Glad you liked it! I try my best to condense the concepts so it is not overly technical but still gives a good overview. Not an easy task to be honest.
Quite interesting piece! Thanks! Einstein ''spooky action at a distance'' was not about the collapse of the wave function but rather by the instantaneous 'communication' between two entangled particle separated by a great distance where one of them has been measured (one of its quantum parameter like spin). Merci beaucoup.
The two ideas are interlinked. Einstein was the first to (correctly) identify quantum entanglement (even before Schrodinger did) as the TRULY unique element of quantum mechanics and the bespoke quality that separated it from classical mechanics. The wave function "collapsing" is the same thing as making a measurement. And when you make a measurement, say the polarization of an photon here and a photon on the other side of the universe, once you measure the polarization of one particle you INSTANTLY know the polarization of the other particle. The "collapse" of the wave function suggests, although not categorically, faster-than-light signaling between entangled particles. Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind have been working on an idea vaguely called ER = EPR. The idea being that Einstein-Rosen Bridges (aka wormholes) are the link between entangled particles (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Correlations). The physics community, partly thanks to a terrible paper written by Jon Von Neumann, believed Einstein was barking up the wrong tree and the whole deal was much ado about nothing. It was virtually ignored for decades until John Bell, the great Irish experimentalist (who should've gotten a Nobel Prize post-humously even though they don't give those out to dead scientists) did his first experiments testing it (in contravention of older physicists who told him not to waste his time on "foundations of quantum mechanics questions"). And then AFTER Bell, the physics community ignored Einstein's work on entanglement UNTIL the quantum information theory program began in earnest in the 1970s and later. Only NOW are run-of-the-mill physicists FINALLY addressing foundational questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, stuff that they should have been doing for DECADES. ER = EPR? We shall see!
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Yes WF collapse is related to spooky action at a distance, but you and the narrator are both wrong that this describes Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". The vast majority of all WF collapse is not with entangled quanta, therefore it most often does NOT show or describe or suggest this spooky action at a distance. So it is incorrect to say WF collapse represents Einstein's spooky concerns in the EPR paper.
They talk about distanced as if the universe was kind of distorted newtonian. You cannot have space without time and movement. Space, matter and time are "functions" of sensory processes. Luckily we can do a lot within the limits of our knowledge...
Great Channel....please consider doing an in-depth presentation on the Quantum Void. Most physics channels do an extremely superficial job in explaining this critical field in physics. Best wishes
It all comes back to the Uncertainty Principle. Lowest energy states and so on. Oh - and quantum field theory is just that. Its a theory. It might be wrong.
Very good! Thank you. Imagine tachyon telescopes and gluon microscopes, two hypothetical tools to help merge GR and QM into one theory. Such tools might unveil the correct interpretation of QM.
I wish physicists would stop talking about "measurements" or "look at" but rather use a phrases like "interact with " or even "touching". The latter being better at describing that there's no such thing at observation without interaction that that small scale.
What's even worse is when they talk about how a wave will collapse when "observed", which leads to all kind of crazy ideas about how the mind is interacting with particles.
Nothing is conclusive of what is going on. Do atoms touch is up for debate. Does a collapse occur or not. Is an interaction a collapse or just an entanglement. Is it because conscious beings are observing that things collapses. Physicist has to resort to a language that explains things even if it's not entirely how it works.
Suppose in the beam splitter device, we place a screen at 45 degrees between the 2 detectors, why don't the photons collapse on that screen if the wave function is spread out over that entire space?
Taking a mathematical snapshot of something that by its very definition cannot be at rest is like taking a picure of a moving car with a camera that has perfect shutter speed and 0 blur. Once the picture is taken the information after disappears and we're left with the position. As far as we're concerned there is no information after this, yet the car has continued on. It seems like we're bringing a relativistic approach i.e. taking a mathematical snapshot to a quantum quation. Measuring the particle essentially tells it to reveal its state at that instant, we see a momentary state. If we take the same car and place it in exactly the same position as the car in the picture taken when it was moving, there would be no difference in the picture assuming a uniform background. Perhaps the tool we're using isn't complete
7:10 wait a minute: is there any idea for an experiment which could falsify this theory? Could you give some references? I would love to see some serious proposition of such test
From what is currently known, only "physical / objective collapse" models are testable ( like GRW or CSL , see 7:30 ). No experiment could test Many Worlds against the other unmodified interpretations of QM.
The wave function cannot really collapse because it does not really exist (in physical reality). It's a humanly constructed mapping of probabilities - of possible outcomes, one, and only one of which turns out to be the case.
I'm not an expert in quantum physics, but to me a probabilistic function states the probability of an object being present at any give point in space-time. It doesn't imply that the object exists at all points at the same time, it simply states that if you are situated at a particular location then there is a given probability that you will encounter the object at that location at a particular point in time. Isn't it a bit over-dramatic to say that the probabilistic function "collapses" when you encounter the object? I'd be laughted out of maths class if I claimed that the function y = 2x + 3 "collapses" when I discover the value of y to be 9.
We try to teach in high school that quanta are small amounts of energy. They are NOT objects and they do not behave like objects. In quantum mechanics the measurement system either absorbs a quantum of energy or it does not. That's a hard binary outcome. No ifs, whens and probabilities. The probability of that event is simply not something that belongs to the individual quantum event. It's something that belongs to the ensemble (infinite repetition of the experiment). Nothing collapses in quantum mechanics any more than the probability distribution of dice collapses when somebody throws a "3". The probability distribution is always the same, for dice and for quantum mechanical ensembles.
@@arturoanton2958 Superposition is "just" a property of functions that are defined over linear function spaces. It describes a mathematical abstract that we can't implement in the real world. We can repeat the same experiment a finite number of times, but we can not repeat any experiment an infinite number of times, but that infinite repetition is what the wave function describes. There are other reasons why superposition isn't real. If you remember vectors from school, then you probably recall that any vector can be written as the linear combination of multiple linearly independent base vectors. Superposition is exactly the same thing. We can write any function as the sum of other functions and there is an infinite number of ways to do so. Nature doesn't know our base functions (and we can change them arbitrarily), so it can't possibly know which numerical coefficients we need to form a linear combination that describes the actual quantum mechanical ensemble. Outside of the theory superposition simply doesn't exist. Nature just can't tell us which outcome she will produce next and hence we can only make statistical statements about these measurement outcomes. This uncertainty is a direct consequence of relativity, but they rarely tell you that (and never in layman's books and TH-cam videos as far as I can tell). I have met maybe half a dozen physicists in my life who knew that piece of the puzzle, even though it is absolutely trivial.
@@schmetterling4477 What is an "object"? And what sorts of entity actually collapse? Since you yourself say that the Wave Function does not really collapse it seems to me that edward is basically right to say that that phraseology is over-dramatic and rather absurd. I would add that it is misleading to the point of being a category mistake.
@@arturoanton2958 Superposition not real. It's not even real in case of the mathematically equivalent case of simple cartesian coordinate transformations.
I'm connected with my future self sometimes by being influenced in my thoughts and speech. When this information gets to me my mind usually alters it inorder for my brain to make sense it, but the core of the information stays intact. What form of energy transmission do you believe allows this to occur? Is it interdimensional or a form of energy transmission that science has not been able to qualify yet?
The "function" adopts a measured value, that is all. Functions exist-- as mental objects, not physical states in themselves. I mean if you analyze a wave function, it just means you identify its parts. It is proper metaphysics, metalanguage, mathematics; not reality. The assumptions made by physics are that the boundary of integration, the possible states of a measured value range over infinity, not the boundary of the molecule, whatever that is. Is there a 100% probability that my measurement exists somewhere in the entirety of phenomena? Of course. That's the only analytic assumption though. The rest of it means, that if we assume wave features are "particle-like", then we know quite definitely that these particles cannot be predicted as particle+like in behaviour, only abstractly on the cosmological level. In other words, it's a scam, a sham; there is no system in existence that does not have a wave-functional description of its internal states. What collapses is our ability to say a damned thing about it except that we can blow up our enemies with it! Monkey science is always about ballistic trajectories and the probability of hitting the target squarely on the noggin.
First step to understanding a wave function is to completely disregard that atom graphic at 0:01 (everyone knows electrons don't orbit, but also nucleons don't jiggle...it's a stationary state...and protons and neutrons don't have an identity, even the lowly deuteron is (pn - np)).
If a particle emits electromagnetic radiation, that is, photons, then it will lose kinetic energy, exactly the amount of energy of the photon it has emitted, then it would gradually slow down until it stops, therefore there would be no inertial movement of the particles.
What? Are you folks trying to do analytic continuation on sinks? Orbit decay or escape makes a sink in most cases. I suppose you can do a Gabriel's horn thing to, but for the most part it's a sink. We're talking about the escape rate of the radius. Like in the Mandelbrot Set.
@@ScienceDiscussed Pilot Wave theory would become the preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics if both instantaneous fields are a reality, and if the true form of Relativity is Galilean Relativity, which states time and space are absolute. I present both theoretical and experimental proof of this, verified by many independent researchers over the past 20 years. William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023 th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
A wave function is a function, as is a Legendre function or a quadratic function. It is a solution of the Schroedinger Equation, for example. It describes the state of a system of particles. Does it collapse? That depends on how you use the verb "to collapse". I don't use it that way. Rather, I might say that a system goes from a state described by one wave function to a system described by another wave function. States of a system can change in QM as in classical physics if they interact with other systems. Why is that a problem?
The wave function does not describe a single system. It describes an ensemble. That is how it is defined and you can easily derive the wave function from Kolmogorov's axioms for ensembles of independent experiments.
As for many worlds interpretation, people immediately understand a world comprising countless observers. The reality could be that each living and observing entity is living in a world of it's own having different notions about the same event, observed simultaneously by others from other worlds with differing opinions . Their proxy without Consciousness may be represented by a physicality in every world . The different worlds are superimposed one above the other like bread slices (this is already a favourite analogy by many proposers ) but Observers in the many separate worlds are connected by the invisible Consciousness giving each the idea that their physical world is in deed shared by others.
In the many-worlds interpretation, every time a wave function collapses the world splits into two or more universes, because in a double-slit experiment there are many points where the particle can collapse, so the universe would have to split into many universes. Now at this instant a gigantic number of quantum waves are collapsing throughout the universe, that is to say, at every instant each universe multiplies into a monstrous number of new universes, but that means that at every instant the energy of the universe has to multiply by that same number to give existence to those innumerable new universes, so there is no more absurd interpretation than the many-worlds interpretation.
