Down The Rabbit Hole Of The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser | Answers With Joe

Get a FREE 30-day trial of Dashlane and get 10% off a subscription at www.dashlane.com/answerswithjoe
Quantum physics has a way of melting your brain if you think about it too hard. Perhaps the biggest brain twister is the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the results of which seem to break all the rules of time and space.
Want to support the channel? Here's how:
Patreon: / answerswithjoe
Channel Memberships: / @joescott
Join me on the Our Ludicrous Future Podcast:
/ @ourludicrousfuture
Get cool nerdy t-shirts at
www.answerswithjoe.com/shirts
Interested in getting a Tesla? Use my referral link and get discounts and perks:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
Snapchat: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
LINKS LINKS LINKS:
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser:
• Delayed Choice Quantum...
Arvin Ash on Quantum Theory
• The woo explained! Qua...
A decent breakdown of the “consciousness” take
• The Problem with Dr. Q...
Quantum Mechanics Needs No Consciousness
www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-conte...
PBS Spacetime
• How the Quantum Eraser...

[@Smeggit7]

7:17 Gotta say, the dogs lack of reaction would suggest that this is indeed Joe's natural state.

[@Alistair]

I didn't even notice the dog until you mentioned him, that's hilarious :D

[@angelarch5352]

The dog is trying very hard not to notice Joe's quantum state, so Joe can get the shot on camera. Good doggy!:)

[@cherrydragon3120]

Hahahahha XD genius

[@Superknullisch]

@@angelarch5352 Good one son!

[@h8GW]

Some dogs are just reserved and quiet in nature. Rest assured, it still is greatly amused while looking at him.

[@SouDeePop]

Tfw your hand is both in and out of your pants at the same time until Joe looks

[@bagelmaster2]

Joetinger's Pants?

[@professorroundbottom438]

@@bagelmaster2 I am so so sorry that I can only like that once! 😂👍🏆 ✋👇👖

[@rgerber]

Can the hand be inside if there are no pants?

[@professorroundbottom438]

@@rgerber Well, yes, but then the questions become "inside what?" and "does Joe want to know enough to look?"

[@snappygrandpappy]

Schrödinger's Hand lol

[@MrCommanderPaul]

"So do I!" That's it, Joe. You are now officially one of my favorite people to watch on KZbin! You're smart, concise and easy to listen to all at once. It's a rare combination.

[@stuartphilkill416]

I'm a filmmaker and a few years ago while shooting a documentary I used the analogy of the uncertainty principle to describe how you can't film someone without affecting their behavior. I feel even better about it knowing that you use it too!

[@SuperLusername]

You can if they dont know they are being filmed

[@garyburginjr1366]

@@SuperLusername lol wonderfully creepy comment haha

[@mcoptimysticalrainbowkitty7462]

TRUE FACTS ! 📽 📸 people definitely behave differently when they know they're being filmed [even security surveillance has proven that fact 😅] I'm a Photographer & Videographer, mainly been doing Event Photography at raves for the past 14 years, and because of the fact that people act differently when in front of a camera, I became a "self-proclaimed Master" of Candid Photography ! Because catching people in the element is my favoriteeee ! 😻

[@your_average_joe5781]

@@SuperLusername Are they really being 'filmed' ? People are using digital format for quite awhile now. They are being 'recorded'. It's a video, not film. It's a recording, not footage. Just saying.

[@SuperLusername]

@@your_average_joe5781 ok average Joe

[@del132]

Ooooh, I get it. British Narrator: "He didn't, in fact, get it."

[@martingoldfire]

I read that as Attenborough.

[@davidbanks1230]

Even though you said British, I still read it as Morgan Freeman lol

[@isaacturnercreativeideas]

Morgan Attenborough

[@MechanicaMenace]

@@isaacturnercreativeideas that is something that *must* happen. We just need some top scientists and blood samples from mosquitoes preserved in amber.

[@swolehuman1047]

This have me some Stanley Parable vibes

[@Thumbsupurbum]

Ha, joke's on you Joe. I'm not wearing any pants.

[@joescott]

Living your best life. Love it.

[@johnnyappleseed79]

Yea Joe, cause I’m wearing his pants...

[@nockieboy]

@@johnnyappleseed79 I'm wearing your mum's...

[@SuperWarcio]

Zedds Dead Baby Mmmmm... ok, that escalated quickly :)

[@paulgodden4974]

As soon as i read that my pants disappeared , wth?

[@truerthanyouknow9456]

Thank you, Joe, for demonstrating how DMX is intrinsically linked to understanding quantum physics.

[@idiotidiot5821]

Lol the juxtaposition of this and the video of DMX actually using a computer.

[@DerTaran]

Sabine Hossenfelder just mentioned you in her last episode: The always amazing Joe Scott.

[@temperoaveludado3416]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iILZZnaMerF6abc

[@SYSM71]

Materialism is dead.

[@IntrepidFraidyCat]

Particle conspiracy theorist: "They're watching us. Quick! Don't interfere! " LOL

[@adamflores4206]

😂

[@rogerstarkey5390]

SPLIT UP!

[@hunterG60k]

Physics joke ftw

[@zaphodbeeblebrox2817]

bartender says "what'll it be?" A tachyon walks into a bar.

[@hunterG60k]

@@zaphodbeeblebrox2817 we are honored by your presence

[@Plamkton]

Humans: "let's measure light" The universe: 🖕

[@VictoriaSobocki]

Exactly, wise Plank

[@smedspets695]

Lol love the name

[@thomasscott116]

All matter has particle and wave properties at the same time. You get the same results with electrons or protons in these experiments. FYI

[@K-A5]

Lmao

[@FEJK82]

Hate to be old here, but what does that little block icon signify? Been seeing it around more and more.

[@elizabeththornton940]

Watched this video today and I agree that you do have an authentic feel and it feels like I'm listening to a friend explain things in a easy to understand way. I love to watch your videos while I do my makeup, eat, and relax. I always learn something new!

