I truly enjoy hearing how the group of old physicists, like my dad,, got together to solve these unsolvable problems, I finally get why he was fascinated and now I am too, because of these videos, primarily, What a great gift and joy it' is to learn and fall in love more every day, with these ideas! Thank you!
Man, I find it more refreshingly refreshing each time I listen to David's uniquely captivating way of explaining otherwise unexplained explanations. So the above comment made sense to me at the time I wrote it, 45ish seconds ago, but after reading it again, I now feel a tension between my initial meaning and it's possible comprehension! Doesn't matter
Definitely possibly, I feel that tension building up as well .. Has to be scientifically proven. And let's ask, the theories that explain my feelings, are still similar to the moon made of cheese. Great talk Brian, that puts me in reflection. Thank you Mm
Thank you Mr Greene. I enjoy each and every talk you upload. My schooling education was very limited back in the 70’s/80’s so I’m delighted that finally my passion for all that you discuss is here, and at a level I can understand.
Ha!About 18 years ago I asked Leonard Susskind, one of the founders of String Theory if I could do a thesis with him on the ontology of the “Landscape”, what all the different ideas predicted and implications. His response was: “What’s ontology?”!😂
David is literally my favorite intellectual. Every schoolboy wishes they had an educator like him. A brain like his is at the perfect intersection of scientific reasoning and philosophy. Thanks to Brian Greene for this wide ranging interview on the most important topics of the last century when it comes to scientific progress.
Another awesome discussion WSF. Thanks to all who worked on getting this done. David is such an interesting speaker. I have enjoyed his really down to earth talks on some very cutting-edge thinking every time. Do yourself a favor and go back to watch any WSF talk that has David as a speaker it's well worth the time. Happy New Year all!
I used to not be able to listen to David because of the way he danced around his actual point and qualified all of his statements. In my older age, I've gained an appreciation for him. He comes across as vague at times, but he is very precise and intentional with his language. Really good show. Thanks again, Brian.
You took the words out of my mouth! I get frustrated with the wording and elongated explanations of even the smaller things.... But to be fair - I am not a physicist and have zero right to even whinge about it 😅 I'm more grateful he's giving us this window into a world I would never otherwise experience. I've ALWAYS been super amped about every new world science festival post, and I have gotten so much out of it!
Brian Green. I am very happy and surprised that I came across in this video all the very interesting ideas that are running out of mind recently. I cant find a proper way to thank you! By the way thank you so much for you and Mr. David Albert.
"Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics" raises an intriguing discussion about the intersection of two worlds that are often seen as distinct-philosophy and physics. In the realm of quantum mechanics, where the behavior of particles defies classical understanding, philosophical questions often arise, challenging not only our perception of reality but also the very foundations of science itself. Physics, particularly quantum mechanics, has long been a domain of rigorous mathematics and experimentation. However, the strange and counterintuitive phenomena observed at the quantum level-such as wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement-present challenges that purely empirical approaches struggle to address. These phenomena push the boundaries of what we can physically observe, leading to questions that are more philosophical than scientific in nature. For instance, the concept of "measurement" in quantum mechanics, which hinges on the observer's role in determining reality, invites questions of epistemology and the nature of consciousness. Philosophy drives physics by prompting these critical reflections. Philosophers, especially those in the tradition of analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science, challenge physicists to question the assumptions behind their theories. In doing so, they explore the very meaning of concepts such as "reality," "causality," and "determinism" in the quantum world. This philosophical inquiry is not just abstract; it has practical implications for how we interpret the results of quantum experiments and how we might integrate quantum mechanics into broader theories of the universe. The relationship between philosophy and physics also brings forward deeper questions about the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Can we ever truly understand the quantum world? Is it possible to reconcile quantum mechanics with our classical understanding of reality? And what does it mean for the future of scientific discovery if certain aspects of nature remain forever beyond the grasp of human comprehension? At its core, the exploration of quantum quandaries is a reminder that the pursuit of knowledge is not simply about accumulating data, but about grappling with fundamental questions that challenge how we think about the universe. The blending of philosophy and physics offers a richer, more nuanced perspective on reality, encouraging us to reconsider what is possible and how our understanding of the cosmos can evolve.
