Thank You for clarifying that. I'm reading a book titled "The island of knowledge" and just so happen to be at the chapter which is explaining the effect of consciousness on particles citing the delayed choice experiment.
I think the one that made your head hurt was the closest to correct. It's wild to think of ratios within infinity. But it fits the data. Another way of thinking about it would be to consider the idea of our 4 dimensional reality (if we view 3 dimensions of space plus time as the 4th dimension) as a 4d slice of a 5 dimensional reality, that houses all potential realities. Everything can exist in somekind of infinite manner but we can only interact with the 4 dimensional slice that coheres with the branch we are on. So the wave doesn't actually collapse when we observe it. We just take the 4d slice (the particle) from the 5d super reality (the wave) into our reality. The whole 5d reality exists, but we can only interact with a 4 slice of it, which is our obserbable universe.
I don't know enough about decoherence to do a whole video on it. Also I want to keep this channel relevant to sci-fi and writing and not get bogged down in technical details.
Great video! I know you said you didn't want to get bogged down with too many technical details like decoherence but you actually did touch on decoherence when you talked about the cat interacting with its environment. That's why we don't see a superposition.
I think the answer can be found in how they conducted the entanglement experiment using non-linear crystals, something about these beam splitters and how they are able to split photons off into pairs will reveal the answer. I'd have to read further to truly understand but I am sure the answer is out there somewhere..
Copenhagen is simpler than that. The wave function does not collapse, just like in Many Worlds. It’s the interpretation that differs. In Many Worlds, the wave function is real, and does not collapse, meaning infinite parallel realities. In Copenhagen, the wave function does not collapse because it never existed. The wave function is a poor-man’s math for what is really happening, math that requires this strange “wave function collapse” operator to work. In Copenhagen, we want to look for better math. In Many Worlds, we want to look for experimental evidence that the wave function is itself independently real. So far, no dice because all tests of the wave function require a measurement at the end. When we do that measurement, the Copenhagen objection is that you cannot take half the math and call it “golden, real, true” and the part that you don’t like (the collapse-y bit) and call it “fake news.” You have to take the “good” math with the “bad” and that means we’re still looking for math we like better.
Thanks! Keep em coming. How do the people that support Many Worlds explain our subjective sense of control and predictability? We have a sense that we can plan and direct action and outcomes - for example I might decide to go shopping tomorrow. Under Many Worlds that outcome is entirely possible, but isn't it also rather unlikely? Aren't there an infinite number of alternative outcomes arising from innumerable interactions and splitting of the world? Doesn't that make my shopping trip rather unlikely in the overall scheme of things?
All the different possible worlds have different probabilities. For example, there may be a comparably large number of worlds in which you go shopping tomorrow, or the few worlds in which you go shopping may have a higher percentage of the amplitude than the other possibilities do. You are correct in that this is the big criticism that many-worlds struggles to explain.
Probabilities have no meaning in the many-worlds hypothesis/interpretation. Because the branching worlds have no physical (causal) connection with or relationship to one another, probabilities don't add up to unity. So you can't even talk about 'unlikely.' An event either happens or it doesn't.
@@chrishorst2124 I don't see how you can assign probabilities when the interpretation says that literally 100% of alternative outcomes do happen. How can there be more worlds where event X happens than where it doesn't? Not jumping on a criticism bandwagon, just want to learn what the reasoning is.
@@dodatroda The reasoning is best described by the math of different branches of the wave function having different amplitudes. Translating that into common English and human-understandable concepts is difficult.
A quantum particle doesn't exist until the particle is formed and a force acts the properties of a quantum particle don't exist until measured or the force of measurement acts on the particle. It's the action and reaction that creates the universe at the quantum level. Action and reaction exist as a pair. The selected state comes into existence other states do not exist. There aren't many universes.
Would like to know a reference to what is here called the Copenhagen interpretation. It seems quite different from what Niels Bohr advocated. Also, the way it is described here is “hand waving” and hard to get a grip on how the collapse is thought to happen.
