The Many Worlds of the Quantum Multiverse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Is our universe a definitive single reality or is it merely one within an infinitely branching multiverse? Be sure to check out Physics Girl’s Dianna Cowern for more awesome science / physicsgirl
Get your own Space Time tshirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Support us on Patreon! / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos! ruclips.net/user/timedtext_cs_p...
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us that observation collapses a probability wave into a single definitive outcome, but this isn’t the only interpretation of quantum mechanics. The many worlds theory proposes that the wavefunction never actually collapses. The observer simply follows one of those many possible paths into their present reality while all the other paths continue on independent of the observer. Each of these paths branches off into an entirely different reality. In this episode Matt discusses the details of the many worlds theory and why it’s not so far-fetched to think that our reality is simply one of an infinite number of realities existing within space time.
Links to sources:
The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality
• The Quantum Experiment...
Hugh Everett's Ph.D. Dissertation
www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyw...
Crazy Pool Vortex
• Crazy pool vortex
Previous Episode
• The First Humans on Mars
Written and hosted by Matt O’Dowd
Produced by Rusty Ward
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
![Darren Waller - Who Knew (Her Perspective) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GytDjB8u6bM/mqdefault.jpg)
Good to know that there's another me out there in another multiverse who fully understands this video.
....and another you married to another me :)
+dhimmiwit Only the things that are conceivably possible will happen/have happened under the many worlds interpretation. Weird realities, like one with real-life pokemons or one where you'll marry someone, probably will never happen
Sometimes the Internet entertains in the weirdest of ways...
"....and another you married to another me :)" hold on does that mean we are all mearied to eatch other?? and have all meet eatch other?
Guilherme C. burn
One highly confused physicist out there in the multiverse who did the double-split experiment and got a smiley face on the wall.
A Nirvana Smiley Face would be Cool Too!
Just requires the right mask. Two slits won't do it.
Just because there are infinite possibilities between 1 and 2 doesn’t mean 3 is possible.
@A Frustrated Gamer How does this explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? The whole interference pattern changes just because we observed the photon. When the eraser is used the interference pattern appears again just because we would have no idea which photon went where. How does many world theory explain that? Copenhagen interpretation agrees straight with the experiments according to me
And the physicists There don't have the same structural distribution of eyes and mouth for a face and wonder what the pattern really means, conquering and bouncing off ideas off each other.
I hope my dad is happy and living out there in a different timeline-in fact I hope that everyone who has and will ever have lived is out there in eternal happiness. RIP to everyone.
Vader had no father. His father was The Force. Thus presenting another realm of quantum possibilities. 😉
Don't have no more worry,everything is fine with your Dad and others and your hope is part of what makes that possible.Amen !
What if in the future we can reverse back energy we have in a point of time to a prefered form it was or will be in another point of time so in that way we can bring back any dead people???? Idk
And if that were the case, there would be other timelines where everyone you love is existing in an eternal state of agonisingly painful suffering
@@myomax5848 Look around lol it is in your face all of that suffering.
GOD I LOVE THIS SUBJECT. I'VE SPENT 40 YEARS, LOOKING INTO IT AND IT NEVER GETS BORING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR REALITY IS THAT I'M FASCINATED BY
Why are you yelling at us?
He mentioned that he is older. Maybe bad eyesight.
There was a doc some 30 years ago. It was either PBS, or Nova. There was a group of people, somewhere in Europe, who described looking out back and there sitting at a table, where a group of people sitting. Perhaps sitting down to dinner. The odd thing was, they were of the Pilgrim era. I cannot find it. You heard of the it?
Every time I happen to remind myself of the doubble split experiment, I'll go weeks or days in a complete manic flow state where every data of information consumed feels better than any stimulant I have ever experienced. I consider dedicating my life to this every time.
Does that mean there is a timeline where every single particle in the double slit experiment happens to land in the spot predicted by scientists, stopping them from ever discovering the wave function?
Yes, those poor bastards
House of Mouse And there's a universe where the particles land in a "Fuck you" shape each time. Among other things.
I was going to comment about this exact thing.
That's actually a really good question, I think we assume infinite scenarios allowing for every case to happen, due to the definition of infinite. But then due to the nature of sub atomic particles - I'm sure it'd just be a matter of repeating the experiment? all universes would definitely get the same results we did
Begs the question then do we have infinite universes were not every outcome is realised?
That's my take anyway. Awesome question
Tony Mangaka No matter how many times they repeat the experiment, at least some of the universes will still get anomalous results.
You explain rather complex stuff in a brilliant way. Well done.
exactly - it's actually a skill that not everyone has so well done for him
It can be developed. Nobody is exclusive on this.
You just have to have a bright mind in the first place to wrap it around some of this topic! lol
+mastertheillusion exactly ;-)
I would never trade 1 Matt for 10 Diannas. Her ultraviolet catastrophe episode was so bad that i unsubscribed. And i really HATE saying that toward one intelligent female human being. But i just did and feel totally uncomfortable.
Indeed.Our Universe offers so much complexity and I'd love to once be a person exploring this.
The Beauty in Science and Mathematics is mesmerizing :)
"Choose your own adventure, and steer this version of you towards one of the more awesome many world branches of space time"
Yeah this so caught my attention also!!
An excellent outro by Matt.
Isn’t that what we’re doing anyway?
@@TonyStark-rw7en Well isn't that the same pitfall that most explanations of the collapse of the wavefunction succumb to? Most of them usually devolve into something like "it's impossible to prove or disprove" which just pushes the issue beyond the realm of physics. Your response also implies free will by suggesting that there is another me who could make that decision. So in a world where I am screwing myself over infinitely many times by taking the more desirable route, and also being screwed over infinitely many times, I am simultaneously demonstrating my free will while also having my future determined due to my other-self's free will which leads to a paradox. Does free will work like a lottery where in any given situation only one of my infinite selves gets the honor?
@@ericpowell96 That means that free will and pure deterministic universe can't co-exist because if I am free to swap to any other branch then the universe isn't deterministic because it can't predict which one I'll go to. If the universe can predict which branch I'll swap too, then free will doesn't exist. Here comes the paradox.
Sir Isaac Newtron: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Quantum Mechanics: For every action there is an infinite number of reactions.
