Strange New Explanation for Why Quantum World Collapses Into Reality

[@billiondollardan]

I love that Schrodinger felt his example was so ridiculous it would change everyone's mind about how they thought of quantum physics and it was accepted as enlightening instead lol

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

I just read the quote from Schroedinger - basically stating he wished he could get rid of the quantum jump and he wanted nothing to do with it.

[@seancooper5007]

The cat is an observer

[@MCsCreations]

That damn cat torturer...

[@vladimirseven777]

@@seancooper5007 Nuking the cat will collapse his functions (observing), so cat is dead anyway.

[@douggrove4686]

Oddly, the whole cat thing was Schrodinger saying that quantum effects did not affect the scale that we experience. My closet is not in a super position of burned, radioactive, or just cluttered until I open the door. There are uranium atoms decaying in the center of the planet, and no one is there watching.

[@MrOhirtenfelder]

This is possibly the single most mind bending video I have encountered on KZbin. And not just the video with it's utterly brilliant explanation of these concepts. The comments section is filled with nothing but positivity and support. If only more of KZbin were like this place, the world would be better off. I don't know how I have not discovered this channel earlier. The description and explanation has just helped me bring years of reading about these concepts and ideas into one, coherent, mental picture that my mind can make sense of. Thank you, Anton!

[@spacemonkey9000]

Check out Chris Langan's CTMU. Wear a seat belt.

[@JosephMurphyRevised]

welcome, wonderful person, to a wholesome corner of the internet. put your feet up and stay awhile.

[@Connection-Lost]

Not so fast, bud. I for one am relieved he chose to stop making the channel be about support for Ukraine (political bias, while ignoring the rest of the world's conflicts) and getting donations for his child passing away.

[@curcumin417]

Yeah but it can decohere just as fast due to nuclear boogaloo.

[@jyjjy7]

You did not just find some secret shortcut to understanding the concepts discussed in this video... That you think you might have is alarming and surely indicates you under the concepts less than before you watched it. The idea he is presenting is deeply questionable and honestly doesn't really make sense. The horizons he is talking about are arbitrary and have no physical meaning. I'm not even sure how any quantum mechanical objects could exist if something an arbitrary distance away from every point in the universe is collapsing everything. Some advice when trying to learn quantum mechanics; anyone who starts talking about the Copenhagen interpretation for reasons other than pointing out in what ways it is wrong and unscientific does not know much about the subject. Similarly anyone who keeps trotting out the concepts of observers/observation that imply what anyone knows matters to the universe should be written off as having an archaic and obsolete understanding of QM (one that is extremely convenient for anyone trying to prop up new age mysticism by claiming it is supported by quantum theory, it is not at all).

[@PlebianGorilla]

I know lots of people get sent into existential crises from these topics but I’ve realized that I’m so used to this stuff that it gives me peace. This is kind of what I’ve perceived the world as already (in simple terms). The existential crises I have are often a reaction to humanity itself and our stupidity. This stuff is my escape.

[@luismoref]

The funny thing is that your name in my country means a woman that is at peace, that is content with herself.

[@Leonidas_Papadakis]

It seems that you cannot escape suffering. However, in your short statement, you used "I," "I am," and "me" multiple times, which could come across as narcissistic. To top it off, you claimed that humanity is stupid, but you believe yourself to be special because you can avoid feeling existential dread.

[@monospaperbag]

@@Leonidas_Papadakis LMFAOOO

[@monospaperbag]

@@Leonidas_Papadakis be fr

[@matheuspestana7820]

I think it is just a survival reaction of the ego, once you learn to be humble enough to surpass your own ego than you can accept that it is better this way, no god tirants, just us existing the best way we can in a bigger scheme e thats alright.

[@bethrains3105]

Antone looked really worried describing this. Like he was being observed by the edge of the observable universe and didn't want to piss it off by saying the wrong thing.

[@nunoalexandre6408]

kkkkkkkkkkkk

[@malaltherenegadegod]

Hey, no... *IT IS APPRECIATED* ⦏੪ both the obvious discomfort-borderline-fear, and the thoughtfulness it took to obviously keep himself accurate! :D ੪⦐

[@felixloveseat]

No... we are being micro analyzed

[@yvettekosta-jv4bx]

The fact is, that just by being alive and eating and breathing, we are interacting. There may be loose atoms and electrons or subatomic particles around but for the most part, we interact with them on this planet. And because we do, they form larger structures like molecules, plant and animal flesh. Do you think if we were oblivious to certain things, like undiscovered atomic chemicals, they don't exist ? They pop into existence when we notice them ? Physicists can really trip out ! 🤣🤣🤣😜

[@IncriminatedAntelope]

​@yvettekosta-jv4bx my stomach hurts so bad from what I ate yesterday

[@Ramschat]

The insane part is that for me, the edge of the universe deviates a few hundred kilometres from yours, or anyone else's. Since it is relative to your position for each one of us. So the 'observer' always has you at its centre. Any arbitrary frame of reference has a different 'edge of the observable universe'.

[@ika5666]

Good point.

[@EKA201-j7f]

Lol! So we really are the center of the universe??

[@whoff59]

at the center of the observable universe. "observable" by the observer which are you and me ourselves.

[@trackertom]

Man I've been fascinated by this stuff since I heard of the two-slit experiment. It just boggles the mind to think that reality itself is a series of probabilities constantly collapsing. To me it's magic because I am way to dumb to understand it.

[@Aufenthalt]

No physicist are too dumb to explain it correctly...ist Not at all magic but many explain it as it would be.

[@eccehomosexual]

Essentially is it magic. Just because we can define something through philosophy, logic and math doesn’t mean we understand it. You may know all the ingredients in a cake without understanding how to bake it. Cake is delicious but you will never understand why. 😂

[@aprayingatheist2378]

I've always said it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or religious, the fact that we are here is magical and unexplainable

[@bouzoukiman5000]

@@aprayingatheist2378a type 3 civilization might actually know everything about the universe and how to manipulate it. If we survive we are on our way

[@lookupverazhou8599]

I typed two slit into google and it turned on safety search.

[@horiushayha9349]

I get the creeping feeling that we should leave the perspective of "observers" behind because it is only a part of the larger group of "interactors" I think interactions between particles are 99,99999% of all the determinators that "force" certain particles to attain their physical properties which happens literally with every particle, everywhere and all at once.

[@geesehoward700]

Yeah, observer hints at consciousness entities which in this case really isn't helpful

[@catpoke9557]

​@@geesehoward700 Maybe. There is a surprisingly possible hypothesis that every object in the universe is conscious to some degree, even if it doesn't have senses or a brain to understand it. if that's the case, observers are present everywhere.

[@thepatternforms859]

@@geesehoward700 then don’t use the word “observers” at all then. Got a new word?

[@SahnigReingeloetet]

„Observing“ simply means a particle interacts with something, not that someone looks at it.

[@conniepr]

Right. Don't open pandoras box. Don't look.

[@AfonsodelCB]

As a developer, this video has made me feel like reality is a lot more like a digital environment than expected... it's like our quantum particles are references pointing to non-allocated memory, and you can get multiple particles to point to the same address, leading them to representing the same value regardless of where they are in memory since in actuality they're both redirecting to the same space in memory... Does that mean black holes are garbage collectors? 🤔

[@dannydetonator]

You see it from a binary IT programmer perspective, it's not quite like that. Despite electronics working on quantum principles, the interactions making memory, processor, power etc. work have not much to do with physical memory, fixed calculations and algorithms, fixed points in space or time, properties or any of that gobbledygook you wrote. First, quantum particles have no fixed coordinates in space or state. These values are spread out in a vague, thinning geometric cloud of probabilities, shape, size, density, speed of which are determined by particle properties, forces and other particles interacting with it. Ex.g. the probability clouds of electrons around the nucleus of an atom you've hopefully seen in school's physics/chemistry book are rough portrayal of just that, they're not orbits in a normal sense. Besides there are oscillations and very rapid movement of everything particle like. Also most of them act as waves or particles at the same time, depending on situation, observer, etc. Some can be in superposition, having infinite or multiple values of properties, some can and some cannot be in the same place at the same point in time. Memory as a concept doesn't exist in quantum physics as far as i know. It's mostly substituted by probabilities of interactions, changes of states, cause and effect.. Depends on definition, so it's semantics. I suspect this reply will get unreadably long if i go deeper explaining the differences between IT and quantum world. So to answer your question, no. Black holes are not garbage collectors, because Universe doesn't have garbage. It has matter, fields, forces, gravity.. Is gas or stardust garbage for you? Tell that to Eastern Europeans now.. Black holes are more like matter spinners, yes they suck in, but gravity works closer than a star would have with a similar mass. Although most of their mass are arguably concentrated in a single, infinitely small point, or from other models a 1-dimentional ring or circle, called singularity.. Yes, that's why it spins matter at such speeds that friction heats the matter to millions of degrees in the accretion disc, making it glow bright and reveal the black hole to us. Imagine an infinitive small point or thin line having a spin and energy that massive. They're also like a local thug champion, braking all the rules of both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Your error wasn't trying to understand the latter in principles of the former, digitally. Your error - fuelled by Duner-Kruger effect telling you 'gotcha' - was trying to understand it with conventional, familiar principles at all. One of the quantum physicists (forgot who) said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you're wrong." Yes, in nature it's allways gets more complex the deeper you go. No wonder we'd need a conventional computer made from entire stuff of Solar System to fully simulate and save in memory like a single second of interactions in and around of a single Iron atom. Mind boggling.

[@SlickWillHermsted]

@@dannydetonator damn son i am not gonna read all that but props

[@Dremth]

​@Danny THE Dog I think all he's really saying is that you can look at the universe as a big computer. Many similar principles in computing apply to the universe. In the end, everything is data, and the same way we try to manipulate abstracted and reinterpreted data in computing (i.e., processing binary bits), the universe does with real data at the quantum level (i.e., quantum decoherence). This paper is suggesting more that black holes function more like a weird power supply than a garbage collector. In computing, the bits in your memory have "values" when the power is off, but they don't really mean anything to a user, because the charges inside are just whatever random stuff is inherent to the materials it was made with; basically, there are no electrons moving through your hardware, but the hardware itself has its own electrons with their own locked, stable energy. When you power on the machine, it's able to force the electrons into particular states that can then be used to actually mean something to the user. This paper is kind of saying that black holes are supplying that power to the hardware quantum fields that cause them to collapse into states that mean more than just random probabilities. Of course, all this is super simplified, and it's not exactly a 1:1, but there are a lot of similarities that exist between computing and the universe, because they both operate on data.

