Where Are The Worlds In Many Worlds?

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 12. 07. 2021
  • Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
    / pbsspacetime
    Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes that every time a quantum event gets decided, the universe splits so that every possible outcome really does occur. But where exactly are those worlds, and can we ever see them?
    Check out the Space Time Merch Store
    www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
    Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
    mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
    Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
    Written by Matt O'Dowd
    Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
    GFX Visualizations: Katherine Kornei
    Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
    Assistant Producer: Setare Gholipour
    Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
    End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / @jrsschattenberg
    Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
    BIg Bang Supporters
    Kyle Bulloch
    Ananth Rao
    Charlie
    Mrs. Tiffany Poindexter
    Leo Koguan
    Sandy Wu
    Matthew Miller
    Scott Gray
    Ahmad Jodeh
    Alexander Tamas
    Morgan Hough
    Juan Benet
    Vinnie Falco
    Fabrice Eap
    Mark Rosenthal
    David Nicklas
    Quasar Supporters
    Ethan Cohen
    Stephen Wilcox
    Christina Oegren
    Mark Heising
    Hank S
    Hypernova Supporters
    william bryan
    Joe Moreira
    Marc Armstrong
    Scott Gorlick
    Nick Berard
    Paul Stehr-Green
    MuON Marketing
    Russell Pope
    Ben Delo
    L. Wayne Ausbrooks
    Nicholas Newlin
    DrJYou
    Антон Кочков
    John R. Slavik
    Mathew
    Danton Spivey
    Donal Botkin
    John Pollock
    Edmund Fokschaner
    Matthew O'Connor
    chuck zegar
    Jordan Young
    m0nk
    Julien Dubois
    John Hofmann
    Daniel Muzquiz
    Timothy McCulloch
    Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
    Kent Durham
    jim bartosh
    Nubble
    Chris Navrides
    Scott R Calkins
    Carl Scaggs
    G Mack
    The Mad Mechanic
    Ellis Hall
    John H. Austin, Jr.
    Diana S
    Ben Campbell
    Lawrence Tholl, DVM
    Faraz Khan
    Almog Cohen
    Alex Edwards
    Ádám Kettinger
    MD3
    Endre Pech
    Daniel Jennings
    Cameron Sampson
    Pratik Mukherjee
    Geoffrey Clarion
    Nate
    Adrian Posor
    Darren Duncan
    Russ Creech
    Jeremy Reed
    Eric Webster
    Steven Sartore
    David Johnston
    J. King
    Michael Barton
    Christopher Barron
    James Ramsey
    Drew Hart
    Justin Jermyn
    Mr T
    Andrew Mann
    Jeremiah Johnson
    Peter Mertz
    Isaac Suttell
    Devon Rosenthal
    Oliver Flanagan
    Bleys Goodson
    Darryl J Lyle
    Robert Walter
    Bruce B
    Ismael Montecel
    Simon Oliphant
    Mirik Gogri
    Mark Daniel Cohen
    Brandon Lattin
    Nickolas Andrew Freeman
    Shane Calimlim
    Tybie Fitzhugh
    Robert Ilardi
    Eric Kiebler
    Craig Stonaha
    Martin Skans
    Michael Conroy
    Graydon Goss
    Frederic Simon
    Tonyface
    John Robinson
    A G
    Kevin Lee
    Adrian Hatch
    Yurii Konovaliuk
    John Funai
    Cass Costello
    Tristan Deloche
    Bradley Jenkins
    Kyle Hofer
    Daniel Stříbrný
    Luaan
    AlecZero
    Vlad Shipulin
    Cody
    Malte Ubl
    King Zeckendorff
    Nick Virtue
    Scott Gossett
    Dan Warren
    Patrick Sutton
    John Griffith
    Daniel Lyons
    DFaulk
    GrowingViolet
    Kevin Warne
    Andreas Nautsch
    Brandon labonte

Komentáře • 3,3K

  • @stevenmellemans7215
    @stevenmellemans7215 Před 2 lety +299

    Stop performing these double slit experiments. We’re running out of space to store these universes.

    • @zacharyschafer9493
      @zacharyschafer9493 Před 2 lety +22

      Step 1: Set up a quantum experiment station (ie measuring the spin of a quark, double slit experiment, etc)
      Step 2: Predefine the results to a certain action that you will do (ie if the quark spins up then you will buy a random person a coffee, if the quark spins down then you will call your mother)
      Step 3: Do this several times a day to create as many alternate timelines as possible
      Step 4: Profit

    • @whocares2214
      @whocares2214 Před 2 lety +1

      @@zacharyschafer9493 🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @whocares2214
      @whocares2214 Před 2 lety +7

      We must protect the sacred timeline

    • @shaunhumphreys6714
      @shaunhumphreys6714 Před 2 lety +7

      they exist in a hilbert space which is a domain of n dimensions-that is infinite dimensions, but still in our very same physical space. the worlds can be thought of as being out of phase with ours.

    • @the.brokenhand
      @the.brokenhand Před 2 lety

      just look inside the black hole from that episode about black holes

  • @Jassbusters
    @Jassbusters Před 2 lety +379

    Damn, I ended up in the universe where this doesn’t make any sense

    • @aldenconsolver3428
      @aldenconsolver3428 Před 2 lety +10

      Take 5 steps back, step up step down put your right foot out, put your right foot in. Grab your brain and shake it all about - you're doing the modern physics.

    • @user-gd5tr7gw7s
      @user-gd5tr7gw7s Před 2 lety +1

      You wouldn't end up in one universe in this sense. You would end up in a path or branch of universes. (If you define universe as everything included in your reality.)

    • @htopherollem649
      @htopherollem649 Před 2 lety +1

      @@user-gd5tr7gw7s luckily I only have a borderline attachment to reality! lol!

    • @StackBounty
      @StackBounty Před 2 lety +4

      Find solace in the fact out there in the multiverse, they're be a version of you who actually discovers and explains this instead of not get it.

    • @blakeb9964
      @blakeb9964 Před 2 lety

      Lolol same

  • @videosbymathew
    @videosbymathew Před 2 lety +332

    "At the risk of getting technical..." that's a big point of this channel! Don't hold back! :)

    • @Yora21
      @Yora21 Před 2 lety +19

      That rocket has launched, suffered catastrophic malfunction, and passed the event horizon of a black hole years ago.

    • @trevorrichard4710
      @trevorrichard4710 Před 2 lety

      It’s mindblowing

    • @tinman652
      @tinman652 Před 2 lety

      @@Yora21 lmao, i like it :)

    • @TheSacrafanianEmpire
      @TheSacrafanianEmpire Před 2 lety +5

      well there's a certain portion of "marketing" that is being done, because he promises the thing to be explained in more detail in the future. if it's enough detail to cover a 10 min vid, it's more revenue, and better productions

    • @williamverhoef4349
      @williamverhoef4349 Před 2 lety

      I have a nephew called Matthew Anderson but, as you can see, he has an extra 't' in his name.
      Perhaps I've made contact with another branch of the multi world.

  • @matthewtopping2061
    @matthewtopping2061 Před 2 lety +629

    How much of the viewership of this channel have absolutely no idea what he's talking about every time, but just listen anyway? Just curious.

    • @MeesterG
      @MeesterG Před 2 lety +52

      I try, but a lot of the stuff is too much for me.

    • @Ryan-lk4pu
      @Ryan-lk4pu Před 2 lety +92

      Even as someone with a good education and enormous passion for physics, this channel makes me feel like a neanderthal.
      I take solace that, individually, I understand the words... Mostly...

    • @paddaboi_
      @paddaboi_ Před 2 lety +18

      Probably most of us don't understand and that's ok

    • @TheSwissGabber
      @TheSwissGabber Před 2 lety +28

      I kind of keep loosing and regaining traktion.

    • @billa38000
      @billa38000 Před 2 lety +57

      I have a master in quantum physics, and I can understand most of the things he is saying by I need to focus. I think, anyone without several years of studying quantum physics cannot unferstand, but only grasp a vague idea.

