This also necesarily brings up the question: At what point does a quantum system start to behave like a classical one? Is there a discrete difference between these kinds of systems, or are there "intermediate forms" near where their respective conditions diverge? If the logical state of a macroscopic system is dependant on a quatum system, does the whole system have a quantum state?
Watched this ten times now and still scratching my head. I used to laugh at the many worlds interpretation but now because of this don't dismiss it as I did years ago.
What if you close the lid (of the box containing the electron) leave the premises and someone enters and open the lid, the two of you being mutually unaware of each others existence, are the two of you then bound to see the same collapsed state?
Has anyone ever considered that there's more than two options for the cat? What if there was, say, a third choice, by which you interrupted the cat in the process of dying (metaphorically changing states upon opening the box)? What if this option was further split between finding the cat closer to life, death, and exactly in between at the point of observation? What might the implications be about the way or time that the box was opened?
The problem with this explanation is that human beings (and cats) are constructed from particles and the rules that govern their expression at the macroscopic level. We are built from electrons, protons...and possibly energies yet to be constructed. Cats, therefore, can be considered as the sum total of sub-atomic particles expressing in this form in the same way a diamond is the expression of carbon molecules with their atoms, electrons, and energies.
Maybe I’m missing something - if you hit the electron so in theory you force it into a particular state at the moment it is hit, why is it’s state only decided when you ‘look’ at it.
How was it discovered that a quantum object is in both states simultaneously? How do we know it isn't in one state or another? What difference does being in both states simultaneously affect anything else?
I always thought of the Cat experiment as a starting point on when and what collapses the quantum state. If an observation does it, then what constitutes as an observer? Can the system itself be considered one? On the other hand, what about cases (such as in the early universe) when quantum oscillations did have a "macroscopic" effects, thanks to the rapid expansion?
Schrodinger's cat is based upon the Hegelian dialectic. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (non alive, non being) --> Synthesis, becoming or non duality! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter Certainty is dual to uncertainty, the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle Space is dual to time -- Einstein The future is dual to the past --> synthesis, becoming = the present or now (non duality).
Do you think that it might be because the act of measuring a quantum system disturbs the system due to the way the measurement is made and causes the system to assume the state measured? For example, we look at classical systems by our eyes absorbing photons that have bounced off of a classical object and that object is so large relative to the photons that they are not noticeably disturbed by the photons deflections. In contrast a quantum system is a lot closer to the photons size and anything we were to use to “measure” the system would also cause the system to change its state and therefore the act of measuring is what gives the quantum system its state? (As opposed to it being “all” states at once prior to the measurement).
This is the first presentation I have heard which suggests explicitly that the dead or alive problem is just an epistemological problem, whereas other presentations seem to have it laid out as an epistemological problem without actually recognizing that the fact that we don't know the state of the cat in the box doesn't mean the cat himself doesn't know he is alive, or alternatively lacks any sense of being alive in the case that he is just a dead body.
But YOU know what's in the box before during and after the 'recipient' opens the box. Does that change any outcomes when you multiply the box 5 times and send to 5 friends?
I don't think this is correct. 'Schrödinger's Cat' was a thought experiment created by Erwin Schrödinger to criticise the Copenhagen interpretation and show what he thought was the ridiculousness of it. He was criticizing the whole idea in general, not trying to show the difference between any sort of Classical vs Quantum states. . Quantum effects definitely come into what you call the 'Classical' environment. ie without quantum tunnelling the sun would not continue to burn. We are all quantum objects, or at least made of them so I don't think trying to show differences between is useful, it's just that the probability of quantum type things happening at this scale are close to zero. Hugh Everett thought that thinking about things in these 2 rigid terms were one of the main things holding Physicists back.
Isn't whether a cat is a quantum system sort of an interpretational issue? In the many worlds interpretation, isn't the idea basically that quantum wonkiness does scale up, but we don't notice because we're also quantum systems existing as part of a universal wave function?
If a subatomic particle is produced by a quantum system (a closed box) that does not terminate when that particle is produced, then that particle will travel outward from its point of origin during the time that the quantum system is coherent. The particle will pass through the box and any other matter that exists in its path until the quantum state of the system is terminated. The energy of that particle is not confined inside that box or absorbed by any matter that the particle passes through until the quantum state of the system terminates. True?
