Wow! Diósi-Penrose model makes a lot of sense! The fact that the more particles implies the greater the curvature of space-time in a specific point in space it "forces" the wavefunction to collapse and to define a position. It explains why gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is curvature of space-time.
I like how this theory explains why gravity can't be quantized like the other three forces because it isn't quantum. And, it makes sense since gravity isn't supposed to be a force when following General relativity.
What I like most about it is that we can actually test it. Theories like string or m theory are interesting, but there are no real test we can do to confirm it as far as I know. If a graviton does exists then we will probably not find out in our lifetime.
@@NLwino Gravity might be the residue of time moving through matter - If a graviton does exist it's probably entwined with a chroniton and in our current technology we have yet to come up with a method of studying a planck length of time or how to experiment with it so for now it can't be quantified.
Yes but, we collapse wave functions by detecting them. By only being detected, the wave is collapsed. We dont give mass to it, and they are already inside a gravitational field before while uncollapsed…
I don't always fully understand everything in the videos, but I'm happy you make them in a way to bring it down to laymen terms. I find this stuff absolutely fascinating and have been binge watching your quantum videos.
The internet has me locked in a superposition of wondering _“How could humans be so unbelievably stupid?”_ and _“How could humans figure out something so brilliant?”_ at the same time
Hahaha. I think of it as for every person that exists is another possibility for as much wonder or horror as one can imagine, and potentially everything in-between XD hahaha
@@toni8675 education /= intelligence though. Informed and smart are different things. And common sense is considered intelligence to some, but abstract thought is to others.
10:32 "Unlike the interpretations that we've discussed, for example Bohmian mechanics or many worlds, OCMs can actually be tested." FINALLY. This is the most exciting part of this video, for me. I was thinking, from the very beginning of the video, "Yeah, new theories are great, but... do they agree with the data?" and it took 'til halfway through for that discussion to start. That was a super long ten minutes. :P
i never heard of objective collapse theory before but now im STOKED, if it proves true it could be a pretty big step towards a theory of everything right? since it would explain why general relativity and the standard model are either accurate or not depending on the scale?
These are my personal favorite "interpretations" of quantum mechanics! I just recently brought this up in our university journal club and nobody had head of these before. So glad to see a spacetime episode on this!
I used to be involved in a university for some time where I'd attend a lot of graduation ceremonies. One of my favourite group of memories is of the women in their 70's or older who were finishing their first degree. For most of them their husband died, and after raising children and grandchildren finally did something for themselves. If Science inspires you, go for it if that's within your reach!
Dr. Matt is pretty awesome, agreed. Not everybody can get in front of an audience and do this stuff, although professors admittedly do it more than most. I've been a fan of this channel since day one. By the way Dr. Matt I'm sorry I called you skinny Thor in my first comment all those years ago. you just looked like Thor with your accent flying around out in space like a Thor do
@@ChildOfTheLie96 (1) Please explain to me what a communist is, in your own words. (2) Why would you seek out a Astrophysics channel if you denounce it so strongly?
Great episode, I especially loved the breakdown of the experiment on the ball emitting radiation. That was nuts how they were able to isolate it so much, they managed to detect single photons at a time. As necessary and fun theoretical physics is, experiments are the true heart and soul of physics and are the ones that bring us a step closer to understanding the reality we reside in. Just wanted to show some appreciation for the breakdown of an actual experiment and its results.
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
I have no background in physics nor do I understand half of what you're saying. But it is fascinating trying to wrap my mind around physical theories and the nature of reality they are trying to describe.
I like how Roger Penrose uses a ceramic cat and a hammer attached to a detector. Instead of a living cat and a vile of poison attached to a detector. So as to avoid the absurd spectacle of the thought experiment.
Let's not forget the third possible Schrodinger outcome: the cat desperately claws a hole in the box and releases the poison gas into the room. Everyone dies, nothing is learned, other than yet another confirmation of the human condition being one of foolishness.
I am grateful to be an observer in a relative location that allows me to understand a fair amount of the information coming from this and other Space Time videos. Videos like this let me scratch the QM itch I've had since high school without me having to sweat the math...
I'd love it if there was an episode going deeper into the experiments that can be done to probe and constrain objective collapse models, e.g. getting deep into literature on things like dual slit experiments with ever larger molecules, the experimental set up and connecting it to theoretical work. Love PBS Spacetime!
An absolute banger of an episode. Its good to see physicists are still working on interpretations of QM. It often feels as though all the issues are just pushed under the rug.
If gravity can collapse a wavefunction, does this mean that acceleration can as well? I.e. can an atom tell the difference between a rocket sitting on the surface of the earth and a rocket accelerating in empty space at 1g?
Scientist discovered yesterday, thatthe core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. Because of all the pressure on core, matter takes on interesting effect's, look up [[ earth core superionic ]] There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
Einstein said that gravity is acceleration so they are the same. Likewise a gravity wave is a ripple of deformation of space time travelling at the speed of light, so that ripple is a bending of space as it passes which is the same as mass does to space so it acts as mass passing at the speed of light. So the concentrated gravity wave Matt is talking about, must be in phase like a laser to make the ripples add constructively to an intensity that forms an event horizon. so it would require a form of lens, like concentric rings of large masses or even black holes of various sizes to form and focus a coherent gravity wave. Following the naming convention: A Laser works with light, a Maser works with microwaves, so a gravity laser would be called a "Graser". This should be enough for an entire Netflix series about a type III civilization!
@Rutvik the point related to acceleration might be a very important piece to the puzzling whether or not objective collapse theory pans out since in Wolfram's physics model it appears that in the large scale limit it can be shown that for any Turing complete system this limit when computational irreducibility is applied always reduces exactly to the generalized Einstein field equations with the catch that if super positions are used to resolve all possible orders for updating the system then addition to the normal causal space you also automatically get quantum field theory in the form of a universal Feynman path integral within an additional type of space that represents all possible states or outcomes for which a system can evolve which wolfram refers to as branchial space. This name comes from how it is effectively analogous to the configuration space of Quantum field theory under a softer variation of a many worlds interpretation where said worlds are not independent but rather branches of a single wavefunction which gravitate warping the local geometry of branchial space. Importantly the wave guide equation for pilot wave theory becomes a limiting case for the local metric tensor components within branchial space. In this case the probability of a quantum outcome becomes represented by the degree of local curvature of branchial space around said state in branchial spacetime. Likewise it means that a quantum measurement rather than changing the physical system merely represents the acceleration of an observer's frame of reference within branchial space. The higher the probability of an outcome the more paths are bent by the curvature towards that outcome so by extension a definite wavefunction collapse becomes equivalent to falling into a state where all possible trajectories lead to the same outcome, an event horizon within branchial spacetime. It is a lot to take in yet alone understand but it effectively means that all of quantum field theory can be described within the full geometric framework of general relativity with an observation of a quantum system becoming equivalent to accelerating your frame of reference within the configuration space of quantum field theory which is just as real as "normal" spacetime except that the units of this space are energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. A.k.a., rather than measuring distance in "meters" like normal spacetime the units of distance in this separate type of space are measured in joules. And hence the branchial components of velocity are measured in units of power which is interesting as we can now equate the Heisenberg uncertainty principal with a relativistic Lorentz transformation of the observers frame of reference. Also those infinities you get when you try and mix regular GR and QFT conventionally make perfect sense here as you are effectively trying to crunch a hyperbolic number of spatial dimensions down to 3. You are going to get infinities just like if you try and contract the Schwarzschild metric down to a radius of zero.
I understand everything from every episode of PBS Space Time, just barely. It's the perfect carrot to chase down the search engine rabbit hole. It forces me to learn and to understand more, and it's addicting. Thank You!
I wonder if in the future, once we've finally figured it all out, people will remember all the different yet fascinating theories that were competing to explain the weirdness of quantum theory. It also makes you wonder how many amazing ideas that were later proven wrong have been lost to the sands of scientific time. All these quantum theories are in agreement with all the experiments we've ran, and yet only one of them can be true. I mean it must be so, they can't all exist at the same time, in a sort of theoretical superposition of explanation... right?
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
Well, if a collection of “theories” are equivalent, and are just different interpretations, or different but equivalent descriptions of the same thing, they could all be true... or at least, in some sense? Uh, I guess it depends on the details of how the interpretations differ. I suppose conceivably there could be different interpretations which have the same content as far as what they predict about what can possibly be observed, but which also include incompatible metaphysical claims, and in this case they couldn’t both be true ? But if you ignore the parts of interpretations which aren’t even in theory testable, then they could be both true? I guess?
I’ve always been frustrated by the “mystical consciousness” reason for collapse and was delighted to learn more about other testable theories! After all, why should a wave or a particle care about our cognitive processes? Kind of implies consciousness is made of the same “fabric” as the quantum field, and when we observe, it’s like giving that fabric a shake. Neat to think about, but this is way more exciting! Best video yet!
@@ThePowerLover That is until we figure out how and why consciousness arises, if there is some kind of physicality to it beyond the obvious "Brain=complex processing system=consciousness" we may be able to falsify it. (That is unless you're talking about solipsism purely from a philosophical pov)
The problem is the problematic definition of 'observation'. The most likely one is 'any interaction with anything', but people keep defaulting to the more ubiquitous definition, especially those out of the know.
I agree that it is a bit of an annoying explanation from a scientific perspective. However part of me really wants this to be true because it's a far more fascinating answer in my opinion.
i like to think that consciousness simply is born out of the underlying quantum physical processes. i.e. consciousness is quantum in nature you could even go further to suggest how our consciousness is entangled to our environment, and thats why we all consciously observe the same events, however, i predict that as we approach the ability to measure near the planck scale, we will actually have different conscious experiences of a minute detection in an experiment, as we arrive at a degree of precision not agreed upon by our individual conscious compositions.
Matt, you’re awesome at making me think about things I already know about in a completely different way, or introduce aspects of concepts I didn’t know existed at all. Thank you!
I love this! I never really liked the ideas of many worlds or quantum gravity. This feels more intuitively right. Can't wait to hear how the testing goes. It's crazy that we can even test some of these theories.
Nope, me too. It reminded me of science itself: we know only as far as we measure. There could be another explanation that fits the facts and fits inside our measurements that is actually the truth
Matt ties our Internet shoes, I absolutely agree. He's like our aglet, the little hard tube at the end of the lace that prevents it from becoming all frazzled, and keeps each lace away from ending up being more effort than it's worth, because you're just gonna want to replace your laces in that case, or even your shoes altogether. So I think you totally nailed it, the Internet would indeed be a _much worse lace_ without our Matt O'Dowd on it 🤍 lol
This channel has fed my curiosity of space so much that now im taking every possible science class in my high school and hopefully going to Boston university for a degree in planetary biology or astronomy to become a astronomer or astrobiologist
I've been watching this channel for about a year, and it's starting to pay off. I'm actually starting to understand at least 30% of these videos. I'll keep watching till it's 100% 😁
This is amazing! Why isn't everybody talking about objective models more?! With such explanatory power, this could be a theory of everything. It's deterministic, no more quantum mambo jambo, it may connect gravity to the other forces. I got excited watching this, after so many years of frustration trying to understand the world.
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
Simple because by bell's theorem objective models (realism) and relativistic limits (locality) can't both be true in Quantum Mechanics. We have a lot of evidence behind locality and not much for realism.
Love this program, value what it contributes to our collective curiosity, and since I've not yet commented I thought it might be time. For whatever reason--and I'll have to think more deeply about why--this was my favorite episode yet. Cheers!
Scientist discovered yesterday, thatthe core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. Because of all the pressure on core, matter takes on interesting effect's, look up [[ earth core superionic ]] There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
There is no "multiple realities" interpretation, there is multiple universes interpretation, all of them making up reality. And is only grandiose if you believe beforehand, that reality doesn't exceeds our universe "so much". That's religion, not science.
Thank you so much, everyone at Spacetime, for these videos. You structure and write them in such a way that both a layperson and physics students with varying levels of understanding can grasp and enjoy the videos. In my opinion, you include just the right amount of technical information, equations and concepts to keep the interest of someone who has already learned about many of these topics, but not so much that you lose them entirely, and not so much that a person with much less understanding grows bored and confused to the point they turn it off. Goldilocks zone videos. Love them.
