This is probably the fifth time i’ve listened to some version of this talk. Every time, i’m convinced that i’m mostly understanding him… until an hour later, and then i’m lost again. 😆 That’s a testament to his speaking and an indictment of my learning.
I had a dream where my dog was explaining quantum mechanics over coffee and a cigarette. When I woke up I told him that if he was going to smoke he'd have to do it in the garage.
"I've been trying to extract the world from the quantum wave function". I...I've been giving serious thought to organizing the garage, so I guess you win, Sean.
Loving the Mr Rogers attire here! 😎 I must say that I so much love & appreciate the patience he has with audience members during the Q&As following his talks, as folks ask him the same questions again & again, and he responds with such warmth & kindness to each & every one ❤️ many thanks to the university staff for sharing this one with us as well 💕
Sean Carroll is genius, shining the light on how our world actually works. We shouldn't exist, because far too many things have gone exactly our way many times each and every second since T=0, but many worlds explains how we all got just so dam lucky.... If you don't understand it yet, keep learning.
I had a friend who was a Rhodes Scholar and had visited Schrödinger in his home. I told her his cat was obviously a tabby as the stripes were a diffraction pattern. She agreed.
Universe splitter - app that will branch the universe into several copies!! What an amazing lecture, the connection between entanglement and energy was very pleasantly brought up.
A passing thought should also cause all kinds of new universes to appear, if we assume neural function is part of thinking. Sean says each quantum event causes two universes to be split off - one in which the event happened and one in which it didn't. Neural transmission involves all kinds of quantum events.
@@beenaplumber8379 Our thoughts would be an unreliable source of quantum randomness as they are an unreliable source of randomness in general. We don't produce all possible thoughts with equal likelihood, which is a good thing. The whole reason our brains are useful is they are more likely to produce certain thoughts than others.
@@paulfoss5385 Many Worlds would suggest that our brains do produce all possible thoughts. We only experience a narrow stream of thoughts in the same way an electron is seen as a particle when we look at it. We are in a superposition of thinking everything we can think of, but in our universe, we experience only the thoughts we're aware of. We can have no experience of what our brains get up to in adjacent universes, but there's enough of them to accommodate everything we didn't think here in this one. I realize I'm blurring the distinction between the brain and the mind. My mind is my own, it exists in this universe, and it is only capable of limited thinking, which only I can experience. It is where my identity lies. My brain is what I'm talking about when I say it's thinking of all possible things. It's not part of my inner self, but as a physical object, if we assume it generates or mediates thought, it certainly is subject to quantum mechanics, including Many Worlds (if that turns out to be correct), in which case there is a universe in which every possible state of my brain exists. I'm not sure what randomness has to do with this. I don't think we've found anything that's truly random. I understand nuclear decay is the closest nature gets to randomness.
He did a series of lectures from home early in the COVID crisis called The Biggest Ideas in the Universe. He explains relativity and quantum mechanics in increasing detail, but he starts from a basic physics level. Here's a link to the first video in the playlist of that series, in case you're interested: czcams.com/video/HI09kat_GeI/video.html
Our observation doesn’t really change it the way you think but the patterns in our head can be recreated. Look at all the stuff that used to be “unreal”
Sean Carroll is the exact kind of thinker we need in this world. Grounded in facts and not afraid to push against the current model and understandings. Most scientist are not willing to take that next step of creativity and trust in the data to make some well founded yet unintuitive conclusions. Or rather possible conclusions. If I could select 3 people in the world to have dinner with, he would definitely make the list.
@@JerseyLynne based off what I can tell, it seems he HAS given thought to the other ideas and come to the conclusion they are incorrect or need work. If we’re looking at the Dunning Kruger curve I’d say he’s put in the time, effort and work to be placed on the high end of the x axis. His confidence is founded on decades of study and deep thinking therefore he does, and should, feel confident when he speaks. When he doesn’t know something, he’s very honest and admits he does not know. Most high priests don’t do that sort of thing.
Is it possible to state this all in layman’s terms as this: that classical physics is a subset of quantum physics and so we have to make classical physics obey the rules of its “parent” not vice versa. And related to that, we might say that Einstein’s inertial frames of reference are only tools to allow us to understand the universe, but aren’t really real. In other words you have to think of the observer as “static” to measure the rest of the universe, even though everything including the observer is in “super position.”
Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015).
Вопросы лектору просто изумительны! Что же такое время и где оно может существовать как реальность ( о, до чего дошли, время ставим под сомнение, где оно может быть, а где временя как единое целое при взгляде со стороны)? Попробуем проанализировать что есть материя, материя это цикличность от начала и до завершения либо перетекания в другой процесс, где такое же начало но уже с внешней стороны поток переместился в пространстве, однако, цикл движения продолжается для внутреннего наблюдателя находящегося на границе потока, повторение картины внешних изменений. А цикличность значит время, откуда же время возьмётся если нет движения или начала? С другой стороны, пространство и в нём образование, значит пространство наполнено и наполненность отдельного образования находящегося в пространстве отличается от окружающей среды. А что если предложить, что ( да уж, так далеко зайдём).
Could the big bang be a critical state in the most fundamental field in which space is broken by a super massive black hole and with inflation caused by the energy of reconnecting field lines?
People have been familiar with the many worlds, for ages now. Personally, I have not visited a 3rd world country as of yet, but I have visited a 2nd world country, and I am currently living in a 1st world country.
The data points to the realization that there's a good chance we live in a simulation. The code is not written until you look behind a certain door and then the room is rendered but not until.
When you dont looking at stuff is vave function because you see whole distribution, aka all possible states at the same time smeared out creating an appearance form (atom, molecules, stuff). But when you measure you take a slice at a specific time, so of course when you look you see only a certain state which looks like particle not wave. So that's that I agine a propeller of an old airplane. When it rotates it seemed like a disk, but when it stops you see it's only two blades. On micro level of this subatomic particles the time frames we talk are so small or if you will do short that you see the element in all possible.positions. but when you measure it's location of course you take away time completely and you can see the stuff at only a specific position. That's all. So not sure what's the big confusion. In those small subatomic levels time frames are so small that then can even reverse in time, hence stuff seems to pop in from nothing and pop out into nothing. That's when it actually goes back in time
I'm totally obsessed with this subject,,,couldn't you say that ,,the wave becomes a particle on its first impact with the closest object,, ? P.s. & it is Saturday 😊
You run into the problem that "object" is not well defined. By "object", do you simply mean another particle? Because 2 particles can interact to become entangled without collapsing. This is the whole measurement problem in a nutshell. Measurement is not well defined, same as object is not well defined. With the many worlds interpretation, "measurement" just means entanglement with the environment, so that anyone within that environment also becomes entangled with the measured particle, thus "collapsing" the state into one of the possibilities.
@spaceinyourface There are never particles. There are fields, and they change in a wave-like way. "Particle" is our macroscopic, limited observer interpretation of fields interacting with each other.
@@JerseyLynne Out where? There is a lot of nothing everywhere, but there are also quantum fields that have energy. Fields interacting with each other can be described in simple human-perspective terms as particle motion.
8:31 in which case solving this equation is like half of the time you spend in the world. This is the famous Schrödinger equation are these slides / powerpoints available to download
This seems to me to be a good way to explain why when we look around, we can see a little bit of quantum weirdness, but not a lot of it. The Universe is splitting into more branches very frequently, but each branch rapidly loses its ability to influence the other branches. All the famous "interference effect" quantum weirdness is just traces of the rapidly fading connections between different branches. All this is just metaphor though unless and until somebody can turn it into math. Likewise, entanglement being somehow the way that the connection between geometry and energy arises is a very appealing idea.
Dear Professor, Time-space, is simply motion or relative velocity anything else in the geometric universe? If space is contracted to a certain level where the velocity of any object can be attained the velocity of light then how gravity can be defined? Is gravity simply energy in this time-space while gravity is mass-related in classical mechanics
How many variations of the two slit experiment have been.....ie......3 slits.....round holes...... multiple 2 slit experiments at the same time.....etc ....?
Dear Professor, Whenever not looking it seems like a wave function or energy but whenever looking, it looks like a particle. Does it mean visible things are matter while twin invisible things are energy? So, matter (particle) -energy (light) entangling; both the gravitational field (mass associated) and EM field (charged particle, electron) as conservative energies hold the whole transformation and conservation of energy in the universe. (Because the light and electron similarity in the double slit experiment and the quantum phenomena (particle and wave nature) make them alike and accepting! )
I’d love to see a chart with all the modern marvels that can be attributed to quantum field theory… including all aspects of theories that have stayed theories and have yet to produce real world accomplishments.
Quantum field theory is what you need to understand high energy physics and some parts of nuclear and atomic physics. Beyond that it is relatively useless. Having said that, I would suggest you read up on the word "theory". You are using it wrong. ;-)
@@simongentry What are you surprised about? Newtonian mechanics has stayed a theory despite the fact that it's completely and utterly wrong about the structure of the world. That won't change, either. A theory is an approximation that describes the world well within its range of application. For Newtonian mechanics that everything from bridge building to space navigation within the solar system.
Наконец то понял, есть процессы в пространстве которые до сих пор слабо понимаемы, такие как магнитный процесс, и эти процессы находятся в движении потоками частиц материи составляющее пространство, в отличии от материальных образований уже крупных и границы которых можем фиксировать приборами и анализировать (которые мы называем всякими частицами). Получается, при движении потоков этих частиц, при определённых обстоятельствах складывающихся в конкретном пространстве может образоваться частица, а находящаяся в другом пространстве нами зафиксированная частица может потеряв энергию превратится в поток частиц нами не фиксируемый. Всё вроде просто с точки зрения анализа механики материальных процессов.
