Hello everyone! I am back from a 2+year comment hiatus and excited to say hi! (my account wasn't linked with any google+ account, so I couldn't comment on RUclips from the MinutePhysics account for the last 2-3 years; google finally gave up on google+ enough that now I can comment on RUclips again!!)
Heisenberg was stopped by the police. The officer asked "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg responds "No, but I knew EXACTLY where I was."
The cop searches the car because of the odd behavior. The checks the trunk and shouts "You guys know there is a dead cat back here?" Schrodinger shouted from the back seat, "THERE IS NOW JERK"
BM Piano Yeah most of the stuff on this channel is impossible to explain in a minute. Just find it funny that the whole idea of the channel has gone out the window
Because you really don’t care about your cloning machine, or you just got a new one so you’re trying to blow it up with two gunpowder explosions at once right after it cloned the original exploding gunpowder.
Makes me think if there were a cloning machine that everyone can afford, there will be youtubers doing video about it. "Cloning a hot metal knife cutting through spacetime" With shitty editing thumbnail and some arrows.
If the phase of the wavefunctions are offsef by 1 Pi rad, their sum is cancelled out by destructive interference. So you no longer like the videos. Unless both WFs are in the same (or similar) phase
Very mixed feelings in re to format length. Longer and more in depth is great. But I would hate to lose the shorter format that really made your brand. They both serve a purpose. Two channels is probably not a good solution, especially from a business perspective. Perhaps clearly mark each format, perhaps not just by name, (ten minute physics works), but by some distinctive visual clue. This works on other channels that have multiple formats. People can readily pick out the series they want. You can keep separate playlists for those checking out your back catalogue.
Or you could just look at the length of the video to determine if it is 1 min or 10. not trying to be rude but a 'distinctive visual clue' just seems a bit unnecessarily difficult and pointless
Thomas R. Jackson the way RUclips is set up, they force creators to have longer videos to stay relevant. It's out of the creators hands. They have to adapt to the situation is around them.
// Compile in code chef, tutorialspoint or gcc // Compilar con/Compile with: gcc -Wall -std=c99 -o clone clone.c #include #define FALSE 0 #define TRUE 1 typedef struct point { int x,y,active; } Point; int main() { Point one = {8,16,TRUE}; Point two = one; Point *ptr = &one; //Change [&one] to [&two] printf("Point one: x: %d y: %d active: %d Point two: x: %d y: %d active: %d ",one.x,one.y,one.active,two.x,two.y,two.active); if (&one == &two) puts("one and two are equal"); else puts("one and two are not equal"); //Always not equal if (&one == ptr) puts("one and ptr are equal"); else puts("one and ptr are not equal"); //Depends on ptr address if (&two == ptr) puts("two and ptr are equal"); else puts("two and ptr are not equal"); //Depends on ptr address printf("Point one address: %p Point two address:%p ",&one,&two); return 0; } //GCC Approved this
Cloning a joke is theoretically impossible. You see, jokes have several factors other than the joke itself that make it funny. If I were to just copy and paste your joke, the timing would be different, author would be different, and the amount of likes would probably be different too. You won't have to worry about someone cloning your joke, only re-posting it.
I've only studied physics through highschool but i've always been interested in the whole magic of it and this channel is the only place i can get my share of mind blowing physics pieces that are actually fun. Keep up the great work. I absolutely love the videos ❤ And it didn't feel longer at all.
I really enjoy the longer format videos. Been watching for years. You can get in way more depth and i don't feel like it takes away what you were originally trying to do with the channel. Like you said, Minute Physics was meant to signify a video on the magnitude from 1 to 10 minutes
I Agree, but longer videos means less frequent videos because of the time and effort but into them, so maybe some shorter videos wrinkled in with the longer ones?
No, not really... This video had no ad put by google therefore he made no money out of it. Of course, there are people who donate and he himself can promote some products, but the length of the video is not a factor for making more money.
@@MaoDev and the sad thing about youtubr comments is nobody ever replies. Hell he probably wont even see this comment...will you see this comment? The world will never know. I wish RUclips comments were more like reddit where you actually get replies decently fast
Hi, something seems off about the proof in the video - at the start you said that there are 3 things needed for cloning: 1) the original object (O) 2) the materials that comprise the object (M) 3) cloning process (C) But the proof only considers O and C (as a function of O), while it should be O, M and C (as a function of O and M). Cloning shouldn't be C(O)=OxO but C(OxM)=OxO. If O exists in superposition as O1+O2 then cloning would be C((O1+O2)xM)=(O1+O2)x(O1+O2). We then need to examine the cloning process for O1 and O2, however the materials needed for cloning O1, O2 and O might be different. Let's say M1 is the materials for cloning O1 and M2 is the materials for cloning O2, so the materials needed for cloning O=O1+O2 are M=M1+M2. C(O1xM1)=O1xO1,C(O2xM2)=O2xO2 O1xO1+O2xO2+O1xO2+O2xO1=(O1+O2)x(O1+O2)=OxO=C(OxM)=C((O1+O2)x(M1+M2))=C(O1xM1)+C(O1xM2)+C(O2xM1)+C(O2xM2)=O1xO1+O2xO2+C(O1xM2)+C(O2xM1) So the process could exist so long as O1xO2+O2xO1=C(O1xM2)+C(O2xM1). Consider for example the trivial solution where M=O and cloning is an empty action. PS - great videos, learned a lot from them.
@@itsnotme7868 I'm not sure I understand you mate. If C is the cloning process as a function of O, then the end product would be C(O)=OxO. And regardless as I've stated in my previous comment I think the proof is lacking M to truly prove anything meaningful. Without M all that is proven is that there is no process that can take an object O and turn it into 2 of the same object OxO - which I would think is already covered by conservation of matter.
@Danamo999 Sorry, I'm a year out of context so I might be missing something obvious. "C(O1xM2) is only defined if M2 is the materials to clone O1" - why would that be the case? The only thing we know about the process C is that given an object O/O1/O2 and the materials needed to reproduce it M/M1/M2, the process results in 2 objects O/O1/O2 and under these conditions C would be cloning. We know nothing about what process C does given an object O1 and the materials M2. Imagine a trivial example where C is an empty action - it does absolutely nothing. And the materials M to reproduce an object O are the object itself, M=O. Let's say O is a cat, O1 is a dead cat and O2 is a living cat, O=O1+O2. The materials to reproduce a cat O is another cat exactly like it M=O. The materials to reproduce a dead cat is another dead cat just like it M1=O1, the materials to reproduce a living cat is a living cat just like it M2=O2. You put a dead cat O1 in a box together with another dead cat M1=O1, then open the box and have 2 dead cats O1. You've successfully (though trivially) cloned a dead cat. You put a dead cat O1 in a box together with a living cat M2=O2/=O1, then open the box and find a living cat O2 and a dead cat O1. Is the process C of doing nothing to the objects inside perfectly defined? Yes. Does it successfully clone an object given the right materials? Yes. Must the materials M1 for producing a dead cat O1 be the same as the materials M2 for producing a living cat O2? No. Will the process successfully clone an object given the wrong materials? No. But then again it's not supposed to.
I know I am 3 years late but for cloning to be possible the cloning transformation should distribute. So, C((O1+O2)×M) = C(O1×M + O2×M) must be equal to C(O1×M) + C(O2×M) for cloning to be possible. But since (O1+O2)×(O1+O2) is not equal to O1×O1+O2×O2, cloning shouldn't be possible right?
So it IS feasibly possible for two things in the universe to be exactly the same, just not for us to make exact copies of something that there's only one of in existence. This brings to light an interesting concept concerning consciousness. Suppose that the universe is spatially infinite. Also, suppose that the number of types of particles that exist in the universe is finite. On top of that, assume that there's only a certain number of ways to arrange those particles that complies with known physical law, and that those particles can only exist in a finite number of states. As such, if space is infinite, that would mean that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll eventually run across an exact copy of the place you just left. So, if you left earth, then eventually you'd run across an exact replica of earth. Down to the people on it. Down to the arrangement of the neurons in those peoples' brains. Down to the properties of the sodium and potassium ions in those brains. And not only would there be one exact copy. If space were infinite, there would be an infinite number of exact copies. Now, as far as we know of today, there is no mystical aspect of consciousness that determines its properties. You are you simply because your brain is arranged a certain way, and your neurons are firing in a particular pattern that is unique to you. But here's the catch - if there were to exist an exact copy of you, down to the position of the neurons and the arrangement of the neural activity, then which "you" would you be? Which head would you reside in? What would differentiate your mind from the mind of the other you? Assuming that they truly were an exact copy, then nothing at all would differentiate the two of you. Now, if you two were to be in the same location and interacting with each other, then it could be determined which "you" was you, as the very act of interacting would break the symmetry. The other "you" would respond to your gestures, therefore altering his neural state in a way that's unique from yours. But, if the two of you were to forever remain isolated in your little bubbles, then you could conceivably reside in both heads at once. And, if there's an infinite number of "you's" out there, then you'd reside in all of their heads at once. And, since they'd all be exact copies, then they'd all be experiencing and doing the same thing simultaneously. So there wouldn't be any way for you to differentiate between the copies. In short, your mind could be simultaneously existing in an infinite number of locations at once. You simply don't know because each location is an exact copy of the other, so you get the exact same sensory input and experience the exact same responses to that input at every location. What's more, let's assume that every copy of you suddenly became curious and said "I want to find this supposed replica-world." Afterwards, they all set out in their collective high-tech spacecraft in a random direction, intent on traveling until they run across the replica-earth. Now, let's say that after an arbitrarily long amount of time (assuming that you could somehow do it before the universe suffered heat death) you finally run across this replica world. Here's the kicker. The "you" of this world would've left long ago, at the exact moment YOU decided to leave, in search of this mysterious "replica-world" he thought of. That means that, from the perspective of the people that inhabit that world, "you" set off in one direction, bound for a replica-world, but instead simply returned to your own world, coming from the opposite direction. From their perspective, you simply would've circled the entire universe, then come back around. And the crazy thing is that, from your perspective, this would be a perfectly reasonable explanation as well, as you'd never run in to any copy of you, and there would be no way of differentiating the earth you find from the earth you left behind. Similarly, a copy of you would show up on the earth you left, which the people on that world would assume was you after having circled the entire universe. So is there really any difference between a universe with an infinite number of "you"s and "earth"s, and a universe that curves in on itself?
