The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

[@phoule76]

maybe there's a universe out there where I believe in the Many Worlds interpretation

[@sillybears4673]

Peter Houle it’s happening right now in our Mobius strip universe lol

[@michealo6201]

Is this a paradox?

[@yash1152]

@@michealo6201 i think certainly not. but this also makes me wonder what is a paradox actually and how are they resolved.

[@younghandsfilms6135]

​@@yash1152 A paradox is a breach of logic, and therefore, by definition, cannot become a reality. If a particular line of reasoning leads to a paradox, it indicates that either the reasoning itself is flawed, or else two or more of the premises plugged into that line of reasoning are actually contradictory.

[@yash1152]

@@younghandsfilms6135 thanks for helping (:

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Massive effort explaining all these interpretations, well done! I’m impressed!

[@spring9603]

someone has a crush ^_^ you should hang out and discuss some of those interpretations! btw, I like your videos ^_^

[@yash1152]

3:32 "shut up & calculate" lol 10:22 Pilot-wave threory/bohmian mechanics 11:24 Alternative Collapse Theory 12:25 Testable prediction [14:15 Transactional interpretation i was soooo waiting for this one, i thought u'd leave this. but glad u covered it. 14:44 *star point:* "This can get around Bell's theorem."

[@Amaridi93]

"We might be missing something fundamental... to go back to the main principles" couldn't agree more. I 'believe' it would be that too, re-questioning our very assumptions of reality and scientific measurement/analysis :) very informative illustrative video, thank you.

[@stephenhillenberg2627]

I agree, I believe I know what they missed. I need to prove it though!

[@stephenhillenberg2627]

The thing I believe is being missed is very fundamental. My theory is logical. Now that I have watched the rest of the video It looks like all the current explanations are tied together.

[@jorriffhdhtrsegg]

Might be something epistemiologically weird, but we don't have a description yet. I still can't explain Bell's Inequality but leave the door open. Maybe some hybrids

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Try CIG Theory today.

[@DyslexicMitochondria]

Einstein, Newton and Pascal are playing hide and go seek.lt’s Einstein’s turn to count so he covers his eyes and starts counting to ten.Pascal runs off and hides. Newton draws a one meter by one meter square on the ground in front of Einstein then stands in the middle of it. Einstein reaches ten and uncovers his eyes. He sees Newton immediately and exclaims “Newton! I found you! You’re it!” Newton smiles and says “You didn’t find me, you found a Newton over a square meter. You found Pascal!”

[@k7jeb]

What a bad physics joke! I love it.... and will use it to make myself a total bore at the next party I attend.

[@choun2749]

Awesome joke, ignore the hate.

[@edwardkann978]

I a,m factual einstein third cousin and can prove it ,y great grand mother on my dads side was his aunt he had the brains I have the looks I am studing math physics and math astronomy

[@farhantajwarahmed3340]

Good one actually @Dyslexic Mitochondria

[@benvel3392]

In Finnish "Paskal" means "Taking a shit"

Congratulations! I think this is a brave attempt to explain the main quantum theories, most are known or sound to many of us, interested on the topics. But it's nice to have them all together right there in front of us. I agree with you, there must be some basic things missing on quantum physics, as there are so many theories, and none of them explain most of the evidence. Many thanks and keep going!

[@porusvaid1436]

This was literally the best explanation of almost every interpretation of Quantum mechanics, to be honest, I'd really like to see you push the boundary and make a more detailed version of it. I'm just saying, it would be really appreciable. In all, it was a great video..... love from India.

[@KelvinDueck]

This is a terrific summary. Thanks for all your hard work!

[@tylertrafford4623]

You are absolutely the best explainer ever. I'm hooked and can hardly wait for more. Thanks for being so smart

[@chrisrebar2381]

Ha, so the takeaway is "we dont know and we cant agree!" .... Love it. Nice presentation

[@david203]

The takeaway should have been: Bohmian mechanics has been partially verified, in spite of being ignored by most physicists. It makes practical predictions that make more sense than the Copenhagen interpretation without requiring any untestable or unlikely beliefs such as splitting of the universe into tiny pieces.

