Stop performing these double slit experiments. We’re running out of space to store these universes.

@zacharyschafer9493

2 жыл бұрын

Step 1: Set up a quantum experiment station (ie measuring the spin of a quark, double slit experiment, etc) Step 2: Predefine the results to a certain action that you will do (ie if the quark spins up then you will buy a random person a coffee, if the quark spins down then you will call your mother) Step 3: Do this several times a day to create as many alternate timelines as possible Step 4: Profit

@whocares2214

2 жыл бұрын

@@zacharyschafer9493 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@whocares2214

2 жыл бұрын

We must protect the sacred timeline

@shaunhumphreys6714

2 жыл бұрын

they exist in a hilbert space which is a domain of n dimensions-that is infinite dimensions, but still in our very same physical space. the worlds can be thought of as being out of phase with ours.

@the.brokenhand

2 жыл бұрын

just look inside the black hole from that episode about black holes

Damn, I ended up in the universe where this doesn’t make any sense

@aldenconsolver3428

2 жыл бұрын

Take 5 steps back, step up step down put your right foot out, put your right foot in. Grab your brain and shake it all about - you're doing the modern physics.

@user-gd5tr7gw7s

2 жыл бұрын

You wouldn't end up in one universe in this sense. You would end up in a path or branch of universes. (If you define universe as everything included in your reality.)

@htopherollem649

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-gd5tr7gw7s luckily I only have a borderline attachment to reality! lol!

@StackBounty

2 жыл бұрын

Find solace in the fact out there in the multiverse, they're be a version of you who actually discovers and explains this instead of not get it.

@blakeb9964

2 жыл бұрын

Lolol same

"At the risk of getting technical..." that's a big point of this channel! Don't hold back! :)

@Yora21

2 жыл бұрын

That rocket has launched, suffered catastrophic malfunction, and passed the event horizon of a black hole years ago.

@trevorrichard4710

2 жыл бұрын

It’s mindblowing

@tinman652

2 жыл бұрын

@@Yora21 lmao, i like it :)

@TheSacrafanianEmpire

2 жыл бұрын

well there's a certain portion of "marketing" that is being done, because he promises the thing to be explained in more detail in the future. if it's enough detail to cover a 10 min vid, it's more revenue, and better productions

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

I have a nephew called Matthew Anderson but, as you can see, he has an extra 't' in his name. Perhaps I've made contact with another branch of the multi world.

How much of the viewership of this channel have absolutely no idea what he's talking about every time, but just listen anyway? Just curious.

@MeesterG

2 жыл бұрын

I try, but a lot of the stuff is too much for me.

@Ryan-lk4pu

2 жыл бұрын

Even as someone with a good education and enormous passion for physics, this channel makes me feel like a neanderthal. I take solace that, individually, I understand the words... Mostly...

@paddaboi_

2 жыл бұрын

Probably most of us don't understand and that's ok

@TheSwissGabber

2 жыл бұрын

I kind of keep loosing and regaining traktion.

@billa38000

2 жыл бұрын

I have a master in quantum physics, and I can understand most of the things he is saying by I need to focus. I think, anyone without several years of studying quantum physics cannot unferstand, but only grasp a vague idea.

“Ahh yes, quantum” I nod at the screen like I actually understand any of this while stuffing Doritos into my mouth.

@mmmk6322

2 жыл бұрын

Nobody does understand this. And if they claim they do, they subscribe to the "shut up and calculate" interpretation.

@BronzeDragon133

2 жыл бұрын

"Like, quantum, dude." Milano cookies. Same.

@painlesszm1421

2 жыл бұрын

...ah! I was thinking the same but sipping tea! ☕

@TheIceGryphon

2 жыл бұрын

“Do you just put the word "quantum" in front of everything?” -Scott Lane.

@CJMattias

2 жыл бұрын

Nobody on this planet truly understand quantum physics

Speaking of "splitting quantum spacetime", there is an interesting consequence of this: We know there is no general way to say which two points are "the same event" in two different spacetime manifolds, and since this measurement would cause you to do something differently, that means the spacetime would warp differently in the two different branches as well. Which means the spacetime manifolds would have to be in superposition as well as decohered, and you can't really match up where you are in this branch with a location in the other precisely.

I love that many topics like the double slit experiment are briefly explained again, to build refreshers for non-physicists like me. This helps me still get the most out of the video- thank you for the great content

I love that this channel covers alternate quantum interpretations with more technical vigour than the average KZread science video

definitely looking forward to the video on how we could communicate with the other worlds, that sounds interesting.

@BertGrink

2 жыл бұрын

We´ll probably need something like an Ansible for that.

@taichiwinchester1102

2 жыл бұрын

Hopefully we'll be in a world where he posts that video. In some other worlds the video would never be posted.

@nahCmeR

2 жыл бұрын

Just give them internet access or just call them...

@scoper7897

2 жыл бұрын

@@nahCmeR how to

@The_Canonical_Ensemble

2 жыл бұрын

Probably has something to do with making a "phone" whose entropy doesnt increase idk though

I actually thought the whole universe splits at every wiggle. Recombination makes this far more confusing and even more interesting. It also makes me wonder if there could be something like a partial, local, or pocket-like split, where a split is still attached to or recombines with its origin.

@hitbox7422

2 жыл бұрын

Im having a hard time grasping how out-of-phase wavefunctions could recombine, isn't a quantum-state also bound to the fact that it is/isn't collapsed? Therefore it could not get into an intangeled state anymore and would be out of phase forever, no matter if the remaining wavefunction is identical.

@NJKoopmeiners

Жыл бұрын

Could probably be an explanation for the Mandela effect and other weird, well documented “supernatural” phenomena.

This hits different after that Loki ending

@CainLatrani

2 жыл бұрын

Don't it, though?

@ai97nord94

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@tabansteintv

2 жыл бұрын

Beat me to it!

@tomkop213

2 жыл бұрын

just saw it. Mindblown.

@Lightning_Lance

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if they did this episode after the finale on purpose, or if it's just coincedense.

Wow, that was a great explanation! A pond analogy somehow feels much better to me than a branching tree. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the many worlds interpretation, but I think after watching this video I understand it better (obviously on my very shallow, amateur level). Thank you!

the ripples on the pond have no affect on each other was a very useful analogy for me to properly understand this.