The many worlds interpretation would explain the duality of wave vs. particle. The waveform is the overlap of the many worlds. So one particle is actually infinitely many clones and together they make a waveform. These waveforms can interact and interfere with each other. We (macroscopic objects) can't interact with this at all. We can only interact with ONE clone. But there are infinite copies of ourselves as well and all of our copies will likewise interact with ONE clone. So it looks like a waveform collapse when it's just selecting ONE clone. This would explain everything. The dual slit experiment. It would explain "entanglement". Heck, it could even do away with dark matter as this would imply more gravity at larger scales. Gravity isn't deforming space. It's the separation of entangled worlds from each other. That's the repulsive force of gravity. So gravity is repulsive between worlds, but attractive within the same world. IOW, entanglement IS gravity.
Is there any direct experimental evidence of single particle at two places/states at the same time or wavefunction collapse is used to cover-up lack of direct experimental evidence.
There is no evidence of any particles at all. We have plenty of evidence of absolutely nobody listening in high school when the science teacher explains that quanta are small amounts of energy. ;-)
When the wave function collapses, I believe symmetry and gravity are defined and dispersed localy and non localy through entanglement. Just a thought.❤ the video!
I cannot see any way to imagine that observing a particle in a wave causes a collapse of the wave function. It's a quantum foam that we can interact with. Interacting with it does not make it go away. We are downstream products of it's process. Not the other way around. Photons are particles that move in waves. Interacting with one photon does not make the star go black to everyone else.
It must be like a computer game character; i.e. Mario, who just has gained access to one of one of the pins of the nVidia 4090 GPU. Not knowing the code, the clock speed, the architecture in which the chip is located, trying to figure out what is happening in the computer by just looking at one of the data pins would be impossible. While Mario is in 100 FPS, the data stream will be in GHz, so a massive difference in perception may complicate things. Like having two rooms in a house which are separated by a wall that has a glass window. On one side, the universe as we know it, on the other side, there is no time. If an observer from our universe side looks at the other side, what would be visible and what would that experience look like? Would that be like watching a train pass by? Maybe a fast car or a plane? How fast is the time? Because if it is very very fast, and if at quantum level, there is no time, then the entanglement should not surprise anybody as in that room, there is no time and things happen “now”, while on our side, we get confused because we expect things happen at a train, car, plane or at light speed.
It's so bizarre to me how every video on quantum mechanics dismisses nonlocal hidden variables while treating things like a grand multiverse as more serious. Even John Bell who, you know, invented Bell's theorem was a strong advocate and contributor to nonlocal hidden variable theories.
@@SuperUAPA few people got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating entanglement (in particular Bell Inequality violation). So I guess they are pffftting all the way to the bank.
What i miss in this whole story about QM is the way the measurements have been done. They always talk about detectors but not how they interact with photons or electrons what then causes the collapse of the wavefunction.
A detector is an energy absorber. Nothing causes the collapse of the wave function. Wave functions are abstract mathematical constructs. They don't have any physical reality.
Nobody knows for sure. Superficially, they're some kind of interactions between the things being detected and the electrons and/or nuclei of the atoms in the detectors.
Can anyone explain why physics think that just because we can’t be certain which direction the photon went without measuring where it went that therefore it’s somehow in both places at once? Isn’t it more reasonable to say it went one direction or the other and we just don’t know which path it followed?
Physics doesn't think that. We tried to teach you that a photon is a small amount of energy in school. We also taught you that energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. Do you see a "position" or "path" of that ability in this definition somewhere? I don't. Energy never had a position and it still doesn't have a position in quantum mechanics. It also doesn't have a path. All the quantum path talk is similar bullshit to "inverting the phase on the Warp field" in Star Trek. These ideas do not exist in proper physics.
O made it through 3 semesters of physics, asking various physicists what quantum mean, before I got someone finally said "quanta is the smallest possible unit of something, eg a quanta of apples is 1 apple anything less and it couldn't be an apple. Similarly quantum physics is the physics of the smallest possible units of materials/energy that could be defined meaningfully." That is the first step that every physics teacher should go to when they want to explain what phantom physics is
@schmetterling4477 Quanta means small and discrete. It either is or isn't. A particle is a proton or not a proton it will never be almost a proton or part of a proton. You may say quarks are part of a proton but those quarks are also part of other particles and unless they are in a configuration to make it a proton it just isn't. Another example is how an atom's electron shells are quantized an electron can only be in that shell or not, or in a different shell I guess but it won't be in any other energy state. Quantim particles have wave-like behaviors but the waves themselves are continuous, they aren't quantized. My point of bringing up my college course on wave mechanics was to illustrate that I needed to know this stuff to pass my class and no one would/could explain it.
@@93lozfan A particle is the approximation of the motion of an extended classical body by the motion of its center of mass. In the Kepler problem the planet is a particle. Protons never behave like particles. Protons are compound field states. Quanta are small amounts of energy. They are not "objects" and they don't have object properties. They behave like conserved quantities that get exchanged by physical systems.
No,It's A physical object because when you're not looking and you run the double slit experiment the wave function appears and leaves ACTUAL PHYSICAL MARKINGS on the photographic film at the back of the double slit experiment.
how does this interpretation fit with the notion that ONE Photon interferes with itself, not with a second Photon! it doesn't need a second photon. The photographic screen just adds/sumarizes the detection events!
A probability wave is an abstraction and can't collapse. A matter wave is in a state of becoming and can "collapse" into a state of being. Or reflect, I prefer to say, to the observer.
@@Sharperthanu1 That proves DeBroglie was right and Born was wrong. Einstein favored DeBroglie's matter wave and Schrodinger went with the probability wave. He said he wished he'd never got involved with the whole quantum mechanics which led to the Copenhagen interpretstion and solipsism. This is my opinion. It's been decades since I studied all this. At 78yrs I don't have time to go into it much again. Curses on it all.
Even though Einstein believed in determinism, doesn't mean general relativity proves or even supports determinism; so Bohrian quantum voodoo isn't needed to break determinism. Also, determinism doesnt mean ONE effect; consider the effect of an individual fusion event in the sun to the movement of a single air particle in weather on earth millions of years later; 'deterministic' analysis would yield a huge number of possibilities, not just one.
Great video! 1:55 to 2:01 looks like an expanding ripple. A ripple is a wave that expands at velocity v in some medium. If we put the Michelson-Morley experiment on hold for a moment, and consider that wave functions deal with mediums, then we could say the ripple expands at the speed of light, and the medium is the wave function itself. In the two slit experiment, there are what look like interference patterns of ripples. What stops us from defining a wave function as a physical "thing" that is a "medium" with physics constants as its properties? At 2:35 to 2:45, you talk about a wavefunction the size of the galaxy. Why can't we define a wave function as a ripple that can expand indefinitely? Such that, it could have been expanding for 50k years until it is the diameter of the galaxy. Instead of a ripple, why don't we define a wave function as a sphere that expands from a point into a sphere of radius r = ct. Let its surface area be all of the properties of a virtual photon (which now includes surface area). If a photon has energy, then the surface of our sphere has energy E = hf that is localized somwhere on the surface of the sphere. What we think of as a photon as a wave traveling at the speed of light is really the localized energy on the surface of the sphere as the sphere expands away from its center point (which is a good definition of an inertial frame). When two or more of these expanding spheres overlap, they create other virtual particles of the Standard model, all very casually. When the surfaces of two wave functions meet, however briefly, they create the term (PSI*)(PSI) which is part of the definition of the expectation value for position or momentum . All of this should be as casual and simple as water ripples overlapping as they expand. These expanding spheres are constantly being generated. If the surface area is a virtual photon, then the surface area has an electromagnetic field that could easily interact with electrical potential energies from electrons, quarks, gluon, protons, atoms, anything made of molecules, plasmas and other kinds of fields. The wave function is a solution to the partial differential equation known as the Schrodinger equation. These expanding spheres are the physical "thing" that interacts with charges. Let us presume that the Casimir effect (which is a verified experiment) is the result of virtual photons bumping into particles. Dark energy is the expansion of the universe. If somehow these expanding spheres carry a small amount of momentum, if they hit a charge (atom or particles with mass), then the sphere might become absorbed by the particle system. By becoming absorbed into the particle system, they are temporarily trapped by it. Charges always interact with each other which is a good enough definition of a measurement (the interaction of charges and fields). Instead of wave functions collapsing, these trapped spheres continue to expand at the speed of light. All particles of mass are continually bombarded by these expanding spheres (which carry a small amount of momentum which is a tiny fraction of dark energy). When you have a massive object, like a human sitting in a chair, in the down direction, there is a whole planet that has obstructed the expansion of these expanding spheres. But in the direction "up", there is all open space and a constant barrage of expanding spheres that are expanding into the human sitting in the chair. Basically, space is expanding and pushing you down because these expanding spheres do that. We notice that space pushes particles because the Casimir effect is the observation that virtual photons push against metal plates (and other massive objects). We also said that the surface area of these expanding spheres are virtual photons. I am saying that, 1. Virtual photons are the infrastructure of photons (without the energy E = hf). 2. The surface area of an expanding sphere is a virtual photon. 3. These expanding spheres really do exist and we see their effects as virtual photons, the Casimir effect, and wave functions. 4. The Casimir effect is actually the cause of gravity. 5. Maybe we should call these expanding spheres "gravitons" because they are the ultimate cause of gravity, via the Casimir effect. Or we could say that the pushing effect of these gravitons can be blocked by matter, which is what we observe as gravity. Sorry it's long and complicated. But a quantum gravity theory comes from this interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The expanding spheres is the Huygens principle. Each point in the expanding wavefront generates its own wavefront, and so on, and in the end they interfere with each other constructively or destructively such that the particle emerges.
@@trucid2 Yes yes yes! But I'm saying that those waves, those expanding spheres, are themselves the building blocks of spacetime. While in contrast, a water wave is still made of point particles called H20 molecules, the expanding waves or ripples of spacetime are the foundational building blocks of both spacetime and wave functions. Technically, when two expanding spheres move past each other, they recapitulate spacetime geometry. A quantum entanglement is the effect of having one of these expanding spheres between two entangled particles. The entanglement itself is this "sphere". I know that what I'm saying is weird! But it's the only thing that makes sense enough to explain QM, SR, GR, expansion of spacetime, dark energy, virtual/real photons, and the quantum fields of the Standard Model.
@@wulphstein Those are some interesting ideas. I like your explanation of gravity and its connection to the Casmir effect. Still have to think about how particles like electrons and protons emerge. Wouldn't surprise me if particles are just trapped photons that orbit each other the same way an electron orbits a proton in a stable way.
I would argue that the wave function doesn't collapse, it expands at the speed of light. That allows it to recapitulate the geometry of spacetime. Expansion of the wavefunction is similar to how water ripples expand at the speed of a wave in water.