About the cat. Need explanation. When i look at him, it may be either asleep or awake. But with electron, when i observe it, he is always a particle, that is an awaken cat. How so!??😮
Being the physics nitwit I am, my problem with the "many worlds" notion is: when opening the box to find the cat (with all its electrons) asleep, why/how would that cause that entire scene (including all of its electrons) to duplicate itself into existence with a cat that's awake at the moment of opening that box, and does this include the lab the box was placed in; the building; the street or the entire town, country; planet? Or, in short: no matter the electron's form or state, where do the extra electrons come from that make up the other cat, its box and researcher who opened it etc. etc. ? If anyone reading this, could and would try to point out the flaw in this question of mine, I'd very much appreciate it!
Our body take in fractions of reality through the senses. We detect patterns through these and see things that are thought of as intangible but somehow still existing. A fraction of reality is a memory since a memory is grown into us. That fraction connected to a pattern leads us to connection other things with that pattern and evolving it. The unreal is a fraction of reality existing as us partially in our mind like a pattern connected to that other reality but it’s not another reality, that is potential. The unreal has potential to be real but guide reality to create it. That guiding insight is us though and not an invisible guy in the sky. People have just misunderstood. Like how you look through a kaleidoscope and see how the smaller scale is connected to the larger scale like sacred geometry.
Unfortunately, it is never explained in such lectures how all this is determined experimentally. For example, how can you observe a single photon? But what makes this lecture so special is above all the impressive and sonorous voice of the lecturer...
@@ivocanevo I would doubt that. The accepted literature value is closer to half a dozen to a dozen. Otherwise you would be seeing cosmic rays all the time. Every photomultiplier tube picks that stuff up constantly.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
31:00 Don't get me wrong, I admire Professor Carroll and have read a number of his books with thorough enjoyment and much learning - but, what I still can't digest is that quantum behavior is observed at the tiniest scales, but even the smallest particles we can discern with our eyes, like a grain of sand contains more atoms then the universe contains stars. Scale matters. For instance, Individuals are thoughtful and considerate, but put hundreds or thousands of individuals into a town square listening to a passionate orator and they become an unthinking mob, ready to behave in ways, the individuals never would. Scale matters, why is that aspect so often glossed over in these discussions?
Scale is the last thing that matters for the observation of quantum effects. You were simply not paying enough attention in high school when they explained the photoelectric effect to you. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Rather then insult, why not try a little explanation? As for scale doesn't matter - look around, that's being even sillier than I am with my question. Have anything substantive to share?
@@petermiesler9452 The photelectric effect can be measured with nothing but a macroscopic metal plate, a macroscopic UV light source, a macroscopic battery, a macroscopic potentiometer, a macroscopic voltmeter and a macroscopic amp-meter. The Planck spectrum requires nothing but a macroscopic hot body and a macroscopic spectrometer. The yellow sodium emission lines can be seen with a macroscopic flame, a macroscopic pinch of salt and a macroscopic prism. Dude... if all you want is attention, just ask me. I will give you as much of it as you want without having to go through physics bullshitting. :-)
@@schmetterling4477If you’re going to comment, you should understand the damned question. If this happens at the scale of the photon & smaller, why TF would it have macroscopic real-world effects?
@@christopherhamilton3621 Photons don't have a scale. We taught you in high school that photons are small amounts of energy. Energy is a system property. Conserved properties don't have spatial scale/size. Absolutely everything you see around you, both matter and radiation are quantum effects. They can not be explained with classical physics. Why any of that exists at all was the great mystery of the 19th century that got resolved with the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early 20th.
28:52 Ok let me explain what superposition means. This business of saying that a superposed state means that something exists in two different states at the same time is fundamentally flawed, at least when you say that the states coexist in the same universe. What I am anticipating Sean will come round to is the Everettian explanation and what Everett really means is that the wave function of the universe is a linear superposition of two different states where the cat is awake along with the observer who sees it awake and another where the cat is asleep with the observer viewing it as asleep and there is a probability amplitude associated with each. In other words the cat and the observer are entangled with each other and the wave function is a linear superposition of these entangled states. From the perspective of the wave function of the universe, it’s in a linear superposition of the state with asleep cat and its observer and the rest of the universe and the opposite state along with the rest of the universe. The point of departure from the Everettian point of view that we would like to make is the fact that the universe already chose one of these states at its very inception, or from the block universe point of view this state has been existing eternally. This then does away with the notion that both states are equally real and the universe actually splits into two different universes with the different outcomes. For that assumption has to then reckon with the fact that no one knows exactly how the branchings take place or where does the energy for the duplication involved come from. Followers of Everett usually sweep such issues under the carpet, something rather unnecessary if you simply assume that the wave function of the universe is eternal and each and every outcome that we see is what the universe chose for that eternal state. This completely messes up free will BTW. 34:53 Decoherence is in my opinion oversold, for instance if you consider the double slit experiment decoherence would completely mess things up, for you do need two different states to interfere with each other. What happens there is you have two different states one in which the particle goes through one slit and another where it goes through the other and they interfere with each other. Each possibility gives rise to, on the detector a linear superposition of all the possible outcomes of where it lands when it is detected. The universal wave function is in a linear superposition of the myriad outcomes corresponding to each slit in tandem with the rest of the universe and these two different superpositions are again in superposition with each other and that is what gives rise to interference. And finally the measurement chooses the one mandated by the eternal universal wave function. If on the other hand you assume the entanglement with the rest of the universe would make the two different wave functions decohere with respect to each other, then there would not be any interference effects at all. For decoherence has the effect of banishing states in potential superposition into two different universes orthogonal to each other and that is catastrophic for the double slit experiment and all experiments where linear superposition takes place. 35:26 Ok so what is decoherence really militating against? It’s Bohr’s objection that he doesn’t see himself in linear superposition at any time. But that objection is flawed because his existences are in two different universes whose wave functions are in linear superposition with each other and each such component is a ray in Hilbert space that have absolutely no way of talking with each other. The linear superposition of the components are not real unless a measurement takes place and the eternal wave function gets chosen. To be honest, the linear superposition is also a state of the eternal wave function at the intermediate time between two measurements but one in which things are in animated suspension in which in each component of the universal wave function the observer is present but not in touch with his doppelgänger. When the measurement occurs all except one of the doppelgängers get culled when the eternal wave function gets chosen. 39:54 Ok so this business of branching is messy to say the least and assumes among other things the fact that components of the universal wave function never interfere with each other which we demonstrated above to be utterly in contradiction with reality.
The Energy argument: if energy of each branch is, "getting less and less" with time (and ONLY the TOTAL energy is conserved, that was some point presumably at the Big Bang), then how is that not an "observable" effect? It would be strange if this is somehow considered a cause of acceleration of the Universe, because no such mechanism is established on how the energy "thinning" at each branching point is somehow contributing to acceleration of the Universe (and there are many such Universes, each is thinning, and depending on which stage of branching they are in, they will have varying degree of thinning/"acceleration"). The energy issue should be perhaps more crucial than any other. There is something missing in how QM (or QFT) is applied to the whole Universe (ie lack of gravity, not just at a quantum level, but a proper formulation that "emerges" at the classical level).
@@maxborn7400 He mistook the wave function for a description of the individual physics system. That is not what a wave function is. In actuality it is a description of the unmeasured quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. of an abstract notion that is based on an infinite repetition of the same quantum mechanical experiment. That mistake will naturally blow up the number of physical states by infinity, which is exactly what MWI claims. In other words... Everett and his followers can't even count to one. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I guess it boils down to what one considers a wave function to be: an abstraction or a "real" entity describing interactions/systems. There is no more information to be obtained than what is 'inside" the wave function, so some people say it is a description of a given system - maybe too idealised because there's always some correlation with surroundings, and wave/particle nature are just two extremes of that correlation. I also find it a bit of a leap, when people start talking about the wave function/wave packet like it's an actual thing "evolving" just without a measurement process. A more accurate way to saying, "a wave function evolves" would be "if we measured an ensemble of this given system at this point in time, it will have a probability amplitude like so" - which is admittedly a mouthful. I have had this debate with some people once and you would be surprised how acerbic and visceral reaction people have to understanding this simple fact. Incidentally, *Max Born*, was the one who told us how exactly to think of a wave function. But the issue of measurement remains in a more complicated way, and I think it's a deeper problem of having a consistent picture of quantised gravity (or even just including classical GR properly in the Standard Model framework). We can be very precise and still end up at a problem: quantum mechanics tells us that states of particles can entangle with surroundings (i.e., when we make measurements, the probability distributions would agree with an entangled state description). At some point, as Carroll had shown, there will be a massive wave function containing all these entangled possibilities, spanning all of the Universe, in principle - again, if we made measurements on larger and larger number of particles/systems, probability distributions would agree with the entangled/correlated description. The issue is to assume that we can do this process *ad infinitum* to every last particle in the Universe. Gravity has not been consistently included in this formulation, and that is at least one source of the "paradox"/multiworld problem. Penrose is one of the few people who is now seriously considering the issue of what happens if a superposition state of a particle is introduced in a gravity field behaving as per GR. His idea seems to be that the wave function would still "collapse" at some point, because now the whole of the gravity metric is acting like the cat in Schrodinger's cat experiment.
@@maxborn7400 The wave function was always an abstract and it will always be an abstract. One can't even measure it. And that ends the discussion about MWI. It's simply intellectual nonsense. ;-)
Be-cause-effect the exponential, exponentiation-ness designated "e" unity-connection or ONE-INFINITY reciprocation at Pi-bifurcation emitter-receiver log-antilog recirculation is the constant self-defining explanation->existence of 2-ness as one mono-dualistic POV "Truth in Labelling", all potential positioning possibilities are point-line-circle axial-tangential orthogonal-normal reciprocation-recirculation representations of the Universal Wave-packaging Fusion-Fission Function.
humans have energy, we create and destroy without much thought. id collapse to if i had a fully matured energy specie in front of me trying to measure and poke and prod. also my opinion, if you catch me in tube as im transiting space time. im deff not showing which way im escaping. love the wave shotgun. that lil guy gave you so many possible routes you think its a wave. lol best molecular juke of the Ages. think of energy as animals behave on earth. the Bond every creature shares is because we are all being pulled towards our copy. i will watch, thank you for free knowledge.
