Physicists challenge quantum consensus with emergent causality model

Sabine Hossenfelder

Physicists propose that causality is not a fundamental property of reality but an emergent phenomenon arising from indefinite causal structures.

AI-assisted summary of Physicists Say They’ve Found The Origin Of Causality — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-08-04

Key ideas

A new research paper challenges foundational quantum mechanics by proposing that causal order is not fundamental, but rather an emergent property analogous to fluidity. (0:00)
Unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity implies placing spacetime geometries in superposition, leading to an indefinite causal structure where cause and effect cannot be strictly ordered. (1:41)
The researchers introduce 'Quantum Boxes' and a mathematical process called 'hyperdecoherence' to derive a distinct arrow of time by averaging inputs. (2:55)
Sabine Hossenfelder rates the paper a 5 out of 10 on the 'bullshit meter', arguing that declaring past and future via hyperdecoherence amounts to assuming what the authors sought to prove. (2:55)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Sabine Hossenfelder on August 4, 2026, this video examines a research paper investigating the origin of causal order. According to the page description, the episode explores how researchers are attempting to cut through persistent "quantum weirdness" to build a deeper theoretical framework that unites quantum mechanics with gravity.

## TL;DR Sabine Hossenfelder examines a proposal suggesting that causality is not a fundamental property of nature, but an emergent phenomenon analogous to fluid liquidity. Because quantum gravity requires spacetime superpositions that erase fixed causal relationships, the paper models reality as a network of "Quantum Boxes" with indefinite causal structure. The researchers introduce "hyperdecoherence"—averaging over input states—to derive standard quantum mechanics and a defined arrow of time. While assigning the paper a 5 out of 10 on her "bullshit meter" for circularly assuming the past to explain it, Sabine commends the authors for pursuing rigorous mathematical foundations over mystified "quantum woo."

## Atmosphere & style The video carries Sabine's trademark deadpan skepticism, blending sharp conceptual critique with wry humor and unvarnished reality checks. Her presentation cuts through academic pretension and sensationalized science reporting, using grounded analogies to expose circular reasoning in cutting-edge physics. Watching it feels like a brisk, intellectually candid debrief that refuses to be dazzled by theoretical complexity for its own sake.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=0s) A new research paper challenges foundational quantum mechanics by proposing that causal order is not fundamental, but rather an emergent property analogous to fluidity. - [01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=101s) Unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity implies placing spacetime geometries in superposition, leading to an indefinite causal structure where cause and effect cannot be strictly ordered. - [02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) The researchers introduce 'Quantum Boxes' and a mathematical process called 'hyperdecoherence' to derive a distinct arrow of time by averaging inputs. - [02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) Sabine Hossenfelder rates the paper a 5 out of 10 on the 'bullshit meter', arguing that declaring past and future via hyperdecoherence amounts to assuming what the authors sought to prove.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=0s) Modern physics has grown complacent by romanticizing 'quantum weirdness' rather than addressing the foundational shortcomings of quantum mechanics. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=0s) In macroscopic physics, causality is taken for granted, but the paper argues that fundamental reality lacks any intrinsic causal order. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=0s) Causality is framed as an emergent property: just as a single particle is not liquid, individual quantum components do not possess causality until aggregated. - [01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=101s) Formulating a quantum theory of gravity requires treating spacetime quantum-mechanically, which destroys predetermined causal structures. - [01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=101s) Superpositions of spacetime geometries result in indefinite causal structure, making it impossible to determine which event preceded or caused another. - [01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=101s) Instead of forcing gravity and quantum mechanics to combine directly, both may emerge as low-energy approximations from a deeper underlying framework lacking causal order. - [02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) The authors model interactions using 'Quantum Boxes' (Q-Boxes) arranged in networks without pre-assigned temporal directions. - [02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) The mechanism of 'hyperdecoherence' averages over one side of the input boxes to mathematically establish a designated past and future. - [02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) The derivation suffers from circularity by explicitly defining past and future rather than letting a consistent temporal order emerge organically. - [02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) Despite mathematical limitations, attempts to replace quantum mechanics with deeper theories provide a welcome alternative to sensationalized 'quantum woo'.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=0s) Complacency in Quantum Mechanics and the Nature of Causality

