The Quantum Theory that Connects the Entire Universe

Views 321 208
98% 11 467 188

SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
Quantum mechanics is weird and seems a bit...complicated. But understanding it can help us to understand the universe.
Hosted by: Hank Green
SciShow has a spinoff podcast! It's called SciShow Tangents. Check it out at www.scishowtangents.org
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: www.patreon.com/scishow
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Bill & Katie Scholl, Adam Brainard, Greg, Alex Hackman, Andrew Finley Brenan, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: facebook.com/scishow
Twitter: twitter.com/scishow
Tumblr: scishow.tumblr.com
Instagram: instagram.com/thescishow

Image Sources:

Published on


Mar 20, 2019




Loading link...

Add to:

My playlist
Watch later
Comments 1 218
SciShow Month ago
SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
Josh Lasky
Josh Lasky 20 days ago
Scishow...paid for by Deepak Chopra lol
Dadson worldwide
Dadson worldwide 26 days ago
The fact we the observer are at the center of the universes is the samething mans known forever .
gdpr 29 days ago
wtf, if you are stupid but you dont know it yet it does not mean you are not stupid !, how does the pilot theory has anything to do with locality ?!, or your missinterpretation of it ? wtf is wrong with you , haa ? if you spin 2 electrons in opposide directions YOU ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE SPINNING IN OPPOSIDE DIECTIONS, you just dont know which one is spinning in which direction, so as soon as you find the spin of one electron you combine that WITH THE INFORMATION YOU ALREADY HAVE and determine the spin of the second one, this has nothing to do with locality, it does not matter where you Move the second one, you already have the information. htf can smart people be this dumb ? are you so desperate to fin an explanation that you simply ignore parts of the ecuation to fit the result you already expected ?!
SFaPiL2 8 days ago
I dont know the underlying math in pilot wave theory but, by the way that it's being explained, it reminds me of modal analysis and other studies I've done in signal analysis during my engineering degree. Rather than thinking of the two particles being interlocked independently from space (indicating information travelling at extremely high velocities in order to guarantee their states are interlinked) couldn't it be that they normally match a "wave" which is independent from space itself? A "natural frequency", if you will accept my analogy with modal analysis, where these particles fit in the nodes of such waves; hence retaining a similar behavior as long as they stay fixed to the nodes of this wave independent from time and space. In order for this to be valid, though, an infinite number of particles all fitting in separate nodes of this hypothetical "wave" would all retain the same properties of the particle under test. Does anyone more knowledgeable know whether this analogy I brought up is a load of garbage or not? ;P
2 things. 1) QM properties of individual particles contribute to the QM properties of larger ensembles, and above some threshold ensemble size, the QM properties "smear out" (else we would have to choose which contribute and which don't), resulting in the classical properties we know and love. 2) I think it's Bell's theorem that showed that entanglement is more than just deduction. I.e., if we know there are a total of two states and two particles, and after separating them, we observe one, we subtract the observed state from the list of possibilities, leaving only one state possible, thus not requiring FTL info. Bell's theorem showed this is not true...if I remember right.
Patrick Mcguire
Patrick Mcguire 10 days ago
Our simulation overlords dictate the rules that guide their universe..we are just along for the ride 😂
kiss my dirty ass
kiss my dirty ass 11 days ago
Send me computer free😂😂😂honestly
MJ Music
MJ Music 12 days ago
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It
blubastud 12 days ago
Why does this sound like quantum entanglement?
Hyacinthus 12 days ago
Copenhagen throws out both determinism and locality, Pilot Wave throws out locality. In no way does the Copenhagen interpretation make more sense than Pilot Wave theory.
TheAwesomeG 12 days ago
So... Ockham’s razor?
Joseph Crispino
Joseph Crispino 13 days ago
The copenhagen interpretation just seems like a place-holder until the fuller picture can be hashed out.
John Walker
John Walker 13 days ago
Your gender is in Superposition.
Owen Eastwood
Owen Eastwood 13 days ago
But what defines an observer/observation? It can’t be that something requires a living thing to observe it in order to change, so what’s actually happening here?