Ethan d Interesting to read :) seriously, but the assumption that "space is infinite" is not correct. so there is no replica of earth to be found, because the universe is really TINY! to have such exact replica !!
Raffael Davila excuse me i am not native english speaker, I thought "suppose" means that he is trying to use the logical argument "Prove by Contradiction". so i thought he tried to make an assumption then prove its true.
and even if this cloning was possible, one second later, both the clone and the original would be exposed to different stimuli, this would make them diverge.
Willdabeast we can’t teleport. There was a whole theory but basically when something disappeared from a place, the sound waves would move way too fast and I would basically make a really loud sound that would make everyone around deaf (something like that)
We can teleport, a while back they teleported particles from I think England to France instantaneously through quantum entanglement, but if we were to teleport humans we would have to rip away every atom from our bodies and entangle it, and then reconstruct our bodies atom by atom, and then there’s the question of even if all the atoms are the same, is it still us? Is consciousness a simple matter of atoms? Or something we don’t yet understand?
Extremely clear and positive! Very good explanation of concepts with very simple mathematical derivations. It leaves several points worth discussing further, but that might be a debate for another day. Thanks a lot for this video and for your channel!
But then both the original and the copy would have their superposition collapsed so... how exactly would that not be a perfect copy still? I also fail to see how any remotely real cloning apparatus could possibly NOT act as an observation and therefor throw out quantum mechanics in its entirety, rendering this whole equation mood, no?
I think what the Observer Effect describes is that the act of observation will alter the state of the subject, so even though wave function collapses, the original object will experience change so it will not be a perfect copy... I could be wrong but I think using act of observation will result in an "Ok clone" mentioned in the video
Chauncey 钟离 Hm. If you were to sort of "scan" the object and then clone it, I'm pretty sure you'd get a perfect copy. Now... I'll grant you though, by scanning the object I guess you did change it and so it's not really the actual original anymore, right? Like, by scanning the box we already determined whether or not the cat is alive. So while the original box had an "undead" cat, the scanned original has either or. And so does the clone, making it a perfect copy of the new original. But yea, I guess we did change the original first in this case so I suppose in that way it's not a perfect copy :/ Oh well, I'm just thinking out loud anyway, I don't actually understand this stuff :D
the act of cloning IS an act of observation, for a machine to make a copy of whatever is in a box, it needs to know what is in the box. you can only get exploded gunpowder or unexploded gunpowder out of the machine, because only A or B went IN to the machine, we just didnt know what went into it. We would get exactly whatever went in, but it would be a copy of the observed particles.
From my hero, Dr. Max Tagmark: "The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere." Cloning occurs naturally in a sufficiently large universe. Late estimate is the universe is a minimum of 96 Billion Light Years (9.08230125367757E+26 Meters) is diameter, so the chance that is about of >1000 of everyone in this universe is high.
Soo, if a teleporter breaks my atoms down and reassembles me it actually will still be my own conscious self on the destination, and not just a clone with the exact same personality?
Dual Wield We still don't know if consciousness is purely the result of the matter that makes us up and it's unique arrangement. It could be something inconceivable as nature has had 4.5 billion years to shape a being as advanced as us. We, as a bunch of atoms, understand that we are atoms and can grasp amazing concepts like our place and purpose in the universe. Then again, what is consciousness and does it really exist. How can you know if you have the awareness that you are having your own thoughts and are not just programmed or destined based on your biochemistry to do what you do? These are perplexing questions I hope we can shed some light on in the coming century, especially with the arrival of artificial intelligence that pass the Turing Test with flying colors. Could we reach the point where beings we create in simulation actually perceive their world in the same way as we do. Is it ethical to create a conscious creature to serve our will? It would be like slavery. Or we couldn't really tell if the robots actually 'felt' anything on a emotional level. Mind-boggling stuff, truly.
of course it's not "you" because "you" exist right NOW now "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this Point being - fear of teleportation, and by extension death itself, is completely silly. The idea of a constant identity and "self" is illusory in the first place, "you" die all the time.
It's a bit like the thought that you could potentially not exist in time. You could be frozen in an instant, with only the feelings you presently have suggesting that there was something before. Of course, each instant you remember tells you that at that moment it was not the case, but it wouldn't even have to exist. It's a bit odd.
It depends on what you consider "you." If the most fundamental thing that makes you "you" is your conscientiousness, then you'd have to find out if the most fundamental thing that makes you conscientious is chemical bonds and neurons firing in your brain. If that's the case, teleportation is possible because there is no physical law preventing an advance in technology that can measure chemical bonds and neurons. If the most fundamental thing that makes up conscientiousness is at the quantum level of the subatomic particles that make up your brain, then teleportation of exactly "you" is not possible because the act of measuring at the quantum level changes the particle or energy level of the particle being measured. At that point, you have to ask yourself, am I really going to change THAT much by teleporting? Right now, no one can be sure because science has not advanced that far.
minute physics was about taking something complex and making it bite sized and easy to understand. 10 minutes of super positions, quantum mechanics, uncertainty principles etc might just be too much
something as complex as quantum mechanics explained in 10 minutes is still quite succinct. 10 minutes is still quite bite sized for a dish like physics.
You skipped some logic: Where in the world did the formula at 5:03 - 5:12 come from? The whole proof hinges on contradicting that formula, but you never showed where it came from. I get the sense that it's linked to point number 2, but still, the connection isn't clear at all.
Also, these formulas exclude not only the extra material to be formed into the clone from their formulation, but the outside materials that entropy would need to be released into in order for cloning to take place. Yes, the formulas would become much more complicated, but if they were properly formulated to include all of the variables and proper interactions, then I suspect that the contradiction would not appear. Furthermore, this contradiction is entirely dependent on the Copenhagen interpretation being true (superpositions and uncertainty being legitimate phenomena rather than the abstract assumptions that they are), which still is not proven to be correct. It is only assumed that just because things are weird that the weirdest interpretation must be the correct one, but thankfully there are plenty of quantum scientist who don't agree.
The equation at 5:03 - 5:12 is just applying the definition of cloning, slightly abbreviated for space. It should really be Clone((|E>+|U>)x|stuff>) = (|E>+|U>)x(|E>+|U>). The Clone operation takes the |stuff> and makes it a copy of the first state. Also, he doesn't assume the Copenhagen Interpretation. All interpretations of quantum physics involve superpositions, because all models that correctly describe experimental results involve superpositions existing in all but a small number of bases. In fact, pretty much all interpretations *except* the Copenhagen Interpretation assume that only linear, unitary operations can be done on states. CI allows the additional operation of "measurement", which doesn't actually correspond with a self-consistent quantum physical process, so it's a bit of a deus ex machina. That's why I don't like CI, but it's completely unrelated to the proof here.
It's a tad badly explained, you're right. Here's whats happening: Let's say |E> means "exploded" and |N> means "not exploded". You start with one "thing" in the state |E>+|N>, meaning it's the gunpowder in a superposition. Now you create a second "thing", meaning now it's two "things" represented by the (tensor)-product of the two things: |Thing1> x |Thing2> = (|E>+|N>)x(|E>+|N>) The cloning operation is meant to take one "thing" and make two things out of it, whereas the two things as identical: Clone(|Thing1>) = |Thing1> x |Thing2> It would be much better if Henry stuck to his own notation because he already introduced the "Raw-materials"... Why not still use them. So the formula should look like Before: |Thing1>x|Raw> Then cloning: Clone( |Thing1> x |Raw> ) = |Thing1> x |Thing2> Then the distribution would be slightly more ugly, but it still works. First we separate the |Thing1>-State into it's components: |Thing1> x |Raw> = |E> x |Raw> + |N> x |Raw> (Note that this only is possible if the two are not entangled!). Then apply cloning to it, and distribute it: Clone( |E> x |Raw> + |N> x |Raw> ) = Clone(|E> x |Raw>) + Clone(|N> x |Raw>) = |E>x|E> + |N>x|N> Unfortunately Henry sometimes overlooks these details that can really be confusing, esp. for folks that see the stuff for the first time. He really needs to stick to his own notations and explain them better. Hope that helps :)
+hauslerful - Thanks. I understand where that formula came from now, but it is not correct as it is ignoring a great number of variables. You also need to include the external materials that will need to be effected in order for cloning to take place. Because of conservation laws, changes to one thing must effect something else, and so the difference between the raw materials and the cloned object it will be turned into will be released into the surrounding matter as entropy. The formula should really be Clone( |thing> x |raw> x |external> ) = |thing> x |thing> x |externalWithEntropy> Or something similar. Given the correct formulation, the difference between |external> and |externalWithEntropy> would account for the "extra variables" (5:43) that result in the supposed contradiction. In the video, it would have made more sense if he had written the bottom formula as |E> x |E> + |N> x |N> + Entropy, where we can deduce that Entropy = |E> x |N> + |N> x |E> Clearly it isn't mathematically sound, but symbolically it gets the point across.
+Niel G. Dickson - The pilot-wave interpretation does not include superpositions. In fact, many sensible interpretations exclude superpositions and other nondeterminism explicitly. I for one find nondeterminism to be nonsensical.
