This is the only youtube channel where I get to see the entire video, feel smart while doing so, and by the end of it realizing that I need to have a masters degree on physics to even be able to understand a single word of it. At least I like the backgrounds with them shiny stars.
But my consciousness *can* manifest physical changes in the real world. I can move a pencil with my mind. The way I do this is: my brain sends a bunch of complex signals though my spine, the muscles of my arm and hand move, and they pick and move the pencil.
I know you are kidding and all, but it's actually somewhat true as psychotherapy changes the brain shape. Which is really weird, psychotherapy is just words, ideas, having an impact on something physical, aka your brain.
Every time I watch this channel I come away with a head swim. I took a graduate course or two in quantum physics and electronics three decades ago. After watching a few of these videos, I, for the first time, can reflect positively on the teaching pedagogy that made everything mathematical. Basically, the message from instructor to student was "An electron/photon/[fill in the blank] does this or that. Let's derive an equation and work pages of math to establish what that means." At the time of taking the classes, I felt absolutely comfortable with saying the wavefunction is just a mathematical expression of the probability of outcomes that cannot possibly be known until observed. To me, the particle subject to quantum mechanics was not simultaneously in two (or more) states, but that its actual state just hadn't been observed yet. That meant to me that the superposition of states was just an accounting of the probabilities of what the actual state was. The actual state singularly existed but wasn't known to the observer YET. Crikey! Matt O'Dowd has made a complete hash of my confidence in the above interpretation of the math, obviously confirming his quote from Feynman that those that think they know how quantum mechanics works, don't! The silver lining I see in all my confusion is that the idea of "entanglement" is finally starting to bring wavefunctions into focus as much more than uncertainty expressed in abstract math. Instead, wavefunctions appear to be some kind of metaphysical complexity that explodes the mind and hides something truly amazing about the universe. Matt, keep up the good work while I try to keep up the comprehension as fast as the dialog flies by...
What you are missing is that quanta are not particles. They are energy values. An energy value does, indeed, not exist until it is being measured. And after it is being measured it doesn't exist, either, because energy can only be spent once. Anybody who ever told you anything about particles simple didn't understand quantum mechanics. Other than that your first paragraph was correct. The wave function doesn't describe a system. It describes a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. am infinite number of repetitions of the system. It allows you to calculate statistical outcomes and doesn't have anything to say about an individual outcome. It simply tells us what we don't know.
Perhaps. I now realize from watching the PBS Spacetime videos that "my" interpretation described in the second paragraph more closely resembles the EPR interpretation. What I did not know was the history of quantum mechanical interpretations. This history has resolved the EPR paradox in favor of the alternative provided by Bell's theorem. That "my" interpretation is testable and has long since been found to be wrong was news to me! So why was I in the dark until now? Because I didn't have a need to know. I'm an electrical engineer who did my dissertation research in the area of optical processes in semiconductor materials for a specific application. Later, in my professional career I continued to teach and do research in the area of semiconductor devices. We use, by an large, semiclassical physics to achieve awesome practical results. I once joked that learning about Bloch functions, the Kronig-Penney model, and reciprocal space to understand semiconductor bandgaps was one piece of physics too many for my purposes. However, the fact that I still recall that epiphany is a testament that it did me good. The real point I was making was about the pedagogy of teaching quantum mechanics (and thus quantum electronics). Whenever a student asked "why" the answer was "just do the math." That there remains a lack of consensus on cosmology at least in part because of a lack of consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics brings home the need to spend more time on the history of the interpretations. History is often the last thing a professor spends time on in a "hard" STEM course. There is just "too much material to cover." Why is my curiosity driving me to revisit a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics? Simple, quantum computing. I have a quasi-professional need to keep track of quantum computing. Three or four years ago I watched a Google TechTalk on TH-cam that was intended to be a quick continuing education course on the theoretical justification for quantum computing. I had grown tired of watching TH-cams by industry leaders trying to explain it to the masses. I knew I needed more formalism. Here is the video I watched: th-cam.com/video/I56UugZ_8DI/w-d-xo.html. At the 9:42 mark you can hear the familiar pedagogy stated explicitly. If I recall correctly, some place else in this video series the lecturer says how he resolves confusion when it becomes hard to believe that quantum mechanics is real. "You just have to put your head down and do the math."
@@schmetterling4477 Quantum mechanics can tell us that if a system is in an eigenstate of an observable, then we're guaranteed to observe the corresponding eigenvalue with certainty. For example, if a photon has a polarization angle that exactly matches a plane polarizer, then the photon is guaranteed to survive the polarizer and register with a detector. If the polarization if the photon is pi/2 out of phase with the polarizer, then it's guaranteed not to survive the polarizer, and a detector won't register the photon with certainty. If a system is in a more general state, then quantum mechanics can't tell us what happens in individual cases. It can only give us a probability of different possible outcomes. If we create lots of photons that all have the same polarization, and we pass them through a polarizer, then quantum mechanics tells us the proportion (or probability) that the photons will survive the polarizer and register with a detector. In this case, quantum mechanics can't tell us with certainty what happens to an individual photon. This is because the general state isn't an eigenstate of the observable.
Physicist Ed May says that quote attributed to Feynman, about how if you say you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics, needs to be done away with because it's not true. He says some scientists do understand
Only rendering what the viewer is observing is the best way to save processing power and it seems everything in the universe flows the most efficient way ever evolving
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
I think a more precise question would be: "Are consciousness and quantum mechanics interconnected?" - we get hung up on this cause and effect conversation when really the more fundamental question is to ask how are these two aspects of our reality connected to each other. What I see here in this video is a beautiful presentation of one of the mysteries we are confronted with as we dive deeper into the properties of our universe. However, the second half of the video is the same old scientific positivist dogma of trying to reason your way out of consciousness being involved. If we are going to land the next big jump in science, I feel we need more imagination than this.
Hardly, the best "theory" for quantum consciousness was the penrose microtubules bullshit which was experimentally proven to be incompatible with decoherence time. Science doesn't just need imagination, you need mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification, right now we have none of that for quantum consciousness.
@@Microplastics2 Nobody is arguing against mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification. The argument is merely for increase in imagination, creativity, and openness to possibilities that are as of now taboo and dogmatically opposed in people who are stuck in a modern-materialistic worldview. I personally think it's just a matter of time until the paradigm shifts to more openness
My gut tells me that your appeal to "more imagination" is merely an excuse to avoid an uncomfortable model of reality. If anything, it's the opposite of being open-minded.
@@alanabdollahzadeh "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." "Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions." "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." who said these things? Albert Einstein
Ian Corral Ian Corral based on your replies, i can certainly see you would have no clue that my statement was an attempt at humor. Therefore, I can agree you would fully understand the Copenhagen Observation.
I love this channel for continuing to satiate my intellectual appetite and remind me that no matter how much I try to learn, there are always incredibly complex systems that will forever elude my understanding
This stuff is a lot easier if you learn the math for it. Of course, depending on your mathematical background so far that might be easier said than done.
@@joshuahillerup4290 as someone with 3 years of calculus (including linear algebra and differential equations) classes under his belt, i can tell you that conceptually there is a lot of disconnect between what the mathematics ahows and the implications for our fundamental understanding of reality.
How could two consciousnesses observe exactly simultaneously? One always would collapse the wave function first, even by a small fraction of time, and the second observer would see the result of that collapse.
Leibniz's solution to this as described in his _Monadology_ was to assume that neither of them actually caused anything outside of themselves at all, and that it was all planned in advance by a monad which subsumed both, much like a movie, in what he called "pre-established harmony"; at the top level he placed the "monas monadum", the "monad of monads", which established the entirety of this harmony, and which he identified with a rational conception of an impersonal absolute.
It would depend on your point in space you view it from , you are seeing the exact same thing at the same time just from different points in space like if you were viewing a parade from atop a high building or on the ground from 1 point you see it in its entirety and from the other point in space you see it passing in frames
@@outisnemo8443 Leibniz monadology and preestablished harmony is saying everything In the universe is fixed before and also implies that free will is an illusion ,which is not true for scientists so far and it may be true . I don't know
More like, that which is possible but currently believed to be impossible is simply currently misclassified as magic. But that doesn't mean there are not still plenty of things that are actually impossible.
I realized this just a couple days ago because I have a scientific background but I'm learning about and interested in working with spirituality. It's all so fascinating
When it comes to science, mysticism or philosophy, I found and experienced that the moment one accepts being an instrument that this invisible world, letting it freely come and go brings a wonderful experience when it happens. The idea of getting power over this larger than us reality is as primitive as feeling slaved by it. This reminds me of that time when my father laughed at me saying: how can you be so dumb thinking that water goes upward? Water always run downward. The funniest thing about it is that every week he was getting water from a natural spring. That is the kind of experience that helps a kid to get analyze before judging and keep an opened mind in all aspects of life.
JimmyDShea Expérience is a great reward for having made patience the foundation of a lifetime. Your comment gives it a value that I deeply appreciate and cherish. Thanks ❣️
Sheeting action is a neat trick, it's caught me up more than once in my trade. Water climbs completely upward if sandwiched between two smooth objects.
You're probably going to get to this next time, but it seems like it was very quickly glossed over why Wigner's friend's brain entering a quantum superposition is so problematic. Surely each superposed state of his brain would only be aware of itself, not all the other superposed states, and likewise only be aware of the superposed state of the experimental result that it observed, not all the other superposed states of the experiment result hat resulted in all the friend's other superposed brain states; so when Wigner talks to his friend and so observes his brain state, Wigner only communicates with whichever state his friend's brain "collapses" to, which was unaware of there being any other states superposed with it, just like it's only aware of the one state of the experiment result. Of course, then Wigner's brain itself has actually just entered a superposition of different states wherein his friend's brain collapsed to different states upon observation, and when you ask Wigner what his friend reported, you'll only interact with whichever of the superposed states you observe Wigner's brain to collapse to... when, in fact, your brain just enters a superposition as well, and so on and so on as the information about the experiment propagates throughout the universe, splitting the entire thing into a superposition of universes where the experiment turned out in the different possible ways.
This is what has turned me against QM from the first time I heard if it. If you model only the experiment in QM, you get different results than if you model both the experiment and the measurement device in QM. You have to stop your QMing at some point, or there is no result, but no link in the von Neumann chain makes any more or less sense than any other. QM is, then, contradictory; you can't observe a result unless you are not governed by QM, therefore QM must not be what governs everything. I know how impressive the alpha measurement prediction is, and the theory's other various successes. But there are other predictions that are horribly wrong. Why can't anyone seem to acknowledge that QM is, at best, incomplete, and at worst, contradictory? Every time I hear about the conflict with GR, the speaker assumes that GR is the problem. GR has produced predictions just as stunning, and continues to be proven over and over as we make more and better observations. It stands on a perfectly logical set of assumptions. The one and only thing it ever failed is the Bell inequality. But no, we must figure out how Einstein was wrong, because there is no QM representation of gravity. QM *must* be incomplete. There is no other possible way to see the measurement problem. The theory of everything will have to dramatically change the concepts of QM, as step one, before it can be taken seriously.
As someone who is spiritual but still relatively grounded in reality, I'm glad you made this video. I tend to eye roll whenever people in spiritual communities try to use scientific terms they know nothing about in order to sound smart while they push views such as victim blaming, pseudoscience, and ignoring injustices in order to make money or feel better about themselves.
I don't really think you're grounded in reality I think that you're not religious at all because you want to talk about the Injustice in it. I'm pretty sure you think America is a horrible racist country that needs to be better and stole land and this and that but you stay in this horrible ass country only reason I'm commenting on you it's because your comment had nothing at all to do with this video you used it for your own virtue signaling
11:45 I'm convinced Matt is just a manifestation of my subconscious trying to shield my conscious mind from the solipsistic realization that the universe is a figment of my imagination populated with philosophical zombies. Or he's an agent and I'm in the matrix.
@@PlzPr3sspl4y at this point the best answer is that nobody's real - the fact of existence of my own experience is not falsifiable therefore impossible to prove therefore not objectively true.
Hmmmm.... I wasn't aware of your existence until a moment ago... you had no idea I existed... so by reading your statement did we collapse the wave function that now puts us in the same space-time...?? Hmmmmmmmmm
Benjy Strauss all jokes aside, I think this is an important point. Scientifically-minded people like to scoff and assign words like magic or mysticism to certain theories, but never even bother to define what “magic” is. Is “spooky action at a distance” magical? Einstein thought it was, and he used that phrase to insult the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. But in the end he was was wrong.
@@taylorfloyd4785 The weird thing was that there was nothing concrete to debunk it though. Only subjective change of views. He did not do a good job of mocking it.
@@treali the weirder thing is that it’s an un-falsifiable theory like millions of other theories. Just cause you can’t prove it wrong doesn’t mean it’s real
@@MobBjj1 I just noticed that my comment got removed which sucks because I won't type it all out again. tldr: I don't believe in quantum wizards, but I will never accept someone using "this person had a subjective belief X and changed his subjective beliefs to Y, therefore it's irrefutable evidence that X is false". You understand that it's not scientific right? If that passed as evidence, then quantum physics would never have come into existence because Einstein himself did not believe in quantum physics and gods throwing dices. If something is outrageous and doesn't make sense, then simply ignore it. If you take up the challenge to disprove something, then you better do a fine job or else you will just make people more skeptic of science. Science is exact and objective. It is not based on peoples subjective beliefs. I can imagine that you're not in any scientific field and are more inclined towards the humanities. You would understand what I meant otherwise.
7:25 "how was it like, for your brain to be in superposition of states?" Well, the question assumes that such superposition can even be perceived. The whole point of superposition is that it's a linear combination of independent states. If it were possible to know that you're in superposition, then upon being observed, your wave function would not collapse into one of the independent states. It would collapse into some different state that contains knowledge of the original superposition. Which is a logical contradiction.
This is an underrated comment. Makes me wonder as well because our subconscious observes all independent states and gives the consciousness a summary, a consensus. One independent state that is the most accurate according to the observer. If we didn’t have our subconscious to chose which is correct/most accurate, I wonder how that could affect our perception of said slit experiment.
Why do you assume the states are independent? They are only if decoherence has taken place. If you were to be in a coherence superposition then the different collapsed states will interfere which each other and some how that would lead to an unique experience. All that missing from the described experiment is to require the observers to be isolated to prevent decoherence
The key problem is that "wavefunction" is something you use for describing other things. You can't even cogently talk about writing a wavefunction for yourself, so the very question is ill-conceived.
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
@@cosmosaic8117 so let me get this straight , if I put a photesensible cell infront of the computer which lights if the function collapses in a certain way and then you see the cell move , his "concious" collapsed it ? Lol
I think even some types of science communicators don't help on the subject: they use analogies to explain quantum phenomenon, which only gets you so far ; and if the writer/host is conscious of this limitation but fails to communicate it to the viewers, then they might be duped into thinking they learned more than they actually did. Obviously, a channel like PBS Space Time isn't guilty of this, but it might merely be a consequence of the intended audience ; if I was explaining quantum physics to pre-teens I would probably also take some shortcuts - but I'd be very careful to tell the audience.
The dunning Kruger affect kind of goes the opposite in some ways like climate change though in the way you’re describing it. Skepticism is always okay but your skepticism should be proportionate to the evidence you have available to you that proves it. So never 100% but never 0%
If the electron is being driven by a pilot wave this will allow for the electron to pass through one slit while the electrons pilot wave passes through both slits creating the interference pattern
@Harold Slick That's actually a good point, and I think it says a lot when his most well-known legacy is the Feynman diagrams, which are great for simplifying a complex problem, but aren't hiding anything away or making inappropriate analogies!