Jons LG
Jons LG 14 days ago
The shroedingers cat experiment is a horrible example imo, unless you're trying to prove that the particle is indeed in one state or another.. Because you don't actually change the cats state by measuring it. The cat is indeed either alive or dead, and the only thing that changes is your knowledge, as the measurement has no effect on the cat.
zainab alshammari
zainab alshammari 14 days ago
Very good job on explaining such a weird yet correct theory .. it's the brain food I'm looking for!
EmptySora_ 14 days ago
I love all the videos on SciShow but the quantum mechanics ones are always among my favorites.
Daniel 777
Daniel 777 15 days ago
My question is has anyone studied Seashells, with Quantum. I remember listening to the echoes of the Ocean younger.
Eric McGuinness
Eric McGuinness 15 days ago
Super position.....but when ever in the universe is something not being observed by or interacting with all the other particles, energies and forces around it? When is something ever completely isolated? Doesn't make sense to me but what do I know.
Seán O'Nilbud
Seán O'Nilbud 16 days ago
Igi Vup
Igi Vup 16 days ago
Sperm cells are particles and waves at the same time... Just sayin.
jeffwads 16 days ago
Nothing is random. If you have all the variables, you will be able to calculate the event completely. The cat experiment is ridiculous. The cat would be either alive or dead. The observation aspect is moot because you are outside the box.
Zes 17 days ago
no such thing as connecx or not
Matlab Tutor
Matlab Tutor 18 days ago
i am still not getting it --- The dead and alive Cat *** I mean we can use the argument in many classical experiments like The example of Dice ???? i dont know why the Cat's example is a big deal for quantum mechanical particles????
xxDrain 19 days ago
By now all those cats have knocked the vial over themselves and they're all dead.
Ken O
Ken O 20 days ago
"Reality, what a concept! "-Mork from Ork (Robin Williams). But when it comes to quantum mechanics, the question is, Which reality?
Krazy Maniak
Krazy Maniak 20 days ago
What if you put the cat into a glass box
merlopick 21 day ago
Schrodinjer?? @3:48 "every expiriment"??? How the hell does this guy talk???
Russell Alson
Russell Alson 21 day ago
Could anyone explain why most scientists decided Copenhagen? Its seems to me both have just as crazy cons (cat dead and alive analogy or all particles effect each other in the universe)
H Missy
H Missy 21 day ago
What if nothing is ever fixed, and your perception is the only thing that makes it SEEM like it's fixed?
TROUBLE CAINE 23 days ago
YOU WERE very wise to SHOW your words in the graphics to aid understanding. This channel is always getting better...!!
Gristle Von Raben
Gristle Von Raben 23 days ago
Actually the rudimentary roots of laser light research comes from crystallography, sapphires and rubies create a strange star effect simetimes. We typically use rubies to make lasers by pumping light into a reflective cylinder and aligning the crystal so that it bounces light to the front and back of the cylinder until it comes out of that tiny area of the ruby that only allows a thin plane of light to exit. Quantum theory helped explain it, not to create it, correct?
tonz lang
tonz lang 23 days ago
"theory" why do scientists do not get that?
CHEVASIT HOMPA 23 days ago
Critico 23 days ago
Peter fills a bottle with a pitcher and put it in the trunk of a car. Mike, who doesn't know whether the all or half of the water is poured, drives the car for 10 miles. Before he stops and checks the bottle, the pitcher back a the starting point can be either empty or half full. That, however, is only the case in his knowledge space. In Peter's knowledge space, the amount of water still in the pitcher is already known. The information doesn't teleport 2 miles instantly when Mike opens his bottle, it's just that he doesn't know it yet. Should there be any information that travels, it should be inside Mike's brain, not over 10 miles, and It takes time to deduce that half a bottle means half a pitcher. Say if the universe is run on an engine inside a computer, and it can be paused to examine the exact speed and position of any particle. Then the information is there all the time, we just have no way to get it. It's beyond our knowledge space, which is limited by our methods, not necessary beyond every intelligent being's knowledge space, nor beyond the universal/absolute knowledge space, should there be one. Photons that interact with the pitcher carry information for a suitable observer. The bottle that got carried away can be said to contain extractable information. These carriers of information don't travel instantly. The knowledge inside the brain can arguably be considered information, but this conscious information(knowledge) should not be confused with physics information. If a bird knocks over and empties the pitcher after Mike leaves, it will be possible that Mike sees a half full bottle and thinks that the pitcher is half full. How then, can he get a wrong information, which teleports back to the pitcher?