[@GrandAdmiralMitthrawnuruodo]

@@david203 NO IT IS NOT!!! Yes, The pilot wave interpretation does indeed give the same results as in quantum mechanics. However it is no base for a standard model of particles which describes the world as we know it in the best way we know so far. It‘s incredibly unsatisfiying non locality stands against the satisfaction given by correct predictions which at least for me is not enough. Additionally some might even argue Bohmian mechanics is another many universe theory for cowards.

[@david203]

@@GrandAdmiralMitthrawnuruodo The Pilot Wave interpretation dates from the 1920's, when de Broglie first proposed it. Within weeks it was seen not to make any sense, and within months de Broglie himself withdrew the theory. I don't blame you for not knowing that. The Bohm theory dates from 1952, when Bohm showed that interpreting the wave function as a kind of instantaneous force field explained most of quantum mechanics in a cleaner way than did the Copenhagen interpretation, whose axioms tend to be a bit mysterious and must all be accepted on faith or it doesn't work. As for nonlocality, that was what Einstein called his "only fundamental mistake". He wanted classical local realism to apply to QM experiments, but it did not, and still does not. In the 1960s, John Bell proved that no local theory (which assumes "hidden variables") satisfies a specific probability seen in actual experiments. He showed that a nonlocal, hidden variables theory like that of Bohm would work, and became a champion of Bohm shortly before Bell died. The only hidden variable needed in Bohm's theory is the initial position of the particle. From there, the particle's trajectory must be determined, and not at all probabilistic. This prediction was satisfied by more recent experiments. To see the nonlocality, simply consider the double-slit experiment. The behavior of a single particle passing through one slit depends on whether the other slit, which is far away, is open or closed, or even if a measurement is performed at THAT slit. The emotionality and certainty of your incorrect comment is quite remarkable, and shows how invested people are in their intuitive physics, which is classical and not quantum mechanical in nature.

[@RimaNari]

That's a great overview that needs to be shown in university! "Shut up and calculate" is quite fitting, as the Copenhagen interpretation is often taught as fact. Some lecturers mention the existence of other interpretations but no one I ever had clearly said what I find the most important thing to know in order to understand quantum mechanics in relation to the rest of physics: The Schroedinger equation was found by guess work and works *surprisingly* well and no one really knows why. But as it works so nicely we just stick to it.

[@quahntasy]

This is such an amazing summary. Thanks for this work!

[@thisfeatureisdumbandredundant]

Now we need a map of the many interpretations of quantum physics.

[@domainofscience]

The infographic in this video is pretty much that www.flickr.com/photos/95869671@N08/

[@flymypg]

@@domainofscience Yes, but what about the many interpretations across Many Worlds?

[@442277100]

WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[@thisfeatureisdumbandredundant]

@@442277100 MUDA MUDA MUDA MUDA MUDA MUDA!!!

[@442277100]

@@thisfeatureisdumbandredundant ROOODAAAA ROOORAAAAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@zaynsaftab]

the more i learn the less i know

[@cliptomaniac2562]

The closer I look, the less I see

[@ebnzr5335]

A wise man knows he knows nothing

[@stupidsucks]

“Being smart is knowing you’re not.” -just josh (me) Keep living

[@stupidsucks]

“Being smart is knowing you’re not” -just josh (me) keep living

[@markomiranda283]

Absolutely agree-I'm just knowledgeable enough to realize that I know very little, but It's a wonderful feeling to be in that position. So much to learn!

[@mattm4340]

Thanks so much for this video - I’m writing an article about this for an assignment and this was helpful as an overview and generally understanding all the interpretations. (love your videos btw)

[@yash1152]

heyyyyy i found u here....woww

[@yash1152]

and i've completely forgotten how i knew u 😅

[@SteveJFrost]

I wish I had a physicist friend that I could talk to for hours and give my opinion on how I think things work, just so they could explain why I’m wrong! 😁

[@Tomas.Malina]

I'm pretty sure they would have to do an extensive research before they would be able to answer many of your questions, particularly if you are confused about QM/QED. Talking from experience, we the physics graduates are confused just as much as you are (about QM), only (probably) a bit more well-versed in the maths and experimental phenomena, and we're somewhat used to the weirdness (-"so you have an electron and it is delocalised over several molecules, at several places at once..." -"sure, go on"). As you can see from the plethora of interpretations, nobody has really managed to make a sense of it yet.

