What I'd like to know is what happens to the particle after it hits the wall? Does it disintegrate fully? Partial disintegration? Changes it's form? Combines with particles on the wall to create different particles? Absorbed into the material whilst still containing it's original form? I understand where the particle originates at the start of the experiment, and what happens as it comes across variables affecting it's particle attributes giving rise to probabilities (the reactions will depend on it's inherent properties). But what happens to the particle afterwards? Probabilities arise between start and finish. Duality exists that's for sure, it's one of the particles inherent properties. But singularity comes into play at the begining and at the end. Singularity may also arise again between start and finish if a variable brings it back to it's original inherent characteristic. There has to be a balance. In other words duality gives rise to singularites which gives rise to duality, a continuous chain reaction and between duality and singularity or vise versa. Probabilities arise due to variables affecting the paricles inherent characteristics. There will always be many probalities but in the end it will come down to two main probabilities. Which probabilty that would be chosen would be determined by the circumstances and basic inherient characteristic (predetermined) of that particle. In short Quantum Mechanics cannot exist without Relativity and vise versa... and another question do all photons contain ALL the same inherent properties? I don't think so, because if they were all the same then duality wouldn't arise but they ALL must have the basic fundamental properties to create the basis of that particular type of particle which will cause singularity to arise. Wave function collapses because duality breaks down into singularity... We don't need a double slit experiment to show us because it's happening all around us... Predetermisim or Determinism? this last question leads to the thought that there must be another factor at play... that factor must be what binds the two together and keeps it balanced which goes back to what, how, where, when and why that particle was created?... (and who?)
(Assume i'm telling the truth even if not it will answer the questions as hypothesis)Van Hove singularities are described especially in the research of Graphene Moire lattice honeycombs...and would be thousands in a small space in a "complex wave field" which has now been rendered fully but its not published or known yet!!, energy states of quanta on a physical wave matter field absolutley have a certainty of life span due to the absorbancy of the boundaries of the wave field they sit on/ or the absorbancy of the material they hit + (the photoelectric effect is a change of surface energy state material electron reflection) etc. but all of this above is, and all other QM science mainly optical photometry and the study of quanta puzzles because they can't see the primary wave field(actually you can faintly see it within noise fields but hey lets not be tooo observant). An invisble (transparent/ dark)and physical field which does consolidate classical and quantum "effects" and effects they are of "optics" however quanta and wave field is a duo not duality of state change of one thing changing becuase it transits on a wave surface boundary as an energy packet measured at a vertex point like a car on a road is not a duality but one electron or photon are usually a continuos stream unless they are in atomic equilibrium energy state the minimum energy state a particle is termed as being. Who?. A supreme intelligence because this field had to come before any quanta could go anywhere in the universe so now the fiction>: a random event decided before it exploded in a BB that it would need a hidden wave field also and decided to make an invisble field just before all atomic matter was propogated through it?
@@usic_imaging, wonderful line of thought and reasoning.. I'll need to check out some of what you've mentioned... quite interesting indeed, especially the research you mentioned, thanks..
Let me clear something up for the content creator on this one. The double slit experiment has troubled more than high school students like say Albert Einstein for instance..
when light travels 13.6 billion years through the universe around planets and other stars through space and we finely see it. Is it a wave or a particle?
This is one of the better videos on the subject, i'd still like more details on the observation aspect, does distance of obervation equipment matter, why does this even happen when detection equipment is placed and not when we observe it with our eyes?
I wish somebody would be able to explain that, a quantum physicist once told me: Its not 100% clear what causes the observation effect, whether the piece of equipment recording or someone evaluting the results of whatever the equipment recorded, but it interferes with the Quantum System, what exactly causes something to interfere with a Quantum System and therefore collapse the superposition, cant be 100% explained. Some say consciousness is an observer..
@@OpenmindedBoys We did explain this to you in high school. Quanta are amounts of energy. They are not objects. The observer effect doesn't exist. A quantum that has been detected is simply gone. The detector takes that amount of energy out of the system. That's the end of that energy. All it does afterwards is to heat up the detector. Literally.
