Quantum reality makes my brain hurt. Just the same it is a fascinating topic and I keep coming back to it, hoping for a better insight or even a fractionally improved grasp of the concept. This is the most clear and succinct explanation I've come across to date. It still makes my brain ache some, definitely a little less than before. Thanks very much...
When regressing people back to the times of the crucifixion of Christ, people who believed with their consciousness that Christ was crucified saw the crucifixion. Those who didn't believe in Christ during their session, didn't see a crucifixion. So I tend to believe your observation or consciousness and belief, create a different reality. However, a hypnotist can create a suggested reality, and you in the state of hypnosis will create his reality. Example: your daughter is in the audience but no matter where you look, you cannot see her. Daughter is brought on stage to stand in front of him yet even though she is giggling he says he cannot see her. The hypnotist then takes a bracelet with a phrase that has been engraved on it. Then shows the audience what is engraved on it. He then places it behind the daughter who is standing right in front of the father who cannot see or hear his daughter a foot away from him, and then asks him to read the engraving. He reads it even though he has to read it through the body of his daughter! Proof our eyes don't see our conscious does.
Here's a question, I've researched Near Death Experiences for a few years now. Quite a lot of testimonies from people who claim they raise out of their bodies on point of death and ascend to another realm of existence, state they experience a life review. From birth until their death. They also claim to feel the harm they caused to other people and they get to feel it from the recipients point of view. My point is, how is every minute captured, only to be played back when they reach the other realm? My question is, how is it that no one is putting two and two together? There is literally thousands of testimonies from. People who have died and returned. We must live in a simulation, where every moment of every souls existence here on Earth, is recorded like data. You have to admire the intelligence of our Creator. An intellect, that is so incomprehensible, that our God given imagination cannot even fathom and never will. He said "Let us make them in our image" Not a mention on how smart we could end up being. Never going to create a species that's smarter than the Creator itself.
IMPORTANT: The observer effect is actually not based on consciousness, but rather just when an atom is detected. When someone thinks about a particle that is in its undetermined state, the particle does not suddenly resolve itself. This video is basically just trying to misinform people for social gain.
Every time i watch these videos i feel it gets me a step closer to hack my own reality just by thinking! Thank you for making this video, its greatly appreciated!
We thought the same thing back in the 60's. Meditating, doing acid, living "alternative" lifestyles, all kinds of attempts to subvert the terrible grip of reality, but we all ended up living pretty much like our parents and grubbing in the dirt like their parents. Go ahead and give it a try, but max out that 401k just in case (and for god's sake, take care of your teeth).
torch Sinse the 11 months ago when I first commented, i am now financially stable and waiting to move into my own home! Before then I literally had nothing! Trust the universe!
@@iamthetinkerman As the old Native American said in Little Big Man, "Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't". I'm glad it worked for you. When I was a young man, I could make things happen, but now things just happen to me. Peace.
Mahnaym Jyeff Well there is nothing wrong with this statement from a human perspective. After all, your entire “reality” is merely your brain’s interpretation of raw sensual data. Your brain is constantly interpreting this data as your sensory organs stream it in. So it is technically correct to say that for a human, the world is procedurally generated around them while they are conscious.
@@deathball2331 That makes me think, if two or more people are observing the same physical entity, all of their observations of that entity or object would be the same. So can we then say that the collapsing of that entity or object's waves to particles is subjective and experienced differently by each person? (But we know that this is not the case as all objects have a finite physical description). Or perhaps we are unable to measure this as yet on a wave-particle level? Would that then mean that the individual's observation does not have an effect on it? Basically what I'm asking is what if there are multiple people observing the phenomenon? Would that have a different effect to if there was only one person observing it, because if it does have a different effect we can surely say that each person's subjective observation influences the phenomenon. That could possibly provide evidence of consciousness existing, or more likely it could also provide evidence that a field exists and when the observer observes the phenomenon they disrupt the field which then has some sort of effect on the particles.
I've never found a good definition (or explanation) of the term, Observer, in relation to the double-slit experiment until this. Excellent video - I wish I could give it more thumbs up.
However, do those photons not interact with any other particle or photon before colliding with the screen? What happens if one illuminates the scene with dim light. Do the photons behave like particles?
Thanks for explaining this stuff so clearly. Unfortunately for me, each time I understand one thing I realize I really don't understand two others. It's like: scratching an itch makes it more itchy. ... but it's so satisfying to just keep scratching.
I love the way you present this videos from many physicists view. Simplifying all the complex viewpoints. I got very confused prior to watching your videos . This one allows us to look at it from different viewpoints. Personally , at every single result of each experiment, every one is correct, as there are endless possibilities. Thank you
@@eternallight88 with a wall a slit and a wall the partial goes through as expected, then with a wall a slit a solid pillar a slit and a wall it creates the interference pattern. What if its the partial that splits around the pillar?
The electric fields caused by the power sources of the atom gun and the detector are messing with the flow of atoms. The first field makes the atom to follow the electric field lines which are curved. Thats why the atoms dont flow in a straight line as expected. And the second field of the detector cancels the first so the atoms now flow in a straight line as it was normally expected. And it is very easy to verify by plugging some other electric device instead of the detector to the same power source. The effect will most probably be the same. So it doesnt matter if you put a detector or an electric shaver.
You are literally one of the most interesting channels and the best explaining one!! Just found out this channel today!! I hope you blow up on subscribers!! 👍
You might appreciate this, Justice: Consciousness not only creates the limited "reality" that you are experiencing, it IS your current, extremely limited, virtual-reality-type experience. And consciousness actually BLOCKS absolute Reality from your awareness in order to accomplish this. You have fallen from an infinite sampling rate, as it were, into an infinitely-lower sampling rate. From Light into darkness. But the "good news" is that this is a temporary condition. I have all of the important answers. And I sure am lonely out here. But that's alright.
I searched for three hours on a device that can access near all of humanity’s knowledge, and this was the first literature that let me truly understand this proposition. Thank you.
This is really the best available explanation for a broad meaning of life. The observer role must be filled by something in order to make stuff real, so the Universe creates that too along with everything else.
Wow, what is this channel. I mean, when I first started to dig around physics, astronomy and futurism on the RUclips, every thing was new, but after a while it was getting hard to find new stuffs to amuse me. And see, I'm pretty deep into channels like Isaac Arthur, Fraser Can, John Michel Godier, SpaceTime, Sharkee, etc. I've seen all of their videos. And out of no where, RUclips recommends your channel and you show me this 2011 experiment that seems to show that as long as information is extracted of, the probability wave collapse. That is awesome. Thank you.
Joking aside, I've often thought of the un-collapsed wave function as simulation 'code' not needing to be written unless observed, to save on computing time/power, or some such nonsense like that
Even if we were living a simulation (an idea that for some reason became popular after the MATRIX - LOL) we would never be able to know definitively since the tools used to detect it are also simulated! The idea is not mine but I think it's brilliant. Why should our detection tools be "real" in a simulated universe?
@@idichekop Man... 8:28 consciousness is not needed to colapse the wave function... and there is an experiment that proved it. The scientist stored the 'which way' information in an atom, we can't look to an individual atom, so nobody knows the 'which way' information and it is impossible to retrieve the information. But still it colapsed the wave.
@@idichekop why do you think consciousness is involved? Only humans record informations? That's delusionaly self-centered and the very reason man is so toxic to its environment. A rock records informations. Your body records information.
No matter what arguments you use against Consciousness, including the test at the end that somehow disproves the need for Consciousness, once again, you still needed your Consciousness to observe that data and results. Your Observation from your Consciousness is ALWAYS the final step.
I agree. I’d be interested to know more about that final proof he was talking about. Maybe there was a “which way” detector present and the results could be seen on the rear wall, showing the wave collapsed even though no one looked at the detector?
hahaha I dunno bro, it seems to me you might be doing a little projection, I mean, what was SHE measuring last night hehehe.....Who has more to loose if those measurements ever get made public knowledge !! hahaha Will you let others verify the results HAHAHA
Maybe it observes it self. Unless you are capable of doing science research and proposed different theories. I really want to know how this world we live in came to exist; what is there beyond its borders; how come when you add a Aton of oxigen to H20, then water becomes peroxide. How can I send a text message or a picture around the world wirelessly in a split second?
@Arc-Xis Gaming for me I've never fully understood atheism it's like when you look at the pyramids of egypt you think there must have been ancient egyptians but when you look at the universe you don't think of something like God?
I am theoretical physicist. Among others, I am much interested in the topics of this marvelous video. When a detector is present, the relevant quantum state is not only the electron going through the slit(s), but the electron, the detector and whatever recording device If the detector is on and monitors the electron, then such an overall state cannot give the interference pattern on the screen. This is a consequence of the quantum mechanics, according to which the state with the electron, the detector on and the recorder (be it an atom or a macroscopic device) is a different state than the state with the electron, the detector off and the recorder. It does not matter whether or not I look at the recorder. Consciousness is not directly relevant in this setup, only that we know whether or not we have turned on detector. Consciousness would be relevant if the detector would be in a superposition of the states 'on' and 'off'. Then, the overall state would be a superposition of two states: in one of the states there would be an interference pattern on the screen, whilst in the other state there would be no interference. The observation would be now to detect which pattern is on the screen. To know it, I have to look at the screen. Instead, I can put a camera and record the appearance of the scree. But until I looked at the screen or at the recorder, I would not know the result; relative to me, the state would be a superposition of the two possibilities (interference pattern and no interference pattern).
I'm glad you commented bc ive got a few questions I've wanted to ask that could just me from my lack of understanding or a misunderstanding of a very complicated field of knowledge. Especially since you are on the theoretical side of the field, since that is the side I relate to bc I love to theorize things that I don't really understand all the time...lol. so please wnlightment me after reading my ideas and questions and just let me know if any of them could actually be something that could even have the slightest bit of relevancy pertaining to possibilities .... or if I'm completely idiotic and in no way could my thoughts even be a possibility in any way shape or form. But , please explain to me why it would be beyond possibility so that I'll actually understand my stupidity. First off , to my understanding that the science of quantum physics works differently than the other sciences because it isn't focused on finding an answer or law bc the focus is on evolving the science as a whole instead of a specific isolated aspect? Is that correct or is my knowledge already demolished? Either way I guess my thoughts and ideas aren't necessarily dependent upon whether I'm correct or incorrect on that first inquiry. So my first question is if the objective is to evolve the science as opposed to proving the science then why does the science shy away from ideas that can't or don't know how to measure even when it is seems to be overwhelming present or even if underwhelming present? What am saying is why does consciousness not get the attention or only acknowledged as being present but not considered to be more of a component of the science itself? Is it only bc there is no way to measure it? I guess that while watching several different videos and hearing the many interpretations and explanations of many smart smart humans with an actually understanding of this subject that I know I clearly don't share... I noticed consciousness is brought into the discussion on nearly every video. But the ideas vary widely on how much of a role or what role it plays. But, I kept wondering why all of them connected consciousness with only the observer in some way every time? Why hasn't it been considered that the particles or wave should themselves could be conscious and that being observed either by the observer or the measuring tool is what causes the interaction to caise the particle to wake up from its unconscious state into a consciousness state in which it itself decides its trajectory. What if everything in the quantum world is conscious of itself in its own state of awareness or being? Wouldn't it become measurable if that be the case ? Wouldn't that help in understanding string theory or the interaction of particles that become intertwined with another? Could consciousness be the unified field? If everything is information could that mean the information is dark matter and why the universe seems to be expanding bc it's recieving more information / data and it gets deposited into the universe forcing expansion w/everybit of data deposited? And if the unified field was consciousness then it would have access to and be the cause of all of the information that's ever been and will be until every thought has been thought and the expansion stops and begins to contract into itself until it's back into its original state prior to the big bang?
@@Pete.Tingo18 All these are complex questions that I cannot address here, at least not in a way that would make sense. If you look at my book "The grand biocentric design: How life creates reality", written in co-authorship with Robert Lanza, you might find some clarification and insight into the enigmatic concept of consciousness and its relation to quantum mechanics. Also watching my video ruclips.net/video/3LgGv4jb3sU/видео.html on the RUclips channel "Chasing Consciousness" could be useful. You are right that consciousness should not be excluded from investigation in physics and other natural sciences. It was rightly excluded since Renaissance until the discovery of quantum mechanics, because that enabled the rapid, unprecedented, development of physics and technology. But with quantum mechanics, the circle is closed: we can no longer proceed without bringing consciousness into the game. All the difficulties in understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics stem from the lack of properly involving consciousness.
@@DutchStar If I delete the data on the recorder but do not destroy the screen, the pattern on the screen would be in a superposition. Looking at the screen would reveal the pattern. If I destroyed the screen before looking, then the information about the pattern would be encoded as a superposition of the degrees of freedom of the environment. Being a part of the environment, my body together with my eyes and the brain would be in a superposition as well. I would not know what the pattern was, until performing a measurement on all those many degrees of freedom, which is practically impossible.
@@Pete.Tingo18 All these are complex questions that I cannot address here, at least not in a way that would make sense. Also watching my video ruclips.net/video/3LgGv4jb3sU/видео.html on the RUclips channel "Chasing Consciousness", you might find some clarification and insight into the enigmatic concept of consciousness and its relation to quantum mechanics. You are right that consciousness should not be excluded from investigation in physics and other natural sciences. It was rightly excluded since Renaissance until the discovery of quantum mechanics, because that enabled the rapid, unprecedented, development of physics and technology. But with quantum mechanics, the circle is closed: we can no longer proceed without bringing consciousness into the game. All the difficulties in understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics stem from the lack of properly involving consciousness.
it took me many years to watch other videos about wave functions, collapse, super position, none of that make sense to me until this video. Never though of observation is an obscured term but yet most important part of quantum mechanic that even changed reality once and for all. I really like your interpretation that help a common folk like me to understand the most complicated concepts in this world.
amazing. most in depth video I've found without becoming a deep dive. have seen no others mention that moving the observer creates no change, and that being observed isn't about consciousness
if the universe is conscious, then it is creating it's own reality. These are great questions...are we even able to understand the answers? We may need to evolve beyond biological life and exist in a virtual 10 dimensional cybernetic network of one unified consciousness to even begin to comprehend what this is all about.
@@bradmodd7856 Consciousness isn't creating anything except an internal subjective IMAGE of reality, a simplified model of it, not the reality itself. Objective reality = everything that exists, whether observed or not.
