The Problem With Quantum | Roger Penrose, Gerard 't Hooft, Chiara Marletto, Phillip Ball
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 08. 2024
- What challenges does quantum theory face in the 21st century? From Nobel prize winner Gerard 't Hooft to renowned physicist Roger Penrose, the world's leading thinkers explain the problem with quantum.
** Subscribe to the Institute of Art and Ideas / iaitv
Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. He is author of The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a comprehensive guide to the Laws of Physics, as well his own theory on the Penrose Interpretation.
Philip Ball is a British science writer. For over twenty years he has been an editor of the journal Nature for which he continues to write regularly and now writes a regular column in Chemistry World. He is author of Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different.
Gerard 't Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He is winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the quantum structure.
Chiara Marletto is a Junior Research Fellow at the Oxford University Materials Department, where she works with pioneering physicist David Deutsch on the Construtor Theory of Information- the theory that all fundamental laws of nature are expressible as statements of possibility, and explaining how quantum information and classical information are related.
Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at New York University. Maudlin has interests primarily focused in the foundations of physics, metaphysics, and logic. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity , Truth and Paradox and The Metaphysics Within Physics.
#quantum #reality #penrose
DELVE DEEPER
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
For podcasts: iai.tv/iai-podcast
10:22, the naked man in the background wandering in the water and nearly falling over as they are trying to hold a serious talk about quantum physics! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Some people obviously came for the free booze., not the talks 😉
Glad it wasn't just me that noticed 😅
Thats funny
Must have been either really cold, or there were lots of stones on the stream base, by the way he is walking. Ha!
interpret this, nerds!
His collar and tie is are entangled.
... in a way that is as bizare as entanglement itself.
Spooky tie at a distance.
Is the tie straight if nobody looks?
Excellent... latest information on Quantum theory by all great admired scientists in one go is really a treat for we viewers....and is helpful in analysing & understanding the TRUTH... nicely presentated.. thanks 🙏
Awesome videos thanks...
What's the naked guy doing in the water at 10:22?
Only you and I noticed it lol
Schro dingers cat?
And I thought I was the only one…
This video has left a couple of questions that will stay with me: did the man in the river ever take the plunge, and was he completely naked?
I had to sift through more comments than I expected to find someone acknowledging this
The most prominent physicists in the world have stated repeatedly that quantum physics simply isn't fully understood. It seems the more you learn the less you know.
Chiara provided an extremely comprehensible explanation of what differentiates general relativity from the quantum realm and why they are still being experienced as non-compatible.
No she did not. Her introduction was terrible. The claim that this world is not the way we see it, is such a lame claim. We see what our eye receptors can see. That does not mean what they signal is wrong
At around time 5:07 the Dr says that a particle can be in 2 places at the same time, what I think of it is that light is too slow with 300000/km/s to be the one that conects as in information if they belong to a group say one star must joint some how with other stars around its group and at the same time are entangled from
I'm now completely entangled in this!
Until they take the video down and you cease to exist.
Thank you for this nice video
P.A.M. Dirac, who gave us an axiomatic quantum mechanics, wrote not that one should not ask certain questions but rather that the questions that one may meaningfully ask must be meaningful in the context of the physical view of the world. It is unreasonable to critique a physical view of the world because what is meaningful in that view is not what is meaningful in another view of the world, especially one that is narrower - as, for example, classical physics is narrower in its scope than quantum physics. What counts in science is the view that is consistent with all the data.
General Relativity: TDR = (Temp/5)^2 seconds (+1c^3 == +1ºC)
Temperature is an aperture to BB weight/temperature, the larger the aperture the higher the temperature, so ...
12Planck == +1c^3 == +1ºC
But, The ligo experiment demands the aperture stay the same but the underlying energy density doubles so ...
Energy Density = Particle Count / (4/3*Pi*12Planck^3)
A Ligo style interfered Higgs Reaction would be described as ...
ED = 2*(Particle Count) / (4/3*Pi*12Planck^3)
So we get +1ED == +1c^3 == +1ºC
So aperture temperature and size are directly proportional to the "Photonium" particle count per cubic.
Halve the ED and the photon rises towards our visible space (Entropic Expansion).
Double the ED and the photon drops away from our visible space towards the BB hyper space (Entropic Collapse).
Energy Density is directly proportional to the Skin compression if the particle is stable.