[@mirrorcat2784]

Donald hofman

[@Dremth]

@Milo Jones In the quantum world, things are quantized (hence "quantum") just like in computing. Things cannot be in infinite states. Particles can only be in a defined set of states, or a combination of all of them.

[@rustyshovels]

Anton never fails to give me an 11 PM existential crisis

[@fuzzyspackage]

🎉😂

[@Tokinjester]

between this and a new exurb1a video this week ... existential bliss 🤯😁

[@asdfjkl7430]

Dude, don't watch this stuff at 11pm, or else it'll do that. Lol

[@albertkoscielniak7075]

The quite kid : **NOTED**

[@AurelienCarnoy]

Only a thought process could have a crisis. You are aware. You can't be what you are aware of. That would be called "identification". Same root as "idol" and "ideas". They all come and then go. You alone remain. Only the ego dies when it's none existence is seen. You could not be your self image.

[@leonlee8524]

HA, MY REALITY COLLAPSED INTO BEING ONE OF THE FIRST COMMENTERS-I'M GOING TO ABUSE THIS SLIM CHANCE TO DIRECTLY TELL ANTON THAT WE LOVE YOU AND YOU'RE GREAT, ANYWAYS BACK TO THE VIDEO !!

[@lesliejohnrichardson]

I absolutely support this Anton, we love you

[@DavidBensonActor]

Bravo on a bold attempt to explain in simple, layman's terms something that, even after watching your excellent video, I find completely incomprehensible.

[@marsdroid1]

im not knocking the video at all ...simply wasnt raised to comprehend this stuff ....THANKS ANTON KEEP EM COMING!!!!!

[@TheExplodingGerbil]

😂 snap 😂

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

@@marsdroid1 I’m not sure ANY of us were raised to comprehend this kind of stuff!🤣

[@Raulikien]

@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 For sure, we are gonna need to improve our brains with machines soon if we wanna keep up with the evolution of technology

[@marsdroid1]

@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 i had 3 rounds of peanut nutter n toast and a tumeric tea.... i think i have an idea of what it means niw ...brain booter you see 😁

[@bcizzo]

Man.. the idea that every blackhole is functioning as an observer in quantum mechanics and collapsing reality into physical existence... this is some deep stuff Anton, thanks for being on this ride with us man

[@cyborgbob1017]

really puts a new perspective on these cosmological giants. Theyre sort of like 'anti demigods' I guess

[@onlyoneofhiskind]

That raises a question. What what was going on before the first black holes were formed? And why did they formed if there wasn't a physical particles?

[@Holphana]

This helps with my theory that explosions are actually implosions and implosions are actually explosions. We are just on the other side of actual reality or at least we see the world in a reversed way. This could explain why quarks jump in and out of our reality and why Nuclear fission has the potential to generate so much power.

[@twin_sister_of_utu]

​@@Holphana Hey there, you got me interested: can you please explain more about "we see reality in the reversed way"? What does that actually imply?

[@elpretentio]

cringe

[@deepashtray5605]

Imagine just how controversial Shrodinger's cat analogy would have been if he used an opossum instead of a cat, because opossums are very good at playing dead.

[@benthere8051]

LMAO

[@bennylarsen1907]

LOL!

[@goochipoochie]

🔥🔥🔥🔥😂😂😂😂😂

[@andyavila9162]

Lol

[@2ndfloorsongs]

There's always at least one wise-ass in every serious discussion. Maybe the reason the universe exists is that humor collapses the wave function. I rather like this idea because it means serious universes are impossible and one of the reasons this universe continued to exist was Douglas Adams. 😸😸😸

[@AranJackson]

I like the idea of the universe before the Big Bang being a sea of yet-to-collapse quantum objects. With no observation or interaction between them. Then the Big Bang rather than just being an explosion, it became an observer and collapses the wave function of quantum objects increasing the expansion of the universe as it spreads out across the universe. Perhaps this dual effect is responsible for the acceleration of the universe.

[@chaseyourtale9647]

This is kind of convoluted, no?

[@AurelienCarnoy]

The expansion of the univer is driven by the same process at the process that contracts the univers. They seem opposite but think of a person at the front of your car pulling on your car and think of an other person pushing on the back of your car. You just go forward. Those forces are obviously the same. As you look closer there is no one pulling or pushing. you are going down a slope. Space time is bending. But you look even closer and discover you never moved. You are always here and now. Ever present. Is it not your experience? It might take 10 years for science to admit how it already is. Ego is always late due to denial frustration anger depression and eventually surrender. Actually we can say the big bang is still happening. It is what is happenings. And at closer look. We are still, before the big bang. Only our identification with conditioning dictates what we perceive. Just like it happens to you when you identify with a he people in the screen of a TV. But truly you are just starting at a screen. Virtual particles. It is a great show. Enjoy

[@tyemaddog]

These "concepts" are just that, concepts. Many that are pretty far out there, while others simply fail.

[@kimblecheat]

Or it just is the expansion of the universe. I think this is my new favourite scientific paper.

[@themoonbubble]

An observer huh?

[@jopwarmy]

This makes sense to me as a chemical engineer because we define systems by their boundary conditions. Every differential equation starts with some set point at a boundary (ex the interface between a solid and a liquid, the contact points between an electric wire and the insulation, the surface of a car and the atmosphere around it)

[@iamt0ast]

Even down to the atomic level where the contact point is on the valence ring

[@Skynet_the_AI]

​@@iamt0astsubatomic

[@philip4419]

@uPtrade me and jopwarmy together

[@SpeakerWiggin49]

​@uPtrade did you read? He said he's a chemical engineer.

[@carlosdgutierrez6570]

​@uPtrade engineers, I'm a metallurgy engineer and what he said is right, boundary conditions are everything and plenty of phenomena, even if it is in principle a change in 3d volume, is explained by changes in the surface of the objects involved. From fractures to mineral separation and mechanical properties like hardness or young modulus and fracture toughness.

[@Alif--Laam--Miim]

Think about the following quote in terms of the universal "observer" in that illustration : "God is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not - light upon light - God guides to His light whom He pleases, and God sets forth parables for men, and God is Cognizant of all things." That's your universal "Observer". Food for thought. Cheers- -M

[@stravelakis]

Thank you! You did this in just 8 minutes!?! I think this was the first time in my life I could actually understand what existence could be.

[@DavideMartiniCommentatore]

It took much more than that, and we know it! 😊 It must've been hard to create the script! From research to editing...

[@byamboy]

This has been an awesome job, but did have to watch it many times lol

[@UncompressedWAVmusic]

Amazing reply. I love it.

[@jimbaker5110]

It’s not correct and still doesn’t explain what “existence” actually is.

[@stravelakis]

@@jimbaker5110 what existance "could be" Reality defined by its limits, the observer's ability to define reality is possibly "at" the limit, or the limit itself... I know I do not deeply understand, but I feel that I can glimpse at the reality of reality

[@minacapella8319]

Anton, I'm so glad you exist in the same observation as me. Even if we don't get to figure this all out before we both cease to exist, it's such a delight exploring the possibilities with you.

[@eskede4733]

Define "cease to exist" It's an assumption. ( But I doubt I will get anywhere with you about that)🙄

[@minacapella8319]

@@eskede4733 I just meant eventually we will both die, as is the case with everyone. Idk what your problem is.

[@eskede4733]

@@minacapella8319 Yes, I know. What I meant is that of course the physical body ceases to be but I'm not so sure that's total non-existence. I was impatient and a little rude because some people refuse to make a distinction or their opinions are so bizarre to me. You weren't being that way so much, sorry. 😑🙂

[@minacapella8319]

@Eskede yeah I'm not claiming to know what actually happens to the "self" upon death, I have ideas and thoughts but I'm definitely no expert. Not that any of us living are, but we'll all find out at some point lol.

[@Suiseisexy]

@@eskede4733 Your total non-existence from the observational standpoint of other humans really only need consist of reducing the gene frequencies that define you to zero extant instances. You not reproducing can't be shown on TV, nobody can be accused of a war crime, you not reproducing doesn't have the problems of the old weapons, it's a new weapon.

[@Zebred2001]

Reality is certainly collapsing into strangeness these days!

[@AdamS-nd5hi]

Very true.

[@Masked_Official]

The universe is transgender.

[@ShrigmaFemale]

@@Masked_Official That’s hot

[@Masked_Official]

@@ShrigmaFemale ikr

[@benthere8051]

@@Masked_Official Does that mean you don't know the gender until you look in the box?

[@BathingInAcheron]

It's kind of wild to think that HP Lovecraft may have unknowingly been on to something with his Azathoth story. Except in this case our "Azathoth" isn't a comatose creature dreaming our universe into existence, but instead a non sentient quantum force of pure unending observation

[@jarlwilliam9932]

Azathoth doesn’t even dream up reality in Lovecraft’s story, it’s simply the most powerful of the outer gods and is nothing but a mindless force of hunger.

[@Grimbo_1212]

what you're thinking of doesn't have anything to do with quantum physics, it's basically just the Boltzmann Brain thought experiment. HP Lovecraft wrote some cool stories but they're nothing but a reflection of how he lived his life

[@AeonLumen.]

Azathoth lives

[@TheLoneMitten]

Or the Bible. Wheels within wheels covered in eyes.

[@BathingInAcheron]

@@TheLoneMitten That was referring to an Ophanim which is a category of abstract wheel shaped Angels whose entire existence is to carry and guard the throne of god, as the meaning of their Hebrew name states. I'm talking about an (not literal but rather in a symbolic sense) entity or cosmic force that brought the universe into existence and/or sustains that existence via mere observation.

[@the_talking_muffin]

I didn't think I was going to be able to understand what you were going to be discussing when you introduced everything that was going be involved in your discussion. Fortunately you explained it so well I know exactly what you were talking about. Thank you for the bagel analogy.

[@jonboy2950]

This all makes perfect sense. So when the sigularity took place, everything was everywhere at the same time and was both the observer and observed. Thus causing the universe to come into existence.

[@martifingers]

This is such a difficult subject yet Anton's clarity made it at least partially approachable . No one could ask for more.

[@calgar42k]

It s not difficult to understand, someone smoked too much pot and deviced a theory binging on complicated maths, and made a big deal out of something providing no answers and that cant be proven or disproven...Honestly it s no better than saying it s magic or god exists...

[@thekingofmojacar5333]

That´s absolutely true, it´s complicated and very theoretical!

[@shoujahatsumetsu]

@@calgar42k Every theory starts with an idea though. Every answer begins with a question.

[@calgar42k]

@@shoujahatsumetsu So does every BS ! Remember string theory and how it bamboozled a large portion of astrophysicists in a dead end speciality !

[@AllioNeo]

LOL 😅5:55 I am genuinely relieved that it's not killing anybody.

