DO NOT Study Quantum Mechanics | Nobel Physics Laureate Tony Leggett's Controversial Warning
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- UIUC Talkshow Full Episode: • Tony Leggett: Nobel Pr...
GUEST BIO:
Tony Leggett is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Subscribe to The UIUC Talkshow Main Channel ( / @uiuctalkshow )
Don't Spend Too Much Studying Quantum Mechanics | Tony Leggett at The UIUC Talkshow
DO NOT Study Quantum Mechanics | Nobel Physics Laurate Tony Leggett
SOCIAL:
Instagram: / uiuctalkshow
Twitter: / uiuctalkshow
TikTok: / uiuctalkshow
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Full episodes playlist: • Episodes
Clips channel: / @uiuctalkshowclips
What is the UIUC Talkshow?
Our goal with this show is to introduce you to the most interesting people with the most interesting ideas from the UIUC campus.
Learn more about Juan David & Aaryaman:
Aaryaman
/ aaryaman-patel-779437205
Juan David
Website: www.juandavidc...
Twitter: / jdcampolargo
LinkedIn: / jdcampolargo
Instagram: / jdcampolargo
![The most beautiful equation in math, explained visually [Euler’s Formula]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f8CXG7dS-D0/mqdefault.jpg)
You wrote the title misleadingly, he's saying not to spend too much time trying to make sense of it, not to not study it at all.
Honestly, if it’s a bad model that isn’t testable, how many years do you want to commit to it.
"Don't spend too much on.." implies don't spend too much money. That's REALLY what's wrong with the title.
@@ewthmatth Nope
It is amazing that people are not aware that we have plenty of proof that both standard model physics as well as QM have failed big time but with each failure we continue to introduce more fudge factors including free variables and constants to make it work. You don’t hear much about the failures because funding would be pulled out from where they are currently being spent. CERN is a big culprit in this regard. Spending huge sums to blow up particles into smaller and smaller parts thinking they will find a god particle or the most fundamental particle. This is a completely failed approach as we have reached practical limits with no real good returns given the billions we are spending. We do have an alternative or replacement theoretical framework already. We already have come up with a unified theory of physics that combines both relativistic and quantum physics. The issue is not when. It is already here. The faults with mainstream physics are blatantly obvious once you learn to shift to the new paradigm. The issue turns out is not that we need to discover something to learn from in order to advance but what all we missed from all the work that has been done so far. Fortunately there is one man who managed to that, one man who realized all the pieces we need to unify physics to reach the holy grail of physics is already here; what is wrong is our arrangement of the pieces which has given us a particular view and understanding of reality that is fundamentally flawed. This man has managed to reorganize the pieces into their proper place resulting in a much more beautiful theory that is completely in alignment with what Einstein predicted we would have once we unify physics. This new theory goes beyond theory in the sense that it has made numerous predictions that have already been verified. It is far and more accurate and much more precise than any existing theory out there that I am aware of. Furthermore what no one would have expected nor predicted this new unified theory succeeds as well to unify all the other sciences including the more recent consciousness studies under one consistent mechanism that nature uses to create reality. Nature does not think in physics, chemistry, biology, et cetera. We have broken reality into the different sciences that we study in isolation. Tne new theory is geometric in nature and uses scales and ratios the way nature does more so than complicated mathematics without the need of metaphysics, quantum weirdness, free variables, all the craziness people have introduced into QM and elsewhere in physics to make the standard model work. In addition to predictions new types of technologies are unlocked by this new theory and some are already on their way being build that will completely change civilization as we know it; not in 100 or 500 or more years but within your lifetimes within a decade or sooner if we divert money that is being wasted at th3 moment into impractical and dead end projects that have not led to nor will lead to any fundamental breakthroughs because the framework on which they are based is fundamentally but instead into the effort of continuing to develop the new unified theory further together with bringing the new leapfrog technologies it enables to the world. It will be possible within a decade. I am talking about a shift from electromagnetic control which all our technologies today are based on to technologies that allow us to control gravity and as well harness limitless free energy and matter from the base of reality at what is called quantum vacuum fluctuations; we will be able to enhance biology with