Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you welcome to Stuff you should know
Speaker 1: from house Stuff Works dot com. Hey, and welcome to
Speaker 1: the podcast. I'm Josh Clark with me as always as
Speaker 1: Charles W. Chuckers Bryant, son of Mrs Bryant. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just kept the name good for her. I like your mom. Yeah,
Speaker 1: have you met my mom? Yeah? I met your mom
Speaker 1: at They Love your Mama opening appropriately enough. That's right.
Speaker 1: I thought you said your name was Josh Quark for
Speaker 1: a second there. If that was off the cuff, I'll
Speaker 1: accept that I did. I just made that up. It
Speaker 1: is not written down anywhere. That is great. Um, Chuck
Speaker 1: said that because we're going to be talking about quantum
Speaker 1: physics today and quarks are Um it's my understanding, Chuck
Speaker 1: that they're the the fundamental basis of matter. Yeah. They
Speaker 1: make up hadrons, which you may You may know that
Speaker 1: because we talked about the Large Hadron collider. Yeah, up
Speaker 1: until about like thirty seconds ago, I didn't know why
Speaker 1: it was called the large hadron. Yeah. Well, there's six quarks, Josh.
Speaker 1: They are known as flavors, which is kind of cool
Speaker 1: up down, charm strange top and bottom, and apparently charms
Speaker 1: strange top and bottom. You can only um be produced
Speaker 1: with like a big collision, like the hadron collider, a
Speaker 1: large hadron collider. Huh. And there's also antiquark too, which
Speaker 1: is like the opposite. Yeah, those are the quarks that
Speaker 1: smoke cigarettes and wear leather jackets exactly. Um chuck. Quarks
Speaker 1: exist on their particles, their matter, right, they're the building
Speaker 1: box of matter, That's what I understand. So they exist
Speaker 1: on the sub atomic level, smaller than atoms or below atom,
Speaker 1: depending on you know how you like the words sub um.
Speaker 1: And they exist in this weird world, the quantum world.
Speaker 1: And they they bump elbows against photons, which are my
Speaker 1: favorite sub atomic I guess, particles, um, and plenty of
Speaker 1: other weird strange It's like this odd parade of physical things, right,
Speaker 1: I don't like it. There, I can understand why you don't,
Speaker 1: because it's a very disconcerting and uncomfortable world. The the
Speaker 1: very comforting ideals and principles of Newtonian physics, which are
Speaker 1: what goes up must come down. The Sun's going to
Speaker 1: rise tomorrow. Uh, depending on whether or not you're Robert Hume,
Speaker 1: um adherent, David Hume adherent. Um. Just these things that
Speaker 1: we can depend on, We've come to depend on since
Speaker 1: Isaac Newton, you know, you know his breakthroughs. I learned
Speaker 1: a lot about myself reading this. Actually, did you learn
Speaker 1: that you get angry easily? No, It's just like the
Speaker 1: whole notion of like stepping outside reality disturbed me. Yes.
Speaker 1: And what's even more disturbing is that this this universe
Speaker 1: is envisioned by some very very smart people, or I
Speaker 1: should say what I perceived as reality, by the way,
Speaker 1: I just want to clear that up nice. So, Chuck,
Speaker 1: we've done when on the large Hadron collider, right, this
Speaker 1: is just like this, this this huge, fancy, multibillion dollar
Speaker 1: machine that's new that's still going right. Um. Back in
Speaker 1: the nineties, they didn't have these large Hadron colliders to like,
Speaker 1: you know, rely on to actually see and measure and
Speaker 1: detect things on the quantum world. They had to use
Speaker 1: their imaginations. Physicists did, and uh, specifically there was a
Speaker 1: physicist who used his imagination for what's called the thought experiment.
Speaker 1: It where Yeah, this guy's name is Max tag Mark.
Speaker 1: He is awesome, He's he was at Princeton at the time. Now,
Speaker 1: I think he's a M I. T. And he came
Speaker 1: up with a thought experiment called quantum suicide. And will
Speaker 1: you allow me to explain it as follows, please do? Okay,
Speaker 1: So you are a guy and you're sitting in a
Speaker 1: room and there's a gun pointed at you at your head.
