Werner Heisenberg bought a brand new sports car and invited Erwin Schrodinger for a drive. Along the way they get pulled over. The officer approached the window and said "Do you know how fast you were going?" Werner said, "No, but I know almost exactly where I am." "You were going 90 miles an hour!" "Now I'm lost!" said Werner At that moment Erwin pipes up loud enough for the officer to hear, "I sure hope he doesn't look in the trunk!" Of course the officer says "Alright open the trunk!" They comply and the officer goes behind the car. A few minutes later he returns and exclaims, "There's a dead cat in a box back there!" "Well it's dead now!"
4:37 "... cats just constantly interact with something, like air or the cosmic background radiation". Most notably, cats also _always_ interact with objects at an edge of an elevated place.
Please / I'm having a dificul choice to make here and I do not want to loose Quantum Entanglement ; this enables us the ability to transcend distance at a rate that will get us beyond are Galaxy !
Indeed. here we have a century old problem and at 9:12 into the video Sabine is telling us , there are three solutions to pick from, none of them apparently striking the correct tone otherwise our hundreds of thousands of minds would already have solved it. We need another option or at least stated more fundamentally. This is where one's contribution in physics may actually matter. Think out of the cat's box for once and don't be afraid what your academic watchers will say of you. As for the solution; Sabine how about QP processes simply do not evolve along our clock of 'time'. They are simply not defined in a time frame unless and until the spacetime based observer looks at it. There is a reason we call QP orthogonal to GR.
@@RWin-fp5jn -- personally (as an undereducated layman) I've given up and started choosing to believe that "entangled" particles are just different parts of the same "quantum object". Consider Carl Sagan's thought experiment of an apple descending through a 2-dimensional universe. A 2-dimensional being can only perceive the apple in infinitely thin 2-D cross-sections. A 2-D being therefore can't directly perceive the entire 3-D apple. BUT, as the apple falls through the 2-D plane, the changes over time could give a 2-D being clues to what a 3-dimensional object might look like. What we call "entangled particles" could simply be an artifact of our only being able to perceive and measure objects with MORE than 3 spatial dimensions in a 3-dimensional cross-section. So, until someone proves to me otherwise, I choose to believe that "entangled particles" are simply different parts of the same object making contact with our 3-dimensional plane at multiple points.
Wigner - important twist on Schrödinger's cat experiment -- wonderful step through building blocks to understanding. Worth watching again several times so it has a chance to sink in a thick skull. Marvelous, thank you !
“In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.” Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
I’m a fan of throwing out point 3, the spooky action at a distance. It seems less likely to result in super confusing but technically simpler interpretations where you just have to loosen your grasp on reality to accept. That’s the same reason I like the pilot wave interpretation for the double slit experiment, because it is easier to think about (even if it’s slightly more complicated mathematically).
You are a joy. I am familiar with most of the issues (such as this one). But, your discussions are so disciplined. For a time, I had arguments with a MW friend. When you discussed MW, I just sent him the link. Your reasoning is the same as mine, but you explain it so much better. Also, after I thought deeply about Bell, I settled on super determinism, too.
yes, in their philosophical, strictly, semiotical idiocy: P.Dirac brackets@"cat alive or dead". Reducate yourself on divine scientific semantics (start from A.Tarski, AD 1936)
@@krzysztofciuba271 Schroders cat is an electro chemical impulse in the mind of a person wasting their time. Thus it is clear that the impulse is neither alive or dead nor was it ever alive or dead. Please dispute my reasoning if you have a PhD or greater degree, as I will enjoy humiliating you
@@kayleebridgeman1419 Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment, thoughts are a purely electrical/chemical process in a mind. So you are asking if an imaginary cat in an imaginary box is alive or dead. But what do I know as I just buy Apples and stuff
I agree with you. It’s determined in advance. Make the box transparent and the cat is alive OR dead. The cat whether you see or not is already in a COLLAPSED state, not in a superposition of states.
Excellent video. I love your position on quantum physics and I think you explain your views in a way that is entertaining and thought provoking. Thank you for all your hard work!
I am delighted to hear Sabine, but I think the videos could be subtitled or even dubbed so that they can be seen in Brazil ... Sabine, your line of thinking is wonderful ... Thank you!
Experimental evidence suggests that the cat has quantum-tunnelled out of the box, and is squatting over the scientist's slippers with a strained expression.
I love your take in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Is something that passes by in Physics study. And I really hate Schrodinger's cat jokes because everyone misses the point completly and turns the deep phylosophic meaning aside and start talking about jokes that you already heard a million times in Grad school.
I think the point that YOU are missing is that Schrodinger's cat IS a physics joke. Just like Prof. Heisenberg getting a speeding ticket, or spherical chickens in a vacuum.
Ah, this is the "Schrödinger's lab assistant" experiment, where Schrödinger notionally replaced the cat with his lab assistant. Of course, being a postdoc, he was a qualified observer able to resolve the wave function. But then he in turn was replaced by an undergraduate. Even after opening the box they were unable to determine whether he was dead, alive or just drunk.
This is what annoys me, that no one ever explains this. First, there is no reason to believe that awareness or consciousness is the requirement for "measuring" something, so the fact that it's a self-aware cat is irrelevant. My understanding is that within the closed system (the box) the state has resolved, so yes the cat "knows". However, it's not yet resolved outside of the box and opening the box and "linking" the inside to the outside resolves this for the observer. Not sure if that makes much sense, nor whether this is a correct assessment. Any quantum physicists can jump in now to embarrass me.
What the cat knows is that if it gets out of the box alive then the scientist who put it in there with the poison is dead, the scientist just doesn't know that yet.
My understanding is that an observer is classified as any particle/thing that isn't the particle/thing being measured. This assumption is why we can apply these things to the other end of the universe, and also why the cat is either dead or alive not both in reality, because the air in the box is an observer to the cat and radioactive atom, making the thought experiment impossible outside of being a thought experiment.
Cats are great observers so it was really a bad example, but Schrödinger's daughter later let the cat out the bag, when she explained in a book that her father just really didn't like cats. This was probably just a way for him to torment these animals without harming them. Then I suppose Erwin Schrödinger could have argued that cats are mostly unconscious as they spend most of their time sleeping, so the wave function would not collapse at least 90% of the time...
Another wonderful video by Dr. Hossenfelder. Our thanks also for verbalizing what may rank as one of the dumbest ideas in quantum physics: "Before you measure it, the nucleus is both decayed and not decayed." Something as simple as the undecayed nucleus undergoes a transition that leaves it in a decayed state just won't do: That would be far too simple an explanation, and what's worse, completely in accord with our intuition. The fact that an atom in an excited state *spontaneously* decays to a state of lower energy evidently doesn't have any relevance when describing decaying nuclei. Schrödinger's cat is really a side show, however; the experiment that truly matters is EPR. The person who sheds significant light on that will be very deserving of the Nobel Prize.
Thank you. Very interesting as always. It would be very interesting if you could present your view, about delayed choice quantum eraser experiments too, which I believe, are some how related to the presented issue.