Can they make multiple cosmic microwave background images? Is there anything that could alter red shift? (Say tons of gas cloud's? Cosmic filaments? Black holes, galaxies, the type of Light the star is giving off?) So how would you find a "reliable measuring system from super nova's? It seems variable?" *I don't think we fully understand Gravity Yet. ~i know that's random, i just thought of our current state of physics. If u look up "what is Gravity" right now, you get all sorts of science videos explaining that gravity is not a force, & they talk about time dilation. ~i think there is more we have yet to understand & perceive about Gravity. Sorta like something we've all seen a million times, but finally someone finds a new way to look at it and notices things most people have overlooked. *I in no way am saying this because I think I have the answers. No. This is just a gut feeling that I hope people way smarter than me discover. I got this guy feeling after observing the state physics has been in for a long time now. Something is telling me we have to look back on things and see if there is anything we may have overlooked? It happens all the times in discoveries and progression. There's Nothing embarrassing or to be ashamed of. It's natural. It's a part of growth and inventions. My gut tells me that gravity is greatly intertwined with electrodynamics, density, and all the factors that make up many things in our Cosmo's. Just that gravity is this unique property of our universe in multiple scales. Small form, mid form, mega form. Think of large Filaments throughout the Cosmo's/multiple galaxies/black holes/nebula's that span many light-years across • then • Stars/planets/ asteroid's/solar systems/orbits/atmosphere's/magnetosphere/cosmic bubble around our solar system/then all the effects on our planet that gravity plays a role in. •Lastly• the small factors of matter/static charges that cause things to start sticking to each other/ particles/magnetism/density/temperature/velocity/pressure (probably many more things I'm leaving out but hopefully u get the point, these factors all play such a crucial role in our Cosmo's and I really think we have further to learn about it.) *But that's just my personal opinion
Spooky action at a distance, - by simultaneous actions by entangled particles ,suggests only one solution. There is really no distance between, yet are separated by something. It is actually the observer influence, which in itself is not apart from consciousness.The two positive and negative particles are in immediate contact with Consciousness which is all pervading and passes immediate communication thro' it where there's no spatial distance. scientists who are not comfortable with a role for Consciousness may not agree.
NO. Firstly, I feel that the proper question is "Do quantum wavefunctions even exist in nature?" or are they just a mathematical apparatus explaining a field we probably already know exists? Secondly, Bell's Theorem only states that if hidden-variables exist, they are non-local in nature (QT is a non-local theory anyways so to me, it's somewhat uninteresting). I would argue that the wave function is a mathematical "placeholder" for an asymmetry in nature, perhaps caused by a field, that is not yet understood **looks wantonly at gravity👀**. I think the Higgs field would be a quick and dirty example of how you could mathematize a concept before discovering it but as usual, the non-local effect is puzzling (though I think natures speed limit needs to be re-examined). Either way, "interpretations" that create more un-observed phenomena than they resolve is problematic.
Wave functions were always mathematical abstracts by definition. There isn't much of a question here. At most there is an educational gap in the population.
Yes they do actually collapse, but it is a collective phenomenon and the computer simulation of it requires an exponential-time algorithm. The simplest example is the interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. This can lead to a radical increase in specific entropy and I would suggest adding tachyonic Brownian motion to get the destruction of unitarity that we will require. Unfortunately the simulation will need to run in dozens of dimensions of configuration space so my suggestion is a moot point. What we are up against is simply a numbers game. There are no issues with our ability to imagine what is happening.
Actually the interaction between a molecule of hydrogen and a molecule of fluorine is a slightly simpler example, but with tri-iodide we have trifluoride to compare with.
Why is this ever changing story, always presented as the ultimate truth (“we discovered”, “we realised”, “XXX won the Nobel prize for proving”, etc.), reminds me to a person who keeps changing his life story a bit as undeniable facts are coming up but he never make a substantial change because that would undermine his entire credibility?
If a wavefunction collapses, that is a dynamical system. It begs the question of exactly _how_ the wavefunction changes during the collapse, and as far as I know, nobody has presented any such model.
That's the measurement problem of quantum mechanics and why quantum mechanics is incomplete. The wavefunction evolves in a linear way but the application of the Born rule, the collapse of the wavefunction, is something outside of that. It's a nonlinear process that can't be modeled by quantum mechanics.
It's the way the theory is used that caused confusion. The Schrodinger's Equation says nothing about the seemingly discontinuous collapse upon observation because often problems are theoretically formulated in closed systems. If you actually include a measuring device in the Hamiltonian in your problem, then there is no abrupt collapse, but instead a rapid decoherence as information leaks out into the environment which looks experimentally like a 'collapse'. The idea is that the wave function never collapses and is unitary across the universe. This also tells you that Schrodinger's Cat decoheres very quickly into a definite state.
A better description I have heard for the many worlds theory is to see it as just assuming the wave function is real and does not collapse. The higher dimensionality was already in the equations. Just keep the imaginary solutions instead of flush it out.
1) schrødingers function us not a wavefunction, 2) if you participate in a lottery with 100 lottery tickets, the chance of winning is 1/100. So say someone win the lottery ( not you) then the chance of winning is zero. The probability function is collapse. Nothing strange. The schrødinger function is a probability function and when you measure something it collapse
The probability distribution of your lottery never collapses. It's always 1/100 per ticket. For the same reason the wave function also never collapses. This is just a misunderstanding of both quantities (which are mathematically intimately related, by the way).
So what your saying is that when things don't seem to be connected they actually are. Is all of humanity connected? Is this how children can find each other in a large store or insects, and other animals in vast expanses.
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ It's facinating how so many properties with-in Nature use: ~{"Differences"}~ That "factor" seems to be a key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temp, different densities, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnetism north/south poles, different velocity/angular momentum, different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. Different layers between different regions such as: (Land/water/air/edge of the atmosphere/space/ the different regions in space with different particle density/background radiation, creating bubbles/membrane layers/cloud regions, nebula's/Galaxy's/Galaxy clusters/ Cosmic filaments/less dense regions of space compared to dense regions of space.) All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low pressure and temperature 🌡️differences create winds. In water- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally in our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, a magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere. 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ The natural world around us is just utterly facinating to me.
It is as if the the proton contains a microcosm of the very early universe with its sudden and spontaneous creation of particles. Want to see the goings-on in the moment of creation? ...see the interior of the proton.
Is simulation a valid scientific possibility for quantum theory interpretation? Or is it for sure just junk science? If valid as a theory, do physicists ever think in terms of "reverse engineering" our reality with simulation as source? Thanks for your videos...they are great!
I have also followed the Coppenhagen interpretation but I think this is just because it was what I was taught. In doing the research for this video I learnt a lot about different interpretations that I had no idea about, including a couple that I don't talk about. So now I am unsure where I sit. I guess I am still in the Coppenhagen camp but feel it is maybe incomplete. What about yourself?
@@ScienceDiscussed interesting! I see where you are coming from, it's not exactly necessary to do research for most areas to take time to think about this. I'm more or less in no camp this days. At one point Copenhagen, then I really like pilot wave theory, then the ensemble interpretation. I'm now in the firm "we don't know but it's an interesting question to probe" camp.
QM classicalized in 2020: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
I find it frustrating that I as a non-physicist have actually thought about all of this myself. It is frustrating because I feel it could have had something to contribute with if I only had the right education and knew higher math. If a wave was just about probability and not an actual wave, there would be no interference pattern in the double slit experiment, because the particle would not have been able to interact with itself.
I like your theory There are many of us in your camp; I suspect that's why these vids are popular I wish I had the math/science skills to demonstrate a material/consciousness interface in DNA at the level of Planck length tetrahedra Sadly I'm old and brain damaged now but take comfort in the new generations of physicists and scientists
The wave function *_is_* just about probability (or rather, the spinor structure, which also involves local frame rotation and boosts). An instruction to transform a frame is not a material object, so your guess is right. You can easily "collapse" an instruction (it's called a projection operator) but that does not mean anything physical is collapsing. If you want a spacetime corbordism imagery you can just think in terms of spacetime topology changing when there are any interactions (or so-called measurements).
obviously whats going on, is we are trying to understand the infinity of our consciousness which is infinity.. thats my belief, which is great... it means there is no death or end
so given the 100% consistency of observation triggered collapse, AND given we know the collapse is NOT triggered by the act of measurement; Dr Aspect's delayed choice quantum eraser, but rather the information available TO the observer of the path, Everett's Many World is soundly refuted, for at all times, the interference should happen over time, whether there is a detection or not. Given the natural state of subatomic particles is in a state vector, a superposition, there should be nothing to see, anywhere, everything, from the origination of the Universe till now should probabilistically occupy every space in the universe. But it doesn't. The element being described at the 8 minute mark is the idea that all points are local to each other... which is very probably true, and that is the description of a VR, time/space only applies to elements within the VR, and not to the VR generator. To the VR generator, all points are equidistant, and the observed is only realized when an observation is taken, regardless of the intermediate time or space separation. Histories are created upon observation; backward in time causation as demonstrated by Dr Aspect's work, including the moon, stars, galaxies, and molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and their countless constituents... no matter how large or small the scale, the universe will create a history, commensurate with our environment, to fill the gap. Pretty sure, this is how it is.
What if the quantum world is something wholly different and spits out this particles like electrons and protons. But electrons and protons actually aren't constituents of the quantum world.
It's easier at this level to show water going down the kitchen sink. There are small waves, a whirling, and the dip into the tube. Later, add some physics. 😊
There is no action at a distance that violates causality when you coordinate your two hands simultaneously in gesturing here because of the "hidden variable" of your mind that is casually connected to both space separated hands.
danmiller • Your mind coordinating your two hands is not a theoretical "action at a distance" ( which is non-existent ). It is a concrete and simple REAL causal process.
I turned off your explanation when you described in terms of a photon. If you describe in terms of photons you will end with photons. Photon is a model; a non visualizable mix of wave and particle, not a thing. The way to resolve the problem is to see what is wrong with quantum mechanics and the photon model. Many have claimed to resolve the measurement problem, but they did not devise experiments to show how QM fails. See my many experiments. I am easy to find.
We teach in high school that a photon is a small amount of energy. What's your excuse for not paying attention? Was the sentence "Quanta are small amounts of energy." (6 words) too hard to memorize?
I think our entire universe must be quantum in nature. Maybe a block of some type of four dimensional matter in a state perpetual super position. Or maybe the universe is just one big probability wave. Im starting to that probability holds the key to the answers we seek. Maybe the only reason anything ever happens is because it can happen.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
I have a question What would happen to a wave function if a detector was setup, the detector’s output was sent to a tv, and the tv was broken? Would the wave function still collapse even though while the detector is powered on, nothing can be measured bc the tv is broken?
Yes it would still collaspe. The quantum object doesn't care if you actually obtain information from it. It only cares that it has interacted with something.
@@ScienceDiscussed thanks! So a follow up question… does the wave collapse if using a broken but powered detector? Does anything electric collapse the wave function?
@@buttonsdah5335 any interaction can collapse it. The existence of a physical object can be enough. There is a lot of nuance about the particulars of different systems but in general yes it would collapse.
@@ScienceDiscussed thanks again. So is it true to say that “observing” a particle isn’t necessarily what makes it collapse, just that there may be interference causing the collapse?
