Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 05. 2024
- Check out the math & physics courses that I mentioned (many of which are free!) and support this channel by going to brilliant.org/Sabine/ where you can create your Brilliant account. The first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
This is a video I have promised you almost two years ago: How does superdeterminism make sense of quantum mechanics? It's taken me a long time to finish this because I have tried to understand why people dislike the idea that everything is predetermined so much. I hope that in this video I have addressed the biggest misconceptions. I genuinely think that discarding superdeterminism unthinkingly is the major reason that research in the foundations of physics is stuck.
If you want to know more about superdeterminism, these two papers (and references therein) may give you a good starting point:
arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462
arxiv.org/abs/2010.01324
You can support me on Patreon: / sabine
0:00 Intro
0:24 What is superdeterminism?
2:28 What's with free will?
8:13 How does superdeterminism work?
13:51 Why would it destroy science?
15:43 What is it good for?
19:25 Sponsor message
#science #physics #quantum - Věda a technologie
Getting through a video on superdeterminism determines you're super determined
I shall very much cherish my prize, thank you!
I actually like her longer videos more
Nice one
That was a random comment ;)
I made it through the entire video but I took several different paths on which I wasn’t planning.
It’s a breath of fresh air to have a physicist like you, Sabine. It’s such a shock for me to find out that so many scientists dare to claim one thing and deny another just because they don’t like it or understand it. That’s so un-scientific.
The best are the ones like you who understand them all and like them all.
100% agree. Not only was it nice to see an alternative idea/theories/viewpoint, but I personally didn't know about this 'free-will' constant that has been involved with so much, which honestly, was disgusting to find out about. To think that people who otherwise thought very logically, reasonably, and scientifically, would just toss in some unproven theory/idea/constant and declare it as reality/fundamental truth/law is a bit worrying. I can only hope things like this are kept to a minimum. If the scientific community as whole doesn't push back against this type of stuff, we'll run into situations as she mentioned where people fully buy into some of these 'scientific' concepts without knowing the entire thing is built upon an untested*, and therefore unproven assumption.
*(I bet there are some interesting free-will experiments, but good look on getting any legitimate results that could be seen as conclusive, as well as withstand any simulation-related theory)
To assume that just because no one has made sense of or found a pattern for something, does not mean there isn't one to be discovered... and to assign this lack of understanding to 'free-will', and then declaring it as a fact or even 'a prerequisite for science', is just like you said; completely un-scientific.
I appreciate and mostly agree with you intent, but "un-scientific" is a term that riles me. Show me your objective criteria for "degree of scientficosity" and we'll have a point of discussion. My point is that the term is usually an ignorant cheap-shot critique. We should instead discuss the lack of even-handed rational skepticism (the core of the sci-method).
Well, if Sabine is right they don't have a choice in the matter lol.
@@tonymorris4335 She did not rule out compatibilism in this video and said as much.
Thank you, Sabine. You've finally clarified the difference between the reality of an outcome, and our ability to predict the outcome.
Sabine is awesome. We are grateful for your existence and explorations :)
Just a clarification: I think that the compatibilists and the "No free will" group do not use the same definition of the free will. This is why for the former free will can be compatible with determinism. Perhaps many disagreements about the existence of free will come from the fact that people mean something different when they talk about free will.
All arguments about free will turn out to be arguments about definition. Pointless
Yes in my understanding that is correct.
I think much of the confusion is that we think about an outside observer and is dividing up myself and the universe as two separate thing. When we and every observer obviosly is a part of the Universe. So if the universe is determined so are you. And your thought experiments is often wrong because the observer must be a part of the system.
You do realize you were destined to type that: you had no choice. Nor did I in typing this! ;)
Without exception, I have found that people who claim they have free will can't define it when scrutinized. But they just know they have it. The "I choose whatever I want" version of Free Will only makes sense in the Christian context of Calvinism vs Armenianism (It was wrong then, but people liked it so kept it alive.) In psychology/ criminal justice, it has become the question of responsibility for past actions, as in you did it because you are sick, not because you are evil...but this scenario fits firmly within determinism so can be ignored.
I love this channel so much, you have a talent for describing complex things in a simple and concise way.
i like people who speak sense
Manda um salveeeee!! Amo seu canal!
Ludo, I love your channel as well!!!
maybe she just understands the subject well enough to convey it fluidly
Bullshit
I love your statement: "Now you all know that I think free will is logical incoherent nonsense" I could'nt agree more. I also love the statement: ""And in any case, throwing out determinism just because you don't like its consequences is really bad science". However, I might fall into the category of men having a strong opinion about things they know very little about 😉
Great presentation! This may be the most intriguing and enlightening lecture I have ever found on you-tube! Thank-you! Made my Day!
I've been saying for decades that EVERY observation in QM can be explained deterministically. I was shot down every time, primarily because of Bell. Now, finally, a few decades late, somebody has noticed that Bell's theorem doesn't say what everybody insisted it said. And so now we have superdeterminism, which is just plain old determinism, but with a 'super' added presumably to help someone somewhere save some face. I don't mind, in fact if people were to attach a 'super' to everything I've been saying for the last few decades and not just in the field of quantum mechanics that would be fine by me.
'What a quantum particle does depends on what you measure" - of course it does. Quantum measurements are generally of tiny quantities which are only just barely detectable. The 'detectors' generally have internal states vastly more energetic than the things being 'detected'. Assuming they don't affect the particle being measured is like using a sledgehammer to measure eggs and concluding thereby that all eggs are flat at all times.
i'm prepared to believe in determinism or superdeterminism but at the same time i'm not sure if it ultimately makes a real difference overall.. i believe in free will either way, and if the universe is indeed deterministic it's future is still incalculable at anywhere near the extremely fine-grained levels that determinism provides for
Ditto
I'm not sure, if I understand you correctly. Does it mean, the result of the measurement is determined by the internal state of the detector?
@@peabody3000 The universe made you think that the universe doesn't make you think everything you think. That's kinda messed up if you think about it.
@@peabody3000 We appear to have the free will to choose but the outcomes of the universe are predetermined because time only flows in one direction.
Whilst you made your choice through freewill it can never be undone & would never have had a different outcome because its a one time deal. Whether you could've choose to do someone else is irrelevant becuase the fact is you didn't & you can never change it.
In essence everything has a predetermined outcome.
Thank you so much for the clarification @15:15, the "detection" statement that is used in so many pop sceince books drives me crazy and took me a while to understand what they are actually referring to is INTERACTION. I REALLY wish people would stop using the detection term as it tends to make laymen (like me) think the whole damn thing is based on human detection. It is not, it is anything INTERACTING with the particle.
Yes! The muddling of definitions between measurement/observation/detection/collapse and all the other terms used has been the biggest thorn in fundamental physics' side for a century.
Everything is just interactions of one form or another! It's that simple!
Who detects the interaction?
Sabine is incorrect in her claim that “measurement/observation” is the same as “quantum interaction”, ….it is not. 1) If you imagine “quantum interactions” occurring independently of measurement, then you’re imagining metaphysics. Science can only know about measurement/observations. 2) There is empirically substantiated evidence that quantum interaction is not the same as measurement/observation, given the collapse of the wavefunction description . 3) Decoherence, which is quantum interaction with the experimental apparatus, does not cause collapse of the wavefunction, nor does it solve the measurement problem, nor does it determine why one set of values are observed rather than another.
Detection is just a particle interacting with a detector that can measure some property of the particle.
Well how great to have found your channel!!! Finally a good use for our TV set! The only thing I love more than physics, information theory and philosophy is Sabine ❤❤❤
I reached the final line but dont deserve the medal. I need a break and then rewatch the video a few times before I can grasp it to some extent. The topic is very interesting and you explained it really well, but even double slit experiment confuses my brain after all these years
Keep up hope
In the double slit experiment isn't "measurement" another word for "interact"? When I hear someone say, "when we measure the particle it collapses the wave function." it sounds mysterious, but when I hear, "when we interact with the particle it collapses the wave function." it sound ridiculous that anything else would occur.
That’s a very good point.
Does a Passive Infrared detector change the heat-energy it detects?
What you say is true ONLY IF you accept Many Worlds interpretation. For example, when particles interact with each other, their wavefunction do not collapse but entangled. However, their wavefunction will be collapsed as soon as they are observed according to Copenhagen Interpretation. This is due to the existence of an apparatus, which is a classical object and there is a distinction between classical and quantum concepts according to CI.
According to Many Worlds Interpretation, however, there is no collapse. Measurement is entanglement as well. So when we measure let's say a particle's position, we are entangled with its all possible choices. We observe only one choice because in a sense there are other worlds of us that measured other choices.
What does it mean 'interact'?
@@rodmotor Interesting. I think the particle must have high energy to emit enough photons for the detector to recognize them. In that case, do the emitted photons interfere with the experiment? Does a large device near the split affect the experiment in some way? Did someone do an experiment or do the math for that?
I have to say that I've been loving the sense of humor you inject into these videos. Thank you.