My version doesn't have Schrodinger... Cop: Sir! I pulled you over because you were driving a two tonne car at 100mph! Heisenberg: Oh great... Now I'm lost!
Sabine is like a favorite song. If I like the tune, I don't necessarily care what the words mean. Sabine is so smart I don't necessarily understand everything she says, but I still love listening to her.
Very good video which keeps me updated about what is happening in the field of QM interpretation. I have left his field unfortunately several years ago as I tried to prove the spontaneous decoherence of Quantum states.
I didn't understand the question at the end, but I'll watch again and pay better attention. My doggo, Sweetie, was drooling on me like Pavlov as I watched the first time.
I'm hanging out at home with my Indie-Cat, and now am wondering why Shrödinger had a cat in this thought-experiment and not a dog. I'm guessing he wasn't a 'cat person'.
@@CAThompson I'm cooking my dog and I some breakfast. I wish that I understood Physics better, but it's all very interesting, regardless. Hope your cat is staying out of danger boxes.
Sabine thank you for the awesome videos! Could you do one on superdeterminism? What makes it appealing? How does it compare to entanglement? (as far as I know these two "mechanisms" compete in explaining whats going on in the violation of Bell's inequality, is that right?) :)
Great video as usual. Physicists do not think enough about time with respect to quantum entanglement and superposition. It is possible to separate entangled particles not just by space but also by time.
I would give up the prohibition against "spooky action at a distance." You won't miss it, particularly if the prohibition is eased just for quantum effects. In contrast, superdeterminism implies that chance is an illusion, that everything was predetermined. For this view I have two questions: 1) What predetermines the pre-determinant? A cause infinitely far back in time? If so, nothing is really a determinant, for every apparent determinant actually has a pre-determinant ad infinitum. But if every determinant is not really a determinant, then determinism is an illusion. 2) What role would natural laws play in a super-determined universe? Natural laws are generalizations, but superdeterminism implies every event was determined specifically, in which case no generalization actually is true, in which natural laws are an illusion.
Superderterminism holds that everything that will ever happen is set in motion by the Big Bang, when particles were set on their paths. It's explained in the earlier video in this channel on free will.
I find more magic than science believing that randomness is genuine, not only a lack of knowledge, so I bet on superdeterminism, but I don't know which of the other two to discard.
In superdeterminism, chance is not an illusion. You still haven the randomness of quantum effects. What superdeterminism means is that the initial conditions that kick started the universe as well as the randomness of quantum mechanics are the only events that determine everything anytime in the universe. In essence, you don't have free will, because you cannot change the laws of the universe ( classical or quantum ). We are just computers that process inputs into outputs acording to the laws of the universe. We have no play on how the process works. Sabrine wrote a nice piece on it on her blog one or two years ago. Search for Sabrine superdeterminism the forgotten solution.
Aha - Finally we find out that Schroedinger was a dog person. That explains it all. BTW - Is this why Sean Carroll (cat person) is a many worlds follower? In any case, Love your videos and presentation
One of the better "cat videos" I've seen on RUclips. Thanks Sabine. I think, when it comes to observations, Scientist's are too often blind, deaf regarding the voice of reason, and dumb regarding their conclusions.
I enjoy your videos so much. Free will assumptions muddy the water. Fears concerning “the destruction of falsifiability” only worsen the fog of bias clouding the way forward. Superdeterminism is the simplest explanation. We could at least start there, unhindered by fears of losing something that logically cannot exist.
Dr. H, in super determinism, when you say that it is a smooth, deterministic, and local process, does it not mean that for a short while the cat was in superposition even though that the collapse of the wave function happened before you made the observation? Is it not the same issue, regardless of how short or long time the cat was in superposition?
I am not sure. Cats are not Quantum objects. Even if the Cat is made of particles that are Quantum, the resulting biological construct is not Quantum. Which is why we can apply Newton's laws to Cats and other macro objects. The thing that is actually in superposition is the particle that will trip the hammer and if that is only in superposition for nanoseconds, will the hammer (another macro object) actually have time to be both tripped and not tripped? (I am not a Physicist, just speculating here, so could be wildly wrong).
So the takeaway lesson: Schroedingers cat turned into a dog to escape the death trap, that is really an unexpected outcome of the famous experiment. But well that is how science works and we now have to look for models that could explain that. Morphing escape theory: (1/2 CxAxT + 1/2 CxAxT)box ---> DxOxG(0)box
An article in the mainstream media about quantum physics may include a mention of Schrödinger's cat or may not include a mention of Schrödinger's cat but before I see it I know that it will include a mention of Schrödinger's cat (usually in the first or second scene or paragraph).
Right. The assumption is that reality exists and works in some particular way that gives rise to the math, and not that the math is how the universe works.
Some people would argue that what actually holds is spooky action at a distance (such as non-local determinant models) with no need of superdeterminism. :)
Schroedingers cat.... the most intriguing story I ever heard in physics. Schroedinger who created a thought experiment proving his own theory could not be right! Although superdeterminism is not yet proved right by experimental observation, I’ve been thinking it must be correct since I first read in Gerard ‘t Hooft articles. He did not call it superdeterminism at that time, but just determinism, and i find this term much more appropriate than superdeterminism. Im my opinion superdeterminism is just determinism which is accepted into all its consequences. Its principles are exactly the same as the philosopher Spinoza already formulated in the 17th century: everything is determined by unchangeable laws of nature. All things are connected because even ‘empty space’ is a mode of Substance and all modes are connected (although Spinoza saw this connectedness as a pure mechanical connectedness, it is a remarkable intuition which is now in another form found in quantum field theory: the fields are everywhere). Superdeterminism is the simplest solution to the measurement problem, not requiring supranatural explanations like many worlds, non-locality or the denial of physical reality. The waves of complex numbers numbers described by Schroedingers equation are just statistical descriptions of an underlying reality we are not able to measure (yet).
Schrodinger intended this as an 'ironic' experiment, rather than a real one. (His partner is still alive and explained why he said it). In the case of the cat, it is either alive or dead and if we had a sensor in the box we would know which. Or a very large box and the experiment ran with us inside, then we know with absolute certainty. But, from outside of the box we do not know which it is. The problem is with particles, we can not get in the box so we do not know the state it is in. We the added problem that they seem to behave differently when observed. Personally I think that just means that we do not yet know all of the variables, but I don't know either so it could be some other explanation.
@Matthew Morycinski Remember that Schrodinger's cat in a box is an 'ironic' view. In quantum we can not get in the box, also we can not put any sensor in the box, because it behaves differently when observed. So assuming we are outside, we can not know what the state is inside the box, or in other words, what the transient state of particles is. As I said, I don't think we have a full picture of quantum states yet, but also I am not sure we will ever know. It doesn't mean we can not use those states, only that we can not determine them while they are transient.
@@CAThompson I guess that smelling the box would be enforcing a measurement on a quantum system thus forcing a single choice out of a litter box superposition state?
Hey Sabine, one thing I've always been curious about when it comes to multiple-world (and why I personally don't like it) is that "splitting into multiple-universes" should be something of a proces and therefore take time to complete... is that something people thought about?
