This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1734940317262x453348685399263200 You can also create your own quizzes (using AI) on my platform!
instead of the cat in a box i prefer the cat on the operating table if your a vet reviving a cat whos heart has stopped. is it alive or dead and if you restart its heart did you bring it back to life(if you consider the stopping of a heart to be the point of death) or was it never dead to begin with?
I love how your user name is also a superposition of "my friends cat" and "my friend sca..." and I sure hope I live in the universe where it collapses to the former XD.
"...what's wrong with it?" "I'll tell you what's wrong with it! It's dead! That's what's wrong with it!" "No, no, it's resting, look!" "I know a dead cat when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now!..."
Within a couple of days, you will definitely know if the cat is dead or alive - your nose will tell you. Especially in the warm weather we're having at the moment, your nose knows.
I didn't realise my grandfather was so clever but he must have been because when he found a cat he told me that at the time it was half dead. I assume that the calculation also allows for the cat to be brought back to full life again and that's what my grandfather did.
wait until you actually learn that Newton's apple did not fall but rather stayed still while the rest of the earth moved towards it! Looking at you@floatheadphysics
Well, as I said, they chalked up the relevant assumption to a sentence about random matrices and the rest is a numerical calculation. So unfortunately, I don't know exactly what they did. It's just that I know that without making any special assumptions about either the environment or the system (what it means to be a detector) you can't solve the problem. Incidentally, Zurek (who come up with the idea of decoherence based environmental selection "einselection") knew this, which is why he tried to come up with system properties that would single out what a detector is. (Just that this didn't really work either.)
Isn't it the case that parts of any given cat are alive, but other parts are dead, and being continually replaced by new cells? Baddaboom, baddabing, der ya go, solved it. Come to think of it, do we know something is not being replaced by the observation? Is the photon replacing something else? Is the particle "sticking" to the photon, or being knocked off it's wave?
physics lately has just been "WE DISCOVERED SOMETHING HUGE AND SOLVED AN AGE OLD PROBLEM" and then you look at the paper and there's some assumption or detail missing that you'd need to check the results. Can we jsut go back to releasing complete research?
@MyNameIsThe_Sun nope. Sabine lacks the intelligence and critical thinking skills to do that. Suggest you watch her Special Relativity and the Twin Paradox video she put out. Here is what she left put. 1) synchronized clocks use the same amount of energy. How can you have real time-dilation when both clocks use the sane amount of energy. Instead of explaining, she tells you to shut up and calculate. Time-dilation has been decreed by Einstein. Do not question the word of your god Einstein. 2) the clock's cesium-133 atom is in a controlled environment. Being chilled to absolute zero and shielded from EM radiation. Is the observer also being shielded from UV rays? Placed in a freezer? You can't even compare the two frames. They are separate entities being accelerated at different rates. If have to ignore those two fundamental facts to get Einstein’s relativity nonsense to work. Sabine is either really stupid or great con-artist. Take your pick. Further proof? Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. So why is it the focal point for all the models? Once again. Shut up and calculate. Don't question the word of your god Newton. F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration of the mass. Not the mass itself. F=G(m1m2)/R2. Force comes from mass? That contradicts the laws of motion. No matter what m2 is, F (motion) is always the same. Why is that Sir Issac Newton? The Laws of Motion, F=ma/a=a, requires an explanation for the source of all acceleration in the universe. Either acceleration comes from a creator god (let there be light) or Acceleration has always existed in an infinite/eternal universe. Newton couldn't very well say god created the universe and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his infinite universe theory.
Blame the media. Do you get that from the original paper title: "First Principles Numerical Demonstration of Emergent Decoherent Histories" In plainer english, using existing theories, we crunch some numbers on a simplified model and see something like decoherence happen! Or from wordings like: "This suggests a solution...." Plain english: Maybe this has wider implications, dunno? or on an assumption they made, "We deliberately point out that this attitude shall neither imply that the MWI is correct nor that the consistent histories interpretation of Griffiths is incorrect" Plain english: yeah, there's *some* (/s) disagreement about our assumptions and interpretations of these kinds of results. or, on the system they use "This is probably the simplest quantifier one can consider, but we believe its simplicity makes it appealing to get a first impression of what is going on." Plain english: this is of course an extremely simplified toy model, but the behaviour is still very interesting, and we should see if our first impressions are correct!
Obvioysly not every paper is like that, and obviously not every video on this channel covers that topic. I think it's fair that, if you publish your research for peer review... if there's a challenge, often there's a back-and-forth in the journal. For a science educator who covers current topical issues, knowing that this is a popular aspect of quantum theory... it seems to be reasonable to push back on the article's claims, in this context. Plus... we watched it.
3:31 The abstract says they observe an exponential increase in decoherence as the number of particles in a system increases, but then say that this suggests a solution to the many-worlds theory that does not rely on environmentally-induced decoherence. Are the "particles" not the "environment", or at least part of its makeup? It seems like the authors are saying decoherence results from time plus interactions; in which case, how is this new?
If the result of simulated quantum interactions with these "many particles" (environment) is a collapse to classical (measurable) states, that would be at least new to me. That would enable to define a size boundary between classical and quantum systems but I think a non local collapse is believed to be impossible using the Schrödinger equation and I would be confused, if a local collaps can be described with Schrödinger but not a non-local collapse. Or is the relation to the wave-collapse I imply here incorrect?
The cat is part of the universe and will 'know' wether it is alive or dead. No human measurement is needed because the universe is a self measuring system. Measurement always takes place at the lowest possible level first. Ergo amplification of quantum uncertainty is not possible if there is a measurement happening. Measurements almost always happen. Measurement is just the same thing as interaction.
If the universe is a self measuring system, then why are there waves at all? It seems to me that a self measuring system would have completely measured itself in the past 14 billion years (or so) This strongly suggests that the universe is at least only partly self measuring. If so, then we have to find out the limits of this self measurement, and why there are limits in the first place.
@@jdlech waves are the very essence of our dimension, which is emergent. Waves is how everything emerges and creates spacetime. Time is not a property of the underlying universe, where we emerge from, but emergent itself. The source is timeless and thereby eternal.
It's worse than that. What is a gieger counter if not a measuring device? You can't get to the point where poison is administered to any cats without triggering collapse.
Good for you! Last Friday, I waited all day for a call wishing me a Happy Equinox. Not one call. We equinocturnals are people, too. If you prick us, do we not bleed?
Perhaps a superposition is just “shorthand” for a possible position that doesn’t matter in reality so it isn’t “drawn” into reality until/unless it acts upon something else in a meaningful way. Like how video games don’t draw scenes beyond the gamer’s view to save computer power.
A superposition is a discrete state not unlike normal states. What makes it different is that state is fragile to measurement, and will cause it to snap back into a classical state. It's not magic, nor is it peaking behind the veil. We just don't know how to measure it without influencing it. It's still entirely possible some method in the future may permit measurement without wave function collapse. Think of it more like angular rotation. Classical states would be at 90 degrees and 0 degrees, while a superposition may be at 45 degrees, or somewhere inbetween. Once again, it's a discrete state, and if we had the tools, potentially measurable.
No, It's more like all rendered objects beyond gamers' pov are become sum of all their models the moment the player turned his head away. So, instead un-rendered scene behind pov, in quantum mechanics scene behind player is full of mess and noize. If player is only one what interacted with objects by model-calling.
@@skyhopin superposition you will not see 45 degree result, you will see 90 and 0 at same time. Not any degree between. Quantum uncertainity and quantum superposition are different things. You can "measure" two "uncertain clouds" of one paricle in superposition state that can be in two places at one moment AND both of them will have uncertain position.
Many Worlds Interpretation is as ridiculous as String Theory. It just shows how people with a certain intelligence in some subject believe idiotic ideas just like anyone else.
Nope. It's very simple. If you want there to be an alive and dead cat at the same time, you need more than one cat. Many worlds just takes QM seriously, and says that both states coexist. That's it. We dont see both states at once, obviously, so they coexist in different spaces. The alternative is a magical collapse if you look at the cat.
Schrödinger wasn't presenting a 'problem' to be 'solved'. There was nothing that needed improvement. He was presenting a parody, and asking physicists, "Do you know what you are entailing? Have you really thought this through?"
@@timothyvanderschultzen9640spoken by someone who doesn’t understand math. It’s an abstract system that allows logic and reasoning. A foundational framework to better understand patterns, relationships, and structures in the universe. A ruler is a tool. Without math it would have no value.