[@steventurner7697]

Hey Joe... somewhere in the past couple of years I heard a story of photons from distant stars being incorporated into the double slit or quantum eraser experiment. That light traveled light years to get to earth and still changed due to observation. Could you research that and maybe do a video on that? This is fascinating stuff! Thank you for hard work!

[@sd789sd]

Simple. All particles and all matter exist as a waveform before the fact of observation by a human. The fact of observation makes it a particle. Animals can not do it, by the way. It's been tried, actually.

[@SeeMeRolling]

@@sd789sd so... whoever is observing has to be aware that they are observing, and that they are observing the way the light will react? Like, what about say... a 3 yr old child that doesnt know what they're supposed to do?

[@sd789sd]

@@SeeMeRolling Nope. It is a fact of observation itself. Has to be a human though. 3 years old will do if we somehow make 3 years old interested enough to watch. )) it is our attention that manifests energy as matter. If you serious, there are couple books you can read. )

[@MM-24]

@@sd789sd sir, what are those books?

[@SeeMeRolling]

@@sd789sd But what about animals that have the intelligence of a 5 year old human? Perhaps a crow, or an elephant?

[@mikemanthe]

Quantum physics - that nervous feeling that you’re just ‘missing something’ super obvious

[@carpathianhermit7228]

Simulation

[@springbloom5940]

Yup. Like measurement error.

[@gn9476]

Yes! That's exactly how I often feel.

[@RavenAmetr]

@@carpathianhermit7228 Oh, that's kind of theory that can explain everything without explaining anything. How would "simulation" solve the fact that the first pair of photons end up being polarized because their counterparts are polarized, which prevents interference? No, of course, we can speculate, that there's probably an algorithm that calculates the universe infinite time ahead on each step of Plank's time for each particle, but don't you think it's too much to ask?

[@pseudoscientist4585]

the secret is ... if science can not measure it, they say it does not exist. This experiment prove sciences = scienctism.

[@charlesphilips2045]

I love the way your dog was looking at you in "your normal state" like 'yup that's my Joe'.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Charles Uwakwe lol just noticed the puppy 🐶 ^.^

[@Dubious_42]

This is my favorite Joe Scott video, it blows my mind every time I watch it. Quality content, Good Sir.

[@robertheise4570]

Hi Joe. Hi everyone else. I want to say thank you. Thanks for you, and for what you are doing here (with all your work). To share, to educate, to encourage, to be creative, to entertain, to boldly embrace your gifts and make this such an impassioned vocation... to care. To me, this very certainly is purposeful. Your life is purposeful Joe, and you are an inspiration. I may not be remembering well, but do I have it right that your wife is a teacher? If so, thanks for her giftedness as well. I mentioned you being an encourager because you are, and I have always believed that is one of the very most important things humans can be for one another. You mention “ love you guys” at the end of these videos, and I know you do. Again, thank you. I love learning!!!

[@br2891]

It's been a century and they haven't fixed this glitch in the simulation yet? Smh

[@DarylSpears1]

Yes agent : Smith will take care of this , just as soon as he has taken care of the rebel "Neo"

[@powerstation0872]

Yeah the devs are really behind on updates. Like half of the players are still experience the chronic depression bug and it's soooooo annoying. 🙄

[@JohnBurgess37]

At best the devs are furloughed at this point smh

[@unstanic]

It’s in the backlog somewhere

[@Tesseract9630]

They will unlikely fix this one. Maybe fixing it would cause more problems than it solves.

[@okangulal2849]

7:17 I love how the dog is just casually watching its human, like he does this all the time

[@jimwhitehead1532]

The dog is used to Scott acting nutty, in a way no sensible dog would act. Is Scott's dog smarter than Scott?

[@cherrydragon3120]

The dog is like: oh boy... my pet has its crazy day again

[@TheCarolgibbons]

Noticing the dog watching makes the whole scene extra funny imho. :-)

[@khlondon6703]

Humans should not keep pets. It is essentially slavery of a lower lifeform. The animal has no choice, often no balls, no true freedom and is trained to please.

[@Razmoudah]

I take it as proof that yes, he does act like that off camera.

[@alysonshorthouse8858]

I learn best when analogies are applied and that "beach ball in a swimming pool" analogy is the best one I've heard. It really helped, thanks

[@Scottdent213]

just had my first ad within a youtube ad. It was a standard youtube ad during your dashlane ad. magnificent

[@RelativelyBest]

"I bet 10% of you right now have your hand on your pants watching this." Actually waving a plastic pipe around pretending it's a sword. But, yeah, fair enough.

[@destinkane797]

Hand down your pants*

[@monkeyrobotsinc.9875]

THATS cool.

[@jeffreymcgillivray5408]

Lmao, I just like to drink beer and watch his videos. No hands in my pants, but I could use a shower. Lol

[@Ben-rz9cf]

To be fair i was scratching my balls like a minute ago

[@dogdriver70]

seriously, who wears pants?

[@okboomer306]

"They" be like: *Lol look at these humans, trying to understand the glitch.*

[@adamflores4206]

😂

[@philippesantini2425]

@@adamflores4206 lol

[@yaboirico5221]

vibe check

[@cynhanrahan4012]

But it's not a glitch. It's just something we don't understand yet.

[@joescott]

"They," I imagine, LOL at a lot when watching us.

[@vickielawson3114]

Did they try the experiment where they split the beams but also without the cameras, so they'd be able to see if it was the splitting itself causing the collapse? That would have been really helpful.

[@cjthenarhwalking1378]

Yes in the delayed choice quantum eraser the particles that had their information scrambled did not collapse

[@cjthenarhwalking1378]

@Svenson c+d did get an interference pattern due to their path not being measured. That's what was explained.

[@DavidByrden1]

There is no "collapse" in quantum mechanics.

[@d.tripp1160]

I never do this for KZbin videos but I have come back to this one so many times just due to the crazy nature of the video and how well you present the information I’ve heard many people on this site explain this experiment but in my opinion none have executed it to this level

[@Tony-dp1rl]

Sadly, he got it wrong, so you are pointing people to bad information. The pattern on the screen does NOT change depending on what happens to the entangled partner. Their states are entangled and you can see correlation when you measure everything later, but it doesn't work like he described here.

