How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 EXPLAINED

[@DrBenMiles]

I think Scientists are Rockstars 🤘so I made t-shirts to celebrate it. More links in description Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/rockstar-scientist-tee-einstein

[@bhardwajchandru9725]

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः । अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ॥ ब्रह्म वास्तविक है, ब्रह्मांड मिथ्या है (इसे वास्तविक या असत्य के रूप में वर्गीकृत नहीं किया जा सकता है)। जीव ही ब्रह्म है और भिन्न नहीं। इसे सही शास्त्र के रूप में समझा जाना चाहिए। यह वेदांत द्वारा घोषित किया गया है। Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct Sastra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta. Source - ब्रह्मज्ञानावलीमाला I think u may know about Adi Shankaracharya (Vedanta)

[@youarenotme01]

scientists are mostly liars that ride on the coattails of the real rockstars, the mathematicians. ultimately this ends in war. fair warning.

[@Christopher_Bachm]

How nonsense took over legitimate research is a better title. FYI - the wave state is real. The outcome is variable, like almost everything in nature. Growing up is the challenge for folks. It's time...

[@dimkk605]

I wanna know though: Can I control my local un-realness within my brain's neurons, so that I can have ABSOLUTELY UNDOUBTFULY free will? Tell me that. Please I need to know! I don't know if I have free will or not. Maybe this term (free will) isn't much useful. If it isn't indeed useful, then tell me what the heck I have. Free-what? Free brain function? I need to know if I control my brain or determinism controls my faith. Or maybe determinism that looks like randomness controls myself. Tell me please. Does this experiment prove anything regarding free will? Also.... Libet's experiments proved nothing. He just spotted some brain activity. So what? He can't prove this brain activity supports the existence of free will. He also can't prove that this brain activity excludes the possibility that free will exists. Maybe this activity he spotted isn't relative to free will at any way. Maybe it was just parallel activity. What does science and neuroscience tell us about free will today? Please answer me! I have OCD and I believe there is no free will at all. So I live the same loops of daily life again and again and again. I am not a possibilist either. I think possibilism regarding free will, is just an excuse in order to avoid deep research in human nature. I think possibilists merely don't want to find out what really is the case there. Please read my comment and answer me!!!

[@marcelcukier]

Can you better explain the reasons why both curves shown in 09:35 should necessarily have the shapes shown between 0 and 90 angles, for both propositions? @DrBenMiles

[@evokaiyo]

I can confirm this with my daily observations. I can place an object on my table, countertop etc. It appears stable and should not fall over. The moment I turn my back, at a random interval of its choosing, the object will fall over, or end up on the floor. Initially, I believed it to be poltergeists, but I'm now convinced it's Matthew McConaughey

[@renitixz]

*quiet organs play in the background*

[@Madcatcon199]

It was me and harpua, and we couldn’t care fewer, it happens all the time!

[@Donavery1]

I'm thinking it must be Shrodinger's Cat !

[@hcrawford]

@@renitixz "quiet"?

[@cesarsantellana1768]

Are you sure it wasn't Patrick Swayze?

[@gumshoe2273]

I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.

[@nextlevelenglish5858]

go back to your ramer before they cut your pay again

[@vthomas375]

What else doesn't exist? For them it's the scientific method.

[@watamatafoyu]

I'll just have to take that on faith.

[@vthomas375]

@@watamatafoyu You're way too trusting. Ask them to show practically.

[@andrewday7799]

But are they locally real?

[@AncientEsper]

As someone who pays attention to quantum theories, my feeling is that the universe has infinitely more details and twists the more we look. It’s basically making details up the more we look, keeping up with what we’re capable of measuring.

[@ianokay]

We can't even grasp the additional dimensions above our own, so that makes sense

[@GeekyGizmo007]

we are building the complexity of the universe... We're are a training program for it and it for us. Perpetual amplification.

[@Edw9n]

@@GeekyGizmo007 ok dud sure thing

[@ianokay]

@@GeekyGizmo007 I somewhat believe we're alone in the universe but not sure I want to (historically, again) demand we're the center of the universe with which it all revolves around. More likely: We just don't understand, and maybe cannot.

[@leonardgibney2997]

Yes l had the idea a particle only comes into existence when it's postulated by a physicist.

[@shanemurphy-od6ej]

Gday mate.I am 52 yo and left school at14 years of age.I do enjoy wisdom and have a broader general knowledge than most people i know however often feel stupid thinking i obviously missed the stepping stones to learn things most educated people take as a given.. my wife is a veterinarian surgeon and often while talking with her colleagues i feel totally out of place perhaps even deliberately made to feel stupid,tickling some sort of ego by a few. thank you so very much from the bottom of my heart for explaining concepts above my understanding in way that even i CAN understand. especially your demeanor tone and body language without any arrogance or self superiority makes listening to you much much more to than just educational... i simply cannot say THANK YOU as big as i mean it.

[@Liliarthan]

If it tickles your fancy, it’s never too late to do formal studying. Of course, universities, TAFE etc aren’t the only places one can do that - lots of online universities, open universities etc that cost a lot less and may be easier to get into. Or the many websites that offer lower cost tuitions now that doesn’t necessarily lead to any formal qualifications but if you’re interested just in learning about certain subjects for enjoyment’s sake (like I am currently) that doesn’t matter at all. I particularly enjoy putting on the Stanford free lectures, some amazing teachers there. Good on you for continuing to seek knowledge and finding something you enjoy learning about. I’m sure you have a lot to teach the rest of us too, about very important life lessons that one never gets taught at schools or universities.

[@TheToxicTank]

Great post. I appreciate your self awareness and eagerness to grow new knowledge. I would say most I meet in a similar situation aren't capable of such thought or self observation. I wish you well on your knowledge journey and personal growth. I would say something you can fix very quickly is how you present yourself both physically and digitally here on KZbin for example. Work towards the basics as boring as they might be such as grammar. Grammar is the number one thing people will notice as a major education deficiency. Work towards breaking old habbits. Others perception of you will change and your own confidence will raise over time. Everytime you begin a new sentence, use a capital letter. Also, stop using two periods after every sentence.. Lastly, anytime you refer to yourself as "i" in a sentence, that should also be capitalized as "I" even if it's in the middle of the statement. There is definitely more to learn like the appropriate use of commas but just those three things will make a huge difference for you. I am friends with a gentleman who doesn't understand anything about how to write a sentence, not even when to add a period so he doesn't. Instead, he places a big awkward space --------- between words to signal that he is starting a new sentence. This results in zero punctuation. Meanwhile, he's trying to have serious discussions online in the political arena and people do not take him serious.

[@anukalgudi6216]

Don't put yourself down. You clearly have intelligence about life that no one ever will. Meanwhile, plenty of people with degrees know nothing of reality. And you have a veterinarian wife. Intelligent women pick intelligent men. They don't respect a man they don't feel safe with. So your proof of intelligence is in that pudding ;)

[@Marynicole830]

@@TheToxicTankwait, if he knows where to put the spaces why can’t he put periods there instead?

[@Plethorality]

Dunno. ​@@Marynicole830

[@OllyWood688]

I couldn't imagine a bigger flex than having gotten the Nobel Prize for keepin' it real.

[@oldbot64]

Damn underrated joke right there. Dave chappelle would be proud

[@supernana7263]

thanks for keeping this joke real

[@jonathanwright5338]

Getting kicked out of Feynman’s office. When keeping it real, goes wrong.

[@beastemeauxde7029]

Realest shit you ever wrote.

[@Krystalmyth]

Word.

[@butterfacemcgillicutty]

Great! So, next time I'm faced with a situation I don't want to deal with in life I can say it's not real and run away! Thanks Quantum Physics!

[@Arcticdawn1093]

Universe may be unreal but so are we...so for us everything is real ...

[@zanussidish8144]

But you can't run away. You face it and see if the situation can run away from you. 👍

[@chrisbrown8640]

Wish I could tell that to a traffic cop !😂

[@jimberry5318]

Not real like I'm right here come on man..... Some people are so smart they outsmarted themselves

[@azizkurtoglu6243]

And you will omit reality disastrously with all its consequences that can be much worse and bitter for you later on. If you had taken it real, you could have destroyed all bad consequences at once that now you need to face in the future.

[@takedonick101]

Man Alice and Bob have had a lifetime of stories together.... they should make a scifi tv show at this point jeez lol

[@porridgeandprunes]

Alice and Bob? Oh no! Not that again!

[@violet.senderhauf2187]

@@porridgeandprunes Welcome to Einstein's Nightmare.

[@bobbyb9712]

Well, I am Bob and I have never met an Alice as far as I can remember so like the man says I haven't and will never know whether we agree or not. Still have to go with Einstein.

[@cvspvr]

alice and bob vs the evil claire

[@abedan1258]

When They can't solve the problem They say the math is incorrect

[@bharathkumar6140]

This video is just a glimpse. To understand the full picture, get the forbidden book Whispers of Manifestation on Borlest and discover what's hidden.

[@purefoldnz3070]

you would be better off getting Green Eggs and Ham.