Meanwhile..Bubba in a alabama trailer park puts a window on the box where you can check on the cat anytime Meanwhile Cat got out, hit by truck kun, isekai into another world. Bubba Wins nobel prize
MWI just seems like a stopgap until we have better tools for measurement, and better math to make sense of quantum theory. In my mind, MWI is akin to Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system. The Ptolemaic model was useful at the time and accurate enough to make usable calendars and whatnot. But it was a flawed model that did not line up with reality. Development of the correct model did not diminish his achievements.
You'll be pleased to learn that no better tools for measurement are needed and that we've had that better math - or rather a better understanding of the math of QM - since before Hugh Everett published his MWI paper. Furthermore, Schrodinger, in his famous "cat paper", was highlighting a problem not with QM itself but with a naive "semi-classical" interpretation of the quantum state ("wavefunction") that was still considered tenable by some at the time. Ironically, the MWI is similarly plagued by such profound conceptual and mathematical problems that it's hard to understand why *anyone* does still take it seriously (relatively few "quantum foundations"-literate people do).
@@Verlamian Ok, I am obviously a lay person, but I thought the reason for MWI is it is a way to bring immeasurable phenomena (that may not actually exist) into a model that allows for actual applications of the model to produce something useful (quantum computers for instance, though that is debatable in terms of their usefulness.) Thus, my analogy of creating accurate calendars from a model that had no basis in reality. I am just trying to put this all into a context that I can understand.
@@msromike123 Thanks to the "Born rule"* one doesn't actually need anything more from the theory for useful applications than what's already there. You may have heard the expression, "shut up and calculate" which refers to an attitude adopted by the majority of physicists for a long period after the theory's birth. What the MWI does - attempts - is to go further and provide us with a full "Interpretation": a detailed account of the meaning of the mathematics in conceptual, physical terms. * The MWI actually drops that crucial "Born rule" from the theory, temporarily at least, and attempts to (re-)derive it.
In order to estimate probability one needs multiple examples of a phenomenon to evaluate the results. We only have one universe as an example so estimating probability of a multi verse is impossible. We don't know if it's possible or probable, it's just a conjecture based purely on a mathematical construct.
Yes, I agree with some slight variation of many worlds. But I think the answer to why we never see a superposition is because it is logically impossible to perceive something indefinite. What would you perceive? Superpositions are indefinite states, they are partly this, partly that, somehow not entirely anything. How could you ever experience something which is somehow a combination of mutually contradictory states? If I tell you the coin is a superposition of heads and tails, then you look at the coin, what do you see? It has to be something, if you perceive the coin it must be either heads or tails.
Exactly. It's all about perception or I would rather say consciousness. Our consciousness can only perceive one of the infinite number of states that exist and keep existing simultaneously that we are not conscious of anymore and forever
You neglected the rare edge state for the coin. It's quite likely the truth of Schrodinger's cat is just like that... Another real-life option not discussed as an option in the thought experiment.
Superpositions are not partly this and partly that. They are something new that can create interference effects, such that e.g. there is nothing where naively we would expect to be something.
@@winstongludovatz111 The key part of my sentence was "not entirely anything". A superposition is mathematically a linear combination of states. Interpretation is another thing, pick your poison. The Copenhagen interpretation would say that the superposition has the *potential* to be either this or that. When I say "partly this" I don't mean a mixture, it's not a recipe for a cake. I don't know how to explain without appealing to the math... A general quantum state can be decomposed into an eigenbasis, with a coefficient in front of each basis vector which represents the projection or degree of overlap from the general state to the eigenstate. Would you not say that a general 2D vector points partly in the x direction and partly in the y direction? It is the same thing. A superposition is an indefinite state, it is not 100% anything. Superposition can lead to interference, yes, but that's just focusing on the double slit experiment. One man's superposition is another man's pure state, it depends what you're measuring. If you have a spin-up electron and you measure the up/down spin you will get spin-up 100% of the time. But if you took the same electron and measured its left/right spin you would get left 50% and right 50% of the time. Superposition is a much deeper idea that just interfering waves.
The moment I heard "many words interpretation", I became disappointed. I do not like multiplying universes any time a particle decides it is measured (whatever measurement actually means)
There's no need to multiply universes. In the simplest -- therefore Occam-favored -- version of Many Worlds, there have always been an infinite (or finite but vast) number of universes, and there isn't any "branching" that increases the number of universes when a "measurement" is made. Instead, the measurement informs the experimenter which subset of the multiverse her own universe is in. For example, she learns she's in a universe that's in the subset in which the cat has been dead for awhile (it died before the observation is made) or she learns she's in a universe that's in the subset in which the cat didn't die. (There are also other universes in which the cat wasn't placed in the danger box, but the experimenter already knew from her memories of preparing the box & placing the cat in it that her universe isn't one of them.)
Little known story about Schrödinger: He was given a gift of a pet opossum by his brother when he turned 21. He took the opossum everywhere in his early days at university and during his research years. He was constantly seen in his laboratory with the opossum right as his side. His friends used to joke that it was his research assistant” as it was always on the table when he did his experiments. During this time, he was really struggling to make a name for himself and none of his work was yielding any meaningful results. One day, the opossum died and Schrödinger was devastated, it had been his companion for so long. A bunch of his friends bought him a kitten to keep him company. Schrödinger tried to treat the kitten the same, bringing it with him while he did his work. He never really bonded with the kitten, but, all of a sudden, his work came together and he made his greatest contribution to science. He realized what the problem had been all those years… the opossum was always playing dead.
The thing about superposition that is really strange is, why is this not just a probabilistic thing? you can create a superposition in classical systems too, by flipping a coin and hiding it from sight for a while. I know it's not the same thing, but that part of the reasoning is rarely explained, and a lot of people are left wondering what's so mysterious about superposition in the first place. And yeah, I know covering Bell's theorem usually falls outside the scope of these expositions.
In fact it is just a probabilistic thing. Mathematically, QT is an algebraic generalization of (Kolmogorovian) probability and classical mechanics can be and has been written in the exact same formalism ("Koopman-von Neumann CM") - superpositions included. There are important conceptual and mathematical differences of course but you won't hear about this stuff from the scandalously prevalent - and prominent - "quantum foundations"-illiterates who make numerous serious mistakes and can't even be relied on to correctly relay the content and context of Schrodinger's famous "cat paper". Excuse the bitterness. 😫
when you add positive and negative numbers of equal amounts, they just cancel out. So perhaps you could say that about the math that is being interpreted as saying the cat is both dead and alive. But, as I see it, these quantum wave functions only describe a range of possibilities given a lack of information, but all these possibilities are not going to be simultaneously true.
I still find this totally baffling, but thank you for trying. Another mystery is why the telephone is still on your desk but it has not been ringing for several months now. I guess your most regular caller is too busy in his new role as puppet master to take time to ring you, and Joe B is also busy tying up loose ends before his retirement. Merry Christmas!
I've just been too stressed out to think of any clever jokes, sorry. It takes up a lot of time and it's the first to fall victim to my time-shortage. I hope next year will be better!
Isn't it an even larger assumption that "there exists a universe with a superpositioned cat"? If they found an explanation that obviates that outcome, by explaining that as observers we cannot find ourselves within such a universe?
Schrödinger, standing beside the box, to the audience: "The cat in there is in a superposition, we can´t know if it´s dead or alive" Cat: "Meow" Schrödinger: "Shut up!"
I tried explaining this exact issue to my accountant. Foolishly, he tried to affirm that my account was indeed empty. I spent the better part of an afternoon failing to convince him that, mathematically, that was impossible. He simply didn't know where to look.
I don't see why it ever even took off in the first place. The first time I heard it, my reaction was: "Total nonsense, impossible situation. You can tell the difference by the cat's gravity, and you can't shield gravity by the box or by anything else (except those alien UFO's, which seem to do it all the time), so the cat is *never* out of sight (because gravity counts as 'sight' too), and the very assumption behind 'Schroedinger's Cat' is null and void. So, it's much ado about nothing."
one of my daughters had an allergic reaction to medication, was pronounced "dead" but was resuscitated. She remembers being consciously aware of being "dead" while comfortably floating away before deciding to come back because her children needed her. During that period between being physically revived and and becoming conscious of the desire to return, she would have been physically dead but consciously alive.
Your daughter's experience depended upon her "choice" to die or not to die. But she was not "leaving" to death, but to allow herself to be transferred to a different reality. That is the essence of "choice." A measurement requires "choice." God requires that we make a "choice." God cannot intervene in that choice, except to try to "convince" you that your choice has consequences. But ultimately it is still YOUR choice and not Gods. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I always thought the thought experiment was to point out that when scaled up to everyday physics the quatum physics became absurd. It wasn't to suggest the cat was really alive and dead at the same time.... so what's to solve?