I figured this out the other day. Been trying to tell a few of my favorite scientists Don Lincoln and Dr Becky Smethurst lol few others. The collapse of the wave function is simple. If there are infinite universes then upon observation the particle is observed simultaniously in multiple universes at once and all measurements are simultaneously known avoiding breaking causality.
Except there's only one wave function. All those different outcomes of measurements are just mathematical components. They have no physical existence individually, so Many Worlds is just a mathematical fantasy.
Thanks! I believe that superposition of objects is their only real and natural state. Collapse is unnatural, and happens only because of our lack of faith that, for example, a particle can travel through both slits at once. But I believe that actually we can see objects in state of superposition, using our mind's eye. It's just like you see your loved once most of the time every day through your mind's eye, not physical eyes. Some call it imagination, but here we don't imagine, we just allow some additional probabilities, which is due to any wave function. Do we like the state of superposition? Probably not, because of its fogginess. We want to see, not believe. But collapsed world is a lie. Just like in a video game or in a dream. Remember the Wigner's friend paradox? Why we say that Wigner's lab is also in a superposition? Do we have right to say that? If reality is subjective and there is no objective physical reality, would you ever die?
Objects are not in superposition. Only an abstract mathematical quantity describing ensembles of quantum systems is. You need to learn to distinguish between reality and descriptions of reality.
@@schmetterling4477 Thanks! Good point. Objects are not their description. But you see, here is a catch. How description turns into object when collapsed? From nothing comes something
@@andruss2001 There is no such thing as collapse, either. There only people who don't read quantum mechanics textbooks and who don't notice that the term "collapse" is not even being used in them. :-)
Great video. Many Worlds is just too ridiculous and contrived and still problematic. It may be a long time before a testable theory emerges and technology can perform the test. I'll place my bets on both Bell and Einstein and against Many Worlds, Retrocausality, or Copenhagen. We know so little until we understand the question posed by the title, and the measurement problem and the implications Bell's inequality. I wonder if conservation laws might play an outsized role in some way, just in that they might behave globally and non locally.
2:49 now please explain the detectiom of a/one CMB photon, in a pixel of the Plank satellite! Does this "photon", (a milisecond before detection), have a "radius" (3D!) of 13.7 billion Lightyears? How does a single, lonely photon (in completely empty space) know? its direction? (to get a "straight Line" propagation, in reality You need a pretty good laser with low dispersion, etc, comprised of a Lot of photons. th-cam.com/video/GerzZ6GDe-0/w-d-xo.html Then again I get a problem with the intensity!!! of a single, monochromatic (of course monochromatric), Wavy_Photon shortly before detection!!! The popular illustration of a Photon wavelet, traveling along a straight Line is misleading. To make a short package of sin waves, You would need to superimpose an infinite number of different frequencies! Quantized absorption in my imagination is: a 4(r^²)*Pi "Quantum_Balloon_( a 2Dsurface, expanding in 3D!)" collapses to a single pixel, at a single atom; is that what's going on, what the Math describes?
A photon is a small amount of energy. This is high school knowledge. Can you explain to us why you weren't paying any attention when they taught this? :-)
atSchmetterling4477 really? Sabine Hossenfelder recently showed us that a Photon doesn't even have a definite Energy, nor a definite wavelength! Both depend on frame of reference, depend on the relativistic speed between emmitter and observer!! it may get blue-shifted it may get red-shifted! So, now I can't even state: a Photon is a monochromatic Quantum of energy?
@@konradcomrade4845 That is correct That is the reason why the photon is the amount of energy that gets detected. I didn't say that it was the same amount of energy that the source released into the free electromagnetic field. You are still not paying any attention to what people are saying. :-)
I don’t know your level of physics qualifications but Please be more accurate 2 points - (A) 2022 prize physics for bells theory - theory does not disprove hidden variables it proves that quantum mechanics follows a non local theory. (b) spooky action at a distance is related to quantum entanglement and instantaneous communication. which bell’s theory states and the proof of that theory earned the 2022 novel prize.
Why are you proving to us that you don't understand physics? Quantum mechanics is perfectly local. If it wasn't, then we would all have ansibles built into our iPhones, but in return the universe wouldn't exist. ;-)
All these video keep on presenting a single photon scenario and a measurement but they never tell how how they actually get a single photon and how they actually measure it.
There is many different types of single photon sources, quantum dots are one that is quite popular at the moment. Likewise, there are many ways to detect photons, I am not sure what exact detectors are typical but one open is superconducting nanowires, which switch from superconducting to metallic when they absorb a photon.
@@ScienceDiscussed My theory is, all possible universes than can exist do exist. To put it more formally, a universe would consist of a describable set of rules and a describable initial condition. This seems the most in tune with Many Worlds...although it's necessarily true that our universe has One Quantum World or Many Quantum Worlds within it. As a matter of fact, there could be some universes with One World and some with Many Worlds. Technically, we can't know which one were in.
@@ScienceDiscussed And neither theory explains which variable decides the randomness - either random collapse of Copenhagen or the random world we end up in within Many Worlds. Supposedly the "random variable" was disproven, but I've never seen a convincing argument.
@@paulthomas963 If your theory is God, you need a theory of what created God, why a good God would allow evil to exist, why a loving God would require blood sacrifices, why a loving God would send anyone to Hell for all of eternity, etc. However, my theory that all describable universes that can exist do exist would actually explain both the God-druven and Big Bang-driven universes. Christians and scientists could finally have a theory they all agree on!
terrible video. please 1. tell me about the experiment. 2. ask me a question about the experiment. 3. try to answer the question. 4. show some contradiction. i'm at 2:31 and i have literally ZERO idea what the experiment was or what the results were. i completely waisted my time here.
Leonardo da Vinci said "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions "Plato shared with us wisdom he learnt from Egypt, wisdom that was a death sentence in Greece, Rome (Christianity)..Pythagoras, Socrates and later Hypatia of Alexandria. Plato in his dialogue "The Republic "tells the parable of "The Cave "Plato starts by telling us of prisoners being held in a underground den, let us examine this den via the geometry of Bernhard Riemann and Felix Klein..Klein bottle..3rd and 4th dimensions. Plato tells us that the prisoners are bound up unable to move their heads, let us examine this bondage via the psychology of Erich Fromm..socialisation of consciousness..aware-unaware. Plato tells us that the prisoners mistake shadows for substance, let us examine this mistake via the philosophy of Thales, Hume and Kant..synthetic a priori judgement..not thing in itself. Plato tells us that one of the prisoners is released, let us examine this release via the wisdom of T Lobsang Rampa..stilling the mind and conscious astral travel..leaving the cave/body. Plato tells us that the prisoners will reject this release, let us examine this rejection via the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome..Plato quotes Homer..forgive them for they know not what they say. Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. Mathew 23 13 31.
It seems as though you're a highly skilled English language speaker, yet the title for this video is grammatically incorrect ('actually'). Also, your microphone is upside down. The sound quality would be better if you pointed it towards your face.
Thanks for picking up the typo. I should update late at night. The microphone doesn't point up, the face that is pointing to the screen is the recording region.
First there existed movement which ptobably is costant ! From those movements was created everything! Probability is that those movements are actualy an DNK of Universe and Earth! Latet people were created whith the each of different DNK!
I will say this: Quantum physics is a grab-asstic mess. You're demonstrating it this video just as I'd see in other TH-cam Pop-Science influencers. For example: 5:22 Bell Test rules out local hidden variable (LHVs) but there is still a possibility that there are "some" LHVs - but that is for another discussion later??? Why? After all, the Nobel Prize hander-outers said "We like this Bell Test stuff!!!"
Quantum mechanics follows trivially from Kolmogorov's axioms and relativity. That you and the maker of this video don't know that doesn't make quantum mechanics a mess. It simply makes both of you uneducated. ;-)
Great video! I watch a lot of physics videos and I like the way you condense the concepts.
Glad you liked it! I try my best to condense the concepts so it is not overly technical but still gives a good overview. Not an easy task to be honest.
You can condense, but please don’t state erroneous physics.
Finally somebody who cites their references! Subbed!
It is surprisingly rare. I am glad you appreciate it.
"References! We don't need no stinkin' references!"
~ "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
Quite interesting piece! Thanks!
Einstein ''spooky action at a distance'' was not about the collapse of the wave function but rather by the instantaneous 'communication' between two entangled particle separated by a great distance where one of them has been measured (one of its quantum parameter like spin). Merci beaucoup.
The two ideas are interlinked.
Einstein was the first to (correctly) identify quantum entanglement (even before Schrodinger did) as the TRULY unique element of quantum mechanics and the bespoke quality that separated it from classical mechanics.
The wave function "collapsing" is the same thing as making a measurement. And when you make a measurement, say the polarization of an photon here and a photon on the other side of the universe, once you measure the polarization of one particle you INSTANTLY know the polarization of the other particle.
The "collapse" of the wave function suggests, although not categorically, faster-than-light signaling between entangled particles. Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind have been working on an idea vaguely called ER = EPR. The idea being that Einstein-Rosen Bridges (aka wormholes) are the link between entangled particles (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Correlations).
The physics community, partly thanks to a terrible paper written by Jon Von Neumann, believed Einstein was barking up the wrong tree and the whole deal was much ado about nothing. It was virtually ignored for decades until John Bell, the great Irish experimentalist (who should've gotten a Nobel Prize post-humously even though they don't give those out to dead scientists) did his first experiments testing it (in contravention of older physicists who told him not to waste his time on "foundations of quantum mechanics questions").
And then AFTER Bell, the physics community ignored Einstein's work on entanglement UNTIL the quantum information theory program began in earnest in the 1970s and later. Only NOW are run-of-the-mill physicists FINALLY addressing foundational questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, stuff that they should have been doing for DECADES.
ER = EPR?
We shall see!
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Yes WF collapse is related to spooky action at a distance, but you and the narrator are both wrong that this describes Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". The vast majority of all WF collapse is not with entangled quanta, therefore it most often does NOT show or describe or suggest this spooky action at a distance. So it is incorrect to say WF collapse represents Einstein's spooky concerns in the EPR paper.
They talk about distanced as if the universe was kind of distorted newtonian. You cannot have space without time and movement.
Space, matter and time are "functions" of sensory processes.
Luckily we can do a lot within the limits of our knowledge...
Great Channel....please consider doing an in-depth presentation on the Quantum Void. Most physics channels do an extremely superficial job in explaining this critical field in physics. Best wishes
Glad you enjoy the videos. I will point your suggestion on my potential videos list.
what's a Quantum Void?
I took this to mean vacuum fluctuations.
It all comes back to the Uncertainty Principle. Lowest energy states and so on. Oh - and quantum field theory is just that. Its a theory. It might be wrong.
@@Eztoez uncertainty or indeterminism?