My edu background is engineering but in QM: I have no more knowledge than just introductory flavor. So a naive question: Is it possible that in QM, physicists are forced to use all possible states in describing a physical system, when it's being written in mathematical equations, but in reality, even in subatomic systems only one state exists (we just have no means of viewing it since no microscope can see such small particles)? For example, if we were to mathematically describe which card gets pulled form a deck of 52, the mathematical equation for it would have to take the possibility of getting ANY of the 52 cards (i.e. if you wanted to, you could state in spoken language that all possible cards have been pulled but in reality, only one card gets selected).
That would be nice, wouldn't it? But it's hard to disentangle (ha! QM joke) what nature "really" does from how we model it. as far as we can tell, all states are "carried" around simultaneously until the moment of interaction or measurement.
Paul M. Sutter: Thanks. My response can be restated in a simpler way: The idea of the simultaneous presence of a particle at all the possible positions until it is observed, to my naive mind, sounds as ridiculous an idea as having a cat that is dead and alive at the same time. Maybe it is only because we cannot see that particle that we (QM) say that it this way? In fact, I wonder if we could say whatever we want because there is nobody who is able to confirm our statement. The moment someone tries to check or confirm our statement by observing the particle, the wave function is said to collapse and the particle is found at one specific location. In reality, was the particle speedily moving about in those areas where it was likely to be found but it was NOT present at all those locations at the same time like some QM statements say? Electrons at the subatomic level are traveling close to the speed of light, and given the distances at such levels are in the order of 10^-10 meters and smaller, this means that a particle moving at such high speeds in such small distance can virtually appear to be at all places simultaneously. And since these particles are not only behaving like a wave (i.e. they have a quanta of energy with a specific frequency), they are also being "knocked" around by other particles, heat and other EM radiation (photons), --- almost akin to a white noise in an electrical circuit -- the net result is that classical mechanics cannot possibly determine the position because of so much sub-atomic "noise". Having said this, I know brilliant scientists have spent lifetimes studying QM and not in my wildest dreams am I throwing any challenge... I am just asking if there is some experiment(s) that you can point to which more convincingly show what I say above is wrong (I'm sure I am wrong). Thanks
What do I know, but isn't that just saying that the electron is doing its up-down thing so fast that we can't begin to guess which state we will find it in? Like I take a picture of a bird in flight. Its wings aren't both up and down, but when I look at the picture, I find either up or down. Somebody else's picture might be the other way. Or are you saying that if I pass that electron around it's now stuck in the state that I found it in? Then I'm going to say it was always in that state and you just didn't know which one until you looked. Or are you saying it's stuck in that state until I let it go and then somebody else might find it in the other state?
I saw somewhere that buckyballs exhibit the quantum interference pattern when they are fired one at a time in a double slit experiment. Does that make them a quantum system? What if I could make a buckyball with 61 carbons? 62? etc, etc... Where is the line then between "quantum system" and "not a quantum system"?
Isnt it then just as throwing a dice? Why would you try to explain it with mystery boxes or other things if its just a dice throw. Maybe its not a fair dice but still.
Well its not like i understand it really but comparing it to dice makes it easier to understand at least I think so. The moment you throw it is the observation and the dice collapses into a certain result. It may be that im talking nonsense now though.
Sometimes I feel like I’m being flung very far away and standing very still simultaneously more efficiently than the more common way of flinging things. Schrodinger’s trebuchet.
If the wavefunction of a quantum system doesn't collapse until an observation/measurement is made, how is it possible for there to be a state where an observation is yet to be made if literally any possible surrounding particle qualifies as an observer? Would that mean that an object in superposition somehow exists outside of space and time? And does that partly explain why we mostly don't see weird occurrences at the macroscopic level?
8:08 "the electron does exist in all possible states" is only one interpretations. Another is that particle doesn't exists until you measure it. Until you measure it, it is wave. In other words, waves are what exists and particles are what we observe.
Does Schrodinger's wave equation work for Gravity waves, or is this part the reason why Quantum Gravity is so hard to figure out? If so, why do some physicists suggest that many worlds is a simple solution to collapsing the wave to resolve the measurements problem, when it doesn't work for Gravity.
O.K. Professor, thank you for calling me out on a poorly asked question. What is(are) the known limits of quantum behaviour? Bigger than an electron, smaller than a buckyball?
Mind is sort of quantum system. and brain acts as machine that interprets inputs and outputs to this system. and you have the greatest interpretation machine, dude.
BTW, you are awesome! Thank you for your knowledge, thanks to you and other channels like Universe Today, or PBS Spacetime Im getting evil genius mind.... in no time I will conquer the entire Universe muahahahah!!!! :P
Scientists can’t believe that mystical magical things exist, but they believe this, “the cat is not wearing a hat!” Why oh way does the cat always come back, a scientist from nasa loaded in a space bound ballon, the balloon was never seen again, but the very next day the cat came back, meow kitty, meow so pretty, the cat came back.
