Yes he's great. Very refreshing, except on the issue of local vs non-local with particle physics. He falls right in line with conventional thinking, that is extremely ambiguous, claiming that somehow entangled particles affect each other in non-local ways -- no explanation, just hand waving.
I love the wave function question and discussion. I learn something new every day from Prof. Maudlin, he’s an amazing teacher. Dr. Maudlin thank you for your time ! If time did not exist then nothing would have motion ? Thing would be so still nothing would have functions or momentum in the universe. Isn’t it literally expanding so much human consciousness even after thousands of years of evolution can’t even fathom it’s motions and mechanics? Doesn’t this also mean that some problems can’t be solved today, maybe instead of our outside community being selfish in the now , if we plan for the far future we can get a boost , and make failure into possible progress for future generations. Thanks Friction !
Maudlin mentions the accidental discovery of the charm quark at SLAC by Richter who performed the fine energy scan with the electron-positron collider. The story is told very well by Crease and Mann in their 1987 book "The Second Creation"
*The key quantum mechanical section begins* at 37:01, with the critical ideas from John Bell begin at 38:31 _“this is a point again that Bell very beautifully insisted on in a paper he called the theory of local Beables …”_
A ever green view of Tim video. The question has good philosophy that decide the topic. QM is no doubt a mathematical model which sets an electron cloud a charged function a neutral feeling. This mathematical object made up with infinite probability peaks to makeup the space. Like mathematical physics operation Lagrangian and Lagrangian point onto space many mathematical objects appears /evolved into the Hemiltonion space. Being similar to themodynamic flows it carries the value of statistical significance the electron gas . The many world nicely highlighted as amplifier. Is charge of the function a measurement parameters. Act of collapse is a verbal significance , what happens to charge? Dirac's has the distinction.But no philosophy.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .------------------
47:58: I just have one question for those guys who push the kind of EM theory you're talking about here. After the energy leaves the antenna, and before it reaches the receiver, where is it? How about the momentum? Is conservation of those things just *violated* during that interval of time?
This talk about what is at the foundation of reality is always interesting, especially as you’ve invoked the Heaviside/FitzGerald belts and pulleys. To me, Maxwell’s description of aether as made of particles, moving in all different directions at the speed of light, never bumping into one another, always seemed ideal. But knowing what we know now, aether, re-designed as the quantum vacuum, has to be so much more. Entangled particles need to have an FTL connection Every Standard Model particle has to behave probabilistically Photons have to travel at C according to each and every observer Particles have to pop in and out of existence Each particle needs to be one size in empty space and a singularity at birth and in a black hole The list goes on and on. Wouldn’t it be cool if every quantum particle was just the space it defined…nothing more than a point, that point being a simple mathematical definition, with nearly instantaneous motion. The motion of that point would define its space that macroscopically, looks like a probabilistic quantum particle. And even empty space itself: corpuscles defined by FTL points. Taken together make fields. That would be fun!
I use a visualization of the space in which the Schrodinger equation exists. A vector space of possibilities with magnitude of probability. It provides the gradients down which all things go. Psi a wave within this space influenced by all the other fields. It sorta works for me. Your mileage may vary.
As an experimentalist, I would like very much for each of my QM students to listen to this at least once in their undergraduate years. Tim does a great job on the metaphysics here, using some actual history (partly because the interviewer is a bit weak spoken, I'm afraid .) For what it's worth, we should have no surprise at the fact that nature will NOT entertain our puny minds with with an intuitively acceptable image of what a vectorial object in a complex Hilbert space should "look" like. At the very least we start with our reality 9 orders of magnitude too large for everyday events to show clear quantum mechanical features. I think that this is all Bohr SHOULD have tried to say! There may be no ontology available to us, right now, that would make us happy as humans, beyond a future conceptual revolution we are yet to create! best regards.
