With many worlds, if you're talking about Sean Carroll the physicist, a larger percentage of the whole count universes would have him say, I do. This asymmetry informs us what kind of physicist Sean Carroll is, which is a physicist adhering to Many Worlds.
So refreshing to find someone explaining this properly and attempting to clear this up for the lay person instead of spreading more woo explanations. Thanks Sean!
lol Sean Carrol believes an infinitude of physical universes pops into existence every second, and you say he's subduing woo? What could possibly be more Woo then that. Conscious experience is what we know everything through, its much less woo to think its having an effect on the environment, then to propose many worlds which has zero evidence
@@maecentric there is evidence, how to you think quantum computers work? Tell me you don’t know quantum physics without telling me you don’t know quantum physics lol
@@nicholasbutler2365 Quantum physics is a mathematical model that is highly effective in explaining the behavior of subatomic particles, in no way does it imply many worlds Many Worlds is a metaphysical explanation for what may be going on, amongst many
@@maecentric in no way is many worlds metaphysical, it is a model that explains all of our mathematics and the results of quantum physics experiments like Quantum Erasure and the various double slit related experiments in an elegant and consistent way. It’s not a bunch of universes you can travel to like some kind of movie, it’s taking entanglement seriously and to it’s logical conclusion.
@@nicholasbutler2365 lol, its metaphysical in that its a description of reality based on "speculative abstract reasoning," grab a dictionary. There is no evidence for other universes, many worlds is a speculative guess that the partciles are in a superposition because according to its model, trillions of physical universes are being created every second - thats not an established fact and clearly you know nothing about the different interpretations proposed. What makes more sense, trillions of universe popping into existence every second, or conscious experience(the only experience of the world we have) shaping and interacting with the environment? None of these questions are settled, but calling an interpretation relating to conscious influence more "woo" then many worlds in moronic
This was THE greatest mistake with nomenclature in quantum theory by using the term "observer" to define the wave collapsing. Same goes with the Schrodinger mental exercise of the cat in the box, its does more harm then good to try to explain the core idea of the theory.
A. Bohr, despite 'worrying' the problem to death (his habit) failed to really come to grips with what QM was saying about entanglement. With the idea and it's implications still too nebulous in his mind to avoid some distractions and misdirection in his train of argument, Bohr was pretty much stuck with some sort of observer effect to explain the "collapse" of the universe's wave function. This was hardly down to just a poor choice of words. A more modern collapse model, namely 'GRW', attempts to get around this difficulty, even offering, in principle, the possibility of testing this model vs. the Copenhagen interpretation experimentally. However, we've been waiting since the 1980's for anything like that to get off the ground -- and we're still waiting. Sean Carroll has commented a bit on GRW himself, FYI. The bottom line there (spoiler alert): clever... but ultimately unsatisfying. YMMV. B. Schrodinger was *not* trying to explain any "core idea" of Bohr's philosophy & metaphysics (and *not* "theory", for Pete's sake) -- or not in sympathetic terms, anyway. Inspired by the EPR paper of 1935, he constructed his "thought experiment with a hook" to throw a spotlight on what he felt was the absurdity of the conclusions to be drawn from Bohr's argument. "Harm" to Bohr's still too vague and half-baked interpretation is exactly what Schrodinger intended! ...Not that mounting a cogent alternative explanation of weird quantum phenomena is easy: the Copenhagen interpretation remains compatible with the observations from all experiments involving QM to date. But so does the much more parsimonious Everettian interpretation. Your grasp of this topic is very shakey, T21, by the evidence of your comments... so constructively, let me suggest to you a very fine and entertaining historical survey of the real core ideas and the people behind them which might directly help address this deficit for you in a fun, provocative, and engaging way -- the broadly overlooked "Entanglement" by Louisa Gilder. Give it a shot.
@@chrisc1257 If Any "Truth" is Hidden, All Truth is Hidden. If any perspective is unique, means all perspectives are unique. as in two particles cannot occupy the same space at the same time If any One can comprehend any "Truth" it's all Truth if any perspective (self) exsists,, there can be only one (unique) and therefore it's ALL that can exist (Truth) or ever will, Anything\ecerything hidden, isnt, nor could it be, "Hidden" from the "Hider"
When he said he's heard people claim that 'god is the outside observer' is something that people say when they dont really understand quantum mechanics (who the hell does? Not me, for sure) and are misunderstanding the language used to describe the theory.
It is simple, the measurement (observation) causes the collapse of the wave function because the measurement removes all potential probabilities from the quantum potentials and they all condense at that one point
If God was a) an "observer," and b) was omnipresent and c) omniscient, then all wave functions would always instantly collapse. But this disagrees with experiment. So, one or more of A, B and C must be false.
e... you do realise that the "god-theory" includes that god CONTROLES the laws of nature, making it possible for him to be an exception to these laws(rules) whenever he wants to?
you called it a hypothesis. that would also mean it was testable. depending on how you define god, it is absolutely testable whether he(/she/it) exists. allmighty, allloving -> everything should be perfect. for example.
I love listening to really intelligent people because of their comprehension. Sometimes I don’t fully understand and sometimes I never fully understand. Are you please able to break it down for dummies to understand what your understanding is or is that not possible?
I always felt "observers" was just an analogy. So the way I understand it, is when you use a device to examine the interaction of a set of particles, that device has to produce some kind of radiation or particles of its own, in order to get a reading from your sample, that then interact with the particles in that sample which impacts the behavior of those particles. So for example the more accurately you try to measure the position of a particle, the more energy you have to put into the system to get a reading, which alters the velocity of that particle. Or is that not how this works?
That's actually not complete. The experiment you have to look at to disprove that notion is called quantum erasure. It shows that if the observation is not recorded somewhere, the disturbance can be lost. So if your idea is metaphorically that a device shoots out tennis balls and gets info about the chairs in the room based on what bounces back, and some chairs will always be knocked over because of it, you have to modify that to include the outcome that if you don't look at the tennis balls bouncing back no chairs will be knocked over. It's pretty weird.
So what he's saying is no that's not how it works. The original experimenters thought of this and left all the devices running but not recording data, decoherence of the wave did not take place. Only when the data is recorded does this happen, and because the quantum world doesn't use space time, the decoherence occurs instantly upon observation complete with a history as if it were a particle the whole time.
Simon Coles Yes, you're right. The observers are an analogy for an interaction that can lead to decoherence (meaning the wave function of that quantum collapses). The two follow up answers focus on the strange observations that encircle this measurement, as causality seems to be inflicted, too. But that's not important regarding your question. The tiner a particle you want to observe, the higher the electromagnetic frequency must be to be able to detect it. If the electromagnetic wavelength is small enough to catch up the dimensions of that particle, the frequency reaches vast energy proportions as E = v (frequency) x h (Planck's constant). This energy blast has an huge impact on velocity and position of the particles. This measurement transforms results heavily, but it doesn't need such an energy blast for quanta in superposition to force the wavefunction to collapse. The term 'observer' is historic. Before the 1970s (around that), observers have been the only theoretical model for decoherence. But there are tons of natural interferences which cause decoherence as well. So, we still talk about 'observers', because all literature before 1970 used this term. Today we know there's much more influence on a quantum by environmental induction than by observations only. In a world without 'observer' every particle leaves coherence in a very short time due to this environmental induction through other particles - a simple interference with an oxygen-atom in the way can be enough.
Thanks for getting the response thread addressing Simon Coles' question back on track, ParalysedGekko. I'd only add that the "Heisenberg microscope" description of how observation disturbs an observed particle, or what have you, is not what Heisenberg uncertainty is crucially about... since many are confused by this conflation in popular literature. It seems that nowadays it's felt, on the basis of some strong experiments, that this disturbance effect can be made arbitrarily small, at least in principle. Heisenberg uncertainty remains, of course. See "weak measurement techniques in quantum experiments", Simon, if you're interested in this topic.
What is so complicated and mysterious about the fact that in order to measure something, at some level you have to bump into it, and that if your system is delicate enough then there is no way to bump into it without ruining the measurement? Quantum tunneling, now that's mysterious. Collapse of the wave function? Why is that mysterious? Am I missing something?
As someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic, I would say, the measurement/observer interfering with the system in some sort of way isn't that strange. But why does this measurement systematically affect the system so that it collapses the wave function? Why isn't it impossible to make predictions about a particle until the act of measurement is made? Why is the system purely probabilistic and collapses into something classical by the act of observation/measurement? Sure, you could say that it's because it interferes in some way, but *why* is it that it changes the nature of the system from probabilistic to deterministic isn't clear to me. The room where the experiment is conducted surely should interfere in some way with the particles, but doesn't change the behavior of the quantum system, at least not in the same way that the measurement seems to do so. To me the idea of "why" the measurement is special in this way is quite mysterious, and at what point the quantum system becomes classical and becomes big enough to behave classically "by itself" seems hard to understand as well. Additionally, the quantum eraser experiment seems to suggest that measurements done on an entangled particle change the behavior of its entangled "twin", even if the measurement is made AFTER the twin already should've "decided" to collapse or stay in its probabilistic form. This seems quite bizarre and implies backwards causation purely by the act of measurement. And finally, the experiment seemed to show that if the measurement is made and then erased or its results scrambled, the system again behaves in a probabilistic way, even though the interaction seems to have already happened. The only difference is that information was not retained. All this seems pretty incomprehensible to me as well, but as I said, I have no background in the field.