Matt O’Dowd is the very best explicator of quantum scale phenomena, dynamics and plausibilities, by an indeterminate but visceral certainty. You illuminate and clarify my window on the world, Matt! Thanks for your sequential, genuinely delivered logic.
Wait, wait, wait. So if I have this right. The Higgs field gives particles mass, that mass causes particles to warp space time, that warping of space time gives the appearance of an attractive force, that attractive force cause the density in an area to increase, that increased density causes a higher chance of particles to collapse, and that gives us a solid non-superposition reality?
Might have a link to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation: With less space uncertainty, i.e. less gravity as per equivalency principle, you have more and more randomness and decoherence of trajectories of particles.
Most mass doesn't come from the Higgs field. Most mass of our familiar "baryonic matter" (protons, neutrons, and electrons) arises from binding energy inside nucleons being equivalent to mass because of special relativity. This is about 99% of the mass of everyday objects. Besides that, if an OCM is true then yeah what you said is right.
@@Latronibus do you have a recommendation on somewhere that I could read about the difference of mass from baryonic matter? I'm not seeing any differentiation on pages like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation however I do see on the Higgs mechanism that they mention "essential to explain the generation mechanism of the property 'mass' for gauge bosons".
Excellent! I almost didn't stick with you when you brought up Copenhagen, but hooray! Finally an episode that talks about modern, viable, testable theories that push QM to the next level. My only quibble would be that Many Worlds should be considered a theory as well. It's the null hypothesis. It's linear Schrodinger QM at its leanest and purest. Copenhagen, Pilot Wave Theory, and most others are mere interpretations because they basically look at the simplicity and elegance of the Schrodinger equation and go, "Nah, that can't be right," and bolt on ad-hoc explanations of what they feel needs to be different to make it not so. _These_ theories, as I've mentioned before, are genuine competing theories, with testable hypotheses. That doesn't make Many Worlds _not_ a theory; it just makes it the null hypothesis, the one that's assumed true if the others end up being disproven... until one of them builds up enough evidence to make a convincing case that it _can't_ be disproven, and becomes the new null hypothesis. Calling Everettian Mechanics just an interpretation is like claiming that pre-20th century, Newtonian mechanics was just an interpretation, along with the Luminiferous Aether and Aristotalian Mechanics (an object wants to be at rest, and will return to rest if disturbed, etc). That just wasn't the case... Newtonian Mechanics was the null hypothesis. It was the simplest version of physics that fit the observations that could be made at the time. Luminiferous Aether is very much like Pilot Wave and other hidden variables theories. "Surely that can't be right... action at a distance? Light traveling through nothing, self-propagating? No no, there must be a substrate for light to travel through, to translate gravity from one object to another." And it... wasn't a _stupid_ idea, by any means. It just wasn't the null hypothesis; a simpler theory, without the ad-hoc addition of a substrate, was available, and the burden of proof was on Luminiferous Aether to detect the Aether, just as the burden is on Hidden Variables to, well... _show the hidden variables._ Copehnagen, to me, is very much like Aristotle. Both of them were very early attempts to rationalize and explain the behavior they saw, but with absolutely no evidence. Both are prone to deeply regrettable misinterpretations... objects having _wants,_ for Aristotle, and collapses needing _observers_ for Copenhagen. Both run into paradox after paradox, with more and more bits and bobs having to be added on ad-hoc to explain new observations (why does an object on ice take so long to come to rest? Is the ice providing a force to keep it going? If so, why doesn't it accelerate? - vs the Observer problem, the whole bugaboo about Conservation of Quantum Information, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, which appears utterly paradoxical in Copenhagen but is completely trivial in Many Worlds, etc). Many Worlds is like Newton. It's probably wrong-or, more precisely, it's probably a simplification with validity within the proper domain destined to be seen beyond-but it's the simplest theory, the one that doesn't _need_ to prove itself. It's the one that other theories must supplant. It is very much _not_ "just another interpretation". It's the ultimate distillation of everything we can currently _prove_ about the universe around us, with no ad-hoc additions or stubborn concessions to our own intuition that says "but I don't see many worlds around me". It's just a huge and very long-lived sort of crowd-think that so much of the scientific community mistakes Copenhagen for having that spot... but that's okay. Nobody realized how silly Aristotle's ideas sounded for quite a long time, either. Edit: Actually, quite amusingly, it just occurred to me that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is _exactly_ the same sort of paradox as the "why do objects on ice take so long to come to rest" quandary in Aristotle's world-view. To make ice and other low-friction surfaces work in that interpretaion, you have to ad-hoc some kind of force, or maybe even motivation that ice wants objects to keep moving, or some nonsense, then maybe add on something to explain why it doesn't want things to move if they aren't already moving, or that the object's will to remain at rest is stronger than the ice's will to keep it moving, but only just barely... I see basically no difference at all between that and having to accept and come up with explanations for why entangled particles can communicate backwards through time, and then maybe adding on something to explain why they don't _normally_ and so on. Quite amusing. xD Actually, I might even go so far as to say that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is the nail in the coffin that once and for all disproves Copenhagen and shows it for what it really is: an early attempt to deny what science was telling them and make sense out of it to our macroscopic intuition, but that has very little basis in reality, and no evidence at all.
MW is the simplest theory? Sorry, not a theory (no evidence) and not simple at all. It makes the outlandish claim that whole universes are instantly created. How?? Where does all the energy come from? There is no evidence to think that what we see in this universe points to there being other universes, none. It's NOT simply a continuation or simply believing in the Schrodinger equation as commonly proposed. It makes the HUGE, outlandish, preposterous leap of religious faith to interpret what we see during a measurement as a branching of universes. NO EVIDENCE. You can't pretend like that is not an assumption (even tho I know you will) It's just an idea that magic could happen (cloak it as a theory instead of magic) to make every possibility happen in unlimited universes and explain away any difficulty I can't explain in this world.. Even the very word "universes" is itself a one-word oxymoron, so you have to say "worlds" instead, otherwise it becomes more obvious how silly this is. Claiming you have knowledge of a universe outside our universe is also oxymoronic, in a sense, if not obviously farcical. We'll forgive you for the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser proposition since it has been debunked, and yours is an older post.
Ok, i don't have any bucket list like thing. But now I think I do! I would love to spend a weekend with Matt, talking about spacetime, with him answering my questions (an ideal Matt, where he'd have time, be in my vicinity, and would enjoy and want to talk about spacetime to me). I would soooooo love that. I just feel such a fascination with the nature of reality we live in. And I would just love to sit and ponder, ask, listen, and ponder some more, meanwhile looking at some nice trees. Listen to beautiful music in between questions:). There, that's my dream!
So, wait... If we assume that the mutual gravitation of particles leads to collapse, then how are we able to maintain superpositions here in the Earth's gravity well? Wouldn't the environment inside a quantum computer be subject to the same superposition-collapsing effect as the rest of the macroscopic Earth? Wouldn't this be testable by measuring the error-rate of a QC device at various altitudes?
Not strength of overall gravity of some localized spacetime, but the specific gravity of sufficient wave function interactions to cause collapse due to gravity within interactions. Finding that “Penrose Constant” (to coin a phrase-and which already may need more theoretic distinction following the experiment described in the video) for the nonlinear term for Schrödinger is a micro-, not macro-paradigm task.
@@csmarkham Forgive me for still being kind of bull-headed about my ignorance, but _why_ does such an effect restrict it's self to the micro scale, when it does not do so in any other circumstances? I think many-worlds and the "no collapse" idea makes more sense than trying to differentiate between micro-scale gravitational effects and large-scale gravity wells. It would, otherwise, imply that the gravity well of a black hole is less likely to be quantum than that of Earth, unless I'm misunderstanding even more than I think I am (fully possible). Furthermore, doesn't the Sun discredit this idea? It's constantly undergoing quantum tunneling at a fairly well known rate, yet the matter in there is *much* more densely packed than in a quantum chip, or any lab for that matter. Such proximity should make quantum effects impossible, if short range gravitation effects cause chain-collapse.
in the absence of electromagnetic waves everything is in superpoistion. Obviously the collapse is due to influence from em waves. Its probably why dark matter exists and doesnt exist because it doesnt interact with em. Dark matter is matter in perpetual superpostion state with no way of collapse but it still has a gravititional effect because it is still matter. Wording is a bit loose there but you get my point. Mysteries of the universe and potentially quntumn gravity solved. Case closed.
Such wonderful content, thank you! Gravitational Decoherence makes a lot of sense to a layman like myself, but as always this video has raised several questions that I'll be pondering all weekend :)
Brilliant, a great show of our cutting edge knowledge of "what is this place called the universe and what is this stuff doing, and how does it do it!" I freaking love this channel!!! And Matt the narrator, seemingly brilliant, I mean genius level!!! And yet the humble, good willed teacher, who just wants to share his deep understanding with us curious and yet less informed neophytes , who (at least me, anyway) sometimes struggle to fully grasp the concepts, but are utterly fascinated with these subjects!!! Bravo, great job!!! And thanks!!! And Matt , you're a rock star brother!!! All the best!!!
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
I've noticed you have expanded you mind to possibilities beyond your classical science training full of "no's, not's and never's". Possibilities are exciting!!
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
I love listening to you Matt. Absolutely fascinating stuff. Mind-blowing....Now just understanding anything at all,all the time...now that therein is the problem...😁
10:05 (image reference) I still think wave function is somehow tied to 4th dimensional shapes and objects. We are only seeing a fraction or shadow version of most objects, passing through our field of 3 dimensional view. And when it's in our window of view, we say the wave collapsed so that's where it is for real. But maybe it is in more places than we can tell. Things can be both inside and outside our window of view. And the part outside our view, we call a "wave of potential". The image of the planet moving through the gravitational wave at 10:05 in the video, is a good example of a 4th or 5th dimensional object moving through space/time. We cannot see the shape in it's entirety. Only the portion within our 3D view but, we can slightly detect there is or was more to it. So we call that the wave collapsing
I don't see why it can't be argued that everything is occurring in a single dimension and the mind extrapolates extra dimensions. There's still a human component when it comes to science, mainly the observation and classification of phenomenon in order to derive laws. Who's to say that in the process of classifying things, we've accidentally assumed there were extra dimensions in order to simplify the process of understanding reality? For example, suppose we take the natural numbers. Trying to encapsulate each and every member as a single entity is simply not mentally feasible. It's more practical to view the elements through the lens of base 10 (or whatever base, I'm using 10 as an example) since we can establish a finite number of groups (each group being a digit with a number being a combination of these groups). While this enables us to represent the natural numbers in a finite manner, we can't forget that natural numbers are not fundamentally defined to be in base 10; this was a human construct, with each group being a "dimension" to represent a number in 10 "dimensions". To then assume that some numbers are shadows of higher dimensions (if we can only view numbers that do not contain the digit 3) is completely missing the point. Who's to say we're not doing something very similar with our reality? What if length, width, height, time, whatever, are merely "groups" we extrapolated in order to understand our sense of experience? Memories, sensations, what if they are just extrapolations of something more fundamental? If anything is to be labeled as a shadow, it makes more sense to me that this notion of there being multiple dimensions is merely a shadow projected by rationality of something that's more intricate.
For the last two years this guy has lulled me to bed with his science lectures. I love them. He’s my adult version of “ read me a bedtime story” every night. I think if ever heard his voice IRL I’d be immediately hypnotized unconscious.
I greatly like the new ideas although I doubt that they are due to gravity in anyway ... perhaps 'Collapse' and Gravity have something more fundamental in common?
