I'm often both simultaneously in the pub, and in the taxi home until my wife collapses my wave function. She's the only observer that can do this

@DeclanMBrennan

4 жыл бұрын

And your dinner is both simultaneously on the table and in your dog's stomach.

@larryphillipsjr.1607

4 жыл бұрын

🤣

@richardcook6505

4 жыл бұрын

And you are simultaneously sleeping on both the bed and the couch.

@scottmartin7717

4 жыл бұрын

Brilliant

@aadipandey8237

4 жыл бұрын

You get your dinner but not !

This is the only youtube channel where I get to see the entire video, feel smart while doing so, and by the end of it realizing that I need to have a masters degree on physics to even be able to understand a single word of it. At least I like the backgrounds with them shiny stars.

@mileslow4908

4 жыл бұрын

so relatable

@pumpuppthevolume

4 жыл бұрын

so shiny

@eideticex

4 жыл бұрын

Don't need a masters degree. Just a decade of studying :p

@randomguy263

4 жыл бұрын

@@eideticex That's basically a masters

@imgayasheck595

4 жыл бұрын

@@mileslow4908 then you see how many of the things they said are outdated or flat out wrong

But my consciousness *can* manifest physical changes in the real world. I can move a pencil with my mind. The way I do this is: my brain sends a bunch of complex signals though my spine, the muscles of my arm and hand move, and they pick and move the pencil.

@leSingeMajestueux

2 жыл бұрын

I know you are kidding and all, but it's actually somewhat true as psychotherapy changes the brain shape. Which is really weird, psychotherapy is just words, ideas, having an impact on something physical, aka your brain.

@machoman4150

2 жыл бұрын

Satisfying answer but imagine if your brain can send signals through your eyes and those signals directly moves the pencil

@aceclover758

2 жыл бұрын

@@machoman4150 yes, it’s called sight. Those signals moving to the pencil are you ability to see it by using light

@spookyactionatadistance2422

2 жыл бұрын

@@aceclover758 no your eyes don't send signals to the object for you to see it..

@aceclover758

2 жыл бұрын

@@spookyactionatadistance2422 Light lets you see Light sends those signals to your eyes, then brain

Every time I watch this channel I come away with a head swim. I took a graduate course or two in quantum physics and electronics three decades ago. After watching a few of these videos, I, for the first time, can reflect positively on the teaching pedagogy that made everything mathematical. Basically, the message from instructor to student was "An electron/photon/[fill in the blank] does this or that. Let's derive an equation and work pages of math to establish what that means." At the time of taking the classes, I felt absolutely comfortable with saying the wavefunction is just a mathematical expression of the probability of outcomes that cannot possibly be known until observed. To me, the particle subject to quantum mechanics was not simultaneously in two (or more) states, but that its actual state just hadn't been observed yet. That meant to me that the superposition of states was just an accounting of the probabilities of what the actual state was. The actual state singularly existed but wasn't known to the observer YET. Crikey! Matt O'Dowd has made a complete hash of my confidence in the above interpretation of the math, obviously confirming his quote from Feynman that those that think they know how quantum mechanics works, don't! The silver lining I see in all my confusion is that the idea of "entanglement" is finally starting to bring wavefunctions into focus as much more than uncertainty expressed in abstract math. Instead, wavefunctions appear to be some kind of metaphysical complexity that explodes the mind and hides something truly amazing about the universe. Matt, keep up the good work while I try to keep up the comprehension as fast as the dialog flies by...

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

What you are missing is that quanta are not particles. They are energy values. An energy value does, indeed, not exist until it is being measured. And after it is being measured it doesn't exist, either, because energy can only be spent once. Anybody who ever told you anything about particles simple didn't understand quantum mechanics. Other than that your first paragraph was correct. The wave function doesn't describe a system. It describes a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. am infinite number of repetitions of the system. It allows you to calculate statistical outcomes and doesn't have anything to say about an individual outcome. It simply tells us what we don't know.

@mikemazzola6595

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps. I now realize from watching the PBS Spacetime videos that "my" interpretation described in the second paragraph more closely resembles the EPR interpretation. What I did not know was the history of quantum mechanical interpretations. This history has resolved the EPR paradox in favor of the alternative provided by Bell's theorem. That "my" interpretation is testable and has long since been found to be wrong was news to me! So why was I in the dark until now? Because I didn't have a need to know. I'm an electrical engineer who did my dissertation research in the area of optical processes in semiconductor materials for a specific application. Later, in my professional career I continued to teach and do research in the area of semiconductor devices. We use, by an large, semiclassical physics to achieve awesome practical results. I once joked that learning about Bloch functions, the Kronig-Penney model, and reciprocal space to understand semiconductor bandgaps was one piece of physics too many for my purposes. However, the fact that I still recall that epiphany is a testament that it did me good. The real point I was making was about the pedagogy of teaching quantum mechanics (and thus quantum electronics). Whenever a student asked "why" the answer was "just do the math." That there remains a lack of consensus on cosmology at least in part because of a lack of consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics brings home the need to spend more time on the history of the interpretations. History is often the last thing a professor spends time on in a "hard" STEM course. There is just "too much material to cover." Why is my curiosity driving me to revisit a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics? Simple, quantum computing. I have a quasi-professional need to keep track of quantum computing. Three or four years ago I watched a Google TechTalk on KZread that was intended to be a quick continuing education course on the theoretical justification for quantum computing. I had grown tired of watching KZreads by industry leaders trying to explain it to the masses. I knew I needed more formalism. Here is the video I watched: kzread.info/dash/bejne/e2lqt9egisKedKw.html. At the 9:42 mark you can hear the familiar pedagogy stated explicitly. If I recall correctly, some place else in this video series the lecturer says how he resolves confusion when it becomes hard to believe that quantum mechanics is real. "You just have to put your head down and do the math."

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikemazzola6595 Yes, that was a huge pile of bullshit. ;-)

@DavidVonR

2 жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 Quantum mechanics can tell us that if a system is in an eigenstate of an observable, then we're guaranteed to observe the corresponding eigenvalue with certainty. For example, if a photon has a polarization angle that exactly matches a plane polarizer, then the photon is guaranteed to survive the polarizer and register with a detector. If the polarization if the photon is pi/2 out of phase with the polarizer, then it's guaranteed not to survive the polarizer, and a detector won't register the photon with certainty. If a system is in a more general state, then quantum mechanics can't tell us what happens in individual cases. It can only give us a probability of different possible outcomes. If we create lots of photons that all have the same polarization, and we pass them through a polarizer, then quantum mechanics tells us the proportion (or probability) that the photons will survive the polarizer and register with a detector. In this case, quantum mechanics can't tell us with certainty what happens to an individual photon. This is because the general state isn't an eigenstate of the observable.

@educational4434

6 ай бұрын

Physicist Ed May says that quote attributed to Feynman, about how if you say you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics, needs to be done away with because it's not true. He says some scientists do understand

I didn't come to PBS Space Time to have my fears of Eyebal-Brain Macintosh guy manifested onscreen.

@kendomyers

4 жыл бұрын

Youve seen that before too?

@baldrbraa

4 жыл бұрын

That only happened in your universe.

@trevthird2566

4 жыл бұрын

Im scared

@Vasharan

4 жыл бұрын

The Eye-Mac.

@1cyanideghost

4 жыл бұрын

Lol 😂🤣

Conjuring 4: The wave function made me do it

@galiciaart

2 жыл бұрын

Maxwell's demon made me do it

@Road2Med

2 жыл бұрын

haha a conjuring movie i'd actually want to see

@cosmosaic8117

2 жыл бұрын

That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?

New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter ~ Dean Radin, PhD kzread.info/dash/bejne/oIaHpMOqY9mnlbw.html

I like how Quantum Mechanics boils down to "If a tree falls in the woods..." cause life is funny that way, lol.

@johnstevens5890

2 жыл бұрын

I just thought the same thing, lol

@terrylambert9787

2 жыл бұрын

"Claro," I write my thoughts down before I read other people's input, I find it entertaining that we both used similar analogies! How Bizarre! And amusing!

@dylsnake2

Жыл бұрын

I like how questions such as these all boil down to the differences people's in interpretations of words. For example, if you define sound as, "Something that my brain perceives as sound," or alternatively, "Vibrations through the air or other materials, that can be heard by a person's ears." If you define the later option, you simply need to prove that the "vibrations" happened, then you would be correct in saying that the tree did make a sound. If instead you use the former option, then your simply using a different interpretation of the word 'sound,' which requires the "hearing" part of it. You could split this definition into two versions, "did you hear it" and "did someone hear it."

@michaelorton605

Жыл бұрын

Well yes, and no...

@jjhay269

Жыл бұрын

Nah the answer is that vibration was made but nothing present to create the sound. Since ears do that

Maybe wave function is just the universe way of saving RAM.