[@realryder2626]

​@purefoldnz3070 😂

[@OsvaldoBayerista]

Lmao pretentious af

[@kumarsumit9448]

Eska pdf milega?

[@tintedqualia]

​@@kumarsumit9448 I wanna know too

[@SJKPJR007]

Thank goodness this had a "So what?" chapter. Whenever I read or watch items concerning quantum theory I often end up wondering if it's significance is "locally real".

[@allieharmon3926]

How I felt when I was reading, then skimming, an article on this for the "so what?" Bit. Bc I'm pretty sure philosophers already touched on this existential crisis 💀🤣

[@GameTimeWhy]

@m_train1 never let what out?

[@royalbloodedledgend]

Well, if nothing is real then we might as well go ahead & blow ourselves up then. It’s going to happen eventually anyways.

[@GameTimeWhy]

@m_train1 I did.

[@donaldduck4888]

Apart from the fact that it drives the modern world (like the computer you wrote this on) quantum theory is completely irrelevant.

[@DanielPeaster]

In fairness, I’m not very smart. But I’ve tried so many times to understand quantum entanglement and you single-handedly explained it to me in just a few simple sentences. I am eternally grateful. I can finally impress my grandmother.

[@waldwassermann]

Never use the word against your self. You are super intelligent.

[@draganbacmaga8981]

I think it's fair to say that even the smartest people have trouble understanding entanglement - that's why they all propose theories.

[@julianemery718]

Quantum mechanics is something you can't really understand fully, and anyone claiming they do are lying.

[@tubehepa]

Ditto! 🤩

[@christopher.m.dickinson0315]

It's all good there are many levels of intelligence out there but at least you have a willingness to learn and that's really what's more important

[@parasharsomprabh4970]

Questions of science suddenly become questions of philosophy and psychology the deeper we move into them, science and philosophy essentially look like brothers.

[@AbandonedVoid]

Science has made philosophy irrelevant

[@cassandragemini_]

@@AbandonedVoid only to people devoid of any heart who would rather sound like robots instead of freakin human beings

[@AlFredo-sx2yy]

​@@AbandonedVoid You say that because like most people, you dont understand the purpose of philosophy and mistake it for some sort of attempt at pseudo science. Physics student btw, so not a philosophy fanboy by any means, but philosophy doesnt just deal with stuff like "what is reality anyways lol", same way not all of phsyics is about solving highschool pulley problems.

[@doml998]

@@AbandonedVoid Philosophy creates science essentially. Must come up with an idea and test them. Quite simple.

[@ayee4363]

Natural philosophy

[@tinetannies4637]

That bit with the 3rd polarized filter totally surprised me. My mind is in knots. Thanks!

[@periclestoukiloglou1196]

They way I had "understood" so far, was that according to quantum physics, the property of a particle is random until it is measured. However, if I am getting this right, whenever we measure again the same particles, the value of the property will change again, to a previously unknown value (so that it's value sometimes is or isn't 180-Δθ) . If that is the case, the value of the particles' property could be changing randomly all the time and we just get a snapshot of it's value at the precise moment that we measured it.

[@MaxWinner]

Yes..or, rather than "changing randomly" maybe they are all possible properties at the same time, or no properties at all, ..are they just simply "undefined" ... But now we're back to a cat in a box lol

[@lxlumen]

It’s more like we don’t know the properties, like with the cat. Doesn’t mean everything is truly random until you look.

[@mariakutschera3087]

Perhaps we hav no measure for All that exists.

[@TheDarkblue57]

I'm pretty sure what you're describing is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and also superposition but I think the difference here is that the two particles are in a state of entanglement I believe they're still in superposition but upon measurement a wave function collapse occurs so as to not violate conservation of momentum by having the particles spin in opposite directions, which is what was apparently proven.

[@420SupaK]

I'm not fully educated in some of this. Giving a Nobel prize for saying something changes properties when measured differently. That doesn't sound like a award winning break through.

[@tartipouss]

So the universe isn't real because it turn out the way we thought the universe worked is not how it actually work ? It's somewhat amazing how little of the universe and physics as a whole we actually know

[@roboparks]

Gravity isn't real ??? If that is True take you cat and drop them off a 40 story bundling? Ill be waiting for your response?? 😁

[@darrennew8211]

"Real" is a technical term, just like "local" is. It essentially means the choice of whether you measure something does not affect the thing you're measuring. In this case, the idea is that the polarization (etc) are already determined whether you measure them or not, which turns out to not be true. "Real" is unrelated to "true" or "actual" in physics-speak.

[@MattRoadhouse]

And yet day after day, dogmatic science is rammed down people's throats as definitive and undebatable -

[@darrennew8211]

@@MattRoadhouse Huh? There's no such thing as "dogmatic science." You might have some dogmatic scientists, but dogmatic is the opposite of science. If you're complaining that government claims that science says something it doesn't to assert control over you, that isn't science, that's government. None of which has anything to do with the technical definition of "real". (And if I could remember where I saw the physicist define it, I'd post it.)

[@MattRoadhouse]

@@darrennew8211 you are correct, and yet look at the state of the world and tell me I am actually wrong

[@GHOST-331]

Niels Bohr, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, did not believe that the universe is not real. In fact, he believed that the universe is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the way we observe and measure it. Bohr believed that the physical world is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the constraints of our measurements and observations. He argued that we should focus on the pragmatic and experimental aspects of quantum mechanics, rather than trying to understand the underlying reality behind it.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Who told you what Niels Bohr" believed" , and why do you believe them?

[@vhawk1951kl]

If only you had some idea of what you mean by or could even begine to define, " the universe". Apart from imaginary what is the universe? You have absolutely no idea?-No surprises there

[@alals6794]

Hey you know, Bohr was on to something there.....for all his theoretical prowess, he was the most pragmatic of them all, it seems.

[@liquidmagma]

@@vhawk1951kl Another desperate "simulation" theorist.

[@madhatter3492]

Quantum Physics does not exist, it is a evil that will be driven out of this world.

[@ghhdgjjfjjggj]

My teacher asked me where is my homework the other day. I was trying to tell her that the homework isn't actually real.

[@gr637]

I agree with Einstein that randomness is not a fundamental feature of nature. Just because the behaviour of some particles appears to be random, it doesn’t mean that it is. Every particle’s behaviour must have an explanation - there must always be A REASON to explain why a particle moves this way or that way. .just because we don’t know that explanation yet, this doesn’t mean that we can or should attribute it to randomness.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Seems intuitive, but apparently it's not correct.

[@DuckDodgers69]

Sometimes

[@MrClickity]

Problem is, there have been tests done on the "hidden variable" hypothesis, and the randomness really does seem baked into the universe.

[@stipostipo2051]

Determinism or randomness is not primarily a problem of physics but of the epistemology of the observer. Man's abilities are limited because man is not an absolute creature. He will never be able to trace all the causes - down to the last root or all the consequences - through determinism. One can never be certain of detecting causality or correlation in all its entirety because there will always be something that he does not see, does not know at that moment and that affects the object of observation. Therefore, it cannot verify the validity of determinism, because either determinism applies absolutely or it does not apply at all.

[@charlesmiller8107]

It all sounds logical until it's proven wrong, then it makes sense.

[@jasnarmstrng]

Einstein (Podolsky and Rosen) weren't proven wrong. They proposed a question as a response. It just took a long time for subsequent theoretical physicist to respond. The question was so good it deserved a Nobel prize worthy answer.

[@slipcaseslitpace]

I was thinking how does this prove it isn’t real it just proves to me we don’t understand everything yet

[@davidabdollahi7906]

That is true. These sharlatans still trying to sell us their mysticism crap by attacking determinism. To have the audacity...

[@a_diamond]

​@@slipcaseslitpace Any good answer poses new questions ;) Correct answers can be simple of course, but usually those are only answers to the most simple of questions... Really good answers change how we understand something.. so we always end up with more questions ;)

[@slipcaseslitpace]

@@a_diamond ok? This doesn’t prove that the universe isn’t real tho.

[@cammack07]

No one is saying it isn’t real. Something is here.

[@bilson7523]

My complaint about this stuff is the use of "real" or "realism." I much prefer your use of "deterministic," as I think it helps convey the reality of what is going on and how the models capture it. Not to say it invalidates any of this, but I know it does create a barrier to understanding the concept for people like my wife who responded by touching a table and saying: "So... This table isn't real?"

[@1994mrmysteryman]

Haha 😄

[@eufrosniad994]

I very much agree. It may have been long forgotten, but realism and anti-realism are terms that do already exist in Philosophy as well. This form of loading onto the term does not help someone avoid misunderstandings upon first hearing these theories. That being said, it is worth pointing out that almost all of modern science is founded upon anti-realist foundations and motivations while accepting realist foundations for carrying out the scientific methodology. So if one were a scientist who strictly adheres to the anti-realist motivations, they would answer your wife's question that "they can never be sure the table is actually there, let alone know what is truly meant by a table". This is because since Hume, principle of causality has been rejected as doubtful, which in turn means that our sensory information cannot be trusted.

