I hate when people say "look". If you look at it it won't change ANYTHING about it, but if you try to measure it it will change, because the act of measuring is PHYSICALLY INTERACTING with it. As NDT pointed out, when you measure it, you bounce a photon off of it, that's how you know it's there, but the photon bouncing off of it is what causes it to collapse, so it's the interaction with light/photon that causes the collapse, and it couldn't care less if you looked while it happened or not.
Right, but you can store the data from the interaction and destory it and end up with an interference pattern again. Meaning, the particle knows its been looked at but the information from the measurement could never be know, it resorts back to wave behaviour. Check quantum eraser experiement. If you do the same measurement as if you were going to check the result or not, you get different results.
Yup. I *always* replace that with the word 'interact with' since it's so much more helpful for understanding. Hit it with a photon, hit it with an electron, hit it with another of the same thing, etc etc etc.
@@addmoreice How do you explain the version of the experiment where they scrambled the results of which way knowledge after the light hit the detector with the “observing mechanism” (polarized filters) operating and in place - and the wave function reestablished every time the scrambler was turned on? The only variable appears to be knowledge in the mind of the observer.
@@LiteShaper1 are you talking about "double slit quantum eraser"? or what was it called? That experiment is misunderstood, even some physicists who made youtube videos about it later apologized for telling false info
@@yellowcorpsmember Which physicists are doing the apologizing? The view that consciousness plays a role in wave function collapse and that the observation problem may point to the possibility that consciousness maybe fundamental is a minority and controversial view - however it has not been shot down empirically. The view that consciousness plays a role is also shared by some of the giants of physics including Max Plank, Schrödinger, Penrose, and many others. The double slit experiment on its face without the “quantum eraser” version is not so straight forward as it stands - and Dr. Dean Radin recently did a published version of the experiment where trained meditators visualizing observing the slit collapsed wave function to a degree of millions to one against chance.
@@LiteShaper1 watch "delayed choice quantum eraser" by Sabine Hossenfelder, a real theoritical physicist. Roger Penrone is like 90+ years old, he can't think as well. Consciousness doesn't have a real definition, there are 0 proof that it exists, its probably an illusion
To say "look at it" is a bit misleading, because it has nothing to do with literally looking at it, that's impossible anyway. He should say "observe a particle" which is another way of saying that the particle leaves a record of itself in the universe, which is what the whole mystery is about: while a particle leaves no record of itself, its' state is probabilistic, with the distribution being described by the corresponding wave function. As a particle leaves a record of itself, its' state at that point becomes deterministic.
@@SeamusAlive when you observe a photon your own radiations that comes from you interact with it. But i guess you know more than me with a physics degree and my professors
The "not looking at it" is sophistry: looking is passive. Measuring, in practice is not passive. Observing subatomic particles physically requires physically interacting with said particle. Said interaction will disturb the particle from its natural state, thus it is PHYSICALLY impossible to observe in its natural state. TTHAT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT HAVE A NATURAL STATE. Scheodinger's cat was a creteque of this idiotic argument, not an explanation of it. The wave function is just a prediction. Our predictions are a presumption about the natural world. The natural world does not "presume" itself to be.
But the way I understand it it's not the act of "looking" it's that the measuring instruments used for looking alter the state (photon being necessary to hit it in order for us to "see"). Am I wrong?
The wave function collapses when we observe is because we are in one of many timelines of reality. We can only observe the one timeline we are in so the wave function is collapsed into a particle
At least part of the reason for this is because there is a reality that extends beyond our awareness and yet is recognized in the science of measurement
ITS NOT A WOO MATTER OF CHANGING WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT OR NOT!!! The issue is that you can tell either the speed or the place, but not both on an individual particle. Its the fact that to guage the position or the speed you need to interact with it (with instruments) thus changing its behavior.
If he thinks that is the only thing weird about quantum mechanics. he lives in a strange world. What about a wave function permitting a particle spontaneously appear on the other side of an impenetrable barrier (that's how semi-conductors work), what about particles not really rotating, but excerpting angular momentum (quantum spin), what about the quantum vacuum constantly popping particles in and out of existence? As Richard Feynman once said, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't really understand quantum mechanics." It is so weird, we can learn their properties, but hardly understand them.
