Even if the universe is fundamentally non-deterministic, I still dont get how that would contradict the block universe. Just because it is a 'block' that could hypothetically be viewed as one by a higher dimensional observer, doesn't mean it has to be deterministic in any way. The question of determinacy just asks if those observers would be able to infer the 'future' part of that block from the 'past' part (if you cut it in half at our present).
A non-deterministic universe does not necessarily contradict a block Universe, and I stated this in the video. But, I then went on to present the detailed explanation of why we do not appear to live in a block universe, based on how the entanglement of quantum spin works.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky The explanation you gave assumed that a hypothetical observer who could see the entire block universe would also be able to see the results of hypothetical measurements that weren't actually made. Most interpretations of quantum mechanics do conflict with that idea, but the block universe doesn't imply that an observer like that could ever exist.
@josephnoonan2267 Yes, I agree. As I said in my reply to your other comment, and as I said at the end of my video, a block universe can be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics, provided we consider other interpretations of quantum theory.
Block Universe is a totally useless concept if it fits anything, even non globally hyperbolic spacetimes ( as, for a typical example in semi-classical physics, a universe that has Black holes that are completely evaporated after a finite amount of time, without leaving any remnant behind), or non deterministic ( as in the standard QM). The notion of a block universe has a meaning only in spacetimes that are globally deterministic.
Even in deterministic versions/ interpretations of QM , like Many Worlds it is doubtful whether the block universe Idea has any useful meaning, even philosophically. We don't even know if any of these interpretations make sense in the ( unknown yet!) theory of Quantum Gravity ( or whatever else reconciles QM with GR).
I feel like this understanding is very humanistic and doesn't take into account the possibility that someone viewing doesn't see like or understand like a human does; if they can understand and see all of the 4 dimensions.
The goal is to understand. So we use our own tools to get there. Then we meet contradiction. Saying there might be other ways to think about all of this will not satistfy a physicist or mathematician. Unless you can conceptualize this other way to think.
Hello Eugene, your videos are helping me a lot to get an intuitive understanding of physics, thanks a lot! I would love to see a video of you about Crystal lattice vibrations and phonons, I feel like there is really not that much videos regarding that topic, that would help a lot!
@EugeneKhutoryansky, perhaps the following line of reasoning can be pursued to prevent the block from shattering: If we do not disregard Quantum Mechanics in its current understanding, the block universe can be conceptualized as akin to a frozen snapshot, encapsulating a series of measurements of outcomes-or a single observation-across the temporal dimension. Consequently, this notion of a block universe necessitates that an external observer MUST exist for a particular outcome to materialize. This external observer, conducting alternative observations, could potentially bring an infinite array of possible universes into existence, each one forming its own block.
dear eugene, do you have reccomendations for how to learn physics oneself? which resources to use? i know itd be a many many year journey. im mainly interested in actually having fun doing and being able to understand the significance underlying the teachings as your videos help do.
I would love to see more videos about special relativity, such as Rindler coordinates, the Bell spaceship paradox, hyperbolic spacetime, or the mathematical applications of differential equations. I believe they have the potential to attract a significant number of views!
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Let's delve into how these concepts from special relativity can be applied and interpreted in the context of a 4D fractal landscape as opposed to a strict 4D block universe. 1. Rindler Coordinates 4D Fractal Landscape: In a 4D fractal landscape, Rindler coordinates can be used to describe the trajectories of objects in a non-inertial frame, allowing for a more intricate and detailed representation of the dynamics of objects within this fractal structure, which might involve complex, self-similar patterns at different scales. 4D Block Universe: In a 4D block universe, Rindler coordinates would be used in a more straightforward manner to describe the worldlines of objects in spacetime, where all events are fixed and unchangeable, essentially providing a grid over the block universe to map out these worldlines. 2. Bell Spaceship Paradox 4D Fractal Landscape: In a 4D fractal landscape, the Bell spaceship paradox could potentially be visualized in a more complex manner, with the spaceships navigating through a landscape filled with intricate structures and patterns, potentially leading to more complex and rich dynamics and resolutions to the paradox. 4D Block Universe: In a 4D block universe, the Bell spaceship paradox would be visualized as worldlines of the spaceships in the spacetime, with the resolution of the paradox coming from the realization of the different proper times experienced by the observers in the spaceships, a concept central to special relativity. 3. Hyperbolic Spacetime 4D Fractal Landscape: Hyperbolic spacetime can be seen as a geometric representation of the spacetime in a 4D fractal landscape, where the spacetime itself might have a hyperbolic geometry, leading to fascinating and potentially very complex dynamics, with a rich structure of geodesics representing the paths of objects. 4D Block Universe: In a 4D block universe, hyperbolic spacetime would represent the geometry of spacetime itself, potentially leading to a different kind of block universe with different properties and structures of worldlines, providing a different perspective on the nature of spacetime. 4. Mathematical Applications of Differential Equations in Special Relativity 4D Fractal Landscape: In a 4D fractal landscape, differential equations would be used to describe the dynamics of objects within this landscape, potentially involving complex, fractal-like solutions representing the intricate dynamics of objects within this landscape. 4D Block Universe: In a 4D block universe, differential equations would be used in a more straightforward manner to describe the worldlines of objects in spacetime, potentially involving solutions that represent the fixed, unchangeable trajectories of objects in this universe. Conclusion: In both the 4D fractal landscape and the 4D block universe, these concepts from special relativity would be central in describing the dynamics and structures present. However, in a 4D fractal landscape, these concepts might take on a more complex and rich character, involving intricate, self-similar patterns and dynamics, while in a 4D block universe, they would be used in a more straightforward manner to describe the fixed and unchangeable structure of the universe.
What about systems such as the canvas of babel, which contain an image of every event? Rather than the universe being a single locked 4D block, it could be a single frame which is actively generated like a fractal.
Something I’ve noticed about quantum entanglement implying probability. “Observing” in quantum mechanics means a very specific thing: running a particle through a detector. But this requires energy to interact with the particle, which on such scales definitely affects the particles. So there is no mystical property to “observing” a quantum spin, it’s a matter of needing energy to measure the spin and adding energy in a way that detects spin changes spin to align a certain way. I.e. going through a detector polarizes the particle. If you detect a particle to have one spin, then run it through a perpendicular detector, does the particle change spin? If so, does its partner change spin? I know this doesn’t allow FTL because you’d need to compare notes later and all that. The act of observing indeed changes the outcome, but it seems to me like that outcome could have already been determined. Even assuming we could never improve detection technology to NOT polarize a particle, i.e. a 360 degree spin detector, that doesn’t mean a “true” value doesn’t exist. It just means we cannot measure it without messing with it. That’s fine in other sectors of science. We understand that a tree falling in the forest still makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it, and we understand that human behavior can affect if/when a tree falls, even indirectly.
It's always been a problem for me.... You can't escape the fact that you've designed a measuring apparatus based on some sort of idea about what you'd like to find, thus find the thing you made the device to find and think this is precisely as reality is..... It's impossible to make a measuring apparatus that won't bias the result in some way toward what you have designed.
If percentages are consistent, we can assume these are only mathematical models that fail to reflect the causal reality behind. So we should keep investigating. We dont know what happens before measurement. Science withholds judgement, but philosophy can affirm causality.
Another way to explain this is that a particle doesn't actually exist until a measurement is made. The measurement is an interaction, so we can restate the above as: a quantum iota behaves as a probability wave until it interacts, at which point it behaves like a particle. And also, particles themselves can never be entangled, rather it is that only one probability wave exists to conserve the properties of any two iota quantum system created by a single event.
Just because the theory doesn’t fit this particular model doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a more complex explanation. I kinda like the block model and I want to make it work in a random universe.
No matter how much I dive in to it, I can't justify a probabilistic universe. I believe the randomness of the quantum scale is merely a limitation of our ability to observe deeper. In my stubborn mind, vacuum fluctuations would be the same in two identical universes. So I very much subscribe to the block universe. I will die on the hidden variable hill!
