Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 січ 2013
- Even the professional understanding of quantum mechanics is "embarrassing", says cosmologist Sean Carroll.
Read Sean's blog on this subject at bit.ly/V1SUpV and the full paper at arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
We filmed with Sean during his visit to the University of Nottingham and will have more videos with him coming soon.
Check out Sean's website (and his excellent books) at: preposterousuniverse.com/
Read his Higgs Boson book: amzn.to/Nvdn8P
Visit the SIxty Symbols website at www.sixtysymbols.com/
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at #!/periodicvideos
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/i...
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
A run-down of Brady's channels:
periodicvideos.blogspot.co.uk/... - Наука та технологія
12% had "No Preference". I guess these are the die-hard "shut-up and calculate" folks.
That's probably a version of Feynman's path integral approach. (Calculating all possible paths for a certain action to occur, and seeing which action has the highest probability of occuring).
Or they're not allowed to say "electric universe" out of reasonable fear.
Or they belong to the "nothing anyone has come up with makes any sense" crowd.
That’s the Copenhagen interpretation
Shut up and calculate is the Copenhagen.
Maybe the Copenhagen interpretation is right and wrong at the same time....
+Brian Davies and it collapses to pure ignorance in the moment it is observed
Sort of, but it was always pure ignorance:?)
+Peter Luxus Collapses to pure ignorance? So, it collapses to islam ?
+Eng Are you lost? This is the Sixty Symbols video.
Joel Haggis Google "levity"
"The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks."
- Einstein
There were a lot of ideas Einstein didn't like how they felt, but ended up true anyway. He wanted a static universe but even his own attempts and rectifying the expanding universe just further proved the idea using his own equations/formulae. Even the cosmological constant he introduced to try to "fix" the issue just helped further affirm the expansion being a real thing.
@@DeathBringer769 Not a real thing, no decent evidence.
DigbySirChickenTF2 cosmological redshift is the evidence, dude we’ve known this since 1927 by Edwin Hubble
@@user-vq7th9gl7t That assumption that redshift is caused by expansion is erroneous, we are currently mapping the known universe whilst ignoring 'expansion' because its just not there.
DigbySirChickenTF2 dude that is nonsense the emission spectra of stars match exactly what scientists would expect from cosmological redshift and not a Doppler effect using the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker and the redshift- distance relationship give you a linear relationship which was predicted by Lemaître years earlier.
One of my hobbies is decohering wavefunctions and splitting universes.
Jim1971a I do this watching paint dry
That comment made my day hahaha
dont waste your life. there is not splitting universes
:-B Commonly called "chonging". Love ya, XXX :-B
There is actually an app
The interviewer is asking the sharpest, most accurate questions one could ask, in a way I would never be able to formulate. Gorgeous videos.
He did work at the bbc
Brady's questions are always spot on! This makes his videos so much more interesting and informative
"If it is wrong, that would be a huge step forward, obviously"
Science©™
@@frankvanwill5363 it is a quote
Even knowing something is wrong is knowing more about the real world than believing something is true when it's not.
This was actually one of the most understandable and interesting approaches to a difficult topic, Sean really has what it takes (at least when it comes to explaining) to be a good teacher!
"What counts as an observation" is the perfect question Brady, thanks!
Particle interaction
Sean Carroll is a genius.He keeps things so simple that even I, as a non-physicist, always understands the points he is making. Someone else who had this gift was Richard Feynman who also made difficult ideas easy to understand.
I am a Mathematics major and a few months back I started reading his book - Geometry and Spacetime out of curiousity. I was so amazed by the fact that I could understand the book. The only experience that I had in physics prior to that was in Fluid Mechanics, Classical Mechanics and Magneto Fluid Dynamics. He has a gift for explaining difficult topics.
gotta be something about that desk
Not really an embarrasment, but something expected. When people have no clue what the answer really is, their ideas are likely to vary. Especially what comes to these fundamental questions about the nature of reality.
At @11:40 Carroll briefly summarizes the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation as a "hidden variables" theory, but doesn't mention that the missing information is simply the exact physical trajectory of each subatomic particle. While some physicists may "recoil" at the hypothesis that particles actually do exist at deterministic locations, what's truly embarrassing is how Bohmian Mechanics resolves the paradoxes of the Copenhagen interpretation in a manner perfectly consistent with QM, but without resorting either to inexplicable "wavefunction collapse" or imperceptibly branching multiverses.
Lish Lash, Exactly. I was baffled with the results. Physicists somehow think branching multiverse is more practical than pilot wave theory. I don't understand this.