What an interesting discussion and Albert is an impressive thinker . Looking forward to sessions 2 and 3 that Brian mentioned . Keep up the good work as these are simply astounding presentations that help the layperson to better understand the cutting edge of scientific advancement
I just happened to stumble onto “Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics” a couple hours after it dropped. This was a very informative discussion! I thought the heart of it was Prof Albert posing the three possible solutions to the Measurement Problem: GRW theory, Bohm, and many universe theories. My question is this: Why was Bohm given such short shrift? My understanding is that Bohm is usually ignored because of the extra calculation involved in the pilot wave and because the Bohm formulation is non-local. But would not this be a positive? Since the experimental results on Bell’s inequality have disproved local realism, would we not want a non-local explanation? What am I missing?
So there was the guy who gave you three solutions to a problem that doesn't even exist. Sound of one hand clapping. It's just great that you swallowed it like a good sheep. ;-)
An anthology is a collection of works, such as poems, short stories, essays, or songs, compiled into a single volume. These works are often selected based on a common theme, genre, or author. Anthologies can be a great way to explore a variety of voices and styles within a particular literary or artistic field. For example, a poetry anthology might include works from different poets who write about nature, while a short story anthology might feature stories from various authors who specialize in science fiction.
The pointer may simply make a measurement and determine which way it points. Penrose suggest that gravity though weak leads to the collapse of the wave function.
I admit many of the ideas about philosophy of physics were over my head but I stuck with the program to the end. I hope Brian will talk a bit further on his conclusions about this program soon.
From the moment I started to hear about quantum mechanics I wondered if what really divided/differentiated the quantum world/rules and the non quantum one could be the aggregation of subatomic particles into atoms or molecules. I am not a physicist, so this idea may be naive, but couldn't be something like that which causes the wave function to collapse instead of just something subtle that the subatomic particles have but is only seen when many of them aggregate (forming someone big like a device)?, which is what those 3 Italians analyzed. I understand that after all the subatomic particles don't behave the exact same way when they are free in comparison to when they form an atom/molecule. I may be mistaken on this assumption? Thank you for this juicy conversation. Looking forward to a new book of yours, Brian!
Philosophy has to drive physics. I really cannot see how it can work any other way. It is the wellspring and source of the deepest questions in which we seek answers to.
When a particle is travelling anywhere it's probability of being in it's next position is dependant on the solution to the Hamiltonian containing a potential function. The path then is an integral of the position changes as they limit to zero. This is true inside your apparatus too so what you are measuring are those particles that have negotiated the barriers as their wave functions evolve, rather than collapse. When two having almost identical characteristics arrived at the first beam splitter at the same instant this gets called entanglement. The rest gives you averages you cannot interpret except the decoherence is due to interaction with potential field along it's path towards a detector.
Brian, you commented that you didn't want to get too technical for your audience. In my opinion, your interviews are even better when you bring in the technical details and issues.
I use quantum mechanics in shaping the future around myself - it could be setting up situations or taking an action or saying things that could set a new probability, seemingly increasing the chance of quantum predictability of my future without ignoring classic physics. I have no limits other than time, but I am keeping that in mind too - some of the future I am setting the rules for or laying the bricks for will have to come long after I die.
In the early years back in 1990's These are people of very admiral intelligence and creativity and this is a discussion from which we have learnt alot.
Thank you both for one of the most interesting conversations on the foundations of physics. Is physics stuck because of Quantum Mechanic "shut up and calculate" fanaticism? I believe so.
I also use quantum mechanics in visualising, controlling and shaping the movement of feelings, conscious states, the status quo in political and scientific field, spreading the views, behaviour and so on.
Brian: Good morning, David. David Albert: let me back up a little [goes on to brilliantly lay out the history of physics from the end of the 19th century to present time].