It's kind of terrifying to know that there is an entire universe filled with nothing but my dopplegangers...
Actions cannot escape from multiplicity, these as well as reactions are equally proportional and infinite.
It's much more likely that we don't exist, than even one other of ourselves existing somewhere else or in any other time. Other universes having exact duplicates of us is a fantasy. All it would take is a few ppl dying a few generations ago, in that other universe or timeline, and there'd be practically a whole different population living there, than what we have here now. All the talk about unlimited versions of ourselves would be impossible in reality, Reality is not magic. But believing is magic, so if you believe it, it can be real to you and that is almost as good as true. True enough for us. Since it is of the highest unlikelihood that we would ever know for sure, then you're safe, and believing what you want is good for you. So live it up but stay safe, the doppelganger you save may be yourself!
I’m sure that all of them are variably terrified of you along a bell curve of probabilities.
@@stevenbuck07 Actually the concept of infinity implies that if something is possible, then not only is it bound to happen but it is bound to happen an infinite number of times. It doesn't matter how incredibly small its probabilities are - if you give it an infinite number of occasions to happen, it will keep happening.
Imagine the probability of your own existence, all things considered. It is astronomically small sure, but it's obviously not zero.
When we cease to exist and our consciousness switches off, how long will it take for every single atom to be at the same exact place as they are right now? Probably googleplexes of years. But since it's possible, it's bound to happen again... an infinite number of times.
Add infinite universes to that and nothing is impossible.
@@gsphere2527 But eventually the universe will end, spreading thin, atoms breaking apart, black holes evaporating. Nothing lasts forever, so an event or person that happens twice in a few trillion years may not get to happen again, we run out of time. Also, how could every single part of a thing be just right in every way, how could anything ever really happen again, if you think about it, nothing is exactly like anything else. That would be perfection. It's true that things have a randomness, but also it all has a cause and result. Sure, you can win twice at a casino, but that deals with a limited # of possibilities. There is so much variables that go into a person, well you get what i'm saying. A billion yrs from now there may be people very much like us somewhere, and in other ways, very different in every way.
you might not realized that this channel will be one of those few reasons which led any future Einstein to continue studying physics..
rajdeep patel .....Do I have to ask.....who wouldn't realize that?
times have changes since his time; instead of 'sanding on the shoulders of giants', today - if you have an idea - you are crushed by people who think they are the giants
@Blair This was always the case. And there was a reason why those people were giants in the first place. In reality scientific success is more like standing on corpse of the giants rather than their shoulders or maybe both.
no other way i could learn all this theoretical physics.
all my life i'd been wanting to so do, but before these videos there was just nothing of the quality i needed.
In all fairness, given the sheer ammount of timelines, cat videos could have led any future Einstein to continue studying physics too.
This is why I don't let physicists near my cats.
Haha, don't worry, it's just a point. Most people aren't running around stuffing cats in boxes and poisoning them.
I think it was quite unfortunate explanation, since everybody just jokes about dead and alive cat, completelly missing the connection to quantum physics. I know lot of people who know this cat paradox and still think that photons and electrons are small solid balls flying around.
@@ApertureLabs What are you talking about? They ran experiments!
@@manowartank8784 Well said
You mean they're not? I thought electrons were those yellow balls that orbited the blue and red ones?
I love this. The only problem I have with it is that although I know there's a massive multiverse out there with infinite versions of reality, I CAN'T PROVE IT
@@TrueMinky I don't understand what this means but thanks?
I don't want to know anything about what the other time lines are like. I'm pretty sure that I'm probably dead in most of them.
You don't know something you can't prove, that's a guess.
@@JacobZigenis Hm. That's one guess, sure
It does not seem right to me.
Good to see Physics Girl and PBS Spacetime broadcasting together 😊
Good episode.
building an entirely new house to escape washing the dishes LOL.
I live in a reality where dishes wash themselves. Unfortunately, the dishes haven't realized that, so my flat looks messy.
Maybe the dishes are just being lazy like you :P
there is a timeline where he does this
Bradley n Emilee forever
From where does his country come into the picture?
Afshar ali: The Great Iranian
Chill dude i myself am an Indian. Dogs love barking. Let him bark
"building a new house to avoid doing the dishes"
Yeah, that sounds like something I would do
agustin venegas I'm doing that right now, I hate dishes !
The thing to remember here is that the universe doesn't have intention or purpose. At least as far as we know. It just "is," it simply exists. The reason why this is an important point is that the universe may have formed with an unimaginably immense multiverse simply because the physical properties of it cause such a thing to emerge.
Violates energy conservation, aka my lazyness
Building infinite universes to deny the existence of God The Creator
@xjohnny1000
but we also don't have evidence that the universe has a purpose it is "foolish" to assume that it does in this way as well.
for all we know that the universe doesn't give a fuck WHATEVER we think , it just is.
the quality of the videos from this channel amazes me
It comforts me to realize that when I buy a lottery ticket, one of me actually wins it and can do what he wants like study this in more detail 😀
yes but you can move into that version of you winning it by visualization and affirmations etc, its ancient knowledge nothing new.. humans have this power that they dont no about we are rediscovering it.. beautiful
@@ruboyhsv7436 yeah mate sure
Yeah but there is also a version of you that gets runed over by a truck on the way to buy the ticked so be glad with what reality you experience
JaCk MeOff 😁
Or can you imagine where you win EVERY LOTTERY you enter... there should be ONE world existing... true among kadzillion billion.. but there should be One! :) :) :)
This is how Scarlet Witch’s power works, by manipulating quantum probability around her (sometimes at a universal scale) and selecting the timeline that she wants
And here some people are saying the MCU is dumb
In MWI, *every* branch is universe scale.
nope she uses chaos magic
@@LuisSierra42 the mcu is dumb
Regarding the issue of the lack of free will in the many worlds interpretation, I would argue that even in a purely random universe, one could argue that there is still no free will. Look at it this way: pure determinism offers us no choice/freedom. We are enslaved to the pre-determined physics of our particular timeline/world. But with pure randomness, we are still without free will as we are enslaved to the pure randomness of the physics of our universe. We would never argue that a game of Russian Roulette offers us the free will to choose the outcome, so why would physics be any different. If it's just the randomness of quantum mechanics that determines my "choices", how is that different from my choices being determined by the rolling of dice? Does anyone have an idea of a third option that could involve free will?