41:00 I would suggest the reality spectrum is what allows for there to be a convergence instead of a chaotic self supporting branch. The double slit experiment: the electron could hit in any of those resonance locations but a convergence forces it to ultimately take one path over another. As you proceed closer to the point of data transfer, the variables become fewer. Entropy. Are electrons truly flying around? Or are they merely the field that responds to the energy (data) and we focus on as the operator? What is more important? The guitar string or the vibration it can make?
At 21:00, exquisite diagrammatic representation of mono-dualistic interference in 0-1-2-ness superposition, reciprocation-recirculation i-reflection differentiate of e-Pi-i interference of elemental constant connection, of ONE-INFINITY Singularity = Universe Eternity-now in QM-TIME Completeness.
Learning quantum mechanics can be utterly bewildering at first, and the Copenhagen interpretation helps us to organise our thoughts. Why don't we just knuckle under and accept it permanently? Well I would like to repeat the Clauser/Aspect experiment with one of the detectors made of antimatter, and I have a handwaving theory which predicts that Bell's over-correlation will be suppressed (or alternatively let's just correlate one degree of freedom with another). The experiment won't be done any time soon, and recruiting lab technicians has been problematic. Let's consider exploring the situation by computer simulation. The Copenhagen interpretation in its doctrinaire form would need to say that such a simulation is impossible. I think it is possible. The simulation needs to make use of a random number generator alongside solving big systems of differential equations. With a RNG available we have the Protean system and the Vernam cipher available as well. We're in business, and it's just a Von Karman problem of working out exactly how to use the RNG. The Protean system is where pressing any button reseeds the RNG as a side effect, probably by reference to the time of pressing the button, but possibly by using the next available Premium Bond number. Buttons will be provided to do time reversals and Lorentz boosts, for example. Everyone should know about ERNIE and Premium Bonds, even if they are not British. Everyone should know what a Vernam cipher or a one-time pad is anyway regardless of anything said here. My definition of "random" equates to reliable Vernam cipher, one that we can use to communicate with our aircraft carriers without fear of ambush. Everyone should know the allusion.
Wrong(?), I do agree with Professor Carroll, except when I dont, which is one of those "Nearly is as good as a mile" when missing the Mark.., ie things like that Measurement Problem everyone knows about, ..complicated and messy Quantum Computational Mechanics. For myself, the measuring operation is a navigational question of how to arrive at a projected logical destination, which on the surface of planet Earth is the Observable time-timing sync-duration Longitude Problem of determining a distance by precise relative-timing ratio-rates in 3D-T Perspective Principle so as to be able to position the intersection of orthogonal-normal axial-tangential alignment of, for example, an on-ship survey sighting of Astronomical Positioning relative to the surface of the Ocean.., it is messy to do it the old way now we have GPS relative-timing, accurate timing modulation clocks in simplified precision measurement techniques. Thanks to Professor Susskind's ER=EPR shell-horizon envelope-shaping holography of navigational dimensionality, a more comprehensive thought experiment of probabilistic correlations in temporal positioning is possible, in conjunction with Euler's Unit Circle derivivation, instantaneous e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity sync-duration here-now-forever flat-space ground-state vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective.
I had the pleasure of meeting Schrodinger's grand-daughter at a conference 30 years ago. I asked after her grandfather's cat but she wasn't sure whether it was dead or alive.
Интересно получается коли анализировать Вами сказанное " множество копий". Выходит материальные процессы образующие тела от зачатия ( вероятно естественный интеллект механики материальных процессов "естественного отбора, и цикличности иерархических процессов" дошёл до такой сложности). отличается от тех процессов когда в тело приходит Человек со своими желаниями и возможностями. Довольно таки сложная картина получается," намного сложней этого кота которого никто не видел".
Imagine that the electron is a soap-bubble-like 3D wave similar to the surface of a golf ball where the dimples represent the waves of the bubble. When one "pokes" it with an observational instrument, this "bubble" of energy colipases to a single point where were "see" it at a particle. This is the best analogy of duality that I can conceive. However, it does imply a mechanism that eliminates the 2 worlds possibility. That's OK with me as I find the 2 worlds theory to be nonsense.
Э э э ребяты, да какие волны могут быть при потоке частиц? Что то напутано при представлении движении частиц потоком по траектории волной. Попробуем проанализировать опыт с двумя щелями, коли поток частиц движется по прямой, то, при прохождении щели возникнет кавитация или завихрение. Что то тут слабо проработано с точки зрения механики ( каких то не хватает знаний о процессах движения потока или всё же потоков), относительно анализа движения частиц волной. Выходит " О сколько нам открытий чудных готовит просвещенья дух" А.С. Пушкин.
Collapse means the probability wave no longer exists. It is replaced by a particle in a single location. That's what Bohr thought happened when we observe particles. Decoherence means that nothing can ever communicate with its "other self" on another universe once the universes have split from each other.
@@schmetterling4477 Because you say so? You are very fond of your own opinions - these and others you have posted. It's almost as if you think they are meaningful.
@@beenaplumber8379 Because nobody has ever seen the collapse of a mathematical abstract and decoherence only gets you to a quantum version of the Poincare Recurrence theorem, which is not what you want. All of this is trivial undergrad physics. Did you ever take undergrad physics? ;-)
Interesting perspective on time..Leave it to quantum physicists to see the whole universe(s) in a peculiar mathematical construct and then when the subject of time comes up- they run to Thermodynamics (??!!??). They have got to be joking. Yes, the second law describes entropy and things do run down. But is that all there is (I don't think that the twin paradox mentions entropy)? It makes me suspicious that the other grand theories, the many worlds, many universes, many you and I's are just so much stuff. Yes, he can give you explanations- but I don't think there is much in the way of conviction. Do we know or do we not know -that is the question (not "to be or not to be"- sorry Will).
I think learning digital audio and how it relates to music holds the key, to understanding the universe & our minds…because a square-wave is simultaneously 1,0 & infinity, nested over and over in a fractal structure. Each layer partially separated by a local Nyquist limit. I think? That framework can give rise to infinite fields. We are a portion of the field…we are not flowing through the field…we are patterns composed of interactions of fields. That is the very definition of information…stable patterns. This framework allows for cascading emergent properties (physicals laws as well as mental models…consciousness). Again, I think…one last point…in audio, a single frequency can be considered a dimension. Remember if it’s data, it can go into a table, once in a table, any pivot can be considered a separate dimension.
He makes it sound like many worlds is the obvious conclusion, maybe he’s right and he’s a lot smarter than me, but I think there’s just too much we don’t know
No, he doesn't know more than you, even though he may be smarter on average. We know exactly where this nonsense comes from. If you read Everett's thesis, which is the origin of MWI, then you will find that he misunderstood the mathematics of the Copenhagen interpretation in the second sentence of that document. What follows is a giant error based on that misunderstanding.
@@kas8131 Nothing. This is just utter bullshit. If you want to understand quantum mechanics then you will have to learn the Copenhagen interpretation inside and out. The usual textbooks are of not much help, I am afraid. They are causing a lot of confusion, actually. The problem stems from the historical development. Planck and Einstein correctly identified field quantization as the cause of all the radiation and matter in the universe. Both immediately got cold feet and tried to explain what they had learned with semi-classical models. Einstein, in particular, was adamant (and completely wrong) that quanta had to be Newtonian corpuscles. Because relativistic field theory is very hard, it was impossible to develop in the early years, so people tried to bootstrap their way up through a non-relativistic model that you know as the Schroedinger equation. The SE describes reversible energy transfers in a quantum system (or, better, in an ensemble of quantum systems). That, of course, is not enough. It leads to the problem that Schroedinger was pointing out with his cat in the box Gedankenexperiment. How can reversible dynamic lead to classical outcomes? The answer is that it can't. That's why Copenhagen uses a second formula named after Born to predict the dynamics of irreversible energy transfers between two systems: the quantum system and the measurement system. In totality Copenhagen is an irreducible whole: reversible, unitary dynamics in closed systems, the Born rule in irreversible energy exchanges with the environment. It's clean, it's beautiful, it works. It also makes perfect sense once you understand that nature is, at the core, irreversible. All of reality is caused by that irreversibility which leads to long term memory. It's not caused by some magical splitting of the universe in branches. Going back to history: this irreversibility aspect can be found in some papers of Heisenberg from around 1927, I believe and then in an article by Mott from 1929. But then enters a mathematician called von Neumann around 1931 and he writes a beautiful book about the solution theory of the Schroedinger equation that strips all these physical insights away. What he leaves you with is a handful of linear algebra and functional analysis that is void of any obvious physical meaning. That's what we are still teaching in QM 101 classrooms in university. Most students leave those classrooms knowing how to calculate quantum mechanics, but they don't have the slightest clue why the calculations work the way they work. Enter absolutely clueless people like Everett and they mess even that math up like there is no tomorrow. None of it was intended this way, but to find that out you have to go back to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics papers and read them word for word and symbol for symbol.
