I want to express my gratitude for these interviews - they're so illuminating, and the space and time (spacetime!) you give these experts to explain their ideas is just incredible!
This is so interesting! I am a philosophy major, so its greatly appreciated when such an educated person gives a simplified yet not misleading picture of the problem, Thank you.
Don't worry about the camera problems :) You are doing the work of a host, researcher, audio engineer, cameraman, and probably a few other roles as well
If you were to upload again, I would suggest filling in the missing video with a series of still frames from earlier in the video. Going with a slide show style patch would be better than a blank segment. Movements in a stationary interview do not vary much so nobody would discern where the stills came from.
David is quickly becoming my favorite scientist! He might be the most thoughtful physicist, and truly isn't afraid to use the most amount of words to convey his thoughts & opinions, which is always very interesting. The first time I saw him, which was on an early ep. of the World Science Festival, I didn't appreciate him, oddly, I think because I didn't realize the depth of how he explains something, which is different than anyone else. I mistook his use of words as exaggeration. Thankfully, every time I saw him after that, I appreciated his unique way of communicating more and more and more, and here we are today, he's probably my favorite! 👍 Thanks, Robinson
I followed his public spat with Lawrence Krauss and thought he simply schooled Krauss with the least amount of words. Simply put, Krauss was wrong, out of his depth, knew it but tried to argue his way out but dug the hole he was in even deeper, and made a fool of himself.. Worse, he demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty. Krauss lost my respect and I read his stuff with a lot of skeptism after that.
Yes! I have been waiting for the face to face with David. As always, David is a fascinating guest to listen to. Don’t worry about the video, certainly won’t detract from the quality of the interview. Keep it up!
Thank you David for having made quantum mechanics relatable to me. I’ll never forget his quote from “What the Bleep Do Know” when he equated our ability to think about quantum mechanics as analogous to contemplating the marital status of the number five. He made it relatable by describing what I cannot understand.
You can't understand the equivalent of throwing dice, except this time with an additional need for relativistic conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge? ;-)
Good on you making the effort to get in person - it is in fact much, much better. You cannot match the energy of in-person discussion, and of course audio/video is better too. Happy also to see a young gun getting out there and making a splash
A crystal clear exposition of the measurement problem, extricating it expertly from the “ spooky metaphysical maze” of Bohr, and placing it squarely within the purely scientific , on an equation-readjustment-theory re adjustment, deterministic level, with a tentative illustrative nod in Bohm’s direction , “embracing” realism. Thrilled to hear such a clear exposition of Profs position. These intimate convos are scintillating, elucidating and thought provoking. Blackout not a prob my guy. Robinson the GOAT and consummate professional. Hey Pins 🐈!.
Excellent. This is one of the best discussions on the measurement problem of QM that I have heard in a very long time. I also appreciate that this discussion did *not focus on the Bell inequality because it has already been oversold in terms of its relevance to the field.
The algo finally spit this at me a month or so ago. Love your approach as an interviewer and how you let the guests speak with no interruptions. Sub complete.
Your podcast is honestly one of my favorites (and I listen to a lot). That would be great if we get more guests talking about biology / neuroscience / behavior in the future!
I begin my senior-level course on quantum mechanics (QM) with Albert’s book “Quantum Mechanics and Experience” (Harvard UP, 1994). At the outset of his book, he introduces the 2D Hilbert space structure for QM with its superposition using an interferometer, which shows how the quantum bit of information (qubit) can be applied to this physical system. The reason I introduce the qubit is because quantum information theory has an entirely different way to understand QM that solves mysteries like superposition, the measurement problem, and quantum entanglement without violating locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). This is all explained in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024), but let me summarize it here. Carlo Rovelli suggested this new approach to understanding QM in 1996. He noted that attempts to understand QM today are in a morass in exact analogy with what physicists faced trying to understand the Lorentz transformations before special relativity (SR). At that time, physicists tried to account for the strangeness of the Lorentz transformations (e.g., length contraction and time dilation) dynamically via the luminiferous aether. Today, physicists are trying to account for the strangeness of QM dynamically via non-local, superdeterministic, or retro causal mechanisms without success. And, this morass has existed for decades (at least since the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper of 1935). So, Rovelli suggested we stop trying to *interpret* the quantum formalism and instead *derive it* from physical principles or postulates, just like Einstein gave up “constructive efforts” to understand the Lorentz transformations and instead derived them from the relativity principle and light postulate. This is the program that has recently come to fruition in quite a surprising fashion. This new understanding of QM comes from its reconstruction via information-theoretic principles. It’s true that these information-theoretic principles are rather abstract, but they have straightforward physical consequences that render QM a “principle theory” exactly like SR (to use Einstein’s terminology). Let me explain. According to Einstein, a principle theory is a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. The formalism of SR, i.e., the Lorentz transformations, follows from the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions (called the light postulate). This can be justified by the relativity principle, i.e., the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. That’s because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motion (boosts). Accordingly, the strange aspects of SR, e.g., length contraction and time dilation, are not dynamical effects, but kinematic facts that follow from the observer-independence of c, as justified by the relativity principle. Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory by showing how its formalism (its finite-dimensional Hilbert space kinematics as introduced in Albert’s book) follows from the empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity (wording from Brukner & Zeilinger 2009). While that’s not as transparent as the light postulate, one can show that Information Invariance & Continuity entails everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law and inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations, the relativity principle justifies the observer-independence of h exactly as it justifies the light postulate. Accordingly, the strange aspects of QM, e.g., quantum superposition and entanglement, are not dynamical effects, but kinematic facts that follow from the observer-independence of h, as justified by the relativity principle. So, if you believe we have a clear account of what SR is postulating, then we now have a clear account of what QM is postulating. This gives us an entirely new route to an affirmative answer to David’s question, “Are we ever going to be able to think of everything - tables and chairs and measuring instruments and ourselves - as encompassed within some fundamental unified scientific picture of the world?” And, it deflates both the ‘big’ and ‘small’ measurement problems (Two Dogmas About Quantum Mechanics, Bub and Pitowski, arXiv 0712.4258). The ‘big’ measurement problem is that the evolution of the state is unitary before measurement and then stochastically and discontinuously becomes an eigenstate of the measurement operator after measurement. Per Albert’s example, the electron is in a superposition state of being in box 1 and being in box 2 before measurement, then “collapses” to the state of being in box 1 or the state of being in box 2 after measurement. The ‘small’ measurement problem is, per Bub and Pitowski, “the problem of explaining the dynamical emergence of an effectively classical probability space of macroscopic measurement outcomes in a quantum measurement process.” Both problems stem from a dynamical and physically reductive view of QM specifically and reality in general, as Albert describes the approach to Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism. The ‘big’ measurement problem can be deflated trivially by viewing QM as providing a distribution of measurement outcomes in spacetime for some spatiotemporal experimental configuration. This is a version of “all-at-once” explanation used by Evans, Liu, Price, and Wharton for retrocausality, Esfeld and Gisin for Bell flash ontology, Hance, Hossenfelder and Palmer for superdeterminism, and Adlam and Rovelli for relational quantum mechanics. The ‘small’ measurement problem can be deflated (non-trivially) by adopting an ontology of quantum-classical contextuality, a form of multiscale contextual emergence (as we explain in Chapter 9 of “Einstein’s Entanglement”).
@@schmetterling4477 Have you read his book, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience"? He has a lot of valuable insight to share, some of which was shared in this interview. In an area with a lot of confusion, pointing out places we don't know what's going on is important.
@@boaznash847 Why would I read something that was written by a bullshitter? The confusion is his. I haven't been confused about quantum mechanics in a long time. It's one of the most trivial theories there is in physics. You can derive it with like a dozen pages of slightly above high school level math from first principles. You just have to know where to start. Hint: Kolmogorov is your friend. ;-)
Yes, David, it's hard but it doesn't have to be. Misconceptions can be erratically confusing, but nonetheless it gets easier, but it also gets harder as well. You and I should talk. By the way, I'm in love with your mind, and it's very impressive to me on a much different scale than anyone else could imagine. All your hard work is greatly appreciated. Thank you, David, and I thank Robinson for all the time you've invested into broadcasting David's brilliance. Bring him back on soon! {Topic: Quantum particles in depth and David bring slides.} I think I've got most of it, however there isn't nearly enough good material on UA-cam in which it would make it more comprehensible. Directionality specifically.- "I'm close. I'll tend to it more." Be as specific as you can without the "parting gifts". I understand what you're talking about when you choose ways to speak about what is most obvious to me. I've already added you to my little micro/s. Don't ever worry, not ever again, you're come with me on a magic carpet ride. That's a whole different Empirical explanation which we can discuss if you want to know. ;-) P.S. The DSE needs an update to its functions. The Algorithm is absolutely correct...!!!!!! "However it needs more information." If you want to discuss that I'm available. I have lots of answers, but I will ONLY talk with David.