Great video. Raises some questions below. Also by the way am shocked that the science fiction called MWI ever got far enough to be a theory, is complete nonsense but great for movie makers !! 1) if anyone who truly knows can you please advise on and I have NEVER ever seen explained in any double slit video, is this. When you pass a single photon or other particle through the double slit to my mind there should be absolutely nothing on the screen - why? Because to do a fair experiment you MUST aim the laser at the middle of both slits and there we have the BARRIER not a gap !! So surely the other incredible result of the experiment is that the photons path BENDS towards one of the slits so is not traveling in a straight line. Think about it, by rights the photon should hit the barrier and simply be absorbed as the barrier is huge compared to the photon aimed at it. If in reality you aim the laser at one slit for a few photons then move its aim to the other slit etc .then it is no longer a double slit experiment but a single slit experiment. The electron is not deciding at all which slit to go through, you are by default aiming at one of the slits. WHY does not a single physicist explain this? Why has everyone missed this obvious point ? And of course what is the answer? 2) could the observed phenomenon be something to do with the source of the particles - i.e. if we fire single electrons what if inside the laser the electrons are already linked as a wave. So on firing them out singly in reality they are still in wave form with each other? Has anyone tried these experiment but with 2 sources of electrins? And very spread out in time e.g. one electron per hour?
Pretty sure they have tried shooting through a single slit as well, but the single slit offers only 1 possibility for the trajectory. The moment you have 2 slits, and you DONT aim for one but rather aim for the middle, it starts to act like a wave and goes through (one) or the (other). Even if they shoot only one at a time, the trajectory ends in a wave pattern, meaning, it acts as if it went through both slits, and collided with itself to then traject outside the expected slit pattern, causing an interference pattern.
@@OpenmindedBoys Dude, the single slit diffraction function also has an infinite number of minima and maxima. It shows that you never took undergrad physics. ;-)
Yes of course! I dont know if you want to read all books but I think you should watch the youtube movie of Brian Greene about Quantum Physics: Quantum Reality: Space, Time and Entanglement. Brian Greene explains these Quantum phenomena topics very easily to understand. The videos are also fun to watch and well done! Did you watch the full video and see Dr. Quantums explanation animation of the experiment? Dont you think its weird that reality seems to behave different when we „observe“ it ?
Sorry ,what is the nature of water ? If the water and light create same patterns ,it mean both of them have same nature. If the water is particle same would be the light. So this experiment doesn't show anything. It confirms/affirms that the light is particle( has particle nature)
Another crazy thing is the delayed choice modifications of the double slit experiment. With that they'll have crystals next to the slits that split photons into entangled pairs so if you know the state of one you know the state of the other and basically know what slit they took after the other photon in the pair hit the backwall. One goes to the back wall and the other goes to the detector AFTER the other one hit the backwall. Yet in that case the interference pattern disappears as if it never traveled as a wave. If the copenhagen interpretation was correct this should be impossible if it traveled as a wave the act of detection afterwards shouldn't matter. Then there is the quantum erasure modification where it is basically the same as that but which path info about what slit the photon comes from is scrambled and the interference pattern emerges again! These modifications show any wavefunction collapse interpretation WRONG! So I think the modifications prove many timelines and/or branching spacetime interpretations. Other interpretations try to propose retrocausal effects to explain the delayed choice modifications and they completely fail at that. But it is much more reasonable to assume that this is about information distingushing multiple otherwise identical environments. Hence the many timelines interpretation.
Wait, so the modification experiments of the double slit experiment suggest that the split realities/timelines might actually be correct? Wow I didnt know about these modifications, this sounds extremely interesting! Might want to research this more and try to make a video about it. Thank you very much for your thoughts on this!
@@OpenmindedBoys Yeah that's at least the way I see it but of course you still have many that disagree and suggest some retrocausal effect is happening to try to hold on to collapse interpretation views. But that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and is built on views of time that are obsolete. There are many reasons collapse interpretations fail in general. First being that there is no time in the way we think of it. So to think that a wavefunction somehow collapses due to something that happens due to some time dependent events is silly, when the future, past and every event that will happen already exists in a simultaenous framework of spacetime. At the scale of the actual universe there is no time whatsoever so it simply can't be as if some time dependent process within it is "deciding" or choosing how particles behave, they are already in every position they will be destined to take. So the multiplicity of probability of quantum mechanics can't be from some uncertainty, it has to be because of multiple copies. If it were some retrocausal mechanism happening during the delayed choice double slit modification then it should always be happening, not just in that special case. In fact there would be no reason to end up with the interference pattern in the regular double slit experiment if those same retrocausal effects were happening since retrocausality is not coherent with there being multiple probabilities allowed by the schrodinger equation. The other "probabilities" would not exist as there would always only be 1 determined outcome, meaning the probabilities which are described by the schrodinger equation wouldn't exist either. Retrocausality just leads to 1 possible sequence of time, basically superdeterminism. But that simply is not supported by the experiment as detection does objectively make a relevant difference which would not be explained by superdeterminism without multiple states. That's the way I see it.