Thanks. Yes, I can make more videos about famous equations. I already have a number of videos on famous equations, such as the ones below. Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity -- czcams.com/video/UfThVvBWZxM/video.html Schrodinger's Equation -- czcams.com/video/jvvkomcmyuo/video.html
We can only predict weather up a week or so but not beyond because that future weather will result on how now unfolds and different thinks can happen now or in a day or so that can drastically affect the weather in the future. I think of weather when it comes to predictions and why we can’t predict what the weather will be next month for the entire month. We can’t know until conditions unfold close enough to the time you’re trying to predict I’m guessing.
This is a very well done video and at one level makes a very good point that, to the extent the universe is probabilistic, then this would seem to conflict with, in fact, dispense with Block Universe. However, let me challenge this conclusion: It seems to me that it is still possible that a Universe of FOUR dimensions could still be a Block Universe in the context of those 4 dimensions. It is the addition of probabilistic quantum behavior where we introduce the FIFTH spatial dimension. So, in 4 spatial dimensions you get a single block. But by adding the 5th spatial dimension where in to quantum randomness propagates, we get the Multiverse. Could not both be true?
The block universe depends on definition of "time". Basically, time is an arbitrary unit of measuring "change" to position and speed. So, someone outside the universe with all the positions and speed of all matter can calculate the next moment for all interactions. The question remains, are interactions predictable?
At the end of the video, I explained the argument as to why an observer outside the universe would not be able to calculate the next moment for all interactions.
Just some random ideas while watching: Could the situation be compared to an irrational number? Irrational numbers don't follow a pattern but further digits can always be calculated. (Genuine question) Would you classify irrational numbers as deterministic? Each successive digit appear random but still can be calculated. Maybe the universe behaves like an irrational number? It is computationally irreducible but just like we can write root(2), it all exists. Time would then be the computation pushing it along. Maybe I'm off base just a random thought. Great video by the way! They always get me learning, thinking and questioning 👍
I like your theory but I don't think the comparison holds, because, irrational numbers are infinite in lenght, so calculating all it's digits would require infinite energy; and in the same vein, calculating all future outcomes of the universe would also require infinite energy, which is impossible with our current understanding on physics. Irrational numbers can still be calculated in some fashion, on the same way we can predict physical systems if we have a set of starting conditions as we do with irrational numbers, but we can never be 100% sure and only approximate it in the end
I think I agree with you essentially. I think the universe at its base has precision limits on information, or at least on the transfer/measurability of information, yet the universe allows interactions/relations that would require infinite precision to actually resolve. The “shape” of a timeline requires infinite time to resolve, like a circle shape requires infinite detail (infinite size if you think of the shape as expanding as you zoom in on its edge to take more precise measurements) to measure its side.
Love your videos. Please consider a video with your thoughts on future development of AI. Is it time to stop worrying and learn to love the AI? Thank you. ✌🏽
What do you mean by "... the two particles measure opposite spins ..." in the case where the measurements are along axes with 45 degree offset? That is I don't understand what the blue and red mean. Do you mean you first measure particle 1 along the first axis and particle 2 along the axis with a 45 degrees offset from the first axis. Then the next measurements along any axis of the two particles will be opposite of each other 85% of the time? That is the colours represent another set of measurements?
We have the two detectors (each with a red and blue plate) offset from each other by 45 degrees. Measuring opposite spins means that one of the detectors measures towards the red plate and the other detector measures towards the blue plate.
This video tackles such a noble topic, one of the greatest mystery in modern thinking. Thank you for sharing this wonderfully made breakdown Eugene, one of my favorite video along with the philosophical interpretations of Quantum Physics that you refer to at the end. Good day
Thanks for the video! I have been thinking about the block universe for a few weeks. Just a coincidence! I was thinking about it from the POV of Einstein's general relativity, with a Minkowskian spacetime.
I'm hardly an expert but if there were an external observer viewing the entire block universe, wouldn't that count as a measurement? In any event, thanks for the very informative material and also the quality back and forth in the comments.
The reference to an external observer is just a metaphor to describe the idea of a block universe. But, the idea of a block universe is contrary to the idea that the outcome of a measurement is intrinsically probabilistic, until the measurement is actually made. This is because in a block universe, everything is already determined ahead of time. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryanskyI feel like block universe is more strong about the idea that past present future exist. A universe where past present future exist but branch out and the observer have no idea in which one he gonna end up still fit block universe view.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky But the Universe might be determined ahead of time. What Quantum Theory says is that you cannot predict future events from any point in time. That does not mean that the future is not already "set in stone". Just that it is impossible to predict. Multi verse theory could solve this as well as a multiverse block which contains all the possible states of past and future
Do 4 spaceial dimensions and 2 time like dimensions fix that block universe? One space and one time dimension is compressed by a uniform accelleration near light speed. Quantum events would influence that curled up dimensions.
Fun fact: Let us hypothesize that our universe can be described in three spatial and two temporal dimensions such that the Euclidean, flat, spatial distance between two events (points in this 5-D system) equals the Euclidean, flat, temporal distance (time lapse). Formally: (δx)²+(δy)²+(δz)²=(δt)²+(δτ)², where x, y, and z are a changing event's spatial coordinates and, t and τ, its two time coordinates, and δ is the change's differential operator. In such an hypothetical, flat 5-D universe, Leibnitz's invariant transformation (δτ)²=(δx)²+(δy)²+(δz)²-(δt)² holds, without having to resource to a hyperbolically curved 4-D timespace! If we define action S such that δS=(δx)²+(δy)²+(δz)²-(δt)²-(δτ)² then the above restriction (equivalent, as we saw, to Leibnitz's invariant transformation) is also equivalent to the principle of least action. So, should we rather consider our universe five-dimensional and flat, with a restriction (one less degree of freedom) like stated above?
What if this world is hosted on some server. And there might be some random seed assigned for a really good pseudorandom function so it looks like real random. By knowing this seed we can predict all the events hypothetically
What if quantum particles themselves have awareness and make decisions? Could that explain their unpredictability while also not eliminating the independent reality of quantum states? of course we have no idea how you could even begin to prove this but could it work as a general theoretical explanation?
That still would not resolve the issue with the 85% value discussed at the end of the video, unless the particles could predict the future, and know in advance that a detector will be present, and what angle the detector will be aligned at.
I cannot shake the feeling that the long spin-probability story originates in bad/imperfect/inadequate spin-direction detectors. Whenever in human history we did not understand something or measured inconclusive events/changes, we solved it by changing/improving the observation/measuring methods and/or hardware/instrumentation.
So does it mean that the theory of retrocausality which syates that signals may come from possible future can be reconciled with 4 Dimensional Block Universe.
Yes, but retro-causality does not necessarily state that the future is deterministic, because the signals can be coming from various different "possible" futures.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky My mentor sorry from moving apart from the topic but I have a question, if the black hole is positively charged, will it shoot jets of positively charged particles from its poles and vise versa?
We live in a world where tangible objects exist and thousands of years ago 'Atoms' were contemplated. Today we look inside Protons and see a Sea of itinerant objects. What is an object but a manifestation of an energy packet? A Proton is an emergent effect of the continuous energy fluctuations within which some how results in a 3 Quark manifestation. How and Why Lord only knows, Physics gave up deep thinking 70 years ago. The point is though: if even a single Proton is undergoing continuous internal change then what price the idea of position and momentum being determinate in the first place? We are only scratching at the rusty hull of what has been found thus far. It might help if Physicists started thinking for a living instead of just spouting the text of popular paper backs. No criticism here intended for this video as I found it quite thought provoking ... It is the block heads who just sit on the beach watching the waves go by and drawing their salary for such little effort.
This seems to be true where the particle does not exist in any state until it is quantized, but the Copenhagen interpretation is that it exists in every state simultaneously before quantization. If we're talking about a state of the universe that is itself external to time--that time is a property of things in the universe, and not the universe itsef--then this is exactly what one would expect. If the inderminate state of the particles were not such that all possibilities are true at the same time--Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead--then entangled particles would not be much use for quantum computers, would they?
What about the past? Does the past just cease to exist or continue to exist? This demonstration change the block universe to a growing block universe, doesn’t really shatter it.
You can never show observer outside of the universe sees our universe event as probabilistic. Probabilistic nature of quantum physics only appears to us in the block universe.