Why are you telling us that you don't know anything about this? That quantum mechanics depends on scale is completely false, even at the kindergarten level. ;-)
Rubbish! Do you know your quantum field field theory - especially renormalization in the standard model? Perhaps the renormalization group? Tell me, since we talking at the expert level, what phenomenology you can describe without picking a renormalization scale - AKA lambda - for cross-sections, decay rates, etc... The real physics is done by quantizing the classical lagrangians of particles, and the process of doing so introduces scales and anomalies which would not have appeared otherwise. Talk to your prof.
@@domenicobarillari2046 I can buy superconductors of virtually any length and permanent magnetism is a quantum effect. So is the stability of matter. Dude... get a grip. ;-)
Both of which are described best by Wilson's theory of the RNG - for, yes, quantum condensed matter systems. That you have superconductivity at all is a scale dependent effect. This is ultimately hidden in the h-bar parameter of the Schroedinger equation. So while that classical differential equation does not appear to favour a scale, any parameter in it will ultimately pick a scale since it DOES have a mass dimension. All this is to state that non-relativistic QM does not make obvious that scales exist and that Maudlin's states don't come out silly in the end, even if his simplifying references hark back to 1920s QM.
It's as if space is made of minute deep gravitational wells that evaporate at the surface. If so then movement, of information, is teleportation from one gravitational engine to another.
I have three sets of tiles. One set is made of wood. One is made of ceramic. One is made of metal. Because they are all are cut into the shaoes of Penrose tiles, they all can aperioducally tile the lobby of the Burlington County NJ Animal Shelter. This is alear case of the properties of macroscopic objexts reducing to geometry and NOT reducing to physics. Biologic systems can sometimes metabolize one version of a complex molecule but can't metabolize molecules made of the same constituent elements in the same basic pattern but of opposite chirality. The notion that all physical phenomena reduce to quantuk theory is horse hockey.
50:45: I can't hang details on this; I'd need to think about it for a while. But I've always had the impression that the Many Worlds guys like their program because it gets rid of the need to talk about anything related to minds, God, etc. They want things to be just as pat as possible so that that stuff never even gets mentioned. I.e., it's a "backlash" against the words of some of the early quantum pioneers about observer consciousness and so on - they want to crush that stuff and crush it good.
Hard disagree, MWI has to posit discussions about observer and consciousness to even make sense. Einstein already pointed out that we do not observe "probability waves" associated with individual particles in the real world, we only observe real waves which are composed of ensembles of particles. If you believe these "probability waves" exist, they only exist as something which is _in itself_ unobservable and thus can only be observed by its _effects_ it has on particles. This leads to a problem in MWI. They deny that there really is ever a "collapse" into observable particles, so there is _only_ unobservable waves. How can a theory that does not include anything observable at all explain what we actually observe? This forces MWI to get into a discussion about consciousness and how human observers interpret the world This isn't the only example of this. MWI proponents say the view is deterministic, but in real-world empirical practice, it is random. If there are two possibilities, A and B, we only observe A _or_ B, not both. Of course, the fact we observe one or the other is obvious if we live in a branching multiverse, but what is not obvious is why, if we let's say measure A, that we measured A and not B. This is a different question than asking why we measure one but not both, it is to ask why, if the branching is deterministic, we measure one and not the other. Again, MWI proponents then always have to get into a philosophical discussion on the nature of consciousness and how we experience the world. MWI is not an interpretation that can be made much sense of without a discussion of consciousness and possibly even neuroscience, and it's not clear they even have a coherent answer to this yet. Some just shrug it off and say it will be answered one day by neuroscience, a bit like the _promissory materialists_ that Karl Popper criticized. There are plenty of other interpretations that do not have to bring up consciousness or observers at all and are entirely ignored, like Einstein's ensemble interpretation or Rovelli's relational interpretation. From my interactions with MWI proponents, it is clear to me they believe in MWI because they like the Sci-Fi nature of it, not because it even makes sense philosophically.