Sabine opens with a critique of the modern physics community, arguing that for the past decade, researchers have grown far too comfortable with quantum mechanics as it currently stands. Instead of addressing foundational shortcomings or trying to fix its problems, physicists have spent years glorifying “quantum weirdness” to the point where moving past it seems almost unthinkable. As Sabine dryly observes about the profession’s coping mechanisms: “If something makes no sense, don't fix it. Give it a mysterious name and start a podcast.” Yet, a new paper challenges this consensus by daring to search for an origin of quantum physics—an effort many physicists previously declared mathematically or conceptually impossible.

The core subject of this investigation is causality, a concept so ingrained in human everyday life that it usually escapes scrutiny. In the macroscopic world, cause clearly precedes effect: flipping a light switch turns on the light. Sabine jokes that this straightforward logic only breaks down if you have children, where an effect abruptly occurs and the responsible party denies having anything to do with the cause. The researchers behind the new paper propose that causal order does not exist at a fundamental level. Rather, they argue causality is an emergent phenomenon, directly analogous to fluidity: a single molecule or subatomic particle is not wet or liquid on its own, but liquidity naturally emerges when a massive collection of particles aggregates and interacts.

- Causality is typically taken for granted in classical macroscopic physics as a rigid sequence of causes leading to effects. - The authors argue that fundamental reality lacks causal structure; causality only emerges when observing large ensembles of quantum particles.

[01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=101s) Quantum Gravity and Indefinite Causal Structure

Connecting quantum mechanics with general relativity has stalled for nearly a century because any viable quantum theory of gravity must inherently be a quantum theory of space and time. In standard physics, the structure of spacetime is precisely what establishes which events can causally influence others. However, treating spacetime quantum-mechanically requires placing different spacetime geometries into quantum superpositions. As Sabine points out: “This means that a theory of quantum gravity no longer has causality.”

Under such conditions, reality enters a regime known as indefinite causal structure. In this framework, the temporal relationship between events dissolves; you can no longer determine whether flipping a switch turned on a light, or whether the light turning on triggered the switch. While this sounds absurd and introduces severe mathematical complexities, the new paper approaches the problem from a different angle. Instead of forcing quantum physics and gravity to mesh together directly, both may emerge as lower-energy approximations from a deeper, underlying framework that contains no predefined causal order whatsoever.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Emergent Causality from Indefinite Causal Order accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how fundamental quantum boxes without causal order yield emergent causality through hyperdecoherence.

subgraph Fundamental["Fundamental Level: Indefinite Causal Order"] QBox1["Quantum Box A\n(Particle Interaction)"] QBox2["Quantum Box B\n(Particle Interaction)"] QBox1 <-->|"No Fixed Order\n(Indefinite Causality)"| QBox2 end

subgraph Emergence["Consistency Mechanism"] HD["Hyperdecoherence\n(Averaging over one side of inputs)"] end

subgraph Macroscopic["Emergent Macro Physics"] Past["Past (Averaged Input)"] --> Future["Future (Output)"] CQM["Standard Quantum Mechanics\n& Classical Spacetime"] end

Fundamental --> HD HD --> Emergence Emergence --> Past Past --> CQM ```

[02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=175s) Quantum Boxes, Hyperdecoherence, and the Critique of Quantum Woo

To construct this framework, the authors introduce a mathematical tool called a “Quantum Box” (or Q-Box), which represents any generalized quantum event, such as an interaction between elementary particles. In the paper's model, networks of these Q-Boxes connect to one another without any assigned temporal or causal direction, leaving it indeterminate which event triggered another. To recover standard, consistent physics from this chaotic network, the authors introduce an operation they call "hyperdecoherence," which involves averaging over one side of the input boxes. That averaged input side is designated as the past, thereby creating a distinct direction of time.

