What can Schrödinger's cat teach us about quantum mechanics? - Josh Samani
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2014
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/what-can-sc...
The classical physics that we encounter in our everyday, macroscopic world is very different from the quantum physics that governs systems on a much smaller scale (like atoms). One great example of quantum physics’ weirdness can be shown in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Josh Samani walks us through this experiment in quantum entanglement.
Lesson by Josh Samani, animation by Dan Pinto.
Schrodinger: So do you want to live or die?
Cat: *Yesn't*
Lol😂
b o t h
Loollll
I used this word at my "convent school", they kicked me out for 2 periods straight
@₿ΣΛƬƧ yupn't
*No cats were killed during this video*
however,
*Cats were killed during this video*
+Marvel James 😂😂 gosh😆😆😆
Schrödinger's murder
Lol
Well yes, but actually no
@@twentyninedoesnotlastforev5455 and vice versa
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar.
And doesn't.
Will G.
Noice
Copied from jacksfilms
@@adorableteddy9328 what's jacksfilms
how do u know
@@warker6186 yeah
How to make a theory complicated :
*Add "Quantum" in it*
I would say adding cats on it. It is really bad explained.
It sounds good though
Screen junkies
quantum trump
👌
Narrator: "the everyday world u know and love.."
Me: bold of u to assume-
+1
·-·'
"One does not simply. . . . Assume so."
Have to disagree with this video's claim that entanglement will someday allow us to send information or teleport someone instantaneously across the universe. The results of positions of entangled particles are indeed always opposite; however, they are also always randomly opposite. So this will never allow us to send deliberate patterns of information (coordinated 1's and 0's) because all the 1's and 0's will be random and meaningless, even if the pairs are always opposite.
Finally someone that points this out
I do love the world tho don’t get me wrong
This is what "Curiosity killed the cat" really means - "[The] Curiosity [of a physicist by the name of Schrödinger] killed the [physicist's] cat."
+Mr. Gecko
LOL! Makes sense though.
I guess so
hypothetical FUCKING scenario, this is the THIRD FUCKING TIME
HEY VSAUCE! @Le Fedora Cate HERE
Killed in a curiosity box
Jonas is dead and yet Jonas is alive too.
That's the Schrodinger's Jonas
If only Jonas and Martha were in superposition states in the ending. Or if they are entangled in the quantum level than at least one of them should have existed in the ending
They both were in a state of entanglement (loop of two parallel worlds) until the last episode. However, in the last episode they destroyed the knot (loop) and erased the existence of entanglement.
Same as claudia
@@clementeen Jonas existed as Hannah is going to give birth to Jonas :)
Joydeep Das noone can create same jonas except for michael and hannah it’s genetics
A physicist who doesn't particularly like cats, puts a cat in a box..... Along with a bomb.
*They had us in the first half, not gonna lie*
You joke is like attention
I don't get it
why do they need to put it in the box
it's already in it
or is it???
@@humanbeing9946 Vsauce
Cat experiment was a thought experiment. No cats were harmed.
They should mention it in the video.
+Ultimate Gamer Actually, when I first heard about this theory years ago I was astonished and went very excited to tell a friend. After I told the whole thing she just answered me ''well, has anyone already attempted to do the experiment?''
Yeah, I know...
+Andrey Pavlov they did. they said it was a thought experiment. chill out
Where are your dogs? I hope they weren't harmed in your Operant Conditioning Experiment as well :)
Yeah
Hi peta!
The animation is absolutely adorable. Well done Dan Pinto!
Before watching this video I was confused, and now I'm still confused
still better than going into a superposition of confused and not confused at the same time
@@royhsieh4307 love the reply. Lol
No, you are both confused and not confused...
Same
"If you are not confused, then you are not thinking."
-Sir Albert Einstein.
cat exists
schrodinger: im about to end this cats whole career, or am I?
Hey, Micheal Vsauce here
Hey Vsause , Micheal here
Here Micheal, Vsauce hey
Here Vsauce, Micheal hey
Vsauce here , Hey Michael
As a cat I find this video offensive.