"Claro," I write my thoughts down before I read other people's input, I find it entertaining that we both used similar analogies! How Bizarre! And amusing!
I like how questions such as these all boil down to the differences people's in interpretations of words. For example, if you define sound as, "Something that my brain perceives as sound," or alternatively, "Vibrations through the air or other materials, that can be heard by a person's ears." If you define the later option, you simply need to prove that the "vibrations" happened, then you would be correct in saying that the tree did make a sound. If instead you use the former option, then your simply using a different interpretation of the word 'sound,' which requires the "hearing" part of it. You could split this definition into two versions, "did you hear it" and "did someone hear it."
In Buddhism, there is a concept of "non-self", that basically states in an ultimate sense, there is no self. The dividing line between each individual part of the universe is not absolute in any meaningful way. Philosopher Alan Watts stated this well when he said that "What you do, is what the whole universe is doing at this place you call "here" and "now". You are no more separate from the universe than a wave is separate from the whole ocean". So, even if quantum physics was subject to consciousness, one could argue that consciousness itself isn't an entirely individual phenomenon. The idea that consciousness can be both collective and individual is in many ways a perfect match for Quantum Theory in general. It also works well with Einstein's notion that radiation can be both particles and waves at the same time.
It makes far more sense to just use the rules of quantum mechanics and the fact that a superposition can only be fully realized between two quantum particles such that as more particles interact with each other, the wave function gradually collapses into measurements that are consistent with our theories.
@Zeek Banistor "God" is just another perspective; in fact it may arguably be the ultimate perspective of this particular universe. Having seen this consciousness for myself, I find it difficult to imagine how it could possibly be assigned anything akin to a personality. Its broad beyond anything resembling "individual".
"... and yet the most confident claims about quantum mechanics seem to be the mystical ones. They tend to be made by people who have never studied the theory deeply, but nonetheless have great surety in cherrypicking and misinterpreting the early speculations of some of its founders." Stated FAR more charitably than I would put it, lol ...
Yet it’s a theory. Not proven fact. Regardless of how rigorously tested it is. It’s based on variables tested to validate an assumption. Local realism is based on an assumption. No hard proven fact. That’s why there’s no proven underlying physical reality to the universe in the quantum world which is the real world. Nials Bohr won the debate. The results are different for each independent observer as he said. Modern quantum theory, have had multiple theories that were vigorously tested and found out they were wrong when more variables were discovered.
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
Mystic masters, they can see and understand true reality. They dont need to prove it to "blind" people. Similarlt Its just pointless to prove color existence to optical blind patients. So when "blind" one find evidence that reveal color, the aweaken one just simply say "told you so". Science can only offer you what you can see and nothing more. Since all material in this universe belong to this particular reality, they can not help you see other reality. the unseen will forever be unseen unless you "upgrade" your consciousness. Until then the best you can do is just guessing and imagine but never can fully comprehend it like those mystic masters.
The converse is not true, however. If you don't understand quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean you understand quantum mechanics. But if you understand (or at least know how to apply) the mathematics (both symbolic and applied) of quantum mechanics, you can make useful predictions about quantum mechanics.
No, it's slowly integrating itself with it. Slowly enough that we suspect it, but can't say for sure without sounding off the rocker to people that don't think about or pay attention to those sorts of things.
I suspect my consciousness can manifest reality, at least to some extent; I can move my body at will (and through this movement I can have tremendous indirect effects!) I understand there are a range of deterministic arguments which seek to undermine any connection between consciousness and bodily action, and I tend to find these unconvincing. Consciousness seems to be the only self-evident fact, ever. All details we witness are uncertain (blurred by the resolution of our eyes, how alert we are, etc.), but the fact that we are witnesses is absolutely certain. This makes me sympathetic to arguments suggesting the primacy of consciousness.
@@scarziepewpew3897 I haven't entirely solidified what I think about this, but from a certain perspective it seems that consciousness is as fundamental as it's possible to be - it's a truth which observes itself to be true, and the observation itself makes it more true!! hahaha
"They say that it violates the principal of Occam's razor that the scientists should always keep entities to a minimum and it is ridiculous to ascribe reality to worlds you cannot be aware. If you take this argument seriously, then you are not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies...In the 19th century there were many physicists didn't believe in the reality of atoms, so it's not wise to ignore what the formalism is trying to tell you." --Bryce DeWitt
Why are you not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies when observation has shown that stars are orbited by planets and that galaxies contain stars?
Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish! Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
More of a philosophical than a scientific questions I guess: Is 'our' problem with interpretations of quantum mechanics more a case of our minds being ill-equipped to grapple with the quantum world than the need for an interpretation at all? To my (limited) understanding it seems to me that the route of all attempts at interpretation are based in allowing a 'classical' observer to make sense of a quantum world... ...but if one accepts there is no such thing as a 'classical observer', being only an artifact of our wiring, and the 'observer' is as much a part of the quantum reality as the 'object' being observed doesn't that mean no interpretation is required? ie: The 'bare' equations of quantum mechanics are indeed the whole thing and our need for interpretation is only a consequence of our inability to grasp their meaning directly? So if quantum mechanics turns out to be as close as we'll ever get to a fully accurate model of 'reality' do we: -Continue to use these 'interpretations' knowing they are a mental crutch that says more about us than physics? -Strive to bend our minds to proper understanding of quantum mechanics knowing that my forever be beyond us? -Unsatisfactorily accept we have reached the point where we have a tool that allows us practicable access to the 'quantum world' but we are incapable of understanding that tool or the 'world' it describes? (A fish in a fish-tank has been given the 'ability' to see a world outside the water but will never be able to appreciate what it is to be a land animal)
What you are describing or implying is that the universe might be a simulation. Simulated objects (i.e. you and I) cannot have a way of knowing or measuring the simulator. While the simulator knows ALL about us. In extension, also the GOD question. Like running linux in a Virtual machine in windows. The Linux OS has no way of knowing if it is directly running on hardware, or that it is being simulated within another operating system where the hardware is being simulated. Windows, however, knows EVERYTHING happening within that linux session. If we are indeed a simulation, the only way to actually prove it, is to find a way of tricking the simulator intodoing something that will give a telltale sign. Seeing the analogy here with modern astrophysics? Astrophysicists are trying nothing else than to do this, in a way. Trying to find testable ways to prove something. In short, we need a way of hacking the universe. Literally.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 nope i never said or even implied that the universe or you and we're a simulation, it was you that thought that because you failed to see my simple point and because of your bias and prejudice you don't see what I attempting to convey because you are indoctrinated on account of your subjective and closed minded thinking so go back and re-read my above statement without taking my intent out of context and maybe you can eventually drop your outdated beliefs and break on to the other side!
When you get to infinitely small levels of motion then you have to take into consideration that movement would be in infinite flux. This makes it not a collapse but an error of measurement in which you only see the location at the time of measurement. Which is why you would only see the infinite middle average which would produce what looks like an interference but is actually an error in the slowness of measuring something at such small levels when it is in infinite flux.
There are experiments that not just the act of measurement is influencing it but the conscious perception of the measurement. In the double split experiment when unobserved the photons act like waves, when observed they act like particles leading to a different pattern of movement on the wall behind it.
To me it just seems like they can’t find a solution because they don’t have all the variables. Maybe there is something that hasn’t been observed yet that is the reason for this confusing behavior. They have probably already thought of that but it just seems like there has to be more to it then what is currently understood.
What if the wave function is relative. As soon as two quantum systems interact, their wave probability function collapses, but from outside this system, the wave function of these systems is still intact. In such scenario, consiousness is key to collapsing the wave function, not because anything mystical, but because the consious system has interacted with the quantum system at the moment of measurement. The consious system would not be considered an outside system anymore
Redfern Pitcher it has nothing to do with consciousness. I thought i was onto something new here, but i wasn’t. What i call relative, physicist call entangle. In other words, the reason a conscious system collapses a quantum system is because it gets entangled with it, but this also happens with unconscious systems.
There was a Veritasium video on this subject. Though, consciousness wasn't what made the wave form collapse, it was that we became entangled with the experiment, and observed a collapse of the wave form because that's all we are capable of experiencing..
What if the subatomic universe existed within a dimension of its own which is governed entirely by the laws of quantum physics and when interaction to measure the process comes from a source located in the physical dimension then the effect of the physical laws upon the quantum laws causes the collapse? So in other words the intersection of external forces on internal forces.
Consciousness is the holodeck we are immersed within. This holodeck is why we are images/holograms within it. We are constantly being created as images because those quarks/atoms creating us are images. This holodeck is what people call God. This holodeck is our literal mother and father because IT is light and quarks/atoms spin as light.
@@MrMMAJER You will have to argue with the physics books I read, like THE QUANTUM WORLD and HANDS OF LIGHT. BUT I don't have to give you any titles because YOU give none. So I say NO to you.
What if there is only one field of consciousness pervading the entire universe and we cannot have two separate observers? Maybe we need to rethink those experiments.
It's a solid theory. No one can deny that. Even the dude in the video admits it's possible. But it's not just possible. It's far more succinct a theory than anything else. Solves the collapse, and the hard problem of consciousness in one fell swoop.
this is the exact teaching of the Upanishads that Bohr and Heisenberg were crazy about, even Schrodinger. I'm not saying it's true, it's just the same philosophy.
6:05 please, please consider doing a short bio on Wigner's personal life I've heard bizarre, hilarious stories about other famous scientists who got stuck somewhere alone with Wigner and almost immediately entered the twilight zone - he had a reputation for it and I want to know more
I find it rather interesting that this video makes no reference to delayed Quantum eraser and other Witch Way path experiments. These experiments show that the availability of information is key. The way to answer this question is to test erasure at every possible point up until a conscious detection. One additional point it said we should not confuse consciousness causing the collapse of the wave function, with consciousness affecting the result of that collapse
9:40 to 10:15 : I think this goes to show that Richard Feynman's statement is basically describing the Dunning-Kruger Effect as applied to Quantum Mechanics.
tbh all the explanations are mystical. I just cant get my head around a non mystical interpretation and havent heard one yet. Of course pretending that you know for sure the answer is a clear sign of unintelligence.
@@santiagotomasso5184Depends what you mean by mystical. We have determined several restrictions on a valid theory of quantum mechanics (EPR-Paradox, Bells Theorem). We have basically proven that no quantum theory can be deterministic, local and causal. Most historical physical theories fulfill all of these criteria and it's easy to stray into mysticism once you drop one of these constraints: * A non-local theory will have some state that is valid throughout the entire universe, the mystic reading would be something like a god, or a global consciousness. * A non-deterministic theory, introduces randomness and you can attribute that source of randomness to some mystic being. * A non-causal theory, can be reduced to some kind of "destiny" from a mystic perspective. Until we have results further constraining a viable quantum theory, it's basically up to you to decide which constraint you are willing to drop.
@@Ironypencil yeah, to me a non mystical explanation would have to be local, deterministic and causal. Hence why I think the universe is mystical. Or simulated. btw Im not a native english speaker so there are room for misinterpretation, have that in mind.
@hofmannwaves1525 mysticism isn't logical. There is no reason to believe the universe exists bc of our Conscience. It is likely something that just happens, probably rarely but possible in this universe bc of our laws of physics. Where it could be void and black in most others. Humans believe we are the center of creation and that's not true..
"If you think you understand Brahman, you do not understand, and have yet to be further instructed. FOR THE BRAHMAN is unknown to those that know it, and known to those that know it not." -Alan Watts (The Greatest)
@@AyushSharma-jz1jo it is similar to the hebrew 'Or Ein Sof', but much more hindu. the primordial light and root from which existence both spiritual and material originate
Okay I get it it's all infinity, existence, from with everything originated and everything will collapse. But how do you explain it to a rational person who only understands the nature through the language of mathematics? @garet claborn @mso2802
It essentially is except that human physicists are more likely to acknowledged the sentience of another human (that can articulate it), rather than an illiterate feline that can more easily be passed of as a solipsistic projection.
"Hey Erwin, I'm having a problem with an experiment. I put my friend in a box with some poison, a Geiger counter, and some radioactive material. I gave him a phone so he could call me and tell me whether he was dead, but instead he just kept calling to demand I let him out. what should I do?"
The wave function just never collapses. Brains do enter superpositions and conscious experiences also enters superposition. It doesn’t seem like it does, but it does
The problem with one person manifesting reality is that there are too many damn people and conflicting perceptions. Even if we could, we would have to fight against billions of other people doing the same thing. Also; it's not consciousness that defines reality, it's perception. Which can be as simple as two compounds 'realizing' that they are next to each other and reacting
@@tristanband4003 I used to think the same a year ago, but wow, life really has a way of showing you the impossible. I literally see myself in your comment, and now I'm here...
@@Artistwannabe Sorry, wasn't my intention, but I won't tell you every single "illogical" and seemingly impossible thing that's happened to me, so I'll sum it up saying "Life has a way of showing you". I meant every word I said 🤷🏻♂️...
@@Kycilak I agree. I'm quite certain I'm doing the quantum mind-control thingy wrong. I'd really like to uncollapse my wave function on this planet and collapse it somewhere else, but, sadly, it never works.
@@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio In trying to "uncollapse [your] wave function on this planet," are you using the right parameters, for example those appropriate for a really flat-earth? Surely that'll guarantee success.
@@ryanp849 just saying that x ray and gamma and positron radiation is aimed at targets, seem to hit the targets. We let them fly and they hit the target even if we don’t look at each one.
But there is concious interaction, you measured it through the imaging machine and when you look at the results you have now interacted with the radiation. Functionally it kind of is the same thing that the double slit experiment does.
Quantum mechanics are the study of sub atomic particles. Which builds matter. Assuming conciousness is not metaphysical it is in the realm of our reality and we are made of these particles.
Have you seen the Star Trek episode in which the crew is detained by an entity that ALL of the inhabitants of the "world" SHARE a Conciousness? Do you remember everybody stepping on one another and how confusing it was the more joined in and the echo affect? Cool episode. THAT'S why MANY of us have been contemplating ideas such as these for awhile. We had CREATIVE fantasy & sci-fi fiction writers over the years!
11:45 Me: So actually the easiest way to solve this problem is solipsism and world full of philosophical zombies, that's pretty deep, I really... Matt: No.
Indeed, that is the better question that needs to be considered first. Does consciousness even actually exist? What experiment can be performed to distinguish between a legit person and a philosophical zombie/NPC? There may be none, that's kind of in the definition of a philosophical zombie, is it not?
@Don Johnson I don't think that was the point of his TED Talk. The whole thing was full of sort of backhanded humor, and he even closes it out casting doubt on the idea of a simulation: "If our physics is inconsistent then we're likely in a simulation, if it is self consistent it is more likely being real, because it just takes more to do that. [...] Humans beings are not well equipped for determining reality; physics -- so this actually a selling point for physics -- is a fundamental test of our realness ..."
The probability is higher that all quantum physicists in the world lie to you and that we live in a newtonian univers than that you are the only consciousness in the univers. Because everybody knows that you are just a product of MY subconscious!
i am understanding from your point that from this perspective life is shaped by only ones concious just like in a video game where you have the primary character or hero and the others are just slaves of his perspective bcs the whole video game revolvse around it?
Do you know that we are in the middle of worldwide nazism? Watch these 2 videos: www.unite4truth.com/post/reiner-fuellmich-david-martin-patent-data-destroys-entire-covid-19-government-narrative-video?.
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
What if We live / experience a given set of collapsed wave functions. Matter tends to synchronize its collapsed state faster than light thanks to quantum entanglement. Just as much as we “see” a very small portion of the light spectrum thought “visible” light , we experience a slice of the space time continuum with our primate senses and brain.