[@d.tripp1160]

@@Tony-dp1rl any reason I should believe you over him?

[@d.tripp1160]

@@Tony-dp1rl also this was from a year ago are you okay ?

[@JeremyKolassa]

Delayed release of the episode on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser? I see you, Joe. I see you.

[@tomf3150]

Jeremy Kolassa Great, you've collapsed the episode, happy ?

[@onlypranav]

@@tomf3150 Nice! We can non-temporality in action

[@joescott]

I wish I could say I was that clever. I was actually waiting for the sponsor to approve the sponsor message.

[@burningpapersun1]

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

[@redosem9868]

Quote of the year

[@abram730]

“Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.” ― Rick Cook

[@burningpapersun1]

"No single thing abides; and all things are fucked up." - PKD

[@justin.d.whitehead]

@@burningpapersun1 Other than The Dude. The Dude always abides.

[@joegibbskins]

Justin D. Whitehead itself a reference to this kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6PPd5x7mpuGaJY

[@treble8921]

7:17 I don't always "Like" videos that I like, but this moment is almost enough to make me "like" every one of your videos, ever. Good show xd

[@pratikshukla9573]

Of all the explanstions i viewed, i found yours most elucidating. Hats off for the originality.

[@frank1803]

Q. What's the difference between an automobile mechanic and a quantum mechanic? A. A quantum mechanic can get his car into the garage without opening the door.

[@euanlankybombamccombie6015]

....so is a convertible in a state of super symmetry or super positioned

[@Monkey-fv2km]

I'm sort of comfortable these days with quantum physics not making sense, I just recognise that the human brain only understands linear time and three dimensional reality, which is likely not the whole picture, so we need mathematical hacks to translate actual reality. Also if I understand correctly, photons don't even experience time, they subjectively experience all of their existence at once, so time travel and cause/effect are irrelevant for them. Not that they think a great deal about time travel.

[@ot0m0t0]

Finemann actually suggest once that there might be only one photon in existance going back and forth through time. Turned out to be wrong but still... :)

[@tomf3150]

Or in quantum world the time itself is subject to tunnel effect / is quantizied.

[@edibleapeman2]

Unfortunately it still sounds crazy to tell people that you experience/sense time non-linearly.

[@Sletty73]

Problem is, the delayed choice quantum eraser should work in this way also if You consider quantum particles with mass and that therefore actually "experience" time...

[@ThePlatnumAlkemist]

I'm not sure but this might have been tested with other particles like electrons too. I think it applies to any particles in a superposition and entangled state. Electrons, protons and atoms certainly don't travel at the speed of light so they do experience time in the traditional sense. So in theory, anything in a superposition would experience this bizarre effect, even macroscopic objects, assuming you can set them into a superposition.

[@joshuaflackua]

Hey, absolutely loved the video. First video I've seen by you, but I'll definitely be checking out more. Just FYI, Bell's Theorem rules out classical hidden variable explanations for quantum phenomena.

[@Hyumanity]

This is the second video I’ve watched on the experiment and it was excellent. Thank you! Subscribed!

[@Najakeeper]

The way his dog watching Joe when he is dancing like that is priceless!

[@bagelmaster2]

I'm ashamed to say you were right about the hand in pants thing. It's cold in my room!

[@malcolmhardwick4258]

Phosphorus51 you gotta keep it warm 😄

[@jayknight139]

Same here 😢

[@WookENTP]

Same here, but was scratching... stuff...

[@TechtalkwithBob]

10% you say 🤔

[@mdkooter]

In my defense it was resting on my hip, not in my crotch.

[@oremazz3754]

Be careful, interference patterns observed at D0 are not the same, they are shifted at position x. If you add both data you would have the clumping pattern observed at D3. The clue is that entangled photons at BBO are phase opposite, which will give at 4 combinations arriving at D0 (25% each: up-up, up-down, down-up, down-down); basically, 50% of that "red path" photon will have the same phase of the "blue path" and 50% chance opposite phase between them. That is the reason why interference patterns are shifted in x, 50% of the data will show one interference and 50% of the other data will interfere on the other position x; the high frequency of one interference coincides with the low frequency of the other; and vice versa. Now, on D3 or D4 there is no selection between phases, so the pattern observed is the addition of the two shifted interference pattern shifted on x, so... the interference will be mixed and the clumping pattern is expected. In D1 and D2 the difference or equality of phase will give only one detector for the same phase interference and the other detector for the opposite phase situation. So, on D1 and D2 interference patterns are independently observed. NO delay choice and quantum eraser from the future to the present !!

[@monnig73]

Ok... But how you explain the experiment at 8.41 with two detectors A and B that can be far away but you will always obtain no interference pattern in the screen if they are on. Seems like information goes back in time.

[@earlparker1800]

So when do we get to read your entire paper? And surely you have a theory on how to prove this without variables with the act of the observation removed? Let me know please. I think you may be on to something.🇺🇸💪🇺🇦🖕🇷🇺

[@Mooba2]

I love that the dog is just sitting there watching Joe be weird like "yeap. Just another day"

[@lemarreyes1014]

Lmao Joe's dog just looking at him like, "He's at it again."

[@anarchyantz1564]

Actually he is thinking, "I was going to tell him the answer to Quantum Physics if he took me for a walk like he promised but oh no, he just had to start recording a video again. Welp thats it, I am instead going to share it with the cat, not that the cat cares really".

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Lemar Reyes I just noticed the dog 🐕 ^.^

[@monksmom1]

That dog is hysterical. His head followed his every movement, like he was studying something absolutely fascinating. I felt the same way....

[@zf5656]

lol i didnt even notice the dog

[@tara5742]

Contemplating my 1st tattoo for 15 years now. The interference pattern seems timeless and beautiful in a simple way. Turns out having my son a year ago put this image on my body. Naturally. They’re called stretch marks 😁

[@mikeoxsmal8022]

Get an iron and iron out the stretch marks

[@autohmae]

@Sticky Steve Mine are just from when I grew fat as a kid, not much honor in that other than honoring all those who came before us who gave us something close to abundance I guess.

