Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- When no one is looking, a particle has near limitless potential: it can be nearly anywhere. But measure it, and the particle snaps to one position. How do subatomic objects shed their quantum weirdness? Experts in the field of physics, including David Z. Albert, Sean Carroll, Sheldon Goldstein, Ruediger Schack, and moderator Brian Greene, discuss the history of quantum mechanics, current theories in the field, and possibilities for the future.
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest
Original Program date: May 29, 2014
Host: Brian Greene
Participants: David Z. Albert, Sean Carroll, Sheldon Goldstein, Ruediger Schack
Brian Greene's Introduction. 00:00
The double-slit experiment 4:03
Waves of probability. 10:50
Participant Introductions. 17:55
The classic outlook changed forever. 19:41
The Norman Ramsey approach to quantum mechanics. 22:44
The quantum measurement problem. 28:45
Does there need to be a clear separation between the quantum description and the observer? 31:44
How does the double slit fit into this example? 38:49
The many worlds approach to quantum mechanics. 45:48
If we can't see the other worlds, isn't that equal to believing in god or angels? 50:45
Summing up the many worlds theory. 59:52
Spontaneous collapse theory. 1:00:04
How do you make this theory precise. 1:08:00
Tallying the votes for collapse theory. 1:13:27
What is Qbism? 1:14:00
Does cubism gives a description of the world that needs an observer? 1:19:25
Two equations vs one. 1:27:04
The final vote for Qbism. 1:30:20 - Věda a technologie
Hello, CZcamsrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its CZcams translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality to see how the process works: czcams.com/users/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=GdqC2bVLesQ
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: czcams.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
The Slit Experiment appears to be nothing more than Gravitational Lensing similar to what we see with Hubble Deep Field. For one source of light from a distant star passing near a massive galaxy or black hole, we do see several representations of the distant star to the left or right of the mass landing onto Hubble's lens.
Translation projects would be very feasible for BYU students (one school) who returned from church missions from many countries of the world and have learned many languages.
does polish language interest you?
nice stealing veritasiums video you schmucks
that looks like a cool channel - thanks. But I'm liking this program.
Just went down a World Science Festival rabbit hole…and I like it here.
welcome, we saved you a seat
U entered the WSF event horizon. There is no escape now
Same
Me too
Same
also at the moment in 2020, so nice to see nuanced and meaningful debate in which each person carries respect for one another.
I feel like trying to keep up with this was the mental equivalent of participating in an 100 mile run with no training whatsoever.
I watched again after a couple of years and am planning to repeat! That everyone showed their side of humour while deepening the understanding of the most fundamental questions is so refreshing!
can i just congratulate the guys running the screen, their ablilty to display info live in time with the speaker and to run the credits at the perfect time made this production so professional, i do hope continued efforts of this calibre of production can overcome the delusional creationists. keep up the good work.
Tip of the cap to the organizers and producers for putting this together, thanks much.
Why was Heisenberg's wife unhappy?
Whenever he had the time he didn't have the energy.
Knowing that your human eye can only see me if I allow photons to reflect off of my entity I choose dark matter
woah
Patrick Moloney, and whenever he had the energy he wasn’t there...
Patrick Moloney Because she found out her husband, was and running a meth lab!
Lasr8 LOL! I’m so disappointed you beat me to it!
Brian Green is phenomenal in the usage of the English language to explain physics and probably many other topics. Probably if it was not for him I would not be listening to this presentation.
But what do I know for sure... anymore. This stuff could drive a person insane. Last guy on right might be on his way maybe.
Sean Carroll is good too. Check his "Biggest Ideas in the Universe"
Too bad Sean is so much stucked into Many World interpretation.
@@mikkel715 Sean Carroll makes the best argument for the MWI theory as the way to accept QM without conflating it with other ideas and additional assumptions. It's the simplest interpretation which from a theoretical standpoint has value in the same way Einstein understood the simplicity of the fundamental first principles of SR and GR.