[@nekokittycat4004]

@@Tomas.Malina "so you have an electron and it is delocalised over several molecules, at several places at once..." it sounds like it merges its energy to all electrons in a system of molecules so it is like an electron cloud, that is why it is everywhere at once-it is a wave-cloud shell spinning on its different orbits around nucleons... could it be like this? I always have been fascinated by physics albeit regretting never studying it professionally

[@scenatorpalatin4814]

@@nekokittycat4004 thing is there is only single electron forming that 'cloud'

[@nekokittycat4004]

@@scenatorpalatin4814 interesting, thank you for the explanation. in the chemical reaction equation, we were being taught to count 1 electron as 1 negative charge, that is why 1 electron representing the whole common "electron cloud" is mindbending to me. I have to learn more I guess. Thank you

[@scenatorpalatin4814]

@@nekokittycat4004 well then you also had probably been taught for examle what a covalent bond is en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delocalized_electron

[@traynorton7107]

This is a fantastic breakdown!!!! I love how understandable you make each interpretation.

[@K3D91]

U know what's funny? a video game helped me understand your video and get over a "mental block" that i had. The idea of measuring a wave but only seeing a particle in one point, but that could be somewhere else at the same time was hard to grasp for me. But then i remembered the game Outer Wilds where there's quantum objects and u have to "solve" this issue when dealing with those objects (i won't say more about the game because the less u know about it the better it is...y'all should play it, it's really good). all of it is fascinating, thanks for putting it in simpler words man!

[@malek_etman]

that's a great work, i would have lost hours & hours trying to gather all these interpretations and comparing them to each other, so really thanks

[@spacepopeXIV]

Forget religion to work as meditation and mental therapy for me, all this "physicist storytelling" is enough to sooth my mind. I take comfort in the fact that we know a lot to come up with the some of the most creative and I guess, "imaginary," (I don't know if that's the correct word for this) interpretations because what we do know, even though it's a lot, isn't comparable at all to what we don't know. It's like a never-ending treasure hunt. If you're curious, then it's the right field of study and work for you. That [brain.exe not working] bit was hilarious, god how I love quantum physics. It's so nutty and insane! Great job with this video!

[@iamkocka6457]

Your videos have the most clear explenations. I (obviously) don't know any of the actual calculations involved (yet), but I sort of "feel" how it works and it's starting to make sense, as much as QM can make sense.

[@artistrobinhuber]

Great info, thank you! Also that final brain fart moment was brilliant. Thanks for keeping it in there, as it gave me a good laugh!

[@edwingraymusic]

This really got me thinking. Thank you!

[@Fordosphere]

You make fantastic videos. Really well done. Thanks!

[@slickinfinity.crypto8028]

100% we're missing some crucial information but I am hopeful we'll keep advancing. Great explanation on the subject !

[@EarlWallaceNYC]

Very informative survey. And, I love the dry wit, which is almost imperceptible. Kudos.

[@mohammadmousavi1]

Short, informative and to the point... great work 👍👍👍

[@sketch4363]

5:35 even though I don’t believe in the many worlds interpretation, this still really helped me out just by reminding me that I can make choices to make me happy. Thank you

[@schmetterling4477]

Nope. You can only make choices that make you look foolish. ;-)

[@CrazyFanaticMan]

from 7:10-7:18 when you say "we cant pick them apart with any experiments, so until we have experiments, it's all kind of like 'physicsy story-telling'". Haha perfect, that's entering my area of expertise-the study of *Metaphysics* Although I prefer your nomenclature to be much more fun! Haha I really enjoy your videos, keep it up :)

[@mauijttewaal]

it's called philosophy ;)

[@jorgepeterbarton]

Interpretations ARE for the philosophy department not the science department thats for sure.

