One of my first questions upon studying Quantum Physics was this, "What exactly do they mean by "observe"? This video does a wonderful job of answering that question! Thanks!
I was wondering exactly the same. The truth doesn't inspire an DMT-fueled all-nighter discussion the same way as if consciousness was involved, does it. 😄 #mildlydisappointedtho
...sorry to disappoint you Mr. Sandlund-this video is not only far away to "answer" your Q but presented attempt is very simplified and incorrect... ...but hey if you get it good for you... ...all the best...
8:52 this is where he make a mistake. interaction between particle didnt make wave function collapse. it will make both particle become entangled. we can measure again with another particle but it also will entangled with previous particle. no one could prove that if we shot a particle with particle, make them interact, will make wave function collapse if there is no presence of observer (concious mind). How you can tell that wave function is collapse if you are not there interpreting the measurement result? this is the real measurement problem. and this is also the root of "consciousness collapsing wave function" theory. this explanation in the video didnt explain much. it will only make people think that consciousness is not necessary for collapsing the wave function. in which not true. there is a scientific experiment that prove that consciousness actually effect reality what arvin ash point out in this video (also almost all of his video) is to bring the personal agenda, that was The Materialism.
I wish this guy was one of my teachers in high school. Hell I wish I could just sit down and ask him questions and have conversations about this stuff, I think about it all day
I rather take his word then some random in the comment section. Its not even his theories. Its just him interpreting and explaining other peoples theories. Which you would understand if you werent trying to drag him through the mud. At least have a damn argument. Arvin does a fantastic job explaining these theories. Whether hes right or wrong is not even the point. Hell, i disagree with him all the time on things yet that doesnt make him wrong or bad. He's still a great source of info and explanation.
@@desperado3236 I think he's good too, just not quantum physics though. There is no explanation for the cause of the collapse that takes away consciesness from the equation. Whomever comes out with one would get the Nobel price.
perhaps its already colapsed because of the spliter...and because of the spliter it blocked other photon and because of the spliter othe photons blockes.only those photon entered the spliter reached the screen.
I have been investigating these topics for many years and have NEVER heard a more clear and concise clarification of these fundamental questions! Nicely done.
I've been recommending searching for double slit delayed choice quantum eraser. The vid is great and concise but it is missing a part of the experiment which is worth looking into
It was interesting considering they've been hundreds of experiments showing that a measurement buy a computer does not collapse the function or change it but a conscious observation does the best analogy for why that's not discussed is when they ask scientist to look at their results they say ( I don't want to)
@@mccullum2593 I've not heard of one. It's mere interaction with certain macro phenomena that causes the wave function ro collapse. It's why quantum computing is so difficult. Inagin trying to isolate qbits from all outside interference.
Biggsy DaBoss, you haven’t heard of one because that fact invalidates materialism, and scientists that rely on publishing papers can’t risk running afoul of materialist dogma or else lose their funding. Consider doing your own research rather than taking the word of someone with a vested interest at face value. As a thought experiment, try to find an example of an experiment where they still measured without looking at the data and found that the wave function did collapse.
@@Acsion42 as a thought experiment, post these supposed experiments that show consciousness being involed in QM observation is anything more than taking the wrong definition of the word
@sim sim salabim actually, the conversation could, or will, or would (your choice depending on your quantum state) go like this: "Dr. Schrodinger, I potentially have some bad news or I potentially have some good news: your cat could possibly be dead or you cat could possibly be alive."
@thejils1669 no, the thought experiment was meant to show how absurd the Copenhagen interpretation is by telling you the cat is at a state of being both dead and alive UNTIL you open the box, not potentially.
Yes, if it has been repeatedly demonstrated by strong empirical evidence that we are operating in an indeterministic universe, rather than a hard deterministic universe, that an indeterministic model works better at prediction and control than a deterministic model, then that would definitely have bearing on the question of free will.
This is very clear but there are still some wording issues. For instance, at 6:47 it is said that, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the “electron is in ALL potential positions AT ONCE.” This sounds off to me. A closer formulation would be: the electron potentially but not actually is in all positions. For it to be actually at a position, the wave function must collapse. The use of probability, according to Heisenberg, is not mathematical but Aristotelian. He says the following in his book Physics and Philosophy: «The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater, however, meant more than that [the mathematical conception]; it meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy.»
Yeah, there is a lot of confusion about the Copenhagen interpretation. It doesn't say any of those things and if it did, then it would be simply wrong about them. The simple fact is that there is no electron until an electron is being measured. That's also not a statement by Copenhagen. It is a trivial statement by experimental physics on which one can build quantum field theory.
I didn't get into that, but the cat was used by Schrodinger to show the absurdity of the interpretation of his own wave equation. That is not the way QM would actually work for a cat.
@@ArvinAsh "That is not the way QM would actually work for a cat." Except that IS the way QM seems to work for a human consciously not observing a cat. Yes, Schrödinger was absolutely pointing to the absurdity of the logical consequence of his equation under the Copenhagen interpretation. Again, please avoid presenting these beliefs as though they are fact. We just don't know, and the darn problem is so immune to investigation. And again, I hold the same belief as you. Maybe the truth of the cat not actually being both alive and dead lies on some Gödelian true-but-unprovable island. I hope not.
@@Juttutin Not sure what your argument is. I am not stating a belief. The cat as described by Schrodinger is NOT in superposition like subatomic particles are theorized to be. The cat is alive OR dead, not alive AND dead.
Thank you so much.. word "observation"always made me think that its some kind of magic and it can not be real physics..but it all makes complete sense when we use correct term "measurement"
An even better word would perhaps be "interaction". Collapse of "wave of probability" is caused by interaction with another system. Like photon hitting a slit.
Measurement implies fancy instruments and conscious intent. I'd agree that "interaction" - even if inaccurate - is a better way to distill this concept.
@@MrRaizada Yes but the slit does not collapse the wave function, yet the photon clearly interacts with it. How can one interaction collapse the wave function, but the other does not? Interaction doesn't seem to be the right term here.
Finally, an answer to the age-old question: If a particle interacts in a forest, but nobody's around to observe it, does its probability field collapse?
@@Takeitinnblood Great point, and one that I think this video did a poor job (in fact no job at all) of covering. Nevertheless, I appreciate the knowledge you share, Arvin.
@@ArvinAsh why a photon or an electron's wave function doesn't collide when it is shot from the instrument to the screen through the slit? by the definition of measurement in quantum world it was measured when it was in the atom, when it was shot, and all the time sub atomic particles were measuring it.🙄
Thanks for taking the time to research and dispel these misunderstandings. In my opinion, the reality of quantum mechanics is much more profound than any of the misconceptions make it out to be!
Hardly. The measurement problem has not been explained as even this UA-camr says. Just because Consciousness isn't required which is a claim not a fact doesn't mean Consciousness doesn't collapse wave functions.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." - Erwin Schrödinger
Both of them have got a lot of things wrong. Same with this. Consciousness is nothing special. Measurement is not made by a conscious observer. It is just an interaction between a measuring device or a photon interacting with the system. Enough with the bullshit pseudoscience.
@@clawfinger Maybe they used to, but when quantum mechanics became an established theory, there were not many scientists who concluded that quantum mechanics is an effect of consciousness. Nowadays, the argument most people have for that boils down to 'quantum mechanics is mysterious, consciousness is mysterious, so the two are probably linked somehow'.
Amazing ! You actually explained the double split paradox with an explanation that makes sense. And excluding the conscious observer clears out A LOT of misunderstanding.
Best explanation of the wave collapse and the definition of what is an observer. Can't tell you how many hours I spent to figure it out; if only you were around earlier... Ash. So glad to see that your sub numbers are up. I wait every week for your new video. Thank you so much.
The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment completely contradicts the assertions in this video about what observation means. It is not physical interaction. The electrons in this experiment travel along mirrors and prisms, and the paths that reveal logically the which-way path show particle behavior, and tha paths that do not reveal logically the which-way path show wave behavior, even backwards in time.
It's astounding how much clearer this is for me now, I was beginning to think there may be some hurdles just to high. I am going over to another link to work on my writing and spelling...I'm feeling confident now.
I have a question about collapsing wave function. If a photon has been measured, is the fact that its wave function has been collapsed, stays as a property of this particular photon? And the photon carries this property with it? It's how I understood your example at 10:03 of the video. Does it mean that some photons have their wave functions collapsed, and others - not? And the photons "know" about their wave function state? Now the main question: does this mean that if a photon that came to use from the deep space has interacted with something during its journey through the space, and its wave function has been measured, it will stay measured forever, and if we manage to get a bunch of the photons measured this way, we will have the two lines in the test even though it wasn't us who measured it? Also, an additional question: what if we manage do measure all photons in the test with different detector, will it show two lines or many lines? I just though, what if all those photons with collapsed wave function that show two lines as particles, are actually united in a system because they have been measured by the same detector? And if it was different detectors, the photons would have been measured but still acted as a wave, because they are not a part of the same quantum-interacted family anymore?
No. There are no photons with collapsed wavefunctions flying around. That would be very weird! It is the problem with the Coppenhagen interpretation, which is a very old view, and considers this collapse to happen. No such collapse happens, it only seems that way from our perspective.
@@pszotter Then it's strange that when photons in double slit experiment are being observed, they switch interference picture to "particle dispersion" one. How to explain this if there's no wave function collapse stored in photons?