Please, more about the recombining of wave functions?

@renejean2523

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, the times I've said that.

@DrVictorVasconcelos

2 жыл бұрын

Have you watched the videos on decoherence? You're looking for "how decoherence splits the quantum multiverse", "how do quantum states manifest in the classical world", and I think "how the quantum eraser rewrites the past" could be relevant too.

@DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrVictorVasconcelos Thanks for those pointers! It's tough to keep up with the backgrounders and followups on this channel when you only discovered it recently, and don't have time to rewatch everything from the beginning.

I think PBS Spacetime may be my favorite educational media on youtube, for both being informative and in depth but also often tackling topics just on the horizon of my current understanding. Not something I've seen before, but not something I don't already have the foundation to understand. Really often I'll be wondering about something and there'll be a spacetime video about it within a month or two.

I love how I paused the video to write a comment about how it is now always possible to recover initial waveforms, and then right after I unpause the video Matt explains how it is not always possible to recover initial waveforms in non-linear systems. I love this channel! :D

@slevinchannel7589

2 жыл бұрын

I love recommending scientific Recommendations. Want some?

Great video. PBS Space Time, Isaac Arthur, John Godier, and The Exoplanets Channel are definitely my favourite channels!!

@guyjackson4165

2 жыл бұрын

Hossenfelder trumps all! Kudos, though, for mentioning the implausibly named Isaac Arthur.

@helicocktor

2 жыл бұрын

Anton too. Don't forget Anton. Man's got entire scientific journals uploaded directly to his brain haha.

@lasgio_

2 жыл бұрын

@@helicocktor I have a feeling we're all subscribed to the same channels

@jackrabbitism

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. They are all excellent channels. Check out ScienceClic English. It is truly fabulous.

@helicocktor

2 жыл бұрын

@@lasgio_ haha yeah. It's scary how effective youtube's algorithm is.

"At the risk of getting too technical," -Dr. Matt O'Dowd, summarizing PBS Space Time (edit: to clarify i still love pbs space time in all its technical jargony goodness)

@TheSwordofra

2 жыл бұрын

You should see the math for this....

@alwaysdisputin9930

2 жыл бұрын

@dafuqawew Correct. I wish PBS would copy eg DrBecky or DrPhysicsA so we had the epic topics + clear explanation

"the entire world doesn't split with every atomic wiggle", only due to interactions. Q: does wiggle refer to virtual particles popping in and out of existence? What is the shortest distance (volume) that could include an interaction?

@PetraKann

2 жыл бұрын

Apparent quasi Planck Volume based upon a value of the linear Planck length

@davidhand9721

2 жыл бұрын

No. Virtual particles are a math trick. They don't "pop" into existence because they aren't real. That's what "virtual" means, not real. This is especially true in many worlds, in which the wave function and field values are always continuous over time and space. The term "splitting" is really deceptive; it's better described as partitioning. There are no "new" worlds being generated starting at an event of some kind. The wave function is partitioned when there is no phase coherence between superpositions. All of the "worlds" live in the same wave function.

@litafbobpompeani7711

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah this video just showed PBS spacetime producers do not truly understand the Everett interpretation or at least the version most everettians accept. "The entire world doesn't split with every atomic wiggle, only due to interactions." This is wrong for multiple reasons. 1) The "world" (or a much more suitable word "timeline") that we experience is not the entire universe and interactions within the individual branches mean nothing for the actual entire universe. Everett interpretation holds that there is only ONE universe and that our timeline is just an infinitesimally small slice of it. What the universe actually is, is one giant wavefunction where every single actually possible state is contained (one colossal schrodinger's cat), so we aren't seeing the entire universe nor do interactions within our branch change anything. The universal wave function progresses deterministically in accordance to the Schrodinger equation no matter what so yes, every single moment every possible path for every particle to take is already contained within the progression of the universal wave function. "Interactions" or "observations" in themselves are meaningless as the universal wave function progresses the same regardless of the events which happen in the branches themselves. 2A) True everettians know there is no actual "splitting," and a "split/branching" of timelines is only talking about an illusion on our end. So though to our slice of timeline perspectives the progression of the universal wave function would seem like "splitting" that is not what is actually happening. But every possible future outcome is already contained within the universal wave function so yes, for every moment in our timeline there are an infinite number of futures (in our perspective) that will stem from that moment but that is because of the progression of the universal wave function, not interactions within individual timelines that are somehow believed to cause splitting. To the universal wave function there is only 1 future outcome, which is why many timelines is a deterministic interpretation yet indeterminate at our level. 2B) This may be controversial because it is easy to take out of context but the Many Timelines interpretation implies that "interactions which split the worlds (except not really)" are more due to information distinguishing us from otherwise identical other timeline versions of ourselves. The double slit experiment is one of the few times this becomes noticeable. Consider for example the delayed choice modification of the double slit experiment. They have the same double slit set up but this time they have crystals to split the photon into an entangled pair in which one member of the pair goes to the back wall and the other to one of the detectors A (if it came from slit a), B (if it came from slit b) or sometimes a "which path information eraser' which could come from either slit detector C. All the detectors are placed AFTER the backwall so the member of the pair going to the back wall will hit it first and the member going to one of the detectors after. But even when the detector is in such a place such that it would come after the member of the entangled pair that hit the backwall the interference pattern is gone if whichpath info is received either through the other pair which detector a or b. But the interference pattern is still up if it is detector c which could've came from either of the slits. Other interpretations other than Everett/manytimelines have to assert that some retrocausal mechanism is happening here...where somehow because the photon was detected the which path information was retroactively sent backwards in time and caused wave function collapse, a mechanism which is not actually possible or in accordance to any understanding of physics we have. In fact if such retrocausality were possible we'd never expect to see interference at all regardless, since there would be no reason for other outcomes or possibilities to ever exist and interfere if there was only 1 outcome that happens and thus only one that would be able to retroactively send information back in time. This is why the transactional interpretation is ruled out as well as any wave function collapse interpretation. The mechanism for seeing interference or having wave functions at all in the first place becomes impossible if retrocausality is actually at work. The more likely notion about what is happening with the double slit experiment is that the information from the detectors made us and the rest of the outside environment distinguishable from other sets of versions of ourselves that had other photon paths taken with other detectors hit. The mere fact detector a or b was hit would be information that made us and the rest of the environment outside of the system significantly different from other timeline versions of events as opposed to if there was no detection where none of it would matter. Without detection none of that information about the system of the experiment matters to us, multiple outcomes can be true and it doesn't matter, so we see interference because it as if multiple possibilities were happening at the same time without those possibilities mattering to us. But Many Timelines is the only logical way to explain the double slit experiment and it's delayed choice erasure modification. But TL;DR is the Everett interpretation is incorrectly represented in this video and there is no actual splitting.

