I love that Schrodinger felt his example was so ridiculous it would change everyone's mind about how they thought of quantum physics and it was accepted as enlightening instead lol

@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

Жыл бұрын

I just read the quote from Schroedinger - basically stating he wished he could get rid of the quantum jump and he wanted nothing to do with it.

@seancooper5007

Жыл бұрын

The cat is an observer

@MCsCreations

Жыл бұрын

That damn cat torturer...

@vladimirseven777

Жыл бұрын

@@seancooper5007 Nuking the cat will collapse his functions (observing), so cat is dead anyway.

@douggrove4686

Жыл бұрын

Oddly, the whole cat thing was Schrodinger saying that quantum effects did not affect the scale that we experience. My closet is not in a super position of burned, radioactive, or just cluttered until I open the door. There are uranium atoms decaying in the center of the planet, and no one is there watching.

The insane part is that for me, the edge of the universe deviates a few hundred kilometres from yours, or anyone else's. Since it is relative to your position for each one of us. So the 'observer' always has you at its centre. Any arbitrary frame of reference has a different 'edge of the observable universe'.

@ika5666

8 ай бұрын

Good point.

@kayekaye251

3 ай бұрын

Lol! So we really are the center of the universe??

Antone looked really worried describing this. Like he was being observed by the edge of the observable universe and didn't want to piss it off by saying the wrong thing.

@nunoalexandre6408

Жыл бұрын

kkkkkkkkkkkk

@malaltherenegadegod

Жыл бұрын

Hey, no... *IT IS APPRECIATED* ⦏੪ both the obvious discomfort-borderline-fear, and the thoughtfulness it took to obviously keep himself accurate! :D ੪⦐

@felixloveseat

Жыл бұрын

No... we are being micro analyzed

@yvettekosta-jv4bx

Жыл бұрын

The fact is, that just by being alive and eating and breathing, we are interacting. There may be loose atoms and electrons or subatomic particles around but for the most part, we interact with them on this planet. And because we do, they form larger structures like molecules, plant and animal flesh. Do you think if we were oblivious to certain things, like undiscovered atomic chemicals, they don't exist ? They pop into existence when we notice them ? Physicists can really trip out ! 🤣🤣🤣😜

@Antelopesinsideme

Жыл бұрын

​@yvettekosta-jv4bx my stomach hurts so bad from what I ate yesterday

As a developer, this video has made me feel like reality is a lot more like a digital environment than expected... it's like our quantum particles are references pointing to non-allocated memory, and you can get multiple particles to point to the same address, leading them to representing the same value regardless of where they are in memory since in actuality they're both redirecting to the same space in memory... Does that mean black holes are garbage collectors? 🤔

@dannydetonator

Жыл бұрын

You see it from a binary IT programmer perspective, it's not quite like that. Despite electronics working on quantum principles, the interactions making memory, processor, power etc. work have not much to do with physical memory, fixed calculations and algorithms, fixed points in space or time, properties or any of that gobbledygook you wrote. First, quantum particles have no fixed coordinates in space or state. These values are spread out in a vague, thinning geometric cloud of probabilities, shape, size, density, speed of which are determined by particle properties, forces and other particles interacting with it. Ex.g. the probability clouds of electrons around the nucleus of an atom you've hopefully seen in school's physics/chemistry book are rough portrayal of just that, they're not orbits in a normal sense. Besides there are oscillations and very rapid movement of everything particle like. Also most of them act as waves or particles at the same time, depending on situation, observer, etc. Some can be in superposition, having infinite or multiple values of properties, some can and some cannot be in the same place at the same point in time. Memory as a concept doesn't exist in quantum physics as far as i know. It's mostly substituted by probabilities of interactions, changes of states, cause and effect.. Depends on definition, so it's semantics. I suspect this reply will get unreadably long if i go deeper explaining the differences between IT and quantum world. So to answer your question, no. Black holes are not garbage collectors, because Universe doesn't have garbage. It has matter, fields, forces, gravity.. Is gas or stardust garbage for you? Tell that to Eastern Europeans now.. Black holes are more like matter spinners, yes they suck in, but gravity works closer than a star would have with a similar mass. Although most of their mass are arguably concentrated in a single, infinitely small point, or from other models a 1-dimentional ring or circle, called singularity.. Yes, that's why it spins matter at such speeds that friction heats the matter to millions of degrees in the accretion disc, making it glow bright and reveal the black hole to us. Imagine an infinitive small point or thin line having a spin and energy that massive. They're also like a local thug champion, braking all the rules of both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Your error wasn't trying to understand the latter in principles of the former, digitally. Your error - fuelled by Duner-Kruger effect telling you 'gotcha' - was trying to understand it with conventional, familiar principles at all. One of the quantum physicists (forgot who) said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you're wrong." Yes, in nature it's allways gets more complex the deeper you go. No wonder we'd need a conventional computer made from entire stuff of Solar System to fully simulate and save in memory like a single second of interactions in and around of a single Iron atom. Mind boggling.

@SlickWillHermsted

Жыл бұрын

@@dannydetonator damn son i am not gonna read all that but props

@Dremth

Жыл бұрын

​@Danny THE Dog I think all he's really saying is that you can look at the universe as a big computer. Many similar principles in computing apply to the universe. In the end, everything is data, and the same way we try to manipulate abstracted and reinterpreted data in computing (i.e., processing binary bits), the universe does with real data at the quantum level (i.e., quantum decoherence). This paper is suggesting more that black holes function more like a weird power supply than a garbage collector. In computing, the bits in your memory have "values" when the power is off, but they don't really mean anything to a user, because the charges inside are just whatever random stuff is inherent to the materials it was made with; basically, there are no electrons moving through your hardware, but the hardware itself has its own electrons with their own locked, stable energy. When you power on the machine, it's able to force the electrons into particular states that can then be used to actually mean something to the user. This paper is kind of saying that black holes are supplying that power to the hardware quantum fields that cause them to collapse into states that mean more than just random probabilities. Of course, all this is super simplified, and it's not exactly a 1:1, but there are a lot of similarities that exist between computing and the universe, because they both operate on data.

@mirrorcat2784

Жыл бұрын

Donald hofman

@Dremth

Жыл бұрын

@Milo Jones In the quantum world, things are quantized (hence "quantum") just like in computing. Things cannot be in infinite states. Particles can only be in a defined set of states, or a combination of all of them.

Imagine just how controversial Shrodinger's cat analogy would have been if he used an opossum instead of a cat, because opossums are very good at playing dead.

@benthere8051

Жыл бұрын

LMAO

@bennylarsen1907

Жыл бұрын

LOL!

@goochipoochie

Жыл бұрын

🔥🔥🔥🔥😂😂😂😂😂

@andyavila9162

Жыл бұрын

Lol

@2ndfloorsongs

Жыл бұрын

There's always at least one wise-ass in every serious discussion. Maybe the reason the universe exists is that humor collapses the wave function. I rather like this idea because it means serious universes are impossible and one of the reasons this universe continued to exist was Douglas Adams. 😸😸😸

Man I've been fascinated by this stuff since I heard of the two-slit experiment. It just boggles the mind to think that reality itself is a series of probabilities constantly collapsing. To me it's magic because I am way to dumb to understand it.

@Aufenthalt

Жыл бұрын

No physicist are too dumb to explain it correctly...ist Not at all magic but many explain it as it would be.

@eccehomosexual

Жыл бұрын

Essentially is it magic. Just because we can define something through philosophy, logic and math doesn’t mean we understand it. You may know all the ingredients in a cake without understanding how to bake it. Cake is delicious but you will never understand why. 😂

@aprayingatheist2378

Жыл бұрын

I've always said it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or religious, the fact that we are here is magical and unexplainable

@bouzoukiman5000

Жыл бұрын

@@aprayingatheist2378a type 3 civilization might actually know everything about the universe and how to manipulate it. If we survive we are on our way

@lookupverazhou8599

Жыл бұрын

I typed two slit into google and it turned on safety search.

It's kind of wild to think that HP Lovecraft may have unknowingly been on to something with his Azathoth story. Except in this case our "Azathoth" isn't a comatose creature dreaming our universe into existence, but instead a non sentient quantum force of pure unending observation

@jarlwilliam9932

Жыл бұрын

Azathoth doesn’t even dream up reality in Lovecraft’s story, it’s simply the most powerful of the outer gods and is nothing but a mindless force of hunger.

@ichorHomunculus

Жыл бұрын

what you're thinking of doesn't have anything to do with quantum physics, it's basically just the Boltzmann Brain thought experiment. HP Lovecraft wrote some cool stories but they're nothing but a reflection of how he lived his life

@AeonLumen.