Sabine expresses reservations about this step, offering both praise and sharp criticism: “I give this paper a 5 out of 10 on the bullshit meter.” While the paper succeeds in mathematically reproducing familiar quantum mechanics, Sabine argues that the authors assume what they set out to explain by essentially declaring the existence of past and future through hyperdecoherence. Sabine likens this circular logic to “baking bread and saying you've discovered flour.” Sabine believes that explicitly declaring a past and future is unnecessary and that a consistent time order should suffice. Nevertheless, Sabine views the effort as a commendable step away from mystical interpretations—what she terms “quantum woo”—such as claims that quantum mechanics allows researchers to erase the past, that particles can be separated from their own spin, or that particles experience negative time. According to Sabine, these claims dissolve when examining the actual mathematics, serving primarily as fanciful stories told to baffle journalists.

- A Quantum Box (Q-Box) models any fundamental quantum interaction without an intrinsic temporal sequence. - Hyperdecoherence is the process of averaging over inputs on one side of connected Q-Boxes, which mathematically generates a distinction between past and future. - Sabine welcomes foundational attempts to replace quantum mechanics with deeper theories that resolve conceptual paradoxes instead of mythologizing them.

[04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU&t=297s) Sponsoring Privacy: Automating Data Removal with Incogni

In the closing segment, Sabine transitions to discussing personal data privacy, sharing an experience with receiving relentless spam calls after her mobile phone number leaked through online storefronts. Websites routinely gather personal details, user locations, and browsing habits, which are subsequently aggregated and monetized by commercial data brokers. While legal frameworks exist in many jurisdictions granting individuals the right to demand that companies delete their private records, handling each opt-out request manually is exhausting and time-consuming.

Sabine highlights the video's sponsor, Incogni, an automated service designed to eliminate these personal profiles from data broker databases. Users authorize Incogni to issue formal deletion requests to brokers on their behalf, a process the platform repeats continually while delivering status updates to the subscriber. Sabine notes her personal use of their custom removal feature, which allows users to submit specific offending websites directly. Viewers are offered a 60% discount on annual subscriptions by applying the promotional code `SABINE` or using the link in the video description, with the discount targeted at the first 100 individuals who sign up.

## Mentioned Sabine Hossenfelder, Incogni, Physical Review A, Quantum Box (Q-Box)

## Video description Take back your personal data with Incogni! Use code Sabine at the link below and get 60% off annual plans: https://incogni.com/sabine

Over the years, physicists have become increasingly enamored with “quantum weirdness,” the many strange features of quantum mechanics that are extremely hard to explain. In a new paper, a group of researchers have tried to cut through the weirdness by analyzing how causal order really works. By doing so, they hope to set up a deeper framework that can combine quantum mechanics with gravity. Let’s take a look.

#physics #science #quantum #sciencenews

Paper: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/kmmy-3dy3

👕T-shirts, mugs, posters and more: ➜ https://sabines-store.dashery.com/ 💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 📚 Buy my book ➜ https://amzn.to/3HSAWJW

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXq68UeeXU)

