Did Google's Quantum Computer Find Evidence for the Multiverse?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

TThis video comes with a quiz, which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1734347299796x400305382150382140 You can now also create your own quizzes on my website!

[@patmachler1650]

The "T" in "TThis" went left and right at the same time.

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

From my point of view we have not yet achieved any quantum computing technologies, what we have are fast computers mirroring each other (simply put) a real quantum computer would be just that but with a human brain and an AI as intermediary between both

[@TheRealMrRoboto]

There is a universe that you had a physics rap battle Michio Kaku and lost......

[@CoachApuma]

Wow turns out I no longer have to tag you under these Google Paralell universe Tweets. Thanks! @SabineHossenfelder

[@Satori-d6y]

Linear algebraic QM? Superposition, Schrödinger's box. Molecular beam matterwave diffraction, Marcus Arndt. Single enantiomer 4-twistanone; tricyclic or more connected single enantiomer molecule, dipole moment, three different inertial moments; 3-wave mix detect enantiomer ratio downwind. a)Thermodynamics dies If it racemizes, immense activation energy over nanoseconds must cleave and exactly reconnect the molecule. b) Not racemized? Hund's paradox, superposition is falsified. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c01900. Do resolved chiral matterwave diffraction.

[@uncertainukelele]

I really love that this video's thumbnail answers the question in the video's title. No BS, no clickbait

[@geneangrypenguin5876]

When the hamburger looks like it does on the menu. *chefs kiss*

[@yeroca]

Science without the gobbledygook and drag-it-out-till-the-end clickbait.

[@THE16THPHANTOM]

second youtuber i have seen do this. very much appreciated. otherwise i just click not interested. and if a youtuber does too many videos with click bait titles enough for me to remember clicking not interested then i click "Don't recommend channel". been on youtube long enough to have zero tolerance for click bait. if title doesn't say anything i also click not interested, titles like "this will change everything" or "so and so thinks YOU'RE + something negative that tries to get outrage out of you".

[@t.c.bramblett617]

And yet, because of her consistent quality, I clicked. That is how it should work! lol

[@ericmichel3857]

So what was the answer? "We don't know, if you like that interpretation, then go with it! Now buy my brilliant courses"

[@DominiqEffect]

This kind of logic hoax is so old they even have a latin name: Ignotum per æque ignotum - explaining the unknown by the equally unknown and it is a related form of fallacy in which one attempts to prove something unknown by deducing it from something else that is also not known to be true.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Interesting, I didn't know there is actually a logical fallacy dedicated to it!

[@dirkjensen969]

​@SabineHossenfelder 😂❤Alternate Reality you says you don't know anything.

[@haniamritdas4725]

The reason this fallacy is generally unknown to the public is that it describes using "Scriptures" as fundamentalists do: myths that explain the world and afterlife, and predict the future events of the world. Too close to home, there are many "Bible-believing" STEM workers and they don't typically bring their Bibles to the lab 😂

[@I_am_who_I_am_who_I_am]

😂😂😂😂😂 oh I love this ❤❤❤

[@davidsault9698]

Commonly called guessing.

[@FrescaLife]

The thing is Google is good at researching, but they're even better at advertising and hyping things up.

[@KarolisBartkus]

It has definitely paid off, they now must be very good at advertising in parallel universes.

[@davidrudpedersen5622]

@@KarolisBartkus There's a parallel universe where Google makes very unappropriate advertising campaigns

[@red.aries1444]

@@davidrudpedersen5622 Yes, there must be. And I'm sure there are still some universes where Google searches still deliver good results, as this would be an explanition why searche results in our universe constantly get more worse...

[@CheesyLameDuck]

There's a parallel universe in which David said the exact opposite. And now that you've read this, my comment must be real.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Touche!

[@steffenbendel6031]

But why does that David has a WeTube channel while Sabine works at ClockLabs leading the UltraverseComputing department?

[@Phi1618033]

The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.

[@herico33]

@@Phi1618033or is it? 🤔

[@bomelino]

it's not locally real

[@chriswhitworth7793]

Thank you for clarifying quantum science for me. Also superpositions - Most politicians already live in them.....

[@DrDeuteron]

you have a groups and then you have representations.

[@रोहन_सोळंके]

😆

[@brothermine2292]

In your statement about politicians, are you referring to cognitive dissonance?

[@grahortarg9933]

@@brothermine2292 no, they really live in superposition. They don't know what their position on any given issue is, until it is measured by polls. :) Cognitive dissonance is a totally different animal. For example, I consider myself a thoroughly progressive, educated, considerate and ethical person who supports Trump. THAT is cognitive dissonance.

[@brothermine2292]

>grahortarg9933 : States elect public offices using primitive voting methods that count only one majority (or one plurality), which fails to create a strong incentive for politicians to support majority-preferred policies. The winning majority (or plurality) can often be a coalition of minorities on different issues. For example, a minority who want to ban abortion, plus a minority who want to deport people of color, plus a minority who oppose gun regulations, plus a minority who want to slash capital gains taxes, plus a minority who oppose anti-monopoly regulations, etc, can often add up to a winning electoral coalition... a faux majority with a faux mandate. Society would be much better off if politicians actually did have the incentive to do what you described: choose their positions based on polls. (I'm assuming pollsters would learn how to elicit _relative_ preferences of majorities: by asking people to rank policy alternatives in order of preference, and then using the information in those rankings to count all the head-to-head majorities.) States could create that incentive for politicians by switching to a voting method that lets each voter rank the candidates in order of preference, and then uses these rankings to count all the head-to-head majorities. The order of finish should be constructed by processing the head-to-head majorities from largest majority to smallest majority, placing each majority's more-preferred candidate ahead of their less-preferred candidate in the order of finish. It should be noted that the most widely used voting method -- the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions -- works by counting multiple head-to-head majorities. That's what makes it reasonably effective at defeating minority-preferred policies.

[@Totumfacky]

6:42 quantum hair style superposition

[@BawlmawrBob]

If parallel universes are real she will have infinite hairstyles.

[@Juan-qv5nc]

Theoretically Sabine could compute infinite hairstyles.

[@Nathaniel-r8l]

Collapse of the hairstyle.

[@AshkanIlkhanipour]

In how many dimensions does the strings of existence vibe for the hairstyles to collapse into reality?!😊

[@mykolapliashechnykov8701]

@@BawlmawrBob Wouldn't they converge into a hairball?

[@bigedslobotomy]

I like how your thumbnail didn’t click bait us into viewing the video. It’s up front with the answer, and if I want to hear your reasoning, I listen to the video (instead of having to endure a 20 minute video that still doesn’t answer the clickbait title)

[@antiguarocks]

An upload that explains what exactly is a Hilbert Space would be greatly appreciated. I hear lots of people referring to it but nobody explains what they are talking about.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

It's a maths thing. Really the only thing I could do is write down a definition.