Now that you and David mention it I think I have solved the measurement problem this is how by measuring energy quanta (EQA) which represent the smallest units of energy density fluctuations. 1. _Measuring entangled energy quanta using interferometry_: Employing optical interferometry to detect phase shifts and measure entangled energy quanta with high precision. 2. _Measuring entangled energy quanta using spectroscopy_: Utilizing spectroscopic techniques to measure the energy spectrum of entangled quanta, enabling precise determination of quantum states. 3. _Detecting changes in resonant frequencies_: Measuring changes in resonant frequencies to determine the quantum state of entangled energy quanta. 4. _Detecting changes in density gradients_: Measuring changes in density gradients to determine the quantum state of entangled energy quanta. Other techniques used to measure entangled energy quanta include: 1. _Quantum Tomography_: Reconstructing the quantum state of entangled energy quanta through measurements of multiple observables. 2. _Entanglement Swapping_: Measuring entanglement between two particles by swapping entanglement with a third particle. 3. _Bell State Measurement_: Measuring entangled energy quanta using Bell state measurements, enabling precise determination of quantum states. 4. _Quantum Error Correction_: Using quantum error correction codes to correct errors in measurements of entangled energy quanta. 5. _Weak Measurement_: Measuring entangled energy quanta using weak measurement techniques, enabling precise determination of quantum states without disrupting fragile quantum information. To give you some context as to what energy qaunta are or is, image first understand the Energy Density Reality Model: This model proposes that reality is composed of energy density fluctuations, which give rise to the fabric of space and time. Energy density is the fundamental entity, and particles, fields, and forces emerge from its fluctuations. Key aspects: 1. _Energy density_: The primary constituent of reality, described by its intensity and distribution. 2. _Fluctuations_: Random variations in energy density, giving rise to particles, fields, and forces. 3. _Space-time_: Emerges from energy density fluctuations, providing the framework for physical phenomena. 4. _Particles and fields_: Arise from energy density fluctuations, exhibiting wave-particle duality. 5. _Forces_: Result from interactions between energy density fluctuations, governing particle behavior. Energy Quanta: Energy quanta (EQA) represent the smallest units of energy density fluctuations. They are the fundamental "building blocks" of reality, exhibiting both wave-like and particle-like properties. Properties of Energy Quanta: 1. _Wave-particle duality_: EQA exhibit both wave-like (diffraction, interference) and particle-like (localization, quantization) behavior. 2. _Quantization_: EQA come in discrete packets (quanta) rather than being continuous. 3. _Fluctuation_: EQA arise from energy density fluctuations, inheriting their properties. 4. _Entanglement_: EQA can become "entangled," connected in a way that transcends space and time. 5. _Superposition_: EQA can exist in multiple states simultaneously, reflecting their wave-like nature.
1:13 You should interview Helge Kragh who wrote the book: Quantum generations. He makes the point that the second generation of quantum physicists stopped worrying about philosophy. They just focused on the mathematical formalism.
There was no need for philosophy. All the relevant physics was illuminated by von Neumann in his 1932 book, save maybe for one trivial piece that any undergrad student should be able to figure out after taking his special relativity class. That most physicists can't explain it to you is a side effect of poor teaching methods. We have known how all of this works for almost a century now, we are just not teaching it to most undergrads. They don't need to know. It has no consequences for practical uses of quantum mechanics in e.g. solid state physics and chemistry.
I like thinking about this chain of events Daivd Albert brings up here. It's from his example of a pointer entering superposition, when it's pointing at an electron in superposition. Then, the observer looking at the pointer enters superposition, as the pointer enters position. It's not just the observer that enters superposition, though. It's also the observer's sense of space. Ultimately, these measurements all broke down into timings, in our analysis. The sense of space was derived from a chain of energetic events, with timings associated with them. It appears that, even though our theories are based on space, at the point of measurement we don't even know that much yet! To me, this speaks to the nature of time, and energy. It may be the case that time is imaginary in the sense that it is perspective dependent. However, it may also be the case that time is always the first step in moving from physical reaction to data that can be written down and shared with other scientists. At this scale, and in this way, scientific independence has been denied to us, and we make the most of the interactive universe that we can sense with our timings and energies. This is the solution I came to when working on digital signal processing problems. The spatial coordinates always start like this in your sensors! Instead of "where in space am I?", the observer should be asking "how do I orient myself in my environment?" The simplest observer is going to live in a one dimensional universe, then the next most simple a two dimensional, and so on.
Could it be conceived that one way to describe the Measurement Problem is that it is inherently a recursive procedure? We have to measure the instrument we just measured with, then repeat with whatever we made that measurement with. The process doesn't bottom out.
Thanks, Podcat! (And RE and DA!) Video quality is top notch, looks better than the BBC. ETA - Seems kinda appropriate that the screen goes blank when the topic is the establishment inscrutability over Bohr's QM. ;)
After watching this podcast, I am strongly inclined to reread Edmund Husserl. With his 'Crisis in European science', he had put his finger on the wound that existed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. David also alluded to the fact that at that time people were very much in the grip of a crisis of meaning, but that even physics itself asked itself fundamental questions, to which different attitudes were possible. Bohr's fashionable denial of a deeper truth and his tendency to even psychological explanations, would also be rejected by Husserl. With the concept of 'a rigorous science', he had in mind a clarification that even mathematical science is always still considered from a subject and that there must be rigorous rules to formalize this. Only from this practice can models be built up from scratch. Husserl critiqued the positivistic tendencies in Europe and abroad, and suggested a more wide conception of logos, nous and a psyche, a Greek root of understanding, but not in a way able to give clear answers to the matters at stake.
David points out Bohr's Hegelian influence, but this sounds much more like Kant's critique of pure reason to me. Bohr insists that the subject-object distinction is a necessary precondition for measurement, but for Hegel the ultimate goal of science is to overcome the subject-object distinction.
You can quantify when a "measurement" happens. It's when the discord of the system exceeds the entanglement entropy of the superposition state. You can see this in the work on quantum darwinism by Zurek and Zwolak. When you get to the critical point in terms of proliferation of bad "copies" (because: no cloning) of the state it collapses to a pointer state on a timescale determined by the system "connectivity" ie the propagation ratw of the wavefunction through the system. It's pretty straightforward and well characterized in experiment. No more spookiness. Just probabilistic information flow weighted by geometrical resonances (ie the protection of various wavefunctions onto each other).
His initial setup seems to treat state A, state B, and state aA+bB as three different states, which I think confuses the discussion. The electron (in his example) is always in one of an INFINITE number of states drawn from a state space that has the form of a unit circle (after normalization). The two cases of 1A+0B and 0A+1B are not special at all until one gets to the measurement problem. Superposition isn’t a “weird combination” of two or more “sensible states”. Rather, the state is ALWAYS a superposition and our “sensible states” (eg A or B) are just a VERY restricted subset of the full range of what the superposition can be.
As a retired physicst, I disagree with David on the idea that string theory has any merit, given its predictions have zero correlation to the world as it exists. The enormous time wasted in physicist-hours could have been far more useful investigating far more promising physical theories. Surely 50 years is sufficient to demonstrate any utility, at least we can count on time for the passing of the string hawkers.
@1:35:14 "Giving a wave-function gives a complete description of the state of a physical system at any one moment." Albert is here describing how the Many Worlds Interpretation regards the quantum wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation agrees with MWI only up to the point where it claims the wave-function collapses (i.e. at the instant a measurement occurs). As with MWI, the Pilot Wave Interpretation dispenses with the notion of wave-function collapse, but claims that in addition to the wave-function, a complete description of a system's quantum state must also include the actual location of each particle. The reason PWI is called a "hidden variable" theory is because the observed location of a particle in 3D physical space is not what is referred to as its "actual" location. What PWI is referring to is the particle's location in Configuration Space, the complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the quantum wave-function is defined. It is this location in Configuration Space that is hidden, as it cannot be observed via measurements taken in physical space.
Measurement is basically transferring some energy from a system governed by a traveling wave equation to a system governed by eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. If the eigenfunctions of the system that receives the said energy are periodic after the energy transfer then we perceive this as “object persistence.” If the resulting system leads to unbounded eigenfunctions then we call this an explosion for the macroscopic objects and particle collisions for subatomic size systems. That is how we perceive a chair in the room. Our measurements devices are made of atoms that are very stable eigensystems. There are natural sources for atomic stability and other subatomic systems (fundamental forces)like the electrical charge of which nature we don’t understand. Fundamental particles are basically small stable systems with periodic eigenfunctions. Classical mechanics needs another chance for explaining the universe with less emphasis on locality and material science approaches to space. Also fundamental forces need more attention and research funding.
On the measurement problem: In order to predict a non-probabilistic outcome we have to know the interaction of the measuring equipment (observer) with the target. The observer/observed interactions are theoretical and are not verified experimentally. For ever, it will not be not possible to experimentally verify these interaction because it requires a third observer to monitor the interaction process complicating the issue. So forget it, as far as the delicate quantum measurements are concerned we are going to be probabilistic.
@@sollewitt3219 Totally not beside the point because objects behave according to the rules of commutative algebras (logic, set theory) whereas quanta of energy behave according to non-commutative algebras. That's the mathematical reason why people think that quantum mechanics is "not logical". :-)
When something is measured, it seems like the thing is there independent of the measurement. But they are not separate things. The thing IS the measurement. We can only measure reflections of information.
I have started reading Albert's A GUESS AT THR RIDDLE He at lest got me started with space and I hope he will take me over the non-local reality and into gravity.?!
Incredible. David Albert is just so clear and precise in his explanations. Subbed :) Please get Deborah Mayo on to the podcast. She is one of the foremost philosophers of statistics and it would be cool to hear her thoughts on problems in the foundations of probability and statistics.
Two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide lie on the classical side of the Heisenberg cut. If they are hit by an alpha particle, there can occasionally be a radical reorganisation of the molecules corresponding to our idea of an explosion at the macroscopic level. However, if we want to do a computer simulation of their behaviour, then it will need umpteen dimensions of configuration space. This is the barrier that we face. Not a barrier is the human imagination. I would suggest adding tachyonic Brownian motion to get an outcome which is different from two molecules of nitrogen trifluoride. Other suggestions are welcome. Also not a barrier is nonlocality. It might be a problem in a deterministic universe, but it isn't a problem once randomness is admitted. If we don't have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms, then consider the vortex cloud method in two-dimensional fluid mechanics. We can impose a condition of quantisation of vorticity alongside Alexandre Chorin's Brownian motion of vorticity. The parameter of quantisation can be set equal to the parameter of Brownian motion. Then tackle a simulation of the Von Karman vortex street. Quantisation of vorticity is wavelike behaviour. Brownian motion of vorticity is particle-like behaviour. The initial symmetry-breaking which leads to the vortex street is a collapse of the wave function. The simulation will run in polynomial time. This could be written in Excel VBA so every home can run the simulation. VBA uses the Mersenne twister as its random number generator. The output can be to a cinematic loop display on a multi-page spreadsheet. Every time the user presses a button to view the display, the RNG is reseeded by reference to the time of pressing XOR the last random number from the previous system. This is as good as a real RNG which can be used for a truly unbreakable Vernam cipher or a Wiener process where the expected value of the dot product of any two displacements is strictly zero. For the moment, this is the best we can do to tackle the measurement problem.