Another great conversation, thanks! Have considered inviting Karen Barat to discuss her philosophical take on Bohr and the role of consciousness in her concepts such as intra-action? Would love to hear that conversation!
Best experiment to set up now would be one which measured the speed of propagation of gravitons on the surface of the earth and in interplanetary space. Maybe gravity really is a form of instantaneous transmission that gets slowed by the density of matter distribution.
heres a thoght Mr. Greene... The planets / objects orbit around more massive objects. you can visualize that with the 2d space time fabric chart we use. you could expand that and make it instead of a 2d dip a 3d circle or tauroid. then you could break that down into vortex math? decode the cordinates and get your calculations on star systems. just a theory but if the universe is infinite we could technically use vortex math as a way of kind of decoding planetary cordinates? to try and find patters or something. also goes into philosophy about interconnectedness and you could also use this same thing for neurons hypothetically just food for thought I was thinking and asked chat gpt and I liked the feedback so I decided to throw it out here. huge fan and beginner learner of it all haha! but WSF makes so many concepts digestable. chat gpt said its philosophically plausible and scientifically intriguing haha
Finally, the scientists ask right questions. Science never left philosophy; the Industrial Era scientists did. There must be the immutable core to reality; and it is not mathematics, it is logic. Mathematical descriptions vary from world to world; not logic. Einste 0:24 in knew this fact well. Half of the books on his desk at the time of his death were on philosophy. In fact, his theory of relativity owes much to Mach’s philosophy.
Are vortices in Superfluids a macroscopic version of what happens in Spinors? Is there a geometric explanation of Planck's constant? Does this explanation require at least one extra spatial dimension? Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay) Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
Physics, as a science, as a developed product of human consciousness, is the mechanism to wander and adventure every methodologies of working of materialistic phenomenons of the universe, through every of it's language, as mathematics...
Unfortunately as I have become all too well aware, for many people "Not stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know." varies greatly from person to person. Such people have pitched their tent at the peak of Mt Ignorant, and often frequent videos like this not with any intention to learn anything new but to regale us with their insufferable Lack of knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love science communicators such as Brian who worked tirelessly to bring science into the mainstream, but there are an alarmingly large number of people who apparently believe youtube is the only science education they will ever need. If you have been on this platform long enough, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
burns .... but on the other side it helps if you know what you are missing and how to integrate. Entire conversation might be just hovering above and not getting to the logical points but the 10% you don't have is the 10% you should integrate into your current understandings.
@@venkatasaketh5818 I was just venting my frustration at the alarmingly large number of people who resort to an appeal to incredulity juice simply to the fact they have encountered a concept outside their current education. For example I was mercilessly mocked for stating there is such a concept as fictional forces, which include the translational force the centrifugal force and the coriolis force. This is a concept someone with even a basic formal education in science should be familiar with. They could have spent 5 minutes looking up the difference between fundamental forces and fictional forces, but no, it was apparently far preferable to flex their ignorance on me as if it was some kind of virtue. There are so many of these self proclaimed experts out there making it almost impossible to state even a basic scientific fact without being derailed into an unproductive argument with someone who is deeply committed to learning nothing.
@@bendybruce All true, but in my humble opinion the proportion of know-nothings in this comment section is actually lower than in many other science channels.
Utterly engrossing, in-depth discussion. Such a joy to hear complex ideas so clearly presented. I credit Matt O'Dowd and Space Time for my being able to follow the whole way through.
