Paul I would love an episode on possibilities of a dark sector with dark particles and fields. Or even UDQuark matter being made similarly to antiprotonic matter instead of trying to make strange quark matter. And what those things could mean. Or even quasi particles. I mean some people seem to explain that quasiparticles are just mathematical tools to modularize the math while others seem to explain them as secondary complex fields that arise from more fundamental forces… which interpretation is correct or provides the most proof? So many questions.
Aaaaaaaaand here it is: 3:32😅 5:20-great position to hold. You could be so open minded you start looking into those globe deniers who talk about this field in another worldview…. 🤔 This is a great episode. New sub
I quite like the view that: Actuality is what is 'actually' out there (/in here)... and; Reality is what we 'realise' (i.e. within our minds); and in the end, we are only equipped to 'know' the latter...
How do you define mind? As a bag or container? Or do you mean brain? Also, surely what we experience as 'out there' is in fact inside the brain, given the motion of light and the fact that visual experiences depend on light (assuming of course that I am not in a solipsistic universe). Also, how do you understand the difference between, say, the reality of dreams versus that of a solid body? Surely there is no single meaning to words like 'real' or 'exists': a point 'exists' on a line but not the way your couch exists.
Yer yer, we know. If you understand anything about quantum physics you don’t know how many episodes there’s going to be. And if you know how many episodes, you don’t know anything about quantum mechanics? 😂🎉🐈
Paul, interesting discussion about QM. Do you think that consciousness is a construct of QM in that consciousness can exist on a quantum level? Everyone can describe consciousness, although no one can explain its most primary building blocks. They just say, well, if you form atoms into a human brain you will have consciousness. That's great, but think of a very small living organism, like a dust mite that also has a brain (albeit a very small one) and also has consciousness. You can say for sure that consciousness exists even in a very small scale brain, and potentially in microscopic things too, like for example a virus. That's a stretch to make that statement. But think about it for a minute. Perhaps a brain is not even required to have consciousness. I know this sounds absurd, but if consciousness exists on the QM scale, then even microscopic things may have consciousness. I'm not talking about intelligence here, I'm simply talking about consciousness, the state of being self aware. Your thoughts?
Solar system . System of the star a energy womb that births photons and forms planets . Solar system grows and ages as the galactic system grows ages becoming more complex and entangled as older atoms are used as antenna between systems
Paul, I am a walk in.i found out what I went through today. Around my 35th birthday (Oct) I died inside, sense then my life has completely changed. In everyway. I would like to be hypnotized to know about my body's new soul.
I don't understand why pilot wave theory leads to universal entanglement. I thought entanglement was a very delicate process and any disturbance could destroy this entanglement. Wouldn't entanglement be fairly local except for special (lab like) conditions? Or something like gravity where the strength of the field drops off so fast that although it's technically infinite it's practically limited? Also completely unrelated and with my deepest apologies to Sean Carrol but many worlds is ridiculous and extremely unwieldy. I just can't see it. Too many darn bifurcated universes. I'm putting my chips on pilot wave.
To quote Alan Watts, "reality is." It's almost amusing how closely your thoughts on QM parallel the ancient Hindu and Buddhist teachings about non-duality, just with a different rhetorical framing. You could even argue that this isn't a way of thinking we've never utilized before but rather one we've forgotten about. Not to say the Buddha Guatama understood QM, just that it presents a similar way of thinking about the universe
Dr. Paul - 14:41 - "...there is no objective reality except the one we create within ourselves." Of course, you subsequently confirm that you know that's a pantload...er, except that in one very important sense, it's true. I don't mean the notion that there's no reality "out there"; I completely agree with that. The problematic part is the "objective" descriptor. Stay with me on this... You must be familiar with Sir Arthur Eddington, so I need not establish his reputation as a credible scientist of significant achievement, notwithstanding his dispute with Chandrasekhar and other lapses of...er, judgment. But no one's perfect. Anyhow, one of Eddington's lesser known works is _The Philosophy of Physical Science,_ which I regard as one of the great works on scientific epistemology. In it, he exposes the myth of "objectivity". What he did *_not_* mean was that there is no real, physical universe "out there" - the stuff that physics observes and describes. Rather, his point was that all knowledge is subjective; that is, knowing requires a knower. Questions like, "What does it all mean?" are only asked by conscious minds who look for "meaning". We cannot know anything except subjectively. I get his point. Statements like, "Let's be objective..." are misleading. No one is "objective", in the sense that Eddington meant. Perhaps our relentless insistence that reality is something we can know "objectively" is the reason that we keep running into the same brick wall the bugged the hell out of Schrödinger. In a very precise and specific sense, "it's all subjective" is a fundamental truth. In other words, things like the collapse of the wave function and the quantum measurement problem are consequences of a problem of our own making - namely, a category error, wherein we treat "objective reality" as something we can know and understand "objectively", when the truth is that knowledge/understanding *_itself_* is intrinsically subjective - something that only involves the conscious, inherently subjective mind. Stated alternatively, a rock doesn't give a rip about the quantum measurement problem. It's only a problem for us humanoids, who insist that our ineluctably subjective interactions with the world around us can somehow be "objective". So far, I'd say we haven't succeeded in cramming that "objective" square peg into our subjective round hole.