I want to note that this feeling of “too much we don’t know” is just vibes. Many-worlds is named in a way that people think many worlds is an assumption instead of a consequence. If the many worlds was an assumption, then it would count against it. Any consequence of premises you already accept doesn’t cost you extra probability, you get it for free. What Carroll said about Many worlds being the simplest interpretation wasn’t just his opinion, physicists agree that it makes the fewest assumptions. Other interpretations like Copenhagen tack on unnecessary assumption that are themselves not well posed and furthermore don’t explain anything new and just fit with our sensibilities. Carrol talked about this. He also said that the issue with many worlds is that it farther removed from our everyday experience. There are 0 mathematical problems with many worlds. Everything is well defined. It is debatable that it is even an interpretation. If we lived in a different world without quantum mechanics, and mathematicians discovered this cool mathematical topic which extended probability theory to complex number, no one would think of privileging certain paths, and no one would think of privileging a certain group of particles (observer). At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics make no reference to cats, nor do they to the arrow of time. Also for many worlds, there only is one wave function, not many for each of the ‘worlds’. It’s so bare bones that it doesn’t make reference to decoherence or how worlds split or that there are even separate worlds. What carrol says is that to truly understand quantum mechanics, we gotta cut away unnecessary assumptions and be able to derive them as consequences. Mathematicians do this too. You gain a better understanding of a topic if you are able to remove unnecessary assumptions down to the bare minimum.
@@kas8131 I recommend becoming an advanced student if this is what you want to do with your life. I would also recommend learning to play the piano if you want to know how to play Chopin and if you really want that Super Bowl ring, coach, then you should start playing the game at a young age so you can be a professional by the time you hit your mid-20s. Dudes... I don't know what you think physics is. It's not something that you can understand in your five seconds of spare time as amateurs.
U Model Thanks for your well produced video If you add all the possible wave functions together will in make a “U” shape wave or square wave function? I have been trying to describe the “U” shape wave that is produced in my model. The “U” shape wave is produced as the loading increases/ just before the wave function shifts to the next higher energy level. Your viewers might be interested in watching the test video the model. See the load verse deflection graph in white paper. czcams.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/video.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3
I wrote this in reply to someone, but I think I'll post it as a comment in itself. The person was asking what happens when a particle collides with another in this picture. To answer that, you can think of two kinds of collisions: ones that preserve coherence and ones that create decoherence. The kind that preserves coherence is like an ocean wave rolling over a pebble, where you might get a little ripple, but the waves go on, able to still interfere with other parts of itself. The one that creates decoherence is like rapids where a wave runs a massive rock and shatters into indistinguishable froth, where you can take each point in the froth as a "particle" now decohered from all the particles around it, each one now going out as their own waves as if the others weren't there. The double slit experiment is more like the first one. The slit only ruffles the edges of the light wave a bit, but otherwise it plows through still coherent with other waves coming in from other slits. As for an example of the second, most everything in biology is hot and frothy, and a great example is when part of a spherical light wave coming in hits part of the wave making up the light-sensitive protein for a rod in your retina, called rodopsin, or more specifically when it hits the electron waves creating a double carbon bond on the trans leg. That collision will create a froth of jumbled waves. If you picked just one point in that froth and followed it as if it were a particle, you'd see it look like a light particle interacting with an electron and pushing it into a higher energy state, which (still following the ensuing froth being made all over the place one connecting point to another) breaks the double bond, which kicks the trans leg of the protein to the cis side like a loaded spring, which makes a conformal change of the whole protein, which pulls on a connected g-protein, forcing it to have a conformal change (recall this is all a mess of froth, but we're following individual points of it) signaling to one of the nerves feeding to the optic nerve, which creates a cascade of signals up the brain through the visual cortex and parietal & frontal lobes so you say "I saw a dot here". But going back to our original in-coming light wave, you could also measure a distant part of that same spherical light wave as it collides with an electron making up a distant tree leaf. The froth coming off of that leaf is now kicked out of coherence with the electron wave that made that conformal change in that rodopsin protein, except for one single point in the rodopsin froth that's in coherence with it properties. When points from the froth-waves coming in from the leaf collision arrive to the froth-waves from the rodopsin electron (probably via interaction with countless other things in the environment, air and dust particles, in the same connect-the-dot way as above), it will only be left in coherence with a point of froth, one "electron", that's still maintaining the double bond (unless that electron was hit by another light wave), so that conservation of momentum and energy, etc., are preserved, and the connect-the-dot froth path from that never signaled to the brain that it saw that light. If you follow every single "particle" of froth down every path they'd take, you'd have an infinite number of "observations", some of them belonging to observers who saw the original light and many more who did not. That's glossing over a lot of details, but I think it gives a good mental image of what's going on at least, or anyone that knows better please correct me. All of the worlds in the Many Worlds Interpretation are flowing right on top of each other, but when they're decohered from each other, they just fly over each other like indistinguishable froth. It's only when different parts of it remain in coherence that you have physical interactions. Something like that.
@@KalumbatschHe said collapse of the wave function gives rise to consciousness. What's the comp sci halting function got to do with wave function collapse in the microtubules? When did Penrose & Hammerhof say that? I read the Emperor's New Mind. It's not in there. Where are you getting this halting problem and microtubules from?
@@jimmydoolitle3764 You'd have to wade through more of his big ball of very creative high-level nonsense to piece that together. Try "Shadows of the Mind" next. Or don't. There are better things to do with your time.
@@Kalumbatsch I read Shadows of the mind. Personally I think the brain is too much of a noisy thermal environment to support superposition without immediate decoherence. But then again I don't have a Nobel prize in physics like Penrose.
@@jimmydoolitle3764 No doubt he is a brilliant mathematician, but he got the Nobel Prize for theoretical work on black holes and not for the wild speculation bordering on pseudoscientific nonsense.
Hello from Kazakhstan. We can create an educational and practical device and practically master Einstein’s theories of relativity or obtain, for example, new physics: Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The speed of light, regardless of the source, within the “framework of the dominant gravitational field” This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part.
The waves are litearlly orthogonal, so 'parallel universes' is just a misnomer. They are just part of the same universe but waves that are independent of each other. And believing in orthogonal electrons and not believing in orthogonal entire 'universe waves' is just oafish; you cannot believe in quantum mechanics without also believing in 'many worlds' unless you are so low IQ that you don't see this blatant contradiction.
I can only assume you've based this assertion on your lifetime of serious quantum physics study and numerous papers exploring and quantifying alternative theories?
Lucid presentation, but I'm not buying the thinner/weighting Many Worlds Interpretation. Every quantum interaction everywhere in the Universe splits current observed reality into an infinite number of alternate realities... It's worse than the 10^500 realities possible under string theory. Given a virtual infinity of infinities, you can explain anything, so pragmatically, you've described nothing. I don't believe failing to find a case where the Schrödinger equation doesn't work is the equivalent of proving that Everett's MWI is actually real. Ghiradi, Rimini, Weber posit that the Schrödinger equation isn't the whole story, so even if you can't find where Schrödinger fails, that doesn't prove that's all the description you need. Too much hand-waving.
The Schroedinger equation was never the whole story. The far more interesting part of the story was always the Born rule. All these people simply fail to understand why it has to be that way. :-)
Lucid? Did you watch the lecture? He never tries to prove anything. He's just following the current theory and talking about where it leads. Did you expect theoretical physics to be pragmatic? Did you know that Schrödinger didn't think his equation was the whole story either? Does anyone?
I love Sean Carroll!
This is probably the fifth time i’ve listened to some version of this talk.
Every time, i’m convinced that i’m mostly understanding him… until an hour later, and then i’m lost again. 😆
That’s a testament to his speaking and an indictment of my learning.
I'm on that same page...
Just came from Sean's talk at the Royal Institution.
you understood it in another world
@@jamescollier3 That’s the ticket! 😄
I watched him over covid.. it was fine if I forgot, i could just watch him again the next day
Wow! Sean Carroll’s lectures are amazing.
I had a dream where my dog was explaining quantum mechanics over coffee and a cigarette.
When I woke up I told him that if he was going to smoke he'd have to do it in the garage.
He has a gift. Always engaging.
except for the non-proveable assumptions
@@KendraAndTheLaw A very McDonald’s 1$ menu comment. I commend your mediocrity.
"I've been trying to extract the world from the quantum wave function". I...I've been giving serious thought to organizing the garage, so I guess you win, Sean.
I'm just hanging out listening to music and eating bananas 🍌
Magnificent lecture. Such passion and clarity!
Wow! this has explained so much. Thanks, Sean
Loved the lecture. Well done!
Amazing lecture and amazing lecturer
Thankyou
Loving the Mr Rogers attire here! 😎 I must say that I so much love & appreciate the patience he has with audience members during the Q&As following his talks, as folks ask him the same questions again & again, and he responds with such warmth & kindness to each & every one ❤️ many thanks to the university staff for sharing this one with us as well 💕
Sean Carroll is the Mr. Rogers of physics. You nailed it.
Great as usual from the Professor. He's on "The Great Course" if anyone interested.
Sean is the best
Watching during the 4th quarter of The Game 2023 because I know we’re gonna win! Go Blue! Go Sean Carroll! 💙💛
Sean is that presenter that makes you feel smarter. The complete opposite of my self. Great talk. Now I need to read more about decoherence
Sean Carroll is genius, shining the light on how our world actually works.
We shouldn't exist, because far too many things have gone exactly our way many times each and every second since T=0, but many worlds explains how we all got just so dam lucky....
If you don't understand it yet, keep learning.
bwahahaha
I had a friend who was a Rhodes Scholar
and had visited Schrödinger in his home.
I told her his cat was obviously a tabby
as the stripes were a diffraction pattern.
She agreed.
😂
This is hard stuff. I put my cat in a box I could hear him the whole time.
Universe splitter - app that will branch the universe into several copies!!
What an amazing lecture, the connection between entanglement and energy was very pleasantly brought up.
A passing thought should also cause all kinds of new universes to appear, if we assume neural function is part of thinking. Sean says each quantum event causes two universes to be split off - one in which the event happened and one in which it didn't. Neural transmission involves all kinds of quantum events.
@@beenaplumber8379 Our thoughts would be an unreliable source of quantum randomness as they are an unreliable source of randomness in general. We don't produce all possible thoughts with equal likelihood, which is a good thing. The whole reason our brains are useful is they are more likely to produce certain thoughts than others.