@RanulHashika

3 жыл бұрын

Underrated comment 😂

@Justin_Bic

2 жыл бұрын

Only rendering what the viewer is observing is the best way to save processing power and it seems everything in the universe flows the most efficient way ever evolving

@Justin_Bic

2 жыл бұрын

If a bear shits in the woods and nobody is around to see it does it really ever happen

@Averymoasycreek

2 жыл бұрын

@@Justin_Bic Well according to the theory he would be in a superposition of going in the woods and not going in the woods

@xDRAGONSHAGGERx

2 жыл бұрын

@@Justin_Bic if the bear is part of the simulation then yeah.. and no 😀

"... Are you inventing your friend?" I take that personally.

@cosmosaic8117

2 жыл бұрын

That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?

@angelraso2891

2 жыл бұрын

@@cosmosaic8117 so let me get this straight , if I put a photesensible cell infront of the computer which lights if the function collapses in a certain way and then you see the cell move , his "concious" collapsed it ? Lol

As someone who is spiritual but still relatively grounded in reality, I'm glad you made this video. I tend to eye roll whenever people in spiritual communities try to use scientific terms they know nothing about in order to sound smart while they push views such as victim blaming, pseudoscience, and ignoring injustices in order to make money or feel better about themselves.

@deejayaech4519

9 ай бұрын

Agreed

@jacobmccrea3646

9 ай бұрын

I don't really think you're grounded in reality I think that you're not religious at all because you want to talk about the Injustice in it. I'm pretty sure you think America is a horrible racist country that needs to be better and stole land and this and that but you stay in this horrible ass country only reason I'm commenting on you it's because your comment had nothing at all to do with this video you used it for your own virtue signaling

@MarloTheBlueberry

9 ай бұрын

Yes :D Science can explain spiritualism sometimes..

@winonafrog

7 ай бұрын

Cheers, agreed 👌🏼

@thebluefus

6 ай бұрын

Spiritual but grounded in reality is such a smug and stupid thing to say

How could two consciousnesses observe exactly simultaneously? One always would collapse the wave function first, even by a small fraction of time, and the second observer would see the result of that collapse.

@woopy6176

2 жыл бұрын

I thought the same thing

@outisnemo8443

2 жыл бұрын

Leibniz's solution to this as described in his _Monadology_ was to assume that neither of them actually caused anything outside of themselves at all, and that it was all planned in advance by a monad which subsumed both, much like a movie, in what he called "pre-established harmony"; at the top level he placed the "monas monadum", the "monad of monads", which established the entirety of this harmony, and which he identified with a rational conception of an impersonal absolute.

@Thundralight

2 жыл бұрын

It would depend on your point in space you view it from , you are seeing the exact same thing at the same time just from different points in space like if you were viewing a parade from atop a high building or on the ground from 1 point you see it in its entirety and from the other point in space you see it passing in frames

@strangelittlegirl

2 жыл бұрын

There are not two consciousnesses. There is only one. Humans are not conscious. Only consciousness is conscious.

@physicshacks6349

Жыл бұрын

@@outisnemo8443 Leibniz monadology and preestablished harmony is saying everything In the universe is fixed before and also implies that free will is an illusion ,which is not true for scientists so far and it may be true . I don't know

0:08 It would have been hilarious if he put the outro after that 😄

@22222Sandman22222

4 жыл бұрын

A PBS Space Time episode can only end to the word "spacetime". Maybe it's a physical law symmetrical to the whole universe.

@justpaulo

4 жыл бұрын

Put the intro after wouldn't have been bad either.

@EchoEcho0001

4 жыл бұрын

How come you commwnt every video i wacth????

@fjelimfiels.6954

4 жыл бұрын

o lord thy influence know

@ericgraham8150

4 жыл бұрын

@@EchoEcho0001 how come you watch every video i watch?

I love this channel for continuing to satiate my intellectual appetite and remind me that no matter how much I try to learn, there are always incredibly complex systems that will forever elude my understanding

@joshuahillerup4290

4 жыл бұрын

This stuff is a lot easier if you learn the math for it. Of course, depending on your mathematical background so far that might be easier said than done.

@drewishaf

4 жыл бұрын

@@joshuahillerup4290 as someone with 3 years of calculus (including linear algebra and differential equations) classes under his belt, i can tell you that conceptually there is a lot of disconnect between what the mathematics ahows and the implications for our fundamental understanding of reality.

@joshuahillerup4290

4 жыл бұрын

@@drewishaf did those math classes cover things like Hilbert spaces and Fourier transforms?

@Ray2311us

3 жыл бұрын

It also seems like this stuff is either a distraction from the real truth or they took important information out to keep us clueless.

@noname2250

2 жыл бұрын

In the words of Homer J. Simpson: neeeeeerd

Have you seen the Star Trek episode in which the crew is detained by an entity that ALL of the inhabitants of the "world" SHARE a Conciousness? Do you remember everybody stepping on one another and how confusing it was the more joined in and the echo affect? Cool episode. THAT'S why MANY of us have been contemplating ideas such as these for awhile. We had CREATIVE fantasy & sci-fi fiction writers over the years!

@animdan

Жыл бұрын

Yup. Our world is shaped on fantasy, moving away from reality, which we will pay a huge price if we still get out of it alive... .

I think a more precise question would be: "Are consciousness and quantum mechanics interconnected?" - we get hung up on this cause and effect conversation when really the more fundamental question is to ask how are these two aspects of our reality connected to each other. What I see here in this video is a beautiful presentation of one of the mysteries we are confronted with as we dive deeper into the properties of our universe. However, the second half of the video is the same old scientific positivist dogma of trying to reason your way out of consciousness being involved. If we are going to land the next big jump in science, I feel we need more imagination than this.

@Harriett2423

2 жыл бұрын

Hardly, the best "theory" for quantum consciousness was the penrose microtubules bullshit which was experimentally proven to be incompatible with decoherence time. Science doesn't just need imagination, you need mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification, right now we have none of that for quantum consciousness.

@glamdrag

2 жыл бұрын

@@Harriett2423 Nobody is arguing against mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification. The argument is merely for increase in imagination, creativity, and openness to possibilities that are as of now taboo and dogmatically opposed in people who are stuck in a modern-materialistic worldview. I personally think it's just a matter of time until the paradigm shifts to more openness

@alanabdollahzadeh

2 жыл бұрын

My gut tells me that your appeal to "more imagination" is merely an excuse to avoid an uncomfortable model of reality. If anything, it's the opposite of being open-minded.

@glamdrag

2 жыл бұрын

@@alanabdollahzadeh What is uncomfortable about it to you?

@mosemusica

2 жыл бұрын

@@alanabdollahzadeh "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." "Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions." "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." who said these things? Albert Einstein

Gives a new meaning to the term “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

@outofcontext728

4 жыл бұрын

Yes.

@davizitopa7252

3 жыл бұрын

That sounds extraordinarily bizarre if you and all your friends are used to D&D. It is pretty much gibberish.

@nealwright5630

3 жыл бұрын

Ian Corral troll much?

@nealwright5630

3 жыл бұрын

Ian Corral Ian Corral based on your replies, i can certainly see you would have no clue that my statement was an attempt at humor. Therefore, I can agree you would fully understand the Copenhagen Observation.

@nealwright5630

3 жыл бұрын

Ian Corral exactly

When it comes to science, mysticism or philosophy, I found and experienced that the moment one accepts being an instrument that this invisible world, letting it freely come and go brings a wonderful experience when it happens. The idea of getting power over this larger than us reality is as primitive as feeling slaved by it. This reminds me of that time when my father laughed at me saying: how can you be so dumb thinking that water goes upward? Water always run downward. The funniest thing about it is that every week he was getting water from a natural spring. That is the kind of experience that helps a kid to get analyze before judging and keep an opened mind in all aspects of life.

@JimmyDShea

4 жыл бұрын

Beautifully said! Thank you

@michelnoel4505

3 жыл бұрын

JimmyDShea Expérience is a great reward for having made patience the foundation of a lifetime. Your comment gives it a value that I deeply appreciate and cherish. Thanks ❣️

@suspiciousfigure3096

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, but gravity pulls the water down

@billihawk368

3 жыл бұрын

Youre closed minded and biased by your childhood. Mahifestation exists, i dont say its the easiest thing.

@silentwisdom7025

3 жыл бұрын

Sheeting action is a neat trick, it's caught me up more than once in my trade. Water climbs completely upward if sandwiched between two smooth objects.

6:05 please, please consider doing a short bio on Wigner's personal life I've heard bizarre, hilarious stories about other famous scientists who got stuck somewhere alone with Wigner and almost immediately entered the twilight zone - he had a reputation for it and I want to know more

The *_Delayed Choice, Quantum Eraser_* experiment strongly suggests that the experimenters conscious knowledge of the _double slit_ result effects the outcome of the experiment.

@effedrien

2 жыл бұрын

Also our knowledge about simulated neural networks (artificial intelligence) suggest that the brain scientists are a bit off track. Those neural networks are great for recognising incoming patterns, and you need a giant amount of them to interpret the input of a high resolution camera, like our eyes. But you know what you cannot do with those neural networks? Storing that image. Neural networks are pretty useless for storing data. Still the brain scientists assume that our memories must be stored in our brain configuration. Because where else could they be stored?

i'm invisible! But only when no one, or anything, watch me.