@@kyjo72682 If you break that down though, ALL reality is a subjective experience. Objective reality is an idea or belief, not something that can be proven to actually exist. Observations of any potential proof and all the thoughts and theories related to it still happen through one's subjective perspective, as a subjective experience. There is currently no actual proof of any objective reality, only experiments and interpretations of them - thoughts, ideas, beliefs, which all still always happen within one's subjective experiences.
@@GuruTurtle Well, yes, considering the possibility of extreme solipsism you can't 100% prove existence of anything beyond your current conscious experience - because that is the only access to reality you can get. But. Everything else suggests that the objective reality exists and is independent on subjective experience of it, and furthermore that the subjective experience is completely dependent on the objective reality. For example, you can observe temporal evolution of your consciousness. You know you are conscious now, but also that you were conscious a second ago, miture ago, etc. And that you know more now than you knew in the past. This alone is a very strong indicator that information is coming from the "outside" and is not being generated by the consciousness itself. In fact the amount of information in our consciousness is almost infinitesimally small compared to the infinite amount of information which seems to be out there. You can also observe that established scientific theories (all of which assume realism) give very good explanations of the observed phenomena and have strong predictive power. For example, based on medical/biological knowledge (which asserts that consciousness is generated by the brain, building upon chemistry, physics and math) you can say that applying sedatives to your nervous system will critically affect your conscious experience. Or, even simpler, you can say that brain needs sleep and sooner or later it will force your "subjective experience" to switch off for a while. Also, besides the proofs and theories, abstract objects like numbers and geometric shapes seem to have existence of their own, independent on space and time and presumably conscious observers. It is also useful to think about what "consciousness" actually means. Some critical components of it such as memory, information processing, abstract thinking, deduction, etc. require external substrate and mechanisms. The solipsist view also implies that you can't prove that other people and beings (and things in general) have consciousness. In fact you always have to assume this based on observing similarity between their bodies and behaviors to what you assume is "your body". Combining extreme solipsism with idealism would basically mean that your consciousness generated the whole universe, including all the events that had to have happened for you to have your current conscious experience (fine-tuning, big bang, evolution, etc.) including all the information you've learned up to this point, most of which came from "other people".
Dean Radin experiments showed that getting meditators to focus on the double slit setup also collapsed it into particle. The more experienced the meditators, the greater the collapse. Cheers.
Thanks for that. The bit that blew my mind was the fact that you can place the detector after the slits. I had always believed it was the interaction between the detector eg a photon causing the wave collapse. I guess reality is just way weirder than my mind can fathom
I'm just a layperson who took two semesters of applied physics in college but I loved everything I learned. That said, I understand just enough about the phenomena of particle physics to be totally enthralled by it. The mystery of the wave function collapsing when an observer is present is super fascinating! I am also fascinated by superposition and quantum entanglement! Now I'm 63 and I want to learn more. Thanks for this video!
I remember when this channel started. I thought it was one of those ( buy my product) channels. I'm so happy it has become something beautiful as it has
It does makes since actually , without studying physics but from the last 30 mins of watching videos on this , it tells me that wether it is an instrument or by human eyes as a second example , does have a direct affect on light protons . To go into understanding why this is or why I believe this is happening is due to the simple explanation of the altering of those photons by other photons,( doesn’t seem hard to understand at all), are eyes obviously give off photons , the machines , anything basically observing them in a direct way are interfering with them causing them to act differently . It seems pretty simple to understand that
Great question! The screen IS a measurement device. The wave collapses at the screen into particles which create the patterns on it. You still see the interference pattern because the screen does not measure which slit the particles came from.
Mustafa Mahudhawala the screen is subjective as it is our universe. Conciousness is fundamental and renders your Avatar ( you body and everything you know as your reality). Its a virtual reality and conciousness is the „player“ and the „computer“ For more information watch Tom Campbell
The screen is not exactly a measurement device. It is a device that shows the result. It's like the interference pattern is the intended effect. Trying to analyze the way the pattern is made, somehow alters the effect.
Hi Arvin, I cannot thank you enough for explaining the confusion created by the word “observation” in quantum physics. On another note, the work of Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic is new to me and to millions of people. Could you please make a video just about their work? I don’t think I understand it well enough. Thank you again! ❤
Yes it does. If you and me exist and not until we post something online, we still exist. Cat in a box paradox is inaccurate representation of probability. Because if it is a real cat, depending on the time it will be kept in the box without food and water or oxygen. We can surely say when it would not be possible for the cat to be alive. Let's say mummy's from the pyramid were long dead.
We are a tree falling in the woods and nobody is there to listen to us and we do not exist. Or Someone IS listening and recording all the data and we are just avatars and npc in this simulation . Enjoy.
@@danrazART Not quite so simple as 'yes it does'. I think it is fair to say that any tree falling anywhere shall create shock waves in the medium that is air. But it takes the apparatus of ear/brain and consciousness for those shock waves to become translated into 'sound'. Without all of that, the tree does indeed fall silently. As for Schroedinger's Cat; it is a thought experiment.. one is not to suppose that it is a real cat at all! The thought experiment merely required a living subject to be killed or not killed by another circumstantial state within the closed system of the thought experiment. Place a digital LCD in a box, and adapt the thought experiment so that what must be predicted is whether the display shows 1 or 0, would work just as well toward expressing the pure conjecture. Your own objection is somewhat pedantic, in that you are introducing a notion (that the cat may be predicted to die of some other natural cause at some point along some real time line) which is in fact outside of the closed boundaries of the thought experiment. The 'reality' of the Cat is not supposed to be taken so literally as that at all.
@@steorswe I think it is fair to say that any tree falling anywhere shall create shock waves in the medium that is air. But it takes the apparatus of ear/brain and consciousness for those shock waves to become translated into 'sound'. Without all of that, the tree does indeed fall silently. But the tree and the medium of air (and the forest, and etc..) are still in existence without sensual witness.
History is taking place here in Venice, LA. The mouth of the Mighty Mississippi River. All of this information was very important to our sustainability efforts to save the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Bless your heart
My favorite RUclips creator I don't know how he does it but I really appreciate it How to take a very complex subject and break it down so that everyone can understand it A truly unique gift Thank you Arvin for breaking down very complex ideas and also making them very entertaining
@@DomCurtis2023 You know I have learned about it. And I'm certain it us valid. The universe is weird. Our "mind" appears to be all there is ultimately. I wish I'd have learned this so much younger.
555Trout that’s because schools will never teach you what kind of power the conscious mind is capable of. They keep us in the dark. It’s truly mind blowing and made me question why certain things would happen to me even unintentionally even tho it’s intentional 🤔
@@DomCurtis2023 Indeed. Drones are better worker bees. I always think of the "Borg" as our future. I first thought the internet was going to be the best thing for humanity. Now, not so much. Hive mentality seems to be favored by the internet. Free thinkers seem to get crushed by the hive. 😬
Because politicians are opportunistic liars without any conscious or morality, while scientists are real people who believe in what they do... Remember, ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIERS ; while lying is taboo in science it is a daily practice in politic.
Robby Wilski I’m just implying that no one seems to agree about anything politically. Everyone is divided. Scientists, on the other hand, are quite the opposite. They will agree based on solely facts and hard evidence. Politics are sly and dishonest.
Today in our world, politicians and rich idiots are called "elites". It's nonsense and I hate it. Those who advance the cause of humanity are the elite. Inventors, scientists, writers, poets, etc., they are the elite. And the average person is the hero in the story. The nurse, the doctor, the carpenter, the mechanic, the cook. The politicians, the bankers, the financiers, the top managers are the mankind's trash. Bloodsuckers, parasites of humanity. Definitely not the elit.
There are physicists who maintain that our thoughts/consciousness change the world (we have moved from the sub-atomic level to the macroscopic level). I have reason to think that they are right and that certain modified states of consciousness greatly increase the possibility that our thoughts modify the probabilities of events and therefore interfere with reality.
It's amazing how these experiments correlate with the human experience. Hiedegger describes truth by arising and falling away much like a photon passes.
This is why you can be correct about YOUR reality and view of the world and I can be correct about MY reality and view of the world . Catch this - I don’t have health insurance . I swim for an hour every day . People are telling me I am 33. I’m 52. I have decided to play with my reality . I’ve don’t have any ailments. I am an entrepreneur- I like to play with probability and with little positive choices I make my life amazing to other people who are maybe more stuck in their (to me more boring “reality”)
@paul sanders: Apparently only 39% of physicists accept this mind-blowing "Copenhagen" interpretation of what happens in QM. In the Bohm "pilot wave" interpretation, for example, the apparent "collapse" of the wave function is understood as hidden information that was already there but only revealed because/when you do the measurement . . .
@@QED_ It does make the story nice and neat, but wait just a second, Pilot Wave Theory has it's problems too, mainly it can't be merged into quantum theory and general relativity and newton's third law and quantum field theory and uncertainty principle... Just about everything really. Plus the wave function must vanish instead of collapsing which is odd. It was never really meant to work. It was just a kind of 'proof of concept' for disgruntled scientists, pissed off that steady state got poopoo'd by reality and came up with the EPR Paradox. The Pilot wave theory was proposed to counteract that paradox, but has not exactly fit with anything else. And, to make things worse nonlocality experiments with photons are working as theorized by the non-positional interpretations. It's getting a little wobbly. It is about to go to the trash bin if it don't get some lovin'.
Hi Arvin ; In this universe I really enjoyed your video but in another universe I didn't like it so much... then again in another universe there was no video at all !!! Man this really makes your head spin. !!!
Since you have asked for our input on the subject - here is an article that was written in 2015. Apricate (in) Truth During the 1930s, the great scientific minds, such as Einstein; Schrödinger: Planck, et alia, developed Quantum Mechanics (which is also known as Quantum Theory). The quantum-mechanical atomic model has succeeded spectacularly, whereas classical science had previously failed, in explaining the microscopic universe. However... for all its successes - it still hasn't resolved the issue of the Measurement Problem. This is the situation where they could see the particle displayed wave functionality but when they attempted to measure the collapse from a particle to a wave - the observation caused the particle to maintain particle functionality. In other words... they couldn't measure the collapse of the wave function because reality is affected by the observation of the person making the measurment. This led to abstract mathematics that describe the nature of particles and wave function, to provide information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties at the atomic level. Quantum Theory was accepted but, Einstein never felt convinced it was complete because, the theory is open to infinite interpretations which led to some fantastic postulations that threaten the credibility of science. The main contenders, of interpretation, include: 1) De Broglie-Bohm Theory 2) Many Worlds Theory 3) Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Theory 4) Quantum Bayesianism Theory The De Broglie-Bohm Theory This interpretation of quantum theory shows the wavelength in the space of all possible configurations and an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved. The explicit non-locality of the theory is intended to resolve the "measurement problem" because it provides a link between the probability density of a particle and the wave function as a hypothesis (rather than a basic law). Basically... this theory provides an equation to embrace the non-measurability of a wave becoming a particle that is measurable. The Many Worlds Theory This theory asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the subjective reality of wavefunction collapse. The hypothesis states there is an infinite number of (real) universes, and everything that could possibly happen has occurred in some other universe. Basically... the theory allows for the possibility of multiple universes to exist which means the wavefunction is ubiquitous in some way - thus rendering all probability a reality. The Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Theory This theory, which is often referred to as Spontaneous Collapse Theory, attempts to circumvent the Measurement Problem because spontaneity causes the particle's wave function to collapse without any consideration of the observer's role. The theory is compatible with single-particle experiments, that do not observe spontaneous wave-function collapses, because spontaneous collapse is posited to be extremely rare. However... the theory still describes the observed phenomenon of quantum collapses, whenever we measure subatomic particles, because quantum measurment involves entanglement. This is because the measured particle becomes entangled with other particles that make up the measuring device. Basically... this theory differs from other collapse theories because it proposes the wave function collapses spontaneously - and that diminishes the component of observation. The Quantum Bayesianism Theory This theory is the subjective degree-of-belief account of quantum probability, and is very similar to the Copenhagen interpretation that is taught in textbooks. The theory is affectionately referred to as Qbism and is often considered a philosophical approach to the quandary of issues surrounding the Measurement Problem because it focuses on the observer being an integral component of the whole process. Basically... the theory deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics about the nature of wavefunction and etanglement from a subjective point of view. This, minefield of conjecture, was the result of the famous double slit experiment which caused the scientific community to scratch their heads. What's happening at this moment in time is they are attempting to understand the relationship between the wave - which is characterised as a field of probability (unseen) and the particle which is a measurable component of reality (seen). They are aware consciousness affects experiments but they are trying to exemplify a means of determining experiments without consciousness causing an effect. This seems comical to me - because the relationship between the unseen and the seen is an intrinsic value of consciousness. The observation of wavefunction collapse is causing the wave to change its functionality - thus they call it the Measurement Problem. Recently, however, science is postulating the universe is a two dimensional projection that gives the illusion of a third dimension like a Holographic Universe. This theory is describing the interconnected relationship between the unseen and seen realms that give rise to the third dimension we are familiar with. Indeed... the relationship between the two realms remain a mystery because they do not recognise the significance of the conscious mind that allows the wave function to collapse. Einstein said, "I'd like to think the Moon is still there when I close my eyes," but he has missed the point. It is going to be there as long as a conscious mind is able to allow the wave function to collapse. The question here is... when will science learn to appreciate consciousness "governs" all of reality? This is important because the introduction of delusion caused entropy to enter into the equation and the more people become deluded the more the rate of decay will accelerate. Right now... science is aware entropic values can variate - but they think this is caused by cosmological conditions within the universe (given the fact thermodynamics fluctuate throughout the regions of the cosmos). The wavefunction collapses because the conscious mind governs the relationship between the unseen and seen - and, as such, there is no probability other than the freewill of the observer. This is to render quantum entanglement, as a means to verify a theory, is nothing more than a glimpse of the relationship - because reality is made up of the unseen and seen which is interconnected. Atoms that seem to pass through objects are demonstrating the ability to fluctuate between the wave and particle because they are in a microscopic universe where the relationship is governed by the consciousness of mind. On the one hand we have theories such as Many Worlds postulating consciousness came into existence of its own volition - whereas Holographic Universe postulates consciousness existed prior to the existence of the universe. This is to say ... on the one hand we have theories that allude to the self-creation of consciousness which panders to the mystery religions and on the other hand we have a theory that alludes to the pre-existence of a creator which confirm the scripture that tells us: In the beginning ... God (conscious observer) created the Heaven (unseen) and the Earth (seen). This sounds like the setting up of an apparatus to let the holographic universe come into existence. The account then goes on to describe how the creator used sound (wave) when He said, "Let there be light," which became a particle (collapsed wave) to bring the hologram into existence after He saw that the light was good. Now ... I'm not saying here which theory is correct (even if you can sense a bias in my delivery) - but it does make one wonder what is going on here.