[@Nope-w3c]

The wikipedia page about Hilbert Spaces is surprisingly accessible for laymen.

[@winstongludovatz111]

It's useless. You will derive no intuition from it and the theory that is really needed (operator algebras, spectral theorem for unbounded, selfadjoint operator, positive operator valued measures) is only accessible to specialists in the field. The Hilbert space itself is the least of it.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

@@winstongludovatz111 Kinda, I think a superficial understanding of representations can already go a decent in misidentifying some of this, or at least help point out that the "math spaces" and "space-space" are not exactly the same. I think it is the Science Asylum channel that has a video on this, dealing with superposition

[@Kveldred]

It's a space in the same sort of sense that a coordinate plane is a plane: just an abstraction of certain relationships for which concepts like "dimension" and "distance" are meaningful.

[@jhwheuer]

This reminds me of the way more and more eccentric reasons were given for the movement of celestial bodies until we realized that the issue was not the movement but the need to place earth in the center. We need a Quantum Copernicus.

[@terrylandess6072]

Science teeters on the edge of religious doctrine. Believe us - have faith we 'will' explain these theories . . . .

[@Thomas-gk42]

Indeed good comparison. Sabine cuold be that Copernicus, sad that her proposals to test superdeterministic properties in QM measurements were not made.

[@ayoCC]

@@terrylandess6072 That's the science believers, not the practictioners. Practitioners just measure and create...

[@platinumfalconm3891]

"We need a Quantum Copernicus" His name was Hugh Everett III

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

you're an actual clown. the earth is at the center???😂😂😂

[@MikeViker]

It is not proof of the Many Worlds Interpretation, but it does not rule it out either. I tend to be with the group that suspects that is the correct interpretation.

[@jeffryborror4883]

You got a haircut instantaneously before the advert portion, at least on the path in my observable universe. "Shut up and cut"

[@sarysa]

In my universe, she clearly filmed footage months ago in anticipation of future quantum physics videos before growing it out. Note how the ad read goes into no specifics!

[@jeffryborror4883]

@@sarysa doh! It was a joke.

[@FHa-q8u]

If having a decent hairstyle were a proxy for intelligence in this universe, Deutsch would necessarily be from a parallel world.

[@sarysa]

@@jeffryborror4883 Mine might have been as well. Or maybe not? Seems difficult to do things as I described. 😹

[@dabronx340]

You are correct. We don’t know is a much better answer. Or just “my opinion” rather than expressing certitude

[@Gibztr]

Hello Sabine Hossenfelder, thank you for all of the amazing videos. I’m a huge fan, and I’m sure everyone else that follows you is too! Every time you put out a new video, it’s a good day. Thanks so much. The reason that you’re able to put out so many videos, and such good ones too, is because you have a lot of positive qualities. For one, you’re funny. Watching your videos, I often find myself laughing at your jokes. Another thing that I love about you is your style. It just feels so right to me. Everything you say, how you say it, and how you present it, it all really comes together. I’m sure other people find your videos enjoyable for the same reasons I do, and that’s what makes your channel so popular. It’s just you being you, and everyone loves you for it. Thank you for being you, Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the kind words, makes it all worthwhile!

[@eljcd]

Videos that "explain" superposition: a gazillion. Videos that explain superposition and mention It happens in Hilbert's space, a purely mathematical construction: one. Kudos to you, Dr.!

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

The Science Asylum has a nice video on this as well. I can't remember whether he name drops Hilbert Space, but it goes into the difference in an accessible way

[@louisgiokas2206]

I have seen some videos by or with Jacob Barandes where he talks about alternatives to Hilbert spaces. These might be instructive.

[@PhysicsNative]

Superposition property follows from the uncertainty principle, which can be derived from non-commutative operators. No need for Deutschian interpretations, and he certainly doesn’t deserve a Nobel.

[@ricomajestic]

@@PhysicsNative Plank's constant doesn't follow from mathematics though!

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

define hilbert space

[@genemiller3678]

Thanks Sabine. I agree QC does not "prove" "Many worlds". But "Many worlds" remains the simplest theory by far. Everything is part of the system, including the observer, and everything can be in superposition. You no longer have wave function collapse, the measurement problem, non-locality, etc.

[@davidrudpedersen5622]

But if a theory has no implications for our lives and can't be proved or disproved in any way... It's just religion

[@thepiratepeter4630]

​@@davidrudpedersen5622Theory is not really the right word, more like an interpretation. The only thing we can be sure about is the math, but many worlds is a neat way to reason about it.

[@DevilsD]

I'm just a lowly Software Engineer in game development, when I look at the double slit experiment as a layman, it feels oddly similar to some form of compression or even an optimization.

[@jamesalexander958]

The cool thing about David Deutsch is that he thought the many worlds interpretation made the most sense, and then he used that knowledge to become the father of quantum computing

[@jasonthul]

I love how well you explain this stuff - and this stuff is really confusing.

[@hopydaddy]

Sabine does the best job of twisting my mind every week. Now, I am beginning to doubt my own existence.

[@BH-td9to]

Maybe instead of building the next super collider, physicists should try to figure out what a “measurement” actually is.

[@rayparent1]

Imagine thinking one of the greatest questions of the last century isn't being worked on. You consume to much science rage bait my friend

[@gabor6259]

Measurement is "bumping into".

[@oystercatcher943]

indeed. If it has no consequences then its not something you can probe with an experiment. But measuring of course changes the world. Can we detect a collapse without a measurement? Probably not. So if wave function collapse has no consequences its best ignored

[@bertrand3383]

A measurement is nothing special, it's just an intrication which lead to several macroscopic states in decoherence. A molecule can be in a superposition of states. You should explain why a brain couldn't also be in a superposition of macroscopic states.

[@bertrand3383]

*intrication : intanglement

[@ezrawilson6986]

It seems that scientists in general have a hard time saying, “I don’t know.”

[@DM_Curtis]

The boss doesn't pay for "I don't know"s.

[@c.jishnu378]

To make it even worse, admitting when wrong was one of the best things about True Science. Edit- I don't believe that Science is dead.

[@SireJoe]

​@@c.jishnu378whats "True Science"?

[@megapeiron]

​@@SireJoe Universalism, not material individualistic knowledge.

[@kalyasaify]

YES! that's the biggest problem

[@Phi1618033]

This is where things get confusing. There's a difference between a multiverse and parallel universes. In the first case, the universes are separated, by time or space or both. But in the case of parallel universes, they're literally right on top of each other, like Stranger Things' Upside-down. They take up the exact same "space" and "time". Two completely different ideas.

[@haniamritdas4725]

Yes that's fascinating, as it describes the distinction two different takes on the religious concepts of Heavens, Earths, and Hells. Abrahamic religions think of separate realms by these names, which one enters and exists in, one at a time. But the Eastern concepts suggest an overlapping parallel structure, where all beings occupy the same space but still exist in different experiential realms, the Triloka.