[@dhickey5919]

Great video. It's amazing to hear about the frontiers of science as well as how scientists are grappling with them. Thank you.

[@davidsamson1453]

Awesome summary! I learned some interpretations that I had no clue about. As far as the Born Rule, I don't know if you saw this recent paper, but theoreticians were able to derive the Born rule from some more fundamental assumptions. So that's a bit exciting, I guess?

[@korosibotond4574]

This is amaizing, I cant believe I understood most of it and your prev video as well. I love this

[@Jehannum2000]

One important thing you could have mentioned is that the Born Rule arises naturally in the Transactional Interpretation (TI). This is because the TI doesn't discard time-symmetric solutions of the wave equation. The Born Rule needs these - they're the complex conjugates in p=X*X. The TI gives clear and simple meaning to why this works.

[@absurdgal]

this account is so good. thank you so much for the care you put into it!

[@bumpty9830]

On the meaning of probability in Many Worlds, I think there's a straightforward answer. If your particle is predicted by QM to have a 30% chance of state A and a 70% chance of state B, then 30% of the futures will realize state A. The 100% chance of state A that you mentioned exists in those 30% of futures, but only far enough into each future that the observation has occurred. In other words, the probability depends upon your location within the "many worlds," and in particular it of course changes with time (before the quantum coin flip, the system had state with some uncertainty, afterward it had a known state). This may be the idea that QBism formalizes--I hadn't heard of it until this video.

[@david203]

This is what he said. He just doesn't believe it, and neither do I. By now in the history of the universe, there would have to be almost an infinite number of universes and sub-universes, which is close to the highest and least likely complexity that one can imagine.

[@Vivi-mp9nn]

your video quality is so amazingly good.

[@SCUBAelement-Intl]

Thank you for going over so many interpretations!! There were a few I had never heard of.

[@mikepecora2638]

Thanks!

[@mikebreler9724]

Wow!. Thanks for your enlightening explanation of what had me stumped for so long. I am so much more clear about it and had no idea that the key to understanding it all could be so simple.

[@Graci719]

Your graphics and presentations are just awesome!! Thank you )))))

[@maionder1453]

im literally taking physics as a career and ima freshman and your videos help clear a lot of what i thought i knew

[@ReidarWasenius]

Once again, WARM THANKS for your great work. The result is a great overview!! I will now rewatch the video. :-)

[@rpetresco]

Thank you for the nice video. Helped me understand a bit about the other interpretations besides the oldest one which is more spread around

[@ShenLong33]

Loved it! It is really interesting. Keep this kind of good work.

[@winfredtai7544]

Very good! I've been trying to understand modern physics for years; I've read books, watched videos, etc. This video finally got through to me: Physicists don't understand what's happening! As a lay person, I just want to know the mechanics of the World; not all the theories that may or may not be right. I'd rather leave those theories to physicists.

[@davidevans9194]

I am grateful for your honest approach to this subject - food for thought! Thank you.

[@basel94]

Thanks for this genuine explanation of all these theories. Keep it up the good work

[@david203]

Thanks for this nice summary of the important interpretations of QM. Just one correction: David Bohm's 1952 interpretation actually is testable and has been tested. He described that the Schrödinger equation actually represents the geometry of the experiment (I'm using the double-slit experiment as a model here), and can be thought of as potential lines of force that guide individual electrons or photons from the slit they pass through to the screen. Recall that mechanics of the very tiny cannot be expected to be the same as Newtonian mechanics, but it must yield Newtonian mechanics in large ensembles of particles. The basic difference is that particles are guided by the Schrödinger equation. This is testable, because by experiment we can observe the effect of these lines of force on individual particles as they travel through deterministic paths from a slit to the screen. We can in effect position the screen closer to the slit and build up the lines of force to see if they comply with the force predicted by the Schrödinger equation. Not only that, but this use of the Schrödinger equation as a pseudoforce also explains the enormous difference in pattern that happens when "the other" slit is closed, since the Schrödinger equation reflects the geometry of the entire experiment. At least two experiments reveal that this new "quantum force" works to predict the paths of the particles and to give rise to the probability distribution evident at the screen. It confirms that what is missing from the Copenhagen Interpretation is simply the initial positions of the particles within the slit. These are the "hidden variables" and they are not so much as hidden as consistently ignored by Bohr and his followers, for the simple reason that these initial positions could not then be measured by the equipment they had available. One simple outcome is that particles that pass through one slit always stay on that half of the pattern at the screen. This is not what waves would do; they would spread out spherically from each slit to cover the entire screen with particle detections.