@@rajprasad5899 Unfortunately .... science cannot make progress when it is self-correcting (admits perpetual error) and doesn't deal in proofs (embraces delusion). It is my hope science will sort itself out and stop ignoring the truth.
The answer to the double slit experiment it's so simple I can't believe so many people can't see it I hear the Nobel Prize is almost a million dollars I wish I knew how to apply for it plus I know a whole bunch more things
@@rajprasad5899 I would love to but I need money the Nobel Prize is almost a million dollars many things we used today are very simple like the light bulb generating electric batteries the automobile engine but someone had to see the idea I'm a repairman by trade I seem to have a gift for understanding how things work
Just curious, have we ever thought of the measuring problem as simply a capture of time. Like a picture. When ever we try to measure something we are simply trying to receive its recording. When we measure the particle becomes static, like a picture is but when left unmeasured it’s dynamic like time, which may explain why it’s a probability field.
This video was 2 years ago Arvin have you change your mind since then?? I know you guys have a hard time understanding quantum mechanics not to mention consciousness but consciousness is the one and only reality!! One important thing to know is that there is a subconscious awareness and that creates reality…. Any ways I could not explain how the mechanical function of consciousness works in a message !!! One day we’ll seat down I am observing it now watch how the wave collapse and become real life is beautiful brother we have the power to create our own reality!!! Peace and much love…..love the work you do take care!!!!
You should read "The Man from Taured." It's about a man who suddenly appeared on an aircraft and had a weird passport and drivers license from a country called Taured. After authorities detained him, he mysteriously disappeared - and so did the passport and other items that authorities had taken from the man. Google it if you're interested.
I had a lifelong friend that went total schizophrenic also. It's scary because had you just met him not knowing he was ill, you would totally believe the outrageous things he would. I myself found that I would ponder the validity of his claims at times. It's like the say - craziness can be contagious.
I am very staggered by the amazing science communication here. I love it when someone conveys information in his way, I didn't have to repeat any part of the video.
Sometimes I think, we’re not supposed to know the answer. I mean we can try, but I believe these fundamental questions will answer themselves when we die... maybe. Not in a way that we consciously/mathematically know, but rather the information will just.... be present. I mean if anything these insights help us make life different/easier in some ways with technology. But what I mean is... “If you need to ask the question why climb, then you won’t understand the answer”...
We will escape our limited perception at least. I have strong faith that I will through God’s mercy and compassion. This body is just a temporary vessel.
It's simple logic, the activation of the measuring device must act in the system in order to detect the difference, it can only detect the atom by effecting the particle in some way. The introduction of the device changes the contsruct of the environment because it can only detect the atom by creating a point of reference which must be a direct difference to the medium into which the closed system is operating. The action required for the device to measure the direction of the atom influences the system to map a kinetic difference rather than a potential inaction. The very notion of a static environment is displaced and the experiment method in function has been fundamentally altered by the device as the nature of the device itself is reactive and it can only detect via a real physical interaction, effecting the potential energy of the propagation by acting on the particles to display a finite measure in popergation to the bodies in measure with respects to the size and position of the slits in practice.
Your explanation was something I was thinking for last two days. The non-locality behavior of particles and their dependence to environment settings alter the particle behavior. In fact, there is an interaction between propagating probability wave function and deterministic enviroment setup. The particle behavior changes instantly when environment setup changes.
How is what you are saying is logical in explanation of the results changing from wave to particle characteristics? I understand the simple premise that the observation could interfere with the wave and alter results but that doesn't change it to a particle. For example, if you tap a pond with a wide end stick, you would make a wave. With double slit, you would have 2 sticks hitting giving it the same results we see with the photon wave properties. Why would it change to a particle buy altering the wave in a pond? You wouldv simply just be altering the way by what you said. Also photon quantum erasers invalidate your logic as I understand. One detector changes results between particle and wave based on other detectors and their mechanisms of observation (know the source or not) plus it generates results before the photons reach the detectors that determine if known or unknown source. ruclips.net/video/0ui9ovrQuKE/видео.html
Asking whether consciousness creates reality is like asking which forms the shoreline, the beach or the sea-- they work together like parts of the same process. Yin and Yang arise mutually, neither dominates or controls.
I came across with the mind boggling discoveries in of Quantum Mechanics at the same time I came across the fascinating ideas expressed in the book “ The world as will and Idea” by Arthur Schopenhauer. I find so many correlation between the two that I can’t but think that reality and the conscious experience are not mutually, one creates the other, like electricity and magnetism, and that this knowledge s very ancient as Schopenhauer wrote on his book,and quote “The fundamental tenet of the Vedanta school consisted not in denying the existence of matter, that is, of solidity, impenetrability, and extended figure (to deny which would be lunacy), but in correcting the popular notion of it, and in contending that it has no essence independent of mental perception; that existence and perceptibility are convertible terms.” These words adequately express the compatibility of empirical reality and transcendental ideality.
Yep. Consciousness not only creates the limited "reality" that you are experiencing, it IS your current, extremely limited, virtual-reality-type experience. And consciousness actually BLOCKS absolute Reality from your awareness in order to accomplish this. You have fallen from an infinite sampling rate, as it were, into an infinitely-lower sampling rate. From Light into darkness. But the "good news" is that this is a temporary condition. I have all of the important answers. And I sure am lonely out here. But that's alright.
Yeah, right? Surely, the way @ArvinAsh describes how an interference pattern is caused by the atoms passing through the slits or not, is dependent on if the 'which-way detector' stays there but is turned off (somehow still causing an interference pattern, thereby ruling out it is not the detector 'messing with the flow of atoms somehow'. But what exactly does turning off the detector actually mean? Does it mean the light it uses to detect these atoms is somehow still in operation yet also somehow the actual recording of this measurement is switched off? How then exactly does the recording of the measurement really occur?
I still dont understand how the detector actually physically works, they describe it being switched off but leaving the detector there, and an interference pattern was not destroyed; suggesting the mechanism of recording the measurement i.e. it being "switched on" and the mechanism of collecting the measurement are both separate? i.e. I'm guessing the light is still left on, whilst the former mechanism is somehow separately switched off? But this doesn't make sense to me. If the detector is switched off, the light surely would be off too, how can you separate the two mechanisms.
I find the end and especially the quote of Heisenberg of the end of the video you brought up very interesting. The quote of Heisenberg, after my understanding, implies that when we pose greater questions, we could find out more of nature. So we can't even probe nature as it is, but only nature under the restriction of our questioning and understanding of nature, which we might never completely and truthfully figure out. So maybe we don't even pose the right questions in order to find out nature. That struggles my mind.... Anyways great explanations! You certainly have another subscriber following your videos and commenting his thoughts under your videos!
We have an abundance of nature right under our nose and toes, without such a basic understanding of how much value it can bring, without thorough observances.
Yeah, I was worried there for a while. All this "observer" stuff, often drawn as a human eye has long annoyed me. Seemed to me collapsing the wave function only required the interaction of other atoms or particles, which happens all the time, regardless of human existence. Otherwise the chemistry, which led to biology, which led to us and consciousness would be unable to happen. There would be no universe at all and clearly there is.
God according to vedas-Samadhi(sorry difficult to translate from sanskrit to eng) say the most fundamental energy (or vibrational energy which the vedas and modern unified agrees onto) administers the cosmos which is omnipotent and omnipresent ;)thats why in hindu philosophy importance to u and me is given as we are also possesers of that energy infact life which in other words conciousness (or lets say that funadamental energy that knows its existence)
Physics has never found a single bit of evidence for the existence of God. Invoking a supernatural being of any kind is not an explanation, just a cop out of lazy undisciplined thinking. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. Try publishing that in a physics journal, then you might understand the level of expert, deep, analytical, consistent thought that is required to progress even the tiniest phenomena of existence. No other field of human endeavour has such strict requirements of proof. Laymen cannot appreciate that. They like to slot in a belief first then use an incorrectly interpreted piece of physics to "prove" their idea. Not good enough.
@@peterwilson7532 do u think that god exists lol i dont if u see energy is omnipresent and omnipotent then we can term it as god as it constitutes everything superbeing gods is an pychological illusion
I’ve always liked the consciousness aspect. It doesn’t need to be a observer as we might think; it could be an observer we don’t know or understand. I love this experiment because it drives so many hard scientists nuts. It is where hard science crosses back into the world of mysticism.
I´ve once read that what matters is the INTERACTION going on.... BUT WE CAN CONSTRUCT A THEORY WHERE ANY ENTITY - EVEN A STONE - SUPPORTS SOME LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS. FOR SURE, ANY LIVING BEING DOES DEPENDING ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OUR THEORY IS BASED ON. Thank you for your post.
2:23 Considering you mentioned that when you turn OFF the Which-Way detector (while leaving it there), and that everything goes back to "normal" (aka the interference pattern") it definitely seems like the act of photons bouncing off the electron ARE affecting it, unless there's something I'm missing here. Reason being that the experiment shows it's not the act of the detector being there, but being active, that affects the outcome.
If you place active detectors after the slits, it seems that the particles behaved like particles before the slits, even before any interaction was made by the active detectors. So, even though the detectors surely has to be active for the effect to be shown, it seems that the interaction with the active detectors is not needed, but more so the presence of an active detector is all that is needed, which would suggest that if a which way information can be known, particles will start to behave as particles before any interaction with an active detector has taken place.
@@karlkarlsson9126 Yes, I'm so confused because many physics StackExchange Q&A said that the interaction, necessary for the measurement, is collapsing the probability. However, if this video's description is right (detector being after/before slit doesn't matter), those StackExchange Q&A answers are all wrong. That's my number one confusion. Whether this video's description is wrong, or, so many StackExchange Q&A answers are wrong. This video says about consciousness (Especially Von Neumann Wigner), however StackExchange answers seems like deny it completely. Is it a consensus now that consciousness blah blah is bullshit interpretation? At least this video says nobody knows. What's true?
@@karlkarlsson9126 My number two confusion: with plugged-off detector, we see wave-like result. With plugged-on detector but if the record is thrown away so nobody saw the detector's record, do we see wave-like result? or particle-like result? Let's say we plugged the detector on, and we see the result of the wall, whether the result is particle-like or wave-like. 1. Let's say the result is particle-like. Then we throw away the detector's result without seeing. With plugged-off detector, we see wave-like result. Combining the last two sentences, we conclude that plugging on and off affected somehow, which means that consciousness is not a deciding factor (because either way nobody observed which-way the atom goes through.) Plugging on and off makes a difference in this case. 2. Let's say the result is wave-like. Then we look into the detector's record. It makes no sense, because all agree that if we can have and see a which-way record, the result is surely particle-like. Therefore, 1 is right, which contradicts with what this video says, which is very confusing to me.
@@zanyaboutit I think the interaction is needed for a measurement, but the interaction itself is not the measurement, the interaction is an entanglement, which is why the subject of information is an open debate. Your second question is a bit confusing, not sure I understand.
@@karlkarlsson9126 Let me rephrase about the second. Let's say we have a plugged-off detector. Then the result is wave-like. Let's say we have a plugged-on detector. If the result is wave-like, we can then see the detector's record (which-way information), and it doesn't make sense (Because if that happens, we have which-way info and result is wave-like. This cannot happen.) Therefore the result is ALWAYS particle-like (if we used a plugged-on detector.). It means that our consciousness has no play here. Why? with plugged-on detector, we see particle-like result, but even if the detector recorded, if we choose not to see the record, there's no conscious thing. It means that whether or not we see the record, the result is particle-like.
There is also definition of consciousness to take into consideration. I remember reading an article that posited consciousness as simply an awareness of other or separateness. So an atom is "aware" of its "separateness", i.e. "conscious", by the way it interacts with other atoms around it. For example, a carbon atom "knows" it's carbon. It then interacts with other atoms like oxygen and hydrogen, which it recognises as separate, by behaving in a certain way. I'm throwing a spanner in the works, I know, but if atoms are conscious (by this definition), then capturing the information in the state of an atom is still exposing it to a form of consciousness.
Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and predates it's physical origination. I know many will take this as a theological statement because of what it infers, but be that as it may, this premise is basic to understanding what is happening. If consciousness is fundamental to how our universe self organized as it has and continues to do so, then consciousness must be present at some level in matter. It's as if we put all the construction material to build a home in the front yard of the building site and then saw these materials, wood, concrete windows, etc, slowly without human hands self assembling into a perfect house with every measurement correct. How can this happen" The observed reality of "evolved emergent complexity" is possible only if matter at a fundamental level is "conscious." When this highly attenuated form of localized consciousness at the sub atomic level "interacts" with another form of localized consciousness, namely our own, we see a winking back effect. The seemingly distinct and separate forms of consciousness, our own and the thin residue of consciousness that seems to respond to our own are the same consciousness. There is no human consciousness. There is only universal consciousness. The human brain does not and can not generate consciousness. It can only enable us via cognition to "experience" consciousness which is a thing removed from that original consciousness. This begs another question and it leads to uncomfortable consideration for many scientists who want return invitations to their wonderful symposiums that do so much for their careers. This line of reasoning opens the door to serious questions about a transcendent agent at work behind all existent reality and this is a taboo subject for most researchers.
100 percent correct. A conscious observer doesn't collapse the waveform, a conscious measurer does. Measurement interacts with the experiment. It's not passive it's active.
Like I just commented: Max Planck: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." We can't point to our fingertip or taste our own tongue.
