They'd say "the universe had a beginning???"

CCC for the win

@@starofcctv94 lol yeah and the fact we know that is entirely mundane to us. the big debate is actually what happened before the beginning. which we somehow have ideas about, with evidence, despite that definitely seeming impossible.

@@monkatraz Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we basically making assumptions based on certain observations (red shift etc) and mathematically working backwards to end up with the "beginning" or "big bang" scenario? It's heavily possible given our current understanding that we've missed something crucial, especially given the limits of what parts of the universe we can actually (or will ever even be able to) see.

@@paulpesci1 We are, but our assumptions are very reasonable and the evidence that the universe used to be ludicrously smaller (aka the big bang) is overwhelming. It's hard to interpret what we see out there as anything else, even if we question our assumptions.

This is how I design D&D puzzles. I just come up with the puzzles, I never design a solution. I let my players do that. If it sounds at all feasible, it works.

As they say we are created in god’s image

this is awesome! thanks for sharing the insight. But I don't get how the scientists' fervently writing notes corresponds to the choosing of a location. Could you explain?

Reality is just DnD with extra steps xD

@@ayoubzahiri1918 God looks like an idiot then since I'm made in his image

Probably an electricity bill.

Can every thought be translated into a combination of words? Are there thoughts that you can't communicate to others because language is limited?

You ever experience an emotion you couldn’t quite pin down with words? I definitely think there is a limit on what we’re able to communicate with each other verbally; it’s why languages have so many words-to feel infinite when they really aren’t

whats horrifying about it? its literally so based and cool. stop living in fear, try metta meditation

@@hexagonist23 you hit the nail on the head. I think something we ALL experience to some degree is having a very complex, detailed, or involved thought... And you just can't say it in a way that will communicate the concept fully. It can be a terrible feeling, but if you learn to temper it, you can find that sweet balance between what you say and what you don't. Believe it or not, it's not about what you say but rather what you TRY to say. Every effort works you towards a direction, with various effects as a result. So I may verbally say one thing, but whatever I was REALLY trying to say will effect how I automatically think in the future. It's complicated, of course, no concept can be full said, but different levels of general overview can be given, and each level can help better the understanding of those who understand it.

Lol

In Rick Sanchez Voice: "This guy gets it."

@@pbsspacetime aaaaay, finally, a cultural reference.

42

In the game Oathlords, which you should play immediately, "God" is called the Dreamer and nothing exists until it dreams of it... or really imagines it. The elves are immortal because they were created before the Dreamer thought of death. The humans came just after. The universe began when the Dreamer first differentiated solid from ether, Erdfader and Etherdrottning, and liquid was formed in their embrace, water being associated with balance and life. But anyway... the universe is just an evolving awareness of possibilities which become realities.

I love how you put it. This is mind-blowing. I actually had the idea of quantum observer in mind as the video rolled in, before that interpretation was suggested, and I was thinking every interaction defines reality, but then how could it be true in light of the delay induced by the half-reflecting mirror experiment. Well I don't think what you said fixes that problem but it's still interesting to think about

@@trifonTAF Yeah. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the particulars of that experiment and how it describes interactions. Don't feel like I have a good grasp of it yet.

Makes you wonder how much of a 'flow' of photons/waves there is from a star. Are there staccato gaps or are these photon/waves a constant unbroken output.

as you state yourself: the answer lies in there being no time from the photon's point of view. Hence its apparent feedback of time-reversed choice while interacting with its environment. Not only is space and time relative and undividable from each other, so are the 'act' of measurement and its apparent influence. The cause and effect relationship only makes sense when there is no actual time, because if time needs to be reversed for it to make sense over long distances, one should seriously start to doubt how crippled our experience of time actually is.

freaky when you put it that way, simple when in Jargon.

Well-deducted!

Babylonian mysticism/Kabbalism in the guise of science, nice try hermetic cultist

It is beautiful, also somewhat terrifying as I think about the book Annihilation and movie.

you mean something like this? ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oGaXl4GWnYiKwn0.htmlsi=1_lGK7vHWFohj2XM

For all people It's important to remember this

Ah maybe! But through what mechanism?

Sounds cool! Make sure to fill out the survey.

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity.

Congrats...Im pleased your dream turned into reality..

Im so jealous im way to stupid for that

Our BIG BANG is just one of trillions of other BIG BANGS at unimaginable distances. (Actually Infinite big bangs is a truer fact). SPACE HAS NO END AND TIME NEVER ENDS (Both also had no beginning) Once your brain finds this to be a TRUE statement your half way to understanding the theory of EVERYTHING. In the mean time I want this guy to go inside my coffin while I shoot it with a machine gun. He likes the "cat in the box theory" so he should put his money where my lead is. Dark energy is a near infinite mass of ice cold neutrons that exists in between galaxies and our big bang is surrounded by billions of other DEAD Big Bangs now COLD and with only neutrons that gather to form the next big bang at a critical mass where MASS is converted into pure ENERGY AGAIN and again and again and never in the same place twice. A big bang life cycle is about 500 to 900 trillion years depending on the materials surrounding the DARK SINGULARITY (a Black hole with the mass of a big bang.) This makes all big bangs about the same size since the critical mass is always the same to create 9th Dimensional matter or a Neutron Crystal devoid of all heat (Zero energy with unimaginable mass) There is your strange "Dark Matter" simple neutrons and lots of them. Lots of mass but no light, no energy, pure dead matter with no Pauli-exclusion principle at work, no heat or voids = NO ELECTRONS between the NEUTRONS at all! \psi = probability amplitude that electron 1 is in state a and electron 2 is in state b \psi_{1}(a) = probability amplitude that electron 1 is in state a \psi_{2}(b) = probability amplitude that electron 2 is in state b Dark matter /psi state is ZERO electrons and only pure cold neutrons.

Philosophy is useless. It's never produced a thing. Try demonstrable reality.

My human knowledge couldn't really understand the universe, but I trust Jesus know all about it. So I must follow him.

@@simonsong1743 lol

Sadly this type of stuff is not being teached in school. It would've made so many more interested in science instead of loathing it.