中文简报

物理学家提出涌现因果律模型挑战量子共识物理学家提出，因果关系并非现实的基本属性，而是源自不确定因果结构的涌现现象。 Sabine Hossenfelder 探讨了一项新提议，该提议认为因果关系并非自然界的基本属性，而是一种类似于流体流动性的涌现现象。由于量子引力需要抹去固定因果关系的时空叠加，该论文将现实建模为一个具有不确定因果结构的“量子盒”（Quantum Boxes）网络。研究人员引入了“超退相干”（hyperdecoherence）——即对输入态求平均——来推导标准量子力学和明确的时间之箭。尽管 Sabine 因该论文循环假设过去以解释过去而在其“胡扯指数”（bullshit meter）上给出了 5/10 的评分，但她仍赞赏作者追求严谨的数学基础，而非玄虚的“量子伪科学”（quantum woo）。一篇新的研究论文向基础量子力学发起挑战，提出因果顺序并非基本属性，而是一种类似于流动性的涌现性质。 (0:00) 将量子力学与广义相对论结合意味着将时空几何置于叠加态，从而导致无法严格排序因果的不确定因果结构。 (1:41) 研究人员引入了“量子盒”和一种名为“超退相干”的数学过程，通过对输入进行平均来推导出明确的时间之箭。 (2:55) Sabine Hossenfelder 在其“胡扯指数”中给该论文打了 5 分（满分 10 分），认为通过超退相干来定义过去和未来，无异于预先假定了作者试图证明的东西。 (2:55)

Reading summary

A new theoretical physics paper proposes that causality is not a fundamental property of the universe but an emergent phenomenon arising from a deeper framework without inherent temporal order, though Sabine Hossenfelder critiques the model for relying on circular assumptions. Causality as an Emergent Macro Property (0:00) In macroscopic classical physics, cause and effect operate in a fixed sequence, such as a switch turning on a light. Hossenfelder observes that the physics community has spent the past decade romanticizing "quantum weirdness" rather than addressing foundational flaws. The newly analyzed paper challenges the consensus by proposing that causality does not exist at a fundamental level. The authors model causality as an emergent property analogous to fluidity. A single molecule or subatomic particle possesses no wetness or liquidity on its own; rather, liquidity naturally appears when large numbers of particles aggregate and interact. Similarly, the paper argues that a definite causal structure emerges only when observing large collections of quantum particles rather than individual interactions. Quantum Gravity and Indefinite Causal Structures (1:41) Reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity has remained stalled for nearly a century because a viable quantum theory of gravity must quantize spacetime itself. In established physics, spacetime geometry dictates which events can causally influence others. However, treating spacetime quantum-mechanically places different geometries into quantum superpositions, eliminating fixed causal relationships. This leads to an indefinite causal structure, where temporal sequences dissolve and it becomes impossible to determine whether an action preceded or followed its outcome. Rather than forcing quantum mechanics and gravity together directly, the researchers propose that both emerge as low-energy approximations from an underlying substrate that contains no predefined causal order. Quantum Boxes, Hyperdecoherence, and Circularity Critiques (2:55) To formulate this theory, the authors introduce the "Quantum Box" (Q-Box), a mathematical model representing generic particle interactions connected in networks without temporal direction. To reconstruct conventional physics from this non-causal network, the paper applies an operation called "hyperdecoherence," which averages over one side of the input boxes and designates that side as the past. Hossenfelder gives the paper a "5 out of 10 on the bullshit meter." While acknowledging that the mathematics reproduces standard quantum mechanics, she argues the authors commit circular reasoning by inserting past and future by definition via hyperdecoherence, likening it to "baking bread and saying you've discovered flour." Despite this critique, she welcomes the mathematical approach over mystical interpretations—such as erasing the past or negative time—which she characterizes as stories designed to baffle journalists. While the framework provides a mathematical pathway from an acausal quantum network to familiar physics, Hossenfelder concludes that artificially declaring a past and future leaves the origin of time's direction unresolved, even though moving away from paradoxical interpretations remains a positive step.