That's why I said whenever you observe something like an arrow traveling through space it gos slow your observational gravitational pull is made up of little bits of mass and energy and they are barely moving and they are dense and slow ..... Which will then pull on the little bits of mass in the arrow slowing down its movement causing decay to go slower
Isn't it human , that when we don't look people behave differently but when we look or observe them they behvae little differently,it means there something more than just nothing
Well isn't the wave function just a statistical representation of where the electron could be, and observing it allows you to actually know where It is? It's not actually changing states or anything
Well “look” here means to measure it and to measure it we need to introduce additional field like electromagnetic field or something else which is the reason why the interactions change
I always thought this was mystersisum impossible to get your head around but it's not, it's simple the things so small any interaction to measure adds heat n energy changing it
A wave goes up. And then goes down. It stops going up and starts going down. What happens when it stops is the question. Does it reflect to the observer ? We see when the wave collapses.
All measurements boil down to particle interactions. For example, to look at something you need a photon to bounce off the thing you're looking at, then go into your eye, or photosensor, or whatever. Measurements aren't passive at the quantum level; they're active, violent events that unavoidably disturb the thing that is being measured.
He is not aware that there is a difference between description and explanation, he does not explain a mechanism but describes the different descriptions...
Quite a lot of people in this comment section seem to misunderstand the idea of 'measurement' in quantum mechanics, and they are propagating some very wrong ideas. Firstly, when sean carroll says 'look', he means a measurement, and that's all he means. Second, it is NOT TRUE that all measurements physically interact with the experiment apparatus! There exists 'Interaction-free measurements' , Ex: Renninger negative-result experiment. This means that (if you consider collapse theories of QM) the wave function collapse CAN'T only be thought of as a physical interaction! Mind you, Sean Carroll is not actually a proponent of said collapse theories, he is a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which there does not even exist a notion of 'collapse of the wave function'.
When you're not looking at it, it has not quite manifested until you move the invisible properties into the material world and manifest these THOUGHTS remember thoughts are invisible. I think Scrodinger's cat is on to something. Always positive negative, here not here. Dead alive, CIRCLE of the SEASONS
And eventually quantum mechanics will be “proven wrong” and we will find data that requires a new more complex model to explain. So we can never truly say that we know the exact nature of something. We have finite senses and finite time in an infinite and eternal universe.
Why do you keep saying look at it while the fact is that you hit it with photons so that you can see it. There's nothing mystical in looking at a particle. There's no magic effect in staring at something. Hitting sthing with high energy photons will definitely change its properties. What's so strange about this. If you can find another way in the future of probing a particle the whole weirdness will disappear. I'm not a physics expert, but I think this makes sense 😊
@seymourkrelborn207 if you need anything or anyone to explain any fact that's clear or obvious , you need more than the explanation. And you have no room to talk shit with after using a children's movie as an example 😂
@@Tony-iu7sw it's a shame you think children's movies can't pose intellectual premises... it's a shame you would gauge another humans intelligence off such an insightful comparison... but this all says more about you than it does me. :)
I really appreciate your genuine fact tid bit there. 99% of replies I get are just nonsense. I'm not the smartest person. Many of these concepts are a little past my intellectual abilities, at least as far as the terminologies and points of view
Maybe they are waves when they don’t interact , and particles when interact (with our instruments) . Anyway we don’t “see” nothing we just make interaction with collisions of different quantum objects , one can be the particle that we want to measure the other a “sensor”that measure it. Nothing is seen in the traditional way using our eyes. But even when we use the eyes the light (photons) must interact with part of our eyes. This interaction change the nature of that “quantum object”
@@marcusaldrich8290 you know, I have an obnoxious interest in just about everything, especially science stuff (I actually spent 9 years in college constantly changing my major. Anyhow, I found that most science concepts are fairly easy to super easy to understand ONCE you learn the specific language of that discipline. In reality, most of these factions are akin to learning a new language. Once I figured this out I would dive head first into the particular vernacular & it helped me IMMENSELY!