Report if for racism.
Not all physicist support catocide!
I am offensive and I find this box.
Just to annoy shiben..... months later
But it was a thought experiment, not a real test.
u wot m8 ?
*At ending*
"Maybe your cat will teleport to another safer Galaxy, with no boxes."
Me: But cats love boxes..
Lol. Amazon is my kitties best friend.
No, cats love and hate boxes at the same time!
Not the one with bomb
CZcams recommended to me because of DARK series!!!
🤣🤣
I saw this bcoz of dark series
Same here ...lol
Me too😆
Me too
**Schrödinger has entered the chat**
-**Einstein has exited the chat**
So true.
-*Or cats have exited the chat*
You could resolve this paradox by saying that this is technically not delivering information faster than the speed of light, because once we measure one of the cats state, we already know the state of the other one. So this isn't violating Einstein's rule of no information is able to deliver information faster than light.
@@manelnhl4393 *-Cats may or may not have exited the chat*
I've been trying for years to wrap my head around quantum physics (like many people) and this video did a really good job of explaining it. So as I understand it now, quantum physics is something that occurs at an atomic level but at a macro level that we would observe in everyday life...
They sud have explained why Quantum physics rules out both cat dead (or alive) scenario
+Himanshu Kumar Yeah, I still don't understand that part.
That's the point. They don't know.
Pauli Exclusion Principle :)
+Himanshu Kumar because when two particles are entangled, they influence each other in opposite ways
does the cat analogy mention that both cats are entangled ?
Removing the “both dead” and “both alive” possibilities seemed kind of arbitrary. That must be the part that is too difficult for us mere mortals to understand.
if you find out why they did that please let me know
It has to do with conservation of momentum. If the system has a total spin of 1, you cannot end up with 2 particles with spin of 1 (alive cat) or 2 with 0 spin (dead cat).
From what I understood in a Veritasium video, since the total angular momentum in a universe must stay constant, if one particle spins up the other must spin down. Whether the cat is dead or alive represents the up or down spin of a particle. czcams.com/video/ZuvK-od647c/video.html @Safwan Baksh
@@safwanbaksh2224 From what I understood in a Veritasium video, since the total angular momentum in a universe must stay constant, if one particle spins up the other must spin down. Whether the cat is dead or alive represents the up or down spin of a particle. czcams.com/video/ZuvK-od647c/video.html
@@stevengreen4253 you seem to know what you're talking about so I'm going to ask you this question. Haha it's your punishment for being smart. Anyway. I'm a non physics trained just enjoyer of the topic. I conceptualize entanglement using a wishbone example. If you break the bone with a friend and hide the piece in your hand, you each have a 50/50 chance of having either piece (superposition?) If you go to the moon and look at your piece first, you put yours in position and consequently theirs too?
After 5 years this video got too much attention because of Netflix's DARK.
I think Einstein disliked this video 117 times.
155
Yes. He is still alive in some other universe and this is his spooky action from a distance. :)
vikram fugro So he must have liked the vid in other universe.
+rai ZOR
Why would he? He was working on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics before he died.
Dracstar apparently he wasn't a fan of quantum entanglement.
I wish there is a video like this about spin of particles.
It will be fascinating to understand the spin with a cat explaining.
Shake the box, u will know either the cat is alive or dead without opening😂😂😂
smh😂😂
You might be onto something here 😂😂😂
schrodinger, i guess, wasn't as smart as you 😂😂
Sooooooo true looolz deserve to win a novel prize
that count as "observe" as well
well ok i know youre joking im sorry
Now, this raised even more questions in my mind.
Roronoa Zoro raised nothing in mine
no it doesn't.
now u r in position.
Quantum physics always make my brain hurt. x_x
+J.H. Lee it just feels like there is something really wrong with it
+J.H. Lee I'm with you. last 2 weeks i have been studying on this thing.