Yes. For the most part they think it takes time just that, like the destruction of the superposition state of the cat by interactions with photons or air, it happens extremely rapidly.
@@SabineHossenfelder Well, it's not a thing that propagates. All we have is organized coincidence--how do we know the wavefunction has collapsed everywhere? By measuring somewhere else; and the results of that measurement will be consistent with the first one. In fact the "second" measurement can even be temporally before the "first" one--especially when we throw relativity into the mix. If we say "extremely rapidly" then we raise the question of whether the effect travels faster than c. But according to me, there's no propagation at all, just organized coincidence, so there is no speed of travel, and that question doesn't need to be raised.
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with “collapsing wave functions”. In reality, we exist as a sea of oscillating quantum fields with interference causing local maxima (so they say), so this “collapse” is more that we lack the measuring techniques to determine the effect of something that is spreading out its influence over a wider and wider area. I find it difficult to imagine that there is a step change between uncollapsed and collapsed, just going up a level there is more and more entanglement going on but it becomes for all intents and purposes noise, although it is still there. Maybe there is a kind of filter effect taking place, such that at human scale quantum objects, e.g. a cat, appear to be in one position and composed in a particular way but the closer you look, the fuzzier it gets. The fundamental particles that make up the cat are pure quantum but the bulk properties approximate a cat, due the the unthinkable amount of interaction/entanglement going on all the time. Thoughts?
Some physicists (like Einstein and Hossenfelder) tend to agree with you, and many more are of alternate or opposing convictions. Perhaps there are universes where one set, or the other are correct, and yet, until an experiment is designed and carried out, they exist in superposition.
It is pleasant to hear Sabina pronounce Schrödinger properly. So many of my colleagues cannot do this. ( Also, I can still her say "Differential Equations !" )
Or is the cat always stressed, annoyed or fed up through being endlessly placed in the box by the minds of curious humans LOL. Funnily I remember in my youth trying to convince people that mirrors both reflect nearfield reality but the things outside of reflective viewing area were and could be completely different realities... beyond the room or reflection viewpoint....with interesting and amusing mixed results
Is it possible that your reflection in the mirror is just the most probably pic? And the rest, whatever it is, is just improbable to show up? - maybe complete nonsense what I wrote
@John Talbot: Re your "... I tried convincing ppl that mirrors reflect a nearfield reality as well as other realities..." Wow! You must have been very popular with the ppl around you. Like, "Uh-oh, look out, here comes Johnny boy and his crazy mirror!" 😂 HC-JAIPUR (27/02/2021)
@@hiltonchapman4844 LoL....I probably was the weird one out of most of my friends...especially those friends behind the mirror LOL. In truth I just always had a silly imagination and way of looking at things...and like to amuse and confuse.
@@jollyjokress3852 Could be...or maybe the mirror just reflects the person it thinks we are !? Or perhaps we have an exact double who actually lives in the mirror world...which are all fun and silly things to ponder
@@humanitech Re your response ".... I just always had a silly imagination and way of looking at things... and amuse and confuse." It's called thinking out of the box, thinking beyond the envelope. It's the stuff that produces genius. Just go easy on the "confuse" bit. I know you're not serious about it, just going with the flow (of the prose), so no big deal. Anyway, thanks for the response. HC-JAIPUR (28/02/2021)
I grew up learning christianity but rejected it because miracles seem illogical to me. Now learning quantum physics making me think perhaps I was too hasty to reject christianity.
@@hollyc5417 I don't think that Copenhagen interpretation ever said what Schroedinger wanted us to believe it said with the cat's paradox. Copenhagen interpretation says that we can't say anything about something that is unobserved, not that a cat is dead AND alive at the same time. Superposition of states only occur in the calculations we make. It is a REPRESENTATION of all the potential outcomes of an experiment at the same time. Copenhagen doesn't say that superposed states ACTUALLY exist. I really don't think that Bohr would have said that the cat is "dead and alive". He would have said that "we can say nothing about the cat's state until we open the box and observe". It was Schroedinger who made the paradox arise, because he was bound to believe that the superposed (calculated potential) states were ACTUAL states. It was his mistake, not Copenhagen's.
@@andsalomoni , I’d like to believe that your understanding of Copenhagen is the one they intended. But it’s certainly not the one taught in most universities. If it constitutes a denial of objective reality, as Dr. H seems to imply, is it logically possible to properly understand it?
@@anatomicallymodernhuman5175 I'm pretty sure that my understanding of Copenhagen is what Bohr himself thought and said, at least I think so. It constitutes a denial not of an objective reality, but of an observer-independent objective reality. When we make a measurement, we get an objective result, which is part of an objective reality. But we can't say that the result existed in advance, independently of our observation. Objective reality is kind of flexible and non-permanent. It is objective, but there is a "creative" aspect in it, which manifests when an observation is made.
Sabine, I can't read 1.354 comments. Let alone have you read mine. My observation is the number of views-to-comments ratio your channel receives. Yours are particularly high, especially after only 72 hours. Well deserved! Rock On our favorite skeptical physicist!
I am going to climb into a box, and throw away one of the assumptions at random. Until you open the box and interrogate me, all three axioms will exist in a superposition of accepted and rejected states.
9:15 - I'm really not knowing any of the details on what's at stake here, but I personally feel most comfortable with the "spooky action at a distance" of the three options.
#Derek Frost: Re your "If Schrödinger's cat was a dog..." What! Isn't Schrödinger's cat a chihuahua? No? Oh, woe is me, shame and scandal in the family! 😂 😹 HC-JAIPUR (27/02/2021)
It's my understanding that Schrodinger invented the cat experiment to prove the absurdity of superposition, and was appalled when most people said that it actually proved it.
Super determinism is deterministic in the moment of the observable present, based on the culmination of all of the elements of reality which have accumulated. This includes elements of both chance and intentionality, derived through prior accumulated determinations, realized at the moment of present. This presents the allusion of predetermination, which is in fact merely "evolution". The cat is not both dead and alive dependent on observation. So, regarding your video question, Sabine, it is No. 2: -- "Measurements do not have definite outcomes." Measurements confirm outcomes.. Observation confirms whether the cat is dead or alive. Entanglement is similarly, an evolved state, not a predetermined or otherwise, a communicated state, even if the elements of such "evolution" remains "spooky". The same would be true of what is theorized to be the two dimensional, information hologram of a black hole.
What's Keif say about the cat, it can't get no satisfaction, a no no no, a hey hey hey, that's what he say? Pass me that bottle o' Jack mate that cat is a headache, put it outside to run free! Cheers!
I would just throw out quantum mechanics. It is a good theory, but it is an approximation. All these interpretations interpret a universe in which QM is exactly true, and that is not our universe. We should interpret QFT if anything, but we only understand that theory for weak interactions... so all we can interpret is, again, an approximation. We are too far from understanding anything.
Agreed. General relativity on the other hand might not be complete yet (we don't really understand it on a much larger scale than our solar system), but it is in my opinion much closer to the truth than QM. Nothing spooky about it.