[@seph9980]

Man, do I like this theory. So the reason why we may never know what's inside a black hole is because we are not on an observer angle, but the insides of blackhole already have its own form of "reality" since they're observed by the horizons of the blackhole.

[@iamt0ast]

The horizon of a black hole is like the first room in the infinite hotel, it never ceases to exist.

[@charbelmdawar4580]

I don't agree, blackhole theory is very flawed ,if the black hole is the one how case the world what about the universe before any black hole second why the particles behave like wave without observer if the blackhole observe everything should the particles also behave like object not a wave there is a lot of problems I don't think this is the theory we are searching for

[@jerryhampton5755]

@@charbelmdawar4580 because it’s all a simulation and it only exists when someone is there to observe it.

[@ronaldpokatiloff5704]

@@jerryhampton5755 A computer program is using gravity to send three dimensional matter into a picture tube. DNA CODE is not on the minds of the ignorant scientists. They can't make the connection from organic chemistry to the physics outside the body, They think in a different world which is mostly fantasy. The universe is made of the same matter as in our body. They are incapable of making the comparison.

[@AbsurdAsparagus]

​@@jerryhampton5755 simulation theory is dead in the water because of the incompleteness of math. the universe trivially deals with things that math is incapable of dealing with, so no computer that runs on the current mathematic principles is capable of simulating the universe exactly.

[@DonniePalmer57]

I watch most of your videos Anton. But this is getting very interesting, sir. Thank you for being so talented in explaining things so well for us.

[@veramae4098]

Are we creating the rest of the universe by looking out thru the JWST?

[@barquerojuancarlos7253]

Yes, it's brilliant.

[@studleydewrite2942]

This had my complete attention,throughout,and my total appreciation now. I don't know how many times I was only capable of thinking,..'wow'. If I were not subscribed,this video,alone,would make me do so. Anton rocks.

[@ivornelsson2238]

I don´t know how you have Anton to explain everything? I n all of his videos, he constantly state scientific uncertainties, and he always ends his videos with: "I`ll return to the subject when new theories or discoveries are found". IMO his talents mostly goes on parotting standing conventional assumptions and working as the prolonged arm for publishing of new articles by scientists who need the funding going.

[@betawan3195]

if you find interest in the quantum theory you should check out veda text ,i personally believe its where it all started

[@jonathonschott]

Killing is really killing it with his theories

[@BierBart12]

I liked his older work, Killing Floor

[@thenephilim9819]

I'm probably missing something... But if these event horizons act as observers, no matter how far they're away, because of entanglement, how could there ever be an interference pattern in a double slit experiment?

[@xoxb2]

That was exactly my reaction. If the observation is as general as "being within the universe", how does any quantum uncertainty happen in the first place?

[@mreyesonthelies4386]

​@xoxb2 I think the speed of light and the proximity to the closest black hole might have something to do with it. Also, a black hole cannot "observe" a very distant particle pair, but could observe bigger objects.

[@theoofsweden]

​​@@xoxb2quantum uncertainty doesnt "happen", its a future based concept. when we then observe the future based possibility it collapses into the present and then becomes the past. it becomes observed and therefore any other possibilities seizes to exist.

[@theoofsweden]

@socalminstrel the edge of the universe is what put us where we are today. its the thing that observed its way to our reality, which then gave us the abillity to observe things. not all observation is equal, there have been things that observe us, that has given us the ability to observe.

[@holthuizenoemoet591]

If you ask me this entire paper is just 21 century Heliocentricism ... but now with quantum and event horizons..

[@cheriemiller669]

My jaw hit the floor pretty early on in the video. The idea that black hole event horizons can be the "observers" is something I never would have thought of. 😮

[@curcumin417]

I think we've probably all thought of it in a different way - I mean, imagine the universe as a big black hole, and we're just all inside of it, as forms of quantum coherence. The universe allows reality thru collapse of energy waveforms into matter.

[@dhaneshtg8395]

I don't know how a non living entity can be an observer..don't make any sense .. in that case any thing can be an observer and in that case what is the point of all this

[@shoujahatsumetsu]

@@dhaneshtg8395 Observer has always been something of a misnomer, since "observations" are dependent on a particle wave being interacted with. It's this confusion that has led people to the misconception that "if something is observing, that has to be alive", but that's not the case at all. Something just has to interact with the wavefunction to make it collapse.

[@eternalstudent7461]

I have trouble with the idea of the event horizon observing, or interacting with, a quantum object, which it is just going to immediately consume, therefore no particle is created outside the black hole.. unless the interaction there is causing the anti-particles to come into existence elsewhere wherever the other side of each entanglement resides?... It was easier for me to imagine the edge of the universe as the interactor/observer, since it is not said to destroy or consume particles, and can somehow collapse the wave functions from a great distance. Great thought experiment. Excellent Content!

[@iamt0ast]

Imagine the event horizon as the first room in the infinite hotel.

[@LesterWayneDobos]

Thanks Anton for some of your ideas. They were thought provoking. Especially the part about the horizon of our own universe being an event horizon, inverted. Its a whole lot to take in. I think that would solve for the singularity, and the arrow passage of time through our universe. We can't look beyond the event horizon yet but the quantum exists in both this universe and apparently across the event horizon of another SMBH for example. 💡

[@AurelienCarnoy]

It's a lot to take in for a thought process. But it is already so. So nothing new happend. You had an idea of the univers and an idea of you. Only they change. You remain the same. Like a singularity, it remains the same while the univers change. (A singularity in not a point in space but space in a point. 😅 it is the bigining and the end of space snd time. From it's point of view it is ever present. Like you don't remember not existing. ❤ love ya.

[@CyberiusT]

Pretty sure the event horizon thing was Steven Hawking.

[@Rick_Mather]

As Einstein said, "For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein's point is simple, our limited brains create time so that our limited brains can make sense of the world as we see it. There is nothing in the physical laws to imply that time even exists, let alone that it has some sort of arrow, So much for your 'arrow passage of time through our universe'.

[@Sanquinity]

It's not his ideas. He talks about ideas and articles that were written in the scientific community as a whole.

[@liwojenkins]

@@CyberiusTNope, he was a leading proponent and came up with Hawking radiation but the actual event horizon was theorized by another: David Finkelstein. Also, Anton shares his opinions and speculations along with the news, so there is a bit of Anton in every presentation.

[@markhuebner7580]

Highly speculative, but an interesting extension of the current concepts of modern physics. Interesting reference to similarities to some religious beliefs. Thanks Anton!

[@robjames4160]

This doesn't really have to be this complicated, conceptually... The basics are that all matter is simply excitations in quantum fields that are interacting and resonating with each other. What appears to be missing is that each increase in quantum complexity (quarks-->bosons-->atoms-->molecules, etc.) allows for fewer and fewer probabilistic variations due to the number of field excitations that are interacting and resonating to create the system. The simplest systems (one quark, electron, or other fundamental "praticle") would have the fewest number of resonances and/or interactions limiting the breadth of the wave function. It's why larger, more complex particles are subject to locality in a way that fundamenatal particles aren't. For example, quarks are fundamental - they are singular field excitations with no resonant connections. Side note: The idea of "particles" is a gross mischaracterization. What they really are are bundles of quantum excitations that overlap, resonate with each other, forming systems of increasing complexity and reducing probabilistic uncertainty. A proton is 3 quarks, aka 3 separate quark field excitations resonating with each other, which limits the probabilistic variability of each quark because the resonance (strong force) between each quark reduces the size of the wave function of each other quark, essentially "dampening" them (partial collapse), but not entirely. There is still some low probability associated with each quark's location and or momentum, but it is limited to the boundaries of the 3-quark system itself. In other words, the entire system now has a wave function, with substantially tighter allowances for probabilistic variations in properties. Any atom larger than a proton will have a more complex system of interactions and resonances, further limiting the quantum uncertainty of the combined system. In a kind of excpetion to the rule sort of way, electron clouds are excitations in a different field that act like large-scale resonators for entire boson systems, rather than inherently merge with the wave function of the underlying system. Now for the kicker - quantum fields are non-spatial. Spacetime doesn't emerge until two or more fundmental field excitations interact. The resonance between two or more excitations necessitates a property called "spacetime" in order to facilitate the resonance. It's basically a framework for quantum field interaction that emerges from the interaction orientations. it's kind of like making two dots on a flat piece of paper meet by rolling the paper. The two dots were always there, and so was the paper (in two dimensions) but in order for them to interact, the paper has to take on a new property (an extra dimension) and become 3-dimensional. There's no other way for the two dots to interact without the emergence of that property.

[@Cancellator5000]

That makes some sense. Not sure you explained the emergence of spacetime fully. Are there papers about this idea? I'm interested in testing the equivalence principle, which is a key consequence of general relativity. The idea that gravity, rather than being a quantum field, is an emergent property of the curvature of spacetime. In my mind the main outstanding theoretical problem is how the quantum world generates, and potentially elucidates, all the predictions of general relativity. Unfortunately, that seems so far away because when you try to predict the cosmological constant of GR from QFT you get the worst prediction in physics history.

[@windfoil1000]

I'm just a physics fan, but I think you did a pretty god job of explaining that. I would enjoy hearing more about quantum fields from descriptions as easy to understand as yours here.

[@thomasnaas2813]

The idea of an event horizon at the edge of the universe killed me! Great stuff, Anton!

[@subjekt5577]

You might like the latest two pbs spacetime videos if so

[@DrMackSplackem]

Some people may get the idea that the 'edge' is an actual place, as in a cool setting for a Star Trek episode, but here it just means every place beyond your horizon. Our location is anyone else's 'edge' if they're at the right distance (perhaps Webb has imaged their host galaxy's early quasar phase already). There's definitely a horizon as in places so distant they lay outside of any possible influence or detection and thus a singularity, but cosmological red shift is more like a fade out than an edge if you ask me.

[@musicproductionbrauns2594]

​@@DrMackSplackem yeah you literally move the horizon with you as you move. It's relative to your position. So to say you are always in a bubble of all time. The current at your point and the start of everything at the horizon

[@Create-The-Imaginable]

@@DrMackSplackem Interesting! So each of us has our own event horizon so to speak? And our own event horizon reflects our own individual reality?

[@UsernameXOXO]

​@@Create-The-Imaginable yes, and this is exactly what relativity is all about.

[@ivanelrino]

That makes a lot of sense. I'd been wondering how anything existed before there were any observers.

[@kxkxkxkx]

Everything that exists is alive, these most simple objects are monads ☝️

[@lookupverazhou8599]

​@WisdomTheater 3000 God.