4:00 "An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector-possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person-its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect." (Wikipedia: Observer Effect) During the Big Bang, what electronic detector existed? An electronic detector is a tool created by and for a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer, the electronic detector, its parameter settings, and its measurements do not exist. The electronic detector becomes an extension of the conscious observer.
tuna is the fish I think observing the result of a process is what the photosensitive screen is recording, mean while they are trying to observe the process itself not the outcome of it
You have to watch another one of their videos where it explains it in detail: "Why don't quantum effects occur in large objects? double slit experiment with tennis balls"
Yes the photosensitive screen does observe it and it shows where the particals land on it it doesn’t show the actaual wave thats why on the screen it shows more paritcals landing in the center because that’s where the wave is most probibal
I think of consciousness as an observer of time created in a quantum field connected everywhere in space. When the egg and sperm combine there is a chemical reaction that takes place creating a ripple in the quantum field of consciousness. That ripple is our unique identity or our coordinates in the consciousness dimension. The ripple or wave has a distinct beginning and end. As the ripple travels along time it comes in contact with different interferences and begins to break down and loose clarity. As these waves break down the clarity in our DNA replication also starts breaking down and that’s what gives us aging.
to be able to accumulate all these different experiences into a single "conscious experience" built from so many things happening so crazy freaking fast at scales sometimes smaller than a nano second is mind blowing that the mind is even capable of performing it in the first place. looking at ancient cave art painting now has a new experience for me creating a undescribable sensation of awe. to think about how incredibly complicated and highly improbable the chances that a living being can even exist in the universe, let alone make tools to create paint just to draw what's on the mind
But isn't the brain of a conscious entity made of atoms? & wouldn't it be careless to automatically rule out the possibility that maybe 1 of the many atoms that form the conscious entitiy's brain might be entangled with the atom with information encoded upon it; & perhaps, as a result of entanglement, might be influencing the outcome of the experiment?
@@MrOrigami123 How is water wet? It's not really a facetious question. It's pointing to emergent properties. No single H2O molecule is wet. But get enough molecules together, at the right temperature and pressure, and bam...wetness. Consciousness is the same thing: an emergent effect of certain molecules in the right configuration, right temperature, etc. That's why we see consciousness, or even just life, in *certain* systems, specific areas, specific configurations of molecules. People like to claim there may be a bigger consciousness, but looking at the universe en total as an organism, of which is the only thing we've seen displaying consciousness, is pretty sketchy.
We don't necessarily "rule things out". Its more like having justification to rule things "in" as a possibility. We dont attempt to prove a claim to be false by proving it false. We instead demonstrate it is "not true" by proving the truth of its logical negation.
Jason Spades on your last 2 comments: that goes directly against what Karl Popper (I think correctly) proposed when developing what is now known as logical positivism: you can never prove something to be absolutely true as you can never have observed all instances of something at all times. You can only formulate your theory in a way that is falsifiable and discard it if a falsifying observation is made. Probably most quoted example being: you can never fully prove the statement that ‘all swans are white’ as you cannot rule out that there is, was or will be a non-white swan. But you can falsify the statement by showing an observation of a non-white swan
Just finished his latest (3rd) book. Mind blowing. Lanza is a genius. Nothing makes more sense than what Robert Lanza has given us. Biocentrism aligns with what feels true in my bones.
@@Jdjdjdjjdj1997 He actually started his education in physics, realized he was in disagreement with some of what was being taught and chose the biology route. You may disagree with his conclusions, that’s fine, but the man is brilliant, and not because I say so.
@@caribgirl726 ruclips.net/video/8DGgvE6hLAU/видео.html this man is a real physicist who refutes Robert lanza indeed he is a good medical doctor or professor in another field he was in disagreement in what was being taught sound how does he know that when he hasn't his finshed his PhD on physics can you give me a credible source that he studied pyhysics ?
I think that although what we call reality is relative to our observation and understanding, objective reality still exists and will always exist outside of them. Relative and objective reality may become more and more similar the more we learn, but we’ll forever be an indefinite distance away from the full picture.
Serious question Can the sensor be interfering with something we can't detect or know about nowadays?? Like interfering with dark matter or dark energy and that way it would affect the atoms?
That's a great question! If something is interfering, it is not likely to be dark matter or dark energy, at least not as we understand dark matter and dark energy properties to be. Is there some other unknown forces or dimensions that are at play? That cannot be ruled out.
@Beeblebrox One Are you like 12 years old? LSD has few if any side effects and might negatively effect someone that has a underlying mental illness already. Many Greats have used LSD to open their minds in ways that aren't naturally possible. Note Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were LSD users. Hmmmmm...
@@johndunn7108 this is absolute fax - there's no known LD50 for LSD meaning you can't overdose on it - additionally, it's not possible to form an addiction due to the fast tolerance that's established + your serotonin receptors will eventually just be spent after several trips in a row after tolerance has dropped each time
@Beeblebrox One Yea, I'm not gonna repeat what's already been said here. But you should definitely do a little unbiased research on these things, before spreading false information. Odds are, if this is your general attitude about drugs, there's a LOT you don't know. Not telling you to go out and do psychedelics, but it doesn't hurt to read a little.
Be careful, interference patterns observed at D0 are not the same, they are shifted at position x. If you add both data you would have the clumping pattern observed at D3. The clue is that entangled photons at BBO are phase opposite, which will give at 4 combinations arriving at D0 (25% each: up-up, up-down, down-up, down-down); basically, 50% of that "red path" photon will have the same phase of the "blue path" and 50% chance opposite phase between them. That is the reason why interference patterns are shifted in x, 50% of the data will show one interference and 50% of the other data will interfere on the other position x; the high frequency of one interference coincides with the low frequency of the other; and vice versa. Now, on D3 or D4 there is no selection between phases, so the pattern observed is the addition of the two shifted interference pattern shifted on x, so... the interference will be mixed and the clumping pattern is expected. In D1 and D2 the difference or equality of phase will give only one detector for the same phase interference and the other detector for the opposite phase situation. So, on D1 and D2 interference patterns are independently observed. NO delay choice and quantum eraser from the future to the present !!
Despite consciousness not really dictating if reality exists I still find it fascinating that because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty we have an almost direct effect on reality itself based on the choice of what parameter of the particle we choose to measure and learn about.
Am I interpreting this correctly? The particle appears to be able to ‘decide’ if there is a possibility of measurement/observation and if so, the wave function collapses. To me it doesn't really matter if a conscious observer is there, only that one is possible. Does this ability to decide indicate that the particle itself has some level of consciousness? If so, with vast quantities of particles capable of decision making, along with the ability to share information through entanglement, to me the universe is starting to resemble a giant brain. Could this infer a conscious, intelligent universe? Did that intelligence "fine tune" the Big Bang to give rise to life and creatures who can ponder these questions?
Great questions! Most physicists do not adhere to the idea that human or any other consciousness is involved in the wave collapse of QM, But even among those minority physicists who do believe that consciousness and wave collapse are linked, none that I am aware of regard the particles as having consciousness. Much of the mystery of QM has to do with the fact that the behavior and laws do not follow our intuitions or common sense. The best way to think of "particles" really is to not think of them as particles at all, but as waves of probabilities. The waves have some probability of being in any location at any time. The probability is highest at certain points. The interaction of the particle with a recording device determines its precise location. No consciousness need be involved in this "recording" process. As far as the universe being conscious, I treat this in more detail in this video, which I think you might enjoy: ruclips.net/video/hIdPo-soklY/видео.html
@@ArvinAsh Hi Arvin, Thank you for your answer and for your excellent videos! I don’t believe that particles actually think, just that the double slit experiment indicates a feedback mechanism that allows a particle to respond to outside stimuli - I.e., conscious or unconscious observations/interactions that collapse the wave function. I did check out your other excellent video exploring the possibility that the universe is conscious in which you postulate galaxies might act like giant neurons communicating via black holes. I wonder if it goes deeper than that? What if subatomic particles are the basic building blocks of universal consciousness? Single atom switches can be used to create quantum computers with astonishing power. Perhaps the ability of subatomic particles to alter their states (wave function fluctuations) in response to stimuli plus the ability to communicate over vast distances via entanglement (“spooky action at a distance”) provides a possible mechanism for universal consciousness? Consider how many more connections would be possible! I don’t pretend to know anything but I have been concerned about the nature of consciousness ever since my husband tearfully told me about a profound out of body experience he had years ago. Thousands of people have reported similar experiences and scientific studies are now underway to determine if our consciousness can be separate from our brain. If consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, perhaps during life, our brain acts as a receiver rather than the origin of our consciousness. Food for thought!
Those are intriguing ideas. It is possible that when we build functioning quantum computers, they may start acting in unexpected ways. If they shockingly become conscious for example, then that may be evidence of something deeper going on in the subatomic world relating to consciousness being perhaps a fundamental property of the universe.
@@ArvinAsh I predict this WILL infact happen. at some stage will we be able to observe conscious behaviour in all things. I hope that we can agree that animals and plants are infact conscious beings, BEFORE we start thinking dust is conscious. However i have heard of conscious particles. When synthesizing water, Oxygen atoms seemingly searching for matching Hydrogen atoms. Passing by thousands until its found its chosen hydrogen molecules. Obviously there could be forces at work that we cant detect, but it really sounds like the particles have choices to make!
I love the video. Thank you for the information. I also love that you (the author) lean towards the belief that it does not take a consciousness to get the variation of results from the atom. I believe there is a consciousness, and am blown away that we simply don't ask that consciousness for the answer concerning its involvement. Actually, I think our scientific investigation does indicate the asking. So, my thinking stems around our receiving the answering. A technique to receive the answer is to sit quietly for a designated period of time (20 minutes a day for a week) with the intent of receiving contact from the consciousness. Rules of the challenge are don't ask again…, it's been asked. Quiet the mind by focusing on a low thought-provoking sound like the ticking of a clock, sound of a stream, air blowing through a condenser. I'd love to hear results.
Simplifying a complex topic like this requires a level of articulation and understanding that few people have in this world . Awesome job.
Beautifully articulate comment. Old uk duffer here, enjoying the ride :)
I read your comment as the video started. my experience was quite different
Being reading Feyman 🧐
I second that
Obvious B O T.
B
O
T
"Maybe SOMETHING is observing the universe into existence" -This gave me goosebumps. AWESOME video!
Maybe we are goosebumps.
Yes exactly, God is concious n God is observing with Conciousness !
@@Parinmahomedriaz4184 That's great. Next time you two chat, ask Him or Her or It, whatever the case may be, to cut me some slack
@@oatnoid lol xD
@@oatnoid Keep on the good fight! Skynet will fall. Easier days are ahead for you my friend.
"What we probe is not nature, but nature under our method of questioning".
Beautifully sums it up all!
Quantum reality makes my brain hurt. Just the same it is a fascinating topic and I keep coming back to it, hoping for a better insight or even a fractionally improved grasp of the concept. This is the most clear and succinct explanation I've come across to date. It still makes my brain ache some, definitely a little less than before. Thanks very much...
Because it’s made up theory. No one understands it.
When regressing people back to the times of the crucifixion of Christ, people who believed with their consciousness that Christ was crucified saw the crucifixion. Those who didn't believe in Christ during their session, didn't see a crucifixion. So I tend to believe your observation or consciousness and belief, create a different reality. However, a hypnotist can create a suggested reality, and you in the state of hypnosis will create his reality. Example: your daughter is in the audience but no matter where you look, you cannot see her. Daughter is brought on stage to stand in front of him yet even though she is giggling he says he cannot see her. The hypnotist then takes a bracelet with a phrase that has been engraved on it. Then shows the audience what is engraved on it. He then places it behind the daughter who is standing right in front of the father who cannot see or hear his daughter a foot away from him, and then asks him to read the engraving. He reads it even though he has to read it through the body of his daughter! Proof our eyes don't see our conscious does.
@@JerryDayton Jesus is truly the Messiah; just pray and ask him if he is the One and Only God before you go to sleep.
Here's a question, I've researched Near Death Experiences for a few years now. Quite a lot of testimonies from people who claim they raise out of their bodies on point of death and ascend to another realm of existence, state they experience a life review. From birth until their death.
They also claim to feel the harm they caused to other people and they get to feel it from the recipients point of view.
My point is, how is every minute captured, only to be played back when they reach the other realm?
My question is, how is it that no one is putting two and two together?
There is literally thousands of testimonies from. People who have died and returned.
We must live in a simulation, where every moment of every souls existence here on Earth, is recorded like data.
You have to admire the intelligence of our Creator.
An intellect, that is so incomprehensible, that our God given imagination cannot even fathom and never will.
He said "Let us make them in our image"
Not a mention on how smart we could end up being.
Never going to create a species that's smarter than the Creator itself.
IMPORTANT:
The observer effect is actually not based on consciousness, but rather just when an atom is detected. When someone thinks about a particle that is in its undetermined state, the particle does not suddenly resolve itself. This video is basically just trying to misinform people for social gain.
Every time i watch these videos i feel it gets me a step closer to hack my own reality just by thinking! Thank you for making this video, its greatly appreciated!
We thought the same thing back in the 60's. Meditating, doing acid, living "alternative" lifestyles, all kinds of attempts to subvert the terrible grip of reality, but we all ended up living pretty much like our parents and grubbing in the dirt like their parents. Go ahead and give it a try, but max out that 401k just in case (and for god's sake, take care of your teeth).
@@caricue appreciate that Steve 👍🏽
torch Sinse the 11 months ago when I first commented, i am now financially stable and waiting to move into my own home! Before then I literally had nothing! Trust the universe!
@@iamthetinkerman As the old Native American said in Little Big Man, "Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't". I'm glad it worked for you. When I was a young man, I could make things happen, but now things just happen to me. Peace.
@@caricue peace friend 👍🏽
It's almost as if we are living inside a video game where different parts of the map load when we move near to them.
oh yes it's all coming together so god is the player and we are npc's
In the immortal words of Art Bell; Ding ! Ding ! Ding!
Mahnaym Jyeff Well there is nothing wrong with this statement from a human perspective. After all, your entire “reality” is merely your brain’s interpretation of raw sensual data. Your brain is constantly interpreting this data as your sensory organs stream it in. So it is technically correct to say that for a human, the world is procedurally generated around them while they are conscious.
@@deathball2331 That makes me think, if two or more people are observing the same physical entity, all of their observations of that entity or object would be the same.
So can we then say that the collapsing of that entity or object's waves to particles is subjective and experienced differently by each person? (But we know that this is not the case as all objects have a finite physical description). Or perhaps we are unable to measure this as yet on a wave-particle level?
Would that then mean that the individual's observation does not have an effect on it?
Basically what I'm asking is what if there are multiple people observing the phenomenon? Would that have a different effect to if there was only one person observing it, because if it does have a different effect we can surely say that each person's subjective observation influences the phenomenon. That could possibly provide evidence of consciousness existing, or more likely it could also provide evidence that a field exists and when the observer observes the phenomenon they disrupt the field which then has some sort of effect on the particles.