That's exactly what I thought.... The cat is a metaphor for a particle in superposition, and the poison is part of the method by which we observe the state of the "cat"
The reason this is still being discussed is even though the thought experiment was proposed as an obsurdity, we have yet to prove it actually is with our best models of the universe. Meaning, obsurd sounding or not, it still might actually be true.
Not at all. "Superposition" is a statement of our ignorance of what is happening. It's a made-up state that means nothing other than "We don't know so we'll name it so people won't find out." You don't really know if the bread is in the breadbox until you look, either.
I am ot sure to understand. The two quantum states "alive cat" and "dead cat" interact between each other so that the state "dead and alive cat" never happen ?
The superposition went away when the detector detected it to release the poison, or didn't. The cat is also an observer. Why is this hypothetical still being used?
It has always bothered me as well. If the poison is released only if the atom has decayed, then just that verification should collapse the wave function and end the debate before the cat even had the time to die. Now maybe I haven't really grasped all the premises of this problem.
4:14 It was roughly when this slide or whatever you call it popped up that I started to think quantum state is similar to semaphores (a programming tool for thread synchronisation). Until you lock the semaphore you never really know what state the semaphore is in accept the brief moment that you looked at it while trying to lock it or release it.
We really need some way to get more data about electrons so we can stop chasing our tails on this entanglement idea. (I think…) I’m prolly not really getting it, but it looks to me very similar to the situation in which you can have two roots in quadratic equations. 2*2=4, but so does -2*-2… We don’t worry what it means in reality that there can be two answers to this math question. Why are these wave functions any different, except that we’ve gotten used to using the math to predict physics results. Because we’re having a hard time measuring anything at that 4nm scale, let alone anything smaller.
The whole reason for the Copenhagen Group creating superposition ( 2 possibilities due to the negative function ) is based on the postulate that the negative functions are allowed. They are not allowed, for the same reason that time only flows in one direction, forwards. Remove the negative functions and superposition ( and thus the cat ) collapses into only one possibility.
A cat is not a quantum particle and doesn't have the same reactions to theories as easily as sub atomic stuff does. The cat is either alive or dead or non existent.
The reason why a photon doesn't show its resulting path until viewed is because it makes both potential paths possible at the same time, 1 time line result for one and another time line result for the other. Once observed the timeline is set.
My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I would like to explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. People often say that a quantum particle is in many places at the same time but this is just an absurd interpretation since it implies logical contradictions; a non-collapsed wave function describes infinite possibilities and not a particle that occupies infinite positions at the same time. If the properties are indeterminate it means that such properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics) and all attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Since the collapse of the wave function violates the fundamental laws of physics, it can only be associated with an agent that is not described by the Schrodinger equation, and the only event we know of that is irreducible to the Schrodinger equation is consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process; contrary to what many claim, a measuring instrument cannot cause the collapse of the wave function. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
I raised 175k and Maria Luisa Clare is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Maria L. Clare is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
I think I _may_ see what they're trying to get at in this paper, and it sure is interesting. While I have not parsed through anywhere close to the math, the gist I am getting is that they seem to have supported something that can be understood in the context of the following intuitive argument. Note that one of the assumptions seems to be that the system in question has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, viz. that there is only a limited amount of _configuration_ -space "room" available. A finite grid of points, to be precise (think a qubit - its configuration space is the discrete set { 0, 1 }, and for 2 qubits, it is { 00, 01, 10, 11 }, etc.) For decoherence to occur, there must be separation of branches - "humps" of the wave function as viewed as a "surface" plotted a top the (multidimensional) configuration space at "likely" configurations. Because the configuration space is limited and bounded, however, Schrodinger evolution at arbitrarily long time will cause "recoherence" or recollapse of decohered branches back into a superposition due to "running out of room" for them to branch into, which one might be tempted to call a "quantum apocalypse". Note that the number of branches grows exponentially, so we can expect it to eventually "hit the ceiling" in not too long, even with a large configuration space. One can think of this kind of like the Poincare recurrence theorem (it may even be the same thing). What it seems their result is, at least intuitively, is that the boundedness of this space not only eventually forces the branches to all recohere to some end point, but in fact its effect is "more severe" in that the constraint it imposes prevents all of them from even decohering in the first place. Instead, a more limited number of decoherent branches comes off, together with remaining-coherent "lumps". And the decoherent branches just happen to be ones that have approximately (presumably exact in some infinite limit) Born rule characteristics. It would also mean that in that restrained configuration space universe, it would be impossible for the embedded observer to experience certain histories at all. Now that could be all wrong, but that's how it feels to me. Put more simply, it would mean the "extra assumption" to derive the Born rule from the Schrodinger equation is simply "the Universe has a finite number of configuration states", like a qubit does, even if very large. It has a finite total information capacity and is a closed system. Conversely, one might want to argue that our observance of the Born rule is evidence (not proof) for these assumptions, and likewise if we found an "unusual" effect, it would show that one or both were broken (think hypothetically, e.g. if someone proved scientifically a real ghost: such a thing would break the closed-system rule for the Universe, and thus would permit the needed Born-rule violation to make it happen). But more interestingly, it hints that even if it is not absolute, the Schrodinger equation "likes" the Born rule and so while some extra assumption would still be needed to derive it in unlimited/infinite cases, that assumption potentially may be made very mild.
A superposition between being dead and alive still sums to a state we classify as alive to some degree. This says something about classifications being classical yet still not trivializing the role of the observer.
This makes sense at first. Once a particle reacts with it (in a range of continous amount of possibilities), the outcomes must follow laws of physics. This just describes all the possible scenarios and their percentages
Observing a Quantum event is like taking a high shutter rate picture of a high speed train passing 1meter in front of you at maximum speed. There is no concept of time if particles travel at light speed, an observation takes them from a timeless domain to a time domain and attaching a tag of time to them. This explains why we don’t see a cat in superposition.
Wonderful timing! Fits well into my current manuscript on relationalism, where time in our reality begins (t=0) at a collapse into a single state, meaning quantum superposition state exists in non-time, collapse into single state creates t = 0 (unchanging) in our real-world system (relational timeline), and with motion/change (where time cannot equal zero) we preceive this reality and relational timeline.
"Allow me to ask a naive and amateur question, not related to the video. On the one hand, we know that time slows down near massive objects. And if such an object is massive enough, time could slow down to the point of stopping. On the other hand, the Big Bang theory tells us that the universe emerged from an infinitely small but dense singularity, which already contained all the energy and mass of the future universe. In the first moments of the new universe’s existence, it was still very dense (before it began its expansion). This means that all the mass of the universe was concentrated in a very small volume. So, can we even claim that the first seconds of the new universe were truly seconds, rather than billions of years by our standards?"
Time is a relative concept. There are no moments or periods in absolute eternity. You instinctually already know this; you ended your question with "by our standards." But what the hell do I know, I'm just a human.
I just came inside from burying my very real dead cat (Fermion) to see this video. My heart cries for her but my mind and my soul cry for your reluctance and grappling with the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In the video Sabine says that the problem with the many worlds interpretation is that there isn't any one world where the cat is both dead and alive. Why does that need to be an option? Maybe it relates to her next sentence - "who or what selects what is allowed in a universe...". Wouldn't that be just the laws of nature, or whatever you want to call them? The same laws determine that when flipping a coin you get heads half the time, but to get two heads in a row the chance is 1/4.
An issue i see with the "dead or alive" superposition is that integrated over infinity, the cat will always be dead as there is no mechanism that brings the cat back to life. To me this looks a an energy state problem where the live is high and dead is lowest. Super saturated states like super cooled/heated water appears a better analogy.
Problem with quantum specifications is that this description language is not connected to real world descriptions, therefore it is an abstract thing living on its own island, looping back on itself. Too abstract and disconnected. You just have to make a map on paper. And visually connect the equations to a picture of person thinking about the equations, using them to calculate, thinking about a cat, doing experiments. Map it all out relationally.
A particle is just waveform. When we use something to make it visible. It's changed it. It's just energy and information. Turning spacetime in a waveform. If it was both in phase and out of phase at the same time it would cancel itself out.
@obsidianjane4413 An electron or photon is waveform. When they smash into something so we can observe them. They change. Matter suckes in spacetime to create its self. Spacetime is the fabric of the unaverse. Distortion from matter creates gravity. There's plenty of evidence. If you plucked a guitar string. And paused time. Then measured the length of the string when it plucked. It would be longer than at rest. Distortion. A wound watch is heavier than a watch at rest. Same thing.