[@krishadyn5211]

"Observer" is a physics term that does not imply abstract consciousness. Physics has stupid language, partly because it feels like every science needs its own language. They could call a particle with limited capacities "God" and people would assume the word was equivalent to a layman's notion of that word.

[@Reoh0z]

This is how my D&D game works. Everything both exists and doesn't exist until the players interact with it and I am forced to bang out some details for them.

[@cyborgbob1017]

I think this idea could also tie into the concept of black holes creating new universes, which also leads into multiverse theory, but furthermore it kinda proposes the idea that if these black holes are shaping reality by a considerable margin, they must be getting their energy from an outside source, if that makes; which means that this could also propose an idea of a Multiversal Ecosystem; where the multiverse not only exists, but these other universes are all interconnected in an ecosystem where theyre constantly sharing energy with each other to sustain each other.

[@Delorva]

oh my god yes and yk how we’ve seen our universe looking all connected like ym what im sayin? i hope lol

[@GamingTranceSeer]

But how did it all start though

[@cyborgbob1017]

@@GamingTranceSeer a big bang I imagine

[@Delorva]

@@GamingTranceSeer maybe from an old universe like ours that died and was reborn

[@GamingTranceSeer]

@@Delorva yeah but how did the big bang start? There was a star ocean game that represented the entire universe being like an aquarium for an advanced civilization but then how did they start? It's just endless.

[@PoorMansChemist]

The Killer Horizon has got to be one of the best names for a phenomena in all of science.

[@harpo345]

Yes, with a name like Killer, he either had to go into astro-physics or law-enforcement.

[@Galahad54]

It's Killing.

[@PoorMansChemist]

@@Galahad54 Killer, Killing, whatever.

[@BierBart12]

@@harpo345 Becoming an undertaker would've been prophetic

[@PoorMansChemist]

@@BierBart12 Or a serial killer.

[@GIBKEL]

Hell of a job explaining….it really brought it all together for me as I’ve dipped in and out of physics, enough to be dangerous and this really made sense and in line with how I understand the nature of reality.

[@Dr.Gunsmith]

“There are things in this universe and reality that we know but nothing and never will” (David Robinson Crusoe 2021)

[@evonne315]

Im crying. ♥️ Its so beautiful and simple and complex and comforting all at once. Thank you Anton.

[@mytubehkjt]

I've always thought of it like this. If the Universe doesn't know then it can't tell you. It can only work in probabilities. As soon as the Universe 'knows' it will collapse the field and tell you.

[@YourFriendlyGApilot]

Anton, thank you what an amazing video. Can you help me understand one thing? If black holes and the edge of the observable universe acted as observers, then wouldn't everything always be a particle? In the conventional Double Slit experiment by the time we shoot a photon it would already be particle because the universe is observing it. Why instead does it still act as a wave? Again thank you for all the amazing content.

[@renocicchi7346]

Remember what the subject was about. This idea was to solve the paradox that decoherence must occur at the event horizon. So to solve this, event horizon’s are considered the observers that collapse the wave function. So as long as there are particles and waves that are not interacting with these event horizon’s or other observers, they are not being observed. So I think his idea at the end is that everything was able to exist due to these event horizon’s observing the universe around it, including us, thus allowed the existence of other observers and interactions. I think

[@fuzzyspackage]

@@renocicchi7346 so they are not always "seeing everything"? blink and you'll miss it.😅

[@harpo345]

@@renocicchi7346 So in the end we're just back to the mundane idea that particles collapse into reality when they interact with the rest of the universe?

[@Galahad54]

@@harpo345 If every quantum has a connection with evry other quantum, by virtue of having photons/neutrinos, etc. to make the connection - this includes photons that don't exist for some observers - then the universe must be terribly constrained, so that instead of 10^240 different states, one might have only 10^160 or 10^120 states. Of course, we won't know about most (100% - 10^-80) of the connections, because of fun facts about photons (a photon, from the POV of that photon, does not exist, and the distance from its start to finish is zero - example: a photon from the Sun, arriving at my eyeball, travels the distance in 0.000 seconds, thus the distance eyeball to Sun - is zero, and then my head hurts). The point is that there exist indefinitely many (infinite) observers, and the statistics of infinity are not always intuitive.

[@renocicchi7346]

@@harpo345 sadly yes, but I got some super cool sci-fi ideas from this video. But basically as the other person was saying, photons going through a vacuum not interacting with anything will experience a null geodesic, which means if you are a photon, you do not experience time until you interact with something, and other observers cannot know it’s position, but can know it’s speed. And that is reversed when it is observed due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Kind of the same thing with Particles, they behave as waves when not being directly observed, as my understanding with the double slit experiment is that the wave function collapses due to the instruments doing the detecting, effect the electrons going through the slits collapsing the probabilistic superposition of states to a classical definite state. In the act of a black hole taking information from a particle, it results in the loss of coherence between superpositions of that particle So in reality, the idea of this hypothesis of black holes being observers is kind of unsurprising and kind of just makes sense, as an observer in science isn’t that special and doesn’t require a consciousness. How it worked exactly is a mystery though. At least that my understanding of what is going on, but maybe I’m not understanding something.

[@ryanhoard3842]

I have nothing to base this on but i believe that consciousness exists at all levels of existence

[@zbenne05]

Even then?

[@dallaslove-n3b]

Absolutely agree. Growing up I was taught Syncretism and how to interpret all the Bible’s through Astrology, Geology, Biology, Ecology and Theology. The Logos… I was taught that these Black Holes are the sole reason for the word “Holy” & today 50 years later it all completely adds up & makes incredible sense. Nice to be able to connect the dots and put my faith even deeper into what I’ve been taught. Great validation and confirmation. 🙏 science/conscience Thy “word” is thy “sword “. I AM

[@gidi-yo]

You’re 100% correct. You have nothing to base your belief on.

[@supermankal-el9678]

@@gidi-yo why?

[@gidi-yo]

@@supermankal-el9678 agreeing with the commenter on the first part of his comment.

[@alexkennedy888]

Love your simplicity explaining such a mind blowing concept. Also your delivery is perfect! Loved the universal eye and black hole observer concept. Really awesome. Thanks! Liked & subscribed

[@scottgardener]

This is a fascinating potential answer to the ancient question, "why do we exist?" It's a profound proposal, even if hard to test at the moment. It is very hard not to tie metaphysics and personal philosophies into it.

[@JesseP.Watson]

I have to admit, these days I find myself wondering why I get the impression that resistance to such considerations is no longer scientific and is actually a matter of materialist dogma i.e. "Yes it is all starting to seem just teensy-weensy bit improbable but for God's sake don't go thinking that could indicate anything is not entirely mundane and purely accidental! ...Even if it being accidental is looking increasingly absurd!" Which is not to say... well... There's something forced to my eye in the off-the-cuff dismissal of these considerations in light of what we know today.

[@LongFacedBastard]

Please explain what is scientific about this ridiculous paper

[@gmork1090]

It's not hard to test. It's impossible to test. Like what happened at the exact moment of the big bang. We will never be able to get past the hypothesis/thought experiment stage.

[@Galahad54]

@@gmork1090 Incorrect. The Cardiff Team (includes Kip Thorne, 2017 Nobel winner) has a design for black hole collision detector that suggests that in the 2030-2050 time frame, we will be able to test the theory. The thing I didn't like about Gravitation (Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, 1973), was that it asserted the most significant feature of the microwave universe would be its uniformity. I maintained and maintain that it's the anisotropy that's more significant. The latest analysis shows 3-6 major clumpings, which are clearly statistically significant, and show that even the supermassive black holes we've found so far may not be the most massive. They gravity team expects to map to 10^-10 to 1-^-11 seconds after the Big Bang. Kip Thorne expects the unexpected, in which he will not be diappointed. Thorne is 82, so he may see some preliminary results. JWST is giving great details for thousands of stars, planets, and galaxies. The gravity interferometer won't go all the way back to the inflationary period, but it should confirm (or refute) general relativity on a universal scale. Maybe even get yet a third estimate of the age of the Universe.

[@JesseP.Watson]

@@gmork1090 I was discussing that issue recently in an atheistic versus religious context and I came to think that the problem boils down to a question of eternity. Either we accept an explosion of absolutely everything out of absolute nothingness, at some point, which is an absurd hypothesis, or we accept eternity - that there has always been something of the universe in existence, 'breathing' in and out perhaps but forever existent, without beginning, which is equally absurd. ...We could of course subvert the issue by imagining some other place or thing whence things came... but the same problem remains with that. ...And I can't see how we can possibly resolve that in a way which upholds the current materialist paradigm as it providing an explanation for eternal existence contradicts the fundamental premise of the scientific method since it is founded upon deciphering cause and effect... which is entirely at odds with the concept of eternity. Likewise a beginning of existence requires an effect with no cause to get from absolute nothingness to something so we've got precisely the same issue once again. ...So I am a deeply confused man who finds himself wondering how on earth the currently consensus of materialism can possibly claim to answer anything...?

[@GoGoGoRunRunRun]

As a child, I felt that reality behind me, around the next street corner etc. wasn't actually there. It was only build when I looked at it. It was kinda creepy and when I read about the concept of observering properties in quantum mechanics I was creeped out even more. Anyone else had such thoughts?

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

Yes - cogito ergo estis. I think therefore you are. Do I cease to think you all die. It makes sense somehow from a certain point of view, but not a narcisstic one 🤗

[@markop.1994]

Well, its pretty typical for kids. Its why babies are suprised by "peek-a-boo".

[@user-vs1cm8nv5i]

God observes it !

[@jakobdyck3403]

I don’t remember ever having that notion as a child but something about the idea seems creepily familiar ..... perhaps it is the natural state of things.

[@tristanobrien4096]

Search for ‘background people’

[@yeahitsbeensomethin2626]

That's kinda like horrifying if true just implication that the universe is it's own observer on the largest scales and on smaller scale black holes are just floating eyes of the universe all over the place

[@garman1966]

We're talking about the 'observable' universe here, and that means the observable universe to each conscious being is different depending on where in physical space they are. When we as individuals move in any direction the borders of the observable universe also shift. So if the coherent universe is being observed from the outside but can be influenced from the inside by every conscious being, are we not the original observers?

[@davegold]

It might be a simpler interpretation, such as matter only has context within the universe.

[@Jaguarboy11]

@@garman1966 ding ding ding. We are the original observers, because separation is an illusion. We are the universe observing itself, a fundamental universal consciousness whereby observing itself imbues awareness into the agent of the objects of consciousness.

[@jamescomstock7299]

Super interesting idea that kind of would prove Schrodinger's skepticism right. Since hypothetically all objects with mass would emit gravitons that would not be blocked by the box, then the cat would instantly become a decoherent reality, meaning it would be either dead or alive in the box, not both.