[@gearhead1302]

😂 that's great

[@texasdeeslinglead2401]

I wish I could truelly dive deep into this topic . It used to be a struggle for my wife . Now it's her mark maturity.

[@gearhead1302]

@@texasdeeslinglead2401 Stretch marks absolutely destroyed my wife's self esteem after our first child. It still bothers her badly to this day but there's nothing I can do to help her feel any better about it. Just have to wait until we have the technology to erase them I guess.

[@sudhakarankarunakaran6932]

Beautifully explained. Usually all the explanations were with one figure. You explained it stage by stage and explained it well. 👍

[@pendurton3081]

Joe Scott, videos like this are why you are with out a doubt by far my favorite KZbinr

[@godimas101]

Ok, just stick with me a minute and hear me out.... "Dancers With Joe" Twice weekly youtube channel where Joe gives pro tips for all the latest dance moves. Total winner. It sells itself.

[@redosem9868]

Sign me in

[@IamBHM]

Uh... Yes please!

[@solomonrivers5033]

Might I recommend subscribing to Lindybeige. He is full of random interestingness AND dance tips

[@dREHER0009]

Y'all gon' make me louse my mind!

[@hdmat101]

Yes please

[@jadedcatlady]

Thank you for that clip of your dancing. Absolutely made my day.

[@baydrixnewzealandwarrobotf2681]

Hi Joe hope all is well. Thanks for another year of cool vids all the bewt for 2023

[@contrarianduude3463]

College kid: Hey professor, I'm having problems understanding the theory of everything? College Professor: Why, there's almost nothing to it.

[@dr.ofdubiouswisdom4189]

Ahhhh...I see what you did there.

[@pamcake958]

I didn’t understand one thing I just heard, and yet, I was thoroughly entertained 🍻.

[@kay.lies002]

that sums up joe :)

[@Belenus3080]

That means you understand it I think

[@drrocketman7794]

I think I understand what he was saying....that doesn't mean what he said made any sense....quantum physics is *WEIRD.*

[@Zoroaster4]

"if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"

[@beepboopgpt1439]

That traveling back in time is my favorite!

[@kaiulani_luna]

I think another good way to understand how measurement affects the properties of a quantum particle is by remembering that these particles are waves, and all of our methods of measurement use some sort of wave in order to detect the particle (like an electromagnetic wave) so there is guaranteed to be some kind of interference between the measurement wave and the particles "wave". The issue is understanding that the "waving" motion of the particle is actually a probability wave, not anything that actually propagates through space.

[@daveysodyssey9990]

Thank you Joe. My brain has become jello and trickled out of my ears. 😂 my brain hurts now.

[@joearnold6881]

So what you’re telling us is... We need to shoot comets through two slits to find Planet Nine. Got it

[@pseudoscientist4585]

got it.

[@winstonsol8713]

Thanks, Kathy Newman. :p

[@blackalgae370]

I believe this is the only thing for science should be working on

[@joearnold6881]

monkeygirl000 Thanks. I low-key love myself!

[@Merennulli]

Just don't observe which slit they went through.

[@dieubermensch]

It's a "shortcut" the programmer took when he was making our simulation. We see this in videogames

[@TheRedbeardpirate]

Hey, that makes about as much sense as any of the leading explanations 🤷‍♂️

[@vezokpiraka]

Actually very reasonable. Only calculate collapse wave functions when they matter, otherwise just use the mean value of stuff.

[@ManishSharma-rg1wp]

Can you explain that a lil bit

[@GRiNDZoMBi]

The simulation answer is a non-answer.

[@stevechance150]

I think you are absolutely correct. Only render it when someone is focused on it, otherwise just use an approximation and you can cut down on the computation load.

[@TheCarolgibbons]

I love the perspective with the dance and the dog-----Perfect!!!

[@mattkeyes8385]

Great video. I'm still looking for a good definition of "the observer" in QP but this was a nice attempt at explaining it. I think it still left a big question mark, though. I've always wondered what was the first "observer" in our universe (and I'm not trying to insinuate some kind of deity or divine force - if anything, I think our universe is a sub-system in a larger system much like an atom is in a body).

[@CameraManBlaise]

This is the best answers with joe you've ever made! I've never laughed so hard learning quantum mechanics, i almost lost my mind.

[@joescott]

Up in here?

[@loki_the_wicker]

@@joescott up in here.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@joescott sabine hossenfelder has a nice little video that explains the mistake everyone has been making about the quantum eraser.

[@mattca353]

The dog is totally unphased at how Joe is acting.

[@jjohnston94]

Unfazed

[@musicfan789]

Joe's a freak lol

[@joescott]

Did you think I was lying about that being my normal state?

[@ewmegoolies]

lol. you danced for the camera as if it was operating with a quantum eraser. And does your staircase have pictures of a staircase hung on it?

[@Salah-qu4cs]

Maybe because it's nothing out of the ordinary to him lol

[@steveshugart7415]

I learned two things: 1) wave form collapse has nothing to do with observer (consciousness) and is entirely a byproduct of measuring. 2) when we erase the information after measuring wave form doesn't collapse and interference pattern remains intact. All crystal clear now.

[@TheShattenjager]

It is not actually accurate. There's an element missing. Look up The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Debunked by Sabine Hossenfelder video. She explains the wave patterns from each side when combined produces the full scattering appearance because they're slightly apart. The "no interference pattern" is actually two interference patterns combined together, slightly offset, to produce a full field. That's something Joe and many others missed.

[@knob500]

Man, you explained this very, very well. Props to your 'on-screen' persona, buddy.