Roberts's questions (Closer to Truth) before the leading scientists often reminds me of the tradition of Zen koans - questions that can not be answered. More often than not, I have been more mesmerized by Robert's questions rather than the political ; dubious and hoping against hope kind of answers to Robert's questions.
Yes to your first question. That’s why electrons act differently when they are observed versus when they are not observed. The confusion tends to come from how people assume the definition of observation.
No, it wouldn't. All of this is just physics Dunning Kruger. In physics "a measurement" is simply an irreversible energy transfer. This is second year university level physics. We may be devoting a couple of hours to the topic, it's that obvious. That includes the lecture time and the exercises that students have to solve to understand the math.
Except that there can be no real collapse or outcome in the standard QM formulation, and that's why recourse to the notion of 'observer' has occurred. (arxiv.org/pdf/2304.10649.pdf) The problem is that nobody can define what counts as an 'observer', so that really doesn't work.
@@ruthkastner6248 An observation in physics is defined as an irreversible energy transfer. We usually teach this in undergrad physics around the second year or so. The learning unit is approx. half an hour long and it is part of thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. It is generally meant as an introduction to noise but it covers the "philosophical" (aka obvious) aspects of the measurement process. The only thing you are saying here is that you either didn't take undergrad physics or you weren't listening to the basics.
@@ruthe.kastner6346 Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. Did I mention that I am a retired experimental high energy physicist? I have made trillions of quantum measurements in my life. You are basically telling the farmer that he doesn't know how to grow wheat after he sold tens of thousands of bushels of wheat at a profit. What does that make you? A lonely kid in a cold basement. ;-)
IMHO: Lets assume quantum mechanics is correct, this means that the most fundamental description of the universe is some sort of array of quantum bits. The number of dimensions is unimportant for this high level argument although I suggest two (holographic principle). Now we know for certain that classical bits exist, the entire human reality is encoded in classical bits, therefore it must be true that a quantum system can produce a classical system. Now it is an observational fact that classical bits have an error associated with them. Try to make the transistors on a microchip too small and the electrons that manifest the classical bits in reality start tunnellings too often and the error becomes too large. I believe that current microchips experience this but error correction can rectify it. Now remember that human consciousness is entirely encoded in classical bits which are in turn manifested from quantum bits. Now we know that a classical system is much simpler than a quantum system which means humans only experience an approximation to reality. We know this is true because it is impossible to describe quantum phenomenon using classical physics. An example of this is wave particle duality, Young's double slit experiment proves that light is wave, while the photo-electric effect proves that light is a particle, this leads to a contradiction, which implies we have got it wrong. The space of states for a classical system does not have the required degrees of freedom to describe the quantum space of states. The main issue with the Copenhagen interpretation is that the definition of an observer is not well understood and the collapse of the wave-function requires instantaneous collapse, instantaneous change is forbidden in Physics. The way I think of it is that a classical bit is a large quantum 'machine', many Qbits make up one Cbit, the exact number can vary, the more Qbits you use to manifest your Cbit the smaller the error but the large C-system will be slower than the smaller C-system (in terms of processing speed per volume of space). This interesting because it leads to the conclusion that there is fundamental ratio for the most efficient configuration of Qbits to make the fastest C-system (for a fixed volume of space), the size scale of humans. So what happens when a set of Q-bits that are arranged as a C-bit interact with a set of Q-bits that are not arranged as a C-bit (a classical observer looking a quantum state and collapsing the wave function), well I think it must arrange the non-classical set of Q-bits into a set that that does represent a C-bit. The fact that it seems instantaneous to us is because we can only observe an approximation to reality and therefore it is just an artefact of the approximation. This idea leads to some other interesting ideas. The expansion of the universe is required to store all the classical bits that are created, the big-bang is the start of the propagation of classical system in a QM universe, before the big-bang there was a purely QM universe without classical observers, and many others... I can't explain fully here, this is already too long, I just wanted to give a flavour of my idea. If you made it this far thanks for your time :)
What he's saying contradicts the double slit experiment. The plate with the two parallel slits counts as observer, according to his view. So, we does the interference pattern dissapear only AFTER we try to measure through which hole the particle travels? If the plate is an observer, we should never see an interference pattern.
The double slit does not interact with the electrons that go through the two slits, only the electrons that touch the walls. That is why we have a second wall after the double slits which observes the other electrons, and which we also observe as we are interested in the interference proving that electrons act as waves, but also particles. I hope that made sense.
Observers always observe end results. There is nothing hidden from an observer. We may find it difficult sometimes to explain what we observe, like Bell's inequality, explained away as 'hidden variables', because we still cannot explain. Observation enables us to discover dual nature of reality. Even when we claim a neutrino is its own opposite.
Robert, Physical Realism traditionally dispenses with the idea of the necessity for embedded observers. But there's the problem of logical consistency in the observer who's totally aloof from, and untouched by the observed system. ALL observers necessarily partake of information exchange with the observed system. Hence, the observer and the observed system form a supersystem that includes them both. Observers are ALWAYS embedded. They, of necessity, model systems that are self-similar. And that's how you answer the Leibniz Question and get a fundamentally Quantum Universe.
The confusion is the legacy of mind/body dualism, the historical idea of a non physical mind. The age of computers makes it easy to move beyond in seeing physical systems needed for information processing: WiFi signal is energy, if your phone is getting some to create internal state changes (information) it means the source gave some energy up.
@@schmetterling4477 observation is step 1 of the scientific method, while formulation of a hypothesis is step 3. Edit: there ia a handy graphic for this on Wikipedia, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
No consciousness necessary. That particle, as part of what physicists refer to as "the environment", interacts with a quantum system. This interaction interferes with any entangled quantum state as part of a process called "decoherence". Since it takes less than 10^20 seconds for a quantum superposition of states to decohere into a definite outcome... which you might observe at any time later to be, yep, just the same definite outcome you observed the last time you checked following decoherence... that particle did just as much as the apparatus of any human observer could have done to "make an observation". You don't have to know about it. A human consciousness doesn't have to know about it. The cosmos doesn't care about what you, me, Bohr, or Deep-packed Chopra think. Of course, gazillions of such interactions go on all the time in our everyday world of macroscopic objects, which is why you don't have to worry about the moon not being there when no one is looking at it. You could think of this as quantum weirdness dissipating broadly out into the world about 10^10 times faster than any process in any biological system (observer) ever happens. This is why the central physical problem in trying to build a quantum computer is *isolation* of the qubits.
he is !! entanglement= measurement in QM. however, a mention of "memory" was lacking form this short discussion as I believe that "memory" is responsible for a distinction between me and the rock i'm observing.
Well, it's not "memory": if I dent a rock, the rock will preserve memory of it in form of that very dent. Consciousness is more than just memory: it is processing power!
At 2:06 Sean says "There was a time in the history of the universe (when) there were no observers." It seems to me he's claiming as factual what is merely an inference based upon his metaphysical beliefs/realist worldview-namely that time and space existed before observers. He's then using that observation to prove the "fact" that reality is objective and no subjective observer is required. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Sean Carroll simply doesn't know what an observer is. He has a rather childish physics ontology that is in no way commensurate to his age and physics background.
It is what one says it is .. No rules or instructions unless one perceives it to be .. Anything and everything thought /feeling is by choices and opinions .. Every state of mind has reason.. and opinions being pushed on others can only be supposedly destructive depending on ones choice to perceive another's perception and react accordingly to ones preference
in cosmology there is no much sense to speak about the observable universe without determining the frame of reference from which the universe is being observed. this frame of reference is fundamentaly related with the life, as a system of the observer which is located in the very center of the observable universe. the observer (in a form of a planetary biosphere) evolves (through Darwinian evolution) by the means of observations (in quantum-mechanical sense)
Sergey Novikov agreed the point of scientific models is to predict what we will observe. It doesn’t mean there’s some metaphysical observer of the entire universe
@@chemquests the observer is a single pair with the observable universe.. the flaw of modern theories of QM, that they do not consider what happens with the information, which the observer retrieves through observations. QM doesn't consider the observer at all -- there is no a hint what is an observer (what kind of a physical object it could be). and this is a fundamental problem of modern QM -- it's not a philosophical or metaphysical issue.