@kennarajora6532

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a Pilot wave theorist to me.

@patrickdegroot3692

3 жыл бұрын

Are you a cat? I cannot see yet. Or perhaps I can. We just can't. Ohhh. What a mystery. Love. Love. love. Love!

@Anecdotal1

3 жыл бұрын

Hmmmm.... I wasn't aware of your existence until a moment ago... you had no idea I existed... so by reading your statement did we collapse the wave function that now puts us in the same space-time...?? Hmmmmmmmmm

@suspiciousfigure3096

3 жыл бұрын

I too, am a stalkers

@billihawk368

3 жыл бұрын

No, reality is consciousness, so youre always the only visible one, the rest, yes they kinda dont exist when you are not aware of them.

“Magic is simply a science not understood yet”.

@medexamtoolsdotcom

4 жыл бұрын

More like, that which is possible but currently believed to be impossible is simply currently misclassified as magic. But that doesn't mean there are not still plenty of things that are actually impossible.

@KlavierMenn

4 жыл бұрын

@@medexamtoolsdotcom But anything with a probability to happen WILL hapen given enough time, right?

@jgrtrx

4 жыл бұрын

@@KlavierMenn It might depend on your interpretation of probability.

@destree6348

4 жыл бұрын

I realized this just a couple days ago because I have a scientific background but I'm learning about and interested in working with spirituality. It's all so fascinating

@destree6348

4 жыл бұрын

@Michael Bravo Just because I may view it differently than you doesn't mean it's wrong

I like how precise and non-mocking towards consciousness interpretations you stay during the entire vid. Respect for that!

@taylorfloyd4785

Жыл бұрын

he was literally mocking the idea as mysticism and quackery the entire time

@treali

Жыл бұрын

@@taylorfloyd4785 The weird thing was that there was nothing concrete to debunk it though. Only subjective change of views. He did not do a good job of mocking it.

@MobBjj1

Жыл бұрын

@@treali the weirder thing is that it’s an un-falsifiable theory like millions of other theories. Just cause you can’t prove it wrong doesn’t mean it’s real

@treali

Жыл бұрын

@@MobBjj1 I just noticed that my comment got removed which sucks because I won't type it all out again. tldr: I don't believe in quantum wizards, but I will never accept someone using "this person had a subjective belief X and changed his subjective beliefs to Y, therefore it's irrefutable evidence that X is false". You understand that it's not scientific right? If that passed as evidence, then quantum physics would never have come into existence because Einstein himself did not believe in quantum physics and gods throwing dices. If something is outrageous and doesn't make sense, then simply ignore it. If you take up the challenge to disprove something, then you better do a fine job or else you will just make people more skeptic of science. Science is exact and objective. It is not based on peoples subjective beliefs. I can imagine that you're not in any scientific field and are more inclined towards the humanities. You would understand what I meant otherwise.

@99certain45

Жыл бұрын

@@MobBjj1 Agreed. If it's just one guess amongst millions of possibilities, you can't take it seriously

"... and yet the most confident claims about quantum mechanics seem to be the mystical ones. They tend to be made by people who have never studied the theory deeply, but nonetheless have great surety in cherrypicking and misinterpreting the early speculations of some of its founders." Stated FAR more charitably than I would put it, lol ...

@harwn999

2 жыл бұрын

Yet it’s a theory. Not proven fact. Regardless of how rigorously tested it is. It’s based on variables tested to validate an assumption. Local realism is based on an assumption. No hard proven fact. That’s why there’s no proven underlying physical reality to the universe in the quantum world which is the real world. Nials Bohr won the debate. The results are different for each independent observer as he said. Modern quantum theory, have had multiple theories that were vigorously tested and found out they were wrong when more variables were discovered.

@harwn999

2 жыл бұрын

So he didn’t prove consciousness doesn’t affect the outcome.

@cosmosaic8117

2 жыл бұрын

"True scientists are willing to change their minds"...look into Dean Radin's work and see if you're willing to do the same.

@cosmosaic8117

2 жыл бұрын

That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?

@hoangtoonnt

2 жыл бұрын

Mystic masters, they can see and understand true reality. They dont need to prove it to "blind" people. Similarlt Its just pointless to prove color existence to optical blind patients. So when "blind" one find evidence that reveal color, the aweaken one just simply say "told you so". Science can only offer you what you can see and nothing more. Since all material in this universe belong to this particular reality, they can not help you see other reality. the unseen will forever be unseen unless you "upgrade" your consciousness. Until then the best you can do is just guessing and imagine but never can fully comprehend it like those mystic masters.

In Buddhism, there is a concept of "non-self", that basically states in an ultimate sense, there is no self. The dividing line between each individual part of the universe is not absolute in any meaningful way. Philosopher Alan Watts stated this well when he said that "What you do, is what the whole universe is doing at this place you call "here" and "now". You are no more separate from the universe than a wave is separate from the whole ocean". So, even if quantum physics was subject to consciousness, one could argue that consciousness itself isn't an entirely individual phenomenon. The idea that consciousness can be both collective and individual is in many ways a perfect match for Quantum Theory in general. It also works well with Einstein's notion that radiation can be both particles and waves at the same time.

@PhotonShower

3 жыл бұрын

hush hush my friend.. let them figure it out themselves

@evannibbe9375

3 жыл бұрын

It makes far more sense to just use the rules of quantum mechanics and the fact that a superposition can only be fully realized between two quantum particles such that as more particles interact with each other, the wave function gradually collapses into measurements that are consistent with our theories.

@GamingKeenBeaner

3 жыл бұрын

@Zeek Banistor "God" is just another perspective; in fact it may arguably be the ultimate perspective of this particular universe. Having seen this consciousness for myself, I find it difficult to imagine how it could possibly be assigned anything akin to a personality. Its broad beyond anything resembling "individual".

@wes_1001

3 жыл бұрын

ego is an illusion we are all gods

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Oddly enough a very Taoist point of view

@AionAeon

4 жыл бұрын

I don't understand QM but does it understands me?

@daleputnam8300

4 жыл бұрын

The Uncarved Block

@dissonanceparadiddle

4 жыл бұрын

@@AionAeon it understands you and every version of you

@Vasharan

4 жыл бұрын

The converse is not true, however. If you don't understand quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean you understand quantum mechanics. But if you understand (or at least know how to apply) the mathematics (both symbolic and applied) of quantum mechanics, you can make useful predictions about quantum mechanics.

@reidsjaaheim8237

4 жыл бұрын

Its almost like everything is a contradiction.

They make the best science videos, he explains it so well without throwing in mysticism.

@mattias5157

11 ай бұрын

I lack a very basic thing in this discussion though: a definition of consciousness. Or maybe I missed it.

@hofmannwaves1525

8 ай бұрын

making the point exactly that he is only pretending to have on open mind by calling every logical explanation he doesn't like "mysticism"

@wesleywardrip6366

5 ай бұрын

​@hofmannwaves1525 mysticism isn't logical. There is no reason to believe the universe exists bc of our Conscience. It is likely something that just happens, probably rarely but possible in this universe bc of our laws of physics. Where it could be void and black in most others. Humans believe we are the center of creation and that's not true..

I don't understand why its any more complicated than this: Placing a detector introduces something into the quantum world that shouldn't be there. It has a causal effect which changes what it was doing before the defector was introduced. Therefore consciousness "changes" the quantum world through observation.

@JayakrishnanNairOmana

2 жыл бұрын

you are a clown.

@jaysonp9426

2 жыл бұрын

@@JayakrishnanNairOmana thank you

@JayakrishnanNairOmana

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaysonp9426 You are welcome. I think you were trying to say causal not casual, but please dont watch videos you cant understand or have a clue about, go watch disney stuff.

@jaysonp9426

2 жыл бұрын

@@JayakrishnanNairOmana sorry, I don't understand this comment. All I hear is "I still live in my mother's basement."

@JayakrishnanNairOmana

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaysonp9426 yeah right more-on.

11:45 I'm convinced Matt is just a manifestation of my subconscious trying to shield my conscious mind from the solipsistic realization that the universe is a figment of my imagination populated with philosophical zombies. Or he's an agent and I'm in the matrix.

@sthoughtsarchive2791

3 жыл бұрын

Lool

@niranjans1375

3 жыл бұрын

This is just great , I was already freaked out enough thinking about that

@wolfgangkranek376

3 жыл бұрын

Spencer, since you are just a manifestation of my subconscious - I didn't know I was that eloquent.

@andrewhoffmann9519

3 жыл бұрын

He had a strong argument against that idea. It went something like this, "No"

@Invizive

3 жыл бұрын

@@PlzPr3sspl4y at this point the best answer is that nobody's real - the fact of existence of my own experience is not falsifiable therefore impossible to prove therefore not objectively true.

Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish! Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

@billystandridge4208

3 жыл бұрын

exactly...observance changes any measurement.

@billystandridge4208

3 жыл бұрын

especially anything moving.