She must have taken an anatomy class the way she hands men their heads :)
You are welcome.
Sarcasm is a sense of humor. :D
Sabine is a hoot - there is no doubt. Love the desiccated-mummy-dry sense of humor, that translates well despite the culture barrier.
Hey Bee, l finally earned your medal after hearing this about a dozen times. I don't worry about CZcams videos, I trust you and I leave the equations in your papers for Nicolas Gisin and Anton Zeilinger. This was great education, thank you. Hope you keep up working on the topic, and the experiment, you suggested since years, will be done.
You better not trust anyone...too much. Today's commentary on the fragment around 11.50: "Because the particles must have already known when they set off whether to choose one of the two slits or go through both."
In a delayed selection experiment in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, we can insert the second beam splitter after the photon has left the first beam splitter. If we insert a second beam splitter, the photon moves along both paths at the same time (it must have information about the amplitudes and phase differences of both paths) and single-photon interference occurs. If we do not insert a second beam splitter, the photon follows one path.
@@wiesawnykiel1348sounds like a quantum reaser. But is it in opposite to what SH claims here?
@@Thomas-gk42 Read it again:"Because the particles must have already known when they set off whether to choose one of the two slits or go through both."
Now listen to this czcams.com/video/433tAfO4dbA/video.html
In this case, the photon is supposed to move in one of two ways, but we don't know which one. Therefore, the measurement only indicates which path it is. However, if we insert a second beam splitter ("long" after the photon has chosen one of the paths), interference will occur, which means that the photon had to move on both paths at the same time. MEANS HE COULD NOT CHOOSE ONE PATH, because you never know whether a second beam splitter will be inserted.
are you saying that under the 3 interpretations...
1. copenhagen: there is statistical independence, there are no hidden variables underneath the wave function, no spooky action at a distance. the loss of an interference pattern at a measured double slit comes from the instantaneous collapse of the wave function and forces us to reject hidden variables in order to avoid spooky action at a distance.
2. bell's hidden variables: there is statistical independence, there are hidden variables, there is spooky action at a distance. the loss of the interference pattern when there is a measurement forces us to accept spooky action at a distance in order to maintain hidden variables.
3. superdeterminism: there are violations of statistical independence, there are hidden variables, there is no spooky action at a distance. the loss of interference pattern when there is a measurement at a double slit doesnt force us choose between locality and hidden variables. we can keep hidden variaables and still reject spooky action at a distance if we drop our fixation on statistical independence.
Thank you for pointing out that "observation" means interacting with the particle/wave/system. Far too often that gets left out of explanations, which then feeds beliefs that the universe requires consciousness to function.
how wouId that hinder superdeterminism anyway?
How would people who think that the universe needs consciousness to function explain the existence of the universe before life arose? 🤔
Your universe requires your consciousness to function, and the universe as a whole does not ;)
Maybe it's not one or the other, but both. Each consciousness within the universe experiences its own "universe" independent of other conscious beings. But I'm just rambling, if only we actually understood consciousness on a more fundamental level.
Wish more people knew that... It's depressing when you have to argue with some who hears "quantum observation" and imagines a 4K camera capturing a small blue ball with "e¯" label on it... 😑
@@michaelredl7860 Firstly, you don't know that the universe precedes consciousness, or even "life" for that matter. You have just assumed it. Since we have no idea what consciousness is, that is a bold assumption to make.
Wow, it's amazing to hear an actual physicist talk seriously about the kind of ideas that seemed intuitive to me back in college learning about the double slit experiments but was told to were obviously wrong and stupid. I kind of feel inspired to go back and finish.
Be careful, if you go talking with people and it appears that your idea is that the very source of all their income is about to be revealed as something so simple any random student can catch it the first time he hears about it, then they will hang you at the very first string available. Never do that! Don't claim such things! I mean don't claim it alone at their face. Go get friends before and claim it under a complicated name by a publication on Nature. So they will not understand what you say, they will fully support your "new revolutionary idea" and they will make a mess out of it the same way they did with quantum statistician laws. Even if your theory says they are dumb, they will support it fully and proudly claim later they were your disciples from the very first day.
@@gsyamsri8122 applause is due for that superb Machiavellian recommendation on how to subvert a moribund orthodoxy.
You guys didn't get him. What is infact intuitive is the hidden variable theory. And what Einstein said. To experiment we need very small system with nothing except the particle. It's difficult to do this experiment.
@Matthew Morycinski Whenever people say stuff like that it just comes off as being upset that someone else might find something intuitive that they do not. The first time anyone encounters anything it is going to be unlike anything they have already experienced. Intuition isn't the same thing as prior experience nor is it synonymous with 'obvious'.
@Matthew Morycinski I don't agree. QM is in many way behind intuition, it's only a question of equations, and the result following these equations, but these equations are only statistical.
You need no intuition, you need to apply the rules.
Once you see the results, then you may find the results themselves unintuitive, but as log as you understand what you did with the numbers, it won't be rocket science for you, it's gonna just be as it is.
And then whet it's a question of making sense out of these, well we don't know for sure. But some find one idea more intuitive than another, Einstein found more intuitive the hidden variables. Who are you to say that it SHOULD be unintuitive to be correct? It's wrong, we just don't know, but it seems what is said here,seems to me, more intuitive than the usual "wow MQ is so fucked-up you know, you'll never understand" bullshit.
This is one of the most enjoyable of your videos. I do enjoy your sense of humor and I’m happy you’ve decided to make CZcams a part of your illustrious career. I can envisage a day in the far future long after you have moved on making the equivalent of CZcams science videos. And when she refers to one of your papers or podcasts she say, “Yes, that gal again.”
Please keep them coming. The educational perk and your opinion are a part of my day, InscrutableJohn
Thank you for the medal! 🙂 BTW, I like your approach with your thinking. People shouldn't be afraid about this free will question, as it doesn't change your life. As you said in another of your videos, you can keeping using it as a thinking aid if you would like to, or as I like to call it, it is a concept that your mind can work with.
Of course the free will question changes your life. It allows our courts to send you to jail for bad things that you have done. ;-)
Obviously if you don't believe in free will then you don't think the question can change your life. But if you do believe in free will then it can change your life.
@@jetfaker6666How so?
If you don't believe in free will then you think nothing can change your life.
@@jetfaker6666 What do you mean?
Our lives are ever changing, from birth to the moment we die. Nothing can stop that, let alone ones mindset.
This is so good and helpful. I have been confused for so long how there could be different degrees of determinism. From the moment you said superdeterminism was just as deterministic as regular determinism I was so excited, because I could see a way to explain this issue that had made me feel like I must be misunderstanding something for many years. I read “what bell did” soon after its publication and tried to ask Tim Maudlin this question, but until now I never had the confidence to say that I didn’t think his answer made sense. Bless you for explaining so clearly and I love it when you cut loose like this, incredible video!
Our dear Sabine is a life saver; I saved lots if time just getting the facts from her trendy Physics briefings. I literally clapped my hands watching her briefings on Quantum Eraser without the gobbledygook 👏
Thanks for the kind words, it really makes it all worthwhile to know that my videos are helpful.
@Star Traveler incredible detective work. Thank goodness you are on the internet uncovering this horrific behavior, and thoughtfully warning all of us on CZcams.
@Star Traveler I came for the science but stayed for the weird
@@SabineHossenfelder, kindly provide your email address, as I have an interesting proposition for you, Frau.
Sabine, is the first person ive heard who re-iternated my belief that free-will is an incoherent concept. I am happy that I am not completely crazy. So many people just give me glazed over looks or just completely disregard this idea when I explain it to them
This is common among neuroscientists. And I find nothing to be afraid of here. "Free will doesn't exist" really means free will isn't a fundamental constituent of nature, just like the chair I'm sitting on, isn't, either.
As a software developer I also find that free will is overrated. Computers don't have free will. But that doesn't mean they can't make decisions. They make decisions all the time! They make decisions based on their current state and the input they receive. Even if you include some randomness, it's always pseudorandom in computers so they still just determine on the pseudorandom algorithm and its seed.
The idea that some quantum noise influencing your decisions somehow gives you more agency seems absurd to me. A computer can fulfill whatever task you want it to do while being entirely deterministic. There is no reason to believe that our biological programming is so fundamentally different. And even if quantum randomness plays a big role in our brains: it is indistinguishable from pseudorandomness. As long as the pseudorandom generator obeys the same distribution, you can never distinguish the two and therefore doesn't have an impact on us.
@Ewef
Yes, I get this too. My sister genuinely looks worried when I explain this to her 😂
@@Niosus I'm so glad other people see it the way I do.
Beware your confirmation bias.
thanks for the medal. i really hope that I one day understand this, I believe in it because I trust your mind, but idk much about the physics and bell theorem or the math
I really needed the medal. Thank you.
Well I'm not convinced because all of that just went right over my head. I'm gonna have to rewatch this many times.
Don't worry; if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't.