Past, Present, and Future must be simultaneous or nothing would hold together. If the future is random; then their would be conflicts between what exists now, and what will exist. Eg: If the future state of a screwdriver ends up being a banana because of random possibilities; this obviously would not work. The future must influence the present conditions in order for them to find their way into itself. The Present is the Past of The Future; and the Future of the Past. Its all connected. Even if you posit infinite random possibilities, what happens is already predetermined.
time is universal and absolutely for everyone, there is only now the current moment, the future is not predetermined, since events happening now in different places create chaos and it is impossible to predict how one event will affect another in future
I never said anything in this video about information travelling faster than the speed of light. But, since you mention it, it depends on which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics you want to believe in. I cover this in detail in my video on the various Philosophical interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at czcams.com/video/XQ25E9gu4qI/video.html
The block universe can still exist in quantum physics. You just need many worlds, i.e., instead of a block corresponding to one particular timeline, the entire phase space of all possible quantum states exists as a block universe and we move through it a manner that seems random to us. This is almost a kind of generalization of relativity, as the particular outcome of a quantum experiment is relative to the observer's location in the wavefunction. There is no universally real timeline: no sequence of quantum eigenstate is privileged over any other. Hugh Everrett even called it his "relative state" formulation of QM. This is also what the Wheeler-deWitt equation predicts, an eternal superposition of every conceivable quantum state that never collapses. It's an incredibly elegant and logical picture of the universe, if you ask me. Everything everywhere for all eternity. If I were a religious man, this would almost seem to me to be the perspective that God must have looking at the universe from the outside.
One of the main criticisms of the "Many Worlds" interpretation is the following. If a particle has a 61% probability of being observed in location A, and a 39% probability of being observed in location B, the "Many Worlds" interpretation needs to say that the particle is in location A in 61% of the universes, and that it is in location B in 39% of the universes. However, the "Many Worlds" interpretation can’t explain why the split occurred with this particular distribution, unless we add extra assumptions to the theory. This does not necessarily make the theory wrong, but adding these extra assumptions takes away the main argument in favor of the “Many Worlds” interpretation, in that it was thought to require fewer assumptions.
Is this observer outside the universe also outside time? If so then the observer can see all time and the consept future doesn't exist. If the observer is not outside time, is that truly outside? Then there is problem with "now". Or maybe the observer exists in all points in the universe, making a universal "now"? Or maybe I misunderstood something here 🙂
all the inconsistent futures could be impossible for reasons we do not understand yet, and all the "overlapping" futures (for each time line) might turn out to just map to the same underlying block ... - but I guess this is just assuming non-locality. (which I do not find unlikely at all. In fact, I think the "3D" universe we are experiencing is a projection of some actual underlying structure, and that would allow non-locality (especially if path an observer takes is a homotopy of projections from their local time)) - Anyway, this proof requires locality as assumption, if I understand everything correctly (not a physicist) and that is a big if.
Please Help Me A moving rod placed in a stationary U-shaped frame. When a conductor (the moving rod in this case) moves perpendicular to a magnetic field, an electromotive force (EMF) is induced according to Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. The rate of change of magnetic flux through the loop formed by the moving rod and the stationary U-shaped rods is given by = B⋅L⋅V where B is the magnetic field strength,L is the length of the rod, and v is its velocity. Now, the negative of rate of change of magnetic flux = work done by electromagnetic force throughout the loop, which is BLV+IR, i=current , r=resistance But this leads to that,BLV=BLV+I--->>IR=0 , means electric current through loop is 0, So, Just Please Clarify My Confusion
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. This is why there are limits. Limit theorem. And why there is conservation. These laws don't have to be but they are. A single sided spinor with event horizon at the node
The title is adequate, but a statement at the beginning at 0:29 about " as described by ...quantum... incompatible with ... relativity" needs an addition of suffix of "'s implications as understood by Einstein and some other philosophers" to be correct. Relativity AFAIK does not necessitate the Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) (aka block). P.S. Eugene, I noted you replied to comments recently so I've written mine, not sure you appreciate so much feedback, such discussions seems to me more suited for a physics forum not youtube format.
However, if we did live in a block universe then every measurement that has ever been made or ever will be made and the outcome of these measurements would already be determined and thus only the measured outcomes would be observable by an external observer. So the state where a spin had been measured to be in one state but could also be in another state would never exist, not even to an external observer and there would be no paradox and no refutation of the block universe.
Yes, that is part of the "super-determinism" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which I discuss in my video on the Philosophical interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at czcams.com/video/XQ25E9gu4qI/video.html
Eugene I was speaking to an a.i. and it said this, maybe you can help me out: I have searched extensively, and found no credible experimental verification that entangled particles show 85% opposite spins when detector angles differ by 45 degrees. If such an experiment has been done successfully "many times" as you state, it should be possible to cite a peer-reviewed journal publication describing it.
An observer outside our universe cannot see inside our universe as no information can escape our universe due to what is our past singularity (domain wall within the bulk).
I don't believe there is any relationship between the expansion of the universe and whether or not the universe is deterministic. We can have either a deterministic or non-deterministic universe both for a universe that is expanding, and for a universe that is not expanding.
This graph shows the prediction of what the spin direction (red or blue) would be for each particle, along each possible axis (X or Y or D) that we could choose to measure.
It all depends on one's interpretation of quantum mechanics! Here, This is the Copenhagen interpretation, but as you have already presented, there are other interpretations that are just as valid and which are deterministic!
Particles experience each other relativistically. Is magnetism intrinsic, or does it arise from the relativistic experience of a charged particle? I think the latter holds true. If we can poloraize actual magnets because we can poloraize the unpaired electrons, then why can't electrons polarize each other according to their relativistic experience? An electrons is going to spin however it needs to spin according to what it interacts with next, like saying the spins of unpaired electrons in molten iron can be determined by applying a magnetic force/field. How does a particle experience human life? They are always obeying force field lines, so maybe what we perceive as the freedom to behave randomly from their perspective is really just life in fast forward motion. If particles are waves in a field, emitted one after another, then the sizes and distances of apparatures, gates, collimating lenses, etc, etc, are going to create the outcomes we observe. Does an electron coming off an atom always get emitted at the same point? Not likely, and that's going to impact where the crests and troughs off the wave interact with you experimental equipment, where more weight is given towards some set ups over others, (ie 100% vs 85% vs 50%). We need to become an electron to understand it's perspective, which is almost certainly determined by force field lines whose existences are themselves relativistic.
There may be a contradiction between a block universe model and a fundamentally probabilistic universe, but probabilities in our universe do not defeat the block-multiverse model!! 🤩😍
Has anyone proposed the idea that the universe is an amorphous object? An outside observer, if able to pause reality, would perceive the entirety of the universe in one of it's many possible states, and within the object, time would not be paused, but experienced by it's inhabitants as if traveling from one "end" of time to the other. Without the observer's reality being paused, the object could be shifting rapidly through it's possible states (infinite or not, this is merely thought experiment), producing a many worlds scenario in which all inhabitants of the object live multiple different lives. Maybe eons can pass inside it in one second of the observers local experience of time.
I also don't buy that special relativity is incompatible with presentism. Yes: remote events can't be agreed "simultaneously" or not, but with Minowsky diagrams, you get a total consistency of the system as a whole. When you do the math, everything remains consistent and coherent. There is a singular present, just not everybody is experiencing it at the same "frame rate," say -- some are passing through time very slowly, and some very quickly, and when you look across space, the historical point that you are indexing is different, but it doesn't mean that there's necessarily not a singular present.
The issue is not just the fact that the clocks of different observers are moving at different rates. The issue is that if you ask what is happening right now in the present, different observers will give different answers. This can be seen in the example in the video with train in the tunnel, and the question of if the two doors closed at the same time.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky and different times indicated in different chronometers indicate different conditions in which physical processes take place in different coordinates, because if time passed at different speeds, everything would scatter into different time lines, that is, there is one connecting line of all events or absolute time
1:00 This is my main ( partial ) disagreement with this video: The Block Universe concept fits well with solutions ( for the Einstein equation) that are "globally hyperbolic spacetimes", where one can specify data on a Cauchy hypersurface. These spacetimes are globally deterministic, so they fit the idea. This is not necessarily the case, though, with "non globally hyperbolic" spacetimes! Most importantly, Our Universe, semi-classically, ( taking account for the Hawking radiation/ evaporation of Black Holes) may be exactly that, in the case of fully evaporating Black holes that leave behind locally flat spacetime if they completely disappear in the end. Nobody really knows if our Universe is globally deterministic and retrodictable whatever the interpretation of QM that we prefer, so I don't think that the naive block universe idea has a well defined meaning..