  • @colonelwest5443
    @colonelwest5443 Před 2 lety +510

    “Ahh yes, quantum” I nod at the screen like I actually understand any of this while stuffing Doritos into my mouth.

    • @mmmk6322
      @mmmk6322 Před 2 lety +32

      Nobody does understand this. And if they claim they do, they subscribe to the "shut up and calculate" interpretation.

    • @BronzeDragon133
      @BronzeDragon133 Před 2 lety +8

      "Like, quantum, dude." Milano cookies. Same.

    • @painlesszm1421
      @painlesszm1421 Před 2 lety +4

      ...ah! I was thinking the same but sipping tea! ☕

    • @TheIceGryphon
      @TheIceGryphon Před 2 lety +8

      “Do you just put the word "quantum" in front of everything?” -Scott Lane.

    • @CJMattias
      @CJMattias Před 2 lety +3

      Nobody on this planet truly understand quantum physics

  • @thechickenduck8377
    @thechickenduck8377 Před 2 lety +14

    I love that many topics like the double slit experiment are briefly explained again, to build refreshers for non-physicists like me. This helps me still get the most out of the video- thank you for the great content

  • @vampyricon7026
    @vampyricon7026 Před 2 lety +15

    Speaking of "splitting quantum spacetime", there is an interesting consequence of this:
    We know there is no general way to say which two points are "the same event" in two different spacetime manifolds, and since this measurement would cause you to do something differently, that means the spacetime would warp differently in the two different branches as well. Which means the spacetime manifolds would have to be in superposition as well as decohered, and you can't really match up where you are in this branch with a location in the other precisely.

  • @electronicsandroboticsclub750

    I love that this channel covers alternate quantum interpretations with more technical vigour than the average CZcams science video

  • @goldenbananas1389
    @goldenbananas1389 Před 2 lety +43

    the ripples on the pond have no affect on each other was a very useful analogy for me to properly understand this.

  • @SpydersByte
    @SpydersByte Před 2 lety +212

    definitely looking forward to the video on how we could communicate with the other worlds, that sounds interesting.

    • @BertGrink
      @BertGrink Před 2 lety +5

      We´ll probably need something like an Ansible for that.

    • @taichiwinchester1102
      @taichiwinchester1102 Před 2 lety +20

      Hopefully we'll be in a world where he posts that video. In some other worlds the video would never be posted.

    • @nahCmeR
      @nahCmeR Před 2 lety +4

      Just give them internet access or just call them...

    • @scoper7897
      @scoper7897 Před 2 lety +2

      @@nahCmeR how to

    • @The_Canonical_Ensemble
      @The_Canonical_Ensemble Před 2 lety +6

      Probably has something to do with making a "phone" whose entropy doesnt increase idk though

  • @ardan5
    @ardan5 Před 2 lety +158

    This hits different after that Loki ending

  • @DanielZat
    @DanielZat Před 2 lety +42

    I actually thought the whole universe splits at every wiggle. Recombination makes this far more confusing and even more interesting. It also makes me wonder if there could be something like a partial, local, or pocket-like split, where a split is still attached to or recombines with its origin.

    • @hitbox7422
      @hitbox7422 Před 2 lety +8

      Im having a hard time grasping how out-of-phase wavefunctions could recombine, isn't a quantum-state also bound to the fact that it is/isn't collapsed? Therefore it could not get into an intangeled state anymore and would be out of phase forever, no matter if the remaining wavefunction is identical.

    • @NJKoopmeiners
      @NJKoopmeiners Před rokem +3

      Could probably be an explanation for the Mandela effect and other weird, well documented “supernatural” phenomena.

  • @alexandermartin1837
    @alexandermartin1837 Před 2 lety +155

    Great video. PBS Space Time, Isaac Arthur, John Godier, and The Exoplanets Channel are definitely my favourite channels!!

    • @guyjackson4165
      @guyjackson4165 Před 2 lety +13

      Hossenfelder trumps all! Kudos, though, for mentioning the implausibly named Isaac Arthur.

    • @helicocktor
      @helicocktor Před 2 lety +27

      Anton too. Don't forget Anton. Man's got entire scientific journals uploaded directly to his brain haha.

    • @lasgio_
      @lasgio_ Před 2 lety +10

      @@helicocktor I have a feeling we're all subscribed to the same channels

    • @jackrabbitism
      @jackrabbitism Před 2 lety +9

      I agree. They are all excellent channels. Check out ScienceClic English. It is truly fabulous.

    • @helicocktor
      @helicocktor Před 2 lety +3

      @@lasgio_ haha yeah. It's scary how effective youtube's algorithm is.

  • @quinnwasson2399
    @quinnwasson2399 Před 2 lety +41

    This stuff normally breaks my brain, but you explain it so well! I liked the ripples analogy a lot.

    • @goldenbananas1389
      @goldenbananas1389 Před 2 lety +3

      ripples on the pond is useful for understanding why the many worlds dont interact with each other.

    • @zanychelly
      @zanychelly Před 2 lety

      In another universe, or world, you still do t know that…

    • @nelsonfernandez8970
      @nelsonfernandez8970 Před 2 lety

      Your brain actually broke up into countless decohered versions of itself

    • @Ryan-lk4pu
      @Ryan-lk4pu Před 2 lety

      If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you do not understand quantum mechanics...

  • @cogmonocle2140
    @cogmonocle2140 Před 2 lety +5

    I think PBS Spacetime may be my favorite educational media on youtube, for both being informative and in depth but also often tackling topics just on the horizon of my current understanding. Not something I've seen before, but not something I don't already have the foundation to understand. Really often I'll be wondering about something and there'll be a spacetime video about it within a month or two.

  • @JoeBigBoi
    @JoeBigBoi Před 2 lety +27

    I just hope my other variants understand this episode better.

  • @cherubin7th
    @cherubin7th Před 2 lety +63

    Please, more about the recombining of wave functions?

    • @renejean2523
      @renejean2523 Před 2 lety +2

      Oh, the times I've said that.

    • @DrVictorVasconcelos
      @DrVictorVasconcelos Před 2 lety +6

      Have you watched the videos on decoherence? You're looking for "how decoherence splits the quantum multiverse", "how do quantum states manifest in the classical world", and I think "how the quantum eraser rewrites the past" could be relevant too.

    • @DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc
      @DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc Před 2 lety +1

      @@DrVictorVasconcelos Thanks for those pointers! It's tough to keep up with the backgrounders and followups on this channel when you only discovered it recently, and don't have time to rewatch everything from the beginning.

  • @TerranIV
    @TerranIV Před 2 lety +7

    I love how I paused the video to write a comment about how it is now always possible to recover initial waveforms, and then right after I unpause the video Matt explains how it is not always possible to recover initial waveforms in non-linear systems. I love this channel! :D

    • @slevinchannel7589
      @slevinchannel7589 Před 2 lety

      I love recommending scientific Recommendations. Want some?

  • @MichalGlowacz86
    @MichalGlowacz86 Před 2 lety +19

    Wow, that was a great explanation! A pond analogy somehow feels much better to me than a branching tree. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the many worlds interpretation, but I think after watching this video I understand it better (obviously on my very shallow, amateur level). Thank you!

  • @jayk9068
    @jayk9068 Před 2 lety +93

    I feel like a variant of Matt is going to end up being the rl Kang the conqueror

    • @NattyFlump
      @NattyFlump Před 2 lety

      I'm loving how I watched that and then the CZcams algorithm popped this.

    • @chrissbibar9735
      @chrissbibar9735 Před 2 lety

      I think we all have our variants in this situation. Just donno if all of them are good as me or better

    • @kidnamedgrass
      @kidnamedgrass Před 2 lety

      Matt the conqueror

    • @joeybeauvais-feisthauer3137
      @joeybeauvais-feisthauer3137 Před 2 lety

      @Ke Ge Nathaniel Richards is from the 30th century, that's not even 1000 years from now.