M.B.Eringa Jul 2022
References: Garret; Stephen Hawking;
Lol, gerards tie is really bizarre, a fine metaphor for quantum mechanics hehe
Thks
4:10-4:28 I think, it's last updated information about quantum mechanics
@10:05 ... I didn’t know Jon bon Jovi was doing physics ...
Regarding constructor theory, here's my first General Realtivity "constructor rule" for the Velocity Higgs Mechanism ...
Skin Theory - The Higgs velocity mechanism
General Relativity: TDR = (Temp/5)^2 seconds (+1c^3=+1ºC)
Lorentz Gamma: TDR = V/c
Vc: TDR = ?(V-c)?/c == (Temp/5)^2 seconds ?
...
So for the Muon G2 result we have ...
+3x10^8m/s == +1c^3 == +1ºC
Which implies Zero Degree Celsius space has a stationary in situ energy potential = the Speed of light (i.e. A distance to the the zero line of the BB space).
1c from our 3d space potential.
1c from the Velocity addition over c of the collision (**Into the BB weight space??).
1c from the depth into the BB weight space temperature aperture.
This implies the exhibited temperature should be half input temperature because of BB space redshift. (**a c^3 distance??).
M.B.Eringa Jul 2022
References: DrDon; Garret; Stephen Hawking;
How can anything be knowable if we do not know what is perceiving the data aka consciousness?
Why is the name Martinus Veltman missing is this video?
Great video and interviews... Also, shouldn't have used Quantum sound. It's good and bad at the same time, though more likely to be bad.
Schrodinger's sound
The laws explaining how a body works doesn't equal the laws governing the cells, even though the cells make up the body.
Quantum mechanics/physics is a look at the micro why should it have to explain or match the macro? (I know the example of the body vs cell is not the best it might not even be accurate or entirely falls I just needed padding for my question)
Thanks sir penrose
Good show, shame that the audio is....... 😬Not good.
I hope your theories are better 😅
Who is the naked guy in the background at 10:25?
Quantum physics is like International banking.
1. A transaction that leaves a record in New York can have a corresponding, inverse transaction and record in Shanghai. The one transaction or process creates spooky action at a distance.
2. A process can pass through several pathways, evading taxation.
3. A process can cascade causing a financial crash or explosion, destroying assets.
4. Phenomena that are not readily visualised in the normal world may arise, like negative interest.
5. Imaginary gains are possible, which can be represented on a two axis basis involving the square root of minus one.
Against this theory: losses are not imaginary, however large.
Then you have Nouvelle Vague theory, which I heard In A Bar: If a wave hits you hard enough, it feels like something bigger than a particle!
Good Analogies 😁 But, on a serious note, Quantum Mechanics describes, or at least *tries* to describe a world so Alien that we can only use exotic, proabalistic mathematics to navigate the Quantum Realm...
And it's quite clear that this probabilistic realm is hard, if not impossible to reconcile itself with our interpretation of Reality.
Sure, the Math works fine... If you don't ask any questions or, are intoxicated by the spooky weirdness of the Math so as to invoke a whole plethora of New Age Bullshit!
Well... I'm fine with New Age speculative clap trap (as long as you're rolling the weed!) but on a more serious note... We simply have No Idea about how Quantum Mechanics actually works... Which means, on a fundamental level, we don't know how the Universe works...
And rather than simply give up, calculate and blaze weed on what it All Could Mean... Surely asking these probing questions is the only way we going to make progress in a Deeper understanding of the Universe...
John Doe Good reply, but if you are going to be serious, you will shortly exhaust my limited layman’s second hand knowledge of these matters.
As a flippant aside, you can more simply explain the financial world as the natural corruption and dysfunctionality when a powerful sectional interest gains the ascendancy over the democratic institutions and agencies.
More seriously, I am not convinced the wave:particle phenomenon is so unnatural. Water in a test tube manifests many peculiar phenomena in itself, but at the seaside, other phenomena emerge. A wave has perceived identity, and can, as I alluded, hit you hard as a sack of potatoes. At a seaside scale, with an ocean behind to generate waves, we perceive phenomena which no Laboratory analysis would explain, save that of a large scale test bath in which waves are generated but where does your analysis go then.
Seaside waves are amenable to a certain type of mathematical analysis with more general application: the underlying properties of waves are emergent. Is it so strange to try to carry this thinking over into the Planck scale world?
Perhaps all we can detect, or infer, is emergent from a more fundamental, sub-Planck reality we cannot enter? Wild metaphysical speculation: ask Mr. Probz about Wave after Wave!
You must now leave me by the shore as you ascend the higher mathematical regions.