@@QuantumPolyhedron Oh... I like the phrase "promissory materialism." Yes, that has always bothered me - it comes down to "Well, this is the only way it could possibly be, so you kind of have to agree with us." And on the earlier parts of your reply, fair enough - I think you make good points and I'm afraid I have to confess that MWI has always been so unappealing to me that I've never done a truly "deep dive" into it. They say it's "parsimonius," but it just has never felt that way to me. Bohm's ideas have an appeal, but those seem to be problematic to extend to a field theory level as well. Honestly, I've just never had a problem with the idea that all science really addresses is our perceptions, and therefore doesn't say much of anything about the underlying processes that result in those perceptions. This notion affects how I feel about all the "simulation hypothesis" talk too - I have little use for it, because... how would we know? How does it matter, if we wind up with the same perceptions either way? On that issue, I usually fall onto the idea that regardless of whether WE live in a simulation or not, somewhere in the whole game there has to be beings that experienced natural abiogenesis SOMEHOW, so why not just assume that's us and dispense with the need to ALSO invoke computational apparatus capable of housing conscious minds? It seems simpler. Plus computer technology (the hardware side primarily) is my career, and I can talk sensibly about what happens in computers all the way down to the level of semiconductor physics, and I just see no way those processes could ever result in self-aware consciousness. I don't know what it is that's different about us and our brains, but something is. And it's something that we do not understand at this time, and so have no hope of replicating in something we build. I suppose one might say we could "stumble onto it by accident," but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
38:43 Tim, try your arguments forgetting about the Schrodinger wave function and focusing on Heisenberg observables. Suddenly, quantum theory appears as local and realistic.
Quantum mechanics was always local. It was never separable. That most people don't know the difference isn't being helped by switching the representation. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Well, Heisenberg observables are located at each subsystem, the Schrödinger wave, at a first glance, is in amhigher level pf abstraction.
Some of this reminds me of the distinction in statistics between definitional formulas which clearly represent what a particular statistic fundamentally is vs algebraically equivalent formulas used in calculation to simplify computstion, refuce rounding error, etc. Which is real? At one level, it makes no sense to say that one of two algebraixally equivalent formulas is mote real than the other. They are the same thing. At the level of statistical explication, howevever, the definitionsl firmula is more explanatory and hooks up easily to probability theiry. On the level of computational approximstion, on the third hand, the algebraically compact formula gives more rapid and more accurate results. It helps to pay attention to what exactly you are asking when youvare asking which model is more real.
1:00:20: Yes, but let's actually *talk about* the attempts to extend pilot wave theory to a relativistic version. I'm no expert, but what I've *heard* is that this is quite problematic. And if it can't be extended, it can't be right. It's not something you can just hum and look the other way on. Just having the non-relativistic version look happy and nice isn't enough.
I don’t get the ontological, or lack thereof, arguments against QM as a physical theory. It describes the way the physical universe is and its structure has predicted and otherwise lead to an unbelievable amount of physical apparatus and technology that is used in our macroscopic frame. Who says the universe must be constructed in such a way that we should be able to understand it by drawing analogies to phenomenon we witness macroscopically? As it turns out, it’s impossible to describe using those kinds of analogies and only a mathematical framework can possibly ever be used by humans to understand the physical universe at these microscopic scales.
There is no lack of ontology in quantum mechanics. It's just so simple that we can teach it in a single sentence in high school and that puts the likes of Tim Maudlin out of things to talk about.
I find it to be a very bad argument when people point out that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics make no sense and other people respond just with "well the universe doesn't have to make sense." It's reminiscence of Christians who respond to you pointing out that their concept of the divine makes no sense and them saying "well God doesn't have to be intelligible to human reason." It's basically just a deflection to get away with making incoherent claims. Your claims should indeed be sensible, or else they are nonsense.
and no a classical system can do anything a quantum system can do, it just doesn't do it with the same correlations on average. and no there is no experiment to contradict that because any 1 outcome cant help you with that distinction.
no, the thing is if the wavefunction represents the ignorance of some trajectory or momentum or whatever, that doesn't mean the property of the knowledge interferes, it simply means you have some system that interferes with itself and you don't know how. granted that is not enough for qm, but it's not as simple as you made it seem :). for example in any entangled system you just treat the non separable parts as one system which can have a certain number of outcomes, which correspond to a set of trajectories for how they got there for each outcome, you just cant treat subsystems of that system in a simple way aka there are certain combinations of trajectory correlations that you don't see as often or whatever.