It also could be true that determinism is true on the level of GTR, but that random variables that exist simultaneously; and then collapse into one choice through observation is also true on the level of QM. They can harmonise and not contradict each other. I think that was the point you were making, which I agree with.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Yes, that's my ( partial) disagreement, because even in the classical GR, not every solution is globally hyperbolic. The case for global hyperbolicity ( and the related cosmic censorship conjecture) is still open in the classical theory and moreover, we have the semi-classical version of the infamous "information loss problem" that Wald and Unruh had pointed out: That a spacetime that has Black holes that are completely evaporated is , semi-classically , non globally hyperbolic, so it is not globally deterministic, whatever interpretation we prefer for QM! So, I don't really disagree with the conclusion ( and the "spirit") of your video, I just think that the case for the "block universe" idea is even weaker and ( perhaps) not well defined.
Does that invalidate the super-determinism approach for good? The different experiments made to settle the EPR paradox (that granted a Nobel prize for three persons involved) needed the use of more and more complex systems to ensure the non causality but after all everything comes from the Big Bang. No expermiment can go at this level of course. Or an external observer would be able to see one path of the universe, while another observer at another place and time would see another path, hence the multiverse? :)
Super-determinism is not excluded. As I said at the end of the video, it is possible to try to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with the idea of a four dimensional block universe, by using various other interpretations of quantum mechanics. I discuss this in my video at czcams.com/video/XQ25E9gu4qI/video.html
That is the whole point. The existence of an observer outside the block universe would eliminate the existence of an intrinsically probabilistic universe. Conversely, an intrinsically probabilistic universe would eliminate the existence of an observer outside the block universe, and hence also eliminate the existence of a block universe.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky The outside observer could see the experiment setup on a slice of the block universe, and observe the results (so the particles' spins measured) on the next slice. If the universe is intrinsically probabilistic, it would just mean for this outside observer that he has no mathematical way to link those two slices (since they are not fully determined by each other). in short : I don't see why the block universe idea should infer instrinsically deterministic universe.
@gnanay8555 I stated in the video that a non-deterministic universe does not necessarily contradict a block Universe. This is when I showed the sequence of numbers without any predictable pattern, inside a block universe where an external observer sees the entire future sequence. But, this is not the same thing as an intrinsically probabilistic universe, which by definition means that not even an observer external to the universe would be able to see the future numbers.
Can the passage of time also be treated as a result of the expansion of the universe? The universe expands in all dimensions, including what we perceive as the passage of time.
When Einstein came up with his General Theory of Relativity, it was not yet known that the Universe is expanding. This was discovered later. So, time in General Relativity still works, even without an expanding universe.
what if the measurement and the state of a particle before the measurement are both predetermined and can be observed by an outside observer. from their point of view - the measurement is actually 100% going to result in the red plate along the x and the red along the diagonal, and if they look at many other such measurements - there are only 85% of them that are like that, and the other 15% are 100% red along the x and blue along the diagonal. Just like i can look at a glass box of red and blue balls - i can see exactly how many blue and red balls there are, and can determine exactly what color each one is. but if i count them - there are 85% red balls and 15% blue balls in the box. so can the universe be composed of 85% events that have the a particle with spin S and its future measurement resulting in X-red D-red, and 15% events that have the particle with spin S and its future measurement resulting in X-red and D-blue.
Yes, that would work. That is what the "super-determinism" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics states: That your choice for the orientation for the detector was already predetermined and it is meaningless to ask what would have happened had you oriented the detector differently, since it is impossible for you to have made any choice regarding the orientation of the detector other than the one that you actually made.
@EugeneKhutoryansky are there any issues with that. saying everything is predetermined. and choice is merely an illusion. nothing like free will exist. the decisions are already taken. the past, the future, the present. it always existed. it has to happen like this. my idea is, we can't go back and step in different direction, creating different present. different timeline. if we can do, that means our decisions matter. but if its alright determined where the detector will be. whats the point in outcome. that could be predetermined too... it's like everything is predetermined, from our thoughts, to quantum level dancing...
it is hard to grasp the expression "the future does not exist" or "the past exists" something can exist in time , the notion "exists" meaningless without time, so events cannot 'exist' , events are points of spacetime or we need a redefinition of "exists" I am not sure what you mean by 'exists'
1) Time is the only physical quantity which doesn't exist in Nature. Time is a man-made quantity. That is, Nature would continue to exist and evolve even without time. 2) Time is highly subjective. That is, time differs from person to person, and also differs within the same person's observations, according to context and conditions. 3) Nature is only three dimensional. No time dimension is required. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for your video. I have questions that puzzled me: What happens in another referential ? Does the angle between the detector depends on the referential ? And what happens if the detectors are moving relativistically from one another ?
I didn't discover your channel until a week ago, but you really changed a lot in my life and my mind. Thank you from my heart
Thanks. I am glad that my videos have made a positive impact.
I like the cat (Schroedinger's?) reading a book on quantum physics with the subtitle "Stop Testing On Animals"!
😂 ❤
Am I the only one who finds those videos very interesting and informative, yet a bit creepy?
this cat is totally normal. Mine does the same thing with his eyes when i give him a book about quantum mechanics.
Even if the universe is fundamentally non-deterministic, I still dont get how that would contradict the block universe. Just because it is a 'block' that could hypothetically be viewed as one by a higher dimensional observer, doesn't mean it has to be deterministic in any way. The question of determinacy just asks if those observers would be able to infer the 'future' part of that block from the 'past' part (if you cut it in half at our present).
A non-deterministic universe does not necessarily contradict a block Universe, and I stated this in the video. But, I then went on to present the detailed explanation of why we do not appear to live in a block universe, based on how the entanglement of quantum spin works.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky The explanation you gave assumed that a hypothetical observer who could see the entire block universe would also be able to see the results of hypothetical measurements that weren't actually made. Most interpretations of quantum mechanics do conflict with that idea, but the block universe doesn't imply that an observer like that could ever exist.
@josephnoonan2267 Yes, I agree. As I said in my reply to your other comment, and as I said at the end of my video, a block universe can be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics, provided we consider other interpretations of quantum theory.
Block Universe is a totally useless concept if it fits anything, even non globally hyperbolic spacetimes ( as, for a typical example in semi-classical physics, a universe that has Black holes that are completely evaporated after a finite amount of time, without leaving any remnant behind), or non deterministic ( as in the standard QM).
The notion of a block universe has a meaning only in spacetimes that are globally deterministic.
Even in deterministic versions/ interpretations of QM , like Many Worlds it is doubtful whether the block universe Idea has any useful meaning, even philosophically.
We don't even know if any of these interpretations make sense in the ( unknown yet!) theory of Quantum Gravity ( or whatever else reconciles QM with GR).
Why you have to drop all the dice on that poor cat?
The cat was clearly OK at the end.
@@EugeneKhutoryanskyWell... He may or may not have been... 🎲{🐈,⚰️}
I feel like this understanding is very humanistic and doesn't take into account the possibility that someone viewing doesn't see like or understand like a human does; if they can understand and see all of the 4 dimensions.
The goal is to understand. So we use our own tools to get there. Then we meet contradiction.
Saying there might be other ways to think about all of this will not satistfy a physicist or mathematician.
Unless you can conceptualize this other way to think.
But that is all we have until something comes along to enlighten us on other ways we can make sense of. Baby steps
Hi Eugene. Have you ever thought about making videos on the philosophy of chemistry/chemistry stuff in general?
Thanks for yet another thoughts provoking video!
I am glad you liked my video.
Hello Eugene, your videos are helping me a lot to get an intuitive understanding of physics, thanks a lot!
I would love to see a video of you about Crystal lattice vibrations and phonons, I feel like there is really not that much videos regarding that topic, that would help a lot!