  • @Petergoforth
    @Petergoforth Před 2 lety +210

    In my other position wave function and phase relation measurement, I actually understand this.

    • @wingracer1614
      @wingracer1614 Před 2 lety +10

      Maybe not. Many worlds might mean that all possible things exist somewhere but that doesn't allow for the impossible. If you are actually incapable of understanding this, no other yous that do understand it will exist.

    • @alwaysdisputin9930
      @alwaysdisputin9930 Před 2 lety +4

      @@wingracer1614 That's not true. In other worlds there may be genius versions of Peter.

    • @ryancraigt
      @ryancraigt Před 2 lety +9

      @@alwaysdisputin9930 Then one must ask at one point is he still Peter?

    • @Rhys5945
      @Rhys5945 Před 2 lety +7

      It's hard to explain, but I believe I have a very interesting theory. I believe that quantum events only occur due to previous quantum events. This means that maybe our world is only possible due to the entire history of quantum events choosing the exact right path. This means that today's quantum events don't 'split' into all possibilities and the first quantum event from the beginning of the universe is the only event with the ability to split. For example, if I tell Joe a secret, someone who doesn't know about the secret can't say oh I wish they never told Joe that secret (quantum events are impossible to occur from a history where they cannot occur), and the only original secret holder who had the possibility to tell someone (or anyone - all possibilities wavefunction) could make that decision. And if the secret holder doesn't tell anyone, then that reality never occurs (possible explanation why there is only a universe that functions with maths). So it's basically the many-worlds interpretation only works at what we know as the 'big bang'. I feel like this is kind of a bad explanation but it's so hard to put it into words.

    • @Rhys5945
      @Rhys5945 Před 2 lety +1

      @Nad Senoj but that was what I was claiming? That there could only be the initial quantum event that has the ability to encounter all possibilities. And I mean im completely open to that initial event happening more than once. Maybe an infinite loop of big bangs (quantum event starter)

  • @Scribe13013
    @Scribe13013 Před 2 lety +44

    You can only see worlds that you're a part of...remember that kids

    • @thek2despot426
      @thek2despot426 Před 2 lety +4

      Quantum immortality!

    • @HermanVonPetri
      @HermanVonPetri Před 2 lety +8

      Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination.

    • @bill8383
      @bill8383 Před 2 lety +1

      yeah it's split into left and right lol.. ;)

  • @NeutrinoParty
    @NeutrinoParty Před 2 lety +28

    "the entire world doesn't split with every atomic wiggle", only due to interactions.
    Q: does wiggle refer to virtual particles popping in and out of existence? What is the shortest distance (volume) that could include an interaction?

    • @PetraKann
      @PetraKann Před 2 lety +5

      Apparent quasi Planck Volume based upon a value of the linear Planck length

    • @davidhand9721
      @davidhand9721 Před 2 lety +11

      No. Virtual particles are a math trick. They don't "pop" into existence because they aren't real. That's what "virtual" means, not real.
      This is especially true in many worlds, in which the wave function and field values are always continuous over time and space. The term "splitting" is really deceptive; it's better described as partitioning. There are no "new" worlds being generated starting at an event of some kind. The wave function is partitioned when there is no phase coherence between superpositions. All of the "worlds" live in the same wave function.

    • @litafbobpompeani7711
      @litafbobpompeani7711 Před 2 lety +6

      Yeah this video just showed PBS spacetime producers do not truly understand the Everett interpretation or at least the version most everettians accept. "The entire world doesn't split with every atomic wiggle, only due to interactions." This is wrong for multiple reasons.
      1) The "world" (or a much more suitable word "timeline") that we experience is not the entire universe and interactions within the individual branches mean nothing for the actual entire universe. Everett interpretation holds that there is only ONE universe and that our timeline is just an infinitesimally small slice of it. What the universe actually is, is one giant wavefunction where every single actually possible state is contained (one colossal schrodinger's cat), so we aren't seeing the entire universe nor do interactions within our branch change anything. The universal wave function progresses deterministically in accordance to the Schrodinger equation no matter what so yes, every single moment every possible path for every particle to take is already contained within the progression of the universal wave function. "Interactions" or "observations" in themselves are meaningless as the universal wave function progresses the same regardless of the events which happen in the branches themselves.
      2A) True everettians know there is no actual "splitting," and a "split/branching" of timelines is only talking about an illusion on our end. So though to our slice of timeline perspectives the progression of the universal wave function would seem like "splitting" that is not what is actually happening. But every possible future outcome is already contained within the universal wave function so yes, for every moment in our timeline there are an infinite number of futures (in our perspective) that will stem from that moment but that is because of the progression of the universal wave function, not interactions within individual timelines that are somehow believed to cause splitting. To the universal wave function there is only 1 future outcome, which is why many timelines is a deterministic interpretation yet indeterminate at our level.
      2B) This may be controversial because it is easy to take out of context but the Many Timelines interpretation implies that "interactions which split the worlds (except not really)" are more due to information distinguishing us from otherwise identical other timeline versions of ourselves. The double slit experiment is one of the few times this becomes noticeable. Consider for example the delayed choice modification of the double slit experiment. They have the same double slit set up but this time they have crystals to split the photon into an entangled pair in which one member of the pair goes to the back wall and the other to one of the detectors A (if it came from slit a), B (if it came from slit b) or sometimes a "which path information eraser' which could come from either slit detector C. All the detectors are placed AFTER the backwall so the member of the pair going to the back wall will hit it first and the member going to one of the detectors after. But even when the detector is in such a place such that it would come after the member of the entangled pair that hit the backwall the interference pattern is gone if whichpath info is received either through the other pair which detector a or b. But the interference pattern is still up if it is detector c which could've came from either of the slits. Other interpretations other than Everett/manytimelines have to assert that some retrocausal mechanism is happening here...where somehow because the photon was detected the which path information was retroactively sent backwards in time and caused wave function collapse, a mechanism which is not actually possible or in accordance to any understanding of physics we have. In fact if such retrocausality were possible we'd never expect to see interference at all regardless, since there would be no reason for other outcomes or possibilities to ever exist and interfere if there was only 1 outcome that happens and thus only one that would be able to retroactively send information back in time. This is why the transactional interpretation is ruled out as well as any wave function collapse interpretation. The mechanism for seeing interference or having wave functions at all in the first place becomes impossible if retrocausality is actually at work. The more likely notion about what is happening with the double slit experiment is that the information from the detectors made us and the rest of the outside environment distinguishable from other sets of versions of ourselves that had other photon paths taken with other detectors hit. The mere fact detector a or b was hit would be information that made us and the rest of the environment outside of the system significantly different from other timeline versions of events as opposed to if there was no detection where none of it would matter. Without detection none of that information about the system of the experiment matters to us, multiple outcomes can be true and it doesn't matter, so we see interference because it as if multiple possibilities were happening at the same time without those possibilities mattering to us. But Many Timelines is the only logical way to explain the double slit experiment and it's delayed choice erasure modification.
      But TL;DR is the Everett interpretation is incorrectly represented in this video and there is no actual splitting.

    • @TheRABIDdude
      @TheRABIDdude Před 2 lety +1

      @@hyperduality2838 Err. Okay so your name is "Hyperduality". Do you perchance go around CZcams comment sections always posting similar lists of examples of duality?
      I'm not sure what amazing realisation about the root of reality you think you've struck upon here, but I'd assert that maybe the reason duality crops up a lot is because "a = b" is attractive to people because they find it catchy and elegant and easy to understand. So theories which have a simple "a = b" sound bite to them tend to be remembered more by the masses.

    • @davidhand9721
      @davidhand9721 Před 2 lety +1

      @@litafbobpompeani7711 boom. Better than my explanation. 10/10

  • @junofall
    @junofall Před 2 lety +4

    12:20 *CONQUERING INTENSIFIES*

  • @harmonicpsyche8313
    @harmonicpsyche8313 Před 2 lety +302

    "At the risk of getting too technical,"
    -Dr. Matt O'Dowd, summarizing PBS Space Time
    (edit: to clarify i still love pbs space time in all its technical jargony goodness)

    • @TheSwordofra
      @TheSwordofra Před 2 lety +2

      You should see the math for this....