Quantum wave function of the form \psi =A e^i (k_x x + k_y y + k_z z - omega t) has operators for position, momentum and energy. If wave functions were actual things, if wave functions were real things, they would have everything you need make physics operational for our universe. The "- omega t" is the clock that acts on the quantum states of the wave function. Since particles occupy one or more quantum states of the wave function, it's as if the wave function is a piece of spacetime. Particles have a connection to time because the particle occupies quantum states, which in turn have a clock of a the form "e^ - omega t".
Suppose you have a hollow perfectly reflective sphere. You shine a light inside the sphere and turn the light off. When you turn the light off will the light still be there? No. A given volume of space absorbs a given amount of radiation per unit of time. Space can be saturated for a combined power level and it will appear rigid so that the radiation appears more particle like. When space is not saturated then the radiation sinks down and appears more wave like. Newton said the same thing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is the key to q mech. It explains entanglement and is a vunifying factor... unifying G R and Qvphys.
Quantum particles don't exist until a force brings them into existence. The properties of quantum particles don't actually exist either until a force acts on a quantum particle.
Why isn't the scientist put into a superposition? If the scientist were, it would look as it does, since there would be two versions of him and for that matter two of us observing his results. Standard many worlds interp I think.
Why do they have such a problem understanding the world is made of conscious beings and want to ignore that consciousness in a fundamental part of reality
At this point in history, the physical sciences are about describing the motions and activities of matter and energy. Other than neuroscience and psychology, there isn't much use for including consciousness in the picture. That will change someday, but right now people who claim to combine physics and consciousness are usually trying to peddle some kind of snake oil. I want to touch the subject myself, but I have to tread lightly.
@@bsgnerd yes measurement is a good intuitive plan. choosing the correct numbering system helps. Clue- think what system the universe uses. Decca is a C-
@@bsgnerd yes we know about probability. but it raises as many questions as it answers and does not open a new door. what i mean, as a numbering system, is the 4 changes in the process of the universe evolution. zero= nothing, being a state of pre-process in readiness or current condition, one being the state of adjustment from energy to matter or addition, two being the state of change from smaller to larger matter, and three being the relationship that evolves. its a demonstration of a point developing into tetrahedron. i dont touch on entropy as its an effect of the relationships. Politely given the chance to choose a direction of interest, the wave function of all energies develops geometrically into the music the universe is playing out, and we are somewhere in the symphony now. The choice of wave functions at point zero is/was fundamental to the construct.
@@bsgnerd I agree with you. All part of the same function. The geometric description of the same step as a crystal dimension becoming 4D including p, pi and pii
Interesting that if you hold back to measure a particle, it allows to be measured, otherwise, it too pass away. Ie, if the measurements are interpretive in nature, it collapses the wave. If not interpretive, then it remains as wave. Then, measurement is an Intention? Or it's a type of "Prediction" of Result. Or it's Creating a Result??? Or it's not the particle which is changing, but the mutual "interaction" that is being measured, than the particle itself??? Ie, you create world or animate world & particle just participate loving you in your act...particle don't change, only the result change - like gravity is of Space & not of Matter. So, wave & particle are of Space only. Wave to particle Expression is Time or change expressed on space time? ??? Is it just a creation ? An illusion??? Depending on Predicted Result??? Are we interfering with wave and thus result a particle as predicted (with our intention / image in the wave). Thus wave become useful or get Manifested? Did we become creator in the event to manifest Universe (a small particle)? The intention is IN the system & wave detects this. Intention is a wave as well? If there is "Predicted Intention" in the system, wave collapses to create that prediction, True / Fact. 🤔.
Because of the Douglas Adams prophecy? If anyone figures it out Reality will be instantaneously destroyed and replaced by something even more strange? Gotta keep the Universe from finding out that you’ve got it figured!