The observer is subject to classical Brownian motion. The thing observed is subject to tachyonic Brownian motion on the Planck scale. Actually it is the same underlying Brownian motion, but it looks different for objects heavier than the Planck mass since the Brownian motion then obliterates the wavelike behaviour. An electron in a potential well is an example of an observer. The electron is in tachyonic Brownian motion which is orthogonal to its wavelike behaviour. The well is subject to classical Brownian motion since it is a dimple in an object heavier than the Planck mass where orthogonality breaks down. This is one for computer simulation. It would be an incompetent programmer who omitted to model both types of Brownian motion.
It bothers us as beings because we make a conscious decision to relay the information that isn't familiar to us as a problem.. By needing an answer or solution to something that already has one .. Decision .. Not conclusions .. Conclusions lead to more opinions and someones meaning of oneself isn't connected with another beings meaning unless authorized by decision .. Freewill ?
To be fair whoever coined the term observer has alot of unnecessary confusion on this subject to answer for. It's not like it's not already hard enough to get your head around.
Two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide can observe an alpha particle in the classical sense. The computer simulation of this will need to run in many dimensions of configuration space, and we just don’t have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms.
Based on my shallow knowledge about this subject, it's feels that the fundamentals of quantum mechanics are based on measurements fails and hiperfidellity in old physics's assumptions (like light speed limit, wave and particle concepts and so...)
Very disappointed in the discussion at 2:06. In the theory, observers weren't "needed" before there were observers. All possibilities were still possible. It wasn't until the first observer (whatever you want to define that to be) made the universe's first observation. It would be at that point that waves would collapse (or whatever you believe happens when an observation occurs). If the discussion, on the other hand, at 2:06 is correct, at what granularity do "observations" need to happen?
Tim you're a bright guy I totally agree. there would have been merely "interference patterns" possibilities or what have you before observers came into existence. then the first observer would "see" his reality into existence so to speak. However, when you have the many worlds interpretation as Carroll does then universes exist apriori, therefore conscious observers must have evovled from that state. Many Worlds does exclude you from certain vantage points which is why I don't think its equivalent to the zero worlds interpretatio of QM as others have suggestsed
Any particle entanglement (interaction) with another particle is "observer effect". It happened since nanosecond 0.000001 after the Big Bang. You don't need "consciousness" to "observe" (interact), just any quantum will do. This actually seems to demonstrate that gravitons do not exist.
Or it could be that everything we see as being macro always exists in the physical state, and the observer effect in the delayed choice experiment is sort of a "glitch" from observing a quanta that is not "processed" as physical by default.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about entangled pairs, they aren't strictly particles that we have forced to physically interact and there must already be discoherence for this to take place. They occur in nature with life as we are finding out more and more; it makes photosynthesis possible, it's how smell works, and it's how magnetic navigation works. But name me an example of entangled pairs occurring just from the interaction of quanta themselves...
It's not bizarre, It's all probability yeah?, so after 'X' amount of time if it's probable 'x' will happen etc, by the time consciousness turns up the most probable outcome will be there to see according to the probable history, and it only "looks like" it's always been there.
Sean is the most confident physicist of the 21st century and he is only one who forces me to believe physics more and sprituality and pseudoscience and metaphysics less.
The University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) have proven that the meta-physical realm exists. So who or what is the ultimate observer? ua-cam.com/video/0AtTM9hgCDw/v-deo.html
@@Sinnbad21 but how can someone know or be aware the end of a result without observing it? Let's say some other unconscious system collapses the wave function but how can you know this without observing it? This is famous measurement problem. Without consciousness you can't even do science because you wouldn't be aware of it.
Serhan Ozulup ahh I see what you’re saying I think. It’s not the cameras recording it that collapse it but the observation of the footage that collapses it?
With the double slit experiment do atoms and molecules in the air count as observers then? I thought that only when the experiment is observed, either by eye or video, do the results alter...I'm confused :-S
Yes atoms and air molecules count as observer only when that information can be observed by observer but if information can't be observed then it wouldn't. That means if air molecule interacts with function and that molecule is available to measure by observer then it collapses. But it is not just physical interaction collapses. Because no one knows this is why they call it the measurement problem.
i disagree with what He said. if consciousness is primordial and consciousness created the universe. Then, consciousness is the observer. Consciousness affects matter.
There is presently no evidence that it is primordial; maybe someday, but presently we do not know. Dean's experiments do not show this, that is just an assertion.
'observer' was always my beef w qm from the word go. The term 'consciousness' breaks down so quickly-- even at a microscopic level, let alone a quantum one-- that what could be considered observation could be essentially limitless.
An observer is any interaction which involves the amplification of the quantum state. This necessarily involved the decoherence of the signal and an m increase in wntropy
If you meant 'exposing' instead of 'amplification' i am totally with you. But 'amplification' seems wrong to me as we lose probability realms as soon as decoherence takes place.
What about this interpretation of many worlds i just thought of, there are quantum states and they evolve with time according to the Schrodinger equation, its a probabilistic model of reality that gives us all potentialities/all possible scenarios, with varying degrees of probability but since i believe in realism as in, the universe actually exists, its not a simulation or all in the mind or something, the observations we make are what is the real world, so there are not parallel worlds branching off, instead, before the observation you calculate all possible scenarios and their likelihood and then when you make an observation, you find out which scenario actually is. Does anyone know of a reason why i may be incorrect?
To sum it up its all great sounding theories, but thats all they are. We like to hear these scientists talk because it gives us the idea that we as humans understand exactly why we are here. Maybe to cope with inevitable death? Finding peace in scientists that do the thinking for us, so we don't have to think for ourselves? What if there was a creator, and this creator wants to give love and understanding, but we reject it by listening to these prophets? Maybe we should repend and listen to our heart, why do we have these morals, why do we know what is bad. Why do most humans just want to attract a partner and create a family, I mean in the core of what we want. You can argue career is important, and a lot of people think they want that, maybe through TV shows and celebs telling you that getting to where they are is the answer. To build a career, to make a name for yourself, for what? Where do you live for then? Money? Power? Ego? We know money does not create positive substance in the mind, fame doesn't either it seems, if you take a close look at them. Who is creating these celebs? And why? I would argue maybe its like the lottery, once a year some one wins it, thats enough motivation for a lot of people getting a ticket. Maybe it's the exact same thing with actors and fame, they are the lottery winners of fame and fortune, showing how it is possible for young people to pursuit these empty goals. Maybe this is one of the many parts that is destroying people, depression, suicide, it's the biggest killer ever, yet nobody talks about it; here, take a pill, created by scientists in a lab serving big pharma. End of bad spelled rant
what if your body is like a movie projector, do you think all your organs , body parts are just for design or decoration. What if your body is a biorganic computer of divine frequencies??? what if the purpose of our bodies is to experience divine frequencies instead of trying to define them?
If everything is relative to an observer (not necessarily a person). Then, I think it is impossible to have more than one observer, therefore I concluded, there is only one observer. I would like input on this train of thought. thanks!
The universe is expanding exponentially faster and is perhaps infinitely large. In an infinite universe there is room for multiple worlds with multiple observers branching the wave function an infinite number of times in all directions. Infinity is infinity. There is no limit to anything.
It makes no sense to "compute" the collapse of a specific wave function somewhere in the universe, unless there is a chain of observations that ultimately leads to a conscious being who can then evaluate it
@@schmetterling4477Well, it all depends on what metaphysical framework one wants to establish. From a materialistic point of view, what you say could actuality be the case. Under many others, however (analytic idealism, simulation theory, holographic principle etc...), a "lazy collapse" approach would be much more rational and efficient. I think we can safely agree that, within our current understanding boundaries, the matter can't be settled.
@@TheCellarGuardian That's what I said. The universe doesn't care about bullshit. Metaphysics is the bullshit that flows like a river out of people who weren't paying any attention in science class. ;-)
HELP! I wanna make sure I’m understanding this correctly… so if an observer according to Carroll is anything like “video cameras, rocks, and atoms and molecules in the air,” and if observers are in fact what cause collapse, then how can we record waves in the presence of these types of objects in experiments like the double slit or the delayed choice? Wouldn’t the objects present in these experiments count as observers that make the recording of waves impossible? If these things are observers in the same way that we are observers, how do we know the particle was a wave before we observed it if the observation of the two-holed substrate, for instance, can collapse it? This is the same question in different ways to make sure you understand what I’m asking… somebody help!! 😆
@@schmetterling4477 That’s okay, but I don’t get how that answers my question. I want to know how we are still able to capture an interference pattern made by a wave if *anything* is able to collapse that wave as an “observer.” Like, if the screen that captures the patterns is able to cause an irreversible energy transfer (if that’s observation), then why doesn’t it always collapse the wave function and erase the interference pattern on its own before measurement? Why is there an interference pattern at all?! What am I missing??!! 😫
@@theautodidacticlayman There is no collapse. That's just physics DK talking. Interference is the absence of interaction. We try to teach that in high school when we show how wave packets can "go through" each other without change. Sometimes even older physicists like Sean Carrol forget these basics and they end up with bullshit.