And I thought it was common in quantum physics circles to a) define the many worlds interpretation as "the wavefunction simply does not collapse", being equivalent to "shut up and calculate" and b) the consequent explanation of the schrödingers cat being: the particle having decayed is strictly correlated with the cat being dead, so the superposition just propagates to the cat being alive or dead and the human seeing either a cat that's alive or a cat that's dead. The consequence is that there is either a human seeing a definitely dead cat or a definitely alive cat, but no human can ever see a cat that's dead or alive at the same time. So the superposition can still exist but the human is now part of the system. Am I wrong with the assumptions and/or explanations?
The problem with the unobserved cat being both dead and alive because it's unobserved is that even in a box it's state can be detected from outside the box.
I think, Schrödinger did publish his thought experiment, not as a physical fact, but as an parable. Mathematically, a superposition is obtained by a certain operation (usually addition) in a vector space. But the states „dead“ and „alive“ are no vectors at all. From the states of the atom “decayed” or “not decayed”, it can’t be directly concluded, weather or not the cat is dead or alive. For example, the cat may have deceased by some other reason and may found dead by an observer, even though the atom didn’t decay yet. Superposition is something which happens with observable which you can model in vector spaces and not between any arbitrary variables you may accidentally observe.
It's nice that the video came with a quiz but I was half hoping it might come with a cat that I could determine was alive. Thanks for your many fine videos Dr Hossenfelder, merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and Albert. 👍🏻🤔👎🏻🐱😀
Resolution of Quantum Measurement Paradoxes Through Relational Perspectives 1. Conceptual Explanation: This approach proposes that quantum measurement paradoxes arise from an incorrect assumption of absolute states. Instead, it suggests that quantum states are fundamentally relational - they exist only in the context of interactions between systems. This relational view eliminates the need for wave function collapse and resolves issues like the Schrödinger's cat paradox. 2. Mathematical Formalism: Let's formalize this concept: a) Define a quantum system S as a collection of monads: S ⊆ M b) Define a relational state function: Ψ: M × P(M) → H, where P(M) is the power set of M and H is a Hilbert space c) For any monad m and system S, Ψ(m, S) represents the state of S relative to m d) Define a measurement as an interaction between systems: Measure: P(M) × P(M) → P(M) e) The result of a measurement is a change in the relational state: Ψ(m, Measure(S, A)) ≠ Ψ(m, S), where A is the measuring apparatus f) Define consistency conditions: For any m1, m2 ∈ M and S ⊆ M: ⟨Ψ(m1, S)|Ψ(m2, S)⟩ = f(R(m1, m2)), where f is a function of the monadic relation 3. Resolution of Paradoxes: a) Measurement Problem: There's no collapse, only a change in relational states b) Schrödinger's Cat: The cat's state is always definite relative to each observer c) EPR Paradox: Correlations are explained by consistency of relational states, not faster-than-light influences 4. Potential Tests/Implications: a) Design experiments to test for relational quantum states b) Develop quantum technologies based on relational information c) Explore implications for quantum computing and cryptography 5. Formal Statement: Theorem: In a relational quantum framework (M, Ψ, Measure), all measurement outcomes are consistent with unitary evolution of relational states, without requiring wave function collapse. Proof Sketch: 1. Show that Measure preserves unitarity in the space of relational states 2. Demonstrate that apparent "collapse" is a change in relational state 3. Prove consistency of measurement outcomes across different observers This formalization provides a rigorous framework for understanding quantum phenomena without the paradoxes associated with absolute states and wave function collapse. It aligns with Leibniz's idea that all properties are relational, extending this concept to quantum mechanics. Key implications include: 1. A resolution to the measurement problem without additional postulates 2. A natural explanation for quantum entanglement and non-locality 3. A potential bridge between quantum mechanics and gravity, both treated relationally 4. New perspectives on quantum information and its conservation This approach resonates with other relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics, but grounds it in a more fundamental monadic (knower-based) structure.
simulation - frame by frame calculation of particles (pixels) in the universe using meta tags. Pretty obvious to me- the simulation renders each pixel with characteristics that affect the overall render state of the next frame, this gives rise to the death of classical physics, and the rise of digital physics in a frame by frame universe- simple- and published almost two months ago
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1734940317262x453348685399263200
You can also create your own quizzes (using AI) on my platform!
thanks for another funny quiz.
Mathematicians rely on assumptions. So do normals.
Can you please do a video critiquing Sara Imari Walker’s new book “Life As No One Knows It”?
instead of the cat in a box i prefer the cat on the operating table
if your a vet reviving a cat whos heart has stopped. is it alive or dead and if you restart its heart did you bring it back to life(if you consider the stopping of a heart to be the point of death) or was it never dead to begin with?
I heard you are a fallacy.
Humans sure complicate matters. You poor creatures, but we're here to help.
This comment is hereby awarded two internets.
Lol your name and picture
@@BigZebraCom Well, one must be the famed "dead internet" then...
That's the talk of every invader in history. Felix is no exception.
I love how your user name is also a superposition of "my friends cat" and "my friend sca..." and I sure hope I live in the universe where it collapses to the former XD.
that cat was put in that box 90-odd years ago, it's dead..
Cat was pregnant
Hence it is an "age-old" problem.
What if time behaves differently once we stop observing the cat?
How many lives does a cat have?
@@JZsBFF Interesting posit... time, like cats, behaves differently when unobserved. Therefore time IS a cat!
I've always wondered why the cat isn't considered an observer.
"...what's wrong with it?" "I'll tell you what's wrong with it! It's dead! That's what's wrong with it!" "No, no, it's resting, look!" "I know a dead cat when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now!..."
Jesus rose from the dead, right?
I think you mistook a parrot for a cat 🤣
@@pietpaaltjes7419 NO NO it's not a cat, it's a Norwegian Blue!
Within a couple of days, you will definitely know if the cat is dead or alive - your nose will tell you. Especially in the warm weather we're having at the moment, your nose knows.
I didn't realise my grandfather was so clever but he must have been because when he found a cat he told me that at the time it was half dead. I assume that the calculation also allows for the cat to be brought back to full life again and that's what my grandfather did.
That cat was half alive. But I also am a so-called pessimist.
In the (simplified) mathematical model, you can resurrect the cat.
Your granfather is the quantum vet.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican Everything is relative. Give an optimist a bucket of shit to eat and he'll see it as half empty...
*catculations
Physics 101: Newton's apple in the fall, Schrodinger's cat in the spring. Repeat forever.
In the universe where I live Newton was struck on the head by a banana and discovered the Law of the Jungle...
wait until you actually learn that Newton's apple did not fall but rather stayed still while the rest of the earth moved towards it! Looking at you@floatheadphysics
lol
So they may have solved he dead+alive problem by omitting the the universe in which it can happen? My cats are not impressed. .
Well, as I said, they chalked up the relevant assumption to a sentence about random matrices and the rest is a numerical calculation. So unfortunately, I don't know exactly what they did. It's just that I know that without making any special assumptions about either the environment or the system (what it means to be a detector) you can't solve the problem.
Incidentally, Zurek (who come up with the idea of decoherence based environmental selection "einselection") knew this, which is why he tried to come up with system properties that would single out what a detector is. (Just that this didn't really work either.)
Are your cats alive or dead?
@@SabineHossenfelder Maybe what we need is a lie detector...
@ Alive … for now.
Isn't it the case that parts of any given cat are alive, but other parts are dead, and being continually replaced by new cells? Baddaboom, baddabing, der ya go, solved it. Come to think of it, do we know something is not being replaced by the observation? Is the photon replacing something else? Is the particle "sticking" to the photon, or being knocked off it's wave?
If I know anything about cats …it’s probably just asleep 🤣
😂
You may be thinking of Schrodinger's parrot...
physics lately has just been "WE DISCOVERED SOMETHING HUGE AND SOLVED AN AGE OLD PROBLEM" and then you look at the paper and there's some assumption or detail missing that you'd need to check the results. Can we jsut go back to releasing complete research?
That seems to be the focus of this channel
@MyNameIsThe_Sun nope. Sabine lacks the intelligence and critical thinking skills to do that.
Suggest you watch her Special Relativity and the Twin Paradox video she put out.
Here is what she left put.
1) synchronized clocks use the same amount of energy. How can you have real time-dilation when both clocks use the sane amount of energy. Instead of explaining, she tells you to shut up and calculate. Time-dilation has been decreed by Einstein. Do not question the word of your god Einstein.
2) the clock's cesium-133 atom is in a controlled environment. Being chilled to absolute zero and shielded from EM radiation. Is the observer also being shielded from UV rays? Placed in a freezer? You can't even compare the two frames. They are separate entities being accelerated at different rates.
If have to ignore those two fundamental facts to get Einstein’s relativity nonsense to work. Sabine is either really stupid or great con-artist. Take your pick.
