I’M WEEPING !!!!!!!! FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY !!!!!! I’ve watched hundreds of podcasts on ‘theories of everything’ AND THIS IS MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SUPERIOR !!!!!! Thnx, Robinson !!!!!!!!!
5❤5I was confused when I heard music coming from my printer. Th😂en I realized the paper was jamming.I was confused when I heard music coming from my printer. Then I realized the paper was jamming.I was confused when I heard music coming from my printer. Then I realized the paper was jamming.
I wonder what happens in Bohmian mechanics when an electron and a positron collide and anhilate each other. Because presumably the wave function becomes singular at the point of collision and the two particles anhilate. Since presumably the non relativistic BM cannot describe photons (by definition) then BM becomes rather incomplete and a QED version is needed.
Great interview! Good job getting these two giants to come on the podcast. And good job asking them the right questions concisely and giving them all the space they needed to elaborate.
@@robinsonerhardt agreed. I saw Tim on one of those panels on stage humiliate a guy so bad ( he was out of his depth) he never appeared on another one. Man I felt bad for that guy. So I stay silent on Tim. Maybe he had a bad day I don’t know, nobody is perfect. The south is a honor society and doing that to a man in public might get ya but kicked in front of your girl:)
I'm at 7:43, and now I'm holding my breath. Please get this right. Please note that a quantum state taken completely in isolation (i.e., not in the context of a particular planned measurement) can't be said to be "in a superposition" or "not in a superposition." It's just a quantum state - a uniquely defined vector in the Hilbert space. You can only declare it to be a superposition or not WITH RESPECT TO SOME PARTICULAR MEASUREMENT. That status is not an innate trait of the quantum state - it's a trait of a state / observable PAIR. For example, if you measure an electron's position, you will force it into a state that is NOT a position superposition - because the position is completely well-defined at that instant. But it most CERTAINLY is in a momentum superposition, because the momentum of that state is maximally uncertain by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you'd measured momentum instead of position, it would be the other way around. So what you plan to measure MATTERS in making that distinction.
Hi Robinson, thanks for the excellent videos with David Albert & Tim Maudlin. Very interesting and informative. If you wouldn’t mind, is there any chance that you could please ask Tim, (if you keep in touch), if and when he might appear as a Guest on Sean Carroll’s Mindscape podcast ? I believe that Prof. Maudlin rejects the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, if that may be relevant, as Sean Carroll is a well-known proponent of that interpretation. Many thanks in any event. All the Best, Paul Conti, (West Wales, UK).
I think that yes, there is this very high dimensional space, and it's where our "mental dynamics" operate. 3D space is just a canvas that we organize our perceptions on. You do NOT need to presume three spatial dimensions a prior in order to wind up with them at the end.
an inspired adaptation of pheobe buffay's all-time classic (sing to the melody!): smeary cat, smeary cat, how are they measuring you? smeary cat, smeary cat, it's not your scope.
In Time and Chance, David writes: "The only dynamical variables of such particles-the only physical attributes of such particles that can change with time-are (on this theory) their positions;" In Newtonian Mechanics momentum is another dynamical variable. You need three primitives then: Space, for position; Energy, for momentum; and particles so you can talk about something. Time is derived from these three primitives. If there is no change in position, there is no time. Energy is frequency and frequency is time.
Both Tim and Albert spend some fair degree of time making light of the way in which quantum mechanics was originally conceived, specifically, 'the measurement problem' and 'wave-particle duality'. Just to be fair, however, even after a century neither issue is a jot closer to finding itself a resolution. Sayin'.
The quick (10^-11sec) spin down of the classical atom helped create quantum mechanics. The equivalent time for gravity is 10^38 seconds - ie a billion billion times the age of the universe. And yet the lore is that gravity must be quantized. There is no experimental necessity to quantize gravity. Quantum gravity (or better put, a lack of it) may help us find the 'how' of quantum mechanics. Quantum gravity is thus an important part of quantum foundations.
39:19 - EXCEPT... you can't observe it. You can't observe the wave function, or detect it, or anything like that. It's quite bothersome having your only ontological entity be something that is completely out of your range of perception.
Yes we do observe the wave function daily. Just look at the page you're writing on. As for some 'wave function' out there floating around in space or in super space, sorry, that has never been established even exists.
Wow, seems like they have quite a bit of overlap. I would love to explore(not sure if Tim mentioned here) Tim's idea of a preferred foliation of spacetime and how to merge quantum/GR together.
No, measurement is NOT a puzzle. Two things happen when you do a measurement. First, you get a result. That shouldn't be surprising at all - after all, that was the point, right? The second thing that happens is that you force the system into a new quantum state. That shouldn't surprise you either, because generally speaking your quantum system is tiny (like an electron) and your measurement apparatus is huge - it's not the least bit surprising that the apparatus has a dominating effect on the electron. THAT'S IT - that's all that happens when we make a measurement. And the result you GET from the measurement will ALWAYS be on of the results that the pre-measurement quantum state implied you MIGHT get, with some non-zero probability. So while we didn't know before hand we WOULD get this particular result, we absolutely knew that we MIGHT - and we knew exactly how likely that was. People moan endlessly about the fact that we seem to be getting an instantaneous transition from a quantum state that allows for "many possible results" to one that allows for "only one specific result," and oh my gosh - that's faster than light! But no - it's not. The quantum state is NOT DEFINED IN PHYSICAL SPACE, so the notion of "speed" isn't relevant at all. The state lives in a sort of "space of possible measurement results," and there simply is no relativistic speed limit that applies in that context. And on top of that basic quantum mechanics, which is what we're talking about here, isn't compliant with special relativity anyway - it's a non-relativistic approximation and only applies in situations where relativity isn't required. It's kind of like how you don't ever think about speed of light limits when you're analyzing a simple electric circuit - you just assume the voltage changes everywhere along a wire at the same time. Of course, it doesn't, but you can generally just ignore that. So if you're doing basic quantum mechanics you just don't get to bring up relativity related issues at all.
18:28 - What there "fails to be a fact" about is what your measured position is going to be - BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE MEASUREMENT YET. In classical physics you CAN talk about future measurement outcomes as though they're fact, because we can predict them. But not in quantum theory - there simply IS no fact about what a future measurement outcome will be. That's what's different. The theory is not saying anything at all about "where the electron is" before the measurement - that's just an invalid concept to even ask about.
Smolin proposes that he most basic feature of nature is the transition from undifferentiated to differentiated existence. Think of a glass of water into which you dip your finger and pull it out gracefully. There will be a drop at the tip of your finger, a differentiated beable called DOROP. Shake your finger on the rim and think about the drop. For Smolin, that is the key move in the universe, the most basic primitive. Think of WHAT EXITS, whatever is imaginable, from the entire universe to a particle, as something that transitioned from a "Nowhere" to "Somewhere." Smolin's organum requires two domains and one move. The domain of NOWHERE (0), where no space, or energy, or beings are allowed. A domain where you have everything and nothing at the same time. To make it personal, it is the place where you who reads these lines were one million years ago and where you will be a million years from now. Existence, like mathematics has its own zero. There are no beables in that domain because there is no interaction anywhere. In the glass of water there is no interaction between the drops, but given the opportunity, when the drops transition from the totality to the individuality, their interactions make sound and BJ Thomas hears the blues they send to him. They talk. But while in the totality of the clouds, they did not exist. We also have the domain of SOMEWHERE (1). When a beable interacts with other beable reality springs out of the interaction. The begining of a beable is represented by 1/0 and its end by the inverse, 0/1.