I would love to hear some arguments against this! I am legitimately interested in hearing other people's perspectives here, especially if they disagree with mine.
Not really sure if this will help but this is the way I always thought of free will. My perspective is it really doesn't matter if we have it or not for a couple reasons. First is I think you will agree no matter what we believe about free will as humans we *feel* like we do have it. So that being the case we can assume that even if we don't have true free will we at the very least have the illusion of free will. Now here is the most important question for this line of thinking, can you think of what if any differences would be between what the experience of true free will vs the illusion would be? Idk about you but if when i really take a close look at it I can't tell much difference at all between what we assume is true free will and the potential fake version I know we all have.
This is extremely well put. Some system produces our experience of mind (it's mostly the brain, but the following holds even if it's magicy spirity stuff). The most elementary components of that system are either deterministic or random. Are either of those consistent with free will? I would argue that both can be, but only for the right definition of "free will". The problem with the whole free will debate is that the concept of free will is hopelessly poorly defined.
to answer this we probably have to get a precise definition of free will, or even life, maybe. In this series and science we talk a lot about 'observers' which is as close as we scientifically come to defining what you look for, perhaps. observer to choice is already a leap of faith and has to be defined properly, but i don't know just an opinion.
+InMaTeofDeath Oh of course, I'm very much with you. Either way, it does FEEL like we have free will in some form. Though, I will say that if we really look at it, in psychological terms, the existence of free will is still a messy concept due to the fact that our unconscious/subconscious minds are the unseen driving factor behind everything we think and do. And we don't exactly have conscious control over our unconscious minds. In this way, this could be said to be a psychological representation of how the laws of physics allow us the illusion of free will without he actual reality of free will.
"In a purely deterministic Universe, what happens to free will?"
Free will exists neither in a deterministic nor probabilistic Universe. If that's what you're looking for, you're going to need to come up with a third option.
I love how concise the "schrodinger's cat" was. I do prefer not having someone shown me some silly implausible mechanism that stresses my suspense of belief as opposed to just being told there is one there. 😁
He could used a mouse tho 😉
Sean Carroll is one of the major proponents of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. He has some pretty good lectures/discussions here on youtube about it.
Insane way to win the lottery: buy a ticket, plug the number into a computer that compares the winning number when it comes out, hook that up so it sets off a very powerful bomb if the numbers do not match, and then stand next to it during the drawing. From your point of view the bomb would never go off and you would win the lottery! or the bomb malfunctions somehow... but from our point of view you almost certainly die spectacularly. I'd prove it (to myself) by trying myself, but unfortunately I live in the universe where me not doing it was a far more likely way of continuing to observe the universe. :(
You should beat him to the punch and do a video on an experiment to prove the earth is round. I bet other science channels are gonna pick up on that meme pretty quickly, but i think you're pretty much the only one who can do something like that in a matter of days.
Man this almost makes me feel like watching The Prestige _again_
I'm not sure a 'point of view' is a solid, material thing.
+Cody'sLab A rather chilling idea. You could actually prove it to all of us by using a bomb strong enough to wipe out all life.
I wonder if the Cold War already tested it.
Well, we would still have to survive the explosion after it has gone off, so no.
“It’s like moving to a new house to avoid doing the dishes.”
Actually it’s more like terraforming a whole solar system and filling each terraformed planet with residential super-skyscrapers... to avoid doing the dishes.
Building* a new house
But they are all the same skyscraper once observed???? HALP MEEEEE
Actually it’s like generating infinite unique universes each and every planc-second that in themselves generate infinite unique universes etc...to avoid doing the dishes
I've done more to avoid doing less.
always one “actually” guy...
The idea that every possibility happens in another branch of reality is intuitive. Pretty sure I had this idea as a little kid before I ever heard anything about it.
theotormon can you fathom all those possibilities happening at the same time?
Me too, it is very intuitive.
You're Not Alone !!
Exactly. It’s logic.
@@bulentkulkuloglu How is it intuitive?
I know this was a physics video, but I saw a lot of good chemistry at the end.
Particle physics to be specific
LivinThaDream both are interconnected
Aaaggghhhh
hahaha he was blushing
I don't
I build houses all the time to avoid doing the dishes :o
I get divorced and remarried anytime my wife sneezes.
This guy gets it, he probably builds houses for a living.
You build houses for money, then use that money to pay someone else to do your dishes?
me too
oh. so that's why i find so many great abandoned houses with like 3 dishes on the sink. Thanks for making me rich. i've been selling those dishes and now i have like three hundred dollars.
Matt O'Dowd you are an absolute gem! "Choose your own adventure"--what a wonderful way to sum up how I feel about the possible implications of MWI!
Is anyone else a bit concerned that the guy who came up with the Many Worlds Interpretation "disappeared into military research at the Pentagon"?
DR. Strange must have watched this video before calculating the 14 million outcomes
maybe his video is still buffering in 1
In a roundabout way...maybe.
Though, it’s more than a little likely that the brains behind this video studied some of the work of, or has researched the same works as, the brain behind Dr. Strange.
That is, Dr. Michalakis :)
marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Spyridon_Michalakis
Yeah..
And decides to choose the outcome where Tony and Natasha die.
To be honest, there would be so many more than 14 million outcomes in reality. More like 1e14000000.
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
-- Sir Arthur Eddington
Youd better believe it
Yeah, why not? Where can we find a guarantee that we have the ability to understand the fundamental nature of reality? Ants do not understand calculus despite being intelligent to an extent. Just because we are far more intelligent than ants, we cannot assume that the complexity of reality is not beyond the capacity of our intellect.
“That’s like building an entirely new house to avoid the dishes”
Lmao I love some of his analogies
Love the Star Trek: The Next Generation sound effects here too! The door chime and the tricorder sounds!
It is fun to see philosophy making its way back into the hard sciences again.
If you mean imagination and creativity, they are essential to advancing science. But what do these matter to a pseud such as yourself.
Its always been there, tho. Only stupid logical positivists thought they didn't have to deal with it, though they werw using it.