It is called dehocerence. The propapilistic nature of the photon, electron, or other particle dissapears for thos objects (observers) that interact with it, meaning they get information about which slit it passes through. But the wavefunction does not collapse it is just expressed in terms of different bases. And you cannot treat the particle separately, you also have to consider the states of the observer. Either: |observer not knowing which slit observing interference pattern> and 1/root2|photon left> + 1/root2 * |photon right> two independent parts of the universal wavefunction Or: 1/root2 |observer seeing photon left> * |photon left> + 1/root2 * |observer seeing photon right> * |photon right> decoherence because observer received information about particle or photon, but can only observe one possibility at a time. The other possibility is also real, therefore no collapse.
Though the vid being very informative and helpful, it is missing a look into double slit delayed choice quantum eraser, which in my opinion is worth checking out
I wished you were there when i was in school, 14 years ago, probably i could had become one those deep thinkers. Thank you for your passion. You have a permanent subscriber.
Really Thankful to Arvin ! It literally reduced my confusion in Quantum Mechanics a bit . And , I think my confusion of Sir G I Taylor's experiment is solved . Btw , to me Arvin Ash is the best explainer in Science Ed .
There are lots of ways now. I think at that time he did it by generation like 1000s and 1000s of protons and sending them inside a box where they bounce of the walls and get absorbed. But every few seconds a photon pass through a pin hole. Now you just need to turn off or block photons after first photon pass through. And you have single photon.
@@lalit5408 So does this mean you are/were observing or measuring that very photon - which leaves the photon source - already once before it reaches the double slit and later on hit the screen? I doubt the way we were told how the experiment really works and what influences the behavior of those photons. Perhaps there are more effects to take into consideration than we imagine to understand the results/patterns on the screen.
George Blau I’m a curious mechanic and I’ve always wondered the engineering on a “single” photon or electron. I bet it’s just like a bundle of water molecules making a wave, it’s a bundle of photons and electrons that the experimentalists don’t care to mention due to funding blah blah blah.
I just today found your channel and have been sucked in to your elegant way of making confusing subjects understandable. Although I felt like I understood most of the subjects, your explanation furthers my confidence in my understanding. Keep up the amazing work. We need more minds like yours teaching our children.
That was so enlightening! You dispelled the most common misconception that light behaves differently when it is observed. That was worth my precious time and it's no misconception that time is precious.
rwarren58 Unfortunately the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was not discussed which shutters the notion that an observe or consciousness is not required to collapse the wave function.
@lasest2 I believed it until this video. It went right to the nature of reality and the concept that the universe is a living thing. The latter may or may not be true but at least one truth as been revealed.
I think you have had explained the confusion between abservation and measurement very well but beyond well. Using measurement instead of abservation really Changed the entire conversation about the abserver.
The information at the 9 minute mark is incorrect. There’s always a conscious observer that observes the measurement. Even if there is a measuring device, the device itself is in superposition when “the conscious observer” looks at the device. Therefore, a conscious observer is required for all measurements. I’m not sure if Wigner’s friend experiment shows this, but either way, there’s no wiggling our way around consciousness influencing reality regardless of which point the measurement is made from.
This is a common misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. The collapse occurs whether a conscious observer is present or not, that is the whole point of this video. This can be easily demonstrated, do two double slit experiments at the same time, where a human watches the results - one with a detector and without the detector. You will get two different results. Do it with no human present. You will get the same result. Have human look at the result, or not look at the result, the result will not change.
Arvin Ash btw, I think it was the delay choice eraser, not Wigner’s friend. When we observe the measuring device, let’s say a camera, we collapse the wave function “in the past.” But we’re observing it in the present. I’ve done this experiment before using cloud dynamics and ESP.
@@jayfig78 The results are the same whether see or not seen by a human. You could argue that no results exist unless a human sees them. This is a philosophical argument, that in my opinion, can't be disproved, but raises consciousness to a higher metaphysical level than is necessary.
Very lucid decription of the Copenhagen interpretation. There are alternatives to that. "Many Worlds" and "Pilot Wave" offer different ideas on the wave function. Since this was so well done, I'd love to see your video on those. But understanding the Copenhagen interpretation is good enough for most people to begin to grasp the concepts behind QM and be able to move on to all the strange things that it implies. I've studied this for 25 years and it still is hard to grasp.
When the which-way information is recorded by a mechanical or electronic device, it collapses the probability wave. It doesn't matter if anyone looks at the recording.
Arvin Ash But doesn’t this conclusion, which is based on mechanical recording, require a conscious agent at some stage of the experiment? Thus, where does the certainty come from that the wave collapse has happened before a conscious observer actually looked at or in some other way assessed the results of the recording?
@@joaogabriellucas1865 Its rendered data according to how we decide to measure it. It's just like in Sims until you look there is the potential and probability of what may be there when you look. Once you look then the data is sent and you see what was most probable to be there. One definite outcome. Before the measurement there existed only the probability wave function of what was possible to be there.
I am glad to see push back on the psudo science surrounding quantum physics. It got weird and spiritual which was a strange place to be when talking about science.
"The universe will exist whether we're here or not to observe" - is it possible to prove this statement, given it would require us not to exist and by us not existing no one could prove or disprove it?
Well we have strong evidence for it as if a human dies, it has little effect to the universe. If we all die, the null hypothesis is the universe exists even if we are not here to observe it. Until we find evidence for the contrary, this is the null hypothesis.
I love your videos Arvin. My interest in science, space and topics that i never thought i could grasp have grown exponentially since following your channel. Cant wait till the next one
....wow...again!..... Spent countless hours trying to get my head around this stuff and BANG! you managed to explain this so well I think I now understand! Thankyou Arvin, thank you so much.
8:52 this is where you make a mistake. interaction between particle didnt make wave function collapse. it will make both particle become entangled. we can measure again with another particle but it also will entangled with previous particle. no one could prove that if we shot a particle with particle, make them interact, will make wave function collapse if there is no presence of observer (concious mind). How you can tell that wave function is collapse if you are not there interpreting the measurement result? this is the real measurement problem. and this is also the root of "consciousness collapsing wave function" theory. this explanation in the video didnt explain much. it will only make people think that consciousness is not necessary for collapsing the wave function. in which not true. there is a scientific experiment that prove that consciousness actually effect reality what arvin ash point out in this video (also almost all of his video) is to bring the personal agenda, that was The Materialism.
I agree that the observation is somehow interfering with the wave pattern. It would be the same way low spectrum light doesn’t interfere with electrons but high spectrum light does. Some interaction is taking place.
I’ve watched a bunch of videos regarding quantum mechanics, I feel like this dude has explained it the best, especially the description of measurement vs observation made it much more clear to me
thankyou for clearing up "observation". i've always sensed that this was a vague definition, misleading, and would ask about a precise definition, but everyone seemed to not give satisfactory answers and didn't care. you're a great teacher.
Observation is irreversible energy transfer. Five words are enough. You don't need an entire video for this triviality. If nobody has been able to explain this to you, then you have always been talking to the wrong people. ;-)
Thanks Arvin. I am enjoying your exploration. Perhaps there is a different interpretation of the reason the double slit experiment changes. You mentioned that there doesn't need to be a conscious observer and it is really just measurement that collapses the potentiality wave. What if we remove the identification with ourselves, thinking we are a separate special bit of consciousness and see the fundamental nature of everything as the same consciousness. Then consciousness would be just interacting with itself in measurement or observation and collapsing the potentiality into a new expression of life/matter, consciousness in the form of life constantly blossoming itself. It doesn't need a special bit of identifiable consciousness called a human or even an animal to affect it. We as human expressions of consciousness just have the beautiful capacity to be aware of our awareness and thoughts, which gives us a sense of separate importance, and ultimately the doer somehow responsible for what we perceive. Perhaps we are fundamentally the same consciousness as is the fabric of the materially known and potential universe. This just takes it back to everything as potentiality until consciousness interacts and it collapses into matter and removes the illusory subject object causal definition.
The understanding of physics is entirely based in mathematics. So it’s not say a field like biology (no shade) where there is more just knowing a fundamental process, everything is explained fundamentally with math.
@@CraigCsintalan biology, my friend, is physiology. Cut an animal into pieces and you can actually SEE the parts. Your point doesn't hold, or even compare. (No shade ... really.)
Why are you skeptical? If ALL math in the Standard Model were wrong, you wouldn't be watching UA-cam and replying to this video. How do we (humans) know how to do that, then?
"The understanding of physics is entirely based in mathematics." It is true and that is what is wrong with physics today. Too much mathematics and too little physics. That is why physics today is so speculative and should not be trusted.
Excellent Arvin.. Much of the woo and general confusion might have originally been avoided if OTHER terminology had been adopted to describe the collapse of the wave function.. Maybe like, interaction instead of measurement or observation... The show was done with beautiful Simplicity as always Arvin.
If it were that easy to explain by using a magical word such as "interaction" then why would we need such complex interpretations like the Many Worlds or the De Broglie Bohm🤔????
@@AlexTorres-qv3hv Odd, nobody suggested it would make it EASY to explain, Just that much of the unsupported woo interpretations might have been sidestepped...
@@billnorris1264 its cause there's no such thing as "OTHER" terminology....even Einstein who was troubled by entanglement had no other way to call it but spooky.....there are contradictions between videos of this author, here he states it's interaction the cause of collapse but then in another video of a more advanced experiment specifically designed to rule out physical interaction by the detectors (DCQE) he simply states having no answer to explain the results which happens to be exactly the same as in the standard DS.....