[@jambothejoyful2966]

That would be interesting, a kind of mass-domino effect caused by the existence of Byronic matter that cancels wave functions

[@heyotwell]

This is John Wheeler’s “ participatory universe” concept in some ways. Amanda Gestner’s absolutely amazing book “ Tresspassing on Einstein’s’s lawn” also comes to very similar ideas.

[@zakhard8659]

Feels like this hypothesis might give more meaning to the Holographic principle. Very fascinating

[@mpjstuff]

@RawBot from a certain perspective all these things are true. In fact, the more I've come to terms with certain aspects of physics and evolution, the more I realize that it's our limitation on our minds and relationship with dimensions and time that means we can't see it as just one thing to actually understand it. Any more than someone in a flat universe can understand a 3 dimensional Universe -- but there are ways to "try and describe it" in terms the flat world can understand. It's just that you have to describe a sphere as a circle that gets bigger and smaller over time. And if you mapped it's surface, then you are drawing lines that form complex patterns in your own flat world. You can't comprehend it as just a circle that changes size, or as a projected map --- but you can get CLOSER to understanding it, if you find more ways to describe it -- and all of those ways can be correct. So if life is a simulation, what is a simulation? Do we wake up to some greater reality? Well, then, would we not be greater beings in that reality? If I imagine a cell in my body -- it's part of me. I need it. However, it might be oblivious to my existence, and fear dying. And for that cell - it will be dying. It won't wake up as me -- it's fulfilling a function and then another cell might take its place. The continuity of all these synergistic organisms, that I collectively think of me, but from another perspective, are a collective organism. There are more bacteria in your body than cells if you count them -- and most of those bacteria over time have a sort of function in our gut, like the mitochondria in our cells. The Cosmos that the Universe is a part of, has always existed -- because it exists. So therefore, there are beings before us that lived and died and some evolved to be greater than we can imagine. And then what? Do they put on the equivalent of a VR helmet, and split their consciousness into a billion lesser beings so they can "experience" something when there is no limit or challenge? Does each cell in our body have a soul? Or can it be content that it will go on, because we go on -- relative to it, a million more lifetimes? This Universe is a construct at each point that seems to be in sync - at a distance, they can appear to violate relativity. And we only have distance, because of that de-synchronization of quantum fields that presents as relativity. Also I think that the Schrödinger's cat and the "observer" phenomenon are SORT of true, but mostly not useful to understanding how the Universe works. Observation doesn't collapse entanglement -- When we "interact" with particles, the exchange of relativity puts us momentarily in sync where it can be defined in a position or speed -- but, it's not 4 dimensional so pick whether you want sesame seeds or onion covering on your bagel. The universe isn't particles and forces, it's dimensions and time is a construct of relativity to synchronize with those other positions that only exist because they are entangled. And, the idea that quarks exist as a myriad of different particles isn't that useful -- they become a sesame seed or onion or plain, depending on whatever aspect synchronizes them to the forces involved. Every time I explain this, it seems I'm probably making people more confused than I started. Anyway; don't worry if life is real or a simulation -- for you, it's your life and as 'far as you know' is really all that can be important to you.

[@gmork1090]

Only if it's testable. Which it likely never will be.

[@BluesDoctor]

Anton, this was thought-provoking, and your delivery spot on and insightful. I will delight in my spare time, pondering the implications. Thank-you.

[@windfoil1000]

This was a particularly interesting topic, Anton. Thanks for presenting it.

[@markuss3735]

Fascinating. And very well explained. Thank you. It seems the term "Event horizon" is more appropriate than previously suspected since the transition point between the "observable" universe" and singularities seems to also be the transition point, or horizon, between quantum and mechanical states of the universe, or in other words, between the "observed" and "unobserved" realms.

[@universemaps]

So happy that my conceptual image of the observable universe is being used in videos as inspiring and thought-provoking as this one! Maybe the graphic is useful in showing the concept of this particular paper because it looks like a pupil? Thanks, Anton, and thanks to the Universe, which perhaps creates us while observing us!?!?

[@j3ffn4v4rr0]

That is one of my all-time favorite science images!!

[@raphaelvowles]

@@j3ffn4v4rr0 Me too. Where can i get that image at 5:29

[@phredziphell8242]

Yes please let me know I would love to purchase this print!

[@_WeDontKnow_]

conceptual?! 😔i thought you took a photo

[@j3ffn4v4rr0]

@@_WeDontKnow_ Yeah, he had to stand wayyyyyy back to take that shot!

[@DaFluffyOwl]

This almost implies that if we could see the entire universe, then nothing would exist, including not only beyond the Killing Horizen like mentioned in the video, but the inside of black holes as well.

[@ehssandariani8041]

Can you explain, please?

[@WILLed_into_Existence]

It's impossible to experience infinity, as it's infinite. So we instead experience infinite universes for eternity. But you are also basically correct, nothing exists. This is a dream.

[@augu_3st613]

​@Will Martin id argue you are infinite, and I also agree as counterintuitive as it is I believe nothing exists but that in itself is truly infinte.

[@WILLed_into_Existence]

@@augu_3st613 when I spend too long thinking about infinity I feel like I can knock on the door of insanity. Like staring into an infinite black abyss of infinite nothing.

[@LongFacedBastard]

Don't worry too much about it making sense it's just science fan fiction not even falsifiable.

[@MasterMLG07]

Two things that help me think about these metaphysical concepts: remembering reality is causality, and the primary constant of reality is change. From the perspective of any observer (a human consciousness) everything other is either uncertain, irrelevant, or lies in the past. The act of observing itself affects change, because the consciousness interacts with "stuff". The "stuff" we interact with/observe gets converted through the process of an experience. It starts as part of this unobservable blob of stuff that does not change, then experience turns it into part of the observer's past. The past is basically all that exists. The future doesn't exist yet, because it is all in the blob, unobservable and unchanging. The present is simply the plane of the consciousness (or it literally is consciousness), almost like a bridge that stuff passes through as it becomes real.

[@lucidd4103]

The problem with this is that you and me see both the "same" sesame bagel, or at least it's pretty similar to both of us once we can reach a consensus about it, which would be very unlikely if it was just some "random" collapse depending on some kind of local setting. Reality is very consistent unlike quantum probabilities, so there is just something more to it.

[@lookupverazhou8599]

Using probabilities to dissect the universe is the same as saying, "I don't know what the fk is going on."

[@dont-want-no-wrench]

there is a bagel inside this bag, you dont know what kind it is, it collapses into a sesame when you open the bag and look, or blueberry, or what's that funny one that's always on the menu board but you never get?

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

Has the Universe always been expanding faster than the speed of light? If not, when did this universal decoherence take place? And what would things have been like before that?

[@StanleyKubick1]

according to the math, the rate of expansion is cumulative. so no?

[@stampedetrail2003]

The "middle" being *now* , right? I love this diagram and it really makes me want to see an Onion Universe Cosmology (using the Higgs destabilization event as the boundary of the onion). I did something kind of cool once. If you calculate the energy to accelerate a particle from the Killing limit to "now," it takes exactly the same energy as equal to the mass of the particle times c^2. That was derived starting with the Hubble constant, deriving equations for motion, force, and energy, and plugging in the distance to the Killing limit (and 0 for "now"). Professors were not as impressed, saying this is just conservation of energy. It was interesting though.

[@Galahad54]

I'm impressed.

[@danfg7215]

I'd ask for the math for it, but I wouldn't understand it, so I'll just settle with being impressed for now.

[@Baleur]

Despite the bad rep for being woo-woo, i'd highly recommend you check out a Nassim Haramein lecture where he calculates the maximum planc contents of an electron. Spoiler, it turns out it fits just as much information as exists in the entire universe.

[@larion2336]

@@Baleur How can you figure out how much information exists in the universe when we don't know how big the universe actually is?

[@peppermintgal4302]

​​@@Baleur This doesnt make sense to me... wouldnt each additional bit of information inside an electron necessarily increase the info content of the universe? And ergo, the only way a singular electron can have information within it equal to the sum total of the info of the entire universe would be if there was only one electron... and not a single other informarion bearing thing in the universe? It sounds to me like maybe this guy gets flak for more reasons than that...? Edit: okay, sorry, I see that you said "maximum." Not sure how I missed that. Glancing at his channel though... I'm not convinced he's the guy to do those calculations. (Especially considering that the sum total information content of the universe is an unknown, and probably will never be known because the shape and ergo information content of the universe outside the Killing Horizon is unknowable.) This is beyond woo, its a sacred geometry grift. These people don't really know... geometry, really. I would recommend more "worldly" scholars. Besides, an electron is smaller than a universe, viewing it from the perspectice of Shannon Information Theory... this idea of his just doesnt pass the smell test. Don't let people woo you with fancy rhetoric and arguments by analogy.

[@martywollner4128]

In an informational Universe, potential pathways can be tracked in data structures. When the target absorption happens, the other concurrent potential pathways are simply deleted. This works in the forward-only arrow of time. An informational approach like this is the ONLY explanation that does not defy the principles of locality.

[@OilersFlash]

This is one of the most interesting largely conceptual theories I’ve heard in many years. Pure conceptual thinking seems rare nowadays, but this kind of big thinking generates lots of good results down the line

[@gmork1090]

Pure conceptual thinking is everywhere. M/string theory. Fermi paradox. Heat death. Alternate realities. Time travel in black holes. God. And more. All hypothesis and no theory that can ever be proved or disproved whatsoever. However throw enough sci fi questions around and eventually yeah, some will gain enough momentum and effort invested to make them reality.

[@OilersFlash]

@@gmork1090 fair. I think most interesting ones are pretty old nowadays. The good ones often evolve towards something serious. This one to me sounded like a really good one that could provide scaffolding for some good theoretical work, because it generates lots of good manageable questions that people can look at further and try to get some mathematical explanation. I don’t know enough to make much sense and as I said this one was just interesting to me and I’ve no serious background that would make my opinion valuable in even the most casual conversation. I’m just at most an interested party.

[@undeadarmy19]

The observer effect makes me think that we really are living in some sort of simulation of sorts, and the creators don't want us to be able to see what everything is really doing at the smallest scales.

[@Marixchatt]

I’m not into psychics or anything but I like your interpretation. To me it just sounds like the universe is another black hole lol

[@undeadarmy19]

@@Marixchatt Ive thought about it quite a bit. I often think about Tardigrades and how they live in their own "universe" of sorts, completely unaware of our existence at all. What if we are like the tardigrades, or something similar, to some other beings? What if there are 4th dimensional beings that we cant even see? The 4th dimension is a spooky concept. The best way to describe it is to look at 2 dimensions from our 3 dimensions. If we draw a man on a sheet of paper and a box with something inside of it, the man can only see a solid line of the box, but we can see the entire man, the whole box, and even whats INSIDE the box, all at ONE time. Thats what a 4d being could do to us. They can see us, see inside us, see inside any container, etc, all at one time. This brings into question the idea of "god", and how its often stated that he can be everywhere and see everything, well, that mostly describes a 4d being.

