The Day Physicists Broke Reality - Dr. Alberto Martinez, UTAustin, DemystiCon '24 DSPod
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Today we're proud to share another talk from DemystiCon '24 with legendary history of physics, Dr. Alberto Martinez from the University of Texas, Austin. This is our second podcast with Dr. Martinez, unpacking the hidden history of the physicists that brought us to the strange quantum foundation for reality where reality stops making sense. In his talk, Dr. Martinez explores a few key moments where things appear to have gone astray around the turn of the 20th century. He then entertains a luxuriously deep Q&A session exploring solution sets, alternative approaches to physics education, and the role of epistemic humility in truly productive science. Professor Martinez is a prolific, and ingenious author and we can't recommend his books enough.
Tell us your thoughts in the comments!!!
Sign up for our Patreon and get episodes early + join our weekly Patron Chat bit.ly/3lcAasB
Grab one of Dr. Martinez' many books and support both us and the author here:
amzn.to/4a0tnt6
00:00 Go!
00:37:12 Q&A
00:37:12 Debates over the nature of negative and imaginary numbers
00:41:05 If Niels Bohr had been a regular mechanic instead of a quantum mechanic, how would history have gone differently?
00:45:04 On the helical travel of light
01:00:25 What should physics education look like?
01:05:20 Are experimental apparatuses obscuring the real meaning of results?
01:09:57 How did the history of the world affect the evolution of physics?
01:19:52 What was Niels Bohr's Problem?
01:21:42 The seductive influence of fame
01:23:35 Is obscurantism a way of never saying "I don't know"?
01:25:17 How difficult are honest assessments of any influential field?
01:29:07 How does mathematics play into the power of physics?
01:40:14 How do "particles" contribute to the confusion at the heart of physics?
01:46:38 Has the word "materialism" been ruined?
01:53:45 Who else played a role in the development of fundamental physics?
01:58:28 Is there a graceful way of dealing with the problems of modern physics?
02:06:35 What is the relationship between quantum and mysticism?
02:16:04 Closing thoughts
#sciencepodcast, #PhysicsHistory, #QuantumParadoxes, #AtomicTheory, #RealityShifts, #QuantumMechanics, #HistoricalPhysics, #EinsteinRevolution, #QuantumDebate, #RealityDuality, #WaveParticleDuality, #QuantumWorldview, #PhysicsDiscussion, #HistoricalAnalysis, #QuantumJourney, #PhysicsParadoxes, #RealityPerception, #QuantumConcepts, #AtomicEra, #PhysicsEvolution, #QuantumExploration
Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: / demystifyingscience
AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics / @materialatomics
Join our mailing list bit.ly/3v3kz2S
PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities.
- Blog: DemystifySci.com/blog
- RSS: anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss
- Donate: bit.ly/3wkPqaD
- Swag: bit.ly/2PXdC2y
SOCIAL:
- Discord: / discord
- Facebook: / demystifysci
- Instagram: / demystifysci
- Twitter: / demystifysci
MUSIC:
-Shilo Delay: g.co/kgs/oty671 - Zábava
Listen on the go at all podcast locations: anchor.fm/demystifysci
Material solutions to quantum spookiness: www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics
Short films @DemystifySciInvestigates: czcams.com/channels/UfzVdgNu2xLThgM2qQZmSQ.html
So much that needs to change. But enjoyment is the solution to making physics a good subject to be curious about.
Dr. Martinez was pretty Awesome! ^.^
It is natural for one to get excited over something so personally profound, but can veer the initial progress. I feel this is the experience every person goes through
Great points. Very interesting.
ML❤
Alberto's sense of scientific integrity is excellent. Good analysis which I love, and refreshingly measured about what he does and doesn't know. These are the indicators of a good scientist. It makes sense that he was pushed out of physics and into the history of science, which is exactly why he IS a good scientist. It doesn't matter what department of academia he works in. On a side note: A new model of behaviour explains ALL this history, it's called 'the drive for mastery', and I published it on Kindle in 2017, where it has been ignored by experts ever since. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist.
Dr. Martinez's lecture should be compared and contrasted with David Harriman's 5 part lecture "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics".
I loved this. Thank you all
cutting edge necessities here .. i´m recently sick on a stomach flu, but i had to listen! great everything here! (i wonder what professor dave would say to calm people down again ^^)Thank you Guiz!
What is sad is physics professors belittling engineers.
This guy rocks! So do you guys
WHat a fantastic conversation, thanks folks!
Wow, great video! Ty.