While I understand it, from a dycodemic perspective comment as far as using it as a comparative tool is concerned, but it seems to me that the fundamental nature of existence is inherently incompatible with quality list unified field of existence, because of the fact that, without any Particular Quality of being able to be described to Commerce since it doesn't lack the opposite, it is, functionally speaking, identical to nakima and nothing this is coma by its nature, only ever nothing else, and cannot change, because anything that would generate a change within the nothingness would necessarily come from within the nothingness, meaning that the nothingness wouldn't actually be nothing In the 1st place. I think it's just a useful pointer to describe what is essentially a probabilistic wait function of the universe the field which collapses into actualities as the computational mechanic that sweeps through the universe at the speed of entropy Causes spontaneous symmetry breaking and the manifestation of probability into physical reality. The difference between what you described and this probabilistic field of preexistence, in my understanding comment is the fact that it is not inherently everything coma as certain probabilities are weighted as being more likely than others, meaning It contains information, rather than being the functional equivalent of nothingness that pure unity would be.
25 mins in amazing assessments from both gentlemen very gripping, just to many add breaks for me 😢 I just can't randomly pause and hold a complex chain of thoughts plus I'm in the bath lastime I dry my fingers see ya :)
WHY? WHY does randomness trouble people? WE MAKE CHOICES, and it just stands to reason that those choices are then going to percolate out into the world in various ways. There HAS to be unpredictability. If there wasn't then our ability to choose would be contravened.
What troubles me is that you still can't understand that nothing in physics can be random. That's high school knowledge. Random numbers don't satisfy any conservation laws. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Well, I think you're wrong fundamentally, and science departed from determinism a century ago. However, in any case I regard labeling something as "random" in science as merely acknowledging that we cannot associate a KNOWN CAUSE with the thing - that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't HAVE ONE.
@@KipIngram Science did not depart from determinism 100 years ago. What happened 100 years ago is some guy drinking a bit too much philosophy, while inventing QM, started to reject the idea that there was some fact of the particle's position (or property) prior to measurement. About that he was right. And that by itself does not imply in-determinism (except from the frame of someone who cannot fathom how that could (even possibly) not imply that (which is many by the way). But since he was a drinker, he also drank into some tag-along ideas, such as: which position (or property) the particle ends up having, upon M, is randomly decided. That's the part which WOULD imply random, but recall that he had been drinking quite a gulp by that point (as goes for philosophers in general); he was WRONG about that tag-alonger point (as usual, per philosophers). Again, some people simply cannot fathom how the first point does Not entail randomness. Such people are just like Bohr, and are a Bore to listen to.
At 15' Tim disregards measurement "you shouldn't have to define or discuss what a measurement is." He would benefit reading Foundations of Measurement by Suppes et al. Measurement is the representation of empirical relations like order or symmetry by mathematical objects like numbers or graphs. The representation of length is additive, temperature is not. The problem of measurement in QM is that the basic relationship, uncertainty, has no direct mathematical representation. I can represent "greater than" using numbers. QM represents uncertainty indirectly, using probability, which is...degrees of belief! (de Finetti).
I am wondering how Albert comes up with higher dimensions as a possible idea for non-locality. Seems like hand waving. I much prefer Maudlin’s approach of constructing cube-like regions of connections in discrete space . A question I have is : what other phenomena in QM other than the convincing account related to spins of entangled particles could reinforce the notion that nature is non-local?
He pulls it out of his rear. He simply doesn't understand physics. That's all this is. Nature is perfectly local and all quantum field theory books say so, usually in the first chapter. The proper definition of non-locality automatically means a violation of relativity. Such a violation has never been observed and that's pretty much that for non-locality. It's dead on arrival. What is not so obvious is that there are non-separable states in quantum mechanics. Non-separability, however, has absolutely nothing to do with locality. It's a mathematical property of elements of Hilbert space, which is NOT the same as physical space. Hilbert space is a mathematical abstract that nature does not implement. It only exists on paper and in the mind of humans.
Measurement shows up in basic quantum mechanics because it's a THEORY ABOUT MEASUREMENTS. It's not a "fundamental theory about what's happening in the world" AT ALL. You don't want to get rid of measurement from the theory - you want to get rid of the idea that it's even telling you about anything beyond your measurements. That's ALL IT'S ABOUT.
Riddled with ads, great content cant stay focused though. After second ad in 9 minutes...ill find these gentlemen elsewhere. Goodluck with your channel
I guess I just don’t get the giant conundrum. Bohr was saying that these issues you pose are not issues, because you can’t ask those questions empirically. When you do ask questions like “which hole did the electron go through”, you find it either went through one or the other and never both, but you’ve changed the quantum system by doing so and so the interference pattern is no longer an issue. Why even discuss things that cannot, even in principle, by found out one way or another? There is no reason to believe that at more base levels, like the atomic and below, that the world should even be readily comprehensible using our current systems of logic. In fact, it’s arrogant to imagine that any man could or will ever comprehend the ultimate workings of nature herself. We know that the best we have so far is some kind of approximation and there’s no reason to believe we’ll ever do better than that. Why is it so hard to imagine that the world exists in a state of probabilities/possibility until and unless forced to show its cards one way or another by whatever mechanism? Call it “measurement”, call it interaction, call it fate, the photon that left stars millions of years ago only to interact with your eye tomorrow would not have begun the journey without that connection between your eye and the excited state that emitted the photon when dinosaurs looked to the heavens. And why the worry about the number of dimensions in an imaginary function characterizing probability space? To imagine that that has anything at all to do with our 3-D space seems strange. The Schrödinger equation works in 3-D space (non-relativistic for sure) accounting for energy/force distributions in the real world and propagates a wavefunction through probability space that then makes perfect sense here in normal space whenever we measure outcomes. It could be here or there or there of spinning like so or like so or less likely like so and so, but when we look, or otherwise forced to take a stance, it’s doing one of those things right here in the real world. Measure lots and lots of times for the same quantum systems and the individual answers approach their probability distribution as the number of measurements approaches infinity. Nature, ultimately doesn’t have to makes sense and the consciousness “problem”, the fact that consciousness exists, is evidence that we are nowhere near understanding the full of reality and this may or may not always be true.