[@ILoveGrilledCheese]

Agreed, I think often these complex scientific theories get muddled by poor communication.

[@aqualust5016]

@@ILoveGrilledCheesesome people keep it that way to gate keep and flex as if they’re smarter than everyone else. In fact, they’re fools if they can’t rationally explain their thesis to the world in such a way that others can infer their stance and agree on it based on the communication methods used

[@triaswinter296]

But doesn't also the philosophical term "realism" gets used to describe a objective world which isn't affected by our doings and our mind? Hume says we cannot know this, but didn't this quantum measurements "disprove" (as far as this is possible) the possibility of a inherent realistic world, also in terms of philosophical realism?

[@ytubeanon]

Will Smith slapped physics when he heard it had Engtanglements

[@bustercam199]

Hillarious.

[@MattWhite-jo3xv]

Now that's funny.

[@scout3058]

As an individual who miserably failed Algebra 1 in high school (and still can't do long division) and is effectively math challenged, you did a great job at making this easily digestible, and understandable. 👍👍👍

[@bobancikic7458]

there is no spoon!!!

[@scout3058]

@@bobancikic7458 😃😃

[@ammardian]

Don't worry homie, I'm in a college math degree and none of my friends can do long division at all haha. On another note, I'm glad you understood the video :)

[@scout3058]

@@ammardian Thank you for letting me know that I'm not the only dunce/dumbass left in the world. 😆😆😆

[@ammardian]

@@scout3058 Even in college we still find addition and subtraction the largest area we make mistakes in on exams. Believe me, we are all dumbasses in this world haha

[@moremileyplease4387]

I have a bad feeling that in the future, we will discover that distance doesn't mean what we think it means.

[@369universal4]

Agreed. I feel that how we think and understand 'time' will also be transformed.

[@ericssonlin7114]

This is already a thing. In string theory a universe that is smaller than a Planck length is physically identical to a universe bigger than a Planck length, and distance is completely redefined. I believe “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene goes more into detail if you’re interested.

[@3dguy839]

@@IM-ef7nf my uncle Fred says that the secret of bigfoot episode of The Six million Dollar Man was infact a test run for the secret ai android army being built by Elon Musk and the military industrial complex which will be disguised as Bigfoots (so as not to arouse suspicion) and dropped into our enemies China and Russia

[@SiegDuPreez]

Maybe distance is irrelevant in other dimensions?

[@sadhiktm2141]

I think every thing is interconnected as a drop of water deeply connected with ocean as whole both are one

[@victorpla29]

You lost me at 00:10

[@helifynoe1034]

If you take two polarized filters and place them on top of each other, and have them sitting on a light source, you will notice as you rotate one of the filters in a linear fashion, that the change in light intensity passing through, is not linear. One may calculate the outcome by using a Malus Law Calculator.

[@sertulariae8294]

if the universe isn't real, i'm not paying my bills anymore

[@larrydommer9109]

What does paying your bills have to do with the universe. The bible says render unto Ceasar. You don't need a universe if you believe the Bible. You just have to pay your taxes.

[@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168]

Bruh it was a joke lol

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@larrydommer9109WTF does the Bible have to do with ANY of this? 😂

[@123supporter]

You must be tons of fun at patties.

[@poisonpotato1]

0:02 didn't know teddy Roosevelt and George Lucas were physicists

[@Stoirelius]

More like Steven Spielberg.

[@Cubert0331]

Hahahahahaha that gave me a good chuckle.

[@Barnaclebeard]

The Universe is not stranger than Einstein ever imagined; it is stranger than he wished it to be. He was perfectly capable of entertaining the same ideas as everyone else, but decided they didn't fit the tone of the Author he imagined.

[@andsalomoni]

The Universe is not strange. Our mind is strange, with its claim to know how the Universe should behave to be "normal".

[@神林しマイケル]

@@andsalomoni Well life itself is strange. The fact that we are intelligent and self aware is itself strange when you compare it to billions of other species that have walked the earth yet we are the only one to attain intelligence that surpasses others. As they said about quantum physics "the more you know, the less you know".

[@machinmon.]

Plato thought it first

[@SuperManning11]

Very well said. I suppose we all like to be right, especially when thinking about the fundamentals of reality. It is mind-blowing to me how many folks still hold so tightly to the story of Adam and Eve, refusing to update the biblical story one bit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of a different creation story on a very different timeline.

[@神林しマイケル]

@@SuperManning11 You know why? Because people cannot let go of culture. Religion is so deeply rooted just like how we want to protect and preserve historical objects, arts, cultures etc... Also, religion has become mainstream that it is simply hard to erase it. It is also a good thing since religion makes humans afraid of consequences.

[@rafaelcorredor4071]

I like the video, but for someone completely ignorant to the topic, I still can’t understand by saying that “the universe isn’t real”? Clearly a title very much intended for clickbait, at least he should’ve offered a better explanation for us ignorant people that are not familiar with physics, as to what does that mean?

[@Avalan666]

It means the universe isn't until it decides it is. It can change it's mind about it's own existence seemingly on a whim, given that it changes it's state based on information it can't possibly have.

[@ZenHulk]

I started reading quantum physics books when i was too young to understand them, about 1982 13 years old, now I'm 53 years old, and still feel i don't understand it much, but this video made me feel like i learned something over 40 years, because some of this was familiar. I have always been drawn to this, even though I'm mostly a trained engineer, and now an old man hanging out in a home mancave building a humanoid robot at a slow pace. Cool video, thanks.

[@ravenragnar]

Try DMT/5g of Mushrooms. It will make more sense.

[@神林しマイケル]

@@ravenragnar Yeah no. If it was, then scientists would have done it and achieved a massive breakthrough in regards to quantum physics but reality is often disappointing.

[@ravenragnar]

@@神林しマイケル Yeah no. You are wrong. Look up where the birth of the internet came from. It was a massive breakthrough.

[@神林しマイケル]

@@ravenragnar 😂 My guy is comparing the internet and quantum physics lmao

[@draganbacmaga8981]

Not a sex bot is it?

[@fifetojo]

Really well explained. I found this easier to follow than the PBS spacetime episode 👍

[@BeckBeckGo]

I think he should be super radical and rename Alice and Bob.

[@wrestleswithangels]

Link to the PBS Episode, please. ??

[@Godonly-v6x]

This is all bs nonsense. Science is based on OBSERVATION. If nothing we experience is real, then science doesn't exist and neither do these goofballs. For all intents and purposes, everything we experience is REAL. There is no way to define a state of being "not real" based on scientific principles, because, again, science is based on OBSERVATION.

[@josephwhittaker442]

@@infinity2394 🙅‍♂️

[@firstaidsack]

@@infinity2394 You can know what pain and suffering is without knowing goodness. Therefore you can know evil without knowing goodness. Case closed.

[@indigatorveritatis219]

This was really good. As an expert PhD in the field of theoretical physics, I am glad to see such explanations. Just kidding, I failed pre-al in high school... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

[@JonathanGillies]

What's the relevance of the Holiday Inn please? :/

[@indigatorveritatis219]

@@JonathanGillies The Holiday Inn Express used to have really funny commercials.. like where a guy is doing a surgery pretending to be an actual surgeon. When he messed things up, they asked him if he was a doctor, and he said, "no, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night". They had a few similar ones :)

[@adraedin]

Just as funny as an obscure reference that I get, is the confused people who don't get it lol

[@JonathanGillies]

@@indigatorveritatis219 Ok thanks for the explanation lol!!!!!! :D

[@brettsmith5903]

Somebody give this man the key to Detroit!

[@theoptimisticskeptic]

A couple of questions: I know this is a year old but here goes, LOVE your channel by the way: 1. If two particles are entangled from the moment they divide so before they are a Universe apart then their aren't values detertermined at that moment? 2. Doesn't that mean, once we've measured the state of one particle we know the state of the other, even if it's traveled a Universe away. 3. But how does anyone get that means any of those states were determined at the time of measurement rather than at the time they were created? If one was spinning clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, wouldn't they have been doing so since they divided? 4. If the anwser is no, then how? How are they not spinning? And it can't just be because we haven't measured it yet, I would think. We know these particles are in fact actual physical object despite their size. They have to be. Otherwise trillions of them wouldnt make up a physical object, that seems to go against common sense to me. Of couse that could be the nature of Quantum Mechanics, but my gut tells me it's more a limitation of our measuring technology and that one day we will be able to do things like measure both spin and location at the same time. On the other hand, I'm also a layman hobbyist when it comes to physics and science so what do I know compared to Nobel Prize winners or an optical theoretical physicist, heh.

[@OneLine122]

1. They are but you can't tell. 2. If the other was not interacted with, yes, you know, but the information is useless. 3. It's the same question as 1 isn't it? Spin in physics is not the same as what we use the word for, it's a metaphor. But overall they do have a spin, you just can't tell which until you measure. Particles are not "physical objects", they have no matter and can't be divided. The way they make a physical object is by materializing in a way. They create bonds with each others and it's those bonds we perceive as material and objects. Basically it's the "forces" that make them "real" in the normal sense of the term. You could think of it as an emergent property of the particles. It's pretty accepted you can't ever measure both at the same time with total precision. It's logically impossible, it just took physicists a long time to figure it out and accept it. There is one way you can though get something at the same time. You can calculate position and then hear music so to speak. It's what they do to calculate gravitation waves. Music is not a measurement, but you know it's there and it has different qualities.