It's mindblowing what humanity has and can achieve,
and then there are politicians, making us wade through frozen treacle to achieve it.
5:17 - No, the particle is never actually IN two positions at the same time. That superposition state is a definite, well defined quantum state that does not correspond to a position eigenvector. Therefore it is in NO position. When you make a measurement of position, you force it into a position state. Since it's not already in one, it has to pick one, and that choice is random, though influenced by the "distance" the current state is from all of the position eigenstates. It's more likely to choose a "closer" one; less likely to choose a "more remote" one. But it is not IN a position until you make the measurement, and then it is in exactly ONE position. It is never, ever, EVER the case that a quantum system is in multiple eigenstates of an observable at any instant in time. This is mis-phrased way to often, and it promotes confusion and "mystical thinking" on the part of the public.
doesn't bohmian mech give it a "definite" position at all times it's just hidden by the "pilot wave" until the measurement is taken. I agree the 2 places at once is more confusing than helpful as it does imply two definite positions, which is not what they are describing. I also think that the truth is closer to copenhagen than bohmian, though.
@Kipingram Sorry but fast Quantum Computing is exaclty based on particles having multiple states at the same time. And their empirical calculation abilities proove that principle to be mystically true. Just because quantum mechanics defies the classic laws of physics and your small mind can not grasp it, it does not mean, you were allowed to ignore it.
What are the beables? It's not enough just to say "meh, here's some math".
@@aladdin8623 A superposition state is a single state.
did you just .... criticise ROGER PENROSE????????
But surely we interact with our environment and as a consequence any wave functions , probabilities etc collapse and become definite quantities?
Philip is on the Ball! He is correct...no need for magic.
I would think that the constant and maximal nature of the speed of light and its consequences for space and time in Einstein's special relativity are as strange to most non-physicists as anything we read about in quantum mechanics.
There are several reasons to think so. One is that the theory of relativity was controversial from the very beginning in a way that quantum physics newer were.
But special relativity is comprehensible as hyperbolic perspective. We are still scratching our heads over quantum mechanics.
@@david_porthouse true, I was just thinking of non-physicists
It is not really difficult to say why the standard (Copenhagen) Interpretation is wrong, as 't Hooft says here: it implies that we cannot know anything about a system in the tiny regime until we perform a measurement. In other words, it justifies ignorance of what is actually happening.
Not only that, but it hides this justification of ignorance through a set of axioms that must not themselves be questioned or investigated, axioms like Born's Rule (interpreting the square of the Schrödinger equation as a probability distribution), instead of deriving the probability distribution as Stefan, Maxwell, and Boltzmann defined black-body temperature as a abundance versus speed (probability) distribution.
Other axioms (unexplainable premises) of the Copenhagen Interpetation include the duality of particle and wave, the nondeteriminism of particle trajectories, ignoring any interaction with the environment surrounding the experiment (including measuring devices), and the apparent collapse of the wave function upon measurement/observation.
It is strange that another interpretation of quantum mechanics (due to David Bohm and published in 1952) eliminates the need for mystery or ignorance in the physics of the very tiny regime. For example, by simply adding the intial positions of the particles to the state of an experiment, Bohmian Mechanics successfully provides deterministic trajectories for the particles. In hindsight, we can see that the wave function describes only part of the state of an experiment: the part determined by the geometry of the apparatus. Many of the mysteries that physicists accept in quantum mechanics are due to this omission of the initial positions of the particles.
I say the success of this interpretation due to Bohm is strange because it has been so widely ignored. The reason is simple: Bohm had briefly been a member of the Communist Party, had been called up before Senator Joseph McCarthy, and had been exiled from Princeton University and the USA. As one-time friend Robert Oppenheimer pointed out, Bohm's physics were excellent, but he was a politically dangerous man. He urged physicists to have nothing to do with him, and they have listened all too well.
Einstein famously wrote in letters that "God does not play dice with the universe" and that quantum mechanics was "incomplete". Einstein argued that the rules for even tiny particles must be consistent whether the particles were observed or not. He criticised the idea that the quantum realm couldn't be described definitively, saying "it is this view against which my instinct revolts." He was right, but his comments apply only to the Copenhagen Interpretation, forced on physicists in 1927 and held religiously ever since, not to the precise and successful equations and ideas of quantum mechanics.