    • @alwaysdisputin9930
      @alwaysdisputin9930 Před 2 lety

      @dafuqawew Correct. I wish PBS would copy eg DrBecky or DrPhysicsA so we had the epic topics + clear explanation

  • @ExcretumTaurum
    @ExcretumTaurum Před 2 lety +60

    Tbh I can’t really imagine there being any world where I would pick salad over pizza.

    • @1dgram
      @1dgram Před 2 lety +2

      You were trying to impress the love of your life who you happened to be next to when ordering food in that other world.

    • @silverybound
      @silverybound Před 2 lety +5

      I would gladly pick homemade salad over gas station pizza.
      "☝️ Presenting to the emergency room" is a phrase I wouldn't want to be associated with my obituary.

    • @addammadd
      @addammadd Před 2 lety +2

      I cut my pizza into bite size chunks. I chiffonade some basil and toss those two in a bowl with some Parmesan (sometimes blue) cheese and hidden valley ranch.
      Pizza salad. Welcome to the future.

    • @slcpunk2740
      @slcpunk2740 Před 2 lety +4

      @@silverybound no one wants to be the subject of a chubbyemu video 👻

    • @innocentbystander3317
      @innocentbystander3317 Před 2 lety +2

      @@addammadd
      "Isn't everything you eat bite-size?"
      Mitch Hedburg

  • @BlackEyedGhost0
    @BlackEyedGhost0 Před 2 lety +4

    11:57 I'm thrilled that you mentioned recombination. Almost no other sources ever mention it.

    • @slevinchannel7589
      @slevinchannel7589 Před 2 lety +1

      I love recommending scientific Recommendations. Want some?

  • @kenttm42
    @kenttm42 Před 2 lety +17

    My brain has just split into two migraines. This is heady stuff

  • @Garresh1
    @Garresh1 Před 2 lety +12

    At risk of sounding oblivious, where is that guy who always acts as the quantum observer from? Those visuals are hilarious.

    • @paulwolf3302
      @paulwolf3302 Před 2 lety +3

      He disappeared, going backwards in time before the BIG BANG.

  • @G0NZA11
    @G0NZA11 Před 2 lety +70

    Did you know that Argentina has a quantum economy? The value of the dollar is in superposition of different values, we even have a name for each one of them.

    • @Smerpyderp
      @Smerpyderp Před 2 lety +1

      Explain.

    • @nicolaspietrangelo5573
      @nicolaspietrangelo5573 Před 2 lety +10

      Schrödinger dollar.

    • @pestifermundi2591
      @pestifermundi2591 Před 2 lety +2

      That's a good one

    • @MarianoWilliams420
      @MarianoWilliams420 Před 2 lety +3

      @@Smerpyderp gvmt regulates how many dollars you can buy according to how much you make, obviously there are parallel markets with different prices

    • @wesleyharrison9014
      @wesleyharrison9014 Před 2 lety +4

      If were being serious, yes I knew Argentina has its money all effed up, in a big way infact. Here's the real ask though just because a big Mack is 68 dollars and a gram of uncut Cociane is 4. 86 does that really mean the dollar performs as both a point and a wave?

  • @recklessroges
    @recklessroges Před 2 lety +3

    It had never occurred to me that the many-worlds interpretation would be so efficient with regards to space.

  • @KB-ty2gc
    @KB-ty2gc Před 2 lety +1

    This has to be one of the only clear video about the many world interpretation. Thanks and congrats

  • @debrachambers1304
    @debrachambers1304 Před 2 lety +314

    It's interesting to me to imagine a universe where every double slit experiment gives results that don't show a wave nature of particles because of dumb luck, so scientists have a worse understanding of quantum mechanics.

    • @anomalousresult
      @anomalousresult Před 2 lety +49

      This feels like a sitcom writing prompt. I love it.

    • @achmedabadoba5478
      @achmedabadoba5478 Před 2 lety +72

      The question is which experiment in our world is the one that always fails?

    • @aakarshan4644
      @aakarshan4644 Před 2 lety +32

      hmmm I wonder if our universe is also having some continuous dumb luck in some observations... we would never know lmao...

    • @greg4367
      @greg4367 Před 2 lety +7

      You are perverse my friend, and like it.

    • @jackvernian7779
      @jackvernian7779 Před 2 lety +5

      that has to be an extraordinary amount of dumb luck

  • @appletree6741
    @appletree6741 Před 2 lety +100

    In one of the many worlds dice always roll the number I predicted beforehand. This seems to suggest that in some worlds magic appears to be real.

    • @goldenbananas1389
      @goldenbananas1389 Před 2 lety +18

      in theory this is true. in some many worlds the particles that make me up happen to fly apart while at the exact same time somwhere else random particles reform a perfect "copy" of me. i then claim i am a wizard for the rest of my life.

    • @jvcscasio
      @jvcscasio Před 2 lety +11

      @@goldenbananas1389 you wouldn't be able to fly, that would break laws of physics, however, it's entirely possible for there to be a world in which you dream of everything that will happen on the next day without fail

    • @goldenbananas1389
      @goldenbananas1389 Před 2 lety +10

      @@jvcscasio I never said there is a world I fly. Just a world we all the particles making up my body move apart and I basically disintegrate. But somewhere else in the universe a bunch of different particle randomly form into a perfect copy of me.
      And also in the same way a particles position can be in a super position it’s velocity also can. Meaning in theory the velocities of all the particles making my body up randomly align upwards and pull me up before I quickly come crashing back down. The chance of this happening is too small to consider it but in the many worlds interpretation it happened somewhere.

    • @Sigma00000
      @Sigma00000 Před 2 lety +20

      It also means there is a world where every coin flip, ever, landed on heads

    • @goldenbananas1389
      @goldenbananas1389 Před 2 lety +1

      @@Sigma00000 yes

  • @Giavani-wq7gb
    @Giavani-wq7gb Před 2 lety +2

    I used to sit in my childhood barber shop opposite of the big mirror behind those chairs. Another large mirror was across from the first, and by positioning myself in a certain fashion, a gallery which had no end appeared in the reflection. A snaking corridor of exact images curved into infinity. Lining up the reflections seemed to reveal dimensions unending and bending out of sight.
    I thought of each one as it's own reality. That any one of them could be entered and reacted with, even destroying the entire space, but not affecting any other.
    A multitude of parallel dimensions running to eternity.

  • @cezarcatalin1406
    @cezarcatalin1406 Před 2 lety +5

    My theory is that we don’t only have infinetly many futures, we have infinetly many pasts too. The many worlds go both ways and there is no loss in coherence, there is just a transfer of coherence between worlds, coherence might actually be a preserved value like spin, charge and information in general.

  • @alemail
    @alemail Před 2 lety +78

    The universe's git log must be crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm in a 'detached HEAD' state.

    • @ZPPrograms
      @ZPPrograms Před 2 lety +5

      CS gang represent 🙌

    • @KeviAday989
      @KeviAday989 Před 2 lety +5

      what if God created all of it in one commit? After all, He is God.

    • @zapazap
      @zapazap Před 2 lety +5

      The universe is forgetting to do frequent merges it seems.

    • @diablo.the.cheater
      @diablo.the.cheater Před 2 lety +5

      The theory of many feature branches

    • @ivanmokhonko9749
      @ivanmokhonko9749 Před 2 lety +1

      Bruh :)

  • @mozkitolife5437
    @mozkitolife5437 Před 2 lety +21

    It's cool that Matt wrote his words. Truly an intelligent person.

    • @porple4430
      @porple4430 Před 2 lety

      ?

    • @mozkitolife5437
      @mozkitolife5437 Před 2 lety +1

      @@porple4430 What do you need explaining?