[@rv706]

Wait, weren't the hidden variables _hidden_ by definition? In order to have access to those initial positions, wouldn't you need to make... a quantum measurement?

[@EscarHolmez]

Reference, please.

[@david203]

@@rv706 No. The reason a variable is called hidden is because we don't measure it, get it? Hidden, therefore not measured.

[@newellgster]

Very good job of making these ideas accessible.... well done.

[@patrickdear911]

Great resume of a complex subject and enjoyed the biscuit !

[@Rofl890]

great video! easy to follow. keep up the great work please

[@Mewzyque]

Local Hidden-variables Theory makes two assumptions: Interactions between particles are local and Individual particles have determinate properties Bohr in his Complementarity Framework (later developed and refined by Karen Barad into the Indeterminacy Principle) provided an alternative account which proposes that the particles become ontologically entangled with the measuring apparatus. In this interpretation, measurement itself creates and further extend entanglements (since measurement produces correlations between apparatus and particle). It would be interesting if you could read Barad's Agential Realist account of the Uncertainty Principle and how she dismantles it in order to propose Indeterminacy Principle for interpreting the "uncertainty" of the object being measured.

[@mauijttewaal]

uncertainty is actually a bad translation from the original, indeterminacy is much better...

[@CYCLXK]

Thanks for this explanation. You have just confirmed my desire to study QP @ university. I now know what I am meant to study (couldn't decide on a path) Now I have to brush up on my mathso I can start calculating. Maybe, just maybe I can help solve some of these problems which seem to have no answer. We wouldn't have any inventions or solutions today if people didn't try. You never know, maybe the right combination of conditions will line up and I, along with a team of other researchers, will solve one of the many interpretational problems associated with Quantum Physics. It's becoming a passion, because I can understand all of it, the principle + the equations, and that is exciting to me. Why else with something so complicated and so easy for me to understand? Why else, other than the fact I'm supposed to work in the field for some reason. I feel like I'm both supposed to and not supposed to study quantum physics.... but by not voluntarily studying it, I feel like I will end up working with it anyway. It's very strange how all of my thoughts, my hypothesis, and my solutions all end up being rooted deep in Quantum Physics. Quantum Physics is like the last frontier. Figuring out the problems and the solutions of the very small, will unlock the universe. Do you want to control gravity? Do you want to control the flow rate of time? Do you want to have access to the very fabric of space time? Real solutions to some of quantum physics problems would actually allow us to do this. We're not one step away or anything, but mastering the principles I'm referring to, would elevate humanity to a new level of existence. Coupled with the advent of artificial intelligence, fusion technology, and quantum computing, we are in for some huge breakthroughs. At the rate our tech is developing, exponential as it is, within five years, things will be almost unrecognizable if you didn't watch the development first hand. This is in fact a very exciting time to be alive. To be in my prime right now, it's really incredible. By the time I'm 71 hopefully all the cards are in place for me to become like Rick Sanchez. I think that's a noble and lofty goal if I ever had one. Haha!! 🤣 awwww geeezzz....

[@lepidoptera9337]

Where are you going to get that time machine, though? The problem was solved in 1927, so you would have to go back almost a century. ;-)

[@komit7348]

When I watch your videos I’m getting “bathed”with quality, precision and understanding, you’re awesome! 🙂

[@Shreymani2]

Transactional interpretation is THE BEST!!!

[@Jehannum2000]

It makes understanding where the Born Rule comes from easy. And it solves the measurement problem. So yes, I agree.

[@Shreymani2]

@@Jehannum2000 It also explains Copenhagen interpretation pretty well..

