Tim Maudlin Corrects the 2022 Nobel Physics Committee About Bell's Inequality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2022
- Dr. Tim Maudlin is an internationally-renowned philosopher of science currently associated with New York University. He is known for the clarity of his thought and the poignancy (sic) of his critiques, above all in the foundations of physics, which is the subject of today’s discussion. Maudlin has undergraduate degrees in physics and philosophy from Yale University and a PhD from the Univ. of Pittsburgh. His books, released by the world’s most respected publishing houses, include "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity", "Truth and Paradox", "The Metaphysics Within Physics", and two volumes of "Philosophy of Physics". In addition, his "New Foundations for Physical Geometry" has received wide acclaim as a novel mathematical approach to a better understanding of space-time.
Dr. Maudlin is a member of the International Academy of the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). He has been a Guggenheim Fellow, taught at Rutgers for many years and has been a visiting lecturer at Harvard. He is also founder and director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundation of Physics.
Relevant links:
Interview web page: eism.eu/tim-maudlin/
Dr. Maudlin's personal website: www.tim-maudlin.site.
Dr. Maudlin's NYU page: tinyurl.com/y2beyfhw
Dr. Maudlin's books: tinyurl.com/5n7t69vp
Weyl, Freedman & Fabinger article: tinyurl.com/ycnu9myj
Weyl, Freedman & Fabinger paper: arxiv.org/abs/2209.08144
Bell's Inequality Paper: tinyurl.com/2p869sw4
Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper: tinyurl.com/yckhnst7
Robert Wald on electromagnetism as potentials: tinyurl.com/j3fxvjt6
Time stamp:
00:09 -- Interview Set-up
02:40 -- Dr. Maudlin's background
04:10 -- Goals of Discussion
05:10 -- Weyl, Freedman, and Faber paper
06:38 -- Historical context of the '22 Nobel Physics prize
08:25 -- Einstein's unhappiness with quantum mechanics
10:40 -- Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen
12:30 -- The appearance of John Bell / David Bohm's Pilot Wave theory
15:10 -- Isaac Newton and Non-locality
21:48 -- Bell's Inequality and non-locality
23:12 -- Nobel Prize to Clauser, Aspe, and Zeilinger
24:10 -- Maudlin corrects a misconception among the Nobel Prize committee
27:28 -- Why is non-locality significant?
31:42 -- Why is quantum theory hard to put together with relativity?
33:35 -- Attempts to reconcile quantum physics with relavity
35:30 -- Maudlin expounds on the Aharanov-Bohm effect
39:33 -- Maudlin on Coulomb gauge
40:05 -- Aharanov-Bohm, potentials, and non-locality
43:41 -- Robert Wald on understanding electromagnetism as potentials
44:45 -- Maudlin's objections to Aharanov's two-state vector formalism
49:52 -- Razo responds to Maudlin's objections
50:55 -- Aristotle's notion of final causes
52:30 -- Maudlin responds to Aristotle's notion of final causes
58:32 -- Which interpretation helps keep humans alive?
1:01:09 -- A possible wormhole between quantum theory and social theory
1:02:03 -- Maudlin on the importance of avoiding catastophe
1:03:12 -- Razo on social choice theory
1:04:55 -- Maudlin's upcoming trip to Israel / Many Worlds
Tim Maudlin is a treasure. How clearly he can explain things.
BUT MANY PEOPLE DONT DIE TRAGIC DEATHS ?? DO THEY REMEMBER THEIR PAST LIVES ??? NO WAY ! WE ARE BORN ONCE & DIE & THERE IS RESURRECTION AFTER DEATH ! THIS IS A DESIGNED WORLD NOT BY CHANCE,TIME & NECESSITY ! YOU GOT ONE SHOT & DO IT WELL
I am skeptical here, he talks about his beliefs
@@marekzukowski8291b ulit v. nbb n nv .xfvv❤vv❤ vvvthcvvvgvyvgh 🎉😢v I 😂🎉h. b. b. v b. b. v. b. b. b. v v b. n. v
Woah. This is the most mind blowing stuff I’ve heard. Universal simultaneity 🤯
Maudlin has such a way of thinking clearly about the conceptual basis we’re actually working with here.
Wolfram sees quantum entanglement in his model as some sort of common ancestry (read: hidden variables, right?) and estimates the speed of it to be 10^110 to 10^130 speeds of light
Read David Bohm’s ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order.’
@@wulf67Hear here!
Truly an impressive thinker and communicator.
I think Mr. Maudlin’s explanation of why Relativity and Quantum don’t play together well is the best one I’ve heard to date.
Also, Mr. Bravo’s questions were on point! 👍
Very good interview, Sir!
Hispanic origin people uses TWO last names, so it is Mr. Razo Bravo, or just Mr. Razo. But never mind, too complicated. Let's get back to quantum physics...
Wolfram sees quantum entanglement in his model as some sort of common ancestry (read: hidden variables, right?) and estimates the speed of it to be 10^110 to 10^130 speeds of light
I'm not that sure about whether this is the point since _Special_ Relativity became fully implemented into Quantum as early as in 1928 by DIRAC on the base of KLEIN's and GORDON's 1926 equation.
It's _General_ Relativity which still is not quantized.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 Even that's not true (arXiv:1209.3511) and Maudlin is thoroughly unreliable and given to making false claims even about ordinary (non-relativistic, particle) QM, as I've tried and apparently failed to point out to @EISM.
Skip 6:20 if you don't like intros
These are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
Totally impressed with how theoretical physicists composed their thought experiments which form much of the foundation of today's technology advances. Just hope that we, the human species them well.
Why of why do people always equate the achievements of individuals with the whole of human kind......
No, your chronic alcoholic homeless person isn't going to make any contributions to anything any time soon.
So wished I had followed my interest in math and physics out of high school. If I had encountered someone like Dr. Maudlin at that time I likely would have.
Man I completely relate to this. I’ve been fascinated with science and discovery my entire life, and really regret not pursuing that as a career. I wonder if I’d had a different teacher/mentor along the way if something would have spurred me in that direction, but who knows.
@@natel3250 I know I would have. I had just the opposite, but later in life pushed myself to get an MSCS degree. So the spark had not run out completely.
I seriously doubt that.
it's never to late. I'm 35 and started going back to math courses recently.
Math and physics can be a hobby, too, believe it or not. I think it's fun when I'm able to just explore whatever topics I feel like whenever I want. There are plenty of educational youtube channels that produce content that is at least as good as what you will get from a lecture at most universities. you don't need a degree to learn something :)
The name of this year's third nobel laureate is spelled wrongly in the video description. His name is Anton Zeilinger, not Zielinger. Thanks!
Thank you
THANK YOU Tim for explaining Bell's inequality in terms of absolute simultaneity. I have been struggling for a while to intuitively understand this nuance, and now I think I finally get why QM doesn't "play nice" with relativity theory.
You think you get it means you still don’t. However, don’t feel bad. You’re far closer than I am!
Wolfram sees quantum entanglement in his model as some sort of common ancestry (read: hidden variables, right?) and estimates the speed of it to be 10^110 to 10^130 speeds of light
Excellent. This guy knows what he is talking about. Thank you for having him on .
Thanks to you for your comment and interest.
He may know what he thinks but he is not a scientist.
ua-cam.com/video/hC3ckLqsL5M/v-deo.htmlsi=nvYQznBknNCk0O5r@@ethelredhardrede1838
Always a pleasure to hear Maudlin discuss these matters. To the questions of the interviewer, I would give my humble two cents:
1) Retrocausality seems incoherent because it means that an event is the result of something which hasn't happened. As the Medievals (especially the neo-Aristotelians) understood, an effect needs to "exit its causes", which means the causes have to already exist and be instantiated. Future events have not occured at all. So, since coherence is a precondition of truth (a sentence which is incoherent doesn't express anything at all, let alone a truth), it seems that retrocausality cannot be true.
2) If we knew with certainty that believing in a flat Earth or Young Earth Creationism would lead mankind to avoid catastrophe, it still wouldn't make those beliefs correct nor make it the job of the truth-seeking scientist to promote these false beliefs, would it? I mean, if the discussion is about where the evidence points, then the practical upshot seems like a red herring to me.
In any case I definitely respect the goals of the interviewer and very much appreciate that he arranged for this excellent discussion.
Wow! I actually understood for the first time what Prof Tim Maudlin said about Non-Locality & Hidden Variables... after so many videos. He is a brilliant teacher !
But if he teaches quantum mechanics like it's actually something important he is leading you down the wrong path.
@@robertv4076ua-cam.com/video/hC3ckLqsL5M/v-deo.htmlsi=nvYQznBknNCk0O5r
Great talk! We see every day the future past and present and how each has potential to effect the future and the present, and how we understand the past.
very straightforward speaker. nice to hear from a mind that can see clearly and discuss succinctly.
Pro tip: it shouldnt take over 6 minutes for your guest to start talking. A good interviewer doesnt spend 2 minutes waffling on about the guest and pontificating about topics he thinks the audience is interested in. Ask a short question of your guest and let them run with it.
Also remember, the builder isnt getting information from the future about the roof he has already put up and then decides to put up that roof. He plans to put up a roof, then builds it, however in the universe we live in he may not in fact put up that roof, this is the reason why you cant get information from the future. The future cant force the past to behave in the way that it wants, in fact given the seeming randomness of quantum mechanics a future roof would necessarily be different to the one which is built which leads to a paradox and the creation of something that does not happen.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad I'm not charging anybody or asking for likes or subscriptions. :)
Regarding the builder and the house, you may or may not registered my response to Maudlin. Both are equally valid interpretations and mathematical formalisms. Let that sink in, if you can.
One of the most lucid explanations of Bell's inequality and locality.
If not the only. OK, not the only, but probably the. best. UPDATE: after some 40 minutes - not really, since there is no backwards causality... simultaneous action is the way.
ain't sure...