[@JP-8469]

I didn't know Joe had legs- - - mind BLOWN

[@MyrddinREmrys]

... those legs are a quantum thing ..he does and doesn't have them ..or, they could be the property of StreXcorp ..or, as the most biggest thinker would say ..there's no way to know, nobody knows *chuckle *chuckle

[@MrDoboz]

There was a video about electric cars where he tried to hook up with a woman in the intro. He did have legs there

[@LEDewey_MD]

The Quantum Eraser is definitely one of those phenomenon that cues "The Twilight Zone" music in your mind as you try to wrap your head around it. A great description of it can be found in Dr. Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", especially pages 191-199. (Unfortunately, it wasn't covered at all in the Nova movie of his book.). Great stuff!!

[@XxXspawndXxX]

I just bought that book, thanks!

[@autohmae]

Some would say say information has no weight. It's just a pattern. What if light, just like information isn't a things, just a pattern. Or maybe I'm overthinking it... :-)

[@yansakuya1]

@@autohmae If it is a pattern why does it takes the shape of a particle when measured?

[@chrisfuller2069]

@@autohmae A pattern is just another way of saying a wave form.

[@autohmae]

@@chrisfuller2069 Yeah, that's why I changed my tune at the end... I'm overthinking it.

[@robertsparks3685]

Another excellent video! You might want to consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. I have heard that there are disparate interpretations. And perhaps all the data was not published.

[@mojitomaker]

Great video on a great channel - however, what is driving me more crazy than effect > cause quantum mechanics is the expert green screen and keying you use. It is so well done, I just stare through the whisps of your hair for the colour of the bookcase. Nada. Do you have a behind the scenes of standard and tangent cam setup? I want to see behind the curtain!

[@Miller6616]

The game only needs to render the part of the world you're in :)

[@stevechilds1547]

Ah, but what if there's a cat inside a box, does it need to render the inside of the box, or even the cat itself?

[@justinmallaiz4549]

silly humans...assuming the rendering of the universe is going forward in time

[@etahydri]

Not even that... just the moment to moment subjective experience of thinking you're in a real world.

[@kyjo72682]

@@etahydri That's assuming that subjective experience CAN be "rendered". Maybe it's not possible to simulate consciousness, or it's extremely hard to do so. Anyway even if possible, this would still be prohibitively expensive to compute.. I mean, to simulate a single experience of a human in 2019 you would have to go through the evolution of the whole observable universe up until that point. So what would be the difference from the "real thing"? None.

[@milesreid1825]

Well, and the spawn chunks

[@darkseid6412]

THE ALIENS RUNNING OUR SIMULATION ARE DROWNING IN TEARS OF LAUGHTER!!!

[@crownspecialties]

THE DOUCHEBAG Funny cuz it’s true. True that some people actually believe that! 😂

[@squirlmy]

@@crownspecialties there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove it without the "aliens" actually interfering from outside. I'm not sure why you find it laughable. You have no evidence to disprove it, and that fact should make it a little humbling. What if the Bible (Either Hebrew scriptures or New Testament, take your pick) might be about beings coming to interfere in our simulation. Almost any religion can be re-interpreted this way. Think about it.

[@crownspecialties]

Cuvtixo D Believe in any crazy thing besides the obvious, that we and the universe were created by god. Of course I can’t disprove aliens and I never said they don’t exist. If Aliens do exist on some other planet who started saying that they were the ones that created us, that’s so far-fetched. And why do we need to live in a computer simulation, this is real life you’re talking about a movie. We have zero proof that Aliens exist and tons and tons of proof beyond common sense that we were created by something intelligent. We have the Bible!! The Word of God. We are a design. This universe is a design. It didn’t just happen accidentally. Something intelligent planned this out then meet us. And that something is the God of the Bible. But most people don’t like what the Bible says most people just want to be their own guards and seek sinful pleasures to obtain temporary happiness.

[@danielmoelders7290]

@@crownspecialties prove the existence of god or the bible's correctness, then we can talk.

[@BMac420]

@@crownspecialties idk bro ufos are real so like...

[@junkiejackflash]

I fell asleep watching Joe's videos last night, and I'm going back through them now, and now it totally makes sense why I was hearing DMX in my dream.

[@montithered4741]

9:45 “It was brilliant, it was genius, it was foolproof… AND IT DIDN’T WORK!!” My absolute favorite part of this video.

[@Dr.Gunsmith]

Everyone’s gangster till Quantum Eraser enters your brain 😂

[@volderhamer]

It erased my brain

[@WildBillCox13]

In some ways this is your best post yet, Joe.

[@WildBillCox13]

The act of meeting one neighbor automatically makes the other neighbor a stranger. Stranger is RIGHT!

[@WildBillCox13]

"It's quantum fields, Joe! Wait! I mean it's Planck level synchronicity! You know: strings!"

[@artdonovandesign]

@@WildBillCox13 Yeah. That's the ticket! :)

[@danerman73]

Bell's inequality seems to show that there are not a finite number of hidden variables. So that makes it much more likely we just have to confront the locality and time weirdness. Love this video.

[@heatherlynn8477]

I love that the dog was watching you dance the whole time! lmao

[@cfergie89]

I love the look your dog gives you, like "wtf is he doing now" 😂😂

[@Sentiqus1]

The dog is just perfect :D

[@dirtydamfino1429]

11:00 is officially when I threw my hands up and said “I’m out.”

[@supersonicph]

Joe should create a separate video for this

[@kuryamtl]

But were they in your pants before you threw them up?

[@mr.barkyvonschnauzer1710]

Not a smart guy here, but I think since splitting the entangled particles failed they had to split it a couples more to change the point of origin. Splitting one entangled particle will not technically separate them as they act like they share the same WiFi signal. But detecting half of the particle on the measuring device does not give them any new result since the other half is still reacting no different. Kind of like someone pretending to be 2 different people on 4chan but in the end they're just using the same ip address and you can see that. So why not he use his computer with his WiFi. Pull out his tablet and pair it with his neighbors WiFi and then on top of that use his phone with its mobile data. It looks like multiple people are sh!t posting but little do I know, it's all synced up to one device. I would not know that so I would go on arguing with 3 people not ever knowing its just one.

[@johnweb7055]

Oh my lord....your analogy re:being in film is hilarious. And you guess about 10% was hilarious!!