@@bronchialaktivbalsam3830 Well, status, money and a nice work environment are drivers that steers the most qualified people. We could actively work to push a bigger slice of the pie towards teachers and the system that backs them up. It requires the very brightest to explain complicated stuff at the right level.

That's because they're exactly the same subject.

I dont believe that consciousness is required for reality. That would mean theres nothing beyond the observable universe, because we can never interact with it and never will be able to interact with it. And we're pretty sure thats not true. Theres likely stuff outside the observable universe. Also, we know of a time before life on Earth. It had to exist, because we're here, but nothing was conscious.

that would explain why dreams always seem to start in the middle

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity.

Reality and consciousness could be like SpaceTime in which as Einstein put it they are different aspects of the same thing Meaning there is a connection between but we aren't aware of how the connection works or even what type of connection it is

Its a race!

yeah, this explanation makes MUCH more sense than the day-to-day definition of "observation"

the thing is that observation is fundamentally impossible without interaction. We see things because they reflect photons. So observation without interaction doesn't make sense in any context really

But not all interactions?.. In the delayed choice experiment photons are deflected by mirrors and it doesn't matter in the end. How is interaction in the detector different from interaction with mirrors?

Physicality in this context doesn't make any sense. An electron has to be observed to collapse to cause electromagnetic forces to repel. What do you mean by physical interaction exactly?

What does "physical" mean?

But does it not take more work to calculate both probabilities especially when both possibilities interfere with each other like in the double slit experiment? Does not seem very efficient or lazy to me.

@@H4XO5 Depends whether the bottleneck is in calculating the information or loading it. Since transmitting classical states requires production and interaction of photons, thermodynamics might make it preferable for the universe to have 'zero-particle' information transmission via waveform collapse, if you want to subscribe to Copenhagen, or state-checksum pass, if you want to subscribe to Everett. Not sure where Bohmian mecanics would fall in this example.

That doesn't really make sense. Imagine two particles that are in their own respective superpositions suddenly interacting. Lazy loading implies loading resources on demand, in this case the state of the particle, but how would the universe/particle know *when* to load this resource (in this case, the state to which the superposition collapses to) if neither particle is doing any calculation before the interaction? If the universe doesn't care in which state either particle is before interaction and they are in that undefined superposition to save computing resources on the state of the particles, then how would it know when to actually start computing their definitive states when the demand is created by the interaction, how do you keep track that such an event is fired? And how would the algorithm decide on a definitive set of states in the interaction if both of its inputs are undefined? You're still doing additional computation in the background to keep track when this occurs and you need actual data as input to make a decision, so there is no real optimization in anything. The idea seemingly makes sense because you're only thinking of one side of the interaction, but both particles participate in the interaction, it'd be like having two sleeping threads suddenly waking each other up by themselves which doesn't work, at least one has to be awake or you need a third one that keeps track when to wake both of them up to do the calculation. No real performance boost there either way.

It is appealing but consider, what would a program be without a computer. If you compare the universe to a computer code you are assuming that the universe exists inside some sort of closed state computer which runs it? I don't believe that to be so. It would be like saying because the universe contains light it is like a camera capturing light also.

In the days of Newton, when the marvels of Europe were clocks, scientists tended to think of the universe as a giant clock, with planets going round in regular orbits. In the information age, when computers are the preeminent technology, we have an urge to think of reality as digital or a simulation. How do we know we're not making the same mistake again?

That's a great point. It reminds me of the "Neverending Story" (the book, not the film). During his stay in Fantasia, Bastian can wish for anything to happen. For example, for a knight who's trying to prove his worth, he invents a dragon who keeps abducting virgins and enslaves them until they die, and then he sets out to capture a new one. This dragon has now captured the knight's lady, and he has to go on a quest to save her. So, is that saying that the moment that Bastian wished for this scenario to play out, there has actually been such a dragon all along, and that Bastian is responsible for the miserable lives of all the women he abducted before?

Yes but there is still the code version, an ultimate defining base version named [null] who does all posibilities and none simultaneously, until the player runs and interacts with the code, creating the save that defines the character's life. So in this analogy, we want to know the base code of the universe. the ultimate defining version that is all posibilities and [null] simultaneously. That's why we keep trying to figure out where the universe came from. Knowing where the game came from gives you an idea of where to ask for the code. What would be our equivalent of this?

I find the particles acting like a wave function untill an observer (conciousness) views it particularly interesting as it's more evidence for string theory if you ask me.. I think we are 3d beings in some 9-10d universe.

This is a great analogy for what would be happening in a wheeler-type universe

Which BS is that?

Conformal cyclic cosmology. You should buy Penrose's book. Great read :)

Yes! I’ve been waiting for a Spacetime episode about that..

They already did a video on Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, dig through their channel a bit as I forgot the exact title of the video.

@@ThatCrazyKid0007 Yup, it's called "What Happens After the Universe Ends?", from about two years ago.

My money's on evaporation.

😆 🤣

Great joke.

Tinder seems to be mostly bots in my area.

Tay! Hope you're OK! Been a while!

CHOCOLATE TAY

I wonder if you fully understand that the word "we"means indicates or signifies the user of the term - that is you sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor, and since you have no immediate interlocutor, "we" can only indicate will be replaced with "I", or it is entirely imaginary. In the instant circumstances do you agree that you have no direct immediate interlocutor therefore when you refer to "we" you are phoned to yourself and absolutely nobody else whatsoever. Do you understand that? Why are you creatures so terrified of the perpendicular pronoun "I"? Why do you seek to hide behind some fantasy "we"?

Wouldn't it only make sense that a universe actively honing in on our own observations of it would have plenty of consistencies between our generic early observations of it and the way more precise observations we make now? As if, without our knowledge, the early observations were paving the way for what we have since discovered

Yes, because of the quantum fields

@@vhawk1951kl ...Did he use "we" in his comment? I'm confused.

The Buddha and Krishna knew what they were talking about, but they didn't have the words to describe it

There are non-mathematical, conceptual ways to think about the problem. A big part of it comes down to time: Relativity establishes that time is a mutable dimension tied to space, whereas quantum mechanics treats time in the "classical" way of an immutable background on which processes can be measured. In short, under quantum mechanics, spacetime doesn't bend, which makes it unhelpful in understanding what happens at the particle level when spacetime is strongly bent according to relativity.

