How Quantum Entanglement Creates Entropy 

Yeah. And the best part is, these aren't even the densest videos on youtube, forget all lectures possible. There are some professors that are even better. I once took a break from my minor in physics and went back the next semester. I felt so strange after my first lecture back, I had forgotten what it was like to be challenged...

Think about it this way... what does that tell you about other random video's?

i watched it twice and still understand little. guess i'm also just as dense

so true, this was was specially challenging, Gonna have to watch a couple of times....

The subject itself is deep. A 20 minute presentation is bound to be incomplete no matter how dense, so it is partially due to this. Learn a little by osmosis and it'll help in the future. Here's a more advanced/complete link on quantum spin liquids which puts these ideas to the test (it is long and a 2 parter): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CUg-sGeuJA8.html

I’m negative - electron

@@jameslacey01 good one.

@@Hyszy Are you saying you don't like to say that?

Yeah I have noticed it too. And the way he says the name sounds a bit kinky😉😂😂.

@@abrahamlincoln9758 never said that I dislike him saying it nor me saying it. It's fun name.

I’ve been “blamming” for years watching these videos

I’m a molecular biologist and I appreciate life at the molecular level. I’ve been searching for the deeper underpinnings of reality and life and have watched these for years. When he connected the quantum with the macro, it literally blew my mind and I visually saw all of the concepts covered through the years into one theory of the fabric of reality

Reality is mental, bro. Once you get - you get the pieces together.

@@olegc.7877 I'm thinking a la Sean Carroll that there is no mind! it's an emergent property...

@@birdthompson it is matter which is an emergent property of mind

lmao I just noticed

@@nene_san Anyone wants to check out some yet-unkown-to-him/her science-youtuber?

@@nene_san I personally legit think 'we science-fans' dont recommend each other enough; arguably even hindering 'us'.

@Viliam Vacula you should both apologise

Me: maybe if I watch this while I'm drinking, I'll get smarter by diffusion

@@PetraKann You are undeserving of apologies. Many magical girls died fighting equilibrium. ◕‿◕

@@Aereto The Equilibrium religious cult is an illusion of reversibility and neurotic obedience to Cartesian reductionism. Is the Universe reversible?

These Luddites are clever, I’ll give them that.

Well you're in luck, there already is one. Use the search on the channel page.

See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L2suMPiuog4.html

It’s hard to wrap my head around “larger scales” without space being a given. But emerging from abstract connections between points huh? … interesting

How does time dilation affect smaller scales? That is really the question. So, is the instantaneous momentum of particles caused by time dilation, like the idea that gravity is? As you approach the plank scale, what is dilating anymore...? Point space, and it's _"abstract"_ geometries are an attempt at describing the interactions that build up to things that can then dilate. What comes before that...🤷

I wish PBS Spacetime would do an episode on Quantum Holonomy Theory. Since Arvin Ash's video on it, I can't stop thinking about it.

Sounds interesting. Can you please post a link to your dissertation. I'd like to read it if possible. Thanks.

@@death_parade I have attempted to post a link but for some reason, RU-vid is removing the comment. I do have a link to my dissertation on my LinkedIn profile. If you were to add /jordanleeevans to LinkedIn URl you’d be able to find my profile along with my dissertation

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

Wow ... so like.. you went to ... college and stuff...kewl.

Lol grok is such a great word

It's hard to grok a nonsensical gibberish. Although constant inserts of word quantum makes it sound cool

@@M4R0Zzz are you suggesting this is nonsensical gibberish?

Love finding random uses of 'grok' in the wild.

dude it’s basically 3 am and i totally felt this, looking forward to tomorrow at 3 am again!!

Yeah, I think I need to rewatch this one.

Maybe it's a joke? The connection between entropy and file compression?

Well, they were all called out as links to actual episodes...

She started out super quiet and shy, now she is always loud and dancing...

@@Robert_McGarry_Poems 😂

Nahhhh that's totally a roller derby name.

nah, it would have to be the band name. And then everyone would always ask which one is Shannon, but of course there is no Shannon. It's just the name of the band.

At the same time Entropy Shannon would be a great name for an violinist in an Irish dance band.