First of all, Bohr was wrong about changing the quantum system by asking. Asking does nothing. What does do something is measuring. Second, Bohr was wrong to think that M changes the quantum system. What was changed was the outcome. The question remains How So? Why should the outcome change?, in all its detail. Don't speak of there being a quantum system that was changed, making like some 'thing' out there was altered. No. We have some mathematics which we use to describe results, and we don't use that mathematics should there be measurement. That's what changed. Not a quantum system, but simply, whether there is utility to using this mathematics. Is what changed. (Outcome changed). Again, the question is "OK, but what is going on exactly, such that it makes sense the outcome would change?", not "M changed the quantum system", whatever that means. Finally, as to why these philosophers (cringe) are discussing QM, and rehashing what Bohr said (who was wrong about things, right about other things), and drooling over a measurement problem thing (which does not actually exist), the answer is because they are philosophers :) It's what they do :) It's what they are known for, by the physics community. Loitering down crooked, useless, misguided paths-- because loitering itself is fun :)
1:22:00 - See? Albert has been talking for FIVE MINUTES at this point and STILL hasn't gotten to the punch line. One of the problems is that he will repeat entire long phrases multiple times with like a 10% modification - it seems to be how he likes to emphasize a point.
lol yes. He is all emphasis, and no contribution to theoretical physics. He is like the guy who shines a bigger light on the raccoon outside everyone sees. He says "Hey guys, look now!". Then when you walk away dissatisfied, he switches to a better flashlight, and calls you back. Most philosophers do exactly that. Albert just has access to better flashlights. We don't want flashlights. We want understanding.
E=mc² - If it is a constant, then all the universe would know about it - Mass, Energy and all the rest... A derived Value must not violate the Concept of its Value. c² is a random speed as it doesn't exist in the universe - based on c that is a constant that cannot be increased. Therefore, c can be any number - and that will do - a demonstration on that E=mc² is a Newtonian physics - and no more than fossil fuels-powered; "In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
David, Tim and Robinson, one of the most important factors that led to the discovery of the missing links in Quantum Mechanics is PHYLOSOPHY in addition to Theology, Literature, Arts, Science and Mathematics. The Key is Complete understanding of HOW and WHY GRAVITY WORKS- The Missing Link. Gravity has been successfully quantized and unified with Quantum Mechanic's Standard Model of Particle Physics which led to the completeness of Standard Model of Particle Physics and the realization of the Theory of Everything in Physics by the empirical and scientifically proven true theory - THE REAL TRUE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY. This scientific discovery/invention of mine will debunk and invalidate String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, M Theory, General Theory of Relativity and all failed and wrong theories of gravity: THE GOD EQUATION - THE TRINITY Equations, Laws and Codes For QUANTUM GRAVITATION , QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL ENTANGLE MENT and GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTATION that pave the way for Theory of Everything in Physics: - THE 3-in-1 HOLY GRAILS of Physics: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/0 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α 2. Quantum Gravity/Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/1 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α 3. Quantum Neutral Gravity/Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/01 and/or 10 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical Laws, Cosmic/Universal Computation and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole or at Planck scale. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on Quantum Gravity. Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year. Quantum Gravitation is governed by and follow the Trinity Laws, Computational Codes, Mathematics and Physics of Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement. We now have a new Laws of Physics and two newly discovered Fundamental Forces of Nature - The Quantum Neutral Gravity and Quantum Anti-Gravity which completed the heart of the Quantum Theory of Gravity published in London. Paris and Zurich last December 2022 as follows:
1. First Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Gravitation: “The greater mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational Field causes a downward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” - Roel Real Rovira Equation for Quantum Gravity, and Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α Where: QG is Quantum Gravity in Rovira (value of downward acceleration force due to quantum gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in greater mass density of Quantum Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↓α is the Resultant Downward Acceleration of Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. 2. Second Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Anti-Gravity. “The lesser mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational Field causes an upward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” -Roel Real Rovira Equation for Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
Where: QAG is Quantum Anti-Gravity in Rovira (value of upward acceleration force due to quantum anti-gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in lesser mass density of Quantum Anti-Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↑α is the Resultant Upward Acceleration of Anti-Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. 3. Third Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Law of Quantum Neutral Gravitation. “The equal mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects and the Quantum Gravitational Field causes a zero acceleration or floating or hoovering of the gravitating Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field, instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” - Roel real Rovira Equation for Quantum Neutral Gravity and Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α Where: QNG is Quantum Neutral Gravity in Rovira (value of zero acceleration force due to quantum neutral gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in equal mass density of Quantum Neutral Gravitating Objects to the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↑↓0α is the Resultant zero acceleration or non-acceleration of Neutral Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. For more detailed information on these 3-in-1 Trinity Laws and Equations for Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation, and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - The Real True Nature of Quantum Gravitation, look it up at the two scientific journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA. Copyright 2022 ROEL REAL ROVIRA. All Rights Reserved.
I think that a computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator. Am I stating the obvious, or talking about something which is impossible in principle?
@@epajarjestys9981 In two-dimensional fluid mechanics we could do a computer simulation of quantised vortices in Brownian motion, with the quantisation parameter set equal to the Brownian motion parameter. This is a computer simulation of something which is both a wave and a particle which runs in polynomial time. The Brownian motion is derived from a random number generator and no aetiology is proposed. I suspect computer simulations of quantum mechanics will require exponential time.
Ugh. Albert's description of superposition doesn't shed light on the matter AT ALL. Let me see if I can tweak it. Let's say you measure the electron's position and find it at point A. That result implies an absolutely definite new (post-measurement) quantum state, which you can calculate and which you should substitute into your analysis if you need to use the Schrodinger equation to march through a further time interval. Let's call that new state S(A). On the other hand, let's say you found the electron at point B. That implies a DIFFERENT absolutely definite new quantum state for the electron, S(B). Now, what superposition means is that there also exists an entire infinite family of quantum states which we can write as Q = a*S(A) + b*S(B) (where a and b are complex numbers whose squares sum to 1.0) that are ALSO valid quantum states - you could, with appropriate laboratory actions, place your electron in any of those states. If you do this - if your electron state is Q = a*S(A) + b*S(B), then you don't know what the result of a new position measurement will be. You do know, however, that it will be EITHER A, with probability |a|^2, or B, with probability |b|^2. It will NOT be any other value other than A or B, because those are the only possible results that "have support" in the quantum state Q. So all "superposition with respect to a measurement M" means is that we know the quantum state, precisely - it's a single vector in the Hilbert space - but nonetheless we DO NOT know with 100% certainty what the outcome of the measurement will be. And if we know the quantum state then we know EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE KNOWN. There is no other "stealthy information" we could acquire about the electron that will let us make a certain advance prediction. The ONLY way to get a certain result is to DO THE MEASUREMENT - we can't predict the outcome in advance in any way. Ok, hopefully that helps.
Einstein might have not worried about indeterminism because he deeply believed quantum mechanics was just a statistical theory. However, non locality cannot be explained by statistics. Additionally, his pride, relativity, is founded on locality.
Quantum mechanics is not a statistical theory. It is, however, a non-commutative solution to Kolmogorov's axioms. Statistics/probability theory is a commutative solution to the same axioms and that is the reason for a number of very strong similarities. It is a curiosum of science history that von Neumann published the non-commutative theory in his 1932 book about quantum mechanics one year before Kolmogorov published his axiomatization of probability theory in 1933.