Thanks again Arvin. Love your programs. I have a question (for anyone). The popular phrase is that a quantum object is "in all places (where it can be, presumably) at once until it is measured." This may sound like splitting hairs, but I think the following is an important question, even if there is no direct empirical way of answering it, but here goes: Couldn't it be the case that the quantum object instead is NOWHERE until it is measured? For example: For light there is no time, so in the double slit experiment, if a photon is not measured before hitting the back screen, perhaps the photon didn't go through either slit. Otherwise from the frame of reference of the photon, it would have been emitted, gone through slit(s), and reached the back wall all in the same instant.
That is probably not the best way to interpret it, because if it's nowhere, then that would imply that it doesn't exist until we measure it. This is not the case. The object definitely exists, but we just don't know in advance where it is. The interpretation of. it being everywhere is also not quite correct. Probably the most precise way to think of it is that the mathematics simply do not tell us where it is until we measure it. We can only predict the probability of finding it in certain locations.
You are already starting out with bullshit. There are no such things as "quantum objects". There are only quantum systems. Quantum systems do not have positions. Having said that, you are in good company. Einstein made the same mistake in 1905.
Nice work, Arvin, thx! So instead of the confusion of anthropocentric words like 'measurement' and 'observation' (with all the attendant 'woo-woo'), why don't we just say that the probabilities of the wave function collapse whenever it interacts with matter?
I appreciate you making the distinction between observation and measurement; I feel that is often the stumbling block when discussing quantum mechanics, since observation implies a living conscious. Great explanations, thank you!
Thanks! Question: Gravity’s effects are proportional to distance. So gravity is always measuring the location of everything all of the time. Perhaps the wave function is really telling us how the location of a particle will alter the gravitational field of the surrounding particles. So the measurement of one is really a measurement of all the particles. Any logic to this???
Great video. Also be ready for the Delayed-Choice-Quantum-Eraser-Experiment because people are going to say measurement is not necessary to collapses the wavefunction. but in this experiment is also Not necessary a Conscious Observer to collapse the wavefunction. What really collapses the wavefunction is the AVAILABILITY of the which-way path information and It doesn't matter if this which-way path information is stored in an atom and no one observes it. It still does Not require a Conscious Observer to collapse the wavefunction, just the availability of the which-way information recorded in some medium.
Exactly, some people still use this experiment as a proof for a Conscious Observer to collapse the wavefunction when this is not the case at all in the DCQE
As I understand, in the DCQE-experiment, the choice to measure or not is made -after- the electron has already gone through the double slit. And depending on whether the choice was "measure" or "not-measure", the electron's wave function will turn out to have collapsed when it went through the slit (or not). Essentially, the making of the measurement determines, retroactively, that the wave function collapsed at the time it went through the double slit (or not). That seems consistent with the idea that a measurement is needed to collapse the wave function -- all it changes is that it is not required that the measurement to be made immediately. But if measurement "at that moment" is not a requirement, how can you determine whether a wave function can collapse without a conscious observer? It seems reasonable to me, btw, that a conscious observer should not be required to collapse a wave function. I'm simply wondering how that could be proven to a conscious being that this is the case. After all, whatever experiment you do, the wave function of the entire experiment as a whole (including whether or not the electron's wave function collapsed independently, etc) could only collapse when the conscious observer observes its results, and in that collapse writing its own history retroactively, including whether or not the electrons wave function collapsed and thus what the result of the experiment was. It seems to me as if the only way to say with certainty whether or not the wave function collapsed on measurement or on observation would be an experiment which is not observed, only measured, but the problem is that to determine the outcome of the experiment, someone has to observe it, at which point you can no longer be certain that it didn't collapse just now. Clearly I'm not understanding something yet, so my question probably does not make sense, and if it is dumb, please feel free to ignore it, but thanks for reading anyway ^_^
@@Mercurius314 DCQE-experiment still doesn't need a Conscious Observer. it only requires that the which-way-path-information is available and not destroyed to collapses the wavefunction. the which-way-path-information can be stored in some medium and it doesn't need the observation of a conscious being
Richard Feynman said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” You can't neatly squeeze, hammer, order, quantum phenomena into classical concepts, intuition or visualization. Quantum Mechanics works - that's good enough. Insisting that what works has to answer to some pre-existing model is silly. First we see that something works and then we might try to understand why it works, not the other way around.
Thanks for kicking the woo to the curb with this. You have saved me many moments of frustrating argument; this video is now a resource I direct people to when necessary. Besides, now I can give up my nerve-wracking belief in magic.
The only argument you brought was "there is no science". This isn't really a strong argument. Fact is, as long as we don't know what conscoiusness is, we can't say if anything is related to it. But it's also a fact that everything in the body depends on electrical signals, every thought and every desicion. It's stupid to say that we can "collapse the wave function on a specific point" that we want it to (or is it?), but it's also stupid to say that there is no chance that quantum physics may play a role in how consciousness works.
Okay. Doesn't this measurement-interpretation solve that thousands of years old "does a falling tree make a sound when nobody hears" -riddle? The answer should be: yes it does! Correct? Or is that an incorrect extrapolization?
Great question! I have always thought of that question as more of a philosophical question regarding the meaning of conscious awareness, but if used in the context of science, the answer, as you said, would be yes. This has not so much to do with quantum mechanics, as it does classical physics. When a tree falls, it leaves its mark or record in the form of ground vibrations, sound, etc., that affect its surroundings. Lots of little changes happen because the tree fell. This falling is "recorded" in the state of the universe, regardless of a human being present. Maybe I should make a video about this?
@@ArvinAsh the problem about philosophy is as long as theres 2 possible answer and each side will have at least one who will agree the philosophical struggle will never end. But in science even if there's thousands of possible answer but if one is proven right everyone will agree to it. But philosophy is also needed for a great scientist because it creates a good question. So philosophy and science is always walking side by side. But I might be wrong.
@@jhonhomerrana9080 Philosophical struggles occur about questions that were not answered using science yet, and especially those which may never be answered. However, one little correction if you mind : nothing is ever proven right in science, but some things can be proven wrong. Current science is just a set of theories that everyone failed to prove wrong (falsify) yet.
Sir,the best thing you do is you post the lecture in words too,from which I make notes, very helpfull. We need teachers lecturers like you. Once again thank you sir. Soumyadeep Biswas from india.
Good question! The slits themselves do not record which slit the photon or electron went through. In other words, there is no record that could be forensically examined to determine whether the particle went through it or not. It there was, then indeed the wave would collapse.
It's because it does not measure it, it's just an obstacle which actually does create the high probability areas u see it and the low probability areas, so it kind of does measure it to those positions.
Why the photons don't collapse when they interact with the double slit or the air between the photon shooter and the panel? And how did a guy in early 1900 managed to shoot one single photon at time?
Excellent questions! Only the photons that slip through the slits without hitting anything remain in superposition. But it is more accurate of think of the photons not as particles but as probability waves passing through the slits. You can shoot single photons by decreasing the intensity of the light severely.
@nils4545 That is probably correct. But the probability is so low that it may not happen over millions of photons being fired. And if it did, you may not be able to detect it.
@Arvin Ash , I can hardly understand that they had the equipment around 1900, to make sure that only a single photon was shot at the time. It would be nice if you made a video or comment about the original set-up.
I don't wanna sound disrespectful, but the view presented here could have been the accepted explanation maybe in the 1930s or 40s. There is a huge problem with the collapsing wavefunction, as many have discussed since then. You also said that you could repeat the measurement and get a different result. No, you don't once you collapsed the wavefunction with the first measurement. The probabilistic property of the electron or any other particle would dissapear. Obviously that is not the case. But also, what is the mechanism of the collapsing of the wavefunction, or how do you get a fully fledged wavefunction again, after you completed a measurement. Tough problems that the Coppenhagen interpretation just cannot address. Another problem is the idea that just because a macroscopic system consists of many particles, you can just forget about quantum mechanics. No, you cannot. About the free will... since a few Na or K ion here or there can in principle result in a completely different decision that you make, it is quite possible that quantum mechanics plays an important role in how your brain functions. Just a minor thing... The wavefunction of the system is not the probability, but a mathematical object that contains all the information of the system. The magnitude of it is the probability density, but using the wavefunction you can measure anything you want. You get the number as the eigenvalue, and the corresponding state as the eigenstate. I would consider the relative states interpretation of Hugh Everett III much more favorable. One part of the system measures another part of the system. Even us people are part of the system, we cannot make measurements as outsiders. Finally let me just say that much about the confident explanations: "If somebody states that he understands quantum physics, that proves that he does not understand it" :) That is how weird it is!
Since I know about quantum physics because of great explainers like you, I have always asked myself: How come interactions between particles and energy form images we can see? How does vision exactly work on a quantum level? I‘d love someone responding to that in the comments or Arvin Ash himself making a video on that! I am really curious…
Glad to hear about how a person and consciousness observing doesnt make a difference and now clear on what a measurement is. So why did consciousness get involved in all of this???
Probably because early misinterpretation of QM results spawned several popular books, like "The tao of physics," and "The Dancing Woo Li masters." -- These books were cult classics and ingrained the idea of a consciousness connection to quantum mechanics. Consciousness is mysterious, and QM is mysterious - so people thought maybe the two are related.