@@philipmcdonagh1094 Sean Carroll? No, not really. He may know something about string theory, but his physics intuition for the fundamentals are worse than those of a high school physics teacher.
If molecule can be an observer, then the double slit experiment won’t happen. The molecules in the slits have interfered with the particles yet the particles didn’t collapse.
@Oners82 "They have been looked and and swiftly debunked as pseudoscientific horseshit..." Yes, debunked by James Randi's ghost talking through a medium from the afterlife.
What did the universe look like before anyone or anything was doing any looking? The truth is we don't know and can't know. There's no reason to assume it would look then as it looks to us now. Humans and other animals have particular sensoria that shape what they experience in particular ways. Existence w/o observers may have no detectable form whatsoever. In fact, w/o observers, the entire universe could have been held in superposition, an open vector of potential energy. Things in wavelength systems but have no form that can be observed. It takes an observer to "collapse" the wave-function of near-infinite possibilities into locatable photons or sub-atomic particles of matter-energy. There is nothing to observe until they are observers to participate in the reality of form, space, and time.
Can we just appreciate the fact that he managed to dodge the question entirely and give zero clues to answer the question in the video title - "What are observers?" So an observer collapses the wave function. We get it. But would a wave function collapse if it were a chimpanzee observing? Or a dog? A bird, or a frog? What about a snail or an insect? Would an amoeba collapse a wave function? And if it can only be a human being, then first of all WHY, and second, what age would it have to be? Can a baby collapse it? What about a newborn, or a fetus? You're back to a one-celled organism. Is there a magical moment when that cell/fetus/newborn/baby/toddler/child suddenly becomes an observer?
I'm surprised he has never heard or even thought of the idea that God or an entity outside of our dimension was the observer before the rise of humanity !
Isn't the "observer" simply photons crashing against the electron, energizing the electron to make it turn into a matter state from an energy state (collapsing the wave function)?
@Theunis de vierde van Brabant If "God" created the beginning, Heaven and Earth (ideal+real, dark+light, abstract+material) through commands but hadn't yet created anything to hear/obey/answer, is Reality therefore a Schizophrenic talking to their Self?
@Fascisten voor Demagogie that's a selfish thought. Things don't need to be seen to exist. But, of course, our interpretation of the world require our existence.
What happens to a quantum mechanical experiment when the “observer” doing the experiment is an artificially intelligent robot that acts on its own? Tom Sisson
Any group of atoms being measured will become disturbed by the instrumentation recording its state. This seems really obvious to me especially at very small scales. A thermometer will alter the temperature of the medium being measured. A consciousness, a complicated pattern of neural electrical impulses in a brain as an isolated system from the sample being changed by an apparatus is not directly effecting the sample.
I’m a chunk of meat existing completely independently from a hostile alien universe out there. By some weird fluke my chunk of meat developed an amusing but ultimately meaningless form of survival called “conscience” or something. Reality is out there -where it certainly exists- right alongside mathematics and the laws of nature (not to be confused with commandments, because that would sound religious). The meaning of life is clearly the Big Bang, unless of course you’re a meat body in which case satisfying primitive urges at the expense of the stupid animals and alien environment outside of you is the ultimate purpose for existing.
I found Carroll's argument for multiple universe's intriguing and simple. However, it didnt sit well with me. After a couple of days, I had a response. Carroll's argument was multiverses exist because it is a natural consequence of superpositions and our imagination. However, . just because you can imagine a superposition, doesnt make it so. For example. God. Take the Judeo Christian version of Him. God is supposed to be creator of everything. Therefore if God created everything, God should be in every universe. I can imagine a superposition where there are universes with and without God. But eiter God is the Creator or He isnt. Therefore imaging a superposition doesnt make it so - especially with questions of existence. This doesnt prove multiverses dont exist. Just that Carroll's argument for the existence of multiverses is flawed as laid out here
Superposition has nothing to do with the gods. It's a consequence of statistical independence. In other words... you are stuffing your god into a gap that consists out of the inability to find correlations between blips of a Geiger-Mueller counter. ;-)
@@bolobos Carroll's argument is indeed wrong, but it is wrong for the reason I mentioned, not because 2500 years ago desperate people in the Middle East started a Nigerian Prince scam. ;-)
Bohr, unfortunately, couldn't really wrap his head around the idea of quantum entanglement: It was Einstein who was clearly ahead of Bohr on this point (in grasping what QM was demanding be 'true' of entangled systems), even if his personal "religion*" and worldview got in the way of his adopting a broader perspective, at least provisionally, on the possible alternatives suggested by the comprehensive success of quantum mechanics. It just didn't work out the way Einstein, more or less, 'hoped' it might. In fact, Einstein's original "blitz box" thought experiment and his arguments (Solvay Conference, 1930, etc.) -- the foundation for EPR -- was *still* haunting Bohr to the day he died in 1962. This is the last thing Bohr worked on, by the evidence left behind on his blackboard. * Re: Einstein's "religion" -- *his* own word for it, letter of condolence to the family of M. Besso, 1954.
Everybody should have a Sean Carroll at home.
When Sean mentions many worlds theory and is asked, do you go there? Surely he should have answered I do, and I don't.
BRILLIANT.
With many worlds, if you're talking about Sean Carroll the physicist, a larger percentage of the whole count universes would have him say, I do. This asymmetry informs us what kind of physicist Sean Carroll is, which is a physicist adhering to Many Worlds.
"One way or the other, the implications are going to be bizarre."
So refreshing to find someone explaining this properly and attempting to clear this up for the lay person instead of spreading more woo explanations. Thanks Sean!
lol Sean Carrol believes an infinitude of physical universes pops into existence every second, and you say he's subduing woo? What could possibly be more Woo then that. Conscious experience is what we know everything through, its much less woo to think its having an effect on the environment, then to propose many worlds which has zero evidence
@@maecentric there is evidence, how to you think quantum computers work? Tell me you don’t know quantum physics without telling me you don’t know quantum physics lol
@@nicholasbutler2365 Quantum physics is a mathematical model that is highly effective in explaining the behavior of subatomic particles, in no way does it imply many worlds
Many Worlds is a metaphysical explanation for what may be going on, amongst many
@@maecentric in no way is many worlds metaphysical, it is a model that explains all of our mathematics and the results of quantum physics experiments like Quantum Erasure and the various double slit related experiments in an elegant and consistent way. It’s not a bunch of universes you can travel to like some kind of movie, it’s taking entanglement seriously and to it’s logical conclusion.
@@nicholasbutler2365 lol, its metaphysical in that its a description of reality based on "speculative abstract reasoning," grab a dictionary.
There is no evidence for other universes, many worlds is a speculative guess that the partciles are in a superposition because according to its model, trillions of physical universes are being created every second - thats not an established fact and clearly you know nothing about the different interpretations proposed.
What makes more sense, trillions of universe popping into existence every second, or conscious experience(the only experience of the world we have) shaping and interacting with the environment? None of these questions are settled, but calling an interpretation relating to conscious influence more "woo" then many worlds in moronic
I thought of this question and had an answer in 8 minutes. I like UA-cam
This was THE greatest mistake with nomenclature in quantum theory by using the term "observer" to define the wave collapsing.
Same goes with the Schrodinger mental exercise of the cat in the box, its does more harm then good to try to explain the core idea of the theory.
A. Bohr, despite 'worrying' the problem to death (his habit) failed to really come to grips with what QM was saying about entanglement. With the idea and it's implications still too nebulous in his mind to avoid some distractions and misdirection in his train of argument, Bohr was pretty much stuck with some sort of observer effect to explain the "collapse" of the universe's wave function. This was hardly down to just a poor choice of words.
A more modern collapse model, namely 'GRW', attempts to get around this difficulty, even offering, in principle, the possibility of testing this model vs. the Copenhagen interpretation experimentally. However, we've been waiting since the 1980's for anything like that to get off the ground -- and we're still waiting. Sean Carroll has commented a bit on GRW himself, FYI. The bottom line there (spoiler alert): clever... but ultimately unsatisfying. YMMV.
B. Schrodinger was *not* trying to explain any "core idea" of Bohr's philosophy & metaphysics (and *not* "theory", for Pete's sake) -- or not in sympathetic terms, anyway. Inspired by the EPR paper of 1935, he constructed his "thought experiment with a hook" to throw a spotlight on what he felt was the absurdity of the conclusions to be drawn from Bohr's argument. "Harm" to Bohr's still too vague and half-baked interpretation is exactly what Schrodinger intended! ...Not that mounting a cogent alternative explanation of weird quantum phenomena is easy: the Copenhagen interpretation remains compatible with the observations from all experiments involving QM to date. But so does the much more parsimonious Everettian interpretation.