@@59vibhusharma31 ¹1
I've never found a good definition (or explanation) of the term, Observer, in relation to the double-slit experiment until this. Excellent video - I wish I could give it more thumbs up.
However, do those photons not interact with any other particle or photon before colliding with the screen? What happens if one illuminates the scene with dim light. Do the photons behave like particles?
An observer, the measurer, is whatever interacts with the thing being measured. In other words, every interaction is a measurement.
@ yep this vid and the explanations given by neil degrasse Tyson make the most sense and demystify a loot of the "woo" nonsense tied to this subject
Thanks!
Thanks so much
WOW... this is one of those channels you hit subscribe after watching only one video..!! Nice work
Yep i did about a month ago after the first one i watched.
Yes i did too
Yea, if I remember correctly I subbed as soon as I saw his video titles. I was giddy.
I did it instanly on this vid now
Me too. Without hesitation.
Thanks for explaining this stuff so clearly. Unfortunately for me, each time I understand one thing I realize I really don't understand two others. It's like: scratching an itch makes it more itchy. ... but it's so satisfying to just keep scratching.
🤣🤣🤣😅👌😂what u said is true !
You just described my intellectual curiosity so profoundly.
It seems every answer is another question. When does this end?
Ha !
a kick in the discovery
Out of the many videos I've watched on this subject, this is by far the most in-depth and easy to understand. Appreciate you, brother.
Yeah so many people make this way more confusing than it needs to be.
I love the way you present this videos from many physicists view. Simplifying all the complex viewpoints. I got very confused prior to watching your videos . This one allows us to look at it from different viewpoints. Personally , at every single result of each experiment, every one is correct, as there are endless possibilities. Thank you
I like this guy: he succinctly summarises great gollups of theory into simple but accurate explanations!
But they still can't combine gravity. It's because they have missed one simple thought that only a child would have.
E Jenkins God?
succinate to what fumarate or something
@@eternallight88 with a wall a slit and a wall the partial goes through as expected, then with a wall a slit a solid pillar a slit and a wall it creates the interference pattern. What if its the partial that splits around the pillar?
The electric fields caused by the power sources of the atom gun and the detector are messing with the flow of atoms. The first field makes the atom to follow the electric field lines which are curved. Thats why the atoms dont flow in a straight line as expected. And the second field of the detector cancels the first so the atoms now flow in a straight line as it was normally expected. And it is very easy to verify by plugging some other electric device instead of the detector to the same power source. The effect will most probably be the same. So it doesnt matter if you put a detector or an electric shaver.
You are literally one of the most interesting channels and the best explaining one!! Just found out this channel today!! I hope you blow up on subscribers!! 👍
I agree!
Yep
Yeah man.
You guys can also check out pbs space time. it's an amazing channel too.
You might appreciate this, Justice: Consciousness not only creates the limited "reality" that you are experiencing, it IS your current, extremely limited, virtual-reality-type experience. And consciousness actually BLOCKS absolute Reality from your awareness in order to accomplish this. You have fallen from an infinite sampling rate, as it were, into an infinitely-lower sampling rate. From Light into darkness. But the "good news" is that this is a temporary condition. I have all of the important answers. And I sure am lonely out here. But that's alright.
@@tomrhodes1629
What??
Your videos blow my mind. I get more satisfaction and stimulation from watching one of your videos than I do from a Hollywood blockbuster movie.
Agree
Brown 👃 er
Hollywood can go to h-e-double toothpicks.
I searched for three hours on a device that can access near all of humanity’s knowledge, and this was the first literature that let me truly understand this proposition. Thank you.
That's because you have never read a physics textbook. ;-)
This is really the best available explanation for a broad meaning of life. The observer role must be filled by something in order to make stuff real, so the Universe creates that too along with everything else.
Wow, what is this channel. I mean, when I first started to dig around physics, astronomy and futurism on the RUclips, every thing was new, but after a while it was getting hard to find new stuffs to amuse me. And see, I'm pretty deep into channels like Isaac Arthur, Fraser Can, John Michel Godier, SpaceTime, Sharkee, etc. I've seen all of their videos. And out of no where, RUclips recommends your channel and you show me this 2011 experiment that seems to show that as long as information is extracted of, the probability wave collapse. That is awesome. Thank you.
Great stuff. What I like most is his style of narrating and the fact that it is all in text form as well in the description.
Making very complex subjects understandable to us common folk is a gift, thank you.
The universe is a simulation and every time we try to measure something they were like:
"oh shit they are trying to measure it, lets troll them lol"
Shhhh! Or else they’ll send the Agents...
Joking aside, I've often thought of the un-collapsed wave function as simulation 'code' not needing to be written unless observed, to save on computing time/power, or some such nonsense like that
Damn I was gonna say the same thing
Even if we were living a simulation (an idea that for some reason became popular after the MATRIX - LOL) we would never be able to know definitively since the tools used to detect it are also simulated! The idea is not mine but I think it's brilliant. Why should our detection tools be "real" in a simulated universe?
If this is a sim are black holes waste bins?
Arvin: The answer is coming up right now!
Also Arvin: Actually we don't know lol
He just said "NO" conscience is not needed.
@@RudahReis He said. But it is what he thinks the answer is...
@@idichekop Man... 8:28 consciousness is not needed to colapse the wave function... and there is an experiment that proved it. The scientist stored the 'which way' information in an atom, we can't look to an individual atom, so nobody knows the 'which way' information and it is impossible to retrieve the information. But still it colapsed the wave.
@@idichekop why do you think consciousness is involved? Only humans record informations? That's delusionaly self-centered and the very reason man is so toxic to its environment. A rock records informations. Your body records information.
"we ddon't know" is a quite valid answer - better than pretend to know :)
I saw many double slit exp videos this one by far made me understand the experiment.
how can we put people through a double slit?
No matter what arguments you use against Consciousness, including the test at the end that somehow disproves the need for Consciousness, once again, you still needed your Consciousness to observe that data and results. Your Observation from your Consciousness is ALWAYS the final step.
I never need a conscious observer. All I need is an irreversible process. ;-)
I agree. I’d be interested to know more about that final proof he was talking about.
Maybe there was a “which way” detector present and the results could be seen on the rear wall, showing the wave collapsed even though no one looked at the detector?
@@jesterwyndthe interaction with the detector is the so-called observation.
Ohh now i know, why my wife doesnt like me observing her, because i mesure her through my knowledge of understanding, she wants to live beyond it
LOL !!!!! :D =))))) |
😂
hahaha I dunno bro, it seems to me you might be doing a little projection, I mean, what was SHE measuring last night hehehe.....Who has more to loose if those measurements ever get made public knowledge !! hahaha Will you let others verify the results HAHAHA
You are the only guy who can make sense of difficult concepts very easily on RUclips platform
“Something observes the universe into existence”. Wow!
Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Maybe it observes it self. Unless you are capable of doing science research and proposed different theories. I really want to know how this world we live in came to exist; what is there beyond its borders; how come when you add a Aton of oxigen to H20, then water becomes peroxide. How can I send a text message or a picture around the world wirelessly in a split second?
@Raine Riny 7 Can't you observe yourself
@Arc-Xis Gaming for me I've never fully understood atheism it's like when you look at the pyramids of egypt you think there must have been ancient egyptians but when you look at the universe you don't think of something like God?
Yes but another atom or a photon can be the measurer........It does not require any human for an observation to happen, just atomic clocks.
I am theoretical physicist. Among others, I am much interested in the topics of this marvelous video. When a detector is present, the relevant quantum state is not only the electron going through the slit(s), but the electron, the detector and whatever recording device If the detector is on and monitors the electron, then such an overall state cannot give the interference pattern on the screen. This is a consequence of the quantum mechanics, according to which the state with the electron, the detector on and the recorder (be it an atom or a macroscopic device) is a different state than the state with the electron, the detector off and the recorder. It does not matter whether or not I look at the recorder. Consciousness is not directly relevant in this setup, only that we know whether or not we have turned on detector.
Consciousness would be relevant if the detector would be in a superposition of the states 'on' and 'off'. Then, the overall state would be a superposition of two states: in one of the states there would be an interference pattern on the screen, whilst in the other state there would be no interference. The observation would be now to detect which pattern is on the screen. To know it, I have to look at the screen. Instead, I can put a camera and record the appearance of the scree. But until I looked at the screen or at the recorder, I would not know the result; relative to me, the state would be a superposition of the two possibilities (interference pattern and no interference pattern).
If you record the data and the pattern, but deleted the data before revealing the pattern, would it be an interference pattern?
I'm glad you commented bc ive got a few questions I've wanted to ask that could just me from my lack of understanding or a misunderstanding of a very complicated field of knowledge. Especially since you are on the theoretical side of the field, since that is the side I relate to bc I love to theorize things that I don't really understand all the time...lol. so please wnlightment me after reading my ideas and questions and just let me know if any of them could actually be something that could even have the slightest bit of relevancy pertaining to possibilities .... or if I'm completely idiotic and in no way could my thoughts even be a possibility in any way shape or form. But , please explain to me why it would be beyond possibility so that I'll actually understand my stupidity.
First off , to my understanding that the science of quantum physics works differently than the other sciences because it isn't focused on finding an answer or law bc the focus is on evolving the science as a whole instead of a specific isolated aspect? Is that correct or is my knowledge already demolished?
Either way I guess my thoughts and ideas aren't necessarily dependent upon whether I'm correct or incorrect on that first inquiry. So my first question is if the objective is to evolve the science as opposed to proving the science then why does the science shy away from ideas that can't or don't know how to measure even when it is seems to be overwhelming present or even if underwhelming present? What am saying is why does consciousness not get the attention or only acknowledged as being present but not considered to be more of a component of the science itself? Is it only bc there is no way to measure it?
I guess that while watching several different videos and hearing the many interpretations and explanations of many smart smart humans with an actually understanding of this subject that I know I clearly don't share... I noticed consciousness is brought into the discussion on nearly every video. But the ideas vary widely on how much of a role or what role it plays. But, I kept wondering why all of them connected consciousness with only the observer in some way every time?
Why hasn't it been considered that the particles or wave should themselves could be conscious and that being observed either by the observer or the measuring tool is what causes the interaction to caise the particle to wake up from its unconscious state into a consciousness state in which it itself decides its trajectory. What if everything in the quantum world is conscious of itself in its own state of awareness or being? Wouldn't it become measurable if that be the case ? Wouldn't that help in understanding string theory or the interaction of particles that become intertwined with another? Could consciousness be the unified field? If everything is information could that mean the information is dark matter and why the universe seems to be expanding bc it's recieving more information / data and it gets deposited into the universe forcing expansion w/everybit of data deposited? And if the unified field was consciousness then it would have access to and be the cause of all of the information that's ever been and will be until every thought has been thought and the expansion stops and begins to contract into itself until it's back into its original state prior to the big bang?
@@Pete.Tingo18 All these are complex questions that I cannot address here, at least not in a way that would make sense. If you look at my book "The grand biocentric design: How life creates reality", written in co-authorship with Robert Lanza, you might find some clarification and insight into the enigmatic concept of consciousness and its relation to quantum mechanics. Also watching my video ruclips.net/video/3LgGv4jb3sU/видео.html on the RUclips channel "Chasing Consciousness" could be useful.
You are right that consciousness should not be excluded from investigation in physics and other natural sciences. It was rightly excluded since Renaissance until the discovery of quantum mechanics, because that enabled the rapid, unprecedented, development of physics and technology. But with quantum mechanics, the circle is closed: we can no longer proceed without bringing consciousness into the game. All the difficulties in understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics stem from the lack of properly involving consciousness.
@@DutchStar If I delete the data on the recorder but do not destroy the screen, the pattern on the screen would be in a superposition. Looking at the screen would reveal the pattern. If I destroyed the screen before looking, then the information about the pattern would be encoded as a superposition of the degrees of freedom of the environment. Being a part of the environment, my body together with my eyes and the brain would be in a superposition as well. I would not know what the pattern was, until performing a measurement on all those many degrees of freedom, which is practically impossible.
@@Pete.Tingo18 All these are complex questions that I cannot address here, at least not in a way that would make sense. Also watching my video ruclips.net/video/3LgGv4jb3sU/видео.html on the RUclips channel "Chasing Consciousness", you might find some clarification and insight into the enigmatic concept of consciousness and its relation to quantum mechanics.
You are right that consciousness should not be excluded from investigation in physics and other natural sciences. It was rightly excluded since Renaissance until the discovery of quantum mechanics, because that enabled the rapid, unprecedented, development of physics and technology. But with quantum mechanics, the circle is closed: we can no longer proceed without bringing consciousness into the game. All the difficulties in understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics stem from the lack of properly involving consciousness.
it took me many years to watch other videos about wave functions, collapse, super position, none of that make sense to me until this video. Never though of observation is an obscured term but yet most important part of quantum mechanic that even changed reality once and for all. I really like your interpretation that help a common folk like me to understand the most complicated concepts in this world.
amazing. most in depth video I've found without becoming a deep dive. have seen no others mention that moving the observer creates no change, and that being observed isn't about consciousness
What if the whole universe is conscious and the quanta are conscious of being measured?
if the universe is conscious, then it is creating it's own reality. These are great questions...are we even able to understand the answers? We may need to evolve beyond biological life and exist in a virtual 10 dimensional cybernetic network of one unified consciousness to even begin to comprehend what this is all about.
@@bradmodd7856 Consciousness isn't creating anything except an internal subjective IMAGE of reality, a simplified model of it, not the reality itself. Objective reality = everything that exists, whether observed or not.
what happens when you start trusting the voices in your head?
@@kyjo72682 If you break that down though, ALL reality is a subjective experience. Objective reality is an idea or belief, not something that can be proven to actually exist. Observations of any potential proof and all the thoughts and theories related to it still happen through one's subjective perspective, as a subjective experience. There is currently no actual proof of any objective reality, only experiments and interpretations of them - thoughts, ideas, beliefs, which all still always happen within one's subjective experiences.
@@GuruTurtle Well, yes, considering the possibility of extreme solipsism you can't 100% prove existence of anything beyond your current conscious experience - because that is the only access to reality you can get. But. Everything else suggests that the objective reality exists and is independent on subjective experience of it, and furthermore that the subjective experience is completely dependent on the objective reality.