1:36:14 - Those bumps are not bumps in physical space. Those bumps are bumps in the space representing the results your measuring device is capable of producing. If your device measures positions, then of course that space is isomorphic with physical space, but it IS NOT PHYSICAL SPACE. You need this caveat in order to gracefully handle more complex systems that demand higher dimensional description. Using a single particle's position as your talking example papers over this difference and contributes to confusion.
Essentially, if Bohr hadn't "charmed" the world of physics, it's possible that all our quantum mechanics (physics) questions might be answered by now. A philosophical nightmare built in to not only theory, but experimentation as well. Cool!
How would we recognize ourselves branching in the wave function if different branches can never interact? That it doesn't *seem* to us like we're branching shouldn't warrant dismissing the idea.
The conscious observer is not in a superposition of TWO possible states but of astronomically many, most of which look quite similar and contain one of the two states of the electron. I think it makes more sense that way and certainly doesn't merit saying "this is where the story of how chairs work radically breaks down".
I wonder why we don’t ever hear about the necessity of a Gibbs free energy transition in any measurement. For the measurement to occur there must be a negative free energy, the change in entropy times temperature must outweigh the change in the internal energy. A measurement device is a machine that creates band maintains an internal state that allows for such a transition.
How about a “many worlds collapsing” theory, where the splits between quantum states are minuscule in our classical reality and merge back together in a practical sense as soon as they split apart. When we capture instances of quantum decohetence, maybe we should most keep in mind that they are only instances and not as long-lasting as the images captured when we don’t observe the paths they take. That doesn’t answer the question of the effect of measurement, but at least it hones reality down to one universe and validates the principal of the conservation of energy. Because one photon’s or electron’s worth of energy shouldn’t spawn an infinite number of photons and electrons. They should have degrees of freedom to move and propagate and nothing more. Even if those degrees of freedom or dimensions are more or less numerous than those in our classical reality, the difference that makes should be negligible under usual circumstances and should not be only under the most extreme circumstances. And I’ll go so far as to entertain the idea these circumstances correspond with local energy levels and that the amount of energy we encounter locally is comparatively not that much higher than the non-zero energy of the vacuum. If our reality splits apart like the spontaneous emergence of two virtual particles, then it annihilates back into one reality almost just as quickly.
A lot of this confusion goes away if we recognize that there are two things being talked about here that are distinctly different but also confused together: the quantum state and the real state. Real states only exist in the moment of interactions relative to a particular frame of reference (a coordinate system). Quantum states are not real states but merely a vector of probability amplitudes to predict the real state a particle will acquire in an interaction relative to a particular reference frame. When we approach it this way, we can see why some of Prof Albert's claims about QM are addressable in this framework. All the physical sciences have to begin with a chosen reference frame, chosen coordinate system. When an observer describes what they observe, they are implicitly using their own frame of reference, a coordinate system centered on themselves. When Prof Albert says we have to take into account the observer by including them as part of the system, the problem with this statement is then the question arises, "from what reference frame?" If the observer is part of the system, then the coordinate system cannot be centered on the observer, you would need an "outside" perspective, a third person. So, there are implicitly two reference frames he is choosing here. One of the observer, let's call them X, and one outside the observer, some third-party, let's call them Y. If you compute the brain state of X relative X, you would always consistently get definite values. You would never at any point get an indefinite value or a superposition of states. If you compute the brain state of X relative to Y, you would predict in QM a superposition of states, but it is a false conclusion to draw from this that the person X's _real state_ is a superposition of states. The quantum state is, again, a list of probability amplitudes used to predict what its real state would be. The real state X->X exists, but the real state X->Y simply does not yet exist as, again, real states are only real in the moment of interactions relative to the chosen coordinate system, this is its definition. And thus it is just a category mistake (like asking about the "marital status of the number five") to ask what is the absolute state of X, it doesn't have one, it is like asking for the absolute velocity of a train. It's not a meaningful question because velocity is relative by definition. It is also a mistake to ask what the real state of X->Y prior to Y interacting with X directly or indirectly, as X->Y by definition only exists in the moment of an interaction. As long as you are describing a system in a superposition of states, then this necessarily means an interaction has not yet occurred between X and Y. The moment the interaction _does_ occur, quantum mechanics predicts precisely the opposite that X's brain state will be in a superposition of states, but that it will be in a definite state. QM is giving the correct prediction as to what we actually observe. Prof Albert's claim that it is telling us we should observe the real state of a system to be in a superposition of states, I just don't buy it. Nothing in quantum mechanics implies at all we should observe a measuring device facing that way and this way at the same time. This only would be the case if you treat the quantum state and the real state as the same things when they are distinctly different things. This is also the issue made in the EPR paper. The apparent nonlocality arises from treating the quantum state as if it is the same as the real state, so when Alice updates her prediction about Bob's particle that may be way over there, they conclude some "spooky action at a distance" altered Bob's particle. But, again, from Alice's perspective, if she has not interacted with Bob's particle, then it _still_ doesn't have a real state. All she is doing is updating her probability amplitudes for what it would be if she were to go and measure it, but it still lacks a real state by definition (categorically) from her reference frame because an interaction has not yet occurred. It's not a matter of being unable to include the conscious observer as part of the picture, as the conscious observer being a conscious observer is not really relevant to QM. It is more about being unable to describe the system in absolute terms, that is to say, _absolute_ terms independent of a reference frame. Galileo showed velocity of is relative, Einstein showed space and time are relative, quantum mechanics just extends this notion of relativity further. For some reason, people constantly conflate being "relative" with being "observer-dependent" as if it somehow depends upon the presence of conscious observers. Velocity is relative yet if you were hit by a train traveling at 300 km/h, that velocity would be very real to you. Relative properties are still very physically real and independent of the observer, just not independent a chosen coordinate system. Bohr is half right that you cannot describe the whole universe without making a "cut" as Prof Albert puts it, but the cut is not between measuring devices and conscious observers, but just the chosen coordinate system in which the universe is being described from. If the universe is relative, you cannot describe it without specifying the reference frame under which it is being described. Indeed, even without quantum mechanics, just in special relativity alone we find that certain bits of information don't meaningfully exist from one reference frame that may exist in another, such as it is not even meaningful to ask what is going on in the Andromeda galaxy "now" from our reference frame in the Milky Way. Special relativity alone, even without quantum mechanics, already bulldozes this notion of reality being _absolute_ where facts all meaningfully exist simultaneously in the absolute present, so I don't find the attempt to try and modify quantum mechanics to preserve the absolute existence of facts as very convincing. It's not that we can't have a "universal" theory as Prof Albert puts it, but we cannot have an _absolute_ theory in the sense of one independent of any reference frame, one that does not depend upon a chosen coordinate system. It is still "universal" in the sense that this is how the universe works: it is relative.
@1:53:00 David might not be schooled enough on other weirdnesses of MWI? (He probably is, but did not mention it.) In the Frauchiger-Renner Inconsistency theorems, the way MWI escapes being inconsistent is by postulating branches can merge. That is so damn weird that for me it thoroughly destroys any appeal (although on moral grounds I never liked MWI). Merging branches though is a simple physical weirdness too far. For one thing, why aren't branches merging all over the place? A Wigner's Friend set-up cannot be the only reason branches merge, and yet it is likely the only way we might see branches merge if the gedankenexperiment was feasible (it isn't feasible, it is pure gedanken).
I don't understand why seeing an interference pattern with my two eyes doesn't cause the wave to collapse. Am I not measuring anything? Why is everyone always preoccupied with what happens after the two slits? Stipulating that "particles" are coming from a source conflicts with the results but there is much less discussion about how a particle can "jump" to a wave before the slits. It's always about how it can collapse after the slits. I still think I'm just a sideband caused by the big cosmic modulator. Great stream, thanks Robinson!
Good point. My thoughts are that the design of the slits forces the electron into it's wave state before it passes the slits. I would like to see the experiment done with a hole and concentric circles.
What I get from the Bohr quote is a modern physics take on Plato's cave. Until we know we are out of the cave, how can we truly describe the the shadows on the wall. Even if we are "out of the cave", how could we truly be sure we are not just now in a bigger cave. As a part of the system, we could never truly understand the measure of the system, since our understanding of it is still within the system. Since such, there is no true way to describe the system in totality from within the system itself. Unless we can pull ourselves out of the system, which is the goal of most theological thought (an observation of the singular all/none), there is no complete description for the system available.