Simulation theory, could this help explain these apparent paradoxes? Wavefunction collapse (or becoming "real" and "distinct") occurs only when it is observed, much like a computer game will not "draw" places in it's world that are not being interacted with (to save on memory). Only when the observer (or player in a game) needs to interact with a place or object, does it become real (e.g. wavefunction collapse).
That entails "reserving" all possibilities of the equation and only solving the amount needed for the observer to interact with, which is predictive in nature. So, is reality predictable? I think not.
There’s something about quantum mechanics that makes me think about programming and the underlying hacks, tweaks and quirks that are usually there when you’ve got a complex program running.
There's an eerie relationship between quantum mechanics and the programming concept of lazy evaluation. In heavy computation workloads (like say... running a universe) you often will avoid performing a heavy computation directly and instead pass around a blob of data that represents all the information needed to perform the computation in the future if it is ever necessary. This is useful because that blob of data can be mutated as its passed around, affecting the final result of the heavy computation, without having to perform that heavy computation at each step in the process. The whole concept of a probability wavefunction seems a lot like that blob of data you pass around in a lazy evaluation scheme. I would venture a guess that the wave function never "fully" collapses, but rather only in different degrees as necessary. At least that seems like the most computationally efficient way to do things.
Quantum mechanics, the speed limit (for propagating cause and causation - light is just a special case of something curbed by the limit), constant expansion... From the perspective of a simulation theory the universe certainly has a convenient design.
In the detection process, as the electron reaches the screen, its interaction with the particles of screen will influence its wave function. Is it possible that in this whole process of detection, the wave function doesn't collapse at some specific point but rather by superposition with the wave function of the system, its probability gets narrowed down to one location till the signal reaches to the observer. Can it be a continuous process in which probability gets redistributed at every point and since there are so many particles in our complex process of detection, we kind of observe the result of the changed wave function?
Neha Motwani maybe it does not collapse but only updates its internal probability when interacting with other systems until its probability is quasi 1 i.e. the particle has a fixed and not a „super“ position. edit: i think i just reformulated what you said. lol
The *_Delayed Choice, Quantum Eraser_* experiment strongly suggests that the experimenters conscious knowledge of the _double slit_ result effects the outcome of the experiment.
Also our knowledge about simulated neural networks (artificial intelligence) suggest that the brain scientists are a bit off track. Those neural networks are great for recognising incoming patterns, and you need a giant amount of them to interpret the input of a high resolution camera, like our eyes. But you know what you cannot do with those neural networks? Storing that image. Neural networks are pretty useless for storing data. Still the brain scientists assume that our memories must be stored in our brain configuration. Because where else could they be stored?
I feel like that was a very poor description of the double slit experiment. They failed to address two key aspects. The first being: A detector placed before the slits will collapse the wave function and negate the interference pattern. The second: A detector placed after the slits will also collapse the wave function revealing retro-causation in quantum systems. Not saying consciousness plays a role here, but I don’t feel they earned the dismissive tone they used in this presentation
Agreed. Especially since the delayed quantum eraser experiment shows that measurement of entangled particles retroactively change the state of their twins that have already landed on the screen but has not yet been observed by a human. If I remember correctly at least. I'm also wondering what happened to the interference pattern in that experiment when the results of the detectors on which the far-travelling photons landed would have been -for example- written on a self-destruct SSD in a box that could by no means be opened before someone verified that the interference pattern was still there. That way the information about which slit the photons went through would have been present at the far-side detectors but the conscious observer would have been excluded.
I remember reading a pop-sci article in a magazine (Omni, or possible Time) of someone's description of a tour of a double slit apparatus called "the infererometer". As it was described, the person conducting the experiment used a photon emitter to bombard the paths that the Cesium atoms would take going through the slits. He didn't even bother hooking up a detector, as it wasn't necessary. When the emitter was placed near the double slit, the interference pattern disappeared. When the emitter was near the origin hole, the interference pattern was present. As the emitter was moved between the two positions, the interference pattern gradually faded out, and the double slit pattern gradually faded in, until the emitter was along a point in the paths such that the distance between the two possible paths was about the wavelength of the photons. Again, no detector was necessary. Conscious knowledge of which path the individual atoms took was not necessary. Once it became possible for any observer in the universe to determine which path the atom took, the interference pattern was gone. I'm annoyed that the original language that revolves around "observation" has stuck with us through the ages. That implies a mind to interpret the raw data, the physical effects on our environment. It seems this original language is what keeps the mystical aspect of all things quantum alive in our pop culture. Our minds, our thoughts, may be affected by quantum events - see Anatham, or as I suspect the upcoming video on the Many Worlds Theorem - just like many people's moods are affected by the seasons. But to argue the converse is bonkers.
11:39 "Or maybe you are the only observer and you're inventing your friend and the rest of reality" You're too quick to say no. I wouldn't be so sure that's the right answer. Now I don't understand quantum mechanics or physics in general as much as you do, but despite how inconceivable it might sound, I'm open to the possibility that it might just be consciousness that generates reality, and not the other way around.
Well said. Alot of scientists keep stating things as if they are facts, when they are not. Some are more humble and say straight away that they honestly don't know and it's just what they "believe" instead.
The problem is that it's utterly unprovable and unfounded to the point that, unless something specifically points to it, it's not really that worth considering. It's the same as the age old "do you think there's an invisible, racist, undetectable leprechaun in your colon?" question. Most people wouldn't reply "well, maybe; I'd keep an open mind, because it's certainly possible", they'd think "I mean, I can't prove it, but I have no reason to believe it". It's a question we can't disprove, but also have no reason to believe, so I don't think it's all that worth floating as a viable option.
@@mexdal Everything is just what we believe, and we can't prove anything to 100% certainty. It's pointless to just keep saying "I don't know" about literally every single thing, so we as a society (and as scientists) have an unspoken agreement that "no" means "from everything we understand, probably not".
Not necessarily. There may be things beyond human comprehension. E.g. if there is really a multiverse but there’s no communication between them, how would one prove they exist?
I've always kinda explained quantum decoherence to myself as everything being a probability. What is the probability that I'd get a specific answer from the scientist measuring the particle? Then go up a step. What's the probability that I tell you a specific answer that I got from the scientist measuring the particle? The "universe" isn't concrete, but a goo of probabilities that could have happened. Atleast, that's my thought on it as a layman. I don't have an education in quantum mechanics, so I'll let the scientists figure this stuff out.
If one observer exists in a different spacetime location from another observer, then they can never be in the same time. Each observer/location has it's own unique time, so simultaneity can only exist relative to a single observer. It is impossible for anything to happen between two separate observers/locations simultaneously.
If consciousness is on the quantum level, does this mean it can never be destroyed? You have the information paradox where on the quantum level you cannot create nor destroy.
11:37 But different outcomes ARE observed! Why do you ignore recent papers? See Experimental test of local observer independence , Massimiliano Proietti et. al.
I tried reading the paper, but it's beyond me, and the article isn't of much help either. So in this experiment, two observers collapsed the same wavefunction in different ways?
If someone tells me how their day was, I will ask them how did it feel for their brain to be in a superposition of states that reflect their potential experiences of the day.
He's right. The more you believe you understand about reality and consciousness, the less you actually do. That's why I trust this guy -- he's so confident, he's got to be right.
Great episode! Could you discuss Quantum tunneling and impact on biological systems? Such as the how quantum tunneling can impact how something smells?
The wave function concept makes more sense when you consider the result is an Expression of the measurement system, rather than inherent to reality itself. It is an illusion of the axiomatic limits. The reality is that there is more going on, but Copenhagen trusts in the equations more than observable reality of the singular causal universe. It looks like a probability system, but there are deeper mechanics driving the mechanics observable, that have been written off as mere probabilities for the sake of formulaic convenience. A cymatic approach is needed in the meta, and at the Planck scale on which these cymatics take place, the system described by klee Irwin and crew at QGR. It's all sound models, and sound maths derived from experimental evidence, QGR coming directly off the back of hard measurement at cern, and a cymatic approach was successfully modeled on oils using sonic frequencies.
I agree. I think a big part of the problem comes from our insistence that quantum objects act like macro objects, yet when we try to picture or model them in macro terms, they make no sense. We have to think of an electron being either a particle or a wave because in the macro world it can't be both. But the electron knows just what it is and doesn't need our help or understanding.
The only part I was able to understand to lack of knowledge of the references was that there are deeper mechanics driving the experiments and outcomes. They’re giving too much credit to probability & ignorance. That since we don’t understand it so much we should discredits the endless possibilities of answers. Acting like you know can sometimes bridge you to the knowledge of actually knowing. I wish I understood the cymatic approach part.
11:47 "No, the only coherent explanation for the consistency of experimental results between different observers seems to be that the result of the experiment, and reality, exists independently of individual observers. Sure you could talk about a global consciousness collapsing a universal wave function, but that's not going to give you any powers of quantum wishing." This seems to simply be a metaphysical bias prefering a realist view of the universe: the most scientific answer would be to say "science cannot answer this question". A global consciousness collapsing a universal wave function is every bit as consistent, and it need not imply that you can shape reality just by wishing.
I find the constant adherence to naive realism to be exactly like you said, a metaphysical bias. It seems just as coherent to experimental results to go with an anti-realist approach. It was hardly outside the realm of possibility for respectable scientists like Wheeler and Bohm blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-our-questions-create-the-world/#:~:text=Wheeler%20was%20one%20of%20the,--and%20thus%20consciousness%20itself. Just feels weirdly philosophically biased to only discuss one and not the other. Like there's a fear that all of science could fall apart if reality isn't "real"
@@alexgaggio2957 Agree completely. A lot of people in science seem to think that any metaphysical view other than philosophical realism is "unscientific". However, this is entirely untrue and I think this bias limits science, it would be better for science to be open to any compatible metaphysics.
Everything you just said were statements about philosophy. None of that had anything to do with physics. There is no universal wave function and there can be no such thing. A wave function is the result of an infinite number of experiments. Nobody can run the same universe as an experiment an infinite number of times.
@@schmetterling4477 I completely agree: physics is about producing mathematical models that predict the behaviour of matter. Physics is not intended to answer questions about what the universe actually *is*, only how it behaves. The ultimate nature of the universe is a question of philosophy. The statement I quoted is PBS space time engaging in philosophy (badly IMO), not physics.
@@tomshackell Forget about mathematics for a moment. Mathematics in physics is just a language to describe functional dependencies. Fundamentally physics is the reduction of complex physical phenomena to simple physical phenomena. At no stage of physics do we ever require philosophy. We are simply reducing e.g. a long distance (like the circumference of Earth) to the multiples of a short distance (our length normal). The length normal is not some philosophical entity but it is a physical phenomenon itself. It could be a piece of matter (like the meter prototype in Paris) or the wavelength of a certain spectral line. We can then form more complex phenomena from two or more such physical quantities. Velocity, for instance, is the reduction of motion to the measurement of a distance between two events divided by the time difference between the same two events. We can then bootstrap from velocity to acceleration to force (by introducing an inertial mass normal like the kilogram prototype), However, no matter how complex we make these reductions, we NEVER leave the physical level. Metaphysics is neither required nor useful. Metrology, however, is. Can we answer "What is X?" questions? Only in the sense mentioned. We can give names to fundamental phenomena and then explain how emergent phenomena can be derived from the fundamental ones. Today we would call the three principle ingredients "spacetime", "quantum fields" and "gravity". Quantum fields on spacetime form matter and radiation. Gravitation on spacetime forms the effects of general relativity. Ultimately we would like to reduce all of physics to a single fundamental ingredient. We are not there, yet, of course.
"If I focus really hard, do my powers of quantum mechanics allow me to manifest reality - No. " Well you see, something you stated here is really matching something many call "The law of attraction". It's not scientific at all, sure. But many things are far beyond our grasp yet, and we can't simply dismiss everything because we don't understand it or see the big picture. The "law of attraction" says that if you really wish for something hard enough, with your whole being, it's going to manifest itself. In time, it's not instant though. Can it be simple coincidence? Maybe. Or is it because you strive toward that goal and push yourself in that direction, or do you really change the circumstances and chances around you in your favor? Really not possible to say, but so are some fundamental things in science, we are yet not able to explain or even grasp at many levels. Also there are some other things, like have you ever had this experience: You don't see or hear about something for years at a time, maybe even decades. Then for some reason you remember it, and all of a sudden, you see a movie with that actor for example, or hear a song on a radio you have not heard in years. Or meet a person on a street, out of seemingly nowhere? It sure did happen to a few people I know, me included. Did it subconsciously come to my mind, is my mind entangled with the surroundings, or even crazier did my mind manifest this in my surrounding? Who the heck knows. Just wanted to point this out. We don't even know what "Consciousness" is. So you can't really state with certainty what is and what is not.
Great point made....we don't even know for sure what consciousness is. There are certain things in life that make you believe there is a thing called "Law of attraction" for real. The idea of mind influencing reality goes way beyond the double slit experiment.
The first can be an illusion that people likes to take as if they actually produced it ''at will''. It has a LOT to do with the Ego: ''look, I created this, I feel superior now''. It has religious roots and the feeling of being ''important''. The second can be that those things happens all the time but your mind is focused on many other events, and suddenly a particular event puts your mind's attention to it, and then, you start to ''see it everywhere'', but it was always there.
@@VeronicaGorositoMusic I know it's easier to give any sort of explanation for it, but miracles do happen. Life does change when you truly get a hold on Law Of Attraction. Only those who have "intentionally" experienced it are able to understand it. LOA has a lot to do with your own mind and nothing to do with any religion.
@@sagarsrivastava888 I'm gonna have to disagree here. Just because we're don't know what consciousness is, doesn't mean we can just make all kinds of wild conclusions about it. For example, i could create my own "law", let's say "Law of Repulsion", which states that the opposite of what someone would want will happen to them. I could then get some anecdotes (cherry pick 'em while you're at it) to "prove" that it might be real. That "law" would be just as likely as LOA under this circumstance. In fact, I could then theoretically make an infinite amount of "laws" using this exact process, which makes the LOA significantly less likely. Also, miracles do "happen", but those can be explained with sheer luck (since there's 7B people on the planet) or simple common sense. Also, the people who genuinely believe in LOA because "it worked for them" are believing it for the wrong reasons, since it ignores the fact that there could have been many thousands of others who tried and failed. The plural of anecdote isn't data. That aside, humans are notoriously weak when it comes to biases. Those people are only remembering when the LOA worked, merely forgetting the many times it didn't. It's also possible that LOA isn't as mystical as it may seem. If people believe that wanting something will eventually get them that, they may feel more motivated to get that thing. Since they put more effort and work into obtaining that thing, It just increases the odds of actually obtaining said thing, which is basic logic that every functional human should understand anyways. As for the comparison between religion and LOA, religion is something that is powered by faith, either faith in some form of deities, power, or whatever else. LOA specifically requires faith in it in order for it to actually work, so you could say that LOA is similar to religion in that regard. You could even say that it has its roots in religion, though whether that is true needs more than a simple comparison made by a TH-cam comment.
@@benjaminhouse7252 Consciousness isn't the "be all end all" so that everything is just a manifestation of our imagination, Consciousness is simply the medium we use to interpret patterns and movement within Space/Time and how we interact within it. We observe that there exists natural laws and Objective Truths within math, physics, biology and so on yet our way of interpreting these Truths are still tied to our biases as individuals. Completely divorcing Consciousness from observing Physics or Quantum is equally as ignorant as thinking Consciousness is the way to understand the universe (which opens a Pandora box of subjective interpretation / Chaos). Consciousness is simply the tool we use to observe and interpret what we see. The question becomes instead, what are our biases that affects our Consciousness? Is there a fundamental Objective Truth when it comes to the nature of the universe and if so should we all not be able to recognize these Objective Truths pertaining to the universe? If the answer is yes, then this Objectivity should run through from the smallest observable state to the medium to the Omega, if we can't find a coherent theory for it, perhaps our individual Consciousness is incorrect (due to biases) in how it observes the data at hand, or perhaps we have not gathered enough data.