Green Light, the presenter is correct about the book 'The Tao of Physics'. It was one of the books I bought back in the late 80s. However, this is not what formed my idea behind the QM and the mind. I was searching for a moral source (a god figure). You can think (predict). There is no reason why any of it must be true or ever become real in the physical sense of the word. Our thinking does not have to be linked to future events. It is independent. Other explanations for it doesn't fit. Only QM so far has the mechanics (not deterministic) -- as stated in the video. This is very important. We do have free will. That is not in question. Your thinking will 'collapse' to a defined state when observed (force to interact). You want to watch a film at the cinema. Your friend fancies something else. You want to stay together (say a couple in love and like sharing time and space). We are part of the quantum realm. Want to steal something but you see a camera watching you or security guard or staff or even a member of the public. You will factor that into your future behaviour. No one there (in the world) to stop you: what would you do? This is like that double-slit experiment. I have a toy model that explains it perfectly (by the way). Nothing magical. It is about sharing energy. Light is dead and alive at the same time. It needs more energy (food) to do work. The maths on it is simple and elegant. 'Not true that simple explains means its wrong.' -- spiffy sound bits don't make them right either. They only wish to shape your mind (as I am trying to do, now). What do you think? That is the most important question. We speak many languages but come to the same interpretation of an observable (minus the colour aspect). You can shape minds too. We are given children for that very purpose. Have a nice life and keep thinking you are free (if: you can afford those interactions).
Arvin Ash. I think this is one of the best videos you have put out Really helpful with the measurement problem. Dispelled for me a lot of the confusion over measurement and observations. Consciousness and non conscious Nice one !Thanks
The obvious question is: how does the photon know it's being measured? Or to put it another way what is the mechanism that causes the measurement to result in a collapse of the wave? It seems like there must be some form of Consciousness that is aware of the measurement and induces the wave collapse. This doesn't have to be human consciousness. If we don't know the answer to this question, then it appears we don't understand quantum mechanics at all. It's just a huge riddle that raises more questions than it answers
ya ive wondered for a long time who invented the which-way detector and what its components are the fact that this video mentions Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, who i had never seen mentioned by any other person before, gives me hope to learn more about the which-way detector :) there are hints in this video that another video of Arvin's describes the which-way detector. if i find a link to it, i will repost it here
@@passthebutterrobot2600 He already has a video on the quantum eraser and some other advanced quantum topics. He just happened to decide to make a video explaining the basics now, but it's by no means his first video on quantum mechanics.
@@Raphael4722 thats what confuses me about this video. He said hes never talked about entanglement and other things but he literally has multiple videos on them and some of those even hinted at things he now says in this video to be untrue
@Kyle Vh He comes across as reasonable and level headed but in actual fact what little I‘ve seen of his content is among the most biased and misleading on the subject. He is a dyed in the wool materialist and simply does not believe the results of the experiment. He is confused and confounded - who isn’t - but you have to at least accept the evidence which has been arrived at in a falsifiable context. He does not.
@@dazboot2966 Nah, he's pretty open-minded. The evidence for "everything is consciousness" just isn't conclusive. These kind of metaphysical theories are only appealing for psychedelic junkies. The average rational person sees these theories as cool but knows more evidence is still needed.
@@Raphael4722 absolute non sense it has been debated for literally thousands of years and many of humanities greatest scientists and philosophers have sided in favour of idealism.
Two things though Arvin : if you code the photons so you have “which way” information, you don’t get the interference pattern, and the delayed choice quantum eraser shows if you delete the “measurement” later, the measurement at the slits does NOT collapse the wave function. Indicating it IS the observer and not the measurement causing the collapse.
Delayed choice experiment, as I understand it, does not take a measurement then erase it later. It merely measures the state of one entangled particle before the state of the other is determined. If you have a reference to experiments where they measured and then erased as you indicate, I would be interested in reading it.
I would propose that they have a hidden connection, maybe through small extra dimensions, which - as we know geometrically and mathematically can surpass time and distance in other dimensions - makes them instantly react. Sorry about this rather long and convoluted argument.
"The universe will exist and will continue to exist whether we are here to observe it or not." Your video is overall good, but the quoted part is not directly provable via QM, so you fell into the opposite subjective extreme from what you tried to disprove.
@@eqXzeRt I was agreeing with the first part. The quoted segment. There is the observable universe and the non observable universe. Observable via what our technological capacity can achieve. The latter bits about quantum mechanics, we simply have to go by principles. Naturally principles lead us to theorems and proofs
@@ashyosings5089 there's a delayed which-way version of the double slit experiment. The wave collapses before conscious observation of the result is possible. It shows that conscious observation is irrelevant.
@@tylerdurden3722 My younger brother just said to me, (while doing the 'wobble illusion with a pencil') "What if it's actually bending?" I was honestly dumbfounded
@@ashyosings5089 people did some research. When you play peek-a-boo with a very young child, they're actually convinced you dissappeared. (like quantum tunneling or somethingl As we grow older, we develop an intuition for how we think the world works. So we're no longer impressed by peek-a-boo. That same flawed intuition makes something like quantum tunneling becomes hard to accept. The same with concepts like relativity. Btw, the pencil does not bend. It's just an artifact of how our brains evolved to perceive fast movement. A fly, for example, wont see it bend. Nor would a high framerate camera.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This video reduces my confusion of quantum physic by 20%
mine was raised by 20% :)
Watch it five times 😎😎
Too good % reduction considering the video time of only 13 minutes.
Your confusion could have been reduced anywhere between 0-100%, but you had to go ahead and measure it.
Currently my state of confusion is still in superposition.
One of my first questions upon studying Quantum Physics was this, "What exactly do they mean by "observe"? This video does a wonderful job of answering that question! Thanks!
But how do you detect a photon?
I was wondering exactly the same. The truth doesn't inspire an DMT-fueled all-nighter discussion the same way as if consciousness was involved, does it. 😄 #mildlydisappointedtho
@@amitaimedan with a photon detector obviously
...sorry to disappoint you Mr. Sandlund-this video is not only far away to "answer" your Q but presented attempt is very simplified and incorrect...
...but hey if you get it good for you...
...all the best...
8:52 this is where he make a mistake. interaction between particle didnt make wave function collapse. it will make both particle become entangled. we can measure again with another particle but it also will entangled with previous particle.
no one could prove that if we shot a particle with particle, make them interact, will make wave function collapse if there is no presence of observer (concious mind). How you can tell that wave function is collapse if you are not there interpreting the measurement result?
this is the real measurement problem. and this is also the root of "consciousness collapsing wave function" theory.
this explanation in the video didnt explain much. it will only make people think that consciousness is not necessary for collapsing the wave function. in which not true. there is a scientific experiment that prove that consciousness actually effect reality
what arvin ash point out in this video (also almost all of his video) is to bring the personal agenda, that was The Materialism.
I wish this guy was one of my teachers in high school. Hell I wish I could just sit down and ask him questions and have conversations about this stuff, I think about it all day
Do your self a favour and don't take everything this guy says as truth. He doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
I rather take his word then some random in the comment section.
Its not even his theories.
Its just him interpreting and explaining other peoples theories.
Which you would understand if you werent trying to drag him through the mud.
At least have a damn argument.
Arvin does a fantastic job explaining these theories. Whether hes right or wrong is not even the point.
Hell, i disagree with him all the time on things yet that doesnt make him wrong or bad.
He's still a great source of info and explanation.
@@desperado3236 I think he's good too, just not quantum physics though. There is no explanation for the cause of the collapse that takes away consciesness from the equation. Whomever comes out with one would get the Nobel price.
@@GJ-dj4jx quantum physicists are drug addicts like you. How the hell you would know if you don't look at it
Your optics diagram grossly wrong
Square pyramid, refraction etc
philipbradfield2@gmail.com
I can't say I understand everything, but I'm still binge watching
perhaps its already colapsed because of the spliter...and because of the spliter it blocked other photon and because of the spliter othe photons blockes.only those photon entered the spliter reached the screen.
Mr Ash is the physics teacher I wish I had. To explain something so complex in such a simple and understandable way is truly an art.
Thanks my friend. I really appreciate it.
Indeed! It is an art.
@@ArvinAsh ua-cam.com/video/zy6mVAb-UjU/v-deo.html Hard to deal with it, isnt it ? 😃
Well said, Thomas! And really well done on an extremely strange, complex subject, Arvin. Thanks!
I have been investigating these topics for many years and have NEVER heard a more clear and concise clarification of these fundamental questions! Nicely done.
I've been recommending searching for double slit delayed choice quantum eraser. The vid is great and concise but it is missing a part of the experiment which is worth looking into
@@EminorReal ua-cam.com/video/0ui9ovrQuKE/v-deo.html Here's the video
Like the way you made it clear on the difference between Observation and Measurement.
It was interesting considering they've been hundreds of experiments showing that a measurement buy a computer does not collapse the function or change it but a conscious observation does the best analogy for why that's not discussed is when they ask scientist to look at their results they say ( I don't want to)
@@mccullum2593
I've not heard of one. It's mere interaction with certain macro phenomena that causes the wave function ro collapse. It's why quantum computing is so difficult. Inagin trying to isolate qbits from all outside interference.
Biggsy DaBoss, you haven’t heard of one because that fact invalidates materialism, and scientists that rely on publishing papers can’t risk running afoul of materialist dogma or else lose their funding.
Consider doing your own research rather than taking the word of someone with a vested interest at face value.
As a thought experiment, try to find an example of an experiment where they still measured without looking at the data and found that the wave function did collapse.
@@mccullum2593 where?
@@Acsion42 as a thought experiment, post these supposed experiments that show consciousness being involed in QM observation is anything more than taking the wrong definition of the word
Schrodinger arrives at the vets to pick up his cat. The vet says, "Well, Mr. Schrodinger, I've got some good news and some bad news..."