Adam G.
Adam G. 23 days ago
Regarding the speed of light being the universal speed limit for everything... we've already proven you can cheat that. By bending space/time you can cheat by moving between two points without the travel time between them. Makes sense that particles may be able to do that too... right?
Justin Nehls
Justin Nehls 24 days ago
David Bomb. Bombian mechanics
Sim 303
Sim 303 24 days ago
it almost come down to chaos/creation vs scripted/mainframe...quantum mechanics and philosophy,in the same room.
Aiden Watler
Aiden Watler 24 days ago
What a good episode! I realise this will likely be lost in the sea pf comments, but this was so good and not quite as intense as Space Time. More SciShow Physics videos please!
Jordan 24 days ago
Yeah but things can effect things not in thier immediate surroundings without sending a "traveling" signal or message. You have seen this it's called gears. Gears all start turning see the same time with a little gap for the space between the teeth. The universe often functions like waves making particles because inertial energy gives a portion of existing fabric of the universe mass. Like a set of gears though an already excusing standing waves that have created a network of simultaneously moving parts can communicate information in the form of specific inertia to make it look like a partial was at one end and then just appears at the other end. This duplicate however simply interacted with something like this at one end and communicated it's inertial energy to the other end instantaneously. Similarly entangled particles are capable of staying entangled by creating a standard wave along it's path as the two entangled particles travel apart and when one is flipped on the other end the information initially is communicated via spooky action without the usual need for time for a traveling wave to communicate the effects of that traveling inertia on it's immediate surroundings.
V 25 days ago
Yay, non-orthodox interpretations of QM :) do er=epr next!!
Nehmo Sergheyev
Nehmo Sergheyev 25 days ago
I am soooo tired of educators, particularly ones on RUvid, using "weird" as a quantum mechanics adjective. Those guys are the truly weird.
iVardensphere 25 days ago
The Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't violate locality.
WormholeJim 25 days ago
Ugh, I like cats. In my ideal world I would end getting eaten by one, that's how much I like them. So I'm not too fond of that guy Schrödinger. Luckily there's another example (maybe devised by a cat-lover) that shows much the same, and actually at the same time gets to examplify entanglement. Instead of cats you have two friends, two identical boxes and two equally proportioned balls, one red and one white. Your one friend now goes to the opposite end of the world while your other friend grabs the boxes and the balls and takes them with him to a place equally far to both of you and your first friend. He now puts each ball in each identical box and brings them to the post-office with a note, please mail these boxes to these receipients. The clerc then, upon coming back from lunchbreak, writes your adress on one box and your friend's adress on the other and sends them off in the system. A couple of weeks later each box have arrived at their destinations, half a world a part. Right now, *both* balls are in a superposition due to the Copenhagen interpretation. The minute - the second, nay, the split-nano-femtosecond - you open your box and look inside it, the state of the ball will decay into being either red or white. Just like with the cat and it's highly elaborate scheme to ensure maximum randomness. But on top you at the same very instant have caused the state of the ball that is in your friend's box to decay as well - even without him neccessarily having looked yet! Entanglement, ta-daa.
The Void Alchemist
The Void Alchemist 25 days ago
The machine releasing the poison observes the atom causing a collapse of the superposition, thus no quantum cat required.
Mark Marcum
Mark Marcum 25 days ago
Could entangled particles be connected by tiny wormholes? That would explain the instantaneous transfer of information? Sorry if it's a dumb question
Mark Marcum
Mark Marcum 25 days ago
Still watching the video and it's amazing! How about a collaboration with PBS Spacetime?
the_armada 26 days ago
I know pilot wave theory makes certain things nicer to think about while makes other things messier, but I’m a Copenhagen man:)
Pat Black
Pat Black 26 days ago
Our theories are also “guided by aesthetic and pragmatic choices” I love you, SciShow. This is such a simple yet effective demonstration of just how foggy the frontier of our exploration of reality really is. It’s a strange world with stranger questions arising every day.