@@cesarjom It may be simple in the sense that Sean can explain it simply and efficiently, and we get what he's saying. But , it's not a simple theory in the sense of being parsimonious, because it posits the existence of an almost infinite number of other universes. To say that every time your dog lifts his leg to relieve himself, he is creating billions of universes in the process - none of which by the way can be detected or observed in any way - may explain away the measurement problem, but it's pretty enormous violation of Occam's razor. You are positing a practically infinite number of invisible entities, to explain what we observe physically.
@@leeds48 I completely agree that the consequence of the MWI (branching of infinitely many realities) is a big leap to make in the intuitive way we understand the physical universe and a philosophical reality. But then I am reminded of a popular contemporary astrophysics' quote "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
It was probably very unintuitive and even paradoxical to imagine this idea of the constancy of the speed of light for any inertial observer, but Einstein postulated this idea as a required principle to develop the theory of SR. Understandably MWI is different level than Einstein's postulate, as it is not seen today how we can experimentally confirm it.
@@cesarjom Yes, I agree that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us, but those who presume to speak for the universe are under such obligation. Multiverse is just a way to try to hold on to the prevailing current worldview/philosophy of reductive materialism, which the empirical results of QM experiments have been flagrantly undermining since the 1920s.
A brilliant summation of the different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics- I just love World Science Festival
YAAAYY it's nice to see the views starting to go up on these sort of videos.
@@mistypoke6347 agreed. It's important for people to stop falling for internet nonsense and come back to reality and pull together as a species to tackle problems that are embedded in reality and not just a story to make money from the scientific illiterate and the gullible.
I've came for Sean, stayed for David. He's thinking about every word he says, he's so succinct, yet so effective and clear.
his wearing of birkenstocks and no socks in a situation where he should be wearing formal footwear kinda rubs me the wrong way, makes it look like he holds himself above everyone else, is he perhaps tenured at berkely?
“Succinct” is not the word I would use.
@@fallen0851 Rigorous. David Albert's speaking style is best characterized as RIGOROUS. Succinctness is often a bonus.
Rigor is important when talking about issues this complex. I prefer rigor. Neils Bohr was far more long winded than David Albert ever is.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 I find that sometimes the addition of extra words he does like "univocal" "factual" to a string of other such words really doesn't add much to the rigor of the idea compared to the lost of succinctness. But that's just me
@@King_Flippy_Nips Berkley has produced more Nobel Laureates, Fields Medal winners and Pulitzer Prize medals, than any school below the Mason Dixon line.
Einstein never wore socks or combed his hair either 😉
There are many many smart people in the physics world, but in my humble opinion, Sean can communicate the knowledge to the layman the most efficiently... Sean is the Boss !
Brilliant discussion! My uneducated thought is, how about it's not the individual particle in the double slit experiment interfering with itself, but all of individually fired particles interfering with each other across all time, because they do not experience and are not subject to time? So in effect it's just like firing them all at the same time, all of the time. We and the monitoring devices only see the particle impact at a particular time, because we DO experience and are subject to time. Therefore, all light exists in all of it's locations all of the time (because it is not subject to time), BUT, the key is that time travels through light, so it only 'activates' the light for us as we experience 'now'.
Science... free of politics and corporate manipulation can be truly breath taking... a thing of intrinsic beauty... that was an excellent discussion, wish I was there to ask a few questions of my own... brilliant, captivating discussion, well done gentlemen
I didn't know when I got into this, that all I ever wanted was to hear Brian Greene say, "This is quantum bullshit."
You live in Texas?
I wanted to learn more and hear opinions less. So ya l agree.
K
K0
zip up your boots
Wow, this is the best Quantum discussion I've heard. Many congratulations to all the Physics Experts they all shined and explained why there is a future in studying physics!
Some people can talk in complete sentences. Some talk in complete paragraphs. Dave Albert talks in complete book chapters - and they're incredibly well-writen chapters.