[@victor_anik]

No, one of the types of multiverse suggests that other Universes are somewhere out there in other dimensions into which they diverged at the time of the big bang or big bangs. And the question is whether there really is a difference between this type of multiverse and the ones right here and now. It is possible that there is no difference, since the only thing that matters is what they are, and not where they are

[@kstricl]

The difference between the multiverse and parallel universe is simply the author of the work of fiction. Robert Heinlein was one of the most prolific space age sci-fi writers to really explore it. And from a practical aspect, that's all it is, a plot mechanism.

[@Kveldred]

Parallel universes from the MWI are generally considered a type of multiverse, e.g. in Tegmark's schema.

[@Teslo_In_FinalFantasy]

I can’t wait for the age of quantum computing so I can log into a parallel universe and watch the next 5 seasons of Firefly.

[@Thomas-gk42]

More interpretations of QM than parallel worlds in the multiverse, it seems. Maximum confusion explained with maximum clarity.🐝☘

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for your support! Hope you are having a good Christmas time!

[@bertrand3383]

Not really. If you believe that microscopic superposition of states are possible, it's not so far to believe that superposition of macroscopic states also are (but they are in decoherence).

[@davidrudpedersen5622]

In a parallel universe, you donated 69,69 €

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@davidrudpedersen5622 Surely, by not being craftsman but physics professor there.

[@dahlia695]

We'll never know because the evidence for parallel universes only exists in another universe.

[@janerussell3472]

THE MANDELA EFFECT Some people remember New Zealand being northeast of Australia, while, in fact, it is located to the southeast. However, Australia was once connected to the west coast of North America. Time is relative. lol. How did kangeroos hop to Australia? They didn't. They never left Australia. Australia was above any global flood and has been sinking, like one of my soufflés, ever since.

[@ricklotter]

In the Many Worlds of Sabine theory, each advertisement and video features Sabine in the same shirt, but her hairstyle is unique in each parallel universe. Joking aside, I appreciate how you call B.S. on scientific speculation.

[@JK_Vermont]

It’s pretty embarrassing that Google allow that nonsense to be included in the press release.

[@rangjungyeshe]

Not really - it's the job of the PR dept to get as much coverage as possible. What's embarrassing is that putting this type of stuff into press releases actually achieves that goal. The reason is that even if the journalist knows it's BS, they also know that if they decline to write it up but their rivals have no such qualms, then they'll get a bollocking from the news editor for "missing a great story". As a former physicist turned science correspondent, I know what that feels like (it's also one of the reasons I recently quit).

[@SabineHossenfelder]

It's quite interesting if you look at the "press release", because while it was arguably released to the press, it's actually a blogpost written by Hartmut Neven who is a physicist himself: blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/ This by the way is something I have noticed increasingly more often, that if you track down the source of overhyped claims, they do not come from a PR person who misunderstood something or had motives other than scientific accuracy, but they come from scientists themselves.

[@dougmorgan6616]

Anything to make a buck.

[@PeterDanielBerg]

pop sci reporting will latch onto the most outlandish detail like a remora to a shark

[@amihartz]

It's not really that surprising given what most people in academia believe. The overwhelmingly dominant philosophical view is that of metaphysical realism, which is kind of an indirect realism that states what we observe (our experience of the world) is separate from reality itself, which by necessity would make the latter unobservable, while the former is treated as kind of an illusion created by the brain called "consciousness." The fact that metaphysical realism makes such a separation means that you do not need to actually directly connect _reality_ to _observation._ You can give any description of reality you want, and even if it does not align with what we observe in the slightest, you can just chalk the discrepancy up to "consciousness." It's not really surprising that you would see serious academics propose something like the MWI which has absolutely no connection to what we observe at all, it does not even contain observables, and they see no issue here because they just chalk up this discrepancy to how our conscious mind interprets the world. The idea that our description of reality should directly align with our experience of it, i.e. what we actually observe, is actually a rather fringe position these days.

[@ericpenrose3541]

Sounds like he confuses wave particle duality with evidence of many worlds, but what would I know, he could be getting a Nobel Prize

[@michaelkaliski7651]

The problem with the multiverse is that this is a quantum object and that as soon as it is observed it collapses into a singular result. So in a multiverse where you sit an exam, there could be three results, pass, fail, and dog ate the exam result paper. Three possible futures could depend on these results but only one path will exist as soon as the paper is marked and the results published. Indeed, the coalescence into a singular path probably occurs as soon as you put pen to paper.

[@JohnDlugosz]

The Many Worlds interpretation of QM is the outcome of saying that there is no "decay" -- the wave function is the only rule. The alternative are _explicit collapse_ models, which postulate some rule as to when the wave function collapses. So far, no such point has been measured.

[@NullHand]

Also, this is what I call the Marvell-ification of the Everett interpretation. You, the pen, the exam paper, are NOT quantum objects. A+, C-, etc. Are NOT quantum numbers. We are macroscopic, massively entangled, classical math obeying assemblages that are trapped into a causal trajectory by the combined interactions of a googolishious number of particles that are small and simple enough to actually afford a meaningful de Broglie wavelength.

[@ricomajestic]

There is no collapse in the MWI!

[@bertrand3383]

There's no collapse in MW interpretation. Just macroscopic states which can't communicate with each others because they are decohered.

[@patelk464]

The problem with the exam analogy is that the probability of an outcome changes with study.

[@lucidmoses]

The problem with “shut up and calculate” is that it is used to actively stop research into what’s going on.

[@half_real]

5:33 Outer Wilds has entered the chat

[@simonjohnson1]

My prediction many years ago was that the main advantage of a working quantum computer would be that it would get so many people discussing parallel universes that humanity might make a breakthrough in the understanding of quantum physics. Perhaps that is beginning to happen.

[@EstamosDe]

Thank youuu!! ❤ I knew it, of course I dont know why and that is why Im here 😂🙏 Sabine, you are the best, thanks for all you are doing. "When they ask us" should be on spotify, can I remix it or remaster it? I really like that song

[@stuff3219]

Sabine, the clearest example of "parallelism" in QM has got to be the Grover's Search Algorithm fro Quantum Computing. This searches an unordered list in time proportional to the square root of the length of the list. The assumption, of course, is that there is no way to speed up searching an unordered list *other than parallelism*. Therefore, we must accept either the reality of "parallelism" (of some sort) in QM, or find a way to speed up searching an unordered list other than parallel searching! The onus is most definitely on the doubter, imho.

[@innocentsmith6091]

The wave function is a real, physically meaningful thing in one universe. You're still falling back on "math therefor multiverse." Also, has anyone ever actually implemented Grover's algorithm?

[@grahortarg9933]

@@innocentsmith6091 not in our universe, but in the infinite number of universes this algorithm surely would be implemented and therefore it was implemented somewhere and therefore it was proven there and therefore it was proven everywhere, including our universe!