It's always a pleasure experience to listen to Tim Maudlin. I love this man.
Very clear thinking on the part of Tim Maudlin. Thanks. Not so much on the part of the interviewer, Luis Razo Bravo. Toward the end of the talk, Luis is continually invoking "wouldn't it be great if"'ism as a way of preferring physics theories. In other words, shouldn't we "favour" (or think more plausible/probable) a scientific theory which gives humanity some benefit, such as an inherent "guardian" purpose. Preventing catastrophes to ensure some "ordained" future, for example, as a consequence of a future-to-past wave function theory for example. Or disfavouring many worlds interpretation because it leads to lack of meaning and purpose because everything "happens". This is muddled thinking which can only get in the way of objective selection and scientific evaluation of theories. This "prefer a theory that would be operationally good for us" approach is, in fact, the core of religious thinking. Things would be great for humans if there were an afterlife, and a caring, helping and admonishing God, and both within-life and afterlife divinely granted reward for pro-social and obedient-to-hierarchy behaviour, for example. Therefore God "must exist" and the automatic legitimacy of God's churches and human representatives is guaranteed. This is argumentation from wishful thinking, and has no place in science.
Let me know if you would like to talk about this on camera. I would take the position that what you've argued above is a lot less scientific than what I have proposed in this video. We can post our exchange here for others who have similar concerns. Cheers.
Things wouldn't be great for humanity if that was actually true, though. For that to sound "good" it takes a pro-social, conservative and hierarchy-driven (and, why not, closed) mindset to begin with.
Yeah, it's the best explanation of entanglement on UA-cam. A piece of extra information: Wolfram estimates the speed of entanglement to be 10^110 to 10^130 times the speed of light
Many worlds belongs to the philosophicsl or theological field. Its not science. People defending this should lose any public funds.
Leonardo da Vinci said " The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions " Plato shared with us wisdom he learnt from Egypt, wisdom that was a death sentence in Greece, Rome (Christianity) ..Pythagoras, Socrates and later Hypatia of Alexandria. Plato in his dialogue " The Republic " tells the allegory " The Cave " Plato starts by telling us of prisoners being held in a sort of underground den, let us examine this den via the geometry of Bernhard Riemann and Felix Klein..Klein bottle..3rd and 4th dimensions. Plato tells us that the prisoners are bound up unable to move their heads, let us examine this bondage via the psychology of Erich Fromm..socialisation of consciousness.. aware-unaware. Plato tells us that the prisoners mistake shadows for substance,let us examine this mistake via the philosophy of Thales and Kant..synthetic a priori..not thing in itself. Plato tells us that one of the prisoners is released, let us examine this release via the instructions given by T.Lobsang Rampa..stilling the mind and conscious astral travel..leaving the cave/body. Plato tells us that the prisoners will reject this release, let us examine this rejection via the psychological effects of Stockholm syndrome..Plato quotes Homer " Better to be a poor man, and have a poor master, and endure anything, than to think and live after their manner " Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. Mathew 23 13 31.
I have taken my time to watch and listen this presentation, and I can say that Tim Maudlin is a crack (a cool guy!)
Einstein was clear on why he rejected nonlocality and it did indeed bother him, he wrote a whole paper on it saying it would be end of science. His argument was that physics is driven by drilling down to essential causes (i.e. reductionism), and in practice this is carried out by isolating causes from other causes, and this isolation assumes you can separate causes by separating them in terms of space, in other words, if you put _distance_ between something and the environment, you can isolate it and then study it. His argument was that if there are nonlocal effects, then it would be impossible to isolate objects from their environment, and thus certain effects would appear irreducible, i.e. uncaused, and he said this would then be the end of the physical sciences as we know it.
(Interestingly, there was another physicist Dmitry Blokhintsev who supported Einstein's "ensemble" interpretation of quantum mechanics, but wrote a paper in response to Einstein where he agreed with Einstein's premise but rejected his conclusion, i.e. he agreed that nonlocality implies certain effects that appear irreducibly random, but just posited that this is just an actual feature of quantum mechanics, that Einstein was correct to treat quantum mechanics as a form of statistical mechanics on ensembles, but incorrect to think there must necessarily be an essential cause.)
Thanks for your very interesting and clearly articulated input.
If Tim Maudlin experienced precognition frequently, he would have a different opinion of backward causation. A stream of water moves in one direction, yet if you look at it the individual molecules, you will find some molecules going backward with respect to the current.
Check out:
Boltzmann H - theorem.
Poincare recurrence theorem.
Time-reversal to an unknown quantum state using an IBM computer.
Martin Amis: Sparrows and Sandcastles'. The neurobiological research which implies that everything that we regard as causal has on fact already been decided upon in our consciousness seven minutes before we observe anything.
Wheeler's delayed choice and quantum eraser.
Causal dynamical triangulation.
Rovelli and Loop quantum gravity put forward a sound argument that there is no 'now'.
'Time is water'
- Touareg proverb.
It just hit me! Non locality is possible because time is relative. If time is relative, so is space! (spacetime)
This was far more compelling than I was expecting! Happy to make acquaintance with Prof Maudlin and his insights.
Interesting point Dr. Bravo raises about interpretations and motivation to improve or save the world.
To link "multi-worlds" specifically with a sense what's-the-point-of-trying, that seems off the mark. Not least because super-determinism, for example, seems defeatist in a more depressing way. In fact almost all views of our universe that I can think of, including omnipotence-friendly theology, lead to some kind of fatalism.
Fatalism in whatever guise it wears is a horrible idea, and false in my opinion. The multiverse doesn't seem to solve fatalism though, it just disperses fate around to many meaningless copies (and so I think of it as only being fatalism + window dressing). That said omnipotence friendly theology that is badly done often does teach a fatalism equally on par with 'super-determinism' or whatever. But in my view it should not! Why? Because in theology we are dealing with a personal being, and not a blind mechanical force. A person chooses, while as a blind force cannot and does not. I think it is a mistake, a sort of category error to assume that an entity as posited by theology (and plenty of physicist and great thinkers) would behave an a simple basis like an internal combustion engine (no free will) and not on the basis of a person (free will).
Great talk ! Thank you for putting this together. Well one of the biggest topics in science today. First, I never criticize anyone science or philosophy, and greatly respect even ancient theories, wrong now , right then , people used their minds to answer questions or even speculate. People like Hubble , Einy, Bohm, Bell, Aristotle, so many more right! Amazing how these people visualize, speculated things we prove or disprove today. Neil Turok once quoted “Celebrate your failures not just your victories “ it’s not about who’s right it’s about who thinks hardest and tries hardest IMO.
Most scattering objects are to an extent 'reversible', that is to say, they satisfy a principle of reciprocity. It doesn't matter which way, forwards or backwards, the scattered object passes.
I loved that line of questing at the end: In what way would the wave coming from the future or coming from the past change our (attitude?) towards the future? If you knew our action(inaction) was going to erase us from the future, then we would do something different? If you knew our action(inaction) would guarantee the future, then would do something different? For me personally, it's a wash. 50/50. So this week I'm running conceptually TWICE into the same issue from completely different starting points. (1) if the planck constant is not constant and is changing at a rate that is not a constant, I have a role in forming the future! (2) if the planck constant is a constant, or is not but is changing at a constant rate, then I am a cog in pre-cog machine. (3) if I knew the future is gone for me if I do X would I change my behaviour to Y? (4) if I knew the future exists for me if I do X how would I know what X was so I could do it? loss of choice (5) if I knew the future exists for me if I do X, so I do Y because I don't want a future, how would I know if that made a new future? (6) If I know the future exists for me, I am unable to change from doing X to Y because the future says I can't. loss of choice.
Every single branch of every decision tree is 50/50 at some choke point. Was there a logic tilt anywhere in the 6 points above? I can't see it right now. But what does seem to derive is that the wave from the past gives me 50/50 chance at a choke point of living in a simulation that does permit choices, and the wave coming from the future seems to lock me in to no choice.
So looking back you have Lucifer's offer, the fruit of the tree of knowledge seemingly to offer some amount of choice, and looking ahead you have Lucifer's warning that God wants me locked in an obedience loop. But we know Lucifer and God are locked in a creation of me disagreement. So chances are good that I'm misunderstanding how the future has choice also because that's being hidden from me by the entity that's trying to temp me.
So the "many worlds" or "infinite timelines" would be the Mensa way out of the this fork-in-the road riddle. God then is offering that in at least one of the timelines, should I make the righteous choices, I will live for eternity. If I can't find a way to make the right choices, or don't want to, then eventually all my time-lines will collapse into nothing, or perhaps the abomination of desolation where I go on forever in a timeline with nobody else in it, or hell, a timeline with only others that despise me in it. Which begs the question, am I in one of those dead-end timelines right now? And if you are reading this, are you as well? Oddly, you CAN partially answer that for your self, if, you are pretty sure your choices have been righteous. You can't know if mine have been. If you think they were, and everyone you know or know of seems righteous, then maybe we are all on a survival timeline. But clearly, if you have Internet or TV, you know we aren't. Of rather, you know this timeline isn't yet purged of those who will eventually end up on a dead-end timeline.
So it's 50/50 if we are or aren't from the point of view of myself or you from your self.
Here's a new riddle: Why do we consider murder to be the worst crime?
Is that because some place deep in our genetic memory, we know that a murder is an unnatural collapse of all the waves in one timeline for the person who is murdered. It's a violation so terrible it's not even on the same existential plane with theft, rape, or even torture. We think there is a special place in hell for the murderer. How dare they. HOW DARE THEY. But could it be that easy to confuse the system? I really doubt it. What if we have that backwards, and theft and torture are WORSE than murder because they seek to make existence itself into torture. We better get right about that, because this timeline as it is may be headed nowhere. Do you feel me?