Thank you for another great episode! I wonder if Newtonian concepts such as force at a distance were already weird to our intuition. I mean, how intuitive is it to have one object attract another through empty space? Even before general relativity or QM, physics was already challenging intuition anyway…
Very interesting, David is a favorite and so is Robinson, best channel on the Internet! I am more into the "3rd tradition", of the "many worlds", but I think it is also false. However to me, it's closer to reality than the other theories, I guess that's why David Deutsch supports it. I have great respect for all those people and I love them, but I think they are going into the wrong direction. And often times they sound silly to me. My take on the "many worlds" is not that there exist infinite copies of ourselves and that our whole Universe goes copy-paste every nano second. It's the other way around. We don't split, but we "merge". I suppose that all these problems come from fundamental misunderstandings. For example the dimensions and especially the time dimension, they are not real entities. They don't exist. You can't prove to me that the 3rd dimension exists, or that the time dimension exists, just like you can't prove number 2, because numbers do not exist. There are people that (I think that) they are on the right path. I want to write a book about this (I'm not a writer ..yet), but it will be sci-fi 😁
[Continuation of my earlier comment]: The measurements that need to be particle physically interpreted to explain the sources of EVIL already exist: 1) Plant types that don't bear edible products for any being (leaves, flowers, fruits, tubers ~ edible for animals or humans) 2) Plants that bear products edible for only one of the two types of beings ~ animals/humans. 3) Plants that bear poisonous products ~ to one or both types of beings. This implies all particles assumed to exist must serve to derive a table of plants (substituting the periodic table and the standard model) along with the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them. Obviously, the only particle in the standard model that has any direct relevance to plants and beings, the photon, will be accompanied in this system with other 5 types of particles (Einstein's hidden variables) to represent all the 6 sense perceptions (with Temper ~ as the 6th. Sense corresponding to BREATHING ~ the common sense for all 3 types of entities: PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS). There are two more types of particles to represent 1) N (Needs ~hunger, fear, pain, etc.) perceptions in both types of beings. and 2) S (Satisfaction ~ Food, Clothes, Shelter, etc.) of the relevant Needs satisfying growth on plants. The final formula for describing development of Plants and growth on them would take the form: N = f (a,b,c,A,B,C) = S where a: smellon b: tonon c: photon A: Temperon B: Touchon C: Taston
41:46 the problem is the infinite indefinite noise of the system. It is the dual of the fundamental problem of mathematics - REAL numbers - continuity. I can't tell if this is the 'Emperor's new clothes' or I am missing something.
Thank’s for this great interview. Could you ask to your guests how they perceive our close futur and why? As a « special » end question. As long as I really appreciate these topics a lot…I really would like to know. I would be delighted to hear how « big brains » position themselves in the great picture. Maybe they could help a few of us to get keys about self management regarding growing systemic crisis.(Maybe not) Just an idea. 👋🏻
“Why can’t we ‘go native’ and learn the language of quantum mechanics?” Sure, and let’s learn to visualize hyperbolic rotations in 4D spacetime, while we’re at it! In both cases, the best we can do is to talk about mathematical models using natural, non-mathematical language.
The most perplexing question for this discussion is how such a trivial concept as the so-called measurement problem could baffle grown physicists for 100 years! Here is how the Physics works: when a quantum object is observed, it joins the set of quantum objects in the measurement apparatus. Simple third grade set theory is all you need to understand this concept. At a higher level of abstraction, the measured quantum object joins the frame of reference of the measurement apparatus. Because this Physics is so trivial to understand, physicists would be unable to extort huge research grants to study it. That's precisely why the mystique has persisted for 100 years.
"It joins the quantum object" woow so deep only issue being what is the mechanism behind that joining. You just restated that they are in superposition imo.
I think it is somewhat exaggerated to think of the measurement problem as an indicator of the whole scientific project failing or not. In fact, I believe no single scientific problem can be so grave as to become such an indicator. There certainly are threads to science, most of them having to do with the way science itself is organized, funded, incentivized and so forth, but an "unsolvable" scientific problem does simply not have the power to stop scientific progress from happening, even if it pertains to very basic questions.
The measurement problem doesn't even exist. We know exactly what a measurement is and what it takes to make one (an asymptotic vacuum state). The people who are talking about "the measurement problem" simply don't understand physics.
Of course it threatens science!! It makes them look dumb to the politicians! “The funding is falling, the funding is falling….” The great scandal of science is that it results in technologies that are owned by all types of special interests.
The opening dialougrpe is what I believe. We haven't the tech or database to test our theories. I believe the tech MAYBE available in next few centuries. That is MAYBE. Quite like the maths when migraines allow, but consider most physicists to be toke keepers today. Don't get angry. It's fun
The scientific project has definitely not reached its end, it just needs to be expanded into dealing with the integration of ‚subjectivity‘, as ultimate reality turns out to be ‚subjective‘. We have also learned that observing the microcosmos with telescopes does not work. This does not render telescopes useless for the purpose they were made for, as much as the science of objects is useful within the objective world. Niels Bor proposed to consider using a microscope for proceeding with researching the microcosmos (metaphorically speaking). This is still hard to accept for those deeply wedded with physicalism, but like flat earth theory in the past, we as humanity will overcome this dead-end axiom pretty soon.
I wrote my earlier comment before I listened to the section, where David says Bohr mentioned about the limit to knowlwdge, which he himself disagrees. My earlier comment shows exactly where that limit rests. Sorry David, Bohr was very much on the right track when he said that, although he couldn't specify the exact line where that LIMIT TO DETERMINISTIC KNOWLEDGE falls. Knowledge must be restricted to deterministic negative prevention, while collection of information (maps/ time tables) for positive purposes would remain infinite and eternal. Note also: before such a theory for limited knowledge can be formulated, it is essential to render the concepts POSITIVE and NEGATIVE in mathematics and physics (which are internally inconsistent, mutually incompatible and irrational ~ increase or decrease of any damn thing, + and -, proton and electron, result of an experiment confirming or rejecting the original assumption involved, etc.) be made compatible with their common usage ( as right and wrong, good and bad or divine and evil), which is very rational and consistent. Hence science and mathematics has to change and NOT the very appropriate common usage. And also the concept of FIELDS in science, totally incompatible with the common apple, wheat and rice fields, needs to be rectified in favour of the word's more appropriate common usage.
I fell in love with _philosophy of science_ when it occurred to me (age 8 or 9?) that maybe the problem is that the question is crummy :-) *_Praxis_* and *_techne!_*
Everything that happens in reality is a measurement. The effect of velocity and gravity in relativity is the mirror image of the measurement problem. it's subjectivity becoming objective while relativity is the objective becoming subjective.
The two Davids (Albert & Chalmers) and Robert Sapolsky together would be a podcast trinity of philosophy! The homogeneity of the commonly known QFT particles, the measurable if Heisenberg indeterminate proton, neutron and electron are nototable; the stability and persistence of the proton and electron in particular, pun intended, seem almost timeless and uniquely coincidental, almost like they precipitated, time crystalized or free fell out, of a purely energetic bosonic background and stuck around. With both preceding and piercing through the first free light of the CMB to this day, to have both a reflective look backward, if not an expansive view forward into their complexly re-arranged hominid futures? These binary entities of homogeneous charge, mass, spin, resonance and magnetism are, as individual isolated particles, effectively jiggly and zero entropy, but taken as as two universal binary groups of ~ 10^80 particles each, were firstly an ionized binary proton-electron plasma hot mix that cooled and expanded into a load of hydrogen with some helium and perhaps lithium tossed into that mix? A query from the peanut gallery- could these energetic binary entities have rather been a relatively cool primordial Bose-Einstein condensate that required some time to be created to then free fall or accelerate/precipitate out of an initial fermion-free and effectively timeless bosonic background solution?
Hooray 😊 Prof Albert is one of the very few people that I watch every interview he does and read everything he writes 😎
that’s so awesome!
Same here!
Same here!
Switch to Hoffman. More authentically relevant.
I watched this for 2hrs instead of Deadpool & Wolverine, so here's my movie ticket money
omg thank you so much!!!
I want to express my gratitude for these interviews - they're so illuminating, and the space and time (spacetime!) you give these experts to explain their ideas is just incredible!
Of course!
Your interviews with David Albert are my absolute favorites. I appreciate all the work you've been doing to make these happen, Robinson!
This is so interesting! I am a philosophy major, so its greatly appreciated when such an educated person gives a simplified yet not misleading picture of the problem, Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Don't worry about the camera problems :) You are doing the work of a host, researcher, audio engineer, cameraman, and probably a few other roles as well
sigh…thank you for being so understanding!
Surely the cat is doing some of that
@@robinsonerhardtI would like to suggest the addition of simple text during the blackout sections simply stating that there was an issue, etc.
If you were to upload again, I would suggest filling in the missing video with a series of still frames from earlier in the video. Going with a slide show style patch would be better than a blank segment. Movements in a stationary interview do not vary much so nobody would discern where the stills came from.
It's perfect that the screen goes dark just when Albert describes Bohr's ideas as like the ravings of the oracle at Delphi.
It's always been a delight to listen to the returning champion David Albert talk as he tries to keep the subject in question accessible and objective.
David is quickly becoming my favorite scientist! He might be the most thoughtful physicist, and truly isn't afraid to use the most amount of words to convey his thoughts & opinions, which is always very interesting.
The first time I saw him, which was on an early ep. of the World Science Festival, I didn't appreciate him, oddly, I think because I didn't realize the depth of how he explains something, which is different than anyone else. I mistook his use of words as exaggeration. Thankfully, every time I saw him after that, I appreciated his unique way of communicating more and more and more, and here we are today, he's probably my favorite! 👍
Thanks, Robinson
you're welcome! and yes, he's amazing!
More interesting maybe in philos
I followed his public spat with Lawrence Krauss and thought he simply schooled Krauss with the least amount of words. Simply put, Krauss was wrong, out of his depth, knew it but tried to argue his way out but dug the hole he was in even deeper, and made a fool of himself.. Worse, he demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty. Krauss lost my respect and I read his stuff with a lot of skeptism after that.
Yes! I have been waiting for the face to face with David. As always, David is a fascinating guest to listen to. Don’t worry about the video, certainly won’t detract from the quality of the interview. Keep it up!
thank you! and i'm still sorry!
Thank you David for having made quantum mechanics relatable to me.
I’ll never forget his quote from “What the Bleep Do Know” when he equated our ability to think about quantum mechanics as analogous to contemplating the marital status of the number five.
He made it relatable by describing what I cannot understand.