It's my favourite saying because it means I understand quantum mechanics!
😃😃😃
@@aarondavis8943 Ah, but if you think you *don't* understand quantum mechanics, you also don't.
@@aarondavis8943 well I don’t understand quantum mechanics but yet I understand determinism randomness and super determinism and all,it took was basic questions 🙂you just have to ask the RIGHT questions 😐
Poor squirrel, his whole future is now that much more determined- he says he will have to watch it over again, and again. Doomed? To soon to say!! Got any updates for us on this Zahir?
❤🧟🧞♂️
from not-mardon , in Canada 🇨🇦
This video is an excellent example of what happens when experts in one field think they can freely comment on other fields with any confidence
So how is she not an expert in the field of QM? You're obligated to explain
@@georgefaulkner3640 I'm pretty sure they're talking about how the physicists she mentioned had strong assumptions on free will.
@@georgefaulkner3640 invited, not obligated.
@@B00mano Sorry. Yes, it is the other physics experts who then think they are experts in philosophy and neuroscience, which also have made real contributions to the free will debate. One of the best, I think, is philosopher Daniel Dennett's idea that while naturalism and determinism are likely true, free will should be redefined to mean the evolved ability of more complex nervous systems to imagine future consequences and adapt to them with a wider range of responses.
@@B00mano There is nothing wrong with their assumptions. This assumptions are often not about "free will" or neuroscience or anything . It is simply that Sabine tries to describe them as ridicolous. Look she doesn't explain what is statistic independence for example. She immideately changes it to free will. Many people who disagree with her don't believe in free will also. Yes superdeterminism is possible, but it isn't like ever scirntist around who doesn't agree with it is idiot.
I appreciate the medal, but I still don't grasp the double slit experiment, and I've tried (with CZcams -- not formal books, many times.) I stuck around, part because I hoped to get that elusive mental hook into the topic, and part because I love Sabine's wacky sense of humor.
Perhaps Sabine's lesson on 'Brilliant'?😊
around 11.50: "Because the particles must have already known when they set off whether to choose one of the two slits or go through both."
In a delayed selection experiment in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, we can insert the second beam splitter after the photon has left the first beam splitter. If we insert a second beam splitter, the photon moves along both paths at the same time (it must have information about the amplitudes and phase differences of both paths) and single-photon interference occurs. If we do not insert a second beam splitter, the photon follows one path.
Thank You; I'm a layman, and thanks to your skill, I actually understood this. You are a great teacher.
You have absolutely shocked me by saying exactly what I've been thinking about QM for a long, long time. All the way from the separation of superdeterminism and free will to the chaotic system of hidden variables. I was very nearly convinced otherwise through my deepening exploration of QM by the physicists that have explained it to me, but you've given me a reason to hold fast. Thanks.
I have had a similar experience. Thanks for sharing.
Hidden variables seem reasonable, when they cannot be ruled out.
So far I haven’t seen an argument.
I wouldn't use the word "thinking", if I were you. This is just complete bullshit. It's amazing how seemingly intelligent people get in completely over their heads when dealing with quantum mechanics. What nearly always does them in is trying to fill a knowledge vacuum with whatever idiotic theory makes them feel more intelligent, rather than being able to admit they don't know something, and have zero evidence to base their crackpot theory on.
Quantum mechanics doesn't need "saved". It's getting along fine, and is completely healthy. It people with limited minds who need saved, but crackpot theories like superdeterminism are not the answer, they're just a symptom of a mind that is straining beyond its own limitations.
@@jamesaritchie1 Actually superdeterministic QM is exactly the ordinary QM that does not need to be saved, but just follows logically, as the patient Sabine H has demonstrated. The amazing stretches of introducing consciousness and other such woolly notions into physics constitute the intellectual abyss, even though uttered by Bohr, Bell and other gray eminences.
@david hand - your comment continues to spark useful interaction. It is a defect of the CZcams comment medium that such back and forth gets buried.. @Sabine Hossenfelder, thanks again for kicking this off..
I've watched almost all your videos. This one was by far my favourite.
I fell in love with you at a spooky distance. I love your sense of humor and your clear explanation of complex stuff. I'm not an expert in physics but I think I can tell when I see a real one. I'm impressed.
Yes, but…this really just moves back the question of “how could that happen?” How could the behavior of a particle depend on the measurement settings? The answers to that question highlight what bothers the intuitions of so many people.
For instance, we could have a modified version of Maxwell’s demon that decides which path a particle will take. If the demon can tell what setting the experiment will use at the time of measurement, it can choose to send the particle down a single path or both paths. This is problematic because it seems to require FTL information about the settings if they are decided after the particle has been sent towards the screen, an experiment which has now been done repeatedly by now. Alternatively the demon simply knows how everything in the universe is arranged and calculates the “random” choice of measurement by determinism, but this seems to violate non-locality or at least requires some kind of coordination with all the other demons around the universe making similar decisions.
Which leads to how I personally think about this. Recall that special relativity introduced us to a “block universe” in which all events must have already been determined, because different observers will not agree on the order of various events. I picture this in terms of a “time outside spacetime” in which spacetime is assembled in a way that is consistent with the laws of physics. Maybe a kind of crystallization process or annealing, the way soap bubbles find minimum surfaces over time.
In that case, agreeing with the laws of quantum mechanics is a “cheap” extension of the theory; the block universe “settles” into a shape that conforms to those laws of physics too. So the particle follows a path consistent with the measurement settigs because there is some additional phase or process by which reality makes the universe agree with the laws of physics that we never observe in action. We only see the (obedient-to-laws) outcome.
So I effectively think “the demons all follow a common pre-agreed plan consistent with the laws of physics.”
That’s problematic because it requires some such phase or process. Is the block universe formed “before” we experience it? How do we test for a process which in some sense must take place before all of our measurements? Is this a scientific theory at all or just a metaphysical assumption which makes me more comfortable with the incompleteness of my scientific understanding?
I believe this is, or is close to, what some physicists mean by “the conspiracy theory.” The reason superdeterminism works is that a plan was laid out “before time” that each particle or demon can follow now.
You've hit the nail on the head.
Big smile on my face, really enjoying your work. Thank you!
Sabine, you make some of the most interesting physics issues accessible to engineers like me, and it is wonderful. If you become a superstar, it will be because of this. Understanding is good, communicating that understanding, is devine.
This is amazing! Ever since I did a course on Non-linear Dynamics and Chaos I though that, just maybe, some of the systems we are used to analyzing as probabilistic might just be chaotic. The idea of Superdeterminism surely seems like great motivation to study more of both subjects!
Thanks for sharing this with us, Sabine!
It's bizarre to think that chaotic systems can be as overwhelmingly unpredictable as "truly" random ones.
strogatz says hello
@@IPlayWithFire135 isn't it true that quantum mechanics is the only physical regime where objective randomness is widely considered to exist? if so, this makes the randomness of QM an aberrant property. then, some might find it unsurprising that the apparent randomness of QM is in fact the result of a highly chaotic system.
@@jamieg2427 strongly agree with you and Gustavo
Please explain why? If the heisenberg uncertainty principle is true, then you can never have exact position and momentum at the same time in interactions. This in turn implies that in causal chains there is always some error in the initial conditions. Coupled with chaos theoretic phenomena (an error smaller than heisenbergs uncertainty term can cause an infinitely large error in finite time) this implies that often a natural phenomena can be completely indeterministic.
Hence determinism is bullshit😊
I really loved this video. And I'm quite shocked by the number of famous scientists who, not getting it right, react in a very obscurantistic way.
I actually find it quite puzzling.
Yes! I'm still schocked by that. But it seems every field has problems like that, science still needs humans to run and interpret it. This makes me wonder how much of my understanding comes from a trusted missundertanding source 🤔
@@SabineHossenfelder It reminds me of Eddington's reaction to Chandrashekar's paper on electron degeneracy and it's implications for white dwarfs. His objection was just emotional, he obviously couldn't refute the science. This has the same vide to me.
Historians of science (physics and beyond), however, are neither shocked, surprised, nor puzzled.
@@SabineHossenfelder I do not. On the contrary, this fits nice into my worldview of human beings being very, very wrong about many things. And scientists are part of the group that we label "humans", so they suffer from the same cognitive biases that other humans do. Disclaimer: I am also a part of the "human" set. Cognitive biases apply to myself as well. At least I am aware of it, but that does not mean that I do not suffer from them.
I just recently butted heads with probabilities. It bothered me so much, how imperfect all the experiments have been. That's fine on a macro scale, but not when experimenting on the smallest particles in the known universe...
I've been struggling to explain why I reject Bell and am skeptical of Heisenberg without rambling and going on tangents, and this video helped a lot.
I cannot say that I followed all of Sabine's discussion and points, but when I heard her say that she believes Einstein was right when he asserted that there cannot "spooky action at a distance", I was convinced. I trust Sabine and Einstein. As for all the others, a PHD and even a Nobel price does not make you infallible.