I laughed at this comment but also dear god no. Tenet should have an apology to PBS Spacetime in its credits.

@@jogandsp Tenet really got it *backwards*

Chris Nolan forgot to put this product placement in his movie? How dare he.

Tenet should be forgotten.

I presume you mean the RU-vid thumbnails and not Matt's Thumbnails? I am sure Matt's thumbnails are perfectly nice too though :D

12:16 "You've already become entangled with the coin and live in the slice of the wave function (the mixed state) where the coin is *either* heads *or* tails"

@@mechadense But it is either one or the other, not both at the same TIME. The wave function is an emergent property of time. This means that the coin is what it is, regardless of the wave function in any other segment of time. That's why it's heads (or tails) when it's revealed at a certain TIME. It already was/it already is/it already will be, but only at whichever time it's being measured. This is the time that exists, and no other, because any other expression of time has either already occurred, or has yet to occur.

@@toughenupfluffy7294 - Not sure what you mean with "The wave function is an emergent property of time". A well isolated and thus in its entirety accessible wave function describes an *undirected* temporal evolution of a system holistically in its entirety. A (pure state) wave function does not specify a direction-of-time aka an arrow-of-time. Backwards is indistinguishable from forwards (as it is in reversible computing). The arrow-of-time does not lead to the wave function. What does lead to an arrow-of-time are is the statistics of microstates in slices of incompletely known wave functions (mixed states) when the system is not in equilibrium, when it does not have maximal entropy. The wave function very much has the capacity do house truly counterfactual things (like an electric current flowing in counter-rotating directions at the same time). This is experimentally testable via the Bell test and has been repeatedly tested. - - - Well … Except if there are global hidden variables. Meaning we do *not* have access to the entire wave function then I guess. Global hidden variables have been pushed quite far out by now. Experimentally via cosmic bell test. But since we'll never be able to see infinitely far out in spacetime we'll thus never be able to definitively disproof global hidden variables with absolute certainty. - - - I know, there's time symmetry breaking in weak force beta decay. I won't go into that.

Forget about the wave function! It depends on differential equations and latter on infinitesimal calculus, which is not a proper mathematical tool to approach at quantic scales.@@toughenupfluffy7294

Some More News Coverage of the current Work-Crisis affects us all, so excuse the RANDOMNESS but i want my fellow PBS-Space-Time-Fans (man, that's a long word, i should have shortened that, but whatever) to know such.

@@slevinchannel7589 heyyy Iove that channel too

@@LabGoats :)

Blog post?

:(

Watch an even shorter video from Arvin Ash. Then that will be the shortest. It’s from 2 weeks ago.

That's only true about mirrors because of silver. Judas betrayed Jesus for silver, and so all the wicked and demonic creatures of the world were cursed to be weak to it. This means that vampires would be invisible in old-fashioned silvered mirrors or on photographic film because the photoactive part of film is crystals of silver hallides, but would be perfectly visible on silicon-based CCD cameras and aluminium-based modern mirrors, including those of telescopes.

@@alexv3357 How about those proposed mirrors made of spinning pools of mercury? After all, mercury is also known as quicksilver...

@@alexv3357 vampire admiring itself just after Judas betrayed Jesus: OH WTF where did my reflection go?!?!

@@alexv3357 you raise some pertinent and important points - no doubt about that. Absolutely no doubt. We know that Jesus and at least 7 of his apostles were scientists

@@PetraKann Scientist apostles? Blessed are the peer-reviewers, for they shall obtain peer reviews. Blessed are the theorists, for they produce testable models. Blessed are the experimenters, for they improve our theories. Blessed are the mathematicians, who write the language of knowing....

So, you want to create Universal Programing i.e Magic? I'm down for that

@@benjaminconnor6980 I personally legit think 'we science-fans' dont recommend each other enough; arguably even hindering 'us'.

Also von Neumann probes. He was a busy boy.

I will just let you read the Wikipedia entry for the areas he contributed to. The first time I ran across something to do with von Neumann was the book "2001: A Space Odyssey" (A.C. Clarke wrote a book after the movie that was based on two of his stories). One of the black obelisks turns out to be a von Neumann machine, or self-replicating machine

One of the smartest humans of all time, contributed to so many different fields

Classicalize quantum physics?