[@RWMAirgunsmithing]

They have done experiments with multiple detectors at different stages that demonstrate entanglement no matter when you measure the particle (before or after). Edit : the moment you take your measurements or interact with your particles is the moment the wave function collapses, roughly speaking... until then its all probability and quantum mechanics.

[@jesuschristwithwifi8181]

Are we not gonna talk about how bro has an outro? 12:38

[@robbujold7711]

I find these concepts a struggle, and I had to watch this twice, but I ultimately obtained a better understanding of local real-ness than I’ve previously been able to muster. Thank you for laying it out so well.

[@digguscience]

the explanation is crystal clear

[@lastthingsministry]

Lies are often hard to understand because they are the product of insanity. The reasoning collapses on itself. If nothing is real then the experiment that 'proves' that nothing is real is also not real as the experiment exists inside the so called illusion. This is a paradox. The experiment is contaminated by existing within the so called illusion. The experiment and it's findings would have to be illusory as well. Otherwise they are saying that everything is false but the experiment exists outside the illusion and so is true. This would literally make the experiment itself God and the scientists would be godmen able to move the experiment outside of the illusion. Welcome to your new religion. Though it is actually an ancient and false one called 'Gnosticism' just as 'evolution' was based on Hindu concept of Samsara. If you believe in evolution you are already a Hindu. If you believe in the simulation theory argument you are already a gnostic. What is creepy is that these 'scientists' are holding out on you and not telling you that they have been deeply religious people all along but only pretended to be atheists. They had us all fooled!

[@TheSubpremeState]

There are several ways to help understand it. While watching this screen you can see people doing things but your phone or pc is just recreating images from the past so although they look real it is similar to the world you see using your brain as a decoder. Next way is to realise that everything has been proven to be made up of the same ingredients ie. atoms sub atomic particles etc. etc. All variations are illusory just like a face that appears in a cloud would disappear if you got up closer to the cloud. Our brains hallucinate our realities..... I'd suggest watching a video of the same title but our brains evolved over time favouring survival over reality. Seeing reality is not a trait that will lead you to having lots of offspring. An aggressive caveman will get laid more often than a monk who meditates 24/7 lol The more you enjoy the dream called life and the more you are willing to sacrifice to preserve this wonderful daymare to more likely you are to survive and prosper and also suffer and still die just slower and with lots of grandchildren. Our eyes and brain create colour for example. That helped us become better killers so imagine what else our brain creates that isn't real........hint.... everything. Next up .. transience. Is an event real? Where is your 3rd birthday? What is the difference between your dreams and your 3rd birthday. Not much. Both are just vague memories and you and your world will become memories and eventually be forgotten. What isn't permanent, isn't real. Nothing is permanent. Some Hindu sages say that reality is attainable. It's very hard to describe. It can only be pointed to and although it is nothing it can be experienced but it's beyond words like experience yet to someone who has been to the state that millions of people meditate in an attempt to......not exist......it is far from dead. It's pure awareness and instead of emptiness it's immensely full. It feels like everyone you ever loved is in it but not separate from you. I glimpsed it once and the shock of it knocked me back to my dream or program that I have been ingraining into myself thanks to society and others since I was 2 years old. The idea that I'm a body in this hell hole is a troublesome concept but my destiny will fulfill itself as will yours. Hope it goes well for me/you as we are the same illusory being

[@kdub9812]

think of it like rendering in a video game. stuff Is there when your not rendering it but it isn't physical; it's pure information, ones and zeros. but when observed, "rendered", it appears as tangible "real" stuff. but you know ultimately speaking it's still just a bunch of one's and zeros that when rendered a certain way, "observed", give one the appearance of "real" stuff

[@itsonlyapapermoon61]

​any recommended books

[@lazyeclipse]

What really confuses me when talking about quantum measurement is the assumption that we somehow exist outside the system and can measure it. But that can't be, since ultimately we're describing the universe.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

True. Each of our actions should affect the universe in some way.

[@jatinkholiya6644]

True

[@ruthnovena40]

The fact that one can go back and see data from other civilzations that plotted the sun ,moon and other stars says something is real.

[@googol990]

No, that's just it. We AREN'T outside the system, and we aren't the only things considered observers. The idea is that it's impossible to measure/observe quantum interactions without interacting with them, and therefore altering the state of the particles at the moment of observation. As far as I understand all atoms are quantum observers at the the moment of interaction. So if the universe is not locally real, then either interactions can happen regardless of distance in space-time, or that the fundamental stuff of reality does not have inherent definite measurable properties and instead only manifests properties at the point of interaction with an observer.

[@brianhyde5900]

The soul is pure consciousness. It is outside the universe. The universe is a projection of consciousness.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

So, a quick correction. Einstein wasn't "wrong," he was the first to point out that entanglement was THE differentiating aspect of quantum mechanics and Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, Pauli etc DID NOT understand how significant the EPR paper was (and it was kind of ignored): Einstein UNDERSTOOD before everybody else that IF quantum entanglement was true, either locality or "realism" had to be abandoned, and if that was the case, what does that do to the primacy of special relativity? Kuhn argues, convincingly, that Einstein, not Planck, launched quantum theory in earnest (and he was able to derive Planck's equation using only Wien's law, not to mention the fact he independently derived the Rayleigh-Jeans Law). It was ultimately Einstein that INSPIRED John Bell (who was told by several peers not to even waste his time with experiments now known as Bell's theorem) to do the very experimental work that ultimately led to the Nobel Prize won by Clauser and co. Einstein, contrary to popular opinion (and this isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of several science historians, contemporaries, and physicists like Sean Carrol), understood quantum mechanics better than anybody. Without his insights Schrodinger never derives his famous wave equation; without his insights, Born never comes up with Probability waves/distributions; without his insights De Broglie never comes up with matter waves. Douglas Stone's "Einstein and The Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian" is an excellent synthetic history of this corner of scientific lore. I'd argue that Einstein was THE most influential figure in the establishment of quantum mechanics (and he also happens to be the de facto father of condensed matter physics according to Cardona and others).

[@MrlegendOr]

No

[@michaelblankenau6598]

Too bad you’re wrong .

[@tivenspqr]

Excellent explanation. Thanks for putting complex concepts available to “normal” people. I am an engineer and I like these topics, but it is really hard to find someone who can explain with simplicity and with beauty like this video did.

[@bosstradingpro1910]

Time is like the measuring of distance between events spawning from a sigularity and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in the universe by dark energy and the information is then evolved so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our galaxy) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.

[@poetryofcinema6957]

@@bosstradingpro1910 was a good read

[@bosstradingpro1910]

@@poetryofcinema6957 Thank you. Well appreciated.

[@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar]

@@bosstradingpro1910could be Jack the Ripper.. or someone “ripping” wind around you 🌬️ 💩💨

[@bosstradingpro1910]

@@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar lol, do you mean that person, or me?

[@BrianHSC]

Einstein simply said Quantum mechanics is "incomplete". Which it still is. He didn't deny the properties of Quantum mechanics. He just said it isn't explained which is still true. People were aware of gravity before Einstein. They knew the properties and used it. But it wasn't explained before Einstein. Quantum mechanics is currently at that state of gravity before Einstein. We know the properties and we use it but we can't explain it.

[@schmetterling4477]

How is it incomplete? Be precise now. ;-)

[@robertv4076]

@@schmetterling4477 It cannot really solve anything, even the Hydrogen atom is incomplete. Helium is impossible to solve so they construct unreal purely mathematical wave-functions with thousands of terms then fit the experimental data while claiming QM is the most precise theory ever.

[@tbunreall]

@@schmetterling4477 Where's our theory of everything?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@tbunreall We most likely had it since roughly 1620. It's relativity. ;-)

[@bustercam199]

Right, and Einstein is right. The others are dead wrong.

[@CamraMaan]

Regarding particle spin, with one particle splitting into two, there is a theoretical way they can both have the same spin, versus opposite, which is if they split along the axis of spin, versus perpendicular to it. Like in the video example, you have the two particle split away along the "equator", from which logic would dictate that they should not maintain identical spins. But if they instead split apart separating from the north/south pole, it would be intuitive for them to have the same spin, and counterintuitive for them to have opposing spins.

[@aapjew18]

But doesn't that assume the particle has a spin already? And then that would confirm that something else has set that particle in motion to spin. Which aligns with the underlying idea.

[@tomislavbunjevcevic9912]

This video takes its time to explain obvious things and then flies over the stuff that were actually here to see explained. I hope there will be a followup video.

[@Argonova]

I don't understand why inherent randomness means that the universe is not "real". Later in the video, you shift that to "locally real". Isn't it still possible that these particles are interacting in a classical way, on a level that we just can't see? Or that the connection between them is being broken? More explanation of this would be appreciated, because while the numbers may not make sense, I'm not sure why this eliminates the possibility of hidden variables.