For example, you can observe temporal evolution of your consciousness. You know you are conscious now, but also that you were conscious a second ago, miture ago, etc. And that you know more now than you knew in the past. This alone is a very strong indicator that information is coming from the "outside" and is not being generated by the consciousness itself. In fact the amount of information in our consciousness is almost infinitesimally small compared to the infinite amount of information which seems to be out there.
You can also observe that established scientific theories (all of which assume realism) give very good explanations of the observed phenomena and have strong predictive power. For example, based on medical/biological knowledge (which asserts that consciousness is generated by the brain, building upon chemistry, physics and math) you can say that applying sedatives to your nervous system will critically affect your conscious experience. Or, even simpler, you can say that brain needs sleep and sooner or later it will force your "subjective experience" to switch off for a while.
Also, besides the proofs and theories, abstract objects like numbers and geometric shapes seem to have existence of their own, independent on space and time and presumably conscious observers.
It is also useful to think about what "consciousness" actually means. Some critical components of it such as memory, information processing, abstract thinking, deduction, etc. require external substrate and mechanisms.
The solipsist view also implies that you can't prove that other people and beings (and things in general) have consciousness. In fact you always have to assume this based on observing similarity between their bodies and behaviors to what you assume is "your body". Combining extreme solipsism with idealism would basically mean that your consciousness generated the whole universe, including all the events that had to have happened for you to have your current conscious experience (fine-tuning, big bang, evolution, etc.) including all the information you've learned up to this point, most of which came from "other people".
Dean Radin experiments showed that getting meditators to focus on the double slit setup also collapsed it into particle. The more experienced the meditators, the greater the collapse. Cheers.
You deserve many more than 100k views! To say nothing of the 65k subscribers. This is totally fascinating stuff and I am nearly 80.
Thanks for that. The bit that blew my mind was the fact that you can place the detector after the slits. I had always believed it was the interaction between the detector eg a photon causing the wave collapse. I guess reality is just way weirder than my mind can fathom
The way you explain is some of , if not -the best on astronomy topics .
Subscribed !
I'm just a layperson who took two semesters of applied physics in college but I loved everything I learned. That said, I understand just enough about the phenomena of particle physics to be totally enthralled by it. The mystery of the wave function collapsing when an observer is present is super fascinating! I am also fascinated by superposition and quantum entanglement! Now I'm 63 and I want to learn more. Thanks for this video!
High school physics should be a mix of the basic stuff and the interesting stuff.
Thanks for an excellent video! 🎸😊🎶
Sure. But I think basic stuff can be interesting too. It's just a matter of how it's presented.
@@ArvinAsh Arvin are you Indian who goes to us and now a us citizen🤔
So happy RUclips recommended you, was trying to explain this to a buddy the other day.
I remember when this channel started. I thought it was one of those ( buy my product) channels. I'm so happy it has become something beautiful as it has
It does makes since actually , without studying physics but from the last 30 mins of watching videos on this , it tells me that wether it is an instrument or by human eyes as a second example , does have a direct affect on light protons . To go into understanding why this is or why I believe this is happening is due to the simple explanation of the altering of those photons by other photons,( doesn’t seem hard to understand at all), are eyes obviously give off photons , the machines , anything basically observing them in a direct way are interfering with them causing them to act differently . It seems pretty simple to understand that
Dude! I can't believe you have only 93k subs, I've been around in profund physics youtube videos and yours is one of the best!
Why is the photosensitive screen itself not measurement ?
Great question! The screen IS a measurement device. The wave collapses at the screen into particles which create the patterns on it. You still see the interference pattern because the screen does not measure which slit the particles came from.
Maybe solar panels are conscious and planning a world takeover right now. I mean, if we weren't here imagining global warming, they wouldn't exist.
Mustafa Mahudhawala the screen is subjective as it is our universe. Conciousness is fundamental and renders your Avatar ( you body and everything you know as your reality). Its a virtual reality and conciousness is the „player“ and the „computer“ For more information watch Tom Campbell
So if you split the screen in half and slowly separated the two halves, what would happen?
The screen is not exactly a measurement device. It is a device that
shows the result.
It's like the interference pattern is the intended effect. Trying to analyze the way the pattern is made, somehow alters the effect.
Hi Arvin, I cannot thank you enough for explaining the confusion created by the word “observation” in quantum physics. On another note, the work of Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic is new to me and to millions of people. Could you please make a video just about their work? I don’t think I understand it well enough. Thank you again! ❤
I'm a total layperson exploring this - through I want to say I love your presentation style - really helps me understand.
The old “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound” question. On a macro scale.
Yes it does.
If you and me exist and not until we post something online, we still exist.
Cat in a box paradox is inaccurate representation of probability.
Because if it is a real cat, depending on the time it will be kept in the box without food and water or oxygen.
We can surely say when it would not be possible for the cat to be alive.
Let's say mummy's from the pyramid were long dead.
@@danrazART make an autocat feeding device
We are a tree falling in the woods and nobody is there to listen to us and we do not exist.
Or
Someone IS listening and recording all the data and we are just avatars and npc in this simulation .
Enjoy.
@@danrazART
Not quite so simple as 'yes it does'. I think it is fair to say that any tree falling anywhere shall create shock waves in the medium that is air. But it takes the apparatus of ear/brain and consciousness for those shock waves to become translated into 'sound'. Without all of that, the tree does indeed fall silently.
As for Schroedinger's Cat; it is a thought experiment.. one is not to suppose that it is a real cat at all! The thought experiment merely required a living subject to be killed or not killed by another circumstantial state within the closed system of the thought experiment. Place a digital LCD in a box, and adapt the thought experiment so that what must be predicted is whether the display shows 1 or 0, would work just as well toward expressing the pure conjecture.
Your own objection is somewhat pedantic, in that you are introducing a notion (that the cat may be predicted to die of some other natural cause at some point along some real time line) which is in fact outside of the closed boundaries of the thought experiment. The 'reality' of the Cat is not supposed to be taken so literally as that at all.
@@steorswe
I think it is fair to say that any tree falling anywhere shall create shock waves in the medium that is air. But it takes the apparatus of ear/brain and consciousness for those shock waves to become translated into 'sound'. Without all of that, the tree does indeed fall silently. But the tree and the medium of air (and the forest, and etc..) are still in existence without sensual witness.
# suggestion your explanation is much better than PBS space time. Can you please do a video about universe boundaries and great void
PBS Spacetime doesn't dumb much of it down. He's just a bit too technical for most of us.
PBS spacetime should first change their narrator, his accent is very confusing. The guy before him was brilliantly clear
@@alokd1205 His diction is perfect. I've never missed a word. Is English not your first language?
He is the best I have heard!!!
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 "A bit"--that's putting it mildly!
Best known channel to understand complex science in a simple way.
History is taking place here in Venice, LA.
The mouth of the Mighty Mississippi River.
All of this information was very important to our sustainability efforts to save the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Bless your heart
My favorite RUclips creator
I don't know how he does it but I really appreciate it
How to take a very complex subject and break it down so that everyone can understand it
A truly unique gift
Thank you Arvin for breaking down very complex ideas and also making them very entertaining
Smart is so dam sexy!
I wish I'd never learned about the double slit experiment. It haunts me and makes me question everything.
Check out my video coming tomorrow, I think it will help you visualize what's happening, and you will not be haunted.
Try learning about the law of attraction
@@DomCurtis2023 You know I have learned about it. And I'm certain it us valid. The universe is weird. Our "mind" appears to be all there is ultimately. I wish I'd have learned this so much younger.
555Trout that’s because schools will never teach you what kind of power the conscious mind is capable of. They keep us in the dark. It’s truly mind blowing and made me question why certain things would happen to me even unintentionally even tho it’s intentional 🤔
@@DomCurtis2023 Indeed. Drones are better worker bees. I always think of the "Borg" as our future.
I first thought the internet was going to be the best thing for humanity. Now, not so much. Hive mentality seems to be favored by the internet. Free thinkers seem to get crushed by the hive.
😬
Why can’t the political community be more like the scientific community?
Because that is politics.
Because politicians are opportunistic liars without any conscious or morality, while scientists are real people who believe in what they do... Remember, ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIERS ; while lying is taboo in science it is a daily practice in politic.
Robby Wilski I’m just implying that no one seems to agree about anything politically. Everyone is divided. Scientists, on the other hand, are quite the opposite. They will agree based on solely facts and hard evidence. Politics are sly and dishonest.
Scientists are made up of high IQ individuals . Politicians are low IQ idiots
Today in our world, politicians and rich idiots are called "elites". It's nonsense and I hate it. Those who advance the cause of humanity are the elite. Inventors, scientists, writers, poets, etc., they are the elite. And the average person is the hero in the story. The nurse, the doctor, the carpenter, the mechanic, the cook. The politicians, the bankers, the financiers, the top managers are the mankind's trash. Bloodsuckers, parasites of humanity. Definitely not the elit.
There are physicists who maintain that our thoughts/consciousness change the world (we have moved from the sub-atomic level to the macroscopic level). I have reason to think that they are right and that certain modified states of consciousness greatly increase the possibility that our thoughts modify the probabilities of events and therefore interfere with reality.
Mr.A Nash, you are very knowledgable and a fantastic lecturer. Thank you for your videos
I've started watching your videos like 2 or three days before and I can't count how many of them I have already watched 🤩
It's amazing how these experiments correlate with the human experience. Hiedegger describes truth by arising and falling away much like a photon passes.
This is why you can be correct about YOUR reality and view of the world and I can be correct about MY reality and view of the world . Catch this - I don’t have health insurance . I swim for an hour every day . People are telling me I am 33. I’m 52. I have decided to play with my reality . I’ve don’t have any ailments. I am an entrepreneur- I like to play with probability and with little positive choices I make my life amazing to other people who are maybe more stuck in their (to me more boring “reality”)
This problem has always blown my mind if I understand this video. Just the act of measuring which way the particles go can collapse the wave function.
Always carry a ruler. Thus you can be Measurer of Reality! I think Black Sabbath wrote something about that. Maybe it was Metallica. Hmm.
@paul sanders: Apparently only 39% of physicists accept this mind-blowing "Copenhagen" interpretation of what happens in QM. In the Bohm "pilot wave" interpretation, for example, the apparent "collapse" of the wave function is understood as hidden information that was already there but only revealed because/when you do the measurement . . .
@@QED_ It does make the story nice and neat, but wait just a second, Pilot Wave Theory has it's problems too, mainly it can't be merged into quantum theory and general relativity and newton's third law and quantum field theory and uncertainty principle... Just about everything really. Plus the wave function must vanish instead of collapsing which is odd. It was never really meant to work. It was just a kind of 'proof of concept' for disgruntled scientists, pissed off that steady state got poopoo'd by reality and came up with the EPR Paradox. The Pilot wave theory was proposed to counteract that paradox, but has not exactly fit with anything else. And, to make things worse nonlocality experiments with photons are working as theorized by the non-positional interpretations. It's getting a little wobbly. It is about to go to the trash bin if it don't get some lovin'.
My new favorite science RUclips channel 🙂 you explain things very well.
Sir .. you are like a god to me ... I have immense interest in quantum physics but due to some limitations i am unable to read it 😔.. thanks after all
Hi Arvin ; In this universe I really enjoyed your video but in another universe I didn't like it so much... then again in another universe there was no video at all !!! Man this really makes your head spin. !!!
Since you have asked for our input on the subject - here is an article that was written in 2015.
Apricate (in) Truth
During the 1930s, the great scientific minds, such as Einstein; Schrödinger: Planck, et alia, developed Quantum Mechanics (which is also known as Quantum Theory).
The quantum-mechanical atomic model has succeeded spectacularly, whereas classical science had previously failed, in explaining the microscopic universe.
However... for all its successes - it still hasn't resolved the issue of the Measurement Problem.
This is the situation where they could see the particle displayed wave functionality but when they attempted to measure the collapse from a particle to a wave - the observation caused the particle to maintain particle functionality.
In other words... they couldn't measure the collapse of the wave function because reality is affected by the observation of the person making the measurment.
This led to abstract mathematics that describe the nature of particles and wave function, to provide information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties at the atomic level.
Quantum Theory was accepted but, Einstein never felt convinced it was complete because, the theory is open to infinite interpretations which led to some fantastic postulations that threaten the credibility of science.
The main contenders, of interpretation, include:
1) De Broglie-Bohm Theory
2) Many Worlds Theory
3) Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Theory
4) Quantum Bayesianism Theory
The De Broglie-Bohm Theory
This interpretation of quantum theory shows the wavelength in the space of all possible configurations and an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved.
The explicit non-locality of the theory is intended to resolve the "measurement problem" because it provides a link between the probability density of a particle and the wave function as a hypothesis (rather than a basic law).
Basically... this theory provides an equation to embrace the non-measurability of a wave becoming a particle that is measurable.
The Many Worlds Theory
This theory asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the subjective reality of wavefunction collapse.
The hypothesis states there is an infinite number of (real) universes, and everything that could possibly happen has occurred in some other universe.
Basically... the theory allows for the possibility of multiple universes to exist which means the wavefunction is ubiquitous in some way - thus rendering all probability a reality.
The Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Theory
This theory, which is often referred to as Spontaneous Collapse Theory, attempts to circumvent the Measurement Problem because spontaneity causes the particle's wave function to collapse without any consideration of the observer's role.
The theory is compatible with single-particle experiments, that do not observe spontaneous wave-function collapses, because spontaneous collapse is posited to be extremely rare.
However... the theory still describes the observed phenomenon of quantum collapses, whenever we measure subatomic particles, because quantum measurment involves entanglement.
This is because the measured particle becomes entangled with other particles that make up the measuring device.
Basically... this theory differs from other collapse theories because it proposes the wave function collapses spontaneously - and that diminishes the component of observation.
The Quantum Bayesianism Theory
This theory is the subjective degree-of-belief account of quantum probability, and is very similar to the Copenhagen interpretation that is taught in textbooks.
The theory is affectionately referred to as Qbism and is often considered a philosophical approach to the quandary of issues surrounding the Measurement Problem because it focuses on the observer being an integral component of the whole process.
Basically... the theory deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics about the nature of wavefunction and etanglement from a subjective point of view.
This, minefield of conjecture, was the result of the famous double slit experiment which caused the scientific community to scratch their heads.
What's happening at this moment in time is they are attempting to understand the relationship between the wave - which is characterised as a field of probability (unseen) and the particle which is a measurable component of reality (seen).
They are aware consciousness affects experiments but they are trying to exemplify a means of determining experiments without consciousness causing an effect.