@@paulfoss5385 Many Worlds would suggest that our brains do produce all possible thoughts. We only experience a narrow stream of thoughts in the same way an electron is seen as a particle when we look at it. We are in a superposition of thinking everything we can think of, but in our universe, we experience only the thoughts we're aware of. We can have no experience of what our brains get up to in adjacent universes, but there's enough of them to accommodate everything we didn't think here in this one.
I realize I'm blurring the distinction between the brain and the mind. My mind is my own, it exists in this universe, and it is only capable of limited thinking, which only I can experience. It is where my identity lies. My brain is what I'm talking about when I say it's thinking of all possible things. It's not part of my inner self, but as a physical object, if we assume it generates or mediates thought, it certainly is subject to quantum mechanics, including Many Worlds (if that turns out to be correct), in which case there is a universe in which every possible state of my brain exists.
I'm not sure what randomness has to do with this. I don't think we've found anything that's truly random. I understand nuclear decay is the closest nature gets to randomness.
@@paulfoss5385the brain acts as a filter for a universal mind.
Sean’s explanation is the best lecture on QM that I don’t understand.
😂
He did a series of lectures from home early in the COVID crisis called The Biggest Ideas in the Universe. He explains relativity and quantum mechanics in increasing detail, but he starts from a basic physics level. Here's a link to the first video in the playlist of that series, in case you're interested: czcams.com/video/HI09kat_GeI/video.html
Sean made a great choice heading to J.H. University
well done
Our observation doesn’t really change it the way you think but the patterns in our head can be recreated. Look at all the stuff that used to be “unreal”
Спасибо!
Sean Carroll is the exact kind of thinker we need in this world. Grounded in facts and not afraid to push against the current model and understandings. Most scientist are not willing to take that next step of creativity and trust in the data to make some well founded yet unintuitive conclusions. Or rather possible conclusions. If I could select 3 people in the world to have dinner with, he would definitely make the list.
Why are you telling us that you have bad taste in people? ;-)
He is the high priest of the current model and won't give a thought to other ideas.
@@JerseyLynne MWI is not even the current model. It's undergrad level bullshit.
@@JerseyLynne based off what I can tell, it seems he HAS given thought to the other ideas and come to the conclusion they are incorrect or need work.
If we’re looking at the Dunning Kruger curve I’d say he’s put in the time, effort and work to be placed on the high end of the x axis. His confidence is founded on decades of study and deep thinking therefore he does, and should, feel confident when he speaks. When he doesn’t know something, he’s very honest and admits he does not know. Most high priests don’t do that sort of thing.
Wow! It makes so much sense. And, in a sense this view becomes Einstein-Caroll ‘s interpretation of QM.
It only makes sense to people who can't count. ;-)
Could quantum gravity simply define an entanglement minima? Excellent discussion. Thank you.
Thinking about Quantum Mechanics is like staring into The Sun...
I think Sean Carrol solved the connection between gravity and quantum mechanics.
Ur funny
Is it possible to state this all in layman’s terms as this: that classical physics is a subset of quantum physics and so we have to make classical physics obey the rules of its “parent” not vice versa. And related to that, we might say that Einstein’s inertial frames of reference are only tools to allow us to understand the universe, but aren’t really real. In other words you have to think of the observer as “static” to measure the rest of the universe, even though everything including the observer is in “super position.”
I thought I was the static observer.
Nothing in the universe is ever in superposition. Superposition is a property of the theory. It's not a property of nature.
Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015).
Вопросы лектору просто изумительны! Что же такое время и где оно может существовать как реальность ( о, до чего дошли, время ставим под сомнение, где оно может быть, а где временя как единое целое при взгляде со стороны)? Попробуем проанализировать что есть материя, материя это цикличность от начала и до завершения либо перетекания в другой процесс, где такое же начало но уже с внешней стороны поток переместился в пространстве, однако, цикл движения продолжается для внутреннего наблюдателя находящегося на границе потока, повторение картины внешних изменений. А цикличность значит время, откуда же время возьмётся если нет движения или начала? С другой стороны, пространство и в нём образование, значит пространство наполнено и наполненность отдельного образования находящегося в пространстве отличается от окружающей среды. А что если предложить, что ( да уж, так далеко зайдём).
To paraphrase Feynman “Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics,doesn’t understand quantum mechanics “.
Could the big bang be a critical state in the most fundamental field in which space is broken by a super massive black hole and with inflation caused by the energy of reconnecting field lines?
People have been familiar with the many worlds, for ages now. Personally, I have not visited a 3rd world country as of yet, but I have visited a 2nd world country, and I am currently living in a 1st world country.
Energy moves into Hilbert space to create isolated inflation curvature?
Universe branching is binary search, which will eventually stop when it finds number 42
The data points to the realization that there's a good chance we live in a simulation. The code is not written until you look behind a certain door and then the room is rendered but not until.
My fav fan boy b.s. monologist!😅
Read Don Hoffman😅
When you dont looking at stuff is vave function because you see whole distribution, aka all possible states at the same time smeared out creating an appearance form (atom, molecules, stuff). But when you measure you take a slice at a specific time, so of course when you look you see only a certain state which looks like particle not wave. So that's that I agine a propeller of an old airplane. When it rotates it seemed like a disk, but when it stops you see it's only two blades. On micro level of this subatomic particles the time frames we talk are so small or if you will do short that you see the element in all possible.positions. but when you measure it's location of course you take away time completely and you can see the stuff at only a specific position. That's all. So not sure what's the big confusion. In those small subatomic levels time frames are so small that then can even reverse in time, hence stuff seems to pop in from nothing and pop out into nothing. That's when it actually goes back in time
Yes... that is totally not how it works. ;-)
Good job five stars 😅😮🎉
I'm totally obsessed with this subject,,,couldn't you say that ,,the wave becomes a particle on its first impact with the closest object,, ?
P.s. & it is Saturday 😊
You run into the problem that "object" is not well defined. By "object", do you simply mean another particle? Because 2 particles can interact to become entangled without collapsing.
This is the whole measurement problem in a nutshell. Measurement is not well defined, same as object is not well defined.
With the many worlds interpretation, "measurement" just means entanglement with the environment, so that anyone within that environment also becomes entangled with the measured particle, thus "collapsing" the state into one of the possibilities.
@@TijmenZwaan heyy thanks, ,,that's interesting & got me thinking 👍
@spaceinyourface
There are never particles. There are fields, and they change in a wave-like way. "Particle" is our macroscopic, limited observer interpretation of fields interacting with each other.
@@CliffSedge-nu5fvso, there's nothing out there?!?
@@JerseyLynne
Out where?
There is a lot of nothing everywhere, but there are also quantum fields that have energy. Fields interacting with each other can be described in simple human-perspective terms as particle motion.
8:31
in which case solving this equation is like half of the time you spend in the world. This is the famous Schrödinger equation
are these slides / powerpoints available to download
No results found for "the state of a quantum system is given by a wave function"
@@hamidmazuji It isn't. Only the state of the ensemble is. :-)
"Can a cat measure it?"
What a silly question. Cats don't measure. Cats rule.
Rulers measure.
++
This seems to me to be a good way to explain why when we look around, we can see a little bit of quantum weirdness, but not a lot of it. The Universe is splitting into more branches very frequently, but each branch rapidly loses its ability to influence the other branches. All the famous "interference effect" quantum weirdness is just traces of the rapidly fading connections between different branches. All this is just metaphor though unless and until somebody can turn it into math. Likewise, entanglement being somehow the way that the connection between geometry and energy arises is a very appealing idea.
Yes, that was nonsense. ;-)
Have you ever been of two minds about something?
That is what superposition feels like.
Dear Professor, Time-space, is simply motion or relative velocity anything else in the geometric universe? If space is contracted to a certain level where the velocity of any object can be attained the velocity of light then how gravity can be defined? Is gravity simply energy in this time-space while gravity is mass-related in classical mechanics
How many variations of the two slit experiment have been.....ie......3 slits.....round holes...... multiple 2 slit experiments at the same time.....etc ....?
Dear Professor, Whenever not looking it seems like a wave function or energy but whenever looking, it looks like a particle. Does it mean visible things are matter while twin invisible things are energy? So, matter (particle) -energy (light) entangling; both the gravitational field (mass associated) and EM field (charged particle, electron) as conservative energies hold the whole transformation and conservation of energy in the universe. (Because the light and electron similarity in the double slit experiment and the quantum phenomena (particle and wave nature) make them alike and accepting! )
Yes, that was nonsense. ;-)
I’d love to see a chart with all the modern marvels that can be attributed to quantum field theory… including all aspects of theories that have stayed theories and have yet to produce real world accomplishments.
Quantum field theory is what you need to understand high energy physics and some parts of nuclear and atomic physics. Beyond that it is relatively useless. Having said that, I would suggest you read up on the word "theory". You are using it wrong. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 huh?
@@simongentry What are you surprised about? Newtonian mechanics has stayed a theory despite the fact that it's completely and utterly wrong about the structure of the world. That won't change, either. A theory is an approximation that describes the world well within its range of application. For Newtonian mechanics that everything from bridge building to space navigation within the solar system.
@@schmetterling4477 Would love to talk about this over coffee!
@@simongentry You are buying. ;-)
Наконец то понял, есть процессы в пространстве которые до сих пор слабо понимаемы, такие как магнитный процесс, и эти процессы находятся в движении потоками частиц материи составляющее пространство, в отличии от материальных образований уже крупных и границы которых можем фиксировать приборами и анализировать (которые мы называем всякими частицами). Получается, при движении потоков этих частиц, при определённых обстоятельствах складывающихся в конкретном пространстве может образоваться частица, а находящаяся в другом пространстве нами зафиксированная частица может потеряв энергию превратится в поток частиц нами не фиксируемый. Всё вроде просто с точки зрения анализа механики материальных процессов.
About the cat. Need explanation.
When i look at him, it may be either asleep or awake.
But with electron, when i observe it, he is always a particle, that is an awaken cat.