Well since I learned that particles can travel back in time I guess the conscious observing process is getting corrected by the two states of the observer in time interacting with the particles of the experiment creating the perfect illusion of reality as it exists to us (including people who think they can manipulate this system by pure thought). Well done masters of the matrix, well done...and as I begun to type this as a joke, I come to think of this making kinda sense...
Stuart Hameroff - one of creators of Orch OR theory of consciousness - has come to the same idea. And me too btw. th-cam.com/video/ztGNznlowic/w-d-xo.html
Techions are the only particles that can travel back in time right? And these are hyphotetical. (Just had high school physics so my knowledge on the subject is extremly limited)
Whoever told you that particles can travel back in time should have put a lot of asterisks after that statement. There are "time independent" aspects of quantum mechanics -- i.e. you can do the math backwards and it still works And a proton's electromagnetic field has the exact same strength as an antiproton, just in reverse. So if you recorded two protons pushing away from each other, and the rewound the tapes it would look just like two antiprotons....pulling towards each other which would never happen. A proton can never pull towards another proton. Tachyons are hypothetical particles that always move faster than light, and thus backwards in time. PBS Spacetime did a video on the single electron universe, where one electron was moving forwards and backwards and every electron was actually just that single electron. It's a fun thought experiment, but we have no reason to believe that it is true. Of course then there's Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, and that just freaks me out. It makes no sense. Quantum mechanics is weird, and the collapsing wave function is just one interpretation. The math works, but that doesn't mean our interpretation is correct. In any case, as far as I know no one has ever seen a particle move backwards in time.
first question: maybe consciousness has nothing to do with thinking or memory; maybe consciousness is something the brain uses like sight. the things you see have no idea of your thoughts; maybe consciousness works the same way. Why does it seem like everyone treats consciousness as if it is a soul or an extension of someones personality that contains all that person's memories? Don't get me wrong it may work that way, I just can't understand why that is the only explanation I hear when I clearly gave an alternative explanation that is just as unfalsifiable.
Well people treat it differently because consciousness seems to be different from every other thing. Even in your hypothetical, you cannot help but treat the brain as having its own subjectivity that has a “need” for consciousness when as you said, inanimate objects don’t do this.
@@SOLOcan You say people seem to treat the consciousness differently; I agree. second part the brain evolved to have the need to see just like it may have evolved to have a need to use Consciousness to help it better survive. as far as inanimate objects go I don't have a clue how consciousness affects them.
@@thotslayer9914: It's a multilayered reference. The quote itself comes from an episode of The Venture Bros., and it references en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Residents
My biggest question about all of this is what are the implications for the history of the universe before consciousness existed? How could be have come into existence if everything before was all probabilistic? Does the probability of outcome vary between objects?
If consciousness creates the perceived reality, then there never was a time before consciousness. The development of the universe, as we know it, may not have happened in the course of millions and billions of years, but may have happened instantanious and the "clock" of the universe may have begun with the first conscious observer. When we dream, we are placed in a situation by our consciousness and there may be a complete and detailed backstory to explain why we are there and what we are doing, even though we never experienced anything leading up to the situation we currently find ourselves in the dream. The way we perceive the early stages of the universe could be similar.
Ed Me The potential knowledge of what happens existing in the universe is what affects the outcome, not our consciousness... By observing we gather information (or rather “potential information) of what happens, and that is what affects the outcome. Consciousness is irrelevant.
@@Ppstate32 An interesting idea that consciousness does not instigate or have anything to do with the observing. Perhaps in one of the other universes or realities within the multiverse that concept is valid, yet in our universe consciousness does initiate and have very much to do with the observing and "collapsing" of the wave function, thereby taking the information out of a state of quantum flux and solidifying it into a definitive event.
@@Ppstate32 Well, under the theories about the other universes in the multiverse is that they operate on slightly different laws of physics. As such, the idea they would also operate without consciousness could be valid. Now back to our universe. The whole premise behind the schrodingers cat experiment, and the resulting wave function collapse, is that observation affects the outcome. And consciousness initiates that observation, thus taking the event out of the quantum flux part of the wave function and into a definitive state. This concept of initiating is important in another area-computer based artificial intelligence. We, the human race, do not have AI, but instead very good mimicking. And more than likely, we will not have it until much further understanding of consciousness. Try this: what is consciousness? We are not sure, yet know of its effects. One of which is collapsing the wave function. I hope that helps, especially considering we are exploring an area of "spooky action at a distance" :)
Matt went in on this one! I’ve never seen this spicy side of Matt before! PBS space time got sick of some BS and. Are in to educate ❤️ I will say, that some of those books he called out were my introduction to the ideas of quantum physics which I would never have heard otherwise. We NEED videos like this to help bridge that gap from the Woo to the real information ❤️ thanks PBS Spacetime!
Maybe you didn't realize that Matt was criticizing (mocking) those books, calling them mysticism. He subsequently describing most of the pioneers of quantum mechanics "going back" and moving away from mysticism.
@@ITSME-nd4xy So what is mysticism? I looked for the definitions. A hotch potch of words such as religious, spiritual, belief, magic. No one seems to really agree on what it is. It's really just a word these days, used to denigrate, or mock, perhaps, ideas that physicists can't explain, don't understand, or don't want to understand.
I love that solipsism was brought up. All these new "quantum mystics" telling people to "manifest" their futures, etc. I can only imagine a "manifesting" battle between all the "manifesters" trying to manifest items/events that may, or may not conflict with each other's individual manifestations... It's easy when you're the only ACTUAL person in the universe tho...
I have wondered this for years - is the brain a Quantum Antenna? Thanks for talking about it! A question: Can you describe how the double slit experiment has progressed over the years? Surely the first experiment didn’t have the capability to isolate individual electrons? Can we do that now?
Ask Tesla, or Ramanujan... or Einstein or Newton. They all claim to have tapped into a universal 'database' while 'meditating'. Something is up. Everything will all slam back down to a single point before normal humans figure it out... just kidding. Oh and yes we have devices that can produce single electron events and we have single photon 'emitters' now as well. Enter either into a google images search and photos will be found, click those to see articles. I love searching via Google Images because it produces pages of photos instead of pages of links and text descriptions that fill the page with a shorter list you then have to search through again. Google Images is great! You see what your search found and then recognize your target faster than regular google in many cases. Click click.
@@spaceowl5957 - oooooo- that is something I’ve never even considered!! What if ‘consciousness’ is some sort of physical ‘ether’ - everywhere, but only a brain is constructed in the right way to tap into it… wow.
I fail to see the "problem" with your example of the VN-W interpretation. The electron's wave function collapsed as soon as your friend observed the location of the electron. You were not an observer of the electron at any point of the process, as you are "observing" not the electron, but your friend. So your friend collapsed the wave function; You merely collapsed your friend.
Here's my take on the double slit experiment... The EM field is full of no velocity photons, a Photon moving at C is simply an aperture in space jumping along the SR monodimensional particle space (i.e. does not disturb the EM field an any practical and observable way because no mass is moving only the "hole" in space is moving). If the photon/particle aperture does interact with the EM field at the slot, you have a range of reactions that can occur depending on where the contact point is in relation to the center of the EM field particle(s). If it hits the EM field particle dead square on (zero degree offset from the center) the EM field particle will be accelerated directly away from the incoming photon/particle. If it hits the EM particles exactly in the center of two EM particles the resulting EM field movement will be two particles traveling at half the speed at an angle of 45 degrees offset from the incoming particle. This is all that is required for the full waveform interference result. There is no conscious observation required for this reaction :-)
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm often both simultaneously in the pub, and in the taxi home until my wife collapses my wave function. She's the only observer that can do this
And your dinner is both simultaneously on the table and in your dog's stomach.
🤣
And you are simultaneously sleeping on both the bed and the couch.
Brilliant
You get your dinner but not !
This is the only youtube channel where I get to see the entire video, feel smart while doing so, and by the end of it realizing that I need to have a masters degree on physics to even be able to understand a single word of it. At least I like the backgrounds with them shiny stars.
so relatable
so shiny
Don't need a masters degree. Just a decade of studying :p
@@eideticex That's basically a masters
@@mileslow4908 then you see how many of the things they said are outdated or flat out wrong
But my consciousness *can* manifest physical changes in the real world. I can move a pencil with my mind. The way I do this is: my brain sends a bunch of complex signals though my spine, the muscles of my arm and hand move, and they pick and move the pencil.
I know you are kidding and all, but it's actually somewhat true as psychotherapy changes the brain shape. Which is really weird, psychotherapy is just words, ideas, having an impact on something physical, aka your brain.
Satisfying answer but imagine if your brain can send signals through your eyes and those signals directly moves the pencil
@@machoman4150 yes, it’s called sight.
Those signals moving to the pencil are you ability to see it by using light
@@aceclover758 no your eyes don't send signals to the object for you to see it..
@@spookyactionatadistance2422 Light lets you see
Light sends those signals to your eyes, then brain
Every time I watch this channel I come away with a head swim. I took a graduate course or two in quantum physics and electronics three decades ago. After watching a few of these videos, I, for the first time, can reflect positively on the teaching pedagogy that made everything mathematical. Basically, the message from instructor to student was "An electron/photon/[fill in the blank] does this or that. Let's derive an equation and work pages of math to establish what that means."
At the time of taking the classes, I felt absolutely comfortable with saying the wavefunction is just a mathematical expression of the probability of outcomes that cannot possibly be known until observed. To me, the particle subject to quantum mechanics was not simultaneously in two (or more) states, but that its actual state just hadn't been observed yet. That meant to me that the superposition of states was just an accounting of the probabilities of what the actual state was. The actual state singularly existed but wasn't known to the observer YET.
Crikey! Matt O'Dowd has made a complete hash of my confidence in the above interpretation of the math, obviously confirming his quote from Feynman that those that think they know how quantum mechanics works, don't!
The silver lining I see in all my confusion is that the idea of "entanglement" is finally starting to bring wavefunctions into focus as much more than uncertainty expressed in abstract math. Instead, wavefunctions appear to be some kind of metaphysical complexity that explodes the mind and hides something truly amazing about the universe.
Matt, keep up the good work while I try to keep up the comprehension as fast as the dialog flies by...
What you are missing is that quanta are not particles. They are energy values. An energy value does, indeed, not exist until it is being measured. And after it is being measured it doesn't exist, either, because energy can only be spent once. Anybody who ever told you anything about particles simple didn't understand quantum mechanics. Other than that your first paragraph was correct. The wave function doesn't describe a system. It describes a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. am infinite number of repetitions of the system. It allows you to calculate statistical outcomes and doesn't have anything to say about an individual outcome. It simply tells us what we don't know.
Perhaps. I now realize from watching the PBS Spacetime videos that "my" interpretation described in the second paragraph more closely resembles the EPR interpretation. What I did not know was the history of quantum mechanical interpretations. This history has resolved the EPR paradox in favor of the alternative provided by Bell's theorem. That "my" interpretation is testable and has long since been found to be wrong was news to me!
So why was I in the dark until now? Because I didn't have a need to know. I'm an electrical engineer who did my dissertation research in the area of optical processes in semiconductor materials for a specific application. Later, in my professional career I continued to teach and do research in the area of semiconductor devices. We use, by an large, semiclassical physics to achieve awesome practical results. I once joked that learning about Bloch functions, the Kronig-Penney model, and reciprocal space to understand semiconductor bandgaps was one piece of physics too many for my purposes. However, the fact that I still recall that epiphany is a testament that it did me good.
The real point I was making was about the pedagogy of teaching quantum mechanics (and thus quantum electronics). Whenever a student asked "why" the answer was "just do the math." That there remains a lack of consensus on cosmology at least in part because of a lack of consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics brings home the need to spend more time on the history of the interpretations. History is often the last thing a professor spends time on in a "hard" STEM course. There is just "too much material to cover."
Why is my curiosity driving me to revisit a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics? Simple, quantum computing. I have a quasi-professional need to keep track of quantum computing.
Three or four years ago I watched a Google TechTalk on TH-cam that was intended to be a quick continuing education course on the theoretical justification for quantum computing. I had grown tired of watching TH-cams by industry leaders trying to explain it to the masses. I knew I needed more formalism. Here is the video I watched: th-cam.com/video/I56UugZ_8DI/w-d-xo.html. At the 9:42 mark you can hear the familiar pedagogy stated explicitly.
If I recall correctly, some place else in this video series the lecturer says how he resolves confusion when it becomes hard to believe that quantum mechanics is real. "You just have to put your head down and do the math."
@@mikemazzola6595 Yes, that was a huge pile of bullshit. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Quantum mechanics can tell us that if a system is in an eigenstate of an observable, then we're guaranteed to observe the corresponding eigenvalue with certainty. For example, if a photon has a polarization angle that exactly matches a plane polarizer, then the photon is guaranteed to survive the polarizer and register with a detector. If the polarization if the photon is pi/2 out of phase with the polarizer, then it's guaranteed not to survive the polarizer, and a detector won't register the photon with certainty.
If a system is in a more general state, then quantum mechanics can't tell us what happens in individual cases. It can only give us a probability of different possible outcomes. If we create lots of photons that all have the same polarization, and we pass them through a polarizer, then quantum mechanics tells us the proportion (or probability) that the photons will survive the polarizer and register with a detector. In this case, quantum mechanics can't tell us with certainty what happens to an individual photon. This is because the general state isn't an eigenstate of the observable.
Physicist Ed May says that quote attributed to Feynman, about how if you say you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics, needs to be done away with because it's not true. He says some scientists do understand
I didn't come to PBS Space Time to have my fears of Eyebal-Brain Macintosh guy manifested onscreen.
Youve seen that before too?
That only happened in your universe.
Im scared
The Eye-Mac.
Lol 😂🤣
Maybe wave function is just the universe way of saving RAM.
Underrated comment 😂
Only rendering what the viewer is observing is the best way to save processing power and it seems everything in the universe flows the most efficient way ever evolving
If a bear shits in the woods and nobody is around to see it does it really ever happen
@@Justin_Bic Well according to the theory he would be in a superposition of going in the woods and not going in the woods
@@Justin_Bic if the bear is part of the simulation then yeah..
and no 😀
Conjuring 4: The wave function made me do it
Maxwell's demon made me do it
haha a conjuring movie i'd actually want to see
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
I think a more precise question would be: "Are consciousness and quantum mechanics interconnected?" - we get hung up on this cause and effect conversation when really the more fundamental question is to ask how are these two aspects of our reality connected to each other. What I see here in this video is a beautiful presentation of one of the mysteries we are confronted with as we dive deeper into the properties of our universe. However, the second half of the video is the same old scientific positivist dogma of trying to reason your way out of consciousness being involved. If we are going to land the next big jump in science, I feel we need more imagination than this.
Hardly, the best "theory" for quantum consciousness was the penrose microtubules bullshit which was experimentally proven to be incompatible with decoherence time. Science doesn't just need imagination, you need mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification, right now we have none of that for quantum consciousness.
@@Microplastics2 Nobody is arguing against mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification. The argument is merely for increase in imagination, creativity, and openness to possibilities that are as of now taboo and dogmatically opposed in people who are stuck in a modern-materialistic worldview. I personally think it's just a matter of time until the paradigm shifts to more openness
My gut tells me that your appeal to "more imagination" is merely an excuse to avoid an uncomfortable model of reality. If anything, it's the opposite of being open-minded.