There is nothing that we do not own infinite amounts thereof. But we send it down in precise measure. ... Exalted is He who created all pairs - from what the earth grows and from themselves and from that which they do not know.
Years ago I had ideas of wanting to be a high school science teacher but instead decided to fly helicopters instead until a medical incident grounded me. It was around five years ago I ran across the world science festival on TH-cam and watched the video “ a thin sheet of reality “ This was the first time I was exposed to quantum mechanics. I watched that video 20 or more times and started watching lectures by Susskind, Verlinde, Gerard LaHuft ( I think that’s how you spell his name ) and others. My general interest of science is now focused on particle physics. Just like spin of a particle or it’s state is only determined by measurement. And by measurement, we are forcing the issue and actually changing it because of the orientation of the measurement apparatus doing the measurement. A fragile environment like the problem with quantum computers have today. The superposition of states only means an unknown state ( possibilities for a better word ) until we look or better stated measure. Measuring disturbs the coherence of the state and forces an answer. Quantum computers get errors and don’t work if you disturb the coherence. Like some mystery, the universe fights us on particle observation and we cannot know what is really going on without disturbing it. Nothing but field disturbances creating particles. Nothing but bits of contained energy. Like virtual particles that pop up out nowhere and disappear is not a big deal to me. Just like how some quarks exist in the LHC in Geneva only because of the temporary energy spikes of collisions and quickly go away because the disturbances are temporary and the quarks dissipate back to the field ground state. Kind of frustrating how the universe gives us nothing to work with to see a natural quantum state without disturbing it. Another thing I learned was how important statistics mathematics plays a role in physics. So the way I understand superposition is like a mystery box, we can never know the real state of it until we measure and force an answer because of the measurement disturbances. In that sense it looks like probability a quantum system only because we cannot see it as it exists without disturbances. I wonder if neutrinos and trying to use them may get us out of the measurement problem we are currently stuck with. I guess what I am saying is correct but I am not able to know that. I should have been science teacher.
If I understand what you are saying it sort of negates the “magical” aspect of quantum determinism. Like, the reality isn’t manifested by the observer. The truth is: our measuring tools are to crude, massive or clunky to observe the actual state and they disrupt it. Kind of like trying to perform brain surgery with a butter knife. I’m no physicist, however isn’t this deterministic feature produced or proven by several different observers at the same time using the same methods?
All physics aside, I always wondered why Herr Schrodinger was so cruel? I imagine a hundred different that might happen in a box as the result of a single quantum event that does not result in any harm to anything.
But there was no explanation... it was just a statement of Quantum is not the same as classical. :( I mean how do they know that. How are we sure that a Quantum state is not just a dead cat in an unopened box?
Uh, no. There's no such thing as "classical mechanics." Everything is quantum. If the cat can equally be in either state, then, our lack of knowledge about which state means the cat is, indeed, in both states simultaneously. There is no size limit on Schroedinger's equation.
so if im sitting in my house, which is sorta like a box, and my ex is pounding on the door, but she doesnt know if im actually inside or not, cuz i turned my phone off and im hiding from her, does that mean im both dead and alive?
Hey !!! I resemble that remark!! :P great stuff! keep it coming! thank you for helping spread knowledge instead of fake news.. You and others like you, are whom history will deem the true heros of this dark, chaotic era of alternative facts, and anti--science fanaticism..
I don't really agree. The whole point of the experiment is to demonstrate how absurd quantum mechanics is, and hence Schrödinger gradually turning to philosophy and biology.
So was Lazarus Dead, or asleep?....Why does Yahshua tell Martha, "DO YOU BELIEVE"?.....because there is a 50/50 chance, and when Yahshua asks Yahweh his father, and commands Lazarus to "WAKE UP"....(even though Martha was speaking science with rigomortis)....FAITH!!!....Otherwise, I do not understand what your point is?....Of course we do not know whats in the box, until we open it.....Who needs a Physisits to tell us that.....what I do see, is non believing scientist, attempting to explain "FAITH" away, because Paul already warned us of men that will do this....I.E....before the "observer effect" was discovered...non believing scientist were already drawing FALSE TEACHINGS about solid particles regardless of measurement and observation.....this was how you explained FAITH as a myth...then Yahweh showed you your ERROR with QUANTIUM SCIENCE, that in the beginning the EARTH was in a SUPERPOSITION state, or WASTE AND VOID, and darkness in the box, or the deep....so LET THERE BE LIGHT, and he saw the light that it was GOOD, and he divided the light from the darkness just like the slit experiment...Now Paul says in Romans 1:20-23 that the WISE MEN of this world who clearly see the word of Yahweh is TRUTH would rather explain away the TRUTH for more silly lies of "THERE IS NO ELOHIM".....only man.......Repent, for the time is soon at hand.