Maybe like in a simulated game or a cartoon. The 2d or 3D characters have to follow the rules of space or physical interactions as ordained by the artist existing in a higher dimension(probably two dimensions higher). But suddenly the artist decides on a whim to make an object appear by painting or coding it. Then the characters, initially shocked that the appearing object has breached the rules, start realising that what they thought to be the rules was not law but rather illusory that had ways around them. They then start to find hacks; enlightenment, quantum computing, teleportation...
And it's because you delve too much into details, let it go...
Because the law of physics in the universe does not care what your brain is capable of.
I am so surprised I don't see a single comment specifically about how cute the cats are. THEY ARE JUST TOO DAMN CUUUUTE!!!
Actually I never thought cats looked good in glasses.
NErdy cats lol
Until they poo through their mouth
are you a cat video watcher and youTube recommended you this ?
IKRRRRR
I mean I understood the story of cats well until he said “ quantum “
so at the moment he added the word quantum to the story, u have reached the superposition.
Wow that’s true.
This is the best rendition (examples ; explanation) of super-position and entanglement I have ever heard Very well explained ...So well... That your almost giving away the whole secret And I do mean this seriously !!!
"The everyday world you ... love..."
Making a lot of assumptions there chief... Who can love a world with a universal speed limit?
+magicstix0r what a stupid reason to not LOVE
+magicstix0r Nothing can exist without limitations... sooo
Could the universe have existed without a universal speed limit?
Chike Ezebilo I think the speed limit is only limited by perception, perhaps there is no speed limit but in order to perceive anything the mind has to draw the line and choose.
for example, if you want to watch a snail race an asteroid, you have to make the decision to watch only one of them, as the asteroid would get so far ahead it can no longer be seen, or the snail so far behind.
Slinky Drinky okay, but if that's the case, how come we all perceive exactly the same result everywhere in the universe?
I wish I had been taught quantum chemistry like that.
Appreciate the cool animation they did for the video.... Great concepts made understanding with simple and funny graphics....
The method of explaining the topics is really very good. Some more videos regarding quantum physics will be really appreciated
What a fantastic video, well narrated with just enough information and extremely well animated.
Thank you.
And after studying it deeply The Germans created the 'Dark' series and messed up our minds. Such a powerful stuff.
they got Schrodinger Cat very wrong, even this video does. today 90% of so called Science Enthusiast propagate this experiment in a wrong way!
I didn't realize before this how absolutely beautiful and mind-blowing science is.
The example at the start does not make sense to me because any time i throw a ball it will either land on my head, foot or i just will lose it
Me: Do you guys just put *Quantum* in front of everything?
Ohhh just remembered, Sheldon Cooper already explained this Cat thing to me
this is one of the highest quality vids from TEDed yet.
Mind blowing theory and crystal explanation.
That little cat wink at the end near about killed me
.. so how do things become entangled? also, how do scientists find two entangled particles? is there a way to force entanglement upon two particles?
+1, been thinking of this for a long time.
exactly. withou answering your question, the lesson is worthless.
mesure the total spin of two particles and when you then mesure their individual spins it must add up to the total. However the two particles spins are individual random but will always come out to add up to the corect total. So for instance, if two particles together have 0 spin then one particle must have spin 1 and the other spin -1 (this might corospond to spinning clockwise or counter clockwise). The total must be 0 and 1 + (-1) =0. But its random which will have spin 1 and which will have spin -1. So until you measure one of them each particle could be either 1 or -1 but once you mesure one of them you now know that it is 1 and the other is -1 or the reverse. This is true no matter how far apart they were seperated.
TheZzpop that's what I don't get. They both had to choose on or the other right when the box was closed to balance out so why do we say that the information is being transferred at the next measurement. We are measuring something that was decided when the lid was closed. Please help me understand this.
Blake Young Well, it actually isn't decided when the lid is being closed, that is a slight misconception that arises from the analogy in the video. In quantum mechanics the actual "collapse of the wave function" as it is called, happens when the particle is OBSERVED. What this means is that the particle is in two (or more) states at the same time until a measurement is made.
If it's true, we do live in a simulation, where everything is already predicted.
Wow...never knew this channel existed..subbed as fast as possible!!!!
Me : Is your cat alive or dead ?
Schrodinger : Um , it is actually ...