Ya know, I wracked my brains for years how something could be both a particle & a wave..... until I saw it happen in our macroscopic world. I was watching some ballistic videos in slow motion and from the shooters perspective you could see this bullet making little circles in the air which initially threw me way off, but as I thought about it the bullet was off balance so it didn't twirl following the rifling as it should normally do but since the spin didn't follow its axis but rather
I wonder if this is a sign we are in a simulation, since in todays video games people use tricks to not have to render what you don't look at, and update stuff that is't loaded, but then it works a bit difrently when you look at it.... or it is sone other thing that perfectly explains why it is that way
Looking at it must produce electrons to vibrate in a different way , didnt Einstein do a paper on electrons coming from metal if you shine a light on it , has anyone ever got a wierd feeling when you see the flash of light from a sharp knife , like scratching a blackboard feeling ?
It’s a shame smart nerds lack descriptive skills. I often feel they speak nerd speak which unnecessarily complicates understanding by using loaded words with baggage and implication that’s not intended.
I get the critique but the unfortunate thing is all that "nerd speak" is describing extremely complicated stuff. If you want a less accurate and kinda rough base understanding then you get something straight forward, if you want a more accurate understanding these things require unique terms that might sound made up. If you understand how complicated these things are it gets even harder to explain them in a way that may be wrong but is more understandable. But on the other side of things teaching is its own art and it takes practice to be able to do it well.
I hate when people say "look". If you look at it it won't change ANYTHING about it, but if you try to measure it it will change, because the act of measuring is PHYSICALLY INTERACTING with it. As NDT pointed out, when you measure it, you bounce a photon off of it, that's how you know it's there, but the photon bouncing off of it is what causes it to collapse, so it's the interaction with light/photon that causes the collapse, and it couldn't care less if you looked while it happened or not.
finally someone clearing things out
Thank you for saying this.
2nd'd
Thank you I really didn't understand how looking can change anything
Right, but you can store the data from the interaction and destory it and end up with an interference pattern again. Meaning, the particle knows its been looked at but the information from the measurement could never be know, it resorts back to wave behaviour. Check quantum eraser experiement.
If you do the same measurement as if you were going to check the result or not, you get different results.
The devil is in the meaning of the word "look."
Yup. I *always* replace that with the word 'interact with' since it's so much more helpful for understanding.
Hit it with a photon, hit it with an electron, hit it with another of the same thing, etc etc etc.
@@addmoreice How do you explain the version of the experiment where they scrambled the results of which way knowledge after the light hit the detector with the “observing mechanism” (polarized filters) operating and in place - and the wave function reestablished every time the scrambler was turned on? The only variable appears to be knowledge in the mind of the observer.
@@LiteShaper1 are you talking about "double slit quantum eraser"? or what was it called?
That experiment is misunderstood, even some physicists who made youtube videos about it later apologized for telling false info
@@yellowcorpsmember Which physicists are doing the apologizing? The view that consciousness plays a role in wave function collapse and that the observation problem may point to the possibility that consciousness maybe fundamental is a minority and controversial view - however it has not been shot down empirically.
The view that consciousness plays a role is also shared by some of the giants of physics including Max Plank, Schrödinger, Penrose, and many others. The double slit experiment on its face without the “quantum eraser” version is not so straight forward as it stands - and Dr. Dean Radin recently did a published version of the experiment where trained meditators visualizing observing the slit collapsed wave function to a degree of millions to one against chance.
@@LiteShaper1 watch "delayed choice quantum eraser" by Sabine Hossenfelder, a real theoritical physicist.
Roger Penrone is like 90+ years old, he can't think as well.
Consciousness doesn't have a real definition, there are 0 proof that it exists, its probably an illusion
quantum mechanics be playing Peekaboo with everyone
😮😊😊😊😅
Electrons, the smallest weeping angels.
who? 😁
That so funny, because when people look at me they see a regular guy, but when they aren't looking, I'm superman
To say "look at it" is a bit misleading, because it has nothing to do with literally looking at it, that's impossible anyway. He should say "observe a particle" which is another way of saying that the particle leaves a record of itself in the universe, which is what the whole mystery is about: while a particle leaves no record of itself, its' state is probabilistic, with the distribution being described by the corresponding wave function. As a particle leaves a record of itself, its' state at that point becomes deterministic.
This.
This reminds me of when I was alone at home, I behaved in one way, but when my parents were at home, I behaved in another way 😅
Thanks for supporting the ridiculous observer hypothesis.. I'm sure Sean Carroll would not be happy with editing choices made here.