[@vaibhavbv3409]

But why isn't it real

[@seditt5146]

Basically because it is saying there is no predetermined outcome as in a particle does not have ANY defined state until its observed. Not that we simply dont understand the state, just that the state has not even been determined, IE, does not even exist, until observed. I mean, while this is grounded in reality as a statement, its highly misleading and reporting on it is rather garbage. This does NOT rule out super determinism as in, the entire Universe is predetermined. For reasons unknown to me, Science is and has been hell bent on proving they can separate a chunk of the universe from the rest and calculate its properties definitively. This is surely impossible. But, this does not mean it was not all determined from the start of the universe. I think they just want to leave room for free will at all cost. IDK why, just how it is.

[@absolutium]

Think about it as if it was a computer program where you can fly a very fast plane.. if I asked you what the max speed of the aircraft can be.. you would be compelled to answer in Mph or Kph.. But the speed of the plane can only be that of the processor's clock. At that moment if you were on the plane as a passenger the speed of the plane is no longer real is it?

[@chriswhite3692]

Look up the Quantum Eraser by PBS Spacetime

[@havenbastion]

It's not inherent randomness at all. All statistical ideas are a measure of the upper limit of predictive certainty, Not facts about reality. Those may only be known by actual measurement or logical necessity, not probability, which is all a wave function is.

[@AlegIronFist]

The Universe while sending asteroids our way: “We will see who isn’t real”

[@Kathy-n7f]

Hahahaha!!!

[@stop8738]

Remember Science isn’t about appeasing Einstein, it’s about truth.

[@Cowface]

I’m still surprised when people say “the most famous example of this is…” and instead of “double slit experiment” they say “schroedinger’s cat”

[@Wylie288]

Its all the same shit. We never needed the double slit experiment to know observing things requires tampering with them. And we never needed to prove that to know that if we tamper with something BEFORE we learn about it there are a range of possible it states it might have been in before we decided to observe it. That's literally basic logic and deduction.

[@mauette2000]

I think it will be a very long time before anyone can explain what this video is trying to explain in a manner that actually does explain.

[@freedom4life123]

LAYMANS TERMS U MEAN

[@angaleejones]

Sac le blur

[@vasvas8914]

There's basically an inherent connection between two photons that transfers information faster than speed of light, controversing modern physics worldview.

[@randomgrinn]

Yeah he didn't explain it to me. Still don't understand why non-determinism equals not real.

[@FullCircleTravis]

Imagine if your body occupied two different points in space simultaneously. One is in New York city, and the other is in Paris. If you are observing Paris, that is local. If you were pinched in Paris, the pinch is locally real. You were pinched in Paris, and felt it in Paris. However, if your body was pinched in New York, you feel it in Paris. Despite feeling it in Paris, nobody pinched you there, so forces acting on you from the universe doesn't have to be locally real to be observed. Now, the value of this is thus. Imagine if we created a computer that existed on our planet, and on an alien planet a billion light years away. If time was relatively the same in both places, whatever is typed on one computer screen would appear simultaneously in both places at once. No signals required. If you've seen the matrix movies, they show this phenomenon by the injuries in the matrix affecting your body in the real world. The idea is that our body is always a projection of the mind, so if in the mind the projection of ourselves is damaged, so is the body. It's not just a science fiction phenomenon either. When medications are tested, they do blind tests because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is literally your body is healed in the mind, and the mind projects your healed body in reality. You show physical improvement literally because your mental projection is improved.

[@johnphilly2479]

"do you really believe the moon isn't there when you're asleep?" -Albert Einstein

[@noone3216]

The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. - Albert Einstein.

[@KnownotProductions]

I love that the most replayed point of the video is the when he starts to explain the experiment and you just know it's because people had to go back and watch it again to really wrap their heads around it.

[@hikesystem7721]

I think it was the men in costumes and the explosion, lol. Neanderthals.

[@Ozone946]

@@hikesystem7721 you mean the Monty Python scene? And are you calling people Neanderthals?

[@carlosleonelli1139]

Coincidentally I replayed the experiment because my sister started to talk to me randomly

[@hikesystem7721]

@@Ozone946 it's called humor

[@DannyTillotson]

How do you know it's the most replayed part? Is there a way to see these statistics?

[@WankiTank]

I love watching such videos as someone with a school grade understanding of physics it's just listening to these things in awe and thinking, man they're just making up stuff that doesn't make sense at all - - but you know, of course, to them it makes sense. there is so much beauty in what the human brain is capable of, just by looking at what different kind of knowledge can fit into it.

[@magnanimousmartyr421]

This is the kind of situation that occurs when someone starts overthinking a subject and becoming so lost within it, that they are no longer able to recognize reality…

[@hekeptdying1428]

me when I'm high AF

[@kw5021]

Yes these pompous ass hats got us to believe were monkeys spinning on a ball six times the speed of sound.

[@gandalf_thegrey]

@@hekeptdying1428 me right now brother

[@publicopinion3596]

Its called subjective thinking the very nature of social reality is based on collective agreement humans put meaning to things that don't reflect a function based on how it is physically but on how or what function it has. So a human will usually impose meaning onto the universe in term relative to benefits or conditions that serve humanity

[@magnanimousmartyr421]

@@publicopinion3596 Umm.....okay???

[@MedlifeCrisis]

Wild stuff. Can’t believe “it’s the universe real” is such a reasonable question with such a complicated answer. Excellent explanation!

[@sneakymilkman4203]

Ahh yes I love asking “it’s the universe real”

[@Godonly-v6x]

It's really not, this what people on the internet do for attention. It makes literally no sense for a scientist to say the universe isn't real because that literally debunks all science because all science is based on OBSERVATION and experimentation. Observation and experimentation can only constructed into a proper theory if the observations and experimental outcomes are consistent! If they are consistent, that literally defines what "reality" is. Do you understand the point I'm making? If the universe isn't real, then neither is science or any of the bs they're saying

[@popcornmovietrailer960]

@@infinity2394 are you a muslim?

[@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168]

@@infinity2394 can you pls stop spamming

[@dellalyn9918]

@@sneakymilkman4203 'Is', Changed for people like you who never make mistakes....a$$-wipe.

[@s.c.6113]

I have watched a lot of videos on quantum physics, this is the first that has actually explained how entangled particles become entangled, how they are created at all. And upon actually being explained it seems so simple, it makes me wonder why other channels didn't bother. So, thanks for actually taking the time to explain how it's related to conservation.

[@cappiece3786]

Duh

[@mohinderkumar7298]

Uh

[@vinceplatt8468]

Except they don't really explain "how" they're created at all! They've theorized that they must exist simply because all these experiments require them to exist in order for the results to make sense. At least until they have a better explanation anyway.

[@valeriewilliams6576]

I read your comment and now I'm going to actually watch this because I always get "lost."

[@KikiTheHobbit]

because the channels are obviously made for a different audience? if you’re teaching advanced english, you won’t start with A1 level phrases either…💀

[@KevinThurman]

10:23 “And here is the paper, proving Einstein’s local realness isn’t real.” You skipped over what the paper said that proved Einstein wrong.

[@TheRoswellCode]

If "The Universe Isn't Real" then neither is this video.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

The best kept secret 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥

[@stevedwa345]

Put the information sources in the description. It will make the video much better.

[@krys_is]

I agree. But I simply searched for "Nobel Prize in Physics 2022" and the source came as the first search result on Nobel Prize website.

[@panicdispenser6586]

Its allready there, but not locally

[@ji-youngj573]

😂😂😂​@@panicdispenser6586

[@MrDosonhai]

A simple Google search will reveal this. This is a Nobel Prize we're talking about.

[@HistoryoftheUniverse]

This was so well done, so clear and easy to follow. Thanks!

[@kapoorh]

Easy to follow? I was lost at Photon...

[@InTonalHarmony]

What’s a photon?

[@gabejohnson4535]

@@InTonalHarmony A photon is a particle of light.

[@jaaaake]

Dislike. They proved it wasn’t locally real - don’t support clickbait titles

[@infinity2394]

evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.

[@candlestyx8517]

"They asked me if I had a degree in theoretical physics, I said I have a theoretical degree in physics."

[@klh1133]

Listening to Robert Edward Grant earlier and he posits that the speed of light is just our current perceptual boundary and not the final measure for what's possible in terms of (quantum teleportation?) He's really doing some fascinating work on using mathematics to redefine what we know as reality. Thank you for explaining this so well for us arm chair physicists Dr!

[@Piscesbitcx]

Yes I believe so to! I think bc we are material physical beings we can only get to light speed bc anything more than that we physically cannot achieve due to the plane of existence we are on (physical/material) But there are more quantum levels of traveling as you mentioned in the higher dimensions:)

[@vhawk1951kl]

"Our" being you and which identifiable immediate interlocutor?

[@richardwebb9532]

These experiments all require an observer, without an observer, nothing can exist, it would all be a wave function.