@hunterpatterson6986

3 жыл бұрын

Oh. My. God. I never fully understood that joke. I just thought farnsworth was pissed because he lost. I TOTALLY MISSED THE ACTUAL JOKE

I suspect my consciousness can manifest reality, at least to some extent; I can move my body at will (and through this movement I can have tremendous indirect effects!) I understand there are a range of deterministic arguments which seek to undermine any connection between consciousness and bodily action, and I tend to find these unconvincing. Consciousness seems to be the only self-evident fact, ever. All details we witness are uncertain (blurred by the resolution of our eyes, how alert we are, etc.), but the fact that we are witnesses is absolutely certain. This makes me sympathetic to arguments suggesting the primacy of consciousness.

@scarziepewpew3897

2 жыл бұрын

Ahw, i guess all the paralyzed people are unconscious right? Again. Conscious doesn't mean in control. It means aware.

@scarziepewpew3897

2 жыл бұрын

Yes our consciousness is the only thing we could be certain of but that doesn't mean it's fundamental.

@gershommaes902

2 жыл бұрын

@@scarziepewpew3897 Who said all paralyzed people are unconscious? :)

@gershommaes902

2 жыл бұрын

@@scarziepewpew3897 I haven't entirely solidified what I think about this, but from a certain perspective it seems that consciousness is as fundamental as it's possible to be - it's a truth which observes itself to be true, and the observation itself makes it more true!! hahaha

@josecipriano3048

2 жыл бұрын

@@gershommaes902 I'd love an explaination on how moving an arm has anything to do with consciousness.

Thankfully the field of radiology oncology wasn’t frozen by the idea that a photon cannot be localized without conscious interaction.

@ryanp849

2 жыл бұрын

Would you explain your comment a little further? Just curious, not skeptical about what you're saying.

@gregmcmurphy8241

2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanp849 just saying that x ray and gamma and positron radiation is aimed at targets, seem to hit the targets. We let them fly and they hit the target even if we don’t look at each one.

@chrismah6248

Жыл бұрын

But there is concious interaction, you measured it through the imaging machine and when you look at the results you have now interacted with the radiation. Functionally it kind of is the same thing that the double slit experiment does.

“Those that don’t understand quantum theory seem to be the most sure of it” I mean you just described the Dunning-Kruger effect.

@AionAeon

4 жыл бұрын

""Those that don't understand..."" But no one understand. That mean everyone is most sure of it. And everyone is wrong.

@cheaterman49

4 жыл бұрын

I think even some types of science communicators don't help on the subject: they use analogies to explain quantum phenomenon, which only gets you so far ; and if the writer/host is conscious of this limitation but fails to communicate it to the viewers, then they might be duped into thinking they learned more than they actually did. Obviously, a channel like PBS Space Time isn't guilty of this, but it might merely be a consequence of the intended audience ; if I was explaining quantum physics to pre-teens I would probably also take some shortcuts - but I'd be very careful to tell the audience.

@kx7500

4 жыл бұрын

The dunning Kruger affect kind of goes the opposite in some ways like climate change though in the way you’re describing it. Skepticism is always okay but your skepticism should be proportionate to the evidence you have available to you that proves it. So never 100% but never 0%

@mattcooke3940

4 жыл бұрын

If the electron is being driven by a pilot wave this will allow for the electron to pass through one slit while the electrons pilot wave passes through both slits creating the interference pattern

@cheaterman49

4 жыл бұрын

@Harold Slick That's actually a good point, and I think it says a lot when his most well-known legacy is the Feynman diagrams, which are great for simplifying a complex problem, but aren't hiding anything away or making inappropriate analogies!

7:25 "how was it like, for your brain to be in superposition of states?" Well, the question assumes that such superposition can even be perceived. The whole point of superposition is that it's a linear combination of independent states. If it were possible to know that you're in superposition, then upon being observed, your wave function would not collapse into one of the independent states. It would collapse into some different state that contains knowledge of the original superposition. Which is a logical contradiction.

@ozzymandius666

4 жыл бұрын

...or I could say "Relative to Wigner, my brain is in a superposition of states."

@88_TROUBLE_88

4 жыл бұрын

What? No...

@shawnmurray50

4 жыл бұрын

This is an underrated comment. Makes me wonder as well because our subconscious observes all independent states and gives the consciousness a summary, a consensus. One independent state that is the most accurate according to the observer. If we didn’t have our subconscious to chose which is correct/most accurate, I wonder how that could affect our perception of said slit experiment.

@ags5377

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you assume the states are independent? They are only if decoherence has taken place. If you were to be in a coherence superposition then the different collapsed states will interfere which each other and some how that would lead to an unique experience. All that missing from the described experiment is to require the observers to be isolated to prevent decoherence

@vacuumdiagrams652

4 жыл бұрын

The key problem is that "wavefunction" is something you use for describing other things. You can't even cogently talk about writing a wavefunction for yourself, so the very question is ill-conceived.

Ashame no one in your comments section takes anything seriously. Good work man 👍

When you get to infinitely small levels of motion then you have to take into consideration that movement would be in infinite flux. This makes it not a collapse but an error of measurement in which you only see the location at the time of measurement. Which is why you would only see the infinite middle average which would produce what looks like an interference but is actually an error in the slowness of measuring something at such small levels when it is in infinite flux.

@raymondkidwell7135

2 жыл бұрын

There are experiments that not just the act of measurement is influencing it but the conscious perception of the measurement. In the double split experiment when unobserved the photons act like waves, when observed they act like particles leading to a different pattern of movement on the wall behind it.

@Hoebo123

Жыл бұрын

To me it just seems like they can’t find a solution because they don’t have all the variables. Maybe there is something that hasn’t been observed yet that is the reason for this confusing behavior. They have probably already thought of that but it just seems like there has to be more to it then what is currently understood.

@chrisauh

Жыл бұрын

@@Hoebo123 the missing link is consciousness

@Hoogalindo

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisauh lol

@chrisauh

Жыл бұрын

@@Hoogalindo time is relative to what? non-probabilistic quantum state finalization is determined by what?

You're probably going to get to this next time, but it seems like it was very quickly glossed over why Wigner's friend's brain entering a quantum superposition is so problematic. Surely each superposed state of his brain would only be aware of itself, not all the other superposed states, and likewise only be aware of the superposed state of the experimental result that it observed, not all the other superposed states of the experiment result hat resulted in all the friend's other superposed brain states; so when Wigner talks to his friend and so observes his brain state, Wigner only communicates with whichever state his friend's brain "collapses" to, which was unaware of there being any other states superposed with it, just like it's only aware of the one state of the experiment result. Of course, then Wigner's brain itself has actually just entered a superposition of different states wherein his friend's brain collapsed to different states upon observation, and when you ask Wigner what his friend reported, you'll only interact with whichever of the superposed states you observe Wigner's brain to collapse to... when, in fact, your brain just enters a superposition as well, and so on and so on as the information about the experiment propagates throughout the universe, splitting the entire thing into a superposition of universes where the experiment turned out in the different possible ways.

@leekleek1

4 жыл бұрын

Ah a fellow intellectual

@Harry351ify

4 жыл бұрын

In which case the most natural solution is the multiverse.

@leekleek1

4 жыл бұрын

@@Harry351ify *multiple simulation

@myintkt13

4 жыл бұрын

What you described is exactly what Many Worlds interpretation says

@davidhand9721

4 жыл бұрын

This is what has turned me against QM from the first time I heard if it. If you model only the experiment in QM, you get different results than if you model both the experiment and the measurement device in QM. You have to stop your QMing at some point, or there is no result, but no link in the von Neumann chain makes any more or less sense than any other. QM is, then, contradictory; you can't observe a result unless you are not governed by QM, therefore QM must not be what governs everything. I know how impressive the alpha measurement prediction is, and the theory's other various successes. But there are other predictions that are horribly wrong. Why can't anyone seem to acknowledge that QM is, at best, incomplete, and at worst, contradictory? Every time I hear about the conflict with GR, the speaker assumes that GR is the problem. GR has produced predictions just as stunning, and continues to be proven over and over as we make more and better observations. It stands on a perfectly logical set of assumptions. The one and only thing it ever failed is the Bell inequality. But no, we must figure out how Einstein was wrong, because there is no QM representation of gravity. QM *must* be incomplete. There is no other possible way to see the measurement problem. The theory of everything will have to dramatically change the concepts of QM, as step one, before it can be taken seriously.

9:40 to 10:15 : I think this goes to show that Richard Feynman's statement is basically describing the Dunning-Kruger Effect as applied to Quantum Mechanics.

@santiagotomasso5184

4 жыл бұрын

tbh all the explanations are mystical. I just cant get my head around a non mystical interpretation and havent heard one yet. Of course pretending that you know for sure the answer is a clear sign of unintelligence.

@Ironypencil

4 жыл бұрын

@@santiagotomasso5184Depends what you mean by mystical. We have determined several restrictions on a valid theory of quantum mechanics (EPR-Paradox, Bells Theorem). We have basically proven that no quantum theory can be deterministic, local and causal. Most historical physical theories fulfill all of these criteria and it's easy to stray into mysticism once you drop one of these constraints: * A non-local theory will have some state that is valid throughout the entire universe, the mystic reading would be something like a god, or a global consciousness. * A non-deterministic theory, introduces randomness and you can attribute that source of randomness to some mystic being. * A non-causal theory, can be reduced to some kind of "destiny" from a mystic perspective. Until we have results further constraining a viable quantum theory, it's basically up to you to decide which constraint you are willing to drop.