Pfffttt. It's just a conspiracy by cat-kind to induce another guilt-trip that will make humans give cats more food and attention. Come on. Everyone knows that dark secret. :P
OK so there are jillions of quantum states in the universe that never get measured/observed. Does this mean those particles always exist in all possible states forever?
In the Beginning, there was only Darkness upon the Deep. Originally, in the “Beginning” the quantum Field of Singularity existed as a closed system, as an Empty Box filled with a Singularity that held the superior position of Reality as the Primary Quantum Singularity existing in all possible, in two states or conditions; existing and not existing, being both dead and alive at the same time. The Reality, the existence of the primary quantum, Singular Particle being determined, bound, by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The Super supposition of the Quantum Field is such, that the location nor the momentum of the Quantum, Primary, Singularity, is measurable, can be determined to exist or not to exist, is Uncertain and must, therefore, be theorize to both exist and not exist, to be both dead and alive at the same time. Singularity has a dual Quality. Occupying the superposition of Existence, Reality, as a Motionless Quantum Singularity having no relative no numerical value, the Primary Particle as a Motionless Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zilch, Zip, Nothing: A Quantum Singularity is given the name “No-Thing” while the Quantum Field is given name “Nothingness”. In order for the Primary Singularity to become a Singularity having a numerical value of One-1, become the Reality of First Cause, it must be set in motion, have angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, become measurable as to Momentum and location within the Emptiness of Space, must issue forth out of the Darkness upon the Deep. By the very nature of a Closed System, an empty box, it is not possible to know the content until Singularity issues forth as a Singularity having a relative, a numerical value of One-1, issues forth as the Reality of “First Cause”.
As long as the cat remains in the box, a closed system, it remains dead. The Dead cat has the potentiality of being brought back to life if it can escape from the box, makes a quantum leap.
This also necesarily brings up the question: At what point does a quantum system start to behave like a classical one?
Is there a discrete difference between these kinds of systems, or are there "intermediate forms" near where their respective conditions diverge?
If the logical state of a macroscopic system is dependant on a quatum system, does the whole system have a quantum state?
That is an excellent question with an answer that is still under active research!
Collect those photons and manifest your reality!
Thank you this is the best explanation ever for quantum mechanics. I finally understand it!
I enjoyed and hated this video, until I watched it.
Feel free to like/dislike it simultaneously.
Nope, now I had take the measurement and I find that I liked it, no reason to repeat the experiment now I am biased. Let those had that experience!
Watched this ten times now and still scratching my head. I used to laugh at the many worlds interpretation but now because of this don't dismiss it as I did years ago.
It's certainly not easy stuff!
What if you close the lid (of the box containing the electron) leave the premises and someone enters and open the lid, the two of you being mutually unaware of each others existence, are the two of you then bound to see the same collapsed state?
The first time I actually grasp this concept. No one ever explained it this way.
Has anyone ever considered that there's more than two options for the cat? What if there was, say, a third choice, by which you interrupted the cat in the process of dying (metaphorically changing states upon opening the box)? What if this option was further split between finding the cat closer to life, death, and exactly in between at the point of observation? What might the implications be about the way or time that the box was opened?
The problem with this explanation is that human beings (and cats) are constructed from particles and the rules that govern their expression at the macroscopic level. We are built from electrons, protons...and possibly energies yet to be constructed. Cats, therefore, can be considered as the sum total of sub-atomic particles expressing in this form in the same way a diamond is the expression of carbon molecules with their atoms, electrons, and energies.
Maybe I’m missing something - if you hit the electron so in theory you force it into a particular state at the moment it is hit, why is it’s state only decided when you ‘look’ at it.
How was it discovered that a quantum object is in both states simultaneously? How do we know it isn't in one state or another? What difference does being in both states simultaneously affect anything else?
I always thought of the Cat experiment as a starting point on when and what collapses the quantum state. If an observation does it, then what constitutes as an observer? Can the system itself be considered one?
On the other hand, what about cases (such as in the early universe) when quantum oscillations did have a "macroscopic" effects, thanks to the rapid expansion?
The struggles with understanding Schrodinger's cat are of a different character than the nature of the quantum foam. Related, but different.
Schrodinger's cat is based upon the Hegelian dialectic.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (non alive, non being) --> Synthesis, becoming or non duality!