@EugeneKhutoryansky, perhaps the following line of reasoning can be pursued to prevent the block from shattering: If we do not disregard Quantum Mechanics in its current understanding, the block universe can be conceptualized as akin to a frozen snapshot, encapsulating a series of measurements of outcomes-or a single observation-across the temporal dimension. Consequently, this notion of a block universe necessitates that an external observer MUST exist for a particular outcome to materialize. This external observer, conducting alternative observations, could potentially bring an infinite array of possible universes into existence, each one forming its own block.
dear eugene, do you have reccomendations for how to learn physics oneself? which resources to use? i know itd be a many many year journey. im mainly interested in actually having fun doing and being able to understand the significance underlying the teachings as your videos help do.
Sorry, I don't have any specific books or resources to recommend, other than my videos. I am glad my videos are helpful. Thanks.
I would love to see more videos about special relativity, such as Rindler coordinates, the Bell spaceship paradox, hyperbolic spacetime, or the mathematical applications of differential equations. I believe they have the potential to attract a significant number of views!
Those are on my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky
Let's delve into how these concepts from special relativity can be applied and interpreted in the context of a 4D fractal landscape as opposed to a strict 4D block universe.
1. Rindler Coordinates
4D Fractal Landscape:
In a 4D fractal landscape, Rindler coordinates can be used to describe the trajectories of objects in a non-inertial frame, allowing for a more intricate and detailed representation of the dynamics of objects within this fractal structure, which might involve complex, self-similar patterns at different scales.
4D Block Universe:
In a 4D block universe, Rindler coordinates would be used in a more straightforward manner to describe the worldlines of objects in spacetime, where all events are fixed and unchangeable, essentially providing a grid over the block universe to map out these worldlines.
2. Bell Spaceship Paradox
4D Fractal Landscape:
In a 4D fractal landscape, the Bell spaceship paradox could potentially be visualized in a more complex manner, with the spaceships navigating through a landscape filled with intricate structures and patterns, potentially leading to more complex and rich dynamics and resolutions to the paradox.
4D Block Universe:
In a 4D block universe, the Bell spaceship paradox would be visualized as worldlines of the spaceships in the spacetime, with the resolution of the paradox coming from the realization of the different proper times experienced by the observers in the spaceships, a concept central to special relativity.
3. Hyperbolic Spacetime
4D Fractal Landscape:
Hyperbolic spacetime can be seen as a geometric representation of the spacetime in a 4D fractal landscape, where the spacetime itself might have a hyperbolic geometry, leading to fascinating and potentially very complex dynamics, with a rich structure of geodesics representing the paths of objects.
4D Block Universe:
In a 4D block universe, hyperbolic spacetime would represent the geometry of spacetime itself, potentially leading to a different kind of block universe with different properties and structures of worldlines, providing a different perspective on the nature of spacetime.
4. Mathematical Applications of Differential Equations in Special Relativity
4D Fractal Landscape:
In a 4D fractal landscape, differential equations would be used to describe the dynamics of objects within this landscape, potentially involving complex, fractal-like solutions representing the intricate dynamics of objects within this landscape.
4D Block Universe:
In a 4D block universe, differential equations would be used in a more straightforward manner to describe the worldlines of objects in spacetime, potentially involving solutions that represent the fixed, unchangeable trajectories of objects in this universe.
Conclusion:
In both the 4D fractal landscape and the 4D block universe, these concepts from special relativity would be central in describing the dynamics and structures present. However, in a 4D fractal landscape, these concepts might take on a more complex and rich character, involving intricate, self-similar patterns and dynamics, while in a 4D block universe, they would be used in a more straightforward manner to describe the fixed and unchangeable structure of the universe.
What about systems such as the canvas of babel, which contain an image of every event? Rather than the universe being a single locked 4D block, it could be a single frame which is actively generated like a fractal.
Something I’ve noticed about quantum entanglement implying probability. “Observing” in quantum mechanics means a very specific thing: running a particle through a detector. But this requires energy to interact with the particle, which on such scales definitely affects the particles.
So there is no mystical property to “observing” a quantum spin, it’s a matter of needing energy to measure the spin and adding energy in a way that detects spin changes spin to align a certain way. I.e. going through a detector polarizes the particle.
If you detect a particle to have one spin, then run it through a perpendicular detector, does the particle change spin? If so, does its partner change spin? I know this doesn’t allow FTL because you’d need to compare notes later and all that.
The act of observing indeed changes the outcome, but it seems to me like that outcome could have already been determined. Even assuming we could never improve detection technology to NOT polarize a particle, i.e. a 360 degree spin detector, that doesn’t mean a “true” value doesn’t exist. It just means we cannot measure it without messing with it.
That’s fine in other sectors of science. We understand that a tree falling in the forest still makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it, and we understand that human behavior can affect if/when a tree falls, even indirectly.
That's a really interesting take
It's always been a problem for me.... You can't escape the fact that you've designed a measuring apparatus based on some sort of idea about what you'd like to find, thus find the thing you made the device to find and think this is precisely as reality is..... It's impossible to make a measuring apparatus that won't bias the result in some way toward what you have designed.
Everybody thinks it takes a lot of energy,How big you want it.
Your playlist makes me to visualise quantum mechanics.please make more videos related to quantum mechanics
I am glad my videos are helpful. I plan to make more videos. Thanks.
The visual animation is very easy to understand. Learn a lot from here
Thanks.
If percentages are consistent, we can assume these are only mathematical models that fail to reflect the causal reality behind. So we should keep investigating. We dont know what happens before measurement. Science withholds judgement, but philosophy can affirm causality.
Very good video. What application do you use to make the animations?
Thanks. I make my animations with "Poser." I explain how I make my 3D animations in my video at czcams.com/video/6Hl5dvA88Uo/video.html
Amazing how there continue to be topics around the concept of Spacetime to think about (wonder about).. Thanks for this new video!
Thanks!
Another way to explain this is that a particle doesn't actually exist until a measurement is made. The measurement is an interaction, so we can restate the above as: a quantum iota behaves as a probability wave until it interacts, at which point it behaves like a particle. And also, particles themselves can never be entangled, rather it is that only one probability wave exists to conserve the properties of any two iota quantum system created by a single event.
Can you say please what 3d soft is used for this works?
P.s. wonderful explanations, pretty visualisations, impessed by your videos and really like it
Thanks. I make my 3D animations with "Poser." I explain how I make my 3D animations in my video at czcams.com/video/6Hl5dvA88Uo/video.html
Just because the theory doesn’t fit this particular model doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a more complex explanation.
I kinda like the block model and I want to make it work in a random universe.
No matter how much I dive in to it, I can't justify a probabilistic universe. I believe the randomness of the quantum scale is merely a limitation of our ability to observe deeper. In my stubborn mind, vacuum fluctuations would be the same in two identical universes. So I very much subscribe to the block universe.
I will die on the hidden variable hill!
Fantastic explanations and visuals here!
Thanks!
Thank u so much , m learning a lot here, can u talk more about some famous equations and explain them!! ❤
Thanks. Yes, I can make more videos about famous equations. I already have a number of videos on famous equations, such as the ones below.
Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity -- czcams.com/video/UfThVvBWZxM/video.html
Schrodinger's Equation -- czcams.com/video/jvvkomcmyuo/video.html
Hope you guys keep making these videos for a long time to come
More videos are on their way. Thanks.
Great vid as always!
Thanks.
Do the passengers on the train see the tunnel as completely dark or there is always light when inside?
We can only predict weather up a week or so but not beyond because that future weather will result on how now unfolds and different thinks can happen now or in a day or so that can drastically affect the weather in the future. I think of weather when it comes to predictions and why we can’t predict what the weather will be next month for the entire month. We can’t know until conditions unfold close enough to the time you’re trying to predict I’m guessing.
I like how the cat is watching the particles. Cats love to watch things.
I have been seaching for this channel for ages....i forgot its name....and i remembered its videos name thankfully...