Meanwhile cat from box : Meow !
Who came here after watching "Dark" Season 3?
Me
I came here after watching seishun buta yarou
see no relate between this theory and this tv show, can you explain for me🤔
@@tronganhvu7614 Dark season 3 is based on Quantum Entanglement.
There's a lot of entanglement going on these days...
The animation of this video is better than any of your other videos.
Wow! I suddenly start to love physics after watching the Dark series!
1:29
Yes, you would know, because the box would be destroyed by a bomb.
Ac1130 010b I know
+Mr. feeling
He's being facetious. ;)
It was portrayed as some sort of radiation device by most
Actually Shrodinger did not use bomb in his experiment , he used toxic gas which was filled in glass bottle , which should be broken by hammer, using radiation of some radioactive atom.
What if it was bio bomb
If you could resurrect one cat would the other one die instantly ?
I realize you're probably joking but this is actually an important question in quantum physics, and the answer is no. You cannot actually influence of the other particle otherwise you'd be sending information faster than the speed of light which cannot be done this way. Entanglement doesn't actually have communication so it doesn't violate this principle and it only applies to limited measurements.
It doesnt necessarily have to be the other one being dead and the other being alive, the 2 cats were just in a superposition state. We'll only know the outcome if we observe it. But the thing that i dont understand is that the 2 possibilities were canceled out or was it just because they had a 50% chance of being dead or alive?
@@luckyturds6536 it is cancelled out due to entanglement. no matter what happens to the other box the entangled box will be the opposite of the other. so if one cat is dead then the other will be alive there's no way they both live nor dead
alstone morales how / why are they entangled though?
Dont be too serious about it leave it to scientists to get some another animal killed😂😂
The pause before the cat wink in the ending though
Oh dear. I'm having my Sunday night, CZcams video binge, existential crisis again
I just looked at the cat the whole time :/
Schrodinger:I don't know if cat is dead or alive
Cat:meow!
Schrodinger:shut up!
I can't belive a 2 year struggle could be solved with a 5 minute video. Like where was that 2 years ago! 🤣
It is an old saying” if you can not explain it to a child then you do not know it “ , that is what this video is like a very simple explanation that everybody understands. Thanks
Yes. I'm here from Ant-Man and The Wasp.
I'm here from my mom
SAMEE!!! I just finished the moviee ;_;
its strange how youtube recommended me this video while i was watching The Big Bang Theory, where they were pulling a joke on Schrodinger’s cat
The two both alive and both dead entanglement meant that for any subatomic particle , it's impossible to find it at two quantum states .
Ted Ed iniated the idea of entanglement DARK series just delivered it 😍
*CZcams knew what’s in my textbooks better than myself* 😨😂
4:21 i think there's a way of information transfer it's just that we haven't discovered that yet
There's a very interesting, somewhat new theory about ER=EPR. The information travels through a wormholes, and from this emerges a physical reason for the quantization of space-time. If I can find the World Science Festival episode with it, I'll link it.
If memory serves, it's based on Hologram theory. I think the part I'm thinking of is about 2/3 of the way into the talk.
czcams.com/video/BFrBr8oUVXU/video.html
Wow! Even my best teacher couldn't explain to me so clearly))) thanks)
I have an enormous questions in my head rn.
So,quantum entanglement is basically a long distance relationship!
agar aisa hai toh pakka katega
@@shanubhau8629 Tera kata hua lagta hai😂😂
@@shanubhau8629 lmaoooo
@@sannathbehere2623 han bhai
Though I haven't started learning any of the quantum mechanics equations or anything I find it very easy to understand and interpret most of the ideas of quantum mechanics
lol, allow me to suggest you take an MBTI test (free online everywhere).
If my 'theory' is correct, you are an INTJ.
I understand quantum theory or so I think I grasp the concepts and this drives every math person in my life
insane because I have always been challenged by Math unless a sales discount was involved and yet,
I can speak Quantum leap and I never once watched that old tv show.
Seriously, you may lead with Ni dom in the Carl Jungian information processing cognitive function stacks.