It never actually left. Einstein himself admitted he relied on some purely metaphysical papers that led him to develop the General Relativity.
no. he's talking about _actual_ philosophy (such as probabilistic determinism), not your common, everyday, urban-dictionary meaning of "philosophy" - you "pseud" LMAO what a perfect example of an *utterly pretentious fool*
raven lord Heck even our modern economic system was invented by philosophers. Adam Smith, von Mises, John Keynes, Hayek, Friedman... These were all philosophers, and that's all i have to say on that.
I'm happy believing the many worlds interpretation. it's not a crisis for me. it makes the most sense. and I don't feel it's predeterministic if you're aware of your ability to choose your reality. I like many worlds too because it helps me not fret over regrets. sometimes I think "what if I had done this differently?" and then I think "surely one of me did. I'll make a better choice next time. :)" I guess it keeps me aware that I always have the power to chose... maybe a funny way to look at it, but hey, I have the power the chose the thoughts that work best for me... :) many worlds just takes the pressure off while still holding me accountable for my actions and empowering me to do good and grow as a being. :) it's cool.
I reject the idea. It certainly violates Occam's razor.
Curious, hasthere ever been a double slit experiment with two target screens, one on front of the other such that a particle can pass through both and register its location? I wonder if the pattern would be consistent between the two, if new patterns will emerge behind the impactpoints of the first screen, or something else entirely....
If you put the slits between the two screens both screens wouldn’t have the interference pattern.
These videos explain the concepts so well ! Thanks for the great work
So, he wrote the paper and then "disappeared into military research". Hmmmm.
i'm not saying it's aliens....
...but it's aliens.
Douglas McNeil x file music plays in the background
George bush is probably at his desk at home reading this comment section, looking at this comment, immediately calls obama...
"we got a code red this is defcon 10... send the seals for shut it down"
*mysterious raid of youtube servers casually deletes this video*
He is trying to tell us something :O
Arrowhead Project confirmed.
Why doesn't this channel have 1M+ subs? It's pure awesome!
Jonathan Daniel because most people today care more about celebrity gossip than the nature of reality.
This video puts things so amazingly well! Thank you for what you do!
That was the best and shortest explanation of the double=slit experiment I have ever heard. Great Job!
well I live in India, and every Thursday the first thing I do after waking up is watch you video!
Amazing stuff!!
Now you've given my mind a lot to think about for the entire week..!
no one is asking where u live.
I adore Spacetime and Physics Girl. They are two of my most preferred channels because they treat about interesting things in different ways. With Veritasium, Vsauce, It's ok to be smart, Crash Course and so on... we can start to speak about The Order of the EduTubers.
And also if they are not so famous there are very interesting channels about scientific divulgation here in Italy too...! bye!
You forgot SciShow, MinutePhysics, Numberphile, CGP Grey and AsapScience
And Cody's lab is great for chemistry stuff!
Kurzegesagt
I am sorry of course all the above are really great! I follow many of them!
Can I quote some of the italian ones if it is not annoying? ( tech level is not like the top but they have passion, I promise)
Link4universe, La fisica che non ti aspetti, science4fun, la chimica per tutti, zoosparkle, to science and beyond and sooo many others. Thank you bye
Jamie Dorsey I didn't know it... it seems really interesting!, dankeschöen (...schon? schen?) ...err... thank you very much! eh eh!...
you guys made me smile at the end so u both gained my sub and ofc my interest following up for knowledge!cheers🎈❤
Loooooove this! So many new realisations through watching it, thank you!
Shout out to the version of me that's a millionaire
Awesh I am a doctor, in an alternate reality. In this one I just seem to hang out...
You should shout out to the version that found more value in other things than...money.
You’re lucky he can’t see how disappointing he is in this timeline
You mean Caitlyn Jenner?
Which one? There are infinite.
There are two problems here which I would reeeeeally like to hear you answers:
1) uncountable infinities: There's always the talk about "a large number" of worlds that emerge from each quantum action in the whole universe. But for the double slit experiment, it is not only in which stripe the particle lands but also the exact coordinates on the screen so that large numder is not even infinity but an uncountable infinity. Correct? The "number"-thing wouldn't make sense anymore. And, if so, does the many-worlds-interpretation really still make sense?
2) Increasing mass: In the many-worlds-interpretation, where does the mass and energy come from, to copy the whole universe once for each possible outcome of what an electron does?
Additionally: Am I the only one who sees the parallel between the many-worlds-interpretation and the infinite improbability drive in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
This man is brilliant. Love this channel and all the information it provides us.
I am deeply thankful for your clear interpretation of this complicated topics.
7:45 In the Copenhagen interpretation, the Schrodinger equation is not considered to be ontological outside of measurement (unlike in Many Worlds). For all the Copenhagen interpretation knows, the Schrodinger equation corresponds to the probabilities of outcomes upon measurement. Describing it as "alternate realities which merge into a single timeline with its wavefunction collapse" is misleading as it seems to imply ontology outside of measurement.
6:40 Also, all timeline are obviously *not* equally likely
Good, but why are u reiterating the same thing that he said ? And what do u mean by all timelines aren't equally likely ?
Multiverse is a form of religious belief, not science. Anyone who has studied the hard sciences, psychology and theology should be able to see that. Too bad we don't value a quality liberal arts education as much as we once did.
5:20. "Why stop at the cat?" A mindset of a serial killer or a quantum physicist.
Thank you for sharing this that was very interesting. A lot of great information.
It’s getting clearer to me we are in a simulation.
The proof is everywhere. Matter has no mass. Computer code is in nature. God knows what is going on here out of our sensory compression..
A simulation of what? If someone can create a simulation where the parts become conscious and feeling , then it is no longer a simulation, it is a reality
@Hahhah0 Distinction? Yes, the distinction is that one is conscious and the other is not. I am extremely confident that some things are conscious and others are not (and that my confidence is irrelevant).
Or are you referring to gradients? That seems highly likely, since almost everything in biology has gradients. There are things that are on the border of being alive (viruses), so there are probably beings that are semi-conscious. Even people are not always conscious and are semi-conscious frequently (e.g. falling asleep and waking up).
All good questions.
Can a computer be conscious? Not the current ones. It would probably have to be made out of biological material to have a chance of becoming conscious.