Why would you trust Sabine? Because she is a bad dresser on the internet? And Einstein? Dude, any child with half a physics degree can spot his greatest mistake in his photoelectric paper. Wait... you never read any paper, either by Einstein or Sabine! Trust me, Einstein's papers are much better than hers. I have read both of them. Why? Because I am not a lazy bum. I actually look at the stuff I am talking about. ;-)
The _weather in a year in advance_ analogy finally hit home for my understanding. The predictive weather models give us averages spread over seasons or months. However, if we measure the weather on a specific date next year, that probability distribution collapses to whatever happened. If we decide to destroy the measurement and not know what the weather was like on that day, all we have remaining is an average prediction. A weather erasure?
With enough sensors of humidity, temperature and pressure and enough computing power, the weather of a year in advance can be predicted with a high probability. This is not so clear for quantum mechanics, it seems.
@@davidfdzp probably the problem is with scale, not with "enough" of something.
@@davidfdzp True. Though I think this is thought to be a problem in physics because something like the electron is thought to be elementary, a single thing and therefore simple. If in fact there is more structure down to the plank length then the weather analogy looks more applicable.
I watched this video when it came out, yet understood nothing. Upon recently watching PBS Spacetime video on the same topic, this video made much more sense. I really appreciate channels like this, bringing such topics to the general public with better quality than your average science communication channel. Thank you.
Yes. I had the benefit of watching that PBS Spacetime video, "Is The Future Predetermined By Quantum Mechanics?" first. I have to agree that video greatly helps set the stage visually for this argument in the Physics community presented so well in this video. Especially the emphasis on Wave Functions in Quantum Mechanics. Watch this one first: czcams.com/video/1JCRDaa3ehk/video.html
I'm newly subscribed and really enjoying your channel. Thanks for the great content!
Well, something is clear to me, I have to see this video again in order to understand it. I have to understand it, because I like this topic. You really go to the core of the matter.
Don't give up
Sneaking free will into the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics always seemed like a stretch to me. It's really a "god of the gaps" type argument. I don't choose the spins of electrons in my brain. Whether the process is random or predetermined, I'm not really in control.
YES THANK YOU 👏
I agree however, our predetermined conclusions only work if we identify with the humans (fragments of the universe) typing these comments (instead of the whole of existence). Maybe the whole of existence is choosing the spins without us fragments being individually aware of it...
A better version of free will would be if humans were partly higher dimensional. If a part of your existence (lets call it your spirit) is larger than the universe itself, and the physical human is connected to that. Then the part that's outside of the universe can make decisions or guide the physical human to locally change the universe in some way. That would be free will I think. Or at least it would be in relation to the universe (but not to the higher dimensions that we would be part of). But it wouldn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics...
the problem with your argument is that it is conflating scales and principles. Free will has nothing to do with the randomness on the level of quantum physics. Though it has to do with randomization, more precisely, mapping of data onto high-dimensional random vectors.
Free will is a short notion for: there is no traceable physical causal relationship between saying "no" and the physical environment the "no" saying mind is emerging from.
If you relate free will to quantum fluctuations you follow the path of a crude reductionist. Yet, there are countless ways to construct randomness in multi-level emergent systems. Those you rule all out, just as your famous colleagues, because you do not know anything about constructing thinking.
@Adrian Molière yes, but then it's also hard to see how quantum effects would influence the brain in any substantial way either, leaving us with an unpredictable yet fully deterministic human. One who for as yet unknown reasons has come to view his actions as somehow not beholden to the same laws as everything else in the universe. And here, while it may make sense for the general public to believe in such fantasy, for the life of me I can't understand how any working physicists also could. The arrogance is simply breathtaking, even allowing for the fact they don't control it!
I am so grateful to the superdeterminism of the CZcams algorithm for introducing me to you and your marvelous work this evening! I don’t believe in free will either, so I had absolutely no choice but to gleefully subscribe!! So happy to be here!!
There is free will, but only in things that doesn't matter.
@@orbitalmechanics3756 how do you mean?
@@livebungusreaction e.g. you have a freewill to choose what cloth to wear , but no one can determine their own birth circumstances and upbringing. Whearas the former does not really matter, but the latter makes a lot of difference.
@@orbitalmechanics3756 Okay I see I would agree. We do have free will just idk just because we can’t predict it doesn’t mean it isn’t “predetermined” it doesn’t make free will less special to me though? In the end I still have one outcome that is going to happen or potentially maybe not but as far as I’m aware it still only has one ending not multiple.
@@orbitalmechanics3756 free will for only thgs that doesn't MTR means didn't get u sir..for which things we have free will??
"Now you all know that I think free will is logically incoherent nonsense." MY QUEEN!!!! 💘💝💖💗💓💞💕
I can't tell you what a relief it is to hear Sabine say Bell's inequality does not disprove hidden variables. Reading Bells paper I always felt the statistical independence assumption was very weak.
Can you show me a hidden variable theory? Just one. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477pilot wave?-ok, doesn't work well. Superdeterminism?
@@Thomas-gk42 "Superdeterminism" is a nicer term for "goddidit". It only appeals to idiots. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 so Bee is an idiot and a preacher? I'm no physicist, but I know, that she has suggested experiments for evidence, which were not done so far
@@Thomas-gk42 "Bee" is a troll. She is only interested in her view count and CZcams income. It doesn't take much to notice that. ;-)
This encouraged me to finish the section on Bell's inequalities in my quantum information theory book, thank you
You are welcome.
I love this topic-so interesting! When I first heard about the double-slit weirdness, I instantly thought, "this doesn't violate determinism at all. " We don't really know what is causing anything to happen on a fundamental level. I think where people get uncomfortable is thinking that our measuring is causing the particle to change paths, but maybe the measurement and the predictable particle path are just intrinsically linked. Here's a thought experiment: a human has their eyes covered from birth, and walks around with some kind of footwear that makes it impossible for them to feel anything about the ground they are walking on. They discover an attachment for their eye coverings that displays a strange image (it's a feed from a camera that points at a patch of earth beside them, feet out of view). When they walk around, the image changes. They might conclude that they are causing this substance to morph into different materials, but the ground was already all those materials to begin with. Their walking wasn't changing the ground, they were just seeing different parts of it.
Assertions (from physics community) about any violations of determinism in observations made at quantum mechanical scales has little to do with double-slit weirdness. The probabilistic wave-particle nature of quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with determinism (ignoring other phenomena), and the physics community is completely aware of this. But, for this compatibility to hold, hidden variables have to exist.
Qualms (from phys community) with determinism arise from Bell's theorem/inequality and the Bell experiments. The Bell experiments demonstrated that locally-hidden variables cannot exist - czcams.com/video/zcqZHYo7ONs/video.html (17m minutephysics video). This is experimental evidence that explicitly refutes determinism (of locally-hidden variables). The qualms aren't simply an interpretation of double-slit weirdness.
This video asserts that the Bell experiments showed those results because the detectors were (and, so far, have always been) interfering** with the system they are measuring, and thus creating a smearing over averages. Her solution is to carry out experiments with more precise measurement systems that do not interfere with the systems they are measuring.
**(much like if you were to try to measure your distance from a ball (A) on a frictionless surface by rolling another ball (B) towards it, and measuring the time to hear the collision. Plotting the distances over multiple rolls would show that ball A's position seemed random and probabilistic, but Sabine asserts this randomness comes from your inability to roll ball B at a precise speed, not due to ball A being a cloud with no real position. Her solution would be to just roll ball B slower so you are more confident of your roll-speed.)
@@colekam thanks for finally giving a simple comprehensible example of what is meant by the hidden variable explanation for the seeming probabilistic (indeterminate) nature of the microscopic world. In your example the hidden variable would be the precise velocity (or deviation from your intended velocity) of Ball B, if i follow correctly.
@@colekam You can't you prove locally-hidden variables don't exist and I am all too often astonished that so many people who are really into science think you can.
heisenberg principle is determenistic or probalistic ?
Superdeterminism doesn't just postulate that the measuring causes the particle to change paths though; it postulates that the measuring causes the particle *to have always been on a different path*. In your analogy, it's as though you could demonstrate that the materials that the ground was made of in the beginning depended on how the person chooses to walk later on.
I don't think superdeterminism is inherently wrong or bad, but I think people in this comments section are brushing off the fact that it is still very weird.
I share your point of view 100%, it's so refreshing, thank you
Hi Sabine, can you please explain why for such experiments (like double-slit one) everybody is sure that measurement device doesn't interact with the particles? In my opinion photon's behavior is changed just because of physical interaction of a measurement device with a photon, either in a form of wave or particle (and I don't see any way how they can proof that it's not).
I don't think anyone disputes that you must interact with a particle to observe it. It's that they dispute what's going on in that interaction. Superdeterminism says the path of the particle directly depends on what you will measure. Wave function collapse interpretations say that the act of measuring is what causes the particle to choose one path or the other.
You either end up in the situation that both the particle and the measurement have the same cause (a hidden variable), or you have the wave function collapsing faster than light.