Well,they both are just news until the vet says the 1st news to schördinger.
Mr. Schrodinger -> Dr. Schrödinger
The good news is that your cat is alive. The bad news is that your cat is dead.
@sim sim salabim actually, the conversation could, or will, or would (your choice depending on your quantum state) go like this:
"Dr. Schrodinger, I potentially have some bad news or I potentially have some good news: your cat could possibly be dead or you cat could possibly be alive."
@thejils1669 no, the thought experiment was meant to show how absurd the Copenhagen interpretation is by telling you the cat is at a state of being both dead and alive UNTIL you open the box, not potentially.
Yes, if it has been repeatedly demonstrated by strong empirical evidence that we are operating in an indeterministic universe, rather than a hard deterministic universe, that an indeterministic model works better at prediction and control than a deterministic model, then that would definitely have bearing on the question of free will.
This is very clear but there are still some wording issues. For instance, at 6:47 it is said that, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the “electron is in ALL potential positions AT ONCE.” This sounds off to me. A closer formulation would be: the electron potentially but not actually is in all positions. For it to be actually at a position, the wave function must collapse. The use of probability, according to Heisenberg, is not mathematical but Aristotelian. He says the following in his book Physics and Philosophy: «The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater, however, meant more than that [the mathematical conception]; it meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy.»
Yeah, there is a lot of confusion about the Copenhagen interpretation. It doesn't say any of those things and if it did, then it would be simply wrong about them. The simple fact is that there is no electron until an electron is being measured. That's also not a statement by Copenhagen. It is a trivial statement by experimental physics on which one can build quantum field theory.
It was all fun and games until Schördinger's cat started living and dying, and living and dying at the same time.
I didn't get into that, but the cat was used by Schrodinger to show the absurdity of the interpretation of his own wave equation. That is not the way QM would actually work for a cat.
Arvin Ash: thank you. I've thought that same thing--NOT the way it would work for a cat, but so often people get angry when I mention that.
@@jilliansmith7123 There's a famous saying by Mark Twain, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell who the fool is."
@@ArvinAsh "That is not the way QM would actually work for a cat." Except that IS the way QM seems to work for a human consciously not observing a cat. Yes, Schrödinger was absolutely pointing to the absurdity of the logical consequence of his equation under the Copenhagen interpretation. Again, please avoid presenting these beliefs as though they are fact. We just don't know, and the darn problem is so immune to investigation. And again, I hold the same belief as you. Maybe the truth of the cat not actually being both alive and dead lies on some Gödelian true-but-unprovable island. I hope not.
@@Juttutin Not sure what your argument is. I am not stating a belief. The cat as described by Schrodinger is NOT in superposition like subatomic particles are theorized to be. The cat is alive OR dead, not alive AND dead.
One of the best explanations of quantum mechanics I have observed.
Or measured?
Thank you so much.. word "observation"always made me think that its some kind of magic and it can not be real physics..but it all makes complete sense when we use correct term "measurement"
An even better word would perhaps be "interaction". Collapse of "wave of probability" is caused by interaction with another system. Like photon hitting a slit.
I like how tyson descriped it, he said something that meant quantum world is so small that taking information out of it is already too much.
Measurement implies fancy instruments and conscious intent. I'd agree that "interaction" - even if inaccurate - is a better way to distill this concept.
Green Kizuen Wow that’s a really good way of putting it
@@MrRaizada Yes but the slit does not collapse the wave function, yet the photon clearly interacts with it. How can one interaction collapse the wave function, but the other does not? Interaction doesn't seem to be the right term here.
You talk very relaxed, thats why its very easy to grasp the tiny bit information coming from you.
Thanks man for sharing the knowledges
Finally, an answer to the age-old question: If a particle interacts in a forest, but nobody's around to observe it, does its probability field collapse?
Haha. I made a dedicated video on that age old question. Check it out.
@@Takeitinnblood Great point, and one that I think this video did a poor job (in fact no job at all) of covering. Nevertheless, I appreciate the knowledge you share, Arvin.
Only if a bear pooped on it
Read "Life on the Edge" 2016 by JohnJoe McFadden - award winning science book on quantum biology
@@ArvinAsh why a photon or an electron's wave function doesn't collide when it is shot from the instrument to the screen through the slit? by the definition of measurement in quantum world it was measured when it was in the atom, when it was shot, and all the time sub atomic particles were measuring it.🙄
Thanks for taking the time to research and dispel these misunderstandings. In my opinion, the reality of quantum mechanics is much more profound than any of the misconceptions make it out to be!
Best part: the articulation of measurement VS observation. Great work! 👏 👏 👏
Hardly.
The measurement problem has not been explained as even this UA-camr says.
Just because Consciousness isn't required which is a claim not a fact doesn't mean Consciousness doesn't collapse wave functions.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck
"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."
- Erwin Schrödinger
Both of them have got a lot of things wrong. Same with this. Consciousness is nothing special. Measurement is not made by a conscious observer. It is just an interaction between a measuring device or a photon interacting with the system. Enough with the bullshit pseudoscience.
Smart people can be wrong too you know.
@@Jopie65 True. But I think it speaks to the fact that scientists themselves are divided unlike the black and white picture portrayed in this video.
@@clawfinger
Maybe they used to, but when quantum mechanics became an established theory, there were not many scientists who concluded that quantum mechanics is an effect of consciousness.
Nowadays, the argument most people have for that boils down to 'quantum mechanics is mysterious, consciousness is mysterious, so the two are probably linked somehow'.
@spaghetti yummy Sometimes I eat so much that I feel like I'm spread out everywhere.
Amazing ! You actually explained the double split paradox with an explanation that makes sense.
And excluding the conscious observer clears out A LOT of misunderstanding.
Far and away the best science content I have ever watched. Well done sir.
Best explanation of the wave collapse and the definition of what is an observer. Can't tell you how many hours I spent to figure it out; if only you were around earlier...
Ash. So glad to see that your sub numbers are up. I wait every week for your new video.
Thank you so much.
The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment completely contradicts the assertions in this video about what observation means. It is not physical interaction. The electrons in this experiment travel along mirrors and prisms, and the paths that reveal logically the which-way path show particle behavior, and tha paths that do not reveal logically the which-way path show wave behavior, even backwards in time.
It's astounding how much clearer this is for me now, I was beginning to think there may be some hurdles just to high. I am going over to another link to work on my writing and spelling...I'm feeling confident now.
I have a question about collapsing wave function. If a photon has been measured, is the fact that its wave function has been collapsed, stays as a property of this particular photon? And the photon carries this property with it? It's how I understood your example at 10:03 of the video. Does it mean that some photons have their wave functions collapsed, and others - not? And the photons "know" about their wave function state? Now the main question: does this mean that if a photon that came to use from the deep space has interacted with something during its journey through the space, and its wave function has been measured, it will stay measured forever, and if we manage to get a bunch of the photons measured this way, we will have the two lines in the test even though it wasn't us who measured it?
Also, an additional question: what if we manage do measure all photons in the test with different detector, will it show two lines or many lines? I just though, what if all those photons with collapsed wave function that show two lines as particles, are actually united in a system because they have been measured by the same detector? And if it was different detectors, the photons would have been measured but still acted as a wave, because they are not a part of the same quantum-interacted family anymore?
No. There are no photons with collapsed wavefunctions flying around. That would be very weird! It is the problem with the Coppenhagen interpretation, which is a very old view, and considers this collapse to happen. No such collapse happens, it only seems that way from our perspective.
@@pszotter Then it's strange that when photons in double slit experiment are being observed, they switch interference picture to "particle dispersion" one. How to explain this if there's no wave function collapse stored in photons?
It is called dehocerence. The propapilistic nature of the photon, electron, or other particle dissapears for thos objects (observers) that interact with it, meaning they get information about which slit it passes through. But the wavefunction does not collapse it is just expressed in terms of different bases. And you cannot treat the particle separately, you also have to consider the states of the observer. Either: |observer not knowing which slit observing interference pattern> and 1/root2|photon left> + 1/root2 * |photon right> two independent parts of the universal wavefunction
Or: 1/root2 |observer seeing photon left> * |photon left> + 1/root2 * |observer seeing photon right> * |photon right> decoherence because observer received information about particle or photon, but can only observe one possibility at a time. The other possibility is also real, therefore no collapse.
pszotter how do we know we are sending one photon? I doubt we know enough about that
@@redneckrevolt1 Search for single photon light source. One atom getting excited then de-excited, one photon is emitted.
The observation always confused me because how can an electron know when I’m looking but you helped clarify this
Though the vid being very informative and helpful, it is missing a look into double slit delayed choice quantum eraser, which in my opinion is worth checking out
You are born to deliver this complicated content. So smooth. Ty!
I wished you were there when i was in school, 14 years ago, probably i could had become one those deep thinkers. Thank you for your passion. You have a permanent subscriber.
Nice! Thanks my friend.
Really Thankful to Arvin ! It literally reduced my confusion in Quantum Mechanics a bit . And , I think my confusion of Sir G I Taylor's experiment is solved . Btw , to me Arvin Ash is the best explainer in Science Ed .
I am confused about the fact that, how he generated a single photon?
Same here.
There are lots of ways now. I think at that time he did it by generation like 1000s and 1000s of protons and sending them inside a box where they bounce of the walls and get absorbed. But every few seconds a photon pass through a pin hole. Now you just need to turn off or block photons after first photon pass through. And you have single photon.