Non-locality. Sorry. Anytime you can't explain something, you don't just embrace fantasy. Can you ever do an experiment with two particles on the opposite side of the universe? No. No you can't. So, stop claiming you know what would happen. I'm not even saying that everything is local. I'm saying we don't know. And claiming that proof that hidden variables in particles (in particles, key here) doesn't exist then non-local is real ... sorry I don't buy it. Just because hidden variables don't exist in particles only shows that it doesn't exist in particles. It does not prove non-local interaction, which is just a hypothesis that you can never prove. Sorry. Maudlin is usually very unambiguous but on this matter he is all hand waving, just like everyone else, to my knowledge.
Can't get enough of his clear expositions.
Yes he's great. Very refreshing, except on the issue of local vs non-local with particle physics. He falls right in line with conventional thinking, that is extremely ambiguous, claiming that somehow entangled particles affect each other in non-local ways -- no explanation, just hand waving.
Ive been trying to figure out how bells result definitely precludes locality@punkypinko2965
I love the wave function question and discussion. I learn something new every day from Prof. Maudlin, he’s an amazing teacher. Dr. Maudlin thank you for your time ! If time did not exist then nothing would have motion ? Thing would be so still nothing would have functions or momentum in the universe. Isn’t it literally expanding so much human consciousness even after thousands of years of evolution can’t even fathom it’s motions and mechanics? Doesn’t this also mean that some problems can’t be solved today, maybe instead of our outside community being selfish in the now , if we plan for the far future we can get a boost , and make failure into possible progress for future generations. Thanks Friction !
Love Dr. Maudlin
Maudlin mentions the accidental discovery of the charm quark at SLAC by Richter who performed the fine energy scan with the electron-positron collider. The story is told very well by Crease and Mann in their 1987 book "The Second Creation"
I just want to say Sir Maudlin. The guy is a paladin, in the service of reason.
Well done
*The key quantum mechanical section begins* at 37:01, with the critical ideas from John Bell begin at 38:31 _“this is a point again that Bell very beautifully insisted on in a paper he called the theory of local Beables …”_
A ever green view of Tim video. The question has good philosophy that decide the topic. QM is no doubt a mathematical model which sets an electron cloud a charged function a neutral feeling. This mathematical object made up with infinite probability peaks to makeup the space. Like mathematical physics operation Lagrangian and Lagrangian point onto space many mathematical objects appears /evolved into the Hemiltonion space. Being similar to themodynamic flows it carries the value of statistical significance the electron gas .
The many world nicely highlighted as amplifier. Is charge of the function a measurement parameters. Act of collapse is a verbal significance , what happens to charge? Dirac's has the distinction.But no philosophy.
Why are you telling us that you don't understand either physics or mathematics? We didn't need to know. :-)
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.------------------
A monist physical theory would break particles down into a universal continuous substance, the way e=mc2 does.
47:58: I just have one question for those guys who push the kind of EM theory you're talking about here. After the energy leaves the antenna, and before it reaches the receiver, where is it? How about the momentum? Is conservation of those things just *violated* during that interval of time?
This talk about what is at the foundation of reality is always interesting, especially as you’ve invoked the Heaviside/FitzGerald belts and pulleys. To me, Maxwell’s description of aether as made of particles, moving in all different directions at the speed of light, never bumping into one another, always seemed ideal.
But knowing what we know now, aether, re-designed as the quantum vacuum, has to be so much more.
Entangled particles need to have an FTL connection
Every Standard Model particle has to behave probabilistically
Photons have to travel at C according to each and every observer
Particles have to pop in and out of existence
Each particle needs to be one size in empty space and a singularity at birth and in a black hole
The list goes on and on.