Egad!

Just start unobserving things and eventually it will happen

@@hansenchrisw Then I suggest Project DODO for a good read, does exactly that and then time travel happens

Quantum detanglement, it's so simple

You can force a qubit into a known state by measuring it and flipping it if the measurement came out wrong. This works even if you and the qubit are entangled with the rest of the world. Basically what's happening is that this process swaps the qubit's tainted state for a clean one that ultimately came from moving the entropy in the qubit into the surrounding environment (which needs to be not max entropy for this to work).

Or, TL;DR its related to how entropy can be reduced to almost nothing in a smaller subset of a larger closed system

@@alextaunton3099 Right, as long as the larger system is in a low entropy state. Resetting a qubit is possible for the same reason that it's possible for a fridge to cool down its interior.

@@CraigGidney I had the same question so thanks for clearing that up!

@@CraigGidney and in fact that’s exactly why they need to be so cold! So that’s another nice tie-in with the fridge thing.

How do we know that no way to calculate exists. If i use occlums razor i can just say it exists but we aren't able to measure it cause laws get too complex at that size. Like maybe if it's up or spin depends on a particle 20 km away and even a small change can change everything. Like in chaotic system. I am still in high-school about to go to college but it's still a valid question no one seems to answer. It just doesn't seem skeptical enough.

​@@pravinrao3669 I didn't say that no way to calculate it exists. It could just be complex enough that we haven't calculated it yet. Quantum physics is amazingly successful at describing systems with just a few particles. But measurement equipment isn't just a few particles. I'm not a physicist, but I guess she's saying that the interactions that make up a measurement device might be too complicated for us to calculate or maybe even they might depend on details that the theory left out. So if you can't point at sample calculation of a measurement, it's premature to claim that there is no problem with one. Also there's something incompatible with the description of a simple system and a measured state. In the pre-measured state, any linear combination of states is considered a valid outcome - and so you have probabilities. But in the measured state you have definite outcomes. But as Matt said when he described a combination of states as a known, 0 entropy state, it's not a matter of there being an unknown that you discover when you measure. It's that the measured state is a DIFFERENT state than the premeasured one. You need a level of suspension of disbelief to buy that - that, for instance, the photon didn't pick a spot on the film... And maybe it DID pick a spot because after it reaches the film it isn't just a few particles anymore - because the effects on the film cascade past the photon to many atoms etc. Is that measurement or decoherence? Well maybe... but then there are the quantum eraser experiments and the fact that the system seems to be able to change its mind based on things that happen later in time then the time when some of those mass effects would have taken place if a certain choice were made. So the things you think create a measurement or a decoherence can depend stuff the wave function (that isn't supposed to exist after a measurement) encounters AFTER the measurement could have taken place. Note, I made an edit describing the problem with the quantum eraser experiment.

What i got out of this episode is that the macro world appears classical because any particle affecting an object is entangled with other particles which the object cannot have information about, i'm assuming because of the finite speed of information. Since the object only has access to a small part of a bigger wavefunction, the particle appears statistical instead of superpositioned. From the sound of it, decoherence happens as soon as an interaction with a system only has limited access to the wavefunction of that system. That would happen naturally in any uncontrolled environment where particles fly around freely. I don't know what it means for carefully controlled experiments, though.

@@volbla It means they can build a working Quantum computer.

You make some valid points regarding the various interpretations of QM but to be fair, the founders of the so called "Copenhagen" interpretation were pretty clear from the beginning that quantum probabilities were observer dependent. It provoked a reaction from Einstein where he jokingly stated the following, "I like to think the moon is there when I'm not looking at it". In regards to decoherence, she's right, it doesn't explain away the measurement problem. It just describes how quantum systems represented as state vectors in a complex Hilbert space transition into statistical mixtures that can't be expressed in terms of state vectors when you average over multiple measurements. And it certainly doesn't explain how a system can go from a linear combination of basis states to a well defined state with probability equal to 1 after a measurement is made. The so called collapse of the wave function. The thing with QM is, quantum systems don't have well defined physical properties that exist independently of you measuring it. Prior to any measurement, it exists purely as a mathematical wave function. On the other hand, quantum entanglement is about states of knowledge where 2 or more systems share a common wave function or share information so by measuring 1 of the systems, you learn something about the other corresponding systems

If you can describe one thing as a certain state of another, then you can reduce it all to the latter thing. It's not that most physicists claim all laws are fundamental, it's that they rarely talk about things in their non-fundamental forms.