Everettian here! Scott Aaronson has a recent decision-tree that allows you to choose your favorite interpretation: ruclips.net/video/xAYzTNFyazo/видео.html. The talk itself is also interesting, as it fleshes out some further consequences of MWI and takes a step in taking it out of the realm of pure interpretations. Another video that attracted me for a similar reason is by Sean Carroll: ruclips.net/video/o-qqeDUU7HM/видео.html, where he shows that the common perception of "vacuum is randomly fluctuating" can be wrong in some circumstances according to MWI. To me it's these efforts that repeatedly shows the consistency and parsimony of MWI, that it's one of the few interpretations that seamlessly interface with other branches of physics (e.g., quantum gravity, cosmology), and it has an interesting and exciting research program going on to address its issues.
It is great to see work being put into quantum foundations these days! We do have to remember, however, that just because a theory gets fleshed out and is logically consistent doesn't make it true. I plan to hold off committing to any interpretation until we have experimental evidence in its favor. String theory is in the same boat: beautiful math, packages quantum physics and gravity together with a bow, derives from pure geometry a landscape of possible sets of laws of physics; but so far has 0 experimental evidence.
@@chrishorst2124 I agree to some extent, but the situation is complicated here b/c some "interpretations" are really different theories (spontaneous collapse, pilot wave, etc), so they can be falsified. Others that adhere to Schrodinger's equation (MWI, Copenhagen, QBism) can also be (if spontaneous collapse is proven true, for example), but among themselves, they cannot be experimentally distinguished as they are really interpretations of the same mathematical theory (unless someone surprises us one day to show they are really different, like how Bell shows us Einstein's hidden variable idea is not just metaphysics). My personal strategy is to be open minded to new experiment results that support GRW/Penrose/etc, but before that I assume Schrodinger's equation is correct (since everything else relies on it, standard model, big bang and inflation, string theory, you name it), and among the interpretations that adhere to Schrodinger's equation, I think there is good reason to argue for MWI. Btw, great contents and style in this channel. Keep the good work!
Since you're an adherent, maybe you can clear this up. It seems to me that if all outcomes are realized, there should be worlds where the laws of nature don't work like they do in ours. Say you flip a coin 1,000 times. In our world you will get close to 500 each of heads and tails. In some world there will be nothing but tails, regardless of how many times you flip. Why would this not be the case?
@@dodatroda It's a good question and I think it does appear in arguments for/against MWI, and there is no definitive answer afaik. One argument is that "you" will find yourself very unlikely to end up in those worlds, but then it depends a lot on what "you" means, what "unlikely" means, is this a circular argument about the probability interpretation of MWI, etc, etc. One thing is you don't need MWI at all to run into this issue --- there are many ways to get parallel-ish universes (see Max Tegmark's book), such as the well-received inflation theory of big bang, and worlds where 1000 coin flips all land tails surely happen. In inflation there is a related "measurement problem", and arguments there bear some overlap with the discussion of MWI (i.e., no convincing/definitive answer afaik).
The talk about the probability issue of the many worlds interpretation doesn’t reflect how the discussion in the field goes. It didn’t mention the Deutsch-Wallace type explanation nor my own proposed solution published in Foundations of Physics last year, which seems to solve it. The presenter doesn’t give his audience an up to date view.
Thank You for clarifying that. I'm reading a book titled "The island of knowledge" and just so happen to be at the chapter which is explaining the effect of consciousness on particles citing the delayed choice experiment.
Congratulations!!! Excelent video... your channel is the best about this subject.
I think the one that made your head hurt was the closest to correct. It's wild to think of ratios within infinity. But it fits the data. Another way of thinking about it would be to consider the idea of our 4 dimensional reality (if we view 3 dimensions of space plus time as the 4th dimension) as a 4d slice of a 5 dimensional reality, that houses all potential realities. Everything can exist in somekind of infinite manner but we can only interact with the 4 dimensional slice that coheres with the branch we are on. So the wave doesn't actually collapse when we observe it. We just take the 4d slice (the particle) from the 5d super reality (the wave) into our reality. The whole 5d reality exists, but we can only interact with a 4 slice of it, which is our obserbable universe.
