One more things if time travel was possible going to the past would be going back on time line you have taken but how would going to future be decided what timeline it too when every possiblity is happening? Just some thoughts. All the best all.

  • @AndrewDotsonvideos
    @AndrewDotsonvideos 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1470

    Now I want a country singer to write a song about letting quantum mechanics take the wheel.

    • @jean-lucchoiniere5587
      @jean-lucchoiniere5587 3 ปีที่แล้ว +109

      In 100 years the Bible turns out to be a complex analogy for the function of subatomic particle interactions and Jesus is the Higgs Boson.

    • @tarubewildin6931
      @tarubewildin6931 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      eat the brown part of this banana first

    • @steve1978ger
      @steve1978ger 3 ปีที่แล้ว +24

      @@jean-lucchoiniere5587 - no it doesn't. It's just bronze age myths and a mixed bag of ethics.

    • @TheChadPad
      @TheChadPad 3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      "Physics, take the wheeeel!!!"

    • @corwin32
      @corwin32 3 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      It’s already been written, you just haven’t experienced that branch yet

  • @yuvalne
    @yuvalne 3 ปีที่แล้ว +68

    "We'll have time for time another time on spacetime."
    Goddamnit Matt.

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The time to discuss endless time has passed, this time. But, maybe next time, on spacetime.

  • @elliotnicklinmusic
    @elliotnicklinmusic ปีที่แล้ว

    The intersection of the conscious experience of a single branch with these interpretations is so alluring, as is the romantic notion of altered states of consciousness (like dreams) being an experience of these other possibilities.

  • @aimefortunato3334
    @aimefortunato3334 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mind blowing!!!!! Great vid

  • @SpeedOfTheEarth
    @SpeedOfTheEarth 3 ปีที่แล้ว +67

    "But - we'll have plenty of time for time some other time in spacetime."
    Brilliant lol

    • @internet_introvert
      @internet_introvert 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Time? This isn't the time to talk about time. We don't have the time!

  • @_shadow_1
    @_shadow_1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +69

    "The only thing that is certain is uncertainty"
    - Probably someone in history

    • @arielsproul8811
      @arielsproul8811 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      You could say that you're *Uncertain* as to who said that quote

    • @Mp57navy
      @Mp57navy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'll go with Feynman. Any takers?

    • @rmsgrey
      @rmsgrey 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      "With him around, even uncertainty is uncertain" - Interesting Times by Terry Pratchett, Death(?) speaking of the great "wizzard" Rincewind (luckiest(?) person alive)

    • @_shadow_1
      @_shadow_1 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@arielsproul8811 yep

    • @philochristos
      @philochristos 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I wonder how certain they were of that.

  • @subwoofer6238
    @subwoofer6238 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very cool! and when learning this it feels very... comforting? Knowing that nothing is classical mechanics really happens randomly and everything has an effect on something else. If you choose to fly a plane, there are soo many things that that effected (That will spread out across the universe through entropy over time and create more causal chains) and all the things those causal chains that caused to make that decision. This is definitely something I would geek-out on lol. I also realized that even if the universe is deterministic nothing in the universe could ever predict it. (Which is probably the reason WHY we can't prove anything about how the universe operates) This is the same thing as the "Halting problem" where you can't make a machine that simulates and PREDICTS another one aka. The universe. This is why none of this actually matters you or any object or atom or molecule in universe because you can't change it, it's always BEEN the universe, and this is a better way to create a universe that FUNCTIONS then having things happen randomly that can actually effect you. (Like changing you're decisions or some stupid stuff like that). Because if randomness has an effect over only you're brain than why? Why can't atoms of your arm or any object float away and make everything into gas or clumps. To people who feel nervous or "trapped" by this I want to tell you that it doesn't matter, nothing can predict the future, and it's still okay to think about this though because we're just speculating and trying to change your future or gain free will doesn't mean anything. The universe is ordered and that's how it exists in the first place.

  • @markl3763
    @markl3763 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Hi Dr. O'Dowd. 2 questions: wave function collapse seems to require observation, which to me seems to require life, so what if life never evolved? and if time causes gravity, and time is money, does money cause gravity?

  • @theonetruemorty4078
    @theonetruemorty4078 3 ปีที่แล้ว +36

    It's me, I'm the one collapsing the wave function. I know I've made mistakes, especially as of late, but if you cancel me you do so at your own risk. Cheers!