Thank you Brian Greene and panelists. I now know more to confuse me than ever before.
Every time I felt like I understood a part of this and had a grasp on something they were saying, they moved on to some totally bewildering new sentance 😭 I had a great time holding crumbs of quantum physics though
THANK YOU!!! for not polluting these videos with ads. I suffer from tinnitus and enjoy listening to lectures like this, ad free, while I relax or go to sleep.
This discussion was conducted in a way, reminiscent of a time when science was lauded as a true and proper philosophy unto itself... something that inspired hope and dignity in the majesty of man's reason... the sense of virtue in truth... these men were speaking their own truths... it was inspiring in a way I haven't experienced in a long time...
I never understood the double slit experiment in my college ..he just made me understand this under 10 minutes .....Well internet is really a blessing ...
What a fantastic host! Props to that guy for doing such a good job.
He's one of the leading experts on this stuff... Fabric of the Cosmos was written by him.
I could listen to Brian Greene all day.
I couldn't agree more with your comment
in my humble opinion the double slit conundrum is easily explained.
particles are simply the areas of a feild we can interact with.
our observer (eye, camera etc) is moving.
we are moving so our relative motion combined with the (quatum) feild we are measuring determines where we "see" the "particle".
(the faster the feild of space spins, the more it is subjected to time dilation and space contraction, resulting in tiny areas that change very very slowly over time).
so the feild goes thru both slits but can only be measured where the feilds motion and the observers motion combine to allow that.
an easy way to prove this is to measure both slits but in different places. the particulate measurement can be in both places. that is, what we measure as a particle, actually goes thru both slits.
This is quite a good one!! Brian Greene is always a good host!!!
THANK YOU B GREENE FOR CREATING THIS LECTURE SERIES!
I've gotta go with the Everett Formulation. It's been my perception that scientists have a tendency to want to nail 'it" down, for whatever value 'it' has. The Many Worlds view incorporates the idea that, just as we cannot perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum, there are facets to reality that are beyond our perception.
...so?
@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 so it makes sense
Heisenberg and Schrödinger get pulled over for speeding.
The cop asks Heisenberg "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies, "No, but we know exactly where we are!"
The officer looks at him confused and says "you were going 108 miles per hour!"
Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now we're lost!"
The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the two men have anything in the trunk.
"A cat," Schrödinger replies.
The cop opens the trunk and yells "Hey! This cat is dead."
Schrödinger angrily replies, "Well he is now."
Sean Carroll is awesome ...love hearing his thoughts
You poor thing...
I agree he's horrible
Great vid, big Brian Greene fan and love this type of forum. These guys are the real rock stars
Agree
Theyre intellectuals, not rock stars
President Donald Trump is THE rock star. See the people at his concerts!!!
I love learning about physics from all the greats that follow different approaches discussing ways to nail down THE approach.
Brian Greene does it again. That discussion could have become quite contentious but Brian has the ability to keep it from going there. I also like that the "titles" were left out of these gentlemens descriptions. I don't care whether so-n-so is a professor or a doctor or the doorman - this was a fine collection of men expressing their understanding of the world around us. Good enough for me.
It's 2/6/2015 when I watched this, as of now this is an ENTRY AS THE BEST VIDEO I've seen this year.
Really
Einstein. - Relativity: "Time is relative to relative observers"
Ruediger. - Cubism: "Probability is relative to relative observers"
WOW! That blew my mind away...
It didn't take too much, huh
Actually it is Qbism
Relative time is quite simple, it is still ONE picture (one reality), that can seem distorted, if compared by observers in different speeds, for instance. Probability with more than one solutions, on the otherhand, leads to different causalities (i.e. different futures), so the saying seems a bit odd comparison.
Incorrect. Relativity: "Time is relative to relative **frames of reference**"
It is a statement about geometry. It has nothing to do with observers. That is a miss conception.
Relativicism: "Relativity is relative to relative relativities"
1/ Wave and Particle are macroscopic notions.