2016 to 2018. I worked in Waxahachie texas. I love quantum’s physics and meet herb. He worked at Waxahachie exelrator that was cancel in 1980. Do to . The project was closed down . Herb said, we are looking for God. I been a physics guy since 1989. What about Kintano nisheda Fermi. Was a on hands guy, he was the guy who made things happen. Fermi was a Mexicano engineer, he did the work. Frank Martinez. Downey California Downey library 😅😅
Wow the whole story in one place....what else did I miss?
Sure hope you're doing it again next year!
There are a couple books on the history of QM and the Bohr / Einstein debates that really don’t put Bohr in a good light. These came out several years ago but I cannot remember the names. I will post once I find them.
The thing with gravity is its effect is faster than the speed of light, in order for orbits to be stable.
No wonder I never got into quantum mechanics. I have zero tolerance for bs
I highly... HIGHLY doubt that Bohr is as simply an eccentric "know it all". He clearly intended to confuse and stall the "progress" of understanding the physics of our reality.
1:43:00 One is not building objects out of events, one is building events from smaller events.
1:05:30 he's right! Phenomena that is predicted and PRODUCED but not DISCOVERED lol
Great to hear Dr Martinez’ lecture again from the conference. Liked it the first time, loved it the second time through. So much fertile ground is covered for we who think that the quantum formulations of reality pushed us off the rails in the 20’s and 30’s (and earlier in 1900 IMHO) with the mystical formulations of Bohr and Heisenberg etal..
I also agree, though more emphatically, that societal norms in the West were changed fundamentally with the advent of the acausal, uncertainty spewing, complimentarily confused, relativity based, statistical derived pronouncements that defined reality back then: those that could only be understood through mathematically constructed formulations that few could even grasp, supported with troublesome math underpinnings that even they did not appreciate. (As per Dr Martinez’s book Negative Math)
Yes, literature, art, poetry, philosophy, politics etc. understandably became disconnected from reality in the 20th century. This developed into the post-modernist enthrallment under which many are held in captivity today. This connection between quantum science and post-modernist rational thought-destruction is absolutely not coincidental.
Of interest to me is his arguments against Bohr’s complimentarity: the acceptance of the particle/wave duality of nature. I agree and think that believing thusly is a form of madness, it being a mindless confabulation, an acceptance of two inexact metaphorical representations of reality, and is essentially a form of intellectual laziness. Being intellectually lazy is no sin, but berating others who disagreed, as Bohr apparently did, is vile and unacceptable causing undue harm to scientific thought (and culture in general), all the way to the present.
But, who were these scientists who were crying, taking to bed, killing themselves, killing others, leaving the profession, undergoing 40 years of self conflict and depression and displaying various other symptoms of suggestive hypnosis? Was Einstein the only one who said F U Bohr?
My guess is that all of these weak individuals succumbed to Bohr because their ideas were just as unpleasantly intangible and poorly constructed as his. When he said “this is how it is”, they collectively said “I got nothing”. And they may have been closer to the truth than he.
But of course we should not blame the victims for the crime.
While professor Martinez, who I admire greatly, argues against the complementarity of Bohr, he “leans” toward a particle basis of reality. He seems firmly against “waves” and “fields” as an explanation of the fundamentals of physics. He moves us from a continuum of occurrences in the universe, more correctly metaphorically considered as waves in a field in my opinion, to a spiritual/mystical interconnectedness where we can see our dead parents again. My my. Seems like a Bohr-like sleight of hand intending to lead us to a particle view that he espouses. The pot commenting on the kettle’s blackness…..seems a somewhat appropriate metaphor.
Shilo, who has himself, I believe, an atomistic materialistic particle, but not particle, fibrously connected view of the universe, correctly calls his attention to the occurrence/disturbance view of tangible reality. Dr Martinez agrees with this conflicted view of particle/atom/fiber/occurrence, but his love of particles seems undiminished by this slight detour.
-Matter, things, are not composed of particles or waves. These are metaphors to help us understand reality pictorially. “Particles” and “waves” are descriptions of differential motions which impinge on one or more of our five senses.
No motion, no sensation.
No sensation, no matter.
-The universe is continuous.
Particularization is a solution that appeals to us because the effects of occurrences/disturbances fall off quickly as the inverse square of the distances involved.
The dichotomy of belief of either particle or wave presented by Dr Martinez is a false one, intending to overcome an even more ludicrous Bohr model of reality being both: Complementarity.
Very much enjoyed his presentation, and enjoyed talking to him at the conference. An enthusiastic and very kind, openminded scientific investigator. I’d love to hear more from him.