    • @cezarcatalin1406
      @cezarcatalin1406 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Yeah it’s big brain time.

    • @nunyobidniz
      @nunyobidniz 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I squanch it😎

    • @chrisfinley
      @chrisfinley 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Does it have to be one person or can a solar system bound species be the one collapsing the wave function? That would explain the Fermi Paradox and probably means we are a simulation. ;)

    • @big_changus4905
      @big_changus4905 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Does your momma know you do this, aren't you a little young to do this

  • @ilkoderez601
    @ilkoderez601 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    This is a great episode! This is the stuff that keeps us coming back. I've been interpreting the multi-worlds theory all wrong and it's not my fav... Thanks PBS SpaceTime! Bravo!

  • @Wulable
    @Wulable 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    "We'll have plenty of time for time another time on space time." Haha great.

  • @gbail9566
    @gbail9566 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Congratulations on the wonderful graphics on the Copenhagen and Many Worlds theories.

  • @dominikbeitat4450
    @dominikbeitat4450 3 ปีที่แล้ว +24

    Not gonna lie, this is the best explanation of 2020 I've come across so far.
    Something something collapsing future something.

  • @omaewamoshindeiru3657
    @omaewamoshindeiru3657 3 ปีที่แล้ว +69

    You just made me questions my existence and reality

    • @Matty94
      @Matty94 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Try to watch Pursuit of wonder

    • @TheChadPad
      @TheChadPad 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Great way to start the day

    • @ankysid8022
      @ankysid8022 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What do you think Physicist do ?

    • @kaseyboles30
      @kaseyboles30 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Always question and seek answers.

    • @playnite2188
      @playnite2188 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You exist so I can reply your comment.

  • @davidpalmer9780
    @davidpalmer9780 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    What blows my mind is the tracking of all the alternate realities prior to the wave function collapse, if it even being tracked at all. What I consider tracking may be considered something else.

  • @ishanychheda1725
    @ishanychheda1725 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very well explained.

  • @queenofscots839
    @queenofscots839 3 ปีที่แล้ว +43

    I spoke to my future self at age 7, and answered 40 years later ... remembered exactly on time! 🤯

    • @MrBruh-xc1qy
      @MrBruh-xc1qy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      this is legit one of the most epic comments i have ever read

    • @richardkoechl9552
      @richardkoechl9552 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@MrBruh-xc1qy are you allowed to change your mind in the interim???LOL

    • @Imachef
      @Imachef 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      What did you tell yourself?

    • @queenofscots839
      @queenofscots839 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@Imachef I had a nightmare that my younger sister surprised me with skydiving gift and I’m terrified of heights, I begged my older self to say no! So when 30 years later she did just that I apologized to my younger self and went!

  • @livedadyt10
    @livedadyt10 3 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    Phew... heady stuff Matt. Still struggling with “if a tree falls in the forest...”.

    • @itcamefromthedeep
      @itcamefromthedeep 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I can clear up "if a tree falls in the forest...” if you'd like.
      We use the same word for two concepts, in this case one of those concepts is vibrations in the air, while the other is the subjective qualia of mental experience. The falling tree definitely makes sound in the first sense, and definitely not in the second. The confusion lies in the ambiguity of the word, not the concepts it points at. If you were to try it in some other languages it probably wouldn't work unless they shared the same homonym.

    • @johndoe-sh8in
      @johndoe-sh8in 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is able to hear it...
      then my illegal logging business is a success.

    • @GawerLT
      @GawerLT 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@itcamefromthedeep Exactly right! Funny how people don't examine this and think it is profound :D

    • @ultratot
      @ultratot 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@itcamefromthedeep Yeah... but... if you ascribe any level of consciousness to animals, squirrels and deer and such, then the subjective mental experience, that qualia (maybe my new favorite word since the last exurb1a video?) definitely is there. So in both definitions, objective vibrations and subjective experience, the answer is an unambiguous YES. So now that that's cleared up, onto determinism and the hard problem of consciousness...

    • @Pheonix1328
      @Pheonix1328 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'd say it doesn't make a sound, at least in any meaningful way. Observers are needed to allow things to exist, for if there were none, then it would be like it didn't exist at all.