Dadson worldwide
Dadson worldwide 26 days ago
You still have to send the entangled particles to were you wish to communicate.
Walter Archibald
Walter Archibald 26 days ago
SHROW-ding-erz OR watch: youglish.com/search/Schr%C3%B6dinger/us? O watch:ruvid.net/video/video-m7w3uDcIh9M.html 9GOOD CHOICE! oder (auf deutsch, mit umlaut): www.rightpronunciation.com/languages/german/erwin-schr%25C3%25B6dinger-3779.asp?id1=9&page=142 This name is heard endlessly in American English (ex. The Big Bang Theory), using (basically) what I put first. It just "sounds right" to Americans. BUT, WHAT IS TRUTH? (Really wish Jesus had said that, rather than Pontius Pilate!) www.dictionary.com/e/video/how-do-you-pronounce-facade/
TheIntJuggler 26 days ago
"Newtonian physics is weird" Quantum Mechanics
quest 77051
quest 77051 26 days ago
so does sub space exist or not.
Draws Gaming
Draws Gaming 26 days ago
What if the Pilot Wave interpretation is correct and locality must be sacrificed to solve the Bell Inequality?
John Galdino
John Galdino 26 days ago
Doesn't gravity according general relativity already break this locality rule? Is that why there is so much search for gravitons?
Saumitra Chakravarty
Correction needed at 1:37 - Something can be a particle and a wave both but NOT at the same time.
Jim Goltz
Jim Goltz 26 days ago
I thought the Copenhagen interpretation wasn't popular these days...?
El Triggered
El Triggered 27 days ago
Where’s Olivia
M ß Q
M ß Q 27 days ago
This video is definitely going to exceed 1M views in less than a month
Engin Haymana
Engin Haymana 27 days ago
Doesnt that just mean that we need better methods to "observe" particles, as doing so alters the results? We live in a deterministic world, so i find it very hard to wrap my head around that concept. Its like chaining the poison gas to the opening of the door. Sure, you have observed the status of the cat, but also changed the state of the poor cat. The original state has not been uncovered, but the information of that state is still there.
Keaton Smith
Keaton Smith 27 days ago
Pilot wave theory sounds like Dao.
Vitor in_Berlin
Vitor in_Berlin 27 days ago
I think it is important to keep in mind, that the different interpretations of quantum theory are models describing real quantum phenomena! Most likely, there is no definitive interpretation, because no physical (or - to my best knowledge - any other) model, was ever able to capture every part of the phenomenon it described in all detail on all scales. That's why science relies on various models of the same phenomenon, each with emphasis on different parts (or scales) of said phenomenon. The real question is, which models are able to coexist without fundamental contradictions to each other. I don't think that the different interpretations of quantum theory show these fundamental contradictions, even if that appears to be the case! The key flaws in humanitie's ability to solve those contradictions and create a more accurate approximation to real quantum phenoma lies in it's limited perception of the phenomena themselves and time as a phenomenon which is described by a model based mostly in human perception of it. My suggestion would be, that most of the different interpretations contradict each other, because the describe quantum phenomena with emphasis on their observed (or predicted) behaviour in different temporal dimensions. For example, lets take the many-worlds-interpretation and the wave-collapse-interpretation (or Copenhagen interpretation): The collapse of a wave function into a particle, or the termination of a state superposition in a particle and it's adaptation of a single state with an elimination of all other possible states, allows two (or more) interpretations based on how many temporal dimensions one can observe. Human beings experience time as one dimensional. Their frame of temporal perception is a single point on a line, where what lies behind is inaccessable and what lies in front is unpredictable but unavoidable. From this point of view the assumption, that every state of superposition we are not able to observe after the collapse of the wave function is eliminated from the equation, is fully understandable. But if we assume that time is/has a multidimensional 'structure' (which most evidence points to), and try to imagine what the collapse of a wave function looks like for beings with two dimensional perception of time: Instead of the 1D-perception of a moment in a timeline and the elimination of states in the collapse, a being experiencing two temporal dimensions, would perceive time as a (freely accessable) line in plane (with inaccessable parallel lines) and in this frame of temporal perception, the collapse of the wave function would most likely look like all possible states of the particle are spread among all the parallel lines, observable, but inaccessable. To summerize this: 0. Quantum phenomena (and every other processes) occur in a multidimensional temporal structure. 1. The wave-collapse-interpretation is a model, which describes these phenomena as observed in one temporal dimension. 2. The many-worlds-interpretation is a model, which describes these phenomena as (likely) observed in (at least) two temporal dimensions. 3. Each interpretation serves best, when applied in it's specific frame of perception and holds scientific plausiblility, when viewed in in said specific frame of perception, without contradicting each other fundamentally.