@santiagotomasso5184

4 жыл бұрын

@@Ironypencil yeah, to me a non mystical explanation would have to be local, deterministic and causal. Hence why I think the universe is mystical. Or simulated. btw Im not a native english speaker so there are room for misinterpretation, have that in mind.

@anticipatedprospects4633

4 жыл бұрын

Nah he is just talking about Schrodinger's knowledge. You know about quantum mechanics and you don't at the same time till someone checks

@orlandomoreno6168

4 жыл бұрын

@@santiagotomasso5184 Global detetminism. The universe is run by a machine, no mysticism.

thanks for helping me to expand my knowledge, very much appreciated 🙇

I wanna use Heisenberg uncertainty principle and say: to understand something, there are two aspects (in detail vs big picture) type of understanding. If you go so much in detail u will loose the big picture and if you go too much big picture you will loose the details. So I think the in detail view is what scientists do and the big picture view is what philosophers do and I think we need both. By the way I have used the Von-Neumann interpretation together with other types of logical chain ending in non-material in my video "Four times Logic Progression ends in a non-material constituents of reality. " If you had a chance to look at it will be happy to hear your opinion about it. Thank you very much for awesome video.

How is Eye-brain-man not a meme template yet? Clearly the internet hasn't collapsed the consciousness wave function yet!

@clydeedwards8858

4 жыл бұрын

Love this

@valmarsiglia

4 жыл бұрын

Check out a band called The Residents. www.discogs.com/artist/6708-The-Residents

@cosmicjelly1509

4 жыл бұрын

No, it's slowly integrating itself with it. Slowly enough that we suspect it, but can't say for sure without sounding off the rocker to people that don't think about or pay attention to those sorts of things.

@Skynet_the_AI

3 жыл бұрын

I knooooow lol

Something I say a lot in my quantum videos: "Quantum mechanics is _not_ magic!" Thanks for making this video.

@albadarqamar7380

4 жыл бұрын

Im ur big fan

@BinyaminTsadikBenMalka

4 жыл бұрын

Love your vids man! Agree this video is on point.

@hckytwn3192

4 жыл бұрын

The Science Asylum you’re an absolute crazy, you know that right? :-)

@benjystrauss2524

4 жыл бұрын

However, the quantum world may allow us tech "indistinguishable from magic"

@hckytwn3192

4 жыл бұрын

Benjy Strauss all jokes aside, I think this is an important point. Scientifically-minded people like to scoff and assign words like magic or mysticism to certain theories, but never even bother to define what “magic” is. Is “spooky action at a distance” magical? Einstein thought it was, and he used that phrase to insult the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. But in the end he was was wrong.

I really enjoy this dude's videos. Love the intro tune as well. Very "Sciency"

I thought the non-pop-sci consensus was that it wasn't consciousness but the physical act of interaction in order to measure that caused the collapse.

@bryandraughn9830

Жыл бұрын

Right? People keep talking about "looking" at a particle. Yeah, that just happens to be impossible.

@TonkarzOfSolSystem

3 ай бұрын

That is the pop-sci explanation, and it’s not correct.

"Beyond Weird" quantum mechanics themed t-shirts would be very cool indeed.

@terryboyer1342

4 жыл бұрын

@RDE Lutherie You wish! :)

My own personal wave function collapsed at the 12:23 mark when I finally realized Matt's sleeves were rolled differently.

@lucasortiz6826

4 жыл бұрын

😂

@JorgetePanete

3 жыл бұрын

👁️👄👁️

When someone wakes me up for school i am both getting ready and sleeping in the same time until i wake up

Thank you so much for your presentation on. predestination. You made me realize in every situation. all things are possible. Today for me everything is possible there is not just one way things can go. I needed to realize that tonight thank you so much..I will be spending more time in meditation but thanks so much.

"They say that it violates the principal of Occam's razor that the scientists should always keep entities to a minimum and it is ridiculous to ascribe reality to worlds you cannot be aware. If you take this argument seriously, then you are not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies...In the 19th century there were many physicists didn't believe in the reality of atoms, so it's not wise to ignore what the formalism is trying to tell you." --Bryce DeWitt

@johnhannon8034

4 жыл бұрын

Why are you not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies when observation has shown that stars are orbited by planets and that galaxies contain stars?

@hyperfocus4866

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnhannon8034 Also isn't reality consistent here aswell as there if we are goverened by the same laws.

@justindavis2711

3 жыл бұрын

Except we have no way of ever observing other universes. But we have already observed thousands of exoplanets?

The “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment sounds a lot like Schrödinger’s Cat.

@roygbiv176

4 жыл бұрын

It essentially is except that human physicists are more likely to acknowledged the sentience of another human (that can articulate it), rather than an illiterate feline that can more easily be passed of as a solipsistic projection.

@nibblrrr7124

4 жыл бұрын

schroedinger apparently really didn't like cats... how was that Wigner guy like? :^)

@roceb5009

4 жыл бұрын

"Hey Erwin, I'm having a problem with an experiment. I put my friend in a box with some poison, a Geiger counter, and some radioactive material. I gave him a phone so he could call me and tell me whether he was dead, but instead he just kept calling to demand I let him out. what should I do?"

@lukefreeman828

4 жыл бұрын

RoCeb you could sell that joke to XKCD 😂

@user-ec6kt2fg7m

4 жыл бұрын

@@roceb5009 First assume the friend is imaginary.

I pray to the creator of all these mysteries that this channel never stops producing videos

I love any time a KZread video poses a question the answer is always a clickbait "no", but at least this video doesn't hide it for 10 minutes

The problem with one person manifesting reality is that there are too many damn people and conflicting perceptions. Even if we could, we would have to fight against billions of other people doing the same thing. Also; it's not consciousness that defines reality, it's perception. Which can be as simple as two compounds 'realizing' that they are next to each other and reacting

@sikleanne121

2 жыл бұрын

No its feeling and perspective. And ur conscionusness is What feels the feelings and perspective

@tristanband4003

Жыл бұрын

@@sikleanne121 feeling has no impact on anything. It's just a reaction to things.

@MiguelMedV

5 ай бұрын

@@tristanband4003 I used to think the same a year ago, but wow, life really has a way of showing you the impossible. I literally see myself in your comment, and now I'm here...

@Artistwannabe

5 ай бұрын

@@MiguelMedV Why are people always so vague when they say something like this? Keeping stuff purposefully vague is annoying, not mystical.

@MiguelMedV

5 ай бұрын

@@Artistwannabe Sorry, wasn't my intention, but I won't tell you every single "illogical" and seemingly impossible thing that's happened to me, so I'll sum it up saying "Life has a way of showing you". I meant every word I said 🤷🏻‍♂️...

PBS Space time: does consciousness influence quantum mechanics? Warhammer 40K: Consciousness does influence the Warp

@user-gd5tr7gw7s

3 жыл бұрын

In a fictive univers.

@highimpactsexualviolence5512

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-gd5tr7gw7s I don't think he was claiming otherwise...

@butHomeisNowhere___

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-gd5tr7gw7s Liar. Warhammer 40k is real. I can't believe you'd say something so ridiculous.

@Averymoasycreek

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! Another Warhammer 40k fan!

The wave function just never collapses. Brains do enter superpositions and conscious experiences also enters superposition. It doesn’t seem like it does, but it does

Here's my take on the double slit experiment... The EM field is full of no velocity photons, a Photon moving at C is simply an aperture in space jumping along the SR monodimensional particle space (i.e. does not disturb the EM field an any practical and observable way because no mass is moving only the "hole" in space is moving). If the photon/particle aperture does interact with the EM field at the slot, you have a range of reactions that can occur depending on where the contact point is in relation to the center of the EM field particle(s). If it hits the EM field particle dead square on (zero degree offset from the center) the EM field particle will be accelerated directly away from the incoming photon/particle. If it hits the EM particles exactly in the center of two EM particles the resulting EM field movement will be two particles traveling at half the speed at an angle of 45 degrees offset from the incoming particle. This is all that is required for the full waveform interference result. There is no conscious observation required for this reaction :-)

"Does quantum mechanics influence consciousness" is a more interesting question.

@marissajustice2411

4 жыл бұрын

I mean yeah it does.

@marissajustice2411

4 жыл бұрын

Quantum mechanics are the study of sub atomic particles. Which builds matter. Assuming conciousness is not metaphysical it is in the realm of our reality and we are made of these particles.

@vtbn53

4 жыл бұрын

@@marissajustice2411 Assuming????

@libertequeliberteque3521

4 жыл бұрын

@@marissajustice2411 Assuming the universe is a jar of peanut butter means that we are all peanuts..

@NessieAndrew

4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” That’s very zen.