Жыл бұрын

Azathoth lives

@TheLoneMitten

Жыл бұрын

Or the Bible. Wheels within wheels covered in eyes.

@BathingInAcheron

Жыл бұрын

@@TheLoneMitten That was referring to an Ophanim which is a category of abstract wheel shaped Angels whose entire existence is to carry and guard the throne of god, as the meaning of their Hebrew name states. I'm talking about an (not literal but rather in a symbolic sense) entity or cosmic force that brought the universe into existence and/or sustains that existence via mere observation.

Man.. the idea that every blackhole is functioning as an observer in quantum mechanics and collapsing reality into physical existence... this is some deep stuff Anton, thanks for being on this ride with us man

@cyborgbob1017

Жыл бұрын

really puts a new perspective on these cosmological giants. Theyre sort of like 'anti demigods' I guess

@onlyoneofhiskind

Жыл бұрын

That raises a question. What what was going on before the first black holes were formed? And why did they formed if there wasn't a physical particles?

@Holphana

Жыл бұрын

This helps with my theory that explosions are actually implosions and implosions are actually explosions. We are just on the other side of actual reality or at least we see the world in a reversed way. This could explain why quarks jump in and out of our reality and why Nuclear fission has the potential to generate so much power.

@twin_sister_of_utu

Жыл бұрын

​@@Holphana Hey there, you got me interested: can you please explain more about "we see reality in the reversed way"? What does that actually imply?

@elpretentio

Жыл бұрын

cringe

Anton never fails to give me an 11 PM existential crisis

@fuzzyspackage

Жыл бұрын

🎉😂

@jimo9555

Жыл бұрын

between this and a new exurb1a video this week ... existential bliss 🤯😁

@asdfjkl7430

Жыл бұрын

Dude, don't watch this stuff at 11pm, or else it'll do that. Lol

@albertkoscielniak7075

Жыл бұрын

The quite kid : **NOTED**

@UKUSA

Жыл бұрын

Oh yea I had one of those the other day when I read the video title : unexplained nearby black holes! 😅

I know lots of people get sent into existential crises from these topics but I’ve realized that I’m so used to this stuff that it gives me peace. This is kind of what I’ve perceived the world as already (in simple terms). The existential crises I have are often a reaction to humanity itself and our stupidity. This stuff is my escape.

@luismoref

Жыл бұрын

The funny thing is that your name in my country means a woman that is at peace, that is content with herself.

@Leonidas_Papadakis

Жыл бұрын

It seems that you cannot escape suffering. However, in your short statement, you used "I," "I am," and "me" multiple times, which could come across as narcissistic. To top it off, you claimed that humanity is stupid, but you believe yourself to be special because you can avoid feeling existential dread.

@deadpearls

Жыл бұрын

@@Leonidas_Papadakis LMFAOOO

@deadpearls

Жыл бұрын

@@Leonidas_Papadakis be fr

@matheuspestana7820

Жыл бұрын

I think it is just a survival reaction of the ego, once you learn to be humble enough to surpass your own ego than you can accept that it is better this way, no god tirants, just us existing the best way we can in a bigger scheme e thats alright.

This doesn't really have to be this complicated, conceptually... The basics are that all matter is simply excitations in quantum fields that are interacting and resonating with each other. What appears to be missing is that each increase in quantum complexity (quarks-->bosons-->atoms-->molecules, etc.) allows for fewer and fewer probabilistic variations due to the number of field excitations that are interacting and resonating to create the system. The simplest systems (one quark, electron, or other fundamental "praticle") would have the fewest number of resonances and/or interactions limiting the breadth of the wave function. It's why larger, more complex particles are subject to locality in a way that fundamenatal particles aren't. For example, quarks are fundamental - they are singular field excitations with no resonant connections. Side note: The idea of "particles" is a gross mischaracterization. What they really are are bundles of quantum excitations that overlap, resonate with each other, forming systems of increasing complexity and reducing probabilistic uncertainty. A proton is 3 quarks, aka 3 separate quark field excitations resonating with each other, which limits the probabilistic variability of each quark because the resonance (strong force) between each quark reduces the size of the wave function of each other quark, essentially "dampening" them (partial collapse), but not entirely. There is still some low probability associated with each quark's location and or momentum, but it is limited to the boundaries of the 3-quark system itself. In other words, the entire system now has a wave function, with substantially tighter allowances for probabilistic variations in properties. Any atom larger than a proton will have a more complex system of interactions and resonances, further limiting the quantum uncertainty of the combined system. In a kind of excpetion to the rule sort of way, electron clouds are excitations in a different field that act like large-scale resonators for entire boson systems, rather than inherently merge with the wave function of the underlying system. Now for the kicker - quantum fields are non-spatial. Spacetime doesn't emerge until two or more fundmental field excitations interact. The resonance between two or more excitations necessitates a property called "spacetime" in order to facilitate the resonance. It's basically a framework for quantum field interaction that emerges from the interaction orientations. it's kind of like making two dots on a flat piece of paper meet by rolling the paper. The two dots were always there, and so was the paper (in two dimensions) but in order for them to interact, the paper has to take on a new property (an extra dimension) and become 3-dimensional. There's no other way for the two dots to interact without the emergence of that property.

@Cancellator5000

Жыл бұрын

That makes some sense. Not sure you explained the emergence of spacetime fully. Are there papers about this idea? I'm interested in testing the equivalence principle, which is a key consequence of general relativity. The idea that gravity, rather than being a quantum field, is an emergent property of the curvature of spacetime. In my mind the main outstanding theoretical problem is how the quantum world generates, and potentially elucidates, all the predictions of general relativity. Unfortunately, that seems so far away because when you try to predict the cosmological constant of GR from QFT you get the worst prediction in physics history.

@windfoil1000

2 ай бұрын

I'm just a physics fan, but I think you did a pretty god job of explaining that. I would enjoy hearing more about quantum fields from descriptions as easy to understand as yours here.

I'm probably missing something... But if these event horizons act as observers, no matter how far they're away, because of entanglement, how could there ever be an interference pattern in a double slit experiment?

@xoxb2

Жыл бұрын

That was exactly my reaction. If the observation is as general as "being within the universe", how does any quantum uncertainty happen in the first place?

@mreyesonthelies4386

Жыл бұрын

​@xoxb2 I think the speed of light and the proximity to the closest black hole might have something to do with it. Also, a black hole cannot "observe" a very distant particle pair, but could observe bigger objects.

@theoofsweden

Жыл бұрын

​​@@xoxb2quantum uncertainty doesnt "happen", its a future based concept. when we then observe the future based possibility it collapses into the present and then becomes the past. it becomes observed and therefore any other possibilities seizes to exist.

@theoofsweden

Жыл бұрын

@socalminstrel the edge of the universe is what put us where we are today. its the thing that observed its way to our reality, which then gave us the abillity to observe things. not all observation is equal, there have been things that observe us, that has given us the ability to observe.

@holthuizenoemoet591

Жыл бұрын

If you ask me this entire paper is just 21 century Heliocentricism ... but now with quantum and event horizons..

This is possibly the single most mind bending video I have encountered on KZread. And not just the video with it's utterly brilliant explanation of these concepts. The comments section is filled with nothing but positivity and support. If only more of KZread were like this place, the world would be better off. I don't know how I have not discovered this channel earlier. The description and explanation has just helped me bring years of reading about these concepts and ideas into one, coherent, mental picture that my mind can make sense of. Thank you, Anton!

@spacemonkey9000

Жыл бұрын

Check out Chris Langan's CTMU. Wear a seat belt.

@JosephMurphyRevised

Жыл бұрын

welcome, wonderful person, to a wholesome corner of the internet. put your feet up and stay awhile.

@Connection-Lost

Жыл бұрын

Not so fast, bud. I for one am relieved he chose to stop making the channel be about support for Ukraine (political bias, while ignoring the rest of the world's conflicts) and getting donations for his child passing away.

@curcumin417

Жыл бұрын

Yeah but it can decohere just as fast due to nuclear boogaloo.

@jyjjy7

Жыл бұрын

You did not just find some secret shortcut to understanding the concepts discussed in this video... That you think you might have is alarming and surely indicates you under the concepts less than before you watched it. The idea he is presenting is deeply questionable and honestly doesn't really make sense. The horizons he is talking about are arbitrary and have no physical meaning. I'm not even sure how any quantum mechanical objects could exist if something an arbitrary distance away from every point in the universe is collapsing everything. Some advice when trying to learn quantum mechanics; anyone who starts talking about the Copenhagen interpretation for reasons other than pointing out in what ways it is wrong and unscientific does not know much about the subject. Similarly anyone who keeps trotting out the concepts of observers/observation that imply what anyone knows matters to the universe should be written off as having an archaic and obsolete understanding of QM (one that is extremely convenient for anyone trying to prop up new age mysticism by claiming it is supported by quantum theory, it is not at all).