This is a very well done video and at one level makes a very good point that, to the extent the universe is probabilistic, then this would seem to conflict with, in fact, dispense with Block Universe. However, let me challenge this conclusion: It seems to me that it is still possible that a Universe of FOUR dimensions could still be a Block Universe in the context of those 4 dimensions. It is the addition of probabilistic quantum behavior where we introduce the FIFTH spatial dimension. So, in 4 spatial dimensions you get a single block. But by adding the 5th spatial dimension where in to quantum randomness propagates, we get the Multiverse. Could not both be true?
is there any way to contact you??
please!
My email address is available on my home page in the "about" tab, if you view it on a PC.
The block universe depends on definition of "time". Basically, time is an arbitrary unit of measuring "change" to position and speed. So, someone outside the universe with all the positions and speed of all matter can calculate the next moment for all interactions. The question remains, are interactions predictable?
At the end of the video, I explained the argument as to why an observer outside the universe would not be able to calculate the next moment for all interactions.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Yes, you did a great job. Bohm's pilot wave theory is possible.
Just some random ideas while watching: Could the situation be compared to an irrational number? Irrational numbers don't follow a pattern but further digits can always be calculated. (Genuine question) Would you classify irrational numbers as deterministic? Each successive digit appear random but still can be calculated. Maybe the universe behaves like an irrational number? It is computationally irreducible but just like we can write root(2), it all exists. Time would then be the computation pushing it along. Maybe I'm off base just a random thought.
Great video by the way! They always get me learning, thinking and questioning 👍
I like your theory but I don't think the comparison holds, because, irrational numbers are infinite in lenght, so calculating all it's digits would require infinite energy; and in the same vein, calculating all future outcomes of the universe would also require infinite energy, which is impossible with our current understanding on physics.
Irrational numbers can still be calculated in some fashion, on the same way we can predict physical systems if we have a set of starting conditions as we do with irrational numbers, but we can never be 100% sure and only approximate it in the end
I think I agree with you essentially. I think the universe at its base has precision limits on information, or at least on the transfer/measurability of information, yet the universe allows interactions/relations that would require infinite precision to actually resolve. The “shape” of a timeline requires infinite time to resolve, like a circle shape requires infinite detail (infinite size if you think of the shape as expanding as you zoom in on its edge to take more precise measurements) to measure its side.
Maybe in the particle's frame a 360 degree circle isn't quite circular, so to speak. Some kind of geometry that could explain it.
Love your videos. Please consider a video with your thoughts on future development of AI. Is it time to stop worrying and learn to love the AI? Thank you. ✌🏽
Thanks. I may make a video on AI.
is that your real voice or is it computer generated? I'm really confused.
It is a real voice. All my videos are narrated by Kira Vincent.
What do you mean by "... the two particles measure opposite spins ..." in the case where the measurements are along axes with 45 degree offset? That is I don't understand what the blue and red mean.
Do you mean you first measure particle 1 along the first axis and particle 2 along the axis with a 45 degrees offset from the first axis. Then the next measurements along any axis of the two particles will be opposite of each other 85% of the time? That is the colours represent another set of measurements?
We have the two detectors (each with a red and blue plate) offset from each other by 45 degrees. Measuring opposite spins means that one of the detectors measures towards the red plate and the other detector measures towards the blue plate.
This video tackles such a noble topic, one of the greatest mystery in modern thinking. Thank you for sharing this wonderfully made breakdown Eugene, one of my favorite video along with the philosophical interpretations of Quantum Physics that you refer to at the end. Good day
Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you liked my video.
Thanks for the video! I have been thinking about the block universe for a few weeks. Just a coincidence!
I was thinking about it from the POV of Einstein's general relativity, with a Minkowskian spacetime.
Beautiful animations!
Thanks for the compliment.
What happens if we put three sensors in a row for each particle, one for each orientation? Will our measurements meet the constraints?
I discuss this in detail in my video on Quantum Spin at czcams.com/video/3k5IWlVdMbo/video.html
I'm hardly an expert but if there were an external observer viewing the entire block universe, wouldn't that count as a measurement? In any event, thanks for the very informative material and also the quality back and forth in the comments.
The reference to an external observer is just a metaphor to describe the idea of a block universe. But, the idea of a block universe is contrary to the idea that the outcome of a measurement is intrinsically probabilistic, until the measurement is actually made. This is because in a block universe, everything is already determined ahead of time. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryanskyI feel like block universe is more strong about the idea that past present future exist.
A universe where past present future exist but branch out and the observer have no idea in which one he gonna end up still fit block universe view.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky But the Universe might be determined ahead of time. What Quantum Theory says is that you cannot predict future events from any point in time. That does not mean that the future is not already "set in stone". Just that it is impossible to predict.
Multi verse theory could solve this as well as a multiverse block which contains all the possible states of past and future
Do 4 spaceial dimensions and 2 time like dimensions fix that block universe? One space and one time dimension is compressed by a uniform accelleration near light speed. Quantum events would influence that curled up dimensions.
Fun fact: Let us hypothesize that our universe can be described in three spatial and two temporal dimensions such that the Euclidean, flat, spatial distance between two events (points in this 5-D system) equals the Euclidean, flat, temporal distance (time lapse). Formally:
(δx)²+(δy)²+(δz)²=(δt)²+(δτ)²,
where x, y, and z are a changing event's spatial coordinates and, t and τ, its two time coordinates, and δ is the change's differential operator.
In such an hypothetical, flat 5-D universe, Leibnitz's invariant transformation
(δτ)²=(δx)²+(δy)²+(δz)²-(δt)²
holds, without having to resource to a hyperbolically curved 4-D timespace!
If we define action S such that
δS=(δx)²+(δy)²+(δz)²-(δt)²-(δτ)²
then the above restriction (equivalent, as we saw, to Leibnitz's invariant transformation) is also equivalent to the principle of least action.
So, should we rather consider our universe five-dimensional and flat, with a restriction (one less degree of freedom) like stated above?
What if this world is hosted on some server. And there might be some random seed assigned for a really good pseudorandom function so it looks like real random.
By knowing this seed we can predict all the events hypothetically
At the end of the video, I presented the argument for why all events can't be predicted, even hypothetically.
Nothing Happened But Time flew By.Were making the Best of It, Trying to
Catch up, I'm behind you.
Just to note u can still have a block however ones that branch and u have no idea in which one u will exist in.
What if quantum particles themselves have awareness and make decisions? Could that explain their unpredictability while also not eliminating the independent reality of quantum states? of course we have no idea how you could even begin to prove this but could it work as a general theoretical explanation?
That still would not resolve the issue with the 85% value discussed at the end of the video, unless the particles could predict the future, and know in advance that a detector will be present, and what angle the detector will be aligned at.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Yeah, I just don't understand the math I guess lol
" TOUT DÉPEND DE L'OBSERVATEUR".
C'est la Théorie du Tout.
C'est le lien, le point commun entre la Relativité Générale et la Physique Quantique.
♉♉♉
I cannot shake the feeling that the long spin-probability story originates in bad/imperfect/inadequate spin-direction detectors. Whenever in human history we did not understand something or measured inconclusive events/changes, we solved it by changing/improving the observation/measuring methods and/or hardware/instrumentation.
Even if it is "bad detectors" they are producing results which are mathematically impossible, as explained in the video.
So does it mean that the theory of retrocausality which syates that signals may come from possible future can be reconciled with 4 Dimensional Block Universe.
Yes, but retro-causality does not necessarily state that the future is deterministic, because the signals can be coming from various different "possible" futures.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky My mentor sorry from moving apart from the topic but I have a question, if the black hole is positively charged, will it shoot jets of positively charged particles from its poles and vise versa?
We live in a world where tangible objects exist and thousands of years ago 'Atoms' were contemplated. Today we look inside Protons and see a Sea of itinerant objects. What is an object but a manifestation of an energy packet? A Proton is an emergent effect of the continuous energy fluctuations within which some how results in a 3 Quark manifestation. How and Why Lord only knows, Physics gave up deep thinking 70 years ago. The point is though: if even a single Proton is undergoing continuous internal change then what price the idea of position and momentum being determinate in the first place? We are only scratching at the rusty hull of what has been found thus far. It might help if Physicists started thinking for a living instead of just spouting the text of popular paper backs. No criticism here intended for this video as I found it quite thought provoking ... It is the block heads who just sit on the beach watching the waves go by and drawing their salary for such little effort.