2/ Measurement is a process of using an interaction between two systems in order to quantify a variable of one of the two systems. That interaction needs to have negligible effect on the measured variable so that most of the quantity measured would be amputable to the measured system as if it was an isolated one.
Example :
Measuring system : lampe and camera.
Measured system : bellet.
Measured variables : position and speed of bullet.
Light is shed on the bullet by the lamp. It hits the bullet and reflects to the camera where it interacts with a sensor so an image is recorded from which the position and speed of the bullet are derived.
The interaction between light and the bullet has negligible incidence on the energy, speed and position of the bullet for the matter of study. The precision needed in ballistics can accommodate with newtonian physics and neglect energy exchange with light while maintaining sufficient precision for the matter of the study.
Now think about this concept of measurement on a subatomic level. Do we have such systems A that let us do measures with negligible effect from the measuring interaction?
It's a scale problem. The tools we have can't interact with negligible effect on the studied systems and variables on subatomic level so to give a quantification of a satisfying precision.
We absolutely want to project our subjective experience of notions like wave and particle on phenomena that does display some of the periodic behaviour we recognise in our familiar macroscopic waves. Same goes for particle behaviour.
There is a periodic behaviour as well as discrete behaviour. No need to say more about it nor to make analogies with macroscopic phenomena.
Excellent discussion! One beautiful thing is seeing QM interpretation competently discussed from different perspectives, they are all interesting contributions.
In due time I'd like to comment on each of them.
For now, I'd say that the question to vote for is not optimally formulated: "is this interpretation worth pursuing?", well, of course they all are (given that all of these are good/interesting candidates)!
It is by studying a candidate interpretation that we could hope to find its consequences and requirements, and this might result in it's corroboration or in it's refutation. It contributes to the search for "the right one" if we know what is not tenable, and why. Interestingly, we have Bell's inequalities from the study of hidden variable theories, which is a contribution to the whole of QM!
Once this is considered, I'd propose the vote to be "do You deem this interpretation has a good chance to be part of the right one?" Yes, because, where some of these interpretations have merits, these merits might be part of the solution.
As a little game, I'll give my "thumbs" to the candidates:
Hidden variables: down
Spontaneous collapse: down (double, as in both left and right! Or... could I use my bigtoes too?)
Everett's many-worlds: up
Qbism: up
I do intend those two ups as they are both likely to be part of the solution, as mentioned.
My preferred one in general? Decoherence.
I didn't get qbism at all
I'm intrigued. Thank you for my Thursday evening.
Awesome and humourus stuff!! Very high level and quite amazing how quantum mechanics can explain the behaviour and nature of waves and particles!!
Brain Greene is my favorite speaker, regardless of the topic!!!
watching another presentation had to sign in and got to this presentation. I'll be here until i watch every post. nice because I can "listen" while I work. Great forward movement for me. nothing concrete as everything is in motion but for now, brings [me] up to date. thank you all
Ruediger's eyes are eery. He's like....super focused.
lol
If the guy could speak with numbers, he would be one of the best communicators of science....
***** There was a young lady called Bright,
She could travel faster than light -
She went out one day,
In a Relative way;
And returned the previous night...
He’s microdosing
OMG...THE single best content regarding QM interpretations on the Internets (at the time of this typing). :)
X
Loved this! - baffled the last guy's interpretation was so misunderstood and rejected by the others, though thankfully some sense was brought back as the moderator seemed to agree it most of all ideas put forward
Is there anyone better at moderating these type of discussions than Brian Greene?
Love to see philosophers sitting besides scientists. Nothing better.
one would argue that philosophers are scientists and i think universities agree with that point since it is offered alongside the other science fields as a course.
YAAAYY it's nice to see the views starting to go up on these sort of videos.
its all whenever youtubes extremely broken algorithim decides to place it in peoples recommended results
My vote is for the bohm/deBroglie interpretation. I am not sure what the real problem is with saying that the particles are guided by an energy wave of some kind. The reality seems to be simply that all the particles are there in a way that actually reflects reality. The prediction only seems to come in when we are trying to decide where they will land. I think there or a number of different problems here which makes the whole issue kind of a moving target.