Very good! Thank you. Imagine tachyon telescopes and gluon microscopes, two hypothetical tools to help merge GR and QM into one theory. Such tools might unveil the correct interpretation of QM.
Thank you so much! Now I have a much clearer view of quantum intepretations
You're very welcome!
I wish physicists would stop talking about "measurements" or "look at" but rather use a phrases like "interact with " or even "touching". The latter being better at describing that there's no such thing at observation without interaction that that small scale.
What's even worse is when they talk about how a wave will collapse when "observed", which leads to all kind of crazy ideas about how the mind is interacting with particles.
@@Langkowski Physicists who understand quantum mechanics never talk about collapse. You won't even find that concept in properly written textbooks.
@@schmetterling4477 Well, it is used all the time on the net, and simply means that all possible outcomes are reduced to just one.
Physicists do not understand quantum mechanics. It is a great mystery at the moment.
Nothing is conclusive of what is going on. Do atoms touch is up for debate. Does a collapse occur or not. Is an interaction a collapse or just an entanglement. Is it because conscious beings are observing that things collapses. Physicist has to resort to a language that explains things even if it's not entirely how it works.
Suppose in the beam splitter device, we place a screen at 45 degrees between the 2 detectors, why don't the photons collapse on that screen if the wave function is spread out over that entire space?
Taking a mathematical snapshot of something that by its very definition cannot be at rest is like taking a picure of a moving car with a camera that has perfect shutter speed and 0 blur. Once the picture is taken the information after disappears and we're left with the position. As far as we're concerned there is no information after this, yet the car has continued on. It seems like we're bringing a relativistic approach i.e. taking a mathematical snapshot to a quantum quation. Measuring the particle essentially tells it to reveal its state at that instant, we see a momentary state. If we take the same car and place it in exactly the same position as the car in the picture taken when it was moving, there would be no difference in the picture assuming a uniform background. Perhaps the tool we're using isn't complete
7:10 wait a minute: is there any idea for an experiment which could falsify this theory? Could you give some references? I would love to see some serious proposition of such test
From what is currently known, only "physical / objective collapse" models are testable ( like GRW or CSL , see 7:30 ).
No experiment could test Many Worlds against the other unmodified interpretations of QM.
The wave function cannot really collapse because it does not really exist (in physical reality). It's a humanly constructed mapping of probabilities - of possible outcomes, one, and only one of which turns out to be the case.
Yes.
I'm not an expert in quantum physics, but to me a probabilistic function states the probability of an object being present at any give point in space-time. It doesn't imply that the object exists at all points at the same time, it simply states that if you are situated at a particular location then there is a given probability that you will encounter the object at that location at a particular point in time. Isn't it a bit over-dramatic to say that the probabilistic function "collapses" when you encounter the object? I'd be laughted out of maths class if I claimed that the function y = 2x + 3 "collapses" when I discover the value of y to be 9.
We try to teach in high school that quanta are small amounts of energy. They are NOT objects and they do not behave like objects. In quantum mechanics the measurement system either absorbs a quantum of energy or it does not. That's a hard binary outcome. No ifs, whens and probabilities. The probability of that event is simply not something that belongs to the individual quantum event. It's something that belongs to the ensemble (infinite repetition of the experiment). Nothing collapses in quantum mechanics any more than the probability distribution of dice collapses when somebody throws a "3". The probability distribution is always the same, for dice and for quantum mechanical ensembles.
So,is superposición real or just another " function"?
@@arturoanton2958 Superposition is "just" a property of functions that are defined over linear function spaces. It describes a mathematical abstract that we can't implement in the real world. We can repeat the same experiment a finite number of times, but we can not repeat any experiment an infinite number of times, but that infinite repetition is what the wave function describes. There are other reasons why superposition isn't real. If you remember vectors from school, then you probably recall that any vector can be written as the linear combination of multiple linearly independent base vectors. Superposition is exactly the same thing. We can write any function as the sum of other functions and there is an infinite number of ways to do so. Nature doesn't know our base functions (and we can change them arbitrarily), so it can't possibly know which numerical coefficients we need to form a linear combination that describes the actual quantum mechanical ensemble.
Outside of the theory superposition simply doesn't exist. Nature just can't tell us which outcome she will produce next and hence we can only make statistical statements about these measurement outcomes. This uncertainty is a direct consequence of relativity, but they rarely tell you that (and never in layman's books and TH-cam videos as far as I can tell). I have met maybe half a dozen physicists in my life who knew that piece of the puzzle, even though it is absolutely trivial.
@@schmetterling4477 What is an "object"? And what sorts of entity actually collapse? Since you yourself say that the Wave Function does not really collapse it seems to me that edward is basically right to say that that phraseology is over-dramatic and rather absurd. I would add that it is misleading to the point of being a category mistake.
@@arturoanton2958 Superposition not real. It's not even real in case of the mathematically equivalent case of simple cartesian coordinate transformations.
I'm connected with my future self sometimes by being influenced in my thoughts and speech. When this information gets to me my mind usually alters it inorder for my brain to make sense it, but the core of the information stays intact. What form of energy transmission do you believe allows this to occur? Is it interdimensional or a form of energy transmission that science has not been able to qualify yet?
The "function" adopts a measured value, that is all. Functions exist-- as mental objects, not physical states in themselves. I mean if you analyze a wave function, it just means you identify its parts. It is proper metaphysics, metalanguage, mathematics; not reality.
The assumptions made by physics are that the boundary of integration, the possible states of a measured value range over infinity, not the boundary of the molecule, whatever that is. Is there a 100% probability that my measurement exists somewhere in the entirety of phenomena? Of course. That's the only analytic assumption though.
The rest of it means, that if we assume wave features are "particle-like", then we know quite definitely that these particles cannot be predicted as particle+like in behaviour, only abstractly on the cosmological level.
In other words, it's a scam, a sham; there is no system in existence that does not have a wave-functional description of its internal states. What collapses is our ability to say a damned thing about it except that we can blow up our enemies with it! Monkey science is always about ballistic trajectories and the probability of hitting the target squarely on the noggin.
First step to understanding a wave function is to completely disregard that atom graphic at 0:01 (everyone knows electrons don't orbit, but also nucleons don't jiggle...it's a stationary state...and protons and neutrons don't have an identity, even the lowly deuteron is (pn - np)).
If a particle emits electromagnetic radiation, that is, photons, then it will lose kinetic energy, exactly the amount of energy of the photon it has emitted, then it would gradually slow down until it stops, therefore there would be no inertial movement of the particles.
What? Are you folks trying to do analytic continuation on sinks? Orbit decay or escape makes a sink in most cases. I suppose you can do a Gabriel's horn thing to, but for the most part it's a sink. We're talking about the escape rate of the radius. Like in the Mandelbrot Set.
Best presentation and explanation of the quantum world I have seen. Thank you.
Wow, thank you!
@@ScienceDiscussed Pilot Wave theory would become the preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics if both instantaneous fields are a reality, and if the true form of Relativity is Galilean Relativity, which states time and space are absolute. I present both theoretical and experimental proof of this, verified by many independent researchers over the past 20 years. William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023 th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
Difficulty with CSL and similar ideas is a tendency to predict effects at the ensemble level which are not observed.
(... are you using Star Trek: Discovery's theme song as your background music?)
A wave function is a function, as is a Legendre function or a quadratic function. It is a solution of the Schroedinger Equation, for example. It describes the state of a system of particles. Does it collapse? That depends on how you use the verb "to collapse". I don't use it that way. Rather, I might say that a system goes from a state described by one wave function to a system described by another wave function. States of a system can change in QM as in classical physics if they interact with other systems. Why is that a problem?
The wave function does not describe a single system. It describes an ensemble. That is how it is defined and you can easily derive the wave function from Kolmogorov's axioms for ensembles of independent experiments.
As for many worlds interpretation, people immediately understand a world comprising countless observers.
The reality could be that each living and observing entity is living in a world of it's own having different notions about the same event, observed simultaneously by others from other worlds with differing opinions . Their proxy without Consciousness may be represented by a physicality in every world . The different worlds are superimposed one above the other like bread slices (this is already a favourite analogy by many proposers ) but Observers in the many separate worlds are connected by the invisible Consciousness giving each the idea that their physical world is in deed shared by others.
The fundamental fields are wavy. A particle is the result of the field. The particle may disappear but the field doesnt.
In the many-worlds interpretation, every time a wave function collapses the world splits into two or more universes, because in a double-slit experiment there are many points where the particle can collapse, so the universe would have to split into many universes. Now at this instant a gigantic number of quantum waves are collapsing throughout the universe, that is to say, at every instant each universe multiplies into a monstrous number of new universes, but that means that at every instant the energy of the universe has to multiply by that same number to give existence to those innumerable new universes, so there is no more absurd interpretation than the many-worlds interpretation.
The many worlds interpretation would explain the duality of wave vs. particle. The waveform is the overlap of the many worlds. So one particle is actually infinitely many clones and together they make a waveform. These waveforms can interact and interfere with each other. We (macroscopic objects) can't interact with this at all. We can only interact with ONE clone. But there are infinite copies of ourselves as well and all of our copies will likewise interact with ONE clone. So it looks like a waveform collapse when it's just selecting ONE clone.
This would explain everything. The dual slit experiment. It would explain "entanglement". Heck, it could even do away with dark matter as this would imply more gravity at larger scales. Gravity isn't deforming space. It's the separation of entangled worlds from each other. That's the repulsive force of gravity. So gravity is repulsive between worlds, but attractive within the same world. IOW, entanglement IS gravity.
Wave functions are really bizarre. Great video. Thanks 🙏
My pleasure!
Is there any direct experimental evidence of single particle at two places/states at the same time or wavefunction collapse is used to cover-up lack of direct experimental evidence.
There is no evidence of any particles at all. We have plenty of evidence of absolutely nobody listening in high school when the science teacher explains that quanta are small amounts of energy. ;-)
When the wave function collapses, I believe symmetry and gravity are defined and dispersed localy and non localy through entanglement. Just a thought.❤ the video!
I cannot see any way to imagine that observing a particle in a wave causes a collapse of the wave function. It's a quantum foam that we can interact with. Interacting with it does not make it go away. We are downstream products of it's process. Not the other way around. Photons are particles that move in waves. Interacting with one photon does not make the star go black to everyone else.
Yeah... you are 100% wrong. ;-)
It must be like a computer game character; i.e. Mario, who just has gained access to one of one of the pins of the nVidia 4090 GPU. Not knowing the code, the clock speed, the architecture in which the chip is located, trying to figure out what is happening in the computer by just looking at one of the data pins would be impossible. While Mario is in 100 FPS, the data stream will be in GHz, so a massive difference in perception may complicate things. Like having two rooms in a house which are separated by a wall that has a glass window. On one side, the universe as we know it, on the other side, there is no time. If an observer from our universe side looks at the other side, what would be visible and what would that experience look like? Would that be like watching a train pass by? Maybe a fast car or a plane? How fast is the time? Because if it is very very fast, and if at quantum level, there is no time, then the entanglement should not surprise anybody as in that room, there is no time and things happen “now”, while on our side, we get confused because we expect things happen at a train, car, plane or at light speed.