It find it interesting that some people say we are most likely in a simulation without saying what we are a simulation of and without demonstrating that a simulation can produce consciousness (and how you determine whether another entity is conscious doesn't seem relevant to my point, since each of us knows we are conscious.)
@Hahhah0 Everything is made up of particles. When we define our bundle of particles as conscious, we also define everything else as potentially conscious, given that the structure of bundled particles that are necessary to define consciousness are recreated.
There is a version of me who hasn't watched PBS Space Time? Blasphemy!
A lot of versions of you in fact in a lot of worlds there isn't such a show
Rubjerg
At least there is a version of me that is Batman. That should compensate for everything.
LokyNoKey Even if I'm Robin there?
no, there isn't.
If Many-Worlds is true then there's a version of each of us that has... done a lot of terrible things, lol. Unfortunately for some people that's THIS universe for them... :(
Our cat Timi, is Quantum. When we open the door, he want to be in superposition, inside and outside: he stay in the middle of the patio door lol :-)
I believe after graduation Everett went to work for the U.S. Navy Research Division, posted predominately at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Pennsylvania. Records show he was a VIP guest on the USS Eldridge in the early 1940's.
Great vid guys. That was well put👍
I have an idea how to prove simply that the Earth is round. Set up a skype with someone who is at a significantly different longitude coordinate, and watch the sunset(s) together :) If the Earth was flat, the Sun would set at the same time at both places, because the tangent planes would be parallel at every point of the flat Earth's surface, so the Sun would cross them at the same time. However, the Sun will set at different times, so the tangent planes are not parallel, therefore the Earth is not flat by definition.
You're only about 2500 years late congratulations
Dávid Kertész yes 🙂
+Aditya Nair
No he isn't. There are a ton of idiots who believe the earth is flat even now.
EGarrett01 shhhh....dont give them more exposure... Let natural selection do it's job
Dávid Kertész the earth is flat with a dome
I'm going to open a bagel shop to compete with my local "Einstein's Bagels" location, and I'm going to call it "Schroedinger's Bagels". You get a bag and your bagels are in the bag... Or theyre not. It depends on whether or not you looked.
Were the challenges at the end ever produced? I want to find both...
Schrödinger`s daughter, once asked, why her father used a cat to potentially be killed, she answered: "My father just doesn't like cats!"
It renews my hopeful heart, in humanity as a whole, and in it's future survival, to see more than 1.3M subscribers to this channel. We're probably still screwed...but.......
I was thinking that when you start the experiment when them quantum particle things go through both splits and when it hits the board. That every particle would hit every spot at once and an create an infinite amount of alternate realities where I exist in harmony with the other ones without knowing.
I thought that before you started explaining it lol
It's the essence of MWI. Other interpretations are designed to work around this problem of us only observing one possibility out of many theoretical ones, whereas MWI rather embraces it.
There are 1 million universes out there of my deciding what to order for take out last night. Somewhere out there is a version of me that made the call BEFORE they closed.
Compliments for your channel! Could you teach us something about alternative explanations/theories for the results of the double slit experiment? And are there more experiments that show the presumed wave-property of a single photon?
will i ever stop being mind-blown
Splac L
sometime/place/where.
Yes, In a alternate universe
At the double slit experiment it is more likely, that the photon will land in the middle, not at for example the side. It could have landed on any other spot, just with a smaller propability. If there are universes, in which every single event occurs, doesn't that make the propability of each event happening equally propable?
Look at Matt getting flustered and crushing on physics girl 🤣
He's not the only one.
Hah, he's out of her league.
A few years ago I had a dream that I had successfully learned to switch between possible dimensions. It was an amazing feeling of freedom.... I don't think it was just a dream.
Tell me more, I also have an experience with switching dimensions
@@saveyourhero3307 Not really anything else to tell, already said everything that I remembered.
I've often believed in the possibility of the multiverse and that each reality is born from me choosing to do or not do something. But those are just possibilities, it's all just theory. This makes it feel like realty more than possibility. Great video to watch though lol, regardless of the unsettling feeling of knowing there really might be an endless spiral of branching possibilities.
Many worlds theory does not at all indicate, that your decisions have an impact on other universes. There are other universes, in which, there may be a person(like you, but not you), that makes different decisions then what YOU would make. But that does not impact this universe or your actions don’t impact another.
THINK! A UNIVERSE WITH NO ADS ON RUclips!!!
I hope people enjoyed my presentation of this video in a parallel universe.
Love your shows! How about the conservation of energy in this many worlds interpretation, what can you say about that?
As as our knowledge of physics grows, testing hypothesis becomes more and more difficult.
What if quantum mechanics is bound to hit an insuperable roadblock? Because maybe we won't be able to test everything we need in the future because we are just made of matter, and although we have found clever ways to make matter do what we want like forcing the Higgs field to produce a particle, it may not always be the case. Maybe we would need a deity-like perspective to test something like the many worlds interpretation, or questions about the Universe we haven't even began to question.
I'll stop now before I have an existential crisis again.
Yess, lets ask Zeus why his friends needed all this quantum madness magic to create the universe
Ciroluiro I would say that as our knowledge of physics grows, it becomes _easier_ to test hypotheses.
People had crazy ideas about the world since forever. Just look at Aristoteles and his elements. The more we know, the more tests and experiments we can devise for these ideas.
The more we know, the more hypotheses can be tested.
The crazy thing isn't what we already know, or that we might not be able to test such thing.
But rather that we already have propositions for testing things that just seem impossible.
Near lightspeed or faster than light travel, teleportation, or even interaction with possible other universes - yep, for all those things we already have some ideas and concepts of how that could be accomplished.
just a boomer that many of those things would require us to destroy a few planets or stars for the materials and energy needed.
ABaumstumpf well, it's kind of that. We have ideas about the stuff but maybe some of them are so crazy you wouldn't be able to test them. I'm just speculating .
Ciroluiro There are tests to see if an idea can be tested.
What if the many worlds multiverse only exists in the future, and collapses into our universe when it transitions into the past? I think that makes sense.
I like your thinking . . .
I think that's another way to state the Copenhagen interpretation.