I don’t think so. All forces act through fields or, for gravity, through time and space. And waves infields or in time and space travel not faster than the speed of light.
@@markbehets But saying that forces act through fields is just another way of saying there is action at a distance, and that there is a delay associated with the propagation of the action.
That would be Einstein's second mistake (since it is his quote) ? He was no fan of non-determinism either. Then again, neither is Sabine. Notable Fact: I have never seen Einstein and Sabine in the same place, time coordinate. Yet their physics convictions seem to be highly compatible, if not identical. Could this be "Spooky Action At A Space-Time Distance ?
THANK YOU! I'm not a physicist but I follow the subject closely as a layman. Several years ago, it struck me that a measurement is nothing more than the object in question interacting with the particles of the measuring device. Many people, however, interpret "measurement" as involving a consciousness and, since quantum physics tells us that we can't know the outcome of a measurement until a conscious mind observes it (according to them), they then think that reality is subjective, that we actually create it by interacting with it or even merely thinking about it. In other words, wish it and it is so. The idea that came to me, instead, is that since a measurement is just another particle interaction, then *all* particle interactions are, in quantum effect, "measurements." Therefore, we have wave functions collapsing willy nilly all over the place, all over the time, thereby making things like position and velocity "real" at every moment, if they weren't before due to superposition. I have to go learn about superdeterminism now. Thanks for confirming my insight on this.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
Even Heisenberg must be uncertain about it 😉
Werner Heisenberg bought a brand new sports car and invited Erwin Schrodinger for a drive. Along the way they get pulled over. The officer approached the window and said "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Werner said, "No, but I know almost exactly where I am."
"You were going 90 miles an hour!"
"Now I'm lost!" said Werner
At that moment Erwin pipes up loud enough for the officer to hear, "I sure hope he doesn't look in the trunk!"
Of course the officer says "Alright open the trunk!" They comply and the officer goes behind the car. A few minutes later he returns and exclaims, "There's a dead cat in a box back there!"
"Well it's dead now!"
lmao
lol
Heisenberg Beer - probably the best beer in the world.
Ah, yes, the famous Schrödinger's Cat in Heisenberg's Trunk experiment!
4:37 "... cats just constantly interact with something, like air or the cosmic background radiation".
Most notably, cats also _always_ interact with objects at an edge of an elevated place.
I can tell where my cat has interacted with things by the shed fur.
Yes. My cat efficiently tidies my desk.
Even better if you phrase it as "Cats interacts with everything not in ground state."
they interact with objects after the edge, that's literal quantum tunnelling for you
god created cats to ensure that gravity is uniformly enforced throughout the universe … it's the law.
Don’t know why I can’t stop listening and learning. You are the most advanced science channel for normal people. Thanks
Sabine, can we please have an episode discussing the implications of throwing out any one of these assumptions?
Please / I'm having a dificul choice to make here and I do not want to loose Quantum Entanglement ; this enables us the ability to transcend distance at a rate that will get us beyond are Galaxy !
@@cometrider2000 Entanglement is already being used...
Indeed. here we have a century old problem and at 9:12 into the video Sabine is telling us , there are three solutions to pick from, none of them apparently striking the correct tone otherwise our hundreds of thousands of minds would already have solved it. We need another option or at least stated more fundamentally. This is where one's contribution in physics may actually matter. Think out of the cat's box for once and don't be afraid what your academic watchers will say of you. As for the solution; Sabine how about QP processes simply do not evolve along our clock of 'time'. They are simply not defined in a time frame unless and until the spacetime based observer looks at it. There is a reason we call QP orthogonal to GR.
@@cometrider2000 Have you tried considering the Feds latest move on interest rates?
@@RWin-fp5jn -- personally (as an undereducated layman) I've given up and started choosing to believe that "entangled" particles are just different parts of the same "quantum object".
Consider Carl Sagan's thought experiment of an apple descending through a 2-dimensional universe. A 2-dimensional being can only perceive the apple in infinitely thin 2-D cross-sections. A 2-D being therefore can't directly perceive the entire 3-D apple.
BUT, as the apple falls through the 2-D plane, the changes over time could give a 2-D being clues to what a 3-dimensional object might look like.
What we call "entangled particles" could simply be an artifact of our only being able to perceive and measure objects with MORE than 3 spatial dimensions in a 3-dimensional cross-section.
So, until someone proves to me otherwise, I choose to believe that "entangled particles" are simply different parts of the same object making contact with our 3-dimensional plane at multiple points.
When Sabine explains anything, I feel I'm getting closer to understanding it than ever in my life.
Wigner - important twist on Schrödinger's cat experiment -- wonderful step through building blocks to understanding. Worth watching again several times so it has a chance to sink in a thick skull. Marvelous, thank you !
“In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.”
Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
I’m a fan of throwing out point 3, the spooky action at a distance. It seems less likely to result in super confusing but technically simpler interpretations where you just have to loosen your grasp on reality to accept. That’s the same reason I like the pilot wave interpretation for the double slit experiment, because it is easier to think about (even if it’s slightly more complicated mathematically).
Each week your videos bring me to a closer understanding of physics! Thanks for your wonderful content, Sabine!
You are a joy. I am familiar with most of the issues (such as this one). But, your discussions are so disciplined. For a time, I had arguments with a MW friend. When you discussed MW, I just sent him the link. Your reasoning is the same as mine, but you explain it so much better.
Also, after I thought deeply about Bell, I settled on super determinism, too.
Sabine has a perfect voice for her videos
Sabine's position and explanation on this subject matter, is....once again superb!
Every time I watch one of your videos, I feel like I actully understand something.
You are a great teacher.
I love when Sabine makes a video just a minute before going to the ball room.
Excelent presentation. Not that I comprehend it, I'll have to rewatch several more times before even comprehending 10%, maybe.
Brilliantly explained! Thank you so much.
"A laser pulse is approximately a cat" - This sentence alone should be enough to get young people interested in physics
yes, in their philosophical, strictly, semiotical idiocy: P.Dirac brackets@"cat alive or dead". Reducate yourself on divine scientific semantics (start from A.Tarski, AD 1936)
@@krzysztofciuba271 Schroders cat is an electro chemical impulse in the mind of a person wasting their time. Thus it is clear that the impulse is neither alive or dead nor was it ever alive or dead. Please dispute my reasoning if you have a PhD or greater degree, as I will enjoy humiliating you
@@area51z63 explain more. If it’s not alive or dead what is it. How is it an electro chemical impulse
@@kayleebridgeman1419 Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment, thoughts are a purely electrical/chemical process in a mind. So you are asking if an imaginary cat in an imaginary box is alive or dead. But what do I know as I just buy Apples and stuff
As we all already know, a cat can be controlled with a laset.
I agree with you. It’s determined in advance. Make the box transparent and the cat is alive OR dead. The cat whether you see or not is already in a COLLAPSED state, not in a superposition of states.