@@alanabdollahzadeh What is uncomfortable about it to you?
@@alanabdollahzadeh "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." "Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions." "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." who said these things? Albert Einstein
Gives a new meaning to the term “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
Yes.
That sounds extraordinarily bizarre if you and all your friends are used to D&D. It is pretty much gibberish.
Ian Corral troll much?
Ian Corral Ian Corral based on your replies, i can certainly see you would have no clue that my statement was an attempt at humor. Therefore, I can agree you would fully understand the Copenhagen Observation.
Ian Corral exactly
I love this channel for continuing to satiate my intellectual appetite and remind me that no matter how much I try to learn, there are always incredibly complex systems that will forever elude my understanding
This stuff is a lot easier if you learn the math for it. Of course, depending on your mathematical background so far that might be easier said than done.
@@joshuahillerup4290 as someone with 3 years of calculus (including linear algebra and differential equations) classes under his belt, i can tell you that conceptually there is a lot of disconnect between what the mathematics ahows and the implications for our fundamental understanding of reality.
@@DrewishAF did those math classes cover things like Hilbert spaces and Fourier transforms?
It also seems like this stuff is either a distraction from the real truth or they took important information out to keep us clueless.
In the words of Homer J. Simpson: neeeeeerd
0:08 It would have been hilarious if he put the outro after that 😄
A PBS Space Time episode can only end to the word "spacetime". Maybe it's a physical law symmetrical to the whole universe.
Put the intro after wouldn't have been bad either.
How come you commwnt every video i wacth????
o lord thy influence know
@@EchoEcho0001 how come you watch every video i watch?
How could two consciousnesses observe exactly simultaneously? One always would collapse the wave function first, even by a small fraction of time, and the second observer would see the result of that collapse.
I thought the same thing
Leibniz's solution to this as described in his _Monadology_ was to assume that neither of them actually caused anything outside of themselves at all, and that it was all planned in advance by a monad which subsumed both, much like a movie, in what he called "pre-established harmony"; at the top level he placed the "monas monadum", the "monad of monads", which established the entirety of this harmony, and which he identified with a rational conception of an impersonal absolute.
It would depend on your point in space you view it from , you are seeing the exact same thing at the same time just from different points in space like if you were viewing a parade from atop a high building or on the ground from 1 point you see it in its entirety and from the other point in space you see it passing in frames
There are not two consciousnesses. There is only one. Humans are not conscious. Only consciousness is conscious.
@@outisnemo8443 Leibniz monadology and preestablished harmony is saying everything In the universe is fixed before and also implies that free will is an illusion ,which is not true for scientists so far and it may be true .
I don't know
“Magic is simply a science not understood yet”.
More like, that which is possible but currently believed to be impossible is simply currently misclassified as magic. But that doesn't mean there are not still plenty of things that are actually impossible.
@@medexamtoolscom But anything with a probability to happen WILL hapen given enough time, right?
@@KlavierMenn It might depend on your interpretation of probability.
I realized this just a couple days ago because I have a scientific background but I'm learning about and interested in working with spirituality. It's all so fascinating
@Michael Bravo Just because I may view it differently than you doesn't mean it's wrong
When it comes to science, mysticism or philosophy, I found and experienced that the moment one accepts being an instrument that this invisible world, letting it freely come and go brings a wonderful experience when it happens.
The idea of getting power over this larger than us reality is as primitive as feeling slaved by it.
This reminds me of that time when my father laughed at me saying: how can you be so dumb thinking that water goes upward? Water always run downward.
The funniest thing about it is that every week he was getting water from a natural spring.
That is the kind of experience that helps a kid to get analyze before judging and keep an opened mind in all aspects of life.
Beautifully said! Thank you
JimmyDShea Expérience is a great reward for having made patience the foundation of a lifetime.
Your comment gives it a value that I deeply appreciate and cherish.
Thanks ❣️
Yes, but gravity pulls the water down
Youre closed minded and biased by your childhood. Mahifestation exists, i dont say its the easiest thing.
Sheeting action is a neat trick, it's caught me up more than once in my trade. Water climbs completely upward if sandwiched between two smooth objects.
You're probably going to get to this next time, but it seems like it was very quickly glossed over why Wigner's friend's brain entering a quantum superposition is so problematic. Surely each superposed state of his brain would only be aware of itself, not all the other superposed states, and likewise only be aware of the superposed state of the experimental result that it observed, not all the other superposed states of the experiment result hat resulted in all the friend's other superposed brain states; so when Wigner talks to his friend and so observes his brain state, Wigner only communicates with whichever state his friend's brain "collapses" to, which was unaware of there being any other states superposed with it, just like it's only aware of the one state of the experiment result.
Of course, then Wigner's brain itself has actually just entered a superposition of different states wherein his friend's brain collapsed to different states upon observation, and when you ask Wigner what his friend reported, you'll only interact with whichever of the superposed states you observe Wigner's brain to collapse to... when, in fact, your brain just enters a superposition as well, and so on and so on as the information about the experiment propagates throughout the universe, splitting the entire thing into a superposition of universes where the experiment turned out in the different possible ways.
Ah a fellow intellectual
In which case the most natural solution is the multiverse.
@@Harry351ify *multiple simulation
What you described is exactly what Many Worlds interpretation says
This is what has turned me against QM from the first time I heard if it. If you model only the experiment in QM, you get different results than if you model both the experiment and the measurement device in QM. You have to stop your QMing at some point, or there is no result, but no link in the von Neumann chain makes any more or less sense than any other. QM is, then, contradictory; you can't observe a result unless you are not governed by QM, therefore QM must not be what governs everything.
I know how impressive the alpha measurement prediction is, and the theory's other various successes. But there are other predictions that are horribly wrong. Why can't anyone seem to acknowledge that QM is, at best, incomplete, and at worst, contradictory? Every time I hear about the conflict with GR, the speaker assumes that GR is the problem. GR has produced predictions just as stunning, and continues to be proven over and over as we make more and better observations. It stands on a perfectly logical set of assumptions. The one and only thing it ever failed is the Bell inequality. But no, we must figure out how Einstein was wrong, because there is no QM representation of gravity.
QM *must* be incomplete. There is no other possible way to see the measurement problem. The theory of everything will have to dramatically change the concepts of QM, as step one, before it can be taken seriously.
As someone who is spiritual but still relatively grounded in reality, I'm glad you made this video. I tend to eye roll whenever people in spiritual communities try to use scientific terms they know nothing about in order to sound smart while they push views such as victim blaming, pseudoscience, and ignoring injustices in order to make money or feel better about themselves.
Agreed
I don't really think you're grounded in reality I think that you're not religious at all because you want to talk about the Injustice in it. I'm pretty sure you think America is a horrible racist country that needs to be better and stole land and this and that but you stay in this horrible ass country only reason I'm commenting on you it's because your comment had nothing at all to do with this video you used it for your own virtue signaling
Yes :D
Science can explain spiritualism sometimes..
Cheers, agreed 👌🏼
Spiritual but grounded in reality is such a smug and stupid thing to say
11:45 I'm convinced Matt is just a manifestation of my subconscious trying to shield my conscious mind from the solipsistic realization that the universe is a figment of my imagination populated with philosophical zombies. Or he's an agent and I'm in the matrix.
Lool
This is just great , I was already freaked out enough thinking about that
Spencer, since you are just a manifestation of my subconscious - I didn't know I was that eloquent.
He had a strong argument against that idea.
It went something like this, "No"
@@PlzPr3sspl4y at this point the best answer is that nobody's real - the fact of existence of my own experience is not falsifiable therefore impossible to prove therefore not objectively true.
i'm invisible! But only when no one, or anything, watch me.
Sounds like a Pilot wave theorist to me.
Are you a cat? I cannot see yet.
Or perhaps I can. We just can't. Ohhh. What a mystery.
Love. Love. love. Love!
Hmmmm.... I wasn't aware of your existence until a moment ago... you had no idea I existed... so by reading your statement did we collapse the wave function that now puts us in the same space-time...?? Hmmmmmmmmm
I too, am a stalkers
No, reality is consciousness, so youre always the only visible one, the rest, yes they kinda dont exist when you are not aware of them.
Something I say a lot in my quantum videos: "Quantum mechanics is _not_ magic!" Thanks for making this video.
Im ur big fan
Love your vids man!
Agree this video is on point.
The Science Asylum you’re an absolute crazy, you know that right? :-)
However, the quantum world may allow us tech "indistinguishable from magic"
Benjy Strauss all jokes aside, I think this is an important point. Scientifically-minded people like to scoff and assign words like magic or mysticism to certain theories, but never even bother to define what “magic” is. Is “spooky action at a distance” magical? Einstein thought it was, and he used that phrase to insult the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. But in the end he was was wrong.
I like how precise and non-mocking towards consciousness interpretations you stay during the entire vid. Respect for that!
he was literally mocking the idea as mysticism and quackery the entire time
@@taylorfloyd4785 The weird thing was that there was nothing concrete to debunk it though. Only subjective change of views. He did not do a good job of mocking it.
@@treali the weirder thing is that it’s an un-falsifiable theory like millions of other theories. Just cause you can’t prove it wrong doesn’t mean it’s real
@@MobBjj1 I just noticed that my comment got removed which sucks because I won't type it all out again.
tldr: I don't believe in quantum wizards, but I will never accept someone using "this person had a subjective belief X and changed his subjective beliefs to Y, therefore it's irrefutable evidence that X is false". You understand that it's not scientific right? If that passed as evidence, then quantum physics would never have come into existence because Einstein himself did not believe in quantum physics and gods throwing dices.
If something is outrageous and doesn't make sense, then simply ignore it. If you take up the challenge to disprove something, then you better do a fine job or else you will just make people more skeptic of science. Science is exact and objective. It is not based on peoples subjective beliefs.
I can imagine that you're not in any scientific field and are more inclined towards the humanities. You would understand what I meant otherwise.
@@MobBjj1 Agreed. If it's just one guess amongst millions of possibilities, you can't take it seriously
7:25 "how was it like, for your brain to be in superposition of states?"
Well, the question assumes that such superposition can even be perceived. The whole point of superposition is that it's a linear combination of independent states. If it were possible to know that you're in superposition, then upon being observed, your wave function would not collapse into one of the independent states. It would collapse into some different state that contains knowledge of the original superposition. Which is a logical contradiction.
What? No...
This is an underrated comment. Makes me wonder as well because our subconscious observes all independent states and gives the consciousness a summary, a consensus. One independent state that is the most accurate according to the observer. If we didn’t have our subconscious to chose which is correct/most accurate, I wonder how that could affect our perception of said slit experiment.
Why do you assume the states are independent? They are only if decoherence has taken place. If you were to be in a coherence superposition then the different collapsed states will interfere which each other and some how that would lead to an unique experience.
All that missing from the described experiment is to require the observers to be isolated to prevent decoherence
The key problem is that "wavefunction" is something you use for describing other things. You can't even cogently talk about writing a wavefunction for yourself, so the very question is ill-conceived.
You would not describe yourself as being in superposition - the point is that others would. There's no contradiction there.
"... Are you inventing your friend?"
I take that personally.
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
@@cosmosaic8117 so let me get this straight , if I put a photesensible cell infront of the computer which lights if the function collapses in a certain way and then you see the cell move , his "concious" collapsed it ? Lol
“Those that don’t understand quantum theory seem to be the most sure of it”
I mean you just described the Dunning-Kruger effect.
""Those that don't understand..."" But no one understand.
That mean everyone is most sure of it.
And everyone is wrong.
I think even some types of science communicators don't help on the subject: they use analogies to explain quantum phenomenon, which only gets you so far ; and if the writer/host is conscious of this limitation but fails to communicate it to the viewers, then they might be duped into thinking they learned more than they actually did.
Obviously, a channel like PBS Space Time isn't guilty of this, but it might merely be a consequence of the intended audience ; if I was explaining quantum physics to pre-teens I would probably also take some shortcuts - but I'd be very careful to tell the audience.
The dunning Kruger affect kind of goes the opposite in some ways like climate change though in the way you’re describing it. Skepticism is always okay but your skepticism should be proportionate to the evidence you have available to you that proves it. So never 100% but never 0%
If the electron is being driven by a pilot wave this will allow for the electron to pass through one slit while the electrons pilot wave passes through both slits creating the interference pattern
@Harold Slick That's actually a good point, and I think it says a lot when his most well-known legacy is the Feynman diagrams, which are great for simplifying a complex problem, but aren't hiding anything away or making inappropriate analogies!
I like how Quantum Mechanics boils down to "If a tree falls in the woods..." cause life is funny that way, lol.
I just thought the same thing, lol
"Claro," I write my thoughts down before I read other people's input, I find it entertaining that we both used similar analogies! How Bizarre! And amusing!
I like how questions such as these all boil down to the differences people's in interpretations of words.
For example, if you define sound as, "Something that my brain perceives as sound," or alternatively, "Vibrations through the air or other materials, that can be heard by a person's ears."
If you define the later option, you simply need to prove that the "vibrations" happened, then you would be correct in saying that the tree did make a sound.
If instead you use the former option, then your simply using a different interpretation of the word 'sound,' which requires the "hearing" part of it.
You could split this definition into two versions, "did you hear it" and "did someone hear it."
Well yes, and no...
Nah the answer is that vibration was made but nothing present to create the sound. Since ears do that
In Buddhism, there is a concept of "non-self", that basically states in an ultimate sense, there is no self. The dividing line between each individual part of the universe is not absolute in any meaningful way. Philosopher Alan Watts stated this well when he said that "What you do, is what the whole universe is doing at this place you call "here" and "now". You are no more separate from the universe than a wave is separate from the whole ocean". So, even if quantum physics was subject to consciousness, one could argue that consciousness itself isn't an entirely individual phenomenon. The idea that consciousness can be both collective and individual is in many ways a perfect match for Quantum Theory in general. It also works well with Einstein's notion that radiation can be both particles and waves at the same time.
hush hush my friend.. let them figure it out themselves
It makes far more sense to just use the rules of quantum mechanics and the fact that a superposition can only be fully realized between two quantum particles such that as more particles interact with each other, the wave function gradually collapses into measurements that are consistent with our theories.
@Zeek Banistor "God" is just another perspective; in fact it may arguably be the ultimate perspective of this particular universe. Having seen this consciousness for myself, I find it difficult to imagine how it could possibly be assigned anything akin to a personality. Its broad beyond anything resembling "individual".
ego is an illusion we are all gods
My own personal wave function collapsed at the 12:23 mark when I finally realized Matt's sleeves were rolled differently.
😂
👁️👄👁️
PBS Space time: does consciousness influence quantum mechanics?
Warhammer 40K: Consciousness does influence the Warp
In a fictive univers.
@@user-gd5tr7gw7s I don't think he was claiming otherwise...
@@user-gd5tr7gw7s Liar. Warhammer 40k is real. I can't believe you'd say something so ridiculous.
Yes! Another Warhammer 40k fan!
"... and yet the most confident claims about quantum mechanics seem to be the mystical ones. They tend to be made by people who have never studied the theory deeply, but nonetheless have great surety in cherrypicking and misinterpreting the early speculations of some of its founders."
Stated FAR more charitably than I would put it, lol ...
Yet it’s a theory. Not proven fact. Regardless of how rigorously tested it is. It’s based on variables tested to validate an assumption. Local realism is based on an assumption. No hard proven fact. That’s why there’s no proven underlying physical reality to the universe in the quantum world which is the real world. Nials Bohr won the debate. The results are different for each independent observer as he said. Modern quantum theory, have had multiple theories that were vigorously tested and found out they were wrong when more variables were discovered.
So he didn’t prove consciousness doesn’t affect the outcome.