Wait so are you saying that teleportation wouldn't be the same as killing/deconstructing a person in place A and then reassemble that persons copy in place B? The copy would continue living as if nothing happened and everything went how it was supposed to but the original person would be "dead"?
Krosly: With a quantum state, it's meaningless to talk about "the original" and "the replacement" (as established in this video, copying is generally impossible, but teleporting is not, so we'll avoid talking about a 'copy'). This can be shown by e.g. interferometer-type experiments, where particles end up destructively or constructively interfering with each other. If it there were any difference at all between identical quantum entities, the particles would not be able to interfere with each other - the amplitudes of their wavefunctions would be describing different things, and wouldn't add up in the way we observe them doing. So saying the "original person" would be dead is physically not that coherent - the replacement person *is* the original, in every way that counts. People get really far out of whack with what physics permits on this matter because seductively-intuitive thought experiments lead them astray, when actually the parameters of those thought experiments aren't permitted by physical law. A certain well-known youtuber has a lot to answer for in that regard, in my personal opinion.
Dirdle See, but the problem I have with teleportation is that if a complete copy of you were to be assembled elsewhere in the universe (obviously this is impossible, as the video said, so we can't prove whether teleportation kills you or not) do YOU YOURSELF experience what that copy is doing? Are they made into a cohesive whole with your consciousness? And if you were to be destroyed, would the you you cease to continue to experience things or would your stream of thoughts seamlessly shift into the other one? In the eyes of others, there would be no issue. The copy of you would seem as though it was you, and it survived the teleportation procedure, but would the old version die? From your perspective, would you just die? I guess the whole thing depends on whether people have souls or something like that or not.
So you can't skip to infinitesimally accurate cloning. Surely you could do very accurate reconstructions though. For example a device which will ensure an equal number of atoms, each atom is in the same position within a billionth of a meter, with the same momentum within a billionth of a m/s and same temperature within a billionth of a degree. Large scale superpositions obviously are broken during measurement anyways, and small scale ones will be smaller than the accuracy of our device. But the clone will be close enough to the point where you could never tell the difference because a thousandth of a second after cloning both objects would have changed more than the differences between them. Then as calculus does, I doubt it would be too hard to prove that for any situation you could clone something accurate enough so measuring differences is impossible, but not so accurate as to divide by 0, or in this case break the no cloning principle. (For any delta there exists an epsilon such that function of epsilon is closer to the function of x than delta is to x. )
I see your point, but a billionth of a meter is about an order of magnitude off from the average diameter of an atom, and about 5 orders of magnitude off from the average diameter of a nucleus, so that would be like someone recreating an exact duplicate of the earth, and all of the people are within a about 10 feet of where they are on the original. randomly re-positioning every person on the planet 10 feet would right away kill about half who are now partially underground, and probably kill another half of whoever are left from falling from a random orientation. sure they might not die on impact, but there will be no chance of medical care for some time because of the happening globally. Imagine if you took every brick of a building and shifted it 10x the diameter of that brick's thickness. that building would nearly instantly collapse.
jjbpenguin That is a terribly faulty analogy. You are forgetting that molecules are 99.999% empty space, and they anyways move around much more than an order of magnitude simply through them vibrating from their own internal kinetic energy. You simply cannot ever make an analogy to explain something in the microscopic physical space, by explaining it in the macroscopic physical space, they dont run by the same rules. (rules as we know it)
the size i referenced included the average size of the entire atom, including all that space, the size of just the nucleus's diameter would be about 5 orders of magnitude higher. so while my analogy isn't perfect, your stated accuracy of billionth of a meter would not be sufficient. that was all I was saying. had you said trillionth of a meter, that would be small enough that I would have no reason to refute it.
martinshoosterman You could build a self-loading gun that takes carbon nano sand. Or a metal based rail gun ammo system, obvious mini nuclear power source req'd.
I'm up to try out the new format. Also at 8:45 how would you get multiple copies of the same object without cloning in the first place? It sounds like a chicken/egg contradiction.
But those protons and electrons aren't identical are they? They have different super-positions. The quarks that make up the protons are in constantly changing states making each one distinct.
I liked this video a lot the ad is placed right and it was worth to put my time watching it. great job I hope the up coming videos are as great as this one did
Yes, this was an excellent video. I am also genuinely interested in the question of whether the brain could involve quantum processes that you mentioned. My assumption had been a no, but I would be absolutely delighted to learn otherwise as it presents incredibly interesting depths to our ontology and epistemological questions for psychology. Also, just curious, do you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation or the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics?
I am also interested in the involvement (or lack thereof) of quantum mechanics in the brain. What is your reasoning behind your current stance? I am leaning towards the notion that it does have a role, but that is based on limited knowledge on the topic.
PrinceZohan mostly because I assumed that the most important mental processes happened at the circuitry level of neuron networks rather than at the subatomic level. Also, there was a discussion on Partially Examined Life on Heisenberg's arguing for the Copenhagen interpretation with a particle physicist and he generally dismissed it
There is no evidence of functional quantum coherence in the brain. A few papers have suggested that there are structures that could support coherent effects or entanglement, but the decoherence timescales on these systems is incredibly small relative to the duration of a synapse firing, so it seems unlikely that there's functional coherence. However, there is evidence of quantum coherent effects in photosynthesis, vision, and olfaction (smell), which is pretty fascinating on its own. I'm currently a PhD candidate in quantum biology, so this is rather my field.
Natasha Taylor Awesome! What luck running into you here. the Internet sure is a magical place. If it isn't too much trouble, I would love to know what publications you are referencing. And it's fine if they are academic journal articles; I have access to them if I go to the local college library. Also, I know you are still a candidate, but if you have any publications of your own, I'd enjoy reading those as well. (Sorry if my enthusiasm is inappropriate. I'm just not used to running into admitted academics on RUclips.)
I'll link them, but I do strongly advise they be taken with a truckload of salt. The main proponents for functional quantum mechanical effects in neural microtubules are Hameroff and Penrose (yes that Penrose): doi:10.1016/0378-4754(96)80476-9 Tegmark provided arguments against this: doi: 10.1016/S0020-0255(00)00051-7 Hameroff disagreed with this criticism: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901 And it's just been a bit of back and forth since then. If you're interested in an introductory text to quantum biology (note: assumed knowledge of quantum mechanics), then I can recommend Mohseni et al. _Quantum Effects in Biology_, and for plants in particular (no assumed QM knowledge) Blankenship _Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis_.
Love your videos. One suggestion. I’m old enough that my hearing isn’t as good as it once was. Background music, especially with higher frequencies and volume, makes it harder to understand what you’re saying. However, I really love the string bass you often use, and it doesn’t interfere with your message.
simply watching it doesn't work because most of these terms and examples are unknown to me so before I understand this I'dd have to research a lot more basic stuff..
even if you don't exactly know what those terms mean you can get a pretty good idea of what they represent in this context. But you have a point it took me a while to completely understand this video but that's probably because i'm 14 and i had no clue about quantum mechanics
For two objects to be "identical" in the strictest sense of the term, they would have to occupy the same space at the same time. That would violate the Pauli exclusion principle. Even if you relax your definition of "identical" to allow for different positions, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents you from knowing all the properties of any object simultaneously. So, you would never actually be able to know that two objects are identical in all respects.
I foretell of a mad scientist who invents a true cloning machine - cloning in the physical sense - but no one will believe him, as his results can never be verified.
***** So he is good enough at science to violate the laws of physics. But not good enough to demonstrate it to his peers. That is a pretty lop-sided skill-set.
> the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents you from knowing all the properties of any object simultaneously. That's true, but you don't need to know all the classical properties of an object to clone it; you just need to know its quantum state.
Gregory Bogosian Somehow I feel like quantum physics is missing a piece of the puzzle. It doesn't care about all the classical properties of a particle, as if it didn't matter. Yet we can come up with questions where it does matter. I yearn for a more encompassing field of physics.
A great video, while keeping it simple, staying informative. Great job man! I really enjoyed it. Please consider more quantum mechanics based videos. Thank you
I read the title as "No Clothing Theorem"... and up until 2:40 I was waiting for the naked part to come, then I realized I had misread the title. Leaving disappointed.
That would be funny if the matrix exists and we're trying to make sense of physics when that's not even the real physics. Then we wake up and everything is fucked up and doesn't make sense to us because the rules of everything fundamental that we know are different. o_O
Mr Slayz, LMFAO the most powerful known psychedelic substance is DMT, and it's not really "where we go" but more of "what gets opened up to us in terms of perception" since it's a conscious/subconscious journey, not a physical one.
You're dislexic like me :D BUT, the "No Clothing Theorem" maybe important too, to "people who want to live in a 'SciFi' future," I mean the weapons and clothing all get teleported too n a SciFi future, all at the same time. . . :D :)
if you're talking about cloning things that don't follow superposition it's because everything is made of particles that DO follow superposition... if u meant someting else then idk
This means that 99,999% of transformation are not possible, not only cloning ! For example, the transformation of "cutting in two" a potato which is in two state (cooked and not cooked, or A and B) T(A + B) = (A1 + B1) x (A2 + B2) T(A) + T(B) = A1xA2 + B1xB2 where A1 is the first half of the potato cooked, and B1 first half of the potato not cooked... and we can imply this superposition of cooked/Not cooked, by a similar process of Schrodinger's one (exploded/not exploded).
I forgot to say that, in fact, in this example T(A+B) # T(A) + T(B) xD So either Quantum Mechanics is false or cutting a potato in two is impossible (why not after all !) or the explanation does not hold :3
Be precise about this, what exactly do you imagine your "cutting" operation should do? Remember that combinations of particles are represented as products. So for a potato, |A> = |A1>*|A2>, where |A1> and |A2> are the two halves.