You can't understand the equivalent of throwing dice, except this time with an additional need for relativistic conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge? ;-)
I am really enjoying these in person interviews
I am really, really, really so glad to hear this!
lol
@@robinsonerhardt complete agreement. being able to watch an in-person interview multiplies the chance that I will watch it.
"The marital status of the number 5" is my all time favorite quantum mechanics quote.
"yes"
Good on you making the effort to get in person - it is in fact much, much better. You cannot match the energy of in-person discussion, and of course audio/video is better too. Happy also to see a young gun getting out there and making a splash
Haha! Thank you!
Thanks!
Thank you!
A crystal clear exposition of the measurement problem, extricating it expertly from the “ spooky metaphysical maze” of Bohr, and placing it squarely within the purely scientific , on an equation-readjustment-theory re adjustment, deterministic level, with a tentative illustrative nod in Bohm’s direction , “embracing” realism. Thrilled to hear such a clear exposition of Profs position. These intimate convos are scintillating, elucidating and thought provoking. Blackout not a prob my guy. Robinson the GOAT and consummate professional. Hey Pins 🐈!.
Not sure he’s got the right position but at least he has a position
Hey, Robinson! Thank you so much! Great progress and all the best!😎😎😎
thank you!!!
Excellent. This is one of the best discussions on the measurement problem of QM that I have heard in a very long time. I also appreciate that this discussion did *not focus on the Bell inequality because it has already been oversold in terms of its relevance to the field.
Superb interview, you cannot be grateful enough to David Albert and how he carefully exposed this complicated ideas but his kindness to explain them.
The algo finally spit this at me a month or so ago. Love your approach as an interviewer and how you let the guests speak with no interruptions. Sub complete.
came here because of Norman Flekenstien podcast. Great work ❤
thanks so much!
This is the good stuff, Another david Albert and in person
Your podcast is honestly one of my favorites (and I listen to a lot). That would be great if we get more guests talking about biology / neuroscience / behavior in the future!
thanx for the clarity of explanations !!
Great interview
David and Tim are so interesting. Love their take on the fundamentals.
they are the best!
@@sylviarogier1I think none of them support many worlds. Am I wrong?
@@Mark.Slight I thought David Albert did for a while. Maybe I'm wrong.
@@sylviarogier1 and maybe David Albert is wrong. What if we're all wrong
Another great episode so far.
thank you so much!!!
I'd love to be a fly on the wall during David's dinner with Bohr...
me too!
I begin my senior-level course on quantum mechanics (QM) with Albert’s book “Quantum Mechanics and Experience” (Harvard UP, 1994). At the outset of his book, he introduces the 2D Hilbert space structure for QM with its superposition using an interferometer, which shows how the quantum bit of information (qubit) can be applied to this physical system. The reason I introduce the qubit is because quantum information theory has an entirely different way to understand QM that solves mysteries like superposition, the measurement problem, and quantum entanglement without violating locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). This is all explained in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024), but let me summarize it here.
Carlo Rovelli suggested this new approach to understanding QM in 1996. He noted that attempts to understand QM today are in a morass in exact analogy with what physicists faced trying to understand the Lorentz transformations before special relativity (SR). At that time, physicists tried to account for the strangeness of the Lorentz transformations (e.g., length contraction and time dilation) dynamically via the luminiferous aether. Today, physicists are trying to account for the strangeness of QM dynamically via non-local, superdeterministic, or retro causal mechanisms without success. And, this morass has existed for decades (at least since the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper of 1935). So, Rovelli suggested we stop trying to *interpret* the quantum formalism and instead *derive it* from physical principles or postulates, just like Einstein gave up “constructive efforts” to understand the Lorentz transformations and instead derived them from the relativity principle and light postulate. This is the program that has recently come to fruition in quite a surprising fashion.
This new understanding of QM comes from its reconstruction via information-theoretic principles. It’s true that these information-theoretic principles are rather abstract, but they have straightforward physical consequences that render QM a “principle theory” exactly like SR (to use Einstein’s terminology). Let me explain.
According to Einstein, a principle theory is a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. The formalism of SR, i.e., the Lorentz transformations, follows from the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions (called the light postulate). This can be justified by the relativity principle, i.e., the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. That’s because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motion (boosts). Accordingly, the strange aspects of SR, e.g., length contraction and time dilation, are not dynamical effects, but kinematic facts that follow from the observer-independence of c, as justified by the relativity principle.
Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory by showing how its formalism (its finite-dimensional Hilbert space kinematics as introduced in Albert’s book) follows from the empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity (wording from Brukner & Zeilinger 2009). While that’s not as transparent as the light postulate, one can show that Information Invariance & Continuity entails everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law and inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations, the relativity principle justifies the observer-independence of h exactly as it justifies the light postulate. Accordingly, the strange aspects of QM, e.g., quantum superposition and entanglement, are not dynamical effects, but kinematic facts that follow from the observer-independence of h, as justified by the relativity principle.
So, if you believe we have a clear account of what SR is postulating, then we now have a clear account of what QM is postulating. This gives us an entirely new route to an affirmative answer to David’s question, “Are we ever going to be able to think of everything - tables and chairs and measuring instruments and ourselves - as encompassed within some fundamental unified scientific picture of the world?” And, it deflates both the ‘big’ and ‘small’ measurement problems (Two Dogmas About Quantum Mechanics, Bub and Pitowski, arXiv 0712.4258).
The ‘big’ measurement problem is that the evolution of the state is unitary before measurement and then stochastically and discontinuously becomes an eigenstate of the measurement operator after measurement. Per Albert’s example, the electron is in a superposition state of being in box 1 and being in box 2 before measurement, then “collapses” to the state of being in box 1 or the state of being in box 2 after measurement. The ‘small’ measurement problem is, per Bub and Pitowski, “the problem of explaining the dynamical emergence of an effectively classical probability space of macroscopic measurement outcomes in a quantum measurement process.” Both problems stem from a dynamical and physically reductive view of QM specifically and reality in general, as Albert describes the approach to Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism.
The ‘big’ measurement problem can be deflated trivially by viewing QM as providing a distribution of measurement outcomes in spacetime for some spatiotemporal experimental configuration. This is a version of “all-at-once” explanation used by Evans, Liu, Price, and Wharton for retrocausality, Esfeld and Gisin for Bell flash ontology, Hance, Hossenfelder and Palmer for superdeterminism, and Adlam and Rovelli for relational quantum mechanics. The ‘small’ measurement problem can be deflated (non-trivially) by adopting an ontology of quantum-classical contextuality, a form of multiscale contextual emergence (as we explain in Chapter 9 of “Einstein’s Entanglement”).
Great interview Robinson. So nice to catch up on the status of the measurement problem and foundations of quantum mechanics!
You didn't catch up on anything. He told you for an endless two hours that he doesn't understand anything about the topic. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Have you read his book, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience"? He has a lot of valuable insight to share, some of which was shared in this interview. In an area with a lot of confusion, pointing out places we don't know what's going on is important.
@@boaznash847 Why would I read something that was written by a bullshitter? The confusion is his. I haven't been confused about quantum mechanics in a long time. It's one of the most trivial theories there is in physics. You can derive it with like a dozen pages of slightly above high school level math from first principles. You just have to know where to start. Hint: Kolmogorov is your friend. ;-)
Definitely no need to be embarrassed! Much appreciate everything you do!
I enjoy these conversations
I'm glad!!
Thanks for the interview!@@robinsonerhardt
Excellent explanation of the measurement problem and superposition.
Also completely false. ;-)
I see David; I click
thank you!
Yes, David, it's hard but it doesn't have to be. Misconceptions can be erratically confusing, but nonetheless it gets easier, but it also gets harder as well. You and I should talk. By the way, I'm in love with your mind, and it's very impressive to me on a much different scale than anyone else could imagine. All your hard work is greatly appreciated. Thank you, David, and I thank Robinson for all the time you've invested into broadcasting David's brilliance. Bring him back on soon! {Topic: Quantum particles in depth and David bring slides.} I think I've got most of it, however there isn't nearly enough good material on UA-cam in which it would make it more comprehensible. Directionality specifically.- "I'm close. I'll tend to it more." Be as specific as you can without the "parting gifts". I understand what you're talking about when you choose ways to speak about what is most obvious to me. I've already added you to my little micro/s. Don't ever worry, not ever again, you're come with me on a magic carpet ride. That's a whole different Empirical explanation which we can discuss if you want to know. ;-) P.S. The DSE needs an update to its functions. The Algorithm is absolutely correct...!!!!!! "However it needs more information." If you want to discuss that I'm available. I have lots of answers, but I will ONLY talk with David.
David I support your points of view on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics
David is fantastic... Always a pleasure to learn from him
He’s new to me. Love it 53:54. Was it a mistake.
Now that you and David mention it I think I have solved the measurement problem this is how by measuring energy quanta (EQA) which represent the smallest units of energy density fluctuations.
1. _Measuring entangled energy quanta using interferometry_: Employing optical interferometry to detect phase shifts and measure entangled energy quanta with high precision.
2. _Measuring entangled energy quanta using spectroscopy_: Utilizing spectroscopic techniques to measure the energy spectrum of entangled quanta, enabling precise determination of quantum states.
3. _Detecting changes in resonant frequencies_: Measuring changes in resonant frequencies to determine the quantum state of entangled energy quanta.
4. _Detecting changes in density gradients_: Measuring changes in density gradients to determine the quantum state of entangled energy quanta.
Other techniques used to measure entangled energy quanta include:
1. _Quantum Tomography_: Reconstructing the quantum state of entangled energy quanta through measurements of multiple observables.
2. _Entanglement Swapping_: Measuring entanglement between two particles by swapping entanglement with a third particle.
3. _Bell State Measurement_: Measuring entangled energy quanta using Bell state measurements, enabling precise determination of quantum states.