@@matthewmurdock4875 Thank you for the thorough explanation. There are many things I still dont understand but I think I get the idea. I am familiar with special relativity and the block universe theory (I am making a video about it) and scientists also argue that past present and future exist simultaneously so if thats the case an observation really shouldnt be able to „collapse“ the possibilities that exist ad a superposition, rather the outcome is determined from that viewpoint or perspective. So with your opinion added the Many Worlds theory makes even more sense and what is left to find out is what decides or how is it determined in which exact scenario/reality we end up being? If there exist many realities and an observation does not „collapse“ the function bit rather makes us „experience one of the possibilities“ which factors end up being relevant to determine in which exact possibility we find ourselves in?
@@dextermorgan4490 ??? No one implied it was magic. That's the point collapse interpretations are magical thinking and thus all flawed interpretations. Also Sabine is a hack that also has made videos claiming "Flat Earth isn't bad science." She's clickbait. Nothing she says is all that impressive and she is outclassed by any of her colleagues like Hawking, Penrose, etc. Her fanbois are the most annoying on the internet that just like her because of her emotional ramblings against the obvious reality of multiverses. As if she is some authority on anything.
@@dextermorgan4490 As you can tell, I am not the biggest fan of Sabine lol. She needs to stay in her area of expertise which is study into dark energy and dark matter. Though she hasn't made any noteworthy progress in that field her entire life, which is already quite a significant length of time. When it comes to other fields she is woefully unequipped to discuss them and arrogantly refuses to see how her views are not in anyway obvious answers to the questions asked. Her superdeterminism as a quantum interpretation view is a joke and just doesn't explain the double slit experiment nor quantum mechanics as a whole. It completely misses the point. In fact superdeterminism could be true and yet that STILL wouldn't rule out any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. She is so dogmatic about free will not existing that she ends up taking positions just to save her worldview.
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *RUclips presentation of above argument: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
@@schmetterling4477 Surprise me sometime and say something intelligent. If you disagree with what I am saying, then say why? Don't just hid behind the Internet. Free speech is about dialog, expressing ones ideas, and discussing them. Join the discussion, but don't be a Troll.
What I'd like to know is what happens to the particle after it hits the wall? Does it disintegrate fully? Partial disintegration? Changes it's form? Combines with particles on the wall to create different particles? Absorbed into the material whilst still containing it's original form? I understand where the particle originates at the start of the experiment, and what happens as it comes across variables affecting it's particle attributes giving rise to probabilities (the reactions will depend on it's inherent properties). But what happens to the particle afterwards? Probabilities arise between start and finish. Duality exists that's for sure, it's one of the particles inherent properties. But singularity comes into play at the begining and at the end. Singularity may also arise again between start and finish if a variable brings it back to it's original inherent characteristic. There has to be a balance. In other words duality gives rise to singularites which gives rise to duality, a continuous chain reaction and between duality and singularity or vise versa. Probabilities arise due to variables affecting the paricles inherent characteristics. There will always be many probalities but in the end it will come down to two main probabilities. Which probabilty that would be chosen would be determined by the circumstances and basic inherient characteristic (predetermined) of that particle. In short Quantum Mechanics cannot exist without Relativity and vise versa... and another question do all photons contain ALL the same inherent properties? I don't think so, because if they were all the same then duality wouldn't arise but they ALL must have the basic fundamental properties to create the basis of that particular type of particle which will cause singularity to arise. Wave function collapses because duality breaks down into singularity... We don't need a double slit experiment to show us because it's happening all around us... Predetermisim or Determinism? this last question leads to the thought that there must be another factor at play... that factor must be what binds the two together and keeps it balanced which goes back to what, how, where, when and why that particle was created?... (and who?)
(Assume i'm telling the truth even if not it will answer the questions as hypothesis)Van Hove singularities are described especially in the research of Graphene Moire lattice honeycombs...and would be thousands in a small space in a "complex wave field" which has now been rendered fully but its not published or known yet!!, energy states of quanta on a physical wave matter field absolutley have a certainty of life span due to the absorbancy of the boundaries of the wave field they sit on/ or the absorbancy of the material they hit + (the photoelectric effect is a change of surface energy state material electron reflection) etc. but all of this above is, and all other QM science mainly optical photometry and the study of quanta puzzles because they can't see the primary wave field(actually you can faintly see it within noise fields but hey lets not be tooo observant). An invisble (transparent/ dark)and physical field which does consolidate classical and quantum "effects" and effects they are of "optics" however quanta and wave field is a duo not duality of state change of one thing changing becuase it transits on a wave surface boundary as an energy packet measured at a vertex point like a car on a road is not a duality but one electron or photon are usually a continuos stream unless they are in atomic equilibrium energy state the minimum energy state a particle is termed as being. Who?. A supreme intelligence because this field had to come before any quanta could go anywhere in the universe so now the fiction>: a random event decided before it exploded in a BB that it would need a hidden wave field also and decided to make an invisble field just before all atomic matter was propogated through it?