@TheRABIDdude

2 жыл бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 Err. Okay so your name is "Hyperduality". Do you perchance go around KZread comment sections always posting similar lists of examples of duality? I'm not sure what amazing realisation about the root of reality you think you've struck upon here, but I'd assert that maybe the reason duality crops up a lot is because "a = b" is attractive to people because they find it catchy and elegant and easy to understand. So theories which have a simple "a = b" sound bite to them tend to be remembered more by the masses.

@davidhand9721

2 жыл бұрын

@@litafbobpompeani7711 boom. Better than my explanation. 10/10

I just hope my other variants understand this episode better.

@METALSCAVENGER78

2 жыл бұрын

And all the other versions of this episode

This stuff normally breaks my brain, but you explain it so well! I liked the ripples analogy a lot.

@goldenbananas1389

2 жыл бұрын

ripples on the pond is useful for understanding why the many worlds dont interact with each other.

@zanychelly

2 жыл бұрын

In another universe, or world, you still do t know that…

@nelsonfernandez8970

2 жыл бұрын

Your brain actually broke up into countless decohered versions of itself

@Ryan-lk4pu

2 жыл бұрын

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you do not understand quantum mechanics...

In my other position wave function and phase relation measurement, I actually understand this.

@wingracer1614

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe not. Many worlds might mean that all possible things exist somewhere but that doesn't allow for the impossible. If you are actually incapable of understanding this, no other yous that do understand it will exist.

@alwaysdisputin9930

2 жыл бұрын

@@wingracer1614 That's not true. In other worlds there may be genius versions of Peter.

@ryancraigt

2 жыл бұрын

@@alwaysdisputin9930 Then one must ask at one point is he still Peter?

@Rhys5945

2 жыл бұрын

It's hard to explain, but I believe I have a very interesting theory. I believe that quantum events only occur due to previous quantum events. This means that maybe our world is only possible due to the entire history of quantum events choosing the exact right path. This means that today's quantum events don't 'split' into all possibilities and the first quantum event from the beginning of the universe is the only event with the ability to split. For example, if I tell Joe a secret, someone who doesn't know about the secret can't say oh I wish they never told Joe that secret (quantum events are impossible to occur from a history where they cannot occur), and the only original secret holder who had the possibility to tell someone (or anyone - all possibilities wavefunction) could make that decision. And if the secret holder doesn't tell anyone, then that reality never occurs (possible explanation why there is only a universe that functions with maths). So it's basically the many-worlds interpretation only works at what we know as the 'big bang'. I feel like this is kind of a bad explanation but it's so hard to put it into words.

@Rhys5945

2 жыл бұрын

@Nad Senoj but that was what I was claiming? That there could only be the initial quantum event that has the ability to encounter all possibilities. And I mean im completely open to that initial event happening more than once. Maybe an infinite loop of big bangs (quantum event starter)

I feel like a variant of Matt is going to end up being the rl Kang the conqueror

@NattyFlump

2 жыл бұрын

I'm loving how I watched that and then the KZread algorithm popped this.

@chrissbibar9735

2 жыл бұрын

I think we all have our variants in this situation. Just donno if all of them are good as me or better

@kidnamedgrass

2 жыл бұрын

Matt the conqueror

@joeybeauvais-feisthauer3137

2 жыл бұрын

@Ke Ge Nathaniel Richards is from the 30th century, that's not even 1000 years from now.

Thank you! 💖 I was wondering about this topic. I look forward to hearing if it's possible to contact the other "worlds"

It's interesting to me to imagine a universe where every double slit experiment gives results that don't show a wave nature of particles because of dumb luck, so scientists have a worse understanding of quantum mechanics.

@anomalousresult

2 жыл бұрын

This feels like a sitcom writing prompt. I love it.

@achmedabadoba5478

2 жыл бұрын

The question is which experiment in our world is the one that always fails?

@aakarshan4644

2 жыл бұрын

hmmm I wonder if our universe is also having some continuous dumb luck in some observations... we would never know lmao...

@greg4367

2 жыл бұрын

You are perverse my friend, and like it.

@jackvernian7779

2 жыл бұрын

that has to be an extraordinary amount of dumb luck

Did you know that Argentina has a quantum economy? The value of the dollar is in superposition of different values, we even have a name for each one of them.

@Smerpyderp

2 жыл бұрын

Explain.

@nicolaspietrangelo5573

2 жыл бұрын

Schrödinger dollar.

@pestifermundi2591

2 жыл бұрын

That's a good one

@MarianoWilliams420

2 жыл бұрын

@@Smerpyderp gvmt regulates how many dollars you can buy according to how much you make, obviously there are parallel markets with different prices

@wesleyharrison9014

2 жыл бұрын

If were being serious, yes I knew Argentina has its money all effed up, in a big way infact. Here's the real ask though just because a big Mack is 68 dollars and a gram of uncut Cociane is 4. 86 does that really mean the dollar performs as both a point and a wave?

At risk of sounding oblivious, where is that guy who always acts as the quantum observer from? Those visuals are hilarious.

@paulwolf3302

2 жыл бұрын

He disappeared, going backwards in time before the BIG BANG.

I’ve listened to you talk about collapsing the wave function for years, but didn’t understand what it meant until this video - thank you

@Yora21

2 жыл бұрын

I still don't, but hope collapses last.

Tbh I can’t really imagine there being any world where I would pick salad over pizza.

@1dgram

2 жыл бұрын

You were trying to impress the love of your life who you happened to be next to when ordering food in that other world.