Speaker 1: I don't like where this is kill shot. And you're
Speaker 1: looking at the barrel, right, and the guns a little off.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a normal gun, but it took it
Speaker 1: up to this new fangled machine, right. And this machine
Speaker 1: is set so that it measures a cork. It measures
Speaker 1: the spin of a cork. Right, So let's just say,
Speaker 1: for simplicity's sake, although you've already said this isn't true,
Speaker 1: let's just say that a cork can only spin clockwise
Speaker 1: or counterclockwise. Okay, Um, this this machine is set so
Speaker 1: that every time the person sitting in front of the
Speaker 1: gun presses a button, the cork is measured. If the
Speaker 1: cork is measured with a clockwise spin, the gun's not
Speaker 1: gonna go off. They'll just be a click, okay, Right.
Speaker 1: If when the guy presses the button, the cork is
Speaker 1: measured and it comes up with a counter clockwise spin.
Speaker 1: The gun's gonna go off, The trigger will be pulled,
Speaker 1: the bullet will actually the chamber, it will travel several
Speaker 1: feet across the room into the head of the man
Speaker 1: sitting in front of the gun, and he will die
Speaker 1: guarantee death like it's a kill shot. Okay. What's weird
Speaker 1: is that in this quantum suicide thought experiment, Max tag
Speaker 1: Mark figured out that if this guy pressed the button
Speaker 1: every single time, he's going to hear a click, click click, click,
Speaker 1: click click, no matter how many times he presses it,
Speaker 1: no matter how long he tries this, all he'll be
Speaker 1: aware of is this clicking of the gun because he lives. Yes,
Speaker 1: he lives in every single scenario. How can that possibly be.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to the beginning that first time the
Speaker 1: guy pressed the button. Okay, what happened in another parallel
Speaker 1: universe is the gun went off and he died, right. Okay,
Speaker 1: So with that first experiment, the the universe split into two,
Speaker 1: one where the gun went off and he died, one
Speaker 1: where he just heard a click. Now if we follow
Speaker 1: the one where he heard the click every time he
Speaker 1: presses that button and the cork is measured, Uh, the
Speaker 1: universe splits into two, but he's only aware of the
Speaker 1: one where he just hears a click, because that's one
Speaker 1: where he's alive, and if he died, he clearly wouldn't
Speaker 1: understand that because he'd be dead. Yes, so part one
Speaker 1: of mind melt starts just started. I think that that's
Speaker 1: the quantum suicide thought experiment. Yeah, I like it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was pretty mind boggling um and it's used to well,
Speaker 1: it's pretty exemplary of the kind of goofy, like you said,
Speaker 1: mind melting um ideas that are are brought up on
Speaker 1: to explain quantum physics. Right, what you have to do
Speaker 1: you have to use thought experiments because you can't use there.
Speaker 1: It's unpredictable at that level, so you can't use like
Speaker 1: regular scientific method right. And one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: it's unpredictable is because when you look at, say a cork,
Speaker 1: if a cork only had a spin of clockwise or
Speaker 1: counter clockwise science quantum physicists have found that when you
Speaker 1: observe a quark um, one time you'll observe it and
Speaker 1: it's spinning clockwise. The next time you'll observe it's spinning counterclockwise.
Speaker 1: Or even more unsettlingly, they found that photons, these smallest
Speaker 1: packets of light. You can look at a single photon
Speaker 1: at one point or measure it and it's a particle.
Speaker 1: You can measure it the next time the same photon
Speaker 1: and it's a wave. So this is kind of like
Speaker 1: some buddy running, walking, and swimming at the same time
Speaker 1: in different directions, right, this so that, like you said,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's uncomfortable that what they're finding on the
Speaker 1: quantum level. So what you got, Josh, is is a
Speaker 1: chaotic situation and that's sort of how it exists now.