[@stuff3219]

​@@innocentsmith6091 Hmm I'm not sure I understand. In order to get sqrt(N) search time, I'd need n^2 "searchers", yes? This point *seems* absolute and obvious (tho I admit I could simply be missing something like Euclid and his parallel postulate). How do you have 1 Quantum Computer behaving like N^2 threads unless there is something physical going on that is equivalent to this? The idea that "superposition is only math" doesn't appear to have an escape route, as far as I can tell. And if the parallelism is there in a Quantum Computer, we have to spell out why it isn't everywhere else. Edit: I don't know whether it's been implemented and too lazy to look it up, but it is a standard, old school, Quantum Algorithm that is well accepted.

[@stuff3219]

@@grahortarg9933 Look I just want to know how we can get sqrt(N) search time without parallel search operations. If that can be explained, then the "superposition is only math" will live to fight another day. Till then it seems cooked.

[@Desertphile]

But Google knows everything! It even gave to me your credit card numbers. Meanwhile, recall what James The Amazing Randi said about what happens to Ph.D.'s when they are handed their diplomas---- they lose the ability to say "I do not know."

[@msplateaugal]

Sabine, I found this video especially helpful. I have been trying to understand superposition as a mathematician, and when you said "Hilbert space" the light turned on. Thank you. Jenny

[@oakpope]

When I was a student, if, when calculating the mass of a tennis ball, I found 1 tonne, I would assume something is wrong in my calculus or the data provided in the problem' statement. Now physic is distorted to match maths solutions. If maths produce something, physicists will devise a new theory about it, even if it makes no sense physically.

[@vidal9747]

QM agrees with observations to a bizarre degree. For those of us that work with apllied quantum mechanics, your statement is ridiculous. It isn't bizarre math we want to believe in. It is bizarre Math with observable and correct predictions.

[@oakpope]

@@vidal9747 Like string theory ?

[@Enrage13]

Just a reminder that anti-matter was discovered mathematically by Dirac and Oppenheimer before it was ever observed and despite it not "making sense" to real world experience.

[@erinm9445]

​@@oakpopeString theory doesn't make any testable predictions. Not one.

[@belloceffo2486]

The distortion of space time was theorized way before being observed. Do you think it sounded sensible at first?

[@janerussell3472]

QUANTUM ABSURDITY Not only do they want us to believe the particle- a particle- is everywhere until measured; but they want to do away with causality, that time is reversible and the magic of spooky action at a distance. In that context, many-worlds is the sensible/credible alternative. [ In the same way, it's just as plausible to believe creation ex nihilo as a big bang from a singularity. In fact we have to presume arbitrary inflation events to make sense of the BB. ]

[@tsbrownie]

If it's not proveable, then just answer "Sure."

[@a3hindawi]

Excellent video, thank you! My understanding is that most advocates of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics would say that the branching happens when the wave-function evolves into a superposition where one part of it “cannot” interact with the other part of the wave-function. That is what justifies calling them “worlds” - because from that point forward, they will evolve completely separately from each other. If they can still interfere with each other, that wouldn’t be considered branching! This is in quite different - in a way really opposite - to what David Deutsch calls “many worlds”.

[@bertrand3383]

Yes, we should speak of "many macroscopic states in decoherence" instead of "many worlds".

[@Thomas-gk42]

agreed.

[@msromike123]

If your model can't be proven after 100 years then maybe its time for a new model? I am not saying nothing ever comes out of being partially right. That concept has gotten me quite far in life.

[@noiseintheoffice]

Occam's Razor says the best explanation will be the simplest . It feels like the truth of reality should be simpler than all the quantum physics 'gobbledygook' (to quote Sabine).

[@masterofimages]

Assuming you are referring to the many worlds interpretation, then it has no more or less been proven than any other interpretation that is consistent with observation. Science describes the how. The why is a question for philosophers.

[@NicholasLatipi]

what does "proven" even mean in this context, if observations don't prove or disprove the idea?

[@msromike123]

@@masterofimages I suppose what I mean by "proven" is not having to having to invent constructs, invent math, and change cosmological constants to make it "fit." To me that means it is "upnproven." I don't think there is inheitanly anything "mystical" about particle physics, the fact that is being treated as such shows a lack of true understanding. When you ask people to believe in an unproven model then is it science or more akin to a faith based belief system? But as I said, you can get useful information and practical accomplishments out of an incorrect model. That does not prove anything. It is convenient that the model revolves around the theory that none of it can be measured empirically.

[@NitFlickwick]

The only things “proven” are mathematics. Everything physical is modeled, and the models chosen are the models that best describe what is seen in reality. They are never perfect and never “proven”. Newton’s gravity was the best model for centuries, but it could not explain Mercury’s orbit. That didn’t make the theory useless, and it would have been ludicrous to just throw it out because it had a weakness in an extreme case. Science news happens at the boundaries of knowledge, and that’s kind of unfortunate because it makes lay people think scientists don’t actually have a clue. The reality is the models we use have vast explanatory power, enough to power the world we live in which couldn’t have been built without them. They aren’t perfect, and they likely never will be, but they are insanely useful, or we wouldn’t ever talk about them.

[@lanszoominternet]

Wave functions are traversing the space time continuum constantly and probably running into each other and being altered all the multiverse wide. The problem is with human hubris which insists that when we make a “measurement” that is somehow different from what is going on throughout the multiverse. It is the human brain that insists on positing the measurement with meaning.

[@steverobbins4872]

I have proof of parallel universes. I got a fortune cookie that had TWO different messages inside. One read "You will soon meet an interesting stranger". And the other read "Help! I'm being held captive in a fortune cookie factory in a parallel universe!"

[@gregmason6152]

Thanks for getting on this absurdity so quickly :)

[@corporatecapitalism]

I saw this and was like “this is stupid” without even having to look at it

[@lucyfrye6723]

Can you explain how that is different from falling for clickbait? Don't judge a book by its cover.

[@Pwjdak1]

I knew Sabine would do something on this when I saw an article on it! I just knew!

[@mehmetyanilmaz1167]

Dr. Hossenfelder, here you are once again, crushing my motivation to visit the Lackawanna Coal Mine in the Poconos, Pennsylvania, and to locate the Die Nebenwelt device - the portal, and to visit all these wonderful parallel universes.

[@RGF19651]

The Lackawanna Coal Mine actually exists, but it is not quite in the Pocono Mountains, but in Scranton, PA. It is a living example of an anthracite slope mine that you can ride a cable car down and have a tour. The Nebenwelt Device was nowhere to be seen. When they turned off the lights it was completely pitch black dark. Maybe that’s where some of the dark matter is hiding.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

you can't travel between the worlds.