[@tyharris9994]

The dancing shot with the dog watching made me splutter spittle all over myself! Ha!

[@MsJenniferwilson]

This comment didn't exist until you looked at it.

[@TimothyFord]

You exist, it existed to you the moment your pretty little eyes viewed it and inevitably measured it. Now it exists to me as well, have a wonderful day ❤

[@ufodove]

Miss J oh god

[@TimothyFord]

@Kevin w But you thought about looking at it, remember what measuring actually is... Muahahahahahah :D

[@brianbates2770]

Both eyes or all eight?

[@tottenhamhotspurish]

Miss J - What if someone can’t read, would it still exist.. Or do we have a paradox.

[@pohkeee]

Yeah... I love the smell of melted brain in the morning! First lesson, when jumping in pools, make sure it’s the deep end! Wait...what? Everyone get the hell out of the pool, it’s time to drain the magical water...going back to bed, my brain hurts.

[@nguyenvan9474]

How is this 3 hours ago????

[@pohkeee]

Nguyen Van : comes out early for Patreon members 🤓😉

[@frmcf]

Nguyen Van Quantum time machine

[@Vednier]

7:18 - best part is dog looking like "WTF?"

[@zombiasnow15]

Thank You Joe! Appreciate it! Stay Safe!

[@OttawaOldFart]

The dog had no reaction, thus this is normal.

[@PinataOblongata]

Or it's blind.

[@pariscatblue]

The dog is patterns on the wall and Joe is detectors being moved to and fro

[@pg5353]

When I was small, grandma told me, *Matter is just an illusion* Then I studied science and it seemed like its only matter that matters. Then I heard about Quantum physics. Then I knew grandma was right.

[@monkeyrobotsinc.9875]

ur grandmas kewl

[@informitas0117]

As a schizophrenic your grandma was schizophrenic

[@garysutherland9706]

@@informitas0117 There is a theory that on the bell-curve of human intellectual evolution; the minority of people who are most highly developed will most likely be found in mental institutions. Well, that was back when mental institutions existed. Now they might be in prisons.

[@javiermercado5407]

@@garysutherland9706 this speaks to me

[@coltonbates629]

Cant like bcuz theres 69 rn

[@ec92009y]

Joe. The contents is awesome as always. Quantum cray cray? Doesn’t get any better. Just a note on the form. I’d be happier with softer (or no) background music. Music or not. I love the show. Keep it up.

[@davidclark9143]

Ty very much for this information I appreciated it...!

[@ryandwyer1009]

6:49 I actually had my hand down my pants at that exact moment, that Lowkey freaked me out

[@nahCmeR]

I bet you also have a number between 0-10(12?) fingers.

[@40watt53]

Because of Joe?

[@bretgraham7554]

I can't tell you enough how much I enjoy your videos! I think I watch some of your content every day. I find that the casual conversational tone and humor combined with the layman like yet very informed way you present all sorts of topics is refreshing and enjoyable to watch. Well done, Sir.

[@Menageryl]

Holy Shit! That explanation of the change in people's behaviour in front of either a camera or another person is possibly the very best analogy for this phenomena I have EVER heard!!!! Bravo!

[@isaacthecorncob]

6:51 I was scratching a bad itch on my upper thigh when you said this, omg

[@mayoite160]

when i 1st saw that dance i was like "yup, Joe's got a few screws loose" & at the end of the video i was like "yup, Joe's remarkably restrained"

[@D-Man_Jam]

Richard Fyneman: _"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."_ Crowd: *Laughs in stupidness*

[@inyobill]

That was not a naive audience. They laughed because they got it.

[@gabriellautaru4058]

Thank you. When I first started watching this video, I thought that you'd lose me along the way. But you didn't, and that counts for a lot in my books. Well done. It's a complex subject, but the humor you've thrown in simply said 'hey, I'm not here to bore you to death, after all'. Additional trivia: Feynman, when asked by a reporter to explain the work for which he got the Nobel prize, apparently retorted that if he could explain it (presumably simple and concise enough to make it into news), then he wouldn't have won it. Absolutely brilliant! He was also the one who poignantly used a piece of rubber dunked into a glass of ice cold water to demonstrate how rubber loses its elasticity in low temperatures, and thus prove the O-ring seals failure on the solid fuel boosters as the cause of the Challenger space shuttle.

[@Goodgriefwhatsmyhandle]

It’s like trying to understand quantum physics through a mirror that includes both space and time!

[@MossyGirly]

Me, having a nice day, thinking I have a decent understanding of the world: Life is good. Quantum Mechanics: *Let me introduce myself.*

[@stephanie1733]

This comment is underrated

[@genesis_888]

For real 🤣🤣🤣

[@calebstone22]

All the confusion and “woo woo” has to do with interpretation of what’s happening. This is why Schrodinger’s cat examples so great it’s not an explanation he was taking a shot at the ridiculousness of the interpretation

[@cedurick]

so many don't realize this it's insane.

[@samik83]

Well, what's your interpretation? The particles more or less take similar paths, the only difference being that in some cases we can't tell which was path was taken and in some, we can. The physical systems in both cases are basically the same, so what actually changes from the perspective of the photon that makes it act differently?

[@calebstone22]

From the photons perspective the interaction with the physical experiment and the physical means of the observer detecting the photon. In general what I’m saying is that we don’t “know” squat. The theory is either incomplete or wrong.

[@calebstone22]

Even more generally, just because the maths work doesn’t mean it’s right in describing what’s happening in our physical world. If a math equation doesn’t have a corresponding physical explanation that can be pointed at then I am automatically skeptical. ( constants and other non physical values)

[@moozooh]

@@calebstone22 In engineering, the same concept is referred to as blackboxing (reproducing the output of an unknown system without the fundamental understanding of the underlying logic) as opposed to whiteboxing (reproducing the logic of a system by its design document or a description of its logic).