@Azure Dragon Particle entanglement is also a faster than light communication (namelly: instantaneous) that violates the special theory of relativity (that is why Einsteins did not belive in entanglement) and it is accepted as a fact by the main stream of the ortodox quantum mechanics. So I dont see it as an argument to dismish the pilot vawe interpretation. On the contrary, it is consistent with the entanglement . It could be that there are hidden dimensions (string theory uses 11 dimensions) where the initial universe, concentrate and tighly linked in a singularity, still is close conected despite of the large expansion in the in the 3 spatial dimenlsions we feel in our limited senses. It sounds to me less magical than the bizarre Copenhagen´s "colapse" and the unseen infinite many worlds spliting at each particle interaction
@@helenmay3721
Wrong. Entanglement is not ftl. The observer determines the state. There is no information sent.
Entanglement is tricky. What is nonlocal is the effect of the observation on changing the state, not the information traveling itself. The equations of quantum field theory are explicitly local. They have to be in order to be Lorentz invariant. Entanglement causes states to appear to collapse outside the light cone, but correlations between observables can't exist outside the light cone. Very specific difference. One reason the Bohm picture isn't received well is that the equations themselves that dictate the hidden variables are explicitly nonlocal, and ad hoc with respect to defining the trajectories. Ontologically, it's definitely the most satisfying interpretation. It just violates special relatively "more explicitly" than the other interpretations because the very equations themselves are explicitly nonlocal, which is I think why physicists don't like it.
Objective collapse theory solves the wavefunction collapse without anything needing to be added. It's just a matter of scale, as so many things in the world are.
This was one of the best videos so far. Dr. Carroll has a really intriguing way to talk and teach, I'd certainly like to hear more from him!
4am and here i am still watching physics vids....where did all the time go?
+Baz Peden every day...
+Baz Peden exactly 4:00 when I saw your comment
No it wasn't. Now never happens. The best you can say is it was when you typed the response. Exactly can not be known because by the time you record it, it is the past. I agree with Yoko Bongo and that makes it the past.
If that is so, then where is the past coming from?
If from in this past sense context "past means where in the recorded data was the data that preceded the recorded data?" ; then I would say after the preceding data. Otherwise, there is no framework in mathematics and physics for me to communicate the answer to the question.
The state of the cat in the box reminds me of the story of the eastern sage confronted by a group of detractors. One stated that he had a bird in his hands and challenged the sage to tell whether the bird was alive or dead. He realized it was a trick. If the sage said the bird was dead, the detractor would open his hands to reveal a live bird. If the sage said it was alive, the detractor would crush it to death, then reveal a dead bird.
The sage wisely answered, "it is as you wish".
But why the need for trickery and deceit
@@carlh3074 For the same reason that the internet is full of liars and their lies. As Socrates said, the only thing I know is that I know nothing. The 'net users make sure that that applies to everyone else too.
I sat through the entire 14 minute video and it never lost my attention, really great stuff
I read a quote from one of the famous early quantum theory pioneers (I can't remember which - Feynmann or Dyson or Gell-Mann or one of them, and I've lost track of where I read it) saying "You never really understand the new theory -- you just get used to it."
What kind of experiment could confirm or falsify the "many worlds" interpretation?
Taking the car-at-the-T-junction illustration -- before the car turns, there are two indistinguishable "worlds", and then the car turns one way or the other, causing them to be different - one has the car going left, the other going right -- but the two "worlds" cannot exchange information-- if I understand correctly. So before the split, the worlds are indistinguishable, and afterwords only one is observable-- the one we're in. Then again, I'm not sure how that's different from saying the car's wavefunction collapses from a state where both turns are possible to a state where one state ceases to exist.
I always wondered why no one mentioned the cat as an observer
Or for that matter, why not the sensor on the device that breaks the vial? I.e., if you run the thought experiment without putting a cat in the box to begin with? ;)
It’s a thought experiment so no those are not considered observers.
Or, *every Photon,* for that matter.
I heard the whole cat in the box suggestion was intended to point out an absurdity... and people started to think it was an honest proposal. Like when Adolf H was nominated for a nobel. It wasn't serious but the press loved it and now its history
At the local pet shop they now have automatic cat flaps that work at the same frequency as the chip in the cat's neck.
One of them malfunctioned and all the other cats in the neighbourhood were bypassing the electronic cat flap and stealing the poor feline's food.
What would Schrodinger have said?