You are telling us that you don't understand quantum mechanics. So what, though? So nothing. ;-)
Thank you, Sabine, for demonstrating the proper pronunciation of "Schrödinger".
Well, that was the German pronunciation of the last name. It’s now so widely known in English, that we have our own pronunciation.
Unfortunately, Sabine spelt Schroedinger without an “r” in the title!
Excellent video. I love your position on quantum physics and I think you explain your views in a way that is entertaining and thought provoking. Thank you for all your hard work!
I love and admire this lady so much... The subject has been studied for so many years, still... Sabine's always so intelligent and so relevant.
As a science fiction writer, I find the multiworlds hypothesis to create the greatest temptation toward convenient plot solutions.
you must work for marvel comics
Multiverses and Time Travels are a gold mine to science fiction.
I just mention "The Gods Themselves" and "The Door Into Summer".
@@andsalomoni One of the best time travel stories is Asimov's The End of Eternity."
@@gregcampwriter Yes, I read it!
Heinlein: The Number of the Beast
This is so way beyond my IQ level, and yet so deliciously captivating.
Don't confuse IQ with lack of knowledge. I've done a lot of that. 🖖
I'd add that the IQ tests are bullshit.
@@andsalomoni Very true, but little known, fact. ;)
Actually, Schrodinger had both a cat and a dog until he observed it.
I'm still laughing.
Lol
This is how I feel when i combine physics and philosophy
Pavlov’s dog. Salivated every time it was observed.
Where is the humane society when you need them????
Nice tutorial. Thanks
I am delighted to hear Sabine, but I think the videos could be subtitled or even dubbed so that they can be seen in Brazil ... Sabine, your line of thinking is wonderful ... Thank you!
Experimental evidence suggests that the cat has quantum-tunnelled out of the box, and is squatting over the scientist's slippers with a strained expression.
The cat then proceeds to leave hair all over the physicists house...
One can only dream . . . 🤣
😂.
I think the cat found the experimenter's bed and left a token of her esteem.
I love your take in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Is something that passes by in Physics study. And I really hate Schrodinger's cat jokes because everyone misses the point completly and turns the deep phylosophic meaning aside and start talking about jokes that you already heard a million times in Grad school.
I think the point that YOU are missing is that Schrodinger's cat IS a physics joke. Just like Prof. Heisenberg getting a speeding ticket, or spherical chickens in a vacuum.
Nicely done
Sabine, will you make a video about pseudoparticles like phonons and polaritons? Love the channel and the videos get better each time.
It's no wonder there's still confusion over Schrodingers cat, the old lad forgot to factor in that they've got nine lives..
Smartest comment!!! And I observed it 🧐
Even after nine lives the cat is most likely dead by now. He invented the box in 1935. Now we are in 2021. No cat gets that old not even with 9 lives.
When a cat enters the lab it has already lost 8 of those lives.
OMG the delivery of the line on Schrodinger's dog was 10/10 😂😂
Ah, this is the "Schrödinger's lab assistant" experiment, where Schrödinger notionally replaced the cat with his lab assistant. Of course, being a postdoc, he was a qualified observer able to resolve the wave function. But then he in turn was replaced by an undergraduate. Even after opening the box they were unable to determine whether he was dead, alive or just drunk.
Underrated comment
Isn't this an argument for superintoxication?
Wonderful! Thank you so much for your very nice and interesting thoughts!
Sharp and clear explanation 👍👍
Isn't the cat itself as a living being with self-awareness an observer of its own death / staying alive?
This is what annoys me, that no one ever explains this. First, there is no reason to believe that awareness or consciousness is the requirement for "measuring" something, so the fact that it's a self-aware cat is irrelevant.
My understanding is that within the closed system (the box) the state has resolved, so yes the cat "knows". However, it's not yet resolved outside of the box and opening the box and "linking" the inside to the outside resolves this for the observer.
Not sure if that makes much sense, nor whether this is a correct assessment. Any quantum physicists can jump in now to embarrass me.
What the cat knows is that if it gets out of the box alive then the scientist who put it in there with the poison is dead, the scientist just doesn't know that yet.
My understanding is that an observer is classified as any particle/thing that isn't the particle/thing being measured. This assumption is why we can apply these things to the other end of the universe, and also why the cat is either dead or alive not both in reality, because the air in the box is an observer to the cat and radioactive atom, making the thought experiment impossible outside of being a thought experiment.
Cats are great observers so it was really a bad example, but Schrödinger's daughter later let the cat out the bag, when she explained in a book that her father just really didn't like cats. This was probably just a way for him to torment these animals without harming them.
Then I suppose Erwin Schrödinger could have argued that cats are mostly unconscious as they spend most of their time sleeping, so the wave function would not collapse at least 90% of the time...
Actually, as Sabine said, even the air around it can measure the cat. You don't need to be conscious
I am not a science buff but I feel like I am beginning to understand your videos. Another great video! Thank you
Should have put Pavlov's dog in the box , that mut was used to being screwed with .
Another wonderful video by Dr. Hossenfelder. Our thanks also for verbalizing what may rank as one of the dumbest ideas in quantum physics: "Before you measure it, the nucleus is both decayed and not decayed." Something as simple as the undecayed nucleus undergoes a transition that leaves it in a decayed state just won't do: That would be far too simple an explanation, and what's worse, completely in accord with our intuition. The fact that an atom in an excited state *spontaneously* decays to a state of lower energy evidently doesn't have any relevance when describing decaying nuclei. Schrödinger's cat is really a side show, however; the experiment that truly matters is EPR. The person who sheds significant light on that will be very deserving of the Nobel Prize.
Thank you for this interesting video, beautiful Sabine 😍👍🔔
Thank you. Very interesting as always. It would be very interesting if you could present your view, about delayed choice quantum eraser experiments too, which I believe, are some how related to the presented issue.
Thanks, I will keep this in mind.
@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you (:
Most importantly, Schrödinger's cat gave rise to the BEST science joke ever: "Schrödinger and Heisenberg were driving in a car. . ." LOL!
Ah yessss. The cop retired that day.
... and Ohm.
@@heldersilva6672 who "resists" arrest. LOL! I like that version, too.
My version doesn't have Schrodinger...
Cop: Sir! I pulled you over because you were driving a two tonne car at 100mph!
Heisenberg: Oh great... Now I'm lost!
I love that joke...
I always did think schrodinger to be a dog person, with all the talk of poisoning cats.
but to think about somethin you loathe all the time (with some part of it unpoisoned and alive), I'd rather put in something neutral ;)
@Vera Tkocz Mmm yes, Schrodinger's hamsters.
Schrodinger's daughter said, "She thinks he used cats because he didn't like cats."
@@gyro5d haha. Imagine it was the same cat all over in his thoughts experiments. Like the South-Park Kenny. Poor kitty-cat.
@@jollyjokress3852; Wouldn't the release or not of poison, matter before the cat? Aether Field or coiled Aether Field.
Sabine is like a favorite song. If I like the tune, I don't necessarily care what the words mean. Sabine is so smart I don't necessarily understand everything she says, but I still love listening to her.