Speaker 1: But as you pointed out, you wrote this, I should
Speaker 1: point out, and this is a performer, this one has
Speaker 1: done really well. Right, you should tell yourself. But sometimes
Speaker 1: scientists think that the more we learned that some order
Speaker 1: will fall into place on the quantum level at some
Speaker 1: point well hopefully, yeah, hopefully here else either theory after theory,
Speaker 1: either that or else. Yeah, it's like the the the
Speaker 1: laws of physics don't the laws of Newtonian physics just
Speaker 1: don't apply on a certain level down to they just
Speaker 1: apply on you know, the specified level um. One of
Speaker 1: the one of the fundamental tenants that that has long
Speaker 1: been debated. Um is the idea of Heisenberg's certain new principle. Right, So,
Speaker 1: one of the one of the things, like early on
Speaker 1: in quantum physics and like the twenties, um, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of guys who were trying to explain why
Speaker 1: these weird things were showing up right, well, inconsistent at least, right,
Speaker 1: And one of the one of the early guys, one
Speaker 1: of the early physicists was Werner Heisenberg. Yeah, Mexican, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Vanda Heisenfelg And he came up with this explanation or
Speaker 1: this I guess he'd pointed out, like a major flaw
Speaker 1: with quantum mechanics is that when we observe something, just
Speaker 1: the act of observing something, we influence its behavior. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is where I started to get a little hinky
Speaker 1: with this. I understand it in concept, like even like
Speaker 1: shining a light on something that's small will will cause
Speaker 1: it to to change. But it gets a little more
Speaker 1: like philosophical than that. Well, yeah, like simply king at
Speaker 1: something will affect the outcome. That's a really great point, Chuck.
Speaker 1: There's the quantum um physics has a lot of philosophy
Speaker 1: and logic tied into math. It's not just straight up math.
Speaker 1: There's philosophy to it. Sort of appeals to me on
Speaker 1: that level, but it's it's doesn't make it easier to
Speaker 1: understand for me. Well, this is how Heisenberg' uncertainty principle
Speaker 1: was explained to me once. Um, if you let's say
Speaker 1: you're blind and you have this ball, heavy ball that
Speaker 1: that has a lot of bounce to it, um that
Speaker 1: you've learned to basically see with you know how bat
Speaker 1: uses sonar, yeah, to bound bounce back the wave to
Speaker 1: find out how far they are from something. Sure, Right,
Speaker 1: Let's say you've you've learned to kind of do the
Speaker 1: same thing but with the ball, right okay, and you
Speaker 1: know that there's a chair across the room and you
Speaker 1: want to figure out roughly how far away the chair is.
Speaker 1: So you throw your ball at the chair and you
Speaker 1: manage to hit it, and the ball takes a second
Speaker 1: and a half to come back to you. And after
Speaker 1: you know, being pretty good at this point, now you
Speaker 1: know that the chairs about thirty feet away. That's how
Speaker 1: long it takes for something for for the ball to
Speaker 1: get back to you. In a second and a half,
Speaker 1: with about as hard as you threw it. Right, what
Speaker 1: you've just figured out is the position of the chair,
Speaker 1: or where the chair was when you threw the ball
Speaker 1: at it. What the problem is is you've just influenced
Speaker 1: the behavior of the chair. You just threw a ball
Speaker 1: against it, so you sent it careening off into space,
Speaker 1: and now you have no idea where it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I get that. I get the ball moving the chair.
Speaker 1: What I don't get is looking at something. Well on
Speaker 1: on this level, consider this with photons. Remember the smallest
Speaker 1: packet of light my favorite quantum particle um. There is
Speaker 1: a nano machine which is it's a motor, right, and
Speaker 1: it's operated by shooting light at it. So this these
Speaker 1: packets of light that have no mass and no charge.
Speaker 1: This the partticles we're talking about so small that a photon,
Speaker 1: a little packet of light can actually influence them. So
Speaker 1: we use light to see. Say, let's say just and
Speaker 1: this is this is a very basic elementary explanation, but
Speaker 1: we use light to see. If we have the light on,
Speaker 1: there's photons just bombarding something, right, So phots, if a
Speaker 1: photon can hit a particle, we know where it's position was.
Speaker 1: When we turn the light on, but we don't know
Speaker 1: where it is now because the photons just sent it
Speaker 1: careening elsewhere, right, which delves back a little bit into
Speaker 1: the philosophical Like you walk into a dark room and
Speaker 1: you don't know where the chair is until you turn
Speaker 1: the light off. But did the light move the chair? Right?