You know if our minds operate using quantum mechanical principals then it would make sense for observation to itself cause quantum collapse. There could also be the argument that we are doing essentially the WW2 bomber thing where you armor the wrong part because the ones that survive were shot there, that we think when we observe something it causes quantum collapse but in reality we only see the collapse occurring because we are looking for it, when otherwise it collapses all the time when not observed but since we arent measuring at that time we dont realize it's always happening.
I'm propably too late to the show, but first let me express how much I enjoy your passionate way of teaching QM and cosmology! I have an odd question about the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, and I really would like to address it to a physicist without raising suspicion of falling into Quantum Wu. In his book 'Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology' Andrei Linde provides an unorthodox view into the CI of QM - he says that in the moment of decoherence (or measurement) the universe splits into the observer and the observed rest-universe; the latter one develops 'quasi-classical' according to the laws of QM as temporal experience in front of the observer. I always felt his interpretation to be a fascinating insight into a self-observing universe with all the limitations Gödel's Incompleteness implies. And I always wondered - in this picture, does QM necessarily also apply to the observer? Is the observer a quantum object, as the observed rest-universe is?
How about this interpretation? Our macroscopic instruments (our eyes, some electronics or whatever) which we use to observe the quantum phenomena cannot produce a measurement result which is a superposition, because the macroscopic size of the instrument causes the state of the instrument itself to decohere instantly into a classical state?
Brain - Mind ----- Our brain works on a dualistic basis: usually consciousness and rarely subconsciousness. ------ 1 - Consciousness of the brain works on various electromagnetic energy fields (alpha, beta, . . . etc.) An electroencephalogram (EEG) can record this ''normal logical'' electrical activity of the brain (brain works as computer - "Turing Machine") 2 - Subconsciousness is process on micro-quantum-level (brain suddenly takes a new decision / action - "eureka") The reason of unconscious process is quantum particle . Suggestion: According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only one (1) electron can manage an atom, molecule, cell, brain. ----- a) Quantum process appears when all atoms of brain are in Bose-Einstein state (superfluidity). b) Then the electron gains strength to ''superconductivity'' and can change the old brain's program to a new decision - "eureka". New decision is result of - a "Self-quantum particle". c) After a short moment- "eureka" the brain again works like a computer. (but according to a new program) d) In the brain Quantum mechanics is connected with the unconscious process. =====. ''The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ... without recourse to the concept of consciousness.'' - Eugene Wigner # Book: ‘'The Holographic Universe’' ''Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain'' / page 160, by Michael Talbot / # “… Indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of consciousness must provide the basis of an improved understanding of quantum mechanics. ” / Evan Walker / ======.
I don't remember where the quote came from, but it always stuck with me and I bring it out whenever someone asks me these nature-of-existence questions: "I am eagerly awaiting additional data". They are not the make-up-your-mind-or-get-eaten-by-a-lion type of questions*, it's perfectly OK not to have a definitive answer. * I'm sure the Nobel prize would be nice though 😄
A real gem. Bookmarked. Made me chuckle as I’ve been a palaeontologist for 45 years I never once have I been involved in any research that uses the word, evolution. We don’t study evolution we study physical evidence of past life which is more or less equivalent of ‘shut up and calculate’. What does it all mean? I have no idea as it’s not really a subject of palaeontology but rather of philosophy. Nobody actually reads Darwin as it would be all pretty dry stuff I completely irrelevant to 99.99% of research. We just all except that Darwin was on the right track and that’s as much attention as we give evolution.