    • @koushikkashyap439
      @koushikkashyap439 Před 2 lety +1

      I think he considers this as a live talk, respect 👌. He edits only a few rare occasions... Applause ✌️✌️✌️

    • @bennylloyd-willner9667
      @bennylloyd-willner9667 Před 2 lety +1

      @@koushikkashyap439 I don't get it. Are you saying Matt doesn't write his material and use teleprompter when recording?

  • @glens1800
    @glens1800 Před 2 lety +2

    I was lost 5 seconds in but in another world I understood it completely

  • @devinheinzekehoe8042
    @devinheinzekehoe8042 Před 2 lety +3

    I love the TTC subway Easter egg! Cheers from Toronto!

  • @batiz3007
    @batiz3007 Před 2 lety +49

    This episode coming a day before the season final of Loki, and talking about the same subject? Coincidence? I don't think so, I am mounting in suspicion about Dr. Matt O'Dowd being the man at the end of time, ruling the sacred time line

  • @yogiturtleseraph8208
    @yogiturtleseraph8208 Před 2 lety +67

    Could you do a crossover episode with the "many worlds interpretation" and the "time reversal property of the shrodinger equation"? Multiple futures is cool, multiple pasts is cool too.

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před 2 lety +17

      He actually did that video. Just in a different reality.

    • @skandragon586
      @skandragon586 Před 2 lety +5

      @@Robert_McGarry_Poems well played my friend

    • @skandragon586
      @skandragon586 Před 2 lety +3

      I would love to see that episode in this reality too

    • @freedomachine2185
      @freedomachine2185 Před 2 lety +3

      @@skandragon586 there's a reality where this is that video and you commented you'd rather not see that episode in this reality

    • @shivyarastogi7867
      @shivyarastogi7867 Před 2 lety +1

      @@freedomachine2185 and there is a reality where i never replied to your comment coz u never commented but look which reality we ve chosen

  • @PointLookoutResident
    @PointLookoutResident Před 2 lety +1

    I’ve listened to you talk about collapsing the wave function for years, but didn’t understand what it meant until this video - thank you

    • @Yora21
      @Yora21 Před 2 lety

      I still don't, but hope collapses last.

  • @sagacious03
    @sagacious03 Před 2 lety

    Neat analysis! Thanks for uploading!

  • @alrown7476
    @alrown7476 Před 2 lety +32

    Let's be honest Matt, we always pick Pizza.

    • @achmedabadoba5478
      @achmedabadoba5478 Před 2 lety

      Lol I also thought of Pizza maybe we're entangled now 🍕💭

    • @johnmenjes4117
      @johnmenjes4117 Před 2 lety

      A54a55a5aaaa55a#aaa5a55aaa5aa6555aaa5sasassa⁵54a4⁴

    • @johnmenjes4117
      @johnmenjes4117 Před 2 lety

      5a5555sss555ss5555a5saaas#5ss#5a555545aa

    • @TheKamahl07
      @TheKamahl07 Před 2 lety +1

      We're well in to the pizza-centric branch of the Many Worlds 🍕🌎🌏🌍

  • @morbid1.
    @morbid1. Před 2 lety +34

    there can be infinite amount of branches of reality... there is absolute ZERO chances that I will pick salad over pizza.

    • @beyondthelife6750
      @beyondthelife6750 Před 2 lety +3

      Well quantum mechanics says there are infinite other universes where you indeed did pick salad over pizza.

    • @gabrielgrabois
      @gabrielgrabois Před 2 lety +2

      @@beyondthelife6750 no, it says that if the chance is positive, there are infinite universes where it happens, if the chance is zero, there are none

    • @beyondthelife6750
      @beyondthelife6750 Před 2 lety +2

      @@gabrielgrabois you need to re watch and understand the video and not just that, do some extra research on this topic. If it is true which I am not saying it is but highly possible than in all honesty it actually cannot happen an infinite. Maybe millions or billions but not infinite. Infinite is not a number its a concept it means forever with no end. Hate when scientists use it with no basis sometimes. However our universe or other universes can be truly infinite. Just no true infinite in the quantum realms.

    • @HeribertMuermann
      @HeribertMuermann Před 2 lety

      ​@@beyondthelife6750 / ​@gabrielgrabois Even infinity would not need to include every possibility. (Every possibility may be less than infinity, too.) Natural numbers in mathematics are infinit, but do not include all possible numbers. Maths with infinities is very different und sometimes surprising. Though I donnot believe in the Many World Theory. Which is also not science but believe. I prefer to believe in "decision" at the moment of interaction.

    • @jwb52z9
      @jwb52z9 Před 2 lety

      If realities truly are literally infinite, at least 1 of those realities contains a version of you that is a vegan or vegetarian health nut.

  • @rollespil1000
    @rollespil1000 Před 2 lety +2

    Thank you! 💖 I was wondering about this topic. I look forward to hearing if it's possible to contact the other "worlds"

  • @manishajadhav9706
    @manishajadhav9706 Před 2 lety +1

    Sir you are awesome. I like the way you explain,collect,and display the information. I understand the concepts very easily. We want you sir. We love you sir

  • @sugershakify
    @sugershakify Před 2 lety +46

    Trust me, all infinite versions of me picked the pizza

    • @shortbusheros4
      @shortbusheros4 Před 2 lety +3

      Idk man, is there bacon in the salad?

    • @STriderFIN77
      @STriderFIN77 Před 2 lety +1

      pineapple on pizza o.O

    • @GameCyborgCh
      @GameCyborgCh Před 2 lety +2

      Except for the version of you that is lactose intolerant

    • @0130wallace
      @0130wallace Před 2 lety +1

      You may have just invented some sort of quantum heredity.
      "There's nothing any of him could do. Just something about pizza always collapsed his wave function."

    • @STriderFIN77
      @STriderFIN77 Před 2 lety +2

      @@0130wallace this is first thing i see and click in the morning, and allready tears on my eyes, happy tiers - Bob Ross

  • @robwood6759
    @robwood6759 Před 2 lety +3

    One thing I've not yet understood in the Many Worlds theory is how the probability amplitude fits in. If (simplistically) every possible outcome results in a new world branch, then does the probability amplitude have any meaning?

  • @lonelycubicle
    @lonelycubicle Před 2 lety

    Made perfect sense. Thank you

  • @contessa.adella
    @contessa.adella Před rokem +2

    I like it, especially the last bits explaining how the probabilities can recombine and you are not getting endless ‘real’ duplicate universes…makes sense. There is a way of looking at this in a less Quantised model. If each physical dimension (direction) represents a way the lower sets can be different, then by Dimension 4 (time) we see every way the three spatial ones can be different and by Dimension 5…we have a probability field giving the alternative versions of the lower 4. In the fifth (non physical) Dimension every possible path exists, but some being more likely than others, because each branch forward had a probability of occurring. The nexus where they all meet is ‘now’ and the trail left behind is the single resolved happening of history. Looking forward the least likely paths are disparately flailing off each side of the model and the few most likely align with a central fuzzy core of probabilities. Think of this as being orthogonal to time.

  • @darrelllatham6086
    @darrelllatham6086 Před 2 lety +3

    What a wonderful explanation of such a complex concept. I expect that I will never fully grasp quantum physics but I am certain that it is the single best explanation of partial interaction at the smallest of scales we currently have.

    • @slevinchannel7589
      @slevinchannel7589 Před 2 lety

      I love recommending scientific Recommendations. Want some?

  • @chaerodactyl
    @chaerodactyl Před 2 lety +8

    so if all decohered branches of the wave function do still occupy the same spacetime, just out of phase with each other, could all that additional invisible (to our decoherence) quantum mass, or at least the branches that are more closely aligned with our own, be the source of all the additional gravity we observe as dark matter? and if they're infinitely branching off and expanding the overall harmonic sequences of the wave function, could the wave function literally be stretching out spacetime, and that's what we observe as dark energy?