Great stuff! Would like to see an update video from this channel on where the theories have led recently, and if there are any new findings...thanks
Agreed on the part of the wave, there must be a frequency be generated by the particles of whatever they are, which different by what they are made of so the kinds of particles could create variation in the patterns left.
Ahhhh. CZcams has chosen this to be the video I woke up to for today. Quite the find!
me too ! But then again in other realities ,,,,,
David Albert and Sean Carroll have the most pleasant voices I know.
Why can't I find civil discussions like this on the subject of anthropomorphic climate change? These are real scientist challenging each other in a civil way, bravo.
Terry Pullen, Have any dissenters of ACC been published in the reputable journals? What happen to their theisis?
Thank you for uploading :)
also, Brian Greene is a damn national treasure, isnt he?!?
he does his homework !!
These are the real heroes of observable universe.
lol,.They have you FOOLED
I swear i wake up to this every other night.
"Snaps into one position" sounds like my children. When I am not watching they are everywhere, as soon as I look at them they snap into one definite location pretending they are good all along...
LOL that is actually a damn good analogy to describe syperposition. Have to remember that one.
Marie Nikolic I think what is happening here are the evolution of energy “packets”.
Lol 😂
thats just your imagination, same as these "scientists" inaccurate mathematical description of particle locality
@@Ghryst do you know something the mathematicians / scientists didn’t / don’t know ? What makes you certain that they aren’t scientists? The definition of scientist is one that studies science, so, what makes you so sure that these people, aren’t in fact, studying science and the scientific method? Also, doubt, may be how one knows they are in fact themself. So you can’t use doubt in a way to disprove something about someone else, as that would then just be YOUR imagination...
This talk is a work of art tho .Sean Carrol is another genius.
Yea, the "other equation" needed is the maths explaining the undiscovered energy field. Scientists limit themselves when they believe they have all the variables understood, or known. There are still fields of energy they have not yet discovered, and are key to understanding those which they have discovered.
Another wonderful panel. I'm so glad Sean Carroll is on this one, I just finished another one of his books, From Eternity to Here, 10/10 👏
57:25
"You've converted, you've just realized it!"
"In which universe!?"
Low key a really good joke
quantum physics and me.
This is the best channel on CZcams!
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.
Beautiful presentation!
"Probability wave" -- first time i've heard this and it just blew my mind
Iv thought about that while taking a dump
"When no one is looking, a particle has near limitless potential: it can be nearly anywhere. But measure it, and the particle snaps to one position."
Just like me.
Just like my children
That was a very great preview of these interesting interpretations...
Quantum Sleeper. Makes you rest in peace, but being alive at the same time.
+Rodrigo Appendino try quantum pooping
+Rodrigo Appendino Quantum Sex.
Yep. you are thinking now, huh?
36:25 I love Sean's facial expression.. lol
Love these videos!
what a great show this was!!
it was so obvious that philosophical insight of 4 physicists on the left was, as expected, so much deeper, more responsible and wise compared to the math guy.
God bless all of us!!
"Will we reach consensus on this by 2100?"
Sean missed a golden opportunity to say "Well in many worlds we will reach a consensus but in other worlds we won't."
That seems probable or doesn't.
That is a damn good comment!
Just as a map is not the territory, a theory is not the reality. Both maps and theories are useful, but only as much as they help us navigate through the territory of reality.
Your point is?
What actual reality is is irrelevant. What matters is the practical application as well as the ability to proceed in our quest for knowledge. The fact that a theory is not the reality does not mean we cannot have an accurate understanding of reality. Likewise, just because the map is not the territory, it doesn't mean we cannot have an accurate understanding of the territory. This is the very reason it is called a "theory" and not a "truth" or "absolute knowledge". But you can't expect anything better from us.