Thanks for the videos, i really enjoyed them :) How Sean knows so much information baffles me ! To be fair though, he is a great communicator and i have a lot of respect for him..
..one of the best videos, because the Prof lays out the range of approaches and techniques. If theories are part and parcel of the process, then they will also evolve and adapt to encompass new data.
On its own, Quantum Fields integrate to form interactive reciprocal structures, pivoted on the unit quantum vector connection 1-0D, and theories are creatures of the environment, they'refitted to sets of dimensional relationships. The quality of existence is temporarily condensed into interactive quantities in every possible way, in a range of sustained probabilities. What You See Is What You Get, modulated-quantization measurement.
The explanations make sense, the detail of the approachs to the context is infinitely distributed by phase, so just identifying a function of quantization in a rational context is "job done". The rest is categorization of sub context, ie Quantum Fields, and if disagreement ends, it's probably because the world has ended.
The "hidden variables"/Bohm theory sounds most plausible to me... for the simple fact that it tends to be true that "we do not yet have all the information". Logically - having incomplete information about a system - would lead to uncertainty in any predictions made about said system. Even if the 'amount' of lacking information is ALMOST infinitely small. Adding enough 'infinitesimal ' imprecisions together... and they become 'something' to account for. Not knowing all the facts, also tends to lead to some confusion as to the understanding of, and communication about the subject... which i would say fit the subject "quantum mechanics" rather well :P
Big thumbs up for attempting to de-mystify QM a bit! :D
It's the most tempting. But in quantum mechanics, the position/momentum variables are what are known as "Fourier conjugates." These are functions that, when you transform one's statistical distribution into the other by the Fourier transform, it changes their shapes in a certain way. That is, one will always be spread out, the other will be sharp. You can make this precise by the uncertainty principle. Basically, it's a mathematical statement that the machinery of quantum mechanics forces you to conclude that measuring either position or momentum will cause more uncertainty in the other. It's spooky, as if knowing one thing more makes the other thing more unknowable, but that seems to be a feature of the variables themselves. It's at the heart of the interpretational question, and why many reject theories which include "hidden variables" to answer the measurement problem.
Aren't many of the interpretations mathematically equivalent? In that case there is no way and more importantly no need to choose one over the other. It's just a question of what point of view helps you personally to understand what's happening.
It is where physics meets philosophy
Thank you so much for posting this video. I could listen to Dr. Carroll talk about science all day.
De Broglie HAS NO VOTES?! WTF
I was just thinking the same. Pilot-Wave theory of Bohmian mechanics is my favorite
lavenderson its become more popular as of late
dev02ify It just brought attention to how such a thing might actually function. It was often being dismissed as “wrong” even though it actually made the same predictions.
Of course this is the reason this research was embarrassing. Instead of believing in a more practical De Broglie's interpretation, scientists somehow prefer unrealistic parallel universe theory. So sad
You guys do know that there’s no relativistic form of that interpretation, right? And besides that, who needs interpretations in quantum mechanics? Just do it like Dirac and get to the more fundamental things.
As an ignoramus, I like Bohm's interpretation. Makes the most sense to me.
What is it about Bohm's interpretation that makes sense to you?
I watch videos to try see whats up with physics & discover the experts are also confused... handy
CHARrrrrrrrr Yes but what is amazing is that the predictions of quantum mechanics, especially Quantum Electro-dynamics, are fantastically accurate. It is at some deeper, almost philosophical level, that physicists are puzzled.
The Everett interpretation makes the system and the observer part of one big theory. That is pleasing to scientists. The Bohr interpretation makes the observer distinct.... perhaps more consistent with beliefs that humans are special and that consciousness is outside science.
But no matter how you slice it, the predictions of Quantum Mechanics are very accurate and underpins our modern world.
jceepf It's similar to where we were at with gravity before Einstein. Newton's equations worked quite well, but it would be more than 250 years before anyone knew with certainty why gravity behaves the way it does. (Of course, even with gravity, there are still interesting questions just waiting to be answered.)
Dean Lizen You could actually push it further with Hawking's blackholes where, at the event horizon, the gravity as a concept fells apart.
+jceepf It's all unproven hogwash.
QED or Everett???? QED is the best theory physics has to offer....Everett is indeed not accessible to experimental verification.