So instead of a single universe branching into many, many "new" universes during each quantum event, it would be an array of multiple universes collapsing into a single universe as the arrow of time moves forward. Kinda like a zipper joining two unconnected sets of teeth into one.
I like it.
Hey Matt & PBS Space Time staff! is there a video available in spanish? If not, I would love to translate (accurately) and capture all of the important essence that distinguishes this channel among the others. Love your work! Love your videos! Much love to the team!
Saludos desde Mexico
7:27
Damn right.
There are so many that my mind screen can't even fit them and my head hurts from not giving up on trying to imagining that.
Kerbals obviously simulated our universe
In Jebediah Kerman we trust.
+PBS Space Time What do you think about Pilot Wave theories? Derek from Veritasium made an awesome video on that topic. I would like to know what's your take on that
From the MWI standpoint, the pilot wave is just the cumulative effect of all the other versions of particle interacting with it. The problem with the Pilot Wave view is that it singles out one of those versions as the only real one and demotes all the others to be constituents of the background pilot wave. In this, it is somewhat reminiscent to me of the Tyco Brahe's hybrid model of the solar system where all planets, except Earth, revolved around the sun while the Earth was somehow singled out and the sun and its orbiting planets revolving around it. Such hybrids are generally bad explanations their special singling out is ultimately a form of bias. This bias creates defects in their explanatory power. In the case of the pilot wave, it confines it to working on a specific basis all the time, has trouble incorporating spin, and is forced to accommodate for non-local effects. Even worse, the way the 'wave' interacts is very specific. It always interacts "as if" it was made by other versions of that particle subject to its particular setup. For example, if you put a barrier on one of the paths in the interference experiment, it effects the outcome only if the barrier is opaque to the passage of the particle. If it is transparent, it doesn't effect it at all. A general non-local spread out wave piloting shouldn't be so specific and idiosyncratic in how it acts.This shows that the addition of "as if" in the sentence above is superfluous. Doesn't add anything to the actual explanation. If you get rid of it, you get MWI back again with all its explanatory power. Anyways, that's my two cents.
Borzumehr Toloui
Thanks, let me ask you another question: with the Pilot Wave theories Schrodinger's cat doesn't need to be dead and alive at the same time, right? it would be just a regular cat. So at least it would solve that problem, right?
True, but that is only a problem if you had assume before hand what regular must mean. In the MWI, a cat that is alive in one universe and dead in the other is as regular as any other cat. The particles constituting that cat, by themselves, can be in a superposition of two or more states. Why not the cat that is made out of them?
Oh, and you are very welcome.
(BTW, that individual particle can be in multiple states at once is really is really the only reasonable way to comprehend how quantum computing works, for example. In the pilot wave model, it's pretty much like magic. In intermediary phase between preparation and measurement cannot really be considered as a sequence of well defined computational steps.).
Borzumehr Toloui
I'm not sure if a quantum computer could work if the Many Worlds Interpretation is true, I mean for any given calculation all the different result would happen on different universes. So we need to be very lucky for the correct answer to happen on our universe (probably I'm understanding all this wrong, and quantum computers doesn't work the way I imagine)
No. It's the only one that truly explains it all. What happens is that the calculation is done in all the branches in parallel and then at the end, you make the branches with the 'wrong' answer cancel each other out through destructive interference and the ones with the answer you want to compute to constructively interfere. Then you measure, which means you entangle yourself with them, and depending on how well that scheme of constructive/destructive interference went, these versions of you that see the right answer end up in the branch with the large enough measure or 'thickness' within all the branches. That's what under certain circumstances is interpreted operationally as the probability of getting a successful run of the computation.
In my favourite cartoon, Erwin Schrodinger is in the waiting room at the vet. A nurse comes to him and says: “About your cat, Mr Schrodinger, there’s good news and bad news.”
But think about this: At every change, whether experiential, circumstantial, or genetic, "you" change. You're not fully "you"- at least not the you that you experience and identify with. But even a different you is still mostly you.
I like to think of this the same way that we think of the observable universe. We each have our own distinct observable universe, because we each occupy slightly different positions in space time. Every time we move, or even by remaining stationary, the borders of our observable universe shift and change.
So an alternative "you" is just as real, but they are their own being, with their own possibility horizon that is slightly different than your own. Your probability horizon extends out until so much has changed that their are no identifiable qualities of "you" left. That creates an outline of a complex, multidimensional shapes; perhaps the most comprehensive and accurate image of "you" that can exist in reality.
Also reality isn't necessarily splitting at every juncture. More reasonably, all states in space/time/possibility simply exist, and have always existed, simultaneously in the grander universe. :)
What if we are living in many worlds ourselves, and when we think about alternate history we are just accesing "us" in that timeline.
And in order to not overload the brain, only one particular event chain is continiously registered while all others are heavily blurred and become imagination, fake memories, and background noise
now we have to add consciousness to this mess? why not
Damn, now that was a crazy one
This may be the background noise universe, as far as i can tell. Where's the fun and excitement everyone talks about?
Or dreams?
Quantum mechanics isn't a game of shoot higher
My head hurts
damiion666 like your muscles after working out. You're growing smarter
Wow amazing to know about quantum theories
That's why both possibilities of yes and no are both combined until last minute
The only Channel to give complete knowledge of a small topic
Hey man u look good in beard
im curious how does the many worlds interpretation account for the conservation of mass and energy? the amount of energy and mass in the universe would have to multiply by the number of options.
I commented the same thought, then saw this.
Use infrared rays....it will help you in visualization
Two severe mistakes:
1. You don't get the probability of sth happening by counting branches of the wave function. Rather branches have weights. The sum of the squares of the weights of the branches gives the probability of an event.
2. Decoherence or the emergence of new "worlds" has nothing to do with decisions. It's about whether certain quantities are entangled with each other or not and they get entangled in macroscopic objects like you. Unless you base your decisions on measurements of the spin of an electron, they don't coincide with decoherence.
"Free will" is not really a physical concept and when you try to make sense of it, it violates causality and for an observer in the past the "free" behavior would the same as random. Then the cause is only revealed after the effect.
Telltale Atheist - heard of him?
He's an incredble source to know at the very least who to ote against in the current times, where Qanon and others literally Voice openly their Plan to "flood the Office".