And John Bell, the famous Scottish physicist who showed that the "hidden variables" interpretation was incorrect, approved of Bohm's work as soon as it was published, pointing out that Bohm had repeated the work done a quarter of a century earlier by Louis de Broglie, but was able to add a kind of hidden variables, actually particle positions, to standard quantum theory, and to obtain a fully realistic and deterministic version of the theory.
Bohm’s political views are irrelevant. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation looks remarkably like streamline-tracing in fluid mechanics, but lacks any mechanism for the annihilation of unwanted streamlines once a measurement is made.
Bohm’s other idea is holism, which is correct. Any computer simulation of quantum mechanics should include a model of the detector if we are hoping to see a collapse of the wave function, and also a model of the emitter if we want to simulate correlated pairs of photons. Let’s call that Bohm’s Principle. He did achieve something.
John Bell was from Northern Ireland.
@20:00 Sorry but gravity cannot predict the outcome of a gravitational system exactly neither. It's called the 3 body problem and we don't really have a solution for that (except making an infinite amount of calculation).
I checked my bank account on a quantum computer. It said I probably don't have £1m.
Michael P. Don’t give up, keep checking and no matter how low the probability may be it might be your lucky day. Problem is on that day there will be an extremely high probability that it is a computer error. If you transfer the balance to some dodgy off shore bank you need then consider the probability of getting caught before you can flee to a country without and extradition treaty. Good luck.
it's impossible to hear what theyre saying!
"Quantum" is pure-math relative-timing identification, ie Theoretical Time Duration Timing, or Polar-Cartesian self-defining logarithmic condensation Conception in GD&P, "Artist's" projection-drawing terminology.
"Objective collapse theory" describes what happens to the naked swimmer's most precious body part when he gets in the water at 10:33
🤣
I wonder if he got his qubits entangled?
I agree with the third speaker. QM is not a theory, by definition, because it does not give an explanation - but it works. What is an explanation? A logical picture that a human brain recognises. It is therefore a metatheory. And when we try and bring the metatheory back down to earth - we have an interpretation. QM then escapes again into metatheory land, because we can't have interpretations in theory land. Hence incomplete.
What I mean by metatheory is - its beyond a theory, therefore incomplete. I just looked up metatheory and it seems to have a different meaning - a theory of a theory, which is not what I meant.
In what way does Newtonian mechanics give an explanation?
@@schmetterling4477 Well look at a high school physics book. NM explains why if you kick a ball on a cliff, the momentum of the ball is effected by the gravitational force acting towards centre of earth, which is explained by GR. It also explains the motion of the planets to a good approximation. QM on the other hand cannot explain Youngs two slit experiment or resolve the EPR paradox, or explain why reality appears to be none local (Bell), or the polarisation experiments by Alain Aspect. There seems to be something wrong with time: on the large scale it is quantised, but on the small scale not. Carlo Revelli refutes that time exists !!
he got a point tough
The young lady at 15:00 was around at the time of T-Rex
How Can One Seperate Observation From Reality?
14:10 Bell's theorem depends on giving free will to the experimenter. If our world is deterministic, or if the experiment is not statistically independent of the experiment, then Bell's Theorem does not apply.
But, we clearly and obviously do have free will.
@@KipIngram depends on the definition of "we".
@@paulmetdebbie447 gpt-3/yt algoritmn hive mind? i think it's two infinites long our free will.
at the same time that no free will is measurable.
free will is a quantum phenomena emergent from the complexity nature of the real world, so unless your imagination is infinite and your intelligence is accelarating in all directions in all dimentions including times, like the universe itself, you will have free will.
i'm afraid i may not have that free will anymore, but the fear is so weak i'd call it the weak force of conciousness just for laughs.
outside and inside if infinite can be expanded even more trivially
We can synthesise “free will” from a computer’s random number generator, from an ERNIE-like device, and from experiments on the light of distant galaxies, all working in tandem. There is an idea called superdeterminism which implies that there is some great conspiracy between all these sources of putative randomness which prevents the experimenter from making a free choice nevertheless.
14:30 min. I am also a Bohmian, the Copenhagen interpretation is an idealistic concept.
It is a satirical concept.
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Copenhagen collapse
What about pilot wave theory?
I’m just a poor cat in a box you can’t see
He’s just a poor cat, quantum reality
States he’s alive and is dead , set him free.
Lee Smolin! If time is fundamental, space: locality and non-locality are both emergent. Einstein forgot he took space to be fundamental, and thought time was emergent.