[@johnchesh3486]

There IS no final nor complete nature of events known. That's his philosophical idealism mistake. There are no abosolutes nor realities. That is our brain delusion. And einstein said and physics has shown. Measurements and descriptions are NOT absolute. The length of th4 shoreline depends upon how you measure it. By 10 cm. intervals. By 100 m. lengths. By whether you drive alone it, or sail along it or walk along it. It all depends upon HOW you measure it nd that is arbitrary. Sorry, there is NO ab solute coast line figure. Because yhou cannot measure the postin of each grain of sand to each greain of sand, either. & the nature of coastlines to change over time with weather, currents, temps, and many other ways. There is NO absolute sea level, either. Because the factors which make sea level are changeable, adn when more than 3 factors, and those are real, it eomces complex system and thus not amenable to final understandings. Harbour shape, ships in port, temps as water expands and congract, winds, and currents; and the pull of the lunar and solar tides Also change the sea levels. And the land levels, too. Complex systems are also ignored by this article. and that is a major, major conceptual fail, as well.

[@itsonlyapapermoon61]

Walter russell, The Secret of Light There is Nothing Outside Yourself Nothing moves not even Light

[@harrysu7643]

so basically reality has a depth/view parameter where things outside of that aren't completely rendered

[@GeometricPidgeon]

As a 3d artist I always described quantum particle behavior as just so small our reality rendering engine just starts to glitch, just so i could make a little sense of the theory that was in front of me. What you describe is what we call near and far clipping planes in 3D rendering! Of course there's also occlusion culling but that is way different.

[@aristotle_4532]

@@GeometricPidgeon It is merely complex beyond our current level of understanding, but people have always had the habit of preferring metaphysical nonsense that sounds interesting over admitting ignorance. The way to treat the metaphysical, and I mean that which we cannot yet observe, is not unfounded theories, but contradiction. Contradiction is the only tool. We do not know what light is because we do not know the medium of light, but merely some of the effects of light. We do not know what polarization really does to light. When in the future so many claimed discoveries will go down the drain, we will say that such is the nature of science, but this time it was different. We did not form incomplete descriptions of reality, we allowed imagination to form the descriptions. We acccept unfounded theories and build on them, taking great care to only consider what is compatible with what we have already invested in

[@GeometricPidgeon]

@@aristotle_4532 yeah I don't claim to have an understanding of quantum particles or mechanics, it is just my own metaphor for explaining why quantum particles do that. Just a massive error lol

[@aristotle_4532]

@@GeometricPidgeon When we do understand the principles, it will be simple. A cube rotation is easy for the software user and the software developer, but a magical complexity if you attempt to follow it on the actual electronics of the computer. Complexity is always a sign of failure on the level of principles.

[@markangelorgs.2773]

@@aristotle_4532 some of know what light is. You can as well if you study Walter Russell and read his book "The Secret of Light". His work will also explain why cube ratios work in 3d programming. Enjoy your enlightenment.

[@robertsarracino9349]

What impresses me so much about Einstein, is his hand in so many foundational discoveries of the 20th century. It was Einstein (along with Rosen and Podolsky) who discovered entanglement -- although, as Miles points out here, Einstein thought of it as a fatal flaw in quantum mechanics. Still, it was Einstein (not trying to diminish the contributions of Rosen & Podolsky) who made this critical realization, that entanglement arises out of quantum theory. This is something which Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Fermi (all of whom I admire greatly), for all their contributions and their support of quantum theory, evidently hadn't realized.

[@TheMrmartind40]

Einstein admitted Tesla was the most intelligent person of his time. His words.

[@Stuart.Branson.]

Einstein was a bad actor who actually did nothing except promote stupid stories for dummies

[@-godsspeed-9159]

​@@TheMrmartind40he probably would have said his wife if she was a guy lmao

[@Noctoletsgo]

When you say theory, do you mean to say that in practicality it is not really a thign that happens?

[@robertsarracino9349]

Just the opposite. Something becomes a "theory" once it's fully established.

[@mirceadigulescu]

Dudes.. it's like the solar neutrino problem:.. guess what.. particles vary in time: as a function of time. They are "entangled" like lovers on the TV Show - they "know" what the partner thinks, because their functions of variation over time are entangled - antithetical for example. So basically particle A varies with fA(t) and particle B varies with fB(t)=-fA(t) for example. They "sync" their functions when they are in close proximity.

[@roberttormey4312]

Well, things have been unreal for quite sometime now.

[@smsushfksk]

oh please robert you are KILLING me, Hey, you should come to my barbecue on wednesday 🙂.

[@dont.beknown5622]

I believe that theoretical physicists such as Einstein would be very impressed with the work carried out so far and lend their knowledge and know-how to help to try to explain more.

[@robertv4076]

Einstein would probably throw up if he saw the state of physics today which largely came about because Bohr was a bully and dominated everyone's views by the force of his personality.

[@TheStatisticalPizza]

I suppose this would be a great way to preserve processing power in a simulated universe. I mean, why compute anything if nothing is around to observe it? It would be better to have those resources available to be used for something else if the need should arise.

[@TheEndude]

I like to think of it the way graphics in video games work to conserve computer resources.

[@bluerider9204]

If I am in a simulated reality...they better upgrade me. This VR program sucks. 🤣

[@obscurity3027]

That’s why far away galaxies look so blurry in Hubble images. The universe is obviously just using the low res models because there’s no reason to fully load them in high detail being so far away.

[@Maho6137]

@@obscurity3027 Wouldn't that be a great premise for a Matrix movie? That they're going to crash the Matrix by loading too much data into memory by somehow 'observing' and thus loading everything? let it overflow

[@ibashcommunists6847]

God said that when Christ c9mes back, heaven and earth will be merged and that the old earth will be gone. This universe will disappear juat like that.

[@Jules-hn6un]

My problem isn’t with the physics, it’s with physicists hijacking words in common usage that have commonly understood meanings. They then use these words and terms to mean something else entirely and are surprised when everyone’s confused. Like when they named black holes, but then looked confused when people interpreted them as being both holes and black. “Real” is the same thing.

[@GeekyGizmo007]

I understood almost none of it and enjoyed every moment of it.

[@Bult]

I don't get the conclusion that proving spooky action at a distance is real also proves that the Universe isn't real. If they had proven the Universe is a holographic projection, that would be different. And I wouldn't say Einstein was wrong either because he didn't submit an entanglement theory, he only submitted a challenge to his peers.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

The best kept secret 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥

[@bustercam199]

Exactly, and to be honest. it's the other way around. Spooky action does not exist, but the universe is real. Einstein was right, and Zeilinger is nothing but a fraudster stuck in self-promotion.

[@jojolafrite90]

I was actually happy when I heard Alain Aspect won a Nobel prize. It's well deserved.

[@nebylicza]

I watch it once and didn’t understand it. So then I watched it again and really didn’t understand it.

[@alexdoiron8419]

This Means that your twin understood it, and then really understood it.

[@makehugemoneyonline463]

There is nothing to understand because the universe is real

[@gunlokman]

There was a young man called Bright - who could travel faster than light. He set off one day, in a relative way, and returned the previous night!

[@ennaancestors4625]

There are a few things that everyone agrees on. The directionality that we observe in the macroscopic world is very real: Teacups shatter but do not spontaneously reassemble; eggs can be scrambled but not unscrambled. Entropy - a measure of the disorder in a system - always increases, a fact encoded in the second law of thermodynamics. As the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann understood in the 19th century, the second law explains why events are more likely to evolve in one direction rather than another. It accounts for the arrow of time.

[@RurikLoderr]

"Entropy - a measure of the disorder in a system - always increases, a fact encoded in the second law of thermodynamics." Except it doesn't have to always increase, there are just so many more states where it does increase than it doesn't than spontaneous entropy decreases are so unlikely as to appear to be impossible. They are not technically impossible, however.

[@YawnGod]

@@RurikLoderr Entropy was invented to prevent wishful thinking. It is not technically possible to prevent wishful thinking, however, and so the entropy of the universe increases to compensate. Everyone wins: you get to believe that you understand how the universe works, and the universe sets up the conditions for a moment of humility you will experience in the future. What a great system.

[@maflones]

Bull. We do NOT agree, so you should stop lying.

[@patrickday4206]

Yeah entropy is for chemists to understand basic things but the universe many times creates some order look at sun's and planets made up of mostly certain elements even places on earth with massive salt beds from ancient seas. Entropy is easier and once it happens it takes a lot of time or energy to reverse.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

The best kept secret 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥

[@karat-s7330]

I love how I clicked on this as if I would understand any of it 👍😂

[@Jeanyuhzz]

Gotta start somewhere . If you keep watching similar content, eventually everything will slowly make more sense

[@sooniecantalk]

I love how I watched it through and then discussed it with my friend as if we can understand any of it

[@Johnny2Feathers]

They don’t even understand it … but they’ll try telling you there is no GOD. 🤣🤣

[@Jono_93]

@@Johnny2Feathers Aw yeah because there's so much evidence of a god ever existing.