"the act of measuring is what causes the particle to choose one path or the other"
I don't think that is true.
What I think Maksym maybe getting at is the particle passes through a slit but the measuring device prevents the wave from getting beyond either slit to interfere.
I think it's a flawed experiment. I have never seen an actual demonstration. I see them them use beam splitters, but that really doesn't prove anything. Even MIT uses simulations. There is a study that claims to use individual photons and they just build an interference pattern. Plenty of studies use electrons, which obviously are not photons.
@@marcv2648 Do you have a link to the study where the photons build an interference pattern. Is this even when there is a detector?
@@Geokinkladze that's just highschool physics. light acts as a wave when not measured. you can do the experiment at home, you will see the interference pattern. there is no need for a "study" for something that a 10 year old can see.
So good to hear a genius explain difficult concepts clearly & without shouting or gimmicks. You are now a favourite along with Matt o'Dowd of PBS Spacetime 👍
agreed russel
And Crazy Lucid Nick, c'mon....
Where are you watching shouting scientists with gimmicks? I want to see that stuff!
@@kennethraymondmoore Could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and his alikes.
My favorite!
Amazing content. Watched it several times in awe at how you transform such difficult concepts into elegant explanations that are as easy to understand as they ever could be. Educational masterpiece, really.
I always had a problem with quantum mechanics and the fact that what happens on the particle level just doesn't translate to the macro levels. It just doesn't make sense.
I thought I was the only one watching this video over and over again.
While it is counterintuitive, scale effects other non-quantum things too. For example the water strider bug takes advange if it's size and weight to have surface tension overwhelm other forces to walk on water. We cannot scale that up to human size, or even mouse size.
Quatum mechanics are weird, but various things don't conceptually work the same way at different scales. People don't attach and detact from other objects like electrons do to atoms either.
It changes the Makrokosmos: radioactive decay changes often the Genom.And Planetary Atmospheres are mathematical Chaotic systems,so radioactive decay cause butterfly effects ( And i dont see,how browns molecular movement would smooth this butterfly effects away, as several people assume.)
Yea.
Hi guys...does this video conclude ...we don't have free wil at all ...can someone pls tell..
Thank you, Sabine, for this video that again demonstrates how little I understand in this life. I would need an entire semester of painfully gradual, step-by-step instruction in order to gain an adequate understanding of this subject matter. Maybe I'll watch this video again. Maybe I won't. Place your bets everyone.
Well, social science also shows that the more you learn from the hidden variables, the more you understand observations : so even if you can never touch all hidden variables, it tends to prove that all actions and pheanomenons are deterministic. Future is already written, it's just hard to accept ; as one does not nead to abide by any given rule while following it's deterministic way, we are all absolutely predetermined and absolutely free at the same time.
Wishing you were my physics professor!! Partly for your skill at scientific communication but also because you’re hilarious and a badass. I always look forward to your videos!!
@@kensho123456 a cool person who is confident and brave!
"Free will" just means a subject has a range of potential choices which aren't ontologically determined until they're consciously selected and enacted. It is the indeterminacy of the choice selection process which puts the "free" in "free will", while the subjective _meaningfulness_ of available choices makes them non-random.
Our inability to predetermine a given choice seems different to me from the question of whether we truly could have made a choice different from the one we made. I'm unaware of any method for investigating whether we really could have made a different choice. In my mind, it certainly SEEMS like I have free will when I'm considering options prior to making "choices". Just because no one is able to predict my choice until I actually make it, however, does not ultimately qualify as evidence against determinism being correct.
@@xmillion1704
If determinism were true, it would mean that it should be possible to predict events to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, based purely on knowledge of their preconditions. However, it's been pretty much established that, in principle, this isn't possible. At most, one can only make probabilistic predictions of outcomes.
@@Kimani_White Our current inability to fully comprehend all of the implications of initial states or understand the full nature of causality does not mean that such states and causal relationships do not exist. It may simply mean that we lack the sophistication and knowledge to use them to make predictions, it does not follow that they are impossible.
@@xmillion1704
QM describes our reality as probabilistic with indeterminacy being a fundamental feature of it. This has consistently been borne out by experiments over the past century or so.
@@Kimani_White You're describing our ability to predict the outcome and as Sabine explains, that QM outcomes seem random to us does not describe free will.
I certainly appreciate your video. I find your explanation clear for people such as myself…not a physicist 🇨🇦
I believe you are correct about 'free will'. It's my observation that free will folks tend to believe mollis omnibus paribus. Spooky action at a distance is a good example of the inability to chase the cause and effect chain back to infinity. I my opinion it handles the myth of free will, which is a decision made in the absence of a prior constraint.
Sabine, please continue your excellent work.
John C Flesner
Why are you telling us that you don't understand either physics of philosophy? ;-)
Physicists often make their case weaker than it actually is for some strange reason I don't really understand. Their rants about "free will" are just meaningless theological drivel, despite the fact that there are more genuine concerns about superdeterminism. The biggest flaw with it is that it effectively proposes that all perceived nonlocal action is really just a big coincidence because some initial configuration of the universe could exist in such a way where particles would just so happen to behave in a particular way that appears nonlocal when nothing nonlocal is actually occurring. This grand coincidence might be believable if somehow the initial configuration of the universe could actually be knowable, but it's not actually knowable, so you have to posit that the grand coincidence that makes things appear nonlocal despite being local is actually caused by something we cannot even empirically verify exists, and thus in practice we have to just treat it as nonlocal... in other words, it is difficult to imagine how a superdeterministic theory could ever be in practice distinguished from a nonlocal _and_ epistemic one (as opposed to something nonlocal an ontological like pilot wave). Both violate preparation independence in pretty much the same way, superdeterminism just has an additional philosophical story it sprinkles on top.
Sabine, absolutely excellent, as always. Just looking at methodology, it seems a lot of science is filled with preconceived notions and if you dig deep enough, eventually small traces of circular reasoning. I think this is especially true when one approaches determinism with the attitude of "it must be so, because I cannot accept that it isn't." And therefore if something seems random, it must be because the boundaries we have drawn from inside our observer are being violated by some deterministic process from outside those boundaries. I don't see any way to escape that it is either random (not fully deterministic) or there is something (that could be deterministic or not) from outside acting on the observer. I think we can't eliminate non-determinism on quantum levels until such time as we discover an outside influence.
It seems that the lines between science and philosophy tend to blur quite a bit when dealing with quantum mechanics because the results appear to be contrary to how we experience the universe.
@@aaronrobinson5256 That's not the opposite of science. Can you design an experiment to prove or deny the existence of free will?
Free will is just the subjective impression that we theoretically could have made another choice after making one, but because we only experiment every instant once, there is no way to test if we really could have done that. There is no physical manifestation of free will, free will is a philosophical concept and should remain in that realm.
@@juanausensi499 "Can you design an experiment to prove or deny the existence of free will?" -- If the answer is 'No,' then both free will and determinism lie outside the realm of science because the scientific method will not be applicable to either one.
@@michaels4255 Yes and no. The concept of 'determinism' only exists because the concept of 'free will' exists. Determinism is the null hypothesis, is the assumption than causes precede and determine consequences. As an assumption, it can't be proved.
But in practice, you don't need to bother. Physics is the same with or without free will. The interpretations of quantum mechanics are not science (unless we can prove them right or wrong) but narrative, so you can place free will in them if that is useful to understand what's happening.
But does it means..our whole life is predestined by laws of nature and differntial equations..before even we are born??
Thank you Sabine, your videos never fail to answer those lingering doubts and questions I have after watching others on the same subject. I love how you don't shy away from going just a bit deeper into things and even showing us an equation or two.
You are welcome.
I like the way this lady explains so that I almost feel like I almost understand
I just saw this video. I always thought reality to be deterministic. Thanks for showing me that I am not alone on it.
That's interesting, because for me, it's also detereministic... except i'm also doing some of the determining. Lol
we're billions
Incredibly well made video!! Finally someone takes up this topic. I agree with everything you said and hope people will realise that the superdeterministic descripition is the right one. Sorry for bad english, im still very young but I am gonna pursue a physics degree at university when the time comes. Hope I can help clear this up in the future :)
isn't this superdeterministic principle the same as pilot wave theory? That is also deterministic and it says that the particle is simply guided by its wave the same way a surfer is guided by a water wave. So the particle(the surfer) goes via one slit while the wave goes via both slits and interacts with itself before hitting the screen . If you measure any of the slits(interacts with any of the waves) then it is normal to alter where the particle goes.
Brilliant work, Sabine! You're an Enlightenment icon.
The medal is entirely unnecessary, because the reward is the content itself. I was entirely engrossed in the video and would have loved it to last even longer -- far longer, in fact. I wager many others feel the same. I find the topic of superdeterminism particularly interesting, and I love to see that it's one of interest to you as well. I hope to see more on it.
Thank you!