Great explanations! However, the Many Worlds explanation is my favorite. That's just my reality.
Great videos on Quantum Physics! Do you plan to make one about decoherence?
I don't know enough about decoherence to do a whole video on it. Also I want to keep this channel relevant to sci-fi and writing and not get bogged down in technical details.
Great video! I know you said you didn't want to get bogged down with too many technical details like decoherence but you actually did touch on decoherence when you talked about the cat interacting with its environment. That's why we don't see a superposition.
I think the answer can be found in how they conducted the entanglement experiment using non-linear crystals, something about these beam splitters and how they are able to split photons off into pairs will reveal the answer. I'd have to read further to truly understand but I am sure the answer is out there somewhere..
Copenhagen is simpler than that. The wave function does not collapse, just like in Many Worlds. It’s the interpretation that differs. In Many Worlds, the wave function is real, and does not collapse, meaning infinite parallel realities. In Copenhagen, the wave function does not collapse because it never existed. The wave function is a poor-man’s math for what is really happening, math that requires this strange “wave function collapse” operator to work. In Copenhagen, we want to look for better math. In Many Worlds, we want to look for experimental evidence that the wave function is itself independently real. So far, no dice because all tests of the wave function require a measurement at the end. When we do that measurement, the Copenhagen objection is that you cannot take half the math and call it “golden, real, true” and the part that you don’t like (the collapse-y bit) and call it “fake news.” You have to take the “good” math with the “bad” and that means we’re still looking for math we like better.
great video, well explained, you have talent to teaching :)
Thanks! Keep em coming. How do the people that support Many Worlds explain our subjective sense of control and predictability? We have a sense that we can plan and direct action and outcomes - for example I might decide to go shopping tomorrow. Under Many Worlds that outcome is entirely possible, but isn't it also rather unlikely? Aren't there an infinite number of alternative outcomes arising from innumerable interactions and splitting of the world? Doesn't that make my shopping trip rather unlikely in the overall scheme of things?
All the different possible worlds have different probabilities. For example, there may be a comparably large number of worlds in which you go shopping tomorrow, or the few worlds in which you go shopping may have a higher percentage of the amplitude than the other possibilities do. You are correct in that this is the big criticism that many-worlds struggles to explain.
thanks for replies. I'm recommending your channel to everyone! 😊
Probabilities have no meaning in the many-worlds hypothesis/interpretation. Because the branching worlds have no physical (causal) connection with or relationship to one another, probabilities don't add up to unity. So you can't even talk about 'unlikely.' An event either happens or it doesn't.
@@chrishorst2124 I don't see how you can assign probabilities when the interpretation says that literally 100% of alternative outcomes do happen. How can there be more worlds where event X happens than where it doesn't?
Not jumping on a criticism bandwagon, just want to learn what the reasoning is.
@@dodatroda The reasoning is best described by the math of different branches of the wave function having different amplitudes. Translating that into common English and human-understandable concepts is difficult.
thank you for the video :) I have to say the background is tripping me out a little bit
thank you for a great explanation
A quantum particle doesn't exist until the particle is formed and a force acts the properties of a quantum particle don't exist until measured or the force of measurement acts on the particle. It's the action and reaction that creates the universe at the quantum level. Action and reaction exist as a pair. The selected state comes into existence other states do not exist. There aren't many universes.
Would like to know a reference to what is here called the Copenhagen interpretation. It seems quite different from what Niels Bohr advocated. Also, the way it is described here is “hand waving” and hard to get a grip on how the collapse is thought to happen.
Quantum wave function of the form \psi =A e^i (k_x x + k_y y + k_z z - omega t) has operators for position, momentum and energy. If wave functions were actual things, if wave functions were real things, they would have everything you need make physics operational for our universe. The "- omega t" is the clock that acts on the quantum states of the wave function. Since particles occupy one or more quantum states of the wave function, it's as if the wave function is a piece of spacetime. Particles have a connection to time because the particle occupies quantum states, which in turn have a clock of a the form "e^ - omega t".