How so!??😮
Being the physics nitwit I am, my problem with the "many worlds" notion is: when opening the box to find the cat (with all its electrons) asleep, why/how would that cause that entire scene (including all of its electrons) to duplicate itself into existence with a cat that's awake at the moment of opening that box, and does this include the lab the box was placed in; the building; the street or the entire town, country; planet? Or, in short: no matter the electron's form or state, where do the extra electrons come from that make up the other cat, its box and researcher who opened it etc. etc. ? If anyone reading this, could and would try to point out the flaw in this question of mine, I'd very much appreciate it!
The answer is that Everett was just as much of a nitwit as you are. ;-)
Our body take in fractions of reality through the senses. We detect patterns through these and see things that are thought of as intangible but somehow still existing. A fraction of reality is a memory since a memory is grown into us. That fraction connected to a pattern leads us to connection other things with that pattern and evolving it. The unreal is a fraction of reality existing as us partially in our mind like a pattern connected to that other reality but it’s not another reality, that is potential. The unreal has potential to be real but guide reality to create it. That guiding insight is us though and not an invisible guy in the sky. People have just misunderstood. Like how you look through a kaleidoscope and see how the smaller scale is connected to the larger scale like sacred geometry.
the big bang was quantum and quantum ever since..
Unfortunately, it is never explained in such lectures how all this is determined experimentally. For example, how can you observe a single photon? But what makes this lecture so special is above all the impressive and sonorous voice of the lecturer...
You should read the sales literature of Hamamatsu. They make great photomultiplier tubes. ;-)
It's well documented that the eye can observe a single photon!
@@ivocanevo I would doubt that. The accepted literature value is closer to half a dozen to a dozen. Otherwise you would be seeing cosmic rays all the time. Every photomultiplier tube picks that stuff up constantly.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
Yeah, Tesla said a lot of nonsensical things. :-)
31:00 Don't get me wrong, I admire Professor Carroll and have read a number of his books with thorough enjoyment and much learning - but, what I still can't digest is that quantum behavior is observed at the tiniest scales, but even the smallest particles we can discern with our eyes, like a grain of sand contains more atoms then the universe contains stars.
Scale matters.
For instance,
Individuals are thoughtful and considerate, but put hundreds or thousands of individuals into a town square listening to a passionate orator and they become an unthinking mob, ready to behave in ways, the individuals never would.
Scale matters, why is that aspect so often glossed over in these discussions?
Scale is the last thing that matters for the observation of quantum effects. You were simply not paying enough attention in high school when they explained the photoelectric effect to you. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Rather then insult, why not try a little explanation? As for scale doesn't matter - look around, that's being even sillier than I am with my question.
Have anything substantive to share?
@@petermiesler9452 The photelectric effect can be measured with nothing but a macroscopic metal plate, a macroscopic UV light source, a macroscopic battery, a macroscopic potentiometer, a macroscopic voltmeter and a macroscopic amp-meter. The Planck spectrum requires nothing but a macroscopic hot body and a macroscopic spectrometer. The yellow sodium emission lines can be seen with a macroscopic flame, a macroscopic pinch of salt and a macroscopic prism. Dude... if all you want is attention, just ask me. I will give you as much of it as you want without having to go through physics bullshitting. :-)
@@schmetterling4477If you’re going to comment, you should understand the damned question. If this happens at the scale of the photon & smaller, why TF would it have macroscopic real-world effects?
@@christopherhamilton3621 Photons don't have a scale. We taught you in high school that photons are small amounts of energy. Energy is a system property. Conserved properties don't have spatial scale/size. Absolutely everything you see around you, both matter and radiation are quantum effects. They can not be explained with classical physics. Why any of that exists at all was the great mystery of the 19th century that got resolved with the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early 20th.
28:52 Ok let me explain what superposition means. This business of saying that a superposed state means that something exists in two different states at the same time is fundamentally flawed, at least when you say that the states coexist in the same universe. What I am anticipating Sean will come round to is the Everettian explanation and what Everett really means is that the wave function of the universe is a linear superposition of two different states where the cat is awake along with the observer who sees it awake and another where the cat is asleep with the observer viewing it as asleep and there is a probability amplitude associated with each. In other words the cat and the observer are entangled with each other and the wave function is a linear superposition of these entangled states. From the perspective of the wave function of the universe, it’s in a linear superposition of the state with asleep cat and its observer and the rest of the universe and the opposite state along with the rest of the universe. The point of departure from the Everettian point of view that we would like to make is the fact that the universe already chose one of these states at its very inception, or from the block universe point of view this state has been existing eternally. This then does away with the notion that both states are equally real and the universe actually splits into two different universes with the different outcomes. For that assumption has to then reckon with the fact that no one knows exactly how the branchings take place or where does the energy for the duplication involved come from. Followers of Everett usually sweep such issues under the carpet, something rather unnecessary if you simply assume that the wave function of the universe is eternal and each and every outcome that we see is what the universe chose for that eternal state. This completely messes up free will BTW.
34:53 Decoherence is in my opinion oversold, for instance if you consider the double slit experiment decoherence would completely mess things up, for you do need two different states to interfere with each other. What happens there is you have two different states one in which the particle goes through one slit and another where it goes through the other and they interfere with each other. Each possibility gives rise to, on the detector a linear superposition of all the possible outcomes of where it lands when it is detected. The universal wave function is in a linear superposition of the myriad outcomes corresponding to each slit in tandem with the rest of the universe and these two different superpositions are again in superposition with each other and that is what gives rise to interference. And finally the measurement chooses the one mandated by the eternal universal wave function. If on the other hand you assume the entanglement with the rest of the universe would make the two different wave functions decohere with respect to each other, then there would not be any interference effects at all. For decoherence has the effect of banishing states in potential superposition into two different universes orthogonal to each other and that is catastrophic for the double slit experiment and all experiments where linear superposition takes place.
35:26 Ok so what is decoherence really militating against? It’s Bohr’s objection that he doesn’t see himself in linear superposition at any time. But that objection is flawed because his existences are in two different universes whose wave functions are in linear superposition with each other and each such component is a ray in Hilbert space that have absolutely no way of talking with each other. The linear superposition of the components are not real unless a measurement takes place and the eternal wave function gets chosen. To be honest, the linear superposition is also a state of the eternal wave function at the intermediate time between two measurements but one in which things are in animated suspension in which in each component of the universal wave function the observer is present but not in touch with his doppelgänger. When the measurement occurs all except one of the doppelgängers get culled when the eternal wave function gets chosen.
39:54 Ok so this business of branching is messy to say the least and assumes among other things the fact that components of the universal wave function never interfere with each other which we demonstrated above to be utterly in contradiction with reality.
Yes, that was a large load of bullshit. ;-)
1:15:40 Young Sheldon? 😮
The Energy argument: if energy of each branch is, "getting less and less" with time (and ONLY the TOTAL energy is conserved, that was some point presumably at the Big Bang), then how is that not an "observable" effect? It would be strange if this is somehow considered a cause of acceleration of the Universe, because no such mechanism is established on how the energy "thinning" at each branching point is somehow contributing to acceleration of the Universe (and there are many such Universes, each is thinning, and depending on which stage of branching they are in, they will have varying degree of thinning/"acceleration").
The energy issue should be perhaps more crucial than any other. There is something missing in how QM (or QFT) is applied to the whole Universe (ie lack of gravity, not just at a quantum level, but a proper formulation that "emerges" at the classical level).
There is nothing missing. Everett simply made a trivial mistake in the second sentence of his thesis. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 I would be interested to know more details about this, what do you mean?
@@maxborn7400 He mistook the wave function for a description of the individual physics system. That is not what a wave function is. In actuality it is a description of the unmeasured quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. of an abstract notion that is based on an infinite repetition of the same quantum mechanical experiment. That mistake will naturally blow up the number of physical states by infinity, which is exactly what MWI claims. In other words... Everett and his followers can't even count to one. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I guess it boils down to what one considers a wave function to be: an abstraction or a "real" entity describing interactions/systems. There is no more information to be obtained than what is 'inside" the wave function, so some people say it is a description of a given system - maybe too idealised because there's always some correlation with surroundings, and wave/particle nature are just two extremes of that correlation.
I also find it a bit of a leap, when people start talking about the wave function/wave packet like it's an actual thing "evolving" just without a measurement process. A more accurate way to saying, "a wave function evolves" would be "if we measured an ensemble of this given system at this point in time, it will have a probability amplitude like so" - which is admittedly a mouthful. I have had this debate with some people once and you would be surprised how acerbic and visceral reaction people have to understanding this simple fact. Incidentally, *Max Born*, was the one who told us how exactly to think of a wave function.
But the issue of measurement remains in a more complicated way, and I think it's a deeper problem of having a consistent picture of quantised gravity (or even just including classical GR properly in the Standard Model framework). We can be very precise and still end up at a problem: quantum mechanics tells us that states of particles can entangle with surroundings (i.e., when we make measurements, the probability distributions would agree with an entangled state description). At some point, as Carroll had shown, there will be a massive wave function containing all these entangled possibilities, spanning all of the Universe, in principle - again, if we made measurements on larger and larger number of particles/systems, probability distributions would agree with the entangled/correlated description.
The issue is to assume that we can do this process *ad infinitum* to every last particle in the Universe. Gravity has not been consistently included in this formulation, and that is at least one source of the "paradox"/multiworld problem. Penrose is one of the few people who is now seriously considering the issue of what happens if a superposition state of a particle is introduced in a gravity field behaving as per GR. His idea seems to be that the wave function would still "collapse" at some point, because now the whole of the gravity metric is acting like the cat in Schrodinger's cat experiment.