精炼阅读摘要

物理学界长期将因果律视为宏观世界的固有法则，而一项新研究提出，因果秩序并非宇宙的基础属性，而是类似于流体流动性的涌现现象；物理学者 Sabine Hossenfelder 指出，尽管该模型试图摆脱对量子神秘主义的执念并迈向深层基础理论，但其依赖“超退相干”来定义时间方向的做法存在预设结论的循环论证缺陷。因果关系的宏观涌现假说 (0:00) 在经典宏观世界中，因果关系被视为不可动摇的常识，即原因在时间序列上必然先于结果（例如按下开关才会点亮电灯）。Sabine Hossenfelder 批评认为，现代物理学界在过去十年中对量子力学的现状过于自满，往往通过宣扬所谓的“量子怪异性”来掩盖理论的基础缺陷，却鲜少致力于修复问题。该项新研究挑战了这种共识，提出因果秩序并非微观现实的基本属性。论文作者主张，因果律实际上是一种宏观涌现现象，正如单个水分子或亚原子粒子本身并不具有“湿润”或“流动”的属性，只有当海量微观粒子聚集并相互作用时，流体的宏观性质才会显现；因果链条同样只有在大规模量子粒子系综中才会呈现。量子引力与不确定因果结构 (1:41) 近一个世纪以来，将量子力学与广义相对论相统一的尝试始终停滞不前，关键障碍在于任何可行的量子引力理论都必须对时空本身进行量子化。在标准物理学中，固定的时空几何结构决定了事件之间的因果关联路径；然而，一旦将不同的时空几何置于量子叠加态中，固定的因果关系便不复存在，使系统进入“不确定因果结构”（Indefinite Causal Structure）。在此状态下，事件之间的时间先后秩序彻底瓦解，数学上无法判定究竟是开关接通导致灯亮，还是灯亮触发了开关。该研究提出了一种新的解决思路：量子力学与广义相对论可能并非最底层的法则，而是共同从一个底层完全不存在预定义因果秩序的更深层框架中涌现出的低能近似。量子盒子模型与循环论证质疑 (2:55) 为构建这一非因果框架，研究团队引入了名为“量子盒子”（Q-Box）的数学工具，用以表征没有固定因果方向的任意广义量子相互作用。针对这一无序的量子盒子网络，作者提出通过名为“超退相干”（Hyperdecoherence）的数学操作——对网络一侧的输入端进行平均化处理，并直接将其指定为“过去”——从而人工生成时间的方向性。Sabine 对此步骤提出了尖锐批评，给该论文的严谨性打出5分（满分10分），指出该方案存在循环论证：作者直接将平均化的输入侧定义为过去，本质上是预设了自己本该去解释的因果与时间方向，这种逻辑等同于“烤完了面包，然后宣称自己发现了面粉”。尽管如此，Sabine 依然肯定了该研究的方向，认为这类探索有助于将物理学引向更严格的数学基础，摆脱诸如粒子逆行时间或抹除过去等向公众兜售的“量子神秘论”（Quantum Woo）。该研究代表了用更深层微观框架取代现有量子力学、消除因果佯谬的理论尝试；但其依赖“超退相干”强行定义单向时间箭头的数学手法，仍未真正解释因果律如何从完全对称的无序底层中自发破缺与产生。