Speaker 1: That's that's that's exactly right, right, That's that's what smart
Speaker 1: people have to say about quantum mechanics. What R I
Speaker 1: don't get it? Okay, I got it, But you do
Speaker 1: get it because you just expect it perfectly. I was
Speaker 1: just kidding, right, Okay, all right, So that's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
Speaker 1: and that's been something that kind of provided a conundrum
Speaker 1: for quantum physicists, and not everybody's bought into that, right, Well,
Speaker 1: and that's why they had to dream up the thought
Speaker 1: experiment to begin with. Okay, so if just observing a
Speaker 1: um a particle means we affect its behavior, well, then
Speaker 1: maybe we should use thought experiments, especially pre large hadron
Speaker 1: collider physicists. This is their their thought process, right, So
Speaker 1: this is why tag Mark came up with the quantum
Speaker 1: suicide thought experiment. Um, But he didn't he came up
Speaker 1: with the thought experiment to prove another quantum theory called
Speaker 1: the many world's interpretation. Yeah, Hugh Everett, fellow Princetonian UH
Speaker 1: in seven. And I know he was stoked, like because
Speaker 1: forty years people were kind of like, I don't know
Speaker 1: about this many worlds thing until your guy came along.
Speaker 1: Call him your guy. I've actually chatted with him. He's
Speaker 1: a good guy. Oh that's right. And I provided a
Speaker 1: picture like forty years, right, Yeah, nineteen fifty seven and
Speaker 1: ninety seven, exactly four years then, Um, and it supports
Speaker 1: quantum suicide. The many worlds theory is UH. For each outcome,
Speaker 1: each each each possible outcome to an action, the world
Speaker 1: copies itself. It splits into a copy of its right,
Speaker 1: and it's simultaneous, and we have absolutely no power over whatsoever. Um.
Speaker 1: It's a process called decohesion. So Chuck, This this universe
Speaker 1: that we're in right now is going along smoothly because
Speaker 1: there's no choice or option. Right. But let's say, Um,
Speaker 1: I'm deciding whether or not to take a sip of
Speaker 1: this coffee or not. Just making that decision. I didn't
Speaker 1: just now, but the there was decohesion when I made
Speaker 1: that decision not to because in another universe, another parallel
Speaker 1: universe now exists where I did take a sip of
Speaker 1: that coffee. Well, yeah, and the key here is that
Speaker 1: you don't know that this other universe has been created, No,
Speaker 1: because you know and you want to you want to
Speaker 1: imagine that you can look over to your right somewhere
Speaker 1: and you see yourself to drinking the coffee. But you can't.
Speaker 1: We're not we're not cognizant of that universe. It's it's
Speaker 1: branched off. They're no longer cohesive, right, and that supports
Speaker 1: the quantum suicide thought experiment, like perfectly, Well, that's that
Speaker 1: is what um, that's that's what whoever came up with
Speaker 1: to explain why a particle, a photon could be both
Speaker 1: a wave and a particle, right right. The unsettling part
Speaker 1: of this is with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we're in charge,
Speaker 1: we look at a quantum particle, we affect it. Right.
Speaker 1: That was with who's Heisenberg heisenbergriniple, with um with the
Speaker 1: many world's interpretation, we're just observers, right, Yeah, parallel universe
Speaker 1: is happening all over the place. So let's say that
Speaker 1: you you. Let's say I was the guy who decided
Speaker 1: I wanted to find out if there was such a
Speaker 1: thing as quantum immortality, that I could just sit there
Speaker 1: with the gun and actually carry out this thought experiment
Speaker 1: and and see right, and consider this, It's entirely possible
Speaker 1: that if somebody did do this, they could live forever
Speaker 1: and only they would know. You know why, because as
Speaker 1: an observer, under the many worlds interpretation, you're just along
Speaker 1: for the ride. I sort of have to accept that,
Speaker 1: don't you If you support this theory, well, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the basis of it. So let's say that I was
Speaker 1: the guy who sat down in front of this gun
Speaker 1: and started pressing the button right, and you're sitting there
Speaker 1: watching me, you know, maybe drinking a roop here um,
Speaker 1: waiting for that fire. Yeah, eventually it would happen because
Speaker 1: you're not doing anything. You're not making a decision. I'm
Speaker 1: making the decision. You're an observer, a bystander to my
Speaker 1: decision of pressing the button right. Isn't that where predictability
Speaker 1: comes in? So eventually, just based on the chances of
Speaker 1: a coin toss, you're going to be witnessed to that
Speaker 1: that cork being measured, running counterclockwise and the gun going
Speaker 1: off and me dying, and after that, the universe can't
Speaker 1: possibly split anymore because you're not making the decision. I'm
Speaker 1: making the decision to press the button. While I'm dead,
Speaker 1: I can't make the decision to press the button anymore.