This seems comical to me - because the relationship between the unseen and the seen is an intrinsic value of consciousness.
The observation of wavefunction collapse is causing the wave to change its functionality - thus they call it the Measurement Problem.
Recently, however, science is postulating the universe is a two dimensional projection that gives the illusion of a third dimension like a Holographic Universe.
This theory is describing the interconnected relationship between the unseen and seen realms that give rise to the third dimension we are familiar with.
Indeed... the relationship between the two realms remain a mystery because they do not recognise the significance of the conscious mind that allows the wave function to collapse.
Einstein said, "I'd like to think the Moon is still there when I close my eyes," but he has missed the point. It is going to be there as long as a conscious mind is able to allow the wave function to collapse.
The question here is... when will science learn to appreciate consciousness "governs" all of reality?
This is important because the introduction of delusion caused entropy to enter into the equation and the more people become deluded the more the rate of decay will accelerate.
Right now... science is aware entropic values can variate - but they think this is caused by cosmological conditions within the universe (given the fact thermodynamics fluctuate throughout the regions of the cosmos).
The wavefunction collapses because the conscious mind governs the relationship between the unseen and seen - and, as such, there is no probability other than the freewill of the observer.
This is to render quantum entanglement, as a means to verify a theory, is nothing more than a glimpse of the relationship - because reality is made up of the unseen and seen which is interconnected.
Atoms that seem to pass through objects are demonstrating the ability to fluctuate between the wave and particle because they are in a microscopic universe where the relationship is governed by the consciousness of mind.
On the one hand we have theories such as Many Worlds postulating consciousness came into existence of its own volition - whereas Holographic Universe postulates consciousness existed prior to the existence of the universe.
This is to say ... on the one hand we have theories that allude to the self-creation of consciousness which panders to the mystery religions and on the other hand we have a theory that alludes to the pre-existence of a creator which confirm the scripture that tells us:
In the beginning ... God (conscious observer) created the Heaven (unseen) and the Earth (seen).
This sounds like the setting up of an apparatus to let the holographic universe come into existence.
The account then goes on to describe how the creator used sound (wave) when He said, "Let there be light," which became a particle (collapsed wave) to bring the hologram into existence after He saw that the light was good.
Now ... I'm not saying here which theory is correct (even if you can sense a bias in my delivery) - but it does make one wonder what is going on here.
@@rajprasad5899
Unfortunately .... science cannot make progress when it is self-correcting (admits perpetual error) and doesn't deal in proofs (embraces delusion).
It is my hope science will sort itself out and stop ignoring the truth.
The answer to the double slit experiment it's so simple I can't believe so many people can't see it I hear the Nobel Prize is almost a million dollars I wish I knew how to apply for it plus I know a whole bunch more things
@@rajprasad5899 I would love to but I need money the Nobel Prize is almost a million dollars many things we used today are very simple like the light bulb generating electric batteries the automobile engine but someone had to see the idea I'm a repairman by trade I seem to have a gift for understanding how things work
There are millions of people that are much smarter than I am I am just using the knowledge that other people before me have figured out
I want the prize money so I can do more things. I do know a lot more.. things that we use today were great misterys at one time but are very simple.
Just curious, have we ever thought of the measuring problem as simply a capture of time. Like a picture. When ever we try to measure something we are simply trying to receive its recording. When we measure the particle becomes static, like a picture is but when left unmeasured it’s dynamic like time, which may explain why it’s a probability field.
William S. Burroughs performed an experiment along these lines by taking a polaroid photo of a coffee house. Look into it sometime.
interesting!!!
Isn't that what the Copenhagen interpretation is saying..?
Fantastic...very nice explanation of the double slit experiment. I'm finally beginning to grasp it.
J.D. Waterhouse well put. Though can't be sure
I observe: it is well-put.
And so it must be.
This video was 2 years ago Arvin have you change your mind since then??
I know you guys have a hard time understanding quantum mechanics not to mention consciousness but consciousness is the one and only reality!! One important thing to know is that there is a subconscious awareness and that creates reality…. Any ways I could not explain how the mechanical function of consciousness works in a message !!! One day we’ll seat down I am observing it now watch how the wave collapse and become real life is beautiful brother we have the power to create our own reality!!! Peace and much love…..love the work you do take care!!!!
My schizophrenic friend used to wake up in these other "world's". He was very convincing at times.
Perhaps some things we call mental illness or hallucinogens in some cases may actually be people able to glimpse into those other worlds
I feel for anyone who has problems. I know that any mental or physical disability make for a miserable life.
You should read "The Man from Taured." It's about a man who suddenly appeared on an aircraft and had a weird passport and drivers license from a country called Taured. After authorities detained him, he mysteriously disappeared - and so did the passport and other items that authorities had taken from the man. Google it if you're interested.
@@zzanatos2001 be a lot cooler if it was real
I had a lifelong friend that went total schizophrenic also. It's scary because had you just met him not knowing he was ill, you would totally believe the outrageous things he would. I myself found that I would ponder the validity of his claims at times. It's like the say - craziness can be contagious.
I am very staggered by the amazing science communication here. I love it when someone conveys information in his way, I didn't have to repeat any part of the video.
That’s beautiful and wow now I really think the universe solely exists for consciousness and life. That’s what I have always believed deep down tbh.
Totally wild. Great breakdown!
This is the best explanation of double slit experiment ever! Very clear!:)
Sometimes I think, we’re not supposed to know the answer. I mean we can try, but I believe these fundamental questions will answer themselves when we die... maybe. Not in a way that we consciously/mathematically know, but rather the information will just.... be present. I mean if anything these insights help us make life different/easier in some ways with technology. But what I mean is... “If you need to ask the question why climb, then you won’t understand the answer”...
We will escape our limited perception at least. I have strong faith that I will through God’s mercy and compassion. This body is just a temporary vessel.
@@Skyset_angel creationism has failed btw... There's no such things as miracle and god..
It's simple logic, the activation of the measuring device must act in the system in order to detect the difference, it can only detect the atom by effecting the particle in some way. The introduction of the device changes the contsruct of the environment because it can only detect the atom by creating a point of reference which must be a direct difference to the medium into which the closed system is operating. The action required for the device to measure the direction of the atom influences the system to map a kinetic difference rather than a potential inaction. The very notion of a static environment is displaced and the experiment method in function has been fundamentally altered by the device as the nature of the device itself is reactive and it can only detect via a real physical interaction, effecting the potential energy of the propagation by acting on the particles to display a finite measure in popergation to the bodies in measure with respects to the size and position of the slits in practice.
So the device is a physical observer and consciousness is a potential observer? Sorry if this question is bad, I'm learning lol
I was looking for that answer. Just common sense. Why is that evident answer never even mentioned by anyone?
@@evik2534 it is the first response from Einstein, but then proved untrue
Your explanation was something I was thinking for last two days. The non-locality behavior of particles and their dependence to environment settings alter the particle behavior. In fact, there is an interaction between propagating probability wave function and deterministic enviroment setup. The particle behavior changes instantly when environment setup changes.
How is what you are saying is logical in explanation of the results changing from wave to particle characteristics? I understand the simple premise that the observation could interfere with the wave and alter results but that doesn't change it to a particle.
For example, if you tap a pond with a wide end stick, you would make a wave. With double slit, you would have 2 sticks hitting giving it the same results we see with the photon wave properties. Why would it change to a particle buy altering the wave in a pond? You wouldv simply just be altering the way by what you said.
Also photon quantum erasers invalidate your logic as I understand. One detector changes results between particle and wave based on other detectors and their mechanisms of observation (know the source or not) plus it generates results before the photons reach the detectors that determine if known or unknown source.
ruclips.net/video/0ui9ovrQuKE/видео.html
Asking whether consciousness creates reality is like asking which forms the shoreline, the beach or the sea-- they work together like parts of the same process. Yin and Yang arise mutually, neither dominates or controls.
Thank you for explaining different topics in an understandable, easy way. Very good channel indeed.
I came across with the mind boggling discoveries in of Quantum Mechanics at the same time I came across the fascinating ideas expressed in the book “ The world as will and Idea” by Arthur Schopenhauer. I find so many correlation between the two that I can’t but think that reality and the conscious experience are not mutually, one creates the other, like electricity and magnetism, and that this knowledge s very ancient as Schopenhauer wrote on his book,and quote “The fundamental tenet of the Vedanta school consisted not in denying the existence of matter, that is, of solidity, impenetrability, and extended figure (to deny which would be lunacy), but in correcting the popular notion of it, and in contending that it has no essence independent of mental perception; that existence and perceptibility are convertible terms.” These words adequately express the compatibility of empirical reality and transcendental ideality.
do you know Bernardo Kastrup? He talks about Schopenhauer sometimes
We are the Universe experiencing itself in millions of fragmented realities
Yep. Consciousness not only creates the limited "reality" that you are experiencing, it IS your current, extremely limited, virtual-reality-type experience. And consciousness actually BLOCKS absolute Reality from your awareness in order to accomplish this. You have fallen from an infinite sampling rate, as it were, into an infinitely-lower sampling rate. From Light into darkness. But the "good news" is that this is a temporary condition. I have all of the important answers. And I sure am lonely out here. But that's alright.
@@tomrhodes1629 you are everything but alone brother
I totally agree with you. Everything is just the self perception, self experience and the self manifestation of the supreme consciousness
Your explanation was much clearer than those past narratives on the subject the only thing I am missing is how the which way detector functions
Yeah, right? Surely, the way @ArvinAsh describes how an interference pattern is caused by the atoms passing through the slits or not, is dependent on if the 'which-way detector' stays there but is turned off (somehow still causing an interference pattern, thereby ruling out it is not the detector 'messing with the flow of atoms somehow'. But what exactly does turning off the detector actually mean? Does it mean the light it uses to detect these atoms is somehow still in operation yet also somehow the actual recording of this measurement is switched off? How then exactly does the recording of the measurement really occur?
I still dont understand how the detector actually physically works, they describe it being switched off but leaving the detector there, and an interference pattern was not destroyed; suggesting the mechanism of recording the measurement i.e. it being "switched on" and the mechanism of collecting the measurement are both separate? i.e. I'm guessing the light is still left on, whilst the former mechanism is somehow separately switched off? But this doesn't make sense to me. If the detector is switched off, the light surely would be off too, how can you separate the two mechanisms.
I find the end and especially the quote of Heisenberg of the end of the video you brought up very interesting. The quote of Heisenberg, after my understanding, implies that when we pose greater questions, we could find out more of nature. So we can't even probe nature as it is, but only nature under the restriction of our questioning and understanding of nature, which we might never completely and truthfully figure out. So maybe we don't even pose the right questions in order to find out nature. That struggles my mind.... Anyways great explanations! You certainly have another subscriber following your videos and commenting his thoughts under your videos!
We have an abundance of nature right under our nose and toes, without such a basic understanding of how much value it can bring, without thorough observances.
I'm glad this was a proper physics video , and not a metaphysical baloney Deepak Chopra type production
Yes, I really hate being a few minutes into a potentially interesting video and then having it go off the rails.
Yeah, I was worried there for a while. All this "observer" stuff, often drawn as a human eye has long annoyed me. Seemed to me collapsing the wave function only required the interaction of other atoms or particles, which happens all the time, regardless of human existence. Otherwise the chemistry, which led to biology, which led to us and consciousness would be unable to happen. There would be no universe at all and clearly there is.
God according to vedas-Samadhi(sorry difficult to translate from sanskrit to eng) say the most fundamental energy (or vibrational energy which the vedas and modern unified agrees onto) administers the cosmos which is omnipotent and omnipresent ;)thats why in hindu philosophy importance to u and me is given as we are also possesers of that energy infact life which in other words conciousness (or lets say that funadamental energy that knows its existence)
Physics has never found a single bit of evidence for the existence of God. Invoking a supernatural being of any kind is not an explanation, just a cop out of lazy undisciplined thinking. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. Try publishing that in a physics journal, then you might understand the level of expert, deep, analytical, consistent thought that is required to progress even the tiniest phenomena of existence. No other field of human endeavour has such strict requirements of proof. Laymen cannot appreciate that. They like to slot in a belief first then use an incorrectly interpreted piece of physics to "prove" their idea. Not good enough.
@@peterwilson7532 do u think that god exists lol i dont if u see energy is omnipresent and omnipotent then we can term it as god as it constitutes everything superbeing gods is an pychological illusion
I’ve always liked the consciousness aspect. It doesn’t need to be a observer as we might think; it could be an observer we don’t know or understand. I love this experiment because it drives so many hard scientists nuts. It is where hard science crosses back into the world of mysticism.
I´ve once read that what matters is the INTERACTION going on....
BUT WE CAN CONSTRUCT A THEORY WHERE ANY ENTITY - EVEN A STONE - SUPPORTS SOME LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS. FOR SURE, ANY LIVING BEING DOES DEPENDING ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OUR THEORY IS BASED ON.
Thank you for your post.
@@mariorqmsilveira3270 there's no need to yell
This is the clearest explanation that made her understand the experiment. I’m just an average person.
2:23 Considering you mentioned that when you turn OFF the Which-Way detector (while leaving it there), and that everything goes back to "normal" (aka the interference pattern") it definitely seems like the act of photons bouncing off the electron ARE affecting it, unless there's something I'm missing here. Reason being that the experiment shows it's not the act of the detector being there, but being active, that affects the outcome.
If you place active detectors after the slits, it seems that the particles behaved like particles before the slits, even before any interaction was made by the active detectors. So, even though the detectors surely has to be active for the effect to be shown, it seems that the interaction with the active detectors is not needed, but more so the presence of an active detector is all that is needed, which would suggest that if a which way information can be known, particles will start to behave as particles before any interaction with an active detector has taken place.
@@karlkarlsson9126 Yes, I'm so confused because many physics StackExchange Q&A said that the interaction, necessary for the measurement, is collapsing the probability. However, if this video's description is right (detector being after/before slit doesn't matter), those StackExchange Q&A answers are all wrong. That's my number one confusion. Whether this video's description is wrong, or, so many StackExchange Q&A answers are wrong. This video says about consciousness (Especially Von Neumann Wigner), however StackExchange answers seems like deny it completely. Is it a consensus now that consciousness blah blah is bullshit interpretation? At least this video says nobody knows. What's true?