I always find it difficult to boil these discussions down to useful information. For example, given today's technology we know this about quantum mechanics: It's not directly observable, it's difficult to run experiments on the quantum level and just what the heck does the quantum level look like as it relates to the space/time continuum. We do know that at the quantum level things move at the speed of light, therefore they don't experience time, thus they don't experience causality.
Frankly, I'm not even sure these things are true, but I don't think anyone knows, for sure, whether or not they are true.
Is Gerard 't Hooft in the audience of Chiara's presentation?
I like the thoughts of Phillip Ball, especially his recognition relating to the problem of words founded in empiricism.
However, this seems to be self tripping in that when he says... 'We know more, now'. Actually we don't 'know' more, if knowledge is justified true belief. We have reason to believe more, is more accurate, but we may be completely wrong. At best, our work clusters around experiments done today. The rest of our belief structure is based on assumptions about the earlier universe that happens to coincide with our theories. But now our theories are showing significant deviation from experiments - for example, much/most of the universe appears to be dark energy and we have no empirical way of exploring this.
You are very confused about the meaning of the word "knowledge". So what? So nothing.
@@schmetterling4477 My point is simply that are best efforts are presently limited. All our present theories can be subject to change of the kind produced by Einstein, in that our whole understanding of how the world works may change. The bother is that empiricism leads to best guesses, not knowledge, so we never have surety.
@@stephenanastasi748 My point is simply that you are very confused about the meaning of the word "knowledge". Theories also don't change, you simply don't know what a theory is. Einstein is a particularly poor example for your point because he was basically more wrong than right in 1905 about quantum mechanics and he never admitted his error. He did exactly the opposite of what you are preaching in his name.
There’s more than one way to travel faster than light according to the Minkowski formalism. I suggest one way is associated with wavelike behaviour, and the other way with particle-like behaviour, but I won’t say which is which at this stage. I will go a lot further and suggest that if we don’t realise that there is more than one way to travel faster than light, then we are wasting our time trying to understand quantum mechanics. Perhaps I do indeed go too far too quickly with this last point, but we need new ideas.
Geez. What would physicists talk about if it weren't for quantum absurdities?
It seems plausible to say that quantum phenomena does not have a classical corollory to describe.
The ingrained desire ultimately to understand nature solely with classical concepts born out of our macroscopic experiences seems to be the barrier to further development and understanding.
There are things assigned to “quanta” that should have been assigned to photons. It’s curious to see scientists prefer mysticism over mechanics.
I thought all this time photons were quanta of light. Have I been misunderstanderlings?
@@sprobablycancr4457 No, you have not. The OP is simply either clueless or trolling.
Quanta of light gives an indeterministic picture because the are not actually local pieces of momentum traveling around space, any classical substitution for quantum mechanics must deal with this fact, the deterministic substitution must contain the shifts in momentum of coupled massive particles with a deterministic picture that does not try to localize the force carriers in terms of classical deterministic paths, such as the original conception of the photon, i would rather think of atoms and fermions as embeded in a sea of radiation that produces these shifts in momentum like a classical wave theory, and our measuring devices are consisting of atoms that must shift between harmonic energy levels for us to see a spesific packet of momentum, we cannot measure a photon, we can only measure its effect on a fermion, that means we cannot determine anything between shits between states, apart from statistically determining the lamb shit amd other features of the systems inregularities on avrage, to provide exact mechanics that predic these irregularities is dependent on a classical model to underly the first principles of quantum mechanics.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
It's a physics love-in. Don't take the brown acid.
Woodstock. Nice.
10:40 some kind of nature/entanglement in the background here? WTF??
4 30
Keep in mind, it’s simply a theory. All scientific theories are provisional - never true. Always potentially superseded.
So all these odd counter-intuitive consequences are likely artifacts of a model that is ultimately not true to reality.
Is Chiara the symbolic child of Marc Bolan ?
Our perception of reality is what is flawed, not any interpretation of quantum mechanics.
They can both be flawed.
@@alext5497 A fair and reasonable response I can't, having given it consideration, really fault? How utterly dare you. Pistols at dawn.
Those are the modern heroes.
When someone needs to talk critical about Quantum physics it should be Lee Smolin...
Libertas Bellum I don't see where he is whining. String theory is a beautiful theory, so is Inflation. Can we in a Karl Popper-ian sense provide evidence for these models/theories...no. Plus Smolin provides his own ideas and worked on Quantum gravity and String Theory, even presented his Cosmological theory ( influenced by Witten/Darwin ) - so where is this whining your talking about? Steinhardt also presents arguments against the non testable Multiverse.