Speaker 1: So then the universe has stopped splitting for you. So
Speaker 1: that's that's pretty unsettling, because we have no control whatsoever
Speaker 1: over anything. I mean, if I would chalk it up
Speaker 1: to free will, whether or not I'm I'm taking a
Speaker 1: sip of that coffee. But free will doesn't exist if
Speaker 1: the universe is splitting into two to accommodate every possible outcome,
Speaker 1: and just imagine it splitting into more than two. What
Speaker 1: if there's more than one outcome for a decision like
Speaker 1: many worlds? Okay, right, So this is the many worlds interpretation,
Speaker 1: and that's how Quantum's Suicide basically proves it. By the
Speaker 1: by saying if somebody sat down and did this, they
Speaker 1: would become immortal. It shows that the many worlds interpretation
Speaker 1: is theoretically possible, which is what it seeks to do, right, right,
Speaker 1: And that's sort of the new kid on the block
Speaker 1: right when it comes to explaining this. Yes, not like
Speaker 1: the za Copenhagen interpretation. Yeah, well let's let's take it.
Speaker 1: Let's take it, Chuck. Well, that's the one that's been
Speaker 1: accepted and still is in a lot of circles, but
Speaker 1: the one that had been accepted for like the last
Speaker 1: century basically. And you pointed out too that this whole
Speaker 1: thing is really only about a century old or so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I believe it was Max Plank in nineteen hundred, which
Speaker 1: is basically founded the field of quantum fiss which is
Speaker 1: very new on a you know, on that scale. Newton
Speaker 1: came up with his stuff in the eighteenth century. So
Speaker 1: this is the I guess, the newest field of physics. Right.
Speaker 1: So the Copenhagen interpretation, Josh, is uh Neil's Bore in
Speaker 1: the Night in the actually in nine and it says
Speaker 1: that a quantum particle doesn't exist in one or another,
Speaker 1: but it exists in all states, all at the same time, right.
Speaker 1: And the state of existing in all possible states at
Speaker 1: once is called coherent superposition or just superposition, right, right,
Speaker 1: And the total of all those is the wave function. Right.
Speaker 1: So remember I said this is like, this is like
Speaker 1: a running, walking, and swimming all at the same time.
Speaker 1: So the state of running, walking, and swimming all at
Speaker 1: the same time is called the superposition. And then being
Speaker 1: able to run, walk, and swim as possible states that's
Speaker 1: the wave function that makes you an iron man. It does,
Speaker 1: but it makes you like the optimal iron maid. Right,
Speaker 1: you just finished the race immediately. Yeah, everyone else is
Speaker 1: finished with the running part and you're like dripping wet
Speaker 1: with your bike on your shoulder. Nice. Uh so bor um,
Speaker 1: he he proved this, this whole shrouding yours cat thing,
Speaker 1: this is this is a little funny. And Schrodinger supposedly
Speaker 1: did design this to sort of show how silly it was, right,
Speaker 1: he he did. But at the same time he was
Speaker 1: also I mean, he was a serious quantum physicist and
Speaker 1: he was a huge rival of Um Heisenberg actually, and
Speaker 1: Heisenberg said Schrodinger's ideas were crap. Yeah, is that the
Speaker 1: word he used? And um and I think I can't
Speaker 1: remember what Schrodinger had to say about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
Speaker 1: but um, they didn't like each other all right, So
Speaker 1: Schrodinger's box, can we kind of describe this? Yeah? And
Speaker 1: and if you didn't get this, this is to the
Speaker 1: Copenhagen interpretation, what quantum suicide is to the many worlds interpretations.