Interesting perspective you bring, thanks for sharing! Your studies of physical evidence over time is what suggests the "patterns" of evolution for evolutionary scientists to make their theories.
About 05:12 I'm absolutely not happy with declaring the electron just a mathematical trick. Mere mathematical tricks don't leave traces in misst chambers, I think.
It's like the time I tried to learn origarmy, no matter how many cakes I baked I couldn't understand it . I measured the ingredients over and over - nothing !
Going down the rabbit hole @ 1:21 AM, EST in Florida & this is where I end for the day/ night/ space & time... 🤷🏾♀️😁 ***from my genius 7 yr old sons account! I subscribed for him & will make sure to do so from mine also! I feel so privileged to have found this channel! Thanks for sharing ❤️
Paul, true story: once upon a time I was alone in an indoor pool when suddenly a huge amount of water in the pool flowed up one side of the pool and spilled out across the deck. There was nothing that I noticed that caused this and I was astonished to see the laws of physics be so blatantly defied. Though I had no direct evidence, I reasoned what must happened: I was in an indoor pool in the belly of a cruise ship and the entire ship must have tilted. Likewise, in Quantum Mechanics, we are relentlessly studying the crazy stuff we see and are missing the big picture. I look forward to the day we discover the cruise ship of the universe.
Great insight! Cruise ship indeed. We are born in/on it and who knows what generations or forms lie behind or before us or where the ship may be headed. As one who spent ten years in the black gang making ships go, but having no say on where they went nor what they did when there, and could only occasionally come up and look around to see where we were and what was going on outside my engine room world, I can relate to your insight. I sailed over a dozen ships often hearing from fellow crew members 'on my last ship we did this' and 'by-golly, my next ship will...'. Often thinking about the last ship or the next ship, while being in the current one.
Oh please!?! Unless a person has had as many injuries aseye over a twentythree year period and, spent the next thirty oddsome observing, amending, mending and re-initialising a neural network; as such No Chance!!! And anyone that thinks otherwise needs too go back to school though I do knot think there is an establishment for such??? Consciousness ha ha dream on!!!
Don't get overwhelmed by it all. Things could still get all figured out. Just realize that we in 2023 were born much too soon. But maybe we can contribute our bit to the ultimate understanding and help to bring it about. We've come so far, and we have the capacity to go much further. Perhaps all the way.
Most people don't have a problem living in an expanding universe but ask them what does the rabbit hole look like or dimensions and crickets they can't imagine that.
"...let yourself breathe a little, and allow the lessons of quantum mechanics to alter the way you see the world." Some of the best advise from any science series I've seen this year.
It is irksome when people like Chopra try to co-op QM for pseudoscience, religion, spirituality, etc. and claim it explains consciousness. I'll just accept that my classical brain can't rationalize the weirdness.
About consciousness collapsing the wave function:Some highly credible sources say that consciousness collapses the wave function including John Wheeler,Professor Andrew Truscott,Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Scientific American magazine and Albert Einstein.
The majority prefer a classical interpretation of MORALS AND VALUES. The alternative is chaos. Example: the LBGTQ++++++++++ people and their "movement". Gender IS BINARY.
I would be ok with 1000 episodes on QM....just sayin'...
Quantum Mechanics Episodes=X+1
Same!!
Paul I would love an episode on possibilities of a dark sector with dark particles and fields. Or even UDQuark matter being made similarly to antiprotonic matter instead of trying to make strange quark matter. And what those things could mean. Or even quasi particles. I mean some people seem to explain that quasiparticles are just mathematical tools to modularize the math while others seem to explain them as secondary complex fields that arise from more fundamental forces… which interpretation is correct or provides the most proof? So many questions.
Brilliant...consciousness woven, orchestrated, in time.
I need x+1 more of these videos 😂
Ah, philosophy... for when you don't want to shut-up and you don't want to calculate. No wonder that collides with physics. :P
Aaaaaaaaand here it is: 3:32😅
5:20-great position to hold. You could be so open minded you start looking into those globe deniers who talk about this field in another worldview…. 🤔
This is a great episode. New sub
Everyone keeps talking about how weird quantum physics is.
We get it.
It's weird.
I'd like to learn more about it.