I’m sure Seamus Glover has not looked at the data regarding the observer hypothesis and is happy with his smug bias confirmation…
Its not a hypothesis its a confirmed phenomenon. Because the radiation from your own eyes interact with the photons. Its highschool physics..
An observer cannot observe without intearaction, interaction affects the particles in question.
The affect of photons should be called "the photon effect" at the observers presence is irrelevant
@@SeamusAlive when you observe a photon your own radiations that comes from you interact with it. But i guess you know more than me with a physics degree and my professors
The "not looking at it" is sophistry: looking is passive. Measuring, in practice is not passive. Observing subatomic particles physically requires physically interacting with said particle. Said interaction will disturb the particle from its natural state, thus it is PHYSICALLY impossible to observe in its natural state.
TTHAT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT HAVE A NATURAL STATE.
Scheodinger's cat was a creteque of this idiotic argument, not an explanation of it.
The wave function is just a prediction. Our predictions are a presumption about the natural world. The natural world does not "presume" itself to be.
But the way I understand it it's not the act of "looking" it's that the measuring instruments used for looking alter the state (photon being necessary to hit it in order for us to "see"). Am I wrong?
Quantum mechanics is weird .
U understand this line deeply when u go to study and researching about this.
The wave function collapses when we observe is because we are in one of many timelines of reality. We can only observe the one timeline we are in so the wave function is collapsed into a particle
when u make a complicated thing even more complicated
he looks like someone mixed mark zuckerberg and elon musk
Queue spooky music…when talking about physics 😂
It’s always either this song or the song from Interstellar
At least part of the reason for this is because there is a reality that extends beyond our awareness and yet is recognized in the science of measurement
ITS NOT A WOO MATTER OF CHANGING WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT OR NOT!!! The issue is that you can tell either the speed or the place, but not both on an individual particle. Its the fact that to guage the position or the speed you need to interact with it (with instruments) thus changing its behavior.
Thank you 👏
@agawtdangedbear ... grow up and take the tin foil off....stop with your excuses..
There's a difference between the observer effect and the uncertainty principle...
At some point someone should explain quantum decoherence to the public so we don't have to sit through this decades old shpeal.
@@adamdymke8004 Sean Carrol definitely understands QM, he has written several books on it. He is dumbing it down for the average viewer.
It more closely follow the dirac equation for the electron, and the KG equation when it's a boson like the photon, I like to repeat myself
Like graphical pop in in video games
Measure, more specifically. Looking in the box doesn’t collapse the wave function, it’s the machine that detects the change
I thought they were both particles and waves, that every particle is also a wave thing as proposed by debrogliye (i forgot how its spelled)
Clearest definition I've listened to
If he thinks that is the only thing weird about quantum mechanics. he lives in a strange world.
What about a wave function permitting a particle spontaneously appear on the other side of an impenetrable barrier (that's how semi-conductors work), what about particles not really rotating, but excerpting angular momentum (quantum spin), what about the quantum vacuum constantly popping particles in and out of existence?
As Richard Feynman once said, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't really understand quantum mechanics." It is so weird, we can learn their properties, but hardly understand them.
Classical = Thermodynamics, Quantum = Dimensionality.
That's why I said whenever you observe something like an arrow traveling through space it gos slow your observational gravitational pull is made up of little bits of mass and energy and they are barely moving and they are dense and slow ..... Which will then pull on the little bits of mass in the arrow slowing down its movement causing decay to go slower
Isn't it human , that when we don't look people behave differently but when we look or observe them they behvae little differently,it means there something more than just nothing
Electrons are waves, oh my....
So I guess general relativity is "classical physics"
Well isn't the wave function just a statistical representation of where the electron could be, and observing it allows you to actually know where It is? It's not actually changing states or anything
Well “look” here means to measure it and to measure it we need to introduce additional field like electromagnetic field or something else which is the reason why the interactions change
What does it mean to look at it? It would be easier to grasp if we knew what that means.
I thought you couldn't "see" it
Like baby Groot dancing in his little pot.
Why don't we focus on the ONTOLOGY of quantum gravity?
As a parent this is exactly what happens when you look at your child and they stop the behavior.
Invariance,
Measurement is not physics.
how do you know how it behaves when you're not interacting with it?