***** Yes, thank's for pointing out this. So my transformation (cutting) has as an argument a potato P which is in a superposition of two states : A : where the potato is cooked and B : where the potato is not cooked so : |P> = |A> + |B> and by cutting it, we get two halves which can be in both states (cooked or not) : |P1> = |A1> + |B1> |P2> = |A2> + |B2> and the output of the transformation T is : T(|P>) = |P1>*|P2> thus T(|A> + |B>) = (|A1> + |B1>)*(|A2> + |B2>)
I think that where your argument goes wrong is that you're assuming both that |P>=|A>+|B>=|A1>*|A2>+|B1>*|B2> And that |P>=|P1>*|P2>=(|A1>+|B1>)(|A2>+|B2>) = |A1>*|A2>+|B1>*|B2>+ |A1>*|B2>+|B1>*|A2>, and that your operation "T" is just a red herring. If you choose |P>=|A>+|B>=|A1>*|A2>+|B1>*|B2>, then it's actually impossible to represent |P> as a product |P1>*|P2> for some |P1> and |P2>.
that feeling when people think that Schrodingers Cat wasnt a joke, and that things can be in multiple states at once - when the fact is they cant - we just arent capable of knowing which state they are in until we measure them and determine which state they are in , so we have to make the assumption prior to measuring that they could be in either state and so must assume it could be both. My face when people will try to say I am wrong because they have a shirt with a picture of a cat that is alive and dead on it - and dont actually understand what I am saying.
sorry - youre wrong. schrodingers cat was a joke between two people smarter than both of us - who were both intelligent enough to know that 1 thing cannot be two different things at the same time, but also knew that we couldnt know which it was - without destroying it by measuring it - and thus calculations had to allow for it to be either at the same time. Enjoy your neat shirt tho, im sure a couple dumb blondes will LOL at it.
***** no - it doesnt. There are no particles or other things, features or etc - that can be in two places at one time - otherwise they would be two different things. It is literally just a fact that we cant know which place they are in, so we have to handle them in our math as a range of possibilities instead of a finite number/measurement.
readyrepairs I think you are mixed up between the uncertainty principle and three principle of superposition. The fact that a particle is in a superposition of two states doesn't mean that it's in two places at once. Read some more about what these things actually mean. It's actually pretty interesting.
Neat! I re-found your channel after rewatching the video you did with Hank Green, so youtube started suggesting you again. I loved the fact that you brought up (star trek!! :D) teleporters, because that's exactly where my brain was when I was watching the rest of the video.
I really love science, but the pace of this channel is so fast that one minute really is perfect. For such long videos they really should take it easier so the information can settle in a bit. The old videos were really simple to understand even after a few beers. This one is hard to follow even when you're sober. I watch these videos just to enjoy myself and sometimes to learn a little bit (although I already know most of the stuff that's mentioned on this channel up to a certain degree). I stopped this video after 5,5 minute.
Marcel I like the way you put that, it makes sense. I agree that the older videos were simply put (so to speak) so that a wider general audience would be able to understand.
***** I do understand, but the general pace is just too fast for a clip of this length. It's not just specifically this single subject at that point of the clip.
His older videos were commonly also about much simpler subjects. There's a limit to how much you can simplify a topic before it becomes _too_ dumbed down/incorrect.
Who would want a perfect clone anyway? All it would be able to do is to mimic what you do untill there is some sort of outside interaction like a friend tripping the clone (or you)
10-15 minutes videos is perfect, but rather shorter than longer, because you have topics that demands attention all the way through the video! Really liked it the length of this video, Keep going with that 😉
Hello everyone! I am back from a 2+year comment hiatus and excited to say hi! (my account wasn't linked with any google+ account, so I couldn't comment on RUclips from the MinutePhysics account for the last 2-3 years; google finally gave up on google+ enough that now I can comment on RUclips again!!)
goood!! btw will you continue uploading videos?
PD: your channel is awesome :)
WOOO coool !
welcome back!
Hello Mr. Min-phys, I cant remember your name but trust me its a warm welcome none the less.
i believe his name is Henry.
Heisenberg was stopped by the police. The officer asked "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg responds "No, but I knew EXACTLY where I was."
Iron_Spartan-137 The officer tells him that he was driving at 90 mph. Heisenberg responds angrily:"oh great! Now I'm lost!"
Great!
you guys made my day
The cop searches the car because of the odd behavior. The checks the trunk and shouts "You guys know there is a dead cat back here?" Schrodinger shouted from the back seat, "THERE IS NOW JERK"
+
i once interfered with myself and left a nice pattern on the wall
Lol....extremely funny
xD
good one
i was reading the comments while listening to the video
right when he said this line, i came across this.
creepy.
Seminal art? I guess if frescoes are a thing so can that be a thing too.
(Ten) MinutePhysics
Got to get that ad revenue.
I'd hate to see this explained in 1 minute
thought so too, but awesome vid!!
BM Piano Yeah most of the stuff on this channel is impossible to explain in a minute. Just find it funny that the whole idea of the channel has gone out the window
pleb - ist i mean if he wanted ad revenue he wouldve split the video into 5 separate 2 minute videos
Why are you putting a box of unstable gunpowder that may or may not explode at any moment through a cloning machine?
For science
Yes
A lot of things are in superpositions like the gunpowder
Because you really don’t care about your cloning machine, or you just got a new one so you’re trying to blow it up with two gunpowder explosions at once right after it cloned the original exploding gunpowder.
Makes me think if there were a cloning machine that everyone can afford, there will be youtubers doing video about it. "Cloning a hot metal knife cutting through spacetime" With shitty editing thumbnail and some arrows.
I am in a superposition of both liking these videos and really liking these videos.
I'm in a super position of not writing this comment and writing this co- Dang it, you just had to observe me, not I'm not cool. ):
me neither :v
If the phase of the wavefunctions are offsef by 1 Pi rad, their sum is cancelled out by destructive interference. So you no longer like the videos. Unless both WFs are in the same (or similar) phase
@@Rudxain wut?
This comment is art.@@huhneat1076
My cloning machine searches the universe for a perfect clone, and teleports it to the user.
Just because it doesn't remain a perfect clone doesn't mean it never was
@@Satheo05 clone a vase and drop one... Are they no longer clones?
So things aren't clones unless they occupy the same space?
HowStupidlyLongCanThisNameThingAllowMeToGo??? ???? Even objects change over time. The vase might lose some particles or get dustier than the other.
@@Satheo05 It could still lose some particles and be slightly different. Just because it is no longer a perfect copy it doesn't mean it never was.
Very mixed feelings in re to format length. Longer and more in depth is great. But I would hate to lose the shorter format that really made your brand. They both serve a purpose. Two channels is probably not a good solution, especially from a business perspective. Perhaps clearly mark each format, perhaps not just by name, (ten minute physics works), but by some distinctive visual clue. This works on other channels that have multiple formats. People can readily pick out the series they want. You can keep separate playlists for those checking out your back catalogue.
Great idea. Thumb up so he can read this
+
Or just post two videos. One cool style and one to somewhat satisfy RUclips and be longer
Or you could just look at the length of the video to determine if it is 1 min or 10. not trying to be rude but a 'distinctive visual clue' just seems a bit unnecessarily difficult and pointless
Thomas R. Jackson the way RUclips is set up, they force creators to have longer videos to stay relevant. It's out of the creators hands. They have to adapt to the situation is around them.
Noobs all you need to do is Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V
Noobs all you need to do is Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V Noobs all you need to do is Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V
Control or how it is prounced in german: *_Steuerung_*
copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste copypaste
IQ 3,000
IQ 3,000
IQ 3,000
Or an old pre windows method that still works on everything, Shift delete, Shift insert
I wouldn't mind a hourphysics video!
Ritwik Sharma apparently people would...
that is such a mean/racist comment
Go back to your hick country your racist hillbilly pleb
Yeah, hillbilly land
I don't see any rascism.
ngl fam, totally read "no clothing theorem"
bruh
Hu... me too
You actually made me realise it wasn't
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
LOL SAME
click bait!!!!! ahahahahahahaha
Object a = new Object();
Object b = a.clone();
Ha!!
or... just.. object b = a;
@@nyxa8734 Depending on the language, this (b=a) would make b only a reference to a, whereas b=a.clone() creates a new object.
Object a;
Object b;
memcpy(&b, &a, sizeof(Object));
Is it a deep clone?
// Compile in code chef, tutorialspoint or gcc
// Compilar con/Compile with: gcc -Wall -std=c99 -o clone clone.c
#include
#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE 1
typedef struct point {
int x,y,active;
} Point;
int main() {
Point one = {8,16,TRUE};
Point two = one;
Point *ptr = &one; //Change [&one] to [&two]
printf("Point one:
x: %d
y: %d
active: %d
Point two:
x: %d
y: %d
active: %d
",one.x,one.y,one.active,two.x,two.y,two.active);
if (&one == &two) puts("one and two are equal"); else puts("one and two are not equal"); //Always not equal
if (&one == ptr) puts("one and ptr are equal"); else puts("one and ptr are not equal"); //Depends on ptr address
if (&two == ptr) puts("two and ptr are equal"); else puts("two and ptr are not equal"); //Depends on ptr address
printf("Point one address: %p
Point two address:%p
",&one,&two);
return 0; }
//GCC Approved this
1:22 "The universe is a party pooper, and perfect cloning is impossible." So, the universe says: No cloning around!
*groan*
Master Therion *Laugh Track Plays*
Perfect reaction! 10/10! xD
Nice Antivist logo!
Gamerz The Box LOL
I was gonna make a joke about cloning, but someone might copy it.
Edit: Why did I think this was funny? Its legit a facebook level joke
ah dam i was gonna copy it
I see what you did there!