Wouldn’t it be cool if every quantum particle was just the space it defined…nothing more than a point, that point being a simple mathematical definition, with nearly instantaneous motion. The motion of that point would define its space that macroscopically, looks like a probabilistic quantum particle.
And even empty space itself: corpuscles defined by FTL points. Taken together make fields. That would be fun!
I use a visualization of the space in which the Schrodinger equation exists.
A vector space of possibilities with magnitude of probability. It provides the gradients down which all things go. Psi a wave within this space influenced by all the other fields. It sorta works for me. Your mileage may vary.
You are the only person in the universe who can visualize an infinite dimensional space. Are you, by any chance, a god? ;-)
As an experimentalist, I would like very much for each of my QM students to listen to this at least once in their undergraduate years. Tim does a great job on the metaphysics here, using some actual history (partly because the interviewer is a bit weak spoken, I'm afraid .)
For what it's worth, we should have no surprise at the fact that nature will NOT entertain our puny minds with with an intuitively acceptable image of what a vectorial object in a complex Hilbert space should "look" like. At the very least we start with our reality 9 orders of magnitude too large for everyday events to show clear quantum mechanical features. I think that this is all Bohr SHOULD have tried to say! There may be no ontology available to us, right now, that would make us happy as humans, beyond a future conceptual revolution we are yet to create! best regards.
Why are you telling us that you don't know anything about this? That quantum mechanics depends on scale is completely false, even at the kindergarten level. ;-)
Rubbish! Do you know your quantum field field theory - especially renormalization in the standard model? Perhaps the renormalization group? Tell me, since we talking at the expert level, what phenomenology you can describe without picking a renormalization scale - AKA lambda - for cross-sections, decay rates, etc... The real physics is done by quantizing the classical lagrangians of particles, and the process of doing so introduces scales and anomalies which would not have appeared otherwise. Talk to your prof.
@@domenicobarillari2046 I can buy superconductors of virtually any length and permanent magnetism is a quantum effect. So is the stability of matter. Dude... get a grip. ;-)
Both of which are described best by Wilson's theory of the RNG - for, yes, quantum condensed matter systems. That you have superconductivity at all is a scale dependent effect. This is ultimately hidden in the h-bar parameter of the Schroedinger equation. So while that classical differential equation does not appear to favour a scale, any parameter in it will ultimately pick a scale since it DOES have a mass dimension. All this is to state that non-relativistic QM does not make obvious that scales exist and that Maudlin's states don't come out silly in the end, even if his simplifying references hark back to 1920s QM.
@@domenicobarillari2046 That's a lot of meaningless words to cover up your failure of understanding basic physics. ;-)
It's as if space is made of minute deep gravitational wells that evaporate at the surface. If so then movement, of information, is teleportation from one gravitational engine to another.
I have three sets of tiles. One set is made of wood. One is made of ceramic. One is made of metal. Because they are all are cut into the shaoes of Penrose tiles, they all can aperioducally tile the lobby of the Burlington County NJ Animal Shelter. This is alear case of the properties of macroscopic objexts reducing to geometry and NOT reducing to physics.
Biologic systems can sometimes metabolize one version of a complex molecule but can't metabolize molecules made of the same constituent elements in the same basic pattern but of opposite chirality.
The notion that all physical phenomena reduce to quantuk theory is horse hockey.
50:45: I can't hang details on this; I'd need to think about it for a while. But I've always had the impression that the Many Worlds guys like their program because it gets rid of the need to talk about anything related to minds, God, etc. They want things to be just as pat as possible so that that stuff never even gets mentioned. I.e., it's a "backlash" against the words of some of the early quantum pioneers about observer consciousness and so on - they want to crush that stuff and crush it good.
Hard disagree, MWI has to posit discussions about observer and consciousness to even make sense. Einstein already pointed out that we do not observe "probability waves" associated with individual particles in the real world, we only observe real waves which are composed of ensembles of particles. If you believe these "probability waves" exist, they only exist as something which is _in itself_ unobservable and thus can only be observed by its _effects_ it has on particles.