4. _Quantum Error Correction_: Using quantum error correction codes to correct errors in measurements of entangled energy quanta.
5. _Weak Measurement_: Measuring entangled energy quanta using weak measurement techniques, enabling precise determination of quantum states without disrupting fragile quantum information.
To give you some context as to what energy qaunta are or is, image first understand
the Energy Density Reality Model:
This model proposes that reality is composed of energy density fluctuations, which give rise to the fabric of space and time. Energy density is the fundamental entity, and particles, fields, and forces emerge from its fluctuations.
Key aspects:
1. _Energy density_: The primary constituent of reality, described by its intensity and distribution.
2. _Fluctuations_: Random variations in energy density, giving rise to particles, fields, and forces.
3. _Space-time_: Emerges from energy density fluctuations, providing the framework for physical phenomena.
4. _Particles and fields_: Arise from energy density fluctuations, exhibiting wave-particle duality.
5. _Forces_: Result from interactions between energy density fluctuations, governing particle behavior.
Energy Quanta:
Energy quanta (EQA) represent the smallest units of energy density fluctuations. They are the fundamental "building blocks" of reality, exhibiting both wave-like and particle-like properties.
Properties of Energy Quanta:
1. _Wave-particle duality_: EQA exhibit both wave-like (diffraction, interference) and particle-like (localization, quantization) behavior.
2. _Quantization_: EQA come in discrete packets (quanta) rather than being continuous.
3. _Fluctuation_: EQA arise from energy density fluctuations, inheriting their properties.
4. _Entanglement_: EQA can become "entangled," connected in a way that transcends space and time.
5. _Superposition_: EQA can exist in multiple states simultaneously, reflecting their wave-like nature.
1:13 You should interview Helge Kragh who wrote the book: Quantum generations. He makes the point that the second generation of quantum physicists stopped worrying about philosophy.
They just focused on the mathematical formalism.
There was no need for philosophy. All the relevant physics was illuminated by von Neumann in his 1932 book, save maybe for one trivial piece that any undergrad student should be able to figure out after taking his special relativity class. That most physicists can't explain it to you is a side effect of poor teaching methods. We have known how all of this works for almost a century now, we are just not teaching it to most undergrads. They don't need to know. It has no consequences for practical uses of quantum mechanics in e.g. solid state physics and chemistry.
Thank you!
I like thinking about this chain of events Daivd Albert brings up here.
It's from his example of a pointer entering superposition, when it's pointing at an electron in superposition.
Then, the observer looking at the pointer enters superposition, as the pointer enters position.
It's not just the observer that enters superposition, though.
It's also the observer's sense of space.
Ultimately, these measurements all broke down into timings, in our analysis.
The sense of space was derived from a chain of energetic events, with timings associated with them.
It appears that, even though our theories are based on space, at the point of measurement we don't even know that much yet!
To me, this speaks to the nature of time, and energy.
It may be the case that time is imaginary in the sense that it is perspective dependent.
However, it may also be the case that time is always the first step in moving from physical reaction to data that can be written down and shared with other scientists.
At this scale, and in this way, scientific independence has been denied to us, and we make the most of the interactive universe that we can sense with our timings and energies.
This is the solution I came to when working on digital signal processing problems. The spatial coordinates always start like this in your sensors!
Instead of "where in space am I?", the observer should be asking "how do I orient myself in my environment?"
The simplest observer is going to live in a one dimensional universe, then the next most simple a two dimensional, and so on.
David’s great!!
Could it be conceived that one way to describe the Measurement Problem is that it is inherently a recursive procedure? We have to measure the instrument we just measured with, then repeat with whatever we made that measurement with. The process doesn't bottom out.
where can i find out more info on the experiments we need to do that are referenced in 1:50:0?
The story of his PhD thesis and program completion is amazing and emotional if you see it elsewhere
thanks!
@@robinsonerhardtI probably saw it on your channel!
Technical problems are irrelevant. The content is important. Keep on keeping.
Thanks, Podcat! (And RE and DA!) Video quality is top notch, looks better than the BBC.
ETA - Seems kinda appropriate that the screen goes blank when the topic is the establishment inscrutability over Bohr's QM. ;)
I’m weeping with joy!
After watching this podcast, I am strongly inclined to reread Edmund Husserl. With his 'Crisis in European science', he had put his finger on the wound that existed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. David also alluded to the fact that at that time people were very much in the grip of a crisis of meaning, but that even physics itself asked itself fundamental questions, to which different attitudes were possible. Bohr's fashionable denial of a deeper truth and his tendency to even psychological explanations, would also be rejected by Husserl. With the concept of 'a rigorous science', he had in mind a clarification that even mathematical science is always still considered from a subject and that there must be rigorous rules to formalize this. Only from this practice can models be built up from scratch. Husserl critiqued the positivistic tendencies in Europe and abroad, and suggested a more wide conception of logos, nous and a psyche, a Greek root of understanding, but not in a way able to give clear answers to the matters at stake.
When David was speaking I had SO many questions that I would cut him off every sentence. Thankfully I am not the one who is interviewing him😂
David points out Bohr's Hegelian influence, but this sounds much more like Kant's critique of pure reason to me. Bohr insists that the subject-object distinction is a necessary precondition for measurement, but for Hegel the ultimate goal of science is to overcome the subject-object distinction.
Love this!
"right now anyone can ask questions" on your AMA doesn't seem to be correct, it's locked on patreon.
Oh no! Thank you so much. I made this change!
@@robinsonerhardt thank you ❤️ (I will probably become a paying geesling though, your work certainly deserves it)
Absolutely brilliant communication skills
Thankyou very much much
You can quantify when a "measurement" happens. It's when the discord of the system exceeds the entanglement entropy of the superposition state. You can see this in the work on quantum darwinism by Zurek and Zwolak. When you get to the critical point in terms of proliferation of bad "copies" (because: no cloning) of the state it collapses to a pointer state on a timescale determined by the system "connectivity" ie the propagation ratw of the wavefunction through the system. It's pretty straightforward and well characterized in experiment. No more spookiness. Just probabilistic information flow weighted by geometrical resonances (ie the protection of various wavefunctions onto each other).
Yeah, Zurek and Zwolak had a bit too much to drink before they wrote that nonsense. ;-)
I grant this so far
hahaha
His initial setup seems to treat state A, state B, and state aA+bB as three different states, which I think confuses the discussion. The electron (in his example) is always in one of an INFINITE number of states drawn from a state space that has the form of a unit circle (after normalization). The two cases of 1A+0B and 0A+1B are not special at all until one gets to the measurement problem.
Superposition isn’t a “weird combination” of two or more “sensible states”. Rather, the state is ALWAYS a superposition and our “sensible states” (eg A or B) are just a VERY restricted subset of the full range of what the superposition can be.
Hey this was an amazing interview! Frindly tip: always record with a second camera or a phone, just in case. Thanks!
As a retired physicst, I disagree with David on the idea that string theory has any merit, given its predictions have zero correlation to the world as it exists. The enormous time wasted in physicist-hours could have been far more useful investigating far more promising physical theories.
Surely 50 years is sufficient to demonstrate any utility, at least we can count on time for the passing of the string hawkers.
I feel the same way about Supersymmetry.
@1:35:14 "Giving a wave-function gives a complete description of the state of a physical system at any one moment."
Albert is here describing how the Many Worlds Interpretation regards the quantum wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation agrees with MWI only up to the point where it claims the wave-function collapses (i.e. at the instant a measurement occurs). As with MWI, the Pilot Wave Interpretation dispenses with the notion of wave-function collapse, but claims that in addition to the wave-function, a complete description of a system's quantum state must also include the actual location of each particle.
The reason PWI is called a "hidden variable" theory is because the observed location of a particle in 3D physical space is not what is referred to as its "actual" location. What PWI is referring to is the particle's location in Configuration Space, the complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the quantum wave-function is defined. It is this location in Configuration Space that is hidden, as it cannot be observed via measurements taken in physical space.
Measurement is basically transferring some energy from a system governed by a traveling wave equation to a system governed by eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. If the eigenfunctions of the system that receives the said energy are periodic after the energy transfer then we perceive this as “object persistence.” If the resulting system leads to unbounded eigenfunctions then we call this an explosion for the macroscopic objects and particle collisions for subatomic size systems. That is how we perceive a chair in the room. Our measurements devices are made of atoms that are very stable eigensystems. There are natural sources for atomic stability and other subatomic systems (fundamental forces)like the electrical charge of which nature we don’t understand. Fundamental particles are basically small stable systems with periodic eigenfunctions. Classical mechanics needs another chance for explaining the universe with less emphasis on locality and material science approaches to space. Also fundamental forces need more attention and research funding.
On the measurement problem:
In order to predict a non-probabilistic outcome we have to know the interaction of the measuring equipment (observer) with the target. The observer/observed interactions are theoretical and are not verified experimentally. For ever, it will not be not possible to experimentally verify these interaction because it requires a third observer to monitor the interaction process complicating the issue. So forget it, as far as the delicate quantum measurements are concerned we are going to be probabilistic.
Good
Good
Good!
He looks even more enthusiastic in person🎉
the enthusiastickest
The camera issue is not acceptable.
As compensation another session with David Albert is required.
as your humble servant I shall oblige.
very serendipitous that the video goes dark at the discussion of Bohr's belief in the impenetrability of knowing objects outside of classical terms
Objects are emergent properties of quantum fields. They are, by definition, "classical". Not much of a mystery there.
@@schmetterling4477beside the point but thanks
@@sollewitt3219 Totally not beside the point because objects behave according to the rules of commutative algebras (logic, set theory) whereas quanta of energy behave according to non-commutative algebras. That's the mathematical reason why people think that quantum mechanics is "not logical". :-)
When something is measured, it seems like the thing is there independent of the measurement. But they are not separate things. The thing IS the measurement. We can only measure reflections of information.