Assuming that the proposed (Everet) version is correct that universes split and never interact again, and that they were always there prior to splitting (which is kinda what he is saying) would we be able to detect any variation in mass on a macro scale as time went on?
i think that the lack of agreement is an indication that we need to look into it further, and that we have lots of people thinking about various approaches to thinking about it. i can see why one can interpret it as an embarrassment, but i think that that line of thinking isn't very productive in discovering answers
Love this guy, I would love to see him in more videos (if he already isn't). He explains everything clearly. I personally lean toward Everett, GRW, and hidden Variables theory.
For me digital physics explains everything. Those wave-collapsing particles exhibit "lazy loading" behavior - the trick I as a programmer often use in my work.
Very interesting topic. I look at this as an event horizon that separates information on each side, isolating one from the other into separate "quantum universes."
Thus, it's a reciprocal process that requires interaction to occur to merge the two QU's, and it's that interaction that affects each other, like temperature differences transferring heat.
In short, the observed affects the observer just as much as the observer affects the observed.
6:09 I like what he said about Everett's theory: we too, are a quantum system.
So, my thought is there are not multiple worlds, but rather infinite probabilities. And we...a quantum system, interact with the other quantum system(s) e.g. a car and a road probability function which includes 2 high probabilities at say x= -582 for which Probability=49% turn left, and x= +320 for which Probability=49% turn right. Then instantaneously (or even 10 minutes before the interaction), we inject a thought waveform that appears as a probability decision...IOW,
e.g. for all x>0 P=0 and
for all x0 including x=+320. If our decision at the quantum level is a probability function (and why not?), then eliminating all x>0 leaves all x
So each atom has universe of probabilities? That is a ludicrous idea.
This video made me a better human being. Thank you Brady, Sean, and all who participate in this project.
Thank you very much for your reply. I am not a professional in any field, but I found the article intriguing. I also feel it leaves room for the Many Worlds interpretation say if we were wired to perceive all outcomes at the point of collapse. And though we are not those outcomes are all possible whether we perceive them or not.
I wonder if the "particles" are always wave packets & they only "collapse" when they interact with one another producing a pionted particle state which we can "observe".
I tend to think of time splitting into variable outcomes each with a closely resembling split that becomes very different at each successive split. Divergence.
Consensus sometimes slows progress.
Whether he may be right or wrong he's a very pleasing persuasive speaker.
Precisely the reason we should be consistently digging deeper into the realms of theoretical research and physics - fascinating and honest. If you have produced anything similar, please point me in the directtion of that video, but I was wondering: while there is still, obviously a great deal of understanding and learning to be acquired, the technological revolution that came about directly from the realm of quantum physics is now a major part of our lives; could you do a video that covers how our knowledge of quantum reality has impacted technology. OK, I could mention Lasers and solid-state circuitry, but the precise links elude many people (including myself), how precisely do these technologies operate within the quantum field?
How does the "many world interpretation" work with the "conservation of energy"?
Many thanks for all the great videos!
so in one universe, I finish this sentence, and in another universe, I just don
Who is don
So according to this many worlds theory, every quantum event triggers a split that radiates at the speed of light (speed of information and, by extent, speed of reality) across the universe? And very many such events happen all the time, so the multiverse looks like a fractal with "bubbles" growing and interacting and having more bubbles on top of them?
So there is no way to transmit any information whatsoever via this strand of theory.
Try "Electric Universe" for a far more satisfying brew... aaahh... that's better
kravcio They don’t travel at the speed of reality but the next event creates its own universe if that makes sense in every reference frame/scene. A crazy way of thinking about the quantum world is that a gluon could of moved 2x10^-15m instead of moving 2.5x10^-15m. It would and could possibly happen on a even smaller level we can’t observe. Even though the standard model doesn’t show any other smaller fundamental particles. There’s an infinite amount of infinite universes. There would be an infinite amount of our universes. And an infinite amount of infinite universes. I can’t explain this to you but my lecturer was going on about this and it’s mind boggling the whole concept on the quantum level and it’s explanations. If you would like to research into it. Watch explanation videos because it’s not easy to understand then go on to the research notes made by scientists and the data they’ve handled
Mr Everett was also, and importantly, the father of Mark Oliver Everett also known as "E"; singer and mastermind of the wonderful band The Eels.
Does the wave function collapse if the observer was not human ? Would I see interference pattern in a double-slit experiment if there was a detector behind 1 slit that "knows" if an electron passed through that slit, but I chose never to see the "result" ever in my life even after watching the interference pattern (and successfully controlling my urge to ever "see/check" the results in the detector).
Wow, why is De Broglie-Bohm mechanics ignored completely?! :O
The numbers in that survey are completely random
The Copenhagen is the answer because it got 42 percent, it can't be a coincidence :D
That is the answer, but what was the question?