    • @hitbox7422
      @hitbox7422 Před 2 lety +2

      Hmmm im not sure if that wouldn't lead very very fast to infinitiys. Ofc it would align in its core mechanic perfectly with the acceleration of spacetime, but if every slightly out of phase branch has a set mass-proportion influence on its parent-branch and vice versa, wouldn't that with (idk for sure) 10^500 events per second per cubic centimeter create just one gigantic, ultramassive gravitational anomalie? Not a black hole perse, since that would require dark matter to be barionic in nature, but if it's gravitational influence can be measured, in that circumstance it would get out of controll very fast I assume.

    • @mustanger1966
      @mustanger1966 Před 6 měsíci +1

      ​@@hitbox7422 I think it would be more like our universe is continuously losing mass compared to the incoherent background. Total mass is conserved, but our particular (coherent) branch of probability is becoming an increasingly small fraction of the total wave function. At the same time, a lot of our close neighboring branches will still have similar mass distributions, so much of that loss is not immediately obvious. A planet may have a lot of incoherent mirror planets, but none of those incoherent copies are changing their trajectory or losing much mass.

  • @realmetatron
    @realmetatron Před 2 lety +1

    The Wolfram Physics project actually explains all this much more fundamentally and it's quite obvious. I recommend reading into it.

  • @bgw33
    @bgw33 Před 2 lety

    Thanks. I appreciate your efforts very much.

  • @iainballas
    @iainballas Před 2 lety +48

    Imagine being in that one universe where all particles happen to have not decayed. All the posturanics and whatnot, I mean.
    How borked would physicists be? Sure fusion happens all the time... but we have all this seemingly inert heavy element lying around that logic says should decay... but never has!

    • @Mars-fu8wb
      @Mars-fu8wb Před 2 lety +2

      LMAOOO

    • @Wertsir
      @Wertsir Před 2 lety +10

      Imagine being in the universe where your bones spontaneously became radioactive and gave you bone cancer. ☠️☢️☠️

    • @cowlinator
      @cowlinator Před 2 lety +19

      Since past decay (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on future decay, then most of the universes where all particles happen to have not decayed will immediately start having particles decay (since that is still the most likely outcome for each moment in time). This would throw physicists into confusion and chaos. They would forever look for what caused this event, when the real answer is "coincidence".

    • @pierfrancescopeperoni
      @pierfrancescopeperoni Před 2 lety +3

      Would physics and science even exist in those branches?

    • @oatmongen4263
      @oatmongen4263 Před 2 lety +10

      Imagine if the electron is meant to decay, but hasn't because of the universe we are in...

  • @zharul8716
    @zharul8716 Před 2 lety +6

    Every time the ripple intersects, dejavu intensifies.

  • @MrOvergryph
    @MrOvergryph Před 2 lety

    You guys did it again! Great video.

  • @crawfordviolin
    @crawfordviolin Před 2 lety

    This is an amazing production. I hope that they keep paying these guys.

    • @Yellow.1844
      @Yellow.1844 Před 2 lety

      they got pretty well paid patreon dont worry they're fine

  • @jeffswigert
    @jeffswigert Před 2 lety +3

    Rooting for the world where my daughters don't have CF and can breathe free indefinitely. Let us know when physics helps us collapse reality onto that world, please. In the meantime, thanks for giving a dad's busy mind something else to think about for 15 minutes.

  • @llwang
    @llwang Před 2 lety +4

    Matt, if you manage to come back from the other Many Worlds timeline, how differently has that timeline evolved compared to our timeline?

  • @TheFlyfly
    @TheFlyfly Před 2 lety

    im gonna have to binge watch this channel

  • @dhiltonp
    @dhiltonp Před 2 lety +1

    I had never understood the many worlds hypothesis quite like this, thanks! Previously I had thought "if there are infinitely many universes, then every combination of quantum probabilities can occur." But with a wave function, it's not that there are infinitely many universes, it's more like there is one "surface" that looks different depending on your phase...

  • @ramiussteel8668
    @ramiussteel8668 Před 2 lety +3

    Matt, how old do we believe our Milky Way galaxy to be and also the Andromeda? Also, if you go by the "Big Bang" theory, can you explain how after billions of years these two galaxies are on a path to collision if everything exploded out from a singular point? Thanks to you and the PBS team for all the great content.

  • @KaktitsMartins
    @KaktitsMartins Před 2 lety +3

    Im glad you mentioned that the universe doesnt split every time a particle wiggles, but that raises the question - how often does the universe split? Can we somehow estimate it?

    • @haleyd7703
      @haleyd7703 Před rokem

      I would think something like manifestation. Consequence. Many . Hopefully all on good thoughts. Imagination is creation. Once thought or spoken out I'd think it's born created. Take it like said looking back at 10's of thousands,of hundreds of thousands. Jump to conclusions pad.

  • @Crisdapari
    @Crisdapari Před 2 lety +1

    This channel always brings me more questions than answers and diminish my self-confidence as a self-learner.

    • @paulwolf3302
      @paulwolf3302 Před 2 lety +1

      The choice is yours. Educate yourself in real physics or take LSD and watch videos about alternate realities.

    • @Crisdapari
      @Crisdapari Před 2 lety

      @@paulwolf3302 Or try to emulate Richard Feynman, fail and end up opening a bar in front of a Brazilian beach.

  • @ThomasRelaX
    @ThomasRelaX Před 2 lety

    Oeh this was a good one! And well explained :D

  • @LPrg15
    @LPrg15 Před 2 lety +6

    Given that all the particles in the brain are connected one way or another (chemical bonds and so), wouldn't all of their wave functions be already collapsed according to the decoherence theory?

    • @richerite
      @richerite Před rokem

      I have the same question 🙋‍♂️ did you get an answer?

    • @LPrg15
      @LPrg15 Před rokem

      @@richerite Well given that im doing a phd in neuroscience I hope to get an answer someday haha

  • @dennydravis8758
    @dennydravis8758 Před 2 lety +17

    Amusingly, you could also say that every known law of the universe is just due to a particular set of quantum coincidences, and our daily experiences are just due to dumb luck events.

    • @Fogmeister
      @Fogmeister Před 2 lety +1

      The question that arises from that is whether it's possible for a quantum event to occur that changes the known laws of the universe and causes everything to just vanish.

    • @Aizistral
      @Aizistral Před 2 lety

      Remember the Occam's Razor

    • @aketchupman5103
      @aketchupman5103 Před 2 lety +3

      You could say that since all ripples exist, and that it’s possible to exist, that we exist only in the worlds where it’s possible for us to exist. Therefore, since it’s possible for us to exist, we must be guaranteed to have exist, and there’s nothing that luck has to do about it

    • @RWMAirgunsmithing
      @RWMAirgunsmithing Před 2 lety +1

      I wouldn't be so quick to call it random, quantum mechanics works, we just don't know why. I would argue it is a law of physics, and if it is repeatable it's not random right?

    • @kyjo72682
      @kyjo72682 Před 2 lety

      But if all these coincidences happen "somewhere" in the infinite universe then obviously we would exist in those parts where the laws allow our existence. In all those other parts with some different laws there is nobody there making comments on CZcams. Same as there is nobody there in the middle of a desert, on Pluto, or in the interstellar space, even though it's infinitely larger than our tiny biosphere. :) It's called self-selection bias..

  • @tycNvk
    @tycNvk Před 2 lety

    Can’t wait for the next video. Can’t wait to send a message to myself in the other world and exchange notes about life!

  • @terminallychill3787
    @terminallychill3787 Před 2 lety

    What a great episode

  • @charliew6557
    @charliew6557 Před 2 lety +53

    In other descriptions of MWI I've never heard the idea that worlds are recombining, not just splitting. So, are there more worlds tomorrow than there were today, or about the same number?

    • @AtonyB
      @AtonyB Před 2 lety +30

      I've always seen it this way... Imagine putting your socks on in a closed room, you randomly pick a first one (in a way comparable to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment) then proceed to put on a second then leave the closed room. To outside (non)observers, there is a period of superposition of two states where you have just one sock on each foot (if you were to open the door early and look), then eventually you have a sock on both feet and it no longer matters what order it happened so the two 'worlds' converge again.