Yet I'm somehow happy I got the medal
@@leoelamri4054
I am just a 60 y/o Engineer who loves Physics but never had the patience for the seemly boring (in my tiny mind) academics but I agree with you here for two obvious reasons: 1. If a measurement "collapses" the wave function and the wave function is assumed to be real AND if particles are believed to be "entangled" non-locally, then the measurement of a particle MUST cause the collapse of its entangled partner as well. If you separate the measurement of A and B by any differential distance from the source, it should be impossible to measure both. One would only ever be able to measure the first particle because said measurement would instantaneously collapse the wave function of the other particle....whatever that means in reality. 2. Perhaps a better argument: If particles are entangled in any non-local prescriptive (not, descriptive) way, meaning that one has an effect on the other, and this entanglement is independent of distance, then this means some sort of information (or physical effect) MUST travel faster than light. There is no way around this. As for free will, I agree, it is incoherent. I am not free to will things beyond my control or knowledge and therefore am constrained by my constituent parts and their effect with other external constituent parts.
I believe, that comprehension of the meaning of *renormalization group flow within superdeterministic theories* might bring a major physical insight into nature.
17:44 Gosh! Finally someone who spells it out. Quantum theory is essentially "just" a theory of averages over a chaotic system. The comparison with predicting next year's weather is brilliant! Why all the non-locality when a simpler -- and may I say more intuitive -- explanation is possible.
This is extremely generalized. There is indeterministic nature in quantum mechanics. Which is inherently due to quantum behavior of the particles. A lot of chaotic system can be explained by normal physics we do it for weather(duh). If it was only a chaotic system quantum mechanics was not required. She said the chaotic system as thats what makes it extremely difficult to measure superdeterminism. But it doesn't mean there is nothing quantum
I would beware of trying to summarize the issue so simply. The weird thing about superdeterminism, which from the comments here it seems that many people miss, is the time ordering of things. With super determinism, the variables describing a particle NOW depend on what measurements will be performed on that particle in the FUTURE. That’s weird, and it’s not simply determinism.
@@stevendaryl30161 That is not how I understood it. Rather, that at such small scales, the setting of the instrument *becomes* part of the state. Almost as if the instrument contains hidden variables.
Imagine you would need a country-sized anemometer for measuring wind speeds. Of course the initial direction of the finn and the initial speed of the blade would have a huge influence on the wind speed you measure.
At least that is how I understood superdeterminism.
But the weird part is that the setting of the measurement instruments may take place long afterwards.
The most puzzling experiment, the one that superdeterminism was invented to explain, is the EPR experiment. In this experiment, a pair of particles is created. One particle goes off in one direction, where it is measured by an experimenter named Bob, and the other goes in the other direction, where it is measured by Alice.
Superdeterminism essentially supposes that properties of the particle at the time of creation depend on the choices of what measurements Alice and Bob will choose to perform in the future.
So it’s not simply that the choice of measurement affects the particle, but that it seems to affect the particle in the PAST.
@@stevendaryl30161 Didn't she say in the video explicitly that the dependece only happens at the exact point in time where the interaction happens?
So maybe were missing something here.
But maybe Sabine is missing something here.
Because I would agree with you, I don't see how her explanation in the video translates (without nonlocal weirdness) to the case of two entangled particles.
Though I can see how it works for the double slit experiment.
But you are right, the two entangled particles are what it should be ale to explain
Excellent video, Sabine! Such a fascinating topic within QM itself. Thank you for bringing us mind expanding lessons and most importantly correct analyses of theorems and other information that has often been interpreted wrongly for decades. Happy Christmas to you and yours - if you celebrate! ✌️
This video encapsulates why I just bought your book, Existential Physics. You make thought experiments worth the effort.
Thanks for the medal ... and speaking for me most of the time... like really 99% of the time I agree with your position!
Theory: the particles don't perform well under pressure. 😉 Anyone else out there great by themselves but the moment someone's watching you fall flat on your face? Thats what the particles are experiencing in the two slit experience. They have the freedom to dance a beautiful wave pattern when no ones looking, but the moment they feel eyes on them it makes them self concious and their movement becomes rigid. And we all know that eerie feeling that someone's watching you even when you can't tell where it's coming from - they get that same sense and that's how they know if a measurement is being taken. (Note: My theory has a prerequisite that we live in an animated universe where everything is concious. )
This is actually a good analogy, since just like the person experiencing pressure by being watched, the particle interacts in some way with the detector (else the detector wouldn't notice the particle). In that sense particles - unlike people - always notice being watched. ("Always" here ignoring that most measurements only have a certain chance to measure.)
Particles hate surveillance.
let the particles run free for fuck's sake!!!!!
A remark: Usually in the concept of "state superposition" there are 2 concepts that are mixed with one another, the stochastic aspect of things, and the fact that a certain quantity is not well defined. In a superdeterministic approach we will by definition lose the first aspect (nothing is stochastic anymore) but we could still have the second: quantities can still be not-defined in a given setup. By example if the concept of position of a particle is an emergent property, we could perfectly have extraordinary regime in which it's not possible to define the position of the particle, but still have deterministic dynamic in this regime and during the transition to an ordinary regime.
If something is undefined that doesn't necessarily mean that it's also probabilistic. The "wave" and the "particle" are analogies, not literal phenomena. I fully agree with your analysis.
There is nothing in QM to suggest positions are not well defined. Just that they cannot be simultaneously _measured_ with momenta. It is not a question of emergence.
Also, Heisenberg uncertainty has _nothing to do with what Sabine was talking about._ She was talking about day-to-day two slit experiment stuff. The issue is the determination of measurement outcomes, not uncertainty principles. Even in pure gravity there is absolute uncertainty - you cannot put more mass inside a ball beyond the Compton wavelength radius, a black hole would form - deterministically, no QM required (except for the "particle" concept, or instead of particles just consider planckian scale wormholes, then it is pure gravity).
@@Achrononmaster The wave function is well defined, the position is not exactly becouse it is conjegate to momentum.
For something to be emergent they have to be supported by a more primitive system with deterministic rules. We go back to the "not able to measure well"/hidden variable point regardless.
I don't see how it matters if quantum mechanics is deterministic when you can't actually measure the current state. As a SYSTEM QM is not deterministic, even if its processes are, because of uncertainty.
Thanks for these wonderful videos. I've been watching your channel for some time now and love it.
A question re hidden variables: can we ever know what they are? Are your experiments meant to uncover what the hidden variables are, or instead to show that some hidden variable (whatever it may be), and not action at a distance, is responsible for the correlation of entangled particles?
I love that your videos aren't overloaded with unnecessary visual stuff and background music or ambience. I feel there is so much of that on this platform already and it's overstimulating.
I throughly enjoyed your explanation on a fairly difficult subject. I enjoy learning about quantum mechanics. And you make it interesting and fun to understand. Thank you for taking the time to educate us on something I think a lot of people have an interest in.
It's not difficult. Complicated, yes, and that is due to the mental gymnastics among top physicists to argue metaphysical ideas to fit their frames of understanding.
Just ask why the speed of light is assumed to be constant across the whole universe when we only compiled averaged local measurement results, and you'll see holes in our understanding of physics.
I am sold, and that description of "trying the predict the weather for next week" really puts into perspective how much we know and what we should do moving forward. I am much more optimistic about the possible expansion of our knowledge in physics.
Hey Sabine, liked the vid, you broke it down really well!... Quick Q... how do you interpret Zeilingers experiments with old light? Thanks!
I enjoy your explaination of the topic. Not too much, exactly right tempo.
Speechless. What clarity. I hope you receive Nobel recognition someday.
Amen!
no, thats not how they determine a cantidate for the prize. not atleast until now.
There is no Nobel for science education.
@@justanormalyoutubeuser3868 That is the reason you are a normal CZcams user. Cause you are only determined by your surface knowledge. She also is a scientist my ill-informed brother.
@@trasadasyu2389 I know that, but unless she gets an exceptional result she is not going to get a Nobel. I do hope she will be able to prove her theories, but if she does it will have nothing to do with how clear her explanations are.
There is no endurance required to watch your videos. Sometimes I have to back up a bit and listen again, but you're explanations always make sense in the end.
You are a fantastic teacher.
"As you can see, we have no shortage of men who have strong opinions about things they know very little about, but not like this is news." I laughed so hard! Love you Sabine.
The thinly veiled misandry kind of threw me off, I have never seen any sign of that in any of her other videos
I have long appreciated the philosophical significance of the inevitable necessity to abandon the notion of free will. I suspected it has to have some significance to the field of natural science but had no specific idea about how it would be so until now. Thank you, this video marks a great milestone in my philosophical venture.
Why is that abandonment an "inevitable necessity"?
@@jackx4311 The definition of free will upon which I am operating is “the ability to have acted differently in the same circumstances.” Because any actor’s decision is a product of the circumstances, including the physical processes occurring within, and manifesting as, the actor himself, one particular circumstance can only give rise to one particular decision. So, if circumstances be the same, an actor cannot act in variance of the action permitted by those particular circumstances. Given this line of reasoning, if one’s goal is to have an accurate account of reality, the abandonment of free will is inevitably necessary.