We are fallible beings. We cannot do any better than have a substantiated explanation of some phenomena supported by facts and experiment.
Did you just say that actual reality is irrelevent?
Descartes you may believe everyone has your advanced grasp of science and epistemology. They don’t. Statements like his comment can be useful to them along their learning.
I see what you did there....sharrrrp!
Physics is not in the business of making maps but in actually understanding reality. Now you may think that whether they want it or not, all they're doing is making maps. I'd wholeheartedly disagree with that, equations that predict so well how nature acts (to the precision of the width of a hair compared to the whole solar system's width for the Standard Model) are more than just "guides", they actually reveal something profound about the nature of reality.
In fact, anything you think you need to add to those "maps" to get reality is what's unjustified here. If those equations are *are all* that you need to describe and explain the world, what justifies you in postulating that there's something more, when that extra something adds nothing measurable or testable in any way. Violates Occam's Razor big time.
It's so brilliant the double slit so simple and it takes a hundred years to figure out. And what they have to invent to make it stick.
Brian Green is to physics what David Attenborough is to the natural world. Hands down the best presenter of physics by several astronomical units
The simple solution about Quantum Physics issue can be answered in this manner.
The Future already has happened and we are just following the path of future (Past) or we are cross passing it at its very best.
In this respect the time as we understand it does not excites either,
We measure time because we want to know the future time which is already past.
So when if Quantum Physics shows two electron which can be millions of lights years away from each other but still have direct identical effect when we visualizing it. That is because we are already looking at the past future.
Regards
Bahram jarian
Doesn't make sense.
There is the "block theory of time" which postulates that the future and past is as real as the present. Einstein had ideas which went along these lines, but by "the future has already past...", I have no idea what you're talking about.
not necessarily agreeing with Bahram but I believe he is saying the future in a particular worldline could be considered "known" to a degree and is only observed (or confirmed) if that path turned out to be the path that is taken, but can never be predetermined.
If you know only three outcomes exist for a set of future events, then in a way you can think of events in the future as events you will at a point later than that, be looking back at it as a past event and one can imagine quite easily with a three outcome future, for example.
Because of Quantum Mechanics, I now think of determinism as the way we used to look at the sky until we found the telescope and saw that the Universe was actually a multiverse of indeterminism.
That's not what quantum theory is about at all. You're describing, very poorly, quantum entanglement. It has nothing to do with past and future since the phenomena happens instantaneously. You have a very fundamental lack of understanding of these processes.
The thing is...... Saying that if we separate an entangled particle as far as the other side of the universe....... Is totally 100% speculative. We have not even separated them even as far as the moon so........ just because an experiment shows positave at a distance of say 1 mile...... Does NOT automatically make the distance of 2 miles a positave result. So it is a fucking HUGE stretch to automatically think and believe it to be true at ANY distance.
"It`s a probabilistic scoreboard and it`s a HIIIIGH probability" 😂
Thank you for this video, this info was amazing!
I could sit and watch this kind of stuff for hours on end.
Shack is right, "Problems exist only in the language" , L.Wittgenstein.
A:?
B:?
C: Therefore problems exist only in the language.
Nothing in the world is eternal, says Joseph Stalin, everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs change, conceptions of justice change, truth itself changes ... our conceptions, our "self," exist only in so far as external conditions exist that give rise to impressions in our "self."
+Christopher Richard Wade Dettling Awesome! Thank you. Applications matter :) www.e-ostadelahi.com/eoe-en/mirror-reflection/
In regards of "change" I like Bashar's virsion of Universal rules:
1. You exist.2. The One is All and the All are One .
3. What you put out is what you get back.
4. Change is the only constant...
QED
Language/pseudo-language
Everything is language?
ОWhy do I think? I shake, therefore, I am.
Thanks for sharing!!!