Have you read Nietzsche?
Thank you for telling me a topic that i have to contain till i reach college where i can finally tell this
Two points to make. First the bomb is detonated by a microscopic or quantum mechanical event such as an alpha particle hitting some nitrogen tri-iodide. Second entanglement is most apparent with spin measurements with the detectors oriented at oblique angles like 45 degrees. That's when information of some sort has to travel at superluminal speed.
Schrödinger's cat has always fascinated me, so thank you for this video, which made me think about this interpretation again.
Firstly, the experiment to have connected particles at opposite ends of the universe has not been done. Secondly, the experiment described here has presumably only been done on earth or in the space station - we haven't travelled any further as far as I know.
The video fails to explain how the linked particles are created.
The idea of superposition is a concept derived from probability, not an actual state. In the macroscopic world, we do not always 'know' where something is: it may be at one point or it might be at another, but we do not assume that it is everywhere at once. We only know, where it is when we interact with the light rays bouncing off it or the reaction with some other sensor. If the object is moving, the object is in a slightly different position from the observed light rays, because of the tiny delay in the light or heat or radiation reaching our sensors. We are happy to agree in the macroscopic world, that we might not know where something is, but that someone else might. In the case of Schrödinger's cat, it is certain the cat does not think it is in superposition. It 'knows' whether it is alive. In the same way a particle knows, where it is, because its behaviour is determined by the interaction with all the other particles in the environment or the universe. We know where we are, because we know which other particles are affecting us.
The concept of spin is very simplistic in the video, suggesting that you can match opposite rotations in a 2D fashion as if there was an orbital plane. I have read that electron spin about the nucleus is three dimensional, so I cannot understand how you can create 'opposite' spins. If someone does know, how to create opposite spin, I would be delighted to receive a response to this comment.
If you don't know where a particle is until you observe it, how do you know that you are observing the same particle at the later stage of the experiment. How can you mark an electron, so that you know which of the pair you are observing? If the two particles are in separate boxes and this is how you tell them apart, how do you know that the opposite spins are not contingent on the properties of the container? If spin changes on a incredibly tiny time frame, it is possible that multiple longer term observations could still fail to spot the condition, where both particles are spinning in the same direction : is, both cats are alive, or both cats are dead.
If the science of quantum entanglement has been done in a vacuum, then this may explain part of the difficulty of relating quantum mechanics to classical mechanics. The results of the experiment may tell us only about how particles relate in our experiment and not about how they react under other real-world conditions.
This is a good video for explaining how physicists have tried to make sense of the world.
Beautiful
Schrödinger's smile/frown for you - :(:
Yeah, Imma just say that the kitty design was just adorable
For those already initiated in QM I repeat here some comments previously made to similar videos. They may clarify debatable points.
The Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE) when applied to a wave representing an initial state of, say, an electron bound to a proton and together forming a hydrogen atom, predicts and retrodicts all the future and previous states of the electron wave, in the same fashion than the evolution equations of classical mechanics predicts the movement of the Earth around the Sun. Note that the STDE is energy conservative, that is, the initial state as well as the predicted and retrodicted ones all have the same energy.
As is well known the bound electron has a completely different conduct. Whatever the initial state and in absence of other interactions an excited electron will settle in a stationary state radiating energy (in the form of a photon) along the way. If the stationary state is the ground state the electron will stay there forever (in absence, as said before, of other interactions). Otherwise the stationary electron state is ephemeral and will be abandoned to radiate a photon and assume a new stationary state of even lower energy. This "down the staircase" process repeats until the ground state is reached. There is no manner to adapt the STDE to this physical process. This inconsistency was discovered by none other than Niels Bohr, as can be inferred from the report of Werner Heisenberg. See our note
www.researchgate.net/publication/356193279_Deconstruction_of_Quantum_Wave_Mechanics
After discovering the tremendous inconsistency between the equation and the atom it would have been natural to announce that the STDE contradicted physical facts, and ask for a correct equation. I assume as true, but only know from hearsay very long ago, that in Einstein's viewpoint the correct deterministic time dependent wave equation had to be non-linear in contrast with the linear STDE. References to this historical detail would be appreciated.