technologies that boost biologies own coupling with the field; the energy required to keep you going thorughtout obviously does not come from the food you eat alonge; biology is coupled to the field already harnessing energy and interfacing with consciousness. If you have not heard of this new theory it is because of ongoing censorship and deliberate attempt to keep dumb down mainstream physics for fun and profit. Fortunately for us this one man this one name has not given up these past 40 years ; more and more physics especially the new generation have begun to embrace and are examining the most recent publication, a groundbreaking paper that is currently undergoing peer review and soon to be published in a major scientific journal and endorsed by some of the biggest names in the field, a paper that describes the source of mass and the nature of gravity, the familiar concepts which to date until this paper no one has been able to define exactly. This paper is one of three papers that will set physics back on the right track. For the first time we know where the constants of physics come from and why they have the values they currently have. The new paper is purely analytical and geometric in nature ; without any need to invent dark matter, dark energies, extra dimensions, exotic particles, and forces. Only two forces are actually necessary gravity and electromagnetic to explain all phenomena we have observed to date from quantum to cosmological scale including everything in between such as biology and consciousness. Matter has also been completely redefined. The time has come for we the people to come awake ; science has become an industry controlled by profiteerers who are more interested in power and money over the advancement and rise of humanity into the age of abundance. Lets make it happen, spread the word, spread the good news, physics is already Unified, we need to demand the truth from educational institutions and our governments!
@@ewthmatth But the title doesn't say "Don't spend too much on .." at all. 🙄
Well, title is a little bit misguiding, if I got it somewhat right from the talk, he acctually meant not to look too much for the meaning or interpretation of qm cause it is probably not the full picture yet.
Okay, I won’t study quantum mechanics. Thanks for the suggestion.
Tony Leggett is spot on. Too bad the interviewers didn't understand him enough to know what to say next, they seemed stunned.
Asian cultured kids... are brainwashed at home to not challenge elders
All passionate pursuits, like physics, are choiceless. It is to understand the unknown. Only career decisions have choices. That is the difference between what you live for, or, what you make for a living.
Sir Tony came out to Macquarie University In Australia in 2010 (from memory - it could have been 2011) for a talk and we had a group lunch afterwards. He was great fun.
Great to see U of I Champaign/Urbana has this. I have lived half my life in MO where I got a BS Physics at University of Missouri, Rolla, 1970 (now called MS&T) and half my life in Illinois (SIU-Carbondale) where I tried but did not get through grad school in Physics mostly due to quantum mechanics. LOL! I am a big time cheerleader for our universities here.
What are you up to now?
@@uiuctalkshow Retired.
@@mike9rr Great! We'd love for you to check out our other interviews? I'd recommend you start with Paul Kwiat
or Charles Gammie. Thank you! And looking forward to seeing your comments and thoughts
My grandfather taught math for 40 +years add UMR/Missouri s&t. you probably knew him.
Hello from St James 👍
@@xenphoton5833 Maybe, but I don't remember many names.
Even Roger Penrose says the theory is too flawed because there is too much incompatibility with relativity. He believes the theory needs to be seriously reworked from the ground up.
Lovely analysis, did not know about this Gibbs paradoz
From a background of classical particle mechanics, one might regard a 'full' theory as one in which the continuous motions of the distinct constituent 'particles' of a 'system' can be described deterministically by an ordinary differential equation. Quantum mechanics is not such a theory. In quantum mechanics, the continuous motions of the distinct constituent 'particles' of the 'system' are not described. Instead, a 'system' is described by a partial differential equation that yields a geometrical picture of a static shape for each of a set of 'stationary' states, along with probabilities of 'jumps' between the respective 'stationary' states. The 'jumps' are not described as continuous motions of distinct constituent 'particles'.
Contradiction is a part of physical reality, in a temporal paradox, within a non-physical or Spiritual greater reality. A microcosmic 3 dimensional particle of dust, with higher dimensional, vortex, and fractal behaviour at scale, suspended in an infinite sea of eternal light.
The successor to QM must be simpler than QM, not more complicated.
OK
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Interesting. Thankyou
Thanks for this
Darn it! I just open a quantum mechanic books! Alright, back to watching youtube instead.