So, I had an initial question, and it cascaded into other questions as I was typing. I don't really expect anyone to answer the entire train of thought. But I really hope that Matt would address at least some part of it. His beard always looks so good. Grow it out, Matt. Anyway.... If gravity collapses the wave function, that's binary, right? It's either collapsed or it isn't. Is that absolute? Does any amount of gravity at all cause the collapse? Or is chance of collapse increased with higher gravity? There's still *some* gravity in deep space. Galaxies affect each other's velocities. Is it enough that there is *some* amount of gravity felt at the barycenter between the Milky Way and Andromeda? Or is space there "more quantum" due to the extremely small pull? If that's still sufficient gravity, would you then need to go deep into the voids between threads of the galactic web to find a region of space that's fully quantum? Wouldn't it then collapse from the signal used to measure it? And if gravity collapses the wave function, what does that mean for the role of an observer in descriptions and explanations of quantum mechanics? There's certainly gravity in the box with Schrödinger's cat. And assuming gravity collapses the waveforms of each particle that that feel it's force, that would make all particles that we experiment on permanently collapsed, wouldn't it? That seems to imply the pilot wave theory to me. That even is we can't know a particle's absolute physical properties, they do *have* absolute values, but the measurementitself perturbs them according to the Heisenberg principle.
This may be the most useful chapter in the Space-Time series. I keep wondering about the stark differences between Quantum activity and the real world we all live in. The approach laid out here starts to tug at the fact that the 2 systems are, and will forever be, distinct from each other even though they interact together.
Agreed. Although it feels incoherent and unnatural. Meaning humans don’t quiet have the full grasp on it…… I think (hoping?) there is significant refinement coming in the future…..
It very much could be that we have the math wrong with some correct answers. In theory, we should be able to have a single, simple and elegant solution that works with both Quantum and the real world.
Interesting. I'd been thinking the collapse was a result of interaction with other objects, and the more interactions, the more likely the collapse, which was why they tended to collapse when measured, as that required subjecting it to more interactions.
Yeah it collapses upon interaction. But every interaction IS a collapse, not just likely. But mind that “collapse” is not literal, it doesn’t stay collapsed. After the interaction, it is a wave function again, but that function carries the information of the interaction.
Same. My amateur-theory is also that these wave function collapses are what _cause_ gravity. They warp time, which in turn causes diverging geodesics which then causes "torque" which manifests as gravity (as has been explained before here on PBS). c (speed of light) could simply be interpreted as an interaction/wave function collapse budget. The more interactions happen within a physical space, the more time is warped because the interactions take a way from time budget. More mass means more interactions, hence more mass causes more time warping which manifests as stronger gravity.
@@ThePowerLover I think you commented this on the wrong thread, because your answer is not even remotely related to the topic here. What I said is easy to prove, and considered trivial in science, but lot of non-scientists misunderstands it.
It sounds like a great theory that explains a lot, but I’m wondering why the curvature of spacetime itself cannot be in a superposition. From an earlier spacetime video, I understood that mass/energy causes time dilation, which in turn makes masses attract (gravity), and that this is what “curved spacetime” is. Is that the reason why it cannot be in superposition? Because if it could, time could be running at different speeds in the same reference frame, which I imagine would break causality and give us some spicy paradoxes.
IIRC superpositions of valid solutions to the Einstein Field equations are not always themselves valid solutions to the field equations. That's the mathematical justification for Penrose denying this possibility.
I always think of the wave function as a formula that describes how to cook every variation of every type of food, in every type of oven, in every possible container, with every possible visual presentation in every possible kitchen in every possible place a kitchen could be. Only, we aren't talking about food, we're talking about the matter and forces of the universe.
Wow: a Kugelblitz! Never come across this concept before, but it makes sense as E=mc². Black holes from focussed gravitational waves or light? Mind blown! Thanks for another great episode. 👍🏼
Scientist discovered yesterday, thatthe core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. Because of all the pressure on core, matter takes on interesting effect's, look up [[ earth core superionic ]] There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
There's a PBS Space Time about using Kugelblitz for spaceship propulsion, you can watch it here: th-cam.com/video/EzZGPCyrpSU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=PBSSpaceTime
The simple explanation is, particles are manifestations of energy in a wave function that exist in a field. The trick is defining the wave function and the field.
I think waves are always a higher level abstraction. like ocean waves, there is water moving in a particular way to create wavy behavior. sound waves has moving air, springs oscillate in a wavy way because of deforming and interchanging of potential and kinetic energy in the material periodically. wherever there are waves, something underlying is moving creating the pattern
@@ecicce6749 Yeah. If you wobble an electron then it creates waves in the EM field like ripples on a pond. What was wobbled to create the probability wave described by Schrodinger's equation?
I’ve been watching Sir Roger Penrose’s career for 20 years. He’s got so many cutting edge ideas on quantum mechanics, consciousness and cosmology which make intuitive sense to me. It’s amazing to watch the scientific community come around to agreement with his theories. I believe History will regard him as an intellectual giant on par with Einstein. There is a whole episode of material around one point this video left out: Penrose doesn’t think consciousness causes the collapse of a wavefunction, he thinks the collapse of a large enough complex wave function IS consciousness.
OrchOR was falsified in 2016 by Penrose's experimentalist. The "bing" turned out to be a gestalt counting space (start/stop) for a biological language then named GML (geometric music language).
Hang ten! Surfing the waves through the wormholes! Tasty waves, crunchy tunes.. exciting! Gratitude to everyone that create this revolutionary new theories and scientific advancement! Congratulations peeps! Keep on rocking!
4:40 - I have always had an issue when physicists say the waveform collapses when it is "measured" or "observed." Please mention that when someone measures or observes the collapse they do it by interrupting the waveform with matter, and the result is the observation. So instead, say that the waveform collapses when it interacts with matter (or whatever else), not when it is observed, because it would still collapse if we weren't paying attention to the results. Saying it this way removes any human agency in the phenomenon.
Every collapse is an instance of particles becoming entangled. It is really shocking that this isn't the language used. Terms like "observed," and even "measured," in this case only serve to add to the mysticism around quantum mechanics that confuses people.
Actually, not every interaction with matter/energy causes the wavefunction to collapse (assuming it's a real thing); some interactions just result in a larger quantum entangled system. The term "measured" is used to delineate between interactions that cause the wavefunction to collapse and ones that do not. The exact mechanism behind why certain interactions are measurements while others aren't is still a fervent topic at the forefront of physics (it's known as "The Measurement Problem"). While I agree the terms "measured" and "observed" can yield confusion when compared to their colloquial counterparts, they do have a certain utility in the context of quantum mechanics. In an ideal world an entirely new word would have been used to define the aforementioned distinction; one that didn't invoke a sense of agency. But alas, it's probably too late for that now.
@@ThePaulsen1992 Wavefunction "collapse" or "reduction" resembles matter-antimatter annihilation, which process also eliminates previously existing wavefunctions, reducing them to zero. Perhaps every time a wavefunction bifurcates, into "half going left" (L/2) and "half going right" (R/2)... that bifurcation is associated with the co-creation of virtual matter-antimatter pairs "another half going left + anti-half going right" (L/2 - R/2) and "another half going right + anti-half going left" (-L/2 + R/2)... such that emerging from the "split" would not merely be "half going left + half going right" (L/2 + R/2)... but rather otherwise instead "half going left (real) + another half going left (virtual) + anti-half going left (virtual)" (L/2 + L/2 - L/2) and symmetrically (R/2 + R/2 - R/2). If the particle "collapses" going "left", then the left's virtual particles are "promoted" to reality, L/2 + L/2 = L on the left, along with R/2 - R/2 = 0 on the right. The real R/2 right half wave is annihilated, along with its virtual states also, which are never "promoted" to real but "fade away". This annihilation-like process could possibly produce "virtual radiation" of the sort that Casimir plates could detect. Wavefunction collapses could perhaps "jostle Casmir plates back & forth" or something vaguely like that
i really really appreciate two things about this channel: consistently impressive educational animations, and Matt and co having FAR more humility and open-mindedness than many other professional science communicators that engage in Internet drama and topics way outside their expertise. Refreshing to not have any hints of whiny clickbait from certain public intellectuals buddying up with greaseballs like Jordan Peterson or JK Rowling and talking about science and politics they barely understand beyond skimming pop-sci and wikipedia to get that sweet sweet short term engagement boost and publicity. Always hollering about how all the OTHER scientists are the problem. Just plain good science education for YEARS on SpaceTime. Matt (and Gabe) and perhaps Brian Cox are the true successors to Carl Sagan.
I love these videos on the quantum wave function. Thank you for another fascinating one. It's exciting to have some actual testable theories on the table!! Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. :)
The universe is like a giant sudoku puzzle. The more restircted the squares possible values have the closer you get to a single answer to the Sudoku. Just my way of thinking about the quantum.
The whole idea of collapse has never sat well with me. It just seems a too-convenient theory for something we’re having difficulty explaining. If wave functions simply spread out and interacted forever, to us in the macro world, it would seem like they had collapsed but actually the quantum effects have just fallen below measurement thresholds. If you look at an arrangement of moving fuzzy blurs from far enough away it appears to be a unchanging solid object. Could it be that the underlying nature of reality is actually reasonably simple but scale effects make it seem complicated to us?
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the collapse of the wavefunction, why should the fundamental constituents of the universe "collapse" and change? Could it not be that the wavefunction doesn't collapse, but the percieved collapse is simply the nature of limitations of measurement and interaction?
Seems it would be more efficient to seed a function and generate it at interaction rather than rolling and "recording" every value from that virtual interaction to a real interaction. Why calculate something that may never be used?
A man was arguing for you to defend you and said something about the brain is firing on some cylinders. I replied to him @Randy Terry you are defending the other guy? I wrote him but look -this is part 2. I just answered you - and him - in "depth" but missed out [my apologies] on a critical word/phrase/sentence you used. You said "brain is not firing on all cylinders". My response: who the h*** cares - all cylinders, no cylinders, some cylinders [e.g. distributed cognition] - in the context [keyword : context] that 1. The mind [the one with free will] is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the brain The mind is a separate, independent , non mystical "SPIRITUAL" quality but with potency [i.e. free will : the ability to amazingly "re-program" the brain within limits . N.B. The word "Reprogram" is a metaphor to represent the actuality: neuro-plasticity by deliberate choice]. Interesting fun fact. Jeffrey Schwarz, M.D. , UCLA worked with quantum physicist Henry Stapp (Berkeley) - the earlier showing how frameworks helped x% of O.C.D patients overcome their ailment and outright change the neuro-plasticity of their brain using "mind power" . The background theory they proposed is ORCH S.R. (as I call it to distinguish it from Sir Roger Penrose's ORCH O.R.) . ORCH S.R. : subjective reduction of the quantum wave function at the ion channel (between neurons, in the gap) where man's brain, nature and the relational component work together. ORCH O.R. : objective reduction is a Penrose Physicalist theory where microtubules self-collapse (resolving the tension between General relativity and Quantum mechanics in the universe) generating proto-consciousness 4 times per second. NOTES: all notes on quantum theory above are hypothesis, fun and interesting - NOT truths. The ONLY TRUTH as in ABSOLUTE TRUTH is you have free will and therefore can use "reason AND logic" [two different words, elements] . Computers have blazing speed precision logic that can do "so much" but are unable to reason; can not "induct" nor "abduction/abductive inference". Only man has these "qualities" of mind . HOW? The technicality is NOT known: what is known is it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH because consciousness can identify existence [no A.I. can; nor mental patients nor animals. Only man. But what about you? AND then there are PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT HAVE "RATIONALITY" use free will TO deny it . You can Not deny one or more of the three: Existence [then where are you?]. You can validate this by pointing to things or touching or smelling things: making a "decision amongst alternative options" if rational - about whether you are in and of existence. If there is existence then you auto-validate consciousness for it identifies the above. And if there is existence and consciousness : one identity identifying another identity then you autovalidate "truth: identity" [Aristotle' law of identity]. So the moon exists regardless of whether you do or whether you look at it or not Therefore the three "axiomatic' concepts upon which the ENTIRETY OF SCIENCE AND MATH AND ALL OTHER SUBJECTS OF ACADEMIA AND BEYOND ARE DEPENDENT are existence, mind and identity [by mind it means full fledged free will - NO CONSTRAINTS - a separate spiritual identity altogether -it's own cause; and you are the cause of it as one unified entity over your life span].
Very interesting. To me, this make sense and gets the 'mysticism' out of quantum mechanics. Looking forward to seeing what the experimental evidence can tell us. Oh yes, never full trust a physicist with taking care of a cat. We're looking at you Matt!
The 'mysticism' is advanced science, we just aren't there yet. Electricity was once thought of as only 'mysticism' and fictional. Arrogance leads to ignorance.