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis, the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter
Certainty is dual to uncertainty, the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle
Space is dual to time -- Einstein
The future is dual to the past --> synthesis, becoming = the present or now (non duality).
Do you think that it might be because the act of measuring a quantum system disturbs the system due to the way the measurement is made and causes the system to assume the state measured? For example, we look at classical systems by our eyes absorbing photons that have bounced off of a classical object and that object is so large relative to the photons that they are not noticeably disturbed by the photons deflections. In contrast a quantum system is a lot closer to the photons size and anything we were to use to “measure” the system would also cause the system to change its state and therefore the act of measuring is what gives the quantum system its state? (As opposed to it being “all” states at once prior to the measurement).
This is the first presentation I have heard which suggests explicitly that the dead or alive problem is just an epistemological problem, whereas other presentations seem to have it laid out as an epistemological problem without actually recognizing that the fact that we don't know the state of the cat in the box doesn't mean the cat himself doesn't know he is alive, or alternatively lacks any sense of being alive in the case that he is just a dead body.
But YOU know what's in the box before during and after the 'recipient' opens the box. Does that change any outcomes when you multiply the box 5 times and send to 5 friends?
I don't think this is correct. 'Schrödinger's Cat' was a thought experiment created by Erwin Schrödinger to criticise the Copenhagen interpretation and show what he thought was the ridiculousness of it. He was criticizing the whole idea in general, not trying to show the difference between any sort of Classical vs Quantum states. . Quantum effects definitely come into what you call the 'Classical' environment. ie without quantum tunnelling the sun would not continue to burn. We are all quantum objects, or at least made of them so I don't think trying to show differences between is useful, it's just that the probability of quantum type things happening at this scale are close to zero. Hugh Everett thought that thinking about things in these 2 rigid terms were one of the main things holding Physicists back.
Excellent! I had totally forgotten what the metaphor meant. lol
Isn't whether a cat is a quantum system sort of an interpretational issue? In the many worlds interpretation, isn't the idea basically that quantum wonkiness does scale up, but we don't notice because we're also quantum systems existing as part of a universal wave function?
No, the cat is purely a classical system and not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics.
But what if there is no cat in the box, are we still talking about a classical system or is the cat what makes the crucial difference?
"Mystery box" - we call it here simply "Cat in a bag" :)
If a subatomic particle is produced by a quantum system (a closed box) that does not terminate when that particle is produced, then that particle will travel outward from its point of origin during the time that the quantum system is coherent. The particle will pass through the box and any other matter that exists in its path until the quantum state of the system is terminated. The energy of that particle is not confined inside that box or absorbed by any matter that the particle passes through until the quantum state of the system terminates. True?
My edu background is engineering but in QM: I have no more knowledge than just introductory flavor. So a naive question:
Is it possible that in QM, physicists are forced to use all possible states in describing a physical system, when it's being written in mathematical equations, but in reality, even in subatomic systems only one state exists (we just have no means of viewing it since no microscope can see such small particles)? For example, if we were to mathematically describe which card gets pulled form a deck of 52, the mathematical equation for it would have to take the possibility of getting ANY of the 52 cards (i.e. if you wanted to, you could state in spoken language that all possible cards have been pulled but in reality, only one card gets selected).
That would be nice, wouldn't it? But it's hard to disentangle (ha! QM joke) what nature "really" does from how we model it. as far as we can tell, all states are "carried" around simultaneously until the moment of interaction or measurement.
Paul M. Sutter: Thanks. My response can be restated in a simpler way:
The idea of the simultaneous presence of a particle at all the possible positions until it is observed, to my naive mind, sounds as ridiculous an idea as having a cat that is dead and alive at the same time. Maybe it is only because we cannot see that particle that we (QM) say that it this way? In fact, I wonder if we could say whatever we want because there is nobody who is able to confirm our statement. The moment someone tries to check or confirm our statement by observing the particle, the wave function is said to collapse and the particle is found at one specific location. In reality, was the particle speedily moving about in those areas where it was likely to be found but it was NOT present at all those locations at the same time like some QM statements say?
Electrons at the subatomic level are traveling close to the speed of light, and given the distances at such levels are in the order of 10^-10 meters and smaller, this means that a particle moving at such high speeds in such small distance can virtually appear to be at all places simultaneously. And since these particles are not only behaving like a wave (i.e. they have a quanta of energy with a specific frequency), they are also being "knocked" around by other particles, heat and other EM radiation (photons), --- almost akin to a white noise in an electrical circuit -- the net result is that classical mechanics cannot possibly determine the position because of so much sub-atomic "noise".