I quite like the view that:
Actuality is what is 'actually' out there (/in here)... and;
Reality is what we 'realise' (i.e. within our minds);
and in the end, we are only equipped to 'know' the latter...
How do you define mind? As a bag or container? Or do you mean brain? Also, surely what we experience as 'out there' is in fact inside the brain, given the motion of light and the fact that visual experiences depend on light (assuming of course that I am not in a solipsistic universe). Also, how do you understand the difference between, say, the reality of dreams versus that of a solid body? Surely there is no single meaning to words like 'real' or 'exists': a point 'exists' on a line but not the way your couch exists.
Yer yer, we know. If you understand anything about quantum physics you don’t know how many episodes there’s going to be. And if you know how many episodes, you don’t know anything about quantum mechanics? 😂🎉🐈
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe",René Magritte
Paul, interesting discussion about QM. Do you think that consciousness is a construct of QM in that consciousness can exist on a quantum level? Everyone can describe consciousness, although no one can explain its most primary building blocks. They just say, well, if you form atoms into a human brain you will have consciousness. That's great, but think of a very small living organism, like a dust mite that also has a brain (albeit a very small one) and also has consciousness. You can say for sure that consciousness exists even in a very small scale brain, and potentially in microscopic things too, like for example a virus. That's a stretch to make that statement. But think about it for a minute. Perhaps a brain is not even required to have consciousness. I know this sounds absurd, but if consciousness exists on the QM scale, then even microscopic things may have consciousness. I'm not talking about intelligence here, I'm simply talking about consciousness, the state of being self aware. Your thoughts?
Solar system . System of the star a energy womb that births photons and forms planets . Solar system grows and ages as the galactic system grows ages becoming more complex and entangled as older atoms are used as antenna between systems
Sounds a lot like panpsychism...
I love these longer episodes! I'm down for many more.
Paul, I am a walk in.i found out what I went through today. Around my 35th birthday (Oct) I died inside, sense then my life has completely changed. In everyway. I would like to be hypnotized to know about my body's new soul.
Best classes; I've ever been in. & I'm at home. Best of both world's ☯️ thanks 2all those teacher's, now & zen.💡
I don't understand why pilot wave theory leads to universal entanglement. I thought entanglement was a very delicate process and any disturbance could destroy this entanglement. Wouldn't entanglement be fairly local except for special (lab like) conditions? Or something like gravity where the strength of the field drops off so fast that although it's technically infinite it's practically limited?
Also completely unrelated and with my deepest apologies to Sean Carrol but many worlds is ridiculous and extremely unwieldy. I just can't see it. Too many darn bifurcated universes. I'm putting my chips on pilot wave.
Funny enough ever since I was a kid I basically rolled with the motto that our universe is established on the dynamics of dice rolls
To quote Alan Watts, "reality is."
It's almost amusing how closely your thoughts on QM parallel the ancient Hindu and Buddhist teachings about non-duality, just with a different rhetorical framing. You could even argue that this isn't a way of thinking we've never utilized before but rather one we've forgotten about.
Not to say the Buddha Guatama understood QM, just that it presents a similar way of thinking about the universe
Dr. Paul - 14:41 - "...there is no objective reality except the one we create within ourselves." Of course, you subsequently confirm that you know that's a pantload...er, except that in one very important sense, it's true. I don't mean the notion that there's no reality "out there"; I completely agree with that. The problematic part is the "objective" descriptor. Stay with me on this...
You must be familiar with Sir Arthur Eddington, so I need not establish his reputation as a credible scientist of significant achievement, notwithstanding his dispute with Chandrasekhar and other lapses of...er, judgment. But no one's perfect. Anyhow, one of Eddington's lesser known works is _The Philosophy of Physical Science,_ which I regard as one of the great works on scientific epistemology. In it, he exposes the myth of "objectivity".
What he did *_not_* mean was that there is no real, physical universe "out there" - the stuff that physics observes and describes. Rather, his point was that all knowledge is subjective; that is, knowing requires a knower. Questions like, "What does it all mean?" are only asked by conscious minds who look for "meaning". We cannot know anything except subjectively.
I get his point. Statements like, "Let's be objective..." are misleading. No one is "objective", in the sense that Eddington meant. Perhaps our relentless insistence that reality is something we can know "objectively" is the reason that we keep running into the same brick wall the bugged the hell out of Schrödinger. In a very precise and specific sense, "it's all subjective" is a fundamental truth.