But to claim Quantum physics is a complete theory - those involved know it isn't...
Nobel prize winner Gerard 't Hooft talks of ‘real’ particles. Until science also comes to the conclusion of our ancients that all objects exist only IN consciousness, which is the only reality, it will continue to be haunted by the ghost of _Maya_ and ask if the moon really exists.
Schrodinger whose groundbreaking wave function concept and life outlook that were influenced by _Vadanta_ had this to say:
_Vedanta teaches that consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one universal consciousness and there is no multiplicity of selves … The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West._
Mystical expierence...
urgggg. Didn't the Vienna Circle already argue metaphysical mumbo jumbo up and down....why does a preferred Creator always has to be forced into Scientific videos?
@@Raydensheraj
“Mystical experience …” not mine, but Schrodinger’s. (He was an Advaita Vedantist). But how dare anyone challenge another’s experience (coz it is mystical) without realising that every moment of living is an awareness of a subjective experience!
God and Creation are Abrahamic ideas, not Vedantic. The Maya of mistaking a rope for a snake is the allegory in Vedanta for Creation. It is a matter of perception, ignorance and ultimately of experience.
It is a pity that science has not yet come to terms with consciousness since the days of the Vienna Circle and a century of quantum physics and continues to think that it may evolve in the microtubules to die with them and not be non-local and singular - the Brahman of Vedanta.
Skin theory is conflicted by design.
A Higgs mechanism tries to describe boundary conditions of space itself.
When we have our great God of Plus we can do the math without ever having to describe why the power potential exists in the first place.
All those QM theories work with compressed space physics, which is General Relativity, there is no conflict only misunderstanding.
B-)
There is no way around the fact that physics can only study the behaviors of nature & that all of those behavioral properties are filtered by our perception & that includes any & all "enhancements" via instrumentation. Just bc the outside world & our notions of it are corelated, which btw it would have to be for our sensory apparatus to be of any use whatsoever, doesn't make it(perceptions) the thing in itself(the outside world) that is in question. & Its all quite easy to forget. & even many "experts" indeed do. The map is NOT the territory yet we expect to extract(literally reconstitute) the territory from the map(an abstraction). We just ignore natures ONLY given(experience) & then say the meal is really only a menu. Clearly its mostly just our narratives that need an upgrade 1st & foremost.
The problem with quantum mechanics is that it arbitrarily attributes quantization to matter and energy (i.e. fields), rather than to measurements (interactions between fields), even though it's not required by the wave equations.
My understanding of quantum mechanics is that quantization is a result of assigning a value to the commutator of two conjugate observables, such as position and momentum. So doing leads to equations for those quantities that are eigenvalue equations often having a continuous and a discrete spectrum of eigenvalues. I know of no arbitrary assignment of values to the variables. The wave equation that RG mentions is such an eigenvalue equation.
@@goedelite Observations are interactions. My question is, how do you think quantization is enforced? I don't think it happens by magic, and I don't think it's feasible for infinitely distributed phenomena to be quantized inherently. I also don't think it makes sense for waves to suddently transmogrify into infinitely dense point objects (per the wave-particle-duality principle). So that leaves interactions. Quantized, localized field interactions would look like point particles to the casual observer, and field quantization could be maintained by a continuing pattern of virtual interactions.
Vibrational Frequency Averaging is my idea...particle frequency cancellations or amplifications determine Quantum position! Macroscopically we tend to experience only the average of the result.
Probably not
@@GeorgieKiely Pretty sure it is🥸
@@GeorgieKiely You are a vibration denier
When they say that Physics is beautiful what do they mean? They mean Chiara Marletto
Long story which already more than 200 books published, and available
Particle physics is like building a brick building and then busting it apart with a super-collider, then classifying the different brick-pairings left over, as new particles. Quantum is figuring out what will happen when you send particles into the ether medium and trying to calculate what will happened to them, while trying to cover up the fact that the ether medium exists, and all particles are made from the ether medium or photons.
Do you have proof for the ether?
10:55 a lost naked man from the future dropped in the river
Ok I'm a composer jazz pianist who loves physics so forget me but isn't the problem with Quantum mechanics that it's trying (very successfully) to describe what are essentially higher dimensional phenomena from a our limited space time continuum. It's clearly not wrong just limited. Spooky necessarily.
precisely.
as a jazz musician, do you partake in entheogens as an enhancer to imagination? imagination completes cognition, our gpu is far more capable than any quantum computer built today.
just smoke some weed and expand your mind to the dimensions within, then you'll understand the outer dimension outside.
everyone needs teaching, cannabis can be an universal professor plants just like the ancient knowledge tells us ontologycally, and i guess theologycally but i woudn't go there because theology can get messy
but maybe dive right in if that's your thing.
all knowledges should complement the whole of 0=1
some truthfull in a way, some different in a way, some the same, and some wrong. and a law that estabilishes the way in which the diferentness presents itself in the real world, a reality check
Tim Maudlin wants to impose his metaphysics on physics on scientific results.