Thanks for taking the time to comment so thoughtfully. I wish I could respong, but alas I can't. Sorry and thanks.
There are no waves coming from the future. The future is open. It does not even have a state.
@@schmetterling4477 how about "parallel similar" timelines that can be loosely 'read' through some kind of technology, where that future is a probable future four our timeline?
@@cossak.G.nederlander How about yet another form of bullshit? I don't really give a frell. ;-)
@D S I didn't introduce those concepts, clearly they were in play long before I was born. As a intellectual, you can hold a concept in your mind as a thought experiment, and even discuss it in the context of that experiment, without subjugating yourself to a religion. Right?
Any measurement of a physical quantity involves some interaction between the measuring device and the object under study. In this case, not only the object under study affects the device, changing its state (due to which measurement becomes possible), but the device also acts on the object under study, changing its state to some extent.
Thus, in the general case, the observer is an evolving (- when measuring, his state changes), researcher of the spontaneous evolution of the Universe.
The complete state function is a plane monochromatic wave that coincides with the de Broglie wave. Of course, such a coincidence comes from the fact that the de Broglie hypothesis was used from the very beginning in the development of quantum mechanics, and then the peculiarity of the wave function is that the normalization condition is not fulfilled for it - when a particle is detected, its probability is one; on the contrary, with the free movement of a particle, there is an equal probability of detecting a particle at any point in space. Physically, this is caused by the fact that absolutely free particles do not exist in nature, and therefore the concept of free movement is some idealization of the real state of affairs. And quantum mechanics admits the possibility of states close to free, which is unsatisfactory. That is, the observer always measures everything permanently (often without even suspecting it), for example, the observer monitors the state of Schrodinger's cat due to the simple phenomenon called interaction, and does not expect any surprise after opening the box with the cat (this applies to experiments with entangled particles and double-slit effects). Interaction is a dimension.Measurement is a measure of awareness of the observer/object interaction. P.S. "The inner perfection of the theory requires its external (experimental) justification." (Einstein). It seems that the external (experimental) "justification" of quantum mechanics has long demanded its internal perfection.
There seems to be additional necessary data needed to make an objective observation not only of the subject, but also of the emanating point of perception conducting and experiencing the measurement. Especially when the plane the measurement is taking place from within and the inherent operating plane of the subject are not compatible in collecting all of the forces' effects due to those effects' inherent dimensional plane or planes, which are not compatible or coherent with the operating plane from which the measurement is taking place, as well.
These Nobel winners are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
@@aliceinwonderland887 Lol
@@aliceinwonderland887 Quantum mechanics has no 150-year-long past. P.S. "Women with a past are attractive, and men with a future." (Oscar Wilde).
How can measurement itself be a measure? Seems like a circular fallacy to me.
To me this implies that our perceptions of distance and time are illusory in some fundamental way. We are seeing a constructed representation of what a mind can conceive of as a universe.
Will have to watch this a few times !! So much to digest but so well done !!
As the great Paul Dirac said "Quantum Mechanics is a provisional theory".
Physicists dont agree on the actual interpretation of QM.
In the same way General Relativity is a provisional theory in that it produces unresolved singularities and infinities.
These two great theoretical achievements in Science, dont communicate or overlap with one another.
This could be an issue of scale, or perhaps it's a more fundamental problem with the overall approach to Physics. We may see an even bigger revolution in Science in the coming 10 or 20 thousand years.
It's an overall issue with perception and the lack of a total sum of perceivable effects culminating in a singular understanding. It's morbid. It's a morbid obsession.
These are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
@@aliceinwonderland887 Pointless. Just searching for infinity in the form of substance.
@@CynicalBastard .....but does it have any connections with reality?
@@aliceinwonderland887 You should apologise Mr Rubble. Apologise for being sheep like and fearing people with their own opinion.
And what exactly do qualifications have to do with this question? Academic qualifications can and do in some cases become part of the problem.
Open conjecture and discussion is a cornerstone of how knowledge progresses and the scientific method is a great tool to use in order to verify the predictions a theory makes.
This is very deep ; really a precious speech
Thanks for the nice comment.
Same view reflecting other comments .... wonderful way of explaining the subject , brilliant man
What I now know is that when matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation to cause it to separate into a mobile and an immobile form, that causes entanglement between phases or forms. If one form takes on an up spin, the other takes on a spin down so that the sum total spin is neutral as was with the original matter. So however large the distance of separation, the spins of entangled particles will always add up to be neutral. Put another way, the spin neutral summation is the hidden variable requirement that must always be fulfilled. It is not like measurements just turn up what they want! No way! Hence, what things will always be is based on things at initial point. Put another way, Prof. Einstein was right to imagine role for hidden variables.Prof. Tim Maudlin is now right in questioning the Nobel Physics 2022 rationale! It is premised on a problematic rationale and the experimental proofs that depend on the role of observers, which in itself is so very problematic. Just thinking aloud!
dr. maudlin knows his stuff. well done.
24:10 I recently watched a video which repeated the claim that the experiments ruled out hidden variables. This video is an excellent correction.
It reminds me of all the casual statements that, for example, a supernova exploded X billion years ago, and now we are finally seeing this past event. It may seem pedantic to complain about it, but such descriptions reinforce the disproven idea of a single universal clock. Admittedly, tho', I don't know of a good alternative way to describe such things.
If you imagine that the clock has no hands and no mechanism then you are just left with the clock face.
If you try to imagine a beginning before a beginning of time and an end after the end of time then, from at least a philosophical perspective, the concept of time becomes pointless or even meaningless.
Bohmian pilot wave interpretation of QM is such a powerful counter-example that i am puzzled how nobel comittee could have made such a mistake
Fair point. If the collapse of the wave function is actually observed and GRW type theories do not give rise to observations then the problems of reconciling differences remains.
Thank you so much
Regarding many worlds - I’ve often wondered how proponents of that absurdism account for the energy necessary to power an infinite branching of all possible outcomes. If that isn’t a violation of conservation I don’t know what is.
I'm not a proponent of many worlds (for a precise statistical reason, we could discuss why).
But conservation of energy is not the issue. Many worlds has conservation of energy. It's the only interpretation of QM which has such a strong law of conservation of energy. If we are precise, then Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has no conservation of energy (just on average or in the absence of measurement energy is conserved).
Conservation of energy is not something special that must hold. We have very precise conditions under which conservation of energy holds. These are the classical versions and the quantum analogues of Noether's theorem.
For example:
An observable is conserved on average iff it commutes with the Hamiltonian.
An observable is conserved iff it commutes with every observable.
Any idea that's more complicated than what it's trying to explain is intellectually regressive.
@@havenbastion So that doesn't include the multi-words interpretation because it is less complicated than the Copenhagen interpretation. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Would you agree that many worlds is problematic because it also implies infinitely many? Sorry to invoke Schrödinger’s cat but there would be INFINITELY many cats, one for each instant between aliveness and deadness corresponding to the instant in time at which the particle may have decayed.
I am not a proponent of many worlds because the cat is also an observer and he knows that he is either dead or alive, but not both, before I open the box.
Again, apologies for the whole cat thing which I expect Schrödinger regretted but it raises the question of ‘What is an observer?’, in addition to my question of whether we are talking about one world branching into two worlds or branching into infinitely many worlds prior to the collapse of a wave.
@@pauljaru2698 I think you misunderstand the many worlds interpretation.
It's not proposed there that an observer by its observation splits the world. That's not what the many worlds model is about.
First of all: There is no objective split into worlds. Everything is described by a wave function for all worlds.
Second of all: There is nothing special about observers in many worlds (not totally true but at least not the way you think of it).
Let's make an example:
A photon goes through a double slit. So the (not normalised) wavefunction of the photon is described by
|a>+|b>,
where |a> is the state of going through slit a, |b> is the state of going through slit b and + is the superposition.
We have then the wavefunction wavefunction |M> of a measurement apparatus, a wavefunction |O> of an observer and |E> the wave function of the rest of the environment (the whole rest of the universe).
The complete wavefunction of the universe is:
|a>|M>|O>|E>+|b>|M>|O>|E>.
Via the Schrödinger equation the measurement apparatus interacts with the photon and we get
|a>|Ma>|O>|E>+|b>|Mb>|O>|E>,
where Ma/Mb is now the state of the measurement apparatus detecting the photon at slit a/b. Via the Schrödinger equation the observer interacts with the measurement apparatus and we get
|a>|Ma>|Oa>|E>+|b>|Mb>|Ob>|E>,
where Oa/Ob is the state of the observer that he has seen the measurement apparatus detecting the photon at slit a/b.
Many worlds is now the idea to interpret the wavefunction from the state of the observer. From the observer's perspective there are two different observers coming from observer |O>. One is |Oa> and one is |Ob>. The first sees the world like
|a>|Ma>|Oa>|E>
and the second the world like
|b>|Mb>|Ob>|E>.
So in many worlds interpretation there is no collapse. We just interpret the wavefunction from the state the observer is in. And from the observer point of view the observer developed into two different people. One that sees the measurement apparatus in the state for slit a (and a world consistent with that) and one that sees it in slit b (and a world consistent with that).
So the split is an observer dependent interpretation of the wavefunction of the universe in many worlds.
I’m wondering if there’s any work being done to posit an underlying foundation distinct from the physical domain. If physical phenomena is emergent from some other realm we might explain non-locality without resorting to time games.
That's metaphysical truth. It's been known as Chaos, Aether, Change Itself, Actuality.
~~~>💓°•○☆💕
As an Idealist a view I have held for 56 years after an NDE, I would like to see Tim talking with Henry Stapp, Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman as they like me accept that matter emanates from Consciousness and that matter is secondary. Those holding to Physicalism cannot account for Consciousness with some of its adherents taking the extremely absurd position that it does not exist.
Read 'The Mind is flat' by Nick Chater.