It's so bizarre to me how every video on quantum mechanics dismisses nonlocal hidden variables while treating things like a grand multiverse as more serious. Even John Bell who, you know, invented Bell's theorem was a strong advocate and contributor to nonlocal hidden variable theories.
Oh yeah, and don't even get me started on quantum entanglement what a load of nonsense. Faster than light communication. Pfft.
@@SuperUAPit’s not faster, it doesn’t have any information transfer whatsoever so idk what you even mean by “faster”?
@@SuperUAPNevermind faster than sound communication, pffffffff
@@SuperUAPA few people got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating entanglement (in particular Bell Inequality violation). So I guess they are pffftting all the way to the bank.
At the quantum level even the observation may interact with the quantum particles influencing them behave in different ways
That sounds so cool... except that there are no particles in nature. How can we interact with something that doesn't exist? ;-)
Wouldn't EM wave from localization violate energy conservation?
Not if it comes from the internal gravitational energy of the spread-out wave function.
What i miss in this whole story about QM is the way the measurements have been done. They always talk about detectors but not how they interact with photons or electrons what then causes the collapse of the wavefunction.
A detector is an energy absorber. Nothing causes the collapse of the wave function. Wave functions are abstract mathematical constructs. They don't have any physical reality.
What exactly are these "measurements" (or "observations") consist of ? What is the actual action ?
Nobody knows for sure. Superficially, they're some kind of interactions between the things being detected and the electrons and/or nuclei of the atoms in the detectors.
Wouldn’t entangling particles count as a measurement or interaction?
No.
Can anyone explain why physics think that just because we can’t be certain which direction the photon went without measuring where it went that therefore it’s somehow in both places at once? Isn’t it more reasonable to say it went one direction or the other and we just don’t know which path it followed?
Physics doesn't think that. We tried to teach you that a photon is a small amount of energy in school. We also taught you that energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. Do you see a "position" or "path" of that ability in this definition somewhere? I don't. Energy never had a position and it still doesn't have a position in quantum mechanics. It also doesn't have a path. All the quantum path talk is similar bullshit to "inverting the phase on the Warp field" in Star Trek. These ideas do not exist in proper physics.
O made it through 3 semesters of physics, asking various physicists what quantum mean, before I got someone finally said "quanta is the smallest possible unit of something, eg a quanta of apples is 1 apple anything less and it couldn't be an apple. Similarly quantum physics is the physics of the smallest possible units of materials/energy that could be defined meaningfully." That is the first step that every physics teacher should go to when they want to explain what phantom physics is
We are teaching in high school that quanta are small amounts of energy. Absolutely nobody seems to be paying attention.
@@schmetterling4477 I was in college learning wave an vibration mechanics
@@93lozfan Yes, the ensemble of quanta has wavelike properties, but a single quantum is just a small amount of energy.
@schmetterling4477 Quanta means small and discrete. It either is or isn't. A particle is a proton or not a proton it will never be almost a proton or part of a proton. You may say quarks are part of a proton but those quarks are also part of other particles and unless they are in a configuration to make it a proton it just isn't. Another example is how an atom's electron shells are quantized an electron can only be in that shell or not, or in a different shell I guess but it won't be in any other energy state. Quantim particles have wave-like behaviors but the waves themselves are continuous, they aren't quantized. My point of bringing up my college course on wave mechanics was to illustrate that I needed to know this stuff to pass my class and no one would/could explain it.
@@93lozfan A particle is the approximation of the motion of an extended classical body by the motion of its center of mass. In the Kepler problem the planet is a particle. Protons never behave like particles. Protons are compound field states. Quanta are small amounts of energy. They are not "objects" and they don't have object properties. They behave like conserved quantities that get exchanged by physical systems.
No,It's A physical object because when you're not looking and you run the double slit experiment the wave function appears and leaves ACTUAL PHYSICAL MARKINGS on the photographic film at the back of the double slit experiment.
how does this interpretation fit with the notion that ONE Photon interferes with itself, not with a second Photon! it doesn't need a second photon. The photographic screen just adds/sumarizes the detection events!
@@konradcomrade4845 Now you're talking about the photographic screen like it's a computer
A probability wave is an abstraction and can't collapse. A matter wave is in a state of becoming and can "collapse" into a state of being. Or reflect, I prefer to say, to the observer.
The probability wave leaves actual physical markings on the photographic plate at the back of the double slit experimen.
@@Sharperthanu1
That proves DeBroglie was right and Born was wrong. Einstein favored DeBroglie's matter wave and Schrodinger went with the probability wave. He said he wished he'd never got involved with the whole quantum mechanics which led to the Copenhagen interpretstion and solipsism. This is my opinion. It's been decades since I studied all this. At 78yrs I don't have time to go into it much again. Curses on it all.
Even though Einstein believed in determinism, doesn't mean general relativity proves or even supports determinism; so Bohrian quantum voodoo isn't needed to break determinism. Also, determinism doesnt mean ONE effect; consider the effect of an individual fusion event in the sun to the movement of a single air particle in weather on earth millions of years later; 'deterministic' analysis would yield a huge number of possibilities, not just one.
Great video!
1:55 to 2:01 looks like an expanding ripple. A ripple is a wave that expands at velocity v in some medium. If we put the Michelson-Morley experiment on hold for a moment, and consider that wave functions deal with mediums, then we could say the ripple expands at the speed of light, and the medium is the wave function itself. In the two slit experiment, there are what look like interference patterns of ripples. What stops us from defining a wave function as a physical "thing" that is a "medium" with physics constants as its properties?
At 2:35 to 2:45, you talk about a wavefunction the size of the galaxy. Why can't we define a wave function as a ripple that can expand indefinitely? Such that, it could have been expanding for 50k years until it is the diameter of the galaxy.
Instead of a ripple, why don't we define a wave function as a sphere that expands from a point into a sphere of radius r = ct. Let its surface area be all of the properties of a virtual photon (which now includes surface area). If a photon has energy, then the surface of our sphere has energy E = hf that is localized somwhere on the surface of the sphere. What we think of as a photon as a wave traveling at the speed of light is really the localized energy on the surface of the sphere as the sphere expands away from its center point (which is a good definition of an inertial frame).
When two or more of these expanding spheres overlap, they create other virtual particles of the Standard model, all very casually. When the surfaces of two wave functions meet, however briefly, they create the term (PSI*)(PSI) which is part of the definition of the expectation value for position or momentum . All of this should be as casual and simple as water ripples overlapping as they expand.
These expanding spheres are constantly being generated. If the surface area is a virtual photon, then the surface area has an electromagnetic field that could easily interact with electrical potential energies from electrons, quarks, gluon, protons, atoms, anything made of molecules, plasmas and other kinds of fields. The wave function is a solution to the partial differential equation known as the Schrodinger equation. These expanding spheres are the physical "thing" that interacts with charges.
Let us presume that the Casimir effect (which is a verified experiment) is the result of virtual photons bumping into particles. Dark energy is the expansion of the universe. If somehow these expanding spheres carry a small amount of momentum, if they hit a charge (atom or particles with mass), then the sphere might become absorbed by the particle system. By becoming absorbed into the particle system, they are temporarily trapped by it. Charges always interact with each other which is a good enough definition of a measurement (the interaction of charges and fields). Instead of wave functions collapsing, these trapped spheres continue to expand at the speed of light. All particles of mass are continually bombarded by these expanding spheres (which carry a small amount of momentum which is a tiny fraction of dark energy). When you have a massive object, like a human sitting in a chair, in the down direction, there is a whole planet that has obstructed the expansion of these expanding spheres. But in the direction "up", there is all open space and a constant barrage of expanding spheres that are expanding into the human sitting in the chair. Basically, space is expanding and pushing you down because these expanding spheres do that. We notice that space pushes particles because the Casimir effect is the observation that virtual photons push against metal plates (and other massive objects). We also said that the surface area of these expanding spheres are virtual photons.
I am saying that,
1. Virtual photons are the infrastructure of photons (without the energy E = hf).
2. The surface area of an expanding sphere is a virtual photon.
3. These expanding spheres really do exist and we see their effects as virtual photons, the Casimir effect, and wave functions.
4. The Casimir effect is actually the cause of gravity.
5. Maybe we should call these expanding spheres "gravitons" because they are the ultimate cause of gravity, via the Casimir effect. Or we could say that the pushing effect of these gravitons can be blocked by matter, which is what we observe as gravity.
Sorry it's long and complicated. But a quantum gravity theory comes from this interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The expanding spheres is the Huygens principle. Each point in the expanding wavefront generates its own wavefront, and so on, and in the end they interfere with each other constructively or destructively such that the particle emerges.
@@trucid2 Yes yes yes! But I'm saying that those waves, those expanding spheres, are themselves the building blocks of spacetime. While in contrast, a water wave is still made of point particles called H20 molecules, the expanding waves or ripples of spacetime are the foundational building blocks of both spacetime and wave functions. Technically, when two expanding spheres move past each other, they recapitulate spacetime geometry. A quantum entanglement is the effect of having one of these expanding spheres between two entangled particles. The entanglement itself is this "sphere".
I know that what I'm saying is weird! But it's the only thing that makes sense enough to explain QM, SR, GR, expansion of spacetime, dark energy, virtual/real photons, and the quantum fields of the Standard Model.
@@wulphstein Those are some interesting ideas. I like your explanation of gravity and its connection to the Casmir effect. Still have to think about how particles like electrons and protons emerge. Wouldn't surprise me if particles are just trapped photons that orbit each other the same way an electron orbits a proton in a stable way.
would appreciate if you do not add the background music. I am trying to listen and understand what you are saying and it gets in the way.
Sorry that the music was too loud.
Funny I was so focused on what he was saying that I didn't notice any music in the background, sounds like you need to train your ears more.
The wave doesn't collapse, it shifts to another timeline/point in time.
I would argue that the wave function doesn't collapse, it expands at the speed of light. That allows it to recapitulate the geometry of spacetime. Expansion of the wavefunction is similar to how water ripples expand at the speed of a wave in water.
The observer creats reality,so "things"have to chage its shape to make sense for the observer and its natural laws!
A wave function can scale infinitely, just like the interference pattern of a hologram. Distance is meaningless.
Can they make multiple cosmic microwave background images? Is there anything that could alter red shift? (Say tons of gas cloud's? Cosmic filaments? Black holes, galaxies, the type of Light the star is giving off?) So how would you find a "reliable measuring system from super nova's? It seems variable?"
