Why does this comment speak to my soul?

lmao, I feel that

Haha

haha

You decohered an ability to get it! lol😊

i always hear that near the end of every sentence he says

yes it makes me so sad, it sucks when its over

Listening to him saying space-time it's the highlight of my week tbh

@@Catmomila totally. "Something something something... ... ... ... ...of our ... ...space-time." :D

@@davetoms1 yeah

It's also the golden age for clickbait and fake news, nevertheless, this show remains true to its roots: quality, semi-understandable, and for the most part accurate knowledge spreading videos that actually teach you something legitimate.

@@scibanana3542 DUDE, DURING WWI FAKE NEWS WAS THE NEWS

@@scibanana3542 "for the most part accurate knowledge" lmfao that's the kind of claim you make without any examples or citations if you want to sound chickenshit or bitter, especially if your channel name sounds like a failed goofy science channel. Not saying you're lying... but the audience has no reason to believe you're telling the truth.

They had pop-sci books even then. It would be the technology itself that they'd be blown away by

Even big brains love dad jokes.

It so happens that any attenpt to find cohesion is itself decoherent, and therefore futile.

Glad they didn't do it, terrible pun

@Sebastian Henkins 🏺

I rather like the attempt to decoherently explain things.

It still boggles my mind, though. Does it mean that since we are already within one "slice" of the wave function, our lives are basically predetermined and we can't influence the future or does the "slice" of reality then keeps on branching out?

@@mabaker from 12:16 it seems reality keeps branching out. But I have a hard time with this as well!

There's also an interesting bit of explanation from Sean Caroll here: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/kpGUm51_cK1zmI0.html

@@DaDoubleD Thanks,Pierre - I'll watch it. Cheers.

@@mabaker What is that supposed to mean? Both your actions and other processes lead to the different futures all of which contain you.

ergo...

Ergo vis-a-vis Concordently

That's sounds like something agent smith would say. Are you Agent Smith?

@@anteconfig5391 Metatron dude... It's the Architect

Bullshit

Get used to that with anything that has the word quantum

.

Destructively*

LOL

Maybe your body needed something unrelated and your conscious mind assigned relation in post?

Thank you for planning to call Future Crimes, how are we about to help you

I hate you right now, for the science dad joke.

Forget everything you think to know about quantum mechanics and realise watching PBS Spacetime leads to an interference pattern in your studies.

.

At least that tiny chunk of the wavefunction we get to see from it, yes.

Isaac Arthur is the best, but Space Time is up there.

The Science Asylum is the best and fermilab

FirstRisingSouI you got that right bro

@@FirstRisingSouI I love Isaac, but I'm going to have to go with Kurzgesagt. I like their style.

I loved that image! Nightmare fuel!

But he doesn't understand decoherence

@@bionoetics5336 How not?

I am jacks total lack of surprise. Also , i could understand this......but i don't wanna😂

This is the moment some greaseball gives you a raw jaw, so - duck.

@@lethalsub SLIDE

That was mental decoherence

Skip to tha Lou

It is the cascade of Quantum Entanglment that has to survive and produce an observable "deflection on the dials" on our measurement devices for us to distingush between "coherent" and "de-coherent" state of the measurement we are trying to perform.

But if this is correct I think it does. What I believe he is saying is that the wave function does not actually collapse, just our ability observe it. So it appears to collapse from our perspective because of decoherence. You have to keep in mind that we are also within the wave function, so we only see the interference pattern because we are entangled with the wave function of the photon as it passes through both slits and interferes with itself. However, any sort of measurement of one of the slits causes a decoherence (or loss of entanglement) between the observer and the particles wave function through the measured slit. So the wave function does not actually collapse, only the loss of coherence (or entanglement) means that we can no longer see it because it is no longer in phase with our reality. We can only see measurement results that are entangled, or coherent, or in phase (so to speak) with our reality. So it doesn't mater when our where the decoherence occurs. The wave function is still there, only we are out of phase with the measurement, so we no longer see the interference pattern, but in a sense it is still there. So if you could somehow observe across multiple decoherent phases, you would see that the interference pattern is still there, but we cannot because we are entangled with one particular coherent reality of the wave function, so for us the wave function/interference pattern appears to collapse. At least this is what I interpreted from all this, it still seems pretty wild when you think about it, and only explains one small aspect of reality. It still doesn't explain anything about consciousness. If versions of us exist in infinite alternate realities branching off through wave function decoherence, causing other realities that we cannot perceive, realities where things are virtually the same and also very different, are those other selves also you? Are you only what your conscious mind can perceive? Or is our perception of reality an illusion? If we are in essence patterns of information arranged in a specific way, if that pattern is repeating through infinite worlds within worlds, perhaps the idea that you exist as a finite being living a single existence is just an illusion of our limited perception. For example, say we were able to vaporize your entire body and then reconstruct an exact duplicate down to the last detail, and did it in less than a microsecond , so from your perception you would not even know it happened, are you still you? If not, how and why? For that matter, if everything you are is a function of what the entire universe is doing at the point we perceive as here and now, are you just your body? It would seem that to is an illusion no?