@@lalit5408 So does this mean you are/were observing or measuring that very photon - which leaves the photon source - already once before it reaches the double slit and later on hit the screen?
I doubt the way we were told how the experiment really works and what influences the behavior of those photons. Perhaps there are more effects to take into consideration than we imagine to understand the results/patterns on the screen.
George Blau I’m a curious mechanic and I’ve always wondered the engineering on a “single” photon or electron. I bet it’s just like a bundle of water molecules making a wave, it’s a bundle of photons and electrons that the experimentalists don’t care to mention due to funding blah blah blah.
You can do it by decreasing intensity of light until it shows the intensity is minimum which marks a single photon.
I just today found your channel and have been sucked in to your elegant way of making confusing subjects understandable. Although I felt like I understood most of the subjects, your explanation furthers my confidence in my understanding. Keep up the amazing work. We need more minds like yours teaching our children.
Best description of double slit I've heard. The graphics are great too. Really glad I watched, thank you Arvin Ash
Amazingly and clearly presented to lay people. You're an extremely good explainer.
That was so enlightening! You dispelled the most common misconception that light behaves differently when it is observed. That was worth my precious time and it's no misconception that time is precious.
rwarren58 Unfortunately the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was not discussed which shutters the notion that an observe or consciousness is not required to collapse the wave function.
@@OSFSCANNER no it doesnt. How? Like, how in the slightest? It deals with whether which-way information is retained. Not the same thing.
@@jorgepeterbarton umm... yes, I'm afraid it does.
@lasest2 I believed it until this video. It went right to the nature of reality and the concept that the universe is a living thing. The latter may or may not be true but at least one truth as been revealed.
As anybody else in the world you have your detractors but for me you're one of the best educators on UA-cam.
Thanks Arvin.
I think you have had explained the confusion between abservation and measurement very well but beyond well. Using measurement instead of abservation really Changed the entire conversation about the abserver.
The information at the 9 minute mark is incorrect. There’s always a conscious observer that observes the measurement. Even if there is a measuring device, the device itself is in superposition when “the conscious observer” looks at the device. Therefore, a conscious observer is required for all measurements. I’m not sure if Wigner’s friend experiment shows this, but either way, there’s no wiggling our way around consciousness influencing reality regardless of which point the measurement is made from.
This is a common misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. The collapse occurs whether a conscious observer is present or not, that is the whole point of this video. This can be easily demonstrated, do two double slit experiments at the same time, where a human watches the results - one with a detector and without the detector. You will get two different results. Do it with no human present. You will get the same result. Have human look at the result, or not look at the result, the result will not change.
Arvin Ash when a measuring device is observed, who would be doing the observation of the measuring device? :)
Arvin Ash btw, I think it was the delay choice eraser, not Wigner’s friend. When we observe the measuring device, let’s say a camera, we collapse the wave function “in the past.” But we’re observing it in the present. I’ve done this experiment before using cloud dynamics and ESP.
@@jayfig78 The results are the same whether see or not seen by a human. You could argue that no results exist unless a human sees them. This is a philosophical argument, that in my opinion, can't be disproved, but raises consciousness to a higher metaphysical level than is necessary.
@@jayfig78 See my video on Delayed Choice for an explanation of how that experiment works.
The world needs more of this
Very lucid decription of the Copenhagen interpretation. There are alternatives to that. "Many Worlds" and "Pilot Wave" offer different ideas on the wave function. Since this was so well done, I'd love to see your video on those. But understanding the Copenhagen interpretation is good enough for most people to begin to grasp the concepts behind QM and be able to move on to all the strange things that it implies. I've studied this for 25 years and it still is hard to grasp.
One question on the difference between measurement and observation. After a measurement, how do you discern the result without an observer?
When the which-way information is recorded by a mechanical or electronic device, it collapses the probability wave. It doesn't matter if anyone looks at the recording.
Arvin Ash But doesn’t this conclusion, which is based on mechanical recording, require a conscious agent at some stage of the experiment? Thus, where does the certainty come from that the wave collapse has happened before a conscious observer actually looked at or in some other way assessed the results of the recording?
@@vladanissimov6654 exacly. It always takes a "knower" to obtain a result. Until then its an assumption.
@@SimplifiedTruth Yes. And why and how the heck the "measurement" collapses the wave function?
@@joaogabriellucas1865 Its rendered data according to how we decide to measure it. It's just like in Sims until you look there is the potential and probability of what may be there when you look. Once you look then the data is sent and you see what was most probable to be there. One definite outcome. Before the measurement there existed only the probability wave function of what was possible to be there.
I am glad to see push back on the psudo science surrounding quantum physics. It got weird and spiritual which was a strange place to be when talking about science.
Thanks Arvin for taking the time to explain this. Much Appreciated.
Jon
Another fantastic video, thanks Arvin!
"The universe will exist whether we're here or not to observe" - is it possible to prove this statement, given it would require us not to exist and by us not existing no one could prove or disprove it?
Clearly, this is an absurd claim made in the video.
Philosophical realm.
Well we have strong evidence for it as if a human dies, it has little effect to the universe. If we all die, the null hypothesis is the universe exists even if we are not here to observe it. Until we find evidence for the contrary, this is the null hypothesis.
The only thing we can say with 100% certainty is that we have consciousness.
@@TheCodenaruto How do you know?
I love your videos Arvin. My interest in science, space and topics that i never thought i could grasp have grown exponentially since following your channel. Cant wait till the next one
You know its a well delivered lesson when it makes perfect sense but you have no clue why!! Thank you
....wow...again!..... Spent countless hours trying to get my head around this stuff and BANG! you managed to explain this so well I think I now understand! Thankyou Arvin, thank you so much.
8:52 this is where you make a mistake. interaction between particle didnt make wave function collapse. it will make both particle become entangled. we can measure again with another particle but it also will entangled with previous particle.
no one could prove that if we shot a particle with particle, make them interact, will make wave function collapse if there is no presence of observer (concious mind). How you can tell that wave function is collapse if you are not there interpreting the measurement result?
this is the real measurement problem. and this is also the root of "consciousness collapsing wave function" theory.
this explanation in the video didnt explain much. it will only make people think that consciousness is not necessary for collapsing the wave function. in which not true. there is a scientific experiment that prove that consciousness actually effect reality
what arvin ash point out in this video (also almost all of his video) is to bring the personal agenda, that was The Materialism.
I agree that the observation is somehow interfering with the wave pattern. It would be the same way low spectrum light doesn’t interfere with electrons but high spectrum light does. Some interaction is taking place.
Isn't an observation = measurement + interpretation, then it fully makes sense it would cause collapsing of the wave function.
That was really great and answered a lot of my questions about "observation" thank you!
Agree
One of the best explanations ever
I’ve watched a bunch of videos regarding quantum mechanics, I feel like this dude has explained it the best, especially the description of measurement vs observation made it much more clear to me
Glad you found it helpful...dude.
thankyou for clearing up "observation".
i've always sensed that this was a vague definition, misleading, and would ask about a precise definition, but everyone seemed to not give satisfactory answers and didn't care.
you're a great teacher.
Observation is irreversible energy transfer. Five words are enough. You don't need an entire video for this triviality. If nobody has been able to explain this to you, then you have always been talking to the wrong people. ;-)
Keeping it sweet and simple. Amazing work!
Finally someone explain observation to me.. Thank you 😃😃
Thanks for explaining "observation". It was always hard to understand.
Using the word measurement instead of observing is a very important idea to talk about, thank you soooo much.
Clearest explanation yet! I finally understand this basic problem.
Thanks Arvin. I am enjoying your exploration. Perhaps there is a different interpretation of the reason the double slit experiment changes. You mentioned that there doesn't need to be a conscious observer and it is really just measurement that collapses the potentiality wave. What if we remove the identification with ourselves, thinking we are a separate special bit of consciousness and see the fundamental nature of everything as the same consciousness. Then consciousness would be just interacting with itself in measurement or observation and collapsing the potentiality into a new expression of life/matter, consciousness in the form of life constantly blossoming itself. It doesn't need a special bit of identifiable consciousness called a human or even an animal to affect it. We as human expressions of consciousness just have the beautiful capacity to be aware of our awareness and thoughts, which gives us a sense of separate importance, and ultimately the doer somehow responsible for what we perceive. Perhaps we are fundamentally the same consciousness as is the fabric of the materially known and potential universe. This just takes it back to everything as potentiality until consciousness interacts and it collapses into matter and removes the illusory subject object causal definition.
I’m always leery when humans talk about these things, I feel like it’s monkeys discussing how Chevy V8s are designed.
The understanding of physics is entirely based in mathematics. So it’s not say a field like biology (no shade) where there is more just knowing a fundamental process, everything is explained fundamentally with math.
@@CraigCsintalan biology, my friend, is physiology. Cut an animal into pieces and you can actually SEE the parts. Your point doesn't hold, or even compare. (No shade ... really.)
Why are you skeptical? If ALL math in the Standard Model were wrong, you wouldn't be watching UA-cam and replying to this video.
How do we (humans) know how to do that, then?
"The understanding of physics is entirely based in mathematics." It is true and that is what is wrong with physics today. Too much mathematics and too little physics. That is why physics today is so speculative and should not be trusted.
Aleksandar Ignjatovic bruh . BRUH WTF.
Excellent Arvin.. Much of the woo and general confusion might have originally been avoided if OTHER terminology had been adopted to describe the collapse of the wave function.. Maybe like, interaction instead of measurement or observation... The show was done with beautiful Simplicity as always Arvin.