@silverybound

2 жыл бұрын

I would gladly pick homemade salad over gas station pizza. "☝️ Presenting to the emergency room" is a phrase I wouldn't want to be associated with my obituary.

@addammadd

2 жыл бұрын

I cut my pizza into bite size chunks. I chiffonade some basil and toss those two in a bowl with some Parmesan (sometimes blue) cheese and hidden valley ranch. Pizza salad. Welcome to the future.

@slcpunk2740

2 жыл бұрын

@@silverybound no one wants to be the subject of a chubbyemu video 👻

@innocentbystander3317

2 жыл бұрын

@@addammadd "Isn't everything you eat bite-size?" Mitch Hedburg

You can only see worlds that you're a part of...remember that kids

@thek2despot426

2 жыл бұрын

Quantum immortality!

@HermanVonPetri

2 жыл бұрын

Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination.

@bill8383

2 жыл бұрын

yeah it's split into left and right lol.. ;)

My brain has just split into two migraines. This is heady stuff

This has to be one of the only clear video about the many world interpretation. Thanks and congrats

In one of the many worlds dice always roll the number I predicted beforehand. This seems to suggest that in some worlds magic appears to be real.

@goldenbananas1389

2 жыл бұрын

in theory this is true. in some many worlds the particles that make me up happen to fly apart while at the exact same time somwhere else random particles reform a perfect "copy" of me. i then claim i am a wizard for the rest of my life.

@jvcscasio

2 жыл бұрын

@@goldenbananas1389 you wouldn't be able to fly, that would break laws of physics, however, it's entirely possible for there to be a world in which you dream of everything that will happen on the next day without fail

@goldenbananas1389

2 жыл бұрын

@@jvcscasio I never said there is a world I fly. Just a world we all the particles making up my body move apart and I basically disintegrate. But somewhere else in the universe a bunch of different particle randomly form into a perfect copy of me. And also in the same way a particles position can be in a super position it’s velocity also can. Meaning in theory the velocities of all the particles making my body up randomly align upwards and pull me up before I quickly come crashing back down. The chance of this happening is too small to consider it but in the many worlds interpretation it happened somewhere.

@Sigma00000

2 жыл бұрын

It also means there is a world where every coin flip, ever, landed on heads

@goldenbananas1389

2 жыл бұрын

@@Sigma00000 yes

11:57 I'm thrilled that you mentioned recombination. Almost no other sources ever mention it.

@slevinchannel7589

2 жыл бұрын

I love recommending scientific Recommendations. Want some?

It had never occurred to me that the many-worlds interpretation would be so efficient with regards to space.

Neat analysis! Thanks for uploading!

12:20 *CONQUERING INTENSIFIES*

I love the TTC subway Easter egg! Cheers from Toronto!

This episode coming a day before the season final of Loki, and talking about the same subject? Coincidence? I don't think so, I am mounting in suspicion about Dr. Matt O'Dowd being the man at the end of time, ruling the sacred time line

@Thomas.Wright

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like Chronotrigger.

@masamune2984

2 жыл бұрын

@@Thomas.Wright Chrono Trigger/Cross, mixed with the end of Final Fantasy 8.🙂

@entropy730

2 жыл бұрын

@@masamune2984 That castle had major Ultimecia vibes.

@bighoss45hgaming91

2 жыл бұрын

Such a good episode

@jakefromstatefarm1405

2 жыл бұрын

Thought the same thing

You guys did it again! Great video.

Let's be honest Matt, we always pick Pizza.

@achmedabadoba5478

2 жыл бұрын

Lol I also thought of Pizza maybe we're entangled now 🍕💭

@johnmenjes4117

2 жыл бұрын

A54a55a5aaaa55a#aaa5a55aaa5aa6555aaa5sasassa⁵54a4⁴

@johnmenjes4117

2 жыл бұрын

5a5555sss555ss5555a5saaas#5ss#5a555545aa

@TheKamahl07

2 жыл бұрын

We're well in to the pizza-centric branch of the Many Worlds 🍕🌎🌏🌍

Trust me, all infinite versions of me picked the pizza

@shortbusheros4

2 жыл бұрын

Idk man, is there bacon in the salad?

@STriderFIN77

2 жыл бұрын

pineapple on pizza o.O

@GameCyborgCh

2 жыл бұрын

Except for the version of you that is lactose intolerant

@0130wallace

2 жыл бұрын

You may have just invented some sort of quantum heredity. "There's nothing any of him could do. Just something about pizza always collapsed his wave function."

@STriderFIN77

2 жыл бұрын

@@0130wallace this is first thing i see and click in the morning, and allready tears on my eyes, happy tiers - Bob Ross

What a wonderful explanation of such a complex concept. I expect that I will never fully grasp quantum physics but I am certain that it is the single best explanation of partial interaction at the smallest of scales we currently have.

@slevinchannel7589

2 жыл бұрын

I love recommending scientific Recommendations. Want some?

I used to sit in my childhood barber shop opposite of the big mirror behind those chairs. Another large mirror was across from the first, and by positioning myself in a certain fashion, a gallery which had no end appeared in the reflection. A snaking corridor of exact images curved into infinity. Lining up the reflections seemed to reveal dimensions unending and bending out of sight. I thought of each one as it's own reality. That any one of them could be entered and reacted with, even destroying the entire space, but not affecting any other. A multitude of parallel dimensions running to eternity.

The universe's git log must be crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm in a 'detached HEAD' state.

@ZPPrograms

2 жыл бұрын

CS gang represent 🙌

@KeviAday989

2 жыл бұрын

what if God created all of it in one commit? After all, He is God.

@zapazap

2 жыл бұрын

The universe is forgetting to do frequent merges it seems.

@diablo.the.cheater

2 жыл бұрын

The theory of many feature branches

@ivanmokhonko9749

2 жыл бұрын

Bruh :)

My theory is that we don’t only have infinetly many futures, we have infinetly many pasts too. The many worlds go both ways and there is no loss in coherence, there is just a transfer of coherence between worlds, coherence might actually be a preserved value like spin, charge and information in general.

Sir you are awesome. I like the way you explain,collect,and display the information. I understand the concepts very easily. We want you sir. We love you sir

I had never understood the many worlds hypothesis quite like this, thanks! Previously I had thought "if there are infinitely many universes, then every combination of quantum probabilities can occur." But with a wave function, it's not that there are infinitely many universes, it's more like there is one "surface" that looks different depending on your phase...