@@simonO712 When people thought that electricity was only the stuff wizards could produce. It was science but people believed it was myth or 'fiction'.
That's simple: collapse is irreversible giving us an arrow of time. And it is independent from the fact that in the past entropy was smaller. This causes some problems: it violates rule of conservation of energy and momentum according to Noether's theorem. However any form of collapse is such a violation. It is unavoidable as any measurement requires collapse. So if any measurement causes conservation energy violation then I don't think that this is argument against objective collapse. Because objective collapse is so rare then this violiation was not observed yet. Also: any arrow of time have problem with energy conservation.
Is there any proof that a particle (wavefunction) can continue to exist in a superpostition, after it has interacted (touched) with another particle (wavefunction). If not so, doesn't the interaction between wavefunctions cause the wavefunction to collapse? This just seems the most logical P.S. in the quantum slit experiment the wavefunction is interacting with itself and not with another wavefunction?
Thanks. I plan on watching this at least 10 times. Anyone who thinks the scientists are not sneaking up on understanding the universe should think again. What an exciting time to be alive and I jnterested in science.
Does GRW imply a limit on the maximum number of qubits in a quantum computer? And if so, then what is it? So I know how big to make my cryptography keys.
I think size depends on how long do you want it live in super position. So you should also know how long will it take to break the key to know if a quantum computer of that size can live that long in super position.
Some Simulation Theories say it is the complexity of the entangled structure that limits the number without collapse. Either way. Don't invest your money in quantum computers. But if quantum computers show otherwise. QM is back to "Shut up and calculate"
When you introduced the idea of quantum decoherence, my jaw dropped. I know the universe has absolutely no sense of narrative or justice, but it would be SO upsetting if this wasn't the answer, if the whole problem of quantum gravity wasn't the exact same problem as the macroscopic quantum weirdness problem.
Dude your praise for the Big Bang supporters is so fun. Honestly I think they deserve it. They help keep this show free for folks like m'self who uhhh....appreciate that it's free. Thanks PBS and Matt. 💝
Science asylum did an episode on superposition two months ago saying that particles were in one state but spoke about vector spaces. The schrodinger equation told you which axis of the vector space the particle was in. I didn’t really understand it and how it relates to this episode.
It seems to make more sense to me that collapse is just an artifact of the quantum particle becoming entangled with the detector. Really we don't know what the particle does. We just know what effect it had on the detector, which is a high gain amplifier.
This might be a silly question but am I the only one that thinks this could potentially explain dark matter as a soup of superpositioned particles whose wave function has not yet collapsed? Sort of like future echos of potential particles eminating into our present. If it was true then it would certainly explain why we haven't yet, and if true can never, directly observe dark matter.
I can't get past the idea of pilot wave theory: Is there a good reason that pilot wave theory is most likely not reality? It seems the most simple way to explain the way things are (as opposed to multiple universes and all other crazy talk).
Bohm is simply a reformulation of Schroedinger. It gives you exactly the same result but asks you to pretend that an unmeasurable, unphysical entity exists that you don't even need. :-)
It (and objective collapse theory) have the same problem: way too good to be true. There's just no way that quantum mechanics turns out to have an underlying mechanism that makes clean intuitive sense.
Since quantum particles are waves, is it possible that the conversion from quantum to classiacal object happens when enough particles are close enough that their waveforrms overlap and add up enough to pass some sort of threshold where the particles no longer act quantum?
If wave function collapse happens like how you illustrated, does that mean it's constrained by the speed of light? Would we be able to detect a wave function collapse propagation wave?
it doesn't really matter, it's mostly wrong. The issue is at a certain relative distance from any cloud of tiny particles (smaller is farther away), they appear to be a solid object, and there is no real way for us to differentiate them from each other. We can't make energy at a high enough frequency to separate the particles. So we have to kinda fake our way to what we believe is supposed to happen. It's easier if you think of the quantum perspective as distant, rather than small. The Dimension of Observation is a physical objective barrier to the transfer of information, of C. Causality has a mirror. And in that reflection information, as if falling into a black hole, begins to take infinite amounts of time to progress. For all intents and purposes Causality itself hits 0 m/s^2, and in these boundaries both minimum and maximum, information can no longer be shared. Every edge in a 3 dimensional universe is a boundary layer of causality that cannot be penetrated. This is what the Cosmic Horizon and Singularity represent. 0C
@@jb76489 Entanglement breaking experiments work over thousands of km and the delay has been measured to be zero. Damned Matt burned us all with his answer to the second to last comment!
This was a great episode! I have long assumed intuitively that classical behaviour on large scales was a natural result of the number of particles involved, but I thought of it more as a "smoothing out" of the addition of so many wave functions. (This probably makes no sense, because intuition is a terrible way to try and understand quantum phenomena!) The explanation presented here is far more compelling, and can be explained mathematically AND be understood intuitively AND be tested, so I love it!
i've thought something similar to yourself for a few years now except that the wave function collapse was a result of so many particles interacting with each other, "observing/measuring" each other if you will. so the more particles you add, the more interactions, therefore the more likely the wave function collapses. i was thinking that macro objects would have a halo of constantly collapsing wave functions where the fuzzy "edge" of the solid object transitions from the object to whatever is outside of the object and visa versa. as you say, it felt quite intuitive to me... quite pleased with myself how close it is to the ideas put forth in the video ! though i'm incapable of backing my ideas up with any maths!
@@zanmato3041 I like your way of looking at it, seems quite clever as a way of understanding things, and as you say, not too far from the reality proposed in this video!
So, essentially, Chaos is the main building block of everything. And now we are discovering ways to harness it all in even better and cooler ways through advanced tech.
What the wavefunction does behind closed doors, we may never know. I'm still curious however how adding this nonlinearity before the collapse justifies the non unitarity of the collapse? Aren't we still subject to Loschmidt's paradox? If the collapse is indeed reversible, then QM should be linear.
@@brothermine2292 I suppose my point is that the objective collapse theory does not resolve the issue of irreversibility, it merely models the collapse as a physical process, unlike standard QM. The point here is that by modeling the collapse with nonlinear dynamics you're spoiling QM's otherwise perfect linearity. Technically, nonlinear dynamics *can* be reversible, but this 'random hit' appears to the contrary.
If human behavior is any guide, would guess that what the wavefunction does behind closed doors has a lot to do with questions of reproduce-ability... 🙂
Many worlds is the simplest by just saying that there's the Schroedinger equation and no weird collapse rules that make little logical sense. It just has implications that people don't like if you take the idea of the titular parallel universes literally.
@@FredPlanatia maybe, maybe not. We just don’t know yet. Having many worlds is conceptually a tricky thing for us to think about, however it really is not as crazy as it sounds. It is also not something we ‘make up’ it’s there in the math if you start from first principles that what there is is the wave function, and that’s it. I have way more issues with collapsing theories. For example ‘when’ does the collapse occur exactly for starters.
@@FredPlanatia many worlds can be disproven by proving alternative theories like objective collapse (like the experiments this video was talking about) or pilot wave. Those make slightly different predictions to normal quantum mechanics since they rely on extra physical laws. Many worlds is essentially the "normal quantum mechanics" option. Ie, if we find anything that doesn't behave as the Schroedinger equation says, then Many worlds is ruled out.
Thanks to PBS for continuing to produce a high-quality stream of content that will inspire the generations to come to seek out truth and understanding
*Highest-quality
Eh. The physics is good but they also produce a lot of garbage propaganda.
Shut up
@@benjaminhawkins6386 source?
@@francaisdeuxbaguetteiii7316 mr. Friedland!
Wow! Diósi-Penrose model makes a lot of sense! The fact that the more particles implies the greater the curvature of space-time in a specific point in space it "forces" the wavefunction to collapse and to define a position. It explains why gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is curvature of space-time.
We don't know if gravity can be quantized or not.
@@blinded6502 you guys might not but I do
@@megajor232 ikr it's so simple
So how does gravity come to being in case of quantum field theory
But then isnt it quantized in the form of the particles?
I always get a deep appreciation for Matt as he breaks down these ideas for everyone. Truly one of the great resources for curious minds in the world.
He only collapses the wavefunctions 😂
If you haven't checked out Dr. Becky from Oxford, she's really good at explaining too.
Não há curiosidade antes de Ler e verificar as coisas não pode ser feito em desespero e nem Agitado nervoso e com Calma e Segurança viu#Act
I like how this theory explains why gravity can't be quantized like the other three forces because it isn't quantum. And, it makes sense since gravity isn't supposed to be a force when following General relativity.
What I like most about it is that we can actually test it. Theories like string or m theory are interesting, but there are no real test we can do to confirm it as far as I know. If a graviton does exists then we will probably not find out in our lifetime.
@@NLwino Gravity might be the residue of time moving through matter - If a graviton does exist it's probably entwined with a chroniton and in our current technology we have yet to come up with a method of studying a planck length of time or how to experiment with it so for now it can't be quantified.
Yeah, gravity is probably not a force. Its curvature is an emergent property of travelling through spacetime.
Yes but, we collapse wave functions by detecting them. By only being detected, the wave is collapsed. We dont give mass to it, and they are already inside a gravitational field before while uncollapsed…
@@Denis-ue2nz Quantum forces too, just not of spacetime, but a given quantum field.
I don't always fully understand everything in the videos, but I'm happy you make them in a way to bring it down to laymen terms. I find this stuff absolutely fascinating and have been binge watching your quantum videos.
The internet has me locked in a superposition of wondering _“How could humans be so unbelievably stupid?”_ and _“How could humans figure out something so brilliant?”_ at the same time
The human condition?
Hahaha. I think of it as for every person that exists is another possibility for as much wonder or horror as one can imagine, and potentially everything in-between XD hahaha
The answer to your questions is also a superposition of "education" and "lack of education".
Skepticism
@@toni8675 education /= intelligence though. Informed and smart are different things. And common sense is considered intelligence to some, but abstract thought is to others.
10:32 "Unlike the interpretations that we've discussed, for example Bohmian mechanics or many worlds, OCMs can actually be tested." FINALLY. This is the most exciting part of this video, for me. I was thinking, from the very beginning of the video, "Yeah, new theories are great, but... do they agree with the data?" and it took 'til halfway through for that discussion to start. That was a super long ten minutes. :P
i never heard of objective collapse theory before but now im STOKED, if it proves true it could be a pretty big step towards a theory of everything right? since it would explain why general relativity and the standard model are either accurate or not depending on the scale?
Of course, they could all be ruled out within a few years, and then we'll be back to square one.
@@EnglishMike that's just as important to science as proving something correct.
But i believe there's something missing in Quantum mechanics ☹️ may be a good interpretation will give new insights
@@kendrickmcelfish2805 The closer we get to the truth the more care we have to take to ensure we're not fooling ourselves based on background noise.
These are my personal favorite "interpretations" of quantum mechanics! I just recently brought this up in our university journal club and nobody had head of these before. So glad to see a spacetime episode on this!
It's not an interpretation.
@@ThePowerLover this is not a reply.
@@helloyes2288 this Statement is false!
3 pedants in a row...
Penrose's idea sounds so elegant that it feels like it must be close to the underlying truth...
I really wish I had had a professor like Doctor O'Dowd back when I was in school and thinking about what I wanted to do with my life.
@@ChildOfTheLie96 Irony is a theist complaining about something from nothing.
@@ChildOfTheLie96 you're just spouting words you've heard. Please stop
I used to be involved in a university for some time where I'd attend a lot of graduation ceremonies. One of my favourite group of memories is of the women in their 70's or older who were finishing their first degree. For most of them their husband died, and after raising children and grandchildren finally did something for themselves. If Science inspires you, go for it if that's within your reach!
Dr. Matt is pretty awesome, agreed. Not everybody can get in front of an audience and do this stuff, although professors admittedly do it more than most. I've been a fan of this channel since day one. By the way Dr. Matt I'm sorry I called you skinny Thor in my first comment all those years ago. you just looked like Thor with your accent flying around out in space like a Thor do
@@ChildOfTheLie96 (1) Please explain to me what a communist is, in your own words. (2) Why would you seek out a Astrophysics channel if you denounce it so strongly?