[@nurwsama]

Yes I believe thought and feel has a part in the real life events. I two times before I had and accident, i have something that keeps bothering my mind/heart that something isn't right or weird feeling. And actually i got accident a couple hours after that. First time i feel it accident happened (boss chew me on work for the first time). But the next one when i feel it again i prepared my heart/mind and do everything more carefully to minimize the impact of accident(chain on my bike broke) because i ride slower than usual than everything is okay. And it happened more than 5 times to me (with different cases and feel) . Or everything is just coincidence and I just over think it. 🤔😵

[@Vixtorz]

What language is this?

[@tolentarpay5464]

Man, this is my FAVORITEEST KZbin vid of all time! I love watching this over! SO, I studied Economics at college, not physics, but I reckon there's a take-away here; The FIRST thing they always teach you on your FIRST day of Microeconomics 101 = All models are based on Assumptions! If something isn't working, it cld be a genuine discovery - but Occam's Razor applies too, & it's far more likely you've got one of your Assumptions wrong... What these Delayed Choice experiments are telling me is we've misunderstood the nature of Time, & based on the results I'm thinking it's MORE accurate to describe Time in terms of a "neutral" Planar Co-Ord system (like we do with Height, Width & Depth), rather than the "Time Tunnel" (anybody remember that show? Rad & Cool!) concept we're fixated upon...

[@tolentarpay5464]

AND, if there really is no "Arrow-of-Time" & reverse time-travel is possible, how wld that infl. particles? For instance, does baryonic-matter, traveling backwards thru time, turn into anti-matter? Cld that solve the "Missing Antimatter Problem"? Just one tweak to our Assumptions & all kinds of stuff comes tumbling out...

[@UnderTheGoldenGate]

Finally a confirmation that when you observe the particle going through the slit (collapsing the wave function) you need to hit it with another particle to observe it. I've asked this question dozens of times and nobody (even the "experts") confirm that yes you are disturbing the particle, they always gave me another complex explanation that made no sense (probably because they didn't understand it well enough). One of the biggest problems with the double slit experiment is the experiment itself not being explained properly (e.g. how the detector works). Well done, thanks! It all makes more sense - a particle will behave as a wave of probability until it interacts with another particle (and the information of the interaction is maintained!...)

[@leslierhorer1412]

I don't see a question there. It's a little difficult to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics require that in order to exist, an object must interact with the universe. It must engage in one or more of the four fundamental physical interactions: Strong Nuclear Force, Weal Nuclear Force, EM, and Gravity, or it just is not real. An object comes into existence when it is realized, for example, in a Hawking interaction at the event horizon of a black hole. Let's think of perspective, for a moment. We are creatures of electrons and mass, so to us the universe, although quite sparse, is alive with gravity, chemistry, and light. Consider the perspective of a Neutrino, though. To it, Gravity is almost non-existent. It only feels the effects of Gravity to any noticeable affect near a Neutron Star or Black Hole. Light doesn't exist at all, and we humans, even the entire Earth are so ghostly as to be almost imaginary phantoms. Stars are a bit like fluffy clouds: definitely there and not totally insubstantial, but more like a low density foam than a massive object. Our aforementioned friends the Neutron Stars are definitely quite solid, and while a black hole probably can't tear a Neutrino apart the way it can a human body, or even an atom, it is still a daunting object. To exist, then, is to be affected by some force. A force, however, is taken to be an exchange of Gauge Bosons. When one charged particle passes another, its path is altered by their electric and magnetic field interactions, mediated by virtual photons. We can infer the position and momentum of the charged particle by observing the particle's effect on the other particles near it. In doing so, however, we alter the very things we wish to measure, since the object not only affects the test particles, but the test particles also affect the object in question. In this scenario, we are not observing the object directly, but rather through its affect on other objects. The point is, whether the interaction we observe is direct or indirect, the fact the object exists means it not only affects the universe, but it is also affected by the universe at each and every interaction. The fact is there is no such thing as a direct observation, but If we want to observe the object a bit more directly than inferring its properties from the effects on the rest of the universe, we can employ a real Vector Boson, rather than a virtual one. (We can, of course, also employ collisions with non-gauge particles, but we can set that aside for now.) Any Vector Boson might be employed, depending upon the nature of the object, but let's just talk about light. If we want to know the position of a particle, we can send out a barrage of photons and see which one bounces back, pinpointing the particle. That, or if the particle is self-luminescent, we can just wait for it to emit a photon, and see from where the photon came. There are two problems, however. The first is the photon has a finite spatial extent quantified by its wavelength. We can only pinpoint the particle's position at the time it emitted / reflected the photon with an accuracy no better than the wavelength of the photon. If the photon has a wavelength of 1000nm, then we only know the position of the particle to within 1000nm. In order to nail down the particle's position better than that, we must employ a photon of shorter wavelength. Practical matters may intervene, but theoretically there is no finite limit to how accurately we can measure the position of the particle. That brings up the second problem. Even if the particle was at rest when it emitted / reflected the photon, it isn't any longer. By conservation of momentum, we know the particle's momentum must change after interacting with the photon. What's more, the amount of change in momentum depends upon the momentum of the photon. The greater the momentum of the photon, the greater the change in the particle's momentum. Since the particle's position cannot be known precisely, this also means the momentum cannot be known precisely. Furthermore, the shorter the wavelength of the photon, the greater the uncertainty of the momentum of the particle. This leads directly to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but the point here is the observational limits are not just an empirical hardship, but are in fact the fundamental nature of the universe, and of space-time itself. In the very deepest sense, reality *IS* observation.