Not sure if I made myself clear. Should you have more questions, feel free to leave them here.
Thanks.
@@jeongminkim4892 how is it that one particular circumstance can only give rise to one particular decision?
@@raycar9827 I think it has to do with the way causation works.
For instance, let’s say you push a ball to the north. With respect to the ball, the particular circumstance would entail that a northward force was applied to it, and the particular outcome is that the ball travels northward. In this case the particular circumstance of northward force is causally linked to only the outcome of the northward movement of the ball. If the outcome was that the ball moves southward, eastward, westward, or any direction in 360 degrees other than north, I would contend then that the particular circumstance of the direction of the force must have been different from that causes the northward movement of the ball.
I think decisions are causally related to their preceding circumstances the same way.
When we make a particular choice, it causally arises from a particular state of the world, which includes the state of our brain chemistry. So, if you were to choose chocolate flavoured ice cream over vanilla, it would entail the particular circumstance that involves your brain chemistry making your want chocolate over vanilla. If the circumstance was any different, your decision would be affected accordingly.
Now, I would clarify that when I say that a particular circumstance remaining the same, it means that the state of the entire universe remaining the same down to the quantum states.
Thanks for the question.
If my answer’s not clear enough, feel free to leave a comment. :)
@@jeongminkim4892 I can agree with you on the ball analogy. When it comes to be physics I can see where predeterminism fits.
When it comes down to the seemingly casual choices we make everyday such as what we choose to eat, I can see what you're say when it comes to brain chemistry. My brain desires something sweet. However I can choose between ice cream, a chocolate candy or maybe nothing at all. In that regard I believe we still have free will.
Bravo! What a fun romp through an historic question, and you brought me to much a sharper view of the conundrum. I wish you would expand upon the importance of being at (or stuck in?) "in the chaotic regime" as far as limiting experimental testing for hidden variables. Great work, thank you.
I believe Sabine is referring to so called "chaotic functions;" it's a mathematical concept. It describes a class of functions where any extremely minor variation in one parameter results in drastically different behaviors in the function (as you vary another parameter). The position of a double rod pendulum is a good example: the exact behavior of position as a function of time varies wildly based on the initial position and masses. (So the parameters of the function are mass, initial position, and time, and the function computes a position given a combination of them.) Mathematically, you can formalize "chaotic" behavior, but I won't get into it here. The intuitive understanding is enough for the moment.
The problem with these in physics experiments is that any minor imprecision or error in measurement can drastically change your conclusions, since the math you're using to make predictions will make wildly different predictions depending on the exact values involved. This makes testing a hypothesis via experiment essentially impossible, since there is always some level of error that you have to account for and thus you can't test whether the real system's behavior matches with a mathematical model.
@@BladeOfLight16 Very helpful, thank you!
I must believe in free will, as it was predetermined that I would.
Precisely
Hmm. So we are biological robots after all.
You can never actually choose something. Just an observer. Slave of a deterministic universe.
If its determined for you to choose choices that will lead to you extreme pain and suffering. Theres nothing you can do about it but to experience those pain
Scary.
So at the end luck is the only thing that matters. Lmao
A nice example of a logical fallacy. 🙂
@@erikziak1249 That's not a logical fallacy at all. It is absolutely consistent.
It annoys me that this is true for everyone who fails to understand it's an illusion. The same as people who believe in an afterlife will never get to notice they never got one.
I think I've just realised that the problem with just saying 'superdeterminism' is that it doesn't explain anything. Of course, everything is connected. But we need further explanation how/why, beyond just saying "every electrons' future interactions are uniquely specified from the beginning such that our quantum mechanical predictions pan out".
Not everything is connected. You are living in a relativistic universe. What is happening "right now" on Mars is completely irrelevant to you and so is what is happening here on Earth to the Martians.
@@lepidoptera9337 You're forgetting about quantum mechanics
@@ASLUHLUHCE Quantum mechanics does not change that. Indeed, quantum mechanics is, most likely, a direct consequence of it.
Relativity quite literally defines that everything is connected by space-time... @@lepidoptera9337
@@lepidoptera9337This is utterly untrue. Relativity DOES NOT mean physical systems behave independently without affecting each other, it means that that the effects these physical systems have on each other depends in their frame of reference in relation to each other. All particles interact with one another at the speed of light, which you might THINK puts a cap on the influence they can have on each other, but the fact that all structures in the universe originate from a uniform singularity means they obviously are connected by a shared cause and their behavior from the beginning of time to now is connected not only by this cause, but by their relationship to the fabric of reality. Everything affects everything else.
Thanks for this, very impressive! I can't help being reminded of the Copernican Revolution: things just really fall into place and make sense. The fact that the particle "knows" how the operator will measue is indeed the very demonstration of determinism, or absence of free will. Good for you that you do not have to fear the same consequences as Galileo...
When was the last time you saw a particle?
Sabine, you are my favorite explainer. You always make my day! Keep doing your great work because of there are too many ignorant people on this planet. 👍👍👍👍👍
Thank you. I'll give my best.
Post 123! Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong. How so? Find out now - and yes DO FIND OUT. DO it now.
Part 1.
A man just argued with me that Sam Harris and Sabine actually does look at free will as long as there is “evidence” and he showed me some math math proof.
I screamed at him And now at you as well:
“ I showed you 💯% evidence of free will . I repeat : 💯 % above and beyond any science 🧪!
You don’t seem to understand that science is forever probabilistic and never absolute. That means whatever you find in science for free will will forever be subject to doubt. Besides you can’t find free well using signs no mathematics. It would mean the Nobel prize of all Nobel prize is a big giant Einstein.
Consciousness is the identification of existence. A simple as that. You can pick up a pen and validate that it exists. That is all the evidence you need. Or you could point to a flower or smell the red flower and exclaim if rational mind that indeed existence existence. But how do you know that?
Because consciousness is the identification of existence.
That means you exercise free will to make a choice between nothing and existence.
This also means that Big Bang taught at high school is incorrect because they teach something comes from nothing.
That is logically impossible in every way. It contradicts logic itself.
So what consciousness identifies this is existence existed, exists, and will exist into infinity.
In totality metaphysics: Existence, Consciousness, and identity.
By the way how do you know the identity of anything in other words any truth? The methods of reasoning and logic.
And indeed using reason and logic I’ve shown you at absolute level of certainty that there is existence, and you have consciousness that has free will and finally this is the truth as in the whole truth as in the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.
I just spoke this out to Siri so if there are typos that it’s Siri’s fault.
Extra notes: above you realize that consciousness is separate to existence. You can never ask how did existence come to me because that is to presuppose existence before existence which is infinite requests known as the error reductio as AbSURDum . Error !
No Desmond scientifically know how consciousness is: instead man identifies it as an axiomatic concept. All science and math have axioms. However unlike action is in science and math which always subject Goedel’s theorem in this case it’s an absolute axiom and not just a mere axiom but one that you validate.
So this identical Consciousness is its own course as in you cause it and effect is thinking resulting in thought or behavior such as you can lift your right arm.
Try it now lift your right arm !
It’s awesome his consciousness is finite and delimited which means you have it from birth to death.
Consciousness is not the whole universe such as those in the east proclaim and today some people in the west proclaim. However existence is infinite.
So there we go attributes of consciousness in full with absolute truth.
There is no way to be skeptical about this or reject this because to be skeptical means you don’t have a mind with which to make decisions and therefore all decisions you make or Sabine makes or Sam Harris makes is de facto wrong.
Does that make sense any decision that anyone that remotely doubts consciousness even by one percent will therefore have a decision which itself is in doubt. Spineless feckless weak man. Never be like the Dalai Lama who lost his entire gigantic nation of tibet.
---
Part 2: please listen - A guy called @Alexandru said to me "Mr. awesome commenter. Almost every good video on youtube has at least one of those crazies! You! ",
THE VIDEO WAS SABINE ON DETERMINISM [BEING SO] JUST LIKE SHE HAD ANOTHER ON FREE WILL BEING 'NONSENSE'
JUST LIKE SAM HARRIS ! Your own Sam!
I replied: thanks for interaction.
The video is good? So is Star Wars. But this is a place for truth - not just 'good video' - do YOU AGREE?
If there is determinism [and/or you have no free will like her OTHER video - seen it yet] then your mother is open to be raptured senseless and neither you NOR her can complain because you are saying YOUR MOTHER has NO FREE WILL.
However I am defending her honor and saying - yes she HAS free will "because" consciousness is the identification of existence: meaning you can pick up a pen and if rational , then identify it is "Something of existence" - i.e. existence exists.
But to repeat how do you know existence exists? MENTAL PATIENTS DO NOT, A.I. has not, animals can not.
Answer: consciousness is the identification of existence. This means consciousness is a "separate" identity that identifies a previous identity (e.g. validates there existence by picking up a pen. The word "validates" is wider than the word "proof").