Great episode, I especially loved the breakdown of the experiment on the ball emitting radiation. That was nuts how they were able to isolate it so much, they managed to detect single photons at a time. As necessary and fun theoretical physics is, experiments are the true heart and soul of physics and are the ones that bring us a step closer to understanding the reality we reside in. Just wanted to show some appreciation for the breakdown of an actual experiment and its results.
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
I have no background in physics nor do I understand half of what you're saying. But it is fascinating trying to wrap my mind around physical theories and the nature of reality they are trying to describe.
I like how Roger Penrose uses a ceramic cat and a hammer attached to a detector. Instead of a living cat and a vile of poison attached to a detector. So as to avoid the absurd spectacle of the thought experiment.
Vial.
And Sean Carroll always switches out the poison gas with sleeping gas! Much preferred.
because of course a real cat is a conscious observer just like the experimentator
Not to mention that a ceramic cat is a lot easier to place inside a box it doesn't want to be in.
Let's not forget the third possible Schrodinger outcome: the cat desperately claws a hole in the box and releases the poison gas into the room. Everyone dies, nothing is learned, other than yet another confirmation of the human condition being one of foolishness.
I am grateful to be an observer in a relative location that allows me to understand a fair amount of the information coming from this and other Space Time videos. Videos like this let me scratch the QM itch I've had since high school without me having to sweat the math...
I'd love it if there was an episode going deeper into the experiments that can be done to probe and constrain objective collapse models, e.g. getting deep into literature on things like dual slit experiments with ever larger molecules, the experimental set up and connecting it to theoretical work. Love PBS Spacetime!
An update or follow-up video would be awesome¡ Been a year since these experiments and initial results were discussed in the video 😊
An absolute banger of an episode. Its good to see physicists are still working on interpretations of QM. It often feels as though all the issues are just pushed under the rug.
This is about other theories, not interpretations.
@@ThePowerLover With the right interpretation, we would unlock deeper level technology.
@@wulphstein Yep.
If gravity can collapse a wavefunction, does this mean that acceleration can as well? I.e. can an atom tell the difference between a rocket sitting on the surface of the earth and a rocket accelerating in empty space at 1g?
Scientist discovered yesterday, thatthe core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. Because of all the pressure on core, matter takes on interesting effect's, look up [[ earth core superionic ]] There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
@@Elimba78 this has nothing to do with the comment of Rutvik.
Einstein said that gravity is acceleration so they are the same. Likewise a gravity wave is a ripple of deformation of space time travelling at the speed of light, so that ripple is a bending of space as it passes which is the same as mass does to space so it acts as mass passing at the speed of light. So the concentrated gravity wave Matt is talking about, must be in phase like a laser to make the ripples add constructively to an intensity that forms an event horizon. so it would require a form of lens, like concentric rings of large masses or even black holes of various sizes to form and focus a coherent gravity wave. Following the naming convention: A Laser works with light, a Maser works with microwaves, so a gravity laser would be called a "Graser". This should be enough for an entire Netflix series about a type III civilization!
@Rutvik the point related to acceleration might be a very important piece to the puzzling whether or not objective collapse theory pans out since in Wolfram's physics model it appears that in the large scale limit it can be shown that for any Turing complete system this limit when computational irreducibility is applied always reduces exactly to the generalized Einstein field equations with the catch that if super positions are used to resolve all possible orders for updating the system then addition to the normal causal space you also automatically get quantum field theory in the form of a universal Feynman path integral within an additional type of space that represents all possible states or outcomes for which a system can evolve which wolfram refers to as branchial space.
This name comes from how it is effectively analogous to the configuration space of Quantum field theory under a softer variation of a many worlds interpretation where said worlds are not independent but rather branches of a single wavefunction which gravitate warping the local geometry of branchial space.
Importantly the wave guide equation for pilot wave theory becomes a limiting case for the local metric tensor components within branchial space.
In this case the probability of a quantum outcome becomes represented by the degree of local curvature of branchial space around said state in branchial spacetime.
Likewise it means that a quantum measurement rather than changing the physical system merely represents the acceleration of an observer's frame of reference within branchial space.
The higher the probability of an outcome the more paths are bent by the curvature towards that outcome so by extension a definite wavefunction collapse becomes equivalent to falling into a state where all possible trajectories lead to the same outcome, an event horizon within branchial spacetime.
It is a lot to take in yet alone understand but it effectively means that all of quantum field theory can be described within the full geometric framework of general relativity with an observation of a quantum system becoming equivalent to accelerating your frame of reference within the configuration space of quantum field theory which is just as real as "normal" spacetime except that the units of this space are energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.
A.k.a., rather than measuring distance in "meters" like normal spacetime the units of distance in this separate type of space are measured in joules. And hence the branchial components of velocity are measured in units of power which is interesting as we can now equate the Heisenberg uncertainty principal with a relativistic Lorentz transformation of the observers frame of reference.
Also those infinities you get when you try and mix regular GR and QFT conventionally make perfect sense here as you are effectively trying to crunch a hyperbolic number of spatial dimensions down to 3. You are going to get infinities just like if you try and contract the Schwarzschild metric down to a radius of zero.
As long as equivalence is correct it should be correct
I understand everything from every episode of PBS Space Time, just barely. It's the perfect carrot to chase down the search engine rabbit hole. It forces me to learn and to understand more, and it's addicting. Thank You!
I wonder if in the future, once we've finally figured it all out, people will remember all the different yet fascinating theories that were competing to explain the weirdness of quantum theory. It also makes you wonder how many amazing ideas that were later proven wrong have been lost to the sands of scientific time. All these quantum theories are in agreement with all the experiments we've ran, and yet only one of them can be true. I mean it must be so, they can't all exist at the same time, in a sort of theoretical superposition of explanation... right?
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
Well, if a collection of “theories” are equivalent, and are just different interpretations, or different but equivalent descriptions of the same thing, they could all be true... or at least,
in some sense? Uh, I guess it depends on the details of how the interpretations differ.
I suppose conceivably there could be different interpretations which have the same content as far as what they predict about what can possibly be observed, but which also include incompatible metaphysical claims, and in this case they couldn’t both be true ?
But if you ignore the parts of interpretations which aren’t even in theory testable, then they could be both true? I guess?
No, physics is absolute
@@flix7280 what do you mean by this?
Any quantum theory, by definition, can be both true and not true...haha
I’ve always been frustrated by the “mystical consciousness” reason for collapse and was delighted to learn more about other testable theories! After all, why should a wave or a particle care about our cognitive processes? Kind of implies consciousness is made of the same “fabric” as the quantum field, and when we observe, it’s like giving that fabric a shake. Neat to think about, but this is way more exciting! Best video yet!
The problem is that solipsism is not a falsifiable hypothesis, there does not seem to be an imaginable disproof.
@@ThePowerLover That is until we figure out how and why consciousness arises, if there is some kind of physicality to it beyond the obvious "Brain=complex processing system=consciousness" we may be able to falsify it. (That is unless you're talking about solipsism purely from a philosophical pov)
The problem is the problematic definition of 'observation'. The most likely one is 'any interaction with anything', but people keep defaulting to the more ubiquitous definition, especially those out of the know.
I agree that it is a bit of an annoying explanation from a scientific perspective. However part of me really wants this to be true because it's a far more fascinating answer in my opinion.
i like to think that consciousness simply is born out of the underlying quantum physical processes. i.e. consciousness is quantum in nature
you could even go further to suggest how our consciousness is entangled to our environment, and thats why we all consciously observe the same events, however, i predict that as we approach the ability to measure near the planck scale, we will actually have different conscious experiences of a minute detection in an experiment, as we arrive at a degree of precision not agreed upon by our individual conscious compositions.
With today's TH-camrs, you don't need to be a physicist to not understand Quantum Mechanics.
Matt, you’re awesome at making me think about things I already know about in a completely different way, or introduce aspects of concepts I didn’t know existed at all. Thank you!
My brain almost split into two realities. This is mind-blowing.
I love this! I never really liked the ideas of many worlds or quantum gravity. This feels more intuitively right. Can't wait to hear how the testing goes. It's crazy that we can even test some of these theories.
Wonderfully made video and I am very proud so many fellow Italians and Italian laboratories are involved in this line of work.
Am I the only one who had a major mind blown moment by his definition of the wave function collapse in 1:16?
Hard to tell. My mind is constantly blown while watching this series.
Why are we always killing cats.
@@miker252 😂🤣😵😉
Nope, me too.
It reminded me of science itself: we know only as far as we measure. There could be another explanation that fits the facts and fits inside our measurements that is actually the truth
@@miker252
Better we kill them before the kill us. It's is a scientific fact that we are already aware of what they are plotting.
The Internet would be a much worse lace without, Matt. This is the most consistent, intelligent science show in YT.
Matt ties our Internet shoes, I absolutely agree. He's like our aglet, the little hard tube at the end of the lace that prevents it from becoming all frazzled, and keeps each lace away from ending up being more effort than it's worth, because you're just gonna want to replace your laces in that case, or even your shoes altogether.
So I think you totally nailed it, the Internet would indeed be a _much worse lace_ without our Matt O'Dowd on it 🤍 lol
This channel has fed my curiosity of space so much that now im taking every possible science class in my high school and hopefully going to Boston university for a degree in planetary biology or astronomy to become a astronomer or astrobiologist
I've been watching this channel for about a year, and it's starting to pay off. I'm actually starting to understand at least 30% of these videos. I'll keep watching till it's 100% 😁
I've watched for 6 years and still have not reached 100% lol
This is amazing! Why isn't everybody talking about objective models more?!
With such explanatory power, this could be a theory of everything.
It's deterministic, no more quantum mambo jambo, it may connect gravity to the other forces.
I got excited watching this, after so many years of frustration trying to understand the world.
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
Simple because by bell's theorem objective models (realism) and relativistic limits (locality) can't both be true in Quantum Mechanics.
We have a lot of evidence behind locality and not much for realism.
This is the best channel on TH-cam. Full Stop. You approach the impossible, and not only make it real, but make it understood!
Love this program, value what it contributes to our collective curiosity, and since I've not yet commented I thought it might be time. For whatever reason--and I'll have to think more deeply about why--this was my favorite episode yet. Cheers!
Scientist discovered yesterday, thatthe core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. Because of all the pressure on core, matter takes on interesting effect's, look up [[ earth core superionic ]] There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
There is no "multiple realities" interpretation, there is multiple universes interpretation, all of them making up reality. And is only grandiose if you believe beforehand, that reality doesn't exceeds our universe "so much".
That's religion, not science.
Thank you so much, everyone at Spacetime, for these videos. You structure and write them in such a way that both a layperson and physics students with varying levels of understanding can grasp and enjoy the videos. In my opinion, you include just the right amount of technical information, equations and concepts to keep the interest of someone who has already learned about many of these topics, but not so much that you lose them entirely, and not so much that a person with much less understanding grows bored and confused to the point they turn it off. Goldilocks zone videos. Love them.
Matt O’Dowd is the very best explicator of quantum scale phenomena, dynamics and plausibilities, by an indeterminate but visceral certainty. You illuminate and clarify my window on the world, Matt! Thanks for your sequential, genuinely delivered logic.
No he ain't. I am.
Just kidding. This is where I learned a lot of things. But I wouldn't say he is good at that because he can't seem to make up his mind.
Wait, wait, wait. So if I have this right. The Higgs field gives particles mass, that mass causes particles to warp space time, that warping of space time gives the appearance of an attractive force, that attractive force cause the density in an area to increase, that increased density causes a higher chance of particles to collapse, and that gives us a solid non-superposition reality?
Might have a link to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation:
With less space uncertainty, i.e. less gravity as per equivalency principle, you have more and more randomness and decoherence of trajectories of particles.
Mostly, mass all but guaranties collapse. Once is trillions of year matter can become more quantum i hear
Most mass doesn't come from the Higgs field. Most mass of our familiar "baryonic matter" (protons, neutrons, and electrons) arises from binding energy inside nucleons being equivalent to mass because of special relativity. This is about 99% of the mass of everyday objects.
Besides that, if an OCM is true then yeah what you said is right.