Very good video which keeps me updated about what is happening in the field of QM interpretation. I have left his field unfortunately several years ago as I tried to prove the spontaneous decoherence of Quantum states.
"Schrodinger did not have a cat"
Well... not anymore at least...
You don't know that...
Maybe in *this* universe...
I heard he both had a cat and didn't have a cat depending on whether his neighbour observed it in their flower bed.
but maybe he did have a cat
I didn't understand the question at the end, but I'll watch again and pay better attention. My doggo, Sweetie, was drooling on me like Pavlov as I watched the first time.
I don't know the answer to that question. But I think my dog is hungry.
I'm hanging out at home with my Indie-Cat, and now am wondering why Shrödinger had a cat in this thought-experiment and not a dog. I'm guessing he wasn't a 'cat person'.
@@CAThompson I'm cooking my dog and I some breakfast. I wish that I understood Physics better, but it's all very interesting, regardless. Hope your cat is staying out of danger boxes.
@@grokeffer6226 She'd better, LOL
Sabine thank you for the awesome videos!
Could you do one on superdeterminism? What makes it appealing?
How does it compare to entanglement?
(as far as I know these two "mechanisms" compete in explaining whats going on in the violation of Bell's inequality, is that right?)
:)
really enjoying the content keep up the good work thanks
Thank you! I just found your channel and I love it.
Maybe he was a dog person and probably hates cat... thats why he placed cat in a such place....
But he made that cat famous 😅😂😂
That's my sup(erposition)position.
The thought experiment using a dog would never have survived and been retold by many. People care too much about dogs.
He was a cat person: only cats like living in a box for any amount of time. Dogs look like you hate them if you put them in a box.
@@elmersbalm5219 One is unlikely to survive boxing-up a cat unscathed though.
@@CAThompson indeed. I speak from bitter experience when relocating.
Well, in ireland we're all very religious and the missionary is considered a super position.
I love my fellow countrymen
@@rossjackson7352 ah, but there might be a Dog!
@@rossjackson7352 Well, theological epistemology, and God in general, does come up a lot. Some people take it the wrong way.
69 upvotes for you!
I have a Schrodinger's lottery ticket...
i have a schrodinger's mind, or maybe not.
Or maybe not. I haven’t looked yet.
Is it a winning ticket or a losing ticket? Depends if I look.
Your content is absolutely precious.
Great video as usual. Physicists do not think enough about time with respect to quantum entanglement and superposition. It is possible to separate entangled particles not just by space but also by time.
I would give up the prohibition against "spooky action at a distance." You won't miss it, particularly if the prohibition is eased just for quantum effects. In contrast, superdeterminism implies that chance is an illusion, that everything was predetermined. For this view I have two questions: 1) What predetermines the pre-determinant? A cause infinitely far back in time? If so, nothing is really a determinant, for every apparent determinant actually has a pre-determinant ad infinitum. But if every determinant is not really a determinant, then determinism is an illusion. 2) What role would natural laws play in a super-determined universe? Natural laws are generalizations, but superdeterminism implies every event was determined specifically, in which case no generalization actually is true, in which natural laws are an illusion.
Superderterminism holds that everything that will ever happen is set in motion by the Big Bang, when particles were set on their paths.
It's explained in the earlier video in this channel on free will.
I find more magic than science believing that randomness is genuine, not only a lack of knowledge, so I bet on superdeterminism, but I don't know which of the other two to discard.
In superdeterminism, chance is not an illusion. You still haven the randomness of quantum effects. What superdeterminism means is that the initial conditions that kick started the universe as well as the randomness of quantum mechanics are the only events that determine everything anytime in the universe. In essence, you don't have free will, because you cannot change the laws of the universe ( classical or quantum ). We are just computers that process inputs into outputs acording to the laws of the universe. We have no play on how the process works. Sabrine wrote a nice piece on it on her blog one or two years ago. Search for Sabrine superdeterminism the forgotten solution.
@@pedroteixeira4369 Sabine, do you mean?
@@CAThompson Yes! thanks for correcting me. :)
Aha - Finally we find out that Schroedinger was a dog person. That explains it all. BTW - Is this why Sean Carroll (cat person) is a many worlds follower? In any case, Love your videos and presentation
One of the better "cat videos" I've seen on RUclips. Thanks Sabine. I think, when it comes to observations, Scientist's are too often blind, deaf regarding the voice of reason, and dumb regarding their conclusions.
Well, I don't know, Owlkitty is a pretty strong contender...
ruclips.net/video/BqYyE2JNMfg/видео.html
So now poor Sabine has sunk so low that she has started making cat videos? 😳😂
@@Bjowolf2 Her Schrodinger's Cat "music video" is awesome, no joke. ruclips.net/video/I_0laAhvHKE/видео.html
@@picksalot1 Thank you - will check it out 😉
@@picksalot1 😂
Since you are the only physicist that has taken the effort to explain the cat in away that holds my interest freely I'm going with Superdeterminism.
I enjoy your videos so much. Free will assumptions muddy the water. Fears concerning “the destruction of falsifiability” only worsen the fog of bias clouding the way forward. Superdeterminism is the simplest explanation. We could at least start there, unhindered by fears of losing something that logically cannot exist.
Dr. H, in super determinism, when you say that it is a smooth, deterministic, and local process, does it not mean that for a short while the cat was in superposition even though that the collapse of the wave function happened before you made the observation? Is it not the same issue, regardless of how short or long time the cat was in superposition?
I am not sure. Cats are not Quantum objects. Even if the Cat is made of particles that are Quantum, the resulting biological construct is not Quantum. Which is why we can apply Newton's laws to Cats and other macro objects. The thing that is actually in superposition is the particle that will trip the hammer and if that is only in superposition for nanoseconds, will the hammer (another macro object) actually have time to be both tripped and not tripped? (I am not a Physicist, just speculating here, so could be wildly wrong).
So the takeaway lesson: Schroedingers cat turned into a dog to escape the death trap, that is really an unexpected outcome of the famous experiment. But well that is how science works and we now have to look for models that could explain that. Morphing escape theory: (1/2 CxAxT + 1/2 CxAxT)box ---> DxOxG(0)box
An article in the mainstream media about quantum physics may include a mention of Schrödinger's cat or may not include a mention of Schrödinger's cat but before I see it I know that it will include a mention of Schrödinger's cat (usually in the first or second scene or paragraph).
😒😆
This was a brilliant video! Thank you!
Your explanation to Schrodinger's cat is mind blowing 😊
"The cat cannot be both dead and alive at the same time . . ." Sweetheart Sabine obviously doesn't know my cat.
Sounds like your cat is the owner and you're the staff.
Key word being “interpretation”.
Right. The assumption is that reality exists and works in some particular way that gives rise to the math, and not that the math is how the universe works.
Yep, and I hope physicists are getting to the realization that they can't just wave the problem away.
At first I thought she said "The cat is in a box with a vile person" - but you'd never get that past the ethics committee.