[@dawgsout4free]

@@undeadarmy19 truee if you’re living in a 2d let’s say a paper and there’s a hole on the paper youd only see a line or a curved line and in 3d, holes would be spheres. So id always thought you would just fall in different dimension if you go through a black hole

[@jamesjenkins3384]

I think we need computer programmers to devise an experiment to overload the computer generating the simulation. I have read the speed of light is what it is because the computer generating reality can only calculate up to that speed. The chair I am sitting in is actually mostly empty space.

[@CompassIIDX]

@@undeadarmy19 You should read Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy if you haven't already. Liu writes some wonderfully descriptive and mind-expanding scenarios involving higher dimensions.

[@briansprock2248]

fits beautifully with non-dual philosophy about the nature of reality - I would deem blackholes as where places where (opposing) vectors collapse and get pulled apart - Also that all things mass carry that spark or emptiness that makes quantum stuffs and later matter want to clump in an organized way (life)

[@jamesedgewood4643]

The problem here is that entanglement information doesn't actually 'travel' through 3 dimensional space. Instead it has something called 'Quantum non-locality', so regardless of being in a black hole, the light and the entangled observer are still perfectly connected because light has higher dimensional properties which do not cause it to be limited to 3d phenomenon. This explains how quantum communication can apparently be 'faster than light' in the Delayed Choice experiment.... the light does not travel through time and space as we know it, but through 4d hyperspace.

[@rossthomas4667]

Great vids always informative 👍

[@williamsteveling8321]

This would potentially explain a lot. When you consider the ideas of depth-of-field, resolution, and possibly even the math of reality resembling that of a hologram, this might actually kill all birds with a single stone. It's rather interesting that, if correct, this fulfills the observer effect. I can think of some deeper possible connections, but I don't want to invest too much energy on this until some stronger evidence to support it is discovered.

[@Soup.Theory]

I think it is elegant that the infinity (the universe or even just the observable universe) and the infinitesimal (the black holes) are like the boundaries of the universe and they set the stage for causality and everything to happen. It makes sense to me that mass could be an "observer", like we are, but the universe itself acting as an "observer" is really interesting. The way I see it is that the system has been active long before humans could even observe and ponder the universe, so it's not like every quantum system collapses when we started observing.

[@King_Flippy_Nips]

mass cant be an observer or quantum computers would not function, the cpu has to be enclosed and blocked from the outside world while it calculates and the the enclosure opened again to retrieve the results and there is not way we can block them from the effects of mass and gravity yet they still function, light definetly acts as an observer though since if light gets through the cpu will not function.

[@moodmeditation4458]

That's God the observer all light which our eyes can't even tolerate.

[@Elia__Holm]

Amazing explanation, love it so much❤ Thank you

[@GuitarGears4544]

A quick question-- When the wave form "collapses," and a quantum object assumes a single configuration, does it do that exact same thing for all possible observers? Say, for example, I'm looking at an electron, and unbeknownst to me a different observer is looking at that same electron at that exact same time. Do we always see the electron in the same state (same spin, same velocity, same location, etc.)? Just curious.

[@northerncricket5199]

The same object can't be two different things at once, so the phrase collapse refers to the object as identified in the specific reference point moment. If the object is being measured at the exact same instant the two seperate observations could be seen as the same observation. Reality should line up for everybody, only the perspective is changing

[@northerncricket5199]

Unobserved an object can be in a number of potential states, the collapse is the point in time which observation and the object in question interact. Without the interaction it's impossible to know what the state is, hence it being "every state at once"

[@northerncricket5199]

So mathematically you have to treat the object of interest as if it's in every potential state until the point of observation

[@marcosvega2640]

@@northerncricket5199 correct. And quantum computing analyzes the probability of of each one, and performs self correcting calculations to predict the outcome. It doesn’t this at ridiculously high speeds and levels. Kinda like your brain keeps your body regulated without you consciously telling every organ to perform it’s functions

[@captsorghum]

@@marcosvega2640 If the observer is some distance away, say 10 light minutes, does the collapse happen 10 minutes before the observer looks into the eyepiece, or while the light is in transit?

[@alfredsutton4412]

Good job, you Wonderful Person.

[@tedspens]

Everything you described makes perfect sense to me, which probably means I didn't understand it at all. Or at least the furthest reaches of my existence, as an observer, didn't understand it and so I did, because I'm the inverse of my existence, or the center of my own universe. I gotta watch this again when I'm not buzzed.

[@iamt0ast]

Didn’t agree at first, but then reread your post. I like the concept of internalizing spacial concepts, as well as applying psychological theories to celestial concepts. A construct within a construct on a Möbius strip.

[@tedspens]

@@iamt0ast I often think about how each individual person probably sees the world very differently, in their own unique way. If you and I both look at the color blue and agree that is the color blue, then we swapped places to see from eachother's perspective, I might say that's not blue at all... that's a dinosaur. And you might say where's the blue? All I see is a mathematical equation. We each see very, very different things, but in each of our own minds, everything makes sense. Trade perspectives without trading the minds that created those perspectives, and suddenly everything is chaos.

[@alanbarnett718]

Actually, it probably makes more sense when you are buzzed.

[@tedspens]

​@@alanbarnett718 It does.

[@HexFent]

@@iamt0ast Thts some grade A schizophrenic sht right there boy

[@kornklown420]

My only issue with this theory is it seems to contradict the 2 slit experiment. We can, indirectly, verify particles in a non-collapsed state. A small enough cluster of particles will act as a waveform... unless we measure it. If the edge of the observable universe were collapsing particles within it, then we should not be able to observe even a single particle as a wave. If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. * Historically this experiment was done with photons, and then electrons, but if I'm not mistaken we have actually been able to do the 2 slit experiment with full atoms, and even very tiny molecules. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[@erichandbury6321]

Buckyballs.

[@TexRobNC]

Man, I feel like we're on the precipice of something. I know I can't help but feel like I'm on the precipice over understanding this. I keep feeling like the planck constant in each galaxy might be set by the blackhole, and all the rotation that happens is because we're all circling the drain of the black hole at every galaxy center. This explains different observed planck distances, because it's essentially a different density in each galaxy.

[@TexRobNC]

This would control both the density of space + the passage of time, I assume a denser universe would operate faster

[@gmork1090]

We are 'circling the drain' so to speak. But all matter and energy will be diffuse by that time. Even if we were immortal, I doubt anyone would want to live 10^110 years just to see what happens. Even with infinite entertainment, I'd still likely off myself after a few thousand years, much less a trillion trillion trillion trillion quadrillion.

[@charlespancamo9771]

​@@gmork1090 I could do it gladly and happily.

[@enoughofyourkoicarp]

For anyone who's tired of hearing about Schroedinger's cat and wants a new explanation, the best way I've heard quantum super position explained is like this: Take a person, a person does all of the things that humans can do, they breath, they eat, they think, run, laugh, sleep etc. and you know nothing about them, they're a complete stranger, when you interact with them and you ask what they do they could give you any of a million different answers. The answer they'll usually give you is what they do for a living, now that stranger who, a minute ago, was full of seemingly infinite possibility is a vending machine repair guy.

[@gidi-yo]

I don't know even where to start... The amount of disinformation and science twisting in this video is astounding. You did some huge assumptions to turn this paper to something that it isn't - a nice, simple explanation for the existence of reality. Sadly, however beautiful and comforting your claim is to some of your viewers, it's simply cannot be deduced from the paper. Let's start from the basics, and event horizon is NOT AT ALL similar to the particle horizon. The particle horizon, or the limits of the observable universe is not an object (and not created by one) but a theoretical spherical boundary, and every part of the universe can be considered as part of a particle horizon, including where you and I and all your misinformed subscribers are. To an observer (not necessarily a conscious being, but also a floating asteriod for that matter) located on the particle horizon from our perspective we're also located on a particle horizon from his perspective. No matter where you are, you're on this boundary from someone's (or something's) perspective. While an event horizon is a defined boundary of a defined object, a black hole. Simply put, our math equations break when dealing with black holes which "break" the laws of nature, while particle horizon and the expansion of the universe are totally compatible with what we know. Now let's go back to the paper you mentioned, "Killing horizons and the decoherence of quantum superpositions". It attempts to provide a mechanism for how quantum systems may transition from a superposition state to a single, definite state. Let's put aside the fact that we don't know what is the meaning of the wave function collapse (and even if it's a real thing and not just a mathematical device) and our existing interpretations to it (which have very little to zero explanatory power). The mechanism in the paper requires a black hole, which creates an event horizon which in turn violates the principles of quantum mechanics (while particle horizon isn't as I mentioned earlier), and a "massive (or charged) body". The largest object we managed to put in a superposition up until now is 16μg (just a couple of weeks back if I'm not mistaken) which is a great fit, but still nothing to what the paper is talking about. My point is that the quantum effects we observe, are on, as everyone might guess, on a quantum level, and they don't require massive black holes - they collapse all the time by interacting with themselves, *gasp*, without black holes in the vicinity or a sentient observer. Also, in the paper they say that the "long-range field of the body is registered on the Killing horizon" which refers to the gravitational or electromagnetic field of the body, and not to light photons emitting from it as you implied in the beginning of the video. In the research they're referring to a flux of soft photons due to gravitational/electromagnetif field of the body which is close enough to the black hole's event horizon. If the mechanism proposed in the paper is correct, to my understanding, it might move us close to a better understanding of how quantum systems interact with gravity, which in turn could help us understand better the reality and bring us closer to something like quantum gravity or a more fundamental theory. This would be a huge(!) contribution to our understanding of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality, but it will not address the question of why reality exists in the first place as you so boldly claim. And please leave the particle horizon alone... It's as real as your shadow.

[@AndrewWutke]

The problem is that we always think of a single human observer while observer is everything ,everything interacting with a particle including gravitation, electric fields etc. which is always everywhere.

[@Godwinsname]

A black hole sounds, in some way as some weird multidimensional object maybe, like a mirror. It absorbs all light and matter but in doing so observes and recreates all this reality. That's a mirror, basically. It's also a singularity of course, and we with our self-referentially-capable consciousness can also be seen as a singularity. So do the undeterminable points in the field actually determine the field? It's like this nice Yin-Yang irony, but it's also as if those singularities are the intersections between this reality and...? I'm only at 4:23 in the video so I may be way too eager with these thoughts, but.. heck it, let's live a little :D

[@raybod1775]

Nobody knows, maybe black holes end in a ball of highly squeezed matter.