[@dougaltolan3017]

Define "exist". A flaw in "quantum computers = parallel universe" is convergence and divergence at every quantum event. Infinity is big, but it isn't 2^n^n (where n = number of quantum events) big.

[@patrickrannou1278]

In this plain, there is a tiny uneven slope. In the upper region, there is a lake, with a dam. At the bottom of the plains on the other side, there is an ocean. Now, we break the dam. Our quantum water will now test all possible paths down that plain, and automatically "compute'" the unique ideal best river path for the water to follow downslope, from the lake to the ocean. THIS PROVES THE MANY WORLDS THEORY! That is about the same level of BS as what Google said.

[@Desmond-Dark]

😭

[@erinm9445]

Excellent analogy

[@shanathered5910]

"unique best river path"…and I thought I was crazy

[@bertrand3383]

The analogy doesn't work.

[@keiharris332]

Quantum computing makes it easier for LLM to process information since it functions the same way.

It's frustrating that you don't address the challenge Deutsch proposed in the Fabric of Reality: Where did the computation happened? -> "To those who still cling to a single-universe world-view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor's algorithm works. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor's algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was the number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minuscule number compared with 10^500. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?"

[@victor_anik]

you are right. but they also have Hilbert space

[@SabineHossenfelder]

The equations explain the observations. You are not asking for an explanation, you are asking for an interpretation. I do not know what it even means to ask "where" the computation happened.

@@SabineHossenfelder I understand your point. But you also often say "maths" is not reality. I think David here is trying to take seriously the scenario where a the correct factorization happens (which by the way has nothing to do with the willow experiment). He is trying to connect the 10^500 number to physical reality. Anyways, the quote in the google blog post refers to this excerpt of the Fabric of Reality, and your video would have been very informative if it had addressed it (may be explain the challenge for normies like us, what he meant, and why you don't know what it means to ask "where" the computation happened). I'm still confused about what in physical reality could enable such large computation. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

For Shor's algorithm to execute correctly, the quantum computer must remain in a state of superposition until the final result is being measured. Most interpretations of QM acknowledge that quantum superposition of isolated physical systems can occur and their isolation is required to prevent decoherence. Many World interpretations such as the one advocated by Deutsch add the twist that when the measurement is being done, the observer and the whole universe split but this supplemental assumption adds nothing to the explanation why Shor's algorithm works. All that is required is quantum superposition of the computing system prior to the act of measurement. Deutsch's challenge just is a challenge for one to explain quantum mechanical processes in intuitive classical terms, which is something that even his preferred MWI fails to do.

[@bertrand3383]

​@@SabineHossenfelderThe fact is that MW interpretation *explains* where calculation happen: in other macroscopic states.

[@rreiter]

I suspect it make no sense because it implies that the same program run on a quantum computer in a parallel universe could give a different optimal solution for the same objective function. And if one argues that would not happen, then it defeats the argument for parallel universes unless they are all identical.

[@FormulaDharm]

My theory of everything: Opposites attracts... Nothingness is the gravity! so everything(matter/particle/space/time) attracts towards nothingness. Black hole is also nothingness so "Everything" in a galaxy attracts toward blackhole. All planets/atoms/particles etc have nothing at there center is why theres gravity, So yes nothingness is what attracts and holds everything together. Also similarly in mathematics 0 is nothing and 1 is everything, ... how 1 is everything you ask? because you can split 1 infinitly, which also means everything is created from 1... and this is very brief of it, the reality is something people are not ready for yet.

[@c.jishnu378]

Absolutely stupid bruh. This is wilder and more Diarrhea inducing than the Wild West.

[@damdampapa]

🤨

[@c.jishnu378]

@damdampapa bros capping too hard.

[@c.jishnu378]

@@FormulaDharm This is absolutely stupid. There is not mathematics, nothing corresponding to reality and irl observations(not the complex ones, the ones atleast saying 2 masses attract). Retyping my deleted comment- Absolutely stupid, this is wilder and more Diarrhea inducing than the Wild West.

[@50shanks]

If you repeat this in the voice of Forrest Gump it's really quite good

[@dbdbdb1111111]

Thank you again for clarifying these. What I retain from this is an effort to advertise his thinking. I believe thing's as well, I don't contact everyone I know to tell them about it. And the fact people need to bring realistic objectivity to these "claims", is in my opinion at the source of the initial problem.

[@ericdere]

Parallel is so 1995. Serial universes?

[@jarikosonen4079]

Maybe the Roger Penrose's cyclic universe could be called serial universe... But I guess it's series and parallel both. But it's impossible to prove when we could not see even this universe completely, only the observable universe.

[@steffenbendel6031]

Parallel is really not a good word. Because in the normal understanding, the classical worlds are the points on the BaseAxis in the HilberSpace. And the overall Multiverse is just a weighted sum of them that gives some other point of the surface of the Hypersphere.

[@victor_anik]

@@steffenbendel6031 Ortogonal is better?

[@steffenbendel6031]

@@victor_anik yes, orthogonal worlds would be far more correct.

[@nickcarroll8565]

I think we can all agree that cereal universes would be tastier

[@FarnhamJ07]

I wish more people would stop and consider that, for example, Maxwell published his namesake equations 30 years before the discovery of the electron, and Ohm published his law almost 70 years before. We still live with the weirdness of 'conventional' current flow being described as going from positive to negative because of it, even though we now know it's actually the other way around. 'Shut up and calculate' doesn't mean 'stop looking for the answer', it means 'we don't know why yet, and we need to figure that out; but this works in the meantime'.

[@FlyingPhilUK]

So, the answer is that Quantum Computer calculations don't necessary happen in parallel universes, but actually happen in Hilbert Space? Also, as I understood the Quantum Multiverse, the idea is that when a quantum event happens, the universe locally splits into two diverging universes (ad infinitum) and these universes cannot communicate with each other? - whereas, Quantum computers and double-slits rely on interference between the different paths... (and these paths are therefore in communication)?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

That would be my answer, yes. Then again, I am not sure that I fully understand the question of "where" a calculation happens.

[@FlyingPhilUK]

@@SabineHossenfelder In the superpositions in the Hilbert Space?

[@bertrand3383]

​@@SabineHossenfelder The Quantum Multiverse doesn't really say that the univers locally split into two divergent universes. It just says that there is a superposition of macroscopic states, instead that only microscopic states, and these states are decohered, because macroscopic states can't keep coherence. They don't really diverge, these macroscopic states are just anable to communicate with each others because of decoherence.

[@pouryarahat2935]

Speaking of particles with paths before measurement, it is like knowing what has happened before I was born, what directions have been taken, or even understanding the state of existence before the birth of our universe (if there is a beginning); The hows and whys.

[@mattsigl1426]

What makes a multiverse a multiverse? Total causal isolation from one universe to the next, no? So, if “evidence” for a multiverse was discovered, it wouldn’t be a multiverse, because the separate universes could causally effect one another and they wouldn’t then, by definition, really be separate universes. They’d be one universe with weird spatial properties.