Some people would argue that what actually holds is spooky action at a distance (such as non-local determinant models) with no need of superdeterminism. :)
Schroedingers cat.... the most intriguing story I ever heard in physics. Schroedinger who created a thought experiment proving his own theory could not be right! Although superdeterminism is not yet proved right by experimental observation, I’ve been thinking it must be correct since I first read in Gerard ‘t Hooft articles. He did not call it superdeterminism at that time, but just determinism, and i find this term much more appropriate than superdeterminism. Im my opinion superdeterminism is just determinism which is accepted into all its consequences. Its principles are exactly the same as the philosopher Spinoza already formulated in the 17th century: everything is determined by unchangeable laws of nature. All things are connected because even ‘empty space’ is a mode of Substance and all modes are connected (although Spinoza saw this connectedness as a pure mechanical connectedness, it is a remarkable intuition which is now in another form found in quantum field theory: the fields are everywhere).
Superdeterminism is the simplest solution to the measurement problem, not requiring supranatural explanations like many worlds, non-locality or the denial of physical reality. The waves of complex numbers numbers described by Schroedingers equation are just statistical descriptions of an underlying reality we are not able to measure (yet).
at this point the cat starved to death. No one opened the box to feed him. .. 😥
😂😂
... 😒
the passage of time solves yet another problem.
I am not in the box you fool
"Is it really both dead and alive ? And if so, what does that mean ?"
Zombie Cat ! Open-shut-case Johnson !
Schrodinger intended this as an 'ironic' experiment, rather than a real one. (His partner is still alive and explained why he said it).
In the case of the cat, it is either alive or dead and if we had a sensor in the box we would know which. Or a very large box and the experiment ran with us inside, then we know with absolute certainty. But, from outside of the box we do not know which it is.
The problem is with particles, we can not get in the box so we do not know the state it is in. We the added problem that they seem to behave differently when observed.
Personally I think that just means that we do not yet know all of the variables, but I don't know either so it could be some other explanation.
@Matthew Morycinski Remember that Schrodinger's cat in a box is an 'ironic' view.
In quantum we can not get in the box, also we can not put any sensor in the box, because it behaves differently when observed. So assuming we are outside, we can not know what the state is inside the box, or in other words, what the transient state of particles is.
As I said, I don't think we have a full picture of quantum states yet, but also I am not sure we will ever know. It doesn't mean we can not use those states, only that we can not determine them while they are transient.
Don't forget Schrödinger's Cat Litter : clean or not clean?
You just have to smell that box to know!
@@CAThompson I guess that smelling the box would be enforcing a measurement on a quantum system thus forcing a single choice out of a litter box superposition state?
never clean for long.. in my house cleaning the box is an immediate trigger for using the box
@@frinoffrobis can you fake-clean it first?
@@frinoffrobis I know, I observed it myself! But you can re-clean it immediately, the cat will not be able to poop again much!
Brilliant, thank you :)
Fascinating i always wanted to know why we don't do the Schrodinger's cat experiment for real in some sense, great explanation makes perfect sense.
Hey Sabine, one thing I've always been curious about when it comes to multiple-world (and why I personally don't like it) is that "splitting into multiple-universes" should be something of a proces and therefore take time to complete... is that something people thought about?
Yes. For the most part they think it takes time just that, like the destruction of the superposition state of the cat by interactions with photons or air, it happens extremely rapidly.
@@SabineHossenfelder Well, it's not a thing that propagates. All we have is organized coincidence--how do we know the wavefunction has collapsed everywhere? By measuring somewhere else; and the results of that measurement will be consistent with the first one. In fact the "second" measurement can even be temporally before the "first" one--especially when we throw relativity into the mix.
If we say "extremely rapidly" then we raise the question of whether the effect travels faster than c. But according to me, there's no propagation at all, just organized coincidence, so there is no speed of travel, and that question doesn't need to be raised.
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with “collapsing wave functions”. In reality, we exist as a sea of oscillating quantum fields with interference causing local maxima (so they say), so this “collapse” is more that we lack the measuring techniques to determine the effect of something that is spreading out its influence over a wider and wider area. I find it difficult to imagine that there is a step change between uncollapsed and collapsed, just going up a level there is more and more entanglement going on but it becomes for all intents and purposes noise, although it is still there.
Maybe there is a kind of filter effect taking place, such that at human scale quantum objects, e.g. a cat, appear to be in one position and composed in a particular way but the closer you look, the fuzzier it gets. The fundamental particles that make up the cat are pure quantum but the bulk properties approximate a cat, due the the unthinkable amount of interaction/entanglement going on all the time.
Thoughts?
I reckon that's very close to how I would say what I think about it. But, I know virtually nothing, just a bloke with a curiosity about things. :)
Some physicists (like Einstein and Hossenfelder) tend to agree with you, and many more are of alternate or opposing convictions.
Perhaps there are universes where one set, or the other are correct, and yet, until an experiment is designed and carried out, they exist in superposition.
In another universe, the Planet of the Cats call it Schrodinger's human.
I have never thought superposition was strange just mathematics you have given the best explanation.Thanks for the clear explanation.😅
It is pleasant to hear Sabina pronounce Schrödinger properly. So many of my colleagues cannot do this. ( Also, I can still her say "Differential Equations !" )
Or is the cat always stressed, annoyed or fed up through being endlessly placed in the box by the minds of curious humans LOL.
Funnily I remember in my youth trying to convince people that mirrors both reflect nearfield reality but the things outside of reflective viewing area were and could be completely different realities... beyond the room or reflection viewpoint....with interesting and amusing mixed results
Is it possible that your reflection in the mirror is just the most probably pic? And the rest, whatever it is, is just improbable to show up? - maybe complete nonsense what I wrote
@John Talbot: Re your "... I tried convincing ppl that mirrors reflect a nearfield reality as well as other realities..."
Wow! You must have been very popular with the ppl around you.
Like, "Uh-oh, look out, here comes Johnny boy and his crazy mirror!" 😂
HC-JAIPUR (27/02/2021)
@@hiltonchapman4844 LoL....I probably was the weird one out of most of my friends...especially those friends behind the mirror LOL.
In truth I just always had a silly imagination and way of looking at things...and like to amuse and confuse.
@@jollyjokress3852 Could be...or maybe the mirror just reflects the person it thinks we are !? Or perhaps we have an exact double who actually lives in the mirror world...which are all fun and silly things to ponder
@@humanitech Re your response ".... I just always had a silly imagination and way of looking at things... and amuse and confuse."
It's called thinking out of the box, thinking beyond the envelope. It's the stuff that produces genius.
Just go easy on the "confuse" bit. I know you're not serious about it, just going with the flow (of the prose), so no big deal.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
HC-JAIPUR (28/02/2021)
I grew up learning christianity but rejected it because miracles seem illogical to me.
Now learning quantum physics making me think perhaps I was too hasty to reject christianity.
It’s much easier
Isn't the entire point of miracles that they are illogical/can't be explained with physics?
@@ObjectsInMotion no
I prefer the interpretation that says Schrödinger was just showing how silly the Copenhagen interpretation is.
I also prefer that interpretation. I think the cat would too.