As an engineer I object to "only an engineer"

Bruce Campbell or Brisco County jr maybe, or Sam Axe??

that's the only sentence i understood...

@@thomasstone7207 Don't mess around with the orb.

I spent half of the video staring at Matt's throat and thinking whether he had been bitten as there were two puncture marks close together like the classic vampire bite. Then he started talking of being bitten by zombies and I was like "Oh!".

I think entropy is just a mathematical construct.

@@bobaldo2339 Bob - there are a class of chemical explosives that are entropy driven - so if entropy is a mathematical construct, it is a construct that can hurt a lot in the real world. There are also chemical reactions that are primarily entropy driven.

That’s because they’re all just different effects of the underlying phenomena - that being the complex network of entanglement between particles (which brings us back to structural complexity and unpredictability). Those other metrics are useful in their fields, and valid within their fields, but they are not what entropy “is”. This is the driving force behind them.

the big oof

Spacetime breaks and the whole fabric starts collapsing.

Backup will be restored and paradox fixed with next Universe upgrade.

Love this description, don't sell yourself short, this is a perfectly coherent interpretation of quantum mechanics as understood and extrapolated from VonNeuman entropy. What I find interesting is considering how this may relate back to the mind. If consciousness exists on the quantum scale, and the reality of quantum states are determined by their democratized entanglement with quantum systems, then internal consciousness may influence external reality insofar as those internal pointer states are preferentially entangled with elements of the external world. In simpler terms, this may suggest, in an extremely limited sense, that our perception influences the composition of the external world by biasing the results of its entangled states. Decoherence makes this so that we dont have absolute control over this democratization, or even significant control in most circumstances, however, I do wonder if our internal intentionality (which could be seen as the internal pointer state) may have some not-insiginificant influence on external events in the cases where it is extremely limited in scope. Food for thought anyways.

@@liamlieblein6375 You know on second thought I should name it something else, since QCD is Quantum Chromodynamics. The way I think about it, and this is a "theory" or "interpretation" of QM I've had internally for years, is that future states are determined according to wave function propagation. So for quantum objects, the only "direction" of time is expanding entanglement. I'll look at a particular example to examine how what I'm talking about is different from the Copenhagen Interpretation or from Quantum Darwinism. We conduct the traditional double-slit experiment with a detector to see if the electron passes through one of the slits. When the electron's wave function passes the detector, it becomes entangled in the way that one would expect: |Right Slit|Detector Activates> + |Left Slit|Detector Silent>. This in particular entangles the *position* of the electron causally with the detector very strongly. This strong causal entanglement (which I distinguish from plain old entanglement) forces certainty into the position and out of the momentum, since the entangled particles in the detector have a very strong "vote" about the position value. However, they have no causal relationship with other values, and these values remain undetermined. Once the electron reaches the screen, the position once again becomes entangled with the particles composing the screen that also have a very strong "vote" due to their causal correlation with the position value. However, they may only vote for values which remain consistent with the entanglement of previous strong votes on position values. In this way, causality is preserved above all other principles, even though QM fundamentally isn't deterministic. If you set up the quantum eraser experiment instead, the screen gets first vote, and then the detector does. It's not that the act of scrambling the information using the third and fourth detectors reintroduces interference patterns, it's that those detectors are allowed to vote, or have valid voting power on the position value, only for particles which remain causally consistent and connected. The wave function propagates through reality, and the whole wave function is always "aware" of all other participants in the wave function as its entanglement expands without being restricted by the speed of light. But, it can only share information about the wave function itself. This lets behaviors like "time reversed" behavior such as in the quantum eraser remain consistent and respect the speed of light. The speed of light becomes instead the speed at which entanglement can propagate. Thus, in order for you to compare the detector results and the screen results, you must entangle your particles with both, but the propagation necessary for you to entangle fully with the quantum states of both can only happen at the speed of light. I have this vague idea too of mass being expressed as a value which slows or hampers quantum propagation. There would be three steps in the process: encountering a new wave function, becoming entangled with that new wave function, and then propagating that entanglement to nearby particles. Mass would then be a resistance at step 3. But this is all that crackpot stuff that physicists hate getting emails about so I've just never told anyone. I figure, if I'm even remotely correct in this interpretation, someone who actually knows the math will eventually think of it on their own.