It’s less that they disagree, rather that one works on one scale, and the other works on another scale. The issue is we have no idea how, when, or why the transition occurs from micro to macro. The closest we have is coherent quantum wave function super positioning, and objective wave function collapse. Which leaves us with more questions than answers.

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 but can’t we do qft on curved space times? isn’t the problem just that we don’t have a good model of how the curvature follows from superposed matter?

@@kashu7691 It's more fundamental than that. Quantum models assume that time is separate from space; they're built upon fundamentally different assumptions from general relativity, which takes space and time to be a four-dimensional manifold. This is why the problem is so difficult; the underpinning notions of how space and time operate are incompatible. It's not as simple as finding some neat mathematical links to tie them together: One of them is necessarily, fundamentally, WRONG.

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 QM is fundamentally wrong. Super positions and waveforms don't exist, they are just a fudge for an unanswered question. The cat is not dead and alive, it's either decomposing or really pissed off. Perform the experiment, and leave it running for 1 year, I bet that the answer will always return a dead cat, proving that the super position theory is a fantasy. We may not know the exact moment that the cat died, but that does not mean it was dependent on being observed or interacted with.

This is exactly what I thought as well. And it is great that it can eliminate the 'need' for the fine tuning of the universe...

Yes it does, one day we will look up into the stars and say "why look that's me" We are the big bang. All of everything came as a result, we are the evolution of the Universe itself. You are never alone because the universe is you.

Yea i always wonder what the world would be like if channels like this, pbs eons, moth light media, sci show, crash course, sci show space... etc... were popular as tiktok... what the world would be like.

Very well put. Exactly my thoughts

I struggle to make sense of the question of when a quantum measurement occurs without invoking decoherence. The wavefunction didn't collapse in the first beamsplitter because it didn't decohere with the external environment (unlike when it interacted with the measurement apparatus after the second splitter).

I believe the beam splitters are carefully manufactured so that they're very regular, and so can interact with the wave function in the desired way without completely scrambling it. As for what counts as an interaction that would collapse the wave function? That depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the interpretation presented in this video, it would only collapse when observed. So if humans are observers and measuring devices aren't, then even interactions with the latter wouldn't collapse the wave function. However, Wheeler doesn't specify what counts as an observer, so it could be that measuring devices count and do indeed collapse the wave function. The Copenhagen interpretation (the first and most commonly taught one) just says that the collapse happens at some point, but there's no generally agreed upon point. Presumably it would happen at some point between the moment the photon hits the receptor, and the moment conscious observers process the results. Other interpretations argue there's no collapse at all though, like Pilot Wave Theory and Many-Worlds. In Many-Worlds (my favorite personally), the wave function instead gets scrambled as it starts encompassing more components of the measuring device and the surrounding environment, and so it stops meaningfully interfering with itself, whereas it could when only the beam splitter was included. This is the process known as decoherence. So in that interpretation, the observer doesn't collapse the wave function. They just become part of it, but can't interact with the other outcomes because the whole system is now too complex. There's not a lot of practical ways to falsify any interpretation, so that's why it's hard to definitively say what happens. It's mostly a philosophical debate for now. Look up "measurement problem" if you want to know more :)

Good question

I think some "interactions" do not permit measurement, i.e. the beam splitter splits the beam, but has no method to know how the beam was split. So whichever outcome (path A vs path B) the beam splitter is completely identical, and no information on where the photon went is left with the beam splitter. If you somehow modified the beam splitter to measure it, then the wave function would "collapse" due to the disturbance. Though to be honest, I am not sure, since I would think even a single photon, with no change in it's energy (frequency), but it's altered direction would have a different momentum, which would be 'felt' by the mirror, and therefore observable.. though perhaps the change is so small it doesn't constrain the photon wave function enough to collapse it to a 'classical' measurement (the mirror just gets entangled into it's own superposition??). Ok I definitely don't understand QM lol Also, for a real laser/beam splitter set up, some fraction of the photons would be absorbed by the beam splitter and slightly heat up the material, but in that case that is a measurement, and the result is the photon doesn't take either path A or B..

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity.

WTF?? How exactly does “collapse” emerge from entangled particles? Does your “collapse” also encompass non-matter particles, such as entangled photons? Why is there a distinction between the “collapse” of matter versus non-matter particles? Also, you do realise that collapse is a verb, not a noun, right? If so, how is it in any way possible for a verb to emerge from anything? This really doesn’t make any sense and seems rather illogical. And what is meant by “the” matter, is whatever you’re referring to somehow different from all other matter? If not, what’s the meaning of the word “the” preceding matter? You then go on to say that “enough particles whose wave functions are entangled” but you have no explanation of what constitutes “enough”, so exactly how many entangled particles are indeed “enough”? How does any entangled particle “constrain the wave functions of all other entangled particles”? In what way/how are said wave functions constrained? What then happens once a wave function has been constrained, how is it different from the wave function prior to this constraint and why exactly is it being constrained? Finally, what is this “very narrow wave function that we [please, speak for yourself, I most certainly am not to be included in your “we”] associate with a classical piece of matter”? Since when does anything “classical” have anything whatsoever to do with quantum processes? I’ve never heard of “very narrow wave function” which someone could “associate with a classical piece of matter”, how is said wave function derived? And what exactly is meant by “a classical piece of matter”? How small/large is your “classical piece of matter” and what’s meant by “piece of”? Matter isn’t usually considered as something which one can take a piece of, it’s more a generalisation for myriad elementary particles, atoms, nucleons, etc. So, to take a “piece of matter” isn’t something one would normally speak about. Even if you had simply said “classical matter” or better yet, just “matter”, this might be slightly easier to understand, but we’re splitting hairs here, I think. I am truly perplexed by your comment. It would be great to get some (actually, a lot of😊) clarification as to just what it is your cleanest view entails and how anything close to the usual meaning of the word collapse, in a quantum sense, could possibly be emergent from entangled objects, irrespective of whether they constitute matter or otherwise. And the processes by which the emergence occurs, what defines the number of “enough particles” (and who decides when enough is enough?)? So these particles which are entangled and are subsequently constraining “the wave functions of all other entangled particles”, are they constraining the wave functions of all other entangled particles in the entire universe, the visible universe, just the single particle with which another has been entangled or what, exactly? Last but not least, how wide or narrow are wave functions in general, regardless of whether said function is (somehow, perhaps in an abstract, non-intuitive way) associated with “a classical piece of matter”? And since the very definition of wave function is, in the generally accepted and most commonly used view/understanding/application is that it’s a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. So how you can possibly try to associate a wave function with anything classical is an explanation and concept about which I’m most certainly looking forward to gaining some small amount of insight.