[@Godwinsname]

@@raybod1775 Yeah, that's the main theory. But if this is all a virtual reality/simulation it may be different. Not that I think that. But there are lots of ways to look at it. Also, now that I've watched the vid fully, I'm wondering what determines which quantum superpositions get collapsed by this and which don't, as obviously we've proven the superposition states in numerous experiments.

[@LongFacedBastard]

Black holes are just very massive stars dude

[@mlpreiss]

After a couple of more passes through this video, I have a question: If an observer in one galaxy looks at an everything bagel and it decoheres into a sesame seed bagel, could another observer in a different galaxy looking at the same everything bagel at exactly the same time have it decohere into a plain bagel? Could a thing have multiple properties at once (but only 1 property decoheres per observer) depending on the observer or does one observer (or interactor) decohere a "thing" for all observers / interactors?

[@jimleane7578]

Underrated comment. GR tells us it's relative to the observer.😊

[@mlpreiss]

@@jimleane7578 Then reality could get really freaky by having multiple observers experience multiple realities simultaneously. Perhaps the relationships among time, distance, and other relationships in the quantum world I know nothing about are those where GR and QM fail each other and need to be better understood. Thinking about all this makes my head ache. 😱 How can theoretical physicists not have their heads explode?

[@d.s.9622]

And this is where pizza bagels come from

[@philipm3173]

Well what do you know, you've stumbled upon the topic of topological invariance and isomorphism! Mathematicians ask that exact question in regard to more abstract 'objects' like groups and manifolds. In that context, you're comparing dimensions. The higher order (more dimensions) an object has, the more symmetries there are, and the more ways to transform that object. The study of invariants is a way to examine what properties are constant throughout all possible morphisms. I don't think I can really answer your question directly because your use of coherence is not meaningful in that example. Rather, I will address your point in how we can understand what role our intuition of perception plays into that sort of conjecture. The answer lies in that the so-called properties of sesame or plain are simply different forms of what we could (obsoletely) call substance. We often infer the properties of something based upon an interaction with some known object. We don't yet have the capacity to characterize a boundary that does not reveal relations we can associate with the known components of the system that we attempt to understand through models. The typical approach of idealizing and simplifying a system with familiar elements is ineffective for trying to understand something that is mutually contingent and completely changes when disturbed. It's sort of analogous to if you tried testing the temperature of a cup of water with your finger and your body heat instantly vaporized all the water. Since we typically define the essence of something by its behavior, it's very challenging when that behavior is extraordinary sensitive and dynamic.

[@mlpreiss]

@@philipm3173 Thanks for taking time to write such a thoughtful response. Very helpful to me. Now, to Wikipedia I go.

[@ohraisins]

Amazing video Anton! I've often wondered if Black Holes are sort of recycling centers of the universe. Maybe Hawking Radiation could be the beginning of something after it goes in? So they are potentially both the 'create' and 'reconstitute' our reality. Best video I've seen on this stuff in ever.

[@lookupverazhou8599]

So, you're totally ok with violating Pauli's Exclusion Principle?

[@joshcryer]

One of the most mind blowing bits of information I ever saw was that if you measured all the mass and energy of the universe, and you put it in a black hole, its event horizon would be ... the size of the observable universe.

[@ohraisins]

It's just my idea man, I've no idea what that is. I'm assuming it obliterates by theory and I should feel foolish.

[@ohraisins]

@@joshcryer Is that right? God that's amazing!

[@joshcryer]

@@ohraisins look up The other end of a black hole - with James Beacham on here, he gives an incredible talk about black holes being exactly as you described, the universe (existence) is a black hole recycler. Impossible to prove, though I do think we can throw some entangled particles into a black hole and test what happens, but it may not reveal anything. edit: skip to 24 mins of his talk, and he describes the black hole -> universe -> observable universe -> event horizon math.

[@tomsturgeon100]

‘The Eye of the Universe’ from Outer Wilds

[@LaGuerre19]

Anton: "gimme 8 minutes and I'll explain EXISTENCE to you" What a wonderful person!

[@SealsAreMyFriends]

He explained nothing, stop watching these stupid pataphysics videos ...

[@TheOriginalFSword]

Great video! But if we always have an observer to collapse quantum world into reality, how did we manage to perform the experiment for the observer effect? This is based on the fact that the electron behaves differently if it's observed or not (matter or wave). But if there is always an observer, how did we materialize the "not" part of the experiment? How did we make the electron behave as wave?

[@daviderickson8699]

This has always been my confusion from trying to understand the subject. How can anything actually be "unobserved" given constant interactions with particles, molecules, etc.? What does it take to "observe" or interact and more importantly, what types of interactions DON'T collapse the wave form? I can kind of buy into a concept that the edge of the universe is just what quantum world hasn't yet interacted, thus collapsed into reality yet, if that's what this video is telling us (at least that's where my head went). But then everything within that space should already be collapsed into matter?!? I'm obviously not getting it...

[@ny4nk0]

Look up "The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality" by PBS, I think it might explain the experiment better!

[@ManCrew]

Fusion in the sun only happens because of quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling is dependent on the wave function This is an interesting theory it just not based on science fact.

[@az096999]

I have a huge morbid curiosity for things that makes me feel strange but its all out of a phobia that I dont understand existance and it terrifies me to think that there are so many things that are possible and then when we learn what is happening might not be a result that we would like, I know this is probably irracional to some people, but I would hope that when we die life isnt over , I am scared of loosing my escence and never talking to people I love again, or when someone i love dies I wont be able to talk to them again, I know there is people that are good at dealing with this better than others but I feel so broken. I hope whatever the results are when we find the reason for reality hopefully its not something that make us feel hopeless

[@mrmaison4924]

What gives me hope is thinking how you can't get something from nothing and all that existed cannot be as though it never happened because it did and that cannot be undone. And I refuse to give in to "The Dark Lord" way of thinking that all things are just raw power and physics thus nothing matters but power and physics. If that were true then love is evil. That would kinda turn everything on it's head huh? Seeking to prove there is no such thing as unity and love and that everything can be explained mathematically is an assault on our mental health. There is nothing logical or mathematical about love. Personally I'm excited to know I am what I observe no matter where I look. And I'm alive. Keep the love in your heart!

[@mr2688]

I think exactly the same. I don't understand how some people can deal with the thought that one day you will no longer exist and neither will the people you love. i try to live in the here and now but every time i think about it i panic.

[@Synky]

It's truly truly depressing. But the reality is, at least to in my personal opinion, quite depressing... It's only human to want/yearn for something more, bigger, better... But the universe and reality does not care about how we feel. At the very least, take solace maybe in the fact that you're not alone in feeling this sense of dread.

[@samboyce8906]

7:26 "especially because we know that infinity does not exist". I'd be interested to know your source(s) for having this perspective because I do not believe it is unanimously agreed upon. For one, a simple question still disputes it: 'how can we determine that the universe is infinite if all we can know of it is the observable part of it?'. Is the observable universe the entirety of the universe? If not, is that which lies beyond that which we can observe finite or infinite? These questions remain unanswered. Reflected to the micro view of the world, will we one day find that the plank length is just the smallest unit measure of space that we are "currently" aware of?

[@KlaysMoji]

The part where you said "we can't reach the eye" made me realize the simulation theory is more likely than this. It's just so very convenient that we can't find out how reality works, not even in principle, in a real universe there's no reason for that, in the simulation it's to trick us into thinking it's real because the answers are blocked from us. Like invisible walls in videogames.

[@scaledsupremacy817]

well it doesn't really matter, because an external parent universe to this "simulated one" would present us with exactly the same existential dilemmas which continue to elude us. It is existence in and of itself that is hard to explain, and simulation theory doesn't solve that issue.

[@tecnicopradarelevamiento8198]

If our reality is indeed a simulation, perhaps we were put into this reality as an experiment (maybe 1 out of thousands of failed ones) so our "creators" could understand their own reality, which, ironically, could be very similar to ours.

[@donnievance1942]

It always slays me how people see nothing wrong with adopting an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no evidence to support it. The Simulation Hypothesis (it's not a theory) has the same intellectual status as the God hypothesis-- both are zero evidence ideas pulled out of someone's a$$. Also, they are philosophically useless, since both of them allow reality to have any arbitrary feature, and therefore neither one does anything to help explain any feature of reality. And both of them are subject to the logical vulnerability of infinite regression. If any advanced alien intelligence happens to be watching us, I'm pretty sure that they think we're really retarded to think that maybe the universe is some advanced version of the digital toys we've recently created-- just as they think that our idea that the universe was created by a "god," which is an advanced version of ourselves, is equally retarded. Both of those ideas is pretty much the same retarded idea. I'm thinking of writing a book called the Holy Chronicle of the Blue Pixies, which proves that the Blue Pixies created the universe as demonstrated by the fact that no one can prove they didn't.

[@soldatnerd]

@KlaysMoji Reality works exactly because it's paradoxical, infinite potentiality, emptiness, however you want to call it gives rise to everything yet is not apart from anything, there is nothing that exists inherently. It's non-local, it's not something you can pinpoint and say it's this or that, that is in fact a faulty paradigm, the truth is the middle way, neither this nor that, neither existence nor non existence. That's why it seems like an eye that can't see itself, like slime which takes on form yet when you squeeze it it goes right through your fingers. It's a simulation that has set parameters and logic, which actually debunks the hypothesis unless you just see a simulation as an analogy of how reality is seemingly rendered moment to moment. But if you think there's a creator that's where you'll have issues, simulation hypothesis is not really any different from thinking there's a God, capital g.

[@Slv4S8n666]

An Infinite line of reality simulations have been created in our future to try to understand our existence.

[@johnl5350]

I wonder, does any of this explain the tiny imbalance of matter to antimatter that allowed matter to exist without annihilating right away? I can remember a hypofhetical situation where a matter antimatter pair spring into existence near an event horizon, then one of the two passes the event horizon preventing annihilation so in some sense conservation of energy is violated. I may not remember it correctly but this reminds me of that, along with the apparent symmetry of the microwave background being a problem with the very early stages of the universe and how matter came to be without forever annihilating with its symmetrically distributes antimatter. Weird stuff, shame it seems impossible to prove empirically at least for now.

[@deborahdean8867]

Does dark matter and anti matter actually exist? Dark matter is being brought into question recently.

[@ue5768]

​@@deborahdean8867 Antimatter has been created for a tiny fraccion of a second inside particle accelerators. As for “Dark matter”, it is just a way to explain some inconsistensies with the Big Bang Theory. We don’t know if it exist or what it is in the first place.