[@MicheleeiRettili]

I really like this video. Thank you

[@DudeNoEdge]

This channel is sooooo underrated

[@Ed-K]

15:55 Oh, I love this moment, kkkkk~ It seems that quantum rabbit hole is entangled in physicist's brain-melting. Thx for your best effort. XD

[@leon_noel1687]

Wow, this was a perfect summary of what I´ve teached myself the last weaks. THX

[@MrAlbert85]

I've been trying to figure out how many interpretations there are and it took me quite a while to gather Copenhagen Interpretation and Many Worlds Interpretation. So thanks for collecting all of them in one video.

[@4karma860]

I love the music!! It's very pleasant

[@aapex1]

Nice job, Thanks. We're definitely missing something fundamental. Possibly always will. Choosing any current interpretation would be an act of faith. "I don't want to believe, I want to know." Sagan

[@lepidoptera9337]

We have known since 1927. You don't have to believe Copenhagen, but you have to understand it, which few people do, it seems. I can agree with you that the way it is being explained to both physicists and the general public is incorrect. That has historical reasons that are hard to reverse. It would take a complete rewrite of basically every quantum mechanics textbook that is on the shelves, right now. Almost all of the math (with exception of one formula) is correct, but the ontological parts of these books are all wrong.

[@danielwinicki]

I still agree with Einstein: "God" doesn't play dice". In my opinion, the random (and sometimes mystical) appearance of quantum physics is due to what he well said in the video: we're missing something fundamental

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, common sense among people who keep saying that we are missing something.

[@cliffordwilliams9597]

This is very helpful for a project I'm doing for my QM class, thanks!

[@ameighable]

I believe that two very serious fundamentals are being totally overlooked. 1) Study the properties of thought. There are many of us who are or have been proficient manifestors. There are ways to prove this, or at least provide evidence with the probabilities so high that other interpretations go out the window. Look to the experiments where the Ph level of water was quickly changed (either up or down) by a far greater magnitude than otherwise possible, by simply adding the element of thought-filled "intent". Also consider the basketball experiments that consistently defy exectations that thought are impotent. There are many others., 2) Reconsider the nature of gravity. This takes us back to Bell. When the spin of an entangled photon is changed, the mate INSTANTANEOUSLY changes its spin. That means a "relationship" holds the parts together. That relationship contains the experience of both of its parts AT THE SAME TIME, even if the experiences appear opposite to us, given our frame of observation. Physicists already recognize that the two photons are really one experience, but no one explains how it can be, which is odd given how easy it is to explain. It (the relationship) exists in the unseen. Now consider gravity as entanglement, while remembering that the Big Bang was really the Big Expansion, and it (the singularity) is still expanding. this would mean that gravity is entanglement,. 3) I could teach you to become psychic in only a few minutes. After that, it would take nothing more than some hours of self-awareness for you to become proficient. This will introduce you to a different way of "relating", and it will send you in new directions., 4) Time: Conventional wisdom does influence, thus limit, our ability to think outside of the box. From our frame of physical existence, time cannot go backwards, but in the realm of relationships, they can certainly go back and forth (instantaneously). I have not yet thought of an experiment to prove or even provide physical evidence of this, but I think that if we could get a group of similar thinking heads to work on this, we could easily come up with an experiment because we are all manifestorsl It would have to be an experiment involving groups of humans with a control group. 5) I can think of one theory that combines all of these ideas, but it can't be explained in a small post. Nor can my belief about the nature of the bands of light in the Twin Slit experiment be tested. I believe they point to different times, but you obliquely addressed this. Though given the power of human thought, is it possible for a group of trained manifestors to change the patterns in the twin slit experiment?

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

It's something like that 🎶⚛🔯🌀🎼

[@EscarHolmez]

Do you have repeatable experiments to back up your ideas? If not, get to work and let us know when you do.