One has exactly as much chance of understanding QM (or just the double-slit) as pre-copernican astronomers had of understanding their epicyclic models.
And for exactly the same reason.
Fix the paradigm, or please resist the temptation to ignore the "hypotheses non fingo" honesty of Newton.
You're implicitly making the hidden variables assumption, which we now know is false because QM violate the Bell inequalities.
@@nas8318 Bell inequalities doesn’t invalidate hidden variables, it says they can’t be local. Non-local hidden variables are still very much in the game, which suggests that spacetime is emergent rather than fundamental, which is probably the path to new physics
@williamyoungblood4221 The vast majority of physicists have abandoned the idea of hidden variables. Those who didn't are grasping at straws. QM's randomness is fundamental.
@@nas8318 nope.
But, given the prevailing paradigm, I do understand why you would think so.
@@advaitrahasya You are about as qualified to comment on quantum mechanics as my dog is to comment on 16th century French literature.
Leggett isn't deriding QM, but providing insights into the practical and foundational aspects of quantum statistical mechanics.
Tony’s attitude is exactly what I would expect from an experimental research physicist. Their job is to push existing theories and discover new phenomena. The theoretical research physicist then constructs new theories to account for the new phenomena, further informing the experimentalist. But, the enterprise of physics doesn’t end there. Those new theories have to be understood in some physical context so that engineers can create new technologies and physics students can be trained to think in the new paradigm. If everyone wanted to participate in only one segment of this process, it would stall. I highly recommend Adam Becker’s book, “What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics” (Basic Books, 2018).
And, if you are interested in understanding quantum mechanics, let me point out an entirely new approach from the quantum reconstruction program (QRP). We have a full explanation in our book, “Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit” Oxford UP (2024), but let me summarize it here.
QRP has successfully rendered QM a “principle theory” per Einstein, i.e., a theory whose formalism is derived from an empirically discovered fact. To appreciate the goal of QRP, it’s best to share Rovelli’s reference to the “historical precedent” of special relativity (SR). What Rovelli was thinking about was the strong analogy between the quagmire of QM interpretations today and attempts to explain the fact that everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions (light postulate), in the late 19th century. At that time, physicists were looking for a causal mechanism (like the luminiferous aether) to explain the observer-independence of c, but nothing was working. So, Einstein turned to an entirely different approach, writing:
“By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.”
Einstein said the light postulate had to follow from the relativity principle - the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. That is, since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says c must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain. So, SR is a principle theory because its kinematics (Lorentz transformations) follows from an empirically discovered fact (the light postulate). And, importantly, the light postulate is justified by the relativity principle.
Likewise, QRP has successfully rendered QM a principle theory by deriving its kinematics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) from an empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity (wording from 2009 by Brukner and Zeilinger). However, there are two reasons this accomplishment has not made QM look a lot less mysterious. First, Information Invariance & Continuity is not nearly as physically intuitive as the light postulate. Second, QRP offered no compelling fundamental principle to justify Information Invariance & Continuity, like the relativity principle does for the light postulate. We solve these two problems in our book by showing that Information Invariance & Continuity means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Let me call that the “Planck postulate” in analogy with the light postulate. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, just like c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations, and since inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, the relativity principle says the “Planck postulate” must be true just like it says the light postulate must be true.
That means QRP has rendered QM a principle theory, just like SR. And, this principle explanation of the Bell-inequality-violating correlations does not require non-local (as in Bohmian mechanics), superdeterministic or retro causal mechanisms (violations of statistical independence), neither does it require violating intersubjective agreement (as in QBism) or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). This is totally analogous to the fact that SR does not require a causal mechanism to explain the light postulate (e.g., length contraction via the luminiferous aether). Thus, this principle account of QM reveals a deep (and surprising) unity between QM and SR, while escaping the morass of the constructive accounts.
Tony Leggett is a theoretical physicist.
@@markedwards7089 Thnx for the clarification! In the interview he advocates for pushing existing theories and finding new phenomena, which is really a research physicist's attitude, theoretical or experimental. I was being too simplistic 🙂
I would rather a vid on wasting too much brainpower on string theory.