Copenhagen interpretation looks silly only to those who don't have understood it properly.
@@hollyc5417 I don't think that Copenhagen interpretation ever said what Schroedinger wanted us to believe it said with the cat's paradox.
Copenhagen interpretation says that we can't say anything about something that is unobserved, not that a cat is dead AND alive at the same time.
Superposition of states only occur in the calculations we make. It is a REPRESENTATION of all the potential outcomes of an experiment at the same time.
Copenhagen doesn't say that superposed states ACTUALLY exist. I really don't think that Bohr would have said that the cat is "dead and alive". He would have said that "we can say nothing about the cat's state until we open the box and observe".
It was Schroedinger who made the paradox arise, because he was bound to believe that the superposed (calculated potential) states were ACTUAL states. It was his mistake, not Copenhagen's.
@@andsalomoni , I’d like to believe that your understanding of Copenhagen is the one they intended. But it’s certainly not the one taught in most universities. If it constitutes a denial of objective reality, as Dr. H seems to imply, is it logically possible to properly understand it?
@@anatomicallymodernhuman5175 I'm pretty sure that my understanding of Copenhagen is what Bohr himself thought and said, at least I think so.
It constitutes a denial not of an objective reality, but of an observer-independent objective reality. When we make a measurement, we get an objective result, which is part of an objective reality. But we can't say that the result existed in advance, independently of our observation. Objective reality is kind of flexible and non-permanent. It is objective, but there is a "creative" aspect in it, which manifests when an observation is made.
Sabine is the best science teacher ever.
Sabine, I can't read 1.354 comments. Let alone have you read mine. My observation is the number of views-to-comments ratio your channel receives. Yours are particularly high, especially after only 72 hours. Well deserved! Rock On our favorite skeptical physicist!
if schrödinger's cat is still alive, it's the oldest living cat i know :)
thinking outside the box.
@@carlosgaspar8447 r/whoosh
May be she is the egyptian God - Bastet.
@@carlosgaspar8447 Outside the box in which the cat is in.
This is only possible with Einstein's cat, travelling with a speed near of speed of light.
I was hoping to hear that Heisenberg’s dog was named curiosity.
I was hoping for 'certainty'
I am going to climb into a box, and throw away one of the assumptions at random. Until you open the box and interrogate me, all three axioms will exist in a superposition of accepted and rejected states.
I would love it if someone attempted to reconcile all three. 😆
maybe "at least" one is wrong.
@@carlosgaspar8447 hopefully all three
until we start to smell something that is
@@meesalikeu it could be the effects of the poison, or Taco Bell. But how would you tell the difference?
Sabine, you are awesome!!!
9:15 - I'm really not knowing any of the details on what's at stake here, but I personally feel most comfortable with the "spooky action at a distance" of the three options.
4:27 "Cats are usually either dead or alive."
Usually...
Meet my friends: Zombie Cat, Vampire Cat and Mummy Cat!
If Schrödinger's cat was a dog, all I can say is he knew more about quantum mechanics than natural sciences.. :)
I’m a biologist but my job title is physical scientist.
#Derek Frost: Re your "If Schrödinger's cat was a dog..."
What! Isn't Schrödinger's cat a chihuahua? No? Oh, woe is me, shame and scandal in the family! 😂 😹
HC-JAIPUR (27/02/2021)
@@hiltonchapman4844 Now I'm wondering about Schrödinger's Impropriety.
@@CAThompson Re your: "Now I'm wondering about Schrödinger's Impropriety!"
That takes the cake... and the cake shop too!
HC-JAIPUR
The cat is the observer and doesn’t need you, go home
this would mean that no superposition! 😂. but that's not case. how in eletron case u'll say electron for itself is an observer.
It's my understanding that Schrodinger invented the cat experiment to prove the absurdity of superposition, and was appalled when most people said that it actually proved it.
Super determinism is deterministic in the moment of the observable present, based on the culmination of all of the elements of reality which have accumulated. This includes elements of both chance and intentionality, derived through prior accumulated determinations, realized at the moment of present. This presents the allusion of predetermination, which is in fact merely "evolution". The cat is not both dead and alive dependent on observation. So, regarding your video question, Sabine, it is No. 2: -- "Measurements do not have definite outcomes." Measurements confirm outcomes.. Observation confirms whether the cat is dead or alive. Entanglement is similarly, an evolved state, not a predetermined or otherwise, a communicated state, even if the elements of such "evolution" remains "spooky". The same would be true of what is theorized to be the two dimensional, information hologram of a black hole.
What's Keif say about the cat, it can't get no satisfaction, a no no no, a hey hey hey, that's what he say? Pass me that bottle o' Jack mate that cat is a headache, put it outside to run free! Cheers!
My sister had a cat Named Schrodinger. This Schrodinger did not have a cat.
Well you haven’t looked yet.
And my cat had Schrodinger which experimented with :)
I would just throw out quantum mechanics. It is a good theory, but it is an approximation. All these interpretations interpret a universe in which QM is exactly true, and that is not our universe. We should interpret QFT if anything, but we only understand that theory for weak interactions... so all we can interpret is, again, an approximation. We are too far from understanding anything.
Agreed. General relativity on the other hand might not be complete yet (we don't really understand it on a much larger scale than our solar system), but it is in my opinion much closer to the truth than QM. Nothing spooky about it.
QFT is a quantum mechanical theory.
Calling action-at-distance spooky, I believe is the mistake.
I don’t think so. All forces act through fields or, for gravity, through time and space. And waves infields or in time and space travel not faster than the speed of light.
@@markbehets But saying that forces act through fields is just another way of saying there is action at a distance, and that there is a delay associated with the propagation of the action.
That’s right but action through fields or bending space and time is not spooky, there is an explanation.
@@markbehets So we are in agreement, action at a distance is NOT spooky!
That would be Einstein's second mistake (since it is his quote) ? He was no fan of non-determinism either. Then again, neither is Sabine.
Notable Fact: I have never seen Einstein and Sabine in the same place, time coordinate. Yet their physics convictions seem to be highly compatible, if not identical. Could this be "Spooky Action At A Space-Time Distance ?
THANK YOU!
I'm not a physicist but I follow the subject closely as a layman. Several years ago, it struck me that a measurement is nothing more than the object in question interacting with the particles of the measuring device. Many people, however, interpret "measurement" as involving a consciousness and, since quantum physics tells us that we can't know the outcome of a measurement until a conscious mind observes it (according to them), they then think that reality is subjective, that we actually create it by interacting with it or even merely thinking about it. In other words, wish it and it is so.
The idea that came to me, instead, is that since a measurement is just another particle interaction, then *all* particle interactions are, in quantum effect, "measurements." Therefore, we have wave functions collapsing willy nilly all over the place, all over the time, thereby making things like position and velocity "real" at every moment, if they weren't before due to superposition.
I have to go learn about superdeterminism now. Thanks for confirming my insight on this.
sabine, Please do videos on Quantum Mech more frequently. you are just brilliant in explaining quantum in elegant way. a request by Indian Viewer