  • @nyrdybyrd1702
    @nyrdybyrd1702 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    My first watch of this episode (years ago) went swimmingly but I've been around since the days of Gabe (seen erry episode, most several times).
    I sympathize/know the feeling though; the most difficult concept/topic covered here for me was (without doubt) time crystals (pretty much baffled to this day 🤷‍♂️).

  • @winstonsmith8240
    @winstonsmith8240 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Glad we've cleared that up.

  • @petersontaylor2000
    @petersontaylor2000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Matt asked for our help at the end of this episode!
    Hang on in there, my friend! Everything is gonna be fine!

  • @kena7007
    @kena7007 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    I love listening to this show, I memorize a few quotes and say them at dinner and people think I’m a genius.

  • @ride14fun
    @ride14fun 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    this is the BEST, I think, MOST accurate description of reality. FURTHER evidence is that it supports the axiom of choice from Zermelo Frankel set theory which is critical to generate modern mathematics.

  • @TheMrMxyspptlk
    @TheMrMxyspptlk 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Outstanding!

  • @Richard-bq3ni
    @Richard-bq3ni 3 ปีที่แล้ว +101

    I am currently picking up the pieces of my brain shattered through my room after my head exploded.
    Why do I always feel dumb watching your videos. I have a hard time understanding but keep coming back still.

    • @goldenseal50
      @goldenseal50 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      So glad I am not the only one with a headache.

    • @philb.1658
      @philb.1658 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I agree I too find these videos hard to understand and but they are interesting and informative. My brain only feel like exploding when I watch crap on TV about ancien aliens or ghosts.

    • @Richard-bq3ni
      @Richard-bq3ni 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@philb.1658 Hi Phil.
      Thanks for that, I feel less stupid now 😉
      And I get what you mean with these TV shows. Channels like discovery were great to watch when I was young, but have been dumbed down to please a larger audience, or whatever the owners had in mind.
      It is great to have TH-cam and channels like this.

    • @ytechnology
      @ytechnology 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      "... but keep coming back still." It's disturbing that your return visits might be predetermined. 😉

    • @rilist23
      @rilist23 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes..right there with y’all on that thought lol

  • @RussellCatchpole
    @RussellCatchpole 3 ปีที่แล้ว +64

    The wave function probably collapsed, just in time,
    for Matt to deliver his final line,
    in a rhyme,
    before the final chime,
    of this episode of,
    PBS Spacetime.

  • @gwdud
    @gwdud 5 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Hoops! That one gave me a headache, but, at the end, I agree on the last question, what is now! So, Alice is moving toward Bob in her present. Bob is moving toward Alice in his present. When Bob meets Alice (they do!), can Bob meets Alice in her future, or shall we conclude that there is only one present in that point of space where the meeting is happening?

  • @davidhand9721
    @davidhand9721 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This is one of my biggest problems with the fundamental randomness of QM. We know for certain that one observer can see another's future in its present, so it can't be undetermined in the other observer's present. It's a direct contradiction. We need a better explanation for how realities are selected from a set of potentialities, one that explains consistency between observers. That means we need a better explanation for what happens during a measurement and "wave function collapse". But it seems these questions are prohibited among physicists, who have taken "shut up and calculate" to heart as dogma.

  • @juliusc.2088
    @juliusc.2088 3 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    Sounds like the Future is in a superposition of being predetermined and undetermined.

    • @Galv140577
      @Galv140577 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      How was it predetermined at the start when it spontaneously began ?

    • @technomage6736
      @technomage6736 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Galv140577 It never began, unless it turns out that something (energy) spontaneously appeared out of literal pure nothingness. I suspect it's more likely that the cosmos is eternal, and time and probably space wraps back in on itself, or is perhaps cyclical.

    • @Tonatsi
      @Tonatsi 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Galv140577 it can’t be predetermined if the future doesn’t yet exist as a concept, so it is both predetermined and undetermined, as neither is true, yet both can be defined as an opposite of the other

    • @joshuacornelius25
      @joshuacornelius25 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Tonatsi all possible future, and the threads of causality are predetermined if you plot a path of continuity from start to the conclusion. The problem is that consciousness is a quantum process and "we" are in superposition as well and have no idea which future we will arrive at. The continuity of consciousness is an illusion because we have access to memory, current sensory input, and predictions for the future (past, present, future)....but consciousness is actually a series of neural electro-chemical oscillations (quantum process) stitched together over time to give us the experience of continuity.