The particles react differently when observed. We've conducted experiments that can show for this.
Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle. Beautifully confusing or as my material science professor put it “clear as mud!”
Just admit the frustration with quantum mechanics is there is no way to manipulate quantum mechanics into a weapon.
I always thought this was mystersisum impossible to get your head around but it's not, it's simple the things so small any interaction to measure adds heat n energy changing it
I really hate how he chooses to describe wave particle duality. His wording is so sloppy
A wave goes up. And then goes down. It stops going up and starts going down. What happens when it stops is the question. Does it reflect to the observer ? We see when the wave collapses.
How do they particles know they're being looked at/measured? 🤔
All measurements boil down to particle interactions. For example, to look at something you need a photon to bounce off the thing you're looking at, then go into your eye, or photosensor, or whatever. Measurements aren't passive at the quantum level; they're active, violent events that unavoidably disturb the thing that is being measured.
Okay that explained why I got a c- when I took Quantum mechanics!
This is just kinda wrong, they aren't not particles just because they are waves, they are particles that act like waves.
The third time is the charm. 1-classical, 2-quantum, 3-causal.
Who am I to question Sean Carroll, but so much gets lost when you popularize (quantum) physics.
Quantum mechanics is a game changer, and it may mean rules shall be changed related to physics.
He is not aware that there is a difference between description and explanation, he does not explain a mechanism but describes the different descriptions...
Came a long way from Quahog
So many blahblah and so much focus on word "look" onesidedly
Sensationalism.. that guy obviously doesn't know what a wavefunction is
It IS actually both IT IS in a wave-particle-dualism state
Don't forget General Relativity.
General relativity under the umbrella of classical mechanics
Quite a lot of people in this comment section seem to misunderstand the idea of 'measurement' in quantum mechanics, and they are propagating some very wrong ideas.
Firstly, when sean carroll says 'look', he means a measurement, and that's all he means.
Second, it is NOT TRUE that all measurements physically interact with the experiment apparatus! There exists 'Interaction-free measurements'
, Ex: Renninger negative-result experiment.
This means that (if you consider collapse theories of QM) the wave function collapse CAN'T only be thought of as a physical interaction!
Mind you, Sean Carroll is not actually a proponent of said collapse theories, he is a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which there does not even exist a notion of 'collapse of the wave function'.
Electron has wave particle duality 😅
No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
When you're not looking at it, it has not quite manifested until you move the invisible properties into the material world and manifest these THOUGHTS remember thoughts are invisible.
I think Scrodinger's cat is on to something. Always positive negative, here not here. Dead alive, CIRCLE of the SEASONS
Electrons are both point particles AND waves. Any undergrad physics student knows this. I'm doubting this guy is a real physicist.
And eventually quantum mechanics will be “proven wrong” and we will find data that requires a new more complex model to explain.
So we can never truly say that we know the exact nature of something.
We have finite senses and finite time in an infinite and eternal universe.
Feel the Positive Waves.... 😳
So is the cat dead or alive? 🤷🏻♂️
How to not explain quantum physics...
A classic "shut up (don't think) and calculate" person. Quantum wave is producing better results because it adds measurement uncertainty.
Why do you keep saying look at it while the fact is that you hit it with photons so that you can see it. There's nothing mystical in looking at a particle. There's no magic effect in staring at something. Hitting sthing with high energy photons will definitely change its properties. What's so strange about this. If you can find another way in the future of probing a particle the whole weirdness will disappear. I'm not a physics expert, but I think this makes sense 😊
That's preposterous
How it knows that we are looking at him?
She knows !!
because we shine light at it
It doesn't, but by looking something you need light, that interacts with the wave and change the measurement
A wave of what ? A wave is NOT A THING in it self, waves happen in a medium!!!!
How about light? What medium? There is no luminiferous aether.
Its like the toys in toy story... when youre not looking they function one way and when you look at them they function differently.
Lmao, this is a more accurate explanation since Toy Story is fictional. Just like this theory 😂
@@Tony-iu7sw huh? Let me guess... you only get your facts from the Bible, rigjt?
@seymourkrelborn207 if you need anything or anyone to explain any fact that's clear or obvious , you need more than the explanation.