I thank you both for introducing me to this gracious gentleman.
Great chat as usual guys.
Thanks.
Thanks for always sharing your thoughts mike. Wonderful to meet you too!
1 hour and 30 minutes in and the big shout out to material atomics. You are much loved. When I'm feeling blue that's where I go not necessarily to make sense of the world but as a way to be with the world,,,,,, to look at something and to feel kinship with the experience. Kind of like abstract art sometimes you experience it sometimes you describe it and sometimes you make connections two layers that are more congruent to material causality.
it's weird editing that Alberto is looking to his left but on the screen you're on the opposite side
Fair
@@DemystifySci_Podcast Also, amazing video with tons of information. Thank you!
They are always changing their mind in physics; it may be the saving grace of physics it has near been an absolute. Alfred North Whitehead’ s ‘Process and Reality’ is a good way to detox from being infected with a notion of an absolute.
If by "they" you include Bohr, then they clearly did NOT change their minds all the time.
Try this: It doesn't matter if you are wrong about something that doesn't matter.
Agreed with the aphorism, but how do you apply it to this video?
There are a few key areas where reconstructing physics and mathematics from non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could provide profound benefits by resolving paradoxes that have obstructed progress:
1. Theories of Quantum Gravity
Contradictory Approaches:
- String theory requires 10/11 dimensions
- Loop quantum gravity has discrete geometry ambiguities
- Other canonical quantum gravity programs still face singularity issues
Non-Contradictory Possibilities:
Combinatorial Infinitesimal Geometries
ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(n) dxdy
Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy)
Representing spacetime metrics/curvature as derived from dynamical combinatorial relations Γxy among infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny could resolve singularity and dimensionality issues while unifying discrete/continuum realms.
2. Paradoxes of Arrow of Time
Contradictory Models:
- Time Reversal in Classical/Quantum Dynamics
- Loss of Information at Black Hole Event Horizons
- Loschmidt's Paradox of Irreversibility
Non-Contradictory Possibilities:
Relational Pluralistic Block Geometrodynamics
Ψ(M) = Σn cn Un(M) (n-monadic state on pluriverse M)
S = Σn pn ln pn (entropy from monadic probs)
Treating time as perspectival state on a relational pluriverse geometry could resolve paradoxes by grounding arrows in entropy growth across the entirety of monadic realizations.
3. The Problem of Qualia
Contradictory Theories:
- Physicalism cannot account for first-person subjectivity
- Property Dualism cannot bridge mental/physical divide
- Panpsychism has combination issues
Non-Contradictory Possibilities:
Monadic Integralism
Qi = Ui|0> (first-person qualia from monadic perspective)
|Φ>= ⊗i Qi (integrated pluriverse as tensor monadic states)
Modeling qualia as monadic first-person perspectives, with physics as RelativeState(|Φ>) could dissolve the "hard problem" by unifying inner/outer.
4. Formal Limitations and Undecidability
Contradictory Results:
- Halting Problem for Turing Machines
- Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems
- Chaitin's Computational Irreducibility
Non-Contradictory Possibilities:
Infinitary Realizability Logics
|A> = Pi0 |ti> (truth of A by realizability over infinitesimal paths)
∀A, |A>∨|¬A> ∈ Lölc (constructively locally omniscient completeness)
Representing computability/provability over infinitary realizability monads rather than recursive arithmetic metatheories could circumvent diagonalization paradoxes.
5. Foundations of Mathematics
Contradictory Paradoxes:
- Russell's Paradox, Burali-Forti Paradox
- Banach-Tarski "Pea Paradox"
- Other Set-Theoretic Pathologies
Non-Contradictory Possibilities:
Algebraic Homotopy ∞-Toposes
a ≃ b ⇐⇒ ∃n, Path[a,b] in ∞Grpd(n)
U: ∞Töpoi → ∞Grpds (univalent universes)
Reconceiving mathematical foundations as homotopy toposes structured by identifications in ∞-groupoids could resolve contradictions in an intrinsically coherent theory of "motive-like" objects/relations.
In each case, the adoption of pluralistic relational infinitesimal monadological frameworks shows promise for transcending the paradoxes, contradictions and formal limitations that have stunted our current theories across multiple frontiers.
By systematically upgrading mathematics and physics to formalisms centered on:
1) The ontological primacy of infinitesimal perspectival origins
2) Holistic pluralistic interaction relations as primitive
3) Recovering extended objects/manifolds from these pluribits
4) Representing self-reference via internal pluriverse realizability
...we may finally circumvent the self-stultifying singularities, dualities, undecidabilities and incompletions that have plagued our current model-building precepts.