If it were that easy to explain by using a magical word such as "interaction" then why would we need such complex interpretations like the Many Worlds or the De Broglie Bohm🤔????
@@AlexTorres-qv3hv Odd, nobody suggested it would make it EASY to explain, Just that much of the unsupported woo interpretations might have been sidestepped...
@@AlexTorres-qv3hv maybe that's magical to you..
@@billnorris1264 its cause there's no such thing as "OTHER" terminology....even Einstein who was troubled by entanglement had no other way to call it but spooky.....there are contradictions between videos of this author, here he states it's interaction the cause of collapse but then in another video of a more advanced experiment specifically designed to rule out physical interaction by the detectors (DCQE) he simply states having no answer to explain the results which happens to be exactly the same as in the standard DS.....
Thanks again Arvin. Love your programs. I have a question (for anyone). The popular phrase is that a quantum object is "in all places (where it can be, presumably) at once until it is measured." This may sound like splitting hairs, but I think the following is an important question, even if there is no direct empirical way of answering it, but here goes: Couldn't it be the case that the quantum object instead is NOWHERE until it is measured? For example: For light there is no time, so in the double slit experiment, if a photon is not measured before hitting the back screen, perhaps the photon didn't go through either slit. Otherwise from the frame of reference of the photon, it would have been emitted, gone through slit(s), and reached the back wall all in the same instant.
That is probably not the best way to interpret it, because if it's nowhere, then that would imply that it doesn't exist until we measure it. This is not the case. The object definitely exists, but we just don't know in advance where it is. The interpretation of. it being everywhere is also not quite correct. Probably the most precise way to think of it is that the mathematics simply do not tell us where it is until we measure it. We can only predict the probability of finding it in certain locations.
You are already starting out with bullshit. There are no such things as "quantum objects". There are only quantum systems. Quantum systems do not have positions. Having said that, you are in good company. Einstein made the same mistake in 1905.
Nice work, Arvin, thx! So instead of the confusion of anthropocentric words like 'measurement' and 'observation' (with all the attendant 'woo-woo'), why don't we just say that the probabilities of the wave function collapse whenever it interacts with matter?
We could. It would not be a bad idea. BTW, it can collapse when interacting with other things such as radiation as well.
I appreciate you making the distinction between observation and measurement; I feel that is often the stumbling block when discussing quantum mechanics, since observation implies a living conscious. Great explanations, thank you!
Thanks. Yes, the word "observation" is very problematic.
Arvin, another precious one 👌
Thanks! Question: Gravity’s effects are proportional to distance. So gravity is always measuring the location of everything all of the time. Perhaps the wave function is really telling us how the location of a particle will alter the gravitational field of the surrounding particles. So the measurement of one is really a measurement of all the particles. Any logic to this???
That's an interesting way to look at it. I am not sure.
this is the best rundown of quantum mechanics i've ever seen! thank you Arvin
New to learning quantum things and am increasingly interested in learning the rest of this topic. Very good video. Subbed
I'm going to make a playlist of my favorite Arvin Ash videos.
Please do. Thank you.
Thanks so much for this video. Finally, this makes sense to me.
Great video. Also be ready for the Delayed-Choice-Quantum-Eraser-Experiment because people are going to say measurement is not necessary to collapses the wavefunction. but in this experiment is also Not necessary a Conscious Observer to collapse the wavefunction. What really collapses the wavefunction is the AVAILABILITY of the which-way path information and It doesn't matter if this which-way path information is stored in an atom and no one observes it. It still does Not require a Conscious Observer to collapse the wavefunction, just the availability of the which-way information recorded in some medium.
Exactly, some people still use this experiment as a proof for a Conscious Observer to collapse the wavefunction when this is not the case at all in the DCQE
Yes, excellent summary! Thank you.
As I understand, in the DCQE-experiment, the choice to measure or not is made -after- the electron has already gone through the double slit. And depending on whether the choice was "measure" or "not-measure", the electron's wave function will turn out to have collapsed when it went through the slit (or not).
Essentially, the making of the measurement determines, retroactively, that the wave function collapsed at the time it went through the double slit (or not). That seems consistent with the idea that a measurement is needed to collapse the wave function -- all it changes is that it is not required that the measurement to be made immediately.
But if measurement "at that moment" is not a requirement, how can you determine whether a wave function can collapse without a conscious observer?
It seems reasonable to me, btw, that a conscious observer should not be required to collapse a wave function. I'm simply wondering how that could be proven to a conscious being that this is the case.
After all, whatever experiment you do, the wave function of the entire experiment as a whole (including whether or not the electron's wave function collapsed independently, etc) could only collapse when the conscious observer observes its results, and in that collapse writing its own history retroactively, including whether or not the electrons wave function collapsed and thus what the result of the experiment was.
It seems to me as if the only way to say with certainty whether or not the wave function collapsed on measurement or on observation would be an experiment which is not observed, only measured, but the problem is that to determine the outcome of the experiment, someone has to observe it, at which point you can no longer be certain that it didn't collapse just now.
Clearly I'm not understanding something yet, so my question probably does not make sense, and if it is dumb, please feel free to ignore it, but thanks for reading anyway ^_^
@@Mercurius314 DCQE-experiment still doesn't need a Conscious Observer. it only requires that the which-way-path-information is available and not destroyed to collapses the wavefunction. the which-way-path-information can be stored in some medium and it doesn't need the observation of a conscious being
Richard Feynman said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” You can't neatly squeeze, hammer, order, quantum phenomena into classical concepts, intuition or visualization. Quantum Mechanics works - that's good enough. Insisting that what works has to answer to some pre-existing model is silly. First we see that something works and then we might try to understand why it works, not the other way around.
Feynman made a joke and you are proving that you don't have a sense of humor. ;-)
Great job simplifying without oversimplifying.
Best explanation ever 💓💓
Thanks for kicking the woo to the curb with this. You have saved me many moments of frustrating argument; this video is now a resource I direct people to when necessary. Besides, now I can give up my nerve-wracking belief in magic.
Excellent! Yes, please share because too many people falsely believe things that science does not support.
The only argument you brought was "there is no science". This isn't really a strong argument. Fact is, as long as we don't know what conscoiusness is, we can't say if anything is related to it. But it's also a fact that everything in the body depends on electrical signals, every thought and every desicion. It's stupid to say that we can "collapse the wave function on a specific point" that we want it to (or is it?), but it's also stupid to say that there is no chance that quantum physics may play a role in how consciousness works.
Okay. Doesn't this measurement-interpretation solve that thousands of years old "does a falling tree make a sound when nobody hears" -riddle? The answer should be: yes it does! Correct? Or is that an incorrect extrapolization?
Great question! I have always thought of that question as more of a philosophical question regarding the meaning of conscious awareness, but if used in the context of science, the answer, as you said, would be yes. This has not so much to do with quantum mechanics, as it does classical physics. When a tree falls, it leaves its mark or record in the form of ground vibrations, sound, etc., that affect its surroundings. Lots of little changes happen because the tree fell. This falling is "recorded" in the state of the universe, regardless of a human being present. Maybe I should make a video about this?
@@ArvinAsh the problem about philosophy is as long as theres 2 possible answer and each side will have at least one who will agree the philosophical struggle will never end. But in science even if there's thousands of possible answer but if one is proven right everyone will agree to it. But philosophy is also needed for a great scientist because it creates a good question. So philosophy and science is always walking side by side. But I might be wrong.
@@jhonhomerrana9080 Philosophical struggles occur about questions that were not answered using science yet, and especially those which may never be answered. However, one little correction if you mind : nothing is ever proven right in science, but some things can be proven wrong. Current science is just a set of theories that everyone failed to prove wrong (falsify) yet.
Arvin, great explanations, as usual. I have not understood everything, but enough to tell you that you are a great professor.
Thanks my friend. Welcome to the channel.
You are welcome.
Sir,the best thing you do is you post the lecture in words too,from which I make notes, very helpfull. We need teachers lecturers like you. Once again thank you sir. Soumyadeep Biswas from india.
If you read the description under the videos posted on my website, you will usually see the full transcript of these videos.
@@ArvinAsh Yes sir, and I write it down to my dairy to make notes...
Why doesn't the double slit itself "measure" the wave? It clearly interacts with it so why doesn't it collapse it?
Good question! The slits themselves do not record which slit the photon or electron went through. In other words, there is no record that could be forensically examined to determine whether the particle went through it or not. It there was, then indeed the wave would collapse.
It's because it does not measure it, it's just an obstacle which actually does create the high probability areas u see it and the low probability areas, so it kind of does measure it to those positions.
Why the photons don't collapse when they interact with the double slit or the air between the photon shooter and the panel? And how did a guy in early 1900 managed to shoot one single photon at time?
Excellent questions!
Only the photons that slip through the slits without hitting anything remain in superposition. But it is more accurate of think of the photons not as particles but as probability waves passing through the slits. You can shoot single photons by decreasing the intensity of the light severely.
@@ArvinAsh what about the atoms of air when it is moving towards the slip, shouldn't that collapse the wave function?
@@morten3219 Indeed, that could happen. So the experimental set up has to be in such a way to minimize or prevent that.
@nils4545 That is probably correct. But the probability is so low that it may not happen over millions of photons being fired. And if it did, you may not be able to detect it.
@Arvin Ash , I can hardly understand that they had the equipment around 1900, to make sure that only a single photon was shot at the time. It would be nice if you made a video or comment about the original set-up.