You've just had a conversation about beables without explaining what they are. Tim also didn't define what the difference is between indeterminism and non locality.
@@lepidoptera9337 That would be you. Who just does not understand what we mean by non locality. I bet you think it means that something did in fact travel faster than light, from one particle to the other, causing the other to undergo a change of state :) Physics is fun, you should try it (properly some day) :)
The only way to correctly understand quantum physics is to fully understand the mathematical foundations: Lie algebras, U(1), SU(2), SU(3) symmetries, spinors and tensors, gauge symmetry etc. Using analogies (waves, particles) may lead to an incomplete intuitive understanding but may also lead to prolonged unending confusion as seen in this video because these analogies are always inexact. No mathematics invariably leads to no understanding. Most quantum physics textbooks fail to introduce the needed mathematical foundations.
Nobody thinks you can correctly understand the physical/ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics by the maths alone (hence many incompatible interpretations)! And for the record they can understand the maths.
With respect I’m not being provocative. What is physics learning from biology? Why is it a one way street. Why were physicists so sure that room temperature plant located quantum processes couldn’t be real until it was shown that the basic energy storage pathway we all depend on (light being converted to carbohydrate by via chlorophyll) is almost certainly dependant in a quantum process involving the efficient path of a photon/electron in the molecule. Physicist think it’s a joke that Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff are proposing that consciousness and it’s relationship to the mind brain and cosmos/environment could be due to quantum processes in micro tubules present in all cells including the brain. Professor Brian Cox (physicist) went on talk shows scoffing at people such as endocrinologists/biologists speculating (coherently it turns out) about these possibly rich areas for study. Why doesn’t Dr Maudlin know much about the cogent thinking being done by people .. some holding two PhD’s who have enough that’s new and insightful re idealism to gain a PhD from a good University on the topic. It’s obvious that if the Universe is one Unified (yet differentiated) fractal, holographic field, which is holonic in nature … that the Universe must also be organismic in essence because how else could plasma and some cooling, clumping and interacting (within the inherent 4 forces.. information , atoms flipping bits .. geometry etc) Hiw could that process pop out Einstein and you and me … without a single human thought or scientific theory .. if that process is not organismic . Plasma … some waiting around … Einstein Egg 🥚… some waiting around … chicken🐓 Seed … some waiting around … tree 🌲 Why don’t physicists even consider the obvious. The first 9.5 billion years was as much a living process as the last 4 billion since the first cell appears to have manifested in the fossil record. If that isn’t the case science will have to jettison cause and effect, systems theory and the absolute fact that the Uni- verse is in entirety.. a holon .. a holonic system … exactly like your body .. the body it produced from plasma .. with the above noted stages ending in … planets 🌍 seas 🌊 and cells 🦠. Back to chlorophyll again. There will never be a theory of everything because physicists can’t handle the wet warm side, the growing thinking feeling side of the Universal coin. Just pretends it’s not there. Pride perhaps .. like Dr Hawking proud that he didn’t know much about philosophy, mysticism (single case study of the inner subjective universe of consciousness) Spirituality? Religion is a quasipolitical/belief system and has nothing to do with “consciousness studies” … that emerging academic discipline which physicists generally would look down on .. if they could even acknowledge its validity. Arrogance ? No one has the first clue how chemistry becomes conscious biology No-one has the first clue how to make Lego consciousness out of Lego atoms .. the Lego brain .. and its Lego consciousness and its Lego experiences . Have you noticed that physicists lose their waviness when they are scoffing at other disciplines making quantum connections that they should be co working with them to understand? Isn’t it weird that physicists can’t check in with themselves and say … “yip .. I don’t need any scientist to tell me that I’m alive and consciousness, have being … and by inference that means that this one unified quantum field (nested and holonic) must have those very qualities too It ain’t rocket science. As is often said .. you can bet your bottom dollar that the Universe is stranger than we can imagine. It’s almost certainly.. at every system level .. alive and conscious. If you think plasma becomes Einstein and Mickey Mouse in any other context .. that’s probably a bit illogical and dare I say .. naive. It’s staring one in the face. Yes! No! Just looks crazy like every new paradigm looks from the perspective of the old
Doesn't Maudlin realize that there will be infinitely many mathematical recipes for getting precisely the same result. How is he going to adjudicate between which one of these countless mathematical recipes "really truly correspond to beables". I guess I am not realist enough.
Getting VERY sick of finding new and interesting channels and videos, only to get Ads every 4 minutes. Was looking forward to this one, but not going to bother.
I don't know what your budget looks like, but YT premium may be worth its $15 monthly price tag. You have to pay the piper. You'll either pay with your time (watching ads or skipping high quality content altogether) or pay with your pocketbook. For me, uninterrupted long-format video viewing is worth 50¢ a day. YMMV Cheers
I’M WEEPING !!!!!!!!
FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY !!!!!!
I’ve watched hundreds of podcasts on ‘theories of everything’ AND THIS IS MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SUPERIOR !!!!!!
Thnx, Robinson !!!!!!!!!
I'm so glad you found it! Thank you!!!
One place where larger, or impactive to you, but to say superior ranks of just that, gratitude is.. powerful
5❤5I was confused when I heard music coming from my printer.
Th😂en I realized the paper was jamming.I was confused when I heard music coming from my printer.
Then I realized the paper was jamming.I was confused when I heard music coming from my printer.
Then I realized the paper was jamming.
I wonder what happens in Bohmian mechanics when an electron and a positron collide and anhilate each other. Because presumably the wave function becomes singular at the point of collision and the two particles anhilate. Since presumably the non relativistic BM cannot describe photons (by definition) then BM becomes rather incomplete and a QED version is needed.
My favorite people. They are patient, respectful and generous. Thank you, again!!
Don't forget genius. Literally.
Bravo David and Tim! Brilliant, clear and illuminating, takes foundations of physics to a new level of cool
Awesome!
The two key people who helped me evolve to learn why I’m here , and what all this is. I thank you gentlemen so much for your service to humanity.
I'm so glad I found this channel! This is some of the best philosophy content on UA-cam, and immediately my favorite podcast.
This channel should have WAY more subscribers. Albert and Maudlin (and Carroll!) are among my favorite minds (and personalities)!
We at this channel agree :)
Great interview! Good job getting these two giants to come on the podcast. And good job asking them the right questions concisely and giving them all the space they needed to elaborate.
stay tuned :)
Robinson's attempt at 1:01:59 to "avoid using the I word" (ie: Interpretation) leads to a really hilarious moment!
I love when you bring david, and you made it even better by bringing another foundation of science philosopher.
YES. DAVID ALBERT AND MAUDLIN.
Love David Albert. Straight out of Hollywood central casting for a professor/ intellectual type.
He and Tim are absolutely phenomenal
@@robinsonerhardt agreed. I saw Tim on one of those panels on stage humiliate a guy so bad ( he was out of his depth) he never appeared on another one. Man I felt bad for that guy. So I stay silent on Tim. Maybe he had a bad day I don’t know, nobody is perfect. The south is a honor society and doing that to a man in public might get ya but kicked in front of your girl:)
Thank you Erhardt.