This leads to a problem in MWI. They deny that there really is ever a "collapse" into observable particles, so there is _only_ unobservable waves. How can a theory that does not include anything observable at all explain what we actually observe? This forces MWI to get into a discussion about consciousness and how human observers interpret the world
This isn't the only example of this. MWI proponents say the view is deterministic, but in real-world empirical practice, it is random. If there are two possibilities, A and B, we only observe A _or_ B, not both. Of course, the fact we observe one or the other is obvious if we live in a branching multiverse, but what is not obvious is why, if we let's say measure A, that we measured A and not B. This is a different question than asking why we measure one but not both, it is to ask why, if the branching is deterministic, we measure one and not the other.
Again, MWI proponents then always have to get into a philosophical discussion on the nature of consciousness and how we experience the world. MWI is not an interpretation that can be made much sense of without a discussion of consciousness and possibly even neuroscience, and it's not clear they even have a coherent answer to this yet. Some just shrug it off and say it will be answered one day by neuroscience, a bit like the _promissory materialists_ that Karl Popper criticized.
There are plenty of other interpretations that do not have to bring up consciousness or observers at all and are entirely ignored, like Einstein's ensemble interpretation or Rovelli's relational interpretation. From my interactions with MWI proponents, it is clear to me they believe in MWI because they like the Sci-Fi nature of it, not because it even makes sense philosophically.
@@QuantumPolyhedron Oh... I like the phrase "promissory materialism." Yes, that has always bothered me - it comes down to "Well, this is the only way it could possibly be, so you kind of have to agree with us."
And on the earlier parts of your reply, fair enough - I think you make good points and I'm afraid I have to confess that MWI has always been so unappealing to me that I've never done a truly "deep dive" into it. They say it's "parsimonius," but it just has never felt that way to me.
Bohm's ideas have an appeal, but those seem to be problematic to extend to a field theory level as well. Honestly, I've just never had a problem with the idea that all science really addresses is our perceptions, and therefore doesn't say much of anything about the underlying processes that result in those perceptions. This notion affects how I feel about all the "simulation hypothesis" talk too - I have little use for it, because... how would we know? How does it matter, if we wind up with the same perceptions either way? On that issue, I usually fall onto the idea that regardless of whether WE live in a simulation or not, somewhere in the whole game there has to be beings that experienced natural abiogenesis SOMEHOW, so why not just assume that's us and dispense with the need to ALSO invoke computational apparatus capable of housing conscious minds? It seems simpler. Plus computer technology (the hardware side primarily) is my career, and I can talk sensibly about what happens in computers all the way down to the level of semiconductor physics, and I just see no way those processes could ever result in self-aware consciousness. I don't know what it is that's different about us and our brains, but something is. And it's something that we do not understand at this time, and so have no hope of replicating in something we build. I suppose one might say we could "stumble onto it by accident," but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
38:43 Tim, try your arguments forgetting about the Schrodinger wave function and focusing on Heisenberg observables. Suddenly, quantum theory appears as local and realistic.
Quantum mechanics was always local. It was never separable. That most people don't know the difference isn't being helped by switching the representation. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Well, Heisenberg observables are located at each subsystem, the Schrödinger wave, at a first glance, is in amhigher level pf abstraction.
@@bygabop9368 The only observables that exist are quanta of energy. Everything else is just data analysis juggling. ;-)
Some of this reminds me of the distinction in statistics between definitional formulas which clearly represent what a particular statistic fundamentally is vs algebraically equivalent formulas used in calculation to simplify computstion, refuce rounding error, etc.
Which is real? At one level, it makes no sense to say that one of two algebraixally equivalent formulas is mote real than the other. They are the same thing. At the level of statistical explication, howevever, the definitionsl firmula is more explanatory and hooks up easily to probability theiry. On the level of computational approximstion, on the third hand, the algebraically compact formula gives more rapid and more accurate results.