An infinite number of variables that are pre and post selected exist in the many-worlds interpretation because Hume's freewill tells us we can choose otherwise.
And then there are the infinite sets of polyhedra which describe multidimensional universes with different laws of physics that are completely unknown.
What's the point of deliberation if all the outcomes are gonna happen?
Because you don't know which one you're in till you've seen it through.
Even if the world is determined, the same issue arises. If we're determined to fail, what's the point of trying? Because you do not know **until** you've tried.
More than this still, a responsibility: to push yourself to succeed against all odds. To not overly worry about doom and gloom because of a few bad actors. To strive to become the best you can be. That's all you can **do** . So go, and do. Struggle. Falter. Rise. Learn.
Why are you so worried? You can make a difference!
New cards, please?
The game of canasta involves four packs of cards with that many Jokers.
The Georgians loved gambling and at The Circus on Bath there are 108 acorns on the parapets.
The number 108 appears in several mathematical papers which I have recently read.
Whether the combination and sequence of observations is determinism or freewill or compatibilist is doubtful.
Give Maudlin the first ever nobel prize for clarity
Yes, his clarity is refreshing. Thanks.
These are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Do you claim to be a doctor? Show your degree. We will investigate that. Do you have one? Let's see it then. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
@@aliceinwonderland887 what's your problem dude?
@@ineffige Extraordinary claims require evidence. What is his background? Where is his diploma? What experimental evidence has he brought to the table. The three Nobel winners are physicists with 150 years of quantum mechanics experiments between them and they are well documented. Who is this guy? Hey Tim what's your background
@@aliceinwonderland887 dude you have some mental illness? You pasted this bs post almost everywhere. Also, arguments from authority are laughable. Seek help.
Such a clear explanation of complex topics. Great conversation!
Thank you!
These Nobel winners are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
@@aliceinwonderland887ua-cam.com/video/hC3ckLqsL5M/v-deo.htmlsi=nvYQznBknNCk0O5r
Thankyou for explaining more about the differences and reasons that GR and QM dont fit together, in a clear and concise manner. Obviously I already knew that there are fundamental problems between the two theories.
But every explanation I've ever read only explains the way to reconcile the two, is to quantize gravity; and that that is the only sticking point. None what I've read mentions the problem of simultaneous events in regards to GR as even being a factor.
It is not GR that makes things difficult. It is quantum mechanics. QM does not have a point-event ontology. Every "real" event in quantum mechanics is, necessarily, an irreversible process, i.e. it requires an entire world line and all of the light cones attached to it to be in a certain physical (sub)-state. That is very difficult to analyze in a geometric view in which event horizon are cutting "futures" off.
Any theory of quantum gravity would involve combining inertial mass and gravitational mass, when we try to do this the equations break down and generate infinities which don't make any sense.
Spacetime itself collapses so maybe black holes are the answer to the mystery and illusion of now.
“The meaning of it all”(?), …a typical adjunct claim Physicists utter to discount the mere notion of the substantive foundations of understanding Philosophers provide to science. Regarding the contributions by Dr Maudlin, he is spot on.
Actually we have a perfectly good theory of qm and relativity, it’s called QFT. It is a local theory, meaning all interactions are local, and it violates the bell inequalities (because it is a quantum theory).
What this guy wants to say but imho is very confused about is that if you want to explain the world using a non-quantum classical theory with hidden variables then it must be non-local. Which imho is absurd.
In my view the great achievement of the 22 nobel prize winners was to show quantum mechanics must be the only game in town.
Thanks for your comment. I am sorry I don't have more time to add my thoughts. Thanks for understanding.
Which QFT are you referring too as the standard model is a QFT for QCD and QED and there are many other formulations of quantum mechanics.
QFT could be a 0 + 1 dimensional QM with each using the Lagrangian framework (IIRC) or Hamiltonian framework.
The gauge group and particle content aren’t really relevant. Any non-anomalous yang-mills type of QFT with dynamical symmetry breaking is a local theory. But I was referring to the one that we use to describe reality, i.e., the standard model (SU(3)xSU(2)_LxU(1) in 3+1 dimensions).
I stress again the only way you get to non-local is if you take a classical view of the wave function. Standard QM (often referred nebulously as the Copenhagen interpretation) or even MWI for that matter don’t have any cause to invoke non-local explanations at any point when describing quantum experiments. It’s only interpretations like pilot waves and dynamic collapse theories that now need to explain themselves. If you cannot accept non-local explanations they are basically ruled out now.
@@jaddaj5881
A non-abelian gauge theory is a class of Q.F.T's which form the basis of the standard model. The standard model has been very consistent in its predictions although it is considered incomplete.
Just out of interest, which 'non-anomalous yang-mills type of QFT with dynamical symmetry' are you referring to?
Yang-Mills existence and mass gap is, as far as I know, still an outstanding physics problem.
Compact Einstein manifolds in differential geometry are known and compact Ricci flat manifolds are difficult to describe and a free meal in a starred restaurant is offered by the non-existent Mr Arthur Besse for finding any examples.
R^4 is Euclidean 4 space and G = SU ( 3 ) the strong interaction and you would need to prove the existence of glueballs.
The existence of the spectral gap may be undecidable.
I have to admit that I have not studied the Wightman axioms in great detail as Yang-Mills existence has not exactly been high on my study list.
I am aware that the infinitesimals on a quantum Riemann surface have geodesics with an absolute value of - {0 , 0}. That is, no distance between points a and b.
Einstein-Lorentz manifolds being studied in quantum gravity models of course.
I don't get why it's so crazy. Locality from our perspective makes sense sure... but that's _never_ been how things on the quantum scale behave. I think the best way to describe what's going through my head is to view it from the extreme case: entangled photons. To a photon, there is no time. When something experiences zero time to go somewhere, that must mean it's in the same place, or 'touching' in a way. Why is it so weird that something that is 'touching' everything at once, something that experiences no time, has half of the result remaining when you take away the other half? Isn't that just common sense? It would produce the same result _regardless_ of whether there are "hidden variables", or if you're just interacting with the photon itself in a "non-local" way. In fact, there is no difference (or rather, no need for actual new hidden variables) between those two conjectures if you consider the interactions of the entangled photons happening at the same time from the correlated energy's perspective. The "hidden variables" _are_ the energy itself. Take away half, and of course half remains!
The situation is surely similar for particles with mass, but spacetime changes to ... actually have _some_ space and time! IMO, that only means the particles will have to resolve (untangle) at _some_ point, and at which point, they'll _still_ be opposites in which ever appropriate way for the same reasons so I have no idea how to tease that one apart from the extreme case.
I think general relativity *is* the actual answer to the reality of this situation, at least conceptually. It's just that the universe looks so drastically different to quantum things compared to our experience that there is no natural intuition in to these perspectives where 'spooky action at a distance' is not so distant. I could very easily see how someone could come to the conclusion that there must also be a causal connection that goes backwards in time, but I don't think that's necessary or terribly sensible.
These Nobel winners are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
@@aliceinwonderland887ua-cam.com/video/hC3ckLqsL5M/v-deo.htmlsi=nvYQznBknNCk0O5r
Thanks for the discussion. Two-state approach restores the time symmetry to q. mechanics. It shows that the Time is external to it.
Thanks for your comment and interest.
Starting with 58:32 they come to a very important point. I‘d strongly agree with the position of Dr.Maudlin that if there was any causation from the future, that would make humanity more fatalistic, thus reducing the chance to avoid all kinds of human caused catastrophes.
The very last bit about many world theory is quite superficial, because the outcomes that are being actualized are not statical, they again shouldn’t be treated so casually.
But all in all it was a great pleasure to listen to this very clear and concise exposition of Dr. Maudlin. One of the best talks more recently.
Why are there two long intros? Put a sock in it and get to tim
These Nobel winners are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
Etheric physics perfectly explains nonlocality, because any fluctuation (action) in the ether instantly creates a corresponding reaction exclusive of space-time. And because it is compatible with Bohm's pilot wave theory, this means that all the quantum quackery involving virtual particles and an untenable standard model can be dispensed with. Check out Ken Wheeler's Theoria Apophasis UA-cam channel for interesting videos on etheric physics, based on electro-magnetism.
Thanks for your comment. I will try to come back to review it carefully and possibly respond as soon as I can. If I don't respond, please know that it's not because I wouldn't like to. Thanks again.
We chose "Higgs Field" because it was closer to the observational reality.
QFT has been called by some people a kind of ether theory, the universal quantum field being a kind of ether.
@@zelenisok Yes that's true, but when "Skin Theory" was first brought up 30 odd years ago, Stephen, Don and Garret went out to the QM community and posed the questions for skin theory and concluded that the Higgs Field was a better fit.
Are you talking about "Ken Wheeler" or John Wheeler.If you're talking about John Wheeler ,that's the guy who came up with "virtual particles." (P.S. we're living in a physical universe that exploded out of ETERNAL (it NEVER ends) nothing.In this circumstance "quackery" is appropriate.You should stop being so hard headed.
Thank you for sharing this. One comment - Aristotle said there are six species of motion (C XIV). I am not clear on which of those ways you were using motion (change) in the discussion on teleology.
I had not previously equated Aristotle's six types of motion with his notion of a final cause. My gut feeling is that these things - motion and causation - exist on separate levels of abstraction. If so, all six types of motion would have their correponding notion of a final cause. If you see it differently, I'd be receptive to your thoughts. Thanks for your comment.
I agree, the fairly obvious choice would be to add simultaneity to GR. When you do that, it seems possible that pilot/wave can emulate GR, simplifying GR greatly. But, if you do all that you are still not adequately answering foundational questions of Quantum Mechanics. If you consider the dozens of really big questions left in physics, something radical is perhaps the best way to explain all of them simultaneously. Literally anything new, would be considered deeply controversial and radical, however.