Further proof?
Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. So why is it the focal point for all the models? Once again. Shut up and calculate. Don't question the word of your god Newton.
F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration of the mass. Not the mass itself.
F=G(m1m2)/R2. Force comes from mass? That contradicts the laws of motion. No matter what m2 is, F (motion) is always the same. Why is that Sir Issac Newton?
The Laws of Motion, F=ma/a=a, requires an explanation for the source of all acceleration in the universe. Either acceleration comes from a creator god (let there be light) or Acceleration has always existed in an infinite/eternal universe.
Newton couldn't very well say god created the universe and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his infinite universe theory.
Blame the media.
Do you get that from the original paper title:
"First Principles Numerical Demonstration of Emergent Decoherent Histories"
In plainer english, using existing theories, we crunch some numbers on a simplified model and see something like decoherence happen!
Or from wordings like:
"This suggests a solution...."
Plain english: Maybe this has wider implications, dunno?
or on an assumption they made,
"We deliberately point out that this attitude shall neither imply that the MWI is correct nor that the consistent histories interpretation of Griffiths is incorrect"
Plain english: yeah, there's *some* (/s) disagreement about our assumptions and interpretations of these kinds of results.
or, on the system they use
"This is probably the simplest quantifier one can consider, but we believe its simplicity makes it appealing to get a first impression of what is going on."
Plain english: this is of course an extremely simplified toy model, but the behaviour is still very interesting, and we should see if our first impressions are correct!
age old?? this is not age old lol
Obvioysly not every paper is like that, and obviously not every video on this channel covers that topic. I think it's fair that, if you publish your research for peer review... if there's a challenge, often there's a back-and-forth in the journal. For a science educator who covers current topical issues, knowing that this is a popular aspect of quantum theory... it seems to be reasonable to push back on the article's claims, in this context. Plus... we watched it.
I have Schrodinger's memory. I can be told something that I've forgotten, but also remember it when it's become a problem.
Almost as good as knowing it's gonna be a problem but you can't remember what it was. LOL.
Schrödinger's cat: Both alive and dead
Normal cat: Either alive or dead
Sauron's wraith cat: Neither alive nor dead
Matrix: There is no cat.
Portal: The cat is a lie
Hamlet: To cat or not to cat.
Dante's meme cat: Has Cheezburger, but can never eat it.
Reservoir dogs: that's the smallest cat and it's meowing just for you
3:31 The abstract says they observe an exponential increase in decoherence as the number of particles in a system increases, but then say that this suggests a solution to the many-worlds theory that does not rely on environmentally-induced decoherence. Are the "particles" not the "environment", or at least part of its makeup? It seems like the authors are saying decoherence results from time plus interactions; in which case, how is this new?
maybe the novelty comes from the rigorous treatment?
If the result of simulated quantum interactions with these "many particles" (environment) is a collapse to classical (measurable) states, that would be at least new to me. That would enable to define a size boundary between classical and quantum systems but I think a non local collapse is believed to be impossible using the Schrödinger equation and I would be confused, if a local collaps can be described with Schrödinger but not a non-local collapse.
Or is the relation to the wave-collapse I imply here incorrect?
@@aarionsievo Huh? I didn't even know that Schrodinger equation supports a local wavefunction collapse
Alice in Wonderland's Cheshire cat "What makes you think I am still in the box Mr Schrodinger?"
Actually, I have asked that, too. You can't know if the cat is in the box for the same reasons.
The cat is part of the universe and will 'know' wether it is alive or dead. No human measurement is needed because the universe is a self measuring system. Measurement always takes place at the lowest possible level first. Ergo amplification of quantum uncertainty is not possible if there is a measurement happening. Measurements almost always happen. Measurement is just the same thing as interaction.
…so the song “Yer Blues” was sung from the cat’s perspective? I never knew that.
If the universe is a self measuring system, then why are there waves at all? It seems to me that a self measuring system would have completely measured itself in the past 14 billion years (or so)
This strongly suggests that the universe is at least only partly self measuring. If so, then we have to find out the limits of this self measurement, and why there are limits in the first place.
@@jdlech waves are the very essence of our dimension, which is emergent. Waves is how everything emerges and creates spacetime. Time is not a property of the underlying universe, where we emerge from, but emergent itself. The source is timeless and thereby eternal.
It's worse than that. What is a gieger counter if not a measuring device? You can't get to the point where poison is administered to any cats without triggering collapse.
Merry Christmas Sabine! ❤
Good for you!
Last Friday, I waited all day for a call wishing me a Happy Equinox. Not one call. We equinocturnals are people, too. If you prick us, do we not bleed?
@ merry Christmas and happy new year friends with common interest ☺️
What I've never understood about this is that surely the cat itself is an observer. It would experience whether it's getting poisoned or not.
Perhaps a superposition is just “shorthand” for a possible position that doesn’t matter in reality so it isn’t “drawn” into reality until/unless it acts upon something else in a meaningful way. Like how video games don’t draw scenes beyond the gamer’s view to save computer power.
A superposition is a discrete state not unlike normal states. What makes it different is that state is fragile to measurement, and will cause it to snap back into a classical state. It's not magic, nor is it peaking behind the veil. We just don't know how to measure it without influencing it. It's still entirely possible some method in the future may permit measurement without wave function collapse.
Think of it more like angular rotation. Classical states would be at 90 degrees and 0 degrees, while a superposition may be at 45 degrees, or somewhere inbetween. Once again, it's a discrete state, and if we had the tools, potentially measurable.
No, It's more like all rendered objects beyond gamers' pov are become sum of all their models the moment the player turned his head away. So, instead un-rendered scene behind pov, in quantum mechanics scene behind player is full of mess and noize. If player is only one what interacted with objects by model-calling.
@@skyhopin superposition you will not see 45 degree result, you will see 90 and 0 at same time. Not any degree between. Quantum uncertainity and quantum superposition are different things. You can "measure" two "uncertain clouds" of one paricle in superposition state that can be in two places at one moment AND both of them will have uncertain position.
Yes , interaction collapses the wave function, that's basically it.
Physicist: _So we came up with math that gives us desired result._
Reality: _Cool story, bro._
Many Worlds Interpretation is as ridiculous as String Theory. It just shows how people with a certain intelligence in some subject believe idiotic ideas just like anyone else.
Nope. It's very simple. If you want there to be an alive and dead cat at the same time, you need more than one cat. Many worlds just takes QM seriously, and says that both states coexist. That's it. We dont see both states at once, obviously, so they coexist in different spaces. The alternative is a magical collapse if you look at the cat.
CAT : tell Schrödinger I survived and I will find him.
Maybe the universe splits every time a new cat video pops up on TH-cam? Moment, I´ll work out the math for that THIS year.
The Universe seem to split quite often. A trillionth of second? Time to read Kant on the infinitesimal?
@@AstroGremlinAmerican But not in this universe please😉
The cat is lithium based life in the dark.😂
Schroedinger was probably thinking that the mathematicians needed to improve their maths. Maths souuld be the servant, not the master.
Schrödinger wasn't presenting a 'problem' to be 'solved'. There was nothing that needed improvement. He was presenting a parody, and asking physicists, "Do you know what you are entailing? Have you really thought this through?"
Math is all our master.
Math is a tool.
@@timothyvanderschultzen9640spoken by someone who doesn’t understand math. It’s an abstract system that allows logic and reasoning. A foundational framework to better understand patterns, relationships, and structures in the universe.
A ruler is a tool. Without math it would have no value.
I never knew where to plug in the remaining life count.
Meanwhile..Bubba in a alabama trailer park puts a window on the box where you can check on the cat anytime
Meanwhile
Cat got out, hit by truck kun, isekai into another world.
Bubba Wins nobel prize
This was solved a long time ago. It died! No cat could survive 100 years in a box.
It's a lot quicker if the "environment" in question is interstellar space.
In a quantum box the cat could live always
😂
9 out of 10 the cat is alive. I bet she is alive
MWI just seems like a stopgap until we have better tools for measurement, and better math to make sense of quantum theory. In my mind, MWI is akin to Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system. The Ptolemaic model was useful at the time and accurate enough to make usable calendars and whatnot. But it was a flawed model that did not line up with reality. Development of the correct model did not diminish his achievements.
You'll be pleased to learn that no better tools for measurement are needed and that we've had that better math - or rather a better understanding of the math of QM - since before Hugh Everett published his MWI paper. Furthermore, Schrodinger, in his famous "cat paper", was highlighting a problem not with QM itself but with a naive "semi-classical" interpretation of the quantum state ("wavefunction") that was still considered tenable by some at the time. Ironically, the MWI is similarly plagued by such profound conceptual and mathematical problems that it's hard to understand why *anyone* does still take it seriously (relatively few "quantum foundations"-literate people do).