I was gonna make a joke about cloning, but someone might copy it.
I was going to make a. .. doh!
Cloning a joke is theoretically impossible. You see, jokes have several factors other than the joke itself that make it funny. If I were to just copy and paste your joke, the timing would be different, author would be different, and the amount of likes would probably be different too. You won't have to worry about someone cloning your joke, only re-posting it.
0:29 "There are a few too many atoms of carbon-14 in the new canvas." I loved that one! 😂
Well there's goes my only chance I get to a friend
FunkyPlayz makes me sad :(
bold of you to assume that you'd hang out with you.
*there
Damn dude... you good
@@simoneangeliquemaloney3990 naw
The long format is really good. CGP Grey +
krysman I noticed too! There should be a CGP Grey emoji
people that are interested in what you have to say most likely have an attention span that is
You mean >60s?
"people lost interest in anything longer than 10 seconds unless it's boxing match"
I watch these videos just to be reminded that I am dumb as hell and have no clue what he is talking about. But the topics are interesting!
real steel?
Vilestine try crash course physics! Everyone deserves their universe's rule book
10 minutes of Minute Physics, hell yeah!
I love this video style! It makes things so much more intuitive. I hope you continue uploading such videos
I've only studied physics through highschool but i've always been interested in the whole magic of it and this channel is the only place i can get my share of mind blowing physics pieces that are actually fun.
Keep up the great work. I absolutely love the videos ❤
And it didn't feel longer at all.
I really enjoy the longer format videos. Been watching for years. You can get in way more depth and i don't feel like it takes away what you were originally trying to do with the channel. Like you said, Minute Physics was meant to signify a video on the magnitude from 1 to 10 minutes
Love the longer videos!
I Agree, but longer videos means less frequent videos because of the time and effort but into them, so maybe some shorter videos wrinkled in with the longer ones?
You draw well ! And so your explainations are so cool and understandable 👌🏼
Thank you !
Really love this more in depth video :)
The God Emperor same here!
longer videos = more money for u + more time to learn(for us viewers)so... everybody wins!
No, not really... This video had no ad put by google therefore he made no money out of it. Of course, there are people who donate and he himself can promote some products, but the length of the video is not a factor for making more money.
@@MaoDev and the sad thing about youtubr comments is nobody ever replies. Hell he probably wont even see this comment...will you see this comment? The world will never know. I wish RUclips comments were more like reddit where you actually get replies decently fast
No, fuck this channel it fucking sux. He never explains anything well
@@lofianorak8013 He explained pretty well in this video, though.
I like how you used CGP Grey's Icon when talking about an ideal future.
Hi, something seems off about the proof in the video - at the start you said that there are 3 things needed for cloning:
1) the original object (O)
2) the materials that comprise the object (M)
3) cloning process (C)
But the proof only considers O and C (as a function of O), while it should be O, M and C (as a function of O and M).
Cloning shouldn't be C(O)=OxO but C(OxM)=OxO.
If O exists in superposition as O1+O2 then cloning would be C((O1+O2)xM)=(O1+O2)x(O1+O2).
We then need to examine the cloning process for O1 and O2, however the materials needed for cloning O1, O2 and O might be different.
Let's say M1 is the materials for cloning O1 and M2 is the materials for cloning O2, so the materials needed for cloning O=O1+O2 are M=M1+M2.
C(O1xM1)=O1xO1,C(O2xM2)=O2xO2
O1xO1+O2xO2+O1xO2+O2xO1=(O1+O2)x(O1+O2)=OxO=C(OxM)=C((O1+O2)x(M1+M2))=C(O1xM1)+C(O1xM2)+C(O2xM1)+C(O2xM2)=O1xO1+O2xO2+C(O1xM2)+C(O2xM1)
So the process could exist so long as O1xO2+O2xO1=C(O1xM2)+C(O2xM1). Consider for example the trivial solution where M=O and cloning is an empty action.
PS - great videos, learned a lot from them.
He didn't take C(O)....but took the hypothetical end product as a function of O
@@itsnotme7868 I'm not sure I understand you mate. If C is the cloning process as a function of O, then the end product would be C(O)=OxO.
And regardless as I've stated in my previous comment I think the proof is lacking M to truly prove anything meaningful.
Without M all that is proven is that there is no process that can take an object O and turn it into 2 of the same object OxO - which I would think is already covered by conservation of matter.
@Danamo999 Sorry, I'm a year out of context so I might be missing something obvious.
"C(O1xM2) is only defined if M2 is the materials to clone O1" - why would that be the case?
The only thing we know about the process C is that given an object O/O1/O2 and the materials needed to reproduce it M/M1/M2, the process results in 2 objects O/O1/O2 and under these conditions C would be cloning.
We know nothing about what process C does given an object O1 and the materials M2.
Imagine a trivial example where C is an empty action - it does absolutely nothing. And the materials M to reproduce an object O are the object itself, M=O.
Let's say O is a cat, O1 is a dead cat and O2 is a living cat, O=O1+O2. The materials to reproduce a cat O is another cat exactly like it M=O.
The materials to reproduce a dead cat is another dead cat just like it M1=O1, the materials to reproduce a living cat is a living cat just like it M2=O2.
You put a dead cat O1 in a box together with another dead cat M1=O1, then open the box and have 2 dead cats O1. You've successfully (though trivially) cloned a dead cat.
You put a dead cat O1 in a box together with a living cat M2=O2/=O1, then open the box and find a living cat O2 and a dead cat O1.
Is the process C of doing nothing to the objects inside perfectly defined? Yes.
Does it successfully clone an object given the right materials? Yes.
Must the materials M1 for producing a dead cat O1 be the same as the materials M2 for producing a living cat O2? No.
Will the process successfully clone an object given the wrong materials? No. But then again it's not supposed to.
math class: 2+2
you close your eyes
math class:
I know I am 3 years late but for cloning to be possible the cloning transformation should distribute. So,
C((O1+O2)×M) = C(O1×M + O2×M)
must be equal to
C(O1×M) + C(O2×M)
for cloning to be possible. But since
(O1+O2)×(O1+O2) is not equal to
O1×O1+O2×O2, cloning shouldn't be possible right?
I liked the CGP Grey reference.
glad i am not the only one to notice :)
7:34 Is that about some particular comment of Grey's or just about Grey in general?
It's a recurring theme in Grey and Brady Haran's Podcast, Hello Internet.
This is one of my favourite videos you've done!! A ton of clear and logical explanation that is also relatable. I'm so up for more like this. Thanks!!
So it IS feasibly possible for two things in the universe to be exactly the same, just not for us to make exact copies of something that there's only one of in existence. This brings to light an interesting concept concerning consciousness.
Suppose that the universe is spatially infinite. Also, suppose that the number of types of particles that exist in the universe is finite. On top of that, assume that there's only a certain number of ways to arrange those particles that complies with known physical law, and that those particles can only exist in a finite number of states. As such, if space is infinite, that would mean that, if you go far enough in any direction, you'll eventually run across an exact copy of the place you just left. So, if you left earth, then eventually you'd run across an exact replica of earth. Down to the people on it. Down to the arrangement of the neurons in those peoples' brains. Down to the properties of the sodium and potassium ions in those brains. And not only would there be one exact copy. If space were infinite, there would be an infinite number of exact copies.
Now, as far as we know of today, there is no mystical aspect of consciousness that determines its properties. You are you simply because your brain is arranged a certain way, and your neurons are firing in a particular pattern that is unique to you. But here's the catch - if there were to exist an exact copy of you, down to the position of the neurons and the arrangement of the neural activity, then which "you" would you be? Which head would you reside in? What would differentiate your mind from the mind of the other you? Assuming that they truly were an exact copy, then nothing at all would differentiate the two of you.
Now, if you two were to be in the same location and interacting with each other, then it could be determined which "you" was you, as the very act of interacting would break the symmetry. The other "you" would respond to your gestures, therefore altering his neural state in a way that's unique from yours. But, if the two of you were to forever remain isolated in your little bubbles, then you could conceivably reside in both heads at once. And, if there's an infinite number of "you's" out there, then you'd reside in all of their heads at once. And, since they'd all be exact copies, then they'd all be experiencing and doing the same thing simultaneously. So there wouldn't be any way for you to differentiate between the copies.
In short, your mind could be simultaneously existing in an infinite number of locations at once. You simply don't know because each location is an exact copy of the other, so you get the exact same sensory input and experience the exact same responses to that input at every location.
What's more, let's assume that every copy of you suddenly became curious and said "I want to find this supposed replica-world." Afterwards, they all set out in their collective high-tech spacecraft in a random direction, intent on traveling until they run across the replica-earth. Now, let's say that after an arbitrarily long amount of time (assuming that you could somehow do it before the universe suffered heat death) you finally run across this replica world. Here's the kicker. The "you" of this world would've left long ago, at the exact moment YOU decided to leave, in search of this mysterious "replica-world" he thought of. That means that, from the perspective of the people that inhabit that world, "you" set off in one direction, bound for a replica-world, but instead simply returned to your own world, coming from the opposite direction. From their perspective, you simply would've circled the entire universe, then come back around. And the crazy thing is that, from your perspective, this would be a perfectly reasonable explanation as well, as you'd never run in to any copy of you, and there would be no way of differentiating the earth you find from the earth you left behind. Similarly, a copy of you would show up on the earth you left, which the people on that world would assume was you after having circled the entire universe. So is there really any difference between a universe with an infinite number of "you"s and "earth"s, and a universe that curves in on itself?
Ethan d
Interesting to read :) seriously, but the assumption that "space is infinite" is not correct.
so there is no replica of earth to be found, because the universe is really TINY! to have such exact replica !!