My pleasure!
Im a simple man. I see Tim Maudlin, I click. The guy is an absolute gold mine for speaking my kinda language
Yes, because both of you speak "idiot". ;-)
Thanks
Wow! Thank you so much!
Very enjoyable and enlightening conversation!
Love the way david explains things
such great speakers!
and so forth and so on
That'll be his epitaph
I'm at 7:43, and now I'm holding my breath. Please get this right. Please note that a quantum state taken completely in isolation (i.e., not in the context of a particular planned measurement) can't be said to be "in a superposition" or "not in a superposition." It's just a quantum state - a uniquely defined vector in the Hilbert space. You can only declare it to be a superposition or not WITH RESPECT TO SOME PARTICULAR MEASUREMENT. That status is not an innate trait of the quantum state - it's a trait of a state / observable PAIR.
For example, if you measure an electron's position, you will force it into a state that is NOT a position superposition - because the position is completely well-defined at that instant. But it most CERTAINLY is in a momentum superposition, because the momentum of that state is maximally uncertain by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you'd measured momentum instead of position, it would be the other way around. So what you plan to measure MATTERS in making that distinction.
Ce point de vue philosophique est très utile.Il permet de voir et comprendre où nous allons.
🦉🐝🐠🐟🐳🐂🐖🐱🐦🐤🐌🪰🐢🐟🐅🐄🐑
Thanks Robinson, great questions!
Kitties are the theoretical physicists of the animal world. Prof Alberts is brilliant. I love all discussions he participates in
You are right on all counts.
What an incredible discussion
Agreed :)
Thank you for this. 🤝
I loved the part about the pianos.
Great discussion.
Thanks!
Hi Robinson, thanks for the excellent videos with David Albert & Tim Maudlin. Very interesting and informative. If you wouldn’t mind, is there any chance that you could please ask Tim, (if you keep in touch), if and when he might appear as a Guest on Sean Carroll’s Mindscape podcast ? I believe that Prof. Maudlin rejects the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, if that may be relevant, as Sean Carroll is a well-known proponent of that interpretation. Many thanks in any event. All the Best, Paul Conti, (West Wales, UK).
Your wish is granted. Maudlin appeared recently on Sean Carroll's podcast, fyi.
One banger after another, when does it end
40:02 - That explanation exists. See "How To (Un-) Quantum Mechanics" by Christian Baumgarten (on arxiv).
I think that yes, there is this very high dimensional space, and it's where our "mental dynamics" operate. 3D space is just a canvas that we organize our perceptions on. You do NOT need to presume three spatial dimensions a prior in order to wind up with them at the end.
an inspired adaptation of pheobe buffay's all-time classic (sing to the melody!):
smeary cat, smeary cat,
how are they measuring you?
smeary cat, smeary cat,
it's not your scope.
When the electron double slit experiment is performed, a charged wire is placed in the middle of the electron stream.
In Time and Chance, David writes: "The only dynamical variables of such particles-the only physical attributes of such particles that can change with time-are (on this theory) their positions;" In Newtonian Mechanics momentum is another dynamical variable. You need three primitives then: Space, for position; Energy, for momentum; and particles so you can talk about something. Time is derived from these three primitives. If there is no change in position, there is no time. Energy is frequency and frequency is time.
59:00 YES TIM
Both Tim and Albert spend some fair degree of time making light of the way in which quantum mechanics was originally conceived, specifically, 'the measurement problem' and 'wave-particle duality'. Just to be fair, however, even after a century neither issue is a jot closer to finding itself a resolution. Sayin'.
The quick (10^-11sec) spin down of the classical atom helped create quantum mechanics. The equivalent time for gravity is 10^38 seconds - ie a billion billion times the age of the universe. And yet the lore is that gravity must be quantized. There is no experimental necessity to quantize gravity. Quantum gravity (or better put, a lack of it) may help us find the 'how' of quantum mechanics. Quantum gravity is thus an important part of quantum foundations.
What is a field, defined by what it is, not only by what it does?
39:19 - EXCEPT... you can't observe it. You can't observe the wave function, or detect it, or anything like that. It's quite bothersome having your only ontological entity be something that is completely out of your range of perception.
Yes we do observe the wave function daily. Just look at the page you're writing on. As for some 'wave function' out there floating around in space or in super space, sorry, that has never been established even exists.
Wow, seems like they have quite a bit of overlap. I would love to explore(not sure if Tim mentioned here) Tim's idea of a preferred foliation of spacetime and how to merge quantum/GR together.
Just wait a few days........
No, measurement is NOT a puzzle. Two things happen when you do a measurement. First, you get a result. That shouldn't be surprising at all - after all, that was the point, right? The second thing that happens is that you force the system into a new quantum state. That shouldn't surprise you either, because generally speaking your quantum system is tiny (like an electron) and your measurement apparatus is huge - it's not the least bit surprising that the apparatus has a dominating effect on the electron. THAT'S IT - that's all that happens when we make a measurement. And the result you GET from the measurement will ALWAYS be on of the results that the pre-measurement quantum state implied you MIGHT get, with some non-zero probability. So while we didn't know before hand we WOULD get this particular result, we absolutely knew that we MIGHT - and we knew exactly how likely that was.
People moan endlessly about the fact that we seem to be getting an instantaneous transition from a quantum state that allows for "many possible results" to one that allows for "only one specific result," and oh my gosh - that's faster than light! But no - it's not. The quantum state is NOT DEFINED IN PHYSICAL SPACE, so the notion of "speed" isn't relevant at all. The state lives in a sort of "space of possible measurement results," and there simply is no relativistic speed limit that applies in that context. And on top of that basic quantum mechanics, which is what we're talking about here, isn't compliant with special relativity anyway - it's a non-relativistic approximation and only applies in situations where relativity isn't required. It's kind of like how you don't ever think about speed of light limits when you're analyzing a simple electric circuit - you just assume the voltage changes everywhere along a wire at the same time. Of course, it doesn't, but you can generally just ignore that. So if you're doing basic quantum mechanics you just don't get to bring up relativity related issues at all.
18:28 - What there "fails to be a fact" about is what your measured position is going to be - BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE MEASUREMENT YET. In classical physics you CAN talk about future measurement outcomes as though they're fact, because we can predict them. But not in quantum theory - there simply IS no fact about what a future measurement outcome will be. That's what's different. The theory is not saying anything at all about "where the electron is" before the measurement - that's just an invalid concept to even ask about.