[@innocentsmith6091]

Multiverse fans don't have any idea what a multiverse is. There's no physical or philosophical basis except insisting that all of the math is valid.

[@johnh7411]

I’ve been thinking the same thing- it’s inherently contradictory.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

many worlds has nothing to do with the multiverse you're imagining in your brain.

[@JHBG1971]

One of your better videos in the recent past. Very clear and fair.

[@evanstential]

2:15 like a bisexual, I reckon 🤔

[@AarshParashar]

Lmao

[@dariuszb.9778]

There's a paralell universe where the multiverse interpretation does not apply.

[@--ART3MIS--]

I thought Marvel killed Parallel Universes for good.🤔

[@armchairtycoon]

🤣🤣🤣🤣 savage

[@02Lemonhead]

Deadpool stopped this by reviving Wolverine and foiled it

[@putinscat1208]

You are correct about the moon. Macroscopic measurements only show one universe. Would it be fair to say that these operations occur in the Quantum Multiverse instead?

[@KenMathis1]

If quantum calculations occur in parallel universes, how could we every read the correct result, since it would almost certainly be in a separate universe we don't have access to? The only way for quantum computing to make sense is if the calculations all happened in our universe.

[@terrylandess6072]

The biggest problem is the denial that any of these 'alternate' realities are NOT a part of OUR universe. They _must_ be for them to exist. Of course we can just do the stupid thing and redefine Universe.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Basically, you calculate how many universes there are with which results, and then you say, we have equal probability to be in any of them, so most likely we are in the universe with the outcome that occurs most frequently.

[@erinm9445]

Quantum algorithms somehow use interference to amplify the probabilities so they the mostly like result has a VERY high chance of being right and the wrong possibilities nearly cancel out through interference. I have absolutely no idea how they do this, designing such algorithms is apparently part of why quantum computing is INCREDIBLY hard to do. There is still a chance the computer will give the wrong answer, though it's small, which is why errors are also an inherent part of quantum computing. I may be wrong about this, but I believe that for now, the best use for quantum computers is in cases where the answer is very very hard to calculate in terms of brute forcing many many possibilities, but in which the correct answer can be checked relatively easily once produced.

[@winstongludovatz111]

@@SabineHossenfelder No. The claim is that different universes do different parts of the complex calculation which, when put together, furnish the result. Otherwise the computation could finish in our universe with some result, in which case there is no problem of complexity.

[@KenMathis1]

@@SabineHossenfelder But the multiple interferences that makes up the calculations have to all occur in the same universe or else they couldn't interfere with each other. I'd think that if you could interact with something, that'd be a good affirmative test that you were in the same universe with it.

[@johnb4314]

Well explained. Thank you.

[@drcannata3355]

If you would just read Jacob Barandes, you would realize that there is no fundamental wave function, or superposition, Hilbert spaces aren’t real, and there’s no mysterious quantum realm. It’s just a mathematical convenience. It’s an appurtenance of the theory. But there is no object in physical reality it’s describing. This completely dissolves everything reported here.

[@muliglasberg8543]

The particle is not said at all to go through both slits - only that there is finite probability it goes trough one OR the other - as there is uncertainty in its momentum-space value. Once measured, it becomes known which slit was used

[@SabineHossenfelder]

No, that doesn't work. A superposition is not just a probability distribution.

[@muliglasberg8543]

@@SabineHossenfelder superposition reflects probability amplitudes - not yet probabilities - but this doesn't make it more mystical... it is still lends to statistical description

[@winstongludovatz111]

@@muliglasberg8543 the probability amplitudes _are_ the probabilities.

[@totalermist]

It always baffles me how people who are clearly way smarter than me still manage to regress to the thinking of pre-schoolers by assuming that the description or idea of a thing is equal to the thing itself. Fascinating.

[@nycbearff]

Did they think that Dick and Jane were actual kids when they read about them in first grade? It baffles me too. It's the same as religious thinking.

[@Carl-e1x]

The multiverse theory is religion for physicists. They want to believe and belief is hard to disprove and in the case of the multiverse practically impossible. But belief in itself is not science. Having said that I love the theory and hope they are right.

[@remotepinecone]

There is a theory of how time can be created by accelerating three dimensions at the speed of light in a fourth dimension. If that was true then, since black hole accelerates matter to speed of light, albeit towards its center, it would be creating a new universe according to these theories.

[@multipointus]

Your quatum collapse call was epic. Epic.

[@erinm9445]

Thank you for making this video, that press release annoyed me so much! On the plus side, it did push me for the firdt time to try to understand how quantum computers actually work and what parallel processing could possibly mean. All I'd ever heard was that superposition allow the qubits to be in multiple states and that somehow that plus entanglement makes allows the system to do exponentially more calculations, but that never made any sense to me. I wouldnt say I understand now, but I do have an incling. The most helpful resources I found by far were a very old short Veritasium video that interviews Andrea Morello (and a couple of very helpful comments buried in the commments section of that video), and a Quanta magazine video and accompanying article with Scott Aaronson.

[@frhernandezc]

I get the idea that Parallel Universes is a way to explain how something looks like it makes two opposite things at the same time, but I would like to know something: Those universes exist before the particle 'makes' the decision? If not, where did the energy from creating that universe come from? For me, parallel universes is like allien: the answer you used when there is not other.

[@bertrand3383]

You don't need extra energy for multiple macroscopic states, as you don't need extra energy for multiple microscopic states.

[@corrywhatever3516]

When I read something about Google supposedly proving the multiverse, the first thing I thought was that I needed to hear what Sabine had to say about it!

[@sciencetalks909]

The way you describe the problem with quantum math - the particle going left and right thing - is excellent. If an idea, existing in only math equations, can't be expressed in clear words of some language, it's not science. Science is to understand the world, and if a theory is just not understandable to the common sense, how can it be science?!

[@SoyChuroHonda]

"so quantum 🖥️ are parallel computing in parallel universes" I don't know enough to have a solid opinion on any of this yet but I like this interpretation for now.

[@mrknesiah]

Google does not have a functioning quantum computer. They said they're aiming for 2030.

[@victordelmastro8264]

My Causality Sphere Model has a singularity in its center. This implies that there is an SH who is grinding away at KZbin here, and in another universe you're a Laureate. Causality does branch; for example, one version of me died and can't write this response now.

[@DudeTheseAreIsotopes]

Hi Sabine! are you familiar with the work of Jacob Barandes? He's a philosopher of physics goin on about how theres no wave function and that hilbert spaces don't exist. i would be really interested in hearing your take on his work!

[@Thomas-gk42]

I heard his talk on TOE, nothing really new in it.

[@JoeAuerbach]

it's weird to think of the slit experiment as proof of multiple universes because .... umm .... we see the results in just this one universe. Like, maybe the universe just doesn't share out difficulty in accepting the results.