One thing I've not yet understood in the Many Worlds theory is how the probability amplitude fits in. If (simplistically) every possible outcome results in a new world branch, then does the probability amplitude have any meaning?

Imagine being in that one universe where all particles happen to have not decayed. All the posturanics and whatnot, I mean. How borked would physicists be? Sure fusion happens all the time... but we have all this seemingly inert heavy element lying around that logic says should decay... but never has!

@Mars-fu8wb

2 жыл бұрын

LMAOOO

@Wertsir

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine being in the universe where your bones spontaneously became radioactive and gave you bone cancer. ☠️☢️☠️

@cowlinator

2 жыл бұрын

Since past decay (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on future decay, then most of the universes where all particles happen to have not decayed will immediately start having particles decay (since that is still the most likely outcome for each moment in time). This would throw physicists into confusion and chaos. They would forever look for what caused this event, when the real answer is "coincidence".

@pierfrancescopeperoni

2 жыл бұрын

Would physics and science even exist in those branches?

@oatmongen4263

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine if the electron is meant to decay, but hasn't because of the universe we are in...

Thank you so much for this episode. I've always wondered why nobody never asks this question to people like Sean Carrol, and I've always just assumed that it was obvious to everyone else but me...

Oeh this was a good one! And well explained :D

there can be infinite amount of branches of reality... there is absolute ZERO chances that I will pick salad over pizza.

@beyondthelife6750

2 жыл бұрын

Well quantum mechanics says there are infinite other universes where you indeed did pick salad over pizza.

@gabrielgrabois

2 жыл бұрын

@@beyondthelife6750 no, it says that if the chance is positive, there are infinite universes where it happens, if the chance is zero, there are none

@beyondthelife6750

2 жыл бұрын

@@gabrielgrabois you need to re watch and understand the video and not just that, do some extra research on this topic. If it is true which I am not saying it is but highly possible than in all honesty it actually cannot happen an infinite. Maybe millions or billions but not infinite. Infinite is not a number its a concept it means forever with no end. Hate when scientists use it with no basis sometimes. However our universe or other universes can be truly infinite. Just no true infinite in the quantum realms.

@HeribertMuermann

2 жыл бұрын

​@@beyondthelife6750 / ​@gabrielgrabois Even infinity would not need to include every possibility. (Every possibility may be less than infinity, too.) Natural numbers in mathematics are infinit, but do not include all possible numbers. Maths with infinities is very different und sometimes surprising. Though I donnot believe in the Many World Theory. Which is also not science but believe. I prefer to believe in "decision" at the moment of interaction.

@jwb52z9

2 жыл бұрын

If realities truly are literally infinite, at least 1 of those realities contains a version of you that is a vegan or vegetarian health nut.

Could you do a crossover episode with the "many worlds interpretation" and the "time reversal property of the shrodinger equation"? Multiple futures is cool, multiple pasts is cool too.

@Robert_McGarry_Poems

2 жыл бұрын

He actually did that video. Just in a different reality.

@skandragon586

2 жыл бұрын

@@Robert_McGarry_Poems well played my friend

@skandragon586

2 жыл бұрын

I would love to see that episode in this reality too

@freedomachine2185

2 жыл бұрын

@@skandragon586 there's a reality where this is that video and you commented you'd rather not see that episode in this reality

@shivyarastogi7867

2 жыл бұрын

@@freedomachine2185 and there is a reality where i never replied to your comment coz u never commented but look which reality we ve chosen

This is an amazing production. I hope that they keep paying these guys.

@Yellow.1844

2 жыл бұрын

they got pretty well paid patreon dont worry they're fine

I like it, especially the last bits explaining how the probabilities can recombine and you are not getting endless ‘real’ duplicate universes…makes sense. There is a way of looking at this in a less Quantised model. If each physical dimension (direction) represents a way the lower sets can be different, then by Dimension 4 (time) we see every way the three spatial ones can be different and by Dimension 5…we have a probability field giving the alternative versions of the lower 4. In the fifth (non physical) Dimension every possible path exists, but some being more likely than others, because each branch forward had a probability of occurring. The nexus where they all meet is ‘now’ and the trail left behind is the single resolved happening of history. Looking forward the least likely paths are disparately flailing off each side of the model and the few most likely align with a central fuzzy core of probabilities. Think of this as being orthogonal to time.

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

Nice bullshit. ;-)

so if all decohered branches of the wave function do still occupy the same spacetime, just out of phase with each other, could all that additional invisible (to our decoherence) quantum mass, or at least the branches that are more closely aligned with our own, be the source of all the additional gravity we observe as dark matter? and if they're infinitely branching off and expanding the overall harmonic sequences of the wave function, could the wave function literally be stretching out spacetime, and that's what we observe as dark energy?

@hitbox7422

2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm im not sure if that wouldn't lead very very fast to infinitiys. Ofc it would align in its core mechanic perfectly with the acceleration of spacetime, but if every slightly out of phase branch has a set mass-proportion influence on its parent-branch and vice versa, wouldn't that with (idk for sure) 10^500 events per second per cubic centimeter create just one gigantic, ultramassive gravitational anomalie? Not a black hole perse, since that would require dark matter to be barionic in nature, but if it's gravitational influence can be measured, in that circumstance it would get out of controll very fast I assume.

@mustanger1966

6 ай бұрын

​@@hitbox7422 I think it would be more like our universe is continuously losing mass compared to the incoherent background. Total mass is conserved, but our particular (coherent) branch of probability is becoming an increasingly small fraction of the total wave function. At the same time, a lot of our close neighboring branches will still have similar mass distributions, so much of that loss is not immediately obvious. A planet may have a lot of incoherent mirror planets, but none of those incoherent copies are changing their trajectory or losing much mass.

Given that all the particles in the brain are connected one way or another (chemical bonds and so), wouldn't all of their wave functions be already collapsed according to the decoherence theory?

@richerite

Жыл бұрын

I have the same question 🙋‍♂️ did you get an answer?

@LPrg15

Жыл бұрын

@@richerite Well given that im doing a phd in neuroscience I hope to get an answer someday haha

Thanks. I appreciate your efforts very much.