Except you don't need MWI to do anything.
@@Verlamian Ok, I am obviously a lay person, but I thought the reason for MWI is it is a way to bring immeasurable phenomena (that may not actually exist) into a model that allows for actual applications of the model to produce something useful (quantum computers for instance, though that is debatable in terms of their usefulness.) Thus, my analogy of creating accurate calendars from a model that had no basis in reality. I am just trying to put this all into a context that I can understand.
@@msromike123 Thanks to the "Born rule"* one doesn't actually need anything more from the theory for useful applications than what's already there. You may have heard the expression, "shut up and calculate" which refers to an attitude adopted by the majority of physicists for a long period after the theory's birth. What the MWI does - attempts - is to go further and provide us with a full "Interpretation": a detailed account of the meaning of the mathematics in conceptual, physical terms.
* The MWI actually drops that crucial "Born rule" from the theory, temporarily at least, and attempts to (re-)derive it.
@@Verlamian Perfect! After reading about the Born rule just now, that puts it into persepctive.
I Solved That DECADES AGO.
Just ask the Dog, if the cat is okay 😂
... try to keep up people
So the cat is just undead? I knew it!
That explains the multiple lives thing they seem to have going
I’m telling you now in my universe my cat it’s surely alive…its making a right mess 😂
As soon as you mention many worlds or multiverse, I think of dragons and wizards. Plausible but highly improbable.
In order to estimate probability one needs multiple examples of a phenomenon to evaluate the results.
We only have one universe as an example so estimating probability of a multi verse is impossible. We don't know if it's possible or probable, it's just a conjecture based purely on a mathematical construct.
Robocop cat. Dead or alive, you’re coming with me.
Yes, I agree with some slight variation of many worlds. But I think the answer to why we never see a superposition is because it is logically impossible to perceive something indefinite. What would you perceive? Superpositions are indefinite states, they are partly this, partly that, somehow not entirely anything. How could you ever experience something which is somehow a combination of mutually contradictory states? If I tell you the coin is a superposition of heads and tails, then you look at the coin, what do you see? It has to be something, if you perceive the coin it must be either heads or tails.
Exactly. It's all about perception or I would rather say consciousness. Our consciousness can only perceive one of the infinite number of states that exist and keep existing simultaneously that we are not conscious of anymore and forever
@nolanr1400 you have to be careful using the word consciousness among physicists, it makes them uncomfortable 😜
You neglected the rare edge state for the coin. It's quite likely the truth of Schrodinger's cat is just like that... Another real-life option not discussed as an option in the thought experiment.
Superpositions are not partly this and partly that. They are something new that can create interference effects, such that e.g. there is nothing where naively we would expect to be something.
@@winstongludovatz111 The key part of my sentence was "not entirely anything". A superposition is mathematically a linear combination of states. Interpretation is another thing, pick your poison. The Copenhagen interpretation would say that the superposition has the *potential* to be either this or that. When I say "partly this" I don't mean a mixture, it's not a recipe for a cake. I don't know how to explain without appealing to the math... A general quantum state can be decomposed into an eigenbasis, with a coefficient in front of each basis vector which represents the projection or degree of overlap from the general state to the eigenstate. Would you not say that a general 2D vector points partly in the x direction and partly in the y direction? It is the same thing. A superposition is an indefinite state, it is not 100% anything. Superposition can lead to interference, yes, but that's just focusing on the double slit experiment. One man's superposition is another man's pure state, it depends what you're measuring. If you have a spin-up electron and you measure the up/down spin you will get spin-up 100% of the time. But if you took the same electron and measured its left/right spin you would get left 50% and right 50% of the time. Superposition is a much deeper idea that just interfering waves.
So long as you don't define what a cat is before you open the box, everything should be fine.
The moment I heard "many words interpretation", I became disappointed. I do not like multiplying universes any time a particle decides it is measured (whatever measurement actually means)
That's not what happens. You are in different universes all the time. When you measure, you just find out in which one you are. No branching required.
lol i realize its just a typo but "many words interpretation" has really good joke potential for some of these theories.
Well, everyone said the same thing about the earth revolving around the sun hundreds of years ago.
There's no need to multiply universes. In the simplest -- therefore Occam-favored -- version of Many Worlds, there have always been an infinite (or finite but vast) number of universes, and there isn't any "branching" that increases the number of universes when a "measurement" is made. Instead, the measurement informs the experimenter which subset of the multiverse her own universe is in. For example, she learns she's in a universe that's in the subset in which the cat has been dead for awhile (it died before the observation is made) or she learns she's in a universe that's in the subset in which the cat didn't die. (There are also other universes in which the cat wasn't placed in the danger box, but the experimenter already knew from her memories of preparing the box & placing the cat in it that her universe isn't one of them.)
@@andreasvox8068 But if you jump between different universes all the time, how does that avoid branching?
@2:09 Take a moment to think of the business plan behind creating stock footage of 3 middle-tier santas getting plastered at lunch time.
Could also be AI (have no idea if it is tho)
Little known story about Schrödinger: He was given a gift of a pet opossum by his brother when he turned 21. He took the opossum everywhere in his early days at university and during his research years. He was constantly seen in his laboratory with the opossum right as his side. His friends used to joke that it was his research assistant” as it was always on the table when he did his experiments. During this time, he was really struggling to make a name for himself and none of his work was yielding any meaningful results. One day, the opossum died and Schrödinger was devastated, it had been his companion for so long. A bunch of his friends bought him a kitten to keep him company. Schrödinger tried to treat the kitten the same, bringing it with him while he did his work. He never really bonded with the kitten, but, all of a sudden, his work came together and he made his greatest contribution to science. He realized what the problem had been all those years… the opossum was always playing dead.
Was I right?
Was he eating treats in the kitchen the whole time we’ve been thinking about that box?
observing decoherence in a pub indeed
Or incoherence at de pub...
@KenLieck and if you see double it solves the problem as there are two cats then
@@KenLieck Brilliant!😂
Maybe the Cat is just sleeping...
The pet cemetary solved it decades ago!
Cat was a Living dead! And a dead Living cat🤣
The thing about superposition that is really strange is, why is this not just a probabilistic thing? you can create a superposition in classical systems too, by flipping a coin and hiding it from sight for a while.
I know it's not the same thing, but that part of the reasoning is rarely explained, and a lot of people are left wondering what's so mysterious about superposition in the first place. And yeah, I know covering Bell's theorem usually falls outside the scope of these expositions.
In fact it is just a probabilistic thing. Mathematically, QT is an algebraic generalization of (Kolmogorovian) probability and classical mechanics can be and has been written in the exact same formalism ("Koopman-von Neumann CM") - superpositions included. There are important conceptual and mathematical differences of course but you won't hear about this stuff from the scandalously prevalent - and prominent - "quantum foundations"-illiterates who make numerous serious mistakes and can't even be relied on to correctly relay the content and context of Schrodinger's famous "cat paper".
Excuse the bitterness. 😫
when you add positive and negative numbers of equal amounts, they just cancel out. So perhaps you could say that about the math that is being interpreted as saying the cat is both dead and alive. But, as I see it, these quantum wave functions only describe a range of possibilities given a lack of information, but all these possibilities are not going to be simultaneously true.
You said what I too planned to say.
I would REALLY love to see Sabine talk with Sean Caroll about the many worlds interpretation and it's problems.
I still find this totally baffling, but thank you for trying.
Another mystery is why the telephone is still on your desk but it has not been ringing for several months now. I guess your most regular caller is too busy in his new role as puppet master to take time to ring you, and Joe B is also busy tying up loose ends before his retirement.
Merry Christmas!
I've just been too stressed out to think of any clever jokes, sorry. It takes up a lot of time and it's the first to fall victim to my time-shortage. I hope next year will be better!
The most regular caller is too busy arguing with and censoring MAGAs at the mo. 😂
@@antonystringfellow5152what are you whining about?
Fascinating. Thanks, Sabine! 😊
Happy holidays!
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Cats have no souls.
sounds like another incomplete paper
Papers are like measurement: true, false, or unresolved.
There is no such thing as an unresolved measure
Just as there is no Superposition locally
Isn't it an even larger assumption that "there exists a universe with a superpositioned cat"? If they found an explanation that obviates that outcome, by explaining that as observers we cannot find ourselves within such a universe?
Why scientists just don´t wait for cat to meow to find out? Are they stupid?
Schrödinger, standing beside the box, to the audience: "The cat in there is in a superposition, we can´t know if it´s dead or alive" Cat: "Meow" Schrödinger: "Shut up!"