Eric Michel The concept of "you" is a construction of humanity. What characteristics defines a person are characteristics that we, as people, choose to be definitional, and we can change that definition if we want. That definition is also contingent on human circumstances. For example, this definition does not account for the event of a human body reanimating after 100 years, acquiring the same appearance that was had before death, and then acquiring the exact same personal-emotional traits had before death with memories. Why does it not account this event? Because this event has probably never happened, and it probably never will. If it has happened, then it has not been recorded down in history reliably, and even if it has happened, the observation that this does not consistently happen in this age is a reflection of the fact that this is simply not a situation plausible for the human circumstances. If it were normal for this type of occurrence to happen, then we probably would not be asking ourselves this question, because our definition, which would have adapted to those circumstances, would have a definite answer as to whether that constitutes the same person or not. Besides, in the first place, this question is very loaded and relevant on a significantly more general context. Is any type of change at all the formation of a different person altogether? If I acquire a new memory, am I different me than before? Am I no longer that person, but a different one? What does it mean? The colloquial usage of "you" can most adequately be described as a continuously changing sum of atomic states within a living thermodynamical system. Therefore, by this definition, if I get vaporized and reconstructed perfectly within a microsecond, then I am still the same me as before. Even if you could argue that this me stopped existing, this is not to say that this me did not start existing again.

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Alright, so you are saying that you are defined as a "construction of humanity with characteristics determined by circumstances" all of which is determined by our environment. What determines our environment? If you subscribe to a deterministic universe then it follows that your existence here and now was predetermined from the very moment of creation. So put in another way, as improbable as it may seem, you are literally a localized manifestation of the entire universe. As you put it, we can be described as "a continuously changing sum of atomic states within a living thermodynamical system" essentially a replicating pattern that in an infinite universe (or multiverse) is repeating infinitely throughout space and time. Therefore, the fact that you are a conscious being tells you something about the fundamental nature of the universe. One question, in your definition of "you" you also said "What characteristics defines a person are characteristics that we, as people, choose to be definitional, and we can change that definition if we want." So does this mean you believe in the concept of free will? If you see yourself as a localized system that is a product of you environment (however you care to define that as genetics, society, general circumstances...) Every thought, feeling, and decision you make is predetermined by environmental cause and effect that can literally be traced back to the moment of creation. This fact has been demonstrated with MRI functional brain testing where researchers can accurately predict what choice a subject will make up to four seconds before they consciously make a decision. This seems to indicate that your localized conscious experience is an illusion. Some get very uncomfortable with this realization, believing that this makes them some sort of puppet being pushed around by a cold unconscious deterministic universe. However, the truth is, what it means is that you are far more than just your body/mind. You are having a conscious experience as a localized individual, but that is in fact an illusion. The real you is far more than that, only pretending you are not. What does all this mean? well it does not change the reality of day to day life experience, but it does provide a common sense perspective regarding the ultimate nature of reality. Alan Watts explains all of this far better than I, here are a couple of short clips of his lectures that sum up the basic idea: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/r4VhhI-aeql9l6M.html and ukposts.info/have/v-deo/pX2DpnmQh651kX0.html This a full lecture without the somewhat annoying music background: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/h3F3fJWlrqeEqYU.html

Eric Michel - Eric, I truly appreciate you breaking this down. I for one appreciated what you stated and wish I was quick to pick up this more easily! I also read your latest reply and I enjoy Alan Watts as well! Have a great day. Now if I could only have you break down all the other science and physics questions I have. Lol 😁 jk

@@sisu4134 Glad you liked it! Disclaimer: I am no physicist, just trying to make sense of it from a somewhat layman perspective. I like to post because it helps organize my thoughts and occasionally I even get some constructive feedback. So thanks for the kind words, I have to get back to working on my time machine, now where did I put those crystals ;)

Yep

Um Yeahhhhh

waiting for the drop

Buzzwords: standed, 'slice of', our, we.

Ivan Pavlov would be thrilled!

illesizs this was my thought as well.

Yup, NOTHING EVER really "touches" it in the 1st place. Such Ideas are really reaching imo.

I second this! (or… well, fourtheenth it)

Simple. The system decoheres when you make the measurement that does the erasing. There's nothing particularly special about the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment from a quantum physics perspective. It gives exactly what the Schrodinger equation predicts should happen. The only reason people get so excited about it is because it looks spooky to our monkey brains.