I don't wanna sound disrespectful, but the view presented here could have been the accepted explanation maybe in the 1930s or 40s. There is a huge problem with the collapsing wavefunction, as many have discussed since then. You also said that you could repeat the measurement and get a different result. No, you don't once you collapsed the wavefunction with the first measurement. The probabilistic property of the electron or any other particle would dissapear. Obviously that is not the case. But also, what is the mechanism of the collapsing of the wavefunction, or how do you get a fully fledged wavefunction again, after you completed a measurement. Tough problems that the Coppenhagen interpretation just cannot address. Another problem is the idea that just because a macroscopic system consists of many particles, you can just forget about quantum mechanics. No, you cannot. About the free will... since a few Na or K ion here or there can in principle result in a completely different decision that you make, it is quite possible that quantum mechanics plays an important role in how your brain functions. Just a minor thing... The wavefunction of the system is not the probability, but a mathematical object that contains all the information of the system. The magnitude of it is the probability density, but using the wavefunction you can measure anything you want. You get the number as the eigenvalue, and the corresponding state as the eigenstate. I would consider the relative states interpretation of Hugh Everett III much more favorable. One part of the system measures another part of the system. Even us people are part of the system, we cannot make measurements as outsiders. Finally let me just say that much about the confident explanations: "If somebody states that he understands quantum physics, that proves that he does not understand it" :) That is how weird it is!
this video is awesome, it is like this was made to solve my main questions about this particular topic of quantum physics, I love it. Thank you.
Since I know about quantum physics because of great explainers like you, I have always asked myself: How come interactions between particles and energy form images we can see? How does vision exactly work on a quantum level? I‘d love someone responding to that in the comments or Arvin Ash himself making a video on that! I am really curious…
Ohhh ok, yeah, I think I finally get it. So what you’re saying is... the next higher dimension, after space & time, is is love?
Great interpretation!
If that's what you understood from the video, you should stop pursuing physics altogether.
Glad to hear about how a person and consciousness observing doesnt make a difference and now clear on what a measurement is. So why did consciousness get involved in all of this???
Probably because early misinterpretation of QM results spawned several popular books, like "The tao of physics," and "The Dancing Woo Li masters." -- These books were cult classics and ingrained the idea of a consciousness connection to quantum mechanics. Consciousness is mysterious, and QM is mysterious - so people thought maybe the two are related.
Green Light, the presenter is correct about the book 'The Tao of Physics'. It was one of the books I bought back in the late 80s. However, this is not what formed my idea behind the QM and the mind. I was searching for a moral source (a god figure). You can think (predict). There is no reason why any of it must be true or ever become real in the physical sense of the word. Our thinking does not have to be linked to future events. It is independent. Other explanations for it doesn't fit. Only QM so far has the mechanics (not deterministic) -- as stated in the video. This is very important. We do have free will. That is not in question. Your thinking will 'collapse' to a defined state when observed (force to interact). You want to watch a film at the cinema. Your friend fancies something else. You want to stay together (say a couple in love and like sharing time and space). We are part of the quantum realm. Want to steal something but you see a camera watching you or security guard or staff or even a member of the public. You will factor that into your future behaviour. No one there (in the world) to stop you: what would you do? This is like that double-slit experiment. I have a toy model that explains it perfectly (by the way). Nothing magical. It is about sharing energy. Light is dead and alive at the same time. It needs more energy (food) to do work. The maths on it is simple and elegant. 'Not true that simple explains means its wrong.' -- spiffy sound bits don't make them right either. They only wish to shape your mind (as I am trying to do, now). What do you think? That is the most important question. We speak many languages but come to the same interpretation of an observable (minus the colour aspect). You can shape minds too. We are given children for that very purpose. Have a nice life and keep thinking you are free (if: you can afford those interactions).
Super informative, thank you.
Arvin Ash. I think this is one of the best videos you have put out
Really helpful with the measurement problem.
Dispelled for me a lot of the confusion over measurement and observations.
Consciousness and non conscious
Nice one !Thanks
The obvious question is: how does the photon know it's being measured? Or to put it another way what is the mechanism that causes the measurement to result in a collapse of the wave? It seems like there must be some form of Consciousness that is aware of the measurement and induces the wave collapse. This doesn't have to be human consciousness. If we don't know the answer to this question, then it appears we don't understand quantum mechanics at all. It's just a huge riddle that raises more questions than it answers
consciousness is like the screen where all the energy of the cosmos dance. .
Where you either becomes a dancer or an observer .
Good poem but not science or reality keep it that way
1. How exactly is measurement made?
2. What is that "which-way detector"?
ya ive wondered for a long time who invented the which-way detector and what its components are
the fact that this video mentions Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, who i had never seen mentioned by any other person before, gives me hope to learn more about the which-way detector :)
there are hints in this video that another video of Arvin's describes the which-way detector. if i find a link to it, i will repost it here
@Pendulous Testicularis - thank you sir :)
Quantum eraser
It messes the picture up a little bit.
@@passthebutterrobot2600 He already has a video on the quantum eraser and some other advanced quantum topics. He just happened to decide to make a video explaining the basics now, but it's by no means his first video on quantum mechanics.
@@Raphael4722 thats what confuses me about this video. He said hes never talked about entanglement and other things but he literally has multiple videos on them and some of those even hinted at things he now says in this video to be untrue
@Kyle Vh He comes across as reasonable and level headed but in actual fact what little I‘ve seen of his content is among the most biased and misleading on the subject. He is a dyed in the wool materialist and simply does not believe the results of the experiment. He is confused and confounded - who isn’t - but you have to at least accept the evidence which has been arrived at in a falsifiable context. He does not.
@@dazboot2966 Nah, he's pretty open-minded. The evidence for "everything is consciousness" just isn't conclusive. These kind of metaphysical theories are only appealing for psychedelic junkies. The average rational person sees these theories as cool but knows more evidence is still needed.
@@Raphael4722 absolute non sense it has been debated for literally thousands of years and many of humanities greatest scientists and philosophers have sided in favour of idealism.
Today I learned what it really means by observation in physics. Thanks Arvin. Keep it up.
Two things though Arvin : if you code the photons so you have “which way” information, you don’t get the interference pattern, and the delayed choice quantum eraser shows if you delete the “measurement” later, the measurement at the slits does NOT collapse the wave function. Indicating it IS the observer and not the measurement causing the collapse.
Delayed choice experiment, as I understand it, does not take a measurement then erase it later. It merely measures the state of one entangled particle before the state of the other is determined. If you have a reference to experiments where they measured and then erased as you indicate, I would be interested in reading it.
How do you get interaction and collapse between two particles if they are both in probability wave form?
The mechanism and mathematics of collapse is not currently well understood, and remains a mystery.
I would propose that they have a hidden connection, maybe through small extra dimensions, which - as we know geometrically and mathematically can surpass time and distance in other dimensions - makes them instantly react.
Sorry about this rather long and convoluted argument.
"The universe will exist and will continue to exist whether we are here to observe it or not." Your video is overall good, but the quoted part is not directly provable via QM, so you fell into the opposite subjective extreme from what you tried to disprove.
^ but that is true.
@@thewhizkid3937 mind proving it?
@@eqXzeRt I was agreeing with the first part. The quoted segment.
There is the observable universe and the non observable universe. Observable via what our technological capacity can achieve.
The latter bits about quantum mechanics, we simply have to go by principles.
Naturally principles lead us to theorems and proofs
@@thewhizkid3937 How can you prove there is unobservable universe, if you need to observe it to prove?
@@eqXzeRt telescopes are on example. Radio and I believe Infared telescopes too are used to see through stellar dust.
My hypothesis: Physics will only ever create more questions than answers. This comment will be sitting here waiting to be disproven. ~Nov 2019
I will add that science can answer many questions, but most answers lead to deeper questions. The deeper questions are a good thing.
Arvin Ash the answer to everything is Jesus
Marc C I know brother!!!! They are the ones that are blind.
Marc C *impending angry atheists*
Take cover .
I’m glad to have a world where there are new things to discover, and questions to be answered.
This was an excellent video and superbly narrated. Really well done!!!!
Arvin, You simply are “A GREAT TEACHER”.
THank you, Arvin. What a relief this is from all the "new Age" utopian nonsense I used to believe about Quantum physics.
See The Science Asylum channel. That's a serious physic's channel.
Humans did observe it. They created a tool that was just an extension of the human eye.
a wall isn't an extension of the human eye
@Phoenix Exactly the point, anything recorded of information that gets to a human brain from A to B is observation.
@@ashyosings5089 there's a delayed which-way version of the double slit experiment.
The wave collapses before conscious observation of the result is possible.
It shows that conscious observation is irrelevant.
@@tylerdurden3722 My younger brother just said to me, (while doing the 'wobble illusion with a pencil') "What if it's actually bending?"
I was honestly dumbfounded
@@ashyosings5089 people did some research. When you play peek-a-boo with a very young child, they're actually convinced you dissappeared. (like quantum tunneling or somethingl
As we grow older, we develop an intuition for how we think the world works. So we're no longer impressed by peek-a-boo. That same flawed intuition makes something like quantum tunneling becomes hard to accept. The same with concepts like relativity.
Btw, the pencil does not bend. It's just an artifact of how our brains evolved to perceive fast movement.
A fly, for example, wont see it bend. Nor would a high framerate camera.
Science at it’s best. !!!!!
Truly the best and most understandable explanation of this phenom I've ever seen... thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
I’ve been watching your videos for quite a while. This video is exceptional. Many thanks Arvin for clearing up my understanding of observation with QM