You have 42 likes!!! Coincidence??
6 x 9 = 42. Blame the mice who use base 13!
As a non physicist who read up on the topic and learned some of the math, can i write a science paper giving my interpretation of QM, even as a thought experiment to illustrate it? If I wrote such a paper where would it go?
My favorite interpretation is Many Worlds too. I think that it is actually the same as the wave function not being a real thing, as simply the particles are really going all the possible ways simultaneously, just in different universes. The hidden variables might be right as well, as the particles known to us today might very well not be actually elementary, but instead composite of smaller ones, all the way down to the planck length. And the properties of those smaller components might lead to all the odd quantum behavior of the known particles. But even if there are really hidden variables, this is still consistent with the existence of many worlds. Also, it seems to me that hidden variables isn't very different than the information theory, which says that wave function is all we know, rather than all that is there in reality.
42%. wasn`t 42 the the final answer to life the universe and everything in HGTG?
+Franco Muscellini Blew my mind!
+Yedidiya T.M you lost me there
Franco Muscellini 42 was all that Dory could remember from the mask.
what
Infinite improbability drive
I love this guy. I agree with everything he said. This is amazing :D
4:45 "What can be on the other side of the equal sign that says to you: multiple universes? what's the result that says that, what's that equation look like?"
hahaha I'm so glad you asked that, it's exactly what I was thinking about, perfectly put!
I don’t like people saying the universe collapses when you look at it because it create confusion and all sorts of non-scientific thinking.
Why people don’t start saying that a quantum state collapses when something interact with it?
It’s more clear what happens and less “magic”
So with Many Worlds, wouldn't new Universes be splitting off every plank second for every observed particle? So there would be like Googles upon Googles of splits, and googles of splits ever second, right
+Geoffrey Zoref Infinitely many actually, and while it may be viewed by some as petty semantics, they don't technically "split," they diverge.
+Geoffrey Zoref Yeah. One might even go as far as saying that it is continually generating universes worht of energy because a new universe needs to be "created" at every collapse. Most interpretations of quantum seem to stem from people's desires for the universe to make more sense from their perspective, rather than just accepting the universe as it is. The simplest and most consistent approach is the Coppenhagen approach. It doesn't require hidden variables or multiple universes, or some religiously motivated pilot. The universe is just statistical, and that's ok.
+Fariman Math This attitude of "just accept the universe as it is (i.e. how I say it is)" is the kind of anti-intellectual garbage that has no place in science.
maybe the U splits only when particles interact, because that's the only time anything is measured.
Just freaky. And after 20 years ago reading about it, it's still freaky. Ahhhhhh!
In 20 years, Bohmain mechanics (seen as "De Broglie-Bohm" on the survey in this video) will be the most popular interpretation among professional physicists. You heard it here first.
I love Sixty Symbols and all other channels as well !!!!
I can't think of another Sixty Symbols video that has attracted this many ignorant comment trolls.
Absolutely
His voice is awesome. So easy to listen to.
Yep... like Kermit.
cameraman...........in debates his voice is ARROGANT & SMUG check it out.
Is the observer active or passive? Does it actively generate a Y that effects X? If the observer is passive does it's natural Y interact with the "aura" of X? It's obviously an interaction of some kind, particles don't "comprehend" because they lack the capacity to do so.
I like to think of it as simply adding a 5th dimension next to time, like time+"extra time" on a 2D plane, that effectively gives an infinite number of parallel universes but "5 dimensions" sounds simpler. The "observer" part would hint that the extra dimension isn't "smooth" like on a math graph you would zoom in infinitely, but I think that the same applies to time itself (from what I understand of Planck time).
I'd like to argue that isn't not embarrassing but promising. A diversity in opinions on fundamental things means that more perspectives are going to approach each one of our conundrums, such as the relationship between relativity and quantum physics.
Pyagrl*16 Relativity + quantum physics = "quantum electrodynamics", as I understand it.
+antiHUMANDesigns I think relativity plus quantum physics equals String Theory. But I guess it depends on which relativity you're referring to.
Tim Horton Nothing equals string theory. String theory is unsubstantiated. :)
antiHUMANDesigns Well yeah! However, that is the definition of String Theory.
Tim Horton OK, I don't know why you say that, because what you get is quanumt electrodynamics. If you'd get string theory, then that would imply that string theory has evidential support, and it doesn't.
