It looks like, if this theory is true, you could say that more and less entanglement is corelated to more and less entropy, which is tied to the second law of thermal dynamics. Sounds very curious to me. I wish a smart person reads my comment and confirms or denies my hunch lol
In QM entropy and entanglement are indeed related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_entropy And entanglement tends to spread similarly to how entropy grows. You have a good intuition.
He just straight-up lies to the audience when he says "the worlds were already there." No they aren't. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory that uses statistical analysis to predict certain effects that show up in large sample sizes that we do not fully understand how they are caused. There is nothing inherently magical about probability theory, just because you have two possible predicted outcomes assigned two different probabilities does not mean those two probabilities happen. You could apply this same line of reasoning to any classical theory that relies on statistical analysis and probability distributions as well and no one would accept it, but we're supposed to accept it because quantum mystical woo or something? Let's not forget that Hugh Everett was a mystic who was convinced he was immortal. What passes for serious "science" these days is just sad.
QM has different interpretations, Sean is talking about one of them that treats the wave function as a real object, and thus all its parts are actually present somewhere (in this interpretation).
1. These effects show up at any sample size. This is particularly clear in quantum computing where a qubit can have complex calculations done while it is in superposition, until eventually returning to a state of 100% likelihood. 2. People don't say two things happened because we have assigned two possible outcomes. They say it happens because they believe that the wavefunction is the underlying reality, in the sense that there is no mechanic more fundamental than what is predicted by the Schrodinger equation. Such perspective fully explains the experimental results, and is completely consistent. 3. No you can't apply that line of reasoning to any classical theory, because one of the outcomes very clearly happened. Compare this to experiments such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. In fact, viewing it as an ignorance of the underlying variable is a violation of the Bell inequality. 4. Evertt was not a mystic. What...? He never even writes about him being immortal, and it has only been documented in private conversations. Also, what is the relevance of this?
@@vitulus_ The wave function is just one of many ways to mathematically represent the same thing. It is not even mathematically necessary to get the right answer, it is just useful in certain contexts where some formalisms make it easier to solve a particular problem over others.
@@thedeemon If you accept his interpretation then his interpretation is correct.... Obviously, that's circular, my point is he straight up lies to his audience by pretending quantum mechanics already demonstrates his interpretation to be correct, when it is in reality just speculation based on a very specific mathematical formalism, one of many, that is interpreted in a way that would be laughed at in any other field.
Decoherence actually makes Everett's interpretation even stronger. It explains why we can have a universal wave function whilst avoiding the "preferred basis problem." It makes it stronger because decoherence causes quantum states to lose coherence and converge on a few classical states. These classical states is what is colloquially known as "worlds," although that wording is problematic.
I'm sorry but I'm in high school and just learned that energy can't be created or destroyed, for there to be many worlds wouldn't we need alot of new energy? 🤷 😊
@@elliot-morningstar Well i'm no scientist but if many worlds is true, then maybe the energy conservation only applies to the energy of each of the world, meaning you cannot create or destroy energy within a world. doesn't say anything about outside of it, i don't know if that makes any senses
the process in how it turns Quantum to classical if the last step of the process results a classical perspective is this process an opposite of the process of coherency?
@@lukatolstov5598 Here we create a "funnel" whose inherent curvature corresponds to curvature of a slice of space around a black hole. But directly at the event horizon it becomes vertical. If we take horizon radius as 1, the funnel is a result of rotation of function 2√(r-1) which for r < 1 is a square root of a negative number. This doesn't give us a surface to walk in.
Meanwhile in all which path experiments, photon literally got bounced around bbo crystal countless of times and never decohere until they hit the sensors.
i don't like how the squares are mapped because they are not actually squares according to the rules of each geometry. they are just projections of euclideian squares, a bit counter intuitive. i like it more when "more space" is visualized with more squares of equal area, not with stretched rectangley things
If we make the torus size very big it will look almost like a flat plane locally. But if you look far ahead you'll still see the light going around, yes.
There are a lot of available graphics on the outsides of shapes in spherical space (and this demonstration is among the best), but I can't seem to find anything detailing what it would be like to exist on the inside of an S3 or similar shape. I understand the primary association of alternate geometric exploration to cosmic bodies, and there are no inside-out planets, but I'm wondering for a project and have no experience with programming to implement such a feature into the visualizer you provided. Assuming any light refraction still pulls light rays toward the surface (gravity and density higher toward the wall of the inside space, would it look fairly similar to an outside perspective, just with the periphery of vision warping away from the viewer instead of toward them? And assuming an R approaching zero, would the horizon look like a shrinking hole in the sky? It would also be interesting to see the effect with obolid and egg-like shapes.