Well put. Why didn't they just said that?

@@florinadrian5174 Da, ai drepate, de ce nu s-au gandit?

Superb...You should be paid for that comment....tu

nah bro you dont need to, although its very kind of you. and i agree, this guy has an awesome channel

I'm a high school dropout and I love this channel

You say narrow but you can argue numbers between 1-4 is infinite, the infinite bubble is smaller but still infinite. Which I think it is how the questions/answer pool is 3^n infinitely because there are 3 answers true, false, undefined (paradox perspective, ping pong contradictions) to one question. Even equivalence is not specific enough 1=1 can be true and false in an infinite number of ways by observational perspective changes

@@AskEpic well I guess that depends on whether reality, and/or the probability space for a given system, is infinitely divisible or discrete. Though I do want I say I used numbers as discrete integers for the purpose of this analogy, and didn't mean to imply real numbers with infinite values between each one. I should have used letters instead.

💟

This sounds a whole lot like Inception

Sh Boom life could be a dream

Mind blown... This idea deserves a lot of attention.

There's interesting parallels to this idea to be found within the physics of consciousness. The electromagnetic theory of consciousness posits that the waves of electromagnetic coherence that arise from the underlying electrochemical action of a brain's billions of synchronized firing neurons "carve" the quasi-stable patterns experienced as conscious phenomena into the relentless, impossibly chaotic and complex storm of background electromagnetic field activity. But achieving a sufficiently high SNR might not just be an amplifying function but also involve a process of destructive decoherence across the relevant ranges of the electromagnetic field within the space occupied by a brain. Given the brain's massive parallel processing architecture, such action would have the effect of serving as a naturally evolved form of error checking neurological information processing as incoherent information - likely indicating wrong/incorrect internal representations of the external world - would destructively interfere with each other, preventing both it from arising into conscious experience and providing a phenomenological feedback mechanism in the form of psychological discomfort we term cognitive dissonance. "Where did I leave my keys...?" *brain subconsciously evaluates numerous potential locations while recall functions attempt to recover the relevant memories such that potential locations not in coherence with what was partially recorded in memory interfere and are deamplified while the actual location constructively coheres with the low-fidelity memory recall function, amplifying that pattern sufficiently to generate a conscious experience of the keys being left at that location*

@@suchislife801 Sherlock was solving crime, not studying the universe lol. Both are plagued by human infallibility however. Can one possibly conceive of everything impossible in the first place?

@@suchislife801 It is a stance filled with an unstated arrogant belief that one could know all the possible choices.

eliminating impossibilities is not done. one calculates at most the more or less probable.

Apparently, the universe was around billions of years before “conscious beings “ existed. Indeed, interaction is the definition of observation, even in this video .

@@Boogaboioringale correct. The philosophical dilemma only exists if the observer is necessarily conscious. Which of course is absurd because that would necessarily require consciousness to somehow be supernatural.

​Interaction between non-conscious objects, however, does not cause the collapse of the wavefunction. @Kerry Fitch The universe was around for billions of years only as per our observation collapsing it into such a state. We have no way of knowing what exists outside of our conscious experience and observation.

I don't know exactly when it started, probably somewhere around the Enlightenment, but science took a hard turn in trying to distance itself from God and thereby put humanity at its centre, as we and our senses are the instruments that scrutinize and measure the Universe. We can only know what we as human beings understand. This has its roots in Descartes, the guy who said "I think, therefor I am". This has been criticized by conservatives (ironically), but also by writers like Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland) and H.P. Lovecraft (where humans' brains literally start melting or they go completely crazy by the sight of gods visiting Earth). For the Ancient Greeks, this was never questioned, because they saw science as a mere tool to improve their technology. However, modern society sought to replace Christianity with science, and this has created the society of experts we are rife with today. City planning, psychology, sociology, everything that can be mapped or turned into a logical system, will be, and our society relies on experts to solve these "problems" so someday, we can have heaven on earth. Slowly, through the quantum, God has come back into science. We are living in an age where Enlightenment is fading, because we have scientifically proven science cannot rid us of all our problems. There is no technocratic valhalla waiting for us, we simply have to deal with this Earth as it was given to us and respect its own laws that tie us to her. For the first time ever, there is mathematical proof that the optimism of science is mere philosophy. It portrays a version of reality that makes it easier to understand, but it is not reality itself. There are paradoxes, now perhaps even some that science cannot find a way out of, and some people are freaking out that their own set of logic has presented them with a paradox that cannot be solved. Let that sink down: a paradox that cannot be solved. Scientists cannot, and will not, accept science that contradicts itself, even if it is true. If you were trying to solve a paradox in philosophy, people would laugh at you. Paradoxes exist for you to learn and accept that your field is merely a representation of reality. Yet it is the fruit of science, technology, that makes scientists believe their way is the only way, and because technology is everywhere, people have come to accept this statement as well. They are absolute morons if they cannot accept science proves a lot of things, but not everything. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start to learn to understand the world with your heart and your soul instead of exclusively your mind. So consider yourself lucky for not having problems with such an easy question, because apparently there are a lot of people out there who have a really hard time dealing with that kind of stuff.