The potential benefits for unified knowledge formulation are immense - at last rendering the deepest paradoxes dissoluble and progressing towards a fully coherent, general mathematics & physics of plurastic existential patterns.
Moreover, these new infinitesimal relational frameworks may provide the symbolic resources to re-ground abstractions in perfectly cohesive fertile continuity with experiential first-person reality - finally achieving the aspiration of a unified coherent ontology bridging the spiritual and physical.
math is art
@@CandidDate so is science and philosophy.....
I fear the shut calculate model will mutate into that ai model. We will have these highly predictive zoo of models with no connection to a reality or mechanism of interpretation of human intuition. Increasingly the big dataification of science looks that way. Rather then carefully designed, philosophically motivated experienent we just get larger colliders.
DING!!
2:14:53 that’s what he said
Eternity-now is the Multiverse Holographic Principle Imagery in which we detect the reincarnation of our selves and ancestors in our children, form following functional condensation-coordination vanishing-into-no-thing Singularity-point perspectives of prime-cofactor shell-horizon layering.
The Mona Lisa was painted in thin layering of colors to give the perception of inside-outside illumination from within the personality and surrounding landscaping, in resonance with the "eye of the beholder", Observation is holistic.
فیزیکدان به تو میگن
وادم حسابی به معرف های تو
💚💚💚🙏🙏🙏
Gravity is the mythical arena for weight?
pause to consider...I"m supposed to be sleeping through this, soundly not fitfully so go back to being WAY over my head thank you kingly
I propose a brand new field of Objectivism free from physics and our current grand unified theory.
One where physics stay in its lane so can others and nothing stops collaborative efforts but they shouldn't be held to one another restrictions or standards.
For a long time physics wanted to wear boots to walk in deep water's of the cosmos but stop just short of indirect lines of detection.
If nurturing gaps to fuel nature are needed its ok to explore some subjective properties or much needed ladders of idealistic notion of time to extend measure this is OK if it's rigorously worked and you don't stray to far outside you lane
Hieseberg approach really seals the deal on the physical approach where it falls into uncertainty with the physical mystification.
We don't have predicting power until 600 years ago when we found out human qualities was being projected unto nature around us .
We did great ordering and naming only with what is our grand unified phylosphy or when it waa more platonic.
We actually needed the simulation hypothesis to make advancements as reality generator of physicalism is hard to deal with but it's exactly what you expect it to be.
I know I’m going to be misunderstood. I love you both, plus this guys seems great. But someone with such an audience can’t have watched or read Feynmans QED or QCD lectures and books. Also who I’m sure everyone here loves is David bohm and bell who at least proved some amazing mysteries of quantum behaviour. I can certainly understand a few criticisms of Bohr, but he would have almost been better off using Einstein but I’m sure he would think because of the way he phrased things humbly that it would have been unpopular. All these people debated hard but all loved it and was the key for why so much was discovered then, and if we still did this now in the same way I’m sure we would have had more breakthroughs. We should never stop researching QM’s but as our minds cannot fathom newer dimensions in the sense a 2d being could not a 3d. I feel like this is interesting and food for thought but it’s dismissing so much brilliance. I do hope to be wrong, arrogant which I’m sure I am. Need to say again love you both more than almost any other science education on the net, especially for learning to open your mind and change perspective ❤
I have to add that those pictures of particles could easily be just as misunderstood, as they are guided by magnets in abnormal conditions, at an instant in time and in a 2d representation, if anyone want me to add the what seems like an obvious problem and furthers my thought that I feel like this lovey charismatic and I’m sure very intelligent guy does not seem to understand.
I’m so sorry I never comment very rarely but does he realise Bohr won the bet with Einstein about god playing dice? So please someone correct me but but this point had he surely not at least the separate unique Q behaviour? My final point as a lightweight physicist is that is the particle point not dependent on having mass or being massless? Hence his misunderstanding of the photon box point? It’s late for me and maybe I’m being really dumb.
I’ve just watched to the end and I’m really going to have to go back to my books, but I’m shocked what he stayed about imaginary numbers. I thought everyone knew what that means and that that are applied in physics e^i(pi) is one of the most beautiful and magical piece of maths in all history.
@@tkwu2180 I think Einstein won this bet. Or, at least, his declaration has never demonstrated to be wrong. But I think it may be the case that in principle it can't be proven one way or the other.
@@tkwu2180 I don't see any beauty at all. Imaginary numbers are just nonsense.