*I don't think we fully understand Gravity Yet. ~i know that's random, i just thought of our current state of physics. If u look up "what is Gravity" right now, you get all sorts of science videos explaining that gravity is not a force, & they talk about time dilation. ~i think there is more we have yet to understand & perceive about Gravity. Sorta like something we've all seen a million times, but finally someone finds a new way to look at it and notices things most people have overlooked. *I in no way am saying this because I think I have the answers. No. This is just a gut feeling that I hope people way smarter than me discover. I got this guy feeling after observing the state physics has been in for a long time now. Something is telling me we have to look back on things and see if there is anything we may have overlooked? It happens all the times in discoveries and progression. There's Nothing embarrassing or to be ashamed of. It's natural. It's a part of growth and inventions.
My gut tells me that gravity is greatly intertwined with electrodynamics, density, and all the factors that make up many things in our Cosmo's. Just that gravity is this unique property of our universe in multiple scales. Small form, mid form, mega form. Think of large Filaments throughout the Cosmo's/multiple galaxies/black holes/nebula's that span many light-years across • then • Stars/planets/ asteroid's/solar systems/orbits/atmosphere's/magnetosphere/cosmic bubble around our solar system/then all the effects on our planet that gravity plays a role in. •Lastly• the small factors of matter/static charges that cause things to start sticking to each other/ particles/magnetism/density/temperature/velocity/pressure (probably many more things I'm leaving out but hopefully u get the point, these factors all play such a crucial role in our Cosmo's and I really think we have further to learn about it.) *But that's just my personal opinion
Spooky action at a distance, - by simultaneous actions by entangled particles ,suggests only one solution. There is really no distance between, yet are separated by something. It is actually the observer influence, which in itself is not apart from consciousness.The two positive and negative particles are in immediate contact with Consciousness which is all pervading and passes immediate communication thro' it where there's no spatial distance.
scientists who are not comfortable with a role for Consciousness may not agree.
NO. Firstly, I feel that the proper question is "Do quantum wavefunctions even exist in nature?" or are they just a mathematical apparatus explaining a field we probably already know exists? Secondly, Bell's Theorem only states that if hidden-variables exist, they are non-local in nature (QT is a non-local theory anyways so to me, it's somewhat uninteresting). I would argue that the wave function is a mathematical "placeholder" for an asymmetry in nature, perhaps caused by a field, that is not yet understood **looks wantonly at gravity👀**. I think the Higgs field would be a quick and dirty example of how you could mathematize a concept before discovering it but as usual, the non-local effect is puzzling (though I think natures speed limit needs to be re-examined).
Either way, "interpretations" that create more un-observed phenomena than they resolve is problematic.
Wave functions were always mathematical abstracts by definition. There isn't much of a question here. At most there is an educational gap in the population.
Yes they do actually collapse, but it is a collective phenomenon and the computer simulation of it requires an exponential-time algorithm.
The simplest example is the interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. This can lead to a radical increase in specific entropy and I would suggest adding tachyonic Brownian motion to get the destruction of unitarity that we will require. Unfortunately the simulation will need to run in dozens of dimensions of configuration space so my suggestion is a moot point. What we are up against is simply a numbers game. There are no issues with our ability to imagine what is happening.
Actually the interaction between a molecule of hydrogen and a molecule of fluorine is a slightly simpler example, but with tri-iodide we have trifluoride to compare with.
Yes, that was nonsense. ;-)
thanks for this.
Why is this ever changing story, always presented as the ultimate truth (“we discovered”, “we realised”, “XXX won the Nobel prize for proving”, etc.), reminds me to a person who keeps changing his life story a bit as undeniable facts are coming up but he never make a substantial change because that would undermine his entire credibility?
You are amazing!
Dealing with the comments.
I try and do my best.
If a wavefunction collapses, that is a dynamical system. It begs the question of exactly _how_ the wavefunction changes during the collapse, and as far as I know, nobody has presented any such model.
That's the measurement problem of quantum mechanics and why quantum mechanics is incomplete. The wavefunction evolves in a linear way but the application of the Born rule, the collapse of the wavefunction, is something outside of that. It's a nonlinear process that can't be modeled by quantum mechanics.
It's the way the theory is used that caused confusion. The Schrodinger's Equation says nothing about the seemingly discontinuous collapse upon observation because often problems are theoretically formulated in closed systems. If you actually include a measuring device in the Hamiltonian in your problem, then there is no abrupt collapse, but instead a rapid decoherence as information leaks out into the environment which looks experimentally like a 'collapse'. The idea is that the wave function never collapses and is unitary across the universe. This also tells you that Schrodinger's Cat decoheres very quickly into a definite state.
@@fruityoverlord9937 What exactly do you mean by "quickly"? The speed of light? Faster? Slower?
@@trucid2 If it can't be modelled, then it's outside of science. You can't have it both ways.
@@MelindaGreen Re-read what I wrote. I never said it can't be modeled. You're grasping at straws by attributing to me something I didn't say.
A better description I have heard for the many worlds theory is to see it as just assuming the wave function is real and does not collapse. The higher dimensionality was already in the equations. Just keep the imaginary solutions instead of flush it out.
1) schrødingers function us not a wavefunction, 2) if you participate in a lottery with 100 lottery tickets, the chance of winning is 1/100. So say someone win the lottery ( not you) then the chance of winning is zero. The probability function is collapse. Nothing strange. The schrødinger function is a probability function and when you measure something it collapse
The probability distribution of your lottery never collapses. It's always 1/100 per ticket. For the same reason the wave function also never collapses. This is just a misunderstanding of both quantities (which are mathematically intimately related, by the way).
So what your saying is that when things don't seem to be connected they actually are. Is all of humanity connected? Is this how children can find each other in a large store or insects, and other animals in vast expanses.
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️
It's facinating how so many properties with-in Nature use: ~{"Differences"}~
That "factor" seems to be a key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temp, different densities, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnetism north/south poles, different velocity/angular momentum, different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. Different layers between different regions such as: (Land/water/air/edge of the atmosphere/space/ the different regions in space with different particle density/background radiation, creating bubbles/membrane layers/cloud regions, nebula's/Galaxy's/Galaxy clusters/ Cosmic filaments/less dense regions of space compared to dense regions of space.) All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low pressure and temperature 🌡️differences create winds. In water- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally in our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, a magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere.
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️
The natural world around us is just utterly facinating to me.
Try doing quantum mechanics experiments with insects.
It is as if the the proton contains a microcosm of the very early universe with its sudden and spontaneous creation of particles. Want to see the goings-on in the moment of creation? ...see the interior of the proton.
Sabine Hossenfelder says we should scrap many world's interpretation.
Is simulation a valid scientific possibility for quantum theory interpretation? Or is it for sure just junk science? If valid as a theory, do physicists ever think in terms of "reverse engineering" our reality with simulation as source? Thanks for your videos...they are great!
Simulation is an expression of intellectual laziness. ;-)
Any bias towards an interpretation? :) Great video!
I have also followed the Coppenhagen interpretation but I think this is just because it was what I was taught. In doing the research for this video I learnt a lot about different interpretations that I had no idea about, including a couple that I don't talk about. So now I am unsure where I sit. I guess I am still in the Coppenhagen camp but feel it is maybe incomplete. What about yourself?
@@ScienceDiscussed interesting! I see where you are coming from, it's not exactly necessary to do research for most areas to take time to think about this.
I'm more or less in no camp this days. At one point Copenhagen, then I really like pilot wave theory, then the ensemble interpretation.
I'm now in the firm "we don't know but it's an interesting question to probe" camp.
haha yeah then we feel pretty similar.
@@JonathonRiddell I think that the "we don't know but it's an interesting question to probe" camp is currently the only sensible camp to be in, IMHO.
@@ahothabeth I would definately agree, but there are lots of folks who are more involved in these questions than I am, who would disagree.
QM classicalized in 2020: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
Why can't the wave function collapse at the speed of light and not instantaneously? Wouldn't this solve a lot of issues?
Wave functions can't collapse because they don't exist in the first place. Like probability distributions they are mathematical abstracts.
Could the electron "flying" creates a "pressure path" of vitrtual particles in vacumm like gas on cilinder?
I find it frustrating that I as a non-physicist have actually thought about all of this myself. It is frustrating because I feel it could have had something to contribute with if I only had the right education and knew higher math.
If a wave was just about probability and not an actual wave, there would be no interference pattern in the double slit experiment, because the particle would not have been able to interact with itself.
I like your theory
There are many of us in your camp; I suspect that's why these vids are popular
I wish I had the math/science skills to demonstrate a material/consciousness interface in DNA at the level of Planck length tetrahedra
Sadly I'm old and brain damaged now but take comfort in the new generations of physicists and scientists
The wave function *_is_* just about probability (or rather, the spinor structure, which also involves local frame rotation and boosts). An instruction to transform a frame is not a material object, so your guess is right. You can easily "collapse" an instruction (it's called a projection operator) but that does not mean anything physical is collapsing. If you want a spacetime corbordism imagery you can just think in terms of spacetime topology changing when there are any interactions (or so-called measurements).
@@Achrononmaster Well, it seems like it is both a wave and about probability
obviously whats going on, is we are trying to understand the infinity of our consciousness which is infinity.. thats my belief, which is great... it means there is no death or end
so given the 100% consistency of observation triggered collapse, AND given we know the collapse is NOT triggered by the act of measurement; Dr Aspect's delayed choice quantum eraser, but rather the information available TO the observer of the path, Everett's Many World is soundly refuted, for at all times, the interference should happen over time, whether there is a detection or not. Given the natural state of subatomic particles is in a state vector, a superposition, there should be nothing to see, anywhere, everything, from the origination of the Universe till now should probabilistically occupy every space in the universe. But it doesn't.
The element being described at the 8 minute mark is the idea that all points are local to each other... which is very probably true, and that is the description of a VR, time/space only applies to elements within the VR, and not to the VR generator. To the VR generator, all points are equidistant, and the observed is only realized when an observation is taken, regardless of the intermediate time or space separation. Histories are created upon observation; backward in time causation as demonstrated by Dr Aspect's work, including the moon, stars, galaxies, and molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and their countless constituents... no matter how large or small the scale, the universe will create a history, commensurate with our environment, to fill the gap.
Pretty sure, this is how it is.
Lol
Roger Penrose also says we have a Quantum soul
What if the quantum world is something wholly different and spits out this particles like electrons and protons. But electrons and protons actually aren't constituents of the quantum world.
It's easier at this level to show water going down the kitchen sink. There are small waves, a whirling, and the dip into the tube.
Later, add some physics. 😊
I didn't think of using that. An interesting idea.
No it doesn't 'collapse' because it was never 'uncertain' or 'superimposed'. And 'entangled' is a past tense term, not a current description.
There is no action at a distance that violates causality when you coordinate your two hands simultaneously in gesturing here because of the "hidden variable" of your mind that is casually connected to both space separated hands.
danmiller • Your mind coordinating your two hands is not a theoretical "action at a distance" ( which is non-existent ).
It is a concrete and simple REAL causal process.