It is hard to believe but, against reasonableness and common sense, Bohr decided to adopt the STDE as correct and that continuity, causality and determinism of physical processes were wrong because they contradicted the STDE. Apparently mathematical equations on paper were more relevant than the experience of the whole human race. Then a series of new and fanciful "quantum physical principles" were adopted.
In my opinion the powerful quantum establishment dogmatically defends Quantism and strongly rejects any attempt to correct its misdeeds, even if the correct deterministic time dependent wave equation is available.
With best regards to all
Daniel Crespin
I didn't understand how he eliminated 2 probabilities (2 dead or 2 alive). Can someone explain?
pauli's exclusion principle states that if one of the two electrons in an orbital have up spin then the other can only have down spin (opposite spins). Similiarly, if one cat is alive the other has to be dead.
Ok ,but why?
It's because the result will be certain. There is a 50% probability of the cat dying (or living). If both live (or die) then you're certain that the cat is either dead or alive.
@@nicky09yash , ah, ok, thank you !
@@nicky09yash How does it become certain? You will know both cats are alive only after checking both boxes.
"Quantum entanglement"
Will Smith: Where do I begin?
The last statement regarding cats impressed me 😂
How can you not know if the bomb exploded without opening the box?! I mean it's a freakin' bomb josh.
I have been explained so many times what "quantum" means,and this is the first time i can say that i understand.
Thank you.
Quantum refers to things at a scale where mass and energy exist in discrete amounts called "quanta."
'You and I are perfect for each other. Never believe anything else' - Quantum Entanglement
One thing that always gets me: where is the boundary between Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics? Where does one end and the other begin?
Actually there is no boundary. It's a matter of probability. Quantum mechanics also apply to large objects. But since the mass of larger objects are so huge, and with them in the quantum equation, the quantum equation reduced to Classical Mechanics.
For example, an electron of a atom is a cloud of probability. Actually the same probability wave also applies to the football you are holding right now. But since the football you are holding is so huge, the probability of your football occur in your hand is almost 100% while its probability of occurring at other places is almost 0. That's why you don't see probability clouds of footballs.
best recommendation ever!!
I was about to post a joke on quantum mechanics but it is funny and unfunny at the same time.
Alright so how do two entities become “entangled”?
Legendary Gattos exciting space using energy to create particles out of energy
I came up with a model for a new type of computer from playing a game, Counter-Strike (a Half-Life mod) when it was in its original beta phase. The system was very poorly designed, like the accuracy system for the weapons was designed that if you slow down to a walk, your guns were more accurate, but they set the parameters up so that it triggered this extra accuracy just going the slightest speed under a full run. Using +moveup which was meant for swimming in the scripting language, which is the only "language" I used, you could get half way between a run and a walk for movement speed and get the accuracy of a walk and the silence of it, with movement sound being another similar flaw they made in the game. That combined with scripting firing of the gun so it briefly made you do +moveup before actually firing the gun and turning it off immediately after firing the gun effectively gave you a more accurate gun at a running speed. There were many holes in the original CS system, I repeatedly told them about them on their message board, getting repeatedly banned. I remind you: I only used the extremely simplistic scripting language built into the game, so I was exploiting and not cheating, even though in effect it was cheating. CS 1.6 should have been CS 2.0 because they made major changes to the engine due to what I was spreading around. At least one of the hacks that I kept to myself and did not put into my script still exist in the current CS system as far as I know. It was basic to the Quakeworld original engine Half-Life is based on. The script that is part of my work, for CS 1.6, has a fully automated taunt system for giving people a hard time. I built a randomizer and relational database that sometimes spits out a taunt based on the weapon or weapon type you are using just before your gun is actually fired when you fire, only using the one command, alias. Alias just lets you create or reassign a command to an indicated string of commands, and nothing else.