I was lost 5 seconds in but in another world I understood it completely

@paulwolf3302

2 жыл бұрын

Honesty!

Matt, if you manage to come back from the other Many Worlds timeline, how differently has that timeline evolved compared to our timeline?

Asking "where are the other worlds" is like asking "where did the other TV channel go?"

How they showed Ghost in "Ant-Man And The Wasp" is quite accurate, it fits so well with this explanation. Also, it was big help for understanding this, because I could visualize the topic here with images from the movie in my head.

Made perfect sense. Thank you

It's cool that Matt wrote his words. Truly an intelligent person.

@porple4430

2 жыл бұрын

?

@mozkitolife5437

2 жыл бұрын

@@porple4430 What do you need explaining?

@koushikkashyap439

2 жыл бұрын

I think he considers this as a live talk, respect 👌. He edits only a few rare occasions... Applause ✌️✌️✌️

@bennylloyd-willner9667

2 жыл бұрын

@@koushikkashyap439 I don't get it. Are you saying Matt doesn't write his material and use teleprompter when recording?

Rooting for the world where my daughters don't have CF and can breathe free indefinitely. Let us know when physics helps us collapse reality onto that world, please. In the meantime, thanks for giving a dad's busy mind something else to think about for 15 minutes.

Can’t wait for the next video. Can’t wait to send a message to myself in the other world and exchange notes about life!

Moar please!! I knew I'd be left wanting more by the end of this video and I wasn't wrong. I just can't get enough of Many Worlds. It 'smells' right, but we need more testable science to validate or unequivocally refute it.

Not just linear, Linear Time Independent. LTI systems are critical for RF and small signal analysis which allow us to use the Fourier Series to analyze non-sinusoidal signals using sinusoids which are much easier to analyze since integrals and derivatives or sine waves but with an altered magnitude and phase - super easy to handle using complex numbers.

@TheTeflonTranny

2 жыл бұрын

Haha, ahh. How dumb do I feel. ;-)

Amusingly, you could also say that every known law of the universe is just due to a particular set of quantum coincidences, and our daily experiences are just due to dumb luck events.

@Fogmeister

2 жыл бұрын

The question that arises from that is whether it's possible for a quantum event to occur that changes the known laws of the universe and causes everything to just vanish.

@Aizistral

2 жыл бұрын

Remember the Occam's Razor

@aketchupman5103

2 жыл бұрын

You could say that since all ripples exist, and that it’s possible to exist, that we exist only in the worlds where it’s possible for us to exist. Therefore, since it’s possible for us to exist, we must be guaranteed to have exist, and there’s nothing that luck has to do about it

@RWMAirgunsmithing

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be so quick to call it random, quantum mechanics works, we just don't know why. I would argue it is a law of physics, and if it is repeatable it's not random right?

@kyjo72682

2 жыл бұрын

But if all these coincidences happen "somewhere" in the infinite universe then obviously we would exist in those parts where the laws allow our existence. In all those other parts with some different laws there is nobody there making comments on KZread. Same as there is nobody there in the middle of a desert, on Pluto, or in the interstellar space, even though it's infinitely larger than our tiny biosphere. :) It's called self-selection bias..

Truly great episode. I never liked MWI but it actually makes sense to me now. So it's not saying there is any actual "split" (in the sense of physical entities), just that different worlds are the perception of decoherented parts of the universal wavefunction that were previously in sync... That really is a beautiful interpretation mathematically that I do appreciate now (although philosophically I'm still much more inclined to the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation).

This is the basic plot device of how many science fiction stories, two separate dimensions somehow suddenly overlapping, or time travel stories where they have to manage the multiple different possibilities of various time travel scenarios.

Every time the ripple intersects, dejavu intensifies.

Im glad you mentioned that the universe doesnt split every time a particle wiggles, but that raises the question - how often does the universe split? Can we somehow estimate it?

@haleyd7703

Жыл бұрын

I would think something like manifestation. Consequence. Many . Hopefully all on good thoughts. Imagination is creation. Once thought or spoken out I'd think it's born created. Take it like said looking back at 10's of thousands,of hundreds of thousands. Jump to conclusions pad.

Yeah sure I understood this 👍😬 (LOL. Great episode as always!)

Someone forgot to erase the background of the camera near the PBS logo on top left, that moves with you, is uncomfortable. But the explanation is so good that I watched it all.

Matt, how old do we believe our Milky Way galaxy to be and also the Andromeda? Also, if you go by the "Big Bang" theory, can you explain how after billions of years these two galaxies are on a path to collision if everything exploded out from a singular point? Thanks to you and the PBS team for all the great content.

"Where are those worlds, and can we ever see them?" Sure, there are plenty of Isekai to watch each season... /s

@ayushshukla1438

2 жыл бұрын

Explosion

@night7826

2 жыл бұрын

Bakaaa

@Ebani

2 жыл бұрын

They certainly are the latest anime fad

@PhilosopherRex

2 жыл бұрын

Japanese Manga writers have a keen ability to detect the Many Worlds.

@l3lackoutsMedia

2 жыл бұрын

Isekai kind of just represent the human dream of being able to exist in a wildly different world.

The Wolfram Physics project actually explains all this much more fundamentally and it's quite obvious. I recommend reading into it.

11:37 Is there any way to know the phase boundary limit before particles begin to interact? If there is, wouldn't that tell us how many universes can possibly exist?

In other descriptions of MWI I've never heard the idea that worlds are recombining, not just splitting. So, are there more worlds tomorrow than there were today, or about the same number?

@AtonyB

2 жыл бұрын

I've always seen it this way... Imagine putting your socks on in a closed room, you randomly pick a first one (in a way comparable to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment) then proceed to put on a second then leave the closed room. To outside (non)observers, there is a period of superposition of two states where you have just one sock on each foot (if you were to open the door early and look), then eventually you have a sock on both feet and it no longer matters what order it happened so the two 'worlds' converge again.

@wadeworkman7283

2 жыл бұрын

I’m always one sock short. I’m certain if we can find these other worlds, I can find my missing socks.

@nathanielmuller4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@wadeworkman7283 you sure your real name isn't Ren?