I get the creeping feeling that we should leave the perspective of "observers" behind because it is only a part of the larger group of "interactors" I think interactions between particles are 99,99999% of all the determinators that "force" certain particles to attain their physical properties which happens literally with every particle, everywhere and all at once.

@geesehoward700

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, observer hints at consciousness entities which in this case really isn't helpful

@catpoke9557

Жыл бұрын

​@@geesehoward700 Maybe. There is a surprisingly possible hypothesis that every object in the universe is conscious to some degree, even if it doesn't have senses or a brain to understand it. if that's the case, observers are present everywhere.

@thepatternforms859

Жыл бұрын

@@geesehoward700 then don’t use the word “observers” at all then. Got a new word?

@SahnigReingeloetet

Жыл бұрын

„Observing“ simply means a particle interacts with something, not that someone looks at it.

@conniepr

Жыл бұрын

Right. Don't open pandoras box. Don't look.

Love your simplicity explaining such a mind blowing concept. Also your delivery is perfect! Loved the universal eye and black hole observer concept. Really awesome. Thanks! Liked & subscribed

I think this idea could also tie into the concept of black holes creating new universes, which also leads into multiverse theory, but furthermore it kinda proposes the idea that if these black holes are shaping reality by a considerable margin, they must be getting their energy from an outside source, if that makes; which means that this could also propose an idea of a Multiversal Ecosystem; where the multiverse not only exists, but these other universes are all interconnected in an ecosystem where theyre constantly sharing energy with each other to sustain each other.

@Delorva

Жыл бұрын

oh my god yes and yk how we’ve seen our universe looking all connected like ym what im sayin? i hope lol

@GamingTranceSeer

Жыл бұрын

But how did it all start though

@cyborgbob1017

Жыл бұрын

@@GamingTranceSeer a big bang I imagine

@Delorva

Жыл бұрын

@@GamingTranceSeer maybe from an old universe like ours that died and was reborn

@GamingTranceSeer

Жыл бұрын

@@Delorva yeah but how did the big bang start? There was a star ocean game that represented the entire universe being like an aquarium for an advanced civilization but then how did they start? It's just endless.

Bravo on a bold attempt to explain in simple, layman's terms something that, even after watching your excellent video, I find completely incomprehensible.

@marsdroid1

Жыл бұрын

im not knocking the video at all ...simply wasnt raised to comprehend this stuff ....THANKS ANTON KEEP EM COMING!!!!!

@TheExplodingGerbil

Жыл бұрын

😂 snap 😂

@goldenageofdinosaurs7192

Жыл бұрын

@@marsdroid1 I’m not sure ANY of us were raised to comprehend this kind of stuff!🤣

@Raulikien

Жыл бұрын

@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 For sure, we are gonna need to improve our brains with machines soon if we wanna keep up with the evolution of technology

@marsdroid1

Жыл бұрын

@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 i had 3 rounds of peanut nutter n toast and a tumeric tea.... i think i have an idea of what it means niw ...brain booter you see 😁

HA, MY REALITY COLLAPSED INTO BEING ONE OF THE FIRST COMMENTERS-I'M GOING TO ABUSE THIS SLIM CHANCE TO DIRECTLY TELL ANTON THAT WE LOVE YOU AND YOU'RE GREAT, ANYWAYS BACK TO THE VIDEO !!

@lesliejohnrichardson

Жыл бұрын

I absolutely support this Anton, we love you

Im crying. ♥️ Its so beautiful and simple and complex and comforting all at once. Thank you Anton.

This was a particularly interesting topic, Anton. Thanks for presenting it.

Reality is certainly collapsing into strangeness these days!

@AdamS-nd5hi

Жыл бұрын

Very true.

@Masked_Official

Жыл бұрын

The universe is transgender.

@ShrigmaFemale

Жыл бұрын

@@Masked_Official That’s hot

@Masked_Official

Жыл бұрын

@@ShrigmaFemale ikr

@benthere8051

Жыл бұрын

@@Masked_Official Does that mean you don't know the gender until you look in the box?

Man, do I like this theory. So the reason why we may never know what's inside a black hole is because we are not on an observer angle, but the insides of blackhole already have its own form of "reality" since they're observed by the horizons of the blackhole.

@iamt0ast

Жыл бұрын

The horizon of a black hole is like the first room in the infinite hotel, it never ceases to exist.

@charbelmdawar4580

Жыл бұрын

I don't agree, blackhole theory is very flawed ,if the black hole is the one how case the world what about the universe before any black hole second why the particles behave like wave without observer if the blackhole observe everything should the particles also behave like object not a wave there is a lot of problems I don't think this is the theory we are searching for

@jerryhampton5755

Жыл бұрын

@@charbelmdawar4580 because it’s all a simulation and it only exists when someone is there to observe it.

@ronaldpokatiloff5704

Жыл бұрын

@@jerryhampton5755 A computer program is using gravity to send three dimensional matter into a picture tube. DNA CODE is not on the minds of the ignorant scientists. They can't make the connection from organic chemistry to the physics outside the body, They think in a different world which is mostly fantasy. The universe is made of the same matter as in our body. They are incapable of making the comparison.

@AbsurdAsparagus

Жыл бұрын

​@@jerryhampton5755 simulation theory is dead in the water because of the incompleteness of math. the universe trivially deals with things that math is incapable of dealing with, so no computer that runs on the current mathematic principles is capable of simulating the universe exactly.

Super interesting idea that kind of would prove Schrodinger's skepticism right. Since hypothetically all objects with mass would emit gravitons that would not be blocked by the box, then the cat would instantly become a decoherent reality, meaning it would be either dead or alive in the box, not both.

@jambothejoyful2966

Жыл бұрын

That would be interesting, a kind of mass-domino effect caused by the existence of Byronic matter that cancels wave functions

Amazing explanation, love it so much❤ Thank you

This makes sense to me as a chemical engineer because we define systems by their boundary conditions. Every differential equation starts with some set point at a boundary (ex the interface between a solid and a liquid, the contact points between an electric wire and the insulation, the surface of a car and the atmosphere around it)

@iamt0ast

Жыл бұрын

Even down to the atomic level where the contact point is on the valence ring

@Skynet_the_AI

Жыл бұрын

​@@iamt0astsubatomic

@philip4419

Жыл бұрын

@uPtrade me and jopwarmy together

@SpeakerWiggin49

Жыл бұрын

​@uPtrade did you read? He said he's a chemical engineer.

@carlosdgutierrez6570

Жыл бұрын

​@uPtrade engineers, I'm a metallurgy engineer and what he said is right, boundary conditions are everything and plenty of phenomena, even if it is in principle a change in 3d volume, is explained by changes in the surface of the objects involved. From fractures to mineral separation and mechanical properties like hardness or young modulus and fracture toughness.

I didn't think I was going to be able to understand what you were going to be discussing when you introduced everything that was going be involved in your discussion. Fortunately you explained it so well I know exactly what you were talking about. Thank you for the bagel analogy.

Well explained and illustrated. Thank you!

Gratitude... my Favorite Bagel example drove the analogy home!

Thank you! You did this in just 8 minutes!?! I think this was the first time in my life I could actually understand what existence could be.

@DavideMartiniCommentatore

Жыл бұрын

It took much more than that, and we know it! 😊 It must've been hard to create the script! From research to editing...

@byamboy

Жыл бұрын

This has been an awesome job, but did have to watch it many times lol

@UncompressedWAVmusic

Жыл бұрын

Amazing reply. I love it.

@jimbaker5110

Жыл бұрын

It’s not correct and still doesn’t explain what “existence” actually is.

@stravelakis

Жыл бұрын

@@jimbaker5110 what existance "could be" Reality defined by its limits, the observer's ability to define reality is possibly "at" the limit, or the limit itself... I know I do not deeply understand, but I feel that I can glimpse at the reality of reality

This is how my D&D game works. Everything both exists and doesn't exist until the players interact with it and I am forced to bang out some details for them.

Good one Anton! Thanks for the video!

Nicely explained. Intriguing!

I like the idea of the universe before the Big Bang being a sea of yet-to-collapse quantum objects. With no observation or interaction between them. Then the Big Bang rather than just being an explosion, it became an observer and collapses the wave function of quantum objects increasing the expansion of the universe as it spreads out across the universe. Perhaps this dual effect is responsible for the acceleration of the universe.

@chaseyourtale9647

Жыл бұрын

This is kind of convoluted, no?