Matter is 99.99% vacuum, for neutrinos its hardly there at all, but for protons and electrons matter is pretty solid. In my view matter is only "there" for things that interact with it. Like the philosopher said "A tree is not there if nobody is looking at it." That's a bit of a stretch as it is better to say: " A tree is not there if nothing interacts with it. So for a neutrino the tree is, essentially not there but for photons etc it is "there". In my view the first philosophers had it right when discussing the void and their original Greek philosophical arguments are, actually, the origin of the word ontology. They argued that a void is not possible because, if it is indeed a void, then it is nothing and nothing does not not exist - voila! So, as the argument goes, everything is one (like a solid kind of) and reality is an illusion. Its the origin of the well-known "all is one" notion. Ha! They said it was all a sphere. They had a point at least - pun deeply intended! To me there is an information substrate that exists below space-time, probably in black holes. And this information space "paints out" the X Y Z and time of the whole universe. The Holographic Principle alludes to this idea but cannot quite flesh out the whole hypothesis so it fell a bit flat, sadly. Present day philosophy is deeply mired and ignores actual real ontological arguments mainly because mathematics & science has taken over from the original philosophy. There are so many historical and present-day arguments for and against almost everything that it cannot move an inch now - its stuck in the gigantic complexity generated by science and mathematics - just look at the millions of peer-reviewed papers published. There are a thousand counter arguments to every notion so best to say nothing of real philosophical content. But I have given it a try!
In my opinion high level physics nowadays has outmatched (if I may use this word) philosophy because it's about such incredible ideas that involve the fundamental questions man has always asked.
The quote about the universe being "stranger than..may be from Prof. J. B. S. Haldane...(??). If I recall correctly, Arthur C. Clarke used to use that quote ... Arthur likely knew Prof Haldane....---JA
First Niel Turok, now David Albert, if this continues with a conversation with Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Maudlin or Peter Woit and my respect for Brian Greene couldn't be any higher! Brian is always respectful, humble and cordial when he speaks with someone that holds a different view than his own, a rare ability in today's world.
I truly enjoy hearing how the group of old physicists, like my dad,, got together to solve these unsolvable problems, I finally get why he was fascinated and now I am too, because of these videos, primarily, What a great gift and joy it' is to learn and fall in love more every day, with these ideas! Thank you!
Greene. Albert. Philosophy. Physics. The weekend is off to a good start. Good.
Just wait. Trump will remedy that real quick. Just give him 24 hours.
I am glad philosophers are appearing more on discussions. We need them more than ever!
They will indeed be useful... we will need fruit pickers once Trump removes all our Mexican farm workers. ;-)
Do we? They just talk and talk and accomplish nothing.
Agreed with Robert. Why do we? They accomplish nothing material
What a great New Year Gift! We didn’t realise how much we needed this pairing 🙏🙏
David Albert is spot-on. We've all been thrilled during early life by Einstein's "importation of philosophy into physics".
Man, I find it more refreshingly refreshing each time I listen to David's uniquely captivating way of explaining otherwise unexplained explanations.
So the above comment made sense to me at the time I wrote it, 45ish seconds ago, but after reading it again, I now feel a tension between my initial meaning and it's possible comprehension!
Doesn't matter
Definitely possibly, I feel that tension building up as well ..
Has to be scientifically proven. And let's ask, the theories that explain my feelings, are still similar to the moon made of cheese.
Great talk Brian, that puts me in reflection.
Thank you
Mm
Thank you Mr Greene. I enjoy each and every talk you upload. My schooling education was very limited back in the 70’s/80’s so I’m delighted that finally my passion for all that you discuss is here, and at a level I can understand.
Perhaps my favorite episode. Wow. Very deep. Very satisfying.
Ha!About 18 years ago I asked Leonard Susskind, one of the founders of String Theory if I could do a thesis with him on the ontology of the “Landscape”, what all the different ideas predicted and implications. His response was: “What’s ontology?”!😂
One of the best channels on youtube! Thank you!
❤
David is literally my favorite intellectual. Every schoolboy wishes they had an educator like him. A brain like his is at the perfect intersection of scientific reasoning and philosophy. Thanks to Brian Greene for this wide ranging interview on the most important topics of the last century when it comes to scientific progress.
Brian Greene 🎉 keep up the good work! Great interviews. 👍
thank you
Isn't that bezos? He got a pseudonym now or something?
I love these two and i hope one day i will meet them , discuss and share with them my ideas in physics as a student in physics
Looking forward to the Part 2 and Part 3 that you mentioned, Brian! What a great start to 2025!!!
Fantastic interview. Really great guest.
Wonderful discussion. Could have listened to your eloquent and brilliant minds all night.