@jacobtierney4419

4 жыл бұрын

The quantum mechanics that can be understood is not the true quantum mechanics.

@arttukettunen5757

4 жыл бұрын

Oof for me

@scaper8

4 жыл бұрын

More tao ("the tao that can be understood is not the true tao"), but, yeah. It certainly sounds just as mystic as the rest. LOL!

@silverharloe

4 жыл бұрын

I wonder, was Feynmann anticipating the Dunning-Kruger effect?

@cyclicalcycler993

4 жыл бұрын

If you dont know , now you know!!

Could space be wave on which an electron or photon travels? Maybe the electron or photon distributes in space, until measured? The measuring device changes the configuration of space-time for electron / photon? Configuration of space-time for electron or photon remains changed from the measuring device to the display monitor to the eye of the observer?

Could gravity from measuring device change the configuration of space-time for electron or photon? The change in configuration of space-time is carried from measuring device to detection monitor to eye of the observer?

I am starting to think there is no collapse. Love the Wigner's Friend graphics.

I find it rather interesting that this video makes no reference to delayed Quantum eraser and other Witch Way path experiments. These experiments show that the availability of information is key. The way to answer this question is to test erasure at every possible point up until a conscious detection. One additional point it said we should not confuse consciousness causing the collapse of the wave function, with consciousness affecting the result of that collapse

@AuntBibby

4 жыл бұрын

Chuck Creager Jr. right! correlation, not causation

the question is mind breaking when you try to look at reference points and dreams in relation to quantum mechanics. if you were to do physics experiments in a lucid dream and had a way to communicate duration of causality in the lucid dream with a real world observer. you start to ask yourself. were is the point in spacetime am i observing from?? were is consciousness located?? seriously id LOVE more info on what quantum physics can say about distance and speed when in a lucid dream. is literally everything happening all at once always everywhere and just your non locatable reference point of consciousness just moves through every possible position of everything at a constant rate.. the speed of light. chew on that lol

@poutineausyropderable7108

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm, are you talking in essence ? Or actually? Yeah, with enough metaphorial warpings, sounds nice. Actually, the dream is just in your brain. Your "avatar" in the dream is probably some non constant entity. For actual purposes, I see no way its used in Quantum Mechanics. Qm is just math. Mostly, it's [A,B]. Commutation relation defined as [A,B] = AB - BA If A is go foward. And B is turn Left. BA = Go foward 1 m and turn right. (North facing west) (0,1,90) AB = Turn right then go foward 1m. (East facing east). (1,0,90) [A,B] = (1,-1,no rot) [A,B] is go foward The go foward and go left by 1 meter each. Don't change your orrientarions. Whats important is that mesuring in QM change a state. Like if you have a list of states called |n>. Including |0> , |1> , |2> ,|3>,... Then A numbering opeator N so that N|n> = n|n>. It multiplies the state by the value its assignement. When theres on state, there's no problem. But when there's many in a superposition. Lets say: |phi> =( |0> + |2>) # /sqrt(2) : for normalisation. n|phi> = 0|0> + 2|2> = 2|2> #/ 2 for normalisation. So if = phi(x). = cos(nx) Then (1 + cos(2x) ), when you'd measure it, it would change to the state to 2cos(2x). In QM, every measure is done this way. You have a state. Which can be described using the property youd like to measure: |n> is an eigen vector/function. (Its not changed when applied the corresponding operator other then being scaled). n is an eigenvalue. It"s a real number. The stuff you'd measure. Like |n,x> So H|n,x> = E_n |n,x> N|n,x> = n|n,x> X|n,x> = x|n,x> Its always gonna be: Operator|state eigenvector> = Eigen Value |state eigenvector>. If it was just 1 state, the scalor multiple doesn't change anything. As te last steps is always to devide the norm of the state is one. But when theres many, it change the proportions. Where E_n is the energy of the n^th state. H is the Hamiltonian. Briefly it"s the total energy in operator form. ----- The last thing is that wavefunction collapse. When you measure , it will take one of the state with probability |a_i|^2 that its the superposition. Like if you had |phi> = Sqrt (1/4) |0> + sqrt(3/4)|1> Then you'd have 1/4 chance of having the 0th state. And 3/4 change that having the 1st state. And you'd get the energy that goes with it.

This is an excellent video and thank you for making it. The double slit experiment has always given me a strange feeling about how there's so much we don't know. I don't really know what happens with "collapse of the wave function." I'm not a physicist or anything. Something I just now thought of while I was watching your video, is the possibility that what is actually happening in the double slit experiment, our level of consciousness might not be able to truly or fully perceive it. Your video shows the chain of electrons moving from the detector to the computer to the organic brain, and all are operating on quantum level as well. But the organization of matter in the human brain may not be organized enough to perceive exactly what is actually happening, so what we see happening, we might falsely interpret as "our consciousness somehow made it happen." The "collapse" might be just our perception of something that's really more complicated or something else happening. That is just a thought and I look forward to learning more about quantum theory. In any event, as you indicate, it seems the popular "consciousness collapses the wave function" interpretation may not be the only possible interpretation. Greatly appreciate your information and sharing about how much the field has developed since the early days, which we don't hear so much about but we should. Would love to see more videos about the modern development.

you: What was it like for your whole brain to be in a superposition of states? your friend: **quickly hides drugs** oh what! No that's crazy!

@frogz

4 жыл бұрын

....i just watched nick hide his own drugs after talking to thin air....

@keneteu

4 жыл бұрын

*quickly hides the salvia*

@joaquinel

4 жыл бұрын

Science from the highs

@Flyingtart

4 жыл бұрын

@skOsH Testable, and not irreproducible, I'd say.

@Rek-55

4 жыл бұрын

DMT, Ayhuasca )

The more I understand, the less I understand. My brain is in a superposition of knowing and not knowing. I am Wigner's friend! Hi, new friend!

@Ivan.Wright

4 жыл бұрын

Infinite information means infinite ignorance

@Bix12

4 жыл бұрын

Socrates

@puskajussi37

4 жыл бұрын

So tell us, how is the super position? Is it sunny there?

@Bix12

4 жыл бұрын

@@puskajussi37 Look it up. It's in the Kama Sutra

@dominikbeitat4450

4 жыл бұрын

@@puskajussi37 Well, some Romans might say it's above any other position, but the weather is so-and-so.

The physicists that won the Nobel Prize this year for proving non-locality might want to have a word about this.

@Pedanta

Жыл бұрын

Tell me more! What's the paper?

@jakedickerson1273

Жыл бұрын

I’m not sure they meant what you think they do

@koho

Жыл бұрын

Not likely. Entanglement is irrelevant for something as complex as a neuron embedded in the mess of a brain.

@jondoe1195

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. This idiot is an indoctrinated blowhard who needs a lesson in humility.

@melodytannerclark

Жыл бұрын

@@jakedickerson1273 I’m sure they did.

Really Good Program Show, That's the Ticket 🎟️

What if the wave function is relative. As soon as two quantum systems interact, their wave probability function collapses, but from outside this system, the wave function of these systems is still intact. In such scenario, consiousness is key to collapsing the wave function, not because anything mystical, but because the consious system has interacted with the quantum system at the moment of measurement. The consious system would not be considered an outside system anymore

@cesarsosa4617

3 жыл бұрын

Redfern Pitcher it has nothing to do with consciousness. I thought i was onto something new here, but i wasn’t. What i call relative, physicist call entangle. In other words, the reason a conscious system collapses a quantum system is because it gets entangled with it, but this also happens with unconscious systems.

@trenvert123

3 жыл бұрын

There was a Veritasium video on this subject. Though, consciousness wasn't what made the wave form collapse, it was that we became entangled with the experiment, and observed a collapse of the wave form because that's all we are capable of experiencing..

@yinyang2385

3 жыл бұрын

What if the subatomic universe existed within a dimension of its own which is governed entirely by the laws of quantum physics and when interaction to measure the process comes from a source located in the physical dimension then the effect of the physical laws upon the quantum laws causes the collapse? So in other words the intersection of external forces on internal forces.

@yinyang2385

3 жыл бұрын

@Roger Loquitur Are you suggesting that Quantum Physics and atoms are imaginary?

I've just colapsed this wave function, and I'd like to thank you all for your participation in my reality!!

@agiff8690

3 жыл бұрын

djm jr my pleasure but it’s mine

@siasromo

3 жыл бұрын

our reality "1"

@djmjr77

3 жыл бұрын

I knew ya'll were gonna say that 😉

Well information. Good information.

We have a big problem when we demand that quantum objects behave like the macro objects we're familiar with. They don't, so we can't use macro objects as models for quantum behavior, and that drives us crazy. BTW: Thank you so much for addressing this myth of quantum spiritualism. I wish you'd debunk the infinite multiverses supposedly generated continuously by quantum events. The idea is not falsifiable and therefore just speculation.

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Many worlds has been debunked since it was suggested. Nobody in physics proper takes it seriously. It's only life is in the press and on the internet.

@Brindenentbrinder

7 ай бұрын

not true! @@schmetterling4477

I've frequently tried to collapse wave functions with my mind. So far, no luck.