Julian Barbour has created a model in which the local frame respects Lorentz Invariance, Special Relativity, the fixed speed of light, but he has transformed GR into Shape Space, in which there can be a global time based on the expansion of the universe. Instead of space-time, we have 3-d space, all the effects of GR, like time running slower in a gravitational field, are the same.
The 3-D universe evolves in time, but the rate of passage of time is a smooth function of location, gravity and state of motion.
There is only present, but it is fundamentally unknowable, we still only see the past via the Loretzian backward light cone.
It appears it could solve the so-called “Problem of Time “ in GR where the a time transformation and Hamiltonian evolution cancel out, leading to the “timeless” Wheeler-deWitt” equation.
I'm personally of the belief that the "laws of physics" are constantly changing based on numerous factors that we will never be able to fully perceive. All I can say with certainty is that whatever created the universe did so with compassion, and that anyone who has compassion as their top priority has no need to live in fear. I wish we had more of these great thinkers coming up with ideas for how we cooperate with each other better to use our resources more efficiently. Understanding of the greater picture would come naturally over time as we build up the collective happiness in society. There's no "cheat code" to get to the next level without needing to work together.
@@EveryLittleBitCounts Interesting theory, given the billions of years of predators and prey, geological catastrophes, there needs be some compassion from somewhere.
Oooh, I like that line of thought. Compassion could also be an evolutionary mechanism to stop us from hurting each other. Like the developers checked in and saw everyone had bugged out and started to kill each other and compassion is the hotfix they came up with so that they wouldn't have to start the simulation over 😆
These Nobel winners are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Show your degree. Let's see and hear about your experiments Doc and your degree. What's your background?
Physicists with 50 plus years of data versus this rookie ? These are scientists with150 years of work in physics between the three. Do you claim to be a doctor for the ego trip and for a false sense of expertise? Show your degree. We will investigate that. Do you have one? Let's see it then.
Sometimes the rookie comes out on top. A degree is not a necessary prerequisite for someone to be correct. I have discovered that Bell’s Inequality is incorrect so 50 plus years of data are wrong. It’s an embarrassment!
@@tuckquest The philosopher does not know what he's talking about.
What about the violation of Bell's inequality (do you mean the inequality or the theorem) is in your opinion an embarrassment? Be precise.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaoswhen you send most Entangled-Photons through the Polarizers it is true that you get one of 8-different results. Either the Photons will go through or be blocked 100% (which is SSS for Same in both cases) or the the comparison will be the same 1/3rd. It is important to recognize that each result is a comparison between the state of the photon’s passing-through because an Inequality is a Comparison where the Same-State >= 1/3. The Physicists believe that the Inequality must be 1/3 or greater because every possibility is either 33% or 100%. How can measurements between the Entangled-Photons be 0.25 unless the Photons are somehow sharing-information information because this looks like a statistical-anomaly?
Something important is that when you take an Average of the measurements, you get 50% since ((1 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 1) / 8) = 0.5 = 50%. That is equivalent to the probability of a coin-toss landing on Heads or Tails. The thing about a Coin-Toss is that the probability of getting 2-Heads or 2-Tails in a row is 25%. The equation is 0.5^#_of_coin_tosses. You expect that while the probability of the coin landing on Heads or Tails is 50% each time, probability of 2-successive Heads or Tails (in a row) is 25% since 0.5^2 = 0.25. An Inequality is a comparison between 2-successive states. That means that it should be equal to 25%. It’s not an Anomaly. It is the expected result based-upon the mathematics of Classical-Mechanics.
There is no Spooky-Action at a distance. Neither the Principal of Locality or Counterfactual-Definiteness has to be violated because for over 50-years Bell’s Inequality was based-upon Faulty-Logic.
@@tuckquest That's quite incoherent rumbling and not at all precise. You have not even specified what exactly it is you're arguing for. It seems you think the theorem behind Bell's inequality is wrong (which is a mathematical theorem and I highly doubt you found an error, you just misunderstood something). But it's difficult to guess what you want to say from this incoherent text.
Have you ever seen a proof of Bell's inequality? If so, choose a publicly available proof and point to exactly which line is wrong and then provide a counterexample to the line.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos it is very specific when you know how the experiment is being performed. It was long-enough just trying to explain the pertinent details instead of going into a full-explanation of every step of the experiment.
To summarize, the Anomaly of the experiment is why do they get a result of 0.25? Bell’s Inequality says the result should be:
Same_Outcome >= (1/3).
However, then you take an Average of the possible results you get 50%. The 25% is explained since the probability is 0.5^2 = 0.25.
That means the Inequality is based-upon Faulty-Logic. It should not be expressed as Same_Outcome >= (1/3). It should be expressed:
Same_Outcome = 0.25.
Again, the Same_Outcome is like flipping a coin and getting Heads-Heads or Tails-Tails for both successive coin-flips. The probability diminishes every time that you will have several Heads or Tails in a row.
That means the Bell’s Inequality is wrong!
I don't think philosophy has any authority to say anything about Quantum physics. All previous philosopers said completely absurd and dumb things about physics during all human history. Quantum physics is the most accurate science ever made
im not so sure. Bell's inequality has an assumption that the observer or experimenter has free will. Free will basically requires the human brain to have supernatural powers ie to be able to make choices free of any constraints that the laws of nature might impose
This comment is laughable. Nuff said.
@@bobbrian6526 Free will is not the issue, only lack of superdeterminism, which is a supernatural magic that extends throughout spacetime specifically to give researchers the wrong answers
a scientist would not discredit an opinion based solely on who it is coming from
@@nmarbletoe8210 not at all, super determinism is just the idea that all events are determined, so there will always be a correlation between choice of measurement and the experiment being conducted
There is no end. The direction is established by the energy put into progress. If you have choices; A and B, then you establish the right way by the energy you put into your choice!
Iguana
Can someone see how CIG Theory fits into Bell's inequalities, using the new CIG Interpretation whereby matter unfolds into new spatial quantities based on rate of travel? I simply don't have the math and understanding of the Bell experiment.
I don't pay attention to philosophical scientists. Often than not, they postulate matters based on old empirical data or theories. Like postulating on the Old Testament. Worse is when their voices are loud. Better to listen to scientists who are doing the work and make your own assumptions.
😂😂😂 you have no clue what this field say epistemology deals with … you might think you know cause you listened to whoever was “postulating ion the Old Testament” but that ain’t it chief
Lol. You, yourself are advancing a Philosophy here yourself, or do u think yr conclusion is scientific?! Science is a branch of Philosophy. I have degrees in both Physics and Philosophy. Imho, Physicists are notoriously bad at Philosophy but ignorantly and arrogantly think otherwise. Philosophers are often not across the details of Physics, but don't pretend otherwise.
Whether sth is true or not is not deductable from the loudness of a voice, nor from the degree sb has.
@@VajraSutraNothing has ever been discovered or proven by philosophy. You need science to find real world evidence.
If the field of philosophy disappeared, it would not have any impact on the progress of science.
When Aristotle talked about a 'final cause', he wasn't talking about retroactive efficient causation. He was talking about purpose and functionality.
Thanks for your comment. Isn't that a sort of play on words?
@@eismscience Thank you for your reply. You can dismiss any comment as a "play on words". But we want our words to have meaning. Nowadays, natural science uses the word 'cause' in the sense that Aristotle called 'efficient cause'. Of course, that poor benighted Aristotle didn't even speak English. He spoke Ancient Greek. The English word 'cause' has many meanings, and the scientific sense is only one of them. The English word 'cause' is derived from the Latin word 'causa', which was a translation of the ancient Greek 'aitia', which was originally a legal technical term, nothing to do with natural science. But Aristotle considered the notion of purpose to be covered by the word 'aitia'. I submit to you that 'purpose' has a quite different meaning from 'efficient cause'. At least Aristotle thought so. He defined several other senses of the 'aitia' as well.
Final causes, while distinct from efficient causes, are equally causal and arguably more significant within the human realm. They provide the 'why' or purpose behind actions and phenomena, which is crucial for understanding motivations and outcomes in human behavior and decision-making. They are also 50% of nature according to Yakir Aharanov and his two-state approach to quantum theory.
Thanks.
Physics is what people observed about natural events in the universe, to prove that, it needs deep knowledge in a tool as mathematics to describe physics phenomena that can't be imagined or described by words.
Relativity does not actually forbid absolute simultaneity. It is simply impossible to **verify** without a perfect understanding of the local laws of physics. You do have to pick a scale however. What a "moment" is, is a specific geometry. A stable movement that occurs on a specific scale that tells us a "moment" has passed. All you need now is to relate two types of geometry, movements, two "moments" to each other. And then relate all types of geometry to each other. That is how you create an "absolute" framework. The issue is: it is not enough to compare types of geometry to one another, I.e. the standard model. Because they all have a particular position relative to others of their kind. The actual geometry of space itself matters when discussing simultaneity. And we are all limited by how we are made, so we will it seems, never have the ability to relate all types of geometry to all others. We can however define a "moment" as close as we can to the original traditional concept of a moment by accounting for as much actual geometry as possible: in other words, cataloguing our surroundings. Exploring.
As for QM, and Bell's inequality. I personally believe it was a conceptual and theoretical mistake. If you assume defined states, spin up and spin down, of particles before measurement, and apply a geometric rule of orientation, list the probabilities, you end up with the same amount of up and down particles inputted than you do outputted, even if you get measurement pairs (how many pairs particles are measured as having the same spin vs having the opposite spin) that show a need for an equality. There can be no theoretically derived conclusive evidence about the state of the particles before measurement from a state of particles obtained from a probability, as probability arises from multiple iterations of deterministic geometry. You can't retro engineer a reality before measurement, from the consequence of multiple attempts of the experiment. Using probability, means abandoning the standard of causality. That's why you need to assume a state, up or down, first, then list what would happen in every case. This allows for an inequality in pair of measurements but an equal amount of ups and downs inputted and outputted. This shows that Bell's inequality is a misunderstanding of what constitutes proof, in regards to that specific experiment, of an inequality that is needed for any theory involving Locality.