@@maxborn7400 The wave function was always an abstract and it will always be an abstract. One can't even measure it. And that ends the discussion about MWI. It's simply intellectual nonsense. ;-)
Be-cause-effect the exponential, exponentiation-ness designated "e" unity-connection or ONE-INFINITY reciprocation at Pi-bifurcation emitter-receiver log-antilog recirculation is the constant self-defining explanation->existence of 2-ness as one mono-dualistic POV "Truth in Labelling", all potential positioning possibilities are point-line-circle axial-tangential orthogonal-normal reciprocation-recirculation representations of the Universal Wave-packaging Fusion-Fission Function.
Does using a video recorder count as measurement?
Yes. But so does a black piece of cardboard. ;-)
humans have energy, we create and destroy without much thought. id collapse to if i had a fully matured energy specie in front of me trying to measure and poke and prod. also my opinion, if you catch me in tube as im transiting space time. im deff not showing which way im escaping. love the wave shotgun. that lil guy gave you so many possible routes you think its a wave. lol best molecular juke of the Ages. think of energy as animals behave on earth. the Bond every creature shares is because we are all being pulled towards our copy. i will watch, thank you for free knowledge.
A small bull horn can help if your voice is tired
41:00
I would suggest the reality spectrum is what allows for there to be a convergence instead of a chaotic self supporting branch. The double slit experiment: the electron could hit in any of those resonance locations but a convergence forces it to ultimately take one path over another.
As you proceed closer to the point of data transfer, the variables become fewer. Entropy.
Are electrons truly flying around? Or are they merely the field that responds to the energy (data) and we focus on as the operator?
What is more important? The guitar string or the vibration it can make?
The universe cares about observers because the universe is observing itself
Doesn't the universe need an observer to exist?
I see you
At 21:00, exquisite diagrammatic representation of mono-dualistic interference in 0-1-2-ness superposition, reciprocation-recirculation i-reflection differentiate of e-Pi-i interference of elemental constant connection, of ONE-INFINITY Singularity = Universe Eternity-now in QM-TIME Completeness.
Is the relationship between entagled particles a coincidence?
No, it's a consequence of Noether's theorem.
sean carroll goes a long way ,in small doses😃
Learning quantum mechanics can be utterly bewildering at first, and the Copenhagen interpretation helps us to organise our thoughts. Why don't we just knuckle under and accept it permanently?
Well I would like to repeat the Clauser/Aspect experiment with one of the detectors made of antimatter, and I have a handwaving theory which predicts that Bell's over-correlation will be suppressed (or alternatively let's just correlate one degree of freedom with another). The experiment won't be done any time soon, and recruiting lab technicians has been problematic. Let's consider exploring the situation by computer simulation.
The Copenhagen interpretation in its doctrinaire form would need to say that such a simulation is impossible. I think it is possible. The simulation needs to make use of a random number generator alongside solving big systems of differential equations. With a RNG available we have the Protean system and the Vernam cipher available as well. We're in business, and it's just a Von Karman problem of working out exactly how to use the RNG.
The Protean system is where pressing any button reseeds the RNG as a side effect, probably by reference to the time of pressing the button, but possibly by using the next available Premium Bond number. Buttons will be provided to do time reversals and Lorentz boosts, for example. Everyone should know about ERNIE and Premium Bonds, even if they are not British. Everyone should know what a Vernam cipher or a one-time pad is anyway regardless of anything said here. My definition of "random" equates to reliable Vernam cipher, one that we can use to communicate with our aircraft carriers without fear of ambush. Everyone should know the allusion.
Yes, that was a large load of bullshit. ;-)
What are you alluding to, mister... ____?
@@ivocanevo Battle of Midway
Wrong(?), I do agree with Professor Carroll, except when I dont, which is one of those "Nearly is as good as a mile" when missing the Mark.., ie things like that Measurement Problem everyone knows about, ..complicated and messy Quantum Computational Mechanics.
For myself, the measuring operation is a navigational question of how to arrive at a projected logical destination, which on the surface of planet Earth is the Observable time-timing sync-duration Longitude Problem of determining a distance by precise relative-timing ratio-rates in 3D-T Perspective Principle so as to be able to position the intersection of orthogonal-normal axial-tangential alignment of, for example, an on-ship survey sighting of Astronomical Positioning relative to the surface of the Ocean.., it is messy to do it the old way now we have GPS relative-timing, accurate timing modulation clocks in simplified precision measurement techniques.
Thanks to Professor Susskind's ER=EPR shell-horizon envelope-shaping holography of navigational dimensionality, a more comprehensive thought experiment of probabilistic correlations in temporal positioning is possible, in conjunction with Euler's Unit Circle derivivation, instantaneous e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity sync-duration here-now-forever flat-space ground-state vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective.
easier: we are in a quantum computer simulation
I had the pleasure of meeting Schrodinger's grand-daughter at a conference 30 years ago. I asked after her grandfather's cat but she wasn't sure whether it was dead or alive.
If I gave that presentation on Many Worlds and entanglement as the cause of gravity they'd stop talking to me at the gym. Otherwise, it was fun
Интересно получается коли анализировать Вами сказанное " множество копий". Выходит материальные процессы образующие тела от зачатия ( вероятно естественный интеллект механики материальных процессов "естественного отбора, и цикличности иерархических процессов" дошёл до такой сложности). отличается от тех процессов когда в тело приходит Человек со своими желаниями и возможностями. Довольно таки сложная картина получается," намного сложней этого кота которого никто не видел".
Imagine that the electron is a soap-bubble-like 3D wave similar to the surface of a golf ball where the dimples represent the waves of the bubble. When one "pokes" it with an observational instrument, this "bubble" of energy colipases to a single point where were "see" it at a particle. This is the best analogy of duality that I can conceive. However, it does imply a mechanism that eliminates the 2 worlds possibility. That's OK with me as I find the 2 worlds theory to be nonsense.
I imagine that you weren't very successful in high school. :-)
Э э э ребяты, да какие волны могут быть при потоке частиц? Что то напутано при представлении движении частиц потоком по траектории волной. Попробуем проанализировать опыт с двумя щелями, коли поток частиц движется по прямой, то, при прохождении щели возникнет кавитация или завихрение. Что то тут слабо проработано с точки зрения механики ( каких то не хватает знаний о процессах движения потока или всё же потоков), относительно анализа движения частиц волной. Выходит " О сколько нам открытий чудных готовит просвещенья дух" А.С. Пушкин.
Take a course in probabbleabiity and you will understand. Anything is possible when you start flipping coins.
Uh, so I am both alive and dead?❤
University of Michigan, Harvard of rouge river
That would be the Huron River; Harvard of the Huron River. The Rouge is way ,way East of there.
The Aether exists
What's the difference between collapse & dechoheres ?
Collapse means the probability wave no longer exists. It is replaced by a particle in a single location. That's what Bohr thought happened when we observe particles. Decoherence means that nothing can ever communicate with its "other self" on another universe once the universes have split from each other.
@@beenaplumber8379 thank you 😊 🙏
Collapse doesn't exist and decoherence is not the explanation you are looking for. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Because you say so? You are very fond of your own opinions - these and others you have posted. It's almost as if you think they are meaningful.
@@beenaplumber8379 Because nobody has ever seen the collapse of a mathematical abstract and decoherence only gets you to a quantum version of the Poincare Recurrence theorem, which is not what you want. All of this is trivial undergrad physics. Did you ever take undergrad physics? ;-)
Sean has evolved into a religious guru.
mathematicians care about Hilbert space :P
I am a mathematician😆
Interesting perspective on time..Leave it to quantum physicists to see the whole universe(s) in a peculiar mathematical construct and then when the subject of time comes up- they run to Thermodynamics (??!!??). They have got to be joking. Yes, the second law describes entropy and things do run down. But is that all there is (I don't think that the twin paradox mentions entropy)? It makes me suspicious that the other grand theories, the many worlds, many universes, many you and I's are just so much stuff. Yes, he can give you explanations- but I don't think there is much in the way of conviction. Do we know or do we not know -that is the question (not "to be or not to be"- sorry Will).
I think learning digital audio and how it relates to music holds the key, to understanding the universe & our minds…because a square-wave is simultaneously 1,0 & infinity, nested over and over in a fractal structure. Each layer partially separated by a local Nyquist limit. I think? That framework can give rise to infinite fields. We are a portion of the field…we are not flowing through the field…we are patterns composed of interactions of fields. That is the very definition of information…stable patterns. This framework allows for cascading emergent properties (physicals laws as well as mental models…consciousness). Again, I think…one last point…in audio, a single frequency can be considered a dimension. Remember if it’s data, it can go into a table, once in a table, any pivot can be considered a separate dimension.
Dr. Carroll, a normal guy talking about weird stuff...
He makes it sound like many worlds is the obvious conclusion, maybe he’s right and he’s a lot smarter than me, but I think there’s just too much we don’t know
No, he doesn't know more than you, even though he may be smarter on average. We know exactly where this nonsense comes from. If you read Everett's thesis, which is the origin of MWI, then you will find that he misunderstood the mathematics of the Copenhagen interpretation in the second sentence of that document. What follows is a giant error based on that misunderstanding.
@@schmetterling4477 What do you recommend to read or listen to on this topic, that isn't for advanced students?
@@kas8131 Nothing. This is just utter bullshit. If you want to understand quantum mechanics then you will have to learn the Copenhagen interpretation inside and out. The usual textbooks are of not much help, I am afraid. They are causing a lot of confusion, actually. The problem stems from the historical development. Planck and Einstein correctly identified field quantization as the cause of all the radiation and matter in the universe. Both immediately got cold feet and tried to explain what they had learned with semi-classical models. Einstein, in particular, was adamant (and completely wrong) that quanta had to be Newtonian corpuscles. Because relativistic field theory is very hard, it was impossible to develop in the early years, so people tried to bootstrap their way up through a non-relativistic model that you know as the Schroedinger equation. The SE describes reversible energy transfers in a quantum system (or, better, in an ensemble of quantum systems). That, of course, is not enough. It leads to the problem that Schroedinger was pointing out with his cat in the box Gedankenexperiment. How can reversible dynamic lead to classical outcomes? The answer is that it can't. That's why Copenhagen uses a second formula named after Born to predict the dynamics of irreversible energy transfers between two systems: the quantum system and the measurement system.