In other words, things like the collapse of the wave function and the quantum measurement problem are consequences of a problem of our own making - namely, a category error, wherein we treat "objective reality" as something we can know and understand "objectively", when the truth is that knowledge/understanding *_itself_* is intrinsically subjective - something that only involves the conscious, inherently subjective mind.
Stated alternatively, a rock doesn't give a rip about the quantum measurement problem. It's only a problem for us humanoids, who insist that our ineluctably subjective interactions with the world around us can somehow be "objective". So far, I'd say we haven't succeeded in cramming that "objective" square peg into our subjective round hole.
You know if our minds operate using quantum mechanical principals then it would make sense for observation to itself cause quantum collapse. There could also be the argument that we are doing essentially the WW2 bomber thing where you armor the wrong part because the ones that survive were shot there, that we think when we observe something it causes quantum collapse but in reality we only see the collapse occurring because we are looking for it, when otherwise it collapses all the time when not observed but since we arent measuring at that time we dont realize it's always happening.
I'm propably too late to the show, but first let me express how much I enjoy your passionate way of teaching QM and cosmology!
I have an odd question about the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, and I really would like to address it to a physicist without raising suspicion of falling into Quantum Wu.
In his book 'Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology' Andrei Linde provides an unorthodox view into the CI of QM - he says that in the moment of decoherence (or measurement) the universe splits into the observer and the observed rest-universe; the latter one develops 'quasi-classical' according to the laws of QM as temporal experience in front of the observer.
I always felt his interpretation to be a fascinating insight into a self-observing universe with all the limitations Gödel's Incompleteness implies.
And I always wondered - in this picture, does QM necessarily also apply to the observer? Is the observer a quantum object, as the observed rest-universe is?
How about this interpretation? Our macroscopic instruments (our eyes, some electronics or whatever) which we use to observe the quantum phenomena cannot produce a measurement result which is a superposition, because the macroscopic size of the instrument causes the state of the instrument itself to decohere instantly into a classical state?
Brain - Mind
-----
Our brain works on a dualistic basis:
usually consciousness and rarely subconsciousness.
------
1 - Consciousness of the brain works on various
electromagnetic energy fields (alpha, beta, . . . etc.)
An electroencephalogram (EEG) can record this ''normal logical'' electrical
activity of the brain (brain works as computer - "Turing Machine")
2 - Subconsciousness is process on micro-quantum-level
(brain suddenly takes a new decision / action - "eureka")
The reason of unconscious process is quantum particle .
Suggestion:
According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only one (1) electron
can manage an atom, molecule, cell, brain.
-----
a) Quantum process appears when all atoms of brain are
in Bose-Einstein state (superfluidity).
b) Then the electron gains strength to ''superconductivity'' and
can change the old brain's program to a new decision - "eureka".
New decision is result of - a "Self-quantum particle".
c) After a short moment- "eureka" the brain again works like a computer.
(but according to a new program)
d) In the brain Quantum mechanics is connected with the unconscious process.
=====.
''The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.''
- Eugene Wigner
#
Book: ‘'The Holographic Universe’'
''Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be the brain
that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness that creates
the appearance of the brain''
/ page 160, by Michael Talbot /
#
“… Indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics. ”
/ Evan Walker /
======.
I don't remember where the quote came from, but it always stuck with me and I bring it out whenever someone asks me these nature-of-existence questions: "I am eagerly awaiting additional data". They are not the make-up-your-mind-or-get-eaten-by-a-lion type of questions*, it's perfectly OK not to have a definitive answer.
* I'm sure the Nobel prize would be nice though 😄
A real gem. Bookmarked. Made me chuckle as I’ve been a palaeontologist for 45 years I never once have I been involved in any research that uses the word, evolution. We don’t study evolution we study physical evidence of past life which is more or less equivalent of ‘shut up and calculate’. What does it all mean? I have no idea as it’s not really a subject of palaeontology but rather of philosophy. Nobody actually reads Darwin as it would be all pretty dry stuff I completely irrelevant to 99.99% of research. We just all except that Darwin was on the right track and that’s as much attention as we give evolution.
Interesting perspective you bring, thanks for sharing! Your studies of physical evidence over time is what suggests the "patterns" of evolution for evolutionary scientists to make their theories.