Having said this, I know brilliant scientists have spent lifetimes studying QM and not in my wildest dreams am I throwing any challenge... I am just asking if there is some experiment(s) that you can point to which more convincingly show what I say above is wrong (I'm sure I am wrong). Thanks
What do I know, but isn't that just saying that the electron is doing its up-down thing so fast that we can't begin to guess which state we will find it in? Like I take a picture of a bird in flight. Its wings aren't both up and down, but when I look at the picture, I find either up or down. Somebody else's picture might be the other way. Or are you saying that if I pass that electron around it's now stuck in the state that I found it in? Then I'm going to say it was always in that state and you just didn't know which one until you looked. Or are you saying it's stuck in that state until I let it go and then somebody else might find it in the other state?
Your camera was set on a slow shutter speed.
I saw somewhere that buckyballs exhibit the quantum interference pattern when they are fired one at a time in a double slit experiment. Does that make them a quantum system? What if I could make a buckyball with 61 carbons? 62? etc, etc... Where is the line then between "quantum system" and "not a quantum system"?
Yes, we've been able to get some rather large systems to exhibit quantum properties, when properly prepared.
It was amazing and so useful and helpful for me. thank you so much
Isnt it then just as throwing a dice? Why would you try to explain it with mystery boxes or other things if its just a dice throw. Maybe its not a fair dice but still.
It is a dice throw but only under appropriate quantum conditions, hence the mystery boxes.
Well its not like i understand it really but comparing it to dice makes it easier to understand at least I think so. The moment you throw it is the observation and the dice collapses into a certain result. It may be that im talking nonsense now though.
Sometimes my brain feels both dead and alive. It's like I'm in a Schrodinger's Catatonic state.
Sometimes I feel like I'm middle eastern heavy cavalry, and not, at the same time.
It's like I'm in a Schrodinger's Cataphract state.
This is my favorite Master Therion comment so far!
Thanks for existing!........and not existing until I interact with you.
Sometimes I feel like I’m being flung very far away and standing very still simultaneously more efficiently than the more common way of flinging things. Schrodinger’s trebuchet.
If the wavefunction of a quantum system doesn't collapse until an observation/measurement is made, how is it possible for there to be a state where an observation is yet to be made if literally any possible surrounding particle qualifies as an observer? Would that mean that an object in superposition somehow exists outside of space and time? And does that partly explain why we mostly don't see weird occurrences at the macroscopic level?
And how does one make the “measurement “?
8:08 "the electron does exist in all possible states" is only one interpretations. Another is that particle doesn't exists until you measure it. Until you measure it, it is wave. In other words, waves are what exists and particles are what we observe.
So, the observation doesn't interfere of the state of the Schrödinger's cat, but in the quantum world, it does interfere of the particles?
Yup!
Does Schrodinger's wave equation work for Gravity waves, or is this part the reason why Quantum Gravity is so hard to figure out?
If so, why do some physicists suggest that many worlds is a simple solution to collapsing the wave to resolve the measurements problem, when it doesn't work for Gravity.
Yeah, quantum gravity is a whole other nightmare :)
At what size is the transition from quantum to classical and back?
We don't know!
O.K. Professor, thank you for calling me out on a poorly asked question. What is(are) the known limits of quantum behaviour? Bigger than an electron, smaller than a buckyball?
Mind is sort of quantum system. and brain acts as machine that interprets inputs and outputs to this system. and you have the greatest interpretation machine, dude.
I may or may not have loved the video! It may or may not flow better after the video speed is set to x1.5 😜
So... the Universe has Lootboxes....
Yup. With supercute subatomic kittens.
Exactly!
BTW, you are awesome! Thank you for your knowledge, thanks to you and other channels like Universe Today, or PBS Spacetime Im getting evil genius mind.... in no time I will conquer the entire Universe muahahahah!!!! :P
To me this sounds like evidence that we are in a computer simulation.
How so?
I opened the box, the cat was a dog, it flew away. how confused is the box?
Sounds about right.
oh ok, whew.. no quantum rules up in the hizous!!!
My feeling is that you just prefer one interpretation of QM and ignore other.
Scientists can’t believe that mystical magical things exist, but they believe this, “the cat is not wearing a hat!”
Why oh way does the cat always come back, a scientist from nasa loaded in a space bound ballon, the balloon was never seen again, but the very next day the cat came back, meow kitty, meow so pretty, the cat came back.
so the observer decides ultimatley whats in the box?
Yes
Trumptard Terrorizer
No, it is random. Consciousness has nothing to do with this.