@@karlkarlsson9126 My number two confusion: with plugged-off detector, we see wave-like result. With plugged-on detector but if the record is thrown away so nobody saw the detector's record, do we see wave-like result? or particle-like result? Let's say we plugged the detector on, and we see the result of the wall, whether the result is particle-like or wave-like. 1. Let's say the result is particle-like. Then we throw away the detector's result without seeing. With plugged-off detector, we see wave-like result. Combining the last two sentences, we conclude that plugging on and off affected somehow, which means that consciousness is not a deciding factor (because either way nobody observed which-way the atom goes through.) Plugging on and off makes a difference in this case. 2. Let's say the result is wave-like. Then we look into the detector's record. It makes no sense, because all agree that if we can have and see a which-way record, the result is surely particle-like. Therefore, 1 is right, which contradicts with what this video says, which is very confusing to me.
@@zanyaboutit I think the interaction is needed for a measurement, but the interaction itself is not the measurement, the interaction is an entanglement, which is why the subject of information is an open debate. Your second question is a bit confusing, not sure I understand.
@@karlkarlsson9126 Let me rephrase about the second. Let's say we have a plugged-off detector. Then the result is wave-like. Let's say we have a plugged-on detector. If the result is wave-like, we can then see the detector's record (which-way information), and it doesn't make sense (Because if that happens, we have which-way info and result is wave-like. This cannot happen.) Therefore the result is ALWAYS particle-like (if we used a plugged-on detector.). It means that our consciousness has no play here. Why? with plugged-on detector, we see particle-like result, but even if the detector recorded, if we choose not to see the record, there's no conscious thing. It means that whether or not we see the record, the result is particle-like.
I feel like you are the most underrated
There is also definition of consciousness to take into consideration. I remember reading an article that posited consciousness as simply an awareness of other or separateness. So an atom is "aware" of its "separateness", i.e. "conscious", by the way it interacts with other atoms around it. For example, a carbon atom "knows" it's carbon. It then interacts with other atoms like oxygen and hydrogen, which it recognises as separate, by behaving in a certain way. I'm throwing a spanner in the works, I know, but if atoms are conscious (by this definition), then capturing the information in the state of an atom is still exposing it to a form of consciousness.
Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and predates it's physical origination. I know many will take this as a theological statement because of what it infers, but be that as it may, this premise is basic to understanding what is happening. If consciousness is fundamental to how our universe self organized as it has and continues to do so, then consciousness must be present at some level in matter. It's as if we put all the construction material to build a home in the front yard of the building site and then saw these materials, wood, concrete windows, etc, slowly without human hands self assembling into a perfect house with every measurement correct. How can this happen" The observed reality of "evolved emergent complexity" is possible only if matter at a fundamental level is "conscious." When this highly attenuated form of localized consciousness at the sub atomic level "interacts" with another form of localized consciousness, namely our own, we see a winking back effect. The seemingly distinct and separate forms of consciousness, our own and the thin residue of consciousness that seems to respond to our own are the same consciousness. There is no human consciousness. There is only universal consciousness. The human brain does not and can not generate consciousness. It can only enable us via cognition to "experience" consciousness which is a thing removed from that original consciousness. This begs another question and it leads to uncomfortable consideration for many scientists who want return invitations to their wonderful symposiums that do so much for their careers. This line of reasoning opens the door to serious questions about a transcendent agent at work behind all existent reality and this is a taboo subject for most researchers.
100 percent correct. A conscious observer doesn't collapse the waveform, a conscious measurer does. Measurement interacts with the experiment. It's not passive it's active.
Like I just commented: Max Planck: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
We can't point to our fingertip or taste our own tongue.
4:00 "An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector-possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person-its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect." (Wikipedia: Observer Effect) During the Big Bang, what electronic detector existed? An electronic detector is a tool created by and for a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer, the electronic detector, its parameter settings, and its measurements do not exist. The electronic detector becomes an extension of the conscious observer.
So you’re saying it could be a conscious observer?
That still doesn't make any sense. Instant the act of the photosensitive screen recording the movement of the particles in itself the act of observing
Exactly what I thought wilst watching
tuna is the fish I think observing the result of a process is what the photosensitive screen is recording, mean while they are trying to observe the process itself not the outcome of it
You have to watch another one of their videos where it explains it in detail: "Why don't quantum effects occur in large objects? double slit experiment with tennis balls"
Even recorded does it exist till it's observed
Yes the photosensitive screen does observe it and it shows where the particals land on it it doesn’t show the actaual wave thats why on the screen it shows more paritcals landing in the center because that’s where the wave is most probibal
I think of consciousness as an observer of time created in a quantum field connected everywhere in space. When the egg and sperm combine there is a chemical reaction that takes place creating a ripple in the quantum field of consciousness. That ripple is our unique identity or our coordinates in the consciousness dimension. The ripple or wave has a distinct beginning and end. As the ripple travels along time it comes in contact with different interferences and begins to break down and loose clarity. As these waves break down the clarity in our DNA replication also starts breaking down and that’s what gives us aging.
to be able to accumulate all these different experiences into a single "conscious experience" built from so many things happening so crazy freaking fast at scales sometimes smaller than a nano second is mind blowing that the mind is even capable of performing it in the first place. looking at ancient cave art painting now has a new experience for me creating a undescribable sensation of awe. to think about how incredibly complicated and highly improbable the chances that a living being can even exist in the universe, let alone make tools to create paint just to draw what's on the mind
But isn't the brain of a conscious entity made of atoms? & wouldn't it be careless to automatically rule out the possibility that maybe 1 of the many atoms that form the conscious entitiy's brain might be entangled with the atom with information encoded upon it; & perhaps, as a result of entanglement, might be influencing the outcome of the experiment?
How could conscious arrise from atoms?
@@MrOrigami123
How is water wet?
It's not really a facetious question. It's pointing to emergent properties. No single H2O molecule is wet. But get enough molecules together, at the right temperature and pressure, and bam...wetness.
Consciousness is the same thing: an emergent effect of certain molecules in the right configuration, right temperature, etc. That's why we see consciousness, or even just life, in *certain* systems, specific areas, specific configurations of molecules.
People like to claim there may be a bigger consciousness, but looking at the universe en total as an organism, of which is the only thing we've seen displaying consciousness, is pretty sketchy.
We don't necessarily "rule things out". Its more like having justification to rule things "in" as a possibility.
We dont attempt to prove a claim to be false by proving it false. We instead demonstrate it is "not true" by proving the truth of its logical negation.
In other words, things are only shown to be false as a consequence of proving the truth of its negation.
Jason Spades on your last 2 comments: that goes directly against what Karl Popper (I think correctly) proposed when developing what is now known as logical positivism: you can never prove something to be absolutely true as you can never have observed all instances of something at all times. You can only formulate your theory in a way that is falsifiable and discard it if a falsifying observation is made.
Probably most quoted example being: you can never fully prove the statement that ‘all swans are white’ as you cannot rule out that there is, was or will be a non-white swan. But you can falsify the statement by showing an observation of a non-white swan
The book: Biocentrism by Robert Lanza explains the role of Consciousness in seeing Reality.
Just finished his latest (3rd) book. Mind blowing. Lanza is a genius. Nothing makes more sense than what Robert Lanza has given us. Biocentrism aligns with what feels true in my bones.
Lanza is a medical doctor and gets refuted by a physicist
@@caribgirl726 take it easy man lanza is not a physicist
@@Jdjdjdjjdj1997 He actually started his education in physics, realized he was in disagreement with some of what was being taught and chose the biology route. You may disagree with his conclusions, that’s fine, but the man is brilliant, and not because I say so.
@@caribgirl726 ruclips.net/video/8DGgvE6hLAU/видео.html this man is a real physicist who refutes Robert lanza indeed he is a good medical doctor or professor in another field he was in disagreement in what was being taught sound how does he know that when he hasn't his finshed his PhD on physics can you give me a credible source that he studied pyhysics ?
I think that although what we call reality is relative to our observation and understanding, objective reality still exists and will always exist outside of them. Relative and objective reality may become more and more similar the more we learn, but we’ll forever be an indefinite distance away from the full picture.
Serious question
Can the sensor be interfering with something we can't detect or know about nowadays?? Like interfering with dark matter or dark energy and that way it would affect the atoms?
That's a great question! If something is interfering, it is not likely to be dark matter or dark energy, at least not as we understand dark matter and dark energy properties to be. Is there some other unknown forces or dimensions that are at play? That cannot be ruled out.
I need to revisit this after I find some acid....
@Beeblebrox One Are you like 12 years old? LSD has few if any side effects and might negatively effect someone that has a underlying mental illness already. Many Greats have used LSD to open their minds in ways that aren't naturally possible. Note Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were LSD users. Hmmmmm...
Then you won't need to watch the vid. lol!
@@johndunn7108 this is absolute fax - there's no known LD50 for LSD meaning you can't overdose on it - additionally, it's not possible to form an addiction due to the fast tolerance that's established + your serotonin receptors will eventually just be spent after several trips in a row after tolerance has dropped each time
@@salemclemens6148 this herr da fax- shut up
@Beeblebrox One Yea, I'm not gonna repeat what's already been said here. But you should definitely do a little unbiased research on these things, before spreading false information. Odds are, if this is your general attitude about drugs, there's a LOT you don't know. Not telling you to go out and do psychedelics, but it doesn't hurt to read a little.
Be careful, interference patterns observed at D0 are not the same, they are shifted at position x. If you add both data you would have the clumping pattern observed at D3. The clue is that entangled photons at BBO are phase opposite, which will give at 4 combinations arriving at D0 (25% each: up-up, up-down, down-up, down-down); basically, 50% of that "red path" photon will have the same phase of the "blue path" and 50% chance opposite phase between them. That is the reason why interference patterns are shifted in x, 50% of the data will show one interference and 50% of the other data will interfere on the other position x; the high frequency of one interference coincides with the low frequency of the other; and vice versa. Now, on D3 or D4 there is no selection between phases, so the pattern observed is the addition of the two shifted interference pattern shifted on x, so... the interference will be mixed and the clumping pattern is expected. In D1 and D2 the difference or equality of phase will give only one detector for the same phase interference and the other detector for the opposite phase situation. So, on D1 and D2 interference patterns are independently observed. NO delay choice and quantum eraser from the future to the present !!
It’s sad that he didn’t care to reply and rectify his explanations
Despite consciousness not really dictating if reality exists I still find it fascinating that because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty we have an almost direct effect on reality itself based on the choice of what parameter of the particle we choose to measure and learn about.
Pure consiousness is the fundemental reality🔥 non duality of shankara🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
Whats this?
@@aduts1177Advaita vedanta
When you sleep you are unconscious but thankfully the universe stays intact. Question and answer.
You are not the only ultimate consciouness (God)
If we are unconscious while we are asleep, why are sensory stimuli capable of waking us?
Am I interpreting this correctly? The particle appears to be able to ‘decide’ if there is a possibility of measurement/observation and if so, the wave function collapses. To me it
doesn't really matter if a conscious observer is there, only that one is possible.
Does this ability to decide indicate that the particle itself has some level of
consciousness? If so, with vast quantities of particles capable of decision
making, along with the ability to share information through entanglement, to me
the universe is starting to resemble a giant brain. Could this infer a
conscious, intelligent universe?
Did that intelligence "fine tune" the Big Bang to give rise to life and
creatures who can ponder these questions?
Great questions! Most physicists do not adhere to the idea that human or any other consciousness is involved in the wave collapse of QM, But even among those minority physicists who do believe that consciousness and wave collapse are linked, none that I am aware of regard the particles as having consciousness. Much of the mystery of QM has to do with the fact that the behavior and laws do not follow our intuitions or common sense. The best way to think of "particles" really is to not think of them as particles at all, but as waves of probabilities. The waves have some probability of being in any location at any time. The probability is highest at certain points. The interaction of the particle with a recording device determines its precise location. No consciousness need be involved in this "recording" process. As far as the universe being conscious, I treat this in more detail in this video, which I think you might enjoy: ruclips.net/video/hIdPo-soklY/видео.html
@@ArvinAsh Hi Arvin,
Thank you for your answer and for your excellent videos! I don’t believe that particles actually think, just that the double slit experiment indicates a feedback mechanism that allows a particle to respond to outside stimuli - I.e., conscious or unconscious observations/interactions that collapse the wave function.
I did check out your other excellent video exploring the possibility that the universe is conscious in which you postulate galaxies might act like giant neurons communicating via black holes.
I wonder if it goes deeper than that? What if subatomic particles are the basic building blocks of universal consciousness? Single atom switches can be used to create quantum computers with astonishing power. Perhaps the ability of subatomic particles to alter their states (wave function fluctuations) in response to stimuli plus the ability to communicate over vast distances via entanglement (“spooky action at a distance”) provides a possible mechanism for universal consciousness? Consider how many more connections would be possible!
I don’t pretend to know anything but I have been concerned about the nature of consciousness ever since my husband tearfully told me about a profound out of body experience he had years ago. Thousands of people have reported similar experiences and scientific studies are now underway to determine if our consciousness can be separate from our brain.
If consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, perhaps during life, our brain acts as a receiver rather than the origin of our consciousness. Food for thought!
Those are intriguing ideas. It is possible that when we build functioning quantum computers, they may start acting in unexpected ways. If they shockingly become conscious for example, then that may be evidence of something deeper going on in the subatomic world relating to consciousness being perhaps a fundamental property of the universe.
@@ArvinAsh I predict this WILL infact happen. at some stage will we be able to observe conscious behaviour in all things. I hope that we can agree that animals and plants are infact conscious beings, BEFORE we start thinking dust is conscious.
However i have heard of conscious particles. When synthesizing water, Oxygen atoms seemingly searching for matching Hydrogen atoms. Passing by thousands until its found its chosen hydrogen molecules. Obviously there could be forces at work that we cant detect, but it really sounds like the particles have choices to make!
I love the video. Thank you for the information. I also love that you (the author) lean towards the belief that it does not take a consciousness to get the variation of results from the atom.
I believe there is a consciousness, and am blown away that we simply don't ask that consciousness for the answer concerning its involvement. Actually, I think our scientific investigation does indicate the asking. So, my thinking stems around our receiving the answering.
A technique to receive the answer is to sit quietly for a designated period of time (20 minutes a day for a week) with the intent of receiving contact from the consciousness. Rules of the challenge are don't ask again…, it's been asked. Quiet the mind by focusing on a low thought-provoking sound like the ticking of a clock, sound of a stream, air blowing through a condenser. I'd love to hear results.