@@usic_imaging, wonderful line of thought and reasoning.. I'll need to check out some of what you've mentioned... quite interesting indeed, especially the research you mentioned, thanks..
Let me clear something up for the content creator on this one. The double slit experiment has troubled more than high school students like say Albert Einstein for instance..
Thats for sure 😂 you are right.. nobody still understands it to this day
when light travels 13.6 billion years through the universe around planets and other stars through space and we finely see it. Is it a wave or a particle?
This is one of the better videos on the subject, i'd still like more details on the observation aspect, does distance of obervation equipment matter, why does this even happen when detection equipment is placed and not when we observe it with our eyes?
I wish somebody would be able to explain that, a quantum physicist once told me: Its not 100% clear what causes the observation effect, whether the piece of equipment recording or someone evaluting the results of whatever the equipment recorded, but it interferes with the Quantum System, what exactly causes something to interfere with a Quantum System and therefore collapse the superposition, cant be 100% explained. Some say consciousness is an observer..
@@OpenmindedBoys We did explain this to you in high school. Quanta are amounts of energy. They are not objects. The observer effect doesn't exist. A quantum that has been detected is simply gone. The detector takes that amount of energy out of the system. That's the end of that energy. All it does afterwards is to heat up the detector. Literally.
because it ain't about your eyes...its been measured so it is forced to collapse its super state
This was the best understanding of the experiment i could get so far. Thankyou!
Great video. Raises some questions below. Also by the way am shocked that the science fiction called MWI ever got far enough to be a theory, is complete nonsense but great for movie makers !!
1) if anyone who truly knows can you please advise on and I have NEVER ever seen explained in any double slit video, is this. When you pass a single photon or other particle through the double slit to my mind there should be absolutely nothing on the screen - why? Because to do a fair experiment you MUST aim the laser at the middle of both slits and there we have the BARRIER not a gap !! So surely the other incredible result of the experiment is that the photons path BENDS towards one of the slits so is not traveling in a straight line. Think about it, by rights the photon should hit the barrier and simply be absorbed as the barrier is huge compared to the photon aimed at it.
If in reality you aim the laser at one slit for a few photons then move its aim to the other slit etc .then it is no longer a double slit experiment but a single slit experiment. The electron is not deciding at all which slit to go through, you are by default aiming at one of the slits.
WHY does not a single physicist explain this? Why has everyone missed this obvious point ? And of course what is the answer?
2) could the observed phenomenon be something to do with the source of the particles - i.e. if we fire single electrons what if inside the laser the electrons are already linked as a wave. So on firing them out singly in reality they are still in wave form with each other?
Has anyone tried these experiment but with 2 sources of electrins? And very spread out in time e.g. one electron per hour?
Pretty sure they have tried shooting through a single slit as well, but the single slit offers only 1 possibility for the trajectory. The moment you have 2 slits, and you DONT aim for one but rather aim for the middle, it starts to act like a wave and goes through (one) or the (other). Even if they shoot only one at a time, the trajectory ends in a wave pattern, meaning, it acts as if it went through both slits, and collided with itself to then traject outside the expected slit pattern, causing an interference pattern.
@@OpenmindedBoys Dude, the single slit diffraction function also has an infinite number of minima and maxima. It shows that you never took undergrad physics. ;-)
This is something i have to dabble into more..Can you recommend any good
books or other sources?
Yes of course! I dont know if you want to read all books but I think you should watch the youtube movie of Brian Greene about Quantum Physics: Quantum Reality: Space, Time and Entanglement. Brian Greene explains these Quantum phenomena topics very easily to understand. The videos are also fun to watch and well done! Did you watch the full video and see Dr. Quantums explanation animation of the experiment? Dont you think its weird that reality seems to behave different when we „observe“ it ?
Sorry ,what is the nature of water ? If the water and light create same patterns ,it mean both of them have same nature. If the water is particle same would be the light.