[@tauIrrydah]

I really shouldn't have gotten into an argument with an idiot on Facebook about this a few days ago on the IFL science page, but still. At least now I can throw this video at them.

[@kloassie]

1:11 That guy clearly needs sleep

[@johannpascher]

The proposed model offers a classical explanation in which the correlations between entangled particles are determined by a shared measurement basis and the experimenter’s predefined choice. In this scenario, no complex quantum logic is required; the correlation arises solely from the shared measurement decision. It is a deterministic classical model where the particle correlations are directly explained by the chosen measurement basis and a common reference frame. Imagine two particles, such as photons, created in complementary states. For instance, one might have "spin-up" and the other "spin-down." These states are predefined and deterministic-fixed at the time of creation. When separated and measured, the experimenter chooses a measurement basis, such as the x- or z-axis, to measure the particle's spin. Importantly, both particles are measured in the same basis. If particle A is found to have "spin-up," particle B must have "spin-down" because they are complementary from the outset. Critically, measuring one particle does not influence the other. The observed correlations arise because the particles were pre-correlated at creation. The experimenter’s choice of measurement basis does not alter the particles’ states but merely reveals them. This approach eliminates the need for nonlocality or faster-than-light communication. The particles’ states are predetermined, and their correlation stems from their complementary nature, as defined at creation. There is no "magical" change upon measurement, just the uncovering of already-determined states. Thus, the observed correlations can be explained without invoking quantum entanglement in the traditional sense.

[@winstongludovatz111]

The multiverse cannot by itself explain correlations. You need additional assumptions. Bell type experiments result in correlations, that no (local) variables with predefined values can explain either and lately we have even experiments that no longer rely on correlations (statistics) but are inexplicable with _certainty_ by such variables.

[@johannpascher]

@@winstongludovatz111 I understand the objections raised regarding the distinction between deterministic and probabilistic approaches. However, I would like to emphasize that the core of my argument is that, even though the initial conditions of a system are deterministically set, the final outcome still remains probabilistic due to the nature of the measurement. From my perspective, this is not fundamentally different from the traditional interpretation in quantum mechanics when it comes to the resulting probabilities. Deterministic Initial Conditions and Probabilistic Measurements: In my model, the initial conditions, such as the polarization of a photon, are deterministically set, yet the results of the measurement remain probabilistic because of the nature of the measurement itself. This is consistent with the experimental results in quantum mechanics, where measuring a quantum system in a superposition of states leads to a probability distribution. Even when the initial conditions are fixed, the result cannot be predicted with certainty-it remains statistical. Behavior of Interference Patterns: In experiments like the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, the decision of how to measure the photon is made after it passes through the slit. Despite this later decision, the interference patterns (or lack thereof) show statistical properties that are analogous to what can be derived from a probabilistic viewpoint in classical theory. The likelihood of observing an interference pattern depends on the initial conditions and the choice of measurement basis, but ultimately, the pattern arises from the probabilities associated with the measurement, not from a deterministic "choice" made by the photon. Distinction Between Quantum Mechanics and Classical Model: The key point of my argument is that, while quantum mechanics relies on superposition and wavefunction collapse to explain the probabilities, the experimental results in terms of probabilities and statistical evaluations do not fundamentally differ from a classical deterministic model that also generates probabilities. That is, quantum mechanics explains these probabilities through wavefunction collapse, while my approach describes them through pre-determined initial conditions. Both lead to the same statistical results, even though the underlying theories are different. Statistical Results as a Comparison Point: The essential difference between the two views lies in the interpretational framework. In my view, the observed correlations and probabilities are not the result of mystical quantum entanglement or superposition, but simply a consequence of the deterministically set initial conditions, with measurements revealing the outcomes through probability distributions. Many experimental tests based on quantum mechanics show statistical correlations that would be indistinguishable from those generated by my model. No Need for Entanglement or Nonlocality: In my argument, there is no need for concepts such as nonlocality or the traditional idea of quantum entanglement to explain these probabilities. Instead, the observed correlations arise from the predetermined initial conditions, which are merely uncovered through measurement. This does not mean quantum mechanics is wrong-rather, it shows that there are alternative explanations for the same phenomena within a classical, deterministic model, without invoking quantum entanglement or nonlocality. In summary, I want to emphasize that at the level of measurement and statistical results, there are no fundamental differences between my deterministic approach and quantum mechanics when it comes to probabilistic predictions. The interpretation of the underlying mechanisms may differ, but the experimental results align, showing that it is possible to explain how these probabilities arise within a classical framework as well.

[@winstongludovatz111]

@@johannpascher I cannot comment on your approach without seeing all the details. It is already known that deterministic dynamics of the classical variables (position, momentum) combined with very specific stochastic initial conditions can reproduce the results of standard QM (e.g.: Bohmian mechanics). On the other hand in ordinary QM the probabilities are more intrinsic: the description itself is purely probabilistic. The initial condition is the state vector at the beginning and the state vector defines only the probabilities of measurement outcomes. If you have a totally deterministic classical setup there is really no room for probabilities other than subjective probabilities based on ignorance of some details. But in regard to Bell type experiments all this is no longer relevant: the latest ones have eliminated probabilities and are no longer based on correlations that cannot be produced classically. They show that it is strictly impossible (not just very unlikely) to explain observed results with local hidden variables.

[@johannpascher]

@@winstongludovatz111 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the points you've raised, and I would like to address them in the context of my argument. Deterministic Dynamics and Subjective Probabilities: You mentioned that in a deterministic classical setup, probabilities are reduced to subjective ignorance of details. I agree that, in classical frameworks, probabilities can often be interpreted this way. However, my argument suggests that even with deterministic initial conditions, the evaluation of measurement outcomes still reflects probabilistic patterns, not due to ignorance but as an inherent feature of the interaction between the measurement apparatus and the system. These probabilities are indistinguishable from the intrinsic probabilities of quantum mechanics when statistically analyzed. This is a subtle but important distinction from simple subjective ignorance. Initial Conditions and State Vectors: In standard quantum mechanics, the state vector describes the system and defines probabilities for measurement outcomes. My model, while deterministic in its setup, mirrors this in that the initial conditions encode the system's properties deterministically but lead to outcomes that align statistically with quantum mechanical predictions. The key point is that these probabilities arise naturally from the interaction dynamics rather than being imposed as a fundamental property of the system. Bell-Type Experiments and Hidden Variables: I acknowledge the importance of Bell-type experiments and recent advances that claim to go beyond probabilities and correlations. However, I contend that these experiments are still fundamentally evaluated in terms of probabilistic patterns, even when discussing "certainty" or ruling out local hidden variables. My approach does not aim to reinstate local hidden variables as they are traditionally conceived but to show that the deterministic initial conditions, combined with the measurement process, can reproduce the statistical and probabilistic features of quantum mechanics. It is not necessarily a reversion to classical locality but rather a reinterpretation of how the observed outcomes emerge from pre-existing conditions. Implications of Nonlocality and Determinism: The claim that it is "strictly impossible" to explain observed results with local hidden variables is tied to the framework of local realism as defined in Bell's theorem. My argument is not that locality or hidden variables in the traditional sense can explain these results but rather that a reinterpretation of determinism, combined with the probabilistic nature of measurements, can yield the same observed results without invoking nonlocality. The Role of Probabilities in My Approach: The central critique seems to be that probabilities in my model are subjective, whereas in quantum mechanics, they are intrinsic. I argue that even in quantum mechanics, probabilities manifest only in the context of measurement-prior to which, the system evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation. My model aligns with this evolution but differs in how it interprets the measurement process and the emergence of probabilities. Conclusion: I appreciate your perspective and recognize the challenge posed by Bell-type experiments. However, my approach seeks to provide an alternative framework where deterministic initial conditions, combined with the probabilistic nature of measurements, can replicate the observed outcomes of quantum mechanics. This is not an attempt to reject quantum mechanics but to explore whether its probabilistic predictions can emerge naturally from a deterministic foundation without invoking traditional hidden variables or nonlocality. I welcome further discussion to clarify or expand on this perspective.