Zaid Al-Omari He did say "suppose"
Raffael Davila
excuse me i am not native english speaker, I thought "suppose" means that he is trying to use the logical argument "Prove by Contradiction". so i thought he tried to make an assumption then prove its true.
Quantum Woo
yes thats why I disagreed.
holy shit that was really interesting to read... kind of mind-bending
for some reason I readed 'the no cleaning' theorem and came here expecting a excuse to give to my mom
quantum bracket you sound a little to young to grasp the concept of quantum physics,
@@Satheo05 Yes indeed, how old? The answer is it doesn't matter as long as you can understand it.
@@Satheo05 Yeah, I know. I answered for him.
@@Satheo05 lol, fine
Lol
I like the longer format. Please do more of them.
A 10 minute video! What is this? Christmas?
*Looks at Calender*
*Feels dumb*
*Looks at the length*
It's just over 10 minutes so they make more money.
They haven't put any mid roll adds though, so they aren't actually making more money
I LOVE THE SHERLOCK REFERENCE. YOU ARE BECOME THE NEW EMPEROR OF TUMBLR. ALL HAIL EMMA L!
10 minutes that I can only understand 10 seconds
My brain just exploded plus not exploded = exploded² + not exploded² = A²+2AB+B²
Mohd Asyraf or (A+B)^2
Agreed.
Mohd Asyraf I don't know why I'm pretending to understand quantum mechanics or physics or whatever
Haha awesome too awesome answer
actually it should be (exploded +not exploded)^2=A^2+2AB+B^2 dumb ass learn some algebra
This just turned into one of my favorite videos ever. It's a piece of art that deserves to be trascendental.
and even if this cloning was possible, one second later, both the clone and the original would be exposed to different stimuli, this would make them diverge.
3Blue1Brown is very underrated
I am happy as long as we can still teleport stuff.
Willdabeast we can’t teleport. There was a whole theory but basically when something disappeared from a place, the sound waves would move way too fast and I would basically make a really loud sound that would make everyone around deaf (something like that)
how about teleporting bread ?
EndranExit i have no idea
we can teleport via quantum entanglement
but who wants to teleport the possibility of a dead cat?
We can teleport, a while back they teleported particles from I think England to France instantaneously through quantum entanglement, but if we were to teleport humans we would have to rip away every atom from our bodies and entangle it, and then reconstruct our bodies atom by atom, and then there’s the question of even if all the atoms are the same, is it still us? Is consciousness a simple matter of atoms? Or something we don’t yet understand?
Extremely clear and positive! Very good explanation of concepts with very simple mathematical derivations. It leaves several points worth discussing further, but that might be a debate for another day.
Thanks a lot for this video and for your channel!
u know something is confusing when u hear quantum.
nuka cola quantum
When your username is Quantum but everything involving quantum confuses you.
@@Quantum-yz9fc lmao
I definetly vote for the LONGER videos!!!
The long format is really good, the short ones seemed rushed anyways
OMG ! I just loved how creatively you explained one of the most confusing things ever and made it look so look!! looking forward for more such videos
What if the act of cloning is equivalent to an act of observation, which causes the superposition/wave function to collapse to a single state?
You can't just leave out or reduce information and still call it a perfect copy
But then both the original and the copy would have their superposition collapsed so... how exactly would that not be a perfect copy still? I also fail to see how any remotely real cloning apparatus could possibly NOT act as an observation and therefor throw out quantum mechanics in its entirety, rendering this whole equation mood, no?
I think what the Observer Effect describes is that the act of observation will alter the state of the subject, so even though wave function collapses, the original object will experience change so it will not be a perfect copy... I could be wrong but I think using act of observation will result in an "Ok clone" mentioned in the video
Chauncey 钟离
Hm. If you were to sort of "scan" the object and then clone it, I'm pretty sure you'd get a perfect copy. Now... I'll grant you though, by scanning the object I guess you did change it and so it's not really the actual original anymore, right? Like, by scanning the box we already determined whether or not the cat is alive. So while the original box had an "undead" cat, the scanned original has either or. And so does the clone, making it a perfect copy of the new original. But yea, I guess we did change the original first in this case so I suppose in that way it's not a perfect copy :/
Oh well, I'm just thinking out loud anyway, I don't actually understand this stuff :D
the act of cloning IS an act of observation, for a machine to make a copy of whatever is in a box, it needs to know what is in the box.
you can only get exploded gunpowder or unexploded gunpowder out of the machine, because only A or B went IN to the machine, we just didnt know what went into it.
We would get exactly whatever went in, but it would be a copy of the observed particles.
I 100% want more videos like this.
Henry has discovered the RUclips algorithm.
DrBuffaloBalls hahahahahah
"more perfecter"
-Henry Reich
Love the longer format (and the sly CGPGrey reference)!
Love this in depth explanation man definitely keeping this as a reference for the future
Psh, you just need a Heisenberg compensator
Silly Star Trek
If only it where that easy
From my hero, Dr. Max Tagmark: "The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere." Cloning occurs naturally in a sufficiently large universe. Late estimate is the universe is a minimum of 96 Billion Light Years (9.08230125367757E+26 Meters) is diameter, so the chance that is about of >1000 of everyone in this universe is high.
Wow, a 10-min video?! It is like it's Christmas again!
Finally a minute physic video where I knew the concept before the video, now I can die in peace.
Also 10-15 min video > short video and
Soo, if a teleporter breaks my atoms down and reassembles me it actually will still be my own conscious self on the destination, and not just a clone with the exact same personality?
Pincsi01
Pfft, wow, you cut me deep.
Dual Wield We still don't know if consciousness is purely the result of the matter that makes us up and it's unique arrangement. It could be something inconceivable as nature has had 4.5 billion years to shape a being as advanced as us. We, as a bunch of atoms, understand that we are atoms and can grasp amazing concepts like our place and purpose in the universe. Then again, what is consciousness and does it really exist. How can you know if you have the awareness that you are having your own thoughts and are not just programmed or destined based on your biochemistry to do what you do? These are perplexing questions I hope we can shed some light on in the coming century, especially with the arrival of artificial intelligence that pass the Turing Test with flying colors. Could we reach the point where beings we create in simulation actually perceive their world in the same way as we do. Is it ethical to create a conscious creature to serve our will? It would be like slavery. Or we couldn't really tell if the robots actually 'felt' anything on a emotional level. Mind-boggling stuff, truly.
of course it's not "you" because "you" exist right NOW
now "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this
BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this
BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this
BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this
BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this
BAM "you" are something newer, and by the time "you" finish reading this
Point being - fear of teleportation, and by extension death itself, is completely silly. The idea of a constant identity and "self" is illusory in the first place, "you" die all the time.
It's a bit like the thought that you could potentially not exist in time. You could be frozen in an instant, with only the feelings you presently have suggesting that there was something before. Of course, each instant you remember tells you that at that moment it was not the case, but it wouldn't even have to exist. It's a bit odd.
It depends on what you consider "you." If the most fundamental thing that makes you "you" is your conscientiousness, then you'd have to find out if the most fundamental thing that makes you conscientious is chemical bonds and neurons firing in your brain. If that's the case, teleportation is possible because there is no physical law preventing an advance in technology that can measure chemical bonds and neurons. If the most fundamental thing that makes up conscientiousness is at the quantum level of the subatomic particles that make up your brain, then teleportation of exactly "you" is not possible because the act of measuring at the quantum level changes the particle or energy level of the particle being measured. At that point, you have to ask yourself, am I really going to change THAT much by teleporting? Right now, no one can be sure because science has not advanced that far.
This video is brilliant!
perfect illustrations to get insights on eigenvalues and eiegenstates in ket notation 👌
Longer videos are the way to go!!!
"I'm trying a new format" a.k.a. RUclips formula forcing content creators to make a video 10 minutes long.
"minute" physics
jkjk this is WAY better
Yes to 10-minute videos. I like to get in-depth and have more examples.
TIL: I am a superposition of knowing what the hell you’re talking about and not knowing what the hell you’re talking about.
minute physics was about taking something complex and making it bite sized and easy to understand. 10 minutes of super positions, quantum mechanics, uncertainty principles etc might just be too much
something as complex as quantum mechanics explained in 10 minutes is still quite succinct. 10 minutes is still quite bite sized for a dish like physics.
Sir Big Balls Are you kdding me this was extremely simple to understand, it was as dumbed down as possible.
Really appreciate your using Dirac notation and using actual mathematical theorems in the video :) Makes it more accurate while still accessible.
You skipped some logic: Where in the world did the formula at 5:03 - 5:12 come from? The whole proof hinges on contradicting that formula, but you never showed where it came from.
I get the sense that it's linked to point number 2, but still, the connection isn't clear at all.
Also, these formulas exclude not only the extra material to be formed into the clone from their formulation, but the outside materials that entropy would need to be released into in order for cloning to take place. Yes, the formulas would become much more complicated, but if they were properly formulated to include all of the variables and proper interactions, then I suspect that the contradiction would not appear.
Furthermore, this contradiction is entirely dependent on the Copenhagen interpretation being true (superpositions and uncertainty being legitimate phenomena rather than the abstract assumptions that they are), which still is not proven to be correct. It is only assumed that just because things are weird that the weirdest interpretation must be the correct one, but thankfully there are plenty of quantum scientist who don't agree.
The equation at 5:03 - 5:12 is just applying the definition of cloning, slightly abbreviated for space. It should really be Clone((|E>+|U>)x|stuff>) = (|E>+|U>)x(|E>+|U>). The Clone operation takes the |stuff> and makes it a copy of the first state.
Also, he doesn't assume the Copenhagen Interpretation. All interpretations of quantum physics involve superpositions, because all models that correctly describe experimental results involve superpositions existing in all but a small number of bases. In fact, pretty much all interpretations *except* the Copenhagen Interpretation assume that only linear, unitary operations can be done on states. CI allows the additional operation of "measurement", which doesn't actually correspond with a self-consistent quantum physical process, so it's a bit of a deus ex machina. That's why I don't like CI, but it's completely unrelated to the proof here.