[@mfaraday4044]

Wow keeping make awesome videos. Luv your channel most from India

[@arnaldo8681]

The many worlds interpretation doesnt break probability, its what happens when you take probability literally When we say a dice has 1/6 chance of outputing each value because the output can take 6 different values and there is some sort of simmetry between them, that means all of them are equally likely The measurement of a wave function has a random output, so we can view it the same way: there is a possibility space, the output is a random point in this space and something having 70% chance of happening means it takes up 70% of this space(in your example 70% of the worlds would have one outcome and 30% the other) The problem is that if you consider a measurement from the point of view of a scientist that knows the result and from the point of view of one that doesnt their wave functions will be different. From the point of view of the one that doenst it is a superposition of the many measurements that could have happened, with the scientist that knows entangled with the result. From the point of view of the one that knows the wave function collapsed to only one state Then, if you interpret one of those states in the first wave function as the reality the second scientist is living, since there is no difference between this state and the others on the wave function the natural conclusion is all the others represent other worlds You could just say that actually only one of them is a real world, we just dont know which one, like we do in the dice case. The problem is it doesnt work, because quantum physics is weird and sometimes one world interferes in the other

[@Mandragara]

Probability of one state is 1/sqrt(2), probability of the other is 1- 1/sqrt(2). Universes are discrete objects and you now need an infinite number of universes to properly account for these two probabilities, as the probabilities are irrational numbers. Any non-infinite number of new worlds is going to be rounding the probabilities in some way.

[@joseluispicon5182]

Fantastic explanation of a very complex thelry

[@pipeorgan21]

Love your videos, very helpful to negotiate the jungle of the quantum world. Please keep it up.

[@daisypartida8844]

I can listen to you all day! 😍

[@DavidBadilloMusic]

4:19 LOL! That face says it all!

[@truptikurkute8894]

So much efforts...awesome...like it...want some more lectures. .u r awesome sir...

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Always loved Bohmian mechanics/Pilot-wave theory

[@animalfarm7467]

Instead of presenting hypotheses that can never be tested, I much prefer the quote from Feynman, "Just Shut Up and Calculate". However, the link between the collapse of the wave function and the observation by a conscious being is intriguing; this invokes a lot of questions about the apparently impossible task of understanding the physics of consciousness. Maybe a review of Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment that shows a present result has been fixed in the past by a present action may be enlightening to some.

[@cslloyd1]

the expression on his face at 4:23 conveys more information that the entire many worlds interpretation

[@tombuur]

Thanks for speaking at normal speed and breathing in between. There are some other physicists here on KZbin who cut and compress their dialogue. I simply can’t follow their line of thought and get lost at some point. Your style is way better.

[@claudiatamblay-arancibia6806]

Please make a video about Decoherence. Love your work. Thank you.

[@jimmybillard5340]

You should run your brain on Linux not windows

[@leon_De_Grelle]

It runs on DOS

[@mikebreler9724]

@@leon_De_Grelle That's right! Windows runs on DOS via emulation. Windows 10 as far as I can tell is a virus that made to look like an OS that runs on top of the previous Windows kernel running on top of DOS. This explains why Windows makes your recent Windows 10 PC run like molasis is floating around inside of it. But if you want to use an earlier Windows that's not allowed. The hardware doesn't support it. It has enough work trying to support 10. I think one day someone will find a way to install W7 as an emulation running on top of 10. But it will take a few more gens of CPUs to handle such a workload.

[@MidSpike]

@@mikebreler9724 You can already run Windows 7 on top of Windows 10! I have a Windows 7 ISO here: midspike.com/Content/OS/

[@jerryli5555]

@@mikebreler9724 deGrelle's Ghost meant DoS - Domain of Science :)

[@yash1152]

@@jerryli5555 lol... i forgot that the DOS - Dirty OS - was used by them & got confused.

[@roudyh.]

Amazing video !!! Keep it up !! One little thing : could you enlarge for next time some of the sketches as you are talking so it will be more easy to read ?