[@Johnny2Feathers]

@@Jono_93 well yea there is.. we’re alive

[@naveedsegments]

It's sad to see that, this phenom doesn't have that much subs which he deserves. One Of Greatest Explanation I Have Ever Gone Through🙏🏻

[@Noctoletsgo]

Maybe you can help me then. I understand up to the experiement. We know photons act as waves so I guess I am not understanding why it is surprising when you work between angles. I also don't understand how in the animated image, the orientation of light (horizontal/veritcal) seems to negate the filters and just pass through regardless. It seems logical to me that this would be predetermined from the split particle but i pick up on lines like ' Imagine a particle splits'. Why do I have to imagine if it happened in the experiement? Cheers lol

[@sharifzareeai8954]

12:44 damn bro got the outro

[@agmc77]

Great explanation of complex concepts for the rest of us mere mortals, not physicist, but enchanted with the strange universe we are living in. Thank you very much!

[@JourneyDestination]

@F.u.c.k You people like you do too much of this 🗣 and not enough of this👂

[@BoomBustProfits]

Can a physicist explain to anyone where the physical laws of the universe existed prior to the big bang?…If the laws of physics deny the creation of matter in a closed system, where did the initial ingredients (matter) come from? I think physicists need to be more comfortable with uncertainty and focus more on practical applications of the ideas of physics….Physicists very often come across as literal idiots if they venture too far away from reality…

[@mekingtiger9095]

@F.u.c.k You Have you not watched the video till the end? Information still cannot be sent faster than light as far as we still know even with quantum entanglement.

[@mada1241]

Physicists are mortals (hairless apes) with a very limited understanding of reality. Almost everything we think we know is likely incomplete or outright wrong.

[@lluiscornet9020]

@@BoomBustProfits look for Roger Penrose. He has a theory about what was before the Big Bang, and he also won the Physics' Nobel Prize.

[@hugoclarke3284]

If a particle "makes up its mind" only when it is observed, that suggests that it is always changing, but human perception is only capable of observing a single state. Therefore Einstein isn't really wrong in his deterministic viewpoint; it is just that there are multiple, presumably infinite plains of existence that are connected. The best way I can describe this is with music. A melody sounds the way it does depending on what comes before and after it in the passage of time. This horizontal plain is like determinism, because context is defined by what has already been played. For example, a motif has significance when it is repeated. But a single melody can also be expressed in different harmonic contexts, i.e notes placed above/below it to form vertical chords. Here, context is determined by what is NOT played; the notes you cannot hear leave the shape of the chord (or single note).

[@Find-Your-Bliss-]

That is an exquisite visual you presented!

[@Sheen023]

🤔

[@missk1697]

It's one of many possible explanations.

[@newyorktours8496]

One friend of mine once said” i don’t believe in theories because they’re changing al the time”Remember when the Earth was the center of the universe? The Earth was flat? Pluto was a planet?

[@jksupergamer]

Your friend is stupid

[@thewizardssleeve119]

The closer we look at things the more complexity will be generated - this process has no end.

[@jessegentry9699]

If complexity has no end then it had no beginning.

[@No_Name_2604]

Yeah the beginning would be defined by where we started looking and the ending by where we will stop. It‘s basically a „do whatever you want with it as long as it‘s still fun.“ Situation.

[@adithyavraajkumar5923]

Not sure that's true. We can't look at anything on a smaller scale than Planck units, right?

[@tabby73]

@@adithyavraajkumar5923 not yet

[@imdeexpert5828]

I turned to religion and realised what it say is correct and science is proving it now

[@norbis3939]

We haven't really ruled out hidden variables, we've just placed limitations on what they might be.

[@nickwilson8119]

If I understand correctly, any conserved quantity can cause entanglement, and bells theorem shows they are randomly measured at the detectors (not pre-defined when they entanglement occurs) which means non of these variables are hidden variables. Conserved quantities are: charge, spin, energy, momentum... what other variables are there that can be hidden?

[@kakistocracyusa]

@@nickwilson8119 uhh ..why did you think it was originally called "hidden variable" back in Einstein's day?

[@norbis3939]

@@nickwilson8119 The basic answer to that is "stuff we don't know about yet." Or maybe stuff we do know about but have been thinking about incorrectly.

[@loodog555]

My understanding is that this was actually disproven, that any meaningful label about how the particle exists, even if we are in capable of detecting it, is impossible: The particle literally exists in both states until observed.

[@peabody3000]

and i wonder if the hidden variables are even within the particle, or are instead a function of how spacetime propagates particles

[@SnootchieBootchies27]

This would help explain my multi-verse within our physically infinite universe theory. There's infinite everything, but you can't have the exact same thing twice. Entanglement keeps things mixed up. I'm not a physicist, just someone who used to do too much drugs.

[@2000sborton]

Actually infinity demands that you have an infinite number of the exact same thing. Question. Were any of those drugs psychedelic?

[@SnootchieBootchies27]

@@2000sborton so... are you saying that an infinite physical universe would demand that there be infinite identical objects out there somewhere? Because that's what I think, I don't really even know what my previous comment was about tbh.

[@pr00009]

it doesnt actually. multiverse isnt real.

[@Zorlof]

Adding polarizing filters collapses the wave function except those exactly aligned with the filter...but there is always leakage no matter.

[@jeffcurrey8765]

Maybe in another multi-verse I understand, but in this one the concept went right over my head. I will revisit this again in some other time and place.

[@Robo311Star]

Same. I'm trying.

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the theory that the universe doesn't exist and therefore we don't exist.

[@PineappleOnPizza69]

same dude :D maybe if im reincarnated as a phycisit

[@nayanpardeshi5955]

Same bro

[@nayanpardeshi5955]

Comment that i was looking for 😃

[@spiritwave7]

Reality by definition is whatever happens. We draw mental boundaries for leverage within reality. What science has proven is reality is pure stabilized energy without any genuinely objective boundary. That is why quantum physics is so problematic these days (and has been for roughly a century). Science is all about improving our collection of objective boundaries, but the scientific method in effect insists that none exist. Think of reality as pure energy. That is the right starting point, logically speaking.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

Yes, if someone says reality isn't real then their definition of real or reality is wrong. Similar to (but worse than) saying that "consciousness is an illusion" (because you can't have an illusion without consciousness actually).

[@jamessmith785]

I never fully grasped the concept of Schroedingers cat. Knowledge of the cat being dead or alive does not change the fact that in reality it's either one or the other, not both. Opening the box doesn't change the state it was in before the box was opened. Ignorance of something doesn't remove it from its reality. Am I missing the point? Thoughts from anyone who can better explain this?

[@T1500C]

Well the cats have 7 life so they are by far superior to any Photon, Electron or any any quantic particles . They can die and resurrect 7 times!! Joking

[@timedforpress]

I‘ve always seen it as a limitation of how we perceive reality, both states continue to be true but when we observe it we are only observing one part of the phenomenon.

[@mikemondano3624]

The epistemology is the point. We don't know, in general, if cats are alive when we aren't looking at them. We simply assume that they are. It makes no sense to say the cat is "really" one thing or another when we have no way of finding out if that is true. Most of our knowledge of the world is statistical. Things seem to happen a certain way all the times that we observed them. That doesn't prove that they will always be that way.

[@bogusphone8000]

​@@mikemondano3624 What you describe is perception vs reality. Reality is absolute, while perception is subjective. The cat is whatever the cat is (alive / dead). Our perception may need updating, but that is independent of the ongoing reality of the cat. This is scientifically verified by bringing 1000 isolated separate persons in to view the cat in the box and getting 1000 consistent perceptions.

[@mikemondano3624]

@@bogusphone8000 Nothing at all "absolute" about reality. Conferences of physicists, philosophers, and psychologists are held to try to get a grip on the nature of reality and if, indeed, it exists at all. Bishop Berkeley is being rehabilitated to explain some aspects of relativity and quantum theory. Even quantum theory states that there is only a probability of finding the cat at all.

[@Mathblade]

The most laughable part of seriously denying reality is an arrogant assertion: when no ideas I have explain what I measure, reality is at fault or can not be real, so that must be the explination

[@professordey]

I think my biggest contention or point of confusion is in the fact that I don't see why there _wouldn't_ be a curve-like relationship between the particle matches when we already know that polarised light interferes with itself and even in vacuum can split into electrons and photons etc, meaning surely it's possible for a system to have interference patterns that cause an increase in likelihood for a greater likelihood of appropriately matched results at a certain angle. Not to mention that the polariser itself provides a non-trivial influence on the behaviour of the photons in question because it's a physical object with both physical and electromagnetic properties and the photon that leaves a transparent material is almost certainly not the same as the one that entered it, merely having some of the same intrinsic values due to the energies involved. The three polariser issue can, to my understanding, be at least superficially explained by considering that the middle polariser drastically increases the chances of light, that is polarised with a spin matching the spiral that the polarisers describe, will be present on the other side with fewer deviating wavelengths than before it, acting as a filter or like the blades of a fan, producing a less turbulant environment after light has passed through. This, therefore, would allow _more_ light to pass through the final polariser as more of the light that's getting through is being interfered with and resulting in deviation greater than can pass through the polariser. The only way I'd know how to test that experimentally would be to try and see if stacking polarisers also then produces more reflected light of other polarisations compared to fewer stages.