Such a cool video! Not going to pretend like i really got it, but i get the general idea and its a certain kind of experience watching videos like this, i really like it. Btw, if youre reading this comment and want to watch something similar heres a link to a really cool video with the same idea but much shorter and more simple ua-cam.com/video/yY9GAyJtuJ0/v-deo.html
I feel like this guy just jumps on to whatever the creative people within physics are thinking. He never actually formulates an independently creative idea. He’s smart, maybe brilliant, but that’s about it.
ua-cam.com/video/yY9GAyJtuJ0/v-deo.html Try this video its a similar idea but the quality is better (although it is much shorter with much less variety)
ua-cam.com/video/pXWRYpdYc7Q/v-deo.html Heres a link to a video with hyperbolic space, if you want (there are other similar videos on that channel, i really like it)
....... if earth was round this would be it ...... an its HOT..... lol an if the earth was flat it would look like mine craft ....but ower earth looks like a floppy pancake. get dunked on smooth brains. like god an Cthulhu somethings you just cant see are under stand ...... that is why we have math.<3
Your saying entanglement appears less as complexity appears more? Or as energy becomes more complex it becomes more simple entanglement.
What about likely entangled? Would that be more specific?
Funny parody opening
cool
speedrun
It looks like, if this theory is true, you could say that more and less entanglement is corelated to more and less entropy, which is tied to the second law of thermal dynamics. Sounds very curious to me. I wish a smart person reads my comment and confirms or denies my hunch lol
In QM entropy and entanglement are indeed related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_entropy And entanglement tends to spread similarly to how entropy grows. You have a good intuition.
thank you so much for your answer @@thedeemon ! And thank you for the link :)
He just straight-up lies to the audience when he says "the worlds were already there." No they aren't. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory that uses statistical analysis to predict certain effects that show up in large sample sizes that we do not fully understand how they are caused. There is nothing inherently magical about probability theory, just because you have two possible predicted outcomes assigned two different probabilities does not mean those two probabilities happen. You could apply this same line of reasoning to any classical theory that relies on statistical analysis and probability distributions as well and no one would accept it, but we're supposed to accept it because quantum mystical woo or something? Let's not forget that Hugh Everett was a mystic who was convinced he was immortal. What passes for serious "science" these days is just sad.
QM has different interpretations, Sean is talking about one of them that treats the wave function as a real object, and thus all its parts are actually present somewhere (in this interpretation).
1. These effects show up at any sample size. This is particularly clear in quantum computing where a qubit can have complex calculations done while it is in superposition, until eventually returning to a state of 100% likelihood. 2. People don't say two things happened because we have assigned two possible outcomes. They say it happens because they believe that the wavefunction is the underlying reality, in the sense that there is no mechanic more fundamental than what is predicted by the Schrodinger equation. Such perspective fully explains the experimental results, and is completely consistent. 3. No you can't apply that line of reasoning to any classical theory, because one of the outcomes very clearly happened. Compare this to experiments such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. In fact, viewing it as an ignorance of the underlying variable is a violation of the Bell inequality. 4. Evertt was not a mystic. What...? He never even writes about him being immortal, and it has only been documented in private conversations. Also, what is the relevance of this?
The mystic one he's referring i think it's bohm
@@vitulus_ The wave function is just one of many ways to mathematically represent the same thing. It is not even mathematically necessary to get the right answer, it is just useful in certain contexts where some formalisms make it easier to solve a particular problem over others.
@@thedeemon If you accept his interpretation then his interpretation is correct.... Obviously, that's circular, my point is he straight up lies to his audience by pretending quantum mechanics already demonstrates his interpretation to be correct, when it is in reality just speculation based on a very specific mathematical formalism, one of many, that is interpreted in a way that would be laughed at in any other field.
There are very few children in this video. 10:20 10:45 11:37
How is decoherence possible if the universe is one wave function?
good question that is what i was thinking. Many worlds is not accepted by many scientists just so you know, this guy is in the minority.
Decoherence actually makes Everett's interpretation even stronger. It explains why we can have a universal wave function whilst avoiding the "preferred basis problem." It makes it stronger because decoherence causes quantum states to lose coherence and converge on a few classical states. These classical states is what is colloquially known as "worlds," although that wording is problematic.
I'm sorry but I'm in high school and just learned that energy can't be created or destroyed, for there to be many worlds wouldn't we need alot of new energy? 🤷 😊
@@elliot-morningstar Well i'm no scientist but if many worlds is true, then maybe the energy conservation only applies to the energy of each of the world, meaning you cannot create or destroy energy within a world. doesn't say anything about outside of it, i don't know if that makes any senses
Thanks!
the process in how it turns Quantum to classical if the last step of the process results a classical perspective is this process an opposite of the process of coherency?