feekygucker 27 days ago
I always that Bohm rhymes with Ohm rather than Nom... but it could be me. Also... shout out to PBS SpaceTime that has a MUCH deeper treatment of this material over MANY videos.
Jacob Johnson
Jacob Johnson 28 days ago
I don't like copenhagen's. Its self-contradicting. That's logically wrong. Pilot wave theory doesn't break the law of non contradiction, its simply counterintuitive to how we are used to thinking of things.
Mick G.
Mick G. 28 days ago
"The physics of the super tiny" is the worst description of QP, I've ever heard.
Chillman 28 days ago
It can't be predicted... yet.
Waylen Edge
Waylen Edge 28 days ago
This is by far the most dumbest video ever made!
Daniele Del Frate
Daniele Del Frate 28 days ago
First part of the video: well, this pilot wave theory seems legit Second part of the video: pilot wave theory is insane!
Shalkar 28 days ago
With String Theory there are multiple dimensions. Couldn't the signal be from one of those dimensions? Think of Night Crawler going through one dimension to go to another spot in ours. We just haven't figured out how to "see" the dimension... yet. Also, what if Dark Energy/Matter is playing some role in this?
SIIIOXIDE 28 days ago
Damm , here I was thinking I was the center of the universe this whole time :'(
TCOrigamist 28 days ago
But what if you were the cat?
Joshua Champagne
Joshua Champagne 28 days ago
I have a question on how to get around locality. If a wormhole can connect any to points in the universe, could two particles interact through a wormhole giving the illusion they are interacting across the universe faster than light? Can the particles on each side of the wormhole be considered local because they can interact? If so, any particles can interact with any other particles in space meaning any point in space would be local to any other point in space making all of space local.
Alexander Hugestrand
Can someone please tell me why quantum mechanics and the wave particle stupidity isn't a shitload of crap, and why the following extremely intuitive explanation is? ruvid.net/video/video-NJjO2J7HTF8.html
Kurei0 28 days ago
I hope you're getting a ton of views for this video because I swear I watched this a bunch of times to understand it lol
leslie sylvan
leslie sylvan 27 days ago
You would have increased your learning curve out of the box. Meow!
Rollinestilo 28 days ago
Many Worlds?
Phat As Phoebe
Phat As Phoebe 28 days ago
Both theories are flawed because they are dependent on the assumption of individuality between particles, energy, matter. There is no “signal” traveling faster than the speed of light, they are the same particle, experiencing different realities, within the same universe. *Both* realities are true, as they are when observed.
John Smith
John Smith 29 days ago
Pilot wave is my favorite. I'd pursue it if I was a physicist.
John Smith
John Smith 29 days ago
If there are waves in an ocean, I can send out two croc shoes in opposite directions. They will both be effected by the same waves. So even if I can't see the wave directly I could infer the waves by watching the flotsam.
zoperxplex 29 days ago
"There are a number of different interpretations of quantum mechanics." Sorry Hank, "a number" is singular. LEARN GRAMMAR!
zoperxplex 10 days ago
Chrome Cobra pay close attention pinhead. It is irrelevant if the subject is plural if the sentence is referring to that subject as being comprised of a singular group. For instance, if one says "a flock of geese" that flock is still singular notwithstanding the fact that it is consist of a multitude of geese.
Chrome Cobra
Chrome Cobra 20 days ago
And it's "Sorry, Hank, ..." so YOU need to learn proper grammar. You cannot even grasp it within your own comment. Stay stupid on stupid channels. Leave the smart stuff for the adults, kid.
Chrome Cobra
Chrome Cobra 20 days ago
But because "interpretations" is plural it makes it correct English. It says, in kindergarten talk so you comprehend it, that there are many individual ways. Ignorant.