    • @oscarrodriguez3754
      @oscarrodriguez3754 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@joshuacornelius25... wow.. this better not be copy and pasted

  • @erikzetterberg3887
    @erikzetterberg3887 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Thanks to Matt and the PBS space time team for making these great videos!
    This time, however I find the argument at 6:50 unconvincing. The claim that the event at the bird would collapse the future of the event at the human does not seem to me to be supported within SR. Just because the human sees the cat event as simultaneous and the cat sees the bird event as simultaneous does not imply that any of the observers see the human event and the bird event as simultanous. Actually, the human, the cat and the bird would all agree that the bird event happens after the human event, and because of this the bird event could not collapse the human's light cone.
    In fact, there could be no observer moving at the speed of light or slower that would see the bird event as simultaneous with the human event, since these events are time like separated. The human's event and the human's future would remain uncollapsed from any observers view. At least as far as I understand SR. Please comment if there is anything wrong with my line of reasoning, so that I could understand the argument in the video,

  • @goodsirknight
    @goodsirknight 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    "The only totally coherent way for a non-deterministic wave function collapse interpretation, like Copenhagen, to give you an uncollapsed future, is if you're the only being doing the wave-function collapsing"
    But in a sense isn't this actually true, there is only _Being_ and we are all aspects of that being, experiencing itself subjectively

  • @ghytd766
    @ghytd766 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Love this stuff.
    I wonder if my future self understands it.

  • @NicholasRehm
    @NicholasRehm 3 ปีที่แล้ว +62

    I watched Interstellar (again) the other day which really messed up my mind and got me thinking about the idea of a pre-determined future...

    • @anarchyantz1564
      @anarchyantz1564 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Watch it a third time sort of in the background while doing other stuff. Hurts your head less I found.

    •  3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      The lesson is books cause hurricanes.

    • @biblebot3947
      @biblebot3947 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Watch Sabine hossenfelders video in it

    • @NicholasRehm
      @NicholasRehm 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @Deal Negrasse Bison My guess is you think you're too smart to enjoy it, right?

    • @okkomp
      @okkomp 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      The illusion of free will evaporated for me in 1997

  • @hdbgdz
    @hdbgdz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +38

    I want a tee shirt that says "The wave function is real"

    • @nathanielhunter1280
      @nathanielhunter1280 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Or
      "I just collapsed your wave function"

    • @waffles3987
      @waffles3987 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Bump

    • @paulperkins1615
      @paulperkins1615 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@nathanielhunter1280 I like "We just entangled parts of our wave functions with each other" even better. But "The Wave function is real" fits on a tee shirt better and captures the essence of what is usually called the many-worlds interpretation.

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      "...but unobservable"

    • @pierreabbat6157
      @pierreabbat6157 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Is it real or complex?

  • @Feintgames
    @Feintgames 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Other required listening is, "Story of your life" by Ted Chiang. It has the best explanation of experiencing "present" as a being that doesn't need to limit itself to existing between past and future. And if we can imagine and calculate these 5th dimensional beings, who is to say that our interpretation of existence defines it?

  • @aliensarerealttsa6198
    @aliensarerealttsa6198 3 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    I dreamt of my fish, dead.
    The next day I saw my fish, dead.
    It's wave function collapsed.

  • @matthew944
    @matthew944 3 ปีที่แล้ว +59

    I look into the past every night we have clear skies.

    • @freelancer42
      @freelancer42 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      I look into the past every time I open my eyes

    • @gregoryfenn1462
      @gregoryfenn1462 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      By that logic, you look into the past whenever you look at anything...

    • @john-or9cf
      @john-or9cf 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ...which isn’t very often in Ohio...

    • @Galv140577
      @Galv140577 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      The Moon is 2.5 seconds into the past, but your comment is now 1 hour ago.

    • @jorgepeterbarton
      @jorgepeterbarton 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@gregoryfenn1462 especially youtube comments as digital discrete information?

  • @p1a2b3l4o50000
    @p1a2b3l4o50000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    This is the better “science of Dark explained” video I’ve ever seen

  • @MrSperoni
    @MrSperoni 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The cat explanation was just brilliant.

  • @davidparadis490
    @davidparadis490 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow, finally an episode i mostly understand

  • @_tnk_
    @_tnk_ 3 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    Love the focus on metaphysics and philosophy these past 2 episodes. These are really difficult concepts to understand, and I appreciate seeing your perspective as a physicist.
    Question: What do you think about the “moving spotlight theory” of time as an explanation for the experience of the present?