    • @wadeworkman7283
      @wadeworkman7283 Před 2 lety +31

      I’m always one sock short. I’m certain if we can find these other worlds, I can find my missing socks.

    • @nathanielmuller4400
      @nathanielmuller4400 Před 2 lety +2

      @@wadeworkman7283 you sure your real name isn't Ren?

    • @drdca8263
      @drdca8263 Před 2 lety +10

      tl;dr : I'm not sure that "the number of worlds that there are according to the MWI" is a meaningful question.
      The dimension of the Hilbert space is unchanged. One can apply different projection operators to restrict to different subspaces, and view the overall state as a sum of the different parts you've split it into with the different projection operators.
      But, there are different ways to split up a vector space into components.
      Like, suppose you have the x,y plane , where like, you have points like (2,3) and (4,7) , and you can add the points together so that (2,3) + (4,7) = (2+4,3+7)=(6,10) .
      Now, you can have a pair of projection operators, let's call them P and Q, where P(x,y) = (x,0) , and Q(x,y) = (0,y) .
      You may notice that (e.g.) P(P(x,y)) = P(x,0)=(x,0) , applying P twice does the same thing as applying P once.
      That's basically what P being a projection operator means.
      Also, note that P(x,y) + Q(x,y) = (x,0) + (0,y) = (x,y) , the same thing as we started with. So, we could say P+Q = I (where I(x,y) = (x,y) ).
      now, P might correspond to "in the case that the particle is spin up" and Q might correspond to "in the case that the particle is spin down".
      On the other hand, we could also have another pair of projection operators, R and S,
      where R(x,y) = ((x+y)/2 , (x+y)/2) and S(x,y) = ((x-y)/2 , (y-x)/2)
      (If you don't know what I'm talking about in the following sentence, just ignore it and move on; don't worry about it : you could also write these as the 2x2 matrices where R has (1/2) in all 4 spots, while S has (1/2) on the main diagonal, and (-1/2) on the other 2 positions. )
      To check that R and S really are projection operators, apply them to (x,y) twice and confirm that you get the same thing as if you applied them once. I.e. check that R(R(x,y)) = R(x,y) , and that S(S(x,y)) = S(x,y) .
      R and S could correspond to "in the case that the particle is in the spin left" and "in the case that the particle is spin right" respectively.
      Note that these two ways of splitting the x,y plane into two orthogonal directions, aren't, uh, the same. They are different and incompatible ways of splitting things up into 2 variables. two different ways to split the vector space into orthogonal subspaces.
      Of course, when we are talking about the wavefunction for the whole world, or even just everything on earth, it would have many many more coordinates than just the 2 coordinates x and y. (for the universe as a whole, it should be infinitely many I think, and maybe infinitely many even for local stuff but maybe not, I'm not sure. It is often at least convenient to treat it as infinitely many.)
      We can talk about projecting out parts of the wavefunction corresponding to different outcomes of some event, but there are also other ways it could be split up.
      So, my understanding of MWI (which, I've not looked deeply into MWI in particular, just looking into the math of QM with some passing familiarity with MWI. "shut up and calculate" and all that. So, take this with a little bit of a grain of salt), is that, you can split up the universal wave function in many ways, and in some ways of splitting it up, different components will correspond to us having different observations,
      but, at least until we assume that what we care about is "what we observe as humans", there's no singular "this is the right/standard/canonical way to split up the wavefunction into parts/'worlds' ". (though, see caveat [a])
      So, I don't think the question of "how many worlds are there (under the MWI interpretation) and does this number increase or decrease?" has a meaningful answer.
      I guess you could ask "what's the smallest number of orthogonal components you can split the wavefunction into such that, in each component, each person's observations and actions and thoughts and whatnot have a single well-defined value",
      and I think that number would, probably be increasing? (??)
      (and I guess you could call those "worlds". But I'm also not sure that that's an entirely well-defined question, because like, well, precisely defining what a "person" is in quantum mechanics, probably isn't really feasible, and maybe things don't split up 100% cleanly? I'm a bit confused here.)
      I don't think any of those components would really "recombine" to make the number smaller in any realistic scenario, because I think that would require that they still be like, in phase and such(?????).
      If by "recombine" you are just referring to the fact that the different parts are still added up : that's not really an event of re-combining that happens, that's just the fact that the different components (however you choose to split the hilbert space into components) are part of a single whole (which can be split up in many incompatible ways)
      caveat [a] : I say this, but, while there are no doubt many valid decompositions into orthogonal components, it may be (as in, it might actually be well known to be the case, and it is possible that the only uncertainty here is because *I* don't know) that because of decoherence and stuff, that there is a natural decomposition, or at least more natural set of decompositions than most possible decompositions. I still doubt that there is a canonical way to define "how many worlds/components", because I strongly suspect that there are many things which are kind of borderline between whether it "should" be split up in a certain way, as well as like, precisely what mix of things should be used in splitting things up. But I could be wrong.

    • @AuntBibby
      @AuntBibby Před 2 lety

      @@drdca8263 dr. dca, am i waste of space because im not as smart as you mathephysically? im not sure i deserve to exist if theres people like u walkin around 🥺🥺🥺 i have dyspraxia and tourettes so im incompetent and loud, and not a very interesting artist

  • @FourthRoot
    @FourthRoot Před 2 lety +7

    Asking "where are the other worlds" is like asking "where did the other TV channel go?"

  • @Fantumh
    @Fantumh Před 2 lety +1

    This is the basic plot device of how many science fiction stories, two separate dimensions somehow suddenly overlapping, or time travel stories where they have to manage the multiple different possibilities of various time travel scenarios.

  • @c0ck0nduty83
    @c0ck0nduty83 Před 2 lety

    PBS space is love ❤️❤️❤️

  • @relariistheparadox221
    @relariistheparadox221 Před 2 lety +11

    Hm, I was excited for the title of this video, since it seemed to be finally addressing a question I've always had about many worlds, which is "physically, how do the alternate worlds manifest in a decoherent spacetime?" but that didn't really get answered here.
    That is to say, when, in many worlds, the universe's wave function splits, what happens to the other decohered universe? Does it cease to be and cease to affect/interact with our universe in any way? Or does everything in the split of possible observables get duplicated into another universe? Is it purely an informational split rather than a physical one? If so, how do we justify the physical manifestation and influence of *our* information as opposed to any other "world's"?

    • @thegaspatthegateway
      @thegaspatthegateway Před 2 lety +3

      I imagine us three-dimensional beings are like babies, lacking hyperobject permanence XD

    • @HarryHeck2020
      @HarryHeck2020 Před 2 lety

      The other 'decohered' universe never existed and doesn't continue to exist. It is merely a possibility that never differentiated from the infinite noise of possibility. The whole universe is just static noise unless it is linked to you. Think of consciousness as pulling a signal from the cosmic microwave background radiation. You're consciousness has a specific position, nothing else does.

    • @oliver_siegel
      @oliver_siegel Před 2 lety +1

      @@thegaspatthegateway oooh interesting!!!

    • @oliver_siegel
      @oliver_siegel Před 2 lety

      I think what the original comment is referring to is the mind/matter problem.
      Did matter manifest consciousness, or did spirit manifest physics?

    • @goldenbananas1389
      @goldenbananas1389 Před 2 lety +1

      this episode did answer the question where they are located. think back to that pond analogy. how multiple waves never were affected by each other. we one of those wave and the other worlds are different waves. they are decoherent with us which means those other worlds or waves do not have a definite phase relation to us or our wave. all the worlds exist in the same spacetime. just they cant interact with each other. basically instead of a single particle in superposition. the entire universe is in a superposition.

  • @fnamelname9077
    @fnamelname9077 Před 2 lety +23

    Question: Why isn't it possible to accidentally stumble back into phase, and thus bump into a ghostly other universe?