@@FirstRisingSouI That sounds like a non-sequitur. As there is NOTHING intrinsic to the wave equation that predicts a "collapse" at ANY time anyway. & It is "spookier"(for lack of a better term) bc unless you assume a probabilistic natural rendering engine or a nearly infinite # of imaginary universes or something that is, for the time being anyway, still metaphysical, it very much appears retro-causal(as the current best descriptor).

Makes me think of images rendering only when you look, in a game.

Well in the photons frame, it was only ever emitted and absorbed and is not hindered with space-like or time-like events such as an observer traveling at sub-light speeds.

That episode was easy to understand compared to some of their other ones lol

Don't hurt yourself kiddo science is not for everyone

@@everythingisamindgame9666 What's nice about this channel is its just hard core enough to interest actual science students, but approachable enough for people like me to mostly keep up.

@@MichaelMiller-rg6or Yep. Matt is doing an awesome job for several years now.

@@everythingisamindgame9666 science is for everyone, the only problem is that it will be more complicated to understand for some people than others (but not impossible though)

Nope something like that will never happen for us to observe sorry

"Maybe this topic of coherence vs decoherence could go more in depth if we examine how one reality can be subjective to different observers in that same reality." That won't happen, because the wavefunction will have entangled with the environment long before you and other observers observe the results.

it's always in a vacuum. otherwise decoherence would take place.

Maybe it happens rarely. I mean the space is almost empty for the photons and the few ones that get to have interaction just make the result a little more blurry.

Assuming we are talking about transparent gas... well, photons don't interact with a transparent medium, that is why the medium is transparent.

FDDA THOMAS Thomas Young did it in a vacuum?

Stefan B that seems like a fair answer, though air obviously still scatters light a bit. But I guess enough photons don’t scatter, like the comment above just pointed out. Thanks!

In my opinion, the idea that the wavefunction never collapses, but only appears to because of decoherence, doesn't make any less sense than anything else in quantum mechanics. If we accept that systems on a small scale can be in a superposition of multiple possibilities, I would hardly call it nonsense to say that this can probably happen on a large scale as well, especially when that's perfectly consistent with all our observations, and it's what the math predicts unless you specifically add in something to make the wavefunction collapse at some time. So basically, I think that given what we already know, the decoherence hypothesis is more parsimonious than any theory which posits collapse, since wavefunction collapse is just an extra assumption that isn't needed to explain the data. I do like interpretations like the one you mentioned, though, precisely because they actually do allow for ways to test whether the wavefunction collapses, as opposed to the plain Copenhagen interpretation, which says that the wavefunction collapses with no explanation of how or when. Maybe in the future, we will be able to test these interpretations and find out if the wavefunction really does collapse in the way they describe.

Really interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing it!

Well, are you willing to give up causality and information conservation? If so, feel free to believe collapse theories.

Many worlds isn't nonsense unless the whole concept of superposition is nonsense. The idea that the wave function doesn't collapse is unfalsifiable, but a necessary corollary of that fact is that wave function collapse is similarly unfalsifiable. Superposition is just a feature of quantum mechanics. The idea that it doesn't stop at some point shouldn't be treated like bizarre nonsense when the observational outcomes are identical between that and interpretations where we handwave away superposition arbitrarily. The benefit of some real collapse theories like Penroses' is that they actually do propose that quantum mechanics stops working at some point, so there is the possibility of running real tests. The problem is that mosts of the tests would be super expensive, and the only motivation is investigating something that a lot of physicists don't treat as overly important.

@@plasmaballin There's still an extra assumption in MWI, though it's also present in Copenhagen in an equally ad-hoc way; we have to assume that the probability that we'll find ourselves in a given branch follows the Born rule. You almost have to say that reality is just denser in some places than others.

Just watched this movie! That's a great way to describe how the plot follows the science we learn about in this video. Very cool! Makes me appreciate that movie even more.

this. how can different observers see the same thing and not their own version.

Because you will be on the same decohered branch of the wavefunction. Each decohered branch will have its own set of observers.

Vampyricon does that mean fate exists?

quantum is smaller than atomic, much smaller.

@@fredricknietzsche7316 No, atoms exhibit quantum behavior.

i love it! super crazy lol

That was fun, but silent movie Matt was my favorite. Complete with physical props in the background.

That is a thing? What episode lol

No you don't! XD

I'm in a superposition of wanting and not wanting Southpark Space Time.

Yeah I remember hearing about the same experiment. I believe that it was resolved simply, as long as the Which Way information ultimately remained unknown, coherence was maintained..

I think that's as close to metaphysics as physics can get.

What happened to the measurement?

the quantum eraser?