What is the experiment that shows QM is going to break down (sufficiently to call it a break down, not just some minor fixes here and there?).
I can think of some unexplained phenomena like dark matter, dark energy, the matter / antimatter asymmetry and the difficulty to bring gravity into QM (why is gravity so weak, why can’t General Relativity be explained from the behaviour of particles), but no experiment that is in clear violation of QM.
I suspect it’s more a question of filling in the holes with some new particles to account for Dark Matter and an extension to explain gravity, but the fundamental theory will probably stay as it is or be really similar to have all the needed properties.
I hope the is going to be a revolution. Nothing could be more exciting, but I’m not putting any money on QM being upturned in my lifetime (next 50 years or so).
0:54 not a good argument 😂 You could say that about anything, in 500 years time nobody's going to be doing anything that we're doing now!
«0:54 not a good argument »
--
Your is just pedantic gnawing. It wasn't an argument, but just an advice under the form of probabilistic forecasting.
----
« You could say that about anything, in 500 years time nobody's going to be doing anything that we're doing now!»
--
You can hear this about anything only in places where cognitively impaired get some cure.
Your is a cheap small-coin way of arguing against projections of your own making.
I hope that in 500 years we can have some form of affinity algorithms thanks to which you can writes yours, and at the same time I can be saved from seeing yours.
Of course given we haven’t found such an experiment it’s also possible that there is no such experiment which shows quantum mechanics breaks down and efforts to find such an experiment (if that is the sole purpose of those efforts) may also be in vein.
I thought this would have been a good follow-up question, whether there are any experiments he can think of that pokes a hole in QM
It's more probable that quantum mechanics will break, because it's like classical mechanics, an interpretation of what we see using available tools, as our math (tools ) becomes more sophisticated and as we conduct more experiments
ان شاء الله
A stronger theory can be formulated to better explain the observations from those experiments
The basics of Quantum Mechanics are as simple as the basics of vector algebra. When you picture the particle as a spinning arrow, paradoxes disappear.
There are some type of knowledge that are not meant to be understood by individuals ,but by the work of generations , and maybe some of that knowledge will be simplified to human understanding by AI , and much more will never be understood , simply it is inunderstoodable by humans , and we should live with that.
We have created many new words to describe many new things. We use them a lot as there are lotsa new words. And it won't end will it. We will be creating more new words wont we
GOOD ADVICE ! MECHANICS HAVE TO BREAK DOWN SOME STAGES.....
BRAVO 😍😍😍
I knew it. I made the right decision by not taking a physics course. This guy affirmed it.
Not really. All passionate pursuits are choiceless. Only career decisions have choices. That is the difference between what you live for, or, what you make for a living.
He's saying don't focus on QM because a new better theory will develop, but I'm fairly certain this new better theory will be developed by people who have spent a lot of time focusing on QM- not poets or painters. Thus , his initial advice I think is not great.
I totally agree. QM is an information theory that uses linear algebra to model physical systems. It works on a high level where it accurately predicts the outcome of many experiments or events in a statistical framework It fails to explain what is really going on. This leads to many equivalent and non testable interpretations. We need a completely new conceptual framework that invokes new metaphysics. We have hit a limit and must start over. Lee Smolin is on the right track. Go back to the Greeks.
Which Greek? Also Lee Smolin is very basic on antique philosophical knowledge to be honest
You know that something is fishy about using math to explain quantum level events (i.e. everything) when you can’t even apply the 4th most simple but utterly crucial calculation: divide me 3 electrons by 2, please, and I’ll visit Copenhagen still that day.
If anyone wants to study quantum mechanics in depth, make a start with the computer simulation of two-dimensional fluid mechanics using Alexandre Chorin's vortex cloud method. Add an additional rule that vorticity is quantised by the same parameter as the Brownian motion, and you will have a computer simulation of wave-particle duality running in polynomial time. Try simulations like the Von Karman vortex street, a stalling aerofoil and rotating stall in turbocompressors. Unfortunately similar simulations of "real" quantum mechanics showing the collapse of the wave function are likely to need to run in exponential time. The simplest simulation I can think of is two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide which requires many dimensions of configuration space. Try showing that I am wrong about this.