I think theres a neked guy int he background of all this quantum discussion 🙄
The problem with quantum mechanics is you can’t fracking see it.
Until science can consider that we live a virtual reality, it will not resolve general relativity and quantum mechanics. A virtual reality allows for both GR (macroscopic things) and QM (microscopic things) simultaneously. This is what a VR is. Information that is essentially non-local, entangled, and in superposition. Able to give the appearance of space, time, and matter from one perspective (GR) and be spaceless, timeless, and matterless from another perspective (QM). The VR model also explains all religious and spiritual experiences. Its not that difficult to understand once you come out of "Plato's Cave".😊
@Fleisch Berg Hi. I understand what you mean. But, the two are completely different experiences. I've done both. 😊
Pluto was a tool and so are you
For 300 years academics have distorted mathematics and science so only they can understand it, but have lost the unity that pythagoras and co already have known for thousands of years...
I doubt pythagoras could make a computer or create the engines that power our vehicles.
4:00 - The whole "is the moon there" line of reasoning is inadequate in my view. You can't not look at the moon. You may not look with your eyes at any particular moment, but the moon's presence leaves traces on the environment that you could look at later, in principle. That's enough. The cases where you can't be sure whether something's really there or not are ones where there is no possible way, even in principle, to later confirm whether it was or not. That just makes the moon cliche totally inapplicable.
It’d be useful if IAI could produce interviewers with some basic understanding of the subject matter at hand. You sent a 9 year old pop sci Girl Scout to sit down with Gerard effing t’Hooft - im appalled. I’m a general contractor yet I have deep interest in all things physics therefore I have deep interest in learning and have learned all I can- I’d love to talk to this guy, are you kidding me? This happens all the time with pop sci garbage
There was a naked man in the back ground trying to pick a fight with an alligator, was that crocodile Dundee?
Is there some quantum vortex sucking in the collars of quantum professors?
What does quantum physics explain?
Quantum physics is a subject that explains dualistic behavior of quantum particles (photons/electrons)
Is there a naked dude wading in the water behind Tim Maudlin?
You will never describe reality if you assume quantum mechanics can be fixed.
Er, at 10:22 there's a naked dude coming out of the water for a minute behind Tim Maudlin. I'm not kidding. Gotta be one of the weirdest photobombs I've ever seen, especially given the subject matter.
I mean that photobomb has some determination behind it, balls out determination.
"We have a classical intuition" … which? The view we have of the physical world changes with time. Our forerunners were not stupid, they only had a different way to see the world, and then another classical intuition. The classical intuition doesn't exist, quantum mechanics in not counterintuitive, it is inconsistent.
What is inconsistent about quantum mechanics? Please explain.
@@schmetterling4477 Two of its axioms, unitary evolution and projection postulate, are mutually contradictory. We have to put what is a measurement and what is not, that is which axiom should be applied, by hand in order to be able to make any prediction.
@@clmasse Nature doesn't care about either your projection postulate nor your measurement. I am asking what is inconsistent about the physics of quantum mechanics, not about the scrappy math that they taught you in QM 101 and that was known to be wrong even in the 1930s.
The inability to understand QM is due to our limited consciousness. Our consciousness is so weak, easily disturbed manipulatable, and cannot think other than one thing at a time. What we are not conscious is fuzzy !! We can never be conscious of two things at the same time!!!
I strongly beg to differ,imo you have drastically underestimated our mind....your mind...it's not weak at all,more sensitive or delicate....and that's potentially...because some minds are more focused and headstrong than others,let's look at a quantum computer..we might say it is very powerful...however a change of a single degree in temperature can render it's processes useless. ..and if your statement is true then id be crap in bed lol
Simpler explanation there is no physical reality, we are in a simulation and reality answers according to our actions. Planck length is the size of pixels.