Considering these two points, it's highly likely the best way to meld Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is by restoring locality, and assuming that subjectivity and the idea of a unique state itself is the closest thing to a foundation for reality we can use to accurately describe as much of it as possible. I cannot say a "foundation" because every thing would be made by another. It is likely that below the wave function, knowing now that superposition is an indefensible concept to rely on, is the bottom of reality, and that it is best to assume there is an underlying, fleeting, but stable geometry. And there is no reason to assume every object is not the perfect centre of its own circumstance. Made by a geometry that it will be limited in probing for its ability granted to it by its own scale
of existence, and making a geometry that it is instrumental in building that it will not be able to predict the future of, for how complex it is compared to it. This is the case for a human. And it should be the case for any "moment". Any geometric structure is made from its environment, and makes its environment. And the limitations of the constituents of an object make possible its own limitations, and so, its own existence and, that will create new limitations in turn, on new scales.
Everything ties together. But all we have to do, is let go of absolute concepts like, absolute, relative, objectivity, and rely instead, like any good scientist might, on what we can verify in front of us.
GREAT interview. He let the guy talk, and when he interjected, he got the guy back on track of where he 'interrupted'.
Wouldn't reto-causality mean that hard determinism is true and that we have no Free Will? How could he say that the future "obviously" affects the present and then worry about us making decisions to avoid catastrophe when the future is already determined?
There is a way to reconcile Bell's inequality and non-simultaneity: super-determinism.
If it is pre-determined what Bob and Alice will do.
Lovely discussions
Interesting end to their conversation. My own experience tells me that I have been so terrorized by the gloom and doom social theorists acting through different media forms today, that instead of sensitizing me to action, they desensitize me. In effect they are making it collectively harder to do anything about the future.
Let’s say we want to produce a computer simulation of quantum mechanics where we can see what happens if one of the detectors in the Clauser or Aspect type of experiment is replaced by a detector made of antimatter. This simulation most definitely needs to be able to shift information at a speed faster than light, the information being like a one-time pad rather than a book. The Courant-Friedrichs-Levy condition might be an issue, but we can just assume we have enough computer power to deal with it.
The simulation will need to solve a system of coupled differential equations, and will also need to use a random number generator. We can provide a button to do a Lorentz transformation, but a side effect of pressing this button will be to reseed the RNG. We can then simulate nonlocal phenomena without any issues with causality, since the phenomena in question are random, uncontrollable and unrepeatable. I know a lot of people will fret about this forever and a day. That doesn’t stop me getting on with it.
Yes, a nonlocal theory is required. The good news here is that we acquire an extra degree of freedom to manipulate, so no more Feynman’s straitjacket. I propose that there’s more than one way to travel faster than light. One way is associated with wavelike behaviour, and the other way permits tachyonic Brownian motion, or particle-like behaviour. Let nobody rush to agree with me on this, but do notice that these two behaviours are orthogonal and we have an extra degree of freedom to play around with. We will need it because modification of the Schroedinger equation is forbidden, which is stating the obvious.
I would summarise this another way by saying that despite appearances, the Schroedinger equation is definitely not an equation of tachyonic Brownian motion. TBM is present, but in a manner orthogonal to the Schroedinger equation or any similar equation.
Thanks for your comment. I am sorry I don't have more time to add my thoughts. Thanks for understanding.
Ive been thinking about an analogy for entanglement and ive been leaning into dance steps. If all you have is the foot placement chart the behavior makes no sense, but the reality is the two are connected at the hip.
Great talk, thanks, The Higgs Field / Skin Theory is proven for temperature and velocity the metric hypothesis of 1c gradients is also proven ...
Skin Theory - The Higgs velocity mechanism
General Relativity: TDR = (Temp/5)^2 seconds (+1c^3 == +1ºC)
Lorentz Gamma: TDR = V/c
Vc: TDR = (V-c)/c == (Temp/5)^2 seconds
...
So for the Muon G2 result we have ...
+3x10^8m/s == +1c^3 == +1ºC
Which implies Zero Degree Celsius space has a stationary in situ energy potential = At least the Speed of light (i.e. A distance to the the zero line of the BB space).
1c from our 3d space potential.
1c from the Velocity addition over c of the collision (**Into the BB weight space??).
1c from the depth into the BB weight space temperature aperture. (Causes a dowel like flow of space towards the Big Bang aperture binding the two space connection open)
This implies the exhibited temperature should be half input temperature because of BB space redshift (**a c^3 additive superimposed distance??).
M.B.Eringa, DrDon 1998~Jul 2022
PS: There is an implication that the interface angle between our visible space and the BB space is always 90º regardless of Visible space vector direction!.
References: DrDon; Garret; Stephen Hawking;
PPS: Garret and myself have long been discussing the top of the C^3 weight space scale.
Based on the Higgs velocity mechanism, I am thinking that the scale above the zero line on the atomic scale (i.e. our 3d space side) should be in 1c increments until the zero line and then swap to 1c^3 increments below the zero line. (i.e. +1c==+1ºC for speeds upto the speed of light)
The tricky thing is, the zero line is the top of the c scale, and our 3d spaces' zero line is its' weight temperature back from that zero line, so the scale should actually look like the below for a plutonium proton...
+ 0c
+ 1c
...
+ 20,000c
+ 0c^3
+ 1c^3
....
+ 20,000c^3
The magnetic aperture starts at the BB space but the spacial flow "dowel" needs to go the same c distance back into our space, although it likely will collapse into a 3 dimensional sphere afterwards, the magnitude still needs to be represented on the diagram using the c scale.
Skin Theory - The Higgs temperature mechanism
General Relativity: TDR = (Temp/5)^2 seconds (+1c^3 == +1ºC)
Temperature is an aperture to BB weight/temperature, the larger the aperture the higher the temperature, so ...
Pi*12Planck^2 == +1c^3 == +1ºC
But, The ligo experiment demands the aperture stay the same and the underlying energy density doubles so ...
Energy Density = Particle Count / (4/3*Pi*12Planck^3)
A Ligo style interfered Higgs Reaction would be described as ...
ED = 2*(Particle Count) / (4/3*Pi*12Planck^3)
So we get +1ED == +1c^3 == +1ºC
So aperture temperature and size are directly proportional to the "Photonium" particle count per cubic.
Halve the ED and the photon rises towards our visible space (Entropic Expansion).
Double the ED and the photon drops away from our visible space towards the BB hyper space (Entropic Collapse).
Energy Density is directly proportional to the Skin compression if the particle is stable.
M.B.Eringa, S Hawking 1971~Jul 2022
PS: There is an implication that the interface angle between our visible space and the BB space is always 90º regardless of Visible space orientation / polarity.
PS: The exhibited temperature is 1/2 single laser temp for twice as long, because the stable particle skin doubles, halving the the input temps back to a single laser temp (Stable) and the distance into the BB temperature space halves the temperature again, the twice as long is to satisfy energy conservation rules.
References: Garret; Stephen Hawking; DrDon;
Wonderful explanation
Very clear BUT…
He just forgot to say that special relativity don’t claim that simultaneity does not exist, Einstein just show us that simultaneity is not an absolute thing. It is relative to the observator. It means that it still exist observators who will have the same conclusions about the fact that 2 events are simultaneous. And this is the point: even those 2 observators will observe non locality (violation of Bell’s inequality) in Aspect experiments.
Simultaneity is not absolute but if we live in the same region in space time (We don’t move fast one respect to others) we will have a clear enough definition of simultaneity to observe a violation of Bell’s inequality without ambiguity.
Tim, I love you, thanks 😊
How does General Relativity and in general Einstein's theories contradict backward causation for photons, which experience no proper time and thus are simultaneously everywhere in their trajectory (from their own "subjective POV", which is all that matters to them)?
That is under the assumption that four-dimensional space-time is actually real. That is not the universe of human experience, which says the past and the future do not exist.
Special relativity is a theory of duration and intervals, different observers may disagree on a time duration or a physical distance but that doesn't mean that the past is real.
I also find it very difficult to imagine that a photon has a "subjective POV".
@@BrettHar123 - It's real, time is a dimension (but not a spatial dimension). The past does (did) exist and has effects on the present, the future will exist and will be affected by its past, incl. our present.
It is strange for Luis Razo to invoke goals and motives at the level of the universe (as a way to understand physical reality). For this to make sense you’d have to come up with a very abstract notion of goals in a dynamical system, and prove the universe exhibits whatever properties you posit.
Thanks for your comment. Just to be clear, what you are referring to is not based on anything I've done or thought myself but rather on the work of Yakir Aharanov and many top research teams around the world. I recommend you to glance at it. We have one of Ahranov's lectures posted on our channel, but there are many resources available online. Another option is to take a glance at our recent talk with Eliahu Cohen, who studied under Aharanov. Thanks again.
But what about Quantum Field Theory? I understand that it mix relativity (special) and Quantum mechanics and that thet QED results are extraordinary in terms of precision.
In terms of backward causation the two variables are of the past causing the present and the future providing possible pathways. Quantum measurement is merely the choice of one possible pathway or another from the range the future provides.
The force vector ratio of the catamaran that is twice as wide as the catamaran is tall has a force vector ratio three to one horizontal to vertical and is one hundred percent faster than a sailboat design that is one half as wide as it is tall. The single hull.
I wonder what Huw Price would say about this since (if I recall correctly) he suggested that retrocausality might get one out of the need for action at a distance.