  • @Jayarbuck
    @Jayarbuck 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    (Warning for photosensitive viewers: this video contains a lot of flashing and repetitive imagery at various points)
    Such a fascinating topic! I do find the many worlds interpretation to be the most interesting, and the most satisfying to my personal sense of elegance.

  • @Cheekymukka
    @Cheekymukka 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great topic I really enjoyed the video.
    I have a view as follows:
    I believe past, present and future are viewable to souls not in an avatar.
    How this is possible is explained as follows:
    The past present and future of a soul in an avatar CAN be simultaneously viewed as if you where standing over a merry go round.
    The merry go round is the complete life cycle of the souls present life and it's future events can be accurately determined because of the uniqueness of the soul to choices it will face in life.
    The probable paths it will choose even though it has free will to do as it wishes, it is very very likely to be only choice A or B out instead of a cone of infinite 180 degrees of choice as illustrated in the quantum observer in your video.
    I believe a soul is very likely made of dark matter and the universe it returns to is completely hidden to avatars made of matter unless they have the unique gift some humans appear to have down the centuries of past.
    Ultimately, we are here to learn no MATTER (pun intended) where we are in the 4% of this cosmos and the lessons get tougher the wiser we become as souls.

  • @PromethorYT
    @PromethorYT 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Random thought: so if entangled particules are separated one at rest and the other moving near the speed of light and we measure the particule that is at rest, it does it means we affect the state of the moving particule in the past?

    • @tellmemoreplease9231
      @tellmemoreplease9231 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      To me, that sounds like a very good question.....

    • @flumbz5266
      @flumbz5266 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      You mean like the double slit experiment?

  • @StrongButAwkward
    @StrongButAwkward 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I'd really like to know the PBS Space Time Team's feelings about the show DEVS since I thought it was one of the better sci-fi shows of the past several years and is centered around a lot of what this episode is about.

  • @monochr0mat
    @monochr0mat 3 ปีที่แล้ว +36

    I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. If you consider the universe as a graph with nodes being Quantum states. You are a DFS algorithm through this graph looking for your death 🤯

    • @big_changus4905
      @big_changus4905 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      My computer friend

    • @kingreinhold9905
      @kingreinhold9905 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Can you please explain this a bit more?

    • @ConnoisseurOfExistence
      @ConnoisseurOfExistence 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm a special algorithm, looking how to avoid death and survive forever.

    • @ethanconnelly8794
      @ethanconnelly8794 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Maybe our qualitative experience (qualia) exists in the momentary entanglement of ourselves and the world. This would mean any other conscious entity who wants to see the colours of our soul would have to entangle with our wavefunction or collapse it and just see quantitative data.
      With pansychism this means that everything that is still in it's quantum state would experience it's own qualia and only under a non-zero like cooperation would it be able to join another conscious entity and create higher orders of autopoiesis.
      The sharing of electrons is simply the sharing of consciousness. Higher complexity leads to higher states of consciousness and therefore the most complex systems (our brains) are experiencing the highest levels of qualia.

    • @kallianpublico7517
      @kallianpublico7517 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      An algorithm is a sequence. Is my sequence the same as yours? Not if my definitions are distinct, unrelated, to yours. If I have words, thoughts, which are "more advanced" than yours then the set of rules that leads from proposition to conclusion, from if to then, will be different in number and in "meaning". Is meaning the source of the quantum enigma?

  • @schumachersbatman5094
    @schumachersbatman5094 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    best episode yet

  • @diceprice
    @diceprice 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Good one

  • @AnoopKulkarniACK
    @AnoopKulkarniACK 3 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    If dark energy is creating new space through expansion, is it creating new time as well?

    • @Frog89mad
      @Frog89mad 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      i have read that some theory says the expansion of the universe is what causes time go forward instead of backwards

    • @ThatCrazyKid0007
      @ThatCrazyKid0007 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well, I imagine the answer is pretty much yes.

    • @Lozza9000
      @Lozza9000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Perhaps it's the new time blocks (and associated information) that creates the illusion of dark energy.

    • @itcamefromthedeep
      @itcamefromthedeep 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      There are a bunch of clear answers, depending on your paradigm. Mostly no.