Interesting talk. Why solving the measurement problem? Is it going to lead to a discovery ?
I have started reading Albert's A GUESS AT THR RIDDLE He at lest got me started with space and I hope he will take me over the non-local reality and into gravity.?!
Incredible. David Albert is just so clear and precise in his explanations. Subbed :)
Please get Deborah Mayo on to the podcast. She is one of the foremost philosophers of statistics and it would be cool to hear her thoughts on problems in the foundations of probability and statistics.
Two interesting hours!
:)
Two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide lie on the classical side of the Heisenberg cut. If they are hit by an alpha particle, there can occasionally be a radical reorganisation of the molecules corresponding to our idea of an explosion at the macroscopic level. However, if we want to do a computer simulation of their behaviour, then it will need umpteen dimensions of configuration space. This is the barrier that we face.
Not a barrier is the human imagination. I would suggest adding tachyonic Brownian motion to get an outcome which is different from two molecules of nitrogen trifluoride. Other suggestions are welcome. Also not a barrier is nonlocality. It might be a problem in a deterministic universe, but it isn't a problem once randomness is admitted.
If we don't have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms, then consider the vortex cloud method in two-dimensional fluid mechanics. We can impose a condition of quantisation of vorticity alongside Alexandre Chorin's Brownian motion of vorticity. The parameter of quantisation can be set equal to the parameter of Brownian motion. Then tackle a simulation of the Von Karman vortex street. Quantisation of vorticity is wavelike behaviour. Brownian motion of vorticity is particle-like behaviour. The initial symmetry-breaking which leads to the vortex street is a collapse of the wave function. The simulation will run in polynomial time.
This could be written in Excel VBA so every home can run the simulation. VBA uses the Mersenne twister as its random number generator. The output can be to a cinematic loop display on a multi-page spreadsheet. Every time the user presses a button to view the display, the RNG is reseeded by reference to the time of pressing XOR the last random number from the previous system. This is as good as a real RNG which can be used for a truly unbreakable Vernam cipher or a Wiener process where the expected value of the dot product of any two displacements is strictly zero. For the moment, this is the best we can do to tackle the measurement problem.
How do you know that the whole scientific project COULD NOT HAVE an imperfection?
1:36:14 - Those bumps are not bumps in physical space. Those bumps are bumps in the space representing the results your measuring device is capable of producing. If your device measures positions, then of course that space is isomorphic with physical space, but it IS NOT PHYSICAL SPACE. You need this caveat in order to gracefully handle more complex systems that demand higher dimensional description. Using a single particle's position as your talking example papers over this difference and contributes to confusion.
Golden🏅⭐️💛
agreed!
Essentially, if Bohr hadn't "charmed" the world of physics, it's possible that all our quantum mechanics (physics) questions might be answered by now. A philosophical nightmare built in to not only theory, but experimentation as well. Cool!
Yes, the Bohr model is wrong. That's why we haven't been using it since 1926 or so. ;-)
How far do you let ‘clarity’ be an absolute criteria of meaning? How do you save the deep meaning of metaphors?
How would we recognize ourselves branching in the wave function if different branches can never interact? That it doesn't *seem* to us like we're branching shouldn't warrant dismissing the idea.
AH! He fooled me halfway through with his talk of dumping the algorithm. In the last 15 minutes he rebuts that.
The conscious observer is not in a superposition of TWO possible states but of astronomically many, most of which look quite similar and contain one of the two states of the electron. I think it makes more sense that way and certainly doesn't merit saying "this is where the story of how chairs work radically breaks down".
I wonder why we don’t ever hear about the necessity of a Gibbs free energy transition in any measurement. For the measurement to occur there must be a negative free energy, the change in entropy times temperature must outweigh the change in the internal energy. A measurement device is a machine that creates band maintains an internal state that allows for such a transition.
Because a measurement is not a process that happens at constant pressure and temperature. ;-)
How about a “many worlds collapsing” theory, where the splits between quantum states are minuscule in our classical reality and merge back together in a practical sense as soon as they split apart. When we capture instances of quantum decohetence, maybe we should most keep in mind that they are only instances and not as long-lasting as the images captured when we don’t observe the paths they take. That doesn’t answer the question of the effect of measurement, but at least it hones reality down to one universe and validates the principal of the conservation of energy. Because one photon’s or electron’s worth of energy shouldn’t spawn an infinite number of photons and electrons. They should have degrees of freedom to move and propagate and nothing more. Even if those degrees of freedom or dimensions are more or less numerous than those in our classical reality, the difference that makes should be negligible under usual circumstances and should not be only under the most extreme circumstances. And I’ll go so far as to entertain the idea these circumstances correspond with local energy levels and that the amount of energy we encounter locally is comparatively not that much higher than the non-zero energy of the vacuum. If our reality splits apart like the spontaneous emergence of two virtual particles, then it annihilates back into one reality almost just as quickly.
A lot of this confusion goes away if we recognize that there are two things being talked about here that are distinctly different but also confused together: the quantum state and the real state. Real states only exist in the moment of interactions relative to a particular frame of reference (a coordinate system). Quantum states are not real states but merely a vector of probability amplitudes to predict the real state a particle will acquire in an interaction relative to a particular reference frame. When we approach it this way, we can see why some of Prof Albert's claims about QM are addressable in this framework.
All the physical sciences have to begin with a chosen reference frame, chosen coordinate system. When an observer describes what they observe, they are implicitly using their own frame of reference, a coordinate system centered on themselves. When Prof Albert says we have to take into account the observer by including them as part of the system, the problem with this statement is then the question arises, "from what reference frame?" If the observer is part of the system, then the coordinate system cannot be centered on the observer, you would need an "outside" perspective, a third person.
So, there are implicitly two reference frames he is choosing here. One of the observer, let's call them X, and one outside the observer, some third-party, let's call them Y. If you compute the brain state of X relative X, you would always consistently get definite values. You would never at any point get an indefinite value or a superposition of states. If you compute the brain state of X relative to Y, you would predict in QM a superposition of states, but it is a false conclusion to draw from this that the person X's _real state_ is a superposition of states.
The quantum state is, again, a list of probability amplitudes used to predict what its real state would be. The real state X->X exists, but the real state X->Y simply does not yet exist as, again, real states are only real in the moment of interactions relative to the chosen coordinate system, this is its definition. And thus it is just a category mistake (like asking about the "marital status of the number five") to ask what is the absolute state of X, it doesn't have one, it is like asking for the absolute velocity of a train. It's not a meaningful question because velocity is relative by definition.
It is also a mistake to ask what the real state of X->Y prior to Y interacting with X directly or indirectly, as X->Y by definition only exists in the moment of an interaction. As long as you are describing a system in a superposition of states, then this necessarily means an interaction has not yet occurred between X and Y. The moment the interaction _does_ occur, quantum mechanics predicts precisely the opposite that X's brain state will be in a superposition of states, but that it will be in a definite state.
QM is giving the correct prediction as to what we actually observe. Prof Albert's claim that it is telling us we should observe the real state of a system to be in a superposition of states, I just don't buy it. Nothing in quantum mechanics implies at all we should observe a measuring device facing that way and this way at the same time. This only would be the case if you treat the quantum state and the real state as the same things when they are distinctly different things.
This is also the issue made in the EPR paper. The apparent nonlocality arises from treating the quantum state as if it is the same as the real state, so when Alice updates her prediction about Bob's particle that may be way over there, they conclude some "spooky action at a distance" altered Bob's particle. But, again, from Alice's perspective, if she has not interacted with Bob's particle, then it _still_ doesn't have a real state. All she is doing is updating her probability amplitudes for what it would be if she were to go and measure it, but it still lacks a real state by definition (categorically) from her reference frame because an interaction has not yet occurred.
It's not a matter of being unable to include the conscious observer as part of the picture, as the conscious observer being a conscious observer is not really relevant to QM. It is more about being unable to describe the system in absolute terms, that is to say, _absolute_ terms independent of a reference frame. Galileo showed velocity of is relative, Einstein showed space and time are relative, quantum mechanics just extends this notion of relativity further. For some reason, people constantly conflate being "relative" with being "observer-dependent" as if it somehow depends upon the presence of conscious observers. Velocity is relative yet if you were hit by a train traveling at 300 km/h, that velocity would be very real to you. Relative properties are still very physically real and independent of the observer, just not independent a chosen coordinate system.
Bohr is half right that you cannot describe the whole universe without making a "cut" as Prof Albert puts it, but the cut is not between measuring devices and conscious observers, but just the chosen coordinate system in which the universe is being described from. If the universe is relative, you cannot describe it without specifying the reference frame under which it is being described. Indeed, even without quantum mechanics, just in special relativity alone we find that certain bits of information don't meaningfully exist from one reference frame that may exist in another, such as it is not even meaningful to ask what is going on in the Andromeda galaxy "now" from our reference frame in the Milky Way. Special relativity alone, even without quantum mechanics, already bulldozes this notion of reality being _absolute_ where facts all meaningfully exist simultaneously in the absolute present, so I don't find the attempt to try and modify quantum mechanics to preserve the absolute existence of facts as very convincing.
It's not that we can't have a "universal" theory as Prof Albert puts it, but we cannot have an _absolute_ theory in the sense of one independent of any reference frame, one that does not depend upon a chosen coordinate system. It is still "universal" in the sense that this is how the universe works: it is relative.
Wow ☀️👍
@1:53:00 David might not be schooled enough on other weirdnesses of MWI? (He probably is, but did not mention it.) In the Frauchiger-Renner Inconsistency theorems, the way MWI escapes being inconsistent is by postulating branches can merge. That is so damn weird that for me it thoroughly destroys any appeal (although on moral grounds I never liked MWI). Merging branches though is a simple physical weirdness too far. For one thing, why aren't branches merging all over the place? A Wigner's Friend set-up cannot be the only reason branches merge, and yet it is likely the only way we might see branches merge if the gedankenexperiment was feasible (it isn't feasible, it is pure gedanken).