@Kycilak

4 жыл бұрын

You must be doing it wrong, I've collapsed every wave function I've encountered. I have yet to see uncollapsed wave function.

@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio

4 жыл бұрын

@@Kycilak I agree. I'm quite certain I'm doing the quantum mind-control thingy wrong. I'd really like to uncollapse my wave function on this planet and collapse it somewhere else, but, sadly, it never works.

@ITSME-nd4xy

2 жыл бұрын

@@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio In trying to "uncollapse [your] wave function on this planet," are you using the right parameters, for example those appropriate for a really flat-earth? Surely that'll guarantee success.

More of a philosophical than a scientific questions I guess: Is 'our' problem with interpretations of quantum mechanics more a case of our minds being ill-equipped to grapple with the quantum world than the need for an interpretation at all? To my (limited) understanding it seems to me that the route of all attempts at interpretation are based in allowing a 'classical' observer to make sense of a quantum world... ...but if one accepts there is no such thing as a 'classical observer', being only an artifact of our wiring, and the 'observer' is as much a part of the quantum reality as the 'object' being observed doesn't that mean no interpretation is required? ie: The 'bare' equations of quantum mechanics are indeed the whole thing and our need for interpretation is only a consequence of our inability to grasp their meaning directly? So if quantum mechanics turns out to be as close as we'll ever get to a fully accurate model of 'reality' do we: -Continue to use these 'interpretations' knowing they are a mental crutch that says more about us than physics? -Strive to bend our minds to proper understanding of quantum mechanics knowing that my forever be beyond us? -Unsatisfactorily accept we have reached the point where we have a tool that allows us practicable access to the 'quantum world' but we are incapable of understanding that tool or the 'world' it describes? (A fish in a fish-tank has been given the 'ability' to see a world outside the water but will never be able to appreciate what it is to be a land animal)

@0ptimal

4 жыл бұрын

If the fish is curious enough, maybe he will evolve in time to know the outside world.

@PADARM

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, indeed. We are like ants trying to understand what the sun is

@Georgia-Vic

4 жыл бұрын

It's impossible to know something that's only a hypothetical and abstract theory that's incomplete at best!... so ponder that fact.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

4 жыл бұрын

What you are describing or implying is that the universe might be a simulation. Simulated objects (i.e. you and I) cannot have a way of knowing or measuring the simulator. While the simulator knows ALL about us. In extension, also the GOD question. Like running linux in a Virtual machine in windows. The Linux OS has no way of knowing if it is directly running on hardware, or that it is being simulated within another operating system where the hardware is being simulated. Windows, however, knows EVERYTHING happening within that linux session. If we are indeed a simulation, the only way to actually prove it, is to find a way of tricking the simulator intodoing something that will give a telltale sign. Seeing the analogy here with modern astrophysics? Astrophysicists are trying nothing else than to do this, in a way. Trying to find testable ways to prove something. In short, we need a way of hacking the universe. Literally.

@Georgia-Vic

4 жыл бұрын

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 nope i never said or even implied that the universe or you and we're a simulation, it was you that thought that because you failed to see my simple point and because of your bias and prejudice you don't see what I attempting to convey because you are indoctrinated on account of your subjective and closed minded thinking so go back and re-read my above statement without taking my intent out of context and maybe you can eventually drop your outdated beliefs and break on to the other side!

I have wondered this for years - is the brain a Quantum Antenna? Thanks for talking about it! A question: Can you describe how the double slit experiment has progressed over the years? Surely the first experiment didn’t have the capability to isolate individual electrons? Can we do that now?

@cosmicraysshotsintothelight

2 жыл бұрын

Ask Tesla, or Ramanujan... or Einstein or Newton. They all claim to have tapped into a universal 'database' while 'meditating'. Something is up. Everything will all slam back down to a single point before normal humans figure it out... just kidding. Oh and yes we have devices that can produce single electron events and we have single photon 'emitters' now as well. Enter either into a google images search and photos will be found, click those to see articles. I love searching via Google Images because it produces pages of photos instead of pages of links and text descriptions that fill the page with a shorter list you then have to search through again. Google Images is great! You see what your search found and then recognize your target faster than regular google in many cases. Click click.

@1Hol1Tiger

2 жыл бұрын

@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Einstein meditated?

@cfhaze3245

2 жыл бұрын

Your thoughts aren't just in your head. You're broadcasting them into the field like an antenna

@spaceowl5957

Жыл бұрын

Sounds wacky but I think information processing machines, like our brains, might be antennas for consciousness

@laz001

Жыл бұрын

@@spaceowl5957 - oooooo- that is something I’ve never even considered!! What if ‘consciousness’ is some sort of physical ‘ether’ - everywhere, but only a brain is constructed in the right way to tap into it… wow.

Very well put Matt

11:45 Me: So actually the easiest way to solve this problem is solipsism and world full of philosophical zombies, that's pretty deep, I really... Matt: No.

@medexamtoolsdotcom

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed, that is the better question that needs to be considered first. Does consciousness even actually exist? What experiment can be performed to distinguish between a legit person and a philosophical zombie/NPC? There may be none, that's kind of in the definition of a philosophical zombie, is it not?

@Skinnymarks

4 жыл бұрын

Solipsist a networked consciousness. Conflict solved.

@Stardust_Lily

3 жыл бұрын

@Don Johnson I don't think that was the point of his TED Talk. The whole thing was full of sort of backhanded humor, and he even closes it out casting doubt on the idea of a simulation: "If our physics is inconsistent then we're likely in a simulation, if it is self consistent it is more likely being real, because it just takes more to do that. [...] Humans beings are not well equipped for determining reality; physics -- so this actually a selling point for physics -- is a fundamental test of our realness ..."

@plantae420

3 жыл бұрын

The probability is higher that all quantum physicists in the world lie to you and that we live in a newtonian univers than that you are the only consciousness in the univers. Because everybody knows that you are just a product of MY subconscious!

@nios7700

3 жыл бұрын

i am understanding from your point that from this perspective life is shaped by only ones concious just like in a video game where you have the primary character or hero and the others are just slaves of his perspective bcs the whole video game revolvse around it?

Wow, now this was a good episode. Had me on the edge of my seat, can't wait for the next one.

@iloveamerica1966

4 жыл бұрын

I was both on the edge of my seat and recumbent...until your post collapsed my wave function leaning against my pillows.

1:43 that's the weirdest part of QM. How can one's consciousness influence the result?

@xadd1607

2 жыл бұрын

Did you watch the whole video? He explains around 10:15 that most scientists, even the founders of QM, changed their minds about this idea.

@justmythoughts2786

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah because If you hit the nail on the expressway at 4 AM no one’s looking at the nail in your tire is going to go flat so that nail was still there with no observers

Do you believe that information can be extracted or input directly into the brain? I do! Just curious what you think about this and how that is or is not connected to this topic!

You always give the clearest, most accurate and engaging explanations of the most difficult concepts in physics. Thank you.

@Ray2311us

3 жыл бұрын

You’re welcome

"I think, therefore I might be"

@sycamorph

4 жыл бұрын

Tbh if religion didn't exist this would have been the quote probably. And then Descartes would probably go insane.

@user-vs1cm8nv5i

4 жыл бұрын

"thinking arises but is empty of self" - the Buddha

Yesterday i was thinking about the same question and today i found your video randomly.

That was the first explanation that I actually got, I’ve thought long and hard about this-his point, “what was it like being in a superposition”? He’d think you were crazy. So THATS IT? The electron on the double slit is in a “Superposition” from OUR STANDPOINT, but actually isn’t, it’s unnecessary complications it’s where it it

I'd also like to know how much quantum mechanisms affect consciousness.

@pureenergy4578

3 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is the holodeck we are immersed within. This holodeck is why we are images/holograms within it. We are constantly being created as images because those quarks/atoms creating us are images. This holodeck is what people call God. This holodeck is our literal mother and father because IT is light and quarks/atoms spin as light.

@MrMMAJER

3 жыл бұрын

@@pureenergy4578 also no

@pureenergy4578

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrMMAJER You will have to argue with the physics books I read, like THE QUANTUM WORLD and HANDS OF LIGHT. BUT I don't have to give you any titles because YOU give none. So I say NO to you.

@jorgepeterbarton

2 жыл бұрын

Penrose Microtubules

@Justin_Bic

2 жыл бұрын

Does the tail wag the dog? Lol

What if there is only one field of consciousness pervading the entire universe and we cannot have two separate observers? Maybe we need to rethink those experiments.

@realzachfluke1

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe not though 🤷‍♂️🤔

@jaydens1936

3 жыл бұрын

It's a solid theory. No one can deny that. Even the dude in the video admits it's possible. But it's not just possible. It's far more succinct a theory than anything else. Solves the collapse, and the hard problem of consciousness in one fell swoop.

@bufo7120

3 жыл бұрын

Smoke some salvia and find out

@realzachfluke1

3 жыл бұрын

Anime Sucks sprinkle it with some DMT and then snort some weeds lol

@SurajLamichhane

3 жыл бұрын

this is the exact teaching of the Upanishads that Bohr and Heisenberg were crazy about, even Schrodinger. I'm not saying it's true, it's just the same philosophy.