@@jordanledoux197 All that seems pretty consistent to me, and a farcry from the crackpot conspiracies that quantum mechanics have spawned. I'm also of the opinion that what's primarily causing the current impasse in physics is a lack of serious consideration of alternatives to the current dogma. I understand that they are probably tired of armchair quantum physicists, but they also seem tired of the speculations of actual quantum physicists. At root, all fields of knowledge were spawned from philosophy, and the beginning of philosophy is wonder. If scientists fail to wonder outside of the current systems, they will forever be constrained by them. Some attempts have been made, to be sure, and each has a piece to the puzzle. But until the scientific community writ large begins seriously working on these non-dogmatic theories/interpretations, we will not figure out the TOE. In short, I appreciate your speculative contribution, and wish it were more common place among actual scientists.

After plank time all physics breaks down, so there is no answer to this question until we figure out what happens inside a black hole.

well, before the big bang it is assumed there were not particles in general. since nothing WAS at all before the big bang. so yes your assumption would theoretically be correct.

of course we dont actually know this because of our limited knowledge. but with the current understanding you are in fact not wrong atleast

It only implies that at Bing Bang there was less entanglement, than at the instant just after it (roughly speaking). The previous sentence already reveals a problem of our understanding of time: is it continuous or quantized? How exactly you go from "no time" to "having time", from "no entanglement" to "first entanglement"? Is time even fundamental? We don't even know what time is, and without that knowledge, we can only speculate. It's hard to reason about nothing (no time, no space), since we haven't observed nothing anywhere, because it's impossible. As depressing as it sounds, we may never know.

basically for the reasons already stated the correctness of your assumption exists within a quantum state of being right & being wrong

Very interesting thought

It could also be the information being "clumped" together to form black holes effectively "loosing" the information in a large decoherence network.

Erik Verline has already shown that the change of entanglement entropy in spacetime is equal to what we call acceleration. This retrieves general relativity but with a quantum correction that happens to be the same we measure and currently ascribe to dark matter. So dark matter doesn't exist. The discrepancy is a quantum correction, as should have been expected.

@@realmetatron So, gravity is an attribute of entropy that's interest. I say this because gravity is more or less an acceleration.

@@KRYMauL Yes, all forces of nature are actually various processes of how entropy in the universe increases.

Shouldnt or unverse have a entangled universe partner so where is it -we exist - it dont , ours die it exist - Does they ever though of our universe to have a antiverse .I mean you are way to early to want one -wait 30-50 years

ryan kroph That would be an excellent idea for a PBS spacetime episode.

1. No, and 2. Yes, technically. No such thing as an error free experiment, and entanglement is part of the reason why. It's pretty rude.

Yeah, that's a good way to get un-entangled.

💀 🗿 you two oml

Yeah, I rewatched it once or twice but the easiest way to grasp it in my mind is by imagining a mosaic. You have this image made up of countless, tiny pieces, and each piece has properties like size, shape, color, etc. As those pieces align into the final shape of the mosaic, they form connections with other pieces they interact with. Not all of those links are visible, but if you flip one piece for instance, another will flip the opposite way. Now, zoom out from the individual pieces and they start to lose their individual details. Zoom out enough and you start seeing the details of the whole mosaic's image. The mosaic is less complex than the parts it's made up of, and that "lost" detail is von Neumann entropy. Zooming back in reveals those "lost" details of the individual pieces, thus lowering entropy. Zooming out in that example is the quantum decoherence that emerges from numerous quantum entanglements, and zooming in is performing precise measurements. Hope that helps, though I'm sure someone smarter may fix my analogy to be more accurate :P

​@UCylxY_LLOrfpUJPYvbexgFQ thank you! It's actually helpful!