Huw Price is one of a growing number of entire research teams that are actively conducting experiments along these lines. This is not controversial at all. What is more controversial is the more specific interpretation I have expressed here. Most physicists would not go that far because it would be career suicide, for the same reason that talking about the foundations of physics a few decades ago was basically career suicide. Thanks for your comment.
is there a way to zoom in more?
😄
39:23 Interesting. So this "instantaneous" "unreal" property does also appear in EM. Thanks for uploading this interview.
Thanks to you for your interest and comment.
What is the origin of the origin of light and the EM field is a strong contender for Penrose's CCC Theory and Big Bounce models.
Could these models or universes be entangled too?
Not being a physicist I will only try and posse some questions.
How many radio stations, did a normal radio set have in 1964?
Measuring a rhythm sequence (any combinations of rhythmic sequences) in any possible location and distance simultaneously, is that the same thing as measuring it in only one?
If that is so, is saying (number), the same thing as saying the whole infinite combinations of possible numbers simultaneously instead?
If that is so, can a specific rhythmic sequence be past, present and future, instead of what it actually is, just a specific simple, complex, right or wrong rhythmic sequence?
If that is so, can the expression, (Lying has already traveled the whole planet, before the truth has put the shoes on.) be wrong?
As it would more likely be, that the truth is already everywhere simultaneously (if a reality in being truth, it is), and it is a possible combination of a rhythmic sequence/sequences that would meet it (first), then present it (second) as a truth or lying in connection to what is in being (in reality), depending on the rhythm and sequence fallowed, and for all the reasons and logic possible!?
If that is so, knowing that there can be an infinite possible combinations of rhythmic sequence, even out of rhythm ("random and probabilistic"), rhythmic sequences, that possibly describe a non rhythmic reality, would it be wise and truth related to only use a handful of extremely rhythmic sequences that (literally) brake down in an infinite possible locations of the non rhythmic reality in being?
I ask so many questions, because!!! Depending on the yes or no answers , it means that the truth or the lying connected to all possible rhythmic sequences and non rhythmic, rhythmic sequences, together with (the reality in being) is already everywhere simultaneously, including any human being.
Or not!!!
(And that would make a extreme difference.)
Actually, although a good explanation level in general, nothing is being added except some hope to go forward with physics.
Avoid questions about wavefunction and human survival is, at least odd...
It's hard to understand how smart people like Luis Bravo could think that the realization of future goals is the result of backward causality rather than the simple, common-sense explanation Tim gives - that it is the result of intent, and that intent is the product of forward causality. Bravo's argument that physicists need to keep a lot of theories in mind is pretty weak support for his notion of backward causality. Effective thinking depends both on an open consideration of ideas and a culling of ideas that are only supported by imagination and not evidence. Tim's moral point that backward causality is dangerous because it could lead us to think that the future will preserve itself is right on. Bravo is an example of how deep thinking can lead to the indulgence of fantasy.
Thanks for your input. Does your logic apply to people like Aristotle and Yakir Aharanov as well? Are you aware of the empirical fruit of Aharanov's two-state approach?
I'd be thriled to talk about this. I think your point deserves to be heard. We can post the exchange here for the benefit of others who feel the same way. You'd be surprised how many times I issue this invitation and people don't want to talk about it.
In any case, I appreciate the feedback.
Re: Why are we deliberating? Indeed. There is, as far as I know, no empirical test we can do that will tell us if the Universe is deterministic or not, same as there is no test to determine whether or not we have 'free will'. We still behave as we do and are limited in our ability to predict the future. If it is of comfort to people to think that free will is a meaningful concept, more power to them.
We know that the universe is not deterministic in a classical sense. That's already expressed in special relativity which separates the universe in past light cone, future light cone and "everything else". That geometric separation has quirky consequences in quantum field theory which most people don't understand because they never develop a relativistic intuition in the first place. One can simply not develop a consistent model of quantum mechanics in a non-relativistic setting. That's also not necessary. There is no non-relativistic universe.
In the end I believe they will discover that events really are random and it’s our minds that try to make sense out of them by telling or fabricating a story. And maybe who knows, in spooky action at a distance or entanglement it appears that particles react instantaneously to others they are entangled with even if there’s no physical connection but what if there is? Perhaps the physical connection between entangled particles is in a different dimension beyond our access.
You tube. Professor Gunter Ewald. Synchronicity and quantum entanglement.
49:22/1:06:10 Two state vector formalism with time moving in both directions makes sense to me. If one vector belongs to the activity of change belonging to that which is in constant change hosted by the relevant field or fields and the other vector being from the actively of influence belonging to that which in constantly coordinating change like the wall of the hosting membrane. If all known fields are generated by a tension generated from the membrane, that which is created has its direction of time its evolution a vector direction and that which facilitates the hosting would have its direction of time its evolution a vector direction being an opercit influencing direction of time. Think of it this way think of the number zero being one of an infinite potential omni location fixed points within a membrane, the universe.
The boundary wall of the universe, the membrane provides potential and in doing so a loop exist in the now for that which exists hosted from the fields the fields being hosted from the tension generated from the membrane being the universe its self. If we think of this via math the one dimensional line of the Cartesian plane has a zero and counting units evenly spaced. The zero could be thought of as the omni location fixed points within a membrane of the universe being something of some size. If size is involved between the quantum scale of the object and the relative size of the object and the two vectors of time are also involved then we can hold an impression of the unit value of a number representing the relative size of the physical object its unit value of one and its power value of one impressionistically could be thought of metaphorically of as time moving in two directions. The zero that the base and the power belong to that makes possible the existence of the unit value impressionistically metaphorically could represent the quantum real of the hosting fields. The Membrane being the universe is like a larger number bigger than the zero the base the power and the unit number. Sounds like a strange idea. Check out this number pattern it's just as strange.
I have a simple number pattern that I have been working on and I discovered it by searching for a constant that would link the quantum biological nature of mind with the physical nature of the atoms that makeup our bodies with that which hosts The Greater Universe. Sounds wacky but I found a connection by searching for a number value of 38. The idea was if there Enneagram Model was correct and there really are 19 Boundaries of Creation then this number value needed to be doubled to account for a anti-univers. I chose the Dark energy number and Temperature because I believe that temperature must be omni locational in the universe at every level of size scale large or small.
Dark Energy Number a decimal point and 122 Zero and finally a 138
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000138
Counting numbers on a Cartesian plane have a base value of one and a exponent value of one the unit number has a power of one and the base and the power belong to the zero, Zero is host.
I think the universe at the quantum level may have some strange math rules.
Rule one: A number viewed from the hundred's Column must be counted three times as if it has the same count in the ten's Column and the units Column. A number viewed in the ten's Column must be counted two times as if it has the same count in the tens Column as if in the units Column. And the unit's are counted once.
Rule two: Any number/ numbers on the other side of the decimal point is are treated differently. They are simply added to create a sum tally number.
Apply rule one and rule two:
-273.15 Absolute Zero.
-274.15 One degree below.
-275.15 Two degrees below.
-276.15 Three degree below.
2 = 6 Zero's, 7 = 14 Zero's, 3 = 3 Zero's, (decimal point) 1 + 5 = 6. -273.15 (6 + 14 + 3 + 6 = 29) Twenty nine zero's.
2 = 6 Zero's, 7 = 14 Zero's, 4 = 4 Zero's, (decimal point) 1 + 5 = 6. -273.15 (6 + 14 + 4 + 6 = 30)Thirty zero's.
2 = 6 Zero's, 7 = 14 Zero's, 5 = 5 Zero's, (decimal point) 1 + 5 = 6. -273.15 (6 + 14 + 5 + 6 = 31) Thirty one zero's.
2 = 6 Zero's, 7 = 14 Zero's, 6 = 6 Zero's, (decimal point) 1 + 5 = 6. -273.15 (6 + 14 + 6 + 6 = 32) Thirty two zero's.
29 + 30 + 31 + 32 = 122
Fifty four elemental parts are said to make up the standard model of particle physics. Yes there is a 54 within the number pattern on the left hand side of the decimal point. 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 54.
Rule two: Any number/ numbers on the other side of the decimal point is are treated differently. They are simply added to create a sum tally number.
1 + 5 = 6
1 + 5 = 6
1 + 5 = 6
1 + 5 = 6
6 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 24
How many quantum fields are there? The answer is 24.
The quarks and leptons are fermions, which is why they have antimatter counterparts, and the W boson comes in two equal-and-opposite varieties (positively and negatively charged), but all told, there are 24 unique, fundamental excitations of quantum fields possible.
1 +1 +1 1+1 +1 decimal point 1 + 5
1 +1 +1 1+1 +1 decimal point 1 + 5
1 +1 +1 1+1 +1 decimal point 1 + 5
1 +1 +1 1+1 +1 decimal point 1 + 5
............. 24 .................................. 24
The - Universe Side.
-270.15
-271.15
-272.15
-273.15 - Absolute Zero
-274.15
-275.15
-276.15
The - Anti-Universe Side.
The Anti universe and the Universe maybe two separate constructs within a larger construct. The Universe being a positive magnetic monopole lead entirety and the Anti universe being a negative magnetic monopole lead entirety two parts of a hole operating within a larger construct. The mono poles maybe within each and every atom along with the function gravity. If gravity is linked to a dual divide between and with in the atom with anti-mater and mater each acting like a north and south pole of a magnet generating gravity,. such a discovery would answer many questions related to understanding the universe that hosts and Being Human reason being, we are made of atoms.
The - Universe Side.
-270.15
-271.15
-272.15
-273.15 - Absolute Zero
-274.15
-275.15
-276.15
The - Anti-Universe Side.
For the Anti-Universe Side of Absolute Zero -275.15 maybe the central point of a virtual magnetic pole with -274.15 at its north pole and -276.15 at its south pole.
For the Universe Side of Absolute Zero -271.15 maybe the central point of a virtual magnetic pole with -270.15 at its north pole and -272.15 at its south pole.
The - Universe Side.
-270.15 North Pole.