Smolin proposes that he most basic feature of nature is the transition from undifferentiated to differentiated existence. Think of a glass of water into which you dip your finger and pull it out gracefully. There will be a drop at the tip of your finger, a differentiated beable called DOROP. Shake your finger on the rim and think about the drop. For Smolin, that is the key move in the universe, the most basic primitive. Think of WHAT EXITS, whatever is imaginable, from the entire universe to a particle, as something that transitioned from a "Nowhere" to "Somewhere." Smolin's organum requires two domains and one move. The domain of NOWHERE (0), where no space, or energy, or beings are allowed. A domain where you have everything and nothing at the same time. To make it personal, it is the place where you who reads these lines were one million years ago and where you will be a million years from now. Existence, like mathematics has its own zero. There are no beables in that domain because there is no interaction anywhere. In the glass of water there is no interaction between the drops, but given the opportunity, when the drops transition from the totality to the individuality, their interactions make sound and BJ Thomas hears the blues they send to him. They talk. But while in the totality of the clouds, they did not exist.
We also have the domain of SOMEWHERE (1). When a beable interacts with other beable reality springs out of the interaction. The begining of a beable is represented by 1/0 and its end by the inverse, 0/1.
While I understand it, from a dycodemic perspective comment as far as using it as a comparative tool is concerned, but it seems to me that the fundamental nature of existence is inherently incompatible with quality list unified field of existence, because of the fact that, without any Particular Quality of being able to be described to Commerce since it doesn't lack the opposite, it is, functionally speaking, identical to nakima and nothing this is coma by its nature, only ever nothing else, and cannot change, because anything that would generate a change within the nothingness would necessarily come from within the nothingness, meaning that the nothingness wouldn't actually be nothing In the 1st place.
I think it's just a useful pointer to describe what is essentially a probabilistic wait function of the universe the field which collapses into actualities as the computational mechanic that sweeps through the universe at the speed of entropy Causes spontaneous symmetry breaking and the manifestation of probability into physical reality. The difference between what you described and this probabilistic field of preexistence, in my understanding comment is the fact that it is not inherently everything coma as certain probabilities are weighted as being more likely than others, meaning It contains information, rather than being the functional equivalent of nothingness that pure unity would be.
Awesome
25 mins in amazing assessments from both gentlemen very gripping, just to many add breaks for me 😢 I just can't randomly pause and hold a complex chain of thoughts plus I'm in the bath lastime I dry my fingers see ya :)
ublock origin exists
WHY? WHY does randomness trouble people? WE MAKE CHOICES, and it just stands to reason that those choices are then going to percolate out into the world in various ways. There HAS to be unpredictability. If there wasn't then our ability to choose would be contravened.
What troubles me is that you still can't understand that nothing in physics can be random. That's high school knowledge. Random numbers don't satisfy any conservation laws. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Well, I think you're wrong fundamentally, and science departed from determinism a century ago. However, in any case I regard labeling something as "random" in science as merely acknowledging that we cannot associate a KNOWN CAUSE with the thing - that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't HAVE ONE.
@@KipIngram I know that you don't think. You are proving it with every single one of your nonsensical posts. ;-)
@@KipIngram Science did not depart from determinism 100 years ago. What happened 100 years ago is some guy drinking a bit too much philosophy, while inventing QM, started to reject the idea that there was some fact of the particle's position (or property) prior to measurement. About that he was right. And that by itself does not imply in-determinism (except from the frame of someone who cannot fathom how that could (even possibly) not imply that (which is many by the way). But since he was a drinker, he also drank into some tag-along ideas, such as: which position (or property) the particle ends up having, upon M, is randomly decided. That's the part which WOULD imply random, but recall that he had been drinking quite a gulp by that point (as goes for philosophers in general); he was WRONG about that tag-alonger point (as usual, per philosophers). Again, some people simply cannot fathom how the first point does Not entail randomness. Such people are just like Bohr, and are a Bore to listen to.
At 15' Tim disregards measurement "you shouldn't have to define or discuss what a measurement is." He would benefit reading Foundations of Measurement by Suppes et al. Measurement is the representation of empirical relations like order or symmetry by mathematical objects like numbers or graphs. The representation of length is additive, temperature is not. The problem of measurement in QM is that the basic relationship, uncertainty, has no direct mathematical representation. I can represent "greater than" using numbers. QM represents uncertainty indirectly, using probability, which is...degrees of belief! (de Finetti).
I am wondering how Albert comes up with higher dimensions as a possible idea for non-locality. Seems like hand waving. I much prefer Maudlin’s approach of constructing cube-like regions of connections in discrete space . A question I have is : what other phenomena in QM other than the convincing account related to spins of entangled particles could reinforce the notion that nature is non-local?
He pulls it out of his rear. He simply doesn't understand physics. That's all this is. Nature is perfectly local and all quantum field theory books say so, usually in the first chapter. The proper definition of non-locality automatically means a violation of relativity. Such a violation has never been observed and that's pretty much that for non-locality. It's dead on arrival. What is not so obvious is that there are non-separable states in quantum mechanics. Non-separability, however, has absolutely nothing to do with locality. It's a mathematical property of elements of Hilbert space, which is NOT the same as physical space. Hilbert space is a mathematical abstract that nature does not implement. It only exists on paper and in the mind of humans.
When do you discuss the aether?
good question.
Although I prefer to call it 'the firmament.' Potatoe, Potato.
In any case, right on.
God, it takes Albert SO LONG to actually get things said.
Measurement shows up in basic quantum mechanics because it's a THEORY ABOUT MEASUREMENTS. It's not a "fundamental theory about what's happening in the world" AT ALL. You don't want to get rid of measurement from the theory - you want to get rid of the idea that it's even telling you about anything beyond your measurements. That's ALL IT'S ABOUT.
Riddled with ads, great content cant stay focused though. After second ad in 9 minutes...ill find these gentlemen elsewhere. Goodluck with your channel
I guess I just don’t get the giant conundrum. Bohr was saying that these issues you pose are not issues, because you can’t ask those questions empirically. When you do ask questions like “which hole did the electron go through”, you find it either went through one or the other and never both, but you’ve changed the quantum system by doing so and so the interference pattern is no longer an issue. Why even discuss things that cannot, even in principle, by found out one way or another?
There is no reason to believe that at more base levels, like the atomic and below, that the world should even be readily comprehensible using our current systems of logic. In fact, it’s arrogant to imagine that any man could or will ever comprehend the ultimate workings of nature herself. We know that the best we have so far is some kind of approximation and there’s no reason to believe we’ll ever do better than that.
Why is it so hard to imagine that the world exists in a state of probabilities/possibility until and unless forced to show its cards one way or another by whatever mechanism? Call it “measurement”, call it interaction, call it fate, the photon that left stars millions of years ago only to interact with your eye tomorrow would not have begun the journey without that connection between your eye and the excited state that emitted the photon when dinosaurs looked to the heavens.
And why the worry about the number of dimensions in an imaginary function characterizing probability space? To imagine that that has anything at all to do with our 3-D space seems strange. The Schrödinger equation works in 3-D space (non-relativistic for sure) accounting for energy/force distributions in the real world and propagates a wavefunction through probability space that then makes perfect sense here in normal space whenever we measure outcomes. It could be here or there or there of spinning like so or like so or less likely like so and so, but when we look, or otherwise forced to take a stance, it’s doing one of those things right here in the real world. Measure lots and lots of times for the same quantum systems and the individual answers approach their probability distribution as the number of measurements approaches infinity.