@@Latronibus do you have a recommendation on somewhere that I could read about the difference of mass from baryonic matter? I'm not seeing any differentiation on pages like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation however I do see on the Higgs mechanism that they mention "essential to explain the generation mechanism of the property 'mass' for gauge bosons".
So exciting to learn about this stuff! Feels like we're on the brink of understanding reality
Yea. Haha. Just for long enough for somebody to ask ...but why?
That's what the greeks said too, back when.
@@onbored9627 And, more germane to a discussion of quantum mechanics, what scientists thought in the mid-late 1800s.
And this is where u are wrong. I'm mean sure its exciting, but there is so much more to know.
Or how about the line where quantum mechanics and philosophy start blending
His shirt is both buttoned and unbuttoned until someone watches the video
Man, this channel is the beast!!! just amazing guys keep goinglike that
Excellent! I almost didn't stick with you when you brought up Copenhagen, but hooray! Finally an episode that talks about modern, viable, testable theories that push QM to the next level.
My only quibble would be that Many Worlds should be considered a theory as well. It's the null hypothesis. It's linear Schrodinger QM at its leanest and purest.
Copenhagen, Pilot Wave Theory, and most others are mere interpretations because they basically look at the simplicity and elegance of the Schrodinger equation and go, "Nah, that can't be right," and bolt on ad-hoc explanations of what they feel needs to be different to make it not so.
_These_ theories, as I've mentioned before, are genuine competing theories, with testable hypotheses. That doesn't make Many Worlds _not_ a theory; it just makes it the null hypothesis, the one that's assumed true if the others end up being disproven... until one of them builds up enough evidence to make a convincing case that it _can't_ be disproven, and becomes the new null hypothesis.
Calling Everettian Mechanics just an interpretation is like claiming that pre-20th century, Newtonian mechanics was just an interpretation, along with the Luminiferous Aether and Aristotalian Mechanics (an object wants to be at rest, and will return to rest if disturbed, etc). That just wasn't the case... Newtonian Mechanics was the null hypothesis. It was the simplest version of physics that fit the observations that could be made at the time.
Luminiferous Aether is very much like Pilot Wave and other hidden variables theories. "Surely that can't be right... action at a distance? Light traveling through nothing, self-propagating? No no, there must be a substrate for light to travel through, to translate gravity from one object to another." And it... wasn't a _stupid_ idea, by any means. It just wasn't the null hypothesis; a simpler theory, without the ad-hoc addition of a substrate, was available, and the burden of proof was on Luminiferous Aether to detect the Aether, just as the burden is on Hidden Variables to, well... _show the hidden variables._
Copehnagen, to me, is very much like Aristotle. Both of them were very early attempts to rationalize and explain the behavior they saw, but with absolutely no evidence. Both are prone to deeply regrettable misinterpretations... objects having _wants,_ for Aristotle, and collapses needing _observers_ for Copenhagen. Both run into paradox after paradox, with more and more bits and bobs having to be added on ad-hoc to explain new observations (why does an object on ice take so long to come to rest? Is the ice providing a force to keep it going? If so, why doesn't it accelerate? - vs the Observer problem, the whole bugaboo about Conservation of Quantum Information, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, which appears utterly paradoxical in Copenhagen but is completely trivial in Many Worlds, etc).
Many Worlds is like Newton.
It's probably wrong-or, more precisely, it's probably a simplification with validity within the proper domain destined to be seen beyond-but it's the simplest theory, the one that doesn't _need_ to prove itself. It's the one that other theories must supplant. It is very much _not_ "just another interpretation". It's the ultimate distillation of everything we can currently _prove_ about the universe around us, with no ad-hoc additions or stubborn concessions to our own intuition that says "but I don't see many worlds around me".
It's just a huge and very long-lived sort of crowd-think that so much of the scientific community mistakes Copenhagen for having that spot... but that's okay. Nobody realized how silly Aristotle's ideas sounded for quite a long time, either.
Edit: Actually, quite amusingly, it just occurred to me that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is _exactly_ the same sort of paradox as the "why do objects on ice take so long to come to rest" quandary in Aristotle's world-view. To make ice and other low-friction surfaces work in that interpretaion, you have to ad-hoc some kind of force, or maybe even motivation that ice wants objects to keep moving, or some nonsense, then maybe add on something to explain why it doesn't want things to move if they aren't already moving, or that the object's will to remain at rest is stronger than the ice's will to keep it moving, but only just barely...
I see basically no difference at all between that and having to accept and come up with explanations for why entangled particles can communicate backwards through time, and then maybe adding on something to explain why they don't _normally_ and so on. Quite amusing. xD
Actually, I might even go so far as to say that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is the nail in the coffin that once and for all disproves Copenhagen and shows it for what it really is: an early attempt to deny what science was telling them and make sense out of it to our macroscopic intuition, but that has very little basis in reality, and no evidence at all.
Bravo
Woah. Excellent argument. I'm commenting here because I want to see how MW opponents respond to you.
MW is the simplest theory? Sorry, not a theory (no evidence) and not simple at all. It makes the outlandish claim that whole universes are instantly created. How?? Where does all the energy come from? There is no evidence to think that what we see in this universe points to there being other universes, none. It's NOT simply a continuation or simply believing in the Schrodinger equation as commonly proposed. It makes the HUGE, outlandish, preposterous leap of religious faith to interpret what we see during a measurement as a branching of universes. NO EVIDENCE. You can't pretend like that is not an assumption (even tho I know you will) It's just an idea that magic could happen (cloak it as a theory instead of magic) to make every possibility happen in unlimited universes and explain away any difficulty I can't explain in this world..
Even the very word "universes" is itself a one-word oxymoron, so you have to say "worlds" instead, otherwise it becomes more obvious how silly this is. Claiming you have knowledge of a universe outside our universe is also oxymoronic, in a sense, if not obviously farcical.
We'll forgive you for the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser proposition since it has been debunked, and yours is an older post.
Ok, i don't have any bucket list like thing. But now I think I do! I would love to spend a weekend with Matt, talking about spacetime, with him answering my questions (an ideal Matt, where he'd have time, be in my vicinity, and would enjoy and want to talk about spacetime to me). I would soooooo love that. I just feel such a fascination with the nature of reality we live in. And I would just love to sit and ponder, ask, listen, and ponder some more, meanwhile looking at some nice trees. Listen to beautiful music in between questions:). There, that's my dream!
So, wait... If we assume that the mutual gravitation of particles leads to collapse, then how are we able to maintain superpositions here in the Earth's gravity well? Wouldn't the environment inside a quantum computer be subject to the same superposition-collapsing effect as the rest of the macroscopic Earth? Wouldn't this be testable by measuring the error-rate of a QC device at various altitudes?
Hmm good question. I must be misunderstanding slightly
Not strength of overall gravity of some localized spacetime, but the specific gravity of sufficient wave function interactions to cause collapse due to gravity within interactions. Finding that “Penrose Constant” (to coin a phrase-and which already may need more theoretic distinction following the experiment described in the video) for the nonlinear term for Schrödinger is a micro-, not macro-paradigm task.
Gravity field continuity between micro and macro through… worth exploring. The QC measures may give insights into the scales. Interesting.
@@csmarkham Forgive me for still being kind of bull-headed about my ignorance, but _why_ does such an effect restrict it's self to the micro scale, when it does not do so in any other circumstances? I think many-worlds and the "no collapse" idea makes more sense than trying to differentiate between micro-scale gravitational effects and large-scale gravity wells. It would, otherwise, imply that the gravity well of a black hole is less likely to be quantum than that of Earth, unless I'm misunderstanding even more than I think I am (fully possible).
Furthermore, doesn't the Sun discredit this idea? It's constantly undergoing quantum tunneling at a fairly well known rate, yet the matter in there is *much* more densely packed than in a quantum chip, or any lab for that matter. Such proximity should make quantum effects impossible, if short range gravitation effects cause chain-collapse.
in the absence of electromagnetic waves everything is in superpoistion. Obviously the collapse is due to influence from em waves. Its probably why dark matter exists and doesnt exist because it doesnt interact with em. Dark matter is matter in perpetual superpostion state with no way of collapse but it still has a gravititional effect because it is still matter. Wording is a bit loose there but you get my point. Mysteries of the universe and potentially quntumn gravity solved. Case closed.
Such wonderful content, thank you! Gravitational Decoherence makes a lot of sense to a layman like myself, but as always this video has raised several questions that I'll be pondering all weekend :)
Brilliant, a great show of our cutting edge knowledge of "what is this place called the universe and what is this stuff doing, and how does it do it!"
I freaking love this channel!!! And Matt the narrator, seemingly brilliant, I mean genius level!!! And yet the humble, good willed teacher, who just wants to share his deep understanding with us curious and yet less informed neophytes , who (at least me, anyway) sometimes struggle to fully grasp the concepts, but are utterly fascinated with these subjects!!!
Bravo, great job!!! And thanks!!!
And Matt , you're a rock star brother!!! All the best!!!
This is now my favorite interpretation/explanation for the collapse of the wave function!
I like this explanation. Makes more sense to me than anything else I've heard.
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
It also removes the "magic" of the quantum.
I've noticed you have expanded you mind to possibilities beyond your classical science training full of "no's, not's and never's". Possibilities are exciting!!
"Instead of gravity being quantized, Penrose theory predicts that Quantum Mechanics will be gravitized"
Penrose's way of thinking just fascinates me.
Look up [[ earth core superionic ]] Because of the extremes of pressure on the core, also matter takes on interesting effect's. Scientist discovered recently, that the core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
Agree, I'm so glad he got the Nobel Prize
I love listening to you Matt. Absolutely fascinating stuff. Mind-blowing....Now just understanding anything at all,all the time...now that therein is the problem...😁
Well said!
This is the best science channel out there.
10:05 (image reference) I still think wave function is somehow tied to 4th dimensional shapes and objects. We are only seeing a fraction or shadow version of most objects, passing through our field of 3 dimensional view. And when it's in our window of view, we say the wave collapsed so that's where it is for real. But maybe it is in more places than we can tell. Things can be both inside and outside our window of view. And the part outside our view, we call a "wave of potential".
The image of the planet moving through the gravitational wave at 10:05 in the video, is a good example of a 4th or 5th dimensional object moving through space/time. We cannot see the shape in it's entirety. Only the portion within our 3D view but, we can slightly detect there is or was more to it. So we call that the wave collapsing
I don't see why it can't be argued that everything is occurring in a single dimension and the mind extrapolates extra dimensions. There's still a human component when it comes to science, mainly the observation and classification of phenomenon in order to derive laws. Who's to say that in the process of classifying things, we've accidentally assumed there were extra dimensions in order to simplify the process of understanding reality?
For example, suppose we take the natural numbers. Trying to encapsulate each and every member as a single entity is simply not mentally feasible. It's more practical to view the elements through the lens of base 10 (or whatever base, I'm using 10 as an example) since we can establish a finite number of groups (each group being a digit with a number being a combination of these groups). While this enables us to represent the natural numbers in a finite manner, we can't forget that natural numbers are not fundamentally defined to be in base 10; this was a human construct, with each group being a "dimension" to represent a number in 10 "dimensions". To then assume that some numbers are shadows of higher dimensions (if we can only view numbers that do not contain the digit 3) is completely missing the point.
Who's to say we're not doing something very similar with our reality? What if length, width, height, time, whatever, are merely "groups" we extrapolated in order to understand our sense of experience? Memories, sensations, what if they are just extrapolations of something more fundamental? If anything is to be labeled as a shadow, it makes more sense to me that this notion of there being multiple dimensions is merely a shadow projected by rationality of something that's more intricate.
Yyoouu hhiitt tthhee nnaaiill oonn tthhee hheeaadd ii tthhiinnkk yyoouurr oonn ttoo ssoommeetthhiinngg Pplleeaassee ccoonnttiinnuuee wwiitthh tthhiiss lliinnee ooff rreeaassoonniinngg
Tteesssseerraacctt
We need to sign a petition to stop the torture of the Schroedinger's cat.
It would be 50/50 so you cannot expect reasonable resolution
😂
For the last two years this guy has lulled me to bed with his science lectures. I love them. He’s my adult version of “ read me a bedtime story” every night. I think if ever heard his voice IRL I’d be immediately hypnotized unconscious.