"True scientists are willing to change their minds"...look into Dean Radin's work and see if you're willing to do the same.
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
Mystic masters, they can see and understand true reality. They dont need to prove it to "blind" people. Similarlt Its just pointless to prove color existence to optical blind patients. So when "blind" one find evidence that reveal color, the aweaken one just simply say "told you so".
Science can only offer you what you can see and nothing more. Since all material in this universe belong to this particular reality, they can not help you see other reality. the unseen will forever be unseen unless you "upgrade" your consciousness. Until then the best you can do is just guessing and imagine but never can fully comprehend it like those mystic masters.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Oddly enough a very Taoist point of view
I don't understand QM but does it understands me?
The Uncarved Block
@@AionAeon it understands you and every version of you
The converse is not true, however.
If you don't understand quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean you understand quantum mechanics.
But if you understand (or at least know how to apply) the mathematics (both symbolic and applied) of quantum mechanics, you can make useful predictions about quantum mechanics.
Its almost like everything is a contradiction.
How is Eye-brain-man not a meme template yet?
Clearly the internet hasn't collapsed the consciousness wave function yet!
Love this
Check out a band called The Residents. www.discogs.com/artist/6708-The-Residents
No, it's slowly integrating itself with it. Slowly enough that we suspect it, but can't say for sure without sounding off the rocker to people that don't think about or pay attention to those sorts of things.
I knooooow lol
"Beyond Weird" quantum mechanics themed t-shirts would be very cool indeed.
@RDE Lutherie You wish! :)
I suspect my consciousness can manifest reality, at least to some extent; I can move my body at will (and through this movement I can have tremendous indirect effects!) I understand there are a range of deterministic arguments which seek to undermine any connection between consciousness and bodily action, and I tend to find these unconvincing.
Consciousness seems to be the only self-evident fact, ever. All details we witness are uncertain (blurred by the resolution of our eyes, how alert we are, etc.), but the fact that we are witnesses is absolutely certain. This makes me sympathetic to arguments suggesting the primacy of consciousness.
Ahw, i guess all the paralyzed people are unconscious right? Again. Conscious doesn't mean in control. It means aware.
Yes our consciousness is the only thing we could be certain of but that doesn't mean it's fundamental.
@@scarziepewpew3897 Who said all paralyzed people are unconscious? :)
@@scarziepewpew3897 I haven't entirely solidified what I think about this, but from a certain perspective it seems that consciousness is as fundamental as it's possible to be - it's a truth which observes itself to be true, and the observation itself makes it more true!! hahaha
@@gershommaes902 I'd love an explaination on how moving an arm has anything to do with consciousness.
"They say that it violates the principal of Occam's razor that the scientists should always keep entities to a minimum and it is ridiculous to ascribe reality to worlds you cannot be aware. If you take this argument seriously, then you are not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies...In the 19th century there were many physicists didn't believe in the reality of atoms, so it's not wise to ignore what the formalism is trying to tell you."
--Bryce DeWitt
Why are you not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies when observation has shown that stars are orbited by planets and that galaxies contain stars?
@@johnhannon8034 Also isn't reality consistent here aswell as there if we are goverened by the same laws.
Except we have no way of ever observing other universes. But we have already observed thousands of exoplanets?
Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish!
Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
exactly...observance changes any measurement.
especially anything moving.
Oh. My. God. I never fully understood that joke. I just thought farnsworth was pissed because he lost. I TOTALLY MISSED THE ACTUAL JOKE
More of a philosophical than a scientific questions I guess:
Is 'our' problem with interpretations of quantum mechanics more a case of our minds being ill-equipped to grapple with the quantum world than the need for an interpretation at all?
To my (limited) understanding it seems to me that the route of all attempts at interpretation are based in allowing a 'classical' observer to make sense of a quantum world...
...but if one accepts there is no such thing as a 'classical observer', being only an artifact of our wiring, and the 'observer' is as much a part of the quantum reality as the 'object' being observed doesn't that mean no interpretation is required? ie: The 'bare' equations of quantum mechanics are indeed the whole thing and our need for interpretation is only a consequence of our inability to grasp their meaning directly?
So if quantum mechanics turns out to be as close as we'll ever get to a fully accurate model of 'reality' do we:
-Continue to use these 'interpretations' knowing they are a mental crutch that says more about us than physics?
-Strive to bend our minds to proper understanding of quantum mechanics knowing that my forever be beyond us?
-Unsatisfactorily accept we have reached the point where we have a tool that allows us practicable access to the 'quantum world' but we are incapable of understanding that tool or the 'world' it describes?
(A fish in a fish-tank has been given the 'ability' to see a world outside the water but will never be able to appreciate what it is to be a land animal)
If the fish is curious enough, maybe he will evolve in time to know the outside world.
Yes, indeed. We are like ants trying to understand what the sun is
It's impossible to know something that's only a hypothetical and abstract theory that's incomplete at best!... so ponder that fact.
What you are describing or implying is that the universe might be a simulation. Simulated objects (i.e. you and I) cannot have a way of knowing or measuring the simulator. While the simulator knows ALL about us. In extension, also the GOD question. Like running linux in a Virtual machine in windows. The Linux OS has no way of knowing if it is directly running on hardware, or that it is being simulated within another operating system where the hardware is being simulated. Windows, however, knows EVERYTHING happening within that linux session.
If we are indeed a simulation, the only way to actually prove it, is to find a way of tricking the simulator intodoing something that will give a telltale sign. Seeing the analogy here with modern astrophysics? Astrophysicists are trying nothing else than to do this, in a way. Trying to find testable ways to prove something. In short, we need a way of hacking the universe. Literally.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 nope i never said or even implied that the universe or you and we're a simulation, it was you that thought that because you failed to see my simple point and because of your bias and prejudice you don't see what I attempting to convey because you are indoctrinated on account of your subjective and closed minded thinking so go back and re-read my above statement without taking my intent out of context and maybe you can eventually drop your outdated beliefs and break on to the other side!
When you get to infinitely small levels of motion then you have to take into consideration that movement would be in infinite flux. This makes it not a collapse but an error of measurement in which you only see the location at the time of measurement. Which is why you would only see the infinite middle average which would produce what looks like an interference but is actually an error in the slowness of measuring something at such small levels when it is in infinite flux.
There are experiments that not just the act of measurement is influencing it but the conscious perception of the measurement. In the double split experiment when unobserved the photons act like waves, when observed they act like particles leading to a different pattern of movement on the wall behind it.
To me it just seems like they can’t find a solution because they don’t have all the variables. Maybe there is something that hasn’t been observed yet that is the reason for this confusing behavior. They have probably already thought of that but it just seems like there has to be more to it then what is currently understood.
@@Hoebo123 the missing link is consciousness
@@dubelan lol
@@Hoogalindo time is relative to what? non-probabilistic quantum state finalization is determined by what?
What if the wave function is relative. As soon as two quantum systems interact, their wave probability function collapses, but from outside this system, the wave function of these systems is still intact. In such scenario, consiousness is key to collapsing the wave function, not because anything mystical, but because the consious system has interacted with the quantum system at the moment of measurement. The consious system would not be considered an outside system anymore
Redfern Pitcher it has nothing to do with consciousness. I thought i was onto something new here, but i wasn’t. What i call relative, physicist call entangle. In other words, the reason a conscious system collapses a quantum system is because it gets entangled with it, but this also happens with unconscious systems.
There was a Veritasium video on this subject. Though, consciousness wasn't what made the wave form collapse, it was that we became entangled with the experiment, and observed a collapse of the wave form because that's all we are capable of experiencing..
What if the subatomic universe existed within a dimension of its own which is governed entirely by the laws of quantum physics and when interaction to measure the process comes from a source located in the physical dimension then the effect of the physical laws upon the quantum laws causes the collapse? So in other words the intersection of external forces on internal forces.
@Roger Loquitur Are you suggesting that Quantum Physics and atoms are imaginary?
I'd also like to know how much quantum mechanisms affect consciousness.
Consciousness is the holodeck we are immersed within. This holodeck is why we are images/holograms within it. We are constantly being created as images because those quarks/atoms creating us are images. This holodeck is what people call God. This holodeck is our literal mother and father because IT is light and quarks/atoms spin as light.
@@pureenergy4578 also no
@@MrMMAJER You will have to argue with the physics books I read, like THE QUANTUM WORLD and HANDS OF LIGHT. BUT I don't have to give you any titles because YOU give none. So I say NO to you.
Penrose Microtubules
Does the tail wag the dog? Lol
What if there is only one field of consciousness pervading the entire universe and we cannot have two separate observers? Maybe we need to rethink those experiments.
Maybe not though 🤷♂️🤔
It's a solid theory. No one can deny that. Even the dude in the video admits it's possible. But it's not just possible. It's far more succinct a theory than anything else. Solves the collapse, and the hard problem of consciousness in one fell swoop.
Smoke some salvia and find out
Anime Sucks sprinkle it with some DMT and then snort some weeds lol
this is the exact teaching of the Upanishads that Bohr and Heisenberg were crazy about, even Schrodinger. I'm not saying it's true, it's just the same philosophy.
6:05 please, please consider doing a short bio on Wigner's personal life
I've heard bizarre, hilarious stories about other famous scientists who got stuck somewhere alone with Wigner and almost immediately entered the twilight zone - he had a reputation for it and I want to know more
I find it rather interesting that this video makes no reference to delayed Quantum eraser and other Witch Way path experiments. These experiments show that the availability of information is key. The way to answer this question is to test erasure at every possible point up until a conscious detection.
One additional point it said we should not confuse consciousness causing the collapse of the wave function, with consciousness affecting the result of that collapse
Chuck Creager Jr. right! correlation, not causation
9:40 to 10:15 : I think this goes to show that Richard Feynman's statement is basically describing the Dunning-Kruger Effect as applied to Quantum Mechanics.
tbh all the explanations are mystical. I just cant get my head around a non mystical interpretation and havent heard one yet.
Of course pretending that you know for sure the answer is a clear sign of unintelligence.
@@santiagotomasso5184Depends what you mean by mystical. We have determined several restrictions on a valid theory of quantum mechanics (EPR-Paradox, Bells Theorem). We have basically proven that no quantum theory can be deterministic, local and causal. Most historical physical theories fulfill all of these criteria and it's easy to stray into mysticism once you drop one of these constraints:
* A non-local theory will have some state that is valid throughout the entire universe, the mystic reading would be something like a god, or a global consciousness.
* A non-deterministic theory, introduces randomness and you can attribute that source of randomness to some mystic being.
* A non-causal theory, can be reduced to some kind of "destiny" from a mystic perspective.
Until we have results further constraining a viable quantum theory, it's basically up to you to decide which constraint you are willing to drop.
@@Ironypencil yeah, to me a non mystical explanation would have to be local, deterministic and causal.
Hence why I think the universe is mystical.
Or simulated.
btw Im not a native english speaker so there are room for misinterpretation, have that in mind.
Nah he is just talking about Schrodinger's knowledge. You know about quantum mechanics and you don't at the same time till someone checks
@@santiagotomasso5184 Global detetminism. The universe is run by a machine, no mysticism.
The more I understand, the less I understand.
My brain is in a superposition of knowing and not knowing.
I am Wigner's friend! Hi, new friend!
Infinite information means infinite ignorance
Socrates
So tell us, how is the super position? Is it sunny there?
@@puskajussi37 Look it up. It's in the Kama Sutra
@@puskajussi37 Well, some Romans might say it's above any other position, but the weather is so-and-so.
They make the best science videos, he explains it so well without throwing in mysticism.
I lack a very basic thing in this discussion though: a definition of consciousness. Or maybe I missed it.
making the point exactly that he is only pretending to have on open mind by calling every logical explanation he doesn't like "mysticism"
@hofmannwaves1525 mysticism isn't logical. There is no reason to believe the universe exists bc of our Conscience. It is likely something that just happens, probably rarely but possible in this universe bc of our laws of physics. Where it could be void and black in most others. Humans believe we are the center of creation and that's not true..
I've just colapsed this wave function, and I'd like to thank you all for your participation in my reality!!
djm jr my pleasure but it’s mine
our reality "1"
I knew ya'll were gonna say that 😉
"If you think you understand Brahman, you do not understand, and have yet to be further instructed. FOR THE BRAHMAN is unknown to those that know it, and known to those that know it not." -Alan Watts (The Greatest)
How funny,I thought it said THE BATMAN...
@@AyushSharma-jz1jo it is similar to the hebrew 'Or Ein Sof', but much more hindu. the primordial light and root from which existence both spiritual and material originate
I too felt the need to bring up Alan Watts! Thanks! :)
@@AyushSharma-jz1jo th-cam.com/video/bRrwXkMtlDQ/w-d-xo.html
Okay I get it it's all infinity, existence, from with everything originated and everything will collapse. But how do you explain it to a rational person who only understands the nature through the language of mathematics? @garet claborn @mso2802
The “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment sounds a lot like Schrödinger’s Cat.
It essentially is except that human physicists are more likely to acknowledged the sentience of another human (that can articulate it), rather than an illiterate feline that can more easily be passed of as a solipsistic projection.
schroedinger apparently really didn't like cats...
how was that Wigner guy like?
:^)
"Hey Erwin, I'm having a problem with an experiment. I put my friend in a box with some poison, a Geiger counter, and some radioactive material. I gave him a phone so he could call me and tell me whether he was dead, but instead he just kept calling to demand I let him out. what should I do?"
RoCeb you could sell that joke to XKCD 😂
@@roceb5009 First assume the friend is imaginary.
The wave function just never collapses. Brains do enter superpositions and conscious experiences also enters superposition. It doesn’t seem like it does, but it does
"I think, therefore I might be"
Tbh if religion didn't exist this would have been the quote probably. And then Descartes would probably go insane.
"thinking arises but is empty of self" - the Buddha
The problem with one person manifesting reality is that there are too many damn people and conflicting perceptions. Even if we could, we would have to fight against billions of other people doing the same thing.
Also; it's not consciousness that defines reality, it's perception. Which can be as simple as two compounds 'realizing' that they are next to each other and reacting
No its feeling and perspective. And ur conscionusness is What feels the feelings and perspective
@@sikleanne121 feeling has no impact on anything. It's just a reaction to things.
@@tristanband4003 I used to think the same a year ago, but wow, life really has a way of showing you the impossible. I literally see myself in your comment, and now I'm here...
@@MiguelMedV Why are people always so vague when they say something like this? Keeping stuff purposefully vague is annoying, not mystical.
@@Artistwannabe Sorry, wasn't my intention, but I won't tell you every single "illogical" and seemingly impossible thing that's happened to me, so I'll sum it up saying "Life has a way of showing you". I meant every word I said 🤷🏻♂️...
I've frequently tried to collapse wave functions with my mind. So far, no luck.
You must be doing it wrong, I've collapsed every wave function I've encountered. I have yet to see uncollapsed wave function.
@@Kycilak I agree. I'm quite certain I'm doing the quantum mind-control thingy wrong. I'd really like to uncollapse my wave function on this planet and collapse it somewhere else, but, sadly, it never works.
@@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio In trying to "uncollapse [your] wave function on this planet," are you using the right parameters, for example those appropriate for a really flat-earth? Surely that'll guarantee success.
Thankfully the field of radiology oncology wasn’t frozen by the idea that a photon cannot be localized without conscious interaction.
Would you explain your comment a little further? Just curious, not skeptical about what you're saying.
@@ryanp849 just saying that x ray and gamma and positron radiation is aimed at targets, seem to hit the targets. We let them fly and they hit the target even if we don’t look at each one.