Another severe mistake: there are no branches. There are only people who don't know physics. ;-)
Our dreams are us getting a glimpse of the alternative universes
This makes sense. Hence why they can feel so real. But how does this cross between realms occur?
@@Dylanlongatpawnidentification? in other words: the mind follows the reality that matches the state it was in? (the path it was already going based on previous beliefs?) But then, if you stop thinking (really stop thinking like stop identifying with a body or anything), all realms exist together? Or is it a one way street? You tell me.
I kind of hate the many worlds interpretation (more than all other attempts to rationalize quantum mechanics with our macroscopic experience), exactly because of how it leads people to make the absurd jump from scales where the uncertainty principal applies to scales where it doesn't. (see 9:05) We already see that large-scale systems "average out" the quantum fuzziness, and human choices are deterministic (yes, they are deterministic--brains are complicated, not magic), so it's a non sequitur to say that there may be a parallel universe where you decided to go with the red prius instead of the blue one because you will always have picked the blue one.
All attempts at explaining the macroscopic world in terms of quantum mechanics are pure conjecture, fueled by pop-pseudoscience that markets itself to humans who love to wonder about the road not taken. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to understand how QM relates to the world as we see it with our eyes, but we need to rein-in the magical thinking as we go about it.
Ian Munro Well put and I agree with most of what you say, but heres some simple, seemingly "crazy", yet completely competent experiment. Google New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter ~ Dean Radin Ph.D. I honestly want to know your thoughts folks
I'm starting to make an Einstein where I believe quantum mechanics are real and observable, but I don't believe they're a fundamental law of the universe.
+Theo “starteo” Starodubov
Well, I Googled ‘Dean Radin’, and it came up with ‘researcher in parapsychology’. That's not a legitimate field of research, so I'm not going to bother.
*****
I reject assumption 3. The wave function is no more than a useful predictive tool.
To me the better example of the multi world interpretation rather than one universe where you pick a red prius and one where you pick the blue one is that there are as many universes where your life is %100 the same but a different world is created for every possible atomic "choice" in every atom in every galaxy in our universe branching off exponentially at every distinct moment in time. And the same happens for every possible version of your life. Mind boggling.
Aw you guys are so cute! Like two amazing nerds that could potentially fall in nerdy love.... *fanfic underway* Just joking - love both your channels!
veritasium is already banging her
johnybazukata Looks like Derek from Veritasium has some competition ;)
I have long said, these two should make sexy babies.
They're bumping uglies in some universe... and have the smartest kid of all time
I seriously almost said "bumping uglies".
@10:39
determinism doesn't affect free will at all, because deterministic v non-deterministic is independent of computational class. this means that two systems that are linear bounded automata (like the observable universe) where one is fully deterministic and the other is non-deterministic are capable of computing precisely the same things, neither is able to do anything that the other can't. this then means that whatever 'free will' is, it can't be trapped in non-deterministic universes specifically, and thus your proposed philosophical issue is not one at all.
@@54eopifkg3ehfkj43 Firstly, a linear bounded automaton is not a universal turing machine (UTM), because UTM has no bounds on working memory space or on time, while the observable universe is finite in both regards. An LBA is a system which can execute the same instruction sets as a UTM, but within the confines of finite memory storage and time, thus making it by far the most likely equivalent to the observable universe.
Second, correcting your use of UTM to LBA, doing what you ask would be the same as proving the Church-Turing Thesis, which of course I cannot do. However, if the thesis is wrong then a huge number of things that we know to work perfectly would suddenly have to be framed in completely new ways. This is definitely possible, that the thesis is wrong, but it would be highly unexpected, and as such I would venture to say that the burden of evidence is in fact upon you.
And at any rate, the observable universe must be at least as complex as an LBA, since LBAs are physically realizable (computers and brains being examples), and as a consequence things which LBAs can do can also be done by the observable universe, and a parity between deterministic and non-deterministic systems is a trait of LBAs. So my point that deterministic and non-deterministic systems share computability class is independent of any such isomorphism. I merely mentioned the (likely) isomorphism to facilitate any further research/verification that people might want to do as it is fairly easy to look up within that context.
Lastly, the only way for the observable universe to be more powerful than an LBA while also being finite would be if it had access to some sort of oracle machine. This is essentially magic dressed up in the language of maths/comp sci, and thus one should be highly skeptical of it. This all ends up leaving your skepticism of my basic claims on extremely shaky grounds. Which I think illustrates something really nicely, which is that skepticism for its own sake is not necessarily good reasoning.
During the early years of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, aka the Everett Interpretation, Wheeler and Dewitt were amongst Everett 's supporters. There is now a vast literature on the Interpretation, both in the physics community and in the philosophy of science community. Many such papers are freely available on arXiv.org . Like many theories in modern physics, the theory seems absurd at first, then with time and reflection, it seems not so absurd, and perhaps even possible.
Spacetime please please answer this... So I was thinking about how we perceive black holes, and it seems that they are thought of as 3 dimensional spheres, but wouldn't they be a 4 dimensional hypersphere?? Hear me out, so every point in 3 dimensional space at the event horizon of a black hole would pull toward the singularity at the center, meaning that if you took point A then traveled 180 degrees around to the point exactly opposite point of Point A (call it point B) then you would have 2 infinite singularities that would connect at... well infinity (the 'center'). But my point is not the infinite curvature of the singularity itself, it's the equal yet opposite hypersphere that would be created in the negative space of the singularity. Let me put it this way, if space is stretched and constantly expanding toward infinity, like our own universe, and inside a black hole time no longer exists, it means that everything that has happened, or will happen, has already happened inside, like that of a 4 dimensional object....
.... For the love of science I hope this makes sense because I just read it again and it's not looking good... lmao
Well, we don't know what a singularity looks like, but we assume it's the smallest a thing can be--a single point. So I dunno if this assertion applies...
Then again, I'm no astrophysicist.
It would be just a 0 dimensional point I believe, like that at the moment of the big bang.
You've kind of answered your own question. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the "holographic universe" idea describes: We might be able to describe all the information contained inside a black hole by the surface fluctuations on the event horizon alone, meaning that the information inside that 4D (3D position + 1D time) space can be recreated by a projection of the 3D event horizon. This can be applied to the entire universe we are living in now - our world line could just a projection of an event horizon of some larger black hole that we are contained within.