@aurelienyonrac

Жыл бұрын

The expansion of the univer is driven by the same process at the process that contracts the univers. They seem opposite but think of a person at the front of your car pulling on your car and think of an other person pushing on the back of your car. You just go forward. Those forces are obviously the same. As you look closer there is no one pulling or pushing. you are going down a slope. Space time is bending. But you look even closer and discover you never moved. You are always here and now. Ever present. Is it not your experience? It might take 10 years for science to admit how it already is. Ego is always late due to denial frustration anger depression and eventually surrender. Actually we can say the big bang is still happening. It is what is happenings. And at closer look. We are still, before the big bang. Only our identification with conditioning dictates what we perceive. Just like it happens to you when you identify with a he people in the screen of a TV. But truly you are just starting at a screen. Virtual particles. It is a great show. Enjoy

@tyemaddog

Жыл бұрын

These "concepts" are just that, concepts. Many that are pretty far out there, while others simply fail.

@kimblecheat

Жыл бұрын

Or it just is the expansion of the universe. I think this is my new favourite scientific paper.

@themoonbubble

Жыл бұрын

An observer huh?

Anton, I'm so glad you exist in the same observation as me. Even if we don't get to figure this all out before we both cease to exist, it's such a delight exploring the possibilities with you.

@eskede4733

Жыл бұрын

Define "cease to exist" It's an assumption. ( But I doubt I will get anywhere with you about that)🙄

@minacapella8319

Жыл бұрын

@@eskede4733 I just meant eventually we will both die, as is the case with everyone. Idk what your problem is.

@eskede4733

Жыл бұрын

@@minacapella8319 Yes, I know. What I meant is that of course the physical body ceases to be but I'm not so sure that's total non-existence. I was impatient and a little rude because some people refuse to make a distinction or their opinions are so bizarre to me. You weren't being that way so much, sorry. 😑🙂

@minacapella8319

Жыл бұрын

@Eskede yeah I'm not claiming to know what actually happens to the "self" upon death, I have ideas and thoughts but I'm definitely no expert. Not that any of us living are, but we'll all find out at some point lol.

@Suiseisexy

Жыл бұрын

@@eskede4733 Your total non-existence from the observational standpoint of other humans really only need consist of reducing the gene frequencies that define you to zero extant instances. You not reproducing can't be shown on TV, nobody can be accused of a war crime, you not reproducing doesn't have the problems of the old weapons, it's a new weapon.

There are two problems with the narrative here. 1. The edge of the observable universe is not a real edge, it's just how far into space we can see from Earth. From other places things can been seen that we can't see and vice versa. 2. All observation requires interaction, like when a photon hits a sensor. The so-called observer effect would be better named the interaction effect. So we're actually talking about the limits of what parts of the universe we can interact with. It makes sense that we can't receive anything at all from within black holes or from outside the detectable part of the universe. Just don't confuse the discussion by using the word observation as if to imply something other than interaction.

Anton you are amazing and your videos are great! Thank you and keep them coming!

This is such a difficult subject yet Anton's clarity made it at least partially approachable . No one could ask for more.

@calgar42k

Жыл бұрын

It s not difficult to understand, someone smoked too much pot and deviced a theory binging on complicated maths, and made a big deal out of something providing no answers and that cant be proven or disproven...Honestly it s no better than saying it s magic or god exists...

@thekingofmojacar5333

Жыл бұрын

That´s absolutely true, it´s complicated and very theoretical!

@shoujahatsumetsu

Жыл бұрын

@@calgar42k Every theory starts with an idea though. Every answer begins with a question.

@calgar42k

Жыл бұрын

@@shoujahatsumetsu So does every BS ! Remember string theory and how it bamboozled a large portion of astrophysicists in a dead end speciality !

I watch most of your videos Anton. But this is getting very interesting, sir. Thank you for being so talented in explaining things so well for us.

@veramae4098

Жыл бұрын

Are we creating the rest of the universe by looking out thru the JWST?

@barquerojuancarlos7253

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's brilliant.

@studleydewrite2942

Жыл бұрын

This had my complete attention,throughout,and my total appreciation now. I don't know how many times I was only capable of thinking,..'wow'. If I were not subscribed,this video,alone,would make me do so. Anton rocks.

@ivornelsson2238

Жыл бұрын

I don´t know how you have Anton to explain everything? I n all of his videos, he constantly state scientific uncertainties, and he always ends his videos with: "I`ll return to the subject when new theories or discoveries are found". IMO his talents mostly goes on parotting standing conventional assumptions and working as the prolonged arm for publishing of new articles by scientists who need the funding going.

@betawan3195

Жыл бұрын

if you find interest in the quantum theory you should check out veda text ,i personally believe its where it all started

Anton, you're so inspirational! Thank you!🌈

The problem is that we always think of a single human observer while observer is everything ,everything interacting with a particle including gravitation, electric fields etc. which is always everywhere.

This all makes perfect sense. So when the sigularity took place, everything was everywhere at the same time and was both the observer and observed. Thus causing the universe to come into existence.

My jaw hit the floor pretty early on in the video. The idea that black hole event horizons can be the "observers" is something I never would have thought of. 😮

@curcumin417

Жыл бұрын

I think we've probably all thought of it in a different way - I mean, imagine the universe as a big black hole, and we're just all inside of it, as forms of quantum coherence. The universe allows reality thru collapse of energy waveforms into matter.

@dhaneshtg8395

Жыл бұрын

I don't know how a non living entity can be an observer..don't make any sense .. in that case any thing can be an observer and in that case what is the point of all this

@shoujahatsumetsu

Жыл бұрын

@@dhaneshtg8395 Observer has always been something of a misnomer, since "observations" are dependent on a particle wave being interacted with. It's this confusion that has led people to the misconception that "if something is observing, that has to be alive", but that's not the case at all. Something just has to interact with the wavefunction to make it collapse.

@eternalstudent7461

Жыл бұрын

I have trouble with the idea of the event horizon observing, or interacting with, a quantum object, which it is just going to immediately consume, therefore no particle is created outside the black hole.. unless the interaction there is causing the anti-particles to come into existence elsewhere wherever the other side of each entanglement resides?... It was easier for me to imagine the edge of the universe as the interactor/observer, since it is not said to destroy or consume particles, and can somehow collapse the wave functions from a great distance. Great thought experiment. Excellent Content!

@iamt0ast

Жыл бұрын

Imagine the event horizon as the first room in the infinite hotel.

Two things that help me think about these metaphysical concepts: remembering reality is causality, and the primary constant of reality is change. From the perspective of any observer (a human consciousness) everything other is either uncertain, irrelevant, or lies in the past. The act of observing itself affects change, because the consciousness interacts with "stuff". The "stuff" we interact with/observe gets converted through the process of an experience. It starts as part of this unobservable blob of stuff that does not change, then experience turns it into part of the observer's past. The past is basically all that exists. The future doesn't exist yet, because it is all in the blob, unobservable and unchanging. The present is simply the plane of the consciousness (or it literally is consciousness), almost like a bridge that stuff passes through as it becomes real.

The problem here is that entanglement information doesn't actually 'travel' through 3 dimensional space. Instead it has something called 'Quantum non-locality', so regardless of being in a black hole, the light and the entangled observer are still perfectly connected because light has higher dimensional properties which do not cause it to be limited to 3d phenomenon. This explains how quantum communication can apparently be 'faster than light' in the Delayed Choice experiment.... the light does not travel through time and space as we know it, but through 4d hyperspace.

That makes a lot of sense. I'd been wondering how anything existed before there were any observers.

@kxkxkxkx

Жыл бұрын

Everything that exists is alive, these most simple objects are monads ☝️

@lookupverazhou8599

Жыл бұрын

​@WisdomTheater 3000 God.

@krishadyn5211

Жыл бұрын

"Observer" is a physics term that does not imply abstract consciousness. Physics has stupid language, partly because it feels like every science needs its own language. They could call a particle with limited capacities "God" and people would assume the word was equivalent to a layman's notion of that word.

I like how "we know Infinity doesn't exit" has to be followed by "except those things... they don't make sense without Infinity" lol

@deleaptealeaf8935

Жыл бұрын

The infinity within black holes imply that the equations of general relativity is incorrect at or near that point. It is not real. The singularity may not exist. Just like how Newtonian gravity is a special case of General Relativity, General Relativity is mostly likely a special case of another broader theory of gravity that gets rid of the singularity at the centers of black holes predicted by the equations of General Relativity.