It helps to pay attention to what exactly you are asking when youvare asking which model is more real.
The only things that are "real" are those that can be remembered. Why are you asking kindergarten level questions?
@@schmetterling4477 Still smarting from our last exchange? Your comment is ridiculous.
@@johnrichardson7629 You simply sound like somebody who has forgotten everything we tried to teach in K-3. ;-)
1:00:20: Yes, but let's actually *talk about* the attempts to extend pilot wave theory to a relativistic version. I'm no expert, but what I've *heard* is that this is quite problematic. And if it can't be extended, it can't be right. It's not something you can just hum and look the other way on. Just having the non-relativistic version look happy and nice isn't enough.
I don’t get the ontological, or lack thereof, arguments against QM as a physical theory. It describes the way the physical universe is and its structure has predicted and otherwise lead to an unbelievable amount of physical apparatus and technology that is used in our macroscopic frame. Who says the universe must be constructed in such a way that we should be able to understand it by drawing analogies to phenomenon we witness macroscopically? As it turns out, it’s impossible to describe using those kinds of analogies and only a mathematical framework can possibly ever be used by humans to understand the physical universe at these microscopic scales.
There is no lack of ontology in quantum mechanics. It's just so simple that we can teach it in a single sentence in high school and that puts the likes of Tim Maudlin out of things to talk about.
I find it to be a very bad argument when people point out that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics make no sense and other people respond just with "well the universe doesn't have to make sense." It's reminiscence of Christians who respond to you pointing out that their concept of the divine makes no sense and them saying "well God doesn't have to be intelligible to human reason." It's basically just a deflection to get away with making incoherent claims. Your claims should indeed be sensible, or else they are nonsense.
and no a classical system can do anything a quantum system can do, it just doesn't do it with the same correlations on average. and no there is no experiment to contradict that because any 1 outcome cant help you with that distinction.
The interviewer is in over his head,
no, the thing is if the wavefunction represents the ignorance of some trajectory or momentum or whatever, that doesn't mean the property of the knowledge interferes, it simply means you have some system that interferes with itself and you don't know how. granted that is not enough for qm, but it's not as simple as you made it seem :). for example in any entangled system you just treat the non separable parts as one system which can have a certain number of outcomes, which correspond to a set of trajectories for how they got there for each outcome, you just cant treat subsystems of that system in a simple way aka there are certain combinations of trajectory correlations that you don't see as often or whatever.
Why are you telling us that you don't know what a wave function is? ;-)
Please help me im lost in math
Yes, it was all derailed after Copenhagen & has stagnated since. The Standard Model is hidious.
Tim's insights interspersed with a bunch of "uhms"
Jones Maria Young Donna Perez William
Perez Sharon Perez Edward Young Amy
He keeps saying Schrodinjer.
still no hot-tub...
All in due time
Succinct.
Maudlin is great. The interviewer is annoyingly mediocre; can't even speak.
This is metaphysics, mere philosophy. Unrelated to empirical science.
It's not even that. It's just Tim Maudlin listening to Tim Maudlin talk. ;-)
Non-locality. Sorry. Anytime you can't explain something, you don't just embrace fantasy. Can you ever do an experiment with two particles on the opposite side of the universe? No. No you can't. So, stop claiming you know what would happen. I'm not even saying that everything is local. I'm saying we don't know. And claiming that proof that hidden variables in particles (in particles, key here) doesn't exist then non-local is real ... sorry I don't buy it. Just because hidden variables don't exist in particles only shows that it doesn't exist in particles. It does not prove non-local interaction, which is just a hypothesis that you can never prove. Sorry. Maudlin is usually very unambiguous but on this matter he is all hand waving, just like everyone else, to my knowledge.
You are right and the nobel prize people are just stupid. The experiments were a conspiracy right. Do you also believe in bigfoot and aliens?
Your music is obnoxious
Finally someone speaking truth.