I'd love to see Matt from PBS Space Time taking part in that discussion
i like matt too but he would be wayyyyyyyyy out of his league
Your so hotttt. And interested in this stuff . double cool
@@johnmasciola1047 lol thanks for the compliment
I'm sure Ruediger is a brilliant physicist but for public presentation to english speaking audiences, I recommend only english speaking physicists. Without math, it's extremely difficult to convey these ideas and I missed a lot of what he said not only because I couldn't understand the words he was trying to say, but because he himself had trouble finding the words to say. "Cubism" now seems simple and stupid to me when I'm certain the cubist ideas Ruediger has in his head are much more intelligent than the sum total of quantum ideas I have in my head.
+DickJohnson3434 Are you mixing Qbism with Cubism intentionally?
Piotr Szarański
No, just showing my ignorance.
I have more difficulties to follow the philosopher that wears sandals. His condescending tone, never ending sentences and chosen vocabulary makes him hard to get to me ( I'm not English native speaker) . I'm glad Brian translates him with simple phrases each time he finishes his long monologues
completely agree with you
1:24:20 this summation by David is so profound
Glad to have Vision sharing his genius on this topic
I feel bad to say this but I'm glad that the host is not Alan Alda or another actor
Phd qualified panelists, pot qualified comments...
and what's your comment about?
Danny Smith this is why academia has lots of B.S.
Do enlighten us..
So what you are saying is because they smoked a bowl or a joint this nullifies their PHD and all they have ever learned? A WORD OF ADVICE DILLDONESS YOU ARE NOT THE BODY - (where do all these idiots come from and why are there so many of them)
Yours included
You know, I have to post this bit from David Albert's Wikipedia page. Apparently he and Lawrence Krause (whom I hate with a passion) have a feud. Krause wrote his "Something From Nothing" book, which Albert proceeded to review very negatively. Albert's point, which I agree totally with, is that ultimately science just has nothing to say on the subject of religion - he wrote this:
"The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."
That seems very on point to me. Krause's response to this, in an Atlantic Monthly interview? To call Albert "moronic." How classy and mature. But it fits right in with the kind of character I see in Krause. He and Dawkins don't really "do science" anymore - they've become mere "anti-evangelists." But at least Richard Dawkins has made amazing contributions in the past - I don't really know of anything very meaningful Krause has done.
Now, don't get me wrong - I think science has plenty to say about some specific claims religion has made over the years. Clearly the world is not 6000 years old. Etc. And it's entirely valid if you want to form your own beliefs on the basis that if all those specific claims are wrong, then the whole idea is probably wrong. I would tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think any existing major world religion really "has the right answers." When I look back on the history of religion, what I mainly see is a system by which some people sought to wield control over other people (and succeeded). A system of control. And I think many vile things have been done in the name of religion over the ages. But, that doesn't change the fact that on the truly ultimate questions such as "Does God exist?" science just has nothing rigorous to say. Such questions are simply inaccessible to human rigor. All we can do is have opinions and beliefs - not certainty. Krause pointed out a plausible scenario that conforms with modern quantum theory - he "proved" nothing.
“In the theory where everything happens.. we’re not saying anything about the world we’re in.”
That blew my mind.
We just had five people on stage for 1 and a half hour and none of them talked over each other . We need to have a scientist in the white house ASAP
Except he moderator talked too much.
Why does the particle assume position when observed? what is the purpose of that to take position, how can that happen? it's not conscious
God has set us at the center of the universe and we have dominion therefore our visualizing a thing makes it the thing it is....Our interaction to everything even at the smallest point effects it in this whole universe...its a God thing !
ann george
No thanks!
Upon observation, the photons bouncing around, fixate the apparent location. The act of those photons bouncing around is also the reason one can only know either velocity or direction, not both simultaneously. The photons bouncing off either change direction of speed/slow velocity. ann george, SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!!!!
ann george Obviously you don't know a fucking thing, stupid fuck !!!
***** Why do we think it's a simulation? how come I can't control this simulation or at least my own? if it is a simulation what does that mean?