@arkvoodleofthesacredcrotch6060

Жыл бұрын

@@deleaptealeaf8935 pretty sure you have a deeper understanding than I, but... isn't that basically the joke I was making. I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm genuinely asking lol

@feynmanschwingere_mc2270

Жыл бұрын

@@deleaptealeaf8935 Maybe. Except General Relativity PREDICTS black holes. Which is one of the reasons for it's accepted veracity. Also, can Quantum Mechanics predict black holes? No. It has to be relativistic. I suspect we need to reformulate quantum mechanics (while keeping the math) in such a way that it is a real, internally consistent theory (both conceptually, which it isn't) and mathematically (which it is, thanks Dirac). Remember, much like QM, Ptolemy's epicycles gave us the CORRECT astronomical answers because it was a great mathematical tool, but it was wrong conceptually. ER = EPR (both, incidentally, predicted by Einstein) also suggests any deeper theory would have to supersede BOTH QM and GR in such a way that GR is, like you intimated, a limit/special case of a broader theory of gravity. Any broader theory of gravity sort of needs dark matter/dark energy. MOND tried to dispel it, but it couldn't and neither can any current alternative theory to GR, so that complicates the picture. QM also has several phenomena it cannot explain (both in experimental physics and conceptually). The galaxy rotation curve problem and the accelerating expanding universe problem remain unsolved problems in science at the present time. However, thanks to General Relativity, we know WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law (something that would've shocked Newton, who couldn't explain it), which is one hell of an achievement. Moreover, although QM has amazing predictive power to deconstruct most natural phenomena, it doesn't really EXPLAIN why phenomena are the way they are (well for some things). QM gives us a model that helps explain why my laptop doesn't fall through the table, but it can't tells us, for instance, why the electron has the mass it has. Science, well science prior to the mysticism of Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation, was concerned with WHY things are the way they are. In this context QM can't explain several natural phenomena. QM gives us a mathematical model such that you could say 'whatever is creating this quantum mechanical interaction, it must on average observe this statistical law,' but it lacks coherent explanatory power (which is why you have SEVERAL "interpretations" of QM - Many Worlds, Bohmian Mechanics etc). Quantum Mechanics is simply a series of mathematical equations that approximate the statistical averages resulting from many unknown interactions, but it cannot EXPLAIN: The Emergence of time The Emergence of randomness The Relationship to information The Relationship to looping patterns What matter is What space is It doesn't "explain" several things, it just tells us how to make predictions given extremely powerful statistical tools. People often confuse familiarity with this statistical method with an explanation. In order to explain Quantum Mechanics, we need an interpretation. There are many interpretations which can yield quantum mechanics AND are conceptually coherent - in the sense of being internally consistent - which are more comprehensible and give us explanatory power. The aforementioned Many Worlds theory, T’Hoofts Cellular Automata model, Bohm/DeBroglie Pilot Wave theory, Copenhagen Interpretation etc. I would argue that these theories are attempts to root QM on a more firm foundation that DOES in fact enrich it with explanatory power while accounting for the accurate predictions underlying the statistical results we know as Quantum Mechanics. GR at least gives us an explanation of gravity, it's the geometrized curvature of spacetime: matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move. QM doesn't quite have the same top-down coherence in the traditional way our brains have been conditioned to understand these idea. Dirac believed, towards the end of his life at least, that these two theories of nature would never be fully reconciled. There are some other variables too like computational complexity that isn't account for...Alas, i have written way too much.

@deleaptealeaf8935

Жыл бұрын

@@arkvoodleofthesacredcrotch6060 the point I was trying to make is that the "they don't make sense without infinities" part you mentioned may not even exist. It's just a mathematical construct. It's like a division by zero. In reality, that zero may not be correct. Quantum effects may prevent the value from going down to zero. So, there really may not be any singularity (or a region with infinite density) at the center of a black hole.

@gmork1090

Жыл бұрын

@@deleaptealeaf8935 Singularities don't exist. They may only exist inside of non spinning black holes of which there are none. They are tiny, swirling rings of extremely high but nowhere near infinite energy. Though in 10^110 years or so after hawking radiation finishes melting them away after they're super ultra enormous it may seem like it. A slow seeping 'explosion' of energy and space that tops out after about 800 or so quadrillion light years (100 trillion solar masses worth, give or take, based on how large theorists think the biggest black holes will be, and extrapolating the energy yield based on the Ophiuchus black hole explosion of just under 300 million solar masses) might as well be.

i saw a related documentary on television some time ago about it solving a lot of issues with modern physics like f. e. the necessity of dark matter if you assume the edge of black holes and the edge of the unsiverse alike acting like some kind of spherical 2D representation of the universe itself. they said mathematically it just made so much sense :D

It was nice to see Anton smile again at the end...

Killing is really killing it with his theories

@BierBart12

Жыл бұрын

I liked his older work, Killing Floor

Anton, this was thought-provoking, and your delivery spot on and insightful. I will delight in my spare time, pondering the implications. Thank-you.

In an informational Universe, potential pathways can be tracked in data structures. When the target absorption happens, the other concurrent potential pathways are simply deleted. This works in the forward-only arrow of time. An informational approach like this is the ONLY explanation that does not defy the principles of locality.

That ish cray... very interesting, can't wait to see what else we learn from this

Even though so much stuff is going on I'm so amazed to see the new theories and scientific findings. It makes me feel like things are alright. Like we're still working towards something as a whole instead of fighting all the time. If only the great minds of past could be here today to stand and weigh their thoughts in on all of these things. Or even just to see how much of a hand they truly lend to us all of this time later. If only.

@gryphonschnitzel7140

Жыл бұрын

the greatest minds of humans existance are alive today !

@muushki4875

Жыл бұрын

@@gryphonschnitzel7140 Of course, I just think it'd be amazing to show the people that forged our beginnings in the scientific realm how far we've come. Even if it was just for a second. Just to show them how much they helped. I'm sure most would want to see how they made a difference. Obviously it'd never happen. Although we could always pay homage to our roots.

@gryphonschnitzel7140

Жыл бұрын

@@muushki4875 i absolutely agree, sad and beautiful at the same time, to have such an impact but to be never able to see it

@explicitreverberation9826

Жыл бұрын

​@@muushki4875 I wish. We were mineral farmers at first right ?

The idea of an event horizon at the edge of the universe killed me! Great stuff, Anton!

@subjekt5577

Жыл бұрын

You might like the latest two pbs spacetime videos if so

@DrMackSplackem

Жыл бұрын

Some people may get the idea that the 'edge' is an actual place, as in a cool setting for a Star Trek episode, but here it just means every place beyond your horizon. Our location is anyone else's 'edge' if they're at the right distance (perhaps Webb has imaged their host galaxy's early quasar phase already). There's definitely a horizon as in places so distant they lay outside of any possible influence or detection and thus a singularity, but cosmological red shift is more like a fade out than an edge if you ask me.

@musicproductionbrauns2594

Жыл бұрын

​@@DrMackSplackem yeah you literally move the horizon with you as you move. It's relative to your position. So to say you are always in a bubble of all time. The current at your point and the start of everything at the horizon

@Create-The-Imaginable

Жыл бұрын

@@DrMackSplackem Interesting! So each of us has our own event horizon so to speak? And our own event horizon reflects our own individual reality?

@UsernameXOXO

Жыл бұрын

​@@Create-The-Imaginable yes, and this is exactly what relativity is all about.

Anton you are amazing, i love that we share the same passion, even though you know much more then me

Thanks Anton. Brilliant as ever !

That's kinda like horrifying if true just implication that the universe is it's own observer on the largest scales and on smaller scale black holes are just floating eyes of the universe all over the place

@garman1966

Жыл бұрын

We're talking about the 'observable' universe here, and that means the observable universe to each conscious being is different depending on where in physical space they are. When we as individuals move in any direction the borders of the observable universe also shift. So if the coherent universe is being observed from the outside but can be influenced from the inside by every conscious being, are we not the original observers?

@davegold

Жыл бұрын

It might be a simpler interpretation, such as matter only has context within the universe.

@Jaguarboy11

Жыл бұрын

@@garman1966 ding ding ding. We are the original observers, because separation is an illusion. We are the universe observing itself, a fundamental universal consciousness whereby observing itself imbues awareness into the agent of the objects of consciousness.

Hell of a job explaining….it really brought it all together for me as I’ve dipped in and out of physics, enough to be dangerous and this really made sense and in line with how I understand the nature of reality.

Great video Anton. Same as for the comment session. I'll subscribe.

The Killer Horizon has got to be one of the best names for a phenomena in all of science.

@harpo345

Жыл бұрын

Yes, with a name like Killer, he either had to go into astro-physics or law-enforcement.

@Galahad54

Жыл бұрын

It's Killing.

@PoorMansChemist

Жыл бұрын

@@Galahad54 Killer, Killing, whatever.

@BierBart12

Жыл бұрын

@@harpo345 Becoming an undertaker would've been prophetic

@PoorMansChemist

Жыл бұрын

@@BierBart12 Or a serial killer.