Nature, ultimately doesn’t have to makes sense and the consciousness “problem”, the fact that consciousness exists, is evidence that we are nowhere near understanding the full of reality and this may or may not always be true.
First of all, Bohr was wrong about changing the quantum system by asking. Asking does nothing. What does do something is measuring. Second, Bohr was wrong to think that M changes the quantum system. What was changed was the outcome. The question remains How So? Why should the outcome change?, in all its detail. Don't speak of there being a quantum system that was changed, making like some 'thing' out there was altered. No. We have some mathematics which we use to describe results, and we don't use that mathematics should there be measurement. That's what changed. Not a quantum system, but simply, whether there is utility to using this mathematics. Is what changed. (Outcome changed). Again, the question is "OK, but what is going on exactly, such that it makes sense the outcome would change?", not "M changed the quantum system", whatever that means. Finally, as to why these philosophers (cringe) are discussing QM, and rehashing what Bohr said (who was wrong about things, right about other things), and drooling over a measurement problem thing (which does not actually exist), the answer is because they are philosophers :) It's what they do :) It's what they are known for, by the physics community. Loitering down crooked, useless, misguided paths-- because loitering itself is fun :)
1:22:00 - See? Albert has been talking for FIVE MINUTES at this point and STILL hasn't gotten to the punch line. One of the problems is that he will repeat entire long phrases multiple times with like a 10% modification - it seems to be how he likes to emphasize a point.
lol yes. He is all emphasis, and no contribution to theoretical physics.
He is like the guy who shines a bigger light on the raccoon outside everyone sees. He says "Hey guys, look now!". Then when you walk away dissatisfied, he switches to a better flashlight, and calls you back. Most philosophers do exactly that. Albert just has access to better flashlights. We don't want flashlights. We want understanding.
E=mc² - If it is a constant, then all the universe would know about it - Mass, Energy and all the rest...
A derived Value must not violate the Concept of its Value.
c² is a random speed as it doesn't exist in the universe - based on c that is a constant that cannot be increased.
Therefore, c can be any number - and that will do - a demonstration on that E=mc² is a Newtonian physics - and no more than fossil fuels-powered;
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
David, Tim and Robinson, one of the most important factors that led to the discovery of the missing links in Quantum Mechanics is PHYLOSOPHY in addition to Theology, Literature, Arts, Science and Mathematics.
The Key is Complete understanding of HOW and WHY GRAVITY WORKS- The Missing Link. Gravity has been successfully quantized and unified with Quantum Mechanic's Standard Model of Particle Physics which led to the completeness of Standard Model of Particle Physics and the realization of the Theory of Everything in Physics by the empirical and scientifically proven true theory - THE REAL TRUE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY.
This scientific discovery/invention of mine will debunk and invalidate String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, M Theory, General Theory of Relativity and all failed and wrong theories of gravity: THE GOD EQUATION - THE TRINITY Equations, Laws and Codes For QUANTUM GRAVITATION , QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL ENTANGLE MENT and GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTATION that pave the way for Theory of Everything in Physics: - THE 3-in-1 HOLY GRAILS of Physics:
1. Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/0 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
2. Quantum Gravity/Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/1 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α
3. Quantum Neutral Gravity/Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/01 and/or 10 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α
We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical Laws, Cosmic/Universal Computation and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole or at Planck scale. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State.
More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on Quantum Gravity.
Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year.
Quantum Gravitation is governed by and follow the Trinity Laws, Computational Codes, Mathematics and Physics of Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement. We now have a new Laws of Physics and two newly discovered Fundamental Forces of Nature - The Quantum Neutral Gravity and Quantum Anti-Gravity which completed the heart of the Quantum Theory of Gravity published in London. Paris and Zurich last December 2022 as follows:
1. First Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Gravitation:
“The greater mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum
Gravitational Field causes a downward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a
Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
- Roel Real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Gravity, and Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α
Where:
QG is Quantum Gravity in Rovira (value of downward acceleration force due to quantum gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in greater mass density of Quantum Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↓α is the Resultant Downward Acceleration of Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
2. Second Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Anti-Gravity.
“The lesser mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational
Field causes an upward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational
Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
-Roel Real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
Where:
QAG is Quantum Anti-Gravity in Rovira (value of upward acceleration force due to quantum anti-gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in lesser mass density of Quantum Anti-Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↑α is the Resultant Upward Acceleration of Anti-Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
3. Third Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Law of Quantum Neutral Gravitation.
“The equal mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects and the Quantum Gravitational
Field causes a zero acceleration or floating or hoovering of the gravitating Quantum Objects
in a Quantum Gravitational Field, instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
- Roel real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Neutral Gravity and Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α
Where:
QNG is Quantum Neutral Gravity in Rovira (value of zero acceleration force due to quantum neutral gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in equal mass density of Quantum Neutral Gravitating Objects to the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↑↓0α is the Resultant zero acceleration or non-acceleration of Neutral Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
For more detailed information on these 3-in-1 Trinity Laws and Equations for Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation, and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - The Real True Nature of Quantum Gravitation, look it up at the two scientific journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA.
Copyright 2022 ROEL REAL ROVIRA. All Rights Reserved.
Crucial experiment: Ask 1000 sets of identical twins which of them wouldn't exist if the egg hadn't split. Crucial data!
I think that a computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator. Am I stating the obvious, or talking about something which is impossible in principle?
you are stating the obvious
@@epajarjestys9981 In two-dimensional fluid mechanics we could do a computer simulation of quantised vortices in Brownian motion, with the quantisation parameter set equal to the Brownian motion parameter. This is a computer simulation of something which is both a wave and a particle which runs in polynomial time. The Brownian motion is derived from a random number generator and no aetiology is proposed. I suspect computer simulations of quantum mechanics will require exponential time.
I didn’t realise all cats do the same thing 😮viz lick themselves clean.
Yep!
Just subd. 🎉
Did, Tim Maudlin, world-renowned philosopher, actually say a mathematical axiom could be false?
Philosophy has been bullshit since 500BC and Tim Maudlin continues this time honored tradition. ;-)
Ugh. Albert's description of superposition doesn't shed light on the matter AT ALL. Let me see if I can tweak it. Let's say you measure the electron's position and find it at point A. That result implies an absolutely definite new (post-measurement) quantum state, which you can calculate and which you should substitute into your analysis if you need to use the Schrodinger equation to march through a further time interval. Let's call that new state S(A). On the other hand, let's say you found the electron at point B. That implies a DIFFERENT absolutely definite new quantum state for the electron, S(B). Now, what superposition means is that there also exists an entire infinite family of quantum states which we can write as Q = a*S(A) + b*S(B) (where a and b are complex numbers whose squares sum to 1.0) that are ALSO valid quantum states - you could, with appropriate laboratory actions, place your electron in any of those states.
If you do this - if your electron state is Q = a*S(A) + b*S(B), then you don't know what the result of a new position measurement will be. You do know, however, that it will be EITHER A, with probability |a|^2, or B, with probability |b|^2. It will NOT be any other value other than A or B, because those are the only possible results that "have support" in the quantum state Q.