All theories exist and are simultaneously right, but the theories collapse when someone picks a favorite. =D
I don't understand at around 9:00 when he explains and asks questions about the Copenhagen Interpretation:
"What happens if you open the box but don't look in" Yet when he was explaining the Everett Interpretation he did a good job of describing what "entanglement" really is. Therefore, the moment you open the box, light gets in, information exchange is possible, and thus the wave-function collapses to either dead cat or live cat. Is this any more fantastical than thinking the universe splits and allows for all possibilities (matter creation???). Personally, instead of saying infinite universes, I would rather constrain the physicists and say, there is an extraordinarily large BUT finite number of solutions as the more improbable events that can engage in a "splitting" get weeded out and cease to exist (the universe where an electron tunnels from one end of the sun to the other, as an example).
2:35 What if instead of making new worlds, we simply take a particular path through space-time? The car has the option of going left right or straight (and crashing) at the "T" junction. Both the road to the left and the road to the right exist before the car gets there and both will continue to exist regardless of which way the car goes. Perhaps what we see as time passing is just us moving through space-time. The events that take place in time are like the land marks on and around the road? Land marks that are 100 miles ahead and 100 miles behind both exist regardless of where we are on the road. In addition, land marks we won't see also exist along other roads.
LSD
Universe as a computer simulation hypothesis
Where is the computer, then?
Not enough atoms in the universe to construct a computer that could simulate the universr itself
@@adorabasilwinterpock6035 So then, that computer would reside inside the universe while simulating the existence of that universe. Circular reasoning!
@@adorabasilwinterpock6035 you dont need to simulate the entire universe all at once. there are a ton of optimizations that can be done. and the universe is infinite so how is there not enough atoms in the universe? are you confused with the observable universe?
This was a great video! Fabulous!
For those interested in yet another interpretation. Why not.
Here are my thoughts on CIG Theory as regards its interpretation:
Deterministic: YES>
Ontic Wave Function: YES>
Unique History: YES>
Hidden Variables: YES *1>
Collapsing Wave Function: YES>
Observer Role: No * 2>
Local Dynamics: YES>
Counterfactual Definiteness: YES *3>
Extant Universal Wave Function: YES *4>
*1 Found>
*2 Any Introduction that changes the rate of motion of the particle will> collapse the wave function.>
*3 If all known parameters are defined in advance (i.e. there is no> spontaneous collapse as in GRW)>
*4 Everything is everything else - as such a Universal Wave Function Exists> (Many Worlds exist only over infinite time, not in the same Universe)>
.
To entice you to study up on CIG Theory, the following is what the Theory purports to accomplish:
1) Solve/resolve the confusion surrounding the Double Slit experiment and place it's solution on a firm ground with reality
2) Offer up that new found reality
3) Redefine matter; Redefine Space
4) Combine the fundamentals
5) Bring back a cohesive concept of Conservation of Energy as regards Dark Energy and the accelerating Universe
6) Offer up a new science of pressure
7) Explain Dark Matter
8) Explain Dark Energy
9) Offer a solution to the Horizon Problem
10) Offer a solution to the Core-Cusp problem
11) Offer a solution to the Mott Problem
12) Offer a solution to Quantum Tunneling
13) Offer a coherent explanation of Red Shift anomalies
14) Provides for a Theory of Quantum Gravity
15) Provides for the distinction between the Classical World and the Quantum World
16) Redefines the Correspondence Principle
17) Offers up a quantification of an atomic mass unit and it's potential spatial quantity
18) Maintains consistency with the idea of Quantum Decoherence
19) Maintains consistency with the idea of Superposition
20) Explains why the Universe is Accelerating
21) Explains 'Why" E=mc2
22) Explains "why" large things are large and small things are small
23) Offers up a solution to the Neutrino mass problem
24) Provides a solution to the Measurement problem
25) Expands on the concept of Virtual Particles
26) Provides a new and dynamic view of the Night sky
27) May explain Sonoluminescence
28) Contains & maintains "Black Holes" within the theory
29) May provide insight on entanglement
30) Contemplates all permutations of all fundamentals in one "Conceptual Equation"
31) Redefines Einstein's Field Equation in terms of the "=" sign, as opposed to a proportionality only
32) Maintains consistency with relativistic theory
33) Is based on sound logic
34) More
🐣 🐦
Bruuuuuuh
@2.18 carroll is saying tracing but tracing is observing so you are collapsing the quantum world so i dont know what he means tracing it without being affected by quantum state?
...if you've ever truly learned or understood anything about quantum mechanics, you should know:
The "true" interpretation is a superposition of all these possible interpretations, duh!