    • @jamesross160
      @jamesross160 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Frog89mad if you wanted to go back in time one second, you would have to contract the universe 1 second back to where every bit of matter was before, so in a sense yes. But if you imagined a universe with no mass and just photons all moving at c, then there is nothing to relativitity to measure time with, so in a sense no. But you could also argue these photons if not moving, with no mass and c, then e would equal 0 and they wouldn't exist, so your back to yes.

  • @ASLUHLUHCE
    @ASLUHLUHCE 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    0:53 "For every observer, It's possible to imagine another observer who lives in their definition of the present, but for whom your future is the past" - I still don't think this implies eternalism/determinism.
    Imagine seeing another observer waving at you from far away. It may indeed be the case that from their present, they're in fact waving at an old man (or perhaps a fetus). But as far as I understand, this does not mean that your past and future are equally in existence. Rather, isn't this all just a dramatisation of the relativity of simultaneity?
    Whilst what you see of each other indeed depends on your velocities (due to the way light from you reaches them and vice versa), the two of you will only ever see things *that have already happened to each other* - just as Einstein's train thought experiment so evidently points out.

    • @riddick165
      @riddick165 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Thank you, I'm stuck on same thing. By moving in different directions I can choose to see distant observer's past 20 years ago or his past from 10 years ago but never his present or his future. How does this suggest eternalism?

    • @ASLUHLUHCE
      @ASLUHLUHCE 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Welp, this comment wasn't mentioned in their next video. I might just have commented too late

    • @riddick165
      @riddick165 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ASLUHLUHCE Yeah, too bad. But I'm thinking maybe we are taking this too literally and the only point of this thought is to show that present is relative and if two people can have different presents then this must mean there is block universe. Or do you have some other idea?

    • @daviddelaney2407
      @daviddelaney2407 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@riddick165, what it means is that if there IS such a thing as a consistent "present" for each observer, of whatever velocity, THEN you can assemble those "present"s into the block, predetermined universe. GR says you're only ever gonna see pasts, using light that has travelled null geodesics to get to your eyes, so only your past light cone's stuff is visible to you - there isn't actually "a present" for you YET. Anywhere you're thinking of as simultaneous to you - in "your present slice" - is out in Elsewhere, outside your past (and future) light cone, and can get moved as close to your past OR FUTURE light cone as you like by changing velocity of the frame you're in... so an observer at a different velocity to you will NEVER see the same 'present slice' as you.
      This strongly implies that the "slice of present" concept isn't meaningful, and only seems to be because we're used to velocities much smaller than light's, so that light seems to take no time to get to us. It's trying to make it into a meaningful concept that gives you the determined block universe ... which is another sign pointing to 'DON'T DO THAT'.
      As time passes, stuff further away from you at previous times gets added to your past light cone, making it look like there WAS a consistent "time T" slice in your frame ... but you don't ever see stuff from "T+t", just the sphere far enough back for light to have gotten to you from it. Your "current present" isn't known to you, says GR... and any observer in your past light cone CAN'T have anything in your future light cone in their past light cone, only stuff you can already see in your past light cone. And any observer in Elsewhere can be arbitrarily close to ANY point on the boundary of your future light cone, by changing frames via changing velocity ... so, again, trying to make a "consistent present" runs you head-on into 'DON'T DO THAT'.
      --Dave, here's our Sign

    • @ASLUHLUHCE
      @ASLUHLUHCE 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ​@@riddick165 Actually, now after re-watching this video, I realised that I didn't take Matt literally enough.
      When Matt said "For every observer it's possible to imagine another observer who lives in their definition of the present but for whom your future is the past", he wasn't talking about - say - a waving observer in our past light cone.
      Rather, it seems he's saying an observer that exists at this very moment (like the cat at 6:34) may find their very moment of existence paradoxically coinciding with our future self (like the chicken at 6:46).
      And thus, this apparent paradox implies eternalism (the equal existence of our past, present, and future).
      But are such claims about relative 'now-slices' valid? Why would your 'now slice' be affected by your velocity?
      Is Matt conflating this idea of 'now slices' with the relativity of simultaneity?

  • @KryogenKeeper
    @KryogenKeeper 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Oy! The Rick & Morty reference was surprising. You are just that much more awesome!

  • @rameezramses6633
    @rameezramses6633 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Well you describe dark discruption very well...