I greatly like the new ideas although I doubt that they are due to gravity in anyway ... perhaps 'Collapse' and Gravity have something more fundamental in common?
So, I had an initial question, and it cascaded into other questions as I was typing. I don't really expect anyone to answer the entire train of thought. But I really hope that Matt would address at least some part of it. His beard always looks so good. Grow it out, Matt.
Anyway....
If gravity collapses the wave function, that's binary, right? It's either collapsed or it isn't. Is that absolute? Does any amount of gravity at all cause the collapse? Or is chance of collapse increased with higher gravity?
There's still *some* gravity in deep space. Galaxies affect each other's velocities. Is it enough that there is *some* amount of gravity felt at the barycenter between the Milky Way and Andromeda? Or is space there "more quantum" due to the extremely small pull?
If that's still sufficient gravity, would you then need to go deep into the voids between threads of the galactic web to find a region of space that's fully quantum? Wouldn't it then collapse from the signal used to measure it?
And if gravity collapses the wave function, what does that mean for the role of an observer in descriptions and explanations of quantum mechanics? There's certainly gravity in the box with Schrödinger's cat.
And assuming gravity collapses the waveforms of each particle that that feel it's force, that would make all particles that we experiment on permanently collapsed, wouldn't it? That seems to imply the pilot wave theory to me. That even is we can't know a particle's absolute physical properties, they do *have* absolute values, but the measurementitself perturbs them according to the Heisenberg principle.
Good questions i think
I'd definitely like to learn about white holes. I know nearly nothing about them, but the concept is so interesting.
This may be the most useful chapter in the Space-Time series. I keep wondering about the stark differences between Quantum activity and the real world we all live in. The approach laid out here starts to tug at the fact that the 2 systems are, and will forever be, distinct from each other even though they interact together.
Agreed. Although it feels incoherent and unnatural. Meaning humans don’t quiet have the full grasp on it…… I think (hoping?) there is significant refinement coming in the future…..
It very much could be that we have the math wrong with some correct answers. In theory, we should be able to have a single, simple and elegant solution that works with both Quantum and the real world.
Wow, this is a really amazing theory. I hadn't heard of objective collapse theories before this!
This is one of the coolest episodes of this show ever
Interesting. I'd been thinking the collapse was a result of interaction with other objects, and the more interactions, the more likely the collapse, which was why they tended to collapse when measured, as that required subjecting it to more interactions.
Yeah it collapses upon interaction. But every interaction IS a collapse, not just likely.
But mind that “collapse” is not literal, it doesn’t stay collapsed. After the interaction, it is a wave function again, but that function carries the information of the interaction.
Same. My amateur-theory is also that these wave function collapses are what _cause_ gravity. They warp time, which in turn causes diverging geodesics which then causes "torque" which manifests as gravity (as has been explained before here on PBS).
c (speed of light) could simply be interpreted as an interaction/wave function collapse budget. The more interactions happen within a physical space, the more time is warped because the interactions take a way from time budget. More mass means more interactions, hence more mass causes more time warping which manifests as stronger gravity.
@@juzoli The problem is that solipsism is not a falsifiable hypothesis, there does not seem to be an imaginable disproof.
@@ThePowerLover I think you commented this on the wrong thread, because your answer is not even remotely related to the topic here.
What I said is easy to prove, and considered trivial in science, but lot of non-scientists misunderstands it.
@@juzoli Is very related, as we can't test is a tree falling make sound when there is no one to "observe", interactions are like trees falling.
It sounds like a great theory that explains a lot, but I’m wondering why the curvature of spacetime itself cannot be in a superposition.
From an earlier spacetime video, I understood that mass/energy causes time dilation, which in turn makes masses attract (gravity), and that this is what “curved spacetime” is.
Is that the reason why it cannot be in superposition? Because if it could, time could be running at different speeds in the same reference frame, which I imagine would break causality and give us some spicy paradoxes.
IIRC superpositions of valid solutions to the Einstein Field equations are not always themselves valid solutions to the field equations. That's the mathematical justification for Penrose denying this possibility.
I always think of the wave function as a formula that describes how to cook every variation of every type of food, in every type of oven, in every possible container, with every possible visual presentation in every possible kitchen in every possible place a kitchen could be. Only, we aren't talking about food, we're talking about the matter and forces of the universe.
Wow: a Kugelblitz! Never come across this concept before, but it makes sense as E=mc².
Black holes from focussed gravitational waves or light? Mind blown!
Thanks for another great episode. 👍🏼
Scientist discovered yesterday, thatthe core of Earth, is a liquid and solid at the same time. Because of all the pressure on core, matter takes on interesting effect's, look up [[ earth core superionic ]] There are also earth core superionic videos on playlist on my channel as well, its on top of the page.
There's a PBS Space Time about using Kugelblitz for spaceship propulsion, you can watch it here: th-cam.com/video/EzZGPCyrpSU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=PBSSpaceTime
The simple explanation is, particles are manifestations of energy in a wave function that exist in a field. The trick is defining the wave function and the field.
I think waves are always a higher level abstraction. like ocean waves, there is water moving in a particular way to create wavy behavior. sound waves has moving air, springs oscillate in a wavy way because of deforming and interchanging of potential and kinetic energy in the material periodically. wherever there are waves, something underlying is moving creating the pattern
@@ecicce6749 Yeah. If you wobble an electron then it creates waves in the EM field like ripples on a pond.
What was wobbled to create the probability wave described by Schrodinger's equation?
Knowing that there are actual experiments we can do to test these is quite exciting!
I’ve been watching Sir Roger Penrose’s career for 20 years. He’s got so many cutting edge ideas on quantum mechanics, consciousness and cosmology which make intuitive sense to me. It’s amazing to watch the scientific community come around to agreement with his theories. I believe History will regard him as an intellectual giant on par with Einstein. There is a whole episode of material around one point this video left out: Penrose doesn’t think consciousness causes the collapse of a wavefunction, he thinks the collapse of a large enough complex wave function IS consciousness.
that literally doesn't make sense
OrchOR was falsified in 2016 by Penrose's experimentalist. The "bing" turned out to be a gestalt counting space (start/stop) for a biological language then named GML (geometric music language).
@@eenkjet Hameroff have answered all of supposed "refutations". Nothing was debunked.
@@tehdreamer I debated him a while back. He's a complete hack at this time.
@@eenkjet What do you mean? You have a recorded debate with Stuart Hameroff, the main man along with Penrose who propose OrchOR?
This episode was fire!! I really love the idea of being able to test things there experimentally. Cheers!
Hang ten! Surfing the waves through the wormholes! Tasty waves, crunchy tunes.. exciting! Gratitude to everyone that create this revolutionary new theories and scientific advancement! Congratulations peeps! Keep on rocking!
4:40 - I have always had an issue when physicists say the waveform collapses when it is "measured" or "observed." Please mention that when someone measures or observes the collapse they do it by interrupting the waveform with matter, and the result is the observation. So instead, say that the waveform collapses when it interacts with matter (or whatever else), not when it is observed, because it would still collapse if we weren't paying attention to the results. Saying it this way removes any human agency in the phenomenon.
Every collapse is an instance of particles becoming entangled. It is really shocking that this isn't the language used. Terms like "observed," and even "measured," in this case only serve to add to the mysticism around quantum mechanics that confuses people.
Actually, not every interaction with matter/energy causes the wavefunction to collapse (assuming it's a real thing); some interactions just result in a larger quantum entangled system. The term "measured" is used to delineate between interactions that cause the wavefunction to collapse and ones that do not. The exact mechanism behind why certain interactions are measurements while others aren't is still a fervent topic at the forefront of physics (it's known as "The Measurement Problem").
While I agree the terms "measured" and "observed" can yield confusion when compared to their colloquial counterparts, they do have a certain utility in the context of quantum mechanics. In an ideal world an entirely new word would have been used to define the aforementioned distinction; one that didn't invoke a sense of agency. But alas, it's probably too late for that now.
The problem is that solipsism is not a falsifiable hypothesis, there does not seem to be an imaginable disproof...
@@ThePaulsen1992 Wavefunction "collapse" or "reduction" resembles matter-antimatter annihilation, which process also eliminates previously existing wavefunctions, reducing them to zero.
Perhaps every time a wavefunction bifurcates, into "half going left" (L/2) and "half going right" (R/2)...
that bifurcation is associated with the co-creation of virtual matter-antimatter pairs "another half going left + anti-half going right" (L/2 - R/2) and "another half going right + anti-half going left" (-L/2 + R/2)...
such that emerging from the "split" would not merely be "half going left + half going right" (L/2 + R/2)...
but rather otherwise instead "half going left (real) + another half going left (virtual) + anti-half going left (virtual)" (L/2 + L/2 - L/2) and symmetrically (R/2 + R/2 - R/2).
If the particle "collapses" going "left", then the left's virtual particles are "promoted" to reality, L/2 + L/2 = L on the left, along with R/2 - R/2 = 0 on the right. The real R/2 right half wave is annihilated, along with its virtual states also, which are never "promoted" to real but "fade away".
This annihilation-like process could possibly produce "virtual radiation" of the sort that Casimir plates could detect. Wavefunction collapses could perhaps "jostle Casmir plates back & forth" or something vaguely like that
i really really appreciate two things about this channel: consistently impressive educational animations, and Matt and co having FAR more humility and open-mindedness than many other professional science communicators that engage in Internet drama and topics way outside their expertise. Refreshing to not have any hints of whiny clickbait from certain public intellectuals buddying up with greaseballs like Jordan Peterson or JK Rowling and talking about science and politics they barely understand beyond skimming pop-sci and wikipedia to get that sweet sweet short term engagement boost and publicity. Always hollering about how all the OTHER scientists are the problem. Just plain good science education for YEARS on SpaceTime. Matt (and Gabe) and perhaps Brian Cox are the true successors to Carl Sagan.
I love these videos on the quantum wave function. Thank you for another fascinating one. It's exciting to have some actual testable theories on the table!!
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. :)
The universe is like a giant sudoku puzzle. The more restircted the squares possible values have the closer you get to a single answer to the Sudoku. Just my way of thinking about the quantum.
It's been a while since y'all put out such a thought provoking episode
The whole idea of collapse has never sat well with me. It just seems a too-convenient theory for something we’re having difficulty explaining. If wave functions simply spread out and interacted forever, to us in the macro world, it would seem like they had collapsed but actually the quantum effects have just fallen below measurement thresholds.
If you look at an arrangement of moving fuzzy blurs from far enough away it appears to be a unchanging solid object. Could it be that the underlying nature of reality is actually reasonably simple but scale effects make it seem complicated to us?
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the collapse of the wavefunction, why should the fundamental constituents of the universe "collapse" and change? Could it not be that the wavefunction doesn't collapse, but the percieved collapse is simply the nature of limitations of measurement and interaction?
Seems it would be more efficient to seed a function and generate it at interaction rather than rolling and "recording" every value from that virtual interaction to a real interaction. Why calculate something that may never be used?
That is what makes sense intuitively. The double-slit experiment made me think otherwise.
A man was arguing for you to defend you and said something about the brain is firing on some cylinders.
I replied to him @Randy Terry you are defending the other guy? I wrote him but look -this is part 2. I just answered you - and him - in "depth" but missed out [my apologies] on a critical word/phrase/sentence you used.
You said "brain is not firing on all cylinders".
My response: who the h*** cares - all cylinders, no cylinders, some cylinders [e.g. distributed cognition] - in the context [keyword : context] that
1. The mind [the one with free will] is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the brain
The mind is a separate, independent , non mystical "SPIRITUAL" quality but with potency [i.e. free will : the ability to amazingly "re-program" the brain within limits . N.B. The word "Reprogram" is a metaphor to represent the actuality: neuro-plasticity by deliberate choice].
Interesting fun fact. Jeffrey Schwarz, M.D. , UCLA worked with quantum physicist Henry Stapp (Berkeley) - the earlier showing how frameworks helped x% of O.C.D patients overcome their ailment and outright change the neuro-plasticity of their brain using "mind power" . The background theory they proposed is ORCH S.R. (as I call it to distinguish it from Sir Roger Penrose's ORCH O.R.) .