Your grasp of this topic is very shakey, T21, by the evidence of your comments... so constructively, let me suggest to you a very fine and entertaining historical survey of the real core ideas and the people behind them which might directly help address this deficit for you in a fun, provocative, and engaging way -- the broadly overlooked "Entanglement" by Louisa Gilder. Give it a shot.
*than* not "then."
We all have the potential to become 'Gods.' After that, we do a lot of lying and truth hiding, as good Gods do.
- Christopher Conaboy
@@chrisc1257
If Any "Truth" is Hidden, All Truth is Hidden.
If any perspective is unique, means all perspectives are unique. as in two particles cannot occupy the same space at the same time If any One can comprehend any "Truth" it's all Truth if any perspective (self) exsists,, there can be only one (unique) and therefore it's ALL that can exist (Truth) or ever will, Anything\ecerything hidden, isnt, nor could it be, "Hidden" from the "Hider"
they didn't want to include every experiment keeps referencing observer in your face type of deal.
This video is in a superposition of awesomeness.
When he said he's heard people claim that 'god is the outside observer' is something that people say when they dont really understand quantum mechanics (who the hell does? Not me, for sure) and are misunderstanding the language used to describe the theory.
Great job interviewing Jeff Goldblum
It is simple, the measurement (observation) causes the collapse of the wave function because the measurement removes all potential probabilities from the quantum potentials and they all condense at that one point
If God was a) an "observer," and b) was omnipresent and c) omniscient, then all wave functions would always instantly collapse. But this disagrees with experiment. So, one or more of A, B and C must be false.
e... you do realise that the "god-theory" includes that god CONTROLES the laws of nature, making it possible for him to be an exception to these laws(rules) whenever he wants to?
the 'god-hypothesis'
what experiment could you possibly run to test it?
you called it a hypothesis. that would also mean it was testable.
depending on how you define god, it is absolutely testable whether he(/she/it) exists.
allmighty, allloving -> everything should be perfect.
for example.
that's my point: it is an untested hypothesis, not a theory. what you claim to be testable is not an experiment, but un-testable statement of belief
I love listening to really intelligent people because of their comprehension. Sometimes I don’t fully understand and sometimes I never fully understand. Are you please able to break it down for dummies to understand what your understanding is or is that not possible?
I really enjoy how he breaks it down..
Entanglement is two objects from one interaction. Observation is a third object interacting with the system becoming a new entangled pair.
Fascinating talk
I always felt "observers" was just an analogy. So the way I understand it, is when you use a device to examine the interaction of a set of particles, that device has to produce some kind of radiation or particles of its own, in order to get a reading from your sample, that then interact with the particles in that sample which impacts the behavior of those particles. So for example the more accurately you try to measure the position of a particle, the more energy you have to put into the system to get a reading, which alters the velocity of that particle. Or is that not how this works?
That's actually not complete. The experiment you have to look at to disprove that notion is called quantum erasure. It shows that if the observation is not recorded somewhere, the disturbance can be lost. So if your idea is metaphorically that a device shoots out tennis balls and gets info about the chairs in the room based on what bounces back, and some chairs will always be knocked over because of it, you have to modify that to include the outcome that if you don't look at the tennis balls bouncing back no chairs will be knocked over. It's pretty weird.
So what he's saying is no that's not how it works. The original experimenters thought of this and left all the devices running but not recording data, decoherence of the wave did not take place. Only when the data is recorded does this happen, and because the quantum world doesn't use space time, the decoherence occurs instantly upon observation complete with a history as if it were a particle the whole time.
Simon Coles
Yes, you're right. The observers are an analogy for an interaction that can lead to decoherence (meaning the wave function of that quantum collapses). The two follow up answers focus on the strange observations that encircle this measurement, as causality seems to be inflicted, too. But that's not important regarding your question.
The tiner a particle you want to observe, the higher the electromagnetic frequency must be to be able to detect it. If the electromagnetic wavelength is small enough to catch up the dimensions of that particle, the frequency reaches vast energy proportions as E = v (frequency) x h (Planck's constant). This energy blast has an huge impact on velocity and position of the particles. This measurement transforms results heavily, but it doesn't need such an energy blast for quanta in superposition to force the wavefunction to collapse.
The term 'observer' is historic. Before the 1970s (around that), observers have been the only theoretical model for decoherence. But there are tons of natural interferences which cause decoherence as well. So, we still talk about 'observers', because all literature before 1970 used this term. Today we know there's much more influence on a quantum by environmental induction than by observations only. In a world without 'observer' every particle leaves coherence in a very short time due to this environmental induction through other particles - a simple interference with an oxygen-atom in the way can be enough.
Thanks for getting the response thread addressing Simon Coles' question back on track, ParalysedGekko. I'd only add that the "Heisenberg microscope" description of how observation disturbs an observed particle, or what have you, is not what Heisenberg uncertainty is crucially about... since many are confused by this conflation in popular literature.
It seems that nowadays it's felt, on the basis of some strong experiments, that this disturbance effect can be made arbitrarily small, at least in principle. Heisenberg uncertainty remains, of course. See "weak measurement techniques in quantum experiments", Simon, if you're interested in this topic.
I really wish I could understand this. 😂
Well, that was most interesting......now I'm off to the pub to see if i can enter a state of oneness an' understanding.
This has nothing to do with "oneness" at all.
The best line is the very last one.
"They look like big good strong hands, I always thought that's what they were "... never ending story 1984.
What is so complicated and mysterious about the fact that in order to measure something, at some level you have to bump into it, and that if your system is delicate enough then there is no way to bump into it without ruining the measurement? Quantum tunneling, now that's mysterious. Collapse of the wave function? Why is that mysterious? Am I missing something?
nils4545 everything is entangled not just at the point of measurement; this can be taken as the baseline or background signal
As someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic, I would say, the measurement/observer interfering with the system in some sort of way isn't that strange.
But why does this measurement systematically affect the system so that it collapses the wave function? Why isn't it impossible to make predictions about a particle until the act of measurement is made? Why is the system purely probabilistic and collapses into something classical by the act of observation/measurement? Sure, you could say that it's because it interferes in some way, but *why* is it that it changes the nature of the system from probabilistic to deterministic isn't clear to me. The room where the experiment is conducted surely should interfere in some way with the particles, but doesn't change the behavior of the quantum system, at least not in the same way that the measurement seems to do so. To me the idea of "why" the measurement is special in this way is quite mysterious, and at what point the quantum system becomes classical and becomes big enough to behave classically "by itself" seems hard to understand as well.
Additionally, the quantum eraser experiment seems to suggest that measurements done on an entangled particle change the behavior of its entangled "twin", even if the measurement is made AFTER the twin already should've "decided" to collapse or stay in its probabilistic form. This seems quite bizarre and implies backwards causation purely by the act of measurement.
And finally, the experiment seemed to show that if the measurement is made and then erased or its results scrambled, the system again behaves in a probabilistic way, even though the interaction seems to have already happened. The only difference is that information was not retained. All this seems pretty incomprehensible to me as well, but as I said, I have no background in the field.
Roberts's questions (Closer to Truth) before the leading scientists often reminds me of the tradition of Zen koans - questions that can not be answered. More often than not, I have been more mesmerized by Robert's questions rather than the political ; dubious and hoping against hope kind of answers to Robert's questions.
It is good that Kuhn mentiones the retrocausal approach. That is also my approach.
I like the analysis.
Quite thoughtful
What does quantum wave function evolving with time mean, such as for measurement and possibly for observation?
Nothing. The wave function is not a physical property of the individual quantum system. It's only a property of the quantum mechanical ensemble.
Is there such a thing as an unobserved thing or entity? If not, is there such a thing as an non-collapsed wave function?
Yes to your first question. That’s why electrons act differently when they are observed versus when they are not observed. The confusion tends to come from how people assume the definition of observation.
Would “interact” be a better term?
Would something outside the ‘fog of probability’ need to interact with it?
No, it wouldn't. All of this is just physics Dunning Kruger. In physics "a measurement" is simply an irreversible energy transfer. This is second year university level physics. We may be devoting a couple of hours to the topic, it's that obvious. That includes the lecture time and the exercises that students have to solve to understand the math.
One day I'll understand this. I guess the hardest part I find understanding is what it suggests.
It suggests that you need to go back to your high school physics textbook and you read up on the topic of energy, again.
I only just found this channel now after watching the bee one for ages
How does the block universe theory tie in with the observer effect? I was thinking specifically in relation to the big bang.
Both are bullshit. Bullshit is always soft, warm, brown and smells really bad. :-)
how might energy be observer for quantum waves / fields? energy could observe quantum wave function at faster than speed of light backward causation?
"One does not need consciousness to collapse a waveform. However, one does need consciousness to consider it bizarre."
- Y. Truly
Except that there can be no real collapse or outcome in the standard QM formulation, and that's why recourse to the notion of 'observer' has occurred. (arxiv.org/pdf/2304.10649.pdf) The problem is that nobody can define what counts as an 'observer', so that really doesn't work.