@@CommandoPootis "We have no way of knowing what exists outside of our conscious experience and observation." By that same reasoning, I have no reason to believe you are anything more than a single comment on the Internet that itself only popped into existence when I read it. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to take it to its conclusion, which is to completely disbelieve in anything that you are not actively, directly observing, including any other consciousness, and deep suspicion of even what you observe because you might be hallucinating it. If that's the position you want to hold, feel free; but it's not a very useful one, and taking a little part of it while ignoring what the reasoning ultimately leads to is NOT consistent.

But surely the tree observes its own tall?

The tree falling in the woods never existed until you asked the question

I may be wrong, any scientists reading this please feel free to correct me but ive always thought that the sound is irrelevant. When the tree falls it leads to the sudden motion of molecules all colliding with each other. You need at the very least (as far as we know) a human brain to gather the data from these collisions via small hairs in the cochlear of the ear and transform them into a signal that we can observe as sound.

it depends on your definition, a molecule bouncing into another molecule counts as an observation in quantum mechanics, so in that definition it still made a sound

Ah hah. You let the shroedinger cat out of the box!

Dat was poetry, so it were...

Well put. Do you think the Big Bang was “GOD” becoming aware of its own existence? (GOD being a stand-in for the ineffable ground of all being, be it trinity or flying spaghetti monster)

@@thelawfus I conceive of the Quantum Foam and Eternal Inflation as being like a pot of water simmering on a stove, with bubbles constantly forming. Physicists define the line between the finite Classical World and the infinite ‘Quantum Foam’ as ‘The Heisenberg Cut’. Our ‘Classical’ World, one of a myriad of ‘bubbles’, is defined by limited information (34 constants determine the standard models of Particle Physics, Classical Physics and Cosmolgy), constrained possibility, finite potential and one jolt of useable energy given by our ‘Big Bang’. Studies near ‘Absolute Zero’ show that the fundamental rule that necessitates space, the ‘Pauli Exclusion Principle’ disappears, and that matter can exist in a state of ‘Superposition’ (a ‘Bose-Einstein Condensate’) Absolute Zero is by definition the barrier where there is no motion. On the other side of ‘Absolute Zero’, as there is no motion, and there is no need for Space or Time: there is only ‘Pure Information’- existing in a Singularity of Superposition as a ‘Quantum Foam’. In Spiritual terms, a Supreme Consciousness: an emptiness, a void, outside of Space and Time. ‘Brahman’, ‘God’, ‘Nirvana’, Plato’s perfect forms and Spinoza’s Substance are all conceptual ways of trying to describe the same state.

@@thelawfus I'm thrilled to find this viewpoint somewhere else than in my own mind. Only that I had imagined the Big Bang as the universe achieving the peak of consciousness, thus "creating" GOD, who consequently created the basis for the universe's and thus his own existence. Assuming that time is non-fundamental, of course.

You mean mathematics is a participatory entity ?

answer is quite obvious, math isn't invented but discovored

You can't make a rectangle with two points

@@Nomadmandude You can define a rectangle with only two points assuming the points are the opposite corners.

Yep I'm constantly struck by how much like the inside of a computer our universe looks. Makes you think.

@@glenneric1 How about Earth? With our communications network we now have we kind of operate like a hive mind, or a big, slow computer.

​@@Nomadmandude You only need to store information about a pair of opposite corners. The other two corners can be inferred. Useful if trying to save space when storing, say, a trillion rectangles for some reason. If, going clockwise, corner A is at (4,10) and corner C is at (7,5), and that's all we know - we can infer the rest. This is a 3x5 rectangle (xA - xC, yA - yC). We can also determine corner B will have coordinates (xC,yA) and must be at (7,10) and corner D will be at (xA,yC) or (4,5). visual aid: www.desmos.com/calculator/geukrvlspu

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity.

Haha, yes I also thought of Absurdle! Of course, the difference being that Absurdle is deterministic and picks the answer that gives the most options, while the universe 'randomly' picks from all possible answers, with weight given to more likely/possible answers.

If only you had some clear idea of what you seek to convey when use the words" the universe", but you are about to demonstrate that you have no clear idea of what you mean by " the universe", probably because it is imaginary and no more than a vague generalisation. All universals are, and can only possibly be imaginary(vague unfocused generalised ideas/associations/images in the associative apparatus/function, or mind), In essence it is a portmanteau term and you have no idea what is in the portmanteau, or in plain teems you simply *cannot define " the universe" save in terms of vague generalisations

Yet you have no idea what you mean by " the universe" and cannot even begin to define it without resort to cognates synonyms, descriptions ans circularity

if anybody wants to know what dogma looks like you can find a pretty clear image of it at 11:11 always fun to see modern physicalists contortion to refuse the logical idea that there exists only one consciousness in the universe, which would explain everything, but sounds too "mystical" for their dogma

Non dualism at its finest. We are the universe experiencing itself ☮️☯️👍

It's marvelous seeing the convergence between the scientific study of physics and Buddhist cosmology. It makes you really appreciate how brilliant people must have been thousands and thousands of years ago.

I really hope Matt answers this question. I'm just as curious now!

Roger Penrose came up in part of his CCC theory based off the seeming paradox of a photon that goes off into infinity.

Indeed. photons only take time to travel because it has interactions with any other particles in the universe. if it was literally alone in the universe, it would not experience ANY time at ALL. This made me realize something funny about time and gravity. Time slows down in gravity and it's said that it's time that causes gravity and not the other way around, you could say that time dilation is the universe literally slowing down the clock speed to calculate all the interactions without errors like a computer would :Þ The game EVE Online actually does this haha.

You need a physician, not a physicist. To deal with the headache, I mean. (BTW - I think part of the headache is that you can't really say that a photon has a "point-in-time-like" existence from the standpoint of an outside observer; that's only true from the point of view of the photon; if we moved at the speed of light, our consciousness would necessarily be very different, if it could exist at all)

This might be the essence of the wave function. Photons are in a state of "superposition" existing because of a future particle interaction making it's reference frame "defined", yet before measurement is still in a state of nonexistence since it's reference frame has not been "defined" yet. However, considering the fact that universe is expanding faster than light, some photons may be traveling through the void of space making the point of there existence never "defined. It would likely depend on whether or not photons are eternal.

YES people brush off this entire concept because they don't understand this!