Because they weren't proper measurements as in "some observer entangled with the environment looks at it". It was a pseudo-measurement, where the quantum system was entangled with another quantum system. The combined system can then be manipulated. The destruction of the pseudo-measurement is simply another manipulation of a quantum system.

I would argue it does exist, that the moon itself "sees" itself.

Quantum Decoherence has nothing to do with a sapient observer in macroscale. Its going to happen regardless.

Noetherfications.

If a slit has a surface that can detect the path the particle takes, there is no waveform, it either goes through one slit or the other like a particle. For different forms, you just change the interference pattern. This is actually something you can try at home if you want to play with it. It's a bit tricky to do, but all it takes is a laser pointer, some electrical tape, an exacto knife and a really steady hand.

If you mean different surface toplogies like a beveled corner on one but not the other. It will still have an interference pattern, the shape just might be different.

you know you can do this experiment yourself, right? Take a pointer laser and a piece of wire (or string, it doesn't need to be conductive, just not transparent. tape the wire so it covers in the middle of the laser. boom, you will see the interference pattern.

I believe Eidetic Ex answered your question correctly. The "slits" don't have to be the same size or shape, you'd still get an interference pattern, albeit it might be shaped a bit differently. And like others have suggested, it's cheap and quick to pull this off at home - here's a link for ya (ukposts.info/have/v-deo/h4WbZJ2rap5qtZ8.html).

True

No but photons have momentum, so your neck could literally get tired from watching a video (you'd be immolated long before then, but oh well)

A wave function is just a description of possible positions of the particle, its simultaneously in multiple places when it isn't interacting, but once it interacts with something, ie hits the wall, then its mass becomes real and measurable

Fundamentally the wave function itself cant be measured because measuring it collapses the function into the particle, we can just get around that by forcing random interaction and extrapolating the wave function that way.

kiyoaki1985 - There is only one reality, but limitless interpretations of that reality, based entirely upon ones conscious BELIEFS of that reality - hence the coherence or decoherence is the sum of all conscious observers at the quantum level, regardless of time.

It's important to remember the MWI is an interpretation, i.e., metaphysics, not physics: it does not add any new predictions to QM (not yet at least) - thus to the extent that it may appear to "solve" a problem, we should be skeptical about that solution's empirical veracity, despite perhaps, its mathematical consistency.

any wallsocket - then there is this...www.nature.com/articles/nphys3343

@@delawarecop Nah it has nothing to do with our beliefs any more than it has to do with any other physical configuration of states

kiyoaki1985 - ...and that's what you believe, but it doesn't make it true:)

On the back: it has not

Of course you know that it would have to have more than two arm holes and one each of body and neck holes.

More like T-coherance AMIRIGHT?

True. Re. photons we absorb them with our eyes and then process the resulting data into a coherent version of reality.

No one understands the consciousness interpretation of QM. People only pretend like they do because they want quantum superpowers.

It does not: you need General Relativity to explain the DCQE experiment. Photons experience no time (no time happens, nor space even, at the speed of light, all is here and now for them), QM fails because it is "time-dependent" (i.e. too dampened in obsolete Newtonian ideas such as linear time).

@@LuisAldamiz linear time is far from obsolete. it may be incomplete, but i dont think any other phenomenon is more experimentally verified.

@@LuisAldamiz Wouldn't this mean that DCQE would not work with any particle that has mass?

@@Woffenhorst - My limited understanding is that it would work differently but I haven't calculated at which parameters it would stop working, probably at great distances only, depending on the mass (and thus speed) of the studied particle. My thoughts reach as far as that only.

Not sure exactly what you mean, but it's interesting to think that the branches might just be separated by a dimensional rotation perpendicular to our 4D spacetime. That would make plenty of sense, I've heard it referred to as probability space, but I'm not sure if the concept is hugely speculative. In any case, the relative weakness of gravity is thought to be related to its not being dimensionally confined in the same way as the other forces. So you could imagine how mass in other branches could greatly influence the observed effects of gravity in the cosmos and yet not be visible or interact with ordinary matter (i.e. dark matter). I'm not sure if this is a legitimate area of inquiry. It seems like it. Dark energy would have to be something else, though I suppose you could maybe point at the actual branching process itself being a form of expansion, time and entropy related, happening at a higher rate wherever there is more matter.

I think it could be as legitimate as multiple universe concepts, Many World's and what not. It's a fun thought, but it takes my mind where the darks always take me, a place of wondering and no confident answers.

Almost certainly not but you would need to add all the possible paths to be certain and that's something not even Feynman could do.

Theory is correct I have a micro singularity drive prototype. Produces a zeo point gravitation and relocation due to hv EMF thrust. Demagnetizeing a pulseateing mag feild creates negitive photons for uv laser refraction with oposing rotation. I've said enough.