This seems to be true where the particle does not exist in any state until it is quantized, but the Copenhagen interpretation is that it exists in every state simultaneously before quantization. If we're talking about a state of the universe that is itself external to time--that time is a property of things in the universe, and not the universe itsef--then this is exactly what one would expect. If the inderminate state of the particles were not such that all possibilities are true at the same time--Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead--then entangled particles would not be much use for quantum computers, would they?
Thanks. Please consider making a video on quantum erasure. You would explain it nicely.
I already have a video titled "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" at czcams.com/video/SzAQ36b9dzs/video.html
What about the past? Does the past just cease to exist or continue to exist? This demonstration change the block universe to a growing block universe, doesn’t really shatter it.
You can never show observer outside of the universe sees our universe event as probabilistic. Probabilistic nature of quantum physics only appears to us in the block universe.
You cannot prove nor disprove that, since there are no other beings we can compare it to, so this statement is unscientific
Past, Present, and Future must be simultaneous or nothing would hold together.
If the future is random; then their would be conflicts between what exists now, and what will exist.
Eg: If the future state of a screwdriver ends up being a banana because of random possibilities; this obviously would not work. The future must influence the present conditions in order for them to find their way into itself.
The Present is the Past of The Future; and the Future of the Past. Its all connected.
Even if you posit infinite random possibilities, what happens is already predetermined.
time is universal and absolutely for everyone, there is only now the current moment, the future is not predetermined, since events happening now in different places create chaos and it is impossible to predict how one event will affect another in future
thats my idea too. everything is predetermined. even our thoughts. just everything. quantum movements. everything.
Entangled particles do not transfer information faster than the speed of the light. That's also a misinformation that has been spreading around.
I never said anything in this video about information travelling faster than the speed of light. But, since you mention it, it depends on which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics you want to believe in. I cover this in detail in my video on the various Philosophical interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at czcams.com/video/XQ25E9gu4qI/video.html
The block universe can still exist in quantum physics. You just need many worlds, i.e., instead of a block corresponding to one particular timeline, the entire phase space of all possible quantum states exists as a block universe and we move through it a manner that seems random to us. This is almost a kind of generalization of relativity, as the particular outcome of a quantum experiment is relative to the observer's location in the wavefunction.
There is no universally real timeline: no sequence of quantum eigenstate is privileged over any other. Hugh Everrett even called it his "relative state" formulation of QM. This is also what the Wheeler-deWitt equation predicts, an eternal superposition of every conceivable quantum state that never collapses. It's an incredibly elegant and logical picture of the universe, if you ask me. Everything everywhere for all eternity. If I were a religious man, this would almost seem to me to be the perspective that God must have looking at the universe from the outside.
One of the main criticisms of the "Many Worlds" interpretation is the following. If a particle has a 61% probability of being observed in location A, and a 39% probability of being observed in location B, the "Many Worlds" interpretation needs to say that the particle is in location A in 61% of the universes, and that it is in location B in 39% of the universes. However, the "Many Worlds" interpretation can’t explain why the split occurred with this particular distribution, unless we add extra assumptions to the theory.
This does not necessarily make the theory wrong, but adding these extra assumptions takes away the main argument in favor of the “Many Worlds” interpretation, in that it was thought to require fewer assumptions.
Is this observer outside the universe also outside time? If so then the observer can see all time and the consept future doesn't exist. If the observer is not outside time, is that truly outside? Then there is problem with "now". Or maybe the observer exists in all points in the universe, making a universal "now"? Or maybe I misunderstood something here 🙂
Yes, the observer would also be outside of time.
all the inconsistent futures could be impossible for reasons we do not understand yet, and all the "overlapping" futures (for each time line) might turn out to just map to the same underlying block ... - but I guess this is just assuming non-locality. (which I do not find unlikely at all. In fact, I think the "3D" universe we are experiencing is a projection of some actual underlying structure, and that would allow non-locality (especially if path an observer takes is a homotopy of projections from their local time))
- Anyway, this proof requires locality as assumption, if I understand everything correctly (not a physicist) and that is a big if.
Time is just another dimension of procrastination. It's the fourth dimension of inertia.
I love this channel. Please never stop doing videos
Thanks. More videos are on their way.
Please Help Me
A moving rod placed in a stationary U-shaped frame.
When a conductor (the moving rod in this case) moves perpendicular to a magnetic field, an electromotive force (EMF) is induced according to Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. The rate of change of magnetic flux through the loop formed by the moving rod and the stationary U-shaped rods is given by = B⋅L⋅V where B is the magnetic field strength,L is the length of the rod, and v is its velocity.
Now, the negative of rate of change of magnetic flux = work done by electromagnetic force throughout the loop, which is BLV+IR, i=current , r=resistance
But this leads to that,BLV=BLV+I--->>IR=0 , means electric current through loop is 0, So, Just Please Clarify My Confusion
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size.
This is why there are limits.
Limit theorem.
And why there is conservation.
These laws don't have to be but they are.
A single sided spinor with event horizon at the node
The title is adequate, but a statement at the beginning at 0:29 about " as described by ...quantum... incompatible with ... relativity" needs an addition of suffix of "'s implications as understood by Einstein and some other philosophers" to be correct. Relativity AFAIK does not necessitate the Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) (aka block). P.S. Eugene, I noted you replied to comments recently so I've written mine, not sure you appreciate so much feedback, such discussions seems to me more suited for a physics forum not youtube format.
What Einstein got right: god doesn’t play dice.
What Einstein got wrong: time being a dimension.
However, if we did live in a block universe then every measurement that has ever been made or ever will be made and the outcome of these measurements would already be determined and thus only the measured outcomes would be observable by an external observer. So the state where a spin had been measured to be in one state but could also be in another state would never exist, not even to an external observer and there would be no paradox and no refutation of the block universe.
Yes, that is part of the "super-determinism" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which I discuss in my video on the Philosophical interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at czcams.com/video/XQ25E9gu4qI/video.html
Eugene I was speaking to an a.i. and it said this, maybe you can help me out:
I have searched extensively, and found no credible experimental verification that entangled particles show 85% opposite spins when detector angles differ by 45 degrees. If such an experiment has been done successfully "many times" as you state, it should be possible to cite a peer-reviewed journal publication describing it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test#Notable_experiments
An observer outside our universe cannot see inside our universe as no information can escape our universe due to what is our past singularity (domain wall within the bulk).
Can you please draw a 4D spacetime diagram?
Could the expanding property of our universe also be the reason for its non deterministic nature.
I don't believe there is any relationship between the expansion of the universe and whether or not the universe is deterministic. We can have either a deterministic or non-deterministic universe both for a universe that is expanding, and for a universe that is not expanding.
8:40 I'm having a bit difficulty interpreting this graph :/ a bit more explaining what what is would be a big help
This graph shows the prediction of what the spin direction (red or blue) would be for each particle, along each possible axis (X or Y or D) that we could choose to measure.
1:21 LEEEETTING THE DAYS GO BY!
What everyone is getting wrong:”observer outside the universe.” There is no outside the universe.
There might be. How do we really know?
My favorite physics videos. 🎉
Thanks!
Extremely happy to see a new upload from my wise man Eugene!
Thanks.
It all depends on one's interpretation of quantum mechanics! Here, This is the Copenhagen interpretation, but as you have already presented, there are other interpretations that are just as valid and which are deterministic!
I think this can be solved by considering higher dimensional block universe? Instead of 4D
always love your video
Thanks!
Particles experience each other relativistically. Is magnetism intrinsic, or does it arise from the relativistic experience of a charged particle? I think the latter holds true. If we can poloraize actual magnets because we can poloraize the unpaired electrons, then why can't electrons polarize each other according to their relativistic experience? An electrons is going to spin however it needs to spin according to what it interacts with next, like saying the spins of unpaired electrons in molten iron can be determined by applying a magnetic force/field.
How does a particle experience human life? They are always obeying force field lines, so maybe what we perceive as the freedom to behave randomly from their perspective is really just life in fast forward motion. If particles are waves in a field, emitted one after another, then the sizes and distances of apparatures, gates, collimating lenses, etc, etc, are going to create the outcomes we observe. Does an electron coming off an atom always get emitted at the same point? Not likely, and that's going to impact where the crests and troughs off the wave interact with you experimental equipment, where more weight is given towards some set ups over others, (ie 100% vs 85% vs 50%).