@@ruthkastner6248 An observation in physics is defined as an irreversible energy transfer. We usually teach this in undergrad physics around the second year or so. The learning unit is approx. half an hour long and it is part of thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. It is generally meant as an introduction to noise but it covers the "philosophical" (aka obvious) aspects of the measurement process. The only thing you are saying here is that you either didn't take undergrad physics or you weren't listening to the basics.
@@lepidoptera9337 The only thing you are saying here is that you don't understand the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.
@@ruthe.kastner6346 Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. Did I mention that I am a retired experimental high energy physicist? I have made trillions of quantum measurements in my life. You are basically telling the farmer that he doesn't know how to grow wheat after he sold tens of thousands of bushels of wheat at a profit. What does that make you? A lonely kid in a cold basement. ;-)
Sean is 👍 he’s so at making physics understandable
IMHO:
Lets assume quantum mechanics is correct, this means that the most fundamental description of the universe is some sort of array of quantum bits. The number of dimensions is unimportant for this high level argument although I suggest two (holographic principle).
Now we know for certain that classical bits exist, the entire human reality is encoded in classical bits, therefore it must be true that a quantum system can produce a classical system.
Now it is an observational fact that classical bits have an error associated with them. Try to make the transistors on a microchip too small and the electrons that manifest the classical bits in reality start tunnellings too often and the error becomes too large. I believe that current microchips experience this but error correction can rectify it.
Now remember that human consciousness is entirely encoded in classical bits which are in turn manifested from quantum bits. Now we know that a classical system is much simpler than a quantum system which means humans only experience an approximation to reality. We know this is true because it is impossible to describe quantum phenomenon using classical physics. An example of this is wave particle duality, Young's double slit experiment proves that light is wave, while the photo-electric effect proves that light is a particle, this leads to a contradiction, which implies we have got it wrong. The space of states for a classical system does not have the required degrees of freedom to describe the quantum space of states.
The main issue with the Copenhagen interpretation is that the definition of an observer is not well understood and the collapse of the wave-function requires instantaneous collapse, instantaneous change is forbidden in Physics.
The way I think of it is that a classical bit is a large quantum 'machine', many Qbits make up one Cbit, the exact number can vary, the more Qbits you use to manifest your Cbit the smaller the error but the large C-system will be slower than the smaller C-system (in terms of processing speed per volume of space). This interesting because it leads to the conclusion that there is fundamental ratio for the most efficient configuration of Qbits to make the fastest C-system (for a fixed volume of space), the size scale of humans.
So what happens when a set of Q-bits that are arranged as a C-bit interact with a set of Q-bits that are not arranged as a C-bit (a classical observer looking a quantum state and collapsing the wave function), well I think it must arrange the non-classical set of Q-bits into a set that that does represent a C-bit. The fact that it seems instantaneous to us is because we can only observe an approximation to reality and therefore it is just an artefact of the approximation.
This idea leads to some other interesting ideas. The expansion of the universe is required to store all the classical bits that are created, the big-bang is the start of the propagation of classical system in a QM universe, before the big-bang there was a purely QM universe without classical observers, and many others...
I can't explain fully here, this is already too long, I just wanted to give a flavour of my idea. If you made it this far thanks for your time :)
What he's saying contradicts the double slit experiment. The plate with the two parallel slits counts as observer, according to his view. So, we does the interference pattern dissapear only AFTER we try to measure through which hole the particle travels? If the plate is an observer, we should never see an interference pattern.
The double slit does not interact with the electrons that go through the two slits, only the electrons that touch the walls. That is why we have a second wall after the double slits which observes the other electrons, and which we also observe as we are interested in the interference proving that electrons act as waves, but also particles.
I hope that made sense.
Observers always observe end results. There is nothing hidden from an observer. We may find it difficult sometimes to explain what we observe, like Bell's inequality, explained away as 'hidden variables', because we still cannot explain.
Observation enables us to discover dual nature of reality. Even when we claim a neutrino is its own opposite.
Nothing hidden? What you're talking about? The "observer" is a measurement machine, which before making the measurement, it was HIDDEN from it.
@@lunalima7864 But still a scientist observes the measurement device in the end. With out conscious scientist can you know the result? You wouldn't.
Could energy effect time, as when applied to quantum wave function?
Time is that which the clocks show. Clocks are devices that disperse energy from a local reservoir to infinity. What do you think? ;-)
Robert, Physical Realism traditionally dispenses with the idea of the necessity for embedded observers.
But there's the problem of logical consistency in the observer who's totally aloof from, and untouched by the observed system.
ALL observers necessarily partake of information exchange with the observed system.
Hence, the observer and the observed system form a supersystem that includes them both.
Observers are ALWAYS embedded. They, of necessity, model systems that are self-similar.
And that's how you answer the Leibniz Question and get a fundamentally Quantum Universe.
shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.
The confusion is the legacy of mind/body dualism, the historical idea of a non physical mind. The age of computers makes it easy to move beyond in seeing physical systems needed for information processing: WiFi signal is energy, if your phone is getting some to create internal state changes (information) it means the source gave some energy up.
Yes, in making an observation you entangle yourself to the system observed, hence both must be defined and can no longer be described independently
Engineer Of Wonders drink some tea and go learn for a bit, he is grounded and his point is hard to argue against
Absolutely right. Observer should rather be identified with consciousness.
both classic locality and quantum non-locality? locality in space measures / decoheres from non-locality of time?
An observer is required in the scientific method to formulate a hypothesis and to draw observations, not just for anything to exist
Can you show me where the scientific method requires that?
@@schmetterling4477 observation is step 1 of the scientific method, while formulation of a hypothesis is step 3.
Edit: there ia a handy graphic for this on Wikipedia, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
@@jonathanhorvat2452 You misunderstood. Where does the scientific method require an observer to be part of nature?
“We don’t know whether God exists” finally someone just says it out loud. We know very little of existence. God is not bizarre. That’s reality.
So, Schrodinger's cat is dead OR alive and never in a superposition of those states.
I think Sean might be leading us to the idea that the particle could be just as likely observing us?
No consciousness necessary.
That particle, as part of what physicists refer to as "the environment", interacts with a quantum system. This interaction interferes with any entangled quantum state as part of a process called "decoherence". Since it takes less than 10^20 seconds for a quantum superposition of states to decohere into a definite outcome... which you might observe at any time later to be, yep, just the same definite outcome you observed the last time you checked following decoherence... that particle did just as much as the apparatus of any human observer could have done to "make an observation". You don't have to know about it. A human consciousness doesn't have to know about it. The cosmos doesn't care about what you, me, Bohr, or Deep-packed Chopra think.
Of course, gazillions of such interactions go on all the time in our everyday world of macroscopic objects, which is why you don't have to worry about the moon not being there when no one is looking at it. You could think of this as quantum weirdness dissipating broadly out into the world about 10^10 times faster than any process in any biological system (observer) ever happens.
This is why the central physical problem in trying to build a quantum computer is *isolation* of the qubits.
he is !! entanglement= measurement in QM. however, a mention of "memory" was lacking form this short discussion as I believe that "memory" is responsible for a distinction between me and the rock i'm observing.
Well, it's not "memory": if I dent a rock, the rock will preserve memory of it in form of that very dent. Consciousness is more than just memory: it is processing power!
At 2:06 Sean says "There was a time in the history of the universe (when) there were no observers." It seems to me he's claiming as factual what is merely an inference based upon his metaphysical beliefs/realist worldview-namely that time and space existed before observers. He's then using that observation to prove the "fact" that reality is objective and no subjective observer is required. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Sean Carroll simply doesn't know what an observer is. He has a rather childish physics ontology that is in no way commensurate to his age and physics background.
It is what one says it is ..
No rules or instructions unless one perceives it to be ..
Anything and everything thought /feeling is by choices and opinions ..
Every state of mind has reason..
and opinions being pushed on others can only be supposedly destructive depending on ones choice to perceive another's perception and react accordingly to ones preference
in cosmology there is no much sense to speak about the observable universe without determining the frame of reference from which the universe is being observed. this frame of reference is fundamentaly related with the life, as a system of the observer which is located in the very center of the observable universe. the observer (in a form of a planetary biosphere) evolves (through Darwinian evolution) by the means of observations (in quantum-mechanical sense)
Sergey Novikov agreed the point of scientific models is to predict what we will observe. It doesn’t mean there’s some metaphysical observer of the entire universe
@@chemquests the observer is a single pair with the observable universe..
the flaw of modern theories of QM, that they do not consider what happens with the information, which the observer retrieves through observations. QM doesn't consider the observer at all -- there is no a hint what is an observer (what kind of a physical object it could be). and this is a fundamental problem of modern QM -- it's not a philosophical or metaphysical issue.
The observer is subject to classical Brownian motion. The thing observed is subject to tachyonic Brownian motion on the Planck scale. Actually it is the same underlying Brownian motion, but it looks different for objects heavier than the Planck mass since the Brownian motion then obliterates the wavelike behaviour.