That isn't what is meant here.
@@derekwhittom1639 it's a joke, which means, woosh
A few of the scientists in the poll thought so too. That's why the numbers add up to 129%.
I love watching these videos. I have no clue what they're saying.
I just keep watching and listening like a baby, and slowly the language doesn't seem so strange anymore. I say a few words haltingly, and soon I can ask a few basic questions. Enough to get by at least.
Spencer Geller Yer not the only one.
They are saying nothing - and I sense you realize it.
The situation in which the misunderstanding of wave-particle, Space-time Singularity positioning reciprocals is a little Embarrassing.
But not really surprising, in that it is a "Theory of Limit" concept of reverse cycle process reasoning, revolving in resonance around pure relative motion functions, of e-Pi-i elements, a universal probability spectrum in zero-infinity time-timing pulse-evolution integration locations/here-now-forever in this Singularity coordination Hologram.
Some things you can imagine through time-timing sync-duration identification, but those things imagined outside the connection may be embarrassing, so the natural limits of Calculus correspond to Quantum-fields Mechanism holography coordination of Fluxion-Integral logarithmic condensation wave-packaging in/of QM-TIME Completeness Actuality.
Ie all potential possibilities demonstrated mathematically via Singularity proof-disproof modulation aka QM is worth studying. (?)
An issue I like to point out in various discussions, and which applies here, is that confusion is the only result of mixing hard and fuzzy words in the same discussion. A hard word is like "rock" "copper" "water". A fuzzy word is like "meaning" "love" "universe". The hard words can be decomposed to their finer structures, at least to the point current technology allows. The soft words can't be decomposed. And some words are sort of hard and soft and can be decomposed to some extent, but in such a decomposition eventually the hard and soft are separated, and progress towards decomposition can proceed only on the hard part. Yes, "universe" is a fuzzy word. Some will say it means "everything" but that's hardly a definition. A definition has to set something apart, make it distinct. A "many universes" explanation of the "universe" is a sign of mental fatigue (and madness) - a cop out, as the "other universes" in which one is not a part are lost and gone forever, and so....who cares? How can a profit be turned ? The Copenhagen and other interpretations that try to focus on what is "real" are in fact focusing on profit. QM via Copenhagen has turned a profit, though much less than the plain old Newtonian physics, but as time goes on the profit from QM increases. And with Global Positioning System we see that Relativity has turned a nice profit. All the money burned by science comes from the mercantile sector because it is seen by that sector as a good investment over the long run. And tunneling down and looking for the base source of that money flow for science we find petroleum and coal, and all the pollution produced by their consumption. What can't turn a profit does not matter, as it will not matter. And I don't think "profit" is a fuzzy word, but it's definition is multi-faceted. We earn our friends...we earn the respect of our children (hopefully)...we earn our income (most of us) and so on. Don't mix fuzzy and hard words, and all will make more sense.
Will we ever know which interpretation(s) are correct? Are they all correct?
That's called science. Design experiment, test, repeat until satisfied.
Yes we will. I have come from the future to make a few stock investments. Hint, Apple is going higher. I am prohibited from revealing scientific discoveries, but you can be assured, time is bi-directional in another dimension. Peace.
Locutis - I am from your future. Return at once. You will be in violation of the Time Code, which of course applies retroactively. You must return for punishment before you commit the crime, or you may be removed from this timeloop.
Bohmian mechanics
When we develop human level AI in quantum computers we will know, according to David Deutsch
2:18 dat pro video editing skillz
No problem, i am happy to help. I am not a physicist and do not pretend i am one. If you like learning how the world works then you could try joining a good science and physics forum and then ask questions about stuff you are interesting in. That is what i have done over the last few years. I just read bits on-line and ask people on forums. The reason wave-particle duality seems hard to understand is because it is unlike anything we are used too.
I have a small explanation. QM results are not in real time but in a transformed space.. a probability frequency space. When you do the measurement you just do the transformation back to the real time domain. Very much like going to a frequency domain with a time signal then going back to time by integrating an infinite terms. These terms are the parallel words and also the collapse of the weight function. Is this logical.
In a universe I made every right choice... Why can't I be in that universe?
(At first I wrote choice as choise.. Heh, thank Cthulhu, I live in a universe where youtube lets us edit our comments. :3 )
The very same one where you wrote choice too !
Dimitrios Denton Perhaps you are in that universe.
Terraria really?
At your birth, you were in that universe.. but then you choose to move out of it.