Much appreciated, Brian and David.
Stay healthy.
This channel is the best of the bests, what a gift thank you so much
What a terrific interview! We need so much more of this knowledge on the internet.
Another awesome discussion WSF. Thanks to all who worked on getting this done. David is such an interesting speaker. I have enjoyed his really down to earth talks on some very cutting-edge thinking every time. Do yourself a favor and go back to watch any WSF talk that has David as a speaker it's well worth the time.
Happy New Year all!
This was a great conversation.
Can’t wait for part 2 and 3!!!!
I used to not be able to listen to David because of the way he danced around his actual point and qualified all of his statements. In my older age, I've gained an appreciation for him. He comes across as vague at times, but he is very precise and intentional with his language. Really good show. Thanks again, Brian.
You took the words out of my mouth! I get frustrated with the wording and elongated explanations of even the smaller things....
But to be fair - I am not a physicist and have zero right to even whinge about it 😅
I'm more grateful he's giving us this window into a world I would never otherwise experience.
I've ALWAYS been super amped about every new world science festival post, and I have gotten so much out of it!
I think he's just gotten a lot better at getting to the point.
@@Kalumbatsch maybe so. I can't say that I've gone back and re-watched a bunch of old stuff to see. You may have something there.
@@exailmle well I'm glad I'm getting a little bit of positive feedback on that. I was afraid I was just going to look like a dick.
im at this point not able to listen to him. "right" "right" "mkay?" "right" "mkay?" its not for me
Brian Green. I am very happy and surprised that I came across in this video all the very interesting ideas that are running out of mind recently. I cant find a proper way to thank you! By the way thank you so much for you and Mr. David Albert.
Always great to see David. He's such an eloquent speaker
"Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics" raises an intriguing discussion about the intersection of two worlds that are often seen as distinct-philosophy and physics. In the realm of quantum mechanics, where the behavior of particles defies classical understanding, philosophical questions often arise, challenging not only our perception of reality but also the very foundations of science itself.
Physics, particularly quantum mechanics, has long been a domain of rigorous mathematics and experimentation. However, the strange and counterintuitive phenomena observed at the quantum level-such as wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement-present challenges that purely empirical approaches struggle to address. These phenomena push the boundaries of what we can physically observe, leading to questions that are more philosophical than scientific in nature. For instance, the concept of "measurement" in quantum mechanics, which hinges on the observer's role in determining reality, invites questions of epistemology and the nature of consciousness.
Philosophy drives physics by prompting these critical reflections. Philosophers, especially those in the tradition of analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science, challenge physicists to question the assumptions behind their theories. In doing so, they explore the very meaning of concepts such as "reality," "causality," and "determinism" in the quantum world. This philosophical inquiry is not just abstract; it has practical implications for how we interpret the results of quantum experiments and how we might integrate quantum mechanics into broader theories of the universe.
The relationship between philosophy and physics also brings forward deeper questions about the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Can we ever truly understand the quantum world? Is it possible to reconcile quantum mechanics with our classical understanding of reality? And what does it mean for the future of scientific discovery if certain aspects of nature remain forever beyond the grasp of human comprehension?
At its core, the exploration of quantum quandaries is a reminder that the pursuit of knowledge is not simply about accumulating data, but about grappling with fundamental questions that challenge how we think about the universe. The blending of philosophy and physics offers a richer, more nuanced perspective on reality, encouraging us to reconsider what is possible and how our understanding of the cosmos can evolve.
Experimentation matters, not just words.
Fascinating conversation
"Good."
Really lovely what David said about recognising one may be 'entrenched', but that it doesn't necessarily matter at all.
Thank you for the great conversation. More please!
What an interesting discussion and Albert is an impressive thinker . Looking forward to sessions 2 and 3 that Brian mentioned . Keep up the good work as these are simply astounding presentations that help the layperson to better understand the cutting edge of scientific advancement
Always great interviews Brrian. Thanks. And David is such an awesome human being.