@drdca8263

2 жыл бұрын

tl;dr : I'm not sure that "the number of worlds that there are according to the MWI" is a meaningful question. The dimension of the Hilbert space is unchanged. One can apply different projection operators to restrict to different subspaces, and view the overall state as a sum of the different parts you've split it into with the different projection operators. But, there are different ways to split up a vector space into components. Like, suppose you have the x,y plane , where like, you have points like (2,3) and (4,7) , and you can add the points together so that (2,3) + (4,7) = (2+4,3+7)=(6,10) . Now, you can have a pair of projection operators, let's call them P and Q, where P(x,y) = (x,0) , and Q(x,y) = (0,y) . You may notice that (e.g.) P(P(x,y)) = P(x,0)=(x,0) , applying P twice does the same thing as applying P once. That's basically what P being a projection operator means. Also, note that P(x,y) + Q(x,y) = (x,0) + (0,y) = (x,y) , the same thing as we started with. So, we could say P+Q = I (where I(x,y) = (x,y) ). now, P might correspond to "in the case that the particle is spin up" and Q might correspond to "in the case that the particle is spin down". On the other hand, we could also have another pair of projection operators, R and S, where R(x,y) = ((x+y)/2 , (x+y)/2) and S(x,y) = ((x-y)/2 , (y-x)/2) (If you don't know what I'm talking about in the following sentence, just ignore it and move on; don't worry about it : you could also write these as the 2x2 matrices where R has (1/2) in all 4 spots, while S has (1/2) on the main diagonal, and (-1/2) on the other 2 positions. ) To check that R and S really are projection operators, apply them to (x,y) twice and confirm that you get the same thing as if you applied them once. I.e. check that R(R(x,y)) = R(x,y) , and that S(S(x,y)) = S(x,y) . R and S could correspond to "in the case that the particle is in the spin left" and "in the case that the particle is spin right" respectively. Note that these two ways of splitting the x,y plane into two orthogonal directions, aren't, uh, the same. They are different and incompatible ways of splitting things up into 2 variables. two different ways to split the vector space into orthogonal subspaces. Of course, when we are talking about the wavefunction for the whole world, or even just everything on earth, it would have many many more coordinates than just the 2 coordinates x and y. (for the universe as a whole, it should be infinitely many I think, and maybe infinitely many even for local stuff but maybe not, I'm not sure. It is often at least convenient to treat it as infinitely many.) We can talk about projecting out parts of the wavefunction corresponding to different outcomes of some event, but there are also other ways it could be split up. So, my understanding of MWI (which, I've not looked deeply into MWI in particular, just looking into the math of QM with some passing familiarity with MWI. "shut up and calculate" and all that. So, take this with a little bit of a grain of salt), is that, you can split up the universal wave function in many ways, and in some ways of splitting it up, different components will correspond to us having different observations, but, at least until we assume that what we care about is "what we observe as humans", there's no singular "this is the right/standard/canonical way to split up the wavefunction into parts/'worlds' ". (though, see caveat [a]) So, I don't think the question of "how many worlds are there (under the MWI interpretation) and does this number increase or decrease?" has a meaningful answer. I guess you could ask "what's the smallest number of orthogonal components you can split the wavefunction into such that, in each component, each person's observations and actions and thoughts and whatnot have a single well-defined value", and I think that number would, probably be increasing? (??) (and I guess you could call those "worlds". But I'm also not sure that that's an entirely well-defined question, because like, well, precisely defining what a "person" is in quantum mechanics, probably isn't really feasible, and maybe things don't split up 100% cleanly? I'm a bit confused here.) I don't think any of those components would really "recombine" to make the number smaller in any realistic scenario, because I think that would require that they still be like, in phase and such(?????). If by "recombine" you are just referring to the fact that the different parts are still added up : that's not really an event of re-combining that happens, that's just the fact that the different components (however you choose to split the hilbert space into components) are part of a single whole (which can be split up in many incompatible ways) caveat [a] : I say this, but, while there are no doubt many valid decompositions into orthogonal components, it may be (as in, it might actually be well known to be the case, and it is possible that the only uncertainty here is because *I* don't know) that because of decoherence and stuff, that there is a natural decomposition, or at least more natural set of decompositions than most possible decompositions. I still doubt that there is a canonical way to define "how many worlds/components", because I strongly suspect that there are many things which are kind of borderline between whether it "should" be split up in a certain way, as well as like, precisely what mix of things should be used in splitting things up. But I could be wrong.

@AuntBibby

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 dr. dca, am i waste of space because im not as smart as you mathephysically? im not sure i deserve to exist if theres people like u walkin around 🥺🥺🥺 i have dyspraxia and tourettes so im incompetent and loud, and not a very interesting artist

genuinely so grateful to this channel for enabling my schizophrenia to the degree that it does

@RubelliteFae

2 жыл бұрын

I've wondered before if schizophrenia is the consciousness of the same self across many worlds interacting. We'll have to decipher how consciousness arises to find out.

@thegaspatthegateway

2 жыл бұрын

"I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

@RubelliteFae

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegaspatthegateway Brahman, the omni-antecedent. As Saguna Brahman it is called Purusha, consciousness.

Nice Portal reference. One of my all time favourite games.

im gonna have to binge watch this channel

I don't think anyone could convince me the "many-worlds interpretation" is our physical reality without a smoking gun.

@starman2337

2 жыл бұрын

In another world, they could convince you.

@blarghchan

2 жыл бұрын

I don't see why you would think the Copenhagen interpretation would make even the least bit of sense. Waveform collapse may as well literally be "a wizard did it".

@weirdshit

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe they were high on drugs when they imagined a many worlds state. Electrons simply ride along the wave and get distributed in the split experiment. Electrons with its atom structure dont stay in fixed location and are constantly orbiting or location affected by external environment.

@WitchyWagonReal

2 жыл бұрын

I am your dad. Now give me back my wallet and car keys.

@harshsrivastava9570

2 жыл бұрын

the only reason i believe in many worlds is because copenhagen is even worse lol

Superintendent Chalmers: “Infinitely many worlds spinning out from quantum noise? … Can I see it?”