One of the most thought-provoking videos in a while-looking forward to coming back to this video for a rewatch and to read more comments

Mind bending stuff. Very cool.

I think it is elegant that the infinity (the universe or even just the observable universe) and the infinitesimal (the black holes) are like the boundaries of the universe and they set the stage for causality and everything to happen. It makes sense to me that mass could be an "observer", like we are, but the universe itself acting as an "observer" is really interesting. The way I see it is that the system has been active long before humans could even observe and ponder the universe, so it's not like every quantum system collapses when we started observing.

@King_Flippy_Nips

Жыл бұрын

mass cant be an observer or quantum computers would not function, the cpu has to be enclosed and blocked from the outside world while it calculates and the the enclosure opened again to retrieve the results and there is not way we can block them from the effects of mass and gravity yet they still function, light definetly acts as an observer though since if light gets through the cpu will not function.

@moodmeditation4458

8 ай бұрын

That's God the observer all light which our eyes can't even tolerate.

Thanks Anton for some of your ideas. They were thought provoking. Especially the part about the horizon of our own universe being an event horizon, inverted. Its a whole lot to take in. I think that would solve for the singularity, and the arrow passage of time through our universe. We can't look beyond the event horizon yet but the quantum exists in both this universe and apparently across the event horizon of another SMBH for example. 💡

@aurelienyonrac

Жыл бұрын

It's a lot to take in for a thought process. But it is already so. So nothing new happend. You had an idea of the univers and an idea of you. Only they change. You remain the same. Like a singularity, it remains the same while the univers change. (A singularity in not a point in space but space in a point. 😅 it is the bigining and the end of space snd time. From it's point of view it is ever present. Like you don't remember not existing. ❤ love ya.

@CyberiusT

Жыл бұрын

Pretty sure the event horizon thing was Steven Hawking.

@HicSuntDracones66

Жыл бұрын

As Einstein said, "For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein's point is simple, our limited brains create time so that our limited brains can make sense of the world as we see it. There is nothing in the physical laws to imply that time even exists, let alone that it has some sort of arrow, So much for your 'arrow passage of time through our universe'.

@Sanquinity

Жыл бұрын

It's not his ideas. He talks about ideas and articles that were written in the scientific community as a whole.

@liwojenkins

Жыл бұрын

@@CyberiusTNope, he was a leading proponent and came up with Hawking radiation but the actual event horizon was theorized by another: David Finkelstein. Also, Anton shares his opinions and speculations along with the news, so there is a bit of Anton in every presentation.

Highly speculative, but an interesting extension of the current concepts of modern physics. Interesting reference to similarities to some religious beliefs. Thanks Anton!

I love this I've been thinking along these lines recently

great video Anton

“There are things in this universe and reality that we know but nothing and never will” (David Robinson Crusoe 2021)

I read in some paper that material of whatever sort doesn't exhibit the properties inherent to that material until a specific number of fundamental parts of that material are joined together. Prior to that , all behaviour is quantum behaviour , but after that the behaviour is that of the material , which implies that the fundamental quantum parts are interacting with themselves , which implies that they can exist on their own as self observed

@krishadyn5211

Жыл бұрын

A lot of things seem to require a gestalt type existence to operate. I forget the technical term but thats the basic.

@eternalstudent7461

Жыл бұрын

Interacting with themselves, or with each other? Or reacting to interactions occurring with their entangled counterparts?

@edwardmacnab354

Жыл бұрын

@@eternalstudent7461 with each other i suspect . The real point was that their overall behaviour or group behaviour did not become like that of the material they were classified as until a certain number of them were present as a group. I don't think OUR observation has much to do with it

LOL 😅5:55 I am genuinely relieved that it's not killing anybody.

"collapse of quantum waves into specific patterns of manifestation is based upon communication & information contained therein. Not based upon e.m. observation as mistakenly theorised: but upon specific patterns of quantum perturbations on the spacetime superstructure between two points; traditionally known as the observer & the observed. Blackholes generate specific quantum perturbations on the spacetime superstructure: the specificities of which is entirely dependent upon the information contained within the blackhole. All you need do is devise a method to measure & categorised quantum perturbations in the spacetime superstructure & you will know the entire information contained within a blackhole. You already have the technology you just need to apply it!" ANOM!!!

Anton, thank you what an amazing video. Can you help me understand one thing? If black holes and the edge of the observable universe acted as observers, then wouldn't everything always be a particle? In the conventional Double Slit experiment by the time we shoot a photon it would already be particle because the universe is observing it. Why instead does it still act as a wave? Again thank you for all the amazing content.

@renocicchi7346

Жыл бұрын

Remember what the subject was about. This idea was to solve the paradox that decoherence must occur at the event horizon. So to solve this, event horizon’s are considered the observers that collapse the wave function. So as long as there are particles and waves that are not interacting with these event horizon’s or other observers, they are not being observed. So I think his idea at the end is that everything was able to exist due to these event horizon’s observing the universe around it, including us, thus allowed the existence of other observers and interactions. I think

@fuzzyspackage

Жыл бұрын

@@renocicchi7346 so they are not always "seeing everything"? blink and you'll miss it.😅

@harpo345

Жыл бұрын

@@renocicchi7346 So in the end we're just back to the mundane idea that particles collapse into reality when they interact with the rest of the universe?

@Galahad54

Жыл бұрын

@@harpo345 If every quantum has a connection with evry other quantum, by virtue of having photons/neutrinos, etc. to make the connection - this includes photons that don't exist for some observers - then the universe must be terribly constrained, so that instead of 10^240 different states, one might have only 10^160 or 10^120 states. Of course, we won't know about most (100% - 10^-80) of the connections, because of fun facts about photons (a photon, from the POV of that photon, does not exist, and the distance from its start to finish is zero - example: a photon from the Sun, arriving at my eyeball, travels the distance in 0.000 seconds, thus the distance eyeball to Sun - is zero, and then my head hurts). The point is that there exist indefinitely many (infinite) observers, and the statistics of infinity are not always intuitive.

@renocicchi7346

Жыл бұрын

@@harpo345 sadly yes, but I got some super cool sci-fi ideas from this video. But basically as the other person was saying, photons going through a vacuum not interacting with anything will experience a null geodesic, which means if you are a photon, you do not experience time until you interact with something, and other observers cannot know it’s position, but can know it’s speed. And that is reversed when it is observed due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Kind of the same thing with Particles, they behave as waves when not being directly observed, as my understanding with the double slit experiment is that the wave function collapses due to the instruments doing the detecting, effect the electrons going through the slits collapsing the probabilistic superposition of states to a classical definite state. In the act of a black hole taking information from a particle, it results in the loss of coherence between superpositions of that particle So in reality, the idea of this hypothesis of black holes being observers is kind of unsurprising and kind of just makes sense, as an observer in science isn’t that special and doesn’t require a consciousness. How it worked exactly is a mystery though. At least that my understanding of what is going on, but maybe I’m not understanding something.

I've always thought of it like this. If the Universe doesn't know then it can't tell you. It can only work in probabilities. As soon as the Universe 'knows' it will collapse the field and tell you.

The problem with the Killing horizon is that it's relative to the position. We are at the Killing horizon for particles near our Killing horizon. There is actually an answer to this question that I like. It's part of the discrete time location principle. (DTL)

Very very cool. Yes elaborate more!

This is John Wheeler’s “ participatory universe” concept in some ways. Amanda Gestner’s absolutely amazing book “ Tresspassing on Einstein’s’s lawn” also comes to very similar ideas.

Great vids always informative 👍

One can say that physics is "lazily evaluated", the state of a quantum particle is undetermined until the moment it needs to be determined. To me this implies that there is an analytical solution to the state, but when observed frequently it decays into 'numerical' solution. And the fact that we can discern and measure the difference between those scenarios (and that there is any difference whatsoever) is astonishing.

That just blew me away Anton lol

As a child, I felt that reality behind me, around the next street corner etc. wasn't actually there. It was only build when I looked at it. It was kinda creepy and when I read about the concept of observering properties in quantum mechanics I was creeped out even more. Anyone else had such thoughts?

@yesyesyesyes1600

Жыл бұрын

Yes - cogito ergo estis. I think therefore you are. Do I cease to think you all die. It makes sense somehow from a certain point of view, but not a narcisstic one 🤗

@markop.1994

Жыл бұрын

Well, its pretty typical for kids. Its why babies are suprised by "peek-a-boo".

@user-vs1cm8nv5i

Жыл бұрын

God observes it !