I just happened to stumble onto “Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics” a couple hours after it dropped. This was a very informative discussion! I thought the heart of it was Prof Albert posing the three possible solutions to the Measurement Problem: GRW theory, Bohm, and many universe theories.
My question is this: Why was Bohm given such short shrift? My understanding is that Bohm is usually ignored because of the extra calculation involved in the pilot wave and because the Bohm formulation is non-local. But would not this be a positive? Since the experimental results on Bell’s inequality have disproved local realism, would we not want a non-local explanation?
What am I missing?
So there was the guy who gave you three solutions to a problem that doesn't even exist. Sound of one hand clapping. It's just great that you swallowed it like a good sheep. ;-)
An anthology is a collection of works, such as poems, short stories, essays, or songs, compiled into a single volume. These works are often selected based on a common theme, genre, or author. Anthologies can be a great way to explore a variety of voices and styles within a particular literary or artistic field.
For example, a poetry anthology might include works from different poets who write about nature, while a short story anthology might feature stories from various authors who specialize in science fiction.
Thanks for all of the great programming~
This position, I think, will turn a page for Physics into the 21st Century and beyond; 100 years later. Kudos.
I didn’t think about it that way. Just as 2025 starts, here we have a great conversation about the very foundations of quantum mechanics!
Interesting how I saw it!
The pointer may simply make a measurement and determine which way it points. Penrose suggest that gravity though weak leads to the collapse of the wave function.
I’m so glad you took on this knotty but central problem in science and philosophy! Excellent discussion and rewarding to think about.
I admit many of the ideas about philosophy of physics were over my head but I stuck with the program to the end. I hope Brian will talk a bit further on his conclusions about this program soon.
Brian 🤩🥳🎉 happy new year
As a person of average intelligence, I feel great joy listening to such genius.
More of that please! 👏😊
From the moment I started to hear about quantum mechanics I wondered if what really divided/differentiated the quantum world/rules and the non quantum one could be the aggregation of subatomic particles into atoms or molecules. I am not a physicist, so this idea may be naive, but couldn't be something like that which causes the wave function to collapse instead of just something subtle that the subatomic particles have but is only seen when many of them aggregate (forming someone big like a device)?, which is what those 3 Italians analyzed. I understand that after all the subatomic particles don't behave the exact same way when they are free in comparison to when they form an atom/molecule. I may be mistaken on this assumption?
Thank you for this juicy conversation. Looking forward to a new book of yours, Brian!
Philosophy has to drive physics. I really cannot see how it can work any other way. It is the wellspring and source of the deepest questions in which we seek answers to.
This was fantastic. Really interesting.
When a particle is travelling anywhere it's probability of being in it's next position is dependant on the solution to the Hamiltonian containing a potential function. The path then is an integral of the position changes as they limit to zero. This is true inside your apparatus too so what you are measuring are those particles that have negotiated the barriers as their wave functions evolve, rather than collapse. When two having almost identical characteristics arrived at the first beam splitter at the same instant this gets called entanglement. The rest gives you averages you cannot interpret except the decoherence is due to interaction with potential field along it's path towards a detector.
Best episode so far!
Can't wait for parts 2 and 3!
Welcome back David Albert to the world science festival . Love listening to him
Absolutely excellent talk. And the previous one with Dr. Turok, too.
Fantastic conversation on a fascinating topic!
hello fellow nerds!
Great interview! Thanks for it!
Brian, you commented that you didn't want to get too technical for your audience. In my opinion, your interviews are even better when you bring in the technical details and issues.
Brian Greene, doing the Lords work 🙌🏾
haha
Thanks Brian! You da man!
This episode is thought provoking
I use quantum mechanics in shaping the future around myself - it could be setting up situations or taking an action or saying things that could set a new probability, seemingly increasing the chance of quantum predictability of my future without ignoring classic physics. I have no limits other than time, but I am keeping that in mind too - some of the future I am setting the rules for or laying the bricks for will have to come long after I die.
Looking forward to parts 2 and 3. So much more interesting than all the AI stuff recently.
In the early years back in 1990's
These are people of very admiral intelligence and creativity and this is a discussion from which we have learnt alot.