Suppose you have a hollow perfectly reflective sphere. You shine a light inside the sphere and turn the light off. When you turn the light off will the light still be there? No. A given volume of space absorbs a given amount of radiation per unit of time. Space can be saturated for a combined power level and it will appear rigid so that the radiation appears more particle like. When space is not saturated then the radiation sinks down and appears more wave like. Newton said the same thing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is the key to q mech. It explains entanglement and is a vunifying factor... unifying G R and Qvphys.
Quantum particles don't exist until a force brings them into existence. The properties of quantum particles don't actually exist either until a force acts on a quantum particle.
3:29 this is not Schredinger's cat. look at him. hes double alive or triple alive.
If you look at the Wolfram physics project and computationally bound observers it seems there's a 5th class of interpretation coalescing!
When I selected thumbs up the universe did split !
Number 5 will follow when it's found how QM actually works.
(Computes)
Quite possibly.
Why isn't the scientist put into a superposition? If the scientist were, it would look as it does, since there would be two versions of him and for that matter two of us observing his results. Standard many worlds interp I think.
Why do they have such a problem understanding the world is made of conscious beings and want to ignore that consciousness in a fundamental part of reality
At this point in history, the physical sciences are about describing the motions and activities of matter and energy. Other than neuroscience and psychology, there isn't much use for including consciousness in the picture. That will change someday, but right now people who claim to combine physics and consciousness are usually trying to peddle some kind of snake oil. I want to touch the subject myself, but I have to tread lightly.
@@chrishorst2124 How can you ignore it?
option 5. The universe is a process not a measurement. discus.
@@bsgnerd yes measurement is a good intuitive plan. choosing the correct numbering system helps. Clue- think what system the universe uses. Decca is a C-
@@bsgnerd yes we know about probability. but it raises as many questions as it answers and does not open a new door. what i mean, as a numbering system, is the 4 changes in the process of the universe evolution. zero= nothing, being a state of pre-process in readiness or current condition, one being the state of adjustment from energy to matter or addition, two being the state of change from smaller to larger matter, and three being the relationship that evolves. its a demonstration of a point developing into tetrahedron. i dont touch on entropy as its an effect of the relationships. Politely given the chance to choose a direction of interest, the wave function of all energies develops geometrically into the music the universe is playing out, and we are somewhere in the symphony now. The choice of wave functions at point zero is/was fundamental to the construct.
@@bsgnerd I agree with you. All part of the same function. The geometric description of the same step as a crystal dimension becoming 4D including p, pi and pii
What are the most promising spontaneous collapse theories?
Good question. I think I confused Copenhagen with spontaneous collapse.
Interesting that if you hold back to measure a particle, it allows to be measured, otherwise, it too pass away. Ie, if the measurements are interpretive in nature, it collapses the wave. If not interpretive, then it remains as wave. Then, measurement is an Intention? Or it's a type of "Prediction" of Result. Or it's Creating a Result??? Or it's not the particle which is changing, but the mutual "interaction" that is being measured, than the particle itself??? Ie, you create world or animate world & particle just participate loving you in your act...particle don't change, only the result change - like gravity is of Space & not of Matter. So, wave & particle are of Space only. Wave to particle Expression is Time or change expressed on space time? ??? Is it just a creation ? An illusion??? Depending on Predicted Result??? Are we interfering with wave and thus result a particle as predicted (with our intention / image in the wave). Thus wave become useful or get Manifested? Did we become creator in the event to manifest Universe (a small particle)? The intention is IN the system & wave detects this. Intention is a wave as well? If there is "Predicted Intention" in the system, wave collapses to create that prediction, True / Fact. 🤔.