Speaker 1: Experiment designed to theoretically prove that it's possible. Okay, people
Speaker 1: are like, can't you just talk about ticks being on
Speaker 1: another regions? So much easier? All right, Schrodinger's cat, And
Speaker 1: this is I should point out, this is a theoretical experiment.
Speaker 1: He didn't really do this, right, he could, well, sure
Speaker 1: he could have. So what he did was he got
Speaker 1: a box that you can't see into, which is very key,
Speaker 1: as you'll find out, he put a cat in there. Theoretically,
Speaker 1: he put some radioactive material in there, and then he
Speaker 1: put a Geiger counter in there and like a little
Speaker 1: device that would you know, if the radioactive material leaks out,
Speaker 1: it would smash this poison in there, and it would
Speaker 1: kill the cat. Right. If the Geiger encounter sensed radioactive decay,
Speaker 1: it would trigger this hammer that smashes the poison vial,
Speaker 1: killing the right. But that's just a clever way of
Speaker 1: setting this up. It's really not important what he did
Speaker 1: being clever, well it was, it was very good. But
Speaker 1: the point is he did it within like an hour
Speaker 1: or so, so where it's still possible, like the cat
Speaker 1: didn't starve to death. The cat could either be alive
Speaker 1: or the cat could be dead. You don't know because
Speaker 1: the cat is sealed inside this box. So in theory,
Speaker 1: the cat is both alive and dead, right. And the
Speaker 1: other part about that hour is that he determined, say,
Speaker 1: like over an hour, there was a chance that the
Speaker 1: the radioactive material would decay or wouldn't decay, so the
Speaker 1: Geiger counter of detecting it. And this is where I
Speaker 1: have a big problem with all this stuff. Yeah, well
Speaker 1: it's like you pointed out in the article too, and
Speaker 1: that's what made me think of it, the tree falling
Speaker 1: in the woods. Would you really hear it? I have
Speaker 1: hated that since I was a little kid. I think
Speaker 1: it has to do with how your brain is wired.
Speaker 1: Because whether or not the cat is a the cat
Speaker 1: is alive or dead. Just because you don't know the
Speaker 1: answer doesn't mean it's both. Well that's to me as
Speaker 1: an English major music musician type. You know in this though,
Speaker 1: So the cats, the cat being alive or the cat
Speaker 1: being dead, right, that's its wave function. Those are the
Speaker 1: possible outcomes. And since the box is sealed off. Like
Speaker 1: you said, it's very important. You can't see in it,
Speaker 1: you can't detect anything in it. Um the cat is
Speaker 1: the cats in a superposition of both life and death. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The point is is we what what Schrodinger was saying
Speaker 1: in this and how it how it supports the Copenhagen
Speaker 1: interpretation and is actually more like um the Heisenberg's uncertainty
Speaker 1: principle than Schrodinger would have liked to admit. Um, we
Speaker 1: the observer force the outcome. Okay, by observing it. We
Speaker 1: open up the box and the cats either alive and
Speaker 1: we see that the cats alive, or we open up
Speaker 1: the box and the cats dead and we see the
Speaker 1: cats dead. The point of Nils Boers Copenhagen interpretation is
Speaker 1: so these things exist in their superposition, and when we
Speaker 1: observe them, we force them into basically a choice. We
Speaker 1: collapse their wave function, we collapse their superposition, and now
Speaker 1: they're a live cat or it's a dead cat. But
Speaker 1: it's because we observed and until we observed there in
Speaker 1: this state of all states at once. It's that's just
Speaker 1: where I and like I said, it has it. It's
Speaker 1: got to have something to do with your brain because
Speaker 1: my brother was a big math guy and he used
Speaker 1: to tutor me some and he could never understand how
Speaker 1: I didn't get math, just like I don't understand how
Speaker 1: they get physics on that level. But I don't understand
Speaker 1: how someone can't sing on key because to me, you
Speaker 1: hear the note and you just replicate it. You know what,
Speaker 1: I understand what what a brain cramp feels like? Right now? Yeah? Um,
Speaker 1: so chuck the again the great thing, the comforting thing,
Speaker 1: the thing that allows me to sleep at night about
Speaker 1: boars um. Aside from that, uh in Scott's um, the
Speaker 1: part about Boors theory that is comforting is that, again
Speaker 1: it's up to us, right things don't we We can't
Speaker 1: look at a cat and see it in a state
Speaker 1: of life and death simultaneously. We force things to happen
Speaker 1: and at the very least things make sense to us
Speaker 1: in that in that way, right, Um. With the many worlds, again,
Speaker 1: we have nothing to do with it. It just happens
Speaker 1: on its own. Um. Decohesion happens signed like instantaneously whenever
Speaker 1: there's a decision made by a conscious being, and even
Speaker 1: worse so times not linear. It exists in like these
Speaker 1: jumps and starts and branches, and so for every decision
Speaker 1: ever made by any conscious entity that includes rabbits, chuck right,
Speaker 1: that there's the universe is split into every possible outcome.