We are not digital and nothing in Nature is digital. Digital computers are an exact science with exact results. Nature is based on "good enough is good enough". Oxford quantum physics professor Andrew Steane wrote in his paper about quantum information systems titled "Quantum computing" at arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9708022.pdf :
"The new version of the Church-Turing thesis (now called the ‘Church-Turing Principle’) does not refer to Turing machines. This is important because there are fundamental differences between the very nature of the Turing machine and the principles of quantum mechanics. One is described in terms of operations on classical bits, the other in terms of evolution of quantum states. Hence there is the possibility that the universal Turing machine, and hence all classical computers, might not be able to simulate some of the behavior to be found in Nature. Conversely, it may be physically possible (i.e. not ruled out by the laws of Nature) to realize a new type of computation essentially different from that of classical computer science. This is the central aim of quantum computing."
From what I understand they are forcing current quantum computers to unnaturally apply a binary state to something that has a infinite evolution of states. Think of the electron and the circle it makes around a nucleus. That 360 degrees circle it makes is infinite in precision, and that movement certainly has an effect on its surroundings. Basically, practical math is the descriptive language of the universe, and not the actual universe because it uses measurements.
I propose a "Dynamic Stateless Computer" that operates on "Logic Geometry" based only on connections, or links, or pointers - a much more simple computer than the three basic Boolean logic gates operating on mathematical binary bits that is every computer out there. The shape is the logic and the logic is the shape, sort of like a truth table that is dynamic where the "truths" change as it runs.
Quantum mechanics is beyond me, but if this only needs connections, ie a quantum entanglement, can we build a computer that operates and does its entire run instantly? Like I said, all I need is connections to perform logic... no need for information... the shape is the logic.
You are best off going to Github and seeing online without downloading the paper and models. When someone looked at my calculators, they accused me of: "You're not doing math! You're emulating math!" Look at the simple calculator first, it only does addition and subtraction. Then look at the complex calculator that does multiplication and division. As you well know, if I can do those things, I can do anything mathematically. In the main model I created if-thens, complex do-whiles, a randomizer and a relational database.
github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer
Through the exercise of the most complex do-while I asked a question related to that, and the answer uses the ancient Chinese/Pascal's Triangle (which millions have looked at over thousands of years) in a new way: mathhelpforum.com/threads/combination-lock.17147/ I basically had to count nothing as something to count, as in you can have different items to count the permutations of but a default state of no item is possible for each, some or all to count in the permutations, and it doesn't seem anyone else in history was able to use the really basic mathematical concept of the Triangle in that way for the solution. It is similar to the 4 hats and 4 pegs question of how many permutations you can have that is commonly associated with Pascal's Triangle, but they did not count the empty pegs as part of the permutations that they can have. The technique of the implementation is a little interesting, with it being able to reach any of the 209 possible permutations of 4 wheels with 4 numbers (don't know if I should count 0, it is special in this case - if you do count 0, it is 5 numbers) in 4 keystrokes or less - it's how it scales that is the curiosity, where if I had 18 slots and 18 items to form a permutation it would have almost 3x10 to 18th power or 2,968,971,264,021,448,999 possible permutations, each reachable within 18 keystrokes or less.
I don't have any idea as to how this would be physically built - none of the aspects of it, except for the dynamic logic that I also do not have any clue if it really is what I ask above. I just can do these things I demonstrate and in my extensive almost 50 years of digital computer experience I have not seen anything exactly like it.