I definitely need the videos..

It's indeed the hardest to wrap your head around. But I think it leads to quantum gravity (or gravitationalized quantum mechanics to be politically correct)

That's what Sabaton History did, and they've only been around two years.

Mathematics is the god of all knowledge, not physics. After all, we describe physics in terms of math, not vice versa.

@@argenteus8314 As illustrated in xkcd 435 - Purity.

eh...he kind of but it's not "relative". What he's talking about is what's called "Hidden variables." These variables are things you simply can't keep track of because there are so many of them. Your measuring aparatus is also made up of things, and therefor is also a variable, that you need to keep track of. How can you do a measurment on something and also make a measurment on your measuring apparatus to account for all the variables? It's an infinite regress and it leads to the fact that you can never know the state of a system without knowing about all it's components...which means you need infinite amount of information to do such a task. Entanglement, which is the interaction created by two particles, and maintained at great distances, means that when you do a measurement on a system, that system is now entangled with your measuring apparatus...again in order to account for that information you need to now measure your measuring apparatus...and measure the measuring apparatus of your measuring apparatus...and measure your measuring apparatus of your measuring apparatus of your measuring apparatus and so on in infinite regress. Because of Entanglement, your system might be entangled with particles on the other side of the universe and you wouldn't be able to know. So in essence, as a system becomes more and more entangled with it's environment, the more information is required to understand the system, and this is dependent on the size of the environment. The environment includes the measuring apparatus. The best way to think about Entropy, is how it's known classicly...which is a system moving from a homogenous state which is a state of complete uniformity, to a state of complete heterogeneity known as equilibrium. Both states are essentially equivalent, with the exception that the previous state is "more" uniform then the resultant state being "less" uniform. A perfect example, is by thinking about coins. You have a system of three sided coins that can be in either Heads Tails or Snouts. The system begins in a state of all Heads, all Tails or All Snouts, so for example the system can evolve like this : (TTT/SSS/HHH)--->HHT->HTT->TSS->-TTS->SHH->SSH->HTS. In the above there are 3 perfectly homogenous states and there are also 27 possible heterogenous states, 6 of which are unique, and the 7th is a very special state...a state of equilibrium. This state of equilibrium HTS is considered maximally heterogenous...But you notice that it's also uniform...and this is why it's called equilibrium, because it's essentially the same as a homogenous state...but it's "less" uniform then a state of all heads or all tails or all snouts. You realize that if you were to expand this example to an arbitrarily large number of coins, then a system in equilibrium is a completely random system, and would take the appearance of white noise. In terms of information, how would you describe a system that is completly random? You need to go through every single pixel explain what it's color is because there is no algortythm or shortcut you can use to describe the system. This is what entropy of information is...it's when a system approaches thermodynamic equilibrium, which is essentially randomness and to describe that randomness in terms of information, requires a brute force method which makes such systems hard to describe in terms of information.

@h4ck573r sorry I'm confused...doctors degree defense? Veratasium has the best explanation for Entropy online in his video "What is NOT Random", and the example with the coins is basically derived from that explanation of it. Small incendental anecdote, but he makes a statement at the end where he says that Quantum Mechanics might be fundamentally random...but I actually disagree with that. I actually think the world is completely deterministic and that quantum mechanics exhibits emergent randomness because of previously stated hidden variables.

@@NightmareCourtPictures Veratasium, like me, may wish that there is fundamental randomness, because pure determinism feels wrong / bad. I don't know that we have enough data to really decide one way or the other, but I think the data we do have lean in your direction, not mine. :/

@@dianagibbs3550 Why would it feel wrong? And what does feelings have to do with science? 🤔

@@Ebani exactly my point. It feels bad but that doesn't change the facts, and the facts lean towards determinism, in my opinion.

I noticed that too, but I do not know the significance of it.

@@dianagibbs3550 -- I think it's just a "sciency" style to write it in, but it just looks like SNTRORY to me.

qxq student?