Repent to Jesus Christ “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭53:5‬ ‭NIV‬‬ M

This video was woke propaganda

I agree, excellent video, I didn't even know Erwin Schrodinger was black until now!!

@@praisejesusrepentorlikewis6218 Thanks for sharing M, and its warms me to the cockles of my heart that you are saved in the blood of the lamb... but this is a conversation about physics... are we perhaps off our meds, or would you like to speak with someone about how Jesus and Quantum Mechanics are connected?

@@ChildOfTheLie96 I'm hoping this is the most hysterically sarcastic thing anyone has ever said... because if it's not, you've just invented the negative IQ. Which is actually impressive, besides dark matter, dark energy, and antimatter, the negative IQ poses serious physical questions; That if an observer with a negative IQ observes an event in the universe, do they de-collapse the wave function??? Inquiring minds....

This is very interesting indeed! There are some similarities to what computer science refers as "capabilities based computing" and your ideas. In a capabilities system, there are rules that all members follow (for example, the amount of energy needed to produce blue light) and the final state (the "reality") is constructed from the initial set of events given. In your example, only a single path of possibilities would be permitted and that would be what we observe. If you wish to understand capabilities a little more, I highly recommend looking for videos about "wave function collapse" for video games (totally unrelated to physics, it's more about constructing game maps from basic rules)

Hmm, your comment it making me think of another strange possibility. Maybe we are experiencing time backwards (what seems to be forwards to us)? Is it possible that the minimum entropy of the big bang is the final state of the universe? By looking up at the clear night sky, you are emitting photons perfectly towards the impending collapse of all things.

@@TheXello sounds very intriguing. Would you care to elaborate further how you see this as being?

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity.

@@nsk370 well if the laws of nature are time symmetrical. Then it doesn't really matter whether we are guided towards minimum entropy or maximum entropy. As we experience time, to us it makes sense that we are heading towards maximum entropy. But that is just the way that time flows in our perspective. It could be that our time flow perspective is reversed from the true flow of time. Granted this is very far-fetched. And I definitely wouldn't place any bets on this idea.

If 2 pebbles collide & 1 sustains a dent, is that considered a measurement or observation? If 2 particles collide & change trajectory, is *that* considered a measurement or observation? IMO that finally solves the q “what if consciousness had never existed”?

Consciousness (as in awareness not mental activities) is just when something’s state changes in response to information from its interaction with another thing, or better stated when something’s (object a) state is changed in from its interaction with another thing (object b) it gains information of that other thing (object b). When scaled up to neural networks which gather external information and synthesize it into a multidimensional matrix (as in there are many datapoints) that represents the outside world (our experience), it makes sense how consciousness derived from particle interactions. The things experiencing the information would be the particles that comprise the neurons which receive the information.

U1

Tbh I don’t know why this channel so frequently focuses on outdated speculative woo no modern working physicist actually cares about. It’s not just “shut up and calculate”, it’s that when all you have is philosophy and thought experiments and can’t set up actual experiments to prove or disprove your points it ceases to be science. Einstein started with thought experiments to formulate and explain his ground breaking theories but eventually we moved on to countless empirical evidence those theories were right. What can’t be tested sooner or later gets discarded and for the little I know, some of the arguments that Matt presents to his audience as still fresh and relevant, have already been discarded a while ago.

@@w315burd then maybe none of it actually happened!

didn't this channel debunk hole observer control magical universe

I wish he would talk more about why there haven't been any real fundamental breakthroughs/discoveries in physics in 40 some odd years.

@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 it's mostly because we don't have any testable alternative theories. Up until very recently every experiment, at least in fundamental physics, has supported the current theories. For the holes we do have (dark matter, etc) no theory has been proposed which explains every experiment we already knows the results of, explains the phenomena we can't yet explain, and it's testable. Testability is probably the biggest issue. That's why we are trying to look farther in space and need bigger super colliders as these will allow more detailed experiments and observations.

what topic? Idiotic interpretations?

@@maythesciencebewithyou metaphysical speculation

Vishnus Dream.

took me many rewatches to get it into my head that Schrodinger was black! who knew?!

Don't do as he encouraged. That's boring, unhelpful, and incurious.

@@tomisaacson2762 How is doing the actual science "Incurious"? The whole point is doing the science, not making up stories and finding ways to make the math make the stories work. If one needs to make up stories to keep science from being "boring" Science may not be the right place for some.

Looks archived already to me...

Physicist here. So for point one: the "collapse" of the wavefunction, or in other words the measurement of the wavefunction in a specific basis with a specific outcome, is a non-unitary process; you can inherently not calculate backwards. Calculating forwards is straightforward given the state into which the system was projected; this is done according to Schrödinger's equation. As to point 2, I'm personally not familiar with the emission operator, but a relatively recent theory paper has proven that only a theory using so-called "local hidden variables" could produce a more complete description of the world than quantum theory. I think this is what you refer to by "hidden model"? The Wikipedia page about hidden variable theory is quite informative.

I'm no physicist but even I can tell you the answer to the first one, time symmetry alone can be broken, in fact only CPT symmetry appears to always hold, meaning some events are physically different going forwards or backwards in time, once you add causality into the mix you have a clear arrow and distinction between forwards and backwards in time. An example of time symmetry being broken can be found in the flavour oscillation of B-mesons.

@@TheBmannumber1 Although the result of wavefunction collapse is non-unitary, the time reversal function of the time dependent equation is anti-unitary is it not? So depending on your interpretation of the question posed there is meaning to solving backwards in time, no?

I struggle with the following… since photons travel at the speed of light, they dont experience time, so by measuring/interacting with it, we modify its whole existance… its not that the wave function is collapsing, its that the object/wave has been interacted with, modifying its whole existance?

@@TheBmannumber1 In the theory of HMMs, calculating backward isn’t achieved with a transition matrix (the classical analogon) either. It’s an entirely different process known as „conditioning“ or recursively applying the „Bayes‘ rule“. I know about Bell‘s refutation of local hidden variables in a classical statistical setting. I‘m not interested in a such a classical theory, but I would like to understand is if one can generalize inference rules to a quantum setting, or possibly even beyond that.