@illicitlitmisfittt3273

Жыл бұрын

Well yes, I don’t know a stranger is alive till I’ve seen him lol

@jakobdyck3403

Жыл бұрын

I don’t remember ever having that notion as a child but something about the idea seems creepily familiar ..... perhaps it is the natural state of things.

This almost implies that if we could see the entire universe, then nothing would exist, including not only beyond the Killing Horizen like mentioned in the video, but the inside of black holes as well.

@ehssandariani8041

Жыл бұрын

Can you explain, please?

@WILLed_into_Existence

Жыл бұрын

It's impossible to experience infinity, as it's infinite. So we instead experience infinite universes for eternity. But you are also basically correct, nothing exists. This is a dream.

@augu_3st613

Жыл бұрын

​@Will Martin id argue you are infinite, and I also agree as counterintuitive as it is I believe nothing exists but that in itself is truly infinte.

@WILLed_into_Existence

Жыл бұрын

@@augu_3st613 when I spend too long thinking about infinity I feel like I can knock on the door of insanity. Like staring into an infinite black abyss of infinite nothing.

@LongFacedBastard

Жыл бұрын

Don't worry too much about it making sense it's just science fan fiction not even falsifiable.

Anton, I can see the spark missing in your eyes and it breaks my heart. Please, keep trying. When you're ready, try again to have children. You will be a good father; and your wife, you, and your future children deserve that future. Much love, brother.

I'm thinking of making a bumper sticker that reads "Collapse your wave function!" for drivers who aren't paying attention.

So happy that my conceptual image of the observable universe is being used in videos as inspiring and thought-provoking as this one! Maybe the graphic is useful in showing the concept of this particular paper because it looks like a pupil? Thanks, Anton, and thanks to the Universe, which perhaps creates us while observing us!?!?

@j3ffn4v4rr0

Жыл бұрын

That is one of my all-time favorite science images!!

@raphaelvowles

Жыл бұрын

@@j3ffn4v4rr0 Me too. Where can i get that image at 5:29

@phredziphell8242

Жыл бұрын

Yes please let me know I would love to purchase this print!

@_WeDontKnow_

Жыл бұрын

conceptual?! 😔i thought you took a photo

@j3ffn4v4rr0

Жыл бұрын

@@_WeDontKnow_ Yeah, he had to stand wayyyyyy back to take that shot!

The observer effect makes me think that we really are living in some sort of simulation of sorts, and the creators don't want us to be able to see what everything is really doing at the smallest scales.

@Marixchatt

Жыл бұрын

I’m not into psychics or anything but I like your interpretation. To me it just sounds like the universe is another black hole lol

@undeadarmy19

Жыл бұрын

@@Marixchatt Ive thought about it quite a bit. I often think about Tardigrades and how they live in their own "universe" of sorts, completely unaware of our existence at all. What if we are like the tardigrades, or something similar, to some other beings? What if there are 4th dimensional beings that we cant even see? The 4th dimension is a spooky concept. The best way to describe it is to look at 2 dimensions from our 3 dimensions. If we draw a man on a sheet of paper and a box with something inside of it, the man can only see a solid line of the box, but we can see the entire man, the whole box, and even whats INSIDE the box, all at ONE time. Thats what a 4d being could do to us. They can see us, see inside us, see inside any container, etc, all at one time. This brings into question the idea of "god", and how its often stated that he can be everywhere and see everything, well, that mostly describes a 4d being.

@dawgsout4free

Жыл бұрын

@@undeadarmy19 truee if you’re living in a 2d let’s say a paper and there’s a hole on the paper youd only see a line or a curved line and in 3d, holes would be spheres. So id always thought you would just fall in different dimension if you go through a black hole

@jamesjenkins3384

Жыл бұрын

I think we need computer programmers to devise an experiment to overload the computer generating the simulation. I have read the speed of light is what it is because the computer generating reality can only calculate up to that speed. The chair I am sitting in is actually mostly empty space.

@CompassIIDX

Жыл бұрын

@@undeadarmy19 You should read Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy if you haven't already. Liu writes some wonderfully descriptive and mind-expanding scenarios involving higher dimensions.

super interesting. thank you

The "middle" being *now* , right? I love this diagram and it really makes me want to see an Onion Universe Cosmology (using the Higgs destabilization event as the boundary of the onion). I did something kind of cool once. If you calculate the energy to accelerate a particle from the Killing limit to "now," it takes exactly the same energy as equal to the mass of the particle times c^2. That was derived starting with the Hubble constant, deriving equations for motion, force, and energy, and plugging in the distance to the Killing limit (and 0 for "now"). Professors were not as impressed, saying this is just conservation of energy. It was interesting though.

@Galahad54

Жыл бұрын

I'm impressed.

@danfg7215

Жыл бұрын

I'd ask for the math for it, but I wouldn't understand it, so I'll just settle with being impressed for now.

@Baleur

Жыл бұрын

Despite the bad rep for being woo-woo, i'd highly recommend you check out a Nassim Haramein lecture where he calculates the maximum planc contents of an electron. Spoiler, it turns out it fits just as much information as exists in the entire universe.

@larion2336

Жыл бұрын

@@Baleur How can you figure out how much information exists in the universe when we don't know how big the universe actually is?

@peppermintgal4302

Жыл бұрын

​​@@Baleur This doesnt make sense to me... wouldnt each additional bit of information inside an electron necessarily increase the info content of the universe? And ergo, the only way a singular electron can have information within it equal to the sum total of the info of the entire universe would be if there was only one electron... and not a single other informarion bearing thing in the universe? It sounds to me like maybe this guy gets flak for more reasons than that...? Edit: okay, sorry, I see that you said "maximum." Not sure how I missed that. Glancing at his channel though... I'm not convinced he's the guy to do those calculations. (Especially considering that the sum total information content of the universe is an unknown, and probably will never be known because the shape and ergo information content of the universe outside the Killing Horizon is unknowable.) This is beyond woo, its a sacred geometry grift. These people don't really know... geometry, really. I would recommend more "worldly" scholars. Besides, an electron is smaller than a universe, viewing it from the perspectice of Shannon Information Theory... this idea of his just doesnt pass the smell test. Don't let people woo you with fancy rhetoric and arguments by analogy.

The problem with this is that you and me see both the "same" sesame bagel, or at least it's pretty similar to both of us once we can reach a consensus about it, which would be very unlikely if it was just some "random" collapse depending on some kind of local setting. Reality is very consistent unlike quantum probabilities, so there is just something more to it.

@lookupverazhou8599

Жыл бұрын

Using probabilities to dissect the universe is the same as saying, "I don't know what the fk is going on."

@dont-want-no-wrench

Жыл бұрын

there is a bagel inside this bag, you dont know what kind it is, it collapses into a sesame when you open the bag and look, or blueberry, or what's that funny one that's always on the menu board but you never get?

One thing that has always seemed peculiar to me is the notion that an observer causes a quantum state to change. It seems more likely that simply interacting with particles in a way that allows us to observe them is enough to collapse the quantum state. Therefore, we're pretty much stuck to observing the effects indirectly or the aftermath of those affects. Perhaps Quantum States and their mechanics are the default of reality, but particles increasingly interacting with each other creates the emergent property that we refer to as "classical mechanics". it would explain why the more radical quantum properties effectively get cancelled out. My intuitive guess on the matter is that classical mechanics is the 'equilibrium' that forms when particles normally under quantum effects are forced to interact with each other over prolonged periods of time, such that their contradictory properties in effect get cancelled out - the quantum effects, whilst the properties that don't contradict each other is what ultimately remains.

this is so mindblowing!!

fits beautifully with non-dual philosophy about the nature of reality - I would deem blackholes as where places where (opposing) vectors collapse and get pulled apart - Also that all things mass carry that spark or emptiness that makes quantum stuffs and later matter want to clump in an organized way (life)

Feels like this hypothesis might give more meaning to the Holographic principle. Very fascinating