@daggerdan12

2 жыл бұрын

No

@AviZiskind

2 жыл бұрын

Skinner: "No"

@maggotmanfred936

2 жыл бұрын

no

@Mystixor

2 жыл бұрын

Yees

@tpog1

2 жыл бұрын

It‘s “Supernintendo Chalmers“.

Hi Matt, in another world I hope you see this! I'm a long time viewer with at least a hundred and one full time advert views. Is it within PBS Space Time's purview to do a video commentary on Devs (TV show)? I found their take on quantum theoretical interpretation fascinating and pushing me towards Everett's many worlds. But I know there must be flaws and kinks in their scriptwriting. Care to point out your take on it? (I know this isn't a review channel but still...:)

I so much like thinking possibilities interm of many worlds interpretation it gives pleasure to thinking all the outcomes that comes out . It really make me crazy thinking that by observing everything around me comes to our eyes in the form of photon then our retina except those and neurons firing all the stuffs go on, making sense of those things by imagination and make me aware of myself as conscious being observing the universe inside myself

Hm, I was excited for the title of this video, since it seemed to be finally addressing a question I've always had about many worlds, which is "physically, how do the alternate worlds manifest in a decoherent spacetime?" but that didn't really get answered here. That is to say, when, in many worlds, the universe's wave function splits, what happens to the other decohered universe? Does it cease to be and cease to affect/interact with our universe in any way? Or does everything in the split of possible observables get duplicated into another universe? Is it purely an informational split rather than a physical one? If so, how do we justify the physical manifestation and influence of *our* information as opposed to any other "world's"?

@thegaspatthegateway

2 жыл бұрын

I imagine us three-dimensional beings are like babies, lacking hyperobject permanence XD

@HarryHeck2020

2 жыл бұрын

The other 'decohered' universe never existed and doesn't continue to exist. It is merely a possibility that never differentiated from the infinite noise of possibility. The whole universe is just static noise unless it is linked to you. Think of consciousness as pulling a signal from the cosmic microwave background radiation. You're consciousness has a specific position, nothing else does.

@oliver_siegel

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegaspatthegateway oooh interesting!!!

@oliver_siegel

2 жыл бұрын

I think what the original comment is referring to is the mind/matter problem. Did matter manifest consciousness, or did spirit manifest physics?

@goldenbananas1389

2 жыл бұрын

this episode did answer the question where they are located. think back to that pond analogy. how multiple waves never were affected by each other. we one of those wave and the other worlds are different waves. they are decoherent with us which means those other worlds or waves do not have a definite phase relation to us or our wave. all the worlds exist in the same spacetime. just they cant interact with each other. basically instead of a single particle in superposition. the entire universe is in a superposition.

Question: Why isn't it possible to accidentally stumble back into phase, and thus bump into a ghostly other universe?

@kelpy582

2 жыл бұрын

…It is 😈

@fnamelname9077

2 жыл бұрын

@@kelpy582 Given strange eons?

@jelenahegser445

2 жыл бұрын

i would say, if that happens, everything in both worlds fuse together and and endup being one, without anybody noticing it.

@sion8

2 жыл бұрын

Deja vu?

@HVBRSoF

2 жыл бұрын

you can't. you just switch worlds. or your consciousness just switches worlds for every decision you make.

It's a good video. I can digest the idea little better now. Do you have evidence that the wave function "travels" from the particle gun to the screen and not the other way around?

All of this makes me think about Wigner’s friend experiment, can you make an episode about the Frauchiger-Renner paper that was published in nature?

The next video he reveals the smudge on the left of screen is actually part of the experiment to test many worlds, and we're in the world where the smudge appeared.

@sion8

2 жыл бұрын

😲

@PaulGuitarist

2 жыл бұрын

What smudge?

This is intimidating, extremely counterintuitive. My god.

@paulwolf3302

2 жыл бұрын

Are you scared of the Loch Ness Monster?

A better question would be, if many worlds is true, where does the exponential energy/matter required to 'create' them all come from?

@laurentstorchi290

2 жыл бұрын

Sean Carroll would say the energy is divided between the different worlds, personally i find that explanation unsatisfactory. Still i could advice his book on the topic, he is a very good writer.

Many worlds is one of the silliest things I've heard of. I am amazed it has any support. I hope I am alive when some clever people figure out what's really happening in the quantum world.

This shifts the problem to the observer. Now, the observer "collapses" into one of the worlds.

@homelessengineer5498

2 жыл бұрын

Sean Carroll explains it as "the observer is entangled with one of the outcomes of the experiment". You can still have multiple observers in multiple worlds, no collapse is needed :)

@devalapar7878

2 жыл бұрын

@@homelessengineer5498 That doesn't change anything. You still don't know which observer you are.

@LucasStoten1

2 жыл бұрын

@@devalapar7878 What do you mean? You're the observer entangled with a particular experimental outcome - the one you observe. You know exactly which one you are. Nothing unique happens at any point during the experiment or observation. You are just part of a chain of continuous entanglement that happens as worlds keep decohering.

@vampyricon7026

2 жыл бұрын

@@devalapar7878 So when you drop an electron into a He+ ion to form a He atom, the electron will entangle with the other electron around the He, forming a joint superposition of spin states. Which electron does that electron become, the spin-up or -down electron?

@devalapar7878

2 жыл бұрын

@@vampyricon7026 I know the theory. First of all, f we talk about the ground state, one of each is always spin up and the other spin down. Second, if they were distinguishable, we would have +, - with factors of 1/sqrt(2) (u=up, d=down). Third, since they aren't distingishable, we have only one state . So, there is no superposition. If they are distinguishable, you have to explain to me, how to test it?

First Spin. Now Ripple. This just has to be a JoJo reference.

@kaizipaul

2 жыл бұрын

Araki knows something we don’t

@tekila00985

2 жыл бұрын

That's also the training stages for the Rasengan.

@Rhekon

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaizipaul quantam mechanics terms

@LarsIsReal

2 жыл бұрын

Your Next Line/Video is... ... Another JoJo Meme?!

@karlbischof2807

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaizipaul most mangakas are fascinated by science and use it as inspirations for their magic systems

Could you attempt to re-cohere diverging paths? Can the quantum eraser be interpreted as doing just that?

Anyone remembers the episode Parallels from Star Trek: TNG? Now I love this episode even more. :D