An electron in a potential well is an example of an observer. The electron is in tachyonic Brownian motion which is orthogonal to its wavelike behaviour. The well is subject to classical Brownian motion since it is a dimple in an object heavier than the Planck mass where orthogonality breaks down. This is one for computer simulation. It would be an incompetent programmer who omitted to model both types of Brownian motion.
As matter is observed (by human beings) in classic reality, is energy being observed (by ????) in quantum mechanics?
Dude, we never observe matter. We always exchange energy. That's always the same, in classical physics and in quantum mechanics.
It bothers us as beings because we make a conscious decision to relay the information that isn't familiar to us as a problem..
By needing an answer or solution to something that already has one ..
Decision ..
Not conclusions ..
Conclusions lead to more opinions and someones meaning of oneself isn't connected with another beings meaning unless authorized by decision ..
Freewill ?
To be fair whoever coined the term observer has alot of unnecessary confusion on this subject to answer for. It's not like it's not already hard enough to get your head around.
Is quantum field mechanics / wave function two dimensional (spatial), which observation makes three dimensional (spatial)?
No. ;-)
Two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide can observe an alpha particle in the classical sense. The computer simulation of this will need to run in many dimensions of configuration space, and we just don’t have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms.
We can decide ...
maybe quantum wave has in it interactions and measurements?
Based on my shallow knowledge about this subject, it's feels that the fundamentals of quantum mechanics are based on measurements fails and hiperfidellity in old physics's assumptions (like light speed limit, wave and particle concepts and so...)
Yes, that is very shallow, indeed.
@@schmetterling4477 Just like your comment.
Very disappointed in the discussion at 2:06. In the theory, observers weren't "needed" before there were observers. All possibilities were still possible. It wasn't until the first observer (whatever you want to define that to be) made the universe's first observation. It would be at that point that waves would collapse (or whatever you believe happens when an observation occurs). If the discussion, on the other hand, at 2:06 is correct, at what granularity do "observations" need to happen?
Tim you're a bright guy I totally agree. there would have been merely "interference patterns" possibilities or what have you before observers came into existence. then the first observer would "see" his reality into existence so to speak. However, when you have the many worlds interpretation as Carroll does then universes exist apriori, therefore conscious observers must have evovled from that state. Many Worlds does exclude you from certain vantage points which is why I don't think its equivalent to the zero worlds interpretatio of QM as others have suggestsed
Any particle entanglement (interaction) with another particle is "observer effect". It happened since nanosecond 0.000001 after the Big Bang. You don't need "consciousness" to "observe" (interact), just any quantum will do. This actually seems to demonstrate that gravitons do not exist.
Or it could be that everything we see as being macro always exists in the physical state, and the observer effect in the delayed choice experiment is sort of a "glitch" from observing a quanta that is not "processed" as physical by default.
Indeed, rocks can't be observers if the matter we think of as rocks hasn't been instantiated and only exists as a possibility.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about entangled pairs, they aren't strictly particles that we have forced to physically interact and there must already be discoherence for this to take place. They occur in nature with life as we are finding out more and more; it makes photosynthesis possible, it's how smell works, and it's how magnetic navigation works. But name me an example of entangled pairs occurring just from the interaction of quanta themselves...
Imagine "observing" an empty swimming pool. The water is still until "The Observer" enters the pool.
It's not bizarre, It's all probability yeah?, so after 'X' amount of time if it's probable 'x' will happen etc, by the time consciousness turns up the most probable outcome will be there to see according to the probable history, and it only "looks like" it's always been there.
Sean is the most confident physicist of the 21st century and he is only one who forces me to believe physics more and sprituality and pseudoscience and metaphysics less.
They can co-exist, and have to co-exist to even live.
The University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) have proven that the meta-physical realm exists. So who or what is the ultimate observer?
ua-cam.com/video/0AtTM9hgCDw/v-deo.html
@@good9560 Actually they can't, one will always supersede the other.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 Nope, please find out what proof is.
@@chuckharding6405 Thanks for validating that atheists can count, but they can't account for counting :)
'Observer' is actually 'measurer'
I think, the observer is conciousness itself
Danny Rev We used to think that. But the observer can be an inanimate object too.
@@Sinnbad21 but how can someone know or be aware the end of a result without observing it? Let's say some other unconscious system collapses the wave function but how can you know this without observing it? This is famous measurement problem. Without consciousness you can't even do science because you wouldn't be aware of it.
Serhan Ozulup ahh I see what you’re saying I think. It’s not the cameras recording it that collapse it but the observation of the footage that collapses it?
@@Sinnbad21 well nobody knows actually what collapses but you can't escape from consciousness that's what i'm saying.
With the double slit experiment do atoms and molecules in the air count as observers then? I thought that only when the experiment is observed, either by eye or video, do the results alter...I'm confused :-S
Yes atoms and air molecules count as observer only when that information can be observed by observer but if information can't be observed then it wouldn't. That means if air molecule interacts with function and that molecule is available to measure by observer then it collapses. But it is not just physical interaction collapses. Because no one knows this is why they call it the measurement problem.
i disagree with what He said. if consciousness is primordial and consciousness created the universe. Then, consciousness is the observer. Consciousness affects matter.
You are right and Dean Radin's experiments show this.
There is presently no evidence that it is primordial; maybe someday, but presently we do not know. Dean's experiments do not show this, that is just an assertion.
observer has conscious experience of measurements of classic reality from quantum mechanics?
The observer tell us about Nature, and we tell the observer about Nature. We and the observer are equal.
'observer' was always my beef w qm from the word go. The term 'consciousness' breaks down so quickly-- even at a microscopic level, let alone a quantum one-- that what could be considered observation could be essentially limitless.
An observer is any interaction which involves the amplification of the quantum state. This necessarily involved the decoherence of the signal and an m increase in wntropy
If you meant 'exposing' instead of 'amplification' i am totally with you. But 'amplification' seems wrong to me as we lose probability realms as soon as decoherence takes place.
It's impossible to measure without some sort of interaction. Every experiment is an "observation", even if indirectly.
What if after the observer started to observe, back history had been loaded (like in Delayed Choice experiment) for the macro universe
What about this interpretation of many worlds i just thought of, there are quantum states and they evolve with time according to the Schrodinger equation, its a probabilistic model of reality that gives us all potentialities/all possible scenarios, with varying degrees of probability but since i believe in realism as in, the universe actually exists, its not a simulation or all in the mind or something, the observations we make are what is the real world, so there are not parallel worlds branching off, instead, before the observation you calculate all possible scenarios and their likelihood and then when you make an observation, you find out which scenario actually is. Does anyone know of a reason why i may be incorrect?
you are very well incorrect
@@JoshIzAPlay3R Give me a reason or argument then please, if i am wrong, i want to know why, so i can correct it.
To sum it up its all great sounding theories, but thats all they are.
We like to hear these scientists talk because it gives us the idea that we as humans understand exactly why we are here.
Maybe to cope with inevitable death? Finding peace in scientists that do the thinking for us, so we don't have to think for ourselves?
What if there was a creator, and this creator wants to give love and understanding, but we reject it by listening to these prophets? Maybe we should repend and listen to our heart, why do we have these morals, why do we know what is bad.
Why do most humans just want to attract a partner and create a family, I mean in the core of what we want.
You can argue career is important, and a lot of people think they want that, maybe through TV shows and celebs telling you that getting to where they are is the answer. To build a career, to make a name for yourself, for what? Where do you live for then?
Money? Power? Ego? We know money does not create positive substance in the mind, fame doesn't either it seems, if you take a close look at them.
Who is creating these celebs? And why? I would argue maybe its like the lottery, once a year some one wins it, thats enough motivation for a lot of people getting a ticket. Maybe it's the exact same thing with actors and fame, they are the lottery winners of fame and fortune, showing how it is possible for young people to pursuit these empty goals.
Maybe this is one of the many parts that is destroying people, depression, suicide, it's the biggest killer ever, yet nobody talks about it; here, take a pill, created by scientists in a lab serving big pharma.
End of bad spelled rant
what if your body is like a movie projector, do you think all your organs , body parts are just for design or decoration. What if your body is a biorganic computer of divine frequencies???
what if the purpose of our bodies is to experience divine frequencies instead of trying to define them?
He could have said all of this with a single phrase: irreversible energy transfer. THAT is "the observer" and only that.
If everything is relative to an observer (not necessarily a person). Then, I think it is impossible to have more than one observer, therefore I concluded, there is only one observer.
I would like input on this train of thought. thanks!
The universe is expanding exponentially faster and is perhaps infinitely large. In an infinite universe there is room for multiple worlds with multiple observers branching the wave function an infinite number of times in all directions. Infinity is infinity. There is no limit to anything.
@@bilinguru But doesn't this mean therefore that in each possibility there is only one observer at a time though?