Bill Clinton put it best when he said: 'It depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.'
I turned off your explanation when you described in terms of a photon. If you describe in terms of photons you will end with photons. Photon is a model; a non visualizable mix of wave and particle, not a thing. The way to resolve the problem is to see what is wrong with quantum mechanics and the photon model. Many have claimed to resolve the measurement problem, but they did not devise experiments to show how QM fails. See my many experiments. I am easy to find.
We teach in high school that a photon is a small amount of energy. What's your excuse for not paying attention? Was the sentence "Quanta are small amounts of energy." (6 words) too hard to memorize?
Telepathy I.S. Information System - 010 Gravitational Propulsion System -- GPS.
No. Stop mistaking the map for the territory.
A Bernardo kasturp fan I see.👍
@@Allenryan819Thats not an idea thats unique to bendardo kastrup
I think our entire universe must be quantum in nature. Maybe a block of some type of four dimensional matter in a state perpetual super position. Or maybe the universe is just one big probability wave. Im starting to that probability holds the key to the answers we seek. Maybe the only reason anything ever happens is because it can happen.
Some scientists ask why we exist. I sometimes think that we HAVE to exist. If we didn't, we wouldn't be asking the question.
the universe is probablistic, but because of the number of calculations involved, it appears deterministic on a large scale.
This is basically the many-worlds interpretation.
No
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
I have a question
What would happen to a wave function if a detector was setup, the detector’s output was sent to a tv, and the tv was broken? Would the wave function still collapse even though while the detector is powered on, nothing can be measured bc the tv is broken?
Yes it would still collaspe. The quantum object doesn't care if you actually obtain information from it. It only cares that it has interacted with something.
@@ScienceDiscussed thanks! So a follow up question… does the wave collapse if using a broken but powered detector? Does anything electric collapse the wave function?
@@buttonsdah5335 any interaction can collapse it. The existence of a physical object can be enough. There is a lot of nuance about the particulars of different systems but in general yes it would collapse.
@@ScienceDiscussed thanks again. So is it true to say that “observing” a particle isn’t necessarily what makes it collapse, just that there may be interference causing the collapse?
@@buttonsdah5335 Not quite. It is observing the particle that makes it collapse. It just doesn't mean we have to be the observer. Anything can be.
I figured this out the other day. Been trying to tell a few of my favorite scientists Don Lincoln and Dr Becky Smethurst lol few others. The collapse of the wave function is simple. If there are infinite universes then upon observation the particle is observed simultaniously in multiple universes at once and all measurements are simultaneously known avoiding breaking causality.
Except there's only one wave function. All those different outcomes of measurements are just mathematical components. They have no physical existence individually, so Many Worlds is just a mathematical fantasy.
@@Raging.Geekazoid but in multiple universes there is multiple wave funcrions in multiple universes. Im really drunk right now! Lmao
@@justincosby2258 I'll let you sleep it off. 😄
Thanks! I believe that superposition of objects is their only real and natural state. Collapse is unnatural, and happens only because of our lack of faith that, for example, a particle can travel through both slits at once. But I believe that actually we can see objects in state of superposition, using our mind's eye. It's just like you see your loved once most of the time every day through your mind's eye, not physical eyes. Some call it imagination, but here we don't imagine, we just allow some additional probabilities, which is due to any wave function. Do we like the state of superposition? Probably not, because of its fogginess. We want to see, not believe. But collapsed world is a lie. Just like in a video game or in a dream. Remember the Wigner's friend paradox? Why we say that Wigner's lab is also in a superposition? Do we have right to say that? If reality is subjective and there is no objective physical reality, would you ever die?
Objects are not in superposition. Only an abstract mathematical quantity describing ensembles of quantum systems is. You need to learn to distinguish between reality and descriptions of reality.
@@schmetterling4477 Thanks! Good point. Objects are not their description. But you see, here is a catch. How description turns into object when collapsed? From nothing comes something
@@andruss2001 There is no such thing as collapse, either. There only people who don't read quantum mechanics textbooks and who don't notice that the term "collapse" is not even being used in them. :-)
Great video.
Many Worlds is just too ridiculous and contrived and still problematic.
It may be a long time before a testable theory emerges and technology can perform the test. I'll place my bets on both Bell and Einstein and against Many Worlds, Retrocausality, or Copenhagen.
We know so little until we understand the question posed by the title, and the measurement problem and the implications Bell's inequality.
I wonder if conservation laws might play an outsized role in some way, just in that they might behave globally and non locally.
2:49 now please explain the detectiom of a/one CMB photon, in a pixel of the Plank satellite! Does this "photon", (a milisecond before detection), have a "radius" (3D!) of 13.7 billion Lightyears? How does a single, lonely photon (in completely empty space) know? its direction? (to get a "straight Line" propagation, in reality You need a pretty good laser with low dispersion, etc, comprised of a Lot of photons. th-cam.com/video/GerzZ6GDe-0/w-d-xo.html
Then again I get a problem with the intensity!!! of a single, monochromatic (of course monochromatric), Wavy_Photon shortly before detection!!!
The popular illustration of a Photon wavelet, traveling along a straight Line is misleading. To make a short package of sin waves, You would need to superimpose an infinite number of different frequencies!
Quantized absorption in my imagination is:
a 4(r^²)*Pi "Quantum_Balloon_( a 2Dsurface, expanding in 3D!)" collapses to a single pixel, at a single atom; is that what's going on, what the Math describes?
A photon is a small amount of energy. This is high school knowledge. Can you explain to us why you weren't paying any attention when they taught this? :-)
atSchmetterling4477 really? Sabine Hossenfelder recently showed us that a Photon doesn't even have a definite Energy, nor a definite wavelength! Both depend on frame of reference, depend on the relativistic speed between emmitter and observer!! it may get blue-shifted it may get red-shifted! So, now I can't even state: a Photon is a monochromatic Quantum of energy?
@@konradcomrade4845 That is correct That is the reason why the photon is the amount of energy that gets detected. I didn't say that it was the same amount of energy that the source released into the free electromagnetic field. You are still not paying any attention to what people are saying. :-)
I just posted a video explaining this is more detailed and clarity. It’s a very unintuitive way of looking at relatively but it’s correct.
I don’t know your level of physics qualifications but
Please be more accurate 2 points -
(A) 2022 prize physics for bells theory - theory does not disprove hidden variables it proves that quantum mechanics follows a non local theory.
(b) spooky action at a distance is related to quantum entanglement and instantaneous communication. which bell’s theory states and the proof of that theory earned the 2022 novel prize.
Why are you proving to us that you don't understand physics? Quantum mechanics is perfectly local. If it wasn't, then we would all have ansibles built into our iPhones, but in return the universe wouldn't exist. ;-)
All these video keep on presenting a single photon scenario and a measurement but they never tell how how they actually get a single photon and how they actually measure it.
There is many different types of single photon sources, quantum dots are one that is quite popular at the moment. Likewise, there are many ways to detect photons, I am not sure what exact detectors are typical but one open is superconducting nanowires, which switch from superconducting to metallic when they absorb a photon.
Many Worlds is the only interpretation that answers the Fine Tuning Principle, by stating that all possible universes exist!
But is this required for a good interpretation of quantum mechanics?
@@ScienceDiscussed My theory is, all possible universes than can exist do exist. To put it more formally, a universe would consist of a describable set of rules and a describable initial condition. This seems the most in tune with Many Worlds...although it's necessarily true that our universe has One Quantum World or Many Quantum Worlds within it. As a matter of fact, there could be some universes with One World and some with Many Worlds. Technically, we can't know which one were in.
@@ScienceDiscussed And neither theory explains which variable decides the randomness - either random collapse of Copenhagen or the random world we end up in within Many Worlds. Supposedly the "random variable" was disproven, but I've never seen a convincing argument.
@@paulthomas963 If your theory is God, you need a theory of what created God, why a good God would allow evil to exist, why a loving God would require blood sacrifices, why a loving God would send anyone to Hell for all of eternity, etc. However, my theory that all describable universes that can exist do exist would actually explain both the God-druven and Big Bang-driven universes. Christians and scientists could finally have a theory they all agree on!
Spelling - *continuous *spontaneous
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Collapse
Wave fn.
Not consciousness.
terrible video. please 1. tell me about the experiment. 2. ask me a question about the experiment. 3. try to answer the question. 4. show some contradiction. i'm at 2:31 and i have literally ZERO idea what the experiment was or what the results were. i completely waisted my time here.
Getting real spooky
There is only one wave function. It is not plural.
Noob - where's your patreon? 😁
Haha I hadn't bothered setting one up. I worried that I didn't have much to give on top of the videos for people to subscribe to patreon.
6:30 is the most homophobic thing I've seen today!
Leonardo da Vinci said "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions "Plato shared with us wisdom he learnt from Egypt, wisdom that was a death sentence in Greece, Rome (Christianity)..Pythagoras, Socrates and later Hypatia of Alexandria. Plato in his dialogue "The Republic "tells the parable of "The Cave "Plato starts by telling us of prisoners being held in a underground den, let us examine this den via the geometry of Bernhard Riemann and Felix Klein..Klein bottle..3rd and 4th dimensions. Plato tells us that the prisoners are bound up unable to move their heads, let us examine this bondage via the psychology of Erich Fromm..socialisation of consciousness..aware-unaware. Plato tells us that the prisoners mistake shadows for substance, let us examine this mistake via the philosophy of Thales, Hume and Kant..synthetic a priori judgement..not thing in itself. Plato tells us that one of the prisoners is released, let us examine this release via the wisdom of T Lobsang Rampa..stilling the mind and conscious astral travel..leaving the cave/body. Plato tells us that the prisoners will reject this release, let us examine this rejection via the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome..Plato quotes Homer..forgive them for they know not what they say. Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. Mathew 23 13 31.
It seems as though you're a highly skilled English language speaker, yet the title for this video is grammatically incorrect ('actually'). Also, your microphone is upside down. The sound quality would be better if you pointed it towards your face.
Thanks for picking up the typo. I should update late at night. The microphone doesn't point up, the face that is pointing to the screen is the recording region.
First there existed movement which ptobably is costant ! From those movements was created everything! Probability is that those movements are actualy an DNK of Universe and Earth! Latet people were created whith the each of different DNK!
I will say this: Quantum physics is a grab-asstic mess. You're demonstrating it this video just as I'd see in other TH-cam Pop-Science influencers. For example: 5:22
Bell Test rules out local hidden variable (LHVs) but there is still a possibility that there are "some" LHVs - but that is for another discussion later??? Why?
After all, the Nobel Prize hander-outers said "We like this Bell Test stuff!!!"
Quantum mechanics follows trivially from Kolmogorov's axioms and relativity. That you and the maker of this video don't know that doesn't make quantum mechanics a mess. It simply makes both of you uneducated. ;-)
bro exlpained all the fap in 10 mins