    • @kelpy582
      @kelpy582 Před 2 lety +7

      …It is 😈

    • @fnamelname9077
      @fnamelname9077 Před 2 lety +3

      @@kelpy582 Given strange eons?

    • @jelenahegser445
      @jelenahegser445 Před 2 lety +9

      i would say, if that happens, everything in both worlds fuse together and and endup being one, without anybody noticing it.

    • @sion8
      @sion8 Před 2 lety +1

      Deja vu?

    • @HVBRSoF
      @HVBRSoF Před 2 lety +2

      you can't. you just switch worlds. or your consciousness just switches worlds for every decision you make.

  • @orlovsskibet
    @orlovsskibet Před 2 lety +1

    Thank you so much for this episode. I've always wondered why nobody never asks this question to people like Sean Carrol, and I've always just assumed that it was obvious to everyone else but me...

  • @santiagoferreyra5573
    @santiagoferreyra5573 Před 2 lety

    I guess i spilled the coffee. Cheers from Argentina!!

  • @cortster12
    @cortster12 Před 2 lety +22

    I don't think anyone could convince me the "many-worlds interpretation" is our physical reality without a smoking gun.

    • @starman2337
      @starman2337 Před 2 lety +8

      In another world, they could convince you.

    • @blarghchan
      @blarghchan Před 2 lety +14

      I don't see why you would think the Copenhagen interpretation would make even the least bit of sense. Waveform collapse may as well literally be "a wizard did it".

    • @weirdshit
      @weirdshit Před 2 lety

      Maybe they were high on drugs when they imagined a many worlds state. Electrons simply ride along the wave and get distributed in the split experiment. Electrons with its atom structure dont stay in fixed location and are constantly orbiting or location affected by external environment.

    • @WitchyWagonReal
      @WitchyWagonReal Před 2 lety +1

      I am your dad. Now give me back my wallet and car keys.

    • @harshsrivastava9570
      @harshsrivastava9570 Před 2 lety +3

      the only reason i believe in many worlds is because copenhagen is even worse lol

  • @crosswingrobots
    @crosswingrobots Před 2 lety +14

    I geeked out so hard at the Magician's Nephew reference!

    • @eroraf8637
      @eroraf8637 Před 2 lety +2

      Greetings, fellow Narnia fan!

  • @matthewheadland7307
    @matthewheadland7307 Před 2 lety

    Love this guy.

  • @ZethKeeper
    @ZethKeeper Před 2 lety

    How they showed Ghost in "Ant-Man And The Wasp" is quite accurate, it fits so well with this explanation. Also, it was big help for understanding this, because I could visualize the topic here with images from the movie in my head.

  • @kylorenkardashian79
    @kylorenkardashian79 Před 2 lety +22

    Peter Dinklage looks great these days

    • @LabGoats
      @LabGoats Před 2 lety +1

      😆 nice. For real though. Matt's lookin good AF. Was shocked to learn his age lol

  • @connecticutaggie
    @connecticutaggie Před 2 lety +3

    Not just linear, Linear Time Independent. LTI systems are critical for RF and small signal analysis which allow us to use the Fourier Series to analyze non-sinusoidal signals using sinusoids which are much easier to analyze since integrals and derivatives or sine waves but with an altered magnitude and phase - super easy to handle using complex numbers.

  • @mozkitolife5437
    @mozkitolife5437 Před 2 lety

    Nice Portal reference. One of my all time favourite games.

  • @junegameart2866
    @junegameart2866 Před 2 lety

    I used to champion the many worlds since I was a kid, but these days the amount of information and craziness it would required tends to make me doubt it quite strongly.

  • @Alorand
    @Alorand Před 2 lety +180

    "Where are those worlds, and can we ever see them?" Sure, there are plenty of Isekai to watch each season... /s

    • @ayushshukla1438
      @ayushshukla1438 Před 2 lety +16

      Explosion

    • @night7826
      @night7826 Před 2 lety +8

      Bakaaa

    • @Ebani
      @Ebani Před 2 lety +3

      They certainly are the latest anime fad

    • @PhilosopherRex
      @PhilosopherRex Před 2 lety +15

      Japanese Manga writers have a keen ability to detect the Many Worlds.

    • @l3lackoutsMedia
      @l3lackoutsMedia Před 2 lety +5

      Isekai kind of just represent the human dream of being able to exist in a wildly different world.

  • @rosskrt
    @rosskrt Před 2 lety +5

    Joint + PBS Spacetime video = mind fking blown

  • @bardsamok9221
    @bardsamok9221 Před rokem

    Matt, the many worlds traverser we need.

  • @ivocanevo
    @ivocanevo Před 2 lety

    Thank you!!!

  • @seionne85
    @seionne85 Před 2 lety +4

    I like that you added that we shouldn't take it on faith, nice touch!

    • @user-qv6oz3tc5o
      @user-qv6oz3tc5o Před 2 lety +3

      Yeah. It may all be wrong and the Pilot Wave theory may turn out to have been the truth all along.

    • @seionne85
      @seionne85 Před 2 lety +2

      @@user-qv6oz3tc5o a disproof of many worlds would be so exciting

    • @supermax64
      @supermax64 Před 2 lety

      @@seionne85 A proof of many worlds would be more exciting imo

    • @seionne85
      @seionne85 Před 2 lety

      @@supermax64 to me it's cool to imagine what many worlds could mean. Specifically some quantum immortality consequences lol, but really if it's true it would just be kind of boring after the discovery. I mean unless there are some consequences I can't imagine. For me it's always more exciting when a top option gets taken off the table than when you get the answer

    • @seionne85
      @seionne85 Před 2 lety

      @@supermax64 my initial comment though was really just poking people who say many worlds is a religion.. or whatever they say

  • @srikanthtupurani6316
    @srikanthtupurani6316 Před 2 lety +6

    This is intimidating, extremely counterintuitive. My god.

    • @paulwolf3302
      @paulwolf3302 Před 2 lety

      Are you scared of the Loch Ness Monster?

  • @kats9755
    @kats9755 Před rokem +1

    Yeah sure I understood this 👍😬
    (LOL. Great episode as always!)

  • @odizzido
    @odizzido Před 2 lety +2

    Many worlds is one of the silliest things I've heard of. I am amazed it has any support. I hope I am alive when some clever people figure out what's really happening in the quantum world.

  • @LarsIsReal
    @LarsIsReal Před 2 lety +54

    First Spin. Now Ripple. This just has to be a JoJo reference.

    • @kaizipaul
      @kaizipaul Před 2 lety +10

      Araki knows something we don’t

    • @tekila00985
      @tekila00985 Před 2 lety +1

      That's also the training stages for the Rasengan.

    • @Rhekon
      @Rhekon Před 2 lety +1

      @@kaizipaul quantam mechanics terms

    • @LarsIsReal
      @LarsIsReal Před 2 lety +2

      Your Next Line/Video is...
      ...
      Another JoJo Meme?!

    • @karlbischof2807
      @karlbischof2807 Před 2 lety +1

      @@kaizipaul most mangakas are fascinated by science and use it as inspirations for their magic systems

  • @bobbyt223
    @bobbyt223 Před 2 lety +15

    I remember being a young child, like 5 or 6, and wondering if every time I go one way, was there another me somewhere going the other way. I also remember wondering if we were on something’s tv just entertaining them

    • @DumKump
      @DumKump Před 2 lety +2

      That being on TV part hits home
      I was really obsessed with that thought as a kid. I always thought we're all being watched like how we're watching movies and reading comics

    • @bobbyt223
      @bobbyt223 Před 2 lety

      @@DumKump that’s weird that kids would think like that! Maybe we knew something back then that we’ve forgotten

  • @saschaschneider9157
    @saschaschneider9157 Před 2 lety +1

    Anyone remembers the episode Parallels from Star Trek: TNG? Now I love this episode even more. :D

  • @tomrivlin7278
    @tomrivlin7278 Před 2 lety

    Boy, you, err... picked a great day to post this, given Certain Events in Popular Culture that happened the day afterwards