Saarang Sahasrabudhe
ruvid.net/video/video-LQxMEHUmnXQ.html Here's a version of Pilot Wave that does not break locality
KillAllBots 101
KillAllBots 101 29 days ago
8:51-9:00 Maybe we really are in a simulation.
gdpr 29 days ago
wtf, if you are stupid but you dont know it yet it does not mean you are not stupid !, how does the pilot theory has anything to do with locality ?!, or your missinterpretation of it ? wtf is wrong with you , haa ? if you spin 2 electrons in opposide directions YOU ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE SPINNING IN OPPOSIDE DIECTIONS, you just dont know which one is spinning in which direction, so as soon as you find the spin of one electron you combine that WITH THE INFORMATION YOU ALREADY HAVE and determine the spin of the second one, this has nothing to do with locality, it does not matter where you Move the second one, you already have the information. htf can smart people be this dumb ? are you so desperate to fin an explanation that you simply ignore parts of the ecuation to fit the result you already expected ?!
Tim Harris
Tim Harris 29 days ago
So... your telling me we have a way to make undead cats?
Rev Lemmon
Rev Lemmon 29 days ago
Didn't Einstein call quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance?
Greg Neyman
Greg Neyman 29 days ago
Don't quantum computers depend on superposition to work?
If you don't check the cat box for a long time and you start to smell a decayed cat, is there both a dead cat and a smelly cat in there?
Skylar O'Connor
Skylar O'Connor 29 days ago
Is there an episode where everyone on the SciShow team or teams is introduced and their credentials, ocupations, etc. are introduced to the audience? If not, can we get one? I'm very curious about who everyone on screen and behind the scenes are and what they do. I'd also like to know what kind of education everyone has. I'm not trying to imply anything or upset anyone, I'm just curious.
Skylar O'Connor
Skylar O'Connor 29 days ago
Can anything other than light behave like both a particle and a wave at the same time? At least theoretically?
richard bidinger
richard bidinger 29 days ago
Well, wouldn't quantum entanglement solve that one little problem.
Sean Peacock
Sean Peacock 29 days ago
This is why Death doesn't like Shronenberg.
Domenick Palmieri
Domenick Palmieri 29 days ago
Hank's comedic timing is very underrated I think
SomeDudeOnline Month ago
How does Copenhagen make more sense? It's just saying that locality isn't a thing sometimes because we don't want it to be all the time... right?
H H Month ago
How about the cat's observation? The cat observes the state in the box and thus the state becomes one deterministic state once observed. So the cat is either dead or alive in the box not both.
Lightning Larry
Lightning Larry Month ago
This theory is grounded in sound research
anthony newton
anthony newton Month ago
It really isnt rocket science. Weve been programmed to over complicate the basics that make our reality. Nature is the true laboratory
anthony newton
anthony newton Month ago
I have a strong hunch that everybody has missed the point. The quantum state exists in one place only. Each persons individual mind. The cats status is set,it is dead or it is alive. Each individual conciousness that is aware of the box and its contents,is where the superposition exists. Not a huge leap to understand the links to a multiverse theory that works. If you think hard enough.
Tim Davis
Tim Davis Month ago
Yes but why are these theories based on observation? Copenhagen theory violates locality based on the idea that a particle requires observation to establish superposition. No other interaction is required beyond observation... And the Quantum Gravity theory requires a conscious observer but points at the universe as a conscious observer...
Giordano Tanora
Giordano Tanora Month ago
many worlds > copenhagen
TheKing Olaf
TheKing Olaf Month ago
Schrö-ding-er (ding like the sound when the microwave is ready)
J Attitude
J Attitude Month ago
Time: 7:30 Does that suggest that all things affect all things consistently all the time? Is there a test that we have not mastered or cannot do now, and or can not think of to test? What things are we testing with bios too?
J Attitude
J Attitude Month ago
Maybe you like this: How do Spacecraft Photograph the Planets & get the Images Back to Earth? ruvid.net/video/video-rrD1oe5_zvw.html
jjhack3r Month ago
Why do you guys all talk the same?
Next videos
How To Make a Quantum Bit
Views 13 236 126