So this experiment doesn't show anything. It confirms/affirms that the light is particle( has particle nature)
Another crazy thing is the delayed choice modifications of the double slit experiment. With that they'll have crystals next to the slits that split photons into entangled pairs so if you know the state of one you know the state of the other and basically know what slit they took after the other photon in the pair hit the backwall. One goes to the back wall and the other goes to the detector AFTER the other one hit the backwall. Yet in that case the interference pattern disappears as if it never traveled as a wave. If the copenhagen interpretation was correct this should be impossible if it traveled as a wave the act of detection afterwards shouldn't matter. Then there is the quantum erasure modification where it is basically the same as that but which path info about what slit the photon comes from is scrambled and the interference pattern emerges again! These modifications show any wavefunction collapse interpretation WRONG!
So I think the modifications prove many timelines and/or branching spacetime interpretations. Other interpretations try to propose retrocausal effects to explain the delayed choice modifications and they completely fail at that. But it is much more reasonable to assume that this is about information distingushing multiple otherwise identical environments. Hence the many timelines interpretation.
Wait, so the modification experiments of the double slit experiment suggest that the split realities/timelines might actually be correct? Wow I didnt know about these modifications, this sounds extremely interesting! Might want to research this more and try to make a video about it. Thank you very much for your thoughts on this!
@@OpenmindedBoys Yeah that's at least the way I see it but of course you still have many that disagree and suggest some retrocausal effect is happening to try to hold on to collapse interpretation views. But that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and is built on views of time that are obsolete.
There are many reasons collapse interpretations fail in general. First being that there is no time in the way we think of it. So to think that a wavefunction somehow collapses due to something that happens due to some time dependent events is silly, when the future, past and every event that will happen already exists in a simultaenous framework of spacetime. At the scale of the actual universe there is no time whatsoever so it simply can't be as if some time dependent process within it is "deciding" or choosing how particles behave, they are already in every position they will be destined to take. So the multiplicity of probability of quantum mechanics can't be from some uncertainty, it has to be because of multiple copies.
If it were some retrocausal mechanism happening during the delayed choice double slit modification then it should always be happening, not just in that special case. In fact there would be no reason to end up with the interference pattern in the regular double slit experiment if those same retrocausal effects were happening since retrocausality is not coherent with there being multiple probabilities allowed by the schrodinger equation. The other "probabilities" would not exist as there would always only be 1 determined outcome, meaning the probabilities which are described by the schrodinger equation wouldn't exist either. Retrocausality just leads to 1 possible sequence of time, basically superdeterminism. But that simply is not supported by the experiment as detection does objectively make a relevant difference which would not be explained by superdeterminism without multiple states. That's the way I see it.
@@matthewmurdock4875 Thank you for the thorough explanation. There are many things I still dont understand but I think I get the idea. I am familiar with special relativity and the block universe theory (I am making a video about it) and scientists also argue that past present and future exist simultaneously so if thats the case an observation really shouldnt be able to „collapse“ the possibilities that exist ad a superposition, rather the outcome is determined from that viewpoint or perspective. So with your opinion added the Many Worlds theory makes even more sense and what is left to find out is what decides or how is it determined in which exact scenario/reality we end up being? If there exist many realities and an observation does not „collapse“ the function bit rather makes us „experience one of the possibilities“ which factors end up being relevant to determine in which exact possibility we find ourselves in?
@@dextermorgan4490 ??? No one implied it was magic. That's the point collapse interpretations are magical thinking and thus all flawed interpretations. Also Sabine is a hack that also has made videos claiming "Flat Earth isn't bad science." She's clickbait. Nothing she says is all that impressive and she is outclassed by any of her colleagues like Hawking, Penrose, etc. Her fanbois are the most annoying on the internet that just like her because of her emotional ramblings against the obvious reality of multiverses. As if she is some authority on anything.
@@dextermorgan4490 As you can tell, I am not the biggest fan of Sabine lol. She needs to stay in her area of expertise which is study into dark energy and dark matter. Though she hasn't made any noteworthy progress in that field her entire life, which is already quite a significant length of time. When it comes to other fields she is woefully unequipped to discuss them and arrogantly refuses to see how her views are not in anyway obvious answers to the questions asked.
Her superdeterminism as a quantum interpretation view is a joke and just doesn't explain the double slit experiment nor quantum mechanics as a whole. It completely misses the point. In fact superdeterminism could be true and yet that STILL wouldn't rule out any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. She is so dogmatic about free will not existing that she ends up taking positions just to save her worldview.
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*RUclips presentation of above argument:
ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Awh, you are so cute when you are looking for attention. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Surprise me sometime and say something intelligent. If you disagree with what I am saying, then say why? Don't just hid behind the Internet. Free speech is about dialog, expressing ones ideas, and discussing them. Join the discussion, but don't be a Troll.
@@williamwalker39 I completely agree that lonely kids need a person to talk to. So talk to me. Tell me what it is that really bothers you. ;-)