We need to become an electron to understand it's perspective, which is almost certainly determined by force field lines whose existences are themselves relativistic.
There may be a contradiction between a block universe model and a fundamentally probabilistic universe, but probabilities in our universe do not defeat the block-multiverse model!! 🤩😍
So the Bogo Sort could technically be the most efficient sort method at least once.....
Has anyone proposed the idea that the universe is an amorphous object? An outside observer, if able to pause reality, would perceive the entirety of the universe in one of it's many possible states, and within the object, time would not be paused, but experienced by it's inhabitants as if traveling from one "end" of time to the other. Without the observer's reality being paused, the object could be shifting rapidly through it's possible states (infinite or not, this is merely thought experiment), producing a many worlds scenario in which all inhabitants of the object live multiple different lives. Maybe eons can pass inside it in one second of the observers local experience of time.
The universe cannot be an "object" in the usual sense, it has to be a wave of some sort
@@viliml2763 you mean unless it's observed, right?
I also don't buy that special relativity is incompatible with presentism. Yes: remote events can't be agreed "simultaneously" or not, but with Minowsky diagrams, you get a total consistency of the system as a whole. When you do the math, everything remains consistent and coherent. There is a singular present, just not everybody is experiencing it at the same "frame rate," say -- some are passing through time very slowly, and some very quickly, and when you look across space, the historical point that you are indexing is different, but it doesn't mean that there's necessarily not a singular present.
The issue is not just the fact that the clocks of different observers are moving at different rates. The issue is that if you ask what is happening right now in the present, different observers will give different answers. This can be seen in the example in the video with train in the tunnel, and the question of if the two doors closed at the same time.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky this is not a issue at all, this is how perception works from different coordinate points
@@EugeneKhutoryansky and different times indicated in different chronometers indicate different conditions in which physical processes take place in different coordinates, because if time passed at different speeds, everything would scatter into different time lines, that is, there is one connecting line of all events or absolute time
1:00 This is my main ( partial ) disagreement with this video:
The Block Universe concept fits well with solutions ( for the Einstein equation) that are "globally hyperbolic spacetimes", where one can specify data on a Cauchy hypersurface.
These spacetimes are globally deterministic, so they fit the idea.
This is not necessarily the case, though, with "non globally hyperbolic" spacetimes! Most importantly, Our Universe, semi-classically, ( taking account for the Hawking radiation/ evaporation of Black Holes) may be exactly that, in the case of fully evaporating Black holes that leave behind locally flat spacetime if they completely disappear in the end.
Nobody really knows if our Universe is globally deterministic and retrodictable whatever the interpretation of QM that we prefer, so I don't think that the naive block universe idea has a well defined meaning..
If you are referring to my comment 1 minute into the video, I was simply explaining Einstein's view on the subject.
It also could be true that determinism is true on the level of GTR, but that random variables that exist simultaneously; and then collapse into one choice through observation is also true on the level of QM.
They can harmonise and not contradict each other. I think that was the point you were making, which I agree with.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Yes, that's my ( partial) disagreement, because even in the classical GR, not every solution is globally hyperbolic.
The case for global hyperbolicity ( and the related cosmic censorship conjecture) is still open in the classical theory and moreover, we have the semi-classical version of the infamous "information loss problem" that Wald and Unruh had pointed out:
That a spacetime that has Black holes that are completely evaporated is , semi-classically , non globally hyperbolic, so it is not globally deterministic, whatever interpretation we prefer for QM!
So, I don't really disagree with the conclusion ( and the "spirit") of your video, I just think that the case for the "block universe" idea is even weaker and ( perhaps) not well defined.
Does that invalidate the super-determinism approach for good?
The different experiments made to settle the EPR paradox (that granted a Nobel prize for three persons involved) needed the use of more and more complex systems to ensure the non causality but after all everything comes from the Big Bang.
No expermiment can go at this level of course.
Or an external observer would be able to see one path of the universe, while another observer at another place and time would see another path, hence the multiverse? :)
Super-determinism is not excluded. As I said at the end of the video, it is possible to try to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with the idea of a four dimensional block universe, by using various other interpretations of quantum mechanics. I discuss this in my video at czcams.com/video/XQ25E9gu4qI/video.html
This confuses me… The observer outside the block universe could just look at the result? No need for any probabilities?
That is the whole point. The existence of an observer outside the block universe would eliminate the existence of an intrinsically probabilistic universe. Conversely, an intrinsically probabilistic universe would eliminate the existence of an observer outside the block universe, and hence also eliminate the existence of a block universe.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky The outside observer could see the experiment setup on a slice of the block universe, and observe the results (so the particles' spins measured) on the next slice. If the universe is intrinsically probabilistic, it would just mean for this outside observer that he has no mathematical way to link those two slices (since they are not fully determined by each other).
in short : I don't see why the block universe idea should infer instrinsically deterministic universe.
@gnanay8555 I stated in the video that a non-deterministic universe does not necessarily contradict a block Universe. This is when I showed the sequence of numbers without any predictable pattern, inside a block universe where an external observer sees the entire future sequence. But, this is not the same thing as an intrinsically probabilistic universe, which by definition means that not even an observer external to the universe would be able to see the future numbers.
best channel tbh ❤
Thanks.
Can the passage of time also be treated as a result of the expansion of the universe? The universe expands in all dimensions, including what we perceive as the passage of time.
When Einstein came up with his General Theory of Relativity, it was not yet known that the Universe is expanding. This was discovered later. So, time in General Relativity still works, even without an expanding universe.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you. Amazing work as always, almost at a well deserved million subscribers!
Thanks.
what if the measurement and the state of a particle before the measurement are both predetermined and can be observed by an outside observer. from their point of view - the measurement is actually 100% going to result in the red plate along the x and the red along the diagonal, and if they look at many other such measurements - there are only 85% of them that are like that, and the other 15% are 100% red along the x and blue along the diagonal.
Just like i can look at a glass box of red and blue balls - i can see exactly how many blue and red balls there are, and can determine exactly what color each one is. but if i count them - there are 85% red balls and 15% blue balls in the box. so can the universe be composed of 85% events that have the a particle with spin S and its future measurement resulting in X-red D-red, and 15% events that have the particle with spin S and its future measurement resulting in X-red and D-blue.
Yes, that would work. That is what the "super-determinism" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics states: That your choice for the orientation for the detector was already predetermined and it is meaningless to ask what would have happened had you oriented the detector differently, since it is impossible for you to have made any choice regarding the orientation of the detector other than the one that you actually made.
@EugeneKhutoryansky are there any issues with that. saying everything is predetermined. and choice is merely an illusion. nothing like free will exist. the decisions are already taken. the past, the future, the present. it always existed. it has to happen like this.
my idea is, we can't go back and step in different direction, creating different present. different timeline. if we can do, that means our decisions matter. but if its alright determined where the detector will be. whats the point in outcome. that could be predetermined too...
it's like everything is predetermined, from our thoughts, to quantum level dancing...
Eugene is my hero
Thanks.
it is hard to grasp the expression "the future does not exist" or "the past exists" something can exist in time , the notion "exists" meaningless without time, so events cannot 'exist' , events are points of spacetime or we need a redefinition of "exists" I am not sure what you mean by 'exists'
Amazing.
Thanks.
does anyone have any information on where that 85% value is derived from?
I explain this in my video at czcams.com/video/v657Ylwh-_k/video.html
1) Time is the only physical quantity which doesn't exist in Nature. Time is a man-made quantity. That is, Nature would continue to exist and evolve even without time. 2) Time is highly subjective. That is, time differs from person to person, and also differs within the same person's observations, according to context and conditions. 3) Nature is only three dimensional. No time dimension is required. Thanks for the video.
i can predict all possible future spin states but that's because i'm just built different
If only I can be the observer outside the block universe....
I would love that too.
Thanks for your video. I have questions that puzzled me: What happens in another referential ? Does the angle between the detector depends on the referential ? And what happens if the detectors are moving relativistically from one another ?