[@leslierhorer1412]

I don't see a question there. It's a little difficult to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics require that in order to exist, an object must interact with the universe. It must engage in one or more of the four fundamental physical interactions: Strong Nuclear Force, Weal Nuclear Force, EM, and Gravity, or it just is not real. An object comes into existence when it is realized, for example, in a Hawking interaction at the event horizon of a black hole. Let's think of perspective, for a moment. We are creatures of electrons and mass, so to us the universe, although quite sparse, is alive with gravity, chemistry, and light. Consider the perspective of a Neutrino, though. To it, Gravity is almost non-existent. It only feels the effects of Gravity to any noticeable affect near a Neutron Star or Black Hole. Light doesn't exist at all, and we humans, even the entire Earth are so ghostly as to be almost imaginary phantoms. Stars are a bit like fluffy clouds: definitely there and not totally insubstantial, but more like a low density foam than a massive object. Our aforementioned friends the Neutron Stars are definitely quite solid, and while a black hole probably can't tear a Neutrino apart the way it can a human body, or even an atom, it is still a daunting object. To exist, then, is to be affected by some force. A force, however, is taken to be an exchange of Gauge Bosons. When one charged particle passes another, its path is altered by their electric and magnetic field interactions, mediated by virtual photons. We can infer the position and momentum of the charged particle by observing the particle's effect on the other particles near it. In doing so, however, we alter the very things we wish to measure, since the object not only affects the test particles, but the test particles also affect the object in question. In this scenario, we are not observing the object directly, but rather through its affect on other objects. The point is, whether the interaction we observe is direct or indirect, the fact the object exists means it not only affects the universe, but it is also affected by the universe at each and every interaction. The fact is there is no such thing as a direct observation, but If we want to observe the object a bit more directly than inferring its properties from the effects on the rest of the universe, we can employ a real Vector Boson, rather than a virtual one. (We can, of course, also employ collisions with non-gauge particles, but we can set that aside for now.) Any Vector Boson might be employed, depending upon the nature of the object, but let's just talk about light. If we want to know the position of a particle, we can send out a barrage of photons and see which one bounces back, pinpointing the particle. That, or if the particle is self-luminescent, we can just wait for it to emit a photon, and see from where the photon came. There are two problems, however. The first is the photon has a finite spatial extent quantified by its wavelength. We can only pinpoint the particle's position at the time it emitted / reflected the photon with an accuracy no better than the wavelength of the photon. If the photon has a wavelength of 1000nm, then we only know the position of the particle to within 1000nm. In order to nail down the particle's position better than that, we must employ a photon of shorter wavelength. Practical matters may intervene, but theoretically there is no finite limit to how accurately we can measure the position of the particle. That brings up the second problem. Even if the particle was at rest when it emitted / reflected the photon, it isn't any longer. By conservation of momentum, we know the particle's momentum must change after interacting with the photon. What's more, the amount of change in momentum depends upon the momentum of the photon. The greater the momentum of the photon, the greater the change in the particle's momentum. Since the particle's position cannot be known precisely, this also means the momentum cannot be known precisely. Furthermore, the shorter the wavelength of the photon, the greater the uncertainty of the momentum of the particle. This leads directly to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but the point here is the observational limits are not just an empirical hardship, but are in fact the fundamental nature of the universe, and of space-time itself. In the very deepest sense, reality *IS* observation.

[@ShanniBananni]

Thank you for this comment. I was confused. By "observe", I thought he meant "to look", but the sensors were actually interacting with the beam of light in order to measure it. Now, it makes sense that it would behave differently under "observation".

[@Wyman642]

Interference while measurement doesn’t explain or account for the strange behavior that occurs during the experiments that measure and then “forget” the measurements. Though measured and interfered with, the light particles somehow reacquire superposition, which is plain nuts.

[@Deciheximal]

if an entangled particle can affect the other instantly through space it makes sense it can do it through time - time is another dimension much like space, we just seem to be moving at c through it.

[@MartinFeatherstone]

This simulation is just being run on low settings.

[@anarchyantz1564]

Its the latency in the program maaaaan.

[@jonathanozik5442]

Is that a Rick and Morty reference? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jamqmIStjrufj7s

[@carpathianhermit7228]

@@jonathanozik5442 no thats a real life reference

[@Cutesticles]

Powered by Intel Graphics™

[@MartinFeatherstone]

@Alpha Centauri totally agree with everything you said. Even though I was 96.4% joking, simulation theory is still fascinating, and arguably mathematically probable, so "ugh, the last universe took HOURS to simulate, turn quantum certainty off for this run and we can knock one more out before we go home for the day" would be an elegant, Occam-approved, and amusing explanation. Not remotely close to "proof" of course ;)

[@andreklugel6846]

I wish my science teacher in high school was like you. You crack me up, bro 😂

[@classybean6960]

This is the best explained video of this thank you

[@fabrisseterbrugghe8567]

The .muttered "this going to be demonetised" makes it art.

[@Nanokarp]

I would like to see the scientific society's collective face if after everything it actually turns out to be magic that causes all of it.

[@M4RC90]

How would you define magic though? I mean, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[@Nanokarp]

@@M4RC90 Something that isn't technological at all. It might be explained by science, sure, but if it has a purely biological source, it's not technology.

[@ericalbers4867]

@@Nanokarp no it's still technology. Living creatures are technically machines. Just biological ones. Also if science can explain it's mechanism then it's still science and still natural. Magic would have to fall outside of the natural universe. It couldn't be explained in any way.

[@Nanokarp]

@@ericalbers4867 Your and my definition of magic and technology differs apparently.

[@ericalbers4867]

@@Nanokarp I don't know how they differ since magic refers to the supernatural. The very premise of anything supernatural is right there in the word.

[@WillBraks]

Great vid bro! Great info with some comedy! Keep it up 👍🏽

[@hoss1]

7:17 the dog's judging him like : "what's wrong with him this time"

[@diyeana]

Why did I watch this before drinking coffee? Not enough power to compute. Nice segway at the end, Joe. It does work.

[@chrisp6458]

segue

[@squirlmy]

coffee didn't help me at all, And I didn't think the segue worked, it was incredibly clumsy. And I hate BigMacs. we're so totally different. It's like you're a particle and I'm a waveform. (BTW Segway is the two wheeled electric scooter. Segue is the word for a transition in presentations)

[@diyeana]

Ohhhh, I learned a new word today too! Thank you! I don't know how I missed that one.

[@diyeana]

@@squirlmy I don't like BigMacs. It is a play on my last name. 😁

[@chrisp6458]

@@diyeana No problem. Understandable mistake. The segway is something you ride. The company that makes it used the off spelling as a play on words. A segue takes you from one subject to another. The Segway takes you from one place to another.