Real projective plane would be neat, similar looking to this but only one convergence point for rays.
2:56 *Straight, not traight.
Ok that wormhole triggered some inner fear I had cause wtf
It was Impulse Tracker for sure!
You can go in black hole in this sim?
Not inside, only around it
@@thedeemon Why?
@@lukatolstov5598 Here we create a "funnel" whose inherent curvature corresponds to curvature of a slice of space around a black hole. But directly at the event horizon it becomes vertical. If we take horizon radius as 1, the funnel is a result of rotation of function 2√(r-1) which for r < 1 is a square root of a negative number. This doesn't give us a surface to walk in.
@@thedeemon Ok.
This is 15 years ago, holy shit
Meanwhile in all which path experiments, photon literally got bounced around bbo crystal countless of times and never decohere until they hit the sensors.
1:28 what movie is that lady watching?
Looks like "Isle of Dogs" ua-cam.com/video/dt__kig8PVU/v-deo.html
@@thedeemon oh okay, thank you
hi 2006 i hope y'all are enjoying halo 3
Anyone else discover this video from the comment section of The Science Asylum's _"Could Flatland be curved?!"_ video?
i don't like how the squares are mapped because they are not actually squares according to the rules of each geometry. they are just projections of euclideian squares, a bit counter intuitive. i like it more when "more space" is visualized with more squares of equal area, not with stretched rectangley things
Well you can't cover a sphere with actual squares
Could you theoretically make a torus where you can't "see" the other side? Or will the light always curve around it?
If we make the torus size very big it will look almost like a flat plane locally. But if you look far ahead you'll still see the light going around, yes.
That lecture theatre was ridden with Covid-19
this is breathtaking!!! thank you!
There are a lot of available graphics on the outsides of shapes in spherical space (and this demonstration is among the best), but I can't seem to find anything detailing what it would be like to exist on the inside of an S3 or similar shape. I understand the primary association of alternate geometric exploration to cosmic bodies, and there are no inside-out planets, but I'm wondering for a project and have no experience with programming to implement such a feature into the visualizer you provided. Assuming any light refraction still pulls light rays toward the surface (gravity and density higher toward the wall of the inside space, would it look fairly similar to an outside perspective, just with the periphery of vision warping away from the viewer instead of toward them? And assuming an R approaching zero, would the horizon look like a shrinking hole in the sky? It would also be interesting to see the effect with obolid and egg-like shapes.
Calming... So calming...
Such a cool video! Not going to pretend like i really got it, but i get the general idea and its a certain kind of experience watching videos like this, i really like it. Btw, if youre reading this comment and want to watch something similar heres a link to a really cool video with the same idea but much shorter and more simple ua-cam.com/video/yY9GAyJtuJ0/v-deo.html
Great video 📹 👏 👏 Full support :)
That guy is crazy, he's constantly driving on the left side... forcing everyone to do the same to avoid him. Where is the police ?
Look at that raytracing!!!
life be like
poggggggggers!
That space got some curves doe 🥵🥵
Cool but why is this 240p?
It's not.
I feel like this guy just jumps on to whatever the creative people within physics are thinking. He never actually formulates an independently creative idea. He’s smart, maybe brilliant, but that’s about it.
These days he’s split between philosophy and theoretical physics, whatever that means for your opinion of him
accurate
Wait, if this is personal stuff, did you actually create this!?
Yes, links in the description
7:57 an donut
Does this prove earth is flat? IT looks pretty flat to me :)
Great video! Would just be a little better if you walked faster
you could have at least used software that's not from the 90s geez
No existing software can render it properly. I had to code my own. The links are in description.
ua-cam.com/video/yY9GAyJtuJ0/v-deo.html Try this video its a similar idea but the quality is better (although it is much shorter with much less variety)
Great video, though I would have liked to see hyperbolic space show up as well
ua-cam.com/video/pXWRYpdYc7Q/v-deo.html Heres a link to a video with hyperbolic space, if you want (there are other similar videos on that channel, i really like it)
milestone
Just had it on the UA-cam start page
Noice. But a bit slow...
This is gonna become another flat earth shit
....... if earth was round this would be it ...... an its HOT..... lol an if the earth was flat it would look like mine craft ....but ower earth looks like a floppy pancake. get dunked on smooth brains. like god an Cthulhu somethings you just cant see are under stand ...... that is why we have math.<3