I know why the wave function collapses but there’s no way I’m gonna tell you guys
Because of the Douglas Adams prophecy? If anyone figures it out Reality will be instantaneously destroyed and replaced by something even more strange? Gotta keep the Universe from finding out that you’ve got it figured!
@@TysonJensen Nah, nothing to do with that, I'm just basically a total jerk
@@monsieurmitosis No way. If you knew the answer then at least we would know there is one available to us.
@@plat2716 Dinner Party + You = Super Fun Time
Everettian here! Scott Aaronson has a recent decision-tree that allows you to choose your favorite interpretation: ruclips.net/video/xAYzTNFyazo/видео.html. The talk itself is also interesting, as it fleshes out some further consequences of MWI and takes a step in taking it out of the realm of pure interpretations.
Another video that attracted me for a similar reason is by Sean Carroll: ruclips.net/video/o-qqeDUU7HM/видео.html, where he shows that the common perception of "vacuum is randomly fluctuating" can be wrong in some circumstances according to MWI.
To me it's these efforts that repeatedly shows the consistency and parsimony of MWI, that it's one of the few interpretations that seamlessly interface with other branches of physics (e.g., quantum gravity, cosmology), and it has an interesting and exciting research program going on to address its issues.
It is great to see work being put into quantum foundations these days! We do have to remember, however, that just because a theory gets fleshed out and is logically consistent doesn't make it true. I plan to hold off committing to any interpretation until we have experimental evidence in its favor. String theory is in the same boat: beautiful math, packages quantum physics and gravity together with a bow, derives from pure geometry a landscape of possible sets of laws of physics; but so far has 0 experimental evidence.
@@chrishorst2124 I agree to some extent, but the situation is complicated here b/c some "interpretations" are really different theories (spontaneous collapse, pilot wave, etc), so they can be falsified. Others that adhere to Schrodinger's equation (MWI, Copenhagen, QBism) can also be (if spontaneous collapse is proven true, for example), but among themselves, they cannot be experimentally distinguished as they are really interpretations of the same mathematical theory (unless someone surprises us one day to show they are really different, like how Bell shows us Einstein's hidden variable idea is not just metaphysics). My personal strategy is to be open minded to new experiment results that support GRW/Penrose/etc, but before that I assume Schrodinger's equation is correct (since everything else relies on it, standard model, big bang and inflation, string theory, you name it), and among the interpretations that adhere to Schrodinger's equation, I think there is good reason to argue for MWI.
Btw, great contents and style in this channel. Keep the good work!
@@KaneOsu Fair.
Since you're an adherent, maybe you can clear this up. It seems to me that if all outcomes are realized, there should be worlds where the laws of nature don't work like they do in ours. Say you flip a coin 1,000 times. In our world you will get close to 500 each of heads and tails. In some world there will be nothing but tails, regardless of how many times you flip. Why would this not be the case?
@@dodatroda It's a good question and I think it does appear in arguments for/against MWI, and there is no definitive answer afaik. One argument is that "you" will find yourself very unlikely to end up in those worlds, but then it depends a lot on what "you" means, what "unlikely" means, is this a circular argument about the probability interpretation of MWI, etc, etc.
One thing is you don't need MWI at all to run into this issue --- there are many ways to get parallel-ish universes (see Max Tegmark's book), such as the well-received inflation theory of big bang, and worlds where 1000 coin flips all land tails surely happen. In inflation there is a related "measurement problem", and arguments there bear some overlap with the discussion of MWI (i.e., no convincing/definitive answer afaik).
👍👍👍
I support Roger Penrose gravitation decoherence.
Personally, I like the wormhole theory that would link particle, thus explaining the instantaneous reaction of entangled particles.
The talk about the probability issue of the many worlds interpretation doesn’t reflect how the discussion in the field goes. It didn’t mention the Deutsch-Wallace type explanation nor my own proposed solution published in Foundations of Physics last year, which seems to solve it. The presenter doesn’t give his audience an up to date view.
The comparison between pilot wave theory and the others is unfair and reflects ignorance on behalf of the presenter.