-271.15
-272.15 South Pole.
-273.15 - Absolute Zero.
-274.15 North Pole.
-275.15
-276.15 South Pole.
The - Anti-Universe Side.
A third implicate function could have a central point of a magmatic force originating from -273.15 - Absolute Zero with the north and south poles being arbitrary and leading to Superconductors acting as like defying the laws of gravity and exhibiting unique properties.
A Spin two particle has five states: M = 2 , M = 1 , M = 0 , M = -1 , M = -2 If a Graviton exists and the Dilaton and the Axion all three maybe linked to the temperature table above. This table is part of my number theory below wherein I search for a deeper math structure that seeks to link the quantum realm with dark matter and dark energy and the standard model of particle physics. M Theory maybe linked to the right side of the decimal point via Rule two of my number pattern.
The law of seven and three explained along with 19 Boundaries of Creation. ua-cam.com/video/pu3OppWN8B8/v-deo.html
Counting the number values in different ways in order to search of more number patterns.
Have you found the 38? The minus two hundred and seventy can be counted from one of four lines making four ways to tally the count or a more complex path could be created making a larger number of paths to tally 38.
2 7 3. _ _
_ _ 4. _ _
_ _ 5. _ _
_ _ 6. _ _
To save space I did this one of four ways to compile 38 simply move the two and the seven down each line to see the four ways. and up to would make seven ways to generate the thirty-eight.
2 = 6 zeros.
7 = 14 zeros.
3 = 3 zeros.
4 = 4 zeros.
5 = 5 zeros.
6 = 6 zeros.
Two sets of 19 Boundaries Off Creation.
The number values: 6 + 14 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 38
Mark Anthony Rockliff 9w1 INFP Sx/Sp/So 1221 D type.
The same reasoning also raises the question of whether classical notions of space and time can be maintained at the atomic scale. How to clearly and unambiguously define the concept of "point" and the extremely small distance in space-time through measurement? On commonly used scales, rigid rods and clocks can be used to measure length and time; on very large cosmic scales, light paths replace rigid rods. However, at the subatomic scale, these measurement tools fail. In particular, the concepts of "point" and "line" lose their physical meaning at the subatomic scale. Fundamental concepts such as space-time points and exact coordinate systems are mathematical concepts but cannot be defined experimentally; arbitrarily small intervals are in principle not measurable. Perfect precision in a particle's position requires infinite uncertainty in momentum, which implies (P2)n,n=∞, i.e. infinite energy. Similar conclusions do not allow other physical quantities to assume completely precise values. Any assumption about the exact value of a physical quantity will inevitably lead to conclusions that are incompatible with the quantum laws themselves. Quantifying actions with a finite (i.e., non-vanishing) universal quantity h requires a redefinition of spacetime on fundamental quantum scales. Fundamentals of Quantum Physics. Nature is discrete and statistical at an elementary level. The Sun Moon dynamic is one of the explanations of why time and space exists or the clock. Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. Great for sharing.
Would love to hear a conversation between Maudlin and Bernardo Kastrup 🤩
See Curt Jaimungal's channel. Maudlin and Kastrup started to have a discussion, but Kastrup refused to continue at the first sign of respectful disagreement. I had a similar experience with Kastrup on this channel, where I respectfully advised him, prior to recording, that I would be taking a critical stance against his ideas. He refused to continue with the programmed exchange. I hope to have him on at some point in the future, but I'm not optmistic about it. He clearly does not like people to disagree with him. It's hard to understand. I have a video about this, if you care to glance at it. Thanks again.
Mulas law perfectly explains those correlations in a local deterministic manner.
Right. Malus, QM, and the experiment all agree. It is Bell theorem that is wrong. The reasons are assumptions about particles and energy quantization. I show energy is thresholded, giving an illusion of quantization. Please look me up to see my experiments.
Some 20-30 years ago, gauge theorist CN Yang told me no one in his generation can solve the EPR paradox. And, he said he doesn't understand the experiment done by Zeilinger. My conclusion is not to waste more of my time and energy.
Thanks for the interesting story.
This is pure gold
Backward causation = destiny.
What I don't quite understand: hasn't "locality" been given up already long ago, wirh special relativity? Where the Lorentz-Transformations at least "suggest" that the concepts of "space" and "time" don't really make sense any longer in a frame of reference moving "with maximum event propagation speed" (aka. "speed of light") relative to the observer's frame of reference.
Why (sic) after poignancy? And who put it there without (erroneously) correcting it?
Thanks for asking. The (sic) after poignancy refers to the fact that during the exchange, the word poignancy was used incorrectly. Poignancy means "a keen sense of sadness", but I was trying to say something more like "very compelling", which is what I thought it meant. I left the (sic) there because I cannot change the recording. I hope that answers your questions. Thanks again.
@@eismscience Gotcha Thanks for replying.
He's explenations are so simple im starting to have opinions on quantum mechanics knowing practically nothing about it.
So how did the wave function collapse theory to explain the double slit experiment, lead Einstein to a thought experiment of epr paradox?
If you combine the inequality (no quantum cloning=>) with "you can't push on a string", in a nodal-vibrational emitter-receiver, log-antilog condensed spin quantization state, ie not in tension, then the circumstances of Bell's Inequality are demonstrated to be those of vertically integrated, superimposed recirculating resonances, and a picture of Disproof Methodology which is a reasoned inside-outside presence of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional functional holography phenomenon. (Not to put too fine a point on the problem)
Thanks for your comment. That's one heck of a conditional sentence you've written there. I will reflect on it. Thanks again for your comment.
@@eismscience "Conditional Sentencing", what excellent terminology, to imply a technique used for theory assembly and arrangement.., instead of the loosely inherited structures of Magical Thinking, ie identities that we recognise in the semi random context of of our schooling.
If you had been introduced to the same pictures of concepts in typical academic fashion, without much hands-on direct Observational experience, then it's all "magical" how events are arranged in the Universe.
Looking at circumstances as log-antilog interference positioning-location of axial-tangential superimposed orthogonality amplitude and frequency density-intensity, and what you see is coherence-cohesion density-intensity alignment, quantization cause-effect pure-math relative-timing condensation ratio-rates logic.
Singularity repositioning-shaping function is the "magic e-Pi-i mechanism that is recognised instantaneously.
I think a little tighter parameterization of ChatGPT output would help.
@@davidwilkie9551 The text appears to contrast two different approaches to understanding or interpreting phenomena: "Conditional Sentencing" and "Magical Thinking." The first term, which isn't commonly used in academia in the way described here, seems to imply a structured, logical, and perhaps mathematical approach to assembling and arranging theories. It emphasizes the role of rational, systematic methods in understanding the world.
On the other hand, "Magical Thinking" is presented as an alternative, more intuitive, or even haphazard way of seeing the world. This is described as relying on "identities that we recognize in the semi-random context of our schooling." It suggests that our understanding, when based on less direct experience or hands-on observation, can appear arbitrary or "magical" to us.
The text then delves into a highly technical and specific way of describing phenomena, which may be related to the "Conditional Sentencing" approach. This description uses mathematical and scientific terminology like "log-antilog interference," "axial-tangential superimposed orthogonality," and "quantization cause-effect pure-math relative-timing condensation ratio-rates logic," among others. These terms imply a highly structured, rigorous approach to understanding the complexities of events or phenomena.
Lastly, the text mentions "Singularity repositioning-shaping function" as a mechanism that is instantly recognizable, possibly implying that despite the complexity and depth of scientific or mathematical understanding, there are still elements that are intuitively or instantaneously understood-akin to a "magic" moment in the rigorous framework.
Overall, the text seems to be a commentary on the different ways of understanding or making sense of the complexities of the world, juxtaposing more intuitive, education-based approaches with rigorous, mathematical methods.
Start by rotating the Michelson Morley Interferometer vertically to begin with
So sorry I am late in hearing this excellent discussion. Agreed he is a treasure to the world. Excellent questions Dr. Bravo. One dumb question: Is the past and/or future defined by space-time or time? In other words, does the future only mean time, or where and when we are in the cosmos? I think of that movie The Time Machine in which the machine shows all the things happening in a place on Earth, whereas the Earth was in an entirely different place in the universe. THanks again.
Perhaps to connect relativity to quantum mechanics and the underlying reason that thinking should focus more on potentials and not on the fields, is that simultaneity comes from another dimension (4D hypersphere) interacting with our own. That is, science has yet to discover the source of force and its energy, only the measurements and observations of its influence on objects. One can then just as equally assume that this source of energy and force is at every point in space and at every moment in time expanding at the speed of light and moves all objects.
Thanks for your comment. I am sorry I don't have more time to add my thoughts. Thanks for understanding.
I'm at 52:00 and I haven't heard mentioned at all the delayed choice quantum eraser, even though the whole conversation is about non-locality and reverse causation... Why?
Seems to me more relevant than Aristotelician teleology.
There are several reasons to not mention the double-slit experiment, the most important being the lack of time. Thanks for your comment. I am sorry I don't have more time to add my thoughts. Thanks for understanding.
The easy answer is Professor Maudlin knows the claims of a “delayed choice quantum eraser” is debunked, being part of the common nonsense in the QM where too many are believers and zero to none able to set up and understand an experiment.
You are probably not alone believing in quantum erasers. Sadly it is a major religious phenomenon, strongly linked to dishonest scientists.
There have been for quite a few years several videos on youtube explaining what’s wrong with the “eraser” - not mentioning that such a belief is quite a definition of insanity.
@@eismscience I was specifically talking about the delayed choice quantum eraser, not the double slit in general.
@@vfwh
The “delayed choice quantum eraser” is a misinterpretation of the double-slit experiment, where the patterns is overlaid: The observer fools himself.
There is no such thing as a “delayed choice quantum eraser”, other than the failures going on for many years, but now thoroughly debunked.