So if one identity identifies another identity then it means there is Aristotle's law of identity (i.e. truth). But how do you know any truth? The methods of reason and logic.
So metaphysics [what is reality?] : existence, consciousness [with free will] and identity [i.e. truth].
Epistemology [how to know truth , any identity?]: the methods of reason and logic.
ETHICS: your [or your mother's ] inalienable rights to her life liberty and pursuit of happiness - as SOVEREIGN of her body, mind and life. U.S.A . SELFISHNESS: she can seek her rational self interest. She does NOT owe her body to anyone as a 'selfLESS' person - never!
Why? All other species come pre-adapted to a niche environment BUT MAN must use his mind to sustain his life at every moment of life.
Man does that by RE-ADAPTING the environment to yourself like "clothes" [even caveman], shelter [even caveman], tools [even caveman has the axe] and all the way to today - the "millions or billions' of items around you [millions of earth elements in your smartphone from AROUND the world; invaded and taken legally and put together in a factory in China or S.Korea, then packaged and brought to you where-ever you are like iPhone OR Samsung!]
Fourth branch is : politics and a subset 'economics'. By the way you may argue YOU HAVE NO INTEREST AND THIS IS NOT SCIENCE . But it is ! SCIENCE DOES NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM! You get SCIENCE WRONG and you end up like NAZIS m*rdering people by levearging DARWIN 'incorrectly' using Eugenics. That WAS SCIENCE - just wrong interpretation of real science.
By the way the correct politics is democracy. Why? Because in ethics you have inalienable rights so you need an elected government to protect you [anarchy means rule by strongest thug, so back to socailism-statism]
The correct economics? Laissez-faire capitalism. Why? Above in ethics you saw you have a right to "think and act" [only man can dot that and MUST do that- i.e. man must have LIBERTY to sustain life and also pursue happiness meaning dreams and goals and live as you want].
So man needs the right to property (e.g. clothes - see above) : to acquire, maintain, dispose or TRADE your services or property [bear skin, iphone, mat, cat, hat or money].
A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud. So there IS EVIL: force or fraud against you [except in self defense and/or justice which is fair].
finally man needs good art to magnify life because you have a mind [see metaphysics] and it needs to be nourished like your body needs to be nourished by food [no other species has to have this nor A.I.] So yes to the final fifth branch of philosophy : aesthetics.
Do you understand? No one can harm your mother NOR you. NO ONE. NO ONE.
So please NEVER AGAIN imply I am crack or wrong when Sabine is WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG.
The mind [consciousness with free will] is separate and unique - it is PERPETUAL FIRST CAUSE. That means NO deterministic universe nor super determinism.
YOU exercise your mind [the act, the cause] and the effect is thinking resulting in thought OR behavior [like moving your arm].
Get it now? Go ahead: move your arm. You did that. There is no determinism and yes you have free will . Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong.
Something that helped me wrap my head around quantum physics, like you said, is the idea that a measurment is an interaction. Things become less "spooky" that way.
explain how an interaction with the particle A can affect the behaviour of particle B millions of years apart in no time
@@jimipet It's easy, just deny that there is an interaction happening. Remember the pair of socks mental experiment.
@@juanausensi499 when I mean interaction I mean the interaction between the measurement device and particle A as the original comment mentions. So, I am asking to explain how this interaction affects a particle very far away instantly. This is the whole point of the ERP paradox
@@juanausensi499 - That doesn't work though. Bell's inequality shows it doesn't.
@@jimipet Yes, I understand that.
Those experiments, as most ones in quantum physics, are easy to calculate but hard to interpret, that is, give meaning, that meaning depending on what set of preconceptions are we choosing to interpret qp, and those sets being all very unintuitive.
For example, if you believe that the state of a particle is not defined until you have a measurement, then you probably need instant interactions to explain entaglement. But 'state of a particle not being defined until measured' is only an interpretation, not a proven scientific fact. If you think the state of the particles is defined from the start in the erp experiment, then you don't need any further interction between the entangled particles, and the apparent not definition of the states should be explained somehow else than by a fundamental not-defined-until-measured paradigm. That somethig else can involve hard determinism, that is, you never had a chance to make a different measure that the one you made.
No matter how you try to interpret the results, you are going to end with something uncomfortably unintuitive. Some scientists feel hard determinism is more uncomfortable than non-locality, and some others feel the other way around. But both groups are going to obtain the same results in the same experiments: no experiment is going to say what interpretation is the correct one.
Very interesting take! Two questions though: you argued superdeterminism doesn’t affect macroscopic experiments but what about at the level where quantum effect becomes prominent? Also isn’t it also spooky in some sense that the particle trajectory is determined by something that will take place AFTER it takes place? In my opinion you have to accept the weirdness one way or another @Sabine Hossenfelder
I had come here to say much the same - one is non-local in regards to space, super determinism is just non-local in time.
That seems the simplest explanation for the measurment affecting the trajectory. But I realized I can’t say with certainty that there isn’t some mutual cause to both. There could be something that deterministically causes you to make the measurement you do, that also affects the particle trajectory.
@@jasonlatta2000 Sounds almost like general relativity with the interchangeability of space and time..
@@Currywurst4444This is so true, there's something to it.
@@jasonlatta2000 I think that superdetermism adherents like Sabine believe that there is something that deterministically causes both: the measurement you will choose and the particle behavior, not retrocausality. But it still seems ridiculous and spooky to me. I love Sabine, but her love of superdeterminism is her most confusing trait.
I highly recommend an article by Harry Frankfurt called Freedom Of The Will and the Concept of a Person. There is no greater challenge than developing a metaphysics of our metaphysics, i.e., the vigorous application of the scientific method to our most cherished assumptions. What if those most-cherished assumptions are wrong?
This perspective sheds light on some personal issues I've had regarding mainstream discussion of quantum mechanics. It has always felt to me like 'missing information'. That an unrecognized amount of this apparent dichotomy is tied up in the concept of free will makes some sense to me. All of this really makes me wish I had continued with my science education though.
Not only missing information but misunderstanding lol
Nothing is predetermined. For the simple fact humans are only capable of observing the past. All the math and science in the world won't change this fact.
@@jasonmaxwell9762 that makes no sense
You are super-determined to express your thoughts about Superdeterminism. Very symmetrical. Thank you.
I knew you were going to say that.
Years, years, years and years thinking exaclty this and Sabine has explained it perfectly in 20 minutes and a half.... THX!!!
I love Sabine's very dry humour, I cackled all the way through this very entertaining video!
@@dextermorgan4490 I don't really understand it either to be honest 😅
@@dextermorgan4490 superdeterminism could be the answer, but no one works on the experiments, she suggested
Thank you very much for this mind opening session. One interesting question may be what is ´probability’. The mathematical definition of probability used to explain behaviors of particles is maybe due to the fact that there is a physical process behind that is hidden to us at least for the moment. Like for radioactive decay. There may be something hidden deep under that can explain why and when there will be a particle emitted, and our ignorance translates into a higher level description of that behavior as unpredictable. Another way to say it: probability is a measure of our ignorance. This underlying fundamental “basement” on which all what we observe relies on, could be the one that indeed links quantum world to gravity and everything.
Yes. On a macro scale, a coin flip is never 50/50, it's always 100% what it's going to be. Probability only measures our ignorance of the variables. Isn't it hubris to say that suddenly quantum physics is random? How do we know there aren't unknown variables?
De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave?
But there is no outcome before you measure!
This is an excellent response.
Interestingly in statistics, probability has many different interpretations and hence has many competing definitions.
Oh Hahaha! I love this stuff sooo much Sabine. It's the best thing on the internet. And I don't care whether I've used my free will to watch it, or if that "decision" was entirely pre-determined and not a "choice" at all... I'm still glad that I did it 👍😅.
Every event behaves according to a two-step "If-then" process where the occurrence is: Step 1: "If" (an action or condition)" followed by, Step 2: "Then" (the predetermined reaction(s) to the preceding action or condition)". Even seeming gradations of the "If" are actually :Then" reactions predicated on the seminal "If". Hypothetically, even the seemingly "seminal If" would be a reaction to a prior condition and so on into theoretical infinity (whatever that is). That's it and that's all. Everything from computer programming or data mining to natural occurrences or politics or physics or cosmology follows this simple rule. However, in natural occurrences, the "If" is often so complex or so small that it might appear to be "hidden" when it's simply beyond our (current) powers of observation. There. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Oh Sabine... every other video better than the previous ❤
Loved the video! I've been looking forward to it since I saw "Rethinking Superdeterminism" with you and Timothy Palmer.
As a layman, superdeterminism makes way more sense than the unexplained non-linear quantum collapse.
On an unrelated note, a topic I would love to know your opinion about is Carlo Rovelli's perspective of "Forget Time" (he did a lecture on The Royal Institution), that claims that time itself is not a fundamental in the universe, but rather that it emerges from the movement/interactions/relations of the fundamental elements of spacetime.