Speaker 1: It's like lost, Oh it is, and it's the basis
Speaker 1: of not just lost, but like a lot of other Um,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of other works. Um, what was
Speaker 1: that one third contact you sent me? It looked like
Speaker 1: a student film or something like that. Yeah, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: a bet, just because it's so mind boggling. Um. And
Speaker 1: the great thing is is that quantum physicists seem to
Speaker 1: have like a little bit of a sense of humor,
Speaker 1: or at the very least, they're well aware that what
Speaker 1: they're saying is just completely nuts. They're like, hey, don't
Speaker 1: kill them usinger, We're just trying to figure out what
Speaker 1: the hell is going on here, right, Um. Schrodinger called
Speaker 1: his cat experiment quite ridiculous, and Neil's board had a
Speaker 1: great great quote, dedn'ty chuck, Yes, Josh. He said that
Speaker 1: anyone who was not shocked by quantum theory has not
Speaker 1: understood it. Right. That says it all, all right, it
Speaker 1: does say it all. And I think also what it did.
Speaker 1: Was it bought quantum physicists some time. Yeah, it's like
Speaker 1: you go figure this out, but we really go figure
Speaker 1: this out. Well, I would come and explain it to you.
Speaker 1: You got a little clever there on the last page,
Speaker 1: which I appreciated when you said that, you know, there
Speaker 1: are all these different theories and when you're talking about
Speaker 1: quantum physics, and a lot of them contradict each other,
Speaker 1: and maybe if you believe in this kind of quantum stuff,
Speaker 1: maybe they're all right. Right Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the ones that contradict each other they're both right,
Speaker 1: depending on what universe you're in, So it depends. If
Speaker 1: you're a many worlds interpretation devote, then yeah, that would be.
Speaker 1: That would be so quantum, Yes, super quantum that we
Speaker 1: should be wearing trawn outfit. It's right now. I saw
Speaker 1: that trailer the other day Man before Inception. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: looks really good. Yeah, although I gotta say I liked Inception,
Speaker 1: but I I it could have been better. I enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: I did too. Christopher Nolan can direct and write the
Speaker 1: crud out of a movie. Yeah, but how much of
Speaker 1: it though? Is that no one else is making anything
Speaker 1: even remotely watchable. You're right, Wow, he came along in
Speaker 1: a good time, didn't he know he did? Um? So
Speaker 1: that's quantum suicide in a bat. I can't wait to
Speaker 1: see the listener mail on this man when the physics
Speaker 1: guys right in. Yes, it's and I don't I'm not
Speaker 1: making fun of I mean it's really enlightening. They take
Speaker 1: it really seriously. It's awesome. Yeah. Um, and don't forget Chuck.
Speaker 1: We met somebody in New York at the knitting factory
Speaker 1: I believe who was a quantum physicist who explained to us,
Speaker 1: like how we screwed up the large had round collider.
Speaker 1: So if you're out there, I can't remember your name,
Speaker 1: remind us that is that the hadron the collider? Dude?
Speaker 1: You know those are those are their comedy troupe much
Speaker 1: to page on the clider. They have a podcast. Check
Speaker 1: it out. Um, I guess now what it's time for
Speaker 1: listener mail. Do you have something? All right, it's time
Speaker 1: for listener mail, Josh. I'm gonna call this uh cool
Speaker 1: Kiva wedding. Okay, can I throw something in first? Please?