[@deborahdean8867]

@@ue5768 thanks

[@gidi-yo]

You're refering to Stephen Hawking's theory of black hole evaporation, when black holes can emit particles (Hawking radiation) which he explained in his book "A Brief History of Time" that are made 50/50 of matter and antimatter. As far as I know he ditched this explanation and today it's accepted that Hawking Radiation is made of almost entirely of photons. And regarding antimatter, you're talking about the baryon asymmetry problem and as far as I know there's still no good explanation for it, and the paper discussed in the video doesn't explain it. The best explanation at the moment is the CP violation, which basically mean that if we were to look at ourselves made of antimatter, the laws of physics should have remained same - which is not the case (the decay of K masons).

[@gidi-yo]

​@@ue5768 You're confusing dark matter with dark energy. Dark matter's existence is supported by many independent observations (rotation curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing and the large-scale structure of the universes). It's consistent with what we know in particle physics. Dark energy on the other hand is much more speculative and is used to explain the cosmological inflation, where our universe expands at an increasing rate. for it to be correct we need to invoke the cosmological constant which was introduced by Einstein, which he later discarded. It was reintroduced to explain that the cosmic inflation is caused by dark energy, but it's controversial.

[@fajam00m00]

Since the center and edge of the observable universe are position-dependent, wouldn’t this technically mean that all points in the universe would be decohering due to the Killing horizons, regardless of the presence of black holes? But yeah, this sounds like an interesting speculative theory.

[@lookupverazhou8599]

I'm at the center of the universe, and so are you.

[@Enleuk]

There are two problems with the narrative here. 1. The edge of the observable universe is not a real edge, it's just how far into space we can see from Earth. From other places things can been seen that we can't see and vice versa. 2. All observation requires interaction, like when a photon hits a sensor. The so-called observer effect would be better named the interaction effect. So we're actually talking about the limits of what parts of the universe we can interact with. It makes sense that we can't receive anything at all from within black holes or from outside the detectable part of the universe. Just don't confuse the discussion by using the word observation as if to imply something other than interaction.

[@seangeoghegan]

Thanks or this article. This is helping clarify some thoughts. Just thinking about all of our own information horizons being different to each others’ information horizons, going all the way back to the Big Bang (the Killing Horizon), means that each us has a temporally different information horizons, meaning each atom in our body (and each of us) experience a slightly different universe. Can we imagine that the universes we (our atoms) share are those that maximise the number of “observers” sharing the experience? I wonder if this idea (the stable universe is the one that maximises the concurrent volume of “observers”) can be the basis of explaining our existence. In this case each “observer” is actually the result of the entire universe and the Killing Horizon for each of us - and we naturally work towards increasing the number of interacting “observers” that have a consistent universe, thereby increasing the volume of the universe. My mound is blown by the link to black holes. I’ve been thinking about the Killing Horizon concept and maximising the number (volume) of interacting observers for many years, trying to relate to our existence as sentient beings.

[@sonomabob]

Sounds good to me. Thanks.

[@geekjokes8458]

i understand your point that the observable universe is centered around each observer, which would be each particle but precisely because it is each particle, it is *not* the same as a person, so the hypothesis has *nothing to do* with our consciousness

[@seangeoghegan]

@@geekjokes8458 Yeah, agreed, but the point I was trying to make was a set of interacting particles that required the combined set to be self-consistent, and maximising the volume of self-consistent observations which, to my mind, would lead to a local energy minimum in a multiverse. When one overlays the multiverse idea on top of this, your personal conscious existence may be explainable by being the most self-consistent universe in which you find yourself existing as a consciousness, out of the many possible universes. So your particular current consciousness happens to be in this particular universe that is self-observing. You wouldn't be in any other universe in your current state. Now expand this idea to interacting consciousnesses and we're together and, possibly, increasing the volume of the self-consistent self-observing universe that we, together, observe. Add into this the surface of black holes and the Killing Horizon and my thoughts start to make me feel, personally, an expression of the information contained on those boundaries that encompass the volume within. This makes me feel as if the whole universe is expressed within and around me. It's sort of wonderful.

[@bretvandenakker6198]

Anton...without having read the paper, this seems to imply that the observers/horizons collapse all quantum states in the observable universe. However, given that there are still observable quantum effects (double slit experiment, for example) how does that happen? Or is this merely implying that any information reaching such event/Killing horizons will result in quantum decoherence and that other observers/measurements also play a role?

[@King_Flippy_Nips]

it only collapses things within its boundaries so anything outside the event horizon of a black hole will still be able to exist in a quantum state.

[@serialchiller4522]

I had the same thought. So if the event horizon acts as an observer causing decoherence of any particle that enters it, it would also collapse the waveform of the particle entangled with it. Would this then cause a cascading decoherence throughout the entirety of the universe? What would the implications of determinism be then?

[@ElvenStone]

I also had same questions and confusion as to how can there be quantum effects if black hole horizons and the whole universe's horizon are acting as observers, and affect from that far away on all directions, then everything would be decoherent. It seems like a duality of reality there which compete with each other. 🤔

[@em945]

Anton, always enjoy your Work. Thank you! I have been into 'Human Design' which is what would be generally reconsidered 'new age' for a decade or so. It is based on a chart created by your birth time. It is not unlike astrology.....but more mechanical and also uses observational science as it's basis...so you may be curious and not dismiss it immediatedly. Human Design, or what what originally just 'the Design of Forms' begins with a main premise that our form has a 'monopole' at it's centre, made of dark matter. It is what draws to it energy and the underlying patterns that form anything our human system can see or feel. We are shifted through space with magnetics and the generally understood 4 principles. We are all imprinted on a daily basis by the nutrino field. The earth has a monopole, and dark matter is essentially everywhere. This is my very general understanding and am not highly versed in this level of understanding HD, but always found it really interesting how easily it fits into the science world if the mind opens up enough. The down side, is that there is a lot less personal choice than our brains would like to think. Our 'form' is what is making decisions. Our awareness gets to watch the show. Thanks again!

[@Leiska86]

In other words, it's pseduo-science.

[@samturner6061]

Good one Anton! Thanks for the video!

[@Kevin_Street]

Thank you for this video! It's a really interesting idea. So does this mean there was a time when the universe was _not_ collapsed and still had a superposition of states? It takes time for photons to reach black holes and the edge of the universe, so would the galaxies that emitted the light still be in superposition until then?

[@darrennew8211]

It doesn't take photons any time to reach black holes or the edge of the universe. It only takes other things time to notice that happening.

[@keithwinget3450]

Hmm, would be interesting if the universe collapsing from a superposition of states is essentially the big bang and expansion, and time is the cascading effect of ever smaller parts of it which are still in superpositions of states collapsing. Just outputting the nonsense that took refuge in my head for a moment there. :P

[@alexprice5522]

​@@keithwinget3450nah keep cooking, your on to something

[@urnad12345]

Have you read on the origin of time from Hertog? I’m a few chapters in and it has a lot more philosophical overtones than I expected but it is enjoyable. Don’t think I’ve gotten to much of the meat of it. Could you maybe do a review on it or cover some of the ideas from the book in a video?

[@Utopian1234]

I know this probably sounds dumb but would quantum decoherence be somewhat evidence that future events are set in stone? Since the information is already as if there was an observation occurring perhaps the universe just somehow "knew" that information would be observed at that specific time and the particle changed its state accordingly. Probably not but just thought I'd put the idea out there.

[@branscombeR]

On the contrary, I believe the theory suggests that all possible futures are in superposition until observed. My question is ... observed by who/what and when? Could it mean that the reality you observe and the one I observe are each unique, like personal parallel universes? R (Australia)

[@Utopian1234]

​@@branscombeR Very good point. Since time is unique to each observer it would not at all be crazy to say that perhaps reality itself is also unique in very subtle ways to each observer as well.

[@TheWorldWarrior]

@@Utopian1234 Its possible but the word "observer" is used too loosely like we are the main reason for the interaction of particles and the reality around us. We are infinitely a small percentage of these interactions. Quite literally no particle is in a different state unless we give it the required circumstances where the particle isn't being interacted with any particles at all. But all particles in the universe are not shielded from one another we merely made a experiment to where that circumstance can occur. One particle, that's all it takes for another particle to be interacted with. There is such an infinite amount of particles and interactions occurring every where that we have to create the specific circumstance where the particle is not being interacted with. A single floating particle in space will always be interacted with. It is possible that there is a very very small percentage of time where a particle can be in a state where its not being interacted with but the amount of time is so entirely small it would quite literally be the distance between photons. Also the interactions we cause has nothing to do with "consciousness" its merely the result of the fact that in order to perceive/measure something it "MUST" be interacted with it is impossible to measure anything without interacting, VIA measurement tools, light etc

[@davegold]

What state does this particle change from? My layman ideas of quantum physics suggest that the particle has one state after observation and a range of possible states prior to observation, but the particle does not (necessarily) change its state.

[@benthere8051]

I like that. Has predestination been disproved or at least frowned upon?

[@nickduplaga507]

Time dilation has two perspectives. One has a 0 limit, the other doesn’t.

[@johnfoolery]

We're part of a simulation. This entire video explains it perfectly.

[@joey32]

A simulation inside what bud?

[@LongFacedBastard]

you certainly are a fool @john"fool"ery

[@TimoDcTheLikelyLad]

I'd be actually very interested about your take on "conscious realism" by Prof. Donald Hoffman.

[@anywallsocket]

this has nothing to do with consciousness

[@TheWorldWarrior]

@@anywallsocket exactly clearly somebody isn't paying attention but honestly the way the subject is spoken they do like to mislead people with the words "observing"

[@bumblebeme]

​@@anywallsocket How can you make that claim not even knowing what consciousness is? This has nothing to do with something I have no proof even exists !

[@firstaidsack]

Consciousness is not needed to explain any quantum phenomenon. In fact, not even the wave function collapse is needed. The Schrödinger equation is completely sufficient, thanks to decoherence.

[@ThePowerLover]

@@firstaidsack But decoherence is not part of the Schrödinger equation!

[@matthewjohnson1891]

Actually makes a lot of sense. Explains many dimensions.

[@matthewjohnson1891]

Nothing really changes or optains properties. We interact with those apparant to our position. Outside that dimension (ours) if we stepped out, strafed around and entered a different position to come back to our limited plane may be a different reality.

[@loudtim265]

I recently asked ChatGPT to unite quantum physics with Newtonian physics using decoherence. It’s reply was interesting. And a bit “canned”, but amazing considering. Probably close to what a prepared response from a professor would be.

[@lookupverazhou8599]

Hard to say.