And you have no room to talk shit with after using a children's movie as an example 😂
@@Tony-iu7sw it's a shame you think children's movies can't pose intellectual premises... it's a shame you would gauge another humans intelligence off such an insightful comparison... but this all says more about you than it does me. :)
@@seymourkrelborn207 Chances of tot story being real = bible telling the truth > Quantum mechanics
quantum entanglement
Stop looking at things and time stops.
It's not exactly like you looking at it that changes. Just once you measure it you receive different results than what is predicted
The measured results also follow predictions, else the whole of physics would just be wrong.
Stop saying "looking" while talking about quantum mechanics.
Particles hide and seek. Boo!
What if they are waves and particles.
So we can only measure or observe one state at a time?
I really appreciate your genuine fact tid bit there. 99% of replies I get are just nonsense. I'm not the smartest person. Many of these concepts are a little past my intellectual abilities, at least as far as the terminologies and points of view
Maybe they are waves when they don’t interact , and particles when interact (with our instruments) . Anyway we don’t “see” nothing we just make interaction with collisions of different quantum objects , one can be the particle that we want to measure the other a “sensor”that measure it. Nothing is seen in the traditional way using our eyes. But even when we use the eyes the light (photons) must interact with part of our eyes. This interaction change the nature of that “quantum object”
@@marcusaldrich8290 you know, I have an obnoxious interest in just about everything, especially science stuff (I actually spent 9 years in college constantly changing my major. Anyhow, I found that most science concepts are fairly easy to super easy to understand ONCE you learn the specific language of that discipline. In reality, most of these factions are akin to learning a new language. Once I figured this out I would dive head first into the particular vernacular & it helped me IMMENSELY!
Ya know, I wracked my brains for years how something could be both a particle & a wave..... until I saw it happen in our macroscopic world. I was watching some ballistic videos in slow motion and from the shooters perspective you could see this bullet making little circles in the air which initially threw me way off, but as I thought about it the bullet was off balance so it didn't twirl following the rifling as it should normally do but since the spin didn't follow its axis but rather
There is no “rule” for wave function collapse. QM is an incomplete description.
I wonder if this is a sign we are in a simulation, since in todays video games people use tricks to not have to render what you don't look at, and update stuff that is't loaded, but then it works a bit difrently when you look at it.... or it is sone other thing that perfectly explains why it is that way
If they figure this out we gonna have teleportation
A massive misrepresentation of what the word look means. I hate people like this.
After all that time it's your the quantum and everything else isn't 😅😅😅
Stage freight is a thing...so why is this so hard for yall to understand?
This is perhaps the most arrogant, world salad scientist I know.
So. does anyone know how electrons flow in a copper wire yet? Or if the electrical energy "actually" flows in the opposite direction?
Love
👍👍👍👍👍👍
Yeah...So What
Would you look at that 😉
If you use the words "...you look at it..." it implies that the whole universe would dissappear if no humsn exist.
is that like unreal 5 engine only rendering what the camera sees? like.. the other data is there, but its different if no camera is pointed at it.
Looking at it must produce electrons to vibrate in a different way , didnt Einstein do a paper on electrons coming from metal if you shine a light on it , has anyone ever got a wierd feeling when you see the flash of light from a sharp knife , like scratching a blackboard feeling ?
How is this different than taking a picture? Nothing "happened" because I took a picture. And my dog didnt turn into a wave afterwards.
It’s a shame smart nerds lack descriptive skills. I often feel they speak nerd speak which unnecessarily complicates understanding by using loaded words with baggage and implication that’s not intended.
I get the critique but the unfortunate thing is all that "nerd speak" is describing extremely complicated stuff. If you want a less accurate and kinda rough base understanding then you get something straight forward, if you want a more accurate understanding these things require unique terms that might sound made up. If you understand how complicated these things are it gets even harder to explain them in a way that may be wrong but is more understandable. But on the other side of things teaching is its own art and it takes practice to be able to do it well.
Interesting intelligent, keep up the amazing work.
In rapid order, here is the clearest explanation of modern physics.
So basically we’re in a simulation and the state of the electron is only “rendered” after observation?
No.
@Aaron Harp explain how
Stop promoting Rogan. Anytime I see his name I recoil and thumbs down the vid
Living with a closed mind is your prerogative, have fun!
Simulation