MWI is simply the result of an idiot making a mistake in the second sentence of his thesis. There is no there there.
I don't understand why seeing an interference pattern with my two
eyes doesn't cause the wave to collapse. Am I not measuring anything?
Why is everyone always preoccupied with what happens after the two
slits? Stipulating that "particles" are coming from a source conflicts
with the results but there is much less discussion about how a particle
can "jump" to a wave before the slits. It's always about how it can collapse
after the slits. I still think I'm just a sideband caused by the big cosmic
modulator. Great stream, thanks Robinson!
Good point. My thoughts are that the design of the slits forces the electron into it's wave state before it passes the slits. I would like to see the experiment done with a hole and concentric circles.
Good!
What I get from the Bohr quote is a modern physics take on Plato's cave. Until we know we are out of the cave, how can we truly describe the the shadows on the wall.
Even if we are "out of the cave", how could we truly be sure we are not just now in a bigger cave. As a part of the system, we could never truly understand the measure of the system, since our understanding of it is still within the system.
Since such, there is no true way to describe the system in totality from within the system itself. Unless we can pull ourselves out of the system, which is the goal of most theological thought (an observation of the singular all/none), there is no complete description for the system available.
Plato was an idiot and if you are still listening to him, then you are the follower of an idiot. ;-)
Thank you for another great episode!
I wonder if Newtonian concepts such as force at a distance were already weird to our intuition. I mean, how intuitive is it to have one object attract another through empty space? Even before general relativity or QM, physics was already challenging intuition anyway…
That is correct. The knew already at Newton's time that gravity doesn't fit into Newtonian mechanics, which is a theory of contact forces.
2hrs on foundational QM problems. 🎉
indeed!
Very interesting, David is a favorite and so is Robinson, best channel on the Internet!
I am more into the "3rd tradition", of the "many worlds", but I think it is also false. However to me, it's closer to reality than the other theories, I guess that's why David Deutsch supports it. I have great respect for all those people and I love them, but I think they are going into the wrong direction. And often times they sound silly to me.
My take on the "many worlds" is not that there exist infinite copies of ourselves and that our whole Universe goes copy-paste every nano second.
It's the other way around. We don't split, but we "merge".
I suppose that all these problems come from fundamental misunderstandings. For example the dimensions and especially the time dimension, they are not real entities. They don't exist. You can't prove to me that the 3rd dimension exists, or that the time dimension exists, just like you can't prove number 2, because numbers do not exist.
There are people that (I think that) they are on the right path. I want to write a book about this (I'm not a writer ..yet), but it will be sci-fi 😁
1.25 x speed is the way to go. hes great, but talking very slowly. great video
Thank you!
[Continuation of my earlier comment]:
The measurements that need to be particle physically interpreted to explain the sources of EVIL already exist:
1) Plant types that don't bear edible products for any being (leaves, flowers, fruits, tubers ~ edible for animals or humans)
2) Plants that bear products edible for only one of the two types of beings ~ animals/humans.
3) Plants that bear poisonous products ~ to one or both types of beings.
This implies all particles assumed to exist must serve to derive a table of plants (substituting the periodic table and the standard model) along with the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them.
Obviously, the only particle in the standard model that has any direct relevance to plants and beings, the photon, will be accompanied in this system with other 5 types of particles (Einstein's hidden variables) to represent all the 6 sense perceptions (with Temper ~ as the 6th. Sense corresponding to BREATHING ~ the common sense for all 3 types of entities: PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS).
There are two more types of particles to represent
1) N (Needs ~hunger, fear, pain, etc.) perceptions in both types of beings.
and
2) S (Satisfaction ~ Food, Clothes, Shelter, etc.) of the relevant Needs satisfying growth on plants.
The final formula for describing development of Plants and growth on them would take the form:
N = f (a,b,c,A,B,C) = S
where
a: smellon
b: tonon
c: photon
A: Temperon
B: Touchon
C: Taston
41:46 the problem is the infinite indefinite noise of the system. It is the dual of the fundamental problem of mathematics - REAL numbers - continuity.
I can't tell if this is the 'Emperor's new clothes' or I am missing something.
Our ancestors have been telling us the origins of everything for thousands of years and still man goes around wondering the purpose of life.
Thank’s for this great interview.
Could you ask to your guests how they perceive our close futur and why? As a « special » end question.
As long as I really appreciate these topics a lot…I really would like to know.
I would be delighted to hear how « big brains » position themselves in the great picture.
Maybe they could help a few of us to get keys about self management regarding growing systemic crisis.(Maybe not)
Just an idea.
👋🏻
“Why can’t we ‘go native’ and learn the language of quantum mechanics?” Sure, and let’s learn to visualize hyperbolic rotations in 4D spacetime, while we’re at it! In both cases, the best we can do is to talk about mathematical models using natural, non-mathematical language.
Spot on
The most perplexing question for this discussion is how such a trivial concept as the so-called measurement problem could baffle grown physicists for 100 years! Here is how the Physics works: when a quantum object is observed, it joins the set of quantum objects in the measurement apparatus. Simple third grade set theory is all you need to understand this concept. At a higher level of abstraction, the measured quantum object joins the frame of reference of the measurement apparatus. Because this Physics is so trivial to understand, physicists would be unable to extort huge research grants to study it. That's precisely why the mystique has persisted for 100 years.
"It joins the quantum object" woow so deep only issue being what is the mechanism behind that joining. You just restated that they are in superposition imo.
I think it is somewhat exaggerated to think of the measurement problem as an indicator of the whole scientific project failing or not. In fact, I believe no single scientific problem can be so grave as to become such an indicator. There certainly are threads to science, most of them having to do with the way science itself is organized, funded, incentivized and so forth, but an "unsolvable" scientific problem does simply not have the power to stop scientific progress from happening, even if it pertains to very basic questions.
The measurement problem doesn't even exist. We know exactly what a measurement is and what it takes to make one (an asymptotic vacuum state). The people who are talking about "the measurement problem" simply don't understand physics.
Of course it threatens science!!
It makes them look dumb to the politicians!
“The funding is falling, the funding is falling….”
The great scandal of science is that it results in technologies that are owned by all types of special interests.
The opening dialougrpe is what I believe. We haven't the tech or database to test our theories. I believe the tech MAYBE available in next few centuries. That is MAYBE. Quite like the maths when migraines allow, but consider most physicists to be toke keepers today. Don't get angry. It's fun
The scientific project has definitely not reached its end, it just needs to be expanded into dealing with the integration of ‚subjectivity‘, as ultimate reality turns out to be ‚subjective‘. We have also learned that observing the microcosmos with telescopes does not work. This does not render telescopes useless for the purpose they were made for, as much as the science of objects is useful within the objective world. Niels Bor proposed to consider using a microscope for proceeding with researching the microcosmos (metaphorically speaking). This is still hard to accept for those deeply wedded with physicalism, but like flat earth theory in the past, we as humanity will overcome this dead-end axiom pretty soon.
What is 2? What is conversations come forth?
I wrote my earlier comment before I listened to the section, where David says Bohr mentioned about the limit to knowlwdge, which he himself disagrees.
My earlier comment shows exactly where that limit rests.
Sorry David, Bohr was very much on the right track when he said that, although he couldn't specify the exact line where that LIMIT TO DETERMINISTIC KNOWLEDGE falls.
Knowledge must be restricted to deterministic negative prevention, while collection of information (maps/ time tables) for positive purposes would remain infinite and eternal.
Note also: before such a theory for limited knowledge can be formulated, it is essential to render the concepts POSITIVE and NEGATIVE in mathematics and physics (which are internally inconsistent, mutually incompatible and irrational ~ increase or decrease of any damn thing, + and -, proton and electron, result of an experiment confirming or rejecting the original assumption involved, etc.) be made compatible with their common usage ( as right and wrong, good and bad or divine and evil), which is very rational and consistent. Hence science and mathematics has to change and NOT the very appropriate common usage.
And also the concept of FIELDS in science, totally incompatible with the common apple, wheat and rice fields, needs to be rectified in favour of the word's more appropriate common usage.
I fell in love with _philosophy of science_ when it occurred to me (age 8 or 9?) that maybe the problem is that the question is crummy :-)
*_Praxis_* and *_techne!_*
Everything that happens in reality is a measurement. The effect of velocity and gravity in relativity is the mirror image of the measurement problem. it's subjectivity becoming objective while relativity is the objective becoming subjective.
The two Davids (Albert & Chalmers) and Robert Sapolsky together would be a podcast trinity of philosophy!
The homogeneity of the commonly known QFT particles, the measurable if Heisenberg indeterminate proton, neutron and electron are nototable; the stability and persistence of the proton and electron in particular, pun intended, seem almost timeless and uniquely coincidental, almost like they precipitated, time crystalized or free fell out, of a purely energetic bosonic background and stuck around. With both preceding and piercing through the first free light of the CMB to this day, to have both a reflective look backward, if not an expansive view forward into their complexly re-arranged hominid futures? These binary entities of homogeneous charge, mass, spin, resonance and magnetism are, as individual isolated particles, effectively jiggly and zero entropy, but taken as as two universal binary groups of ~ 10^80 particles each, were firstly an ionized binary proton-electron plasma hot mix that cooled and expanded into a load of hydrogen with some helium and perhaps lithium tossed into that mix?
A query from the peanut gallery- could these energetic binary entities have rather been a relatively cool primordial Bose-Einstein condensate that required some time to be created to then free fall or accelerate/precipitate out of an initial fermion-free and effectively timeless bosonic background solution?