There is nothing that we do not own infinite amounts thereof. But we send it down in precise measure.
...
Exalted is He who created all pairs - from what the earth grows and from themselves and from that which they do not know.
Brilliant
How do devise a contraption that gives the subject a 50/50 chance? A coin flip doesn’t have a 50/50 chance.
I both watched and didn’t watch this video .... hate when that happens ...
So this is why youtube won't give me a reliable view count...
Years ago I had ideas of wanting to be a high school science teacher but instead decided to fly helicopters instead until a medical incident grounded me. It was around five years ago I ran across the world science festival on TH-cam and watched the video “ a thin sheet of reality “ This was the first time I was exposed to quantum mechanics. I watched that video 20 or more times and started watching lectures by Susskind, Verlinde, Gerard LaHuft ( I think that’s how you spell his name ) and others. My general interest of science is now focused on particle physics. Just like spin of a particle or it’s state is only determined by measurement. And by measurement, we are forcing the issue and actually changing it because of the orientation of the measurement apparatus doing the measurement. A fragile environment like the problem with quantum computers have today. The superposition of states only means an unknown state ( possibilities for a better word ) until we look or better stated measure. Measuring disturbs the coherence of the state and forces an answer. Quantum computers get errors and don’t work if you disturb the coherence. Like some mystery, the universe fights us on particle observation and we cannot know what is really going on without disturbing it. Nothing but field disturbances creating particles. Nothing but bits of contained energy. Like virtual particles that pop up out nowhere and disappear is not a big deal to me. Just like how some quarks exist in the LHC in Geneva only because of the temporary energy spikes of collisions and quickly go away because the disturbances are temporary and the quarks dissipate back to the field ground state. Kind of frustrating how the universe gives us nothing to work with to see a natural quantum state without disturbing it. Another thing I learned was how important statistics mathematics plays a role in physics. So the way I understand superposition is like a mystery box, we can never know the real state of it until we measure and force an answer because of the measurement disturbances. In that sense it looks like probability a quantum system only because we cannot see it as it exists without disturbances. I wonder if neutrinos and trying to use them may get us out of the measurement problem we are currently stuck with. I guess what I am saying is correct but I am not able to know that. I should have been science teacher.
If I understand what you are saying it sort of negates the “magical” aspect of quantum determinism. Like, the reality isn’t manifested by the observer. The truth is: our measuring tools are to crude, massive or clunky to observe the actual state and they disrupt it. Kind of like trying to perform brain surgery with a butter knife. I’m no physicist, however isn’t this deterministic feature produced or proven by several different observers at the same time using the same methods?
@@fortutgwiki7390 no observer needed. The universe was fine before humans came on the scene.
Three - make her open the box
Great video. Isn’t the cat, at our macro level, itself an observer?
The cat is simply macroscopic, and quantum rules don't apply.
@@PaulMSutterwhat if you already know that the cat is dead?
What have you got against cats?
Lol xD
They look at me funny.
All physics aside, I always wondered why Herr Schrodinger was so cruel? I imagine a hundred different that might happen in a box as the result of a single quantum event that does not result in any harm to anything.
so, like a magically sealed box?
It's a thought experiment so sure :)
Interesting, yes dam interesting. A very nice explanation, thanks
But there was no explanation... it was just a statement of Quantum is not the same as classical. :( I mean how do they know that. How are we sure that a Quantum state is not just a dead cat in an unopened box?
I was using this video to highlight the differences between classical and quantum systems, and how we have to approach them differently.
Isn't just another excuse for not know😬
How would you explain this to a kid who have no idea about this🤔
Omg. Playback speed controls were created *just* for this guy!
See lootboxes like in Overwatch.
Yeah basically!
so the famous magician David Copperfield did not use quantum mechanics after all, when opening boxes... ;-)
A magician never reveals their secrets...
Continue to divide the distance between a target and a fired bullet and the target never gets hit
The cat lives
Another important part of this thought experiment is that your 50/50 trigger goes off as a result of opening the box. It's rigged to that act
The cat is an observer
Uh, no. There's no such thing as "classical mechanics." Everything is quantum. If the cat can equally be in either state, then, our lack of knowledge about which state means the cat is, indeed, in both states simultaneously. There is no size limit on Schroedinger's equation.
Gary Mathis THANK you. Idk where this guy got his confidence from to claim his interpretation as fact
so if im sitting in my house, which is sorta like a box, and my ex is pounding on the door, but she doesnt know if im actually inside or not, cuz i turned my phone off and im hiding from her, does that mean im both dead and alive?