It's a tad badly explained, you're right. Here's whats happening: Let's say |E> means "exploded" and |N> means "not exploded".
You start with one "thing" in the state |E>+|N>, meaning it's the gunpowder in a superposition. Now you create a second "thing", meaning now it's two "things" represented by the (tensor)-product of the two things:
|Thing1> x |Thing2> = (|E>+|N>)x(|E>+|N>)
The cloning operation is meant to take one "thing" and make two things out of it, whereas the two things as identical:
Clone(|Thing1>) = |Thing1> x |Thing2>
It would be much better if Henry stuck to his own notation because he already introduced the "Raw-materials"... Why not still use them. So the formula should look like
Before: |Thing1>x|Raw>
Then cloning: Clone( |Thing1> x |Raw> ) = |Thing1> x |Thing2>
Then the distribution would be slightly more ugly, but it still works. First we separate the |Thing1>-State into it's components:
|Thing1> x |Raw> = |E> x |Raw> + |N> x |Raw>
(Note that this only is possible if the two are not entangled!). Then apply cloning to it, and distribute it:
Clone( |E> x |Raw> + |N> x |Raw> ) = Clone(|E> x |Raw>) + Clone(|N> x |Raw>) = |E>x|E> + |N>x|N>
Unfortunately Henry sometimes overlooks these details that can really be confusing, esp. for folks that see the stuff for the first time. He really needs to stick to his own notations and explain them better.
Hope that helps :)
+hauslerful - Thanks. I understand where that formula came from now, but it is not correct as it is ignoring a great number of variables.
You also need to include the external materials that will need to be effected in order for cloning to take place. Because of conservation laws, changes to one thing must effect something else, and so the difference between the raw materials and the cloned object it will be turned into will be released into the surrounding matter as entropy.
The formula should really be
Clone( |thing> x |raw> x |external> ) = |thing> x |thing> x |externalWithEntropy>
Or something similar. Given the correct formulation, the difference between |external> and |externalWithEntropy> would account for the "extra variables" (5:43) that result in the supposed contradiction.
In the video, it would have made more sense if he had written the bottom formula as |E> x |E> + |N> x |N> + Entropy, where we can deduce that Entropy = |E> x |N> + |N> x |E>
Clearly it isn't mathematically sound, but symbolically it gets the point across.
+Niel G. Dickson - The pilot-wave interpretation does not include superpositions. In fact, many sensible interpretations exclude superpositions and other nondeterminism explicitly. I for one find nondeterminism to be nonsensical.
Daim you explain such complex topic so easy to follow and get the gist of
Wait so are you saying that teleportation wouldn't be the same as killing/deconstructing a person in place A and then reassemble that persons copy in place B? The copy would continue living as if nothing happened and everything went how it was supposed to but the original person would be "dead"?
Krosly mind blowing
Krosly this is exactly why many people do not like the idea of teleportation. Wait But Why wrote a really good article about this
Krosly but that would be teleporting, or already knowing what you have to be cloned in the first place.
Krosly: With a quantum state, it's meaningless to talk about "the original" and "the replacement" (as established in this video, copying is generally impossible, but teleporting is not, so we'll avoid talking about a 'copy'). This can be shown by e.g. interferometer-type experiments, where particles end up destructively or constructively interfering with each other. If it there were any difference at all between identical quantum entities, the particles would not be able to interfere with each other - the amplitudes of their wavefunctions would be describing different things, and wouldn't add up in the way we observe them doing. So saying the "original person" would be dead is physically not that coherent - the replacement person *is* the original, in every way that counts.
People get really far out of whack with what physics permits on this matter because seductively-intuitive thought experiments lead them astray, when actually the parameters of those thought experiments aren't permitted by physical law. A certain well-known youtuber has a lot to answer for in that regard, in my personal opinion.
Dirdle See, but the problem I have with teleportation is that if a complete copy of you were to be assembled elsewhere in the universe (obviously this is impossible, as the video said, so we can't prove whether teleportation kills you or not) do YOU YOURSELF experience what that copy is doing? Are they made into a cohesive whole with your consciousness? And if you were to be destroyed, would the you you cease to continue to experience things or would your stream of thoughts seamlessly shift into the other one? In the eyes of others, there would be no issue. The copy of you would seem as though it was you, and it survived the teleportation procedure, but would the old version die? From your perspective, would you just die? I guess the whole thing depends on whether people have souls or something like that or not.
So you can't skip to infinitesimally accurate cloning. Surely you could do very accurate reconstructions though. For example a device which will ensure an equal number of atoms, each atom is in the same position within a billionth of a meter, with the same momentum within a billionth of a m/s and same temperature within a billionth of a degree.
Large scale superpositions obviously are broken during measurement anyways, and small scale ones will be smaller than the accuracy of our device. But the clone will be close enough to the point where you could never tell the difference because a thousandth of a second after cloning both objects would have changed more than the differences between them.
Then as calculus does, I doubt it would be too hard to prove that for any situation you could clone something accurate enough so measuring differences is impossible, but not so accurate as to divide by 0, or in this case break the no cloning principle.
(For any delta there exists an epsilon such that function of epsilon is closer to the function of x than delta is to x. )
Just realised you kind of covered this in the 2nd half of the video, whoops.
I see your point, but a billionth of a meter is about an order of magnitude off from the average diameter of an atom, and about 5 orders of magnitude off from the average diameter of a nucleus, so that would be like someone recreating an exact duplicate of the earth, and all of the people are within a about 10 feet of where they are on the original. randomly re-positioning every person on the planet 10 feet would right away kill about half who are now partially underground, and probably kill another half of whoever are left from falling from a random orientation. sure they might not die on impact, but there will be no chance of medical care for some time because of the happening globally. Imagine if you took every brick of a building and shifted it 10x the diameter of that brick's thickness. that building would nearly instantly collapse.
jjbpenguin That is a terribly faulty analogy. You are forgetting that molecules are 99.999% empty space, and they anyways move around much more than an order of magnitude simply through them vibrating from their own internal kinetic energy.
You simply cannot ever make an analogy to explain something in the microscopic physical space, by explaining it in the macroscopic physical space, they dont run by the same rules. (rules as we know it)
the size i referenced included the average size of the entire atom, including all that space, the size of just the nucleus's diameter would be about 5 orders of magnitude higher.
so while my analogy isn't perfect, your stated accuracy of billionth of a meter would not be sufficient. that was all I was saying. had you said trillionth of a meter, that would be small enough that I would have no reason to refute it.
martinshoosterman
You could build a self-loading gun that takes carbon nano sand.
Or a metal based rail gun ammo system, obvious mini nuclear power source req'd.
I'm up to try out the new format.
Also at 8:45 how would you get multiple copies of the same object without cloning in the first place? It sounds like a chicken/egg contradiction.
Well 3 hydrogen atoms are the same so on a subatomic level they are correct.
***** There is not one of every atomic particles 5 hydrogen are the same 1 proton 1 electron
But those protons and electrons aren't identical are they? They have different super-positions. The quarks that make up the protons are in constantly changing states making each one distinct.
Alverant that's exactly what it is.
***** All of those particle can achieve the same thing the only reason they have different super-positions is external not internal. (Right?)
I liked this video a lot the ad is placed right and it was worth to put my time watching it. great job I hope the up coming videos are as great as this one did
So i thought the title was "No Clothing" but this is way more interesting.
Yes, this was an excellent video. I am also genuinely interested in the question of whether the brain could involve quantum processes that you mentioned. My assumption had been a no, but I would be absolutely delighted to learn otherwise as it presents incredibly interesting depths to our ontology and epistemological questions for psychology.
Also, just curious, do you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation or the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics?
I am also interested in the involvement (or lack thereof) of quantum mechanics in the brain. What is your reasoning behind your current stance? I am leaning towards the notion that it does have a role, but that is based on limited knowledge on the topic.
PrinceZohan mostly because I assumed that the most important mental processes happened at the circuitry level of neuron networks rather than at the subatomic level. Also, there was a discussion on Partially Examined Life on Heisenberg's arguing for the Copenhagen interpretation with a particle physicist and he generally dismissed it
There is no evidence of functional quantum coherence in the brain. A few papers have suggested that there are structures that could support coherent effects or entanglement, but the decoherence timescales on these systems is incredibly small relative to the duration of a synapse firing, so it seems unlikely that there's functional coherence.
However, there is evidence of quantum coherent effects in photosynthesis, vision, and olfaction (smell), which is pretty fascinating on its own. I'm currently a PhD candidate in quantum biology, so this is rather my field.
Natasha Taylor Awesome! What luck running into you here. the Internet sure is a magical place.
If it isn't too much trouble, I would love to know what publications you are referencing. And it's fine if they are academic journal articles; I have access to them if I go to the local college library.
Also, I know you are still a candidate, but if you have any publications of your own, I'd enjoy reading those as well.
(Sorry if my enthusiasm is inappropriate. I'm just not used to running into admitted academics on RUclips.)
I'll link them, but I do strongly advise they be taken with a truckload of salt. The main proponents for functional quantum mechanical effects in neural microtubules are Hameroff and Penrose (yes that Penrose):
doi:10.1016/0378-4754(96)80476-9
Tegmark provided arguments against this:
doi: 10.1016/S0020-0255(00)00051-7
Hameroff disagreed with this criticism:
10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901
And it's just been a bit of back and forth since then. If you're interested in an introductory text to quantum biology (note: assumed knowledge of quantum mechanics), then I can recommend Mohseni et al. _Quantum Effects in Biology_, and for plants in particular (no assumed QM knowledge) Blankenship _Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis_.