Speaker 1: There's something we've we've overlooked. Too many episodes have gone
Speaker 1: by in my opinion, but we need it, We need
Speaker 1: to put this out there. Remember Sean from Virginia Beach,
Speaker 1: the cubicle guy who just was like, I've listened to
Speaker 1: everything and there's no there was no origin of Hippie Rob. Well,
Speaker 1: we put the call out for everybody to let us
Speaker 1: know where Hippi Rob first appeared in what capacity, and
Speaker 1: we got a great response. First one to write in
Speaker 1: was Emmy. Thanks for writing in, Emmy, but thanks for
Speaker 1: everybody for writing in. If you go back and listen
Speaker 1: to How Squatting Works and listen to approximately the two
Speaker 1: fifty mark, two minute fifty second mark, you will find
Speaker 1: the origin of Hippie Rob. And if you want to
Speaker 1: show up, he also shows up about the same place
Speaker 1: in the Earthquake podcast too and elsewhere. But those are
Speaker 1: the two largest chunks of the Hippie Rob saga. He's
Speaker 1: peppered throughout. Isn't it funny that this dude is just
Speaker 1: out there, existing somewhere and has no idea. It's like
Speaker 1: in another parallel university exactly. Wow, you're welcome, josh Uh.
Speaker 1: This is from Janna in Minnesota and she says, Josh
Speaker 1: and Chuck, I'm a huge fan of the show. I
Speaker 1: wanted to share a story with you. My husband and
Speaker 1: I recently got married June nineteenth, two thousand ten. So
Speaker 1: Mozel talked to that, you know, with the reception when
Speaker 1: people ding the glass to make newlyweds kiss. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if it's a tradition in Georgia or not. Sort
Speaker 1: of is I think it is. We didn't do that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we had paper cups, and one heard it. Did you
Speaker 1: really know? We did have a budget wedding, but we
Speaker 1: didn't have paper cups plastic. We pbr in a bottle.
Speaker 1: That's very classy. Thank you. Everyone else starts to also
Speaker 1: ding their glass and then you have to stop eating
Speaker 1: and kiss. My husband and I didn't like that idea,
Speaker 1: and it either uh something about the annoying clanging sound
Speaker 1: didn't sound like fun. Plus it's really demanding. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: can't make me kiss. That's what I would have said.
Speaker 1: I would get all obstinate in my own weddingh So
Speaker 1: we decided that people had to put money in a
Speaker 1: jar to make his kiss. Great idea. All the money
Speaker 1: placed in our jar would be donated to Kiva Fantastic
Speaker 1: through the stuff you should know Micro Lending Team the
Speaker 1: micro lending site, responsible micro lending site. Yeah, we should
Speaker 1: also spell that because we get called out because it's
Speaker 1: such a weird word. It is k I v A
Speaker 1: dot org and then slash team slash stuff. You should know, yeah,
Speaker 1: if you want to donate for our team. So she
Speaker 1: said it wasn't the biggest fundraiser of all time or anything.
Speaker 1: They made about fifty bucks and kisses and they were
Speaker 1: happy to donate. So that's two loans right there. And
Speaker 1: I just thought it was cool that we've been included
Speaker 1: now in someone's wedding day and wedding night. Remember that
Speaker 1: other one. I guess I'm waiting on us to cause
Speaker 1: a divorce that would bring this full circle. I know
Speaker 1: we helped somebody through divorce, didn't we Can we get
Speaker 1: an an email from somebody who was getting divorced? I
Speaker 1: don't know. Maybe I think we have And thank you?
Speaker 1: Who was that? That was Jenna from Minnesota. Thanks Janna
Speaker 1: and husband. Congratulations on your wedding. Uh. And if Chuck
Speaker 1: and I have hastened the end of your wedding or
Speaker 1: have been president at the birth of your kid or whatever,
Speaker 1: any major life event, we want to hear about it. Uh,
Speaker 1: Send us an email to Stuff Podcast at how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. For more on this and thousands of
Speaker 1: other topics, is it how stuff works dot com. Want
Speaker 1: more how stuff works, check out our blogs on the house.
Speaker 1: Stuff works dot com home page. Brought to you by
Speaker 1: the reinvented two thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you