But there is concious interaction, you measured it through the imaging machine and when you look at the results you have now interacted with the radiation. Functionally it kind of is the same thing that the double slit experiment does.
"Does quantum mechanics influence consciousness" is a more interesting question.
I mean yeah it does.
Quantum mechanics are the study of sub atomic particles. Which builds matter. Assuming conciousness is not metaphysical it is in the realm of our reality and we are made of these particles.
@@marissajustice2411 Assuming????
@@marissajustice2411 Assuming the universe is a jar of peanut butter means that we are all peanuts..
Absolutely
I am starting to think there is no collapse.
Love the Wigner's Friend graphics.
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” That’s very zen.
The quantum mechanics that can be understood is not the true quantum mechanics.
Oof for me
More tao ("the tao that can be understood is not the true tao"), but, yeah. It certainly sounds just as mystic as the rest. LOL!
I wonder, was Feynmann anticipating the Dunning-Kruger effect?
If you dont know , now you know!!
Have you seen the Star Trek episode in which the crew is detained by an entity that ALL of the inhabitants of the "world" SHARE a Conciousness? Do you remember everybody stepping on one another and how confusing it was the more joined in and the echo affect? Cool episode. THAT'S why MANY of us have been contemplating ideas such as these for awhile. We had CREATIVE fantasy & sci-fi fiction writers over the years!
Yup. Our world is shaped on fantasy, moving away from reality, which we will pay a huge price if we still get out of it alive... .
you: What was it like for your whole brain to be in a superposition of states?
your friend: **quickly hides drugs** oh what! No that's crazy!
....i just watched nick hide his own drugs after talking to thin air....
*quickly hides the salvia*
Science from the highs
@skOsH Testable, and not irreproducible, I'd say.
DMT, Ayhuasca )
You always give the clearest, most accurate and engaging explanations of the most difficult concepts in physics. Thank you.
You’re welcome
11:45 Me: So actually the easiest way to solve this problem is solipsism and world full of philosophical zombies, that's pretty deep, I really...
Matt: No.
Indeed, that is the better question that needs to be considered first. Does consciousness even actually exist? What experiment can be performed to distinguish between a legit person and a philosophical zombie/NPC? There may be none, that's kind of in the definition of a philosophical zombie, is it not?
Solipsist a networked consciousness. Conflict solved.
@Don Johnson I don't think that was the point of his TED Talk. The whole thing was full of sort of backhanded humor, and he even closes it out casting doubt on the idea of a simulation: "If our physics is inconsistent then we're likely in a simulation, if it is self consistent it is more likely being real, because it just takes more to do that. [...] Humans beings are not well equipped for determining reality; physics -- so this actually a selling point for physics -- is a fundamental test of our realness ..."
The probability is higher that all quantum physicists in the world lie to you and that we live in a newtonian univers than that you are the only consciousness in the univers.
Because everybody knows that you are just a product of MY subconscious!
i am understanding from your point that from this perspective life is shaped by only ones concious just like in a video game where you have the primary character or hero and the others are just slaves of his perspective bcs the whole video game revolvse around it?
I pray to the creator of all these mysteries that this channel never stops producing videos
One person’s “outlandish” is another’s “physics”.
Do you know that we are in the middle of worldwide nazism? Watch these 2 videos:
www.unite4truth.com/post/reiner-fuellmich-david-martin-patent-data-destroys-entire-covid-19-government-narrative-video?.
these types of videos are rife with conjecture, and only loosely based on the research of the topic. I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
Wow, now this was a good episode. Had me on the edge of my seat, can't wait for the next one.
I was both on the edge of my seat and recumbent...until your post collapsed my wave function leaning against my pillows.
What if We live / experience a given set of collapsed wave functions. Matter tends to synchronize its collapsed state faster than light thanks to quantum entanglement. Just as much as we “see” a very small portion of the light spectrum thought “visible” light , we experience a slice of the space time continuum with our primate senses and brain.
I thought the non-pop-sci consensus was that it wasn't consciousness but the physical act of interaction in order to measure that caused the collapse.
Right?
People keep talking about "looking" at a particle.
Yeah, that just happens to be impossible.
That is the pop-sci explanation, and it’s not correct.
Simulation theory, could this help explain these apparent paradoxes? Wavefunction collapse (or becoming "real" and "distinct") occurs only when it is observed, much like a computer game will not "draw" places in it's world that are not being interacted with (to save on memory). Only when the observer (or player in a game) needs to interact with a place or object, does it become real (e.g. wavefunction collapse).
That entails "reserving" all possibilities of the equation and only solving the amount needed for the observer to interact with, which is predictive in nature. So, is reality predictable? I think not.
There’s something about quantum mechanics that makes me think about programming and the underlying hacks, tweaks and quirks that are usually there when you’ve got a complex program running.
There's an eerie relationship between quantum mechanics and the programming concept of lazy evaluation. In heavy computation workloads (like say... running a universe) you often will avoid performing a heavy computation directly and instead pass around a blob of data that represents all the information needed to perform the computation in the future if it is ever necessary. This is useful because that blob of data can be mutated as its passed around, affecting the final result of the heavy computation, without having to perform that heavy computation at each step in the process. The whole concept of a probability wavefunction seems a lot like that blob of data you pass around in a lazy evaluation scheme. I would venture a guess that the wave function never "fully" collapses, but rather only in different degrees as necessary. At least that seems like the most computationally efficient way to do things.
Quantum mechanics, the speed limit (for propagating cause and causation - light is just a special case of something curbed by the limit), constant expansion...
From the perspective of a simulation theory the universe certainly has a convenient design.
In the detection process, as the electron reaches the screen, its interaction with the particles of screen will influence its wave function.
Is it possible that in this whole process of detection, the wave function doesn't collapse at some specific point but rather by superposition with the wave function of the system, its probability gets narrowed down to one location till the signal reaches to the observer.
Can it be a continuous process in which probability gets redistributed at every point and since there are so many particles in our complex process of detection, we kind of observe the result of the changed wave function?
Neha Motwani maybe it does not collapse but only updates its internal probability when interacting with other systems until its probability is quasi 1 i.e. the particle has a fixed and not a „super“ position. edit: i think i just reformulated what you said. lol
@@DrOscarZAcosta yes, in a compact way😁 thanks
This is what I was thinking too. That seems like a reasonable explanation. And an obvious one. So why is it wrong? 😂
Covle The obvious question is then WHY would the probabilities change along the process?
@@RolandPihlakas because the wave function gets superposed with the wave function of other particles throughout the detection process
The *_Delayed Choice, Quantum Eraser_* experiment strongly suggests that the experimenters conscious knowledge of the _double slit_ result effects the outcome of the experiment.
Also our knowledge about simulated neural networks (artificial intelligence) suggest that the brain scientists are a bit off track. Those neural networks are great for recognising incoming patterns, and you need a giant amount of them to interpret the input of a high resolution camera, like our eyes. But you know what you cannot do with those neural networks? Storing that image. Neural networks are pretty useless for storing data. Still the brain scientists assume that our memories must be stored in our brain configuration. Because where else could they be stored?
I feel like that was a very poor description of the double slit experiment. They failed to address two key aspects. The first being: A detector placed before the slits will collapse the wave function and negate the interference pattern. The second: A detector placed after the slits will also collapse the wave function revealing retro-causation in quantum systems. Not saying consciousness plays a role here, but I don’t feel they earned the dismissive tone they used in this presentation
Agreed. Especially since the delayed quantum eraser experiment shows that measurement of entangled particles retroactively change the state of their twins that have already landed on the screen but has not yet been observed by a human. If I remember correctly at least. I'm also wondering what happened to the interference pattern in that experiment when the results of the detectors on which the far-travelling photons landed would have been -for example- written on a self-destruct SSD in a box that could by no means be opened before someone verified that the interference pattern was still there. That way the information about which slit the photons went through would have been present at the far-side detectors but the conscious observer would have been excluded.
I remember reading a pop-sci article in a magazine (Omni, or possible Time) of someone's description of a tour of a double slit apparatus called "the infererometer". As it was described, the person conducting the experiment used a photon emitter to bombard the paths that the Cesium atoms would take going through the slits. He didn't even bother hooking up a detector, as it wasn't necessary. When the emitter was placed near the double slit, the interference pattern disappeared. When the emitter was near the origin hole, the interference pattern was present. As the emitter was moved between the two positions, the interference pattern gradually faded out, and the double slit pattern gradually faded in, until the emitter was along a point in the paths such that the distance between the two possible paths was about the wavelength of the photons. Again, no detector was necessary. Conscious knowledge of which path the individual atoms took was not necessary. Once it became possible for any observer in the universe to determine which path the atom took, the interference pattern was gone.
I'm annoyed that the original language that revolves around "observation" has stuck with us through the ages. That implies a mind to interpret the raw data, the physical effects on our environment. It seems this original language is what keeps the mystical aspect of all things quantum alive in our pop culture.
Our minds, our thoughts, may be affected by quantum events - see Anatham, or as I suspect the upcoming video on the Many Worlds Theorem - just like many people's moods are affected by the seasons. But to argue the converse is bonkers.
you feel like it was a poor description or it was a poor description?
d r I don’t know enough to say it is for sure, just enough to feel like it is
I think all that really matters is that you said my name right and I'm really impressed :)
11:39 "Or maybe you are the only observer and you're inventing your friend and the rest of reality"
You're too quick to say no. I wouldn't be so sure that's the right answer. Now I don't understand quantum mechanics or physics in general as much as you do, but despite how inconceivable it might sound, I'm open to the possibility that it might just be consciousness that generates reality, and not the other way around.
Well said. Alot of scientists keep stating things as if they are facts, when they are not. Some are more humble and say straight away that they honestly don't know and it's just what they "believe" instead.
I mean if you believe that can you prove it?
The problem is that it's utterly unprovable and unfounded to the point that, unless something specifically points to it, it's not really that worth considering.
It's the same as the age old "do you think there's an invisible, racist, undetectable leprechaun in your colon?" question. Most people wouldn't reply "well, maybe; I'd keep an open mind, because it's certainly possible", they'd think "I mean, I can't prove it, but I have no reason to believe it". It's a question we can't disprove, but also have no reason to believe, so I don't think it's all that worth floating as a viable option.
@@mexdal Everything is just what we believe, and we can't prove anything to 100% certainty. It's pointless to just keep saying "I don't know" about literally every single thing, so we as a society (and as scientists) have an unspoken agreement that "no" means "from everything we understand, probably not".
@@Stardust_Lily Ironic. It's the material world that's utterly unprovable. Demonstrate the physical world without using consciousness. You can't.
Ashame no one in your comments section takes anything seriously. Good work man 👍
It'll all be understood one day, question is how will humanity use this knowledge?
Not necessarily. There may be things beyond human comprehension. E.g. if there is really a multiverse but there’s no communication between them, how would one prove they exist?
It would be turned into a weapon.
Well we know america would try and monetize it somehow
hopefully we'll blow up some aliens! 😝
Its already understood
I've always kinda explained quantum decoherence to myself as everything being a probability. What is the probability that I'd get a specific answer from the scientist measuring the particle? Then go up a step. What's the probability that I tell you a specific answer that I got from the scientist measuring the particle? The "universe" isn't concrete, but a goo of probabilities that could have happened. Atleast, that's my thought on it as a layman. I don't have an education in quantum mechanics, so I'll let the scientists figure this stuff out.
in a competition:
Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
I'm arresting you for defying the laws of physics, Mr Schrödinger
If one observer exists in a different spacetime location from another observer, then they can never be in the same time. Each observer/location has it's own unique time, so simultaneity can only exist relative to a single observer. It is impossible for anything to happen between two separate observers/locations simultaneously.
If consciousness is on the quantum level, does this mean it can never be destroyed? You have the information paradox where on the quantum level you cannot create nor destroy.
Information is technically not destroyed, but "fades" into the surroundings, making it basically impossible to recreate.
Similar to the conservation of energy, info is conserved but not necessarily in a specific or useful configuration.
The sentence "consciousness is on the quantum level" does not make any sense.
@@imengaginginclown-to-clown9363
Why?
Yes
11:37 But different outcomes ARE observed! Why do you ignore recent papers? See Experimental test of local observer independence
, Massimiliano Proietti et. al.
advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832
phys.org/news/2019-09-quantum-entitled-facts.html
Underrated information. Thanks.
@@Pietrosavr I wish PBS Space Time
will see this, I need a comment or something
I tried reading the paper, but it's beyond me, and the article isn't of much help either. So in this experiment, two observers collapsed the same wavefunction in different ways?
If someone tells me how their day was, I will ask them how did it feel for their brain to be in a superposition of states that reflect their potential experiences of the day.
He's right. The more you believe you understand about reality and consciousness, the less you actually do. That's why I trust this guy -- he's so confident, he's got to be right.
Great episode!
Could you discuss Quantum tunneling and impact on biological systems? Such as the how quantum tunneling can impact how something smells?
Andrew Steinhaus also photosynthesis and fast regeneration of lizard tails.
The wave function concept makes more sense when you consider the result is an Expression of the measurement system, rather than inherent to reality itself. It is an illusion of the axiomatic limits. The reality is that there is more going on, but Copenhagen trusts in the equations more than observable reality of the singular causal universe. It looks like a probability system, but there are deeper mechanics driving the mechanics observable, that have been written off as mere probabilities for the sake of formulaic convenience. A cymatic approach is needed in the meta, and at the Planck scale on which these cymatics take place, the system described by klee Irwin and crew at QGR. It's all sound models, and sound maths derived from experimental evidence, QGR coming directly off the back of hard measurement at cern, and a cymatic approach was successfully modeled on oils using sonic frequencies.
This is big brain talk
*I will pretend that I understand*
ALEX GIBSON boy...are you writing in Klingon 🤦🏾♂️
I agree. I think a big part of the problem comes from our insistence that quantum objects act like macro objects, yet when we try to picture or model them in macro terms, they make no sense. We have to think of an electron being either a particle or a wave because in the macro world it can't be both. But the electron knows just what it is and doesn't need our help or understanding.
The only part I was able to understand to lack of knowledge of the references was that there are deeper mechanics driving the experiments and outcomes. They’re giving too much credit to probability & ignorance. That since we don’t understand it so much we should discredits the endless possibilities of answers. Acting like you know can sometimes bridge you to the knowledge of actually knowing. I wish I understood the cymatic approach part.
11:47 "No, the only coherent explanation for the consistency of experimental results between different observers seems to be that the result of the experiment, and reality, exists independently of individual observers. Sure you could talk about a global consciousness collapsing a universal wave function, but that's not going to give you any powers of quantum wishing."
This seems to simply be a metaphysical bias prefering a realist view of the universe: the most scientific answer would be to say "science cannot answer this question". A global consciousness collapsing a universal wave function is every bit as consistent, and it need not imply that you can shape reality just by wishing.
I find the constant adherence to naive realism to be exactly like you said, a metaphysical bias. It seems just as coherent to experimental results to go with an anti-realist approach. It was hardly outside the realm of possibility for respectable scientists like Wheeler and Bohm blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-our-questions-create-the-world/#:~:text=Wheeler%20was%20one%20of%20the,--and%20thus%20consciousness%20itself.
Just feels weirdly philosophically biased to only discuss one and not the other. Like there's a fear that all of science could fall apart if reality isn't "real"
@@alexgaggio2957 Agree completely. A lot of people in science seem to think that any metaphysical view other than philosophical realism is "unscientific". However, this is entirely untrue and I think this bias limits science, it would be better for science to be open to any compatible metaphysics.
Everything you just said were statements about philosophy. None of that had anything to do with physics. There is no universal wave function and there can be no such thing. A wave function is the result of an infinite number of experiments. Nobody can run the same universe as an experiment an infinite number of times.