I'm all for longer videos!
Love your videos. One suggestion. I’m old enough that my hearing isn’t as good as it once was. Background music, especially with higher frequencies and volume, makes it harder to understand what you’re saying. However, I really love the string bass you often use, and it doesn’t interfere with your message.
MinutePhysics is becoming HourPhysics.
Only to hit the 10 min mark for that SWEET AD REVENUE BABY!
Schmoorp Willakers i thought that was only with the old youtube? Did they bring it back? Was it never gone?
They brought it back i think
more like 10MinutesPhysics
Am I the only one who likes to pretend that I understand what these kinds of video are really about?
jkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk i laughed
i don't pretend you dingler tingler
nope.
simply watching it doesn't work because most of these terms and examples are unknown to me so before I understand this I'dd have to research a lot more basic stuff..
even if you don't exactly know what those terms mean you can get a pretty good idea of what they represent in this context. But you have a point it took me a while to completely understand this video but that's probably because i'm 14 and i had no clue about quantum mechanics
For two objects to be "identical" in the strictest sense of the term, they would have to occupy the same space at the same time. That would violate the Pauli exclusion principle. Even if you relax your definition of "identical" to allow for different positions, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents you from knowing all the properties of any object simultaneously. So, you would never actually be able to know that two objects are identical in all respects.
I foretell of a mad scientist who invents a true cloning machine - cloning in the physical sense - but no one will believe him, as his results can never be verified.
***** So he is good enough at science to violate the laws of physics. But not good enough to demonstrate it to his peers. That is a pretty lop-sided skill-set.
> the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents you from knowing all the properties of any object simultaneously.
That's true, but you don't need to know all the classical properties of an object to clone it; you just need to know its quantum state.
But would you be able to verify that two objects are clones of each other without knowing all of their classical properties?
Gregory Bogosian
Somehow I feel like quantum physics is missing a piece of the puzzle.
It doesn't care about all the classical properties of a particle, as if it didn't matter. Yet we can come up with questions where it does matter.
I yearn for a more encompassing field of physics.
A great video, while keeping it simple, staying informative. Great job man! I really enjoyed it. Please consider more quantum mechanics based videos. Thank you
"simple" :)
@@freblox812it is simple lol
I read the title as "No Clothing Theorem"... and up until 2:40 I was waiting for the naked part to come, then I realized I had misread the title. Leaving disappointed.
That would be funny if the matrix exists and we're trying to make sense of physics when that's not even the real physics. Then we wake up and everything is fucked up and doesn't make sense to us because the rules of everything fundamental that we know are different. o_O
Aidan Maley I've thought of that before too
You might be interesting in reading about cartesian or academic skepticism.
That why pragmatism is the best approach to science. Who cares about the metaphysics, just do the thing.
what if gravity pushed you away instead of pulling you
Mr Slayz, LMFAO the most powerful known psychedelic substance is DMT, and it's not really "where we go" but more of "what gets opened up to us in terms of perception" since it's a conscious/subconscious journey, not a physical one.
Love this format. Felt a lot like 3Blue1Brown, who is great to watch IMO.
whenever I watch one of these I always feel like I need to be taking notes.
I really liked the longer form. If it isn't too much work, go for it.
Why I've read the title as "No Clothing Theorem"?
The reason why is because our brains really only read the first and last letters of words and skim past the middles :P
Lmao
You nailed it! LOL!
You're dislexic like me :D BUT, the "No Clothing Theorem" maybe important too, to "people who want to live in a 'SciFi' future," I mean the weapons and clothing all get teleported too n a SciFi future, all at the same time. . . :D :)
me too!
Why wouldn't there be no non-linear transformations ?
double negative
Triple
...I have no idea what you were trying to say.
I don't know why but he seem to say that in his point 3 ... go google if your smart enought to learn more ^^
if you're talking about cloning things that don't follow superposition it's because everything is made of particles that DO follow superposition... if u meant someting else then idk
I really appreciate the way of explanation on this channel. Got to learn a lot from here.. thanks!
Welcome to our new channel, TenMinutePhysics!
This means that 99,999% of transformation are not possible, not only cloning !
For example, the transformation of "cutting in two" a potato which is in two state (cooked and not cooked, or A and B)
T(A + B) = (A1 + B1) x (A2 + B2)
T(A) + T(B) = A1xA2 + B1xB2
where A1 is the first half of the potato cooked, and B1 first half of the potato not cooked...
and we can imply this superposition of cooked/Not cooked, by a similar process of Schrodinger's one (exploded/not exploded).
I forgot to say that, in fact, in this example T(A+B) # T(A) + T(B) xD
So either Quantum Mechanics is false
or cutting a potato in two is impossible (why not after all !)
or the explanation does not hold :3
Be precise about this, what exactly do you imagine your "cutting" operation should do? Remember that combinations of particles are represented as products. So for a potato, |A> = |A1>*|A2>, where |A1> and |A2> are the two halves.
*****
Yes, thank's for pointing out this.
So my transformation (cutting) has as an argument a potato P which is in a superposition of two states :
A : where the potato is cooked
and
B : where the potato is not cooked
so :
|P> = |A> + |B>
and by cutting it, we get two halves which can be in both states (cooked or not) :
|P1> = |A1> + |B1>
|P2> = |A2> + |B2>
and the output of the transformation T is :
T(|P>) = |P1>*|P2>
thus
T(|A> + |B>) = (|A1> + |B1>)*(|A2> + |B2>)
According to _the copenhagen interpretation_*
I think that where your argument goes wrong is that you're assuming both that |P>=|A>+|B>=|A1>*|A2>+|B1>*|B2>
And that |P>=|P1>*|P2>=(|A1>+|B1>)(|A2>+|B2>) = |A1>*|A2>+|B1>*|B2>+ |A1>*|B2>+|B1>*|A2>, and that your operation "T" is just a red herring.
If you choose |P>=|A>+|B>=|A1>*|A2>+|B1>*|B2>, then it's actually impossible to represent |P> as a product |P1>*|P2> for some |P1> and |P2>.
that feeling when people think that Schrodingers Cat wasnt a joke, and that things can be in multiple states at once - when the fact is they cant - we just arent capable of knowing which state they are in until we measure them and determine which state they are in , so we have to make the assumption prior to measuring that they could be in either state and so must assume it could be both.
My face when people will try to say I am wrong because they have a shirt with a picture of a cat that is alive and dead on it - and dont actually understand what I am saying.
readyrepairs well, yes and no. it's not exactly a joke because it does happen to elementary particles, just not macroscopic objects like cats.
sorry - youre wrong. schrodingers cat was a joke between two people smarter than both of us - who were both intelligent enough to know that 1 thing cannot be two different things at the same time, but also knew that we couldnt know which it was - without destroying it by measuring it - and thus calculations had to allow for it to be either at the same time. Enjoy your neat shirt tho, im sure a couple dumb blondes will LOL at it.
***** no - it doesnt. There are no particles or other things, features or etc - that can be in two places at one time - otherwise they would be two different things. It is literally just a fact that we cant know which place they are in, so we have to handle them in our math as a range of possibilities instead of a finite number/measurement.
readyrepairs I think you are mixed up between the uncertainty principle and three principle of superposition. The fact that a particle is in a superposition of two states doesn't mean that it's in two places at once. Read some more about what these things actually mean. It's actually pretty interesting.
Schrödinger's cat may have been a joke but superposition is a real thing
Neat! I re-found your channel after rewatching the video you did with Hank Green, so youtube started suggesting you again. I loved the fact that you brought up (star trek!! :D) teleporters, because that's exactly where my brain was when I was watching the rest of the video.
im not afraid to admit that this went over my head... maybe it's because i havent had coffee yet. lol
I really love science, but the pace of this channel is so fast that one minute really is perfect. For such long videos they really should take it easier so the information can settle in a bit.
The old videos were really simple to understand even after a few beers. This one is hard to follow even when you're sober.
I watch these videos just to enjoy myself and sometimes to learn a little bit (although I already know most of the stuff that's mentioned on this channel up to a certain degree). I stopped this video after 5,5 minute.
Marcel I like the way you put that, it makes sense. I agree that the older videos were simply put (so to speak) so that a wider general audience would be able to understand.
What, you don't understand how to multiply something that isn't a number by something else that isn't a number?
***** I do understand, but the general pace is just too fast for a clip of this length. It's not just specifically this single subject at that point of the clip.
His older videos were commonly also about much simpler subjects. There's a limit to how much you can simplify a topic before it becomes _too_ dumbed down/incorrect.
9:26rip stickman-clone pixelated to death.
more videos like this! More detail and more math!
Why am I here? It’s midnight and I’m in architecture.
CGP Grey will feel vindicated.
Lol I missread
"No ""Clothing"" "
xD
Andreas S. Hoho thats actualy funny
Andreas S. I saw no cleaning
That's what I thought it was too lol.
Who would want a perfect clone anyway? All it would be able to do is to mimic what you do untill there is some sort of outside interaction like a friend tripping the clone (or you)
It doesn't need to be a living being
@Felipe Correia Borges yes, but while I don't necessarily want a perfect clone of me, a perfect clone of my gadgets are certainly convenient
I prefer this one much more. Really good!
No one:
Minute Physics: Quantum Wrongics
I was gonna make a joke about cloning, but someone might copy it.
I was gonna make a joke about cloning, but someone might copy it.
+Blox117 I was gonna make a joke about cloning, but someone might copy it.
I was gonna make a coke about ploning, but someone might jocy it.
10-15 minutes videos is perfect, but rather shorter than longer, because you have topics that demands attention all the way through the video! Really liked it the length of this video, Keep going with that 😉
Yes! three blue one brown! yes! Fucking love him!