About 05:12
I'm absolutely not happy with declaring the electron just a mathematical trick. Mere mathematical tricks don't leave traces in misst chambers, I think.
My word for it is mathmagical. Real but not understood. Even math has its limits. Oh my gosh did I really just say that?
More of this please! This is the best one yet, and perfect to show people who arent yet with the quantum.
It's like the time I tried to learn origarmy, no matter how many cakes I baked I couldn't understand it . I measured the ingredients over and over - nothing !
I enjoy your channel. Please keep up the good work!
If tried to apply quantum rules to your everyday life you'ld get in a lot of traffic accidents ;)
I attended several of your lectures at OSU...
I'm an ex-nuclear physicist turned therapist.
Thank you for this :)
Going down the rabbit hole @ 1:21 AM, EST in Florida & this is where I end for the day/ night/ space & time... 🤷🏾♀️😁
***from my genius 7 yr old sons account! I subscribed for him & will make sure to do so from mine also! I feel so privileged to have found this channel! Thanks for sharing ❤️
I am at the same time but in MST and I feel that the rabbit hole is getting crowded!!!
Hmmm, the existence, or not, of the electron is another episode. Or should be.
Can we make sense and give meaning to the world outside and to our mind inside via a quantum mindset?
Travis Taylor claims our brain is a quantum computer?
Your a legend your channel is amazing
I think, therefore, I create.
Paul, true story: once upon a time I was alone in an indoor pool when suddenly a huge amount of water in the pool flowed up one side of the pool and spilled out across the deck. There was nothing that I noticed that caused this and I was astonished to see the laws of physics be so blatantly defied. Though I had no direct evidence, I reasoned what must happened: I was in an indoor pool in the belly of a cruise ship and the entire ship must have tilted. Likewise, in Quantum Mechanics, we are relentlessly studying the crazy stuff we see and are missing the big picture. I look forward to the day we discover the cruise ship of the universe.
This was an incredibly dumb analogy
Seems like a rocking ship would've been your first thought since you were on a ship
Great insight! Cruise ship indeed. We are born in/on it and who knows what generations or forms lie behind or before us or where the ship may be headed. As one who spent ten years in the black gang making ships go, but having no say on where they went nor what they did when there, and could only occasionally come up and look around to see where we were and what was going on outside my engine room world, I can relate to your insight. I sailed over a dozen ships often hearing from fellow crew members 'on my last ship we did this' and 'by-golly, my next ship will...'. Often thinking about the last ship or the next ship, while being in the current one.
Can we have an episode on the James Webb telescope please.
very nice, thank you
♥
Oh please!?! Unless a person has had as many injuries aseye over a twentythree year period and, spent the next thirty oddsome observing, amending, mending and re-initialising a neural network; as such No Chance!!! And anyone that thinks otherwise needs too go back to school though I do knot think there is an establishment for such???
Consciousness ha ha dream on!!!
Brilliant analysis.
Don't get overwhelmed by it all. Things could still get all figured out. Just realize that we in 2023 were born much too soon. But maybe we can contribute our bit to the ultimate understanding and help to bring it about. We've come so far, and we have the capacity to go much further. Perhaps all the way.
Excellent perspective. Very human centric approach. More episodes like this!
Your best episode ever....so far..
Most people don't have a problem living in an expanding universe but ask them what does the rabbit hole look like or dimensions and crickets they can't imagine that.
Love this
Are you uncertain you will only do 8 episodes?
Poor me, I can’t hate this guy!
1000 episodes please!
"...let yourself breathe a little, and allow the lessons of quantum mechanics to alter the way you see the world."
Some of the best advise from any science series I've seen this year.
It is irksome when people like Chopra try to co-op QM for pseudoscience, religion, spirituality, etc. and claim it explains consciousness. I'll just accept that my classical brain can't rationalize the weirdness.
About consciousness collapsing the wave function:Some highly credible sources say that consciousness collapses the wave function including John Wheeler,Professor Andrew Truscott,Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Scientific American magazine and Albert Einstein.
@@Sharperthanu1 There's no way to prove that, from my understanding, so it's hypothetical.
The majority prefer a classical interpretation of MORALS AND VALUES. The alternative is chaos. Example: the LBGTQ++++++++++ people and their "movement". Gender IS BINARY.
Always fascinating.