Musa Tebi ,
There is some reality out there and our consciousness interprets it in a simpler way to survive in the video game. Because we know there are servers for our 3D world even though we live in 3D simulated world, we are independent of it with our consciousness. If we come out of it then we may be in another simulated worlds!!!! So we trapped our consciousness in unlimited simulations? But we are alone???? In this universe ??? If simulated then why other planets are rubbish it depicted? Why can’t we have conscious agents everywhere in the universe? Why only in this earth? Precariously balanced?
Speak for yourself lady.
Gerard 't Hooft is true genius. Only such could manage to have his shirt collar that way. I don't know how he did it.
That's right only a dummy would button their collar symmetrically.
If moon loosing the lights and gravity, earth will not be survive
I despair when physicists bang on about reality and NOT ONe has the balls to define it
Gringohuevon The Natural world obviously. It's clearly defined in the philosophy of Science. That's why Intelligent design isn't Science but theology.
ME TOO ! Desperate because as a physicist I think we failed to define reality and we carry this burden along
What I think of is that light is to slow at 300000km/s to be the one the form of comunication say from even the nerest star it would take so long to comunicate one to another and matter entangles from north to south and viceverse so to comunicate the time must doubles so we need light that multiplicate the SERIE PHI some how multiplicates and goes over and over way to fast, Ithink that Neuton was with a fraction of a second wrong by thinking it was instantaneous and Einstein is 13.7BLY mistaken with time, cause light must to be almost instantaneous that we dont read it yet but maybe we will and is this fasteness of light is why they see 1 atom in one part and at the same time they see it some where else, they see in one side whene it stops in one side and the second position is whene stops in the other side where the particle acts as marbles in a band that moves in one direction and then reverses it, thats what it does the enrgy that goes in and returns back out the system as the sun does every 22 years in black spots in the sun 11 years to the in and 11 years to the out doing a complete cicle of 22 earth years. In other earths in yellow belt the time that takes them is of 21 years that is the very half cause must to be others of 20 that is low and 22 that is high so 21 is like the ecuator and from there is UP and is DOWN
Gérard T Hooft might know how to interpret quantum physics but he doesn't know how to button up his collar. I've got my collar buttons sussed, it's just the quantum physics I'm not sure about. Everyone is gifted in different ways.
If you replace the word "particle" with the word "fact" then you will have a different view on quantum "mechanics". The so called "entanglement" in terms of "facts" is quite simple really. The same fact may manifest itself in a number of places and times being still the same single fact.
Thats not what entanglement is...
What on earth is going on in the background??? Are those teepees?
Highly intelligent people talking total nonsense.
There just isn't enough creativity in the physics community to make any real progress. You really need to outsource to get some new ideas to explain the mechanisms of physics and do something useful (like invent a warp drive).
so how do these geniuses explain steel turning into dust?
czcams.com/video/vlkZLlzOfVQ/video.htmlm56s
they just do not understand it? Probably
You've clearly never been around concrete dust before.
@@Mutantcy1992 another blind fool. Did you watch the video? Did you notice chunks of the building turn into dust when they fall to the ground? It is because of these blind folks or folks who turn a blind eye that we are in this mess we are in today.
@@dutchy5752 I watched several minutes past the timestamp you gave, and even one of the voiceovers mentions that he can't understand how concrete turns to dust. But like...that's exactly what happens to concrete when it is pulverized.
As far as dust trailing the metal, which doesn't appear to be shrinking, as it would if it were producing the dust, that's just aerodynamics. If you have a bonfire going that produces a ton of smoke, and you throw some object with great force through the smoke, you will see a trail of smoke follow it for a ways because it causes an air current that the particles follow.
And then they showed smoke coming out of buildings that mysteriously didn't pass corners of buildings...except that's not mysterious at all. That's how wind works. You can tell which way the wind is blowing based on the smoke direction, and so wind blowing in that direction hitting the flat face of a building will sheer and go parallel to the building, causing an air current coming straight off the corner, pushing the smoke from that exact point.
Anything else you need explained to you?
"Of cause the moon is there!" Incredulity is not an argument.
Reality is proceedurally generated by our observations.
Objective materialism died in 1927.
All attempts to resuscitate it have failed.
The ability of the ego to place importance onto itself is infinite.
Chiara Marletto certainly made my brain unsharp. It was in a superposition in which it was simultaneously pondering double-slit experiments and going, "My God, what a babe."
I think he doesn’t understand non locality.
Lol shifts not shits
The Noble Laureat is unable to explain what Quantum Physics is, yet calls it beautiful and perfect. If you notice the moment you catch him out with Quantum Physics not being quite right, he will throw in the human interpretation excuse.