One can blame theoretical scientists for being a lot of things but stupid? Nope.
It's cats which pose as smart but in fact they're pretty dumb.
Seeing Gus Sorola from Rooster Teeth in a Sabine video about Quantum states is NOT what I expected to happen today.
A Nobel Prize for Cats?
I tried explaining this exact issue to my accountant. Foolishly, he tried to affirm that my account was indeed empty. I spent the better part of an afternoon failing to convince him that, mathematically, that was impossible. He simply didn't know where to look.
Schrodinger did not propose that this was true. He he used it to illustrate how dumb the copenhagen interpretation was
And still is.
Already said in both the video and its description below it.
I don't see why it ever even took off in the first place. The first time I heard it, my reaction was: "Total nonsense, impossible situation. You can tell the difference by the cat's gravity, and you can't shield gravity by the box or by anything else (except those alien UFO's, which seem to do it all the time), so the cat is *never* out of sight (because gravity counts as 'sight' too), and the very assumption behind 'Schroedinger's Cat' is null and void. So, it's much ado about nothing."
Which Copenhagen interpretation? There are like 4 different versions of it!
Absolutely, sensationalism and attention grabbing is the new norm.
one of my daughters had an allergic reaction to medication, was pronounced "dead" but was resuscitated. She remembers being consciously aware of being "dead" while comfortably floating away before deciding to come back because her children needed her.
During that period between being physically revived and and becoming conscious of the desire to return, she would have been physically dead but consciously alive.
Your daughter's experience depended upon her "choice" to die or not to die. But she was not "leaving" to death, but to allow herself to be transferred to a different reality. That is the essence of "choice." A measurement requires "choice." God requires that we make a "choice."
God cannot intervene in that choice, except to try to "convince" you that your choice has consequences. But ultimately it is still YOUR choice and not Gods.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 And if "GOD" does not come into the equation?
@richardhooper2700 I guess if you are a filthy sinner, like that CEO, then god might stay out of it.
I always thought the thought experiment was to point out that when scaled up to everyday physics the quatum physics became absurd. It wasn't to suggest the cat was really alive and dead at the same time.... so what's to solve?
That's exactly what I thought.... The cat is a metaphor for a particle in superposition, and the poison is part of the method by which we observe the state of the "cat"
The reason this is still being discussed is even though the thought experiment was proposed as an obsurdity, we have yet to prove it actually is with our best models of the universe. Meaning, obsurd sounding or not, it still might actually be true.
Not at all. "Superposition" is a statement of our ignorance of what is happening. It's a made-up state that means nothing other than "We don't know so we'll name it so people won't find out." You don't really know if the bread is in the breadbox until you look, either.
That finally explains why zombies exist. I am happy and frightened at the same time 😮
I am ot sure to understand. The two quantum states "alive cat" and "dead cat" interact between each other so that the state "dead and alive cat" never happen ?
It seems to be treating each condition as its own system and then averaging out the two doing some matrix math on the probability distributions.
Hmm.
deaddead
alive>dead<
><
......
...><
Single bit rotation either way, the same Möbius loop. Is it 1-D or 3-D? Both? Neither?
The superposition went away when the detector detected it to release the poison, or didn't. The cat is also an observer. Why is this hypothetical still being used?
because it sounds cool
Its a very abstract hypothetical. You have to treat the cat as an unobservant quantum system
It has always bothered me as well. If the poison is released only if the atom has decayed, then just that verification should collapse the wave function and end the debate before the cat even had the time to die.
Now maybe I haven't really grasped all the premises of this problem.
What makes the difference between an unobservant and an observant quantum system? The interactions with the environment?
yep no mystery to begin with paper makes thusly no sense
4:14 It was roughly when this slide or whatever you call it popped up that I started to think quantum state is similar to semaphores (a programming tool for thread synchronisation). Until you lock the semaphore you never really know what state the semaphore is in accept the brief moment that you looked at it while trying to lock it or release it.
We really need some way to get more data about electrons so we can stop chasing our tails on this entanglement idea. (I think…)
I’m prolly not really getting it, but it looks to me very similar to the situation in which you can have two roots in quadratic equations. 2*2=4, but so does -2*-2… We don’t worry what it means in reality that there can be two answers to this math question. Why are these wave functions any different, except that we’ve gotten used to using the math to predict physics results. Because we’re having a hard time measuring anything at that 4nm scale, let alone anything smaller.
Awesome shoutout to the team! Well done, well done.
Things like this make physics look ridiculous.
Harvard's Dr Jacob Barandes has a local realist interpretation of QM that doesn't feature superposition and yet yields the same predictions as QM.
The whole reason for the Copenhagen Group creating superposition ( 2 possibilities due to the negative function ) is based on the postulate that the negative functions are allowed.
They are not allowed, for the same reason that time only flows in one direction, forwards. Remove the negative functions and superposition ( and thus the cat ) collapses into only one possibility.
A cat is not a quantum particle and doesn't have the same reactions to theories as easily as sub atomic stuff does. The cat is either alive or dead or non existent.
3:15 "which we don't have an answer for either". Kind of sums it up.
I heard that the "Schrödinger's cat" experiment only works _nine times_ per cat.
But! You never know for sure which of the nine any given cat is living in. LOL
The reason why a photon doesn't show its resulting path until viewed is because it makes both potential paths possible at the same time, 1 time line result for one and another time line result for the other. Once observed the timeline is set.
My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I would like to explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists.
In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation.
After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities.
This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.
Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events.
In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. People often say that a quantum particle is in many places at the same time but this is just an absurd interpretation since it implies logical contradictions; a non-collapsed wave function describes infinite possibilities and not a particle that occupies infinite positions at the same time.
If the properties are indeterminate it means that such properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event.
Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics) and all attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Since the collapse of the wave function violates the fundamental laws of physics, it can only be associated with an agent that is not described by the Schrodinger equation, and the only event we know of that is irreducible to the Schrodinger equation is consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process; contrary to what many claim, a measuring instrument cannot cause the collapse of the wave function.
However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link.
No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
This bot again..either dead or alive...
Maybe you will find your answer from archeology. 😊
9 times out of 10 the cat lives
Thanks Sabine, this video was very informative and I’m trying my best to understand the system and the environment as a scientist.
I raised 175k and Maria Luisa Clare is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Maria L. Clare is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
+1🇺🇲
533
0701🇺🇲
communication with her incredibly efficient and highly reliable with whats~App's💞
I think I _may_ see what they're trying to get at in this paper, and it sure is interesting. While I have not parsed through anywhere close to the math, the gist I am getting is that they seem to have supported something that can be understood in the context of the following intuitive argument.
Note that one of the assumptions seems to be that the system in question has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, viz. that there is only a limited amount of _configuration_ -space "room" available. A finite grid of points, to be precise (think a qubit - its configuration space is the discrete set { 0, 1 }, and for 2 qubits, it is { 00, 01, 10, 11 }, etc.) For decoherence to occur, there must be separation of branches - "humps" of the wave function as viewed as a "surface" plotted a top the (multidimensional) configuration space at "likely" configurations. Because the configuration space is limited and bounded, however, Schrodinger evolution at arbitrarily long time will cause "recoherence" or recollapse of decohered branches back into a superposition due to "running out of room" for them to branch into, which one might be tempted to call a "quantum apocalypse". Note that the number of branches grows exponentially, so we can expect it to eventually "hit the ceiling" in not too long, even with a large configuration space. One can think of this kind of like the Poincare recurrence theorem (it may even be the same thing).
What it seems their result is, at least intuitively, is that the boundedness of this space not only eventually forces the branches to all recohere to some end point, but in fact its effect is "more severe" in that the constraint it imposes prevents all of them from even decohering in the first place. Instead, a more limited number of decoherent branches comes off, together with remaining-coherent "lumps". And the decoherent branches just happen to be ones that have approximately (presumably exact in some infinite limit) Born rule characteristics. It would also mean that in that restrained configuration space universe, it would be impossible for the embedded observer to experience certain histories at all.
Now that could be all wrong, but that's how it feels to me. Put more simply, it would mean the "extra assumption" to derive the Born rule from the Schrodinger equation is simply "the Universe has a finite number of configuration states", like a qubit does, even if very large. It has a finite total information capacity and is a closed system. Conversely, one might want to argue that our observance of the Born rule is evidence (not proof) for these assumptions, and likewise if we found an "unusual" effect, it would show that one or both were broken (think hypothetically, e.g. if someone proved scientifically a real ghost: such a thing would break the closed-system rule for the Universe, and thus would permit the needed Born-rule violation to make it happen). But more interestingly, it hints that even if it is not absolute, the Schrodinger equation "likes" the Born rule and so while some extra assumption would still be needed to derive it in unlimited/infinite cases, that assumption potentially may be made very mild.