[@conhecimentovivo6452]

More than the intellectual knowledge, congratulations on your "productive humility", a feature so important for 21st century's scientists :)

[@Tomas.Malina]

I believe the MWI doesn't break probability as you say. My understanding is that the amplitude (squared) of the wavefunction describing the particular state before measurement is the same as the sum of the amplitudes (squared) of the two measured outcomes (or of the two universes, if you like) - assuming a superposition of two states. It should keep the probabilities (and energies, neglecting quantum fluctuations in each branch) just like Copenhagen, but instead of saying "there is 20% chance of 'this' and 80% chance of 'that', we'll flip a coin", it says there are two universes and you have a 20% chance of ending up in the one with 'this' and an 80% chance of ending up in the one with 'that'. Yes, both outcomes are said to be real and "happening", but the universe with 'this' has a much smaller probability, and ergo you have a smaller probability of reaching it. (if we use 'end up' and 'reach' loosely, you end up in both worlds, you just can't communicate with the other guy). Anyway, excellent video!

[@hrefamid9563]

124 likes for 0 dislikes just testifies to the quality of your videos, congrats mate!

[@lokiragnarok7616]

657 to 0

[@hrefamid9563]

851 to 0 wow

[@mikkel715]

Quantum Mechanics makes good logic from a programming point of view... Thanks for very good presentations in an objective way! Good answer about your (non)favorite interpretation.

[@torsteinv34]

Hat off to you, sir. Impressive work.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Non-local Hidden Variable Theory is my personal favorite because it preserve predictability and gets around the wave function breakdown. If there is a underlying wave that the particle travels on like a ball in the ocean, then any snapshot of the particle will be in one place. But we can't know the wavelength of the underlying wave because we need multiple snap shot like a video recording. Which then means the particle is in multiple positions. So the uncertainty principle is explained. The apparent probability is created by how often the particle is in any singular location. As a laymen, it just makes sense to me and I like the deterministic nature. So it's mostly from a biased perspective but there's no evidence for any of these theories anyways so it doesn't matter much does it

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Just watched your video again. Wonderful! I feel though that all the confusion may be resolved by CIG Theory. I may be wrong, but I am offering up CIG Theory as yet another Quantum Interpretation. Try it, it's fun, and where else can you turn into Space!

[@mikebreler9724]

I agree that the best way is to go back to first principles or even the first principle: "I think therefore I am". Now we're are on solid ground.

[@miles4039]

bro you’re videos are so much easier to understand thank you lmao

[@jzzy107]

Bohmian mechanics will win! Do not be afraid of non-locality :)

[@mauijttewaal]

indeed, non-locality is fine, but pseudo-determinism is not...

[@yash1152]

@@mauijttewaal what does that mean?

[@jorgepeterbarton]

@@mauijttewaal its better than the universe splitting in two to resolve determinism ;)

[@ahmetemin1721]

Thanks for the explanation, it was quite understandable 👍

[@randallplant46]

Very nice summary. A good book that covers this same topic is “What is Real” by Adam Becker.

[@matthewmcree1992]

This dude seems so unbelievably calm. His calming and pleasant voice, immense intelligence, plus the fact he's pretty sexy all together means if he was my physics professor I would fail his course because of how distracted I would be.

[@jill6776]

Cosmological & Alternative collapse interpretations are the ones that seem most reasonable to me. Plus it aligns with the correspondence principle.

[@wesleyrm76]

A suggested video for me on this is Feynman's Infinite Quantum Paths from PBS Space Time, another excellent interpretation.

[@cyto3338]

16:14 omg i was actually eating a biscuit My favourite one is EPR non locality because they have wormhole corrections lol

[@dave_on_wave]

As always, the best videos

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

6:27 Perhaps it only concerns the observable properties, not those that lie beyond what is potentially observable. For example, probability could mean that Outcome X occurs in 70% of all branches and Outcome Y occurs in 30% of all branches, meaning that we have a 70% chance of observing Outcome X.

[@tylonmcswain3900]

First off awesome informational video! Explaining such complicated interpretations succinctly is a superb effort, thanks. On that fundamental missing component, could it be gravity? From what I understand, and I admittedly understand very little about QM, isn't gravity left out of the conventional model right now?

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I think consciousness is the reason for the uncertainty of Heisenberg. We can't predict what will happen only observe what has happened because nothing happens until it is observed. We seem to observe as we imagine or as we think. I think so.. 🤔

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

@dirt man Well give me a chance, I ain't done yet.

[@TheGbelcher]

UPDATE: Watching 5 years into future and quantum physics doesn’t make any more sense.