Original transcript

[0:00] For a decade or so, I've complained that physicists seem content with quantum mechanics [0:05] as it is. They don't try to fix its problems. Rather, they tell themselves and everyone dumb [0:10] enough to believe it that we must accept the quantum weirdness. By now, they've glorified [0:17] the strangeness of quantum mechanics so much, it's become basically impossible for them to move [0:23] beyond it. If something makes no sense, don't fix it. Give it a mysterious name and start a podcast. [0:30] And yet today I have a team of physicists who've done exactly that. They've looked for the origin [0:36] of quantum physics and found at least a possible one. That's intriguing because physicists said [0:43] it's impossible. Let's have a look. One of the biggest mysteries in the foundations of physics is [0:48] one you might never have thought about. Causality. We're so used to it we never even think about it. [0:54] Flip a switch and the light goes on. Cause and effect. Simple enough. Unless you have children, [1:00] in which case the effect just happens and the cause denies involvement. But where does causal [1:05] order come from? Why is the world so neat and orderly? The authors of the new paper say [1:11] actually it isn't. Causality doesn't fundamentally exist anymore than say a liquid does. A liquid is [1:17] fundamentally made of particles. Yet the particles themselves aren't liquid. That just doesn't make [1:23] any sense. The liquidness is an emergent behavior for a large collection of particles. The authors [1:29] of the new paper say causality is like that. It doesn't exist on the fundamental level. It's an [1:35] emergent behavior that we observe for many quantum particles. The reason I find this interesting is [1:41] not just that it could explain the origin of causality. It's also that causality is one of [1:48] the reasons why it's so difficult to combine quantum physics with gravity. Physicists have [1:53] been looking for such a combination, a theory of quantum gravity for almost a century. But the [1:59] issue is that any such theory of quantum gravity is a quantum theory of space and time. This means [2:06] that it must have superpositions of different space and time structures. But the space-time [2:12] structure defines causality. This means that a theory of quantum gravity no longer has causality. [2:20] It has what's been called an indefinite causal structure. You can't tell whether the switch [2:26] turned on the light or the light flipped the switch, which doesn't just sound nuts, [2:30] but it's hard to make sense of mathematically. The new idea of the authors could solve this problem [2:36] because you no longer have to combine quantum physics with gravity. Rather, both could come [2:43] out of one deeper framework that has no definite causality. Actually, the idea isn't entirely new. [2:49] It's just that until now, we thought it had been proved to be impossible. The authors of the new [2:55] paper now say, "Yes, it's actually possible." Their paper's very maths heavy, but it works with [3:01] what they call a Quantum Box or Q-Box for short. This is just any kind of quantum event that can [3:08] possibly happen. You can think of it, for example, as an interaction of elementary particles. These [3:14] quantum boxes are connected without any particular causal order. So you don't know which caused what. [3:21] The authors of the paper then show that to get any consistent physics you need to average over one [3:26] side of the boxes input. That one side becomes the past and they call this process hyperdecoherence. [3:34] Okay. Actually it's not what they did. It's what I think they should have done. They just [3:39] introduce this hyperdecoherence and declare that there is a past and a future. I think though that [3:45] this isn't necessary. You just need a time order for consistency. I give this paper a 5 out [3:52] of 10 on the [ __ ] meter. The good part is that they show indeed you get quantum mechanics as we [3:58] know and like it. The bad part is that they put in too many assumptions. It's a bit like baking [4:04] bread and saying you've discovered flour. So, let me be clear. This paper is not a new theory [4:09] of everything, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I've become very frustrated with [4:15] physicists who preach quantum woo, like the idea that we can somehow erase the past with quantum [4:22] magic or that a particle and its spin can be different places or that particles have negative [4:27] time and similar nonsense. What these examples all have in common is that if you actually look [4:32] at the maths, that's not what it says. At this point I think physicists are just making [4:37] up fancy stories for their calculations to baffle journalists. In any case, I welcome this paper [4:45] because it's trying to replace quantum physics with a better, more fundamental theory that [4:50] hopefully will make more sense. Or maybe we'll just be even more confused. I used to receive [4:57] a lot of spam calls after my cell phone number leaked, probably from some online shops that I [5:03] used to use. This is why I've signed up to Incogni who've been sponsoring this video and who've [5:10] prevented this from happening again. You see, the issue is that each time you open a website, it'll [5:15] try to collect data about who you are and where you are and what other websites you've visited. [5:21] Many firms then make money by selling your private information to data brokers. Most countries have [5:26] laws against that and you can ask for your data to be removed, but doing this takes up a lot of [5:32] time. Incogni automates the process of getting you out of those databases. You sign up and they will [5:38] request that your personal details be removed. They'll keep on doing that and if you want send [5:44] you regular updates. They now also have a custom removal feature where you can submit specific [5:51] websites. I've been using this a lot. Incogni has really solved the problem for me. If that sounds [5:57] like something you could need to use my code SABINE or the custom link in the info because [6:04] the first 100 people to use it will get 60% off. Stay safe. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.