So all "superposition with respect to a measurement M" means is that we know the quantum state, precisely - it's a single vector in the Hilbert space - but nonetheless we DO NOT know with 100% certainty what the outcome of the measurement will be. And if we know the quantum state then we know EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE KNOWN. There is no other "stealthy information" we could acquire about the electron that will let us make a certain advance prediction. The ONLY way to get a certain result is to DO THE MEASUREMENT - we can't predict the outcome in advance in any way.
Ok, hopefully that helps.
1:02:45 Lmao
Einstein might have not worried about indeterminism because he deeply believed quantum mechanics was just a statistical theory. However, non locality cannot be explained by statistics. Additionally, his pride, relativity, is founded on locality.
Quantum mechanics is not a statistical theory. It is, however, a non-commutative solution to Kolmogorov's axioms. Statistics/probability theory is a commutative solution to the same axioms and that is the reason for a number of very strong similarities. It is a curiosum of science history that von Neumann published the non-commutative theory in his 1932 book about quantum mechanics one year before Kolmogorov published his axiomatization of probability theory in 1933.
You've just had a conversation about beables without explaining what they are. Tim also didn't define what the difference is between indeterminism and non locality.
There is no non-locality in nature. There are only people who don't understand physics.
@@lepidoptera9337 That would be you. Who just does not understand what we mean by non locality. I bet you think it means that something did in fact travel faster than light, from one particle to the other, causing the other to undergo a change of state :) Physics is fun, you should try it (properly some day) :)
@ Locality is well defined. What you mean is separability, but you won't know the difference until your Mommy comes home. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 What we mean is Inseparability. And yet you think we mean some signal was passed between :) Keep strugglin lepi, I enjoy it
@ Awh, look, Mommy is still dating the gym teacher and you are still begging for attention. ;-)
The only way to correctly understand quantum physics is to fully understand the mathematical foundations: Lie algebras, U(1), SU(2), SU(3) symmetries, spinors and tensors, gauge symmetry etc. Using analogies (waves, particles) may lead to an incomplete intuitive understanding but may also lead to prolonged unending confusion as seen in this video because these analogies are always inexact. No mathematics invariably leads to no understanding. Most quantum physics textbooks fail to introduce the needed mathematical foundations.
Nobody thinks you can correctly understand the physical/ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics by the maths alone (hence many incompatible interpretations)! And for the record they can understand the maths.
Great guests! -- (BTW, unrelated, but Robinson has apparently a pretty bad visual taste! )
With respect I’m not being provocative. What is physics learning from biology? Why is it a one way street. Why were physicists so sure that room temperature plant located quantum processes couldn’t be real until it was shown that the basic energy storage pathway we all depend on (light being converted to carbohydrate by via chlorophyll) is almost certainly dependant in a quantum process involving the efficient path of a photon/electron in the molecule. Physicist think it’s a joke that Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff are proposing that consciousness and it’s relationship to the mind brain and cosmos/environment could be due to quantum processes in micro tubules present in all cells including the brain. Professor Brian Cox (physicist) went on talk shows scoffing at people such as endocrinologists/biologists speculating (coherently it turns out) about these possibly rich areas for study.
Why doesn’t Dr Maudlin know much about the cogent thinking being done by people .. some holding two PhD’s who have enough that’s new and insightful re idealism to gain a PhD from a good University on the topic.
It’s obvious that if the Universe is one Unified (yet differentiated) fractal, holographic field, which is holonic in nature … that the Universe must also be organismic in essence because how else could plasma and some cooling, clumping and interacting (within the inherent 4 forces.. information , atoms flipping bits .. geometry etc) Hiw could that process pop out Einstein and you and me … without a single human thought or scientific theory .. if that process is not organismic .
Plasma … some waiting around … Einstein
Egg 🥚… some waiting around … chicken🐓
Seed … some waiting around … tree 🌲
Why don’t physicists even consider the obvious. The first 9.5 billion years was as much a living process as the last 4 billion since the first cell appears to have manifested in the fossil record.
If that isn’t the case science will have to jettison cause and effect, systems theory and the absolute fact that the Uni- verse is in entirety.. a holon .. a holonic system … exactly like your body .. the body it produced from plasma .. with the above noted stages ending in … planets 🌍 seas 🌊 and cells 🦠. Back to chlorophyll again.
There will never be a theory of everything because physicists can’t handle the wet warm side, the growing thinking feeling side of the Universal coin. Just pretends it’s not there.
Pride perhaps .. like Dr Hawking proud that he didn’t know much about philosophy, mysticism (single case study of the inner subjective universe of consciousness) Spirituality?
Religion is a quasipolitical/belief system and has nothing to do with “consciousness studies” … that emerging academic discipline which physicists generally would look down on .. if they could even acknowledge its validity.
Arrogance ? No one has the first clue how chemistry becomes conscious biology
No-one has the first clue how to make Lego consciousness out of Lego atoms .. the Lego brain .. and its Lego consciousness and its Lego experiences . Have you noticed that physicists lose their waviness when they are scoffing at other disciplines making quantum connections that they should be co working with them to understand?
Isn’t it weird that physicists can’t check in with themselves and say … “yip .. I don’t need any scientist to tell me that I’m alive and consciousness, have being … and by inference that means that this one unified quantum field (nested and holonic) must have those very qualities too
It ain’t rocket science. As is often said .. you can bet your bottom dollar that the Universe is stranger than we can imagine.
It’s almost certainly.. at every system level .. alive and conscious. If you think plasma becomes Einstein and Mickey Mouse in any other context .. that’s probably a bit illogical and dare I say .. naive. It’s staring one in the face.
Yes! No!
Just looks crazy like every new paradigm looks from the perspective of the old
I'd take Bohr over these two duffers every time
Doesn't Maudlin realize that there will be infinitely many mathematical recipes for getting precisely the same result. How is he going to adjudicate between which one of these countless mathematical recipes "really truly correspond to beables". I guess I am not realist enough.
Many Worlds is... idiotic. Just stop talking about it.
On that we agree. But so is BM. Just to a lesser extent.
Getting VERY sick of finding new and interesting channels and videos, only to get Ads every 4 minutes.
Was looking forward to this one, but not going to bother.
I don't know what your budget looks like, but YT premium may be worth its $15 monthly price tag.
You have to pay the piper.
You'll either pay with your time (watching ads or skipping high quality content altogether) or pay with your pocketbook. For me, uninterrupted long-format video viewing is worth 50¢ a day.
YMMV
Cheers
sorry. Ha. I'm just excited about this interview and it makes me sad to hear someone else walked from it....
this is many years old podcast reuploaded. clickbait
you're mistaking this with my identical twin's identical conversation with david and tim
At around 20 min mark, what the heck is David talking about? Talking very literarily philosophical…
I think einstein would back everret before he shrugged his shoulders and said we're stuck with nonlocality...
@@paulthomas963 ?
@@paulthomas963 everret's theory saves determinism and locality, both of those were why einstein thought quantum mechanics to be incomplete...
who sits in a bath tub?