Yes, but they weren't philosophers and it wasn't the 1990s. They were physicists and mathematicians and it was in the late 1920s and early 1930s. ;-)
wow my favs David and Brian back together after so many years
Thank you both for one of the most interesting conversations on the foundations of physics.
Is physics stuck because of Quantum Mechanic "shut up and calculate" fanaticism? I believe so.
I also use quantum mechanics in visualising, controlling and shaping the movement of feelings, conscious states, the status quo in political and scientific field, spreading the views, behaviour and so on.
If two particles are entangled and we change the spin of the one particle with electromagnetic radiation is it affect the other particle?
You didn't change a spin. There wasn't even a particle. There is, however, one more person on the internet who doesn't understand physics. ;-)
Well yes, provided you don’t break entanglement, but you probably would
Finally I hear him say something interesting!
Most enjoyable !
Brian: Good morning, David.
David Albert: let me back up a little [goes on to brilliantly lay out the history of physics from the end of the 19th century to present time].
Another great conversation, thanks! Have considered inviting Karen Barat to discuss her philosophical take on Bohr and the role of consciousness in her concepts such as intra-action? Would love to hear that conversation!
Thank God for you guys, in these God awful times.
Thank you
Best experiment to set up now would be one which measured the speed of propagation of gravitons on the surface of the earth and in interplanetary space. Maybe gravity really is a form of instantaneous transmission that gets slowed by the density of matter distribution.
heres a thoght Mr. Greene... The planets / objects orbit around more massive objects. you can visualize that with the 2d space time fabric chart we use. you could expand that and make it instead of a 2d dip a 3d circle or tauroid. then you could break that down into vortex math? decode the cordinates and get your calculations on star systems. just a theory but if the universe is infinite we could technically use vortex math as a way of kind of decoding planetary cordinates? to try and find patters or something. also goes into philosophy about interconnectedness and you could also use this same thing for neurons hypothetically
just food for thought I was thinking and asked chat gpt and I liked the feedback so I decided to throw it out here. huge fan and beginner learner of it all haha! but WSF makes so many concepts digestable.
chat gpt said its philosophically plausible and scientifically intriguing haha
Finally, the scientists ask right questions. Science never left philosophy; the Industrial Era scientists did. There must be the immutable core to reality; and it is not mathematics, it is logic. Mathematical descriptions vary from world to world; not logic. Einste 0:24 in knew this fact well. Half of the books on his desk at the time of his death were on philosophy. In fact, his theory of relativity owes much to Mach’s philosophy.
You always make my day when you post a new video . Have an amazing year and thank-you for all the years of fantastic content.
Where can I get a copy of that black hole painting? Seen it for years now and asked in many comments. Would love to know.
Search “colorful photos of paint being flung by a rotating drill”.
Ask an A.I. that has visual capability. Google Gemini might do the trick
25 mins in
This is soo good
This was so fascinating! Great conversation!!
Philosophy, math and physics. Not bad, Brian!
Are vortices in Superfluids a macroscopic version of what happens in Spinors?
Is there a geometric explanation of Planck's constant? Does this explanation require at least one extra spatial dimension?
Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread.
What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles.
If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle?
Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics?
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model.
Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)
Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
Physics, as a science, as a developed product of human consciousness, is the mechanism to wander and adventure every methodologies of working of materialistic phenomenons of the universe, through every of it's language, as mathematics...
Unfortunately as I have become all too well aware, for many people "Not stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know." varies greatly from person to person. Such people have pitched their tent at the peak of Mt Ignorant, and often frequent videos like this not with any intention to learn anything new but to regale us with their insufferable Lack of knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love science communicators such as Brian who worked tirelessly to bring science into the mainstream, but there are an alarmingly large number of people who apparently believe youtube is the only science education they will ever need. If you have been on this platform long enough, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
burns .... but on the other side it helps if you know what you are missing and how to integrate. Entire conversation might be just hovering above and not getting to the logical points but the 10% you don't have is the 10% you should integrate into your current understandings.