[@iandonohoe]

lol

[@ic7481]

If you stack multiple polarisers in series, in the centre, and have them incrementally rotate to gradually align with the last polariser, you can theoretically achieve near 100% transmittance. In practice, transmittance is perhaps 80-90% due to losses, and needing an infinite number of perfect intermediate filters to achieve 100% transmittance.

[@itsonlyapapermoon61]

Walter russell THE WAVE

[@Alan_CFA]

I’ll mention your concerns to the Nobel Committee when they call.

[@cynthiabotsko2449]

Thank you for this! Clears up, for me, a lot of misrepresented popularized interpretations of laypeople with major "Tartuffe"-like confirmation biases. And, yet, you explained such technical information in a very accessible way for those of us with limited knowledge of the subject. Much appreciation!

[@TML0677]

Are you Religious?

[@mohnjarx7801]

​@@TML0677 religious or just self-righteous, or maybe even both?!

[@noneanywhere7600]

@@TML0677 I would not mock Religious people, but he sure does sound like the Jack Arse in the Parable floating around of the Tiger, Jack Arse and Lion.

[@explodingchickpeas7408]

idk why everyone is being so hostile in your replies, keep doing you !

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Fantastic! What a great way of explaining things. It’s really great to see other academics on YT. I wish more of us would venture into making videos. But I also know how ridiculously time-consuming it is. Thanks.

[@matthewparlato5626]

Dear Prof. , How can one REALLY say that the universe is Not REAL? heard of performative contradiction? with Love, A carpernter

[@AlmostReady504]

Speak for yourself there Professor there

[@zvikabar-kochva3641]

In my view, the dear doctor, as well as the physics Nobel comity, who awarded the prize, got it slightly wrong. Here is a more precise interpretation of Bell's paper and the subsequent experimental results: The begin with, the basic assumption of EPR is that the universe is local (which nobody, including Bohr and Heisenberg, disputed at the time). Given this assumption, EPR paper concluded that either the particles have real properties (contrary to QM theory prevailing interpretation) or QM theory is incomplete (because one can know the values of these properties with certainty, without actually measuring them). The experiments done since, based on Bell's paper, didn't thus refute realism, or hidden variable theories (if you read Bell's work, he actually believed in hidden variable interpretation of QM, e.g. David Bohm's pilot wave interpretation), rather it refutes the locality assumption, i.e., they proves there is stuff in the universe that Bell coined "beables", which are nonlocal, i.e., in a quantum state of 2 or more entangled particles, measurement of one of them can influence the other, instantaneously, despite they could be separated by arbitrary large distance between them (but with no information passing between them, as this will contradict special relativity). That was the big surprise, which blow everyone's mind, and that's what's the fuss is all about.

[@againstdrivingdrunk614]

just wait, something like YT is the future of education... and college institutions are hugely over priced as of now... but colleges wont go away, they will just get a lot more affordable and change a bit...

[@TheAGODAMI]

✋ *SToP "ChanneL PoaChinG" you buM.!!* 😠

[@bryanmorwood]

Locality: Nothing, not even information, can travel faster than light. (0:40) This is what Einstein believed, and Einstein was right. John Clauser’s 1972 experiment does not demonstrate that communication between entangled particles is instantaneous - specifically, it does not rule out the possibility that such communication travels at the speed of light. Suppose that two entangled particles are 1 light year apart. We observe one of them to determine its spin, this collapses the wave function, and we now know the spin on the other particle. Or do we? This is where the confusion arises. We know what it should be if we could observe it, but our knowledge is local - the other particle is 1 light year away. To check, we have to travel one light year to observe it, and when we do, we find its spin is as expected. Good news, but when did it take on this spin? The answer is: when the quantum information, travelling at the speed of light, arrived at the second particle (1 year later) to collapse its wave function. This is far from instantaneous, so Einstein was right (about locality).

[@trucyaurelia2410]

So if the universe is not real, could u just kindly transfer me all your money since its all not real anyway

[@3vgezer]

That doesnt get old doesn't it? but that doesnt work that way. Universe is real for us. It is probably created for us. Creator made everything so we can exprience real like universe. So acting like it is not real would be disrespectfull and meaningless.

[@wallacegrommet9343]

Not fundamentally real. Just a very convincing illusion. A virtual reality

[@ViceCoin]

Bills are real! :(

[@dariofromthefuture3075]

For the confused amongst us - i think all he saying is that at the photon level - particles appear for us based on the necessity for them to be observed. When no one is looking they are in an ‘uncertain’ state. This introduces the idea of the universe as a set of policies rather than a set of rigid structures. The policies are like principles of the creator - that enable life to be lived as we know it. At the end of the day it’s probably all conscious-beingness reflecting and playing with itself. . That’s my take.

[@trucid2]

A good way to save computational resources if we are in a simulation: Don't simulate things that aren't being looked at. Like occlusion culling in video games where we don't render objects that can't be seen but taken to a whole new level.

[@U.s.e.r.3493]

Great video. As a person who failed physics in high school, I appreciated your clear and simplified explanation

[@rlh4648]

As someone with too many degrees in physics and science theres no judgement here - a good explanation is universal

[@beansworth5694]

@@rlh4648 provided one can understand the language involved, whether it be in terms of structure or terminology lol

[@swagmastersam5839]

as a person who passed college physics, I don't know I did not go to class.

[@bincollector6762]

As someone who went to high school that didn’t have a physics program…I could careless

[@toxicity6629]

All you have to do is follow logic how did you fail

[@AshokeTewari]

Explaining Nobel Prize winning Theoretical physics concepts to an audience that needs to be shown what pushing, pulling, jumping, going around in circles looks like

[@VisionThing]

But doesn’t this just prove that measuring an object can change its state (through sheer interference), rather than that it exists in some kind of limbo until measured which then “materializes” properties out of it?

[@yodaheabebe3756]

Exactly! I feel like a lot of Quantum Physics is a case of the naked emperor

[@VisionThing]

@@yodaheabebe3756 I think that may be the case, it’s like Occam’s Razor didn’t exist for some of these guys. I can’t understand how matter could "know" that it’s being measured which would then somehow magically will matter to materialize. Coming to that conclusion instead of just assuming that poking at stuff changes its state baffles me.

[@yodaheabebe3756]

@@VisionThing Someone once said, "There's so much confusion and lack of clarity with Quantum Physics today that if you claim to understand it, you actually don't." This feels like such an unscientific deliberately confusing voodoo junk that I hate to see.

[@AlejandroP1980s]

@@yodaheabebe3756 if people can’t understand what is a woman how could they understand this 😮

[@yodaheabebe3756]

@@AlejandroP1980s 🤣 I think people know what a woman is tho. lol. Just that some people are deliberately confusing them

[@jorgeenriquez637]

"Once a theory proves, the mystery just moves"

[@peteradice]

This is great. I’m glad someone finally proved the Universe isn’t real, and that one day my computer might be faster. I’ll go back to my job now.

[@vhawk1951kl]

If only you had the faintest idea what you mean by, or could define, " real" but you are about to demonstrate that you cannot, which pretty much qualifies you to call yourself a theoretical physicist, an occupation that pretty much demands that you cannot define your terms

[@bustercam199]

The universe is real and sorry you still have to pay bills and taxes.

[@cathcartlepick]

A total contradiction that the smartest people who have ever lived are confused 🤷🏻‍♂️ what a way to start a comprehensive and definitive argument for proof.

[@sesh7357]

Not a student of physics but I do follow the subject somewhat - I really liked the way Dr Ben Miles explains things - even I could follow something! Thanks Dr Miles

[@flattenthecurve8623]

Physics? You “believe” that you’re pinned to the side of a pressurized, supersonic spinning water ball that’s in three elliptical orbits at ridiculous speeds and floating in an infinite vacuum. If you believe that nonsense, then you don’t know what physics is in the first instance. Globe Earth is a Religion.

[@nct948]

same here,lol!!

[@abacaxidotcaxi]

I agree, it was very well explained.

[@sesh7357]

@@Bluewolf- Thanks so much. Surely look up

[@rxonmymind8362]

Your fake. 😂

[@Mack-the-Knight]

Define what is a “real” universe. Or a “fake” universe. See where that’s going ? Right…nowhere, when the questions are meaningless.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

The best kept secret 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥

[@xWESTICLESx]

Life is not a question, there doesn’t need to be an answer.

[@andrewsacks8708]

If these so called sub-atomic particles can be in "ANY" state until measured, HOW was this knowledge obtained without taking measurements (as would be required) !?!

[@Wylie288]

Everything can be in any state until its observed. The lack of knowledge about something means you can only guess the state of it until you see it for yourself. This concept is nothing more but explaining what random actually means. Something you personally can't predict. Instead of the "random means something can't be predicted even by an Omniscient being" impossible bullshit people think random means these days. When you throw a ball at in a specific way, you know where it ends up. You don't need to watch. Just record where it ends up. Proper statistical analysis takes into account 1/100 balls hitting a random bird.