Nope, sorry, you're not a quantum system!
Hey !!! I resemble that remark!! :P great stuff! keep it coming! thank you for helping spread knowledge instead of fake news.. You and others like you, are whom history will deem the true heros of this dark, chaotic era of alternative facts, and anti--science fanaticism..
Like McDonald's giveaway game based on Monopoly
I don't really agree. The whole point of the experiment is to demonstrate how absurd quantum mechanics is, and hence Schrödinger gradually turning to philosophy and biology.
Quantum Double Slit...
So was Lazarus Dead, or asleep?....Why does Yahshua tell Martha, "DO YOU BELIEVE"?.....because there is a 50/50 chance, and when Yahshua asks Yahweh his father, and commands Lazarus to "WAKE UP"....(even though Martha was speaking science with rigomortis)....FAITH!!!....Otherwise, I do not understand what your point is?....Of course we do not know whats in the box, until we open it.....Who needs a Physisits to tell us that.....what I do see, is non believing scientist, attempting to explain "FAITH" away, because Paul already warned us of men that will do this....I.E....before the "observer effect" was discovered...non believing scientist were already drawing FALSE TEACHINGS about solid particles regardless of measurement and observation.....this was how you explained FAITH as a myth...then Yahweh showed you your ERROR with QUANTIUM SCIENCE, that in the beginning the EARTH was in a SUPERPOSITION state, or WASTE AND VOID, and darkness in the box, or the deep....so LET THERE BE LIGHT, and he saw the light that it was GOOD, and he divided the light from the darkness just like the slit experiment...Now Paul says in Romans 1:20-23 that the WISE MEN of this world who clearly see the word of Yahweh is TRUTH would rather explain away the TRUTH for more silly lies of "THERE IS NO ELOHIM".....only man.......Repent, for the time is soon at hand.
As long as it doesn’t involve necromancy.
❤❤❤
so, it's a gacha
Schrodinger's cat is a trick question the box actually contains Pavlov's dog.
So the dog may or may not be salivating?
Lenard Segnitz Perhaps?!? 🤔
Nicely confused as usual!
Schrodingers' Cat & Tunnel Syndrome? Yes, they're simply the WallsClosing and the Cats' in a Flap a big mouths' hard2shut❣ h8me2morro sum1cares2day©️ {/diceyedo\}🦆
Pfffttt. It's just a conspiracy by cat-kind to induce another guilt-trip that will make humans give cats more food and attention. Come on. Everyone knows that dark secret. :P
first? Ive never been first before!! ha!!
You have and have not, because I have not observed you commenting.
OK so there are jillions of quantum states in the universe that never get measured/observed. Does this mean those particles always exist in all possible states forever?
Well, it turns out that's kind of a complicated question ;)
OK. I'll be watching for an episode that covers this. Thanks.
In the Beginning, there was only Darkness upon the Deep.
Originally, in the “Beginning” the quantum Field of Singularity existed as a closed system, as an Empty Box filled with a Singularity that held the superior position of Reality as the Primary Quantum Singularity existing in all possible, in two states or conditions; existing and not existing, being both dead and alive at the same time.
The Reality, the existence of the primary quantum, Singular Particle being determined, bound, by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The Super supposition of the Quantum Field is such, that the location nor the momentum of the Quantum, Primary, Singularity, is measurable, can be determined to exist or not to exist, is Uncertain and must, therefore, be theorize to both exist and not exist, to be both dead and alive at the same time.
Singularity has a dual Quality. Occupying the superposition of Existence, Reality, as a Motionless Quantum Singularity having no relative no numerical value, the Primary Particle as a Motionless Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zilch, Zip, Nothing: A Quantum Singularity is given the name “No-Thing” while the Quantum Field is given name “Nothingness”. In order for the Primary Singularity to become a Singularity having a numerical value of One-1, become the Reality of First Cause, it must be set in motion, have angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, become measurable as to Momentum and location within the Emptiness of Space, must issue forth out of the Darkness upon the Deep.
By the very nature of a Closed System, an empty box, it is not possible to know the content until
Singularity issues forth as a Singularity having a relative, a numerical value of One-1, issues forth as the Reality of “First Cause”.
My favourite physicist! Keep up the good work :)
Thanks!
What do you mean by saying “ if you actually make the measurement “?
So I am not immortal via quantum immortality? That's a let down. Paul, I blame you for my finite existence.
Sorry dude.
It's a dog !!! :-)
As long as the cat remains in the box, a closed system, it remains dead.
The Dead cat has the potentiality of being brought back to life if it can escape from the box, makes a quantum leap.