In totality Copenhagen is an irreducible whole: reversible, unitary dynamics in closed systems, the Born rule in irreversible energy exchanges with the environment. It's clean, it's beautiful, it works. It also makes perfect sense once you understand that nature is, at the core, irreversible. All of reality is caused by that irreversibility which leads to long term memory. It's not caused by some magical splitting of the universe in branches.
Going back to history: this irreversibility aspect can be found in some papers of Heisenberg from around 1927, I believe and then in an article by Mott from 1929. But then enters a mathematician called von Neumann around 1931 and he writes a beautiful book about the solution theory of the Schroedinger equation that strips all these physical insights away. What he leaves you with is a handful of linear algebra and functional analysis that is void of any obvious physical meaning. That's what we are still teaching in QM 101 classrooms in university. Most students leave those classrooms knowing how to calculate quantum mechanics, but they don't have the slightest clue why the calculations work the way they work. Enter absolutely clueless people like Everett and they mess even that math up like there is no tomorrow. None of it was intended this way, but to find that out you have to go back to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics papers and read them word for word and symbol for symbol.
I want to note that this feeling of “too much we don’t know” is just vibes. Many-worlds is named in a way that people think many worlds is an assumption instead of a consequence. If the many worlds was an assumption, then it would count against it. Any consequence of premises you already accept doesn’t cost you extra probability, you get it for free. What Carroll said about Many worlds being the simplest interpretation wasn’t just his opinion, physicists agree that it makes the fewest assumptions. Other interpretations like Copenhagen tack on unnecessary assumption that are themselves not well posed and furthermore don’t explain anything new and just fit with our sensibilities. Carrol talked about this. He also said that the issue with many worlds is that it farther removed from our everyday experience. There are 0 mathematical problems with many worlds. Everything is well defined. It is debatable that it is even an interpretation. If we lived in a different world without quantum mechanics, and mathematicians discovered this cool mathematical topic which extended probability theory to complex number, no one would think of privileging certain paths, and no one would think of privileging a certain group of particles (observer). At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics make no reference to cats, nor do they to the arrow of time. Also for many worlds, there only is one wave function, not many for each of the ‘worlds’. It’s so bare bones that it doesn’t make reference to decoherence or how worlds split or that there are even separate worlds. What carrol says is that to truly understand quantum mechanics, we gotta cut away unnecessary assumptions and be able to derive them as consequences. Mathematicians do this too. You gain a better understanding of a topic if you are able to remove unnecessary assumptions down to the bare minimum.
@@kas8131 I recommend becoming an advanced student if this is what you want to do with your life. I would also recommend learning to play the piano if you want to know how to play Chopin and if you really want that Super Bowl ring, coach, then you should start playing the game at a young age so you can be a professional by the time you hit your mid-20s. Dudes... I don't know what you think physics is. It's not something that you can understand in your five seconds of spare time as amateurs.
U Model
Thanks for your well produced video
If you add all the possible wave functions together will in make a “U” shape wave or square wave function?
I have been trying to describe the “U” shape wave that is produced in my model.
The “U” shape wave is produced as the loading increases/ just before the wave function shifts to the next higher energy level.
Your viewers might be interested in watching the test video the model.
See the load verse deflection graph in white paper.
czcams.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/video.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3
Neither. It will make whatever you want. Even a duck. ;-)
Worm holes are everywhere ... 😜
I wrote this in reply to someone, but I think I'll post it as a comment in itself. The person was asking what happens when a particle collides with another in this picture. To answer that, you can think of two kinds of collisions: ones that preserve coherence and ones that create decoherence. The kind that preserves coherence is like an ocean wave rolling over a pebble, where you might get a little ripple, but the waves go on, able to still interfere with other parts of itself. The one that creates decoherence is like rapids where a wave runs a massive rock and shatters into indistinguishable froth, where you can take each point in the froth as a "particle" now decohered from all the particles around it, each one now going out as their own waves as if the others weren't there.
The double slit experiment is more like the first one. The slit only ruffles the edges of the light wave a bit, but otherwise it plows through still coherent with other waves coming in from other slits.
As for an example of the second, most everything in biology is hot and frothy, and a great example is when part of a spherical light wave coming in hits part of the wave making up the light-sensitive protein for a rod in your retina, called rodopsin, or more specifically when it hits the electron waves creating a double carbon bond on the trans leg. That collision will create a froth of jumbled waves. If you picked just one point in that froth and followed it as if it were a particle, you'd see it look like a light particle interacting with an electron and pushing it into a higher energy state, which (still following the ensuing froth being made all over the place one connecting point to another) breaks the double bond, which kicks the trans leg of the protein to the cis side like a loaded spring, which makes a conformal change of the whole protein, which pulls on a connected g-protein, forcing it to have a conformal change (recall this is all a mess of froth, but we're following individual points of it) signaling to one of the nerves feeding to the optic nerve, which creates a cascade of signals up the brain through the visual cortex and parietal & frontal lobes so you say "I saw a dot here".
But going back to our original in-coming light wave, you could also measure a distant part of that same spherical light wave as it collides with an electron making up a distant tree leaf. The froth coming off of that leaf is now kicked out of coherence with the electron wave that made that conformal change in that rodopsin protein, except for one single point in the rodopsin froth that's in coherence with it properties. When points from the froth-waves coming in from the leaf collision arrive to the froth-waves from the rodopsin electron (probably via interaction with countless other things in the environment, air and dust particles, in the same connect-the-dot way as above), it will only be left in coherence with a point of froth, one "electron", that's still maintaining the double bond (unless that electron was hit by another light wave), so that conservation of momentum and energy, etc., are preserved, and the connect-the-dot froth path from that never signaled to the brain that it saw that light.
If you follow every single "particle" of froth down every path they'd take, you'd have an infinite number of "observations", some of them belonging to observers who saw the original light and many more who did not.
That's glossing over a lot of details, but I think it gives a good mental image of what's going on at least, or anyone that knows better please correct me. All of the worlds in the Many Worlds Interpretation are flowing right on top of each other, but when they're decohered from each other, they just fly over each other like indistinguishable froth. It's only when different parts of it remain in coherence that you have physical interactions. Something like that.
Roger Penrose: “ There’s a period in every physicist’s career when he believes the ‘many world’ theory, hopefully as short as possible.”
Also Roger Penrose: Microtubules in the brain collapse the wavefunction and can solve the halting problem.
@@KalumbatschHe said collapse of the wave function gives rise to consciousness. What's the comp sci halting function got to do with wave function collapse in the microtubules? When did Penrose & Hammerhof say that? I read the Emperor's New Mind. It's not in there. Where are you getting this halting problem and microtubules from?
@@jimmydoolitle3764 You'd have to wade through more of his big ball of very creative high-level nonsense to piece that together. Try "Shadows of the Mind" next. Or don't. There are better things to do with your time.
@@Kalumbatsch I read Shadows of the mind. Personally I think the brain is too much of a noisy thermal environment to support superposition without immediate decoherence. But then again I don't have a Nobel prize in physics like Penrose.
@@jimmydoolitle3764 No doubt he is a brilliant mathematician, but he got the Nobel Prize for theoretical work on black holes and not for the wild speculation bordering on pseudoscientific nonsense.
Tm sorry. Atheist here. This makes me suspect there is a supernatural Thing.
Hello from Kazakhstan. We can create an educational and practical device and practically master Einstein’s theories of relativity or obtain, for example, new physics:
Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The speed of light, regardless of the source, within the “framework of the dominant gravitational field” This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter)
they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part.
Thumbnail looks like Joe Biden with hair.
The waves are litearlly orthogonal, so 'parallel universes' is just a misnomer. They are just part of the same universe but waves that are independent of each other. And believing in orthogonal electrons and not believing in orthogonal entire 'universe waves' is just oafish; you cannot believe in quantum mechanics without also believing in 'many worlds' unless you are so low IQ that you don't see this blatant contradiction.
What waves? ;-)
Bahaha
This man is so 🌈
He’s married to a woman
So....colourful?
The Many Delusions of Sean Carroll
I think it's a waste of time many world's theory.
I can only assume you've based this assertion on your lifetime of serious quantum physics study and numerous papers exploring and quantifying alternative theories?
@@jamesmatson5205 hasn't everyone? :)
In which World ? !
@helderalmeida2790 - Why?
Perhaps, Only in this Universe !
Baloney.
Lucid presentation, but I'm not buying the thinner/weighting Many Worlds Interpretation. Every quantum interaction everywhere in the Universe splits current observed reality into an infinite number of alternate realities... It's worse than the 10^500 realities possible under string theory. Given a virtual infinity of infinities, you can explain anything, so pragmatically, you've described nothing. I don't believe failing to find a case where the Schrödinger equation doesn't work is the equivalent of proving that Everett's MWI is actually real. Ghiradi, Rimini, Weber posit that the Schrödinger equation isn't the whole story, so even if you can't find where Schrödinger fails, that doesn't prove that's all the description you need. Too much hand-waving.
The Schroedinger equation was never the whole story. The far more interesting part of the story was always the Born rule. All these people simply fail to understand why it has to be that way. :-)
Lucid? Did you watch the lecture? He never tries to prove anything. He's just following the current theory and talking about where it leads. Did you expect theoretical physics to be pragmatic? Did you know that Schrödinger didn't think his equation was the whole story either? Does anyone?
@@beenaplumber8379 Quantum mechanics leads to a lot of things, but it doesn't lead to MWI. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 What an interesting conclusion.
@@beenaplumber8379 Just an observation... nature doesn't do bullshit. ;-)