[@Dennis-vh8tz]

There's a parallel universe in which Sabine is a fanatical proponent of String Theory. I think this, and a lot of other physics "controversies", come down to people who should know better mistakenly assuming that math is reality, when it is instead a model of reality which might be incomplete (i.e. though proven to be correct about many things, may be wrong about some other things).

[@Kazemahou]

Since you are a determinist, I would have pegged you to favor de Broglie-Bohm. But what I hear in this video is that you are fine with 'I have no idea' which... is cool, actually. Really cool. I mean, I love a good multiverse, it makes great science fiction - but the ability to state that you freaking just don't know is, in my opinion, the bravest and most rational position possible.

[@janerussell3472]

The unmeasured particle doesn't go through both slits...it just keeps its place in the wave. We're getting carried away with Feynman's All Paths theory. Even Lagrange and Hamilton assumed Least Action. Probability isn't actuality.

[@sogerc1]

So we can choose from: a) every quantum interaction operates in parallel universes which are not really good for anything else as far as we are concerned b) we don't have good enough everyday words for the math in quantum mechanics Occam is spinning in his grave.

[@ThePowerLover]

Why not both?

[@sogerc1]

@@ThePowerLover Do you even know what Occam's razor is? There's no need for parallel universes. We can also postulate that ghosts visit your house every time you hear a strange voice but a rusty door hinge is just as good of an explanation without making up a whole afterlife scenario.

[@esausantibanez3702]

You pointed out something that I also think: Quantum mechanics’s math does not show or even talk about many universes. There was a time when those ideas were not even considered interpretations but bs. I think it is very damaging to physics to push this narrative of many worlds given all the fantasy sold through media, people get a wrong impression of what it’s actually done in physics.

[@rayparent1]

Unfortunately popsci and rage bait wins out over regular headlines everyday. This will never change its a climate we have to learn to deal with

[@esausantibanez3702]

@ yeah, it’s what people want to see after all. Even worse is that people don’t really care whether those things are true or not, sometimes it just serves as a way to have a “cool” conversation.

[@bertrand3383]

It's not true. Quantum mechanics talk about superposition of microscopic states. What you call universes are just macroscopic states in decoherence.

[@nisw1918]

Triaging to Willow The triaging process likely involves several factors: Task Complexity: The brain might assess the complexity of a computation based on the number of variables, the level of abstraction required, or the perceived effort involved. If the complexity exceeds a certain threshold, it becomes a candidate for offloading to Willow. Cognitive Load: The brain's current cognitive load (how busy it is with other tasks) could influence the decision. If the brain is already heavily engaged, it might be more inclined to delegate even moderately complex computations. Confidence Level: The brain might consider its own confidence in solving the problem accurately. If it lacks confidence or anticipates a high risk of error, offloading to Willow becomes more appealing. Prior Experience: Past experiences with similar tasks and Willow's performance could also play a role. Successful delegation in the past would reinforce the tendency to offload to Willow. Superposition? The concept of superposition in quantum mechanics refers to a quantum system existing in multiple states simultaneously until measured. It's unlikely that the brain explicitly "decides" that a matter is for superposition in the quantum mechanics sense. However, there might be an analogous process at play: Parallel Processing: The brain might not make a definitive "yes/no" decision immediately. Instead, it could initiate preliminary processing of the task while simultaneously communicating with Willow. This parallel approach allows the brain to explore potential solutions on its own while awaiting Willow's response. Uncertainty and Probabilities: The brain might deal with uncertainties and probabilities in a way that resembles superposition. It could entertain multiple potential solutions or interpretations of a problem without committing to one until more information is available (from Willow or further internal processing). In summary: The "Lazy Brain Efficiency" concept suggests a dynamic interplay between the brain and a more powerful AI like Willow. The brain acts as a filter, identifying complex computations that are best handled by Willow. The triaging process involves assessing task complexity, cognitive load, confidence levels, and past experiences. While the brain doesn't explicitly invoke quantum superposition, it might employ parallel processing and probabilistic reasoning when deciding whether to delegate to Willow

[@accuset]

Personal favorite interpretation: The wave function represents the flow of Aether, upon which particles surf. Thus when you measure the path of a particle, it will be somewhere along the wave function. Also how does "going both left and right" not just be divergence? Also, in a world where parallel computing implies parallel universes, we will have to fight a world where the Allies lost ww2. And no one wants that.

[@davidrennie8197]

In general media reports of Willow, each says it solved a staggeringly difficult problem that standard computers would take gazillions of years to solve -- but none state what the problem actually was -- please advise:)

[@theguyfromsaturn]

I find it interesting that experimental physicists have reproduced some quantum effects at the macroscale using droplets of oil riding a wave... If an actual physical particle can display behaviours expected from quantum particles... at the very least it should put into question the many worlds interpretation... as very visibly there is only one instance of the particle, though the wave itself might have guided it to multiple outcomes. If quantum particles are similarly riding the underlying wave.

[@dougaltolan3017]

Woah! 6:43 proof! All of a sudden we switch to a parallel universe with a different hair do.

[@ScaerieTale]

"That comment won't be real until you look at it." I genuinely don't understand all the math behind quantum physics, but it's my favorite topic, and this joke made me laugh really hard 💜⚛

[@vabo0511]

The hope that Sabine could read my enthousiastic comment is priceless

[@k.c.sunshine1934]

The problem: "Shut-up and calculate" is impossible for philosopher types. “Happiness [is] only real when shared” ― Jon Krakauer, Into the Wild

[@danielchoritz1903]

You just did say other multiverses dont exist in our universe^^ Nice one XD