@@schmetterling4477 I completely agree: physics is about producing mathematical models that predict the behaviour of matter. Physics is not intended to answer questions about what the universe actually *is*, only how it behaves. The ultimate nature of the universe is a question of philosophy. The statement I quoted is PBS space time engaging in philosophy (badly IMO), not physics.
@@tomshackell Forget about mathematics for a moment. Mathematics in physics is just a language to describe functional dependencies.
Fundamentally physics is the reduction of complex physical phenomena to simple physical phenomena.
At no stage of physics do we ever require philosophy. We are simply reducing e.g. a long distance (like the circumference of Earth) to the multiples of a short distance (our length normal). The length normal is not some philosophical entity but it is a physical phenomenon itself. It could be a piece of matter (like the meter prototype in Paris) or the wavelength of a certain spectral line.
We can then form more complex phenomena from two or more such physical quantities. Velocity, for instance, is the reduction of motion to the measurement of a distance between two events divided by the time difference between the same two events. We can then bootstrap from velocity to acceleration to force (by introducing an inertial mass normal like the kilogram prototype), However, no matter how complex we make these reductions, we NEVER leave the physical level. Metaphysics is neither required nor useful. Metrology, however, is.
Can we answer "What is X?" questions? Only in the sense mentioned. We can give names to fundamental phenomena and then explain how emergent phenomena can be derived from the fundamental ones. Today we would call the three principle ingredients "spacetime", "quantum fields" and "gravity". Quantum fields on spacetime form matter and radiation. Gravitation on spacetime forms the effects of general relativity. Ultimately we would like to reduce all of physics to a single fundamental ingredient. We are not there, yet, of course.
I love any time a TH-cam video poses a question the answer is always a clickbait "no", but at least this video doesn't hide it for 10 minutes
"If I focus really hard, do my powers of quantum mechanics allow me to manifest reality - No. "
Well you see, something you stated here is really matching something many call "The law of attraction". It's not scientific at all, sure. But many things are far beyond our grasp yet, and we can't simply dismiss everything because we don't understand it or see the big picture.
The "law of attraction" says that if you really wish for something hard enough, with your whole being, it's going to manifest itself. In time, it's not instant though. Can it be simple coincidence? Maybe. Or is it because you strive toward that goal and push yourself in that direction, or do you really change the circumstances and chances around you in your favor? Really not possible to say, but so are some fundamental things in science, we are yet not able to explain or even grasp at many levels. Also there are some other things, like have you ever had this experience: You don't see or hear about something for years at a time, maybe even decades. Then for some reason you remember it, and all of a sudden, you see a movie with that actor for example, or hear a song on a radio you have not heard in years. Or meet a person on a street, out of seemingly nowhere? It sure did happen to a few people I know, me included. Did it subconsciously come to my mind, is my mind entangled with the surroundings, or even crazier did my mind manifest this in my surrounding? Who the heck knows.
Just wanted to point this out. We don't even know what "Consciousness" is. So you can't really state with certainty what is and what is not.
Great point made....we don't even know for sure what consciousness is. There are certain things in life that make you believe there is a thing called "Law of attraction" for real. The idea of mind influencing reality goes way beyond the double slit experiment.
The first can be an illusion that people likes to take as if they actually produced it ''at will''. It has a LOT to do with the Ego: ''look, I created this, I feel superior now''. It has religious roots and the feeling of being ''important''.
The second can be that those things happens all the time but your mind is focused on many other events, and suddenly a particular event puts your mind's attention to it, and then, you start to ''see it everywhere'', but it was always there.
@@VeronicaGorositoMusic I know it's easier to give any sort of explanation for it, but miracles do happen. Life does change when you truly get a hold on Law Of Attraction. Only those who have "intentionally" experienced it are able to understand it. LOA has a lot to do with your own mind and nothing to do with any religion.
@@sagarsrivastava888 I'm gonna have to disagree here. Just because we're don't know what consciousness is, doesn't mean we can just make all kinds of wild conclusions about it. For example, i could create my own "law", let's say "Law of Repulsion", which states that the opposite of what someone would want will happen to them. I could then get some anecdotes (cherry pick 'em while you're at it) to "prove" that it might be real. That "law" would be just as likely as LOA under this circumstance. In fact, I could then theoretically make an infinite amount of "laws" using this exact process, which makes the LOA significantly less likely.
Also, miracles do "happen", but those can be explained with sheer luck (since there's 7B people on the planet) or simple common sense. Also, the people who genuinely believe in LOA because "it worked for them" are believing it for the wrong reasons, since it ignores the fact that there could have been many thousands of others who tried and failed. The plural of anecdote isn't data. That aside, humans are notoriously weak when it comes to biases. Those people are only remembering when the LOA worked, merely forgetting the many times it didn't.
It's also possible that LOA isn't as mystical as it may seem. If people believe that wanting something will eventually get them that, they may feel more motivated to get that thing. Since they put more effort and work into obtaining that thing, It just increases the odds of actually obtaining said thing, which is basic logic that every functional human should understand anyways.
As for the comparison between religion and LOA, religion is something that is powered by faith, either faith in some form of deities, power, or whatever else. LOA specifically requires faith in it in order for it to actually work, so you could say that LOA is similar to religion in that regard. You could even say that it has its roots in religion, though whether that is true needs more than a simple comparison made by a TH-cam comment.
@@benjaminhouse7252 Consciousness isn't the "be all end all" so that everything is just a manifestation of our imagination, Consciousness is simply the medium we use to interpret patterns and movement within Space/Time and how we interact within it. We observe that there exists natural laws and Objective Truths within math, physics, biology and so on yet our way of interpreting these Truths are still tied to our biases as individuals.
Completely divorcing Consciousness from observing Physics or Quantum is equally as ignorant as thinking Consciousness is the way to understand the universe (which opens a Pandora box of subjective interpretation / Chaos). Consciousness is simply the tool we use to observe and interpret what we see.
The question becomes instead, what are our biases that affects our Consciousness? Is there a fundamental Objective Truth when it comes to the nature of the universe and if so should we all not be able to recognize these Objective Truths pertaining to the universe? If the answer is yes, then this Objectivity should run through from the smallest observable state to the medium to the Omega, if we can't find a coherent theory for it, perhaps our individual Consciousness is incorrect (due to biases) in how it observes the data at hand, or perhaps we have not gathered enough data.
"He's beginning to believe."
*Neo watches video*
"Damn."
Neo*
Well since I learned that particles can travel back in time I guess the conscious observing process is getting corrected by the two states of the observer in time interacting with the particles of the experiment creating the perfect illusion of reality as it exists to us (including people who think they can manipulate this system by pure thought). Well done masters of the matrix, well done...and as I begun to type this as a joke, I come to think of this making kinda sense...
Stuart Hameroff - one of creators of Orch OR theory of consciousness - has come to the same idea. And me too btw.
th-cam.com/video/ztGNznlowic/w-d-xo.html
Techions are the only particles that can travel back in time right? And these are hyphotetical. (Just had high school physics so my knowledge on the subject is extremly limited)
Whoever told you that particles can travel back in time should have put a lot of asterisks after that statement.
There are "time independent" aspects of quantum mechanics -- i.e. you can do the math backwards and it still works
And a proton's electromagnetic field has the exact same strength as an antiproton, just in reverse. So if you recorded two protons pushing away from each other, and the rewound the tapes it would look just like two antiprotons....pulling towards each other which would never happen. A proton can never pull towards another proton.
Tachyons are hypothetical particles that always move faster than light, and thus backwards in time.
PBS Spacetime did a video on the single electron universe, where one electron was moving forwards and backwards and every electron was actually just that single electron. It's a fun thought experiment, but we have no reason to believe that it is true.
Of course then there's Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, and that just freaks me out. It makes no sense. Quantum mechanics is weird, and the collapsing wave function is just one interpretation. The math works, but that doesn't mean our interpretation is correct.
In any case, as far as I know no one has ever seen a particle move backwards in time.
The First Law of Thermodynamics prevents time travel.
Now go outside and play.
@@UltimateBargains Let's not forget the fifth law of thermodynamics: Things get worse under pressure.
first question: maybe consciousness has nothing to do with thinking or memory; maybe consciousness is something the brain uses like sight. the things you see have no idea of your thoughts; maybe consciousness works the same way. Why does it seem like everyone treats consciousness as if it is a soul or an extension of someones personality that contains all that person's memories? Don't get me wrong it may work that way, I just can't understand why that is the only explanation I hear when I clearly gave an alternative explanation that is just as unfalsifiable.
Well people treat it differently because consciousness seems to be different from every other thing. Even in your hypothetical, you cannot help but treat the brain as having its own subjectivity that has a “need” for consciousness when as you said, inanimate objects don’t do this.
"The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me."
@@SOLOcan You say people seem to treat the consciousness differently; I agree. second part the brain evolved to have the need to see just like it may have evolved to have a need to use Consciousness to help it better survive. as far as inanimate objects go I don't have a clue how consciousness affects them.
@@uxvellda1112 you have better Eye sight than I; I have never seen God; that's probably why I need to wear glasses.
You're not concious of all your memories all the time. Most memories come to your mind (conciousness) only when you recall them.
4:22 "Look, I'm a member of The Residents!"
--The Alchemist
@@thotslayer9914: It's a multilayered reference. The quote itself comes from an episode of The Venture Bros., and it references en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Residents
What if I'm actually a Boltzmann Brain playing a simulation of me watching this video?
Don't worry, you don't exist anyway :p
What if we are all 1 brain playing out multiple simulations. A am legion and we are many.
@Michael Bishop "how would you prefer to be worshipped?" = the Boltzmann Brain equivalent of "cash, check or charge?"
@Michael Bishop lol
It wouldn't explain why I can consciously observe you.
My biggest question about all of this is what are the implications for the history of the universe before consciousness existed? How could be have come into existence if everything before was all probabilistic? Does the probability of outcome vary between objects?
I agree, the subatomic world is so different than we can relate to that we come up with stupid conclusion.
a idea would be that the first life collapsed the wave function to the advantage of life
If consciousness creates the perceived reality, then there never was a time before consciousness. The development of the universe, as we know it, may not have happened in the course of millions and billions of years, but may have happened instantanious and the "clock" of the universe may have begun with the first conscious observer.
When we dream, we are placed in a situation by our consciousness and there may be a complete and detailed backstory to explain why we are there and what we are doing, even though we never experienced anything leading up to the situation we currently find ourselves in the dream.
The way we perceive the early stages of the universe could be similar.
I'd say consciousness has always existed
@@asdf3568 And I would say that doesn't add up.
In a word: yes. But that probably doesn’t mean what most people think it means.
The observation affects the outccome, so yes consciousness does influence quantum mechanics.
Does it thou? Is it possible that the outcome occurs & we don't know how to observe?
Ed Me The potential knowledge of what happens existing in the universe is what affects the outcome, not our consciousness... By observing we gather information (or rather “potential information) of what happens, and that is what affects the outcome. Consciousness is irrelevant.
@@Ppstate32 An interesting idea that consciousness does not instigate or have anything to do with the observing. Perhaps in one of the other universes or realities within the multiverse that concept is valid, yet in our universe consciousness does initiate and have very much to do with the observing and "collapsing" of the wave function, thereby taking the information out of a state of quantum flux and solidifying it into a definitive event.
Ed Me how so? I’m just curious don’t be mean to me please
@@Ppstate32 Well, under the theories about the other universes in the multiverse is that they operate on slightly different laws of physics. As such, the idea they would also operate without consciousness could be valid. Now back to our universe. The whole premise behind the schrodingers cat experiment, and the resulting wave function collapse, is that observation affects the outcome. And consciousness initiates that observation, thus taking the event out of the quantum flux part of the wave function and into a definitive state. This concept of initiating is important in another area-computer based artificial intelligence. We, the human race, do not have AI, but instead very good mimicking. And more than likely, we will not have it until much further understanding of consciousness. Try this: what is consciousness? We are not sure, yet know of its effects. One of which is collapsing the wave function. I hope that helps, especially considering we are exploring an area of "spooky action at a distance" :)
Matt went in on this one! I’ve never seen this spicy side of Matt before! PBS space time got sick of some BS and. Are in to educate ❤️
I will say, that some of those books he called out were my introduction to the ideas of quantum physics which I would never have heard otherwise. We NEED videos like this to help bridge that gap from the Woo to the real information ❤️ thanks PBS Spacetime!
Maybe you didn't realize that Matt was criticizing (mocking) those books, calling them mysticism. He subsequently describing most of the pioneers of quantum mechanics "going back" and moving away from mysticism.
@@ITSME-nd4xy So what is mysticism? I looked for the definitions. A hotch potch of words such as religious, spiritual, belief, magic. No one seems to really agree on what it is. It's really just a word these days, used to denigrate, or mock, perhaps, ideas that physicists can't explain, don't understand, or don't want to understand.
The Woo? Is that this weird mystical belief in this stuff called matter, that no one can ever seem to find?
I love that solipsism was brought up. All these new "quantum mystics" telling people to "manifest" their futures, etc. I can only imagine a "manifesting" battle between all the "manifesters" trying to manifest items/events that may, or may not conflict with each other's individual manifestations...
It's easy when you're the only ACTUAL person in the universe tho...
I have wondered this for years - is the brain a Quantum Antenna?
Thanks for talking about it! A question: Can you describe how the double slit experiment has progressed over the years? Surely the first experiment didn’t have the capability to isolate individual electrons? Can we do that now?
Ask Tesla, or Ramanujan... or Einstein or Newton. They all claim to have tapped into a universal 'database' while 'meditating'. Something is up.
Everything will all slam back down to a single point before normal humans figure it out... just kidding.
Oh and yes we have devices that can produce single electron events and we have single photon 'emitters' now as well. Enter either into a google images search and photos will be found, click those to see articles.
I love searching via Google Images because it produces pages of photos instead of pages of links and text descriptions that fill the page with a shorter list you then have to search through again. Google Images is great! You see what your search found and then recognize your target faster than regular google in many cases. Click click.
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Einstein meditated?
Your thoughts aren't just in your head. You're broadcasting them into the field like an antenna
Sounds wacky but I think information processing machines, like our brains, might be antennas for consciousness
@@spaceowl5957 - oooooo- that is something I’ve never even considered!! What if ‘consciousness’ is some sort of physical ‘ether’ - everywhere, but only a brain is constructed in the right way to tap into it… wow.
Perhaps multiple observers experience the same result when collapsing the probability function because there is only one observer.
I fail to see the "problem" with your example of the VN-W interpretation. The electron's wave function collapsed as soon as your friend observed the location of the electron. You were not an observer of the electron at any point of the process, as you are "observing" not the electron, but your friend. So your friend collapsed the wave function; You merely collapsed your friend.
I like the idea of collapsing my friends whenever I observe them.
My hunch is that the wave function collapses when the excitation of a single electron causes the motion of many electrons.
I think that was Bell's personal idea.
Here's my take on the double slit experiment...
The EM field is full of no velocity photons, a Photon moving at C is simply an aperture in space jumping along the SR monodimensional particle space (i.e. does not disturb the EM field an any practical and observable way because no mass is moving only the "hole" in space is moving).
If the photon/particle aperture does interact with the EM field at the slot, you have a range of reactions that can occur depending on where the contact point is in relation to the center of the EM field particle(s).
If it hits the EM field particle dead square on (zero degree offset from the center) the EM field particle will be accelerated directly away from the incoming photon/particle.
If it hits the EM particles exactly in the center of two EM particles the resulting EM field movement will be two particles traveling at half the speed at an angle of 45 degrees offset from the incoming particle.
This is all that is required for the full waveform interference result.
There is no conscious observation required for this reaction :-)