ORCH S.R. : subjective reduction of the quantum wave function at the ion channel (between neurons, in the gap) where man's brain, nature and the relational component work together.
ORCH O.R. : objective reduction is a Penrose Physicalist theory where microtubules self-collapse (resolving the tension between General relativity and Quantum mechanics in the universe) generating proto-consciousness 4 times per second.
NOTES: all notes on quantum theory above are hypothesis, fun and interesting - NOT truths. The ONLY TRUTH as in ABSOLUTE TRUTH is you have free will and therefore can use "reason AND logic" [two different words, elements] .
Computers have blazing speed precision logic that can do "so much" but are unable to reason; can not "induct" nor "abduction/abductive inference". Only man has these "qualities" of mind . HOW? The technicality is NOT known: what is known is it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH because consciousness can identify existence [no A.I. can; nor mental patients nor animals. Only man.
But what about you? AND then there are PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT HAVE "RATIONALITY" use free will TO deny it .
You can Not deny one or more of the three:
Existence [then where are you?]. You can validate this by pointing to things or touching or smelling things: making a "decision amongst alternative options" if rational - about whether you are in and of existence.
If there is existence then you auto-validate consciousness for it identifies the above.
And if there is existence and consciousness : one identity identifying another identity then you autovalidate "truth: identity" [Aristotle' law of identity]. So the moon exists regardless of whether you do or whether you look at it or not
Therefore the three "axiomatic' concepts upon which the ENTIRETY OF SCIENCE AND MATH AND ALL OTHER SUBJECTS OF ACADEMIA AND BEYOND ARE DEPENDENT are existence, mind and identity [by mind it means full fledged free will - NO CONSTRAINTS - a separate spiritual identity altogether -it's own cause; and you are the cause of it as one unified entity over your life span].
That's what the many worlds interpretation claims.
That's pilot wave theory.
Even though I've watched this episode 3 times... Our Pre-Deterministic Universe keeps me guessing
Very interesting. To me, this make sense and gets the 'mysticism' out of quantum mechanics. Looking forward to seeing what the experimental evidence can tell us.
Oh yes, never full trust a physicist with taking care of a cat. We're looking at you Matt!
The 'mysticism' is advanced science, we just aren't there yet. Electricity was once thought of as only 'mysticism' and fictional.
Arrogance leads to ignorance.
@@tailong9548 This.
@@ThePowerLover
You might like.
th-cam.com/video/w0ztlIAYTCU/w-d-xo.html
@@tailong9548 When was electricity ever thought of as fictional?
@@simonO712 When people thought that electricity was only the stuff wizards could produce.
It was science but people believed it was myth or 'fiction'.
Finally ... a more accurate representation of spacetime curvature! Love your work guyz! 😁
Ikr! At first I was a bit puzzled, then realised that this representation is actually more accurate/ less misleading.
As somebody who's been to the ICTP in Trieste, it warms my heart every time I hear the name "Gran Sasso" :)
Also, objective collapse theory introduces an arrow of time independent of entropy.
Really??
@@kevin42 yup
@@YossiSirote you've peaked my interest. elaborate.
That's simple: collapse is irreversible giving us an arrow of time. And it is independent from the fact that in the past entropy was smaller.
This causes some problems: it violates rule of conservation of energy and momentum according to Noether's theorem.
However any form of collapse is such a violation. It is unavoidable as any measurement requires collapse.
So if any measurement causes conservation energy violation then I don't think that this is argument against objective collapse.
Because objective collapse is so rare then this violiation was not observed yet.
Also: any arrow of time have problem with energy conservation.
Is there any proof that a particle (wavefunction) can continue to exist in a superpostition, after it has interacted (touched) with another particle (wavefunction). If not so, doesn't the interaction between wavefunctions cause the wavefunction to collapse?
This just seems the most logical
P.S. in the quantum slit experiment the wavefunction is interacting with itself and not with another wavefunction?
Thanks. I plan on watching this at least 10 times. Anyone who thinks the scientists are not sneaking up on understanding the universe should think again. What an exciting time to be alive and I jnterested in science.
Does GRW imply a limit on the maximum number of qubits in a quantum computer? And if so, then what is it? So I know how big to make my cryptography keys.
I think size depends on how long do you want it live in super position. So you should also know how long will it take to break the key to know if a quantum computer of that size can live that long in super position.
Some Simulation Theories say it is the complexity of the entangled structure that limits the number without collapse.
Either way. Don't invest your money in quantum computers.
But if quantum computers show otherwise. QM is back to "Shut up and calculate"
When you introduced the idea of quantum decoherence, my jaw dropped. I know the universe has absolutely no sense of narrative or justice, but it would be SO upsetting if this wasn't the answer, if the whole problem of quantum gravity wasn't the exact same problem as the macroscopic quantum weirdness problem.
Dude your praise for the Big Bang supporters is so fun. Honestly I think they deserve it. They help keep this show free for folks like m'self who uhhh....appreciate that it's free. Thanks PBS and Matt. 💝
Will there ever be a shared episode with science asylum? There was one with fermilab and it was awesome!
Science asylum did an episode on superposition two months ago saying that particles were in one state but spoke about vector spaces. The schrodinger equation told you which axis of the vector space the particle was in. I didn’t really understand it and how it relates to this episode.
It seems to make more sense to me that collapse is just an artifact of the quantum particle becoming entangled with the detector. Really we don't know what the particle does. We just know what effect it had on the detector, which is a high gain amplifier.
Yeah, I had the impression that something along those lines is what Susskind is saying. But I probably misunderstood Susskind.
Love this. I sometimes wish I’d kept with my physics long enough to be able to productively understand what “observation” really means.
This might be a silly question but am I the only one that thinks this could potentially explain dark matter as a soup of superpositioned particles whose wave function has not yet collapsed? Sort of like future echos of potential particles eminating into our present. If it was true then it would certainly explain why we haven't yet, and if true can never, directly observe dark matter.
I can't get past the idea of pilot wave theory: Is there a good reason that pilot wave theory is most likely not reality? It seems the most simple way to explain the way things are (as opposed to multiple universes and all other crazy talk).
Bohm is simply a reformulation of Schroedinger. It gives you exactly the same result but asks you to pretend that an unmeasurable, unphysical entity exists that you don't even need. :-)
It (and objective collapse theory) have the same problem: way too good to be true. There's just no way that quantum mechanics turns out to have an underlying mechanism that makes clean intuitive sense.
@@DStecks There is no such thing as collapse theory. There are only people who didn't pay attention in QM 101 class. ;-)
The most entertaining and educational channel ever
Since quantum particles are waves, is it possible that the conversion from quantum to classiacal object happens when enough particles are close enough that their waveforrms overlap and add up enough to pass some sort of threshold where the particles no longer act quantum?
what about bose-Einstein condensates?
That arbitrary threshold is the original part of the theory, and involving gravity was an addition in order to provide a mechanism.
No. 42 is the building block of reality.
7:42 10^-16 Wave Collapses per second per particle! Love this idea!
Yes, that's a random number linked to a non-existing concept. :-)
If wave function collapse happens like how you illustrated, does that mean it's constrained by the speed of light? Would we be able to detect a wave function collapse propagation wave?
He mentioned the theory says it should be instantaneous and non-local. So I guess the answers are no.
Experiments show it is at least a few orders of magnitude faster than C
@@JorgetePanete what experiments?
it doesn't really matter, it's mostly wrong. The issue is at a certain relative distance from any cloud of tiny particles (smaller is farther away), they appear to be a solid object, and there is no real way for us to differentiate them from each other. We can't make energy at a high enough frequency to separate the particles. So we have to kinda fake our way to what we believe is supposed to happen.
It's easier if you think of the quantum perspective as distant, rather than small. The Dimension of Observation is a physical objective barrier to the transfer of information, of C. Causality has a mirror. And in that reflection information, as if falling into a black hole, begins to take infinite amounts of time to progress. For all intents and purposes Causality itself hits 0 m/s^2, and in these boundaries both minimum and maximum, information can no longer be shared.
Every edge in a 3 dimensional universe is a boundary layer of causality that cannot be penetrated. This is what the Cosmic Horizon and Singularity represent. 0C
@@jb76489 Entanglement breaking experiments work over thousands of km and the delay has been measured to be zero. Damned Matt burned us all with his answer to the second to last comment!
How is this man 50 years old? Matt looks like, 30!
This is one of your best episodes, please go into more detail on this subject!
This was a great episode! I have long assumed intuitively that classical behaviour on large scales was a natural result of the number of particles involved, but I thought of it more as a "smoothing out" of the addition of so many wave functions. (This probably makes no sense, because intuition is a terrible way to try and understand quantum phenomena!) The explanation presented here is far more compelling, and can be explained mathematically AND be understood intuitively AND be tested, so I love it!
i've thought something similar to yourself for a few years now except that the wave function collapse was a result of so many particles interacting with each other, "observing/measuring" each other if you will. so the more particles you add, the more interactions, therefore the more likely the wave function collapses. i was thinking that macro objects would have a halo of constantly collapsing wave functions where the fuzzy "edge" of the solid object transitions from the object to whatever is outside of the object and visa versa. as you say, it felt quite intuitive to me... quite pleased with myself how close it is to the ideas put forth in the video ! though i'm incapable of backing my ideas up with any maths!
@@zanmato3041 I like your way of looking at it, seems quite clever as a way of understanding things, and as you say, not too far from the reality proposed in this video!
So, essentially, Chaos is the main building block of everything. And now we are discovering ways to harness it all in even better and cooler ways through advanced tech.
No. Energy is what exists. Energy vibrates in waves. Waves combine and accumulate to create ‘matter’..
spaceandmotion
@@fluentpiffle yes. But zero point energy is the smallest level of energetic existence.
@@caseyford3368 Only if you believe what you are told instead of actually finding out the reality..
@@fluentpiffle I didn't say it was the only kind of existence. Just that zero point energy is the smallest energetic existence.
@@caseyford3368 existence is existence, regardless of what anyone ‘says’..
When I was watching The Launch Pad LIVE, one person suggested me about your channel. Found Great Channel !
What the wavefunction does behind closed doors, we may never know.
I'm still curious however how adding this nonlinearity before the collapse justifies the non unitarity of the collapse?
Aren't we still subject to Loschmidt's paradox? If the collapse is indeed reversible, then QM should be linear.
I didn't hear Matt say the collapse is reversible in any of these theories. Didn't he say near the beginning that reversibility depends on linearity?
At 5:43, he states that the collapse is non-reversible.
@@brothermine2292 I suppose my point is that the objective collapse theory does not resolve the issue of irreversibility, it merely models the collapse as a physical process, unlike standard QM. The point here is that by modeling the collapse with nonlinear dynamics you're spoiling QM's otherwise perfect linearity. Technically, nonlinear dynamics *can* be reversible, but this 'random hit' appears to the contrary.
If human behavior is any guide, would guess that what the wavefunction does behind closed doors has a lot to do with questions of reproduce-ability... 🙂
Unitarity is a property of linear operators. Since the modification is nonlinear, it follows that it is non-unitary.
This theory makes more sense than most of the other interpretations, but again pilot waves are already the simplest answer.
Many worlds is the simplest by just saying that there's the Schroedinger equation and no weird collapse rules that make little logical sense. It just has implications that people don't like if you take the idea of the titular parallel universes literally.
@@nujuat isn't the main problem with many worlds that it cannot be proven or disproven?
@@FredPlanatia maybe, maybe not. We just don’t know yet. Having many worlds is conceptually a tricky thing for us to think about, however it really is not as crazy as it sounds. It is also not something we ‘make up’ it’s there in the math if you start from first principles that what there is is the wave function, and that’s it. I have way more issues with collapsing theories. For example ‘when’ does the collapse occur exactly for starters.
@@FredPlanatia : The Wikipedia article about MWI lists several difficulties with it, and some unsatisfactory attempts to resolve them.
@@FredPlanatia many worlds can be disproven by proving alternative theories like objective collapse (like the experiments this video was talking about) or pilot wave. Those make slightly different predictions to normal quantum mechanics since they rely on extra physical laws. Many worlds is essentially the "normal quantum mechanics" option. Ie, if we find anything that doesn't behave as the Schroedinger equation says, then Many worlds is ruled out.