Maybe you wonder about my computer experience? I have always been fascinated by computers, starting in 1972 using a prototype Cogar 4 that my dad got his hands on, when I was 3. By the time I was 5, Singer wanted to use me in a commercial to sell the computer, because if a 5 yo could start it, load the OS and then load games, that proved anyone could. My first mentor helped develop Ethernet after working for my father, and allowed me to hold one of the first breadboard ethernet cards developed when I was 10. My first real program (programming since at least 5 if you count the Cogar ASM I had to type to get to the OS and games) was in BASIC when I was 11 that I learned from a manual without anything more than a small example for each command, written with pencil on paper; a rudimentary AI demonstration called "Animals". Second program I made I had another computer (we had moved and left the one at my dads company behind when he sold it) and was a dot bouncing around the screen. Third program, with 12 year old's understanding of math, I attempted to do 3D. I first professionally programmed in 1982, started building computers and networks for a small computer company in 1986 owned by my second mentor, Peter De Blanc who lead ICANN for a period, was an official beta tester and developer for OS/2 2.0 and developed a device driver for it for the extremely complex Truevision Targa+ 64 video editing board (pic: imgur.com/a/hMe21Qe ) directly flipping bits on it in 1991. The code for the model for the dynamic stateless computer is about 640 lines and took me 6 months to complete, with the code for the Targa+ device driver being over 4200 lines and took me one 20 hour sitting that compiled and ran the first time that I have 3 witnesses for. That's almost 30 years ago. My experience has only gone up from there. This dynamic logic is something I found, that I have never seen anything like even searching for it on the Internet for the past 20 years.
Very simple analogy🔥
Quantum entanglement allows for multiple universes. One for each outcome of each decision/path taken. One universe where you were never born. One where you died at birth. One where your mother died at birth and you continued on. One were you were raised Catholic. One were you were raised as a Pagan. One were you died in a car crash, the other not. I like the idea that I'm like Jared Leto in the movie "Mr. Nobody"; where I live all possibilities, but the one I choose to live out is the one where I make it to the end. In other people's reality, I may be a different person.
How the fuck would you not know if a bomb went off inside the box until you open the lid? There wouldn't even be a box left for you to look at.
The experiment is usually conducted with a poisonous radioactive isotope that has a 50% chance of decaying and killing the cat inside the box over the course of an hour. I'm assuming the narrator was attempting to simplify the experiment, but the substitute explosion does tend to confuse things. Edit: And when we say this experiment is conducted, we're referring to it as a THOUGHT experiment... Scientists aren't really killing any cats at all, except in their minds I suppose
If it's related to time , like in space time, the two objects will always gives entangled outcome irrelevant to the distance. So, it does works with space time. And consider it with spring theory.
Hey dude,This animations and explanations are just amazing... 🤟🤟🤟❤️❤️❤️🤟😜🎇🎇🎇
I love they made all 'humans' cats in this vid 😂
😹😹😹
With the two cat scenario, if I looked into only one box I would instantly know the condition of the other cat. Wouln't that information be moving faster than the speed of light?
Kinda. If there is information going on between those two particles, it is moving faster than light. That, as far as we know, breaks Theory of Relativity. That is why Quantum Entanglement is still a mystery.
+John Jr. The point Is each cat react differently on quantum level then on Macro level, The same law cannot be used on quantum level, because it's like a different law then our law, it's like observing on fantasy world where all the law is strange and contradict with our understanding on reality.
+ John Junior that's a pretty interesting question! I think the CZcams channel 'Veritasium' has done an entire video on this faster-than-light communication stuff. I recommend you check it out.
No. The information you are constructing is called Bayesian Inference. When you observe one, you immediately infer (or deduce) the state of the remote twin. When you resolve your uncertainty locally, you also resolve your uncertainty about the remote twin.
0:58 whoa, that’s quite a leap in thought
Does the fridge's light work like this? I have been trying to solve this problem since I was a child
Do you know how to tell if the elephants in your fridge left the light on?
Footprints in the Jello.
I had the very same question and this is how my grandmother explained it to me.
I hope you have or have had a grandmother as wonderful as mine.
Namaste'
The beginning is the end
Why not the forest road
The End is the Beginning
Haha Dark
Who is here after watch dark s3!??
3:25 this feels good for some reason
- I mean the effect
Uhh I understood uncertainty of position and momentum and Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Thank you TedEd.
And those people who think our force of observation collapses nature to one of either probabilities is not for the cat. It's just a thought experiment to help understand the movement and behaviour of electrons around the nucleus.
Soooo I just tried this experiment,and now my room is filled with smoke and cat guts...
Shouldn't have opened the box.
+Anthony Hayes lol 😂😂😂
Results pls both alive or dead
Finished watching dark yesterday
CZcams today:
That last part made me happy 😂
Make a vid on general the theory of relativity in this animation type