@@sarath3827 I did not know that, neat.
@@shadowman7408 Schrodinger also expressed similar ideas in his Mind and Matter lectures.
It makes no sense to "compute" the collapse of a specific wave function somewhere in the universe, unless there is a chain of observations that ultimately leads to a conscious being who can then evaluate it
Why would the universe care about that? It doesn't. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477Well, it all depends on what metaphysical framework one wants to establish. From a materialistic point of view, what you say could actuality be the case. Under many others, however (analytic idealism, simulation theory, holographic principle etc...), a "lazy collapse" approach would be much more rational and efficient. I think we can safely agree that, within our current understanding boundaries, the matter can't be settled.
@@TheCellarGuardian That's what I said. The universe doesn't care about bullshit. Metaphysics is the bullshit that flows like a river out of people who weren't paying any attention in science class. ;-)
HELP! I wanna make sure I’m understanding this correctly… so if an observer according to Carroll is anything like “video cameras, rocks, and atoms and molecules in the air,” and if observers are in fact what cause collapse, then how can we record waves in the presence of these types of objects in experiments like the double slit or the delayed choice? Wouldn’t the objects present in these experiments count as observers that make the recording of waves impossible? If these things are observers in the same way that we are observers, how do we know the particle was a wave before we observed it if the observation of the two-holed substrate, for instance, can collapse it? This is the same question in different ways to make sure you understand what I’m asking… somebody help!! 😆
An observer is simply an irreversible energy transfer process. There is absolutely nothing to it.
@@schmetterling4477 That’s okay, but I don’t get how that answers my question. I want to know how we are still able to capture an interference pattern made by a wave if *anything* is able to collapse that wave as an “observer.” Like, if the screen that captures the patterns is able to cause an irreversible energy transfer (if that’s observation), then why doesn’t it always collapse the wave function and erase the interference pattern on its own before measurement? Why is there an interference pattern at all?! What am I missing??!! 😫
@@theautodidacticlayman There is no collapse. That's just physics DK talking. Interference is the absence of interaction. We try to teach that in high school when we show how wave packets can "go through" each other without change. Sometimes even older physicists like Sean Carrol forget these basics and they end up with bullshit.
I could be wrong, hell I'm good at that, but have this funny feeling he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
@@philipmcdonagh1094 Sean Carroll? No, not really. He may know something about string theory, but his physics intuition for the fundamentals are worse than those of a high school physics teacher.
If molecule can be an observer, then the double slit experiment won’t happen. The molecules in the slits have interfered with the particles yet the particles didn’t collapse.
Yeah, that's not how any of this works, kid.
Dean Radin’s experiments with meditators effecting the outcome of the double slit by meditational observation certainly should be looked at.
The Caped Crusaders they have been.
And?
@Oners82 "They have been looked and and swiftly debunked as pseudoscientific horseshit..."
Yes, debunked by James Randi's ghost talking through a medium from the afterlife.
What did the universe look like before anyone or anything was doing any looking? The truth is we don't know and can't know. There's no reason to assume it would look then as it looks to us now. Humans and other animals have particular sensoria that shape what they experience in particular ways. Existence w/o observers may have no detectable form whatsoever. In fact, w/o observers, the entire universe could have been held in superposition, an open vector of potential energy. Things in wavelength systems but have no form that can be observed. It takes an observer to "collapse" the wave-function of near-infinite possibilities into locatable photons or sub-atomic particles of matter-energy. There is nothing to observe until they are observers to participate in the reality of form, space, and time.
This guy is like a younger, more energetic Robert Greene
If light can go back in time,
then the future falls upon us like rain, so existence can prepare for the storm. (sorry, wrong forum)
Can we just appreciate the fact that he managed to dodge the question entirely and give zero clues to answer the question in the video title - "What are observers?" So an observer collapses the wave function. We get it. But would a wave function collapse if it were a chimpanzee observing? Or a dog? A bird, or a frog? What about a snail or an insect? Would an amoeba collapse a wave function? And if it can only be a human being, then first of all WHY, and second, what age would it have to be? Can a baby collapse it? What about a newborn, or a fetus? You're back to a one-celled organism. Is there a magical moment when that cell/fetus/newborn/baby/toddler/child suddenly becomes an observer?
There are no observers in physics. That's just philosophical nonsense talked about by people who weren't paying any attention in science class. ;-)
I'm surprised he has never heard or even thought of the idea that God or an entity outside of our dimension was the observer before the rise of humanity !
awareness?
Isn't the "observer" simply photons crashing against the electron, energizing the electron to make it turn into a matter state from an energy state (collapsing the wave function)?
No, nothing in QM should mean "observer", electrons aren't observing anything.
The answer is 42
Rocks also have a certain level of sentience. Just on a different scale that a human being
If you are talking to the rocks, kid, then it's time to reduce the drug use.
"If a tree falls in the woods and there's no observer to sense or measure it, does it make a sound?"
@Theunis de vierde van Brabant If "God" created the beginning, Heaven and Earth (ideal+real, dark+light, abstract+material) through commands but hadn't yet created anything to hear/obey/answer, is Reality therefore a Schizophrenic talking to their Self?
@Fascisten voor Demagogie that's a selfish thought. Things don't need to be seen to exist. But, of course, our interpretation of the world require our existence.
Clear cut nah what's to happen at the end of consciousness two perspectives as a whole or a singular phenomenon there is a cross over
❤❤
Why wasn't my identical twin born instead of me? What is me?
Adam and Eve were warned to not eat from the tree of knowledge. Weird.
It was a set-up, obviously.
Wouldn't it be easy to test if a "rock" had the same effect as a camera with a conscious mind behind it?
What happens to a quantum mechanical experiment when the “observer” doing the experiment is an artificially intelligent robot that acts on its own?
Tom Sisson
Then somebody (aka "you") wasn't paying attention in science class. ;-)
You really had the ego to put your name under that meaningless statement? Get an education
Looking at the waves from the wrong angle.
Any group of atoms being measured will become disturbed by the instrumentation recording its state. This seems really obvious to me especially at very small scales. A thermometer will alter the temperature of the medium being measured. A consciousness, a complicated pattern of neural electrical impulses in a brain as an isolated system from the sample being changed by an apparatus is not directly effecting the sample.
How can an inanimate object be an observer?
Robert is God testing the Intelligence of humans…
I’m a chunk of meat existing completely independently from a hostile alien universe out there. By some weird fluke my chunk of meat developed an amusing but ultimately meaningless form of survival called “conscience” or something. Reality is out there -where it certainly exists- right alongside mathematics and the laws of nature (not to be confused with commandments, because that would sound religious). The meaning of life is clearly the Big Bang, unless of course you’re a meat body in which case satisfying primitive urges at the expense of the stupid animals and alien environment outside of you is the ultimate purpose for existing.
I found Carroll's argument for multiple universe's intriguing and simple. However, it didnt sit well with me. After a couple of days, I had a response. Carroll's argument was multiverses exist because it is a natural consequence of superpositions and our imagination. However, . just because you can imagine a superposition, doesnt make it so. For example. God. Take the Judeo Christian version of Him. God is supposed to be creator of everything. Therefore if God created everything, God should be in every universe. I can imagine a superposition where there are universes with and without God. But eiter God is the Creator or He isnt. Therefore imaging a superposition doesnt make it so - especially with questions of existence. This doesnt prove multiverses dont exist. Just that Carroll's argument for the existence of multiverses is flawed as laid out here
Superposition has nothing to do with the gods. It's a consequence of statistical independence. In other words... you are stuffing your god into a gap that consists out of the inability to find correlations between blips of a Geiger-Mueller counter. ;-)
I am not saying that. I am using Carroll argument to show what you are actually saying. It's an absurd statement
@@bolobos Carroll's argument is indeed wrong, but it is wrong for the reason I mentioned, not because 2500 years ago desperate people in the Middle East started a Nigerian Prince scam. ;-)
I am the observer.
Is it any wonder that theoretical physics has stalled for decades. Bohr was right.
Bohr, unfortunately, couldn't really wrap his head around the idea of quantum entanglement: It was Einstein who was clearly ahead of Bohr on this point (in grasping what QM was demanding be 'true' of entangled systems), even if his personal "religion*" and worldview got in the way of his adopting a broader perspective, at least provisionally, on the possible alternatives suggested by the comprehensive success of quantum mechanics. It just didn't work out the way Einstein, more or less, 'hoped' it might.
In fact, Einstein's original "blitz box" thought experiment and his arguments (Solvay Conference, 1930, etc.) -- the foundation for EPR -- was *still* haunting Bohr to the day he died in 1962. This is the last thing Bohr worked on, by the evidence left behind on his blackboard.
* Re: Einstein's "religion" -- *his* own word for it, letter of condolence to the family of M. Besso, 1954.
It looks like it's freezing there.
The need for an observer proves there is no God observing: no all knowing God...