First the quantum wave function measured into many worlds, then the many worlds collapses into classical world when observed by person? In such a case, quantum wave function becomes many worlds when screen measures wave distribution; many worlds becomes classical observation when photons from computer hit the eye of the observer?

I'm not a scientist but i've often wondered about how the universe works and I love watching and diving into these videos. If I'm not mistaken Matter is sort of like an energy resonance in the Higgs field, we use this knowledge to find new particles at places like CERN. By putting a massive amounts of energy into one point we essentially force a resonance in a field which manifests as said particle. as the energy breaks down these particles evaporate and new particles resonate at the energy frequency which they can exist. I am curious if the same logic can be applied to time. That being time is a resonance in a field that all energy resonates with at some frequency. If I "my consciousness" can experience time I must resonate with something at all times. perhaps a singularity of some sort. I imagine all particles I can measure can also resonate with this singularity because it too knows "where" it is. By us attempting to measure space we quantum entangling with said Energy; Is it possible we somehow gain Inherent knowledge of it's current resonance in "time" which gives it what we perceive to be a definite "location" to us. I wonder if the mechanism of this inherent knowledge is the ever consistent speed of time. since we know the speed of time inherently and we can entangle with that object we can resonate with it's time giving us immediate knowledge of it's existence. otherwise known as spooky actions at a distance. Perhaps if we really are in a Black Hole we resonate with the frequency at which the ringularity spins which would have to be unimaginably quick. if our resonance with this energy field is time and consciousness is our ability to experience our own entanglement this would give us definition. something we can look at in the mirror each day, as all particles eventually slow down and lose energy and become nothing at some point in the far far far future. where no energy can resonate with the singularity anymore, a boundary that matter just can't exist outside. Perhaps though a newer exotic form of matter could exist though one that would decay even slower through time? I'm unsure a lot of this has turned into loopy nonsense though so I think I'll stop there. If anything thanks for giving me some awesome stuff to think about!

in a competition: Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

@kaganozdemir4332

2 жыл бұрын

I'm arresting you for defying the laws of physics, Mr Schrödinger

One person’s “outlandish” is another’s “physics”.

@pureenergy4578

2 жыл бұрын

Do you know that we are in the middle of worldwide nazism? Watch these 2 videos: www.unite4truth.com/post/reiner-fuellmich-david-martin-patent-data-destroys-entire-covid-19-government-narrative-video?.

@jacobd4421

2 жыл бұрын

these types of videos are rife with conjecture, and only loosely based on the research of the topic. I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder

@cosmosaic8117

2 жыл бұрын

That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?

Princeton U did a psychic studies in one study was if you try to affect an action of something, it has a positive effect. Then the study was stopped. An article I read about brain waves are like alternate currents, vs direct current. a reference made to human mind kind of works like an alternate current and that's why you have opposing thoughts seemingly running right after each other but what it is, it allows your mind to do a volley back and forth, to choose the best choice when that time is made to make that choice.

It's quite a human presumption to think that consciousness exists outs outside the quantum. The more I study this topic, especially when it comes to quantum entanglement and these "conflicts" that science can explain everything only observable... Leads me closer to accepting another theory ... Call it "mystical" - but that "consciousness" IS quantum.

@DarioCastellarin

2 жыл бұрын

???

@torimiles5801

2 жыл бұрын

Please elaborate

11:39 "Or maybe you are the only observer and you're inventing your friend and the rest of reality" You're too quick to say no. I wouldn't be so sure that's the right answer. Now I don't understand quantum mechanics or physics in general as much as you do, but despite how inconceivable it might sound, I'm open to the possibility that it might just be consciousness that generates reality, and not the other way around.

@mexdal

3 жыл бұрын

Well said. Alot of scientists keep stating things as if they are facts, when they are not. Some are more humble and say straight away that they honestly don't know and it's just what they "believe" instead.

@thanaspapa3136

3 жыл бұрын

I mean if you believe that can you prove it?

@Stardust_Lily

3 жыл бұрын

The problem is that it's utterly unprovable and unfounded to the point that, unless something specifically points to it, it's not really that worth considering. It's the same as the age old "do you think there's an invisible, racist, undetectable leprechaun in your colon?" question. Most people wouldn't reply "well, maybe; I'd keep an open mind, because it's certainly possible", they'd think "I mean, I can't prove it, but I have no reason to believe it". It's a question we can't disprove, but also have no reason to believe, so I don't think it's all that worth floating as a viable option.

@Stardust_Lily

3 жыл бұрын

@@mexdal Everything is just what we believe, and we can't prove anything to 100% certainty. It's pointless to just keep saying "I don't know" about literally every single thing, so we as a society (and as scientists) have an unspoken agreement that "no" means "from everything we understand, probably not".

@x-popone6817

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stardust_Lily Ironic. It's the material world that's utterly unprovable. Demonstrate the physical world without using consciousness. You can't.

"If you think you understand Brahman, you do not understand, and have yet to be further instructed. FOR THE BRAHMAN is unknown to those that know it, and known to those that know it not." -Alan Watts (The Greatest)

@StanTheObserver-lo8rx

4 жыл бұрын

How funny,I thought it said THE BATMAN...

@garetclaborn

4 жыл бұрын

@@AyushSharma-jz1jo it is similar to the hebrew 'Or Ein Sof', but much more hindu. the primordial light and root from which existence both spiritual and material originate

@zhe2en171

4 жыл бұрын

I too felt the need to bring up Alan Watts! Thanks! :)

@mso2802

4 жыл бұрын

@@AyushSharma-jz1jo kzread.info/dash/bejne/lIam2bqkfdfSdLQ.html

@AyushSharma-jz1jo

4 жыл бұрын

Okay I get it it's all infinity, existence, from with everything originated and everything will collapse. But how do you explain it to a rational person who only understands the nature through the language of mathematics? @garet claborn @mso2802

first question: maybe consciousness has nothing to do with thinking or memory; maybe consciousness is something the brain uses like sight. the things you see have no idea of your thoughts; maybe consciousness works the same way. Why does it seem like everyone treats consciousness as if it is a soul or an extension of someones personality that contains all that person's memories? Don't get me wrong it may work that way, I just can't understand why that is the only explanation I hear when I clearly gave an alternative explanation that is just as unfalsifiable.

@SOLOcan

2 жыл бұрын

Well people treat it differently because consciousness seems to be different from every other thing. Even in your hypothetical, you cannot help but treat the brain as having its own subjectivity that has a “need” for consciousness when as you said, inanimate objects don’t do this.

@uxvellda1112

2 жыл бұрын

"The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me."

@dougwarner59

2 жыл бұрын

​@@SOLOcan You say people seem to treat the consciousness differently; I agree. second part the brain evolved to have the need to see just like it may have evolved to have a need to use Consciousness to help it better survive. as far as inanimate objects go I don't have a clue how consciousness affects them.

@dougwarner59

2 жыл бұрын

@@uxvellda1112 you have better Eye sight than I; I have never seen God; that's probably why I need to wear glasses.

@caty863

2 жыл бұрын

You're not concious of all your memories all the time. Most memories come to your mind (conciousness) only when you recall them.

How would hallucinations and inadequate observations effect the collapse of the wave functions in questions. For example if a single electron is fired through the double slit expirement and my Mushroom enhanced mind observes 2 instances of detection would that effect the actual measurement?

Ahhhhhh shots fired at "What the bleep do we know"!! That documentary started a wave function years ago that eventually collapsed on me subscribing to your channel lol

@Dee-nonamnamrson8718

4 жыл бұрын

There is definitely some woo in that movie, but it still started my love of all things physics.

@88_TROUBLE_88

4 жыл бұрын

Some woo? 😂 Just some huh?

@Dee-nonamnamrson8718

4 жыл бұрын

@@88_TROUBLE_88 "some" doesnt claim a definite amount. There was also some legit physics in the movie as well.

@irreview

4 жыл бұрын

That movie got me started on quantum physics too. And notice PBS Spacetime doesn't tell us which scientists did NOT change their mind on the consciousness=collapse of the wave function theory. See also Inspiring Philosophy's debate with Matt Dillahunty, a Christian tries to explain quantum consciousness to an atheist (to no avail). Also I asked Richard Dawkins and Brian Green about this, see my channel video to see them shoot my question down. My interrogation of Richard Dawkins 13:00 minutes into this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZXynw7Nvo8m3nps.html

@vampyricon7026

4 жыл бұрын

@@irreview I would bet that Dillahunty understands q**nt*m c*nsc***sn*ss perfectly, including how much of it is vapid nonsense. Since you apparently can't tell, it's all of it.

What if We live / experience a given set of collapsed wave functions. Matter tends to synchronize its collapsed state faster than light thanks to quantum entanglement. Just as much as we “see” a very small portion of the light spectrum thought “visible” light , we experience a slice of the space time continuum with our primate senses and brain.

Interesting video, thanks.

@PBSSpaceTime If I’m certain about the sensitivity about the matter, where should I first speak about it?