Hidden variables was proven wrong by John Bell in the 60s. The level of abstraction and philosophical understanding is incosequential to physics. The only thing that matters is does the theory make predictions that are testable in a lab. QM and QFT have passed every test with flying colors, so they are likely correct. It's easy to say things are wrong, much harder to demonstrate or come up with another theory that is testable. Even more importantly, a lot of modern technology, is dependent on quantum effects, such as quantum tunneling, so I do not understand the criticisms of our current models. Also, it wasn't the banks fault so much as it was the Clinton administrations fault for the housing collaspe since they mandated sub-prime mortgages so that everyone could get a house. Banks, if you've ever tried to get a loan, usually do not like risk. Furthermore, the extent that we elect our leaders is the extent for which we are collectively responsible for foreign wars and stuff.
QM is incomplete, QM without foundational problems was resolved by Prof. C.S. Unnikrishnan, please look for his article in arxiv.
Wait, now he's attacking complex numbers? I guess we have to throw out all electrical engineering text books.
Engineering ain’t science
@@DemystifySci_Podcast Well my point proves the practical use of them, which is what he is challenging.
@@DemystifySci_Podcast well I find if engineering is a science is another discussion, in this one it is not clear the meaning of what Dr.AM is discussing about complex numbers, he was not enough precise; you use some languaje to describe experimental results, in this case mathematics, a very precise, consistent and coherent one!, of course you should be careful with the interpretations you make, and abuse of the languaje, but this does not mean that the languaje is kind of wrong, isn't it?
@@2nd_foundation "of course you should be careful with the interpretations you make,"
Yes.
"and abuse of the languaje, but this does not mean that the languaje is kind of wrong, isn't it?"
The goal of language in science is to communicate rational mechanisms for observed effects. Math can aid in an explanation but the idea must stand on its own two feet with plain english, spanish, chinese, whatever
@@DemystifySci_Podcast did you read Babel 17 by Samuel Delany (related to language). Spanish is not good for science, my own experience, English is good for military action and Chinese is another history, not compatible with the so called scientific method, the more close to science is german, but also it is not enough. Tesla for example was claiming to use Gedanken-visualizations to think about science. so it is a very complex topic to discuss here. thanks for your answer!
Think about time. For an infinite eternal being one second of my time could be 10,000 years for it. Or more, or less. Why don't we consider energy. If you are familiar with fractions, then apply a fraction of energy to every energy event in this universe. For example, say there were 10^293 Joules present in this universe. You are familiar with conservation of energy. Now say a supernova goes off. Give this energy event 10^3.5/10^293 as a fraction of the total energy. It being 10^3.5 Joules. Now measure every other energy event in this universe and assign it a fraction. The supernova mentioned happened to be the most energetic.(10^3.5 Joules) Now, God goes from the greatest energy fraction to the smallest, in order, to calculate the next moment of time. So that supernova, being the most energetic gets computed first, then on down to say the 10^0.0000000032/10^293 of a neuron in my brain, which gets calculated close to last in the list of energy events. It would be something like Conway's Game of Life, how each next moment is calculated based on the greater or lessness of the energy events. If you add up all the energy fractions the total would be 10^293 Joules. Conservation!
Terrific heretic presentation and discussion.❤
You don't seem to appreciate the value of re-branded tchotchkes ... it's fan service :) You can sell a standard mug with your logo on it and fans will buy it if they are crazy enough about your show!
Not suggesting that you do it, just clarifying the appeal.
Neil Bohr, could not explain reality. Wave Function? The Cat is dead and alive? Wave Collapse? Spooky Action? And now Strings and Membrane? Many Worlds? ....
For more than hundred years they are just modify these theories with hope to find a solution. It is time to realize, that when something fundamentally is incorrect the modifications do not work. There is one book, which have potential to explain everything, but "They" doesn't like it not to loose the job - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Psyop
Quantum mechanics shares a lot with Zionism.
The second paragraph of "Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning":
Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. One cannot be critical of the Israeli prime minister, concerned about the question of the Palestinians, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of U.S. aid to Israel without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called "anti-Semitic." (Allan Brownfeld, 1987)
Today, more and more, pseudoscience has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of Einstein and Bohr. One cannot be critical of the prophet of relativity or the prophet of quantum mechanics, concerned about the question of the cosmos, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of financial aid to particle accelerators without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called "pseudoscientist." (Me, today)
It is glorious to see how string theory is just as evolving a concept as anti-semitism is.
I love patterns.
It is okay that Einstein and Bohr were Jewish, because it's okay to be Jewish.
Just Jewish infighting. Demystified.