Deep

i keep having the intuition that it's more like a game where they don't waste CPU time on regions that haven't been explored yet. maybe a hot gas only has macroscopic quantities like temperature until somebody needs to know the velocity of a molecule? or until it makes a difference like cleaving another molecule? and the speed of light limit feels suspiciously like someone is compartmentalizing the universe so they can process chunks of the game separately

Gives an initial observation, as well. One from which our observed reality had evolved from. So even though our observations are relevant, they're still an eventuality of that first observation. Or am I way off?

good try, but surely a lazy programmer would have done anything but implement quantum mechanics! As Shor Quantum Algorithm shows, a relatively small quantum computer have an intrinsic computing power superior to all the classical bits existing in the universe

@@ags5377 you can't just compare computing power between quantum and classical computers. Quantum computing can only give you more power for certain specific situations, it's not generally mode powerful.

This is a bit of a misconception. Colour categories vary from language to language and one language's colour terms might not necessarily line up nicely with another language's. The English word "blue" refers to certain wavelengths of light and excludes others, ancient Greek (and many other languages, extant and extinct) categorize what we think of as "blue" differently. Russian, for instance, has completely separate words for light and dark blue in the same way that we have ones for red and yellow. Vietnamese has a single term for both of what we would call blue and green. This doesn't mean that Vietnamese speakers can't tell the difference between what English speakers call blue and green, nor does it mean that Russian speakers can see "more" colours than English or Vietnamese speakers can. We all have roughly the same photo receptors in our eyes, we just semantically categorize them differently.

There is no waveform collapse in many worlds, hence "many worlds". All minds existing in their own universe is most definitely solipsism, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong either, but it does imply that this comment is produced by an unconscious entity. Wait a minute...YOU'RE NOT REAL!! (Queue Twilight Zone theme) 🤪

Don't be so self-centered 😀 hahaha. More seriously, the Transactional Interpretation of QM is what we are looking at here which is kind of a version of this participatory universe. The observer is not some "mind" but simply the only possible state that can exist.. and this has nothing to do with conciseness -- itself a neural net + specific input/output side-effect. Let's just say, if your interactions with the world around you were a little different, you would not be asking the questions you are asking. "Apple does not fall far from the tree" is probably more applicable here. I'm quite certain that a fly also "I think, therefore I am", but since we don't hear it or can communicate with it and thus make assumptions; it seems it does not have the same impact, right? To put this another way, participatory universe means that universe does not exist until you interact with it. By "you" I don't mean *you*, but anything (proton, rock, etc). So yes, the Big Bang exists because we measure it. But we measure it because we exist and are a product of the Big Bang. Infinite logic recursion? 🙂Sounds like QM! 🙂 Now time to shut up and calculate!

you are basically describing the “many worlds” theory of quantum physics by sean carroll. he has some really good content on youtube, highly recommend checking his channel out.

@@BillShatner31 no, here he's claiming that the entire universe from start to finish is in a superposition and the entirety of it collapses all at once into the one universe in which he exists making that observation etc. the moment he makes an observation

That makes a ton of sense and I agree completely

If we leave in a participatory Universe why the Univers creates the Aliens for us since we look so hard from them and we don't see and clue that they exist or existed whatsoever since we peer with out telescopes into the far reaches of space and time

Completely agree. It’s like they intentionally choose words that would mislead any lay person to think that consciousness determines reality instead of interaction, like you said.

@@johnsmith7303 They are not choosing words to mislead people.

I don't think we should confuse interaction with observation. Particles don't care if they're interacting or not, neither do they care if they're real or not. An observation is not just a measurement or a recording. It's the act of a sentient being perceiving an interaction or an effect and objectively reflecting on and reacting to it to predict the future. Self-reflexive consciousness is such a weird, crazy, exasperating phenomenon. It's not that the universe isn't real without conscious observers to perceive it, it's that the question is totally meaningless without any observers, because there's no one around to ask any questions in the first place. We can meaningfully question the nature of reality now with us around to observe it, but whether eg the universe was real before we were around to perceive it? Forget it, just shut up & calculate.

Quantum Darwinism for the win! :D

I watched the video, no need to timestamp anything. And obviously I’m not saying they are literally trying to mislead people, but they do intentionally use terms that inherently gatekeep this kind of info. The ONLY way to observe something is to interact with it, which is why they send particles down a vacuum in these experiments. But instead of stating “The particle is in a superposition until we interact with it,” they say “The particle seems to be in a superposition until we observe it.” This DIRECTLY leads to people putting an emphasis on consciousness rather than the interaction required for the observation. As for the timestamp, it demonstrates my point that he’s having to clarify what he DOESN’T mean when he could just use more accurate terminology.

There is clearly a matter-energy field wave medium that pervades space and photons are obviously a ball of compression energy that causes a field stretch that can reflect, refract, diffract and interfere with little or no loss of energy to the compressed energy ball focal point. -- The beam splitter always randomly reflects the focal point or lets it through, so a random path is always followed. The accompanying field warp / pilot wave is 50% reflected, 50% let through the splitter. When the extra splitter is put in place the diffracted, preceding field warp recombines with constructive interference, forming a wave guide that ensures the focal point always hits the same detector on the right hand side (going by the diagram in the vid), no matter which path the focal point took.. -- Double slit is similar. Preceding stretch-compression field warp / standing wave(let) is large and goes through both slits, diffracts and interferes, forming wave guides (rough and calm field)... The wavelet focal point only goes through the slit it is aimed at but only a tiny amount of quantum randomness is enough for the focal point to randomly hit a wave guide a follow it.. Putting another detector near one of the slits interferes with the wave guides so the focal point goes straight.

@@PrivateSi I like the way you think.

_"When they do, the photon is absorbed and a new one comes out"_ - the photons are not absorbed, and new photons are not emitted. The (QM probability) wave of the photon induces waves in the electrons of the material. And the induced waves then interact with the wave of the photon again, affecting the behaviour of the photon. See Fermilab's excellent explanation of why light refracts in glass: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hnyepISEZ6mYup8.html, and think "probabilities waves", instead of the EM waves he talks about. But it touches on the main question: "when does the probability wave collapse", that is: "what is a measurement?". Or in this experiment: "why does the photon detector make a measurement, but the beam splitter not". The answer to that is not known yet.