A superposition between being dead and alive still sums to a state we classify as alive to some degree. This says something about classifications being classical yet still not trivializing the role of the observer.
This makes sense at first. Once a particle reacts with it (in a range of continous amount of possibilities), the outcomes must follow laws of physics. This just describes all the possible scenarios and their percentages
Observing a Quantum event is like taking a high shutter rate picture of a high speed train passing 1meter in front of you at maximum speed. There is no concept of time if particles travel at light speed, an observation takes them from a timeless domain to a time domain and attaching a tag of time to them. This explains why we don’t see a cat in superposition.
Why does no one ever talk about how the gieger counter in the schrodinger's cat experiment is a measuring device?
True that. Once you measure it, the wave function should collapse
I just want people to know that there is, in real life, a Schrödinger’s Veterinary Clinic.
“What are Fluffy’s chances?”
“Eh, 50-50.”
Wonderful timing! Fits well into my current manuscript on relationalism, where time in our reality begins (t=0) at a collapse into a single state, meaning quantum superposition state exists in non-time, collapse into single state creates t = 0 (unchanging) in our real-world system (relational timeline), and with motion/change (where time cannot equal zero) we preceive this reality and relational timeline.
Looks at box and says...
"Dead or alive, you're coming with me."
"Allow me to ask a naive and amateur question, not related to the video.
On the one hand, we know that time slows down near massive objects. And if such an object is massive enough, time could slow down to the point of stopping.
On the other hand, the Big Bang theory tells us that the universe emerged from an infinitely small but dense singularity, which already contained all the energy and mass of the future universe. In the first moments of the new universe’s existence, it was still very dense (before it began its expansion). This means that all the mass of the universe was concentrated in a very small volume.
So, can we even claim that the first seconds of the new universe were truly seconds, rather than billions of years by our standards?"
It is written, year for man is like a day for the god's
Time is a relative concept. There are no moments or periods in absolute eternity. You instinctually already know this; you ended your question with "by our standards." But what the hell do I know, I'm just a human.
Plot twist: The cat was never in the box.
Its nice to have a presenter who can actually pronounce "Schroedinger".
I just came inside from burying my very real dead cat (Fermion) to see this video. My heart cries for her but my mind and my soul cry for your reluctance and grappling with the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In the video Sabine says that the problem with the many worlds interpretation is that there isn't any one world where the cat is both dead and alive. Why does that need to be an option?
Maybe it relates to her next sentence - "who or what selects what is allowed in a universe...". Wouldn't that be just the laws of nature, or whatever you want to call them? The same laws determine that when flipping a coin you get heads half the time, but to get two heads in a row the chance is 1/4.
Where the observer and the participant become entangled as one is where physics and metaphysics unite as one reality.
I just like the meme where a cat is poking through a hole in a box and the text says "Tell Schröedinger I survived!"
An issue i see with the "dead or alive" superposition is that integrated over infinity, the cat will always be dead as there is no mechanism that brings the cat back to life. To me this looks a an energy state problem where the live is high and dead is lowest. Super saturated states like super cooled/heated water appears a better analogy.
Problem with quantum specifications is that this description language is not connected to real world descriptions, therefore it is an abstract thing living on its own island, looping back on itself. Too abstract and disconnected. You just have to make a map on paper. And visually connect the equations to a picture of person thinking about the equations, using them to calculate, thinking about a cat, doing experiments. Map it all out relationally.
quantum pet vet , cat is still alive!
Just need an environment that's spooky enough to have an undead zombie cat.
A particle is just waveform. When we use something to make it visible. It's changed it. It's just energy and information. Turning spacetime in a waveform. If it was both in phase and out of phase at the same time it would cancel itself out.
Completely wrong.
@obsidianjane4413 An electron or photon is waveform. When they smash into something so we can observe them. They change. Matter suckes in spacetime to create its self. Spacetime is the fabric of the unaverse. Distortion from matter creates gravity. There's plenty of evidence. If you plucked a guitar string. And paused time. Then measured the length of the string when it plucked. It would be longer than at rest. Distortion. A wound watch is heavier than a watch at rest. Same thing.
And I thought it was common in quantum physics circles to a) define the many worlds interpretation as "the wavefunction simply does not collapse", being equivalent to "shut up and calculate" and b) the consequent explanation of the schrödingers cat being: the particle having decayed is strictly correlated with the cat being dead, so the superposition just propagates to the cat being alive or dead and the human seeing either a cat that's alive or a cat that's dead. The consequence is that there is either a human seeing a definitely dead cat or a definitely alive cat, but no human can ever see a cat that's dead or alive at the same time. So the superposition can still exist but the human is now part of the system.
Am I wrong with the assumptions and/or explanations?
The problem with the unobserved cat being both dead and alive because it's unobserved is that even in a box it's state can be detected from outside the box.
The cat is very relieved: "It's about time, not knowing if I'm dead or alive is really annoying."
I think, Schrödinger did publish his thought experiment, not as a physical fact, but as an parable. Mathematically, a superposition is obtained by a certain operation (usually addition) in a vector space. But the states „dead“ and „alive“ are no vectors at all. From the states of the atom “decayed” or “not decayed”, it can’t be directly concluded, weather or not the cat is dead or alive. For example, the cat may have deceased by some other reason and may found dead by an observer, even though the atom didn’t decay yet. Superposition is something which happens with observable which you can model in vector spaces and not between any arbitrary variables you may accidentally observe.
It's nice that the video came with a quiz but I was half hoping it might come with a cat that I could determine was alive.
Thanks for your many fine videos Dr Hossenfelder, merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and Albert. 👍🏻🤔👎🏻🐱😀
I believe super position could be where the cat witnesses itself being dead or alive from one purspective or another
Resolution of Quantum Measurement Paradoxes Through Relational Perspectives
1. Conceptual Explanation:
This approach proposes that quantum measurement paradoxes arise from an incorrect assumption of absolute states. Instead, it suggests that quantum states are fundamentally relational - they exist only in the context of interactions between systems. This relational view eliminates the need for wave function collapse and resolves issues like the Schrödinger's cat paradox.
2. Mathematical Formalism:
Let's formalize this concept:
a) Define a quantum system S as a collection of monads: S ⊆ M
b) Define a relational state function:
Ψ: M × P(M) → H, where P(M) is the power set of M and H is a Hilbert space
c) For any monad m and system S, Ψ(m, S) represents the state of S relative to m
d) Define a measurement as an interaction between systems:
Measure: P(M) × P(M) → P(M)
e) The result of a measurement is a change in the relational state:
Ψ(m, Measure(S, A)) ≠ Ψ(m, S), where A is the measuring apparatus
f) Define consistency conditions:
For any m1, m2 ∈ M and S ⊆ M:
⟨Ψ(m1, S)|Ψ(m2, S)⟩ = f(R(m1, m2)), where f is a function of the monadic relation
3. Resolution of Paradoxes:
a) Measurement Problem: There's no collapse, only a change in relational states
b) Schrödinger's Cat: The cat's state is always definite relative to each observer
c) EPR Paradox: Correlations are explained by consistency of relational states, not faster-than-light influences
4. Potential Tests/Implications:
a) Design experiments to test for relational quantum states
b) Develop quantum technologies based on relational information
c) Explore implications for quantum computing and cryptography
5. Formal Statement:
Theorem: In a relational quantum framework (M, Ψ, Measure), all measurement outcomes are consistent with unitary evolution of relational states, without requiring wave function collapse.
Proof Sketch:
1. Show that Measure preserves unitarity in the space of relational states
2. Demonstrate that apparent "collapse" is a change in relational state
3. Prove consistency of measurement outcomes across different observers
This formalization provides a rigorous framework for understanding quantum phenomena without the paradoxes associated with absolute states and wave function collapse. It aligns with Leibniz's idea that all properties are relational, extending this concept to quantum mechanics.
Key implications include:
1. A resolution to the measurement problem without additional postulates
2. A natural explanation for quantum entanglement and non-locality
3. A potential bridge between quantum mechanics and gravity, both treated relationally
4. New perspectives on quantum information and its conservation
This approach resonates with other relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics, but grounds it in a more fundamental monadic (knower-based) structure.
simulation - frame by frame calculation of particles (pixels) in the universe using meta tags. Pretty obvious to me- the simulation renders each pixel with characteristics that affect the overall render state of the next frame, this gives rise to the death of classical physics, and the rise of digital physics in a frame by frame universe- simple- and published almost two months ago