Lord Bills The relativistic affects from the reference point inside a black hole does not experience time in the same way on observer outside would experience it. The spacetime inside the black hole is being stretched faster then the speed of light meaning that anything inside of it does not experience time. Now hawking radiation, may just be 'dark energy' in the black hole that counteracts the gravitational forces of the singularity that causes the expansion of space inside the black hole, the same way dark energy is responsible for speeding up the expansion of our own universe. Equal yet opposite.
"A black experiences change by either absorbing new matter or by hawking radiation that is more than enough proof that it experiences time." What exactly are you trying to say here?
I personally believe two theories are possible. One: there is no multiverse. Time travel and other dimensions are impossible. even if you could Time travel, you couldn’t change anything because say you go to the past. You wouldn’t be able to change it because it already has happened in YOUR timeline, thus multiple timelines don’t exist. You also wouldn’t be able to change to future already happened in relation to a further future. ( I know this won’t make sense to others but it makes sense to me.). My other theory involves space time being best explained by a giant tree. Infinite variations of your world, different timelines, different dimensions. Now your reality it a branch on this tree. All the different realities, dimensions, timelines, are different branches. Now, the trunk, the roots of this tree are the constants, the beginning of timespace, the thing that doesn’t change. If you’re Christian, like I am, this is when God created the universe. The seven days when God made the world. If you’re atheist, this would be the Big Bang. So on so forth, same thing for different religions. Now this trunk of the tree breaks off into infinite branches, like I mentioned different realities. Now these branches break off into more, infinite branches and/or twigs. These twigs can break into more, smaller twigs, and some branches and twigs, (realities) go on longer and are longer, but eventually all branches and twigs end. This is the end of time and space. For Christians this is after the rapture. For atheists, this would be something like around the time the last proton decays and all that’s left is empty space. Each of these timelines/ dimensions are slightly different, like I said, infinite variations. For example, there could be a reality out there where this comment wasn’t too long. So in order to ‘change’ things, you would have to go back in time, and make your way to another branch. I guess I’m a way, if you made a wrong turn on a road, so you have to do things to get on track to where you want to go. Make a few turns, a u turn. Anyways, you go back in time to make your way onto another branch. In some extreme cases, you might even have to go back to the trunk, the beginning of time. I personally don’t believe that you can change your own timeline is because even if you could, that’s almost like if a branch broke and the tree would heal it. The tree would replace the branch, replace your timeline. I know none of this makes sense but it’s just too interesting I had to put my thoughts out there.
If you travelled to another universe which is like that past version of your own universe, a mirror version of yourself from yet another universe would travel to your own past, make all of the same changes you did, creating the illusion that you travelled through time.
That would be nice and all, but i happen to know what really happens. It goes like this: We all have to live this same life, in this same time over and over. Everyone has to live their time in history over and over, and all times of history is happening all at the same time. Ancient times, future times, it's all happening right now. The beginning and the ending and all in between happen in the only real time- the now time. The only heaven and hell happen right here and as we're living. None of it all has to do with what we deserve or what's fair to others. I have no idea why it's happening like this.
Hi, I have two questions if I may: in the many worlds interpretation, is the physics the same in every time line? I was under the impression that the multiverse notion imagined universes with any variety of fundamental properties, things fall up, not down, etc. So is "many worlds" distinct from "many universes"--notably in the sense that all worlds obey the same physics, but not all universes? Secondly, when one of us in one of our timelines dies, does the timeline go on without us? Were we, by virtue of our acting as ongoing observers actually sustaining the timeline? Thanks so much if you get a chance to answer either of my questions, thanks regardless for great, thought-provoking (as you can see) content! Take care
I just had a thought that would explain the particle wave experiment and why a particle is observed in a wave pattern. Conceivably when the particle passes thru the slit, it experiences a slight gravitational attraction with the barrier itself and depending on how close it is to the edge of the barrier the more strongly it's trajectory is pulled into phased trajectory. If all matter is a vibrating then there is a harmonic resonance between the particle and the barrier. This accounts for the stripes and the more or less empty spaces between the stripes. So it remains a particle but it's trajectory is altered by the harmonic resonance in gravity with the barrier. Are you with me? So we see it's disbursement pattern as a wave when in fact it's just the collective average of the particles predictable trajectory divergences. I think this explanation satisfies both conditions of particles and waves.
There are inf-buuurp-inite worlds, M-Morty!
Can I propose an experiment that could test the quantum multiverse theory for a person. (I'll be the person in this example so that people are not offended) If I replace the Schrodinger's cat with myself in the box and set the odds of killing to be extremely high I should still survive no matter what if the multiverse theory is correct. I mean after the experiment is over I'll be dead in most of those universes (and maybe even with a Darwin Award), but I'll be also alive in a few. So for me nothing happens in the box because thinking me always ends up in the universe where I survive. Not that I can share this result with anybody outside the box considering the statistics behind it.
It just seems like you can't die if the multiverse theory is correct. Well, at least if you have some chance to survive. That's pretty neat :-D
Ah yes, quantum immortality: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
Well, you'll just have proven nothing in a dozen universes (and given some nasty work to the janitor of the science lab on a multiverse scale, uncool) and, in far less universes, either that Many World is true... or that you just got really lucky.
No dice!
The problem here is that each version of you, in each universe, is not the same you. Think of each version of you, as your twin.
NSNick Cool. I had no idea something this crazy was already known thought experiment.
gothamsnetwork Indeed :-D
Kisama001 I disagree. My stance on the problem of identity is that if there is the exact same you somewhere else it is still you. In fact I would even argue that if there is slightly different version of you it is still you.
pi314159265358978 Would you say then that a completely different version of you (say, you as a baby) is not you?
According to the ancient scrolls from the Priory of Sion in France there are 3 versions of you. Commonly referred to as Body Soul and Sprit. There is a physical you a spiritual you and a conscientious you. All 3 aspects have different powers and properties. The best book I have read that explains these paradoxical theories is a book called 'Phenomenon' (Amazon) by Neil Fulcher. Absolutely incredible 😅🎱
Thank you