@@PrivateSi Just to clarify for others, this is called the "pilot wave theory". Look it up to learn more.

@@renedekker9806 .. It is my variation of Pilot Wave Theory extended to the Quantum Eraser Experiment.. I've been pushing an Electro-Positronic Matter-Energy EM Field theory for years under the radar in forums... Electrons and Positrons are the only known proper permanent fundamental, elementary particles with definite intrinsic mass. -- Quarks have never been seen outside a Proton / Neutron. Many experiment results SHOULD lead to the conclusion that all compound proper matter is MOST LIKELY made only of electrons and positrons. If you want to discuss this you are welcome. -- A load of old +ve charge balls (field cells, quanta, base charge +1) close-packed by free-flowing, compressible, discplacible -ve 'gas' (Pixie Farts / Electron Gas).. It's a Realist, materialist, mechanical model with the electrostatic Coulomb force as it's one base force from which all other forces emerge.. It's a self-balancing field under tension. -- Many Standard Model variations are possible from this MOST SIMPLE FIELD possible from which to emerge Standard Models... My models stick to definite facts. I can explain phenomena possibilities using the model. Mainstream theoretical physics is deeply confused, that is a definite fact even they'll admit. Particle Entanglement and Photon 'entanglement' are very different in my main variation.. AC field vibrations in a 'flux tube' between charged particles vs what I described about QE and DS Experiments.. Wave Guides,

So you are saying that we observers experience the universe along the least-entropy path. But I’m not sure how this path is defined when performing a quantum choice experiment where a hit on detector 1 or detector 0 is random and not defined by whichever event is of lowest entropy… In short, can we prove that our path is the least entropy one ?

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity

@@francoislecomte4340 The path to the lower entropy is what we define as _backward_ in time. When the outcome of the quantum experiment happened and is known, the entropy has increased because it could have been a different outcome as well. But there's just one path to lower entropy, which leads to the state what we call 'before' the measurement, where the entropy was lower.

Interesting point. Atoms can be entangled, so it seems slower than light items experience the same instantaneous effects.

This video better explains the quantum eraser ukposts.info/have/v-deo/aKWabaWtqYemrHk.html

yes, De Broglie showed that any quantum effect also works with the other particles and can be extended to packets of them, up to regular objects. The effects even out, and that's where quantum becomes classic, but only gradually so, although in discrete steps.

@@scififan698 I know that experiments like the double-slit have been done with slower particles. I still think it would be a good thing to verify delayed choice with slower particles, though, to rule out once and for all the relativistic angle. But I'm not a physicist; just an interested bystander.

The fact that experiments like the double-slit experiment is repeatable with particle that have mass shows they are also in a superposition of states and that there's nothing particularly special about photons in that regard. This in turn suggests there is no reason for us to believe particles with mass would behave any differently the delayed choice experiment.

If only Schrödinger had chosen an ugly, disgusting animal!

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity

@@PlanetOcean Moonfall: Let’s outrun gravity!

Interesting questions As for the last one (does there exist a maximum temperature), I recommend you watch the vSauce video "How hot can it get?" TL;DW at a certain point of heat, it simply collapses in to a black hole

Time doesn't stop at the horizon, that is a common misunderstanding. The relativistic effect for an outside observer is that time _appears_ to stop for an infalling observer when viewed from the outside because none of the photons can ever reach us again past that point, so there is a causal disconnection at the point the horizon is crossed. However, for the infalling observer literally nothing changes when they pass the horizon, they wouldn't even notice (well, other than the insanely strong tidal forces that spaghettify you), but any information they could emit back to outside observers is trapped with the infalling observer as well because the spacetime is curved in such a way that nothing on the inside can leave past the horizon.

The problem is that there's too much wrong there. "Time" is not a thing that can stop, anywhere, and it is only the Schwarzschild global time coordinate that goes to infinity at the horizon, but this is unphysical. You can always switch to gullstrand-painleve coordinates where everything crosses the horizon just fine. It is a requirement of GR (see Geodesic Incompleteness theorems) that everything inside a black hole vanishes at the singularity, so they're vacuum spacetimes (they're empty), so no core that exists when the BH evaporates. Temperature can increase until the energy density is sufficient to form a black hole.

I'm not sure if there were deep, coherent thoughts beneath that, sounds like there were, but none of them made it to the surface

That sounds like super inconvenient existential crisis

Sounds like a waste of time.

I am nature

Metaphysics probably doesn't exist fron what we know about physics

@@JustinL614 Metaphysics must exist because physics is finite in its explanatory ability, as the human beings which conduct physics are also finite. What I'm saying is that metaphysics exists to provide potential answers for questions that cannot be solved by physics.

This isn’t true and doesn’t make sense. It just sounds like u are trying to be smart

Why wouldn't it say 'yes' even if its previous answers are contradictory? Can't two directly opposing statements both be true?

@@jackbradley4737 Yes.

What you said isn’t scientific

@@steelwasp9375 Yes.

The explanation you're looking for is quantum decoherence, and it's as difficult to understand as its name makes it sound.

@@YourIdeologyIsDelusional sounds like a good prog Metal Band name :P

there have been a few episodes on quantum decoherence and this concept we're trying to understand: "when/where quantum becomes classical". As you can imagine, there's no perfect answer yet

Quantum-Mysticism was epicly covered by ‚Professor Dave’, a great supplement to this video here, which will in turn then hopefully lead you to his videos about the Discovery Institute, which then may direct you to the UKpostsr Telltale, who covers what you have just realized through this journey-through-youtube: Quantum-Woo and Science-Denial ccan be very deliberatete. I’m sorry my Try to spread Fun/Science sounds so much like ‚giving Homework’, haha.

Anyone that can reply that with total certainity will be a nobel prize winner and will change physics (and the world) forever.

I believe from what I have seen so far from may science movies that many things are emergent like Time and gravity.

Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.