I love Brian Greene! XO
Very nice, I also gained some more faith in mankind's ability to think outside of the box.
This life and world is truly an amzing place, how boring it will be when the next generation has all the answer...
Thanks for sharing your work and ideas. Education is truly changing the world for the betterment of life on our planet, it's almost our only hope for several going forward. :)
Could Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π represent the uncertainty of everyday life at the smallest scale with the Planck constant ħ=h/2π being a constant of action in the dynamic geometrical process that we see and feel as the period of time. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding relative to the atoms of the periodic table therefore unfolding relative to our own actions
No, because there is such a thing as a Heisenberg compensator...apparently
Yes.
But there is also such a thing as a flux capacitor ... allegedly! ... ;)
I think plank constant s should always apply.
Yes. The future is uncertain. Every future measurement of position of an electron there is an uncertainty, just like every step you take is different than the previous step, there is an uncertainty exactly your next step. Uncertainty arises from the interaction of light and matter. If light does not interact with matter, all matter are wave superimpose on each other with a specified energy, known as the time independent wavefunction. If light interact with matter wavefunction, it becomes a time dependent wavefunction with a definite position in spacetime.
When electrons move in a straight line do they not produce an electromagnetic field? Why is that not a part of the considerations for the electron action?
wow good point
Because 'under acceleration' is the main game.@@mojo5093
Do they really move in a "straight line" though?
Precision in one (position) constructs the uncertainty in another (position)
Not at constant speed only under acceleration. Going in a circle an object is always accelerating
Listening to this powerhouse of room at work has made me think way bigger and while I still don't understand the term quantum to its entirety, I believe that the double slit experiment brings to light a phenomena that general physics itself can't explain. Though coming across many theories, its made me think about the actual possibilities of how they could apply to the universe. Perhaps there isn't interference during the double-slit but that the light particles are reaching the wall in the back because of not only the light source but also from the space where the light source is also coming from and it is getting through both slits in order to light up the room, similarly to how heat is a one-way action. But then, on another side there is this thought that if it goes down to probability(as I personally inferred from a part in the video above), then we are 1 of a million of millions that had a chance of being born and we live in a mutliverse.
This guy really knows how to give a presentation. A+
A quantum mechanic's vacation
Left his colleagues in dire consternation
For while it was shown
His speed was well known
His position was pure speculation
These uncertainty principle jokes are probable(y) hilarious to a probable degree.
This was interesting, but the four proposed theories each have their own flaws:
The Many Worlds theory implies causes a serious conservation of energy violation. It also implies (a massive) infinite alternative number of alternate worlds. In just a standard double slit experiment the photon could in principle be detected on the vast majority of the screen, each alternate world would have to exist to capture all possible outcomes. So even in this simple example there is an infinite number of worlds.
De Broglie-Bohm: This was stated as not being subject to randomness, but then the wave guiding the particle is described as a probability distribution (implying randomness in where the particle is found). Imagine if you had a probability distribution that was fairly flat e.g. the particle was equally likely to be found anywhere. The final position where the particle lands is still essentially random. In this situation how does the guiding wave influence the particle?
Spontaneous collapse sounds like an interesting theory. The maths however lacks elegance, and this remains me of what happened to the maths when we insisted on maintaining a geocentric cosmological view. This was where the equations describing the path of planets in the night sky became more and more convoluted as we struggled to maintain the assumption that the earth was at the centre of the solar system.
QBism doesn't explain how the wave function collapses to a particle. It appears to ignore what happens at the point of wave function collapse. This seems like the Copenhagen interpretation, and therefore doesn't help us to understand reality. In this video he actually states that this theory doesn't explain the collapse.
In my view Tom Campbell seems to have the clearest explanation of the measurement problem.
SolarTools Many worlds does not violate energy conservation in the slightest. As Sean has said, it is taking the Schrödinger equation seriously as describing the evolution of the system at ALL TIMES (as opposed to every other interpretation really), and the Schrödinger equation has energy conservation built into it.