@mpjstuff

Жыл бұрын

@@rsh4599 from a certain perspective all these things are true. In fact, the more I've come to terms with certain aspects of physics and evolution, the more I realize that it's our limitation on our minds and relationship with dimensions and time that means we can't see it as just one thing to actually understand it. Any more than someone in a flat universe can understand a 3 dimensional Universe -- but there are ways to "try and describe it" in terms the flat world can understand. It's just that you have to describe a sphere as a circle that gets bigger and smaller over time. And if you mapped it's surface, then you are drawing lines that form complex patterns in your own flat world. You can't comprehend it as just a circle that changes size, or as a projected map --- but you can get CLOSER to understanding it, if you find more ways to describe it -- and all of those ways can be correct. So if life is a simulation, what is a simulation? Do we wake up to some greater reality? Well, then, would we not be greater beings in that reality? If I imagine a cell in my body -- it's part of me. I need it. However, it might be oblivious to my existence, and fear dying. And for that cell - it will be dying. It won't wake up as me -- it's fulfilling a function and then another cell might take its place. The continuity of all these synergistic organisms, that I collectively think of me, but from another perspective, are a collective organism. There are more bacteria in your body than cells if you count them -- and most of those bacteria over time have a sort of function in our gut, like the mitochondria in our cells. The Cosmos that the Universe is a part of, has always existed -- because it exists. So therefore, there are beings before us that lived and died and some evolved to be greater than we can imagine. And then what? Do they put on the equivalent of a VR helmet, and split their consciousness into a billion lesser beings so they can "experience" something when there is no limit or challenge? Does each cell in our body have a soul? Or can it be content that it will go on, because we go on -- relative to it, a million more lifetimes? This Universe is a construct at each point that seems to be in sync - at a distance, they can appear to violate relativity. And we only have distance, because of that de-synchronization of quantum fields that presents as relativity. Also I think that the Schrödinger's cat and the "observer" phenomenon are SORT of true, but mostly not useful to understanding how the Universe works. Observation doesn't collapse entanglement -- When we "interact" with particles, the exchange of relativity puts us momentarily in sync where it can be defined in a position or speed -- but, it's not 4 dimensional so pick whether you want sesame seeds or onion covering on your bagel. The universe isn't particles and forces, it's dimensions and time is a construct of relativity to synchronize with those other positions that only exist because they are entangled. And, the idea that quarks exist as a myriad of different particles isn't that useful -- they become a sesame seed or onion or plain, depending on whatever aspect synchronizes them to the forces involved. Every time I explain this, it seems I'm probably making people more confused than I started. Anyway; don't worry if life is real or a simulation -- for you, it's your life and as 'far as you know' is really all that can be important to you.

@gmork1090

Жыл бұрын

Only if it's testable. Which it likely never will be.

anton thank you so much.

My only issue with this theory is it seems to contradict the 2 slit experiment. We can, indirectly, verify particles in a non-collapsed state. A small enough cluster of particles will act as a waveform... unless we measure it. If the edge of the observable universe were collapsing particles within it, then we should not be able to observe even a single particle as a wave. If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. * Historically this experiment was done with photons, and then electrons, but if I'm not mistaken we have actually been able to do the 2 slit experiment with full atoms, and even very tiny molecules. Correct me if I'm wrong.

@erichandbury6321

3 ай бұрын

Buckyballs.

This is a fascinating potential answer to the ancient question, "why do we exist?" It's a profound proposal, even if hard to test at the moment. It is very hard not to tie metaphysics and personal philosophies into it.

@JesseP.Watson

Жыл бұрын

I have to admit, these days I find myself wondering why I get the impression that resistance to such considerations is no longer scientific and is actually a matter of materialist dogma i.e. "Yes it is all starting to seem just teensy-weensy bit improbable but for God's sake don't go thinking that could indicate anything is not entirely mundane and purely accidental! ...Even if it being accidental is looking increasingly absurd!" Which is not to say... well... There's something forced to my eye in the off-the-cuff dismissal of these considerations in light of what we know today.

@LongFacedBastard

Жыл бұрын

Please explain what is scientific about this ridiculous paper

@gmork1090

Жыл бұрын

It's not hard to test. It's impossible to test. Like what happened at the exact moment of the big bang. We will never be able to get past the hypothesis/thought experiment stage.

@Galahad54

Жыл бұрын

@@gmork1090 Incorrect. The Cardiff Team (includes Kip Thorne, 2017 Nobel winner) has a design for black hole collision detector that suggests that in the 2030-2050 time frame, we will be able to test the theory. The thing I didn't like about Gravitation (Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, 1973), was that it asserted the most significant feature of the microwave universe would be its uniformity. I maintained and maintain that it's the anisotropy that's more significant. The latest analysis shows 3-6 major clumpings, which are clearly statistically significant, and show that even the supermassive black holes we've found so far may not be the most massive. They gravity team expects to map to 10^-10 to 1-^-11 seconds after the Big Bang. Kip Thorne expects the unexpected, in which he will not be diappointed. Thorne is 82, so he may see some preliminary results. JWST is giving great details for thousands of stars, planets, and galaxies. The gravity interferometer won't go all the way back to the inflationary period, but it should confirm (or refute) general relativity on a universal scale. Maybe even get yet a third estimate of the age of the Universe.

@JesseP.Watson

Жыл бұрын

@@gmork1090 I was discussing that issue recently in an atheistic versus religious context and I came to think that the problem boils down to a question of eternity. Either we accept an explosion of absolutely everything out of absolute nothingness, at some point, which is an absurd hypothesis, or we accept eternity - that there has always been something of the universe in existence, 'breathing' in and out perhaps but forever existent, without beginning, which is equally absurd. ...We could of course subvert the issue by imagining some other place or thing whence things came... but the same problem remains with that. ...And I can't see how we can possibly resolve that in a way which upholds the current materialist paradigm as it providing an explanation for eternal existence contradicts the fundamental premise of the scientific method since it is founded upon deciphering cause and effect... which is entirely at odds with the concept of eternity. Likewise a beginning of existence requires an effect with no cause to get from absolute nothingness to something so we've got precisely the same issue once again. ...So I am a deeply confused man who finds himself wondering how on earth the currently consensus of materialism can possibly claim to answer anything...?

This would potentially explain a lot. When you consider the ideas of depth-of-field, resolution, and possibly even the math of reality resembling that of a hologram, this might actually kill all birds with a single stone. It's rather interesting that, if correct, this fulfills the observer effect. I can think of some deeper possible connections, but I don't want to invest too much energy on this until some stronger evidence to support it is discovered.

Please diverse deep/ further into this topic Anton. Or give some links or tips for further reading

A quick question-- When the wave form "collapses," and a quantum object assumes a single configuration, does it do that exact same thing for all possible observers? Say, for example, I'm looking at an electron, and unbeknownst to me a different observer is looking at that same electron at that exact same time. Do we always see the electron in the same state (same spin, same velocity, same location, etc.)? Just curious.

@northerncricket5199

Жыл бұрын

The same object can't be two different things at once, so the phrase collapse refers to the object as identified in the specific reference point moment. If the object is being measured at the exact same instant the two seperate observations could be seen as the same observation. Reality should line up for everybody, only the perspective is changing

@northerncricket5199

Жыл бұрын

Unobserved an object can be in a number of potential states, the collapse is the point in time which observation and the object in question interact. Without the interaction it's impossible to know what the state is, hence it being "every state at once"

@northerncricket5199

Жыл бұрын

So mathematically you have to treat the object of interest as if it's in every potential state until the point of observation

@marcosvega2640

Жыл бұрын

@@northerncricket5199 correct. And quantum computing analyzes the probability of of each one, and performs self correcting calculations to predict the outcome. It doesn’t this at ridiculously high speeds and levels. Kinda like your brain keeps your body regulated without you consciously telling every organ to perform it’s functions

@captsorghum

Жыл бұрын

@@marcosvega2640 If the observer is some distance away, say 10 light minutes, does the collapse happen 10 minutes before the observer looks into the eyepiece, or while the light is in transit?

This is one of the most interesting largely conceptual theories I’ve heard in many years. Pure conceptual thinking seems rare nowadays, but this kind of big thinking generates lots of good results down the line

@gmork1090

Жыл бұрын

Pure conceptual thinking is everywhere. M/string theory. Fermi paradox. Heat death. Alternate realities. Time travel in black holes. God. And more. All hypothesis and no theory that can ever be proved or disproved whatsoever. However throw enough sci fi questions around and eventually yeah, some will gain enough momentum and effort invested to make them reality.

@OilersFlash

Жыл бұрын

@@gmork1090 fair. I think most interesting ones are pretty old nowadays. The good ones often evolve towards something serious. This one to me sounded like a really good one that could provide scaffolding for some good theoretical work, because it generates lots of good manageable questions that people can look at further and try to get some mathematical explanation. I don’t know enough to make much sense and as I said this one was just interesting to me and I’ve no serious background that would make my opinion valuable in even the most casual conversation. I’m just at most an interested party.

Has the Universe always been expanding faster than the speed of light? If not, when did this universal decoherence take place? And what would things have been like before that?

@StanleyKubick1

Жыл бұрын

according to the math, the rate of expansion is cumulative. so no?

@deleaptealeaf8935

Жыл бұрын

The universe has always been expanding faster than light. During the inflationary period - 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds, the universe expanded from around 450000 planck lengths to around the size of a grain of sand. That's an order of magnitude faster than the speed of light. By around 300000 years, the visible universe had expanded to around 86 million light years.