@@venkatasaketh5818 I was just venting my frustration at the alarmingly large number of people who resort to an appeal to incredulity juice simply to the fact they have encountered a concept outside their current education. For example I was mercilessly mocked for stating there is such a concept as fictional forces, which include the translational force the centrifugal force and the coriolis force. This is a concept someone with even a basic formal education in science should be familiar with. They could have spent 5 minutes looking up the difference between fundamental forces and fictional forces, but no, it was apparently far preferable to flex their ignorance on me as if it was some kind of virtue. There are so many of these self proclaimed experts out there making it almost impossible to state even a basic scientific fact without being derailed into an unproductive argument with someone who is deeply committed to learning nothing.
@@bendybruce All true, but in my humble opinion the proportion of know-nothings in this comment section is actually lower than in many other science channels.
50:31 it's positive sum logic! POSITIVE SUM LOGIC MEANS WE'RE ALL RIGHT! 🤩🤩🤩
2:35 THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS MUST BE NOTHING OTHER THAN DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM!!! 🤩🤩🤩
Hi fellow nerds!
happy new year fellow nerd! 😂
You should explore those timescape cosmology models.
Utterly engrossing, in-depth discussion. Such a joy to hear complex ideas so clearly presented. I credit Matt O'Dowd and Space Time for my being able to follow the whole way through.
More more! More!
Excellent 👍🌟🌟👍
Fascinating!
Philosophers don't drive physics; mathemagicians do...
Matter is 99.99% vacuum, for neutrinos its hardly there at all, but for protons and electrons matter is pretty solid. In my view matter is only "there" for things that interact with it. Like the philosopher said "A tree is not there if nobody is looking at it." That's a bit of a stretch as it is better to say: " A tree is not there if nothing interacts with it. So for a neutrino the tree is, essentially not there but for photons etc it is "there".
In my view the first philosophers had it right when discussing the void and their original Greek philosophical arguments are, actually, the origin of the word ontology. They argued that a void is not possible because, if it is indeed a void, then it is nothing and nothing does not not exist - voila! So, as the argument goes, everything is one (like a solid kind of) and reality is an illusion. Its the origin of the well-known "all is one" notion. Ha! They said it was all a sphere. They had a point at least - pun deeply intended!
To me there is an information substrate that exists below space-time, probably in black holes. And this information space "paints out" the X Y Z and time of the whole universe. The Holographic Principle alludes to this idea but cannot quite flesh out the whole hypothesis so it fell a bit flat, sadly.
Present day philosophy is deeply mired and ignores actual real ontological arguments mainly because mathematics & science has taken over from the original philosophy.
There are so many historical and present-day arguments for and against almost everything that it cannot move an inch now - its stuck in the gigantic complexity generated by science and mathematics - just look at the millions of peer-reviewed papers published. There are a thousand counter arguments to every notion so best to say nothing of real philosophical content.
But I have given it a try!
Ok, my answer to your a
parlor game question. If I could have anyone over for dinner, it would be you two!
Super great !
The universe began with Entanglement…my contribution to the philosophy of physics.and I’m right ❤
In my opinion high level physics nowadays has outmatched (if I may use this word) philosophy because it's about such incredible ideas that involve the fundamental questions man has always asked.
I LOVE THIS MAN
what is the distinction between past and future, Sir?
I encourage people to try giving Barad's agential realism a try for quantum interpretation in Bohr's sense of language's inadequacy
There is so much bullshit out there, already, we don't need more of it.
The quote about the universe being "stranger than..may be from Prof. J. B. S. Haldane...(??). If I recall correctly, Arthur C. Clarke used to use that quote ... Arthur likely knew Prof Haldane....---JA
First Niel Turok, now
David Albert, if this continues with a conversation with Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Maudlin or Peter Woit and my respect for Brian Greene couldn't be any higher!
Brian is always respectful, humble and cordial when he speaks with someone that holds a different view than his own, a rare ability in today's world.
David never said the word "ontology", when the only question Brian asked was about ontology.
Ty❤❤