"PEEKING INTO INFINITIES", like in particle physics and cosmology, is just a useless activity. Period.
“Shut-up and calculate” is a valid approach to QM.
Nah, that’s philosophically unacceptable. We need to understand what we are calculating. That’s the whole point of it, right? If it’s really just probability densities, that’s also fine, but the whole thing should make sense and it does or it doesn’t.
Otherwise we could say the Sun is the center of the universe and we just add more and more Ptolomean spheres to explain and calculate everything.
Any computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to deal with the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy condition and the prospect of the simulation needing to run in exponential time. We may come up with a bright idea but it is likely to fail on these points. My own bright idea is adding tachyonic Brownian motion to a simulation of an alpha particle hitting two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide.
It is stranger than we can think and the existence of a watch could indicate the existence of a watchmaker.
thank god i spent zero time studying it !
I just are excuse me
Kings new clothes.......QM is BS
It is indeed almost useless
«It is indeed almost useless»
--
No. "Almost" implies positive close to zero. Being detrimental, it is less than useless (and so negative - less than zero).
@@voltydequa845 You are hilariously stupid.
Aside from being the basis of pretty much the entirety of modern technology, sure. Moron.
It is silly to look for QM from LHC. The point is scaling up from few atoms to many atoms, what to observe in an ideal experiment and how to set the ideal experiment.
Babble on.
@@marksea64 What does Babylon have to do with this?
I did not liked the misleading title of this video.
QM is not the whole truth.. breaks at some point.. so clearly said. Phony title.. average interviewers..
Don't Spend Too Much What Studying...?
I a little bit disagree with michio kaku about recent information tentatif in how we legalize futurism. Its obvious but it works in me in reach happy life
This reminds me of all the string theory people that have spent the last 40 years trying to make something of it. Ok, it didn’t lead anywhere, that can happen. But learn when to change course guys.
QUANTUM MECHANICS IS EVERYTHING!!!! ACCEPT IT!!!
Well, not everything.
If it were then we would already have a THEORY OF EVERYTHING.
Quantum zealot?
@@user-wp5pb8zs7x «Quantum zealot?»
--
"Zealot" would be too generous. They are just parrots.
Why shout? Shouting implies anger. What are you scared of?
@@JohnVKaravitis what
This misses the point entirely: we are now and not in 200 years and we need QM NOW to make our technology work! A detail that matters, isn't it?
Actually, no. He’s discussing theoretical physics, not engineering nor technology.
«This misses the point entirely: we are now and not in 200 years and we need QM NOW to make our technology work! A detail that matters, isn't it?»
--
It you that miss the point. QM does not have, and will note have, whatever impact on technology.
All the practical (technological) achievements were made without whatever QM consideration. All the rest - about QM role in electronics - are just mystifications.
Ugh. "fail". No. Quantum mechanics presupposes the correctness of classical mechanics. It doesn't replace classical mechanics; it adds to it. They have differing domains.
Progress in physics may well require something to supplement QM but it too will have its domain.
This is just a matter of semantics. It does replace parts of CM while keeping others
It tis what it is .. Totally defiant from how our brains work .. QM laughs @ our face & doesn't need us , yet we think we need It 🤣
Get back to Planck's derivation of his famous equation. The radiation in his cavities is always independent of the nature of the walls t. It is due to the fact that he followed Kirchhoff's Law of thermal radiation. Finally, Planck puts a piece of graphite to induce thermal radiation in a cavity. Why? Because radiation in a cavity made of perfectly reflecting walls is never black. We use such cavities as resonant ones in mobile phones rely antennas, in laser and MRI. Kirchhoff's Law of Radiation is not valid then. Planck's radiation, as it is independent of the nature of the walls is not connected to a physical world. Planck never explained how graphite emits thermal photons. Therefore quantum mechanics is at least incomplete. It should revised ASAP.
How about not 200 years time but 2 years time? 1) Quantum particles have no inherent properties.
2) They are categorized by their possible interactions with other particles.The number of particles is the number of axis. 3D (hence gravity) -> Sphetical harmonics & Laguerre polynomials -> whole periodic table etc etc. 3) That's it
@@GEMSofGOD_com How about you're an idiot?