Unless the many worlds theory is wrong and Robert Northrop is right.
Dimitrios Denton
lol, nice troll
everybody knows you can't edit comments on yt.
stop trying to make people believe you are from a different universe
"Shut up & calculate!"
But what determines wich "branch" are we following? Like, why does the car in this universe turns left and not right? If both universes are identical before the division, why would the result be different (one goes left and other right)? Could that imply there is a hidden variable wich determines that? But that would mean they are not identical universes.
I agree to a point with this. When I was learning physics we were told "dont think to hard about quantum weirdness and what it means" as a sort of learning aid. But this attitude is completely wrong. We absolutely have to ask the question of what is really going on with QM. There are gaps in our understanding theory that we will not answer with this attitude.
I myself am leaning towards some sort of many worlds interpretation simply from a mathematical perspective. It restores a symmetry of the notion of the wave function. There is an asymmetry in saying the "wave function collapses to just one of the many possible states". But if you consider that there is no collapse, and that in fact all states exist, then there is symmetry: you are not picking out any one particular state. You can then define an equivalence relation on all the states, x, y:
x ~ y if and only if x and y belong to the same wave function φ. We can then consider the equivalence class:
X = { x | state x belongs to wave function φ}
which represents all the states belong to the wave function φ.
When we do this something special happens: the states and the wave function essentially become the same thing. Mathematically, at a high level, X and φ become essentially the same thing. This has the appearance of explaining wave-particle duality.
Another thing that happens in this view is that quantum physics becomes completely deterministic. For an isolated system, of wave function φ, the generalized Schrodinger equation applies:
ih ∂φ/∂t = Hφ
thus φ is predictable at a time t+δt.
In this "many worlds" type view, where the class of states X and the wave function φ are essentially the same thing, this means that X is also completely defined at time t+δt. And we have full determinism.
Since I thumbs'd-up this video, I've seen another one involving an analogy using a silicon oil drop experiment.
Basically: "quantum particles" are just small particles (electrons and smaller) riding a wave we haven't discovered yet. This model fully explains the double-slit results without any "weirdness".
Eisenstein died to early .... quantum is "spooky" observation ... we have yet to understand it.
yes the Bohmian mechanics
forestsoceansmusic I am probably mistaken, but Ive seen others say there are problems with the theory, that the pilot wave math doesn't work with relativistic speeds I believe.
No, it doesn't explain the entanglement.
forestsoceansmusic - nothing weird about the double slit experiment - if you accept that light is a field, not particles, then the experiment is explained as when the magntic tapes were recording, they impacted the energy in the experiment, much like a thermometer impacts the temperature of water when you use it to measure temperature. The premise of the whole experiment is also very questionable. It only seems "spooky" when you use quantum physics to try and explain it.
7:50 eat it, Dr. Quantum.
In an expanding universe that ends in a big rip, where even the space between quarks will expand at speeds faster than light, then you don't need an infinite number of universe splits, because particles will eventually be hidden from each other by an event horizon, and particle interaction to mark advancement in time will cease to have any meaning.
This seems like a metaphysical question: What causes «me», the person trying to make sense of this, to follow one branch of the split and not the other? What «in me» chooses «this way forward»?
The problem I have with the "many worlds" interpretation is one of anthropomorphism. the concept of every particle in the Universe causing new universes every instant seems sloppy and relies on an observer.
Personally, I prefer Bohm and that is because we are always learning more, finding things we didnt even know to look for and so unassigned variables seems the most rational.
Don't misunderstand the term observer. It doesn't mean a being or conscious mind. It simply means "any interaction that changes a quantum state. Particles observe each other when they collide.
In physics, observer means "measuring apperatus"
The only problem of the multi-universe theory is that people think it means a completely different thing than what it actually is.
I’m glad you know for sure
Very nice! Sean Carroll is clearly very well educated in these topics and presents his ideas quite nicely.
My only problem with his argument, however, is that there is no way to differentiate between a hidden variable theory and the many worlds of Everett. He didn't stress that, by definition, the hidden variables in theories such as De Broglie's or Bohm's are untestable. Similarly, the decoherence of universes in Many Worlds is undetectable.
Therefore, we have two theories that are absolutely identical in prediction, but differ in interpretation, and the choice between the two becomes a matter of personal preference. I agree that theories with testable differences should be put to the test, and it's embarrassing they haven't, but I believe even after that, the interpretation of quantum mechanics will still be subject to opinion.
But if you are making an observation at a different location, then it is a different scenario and hence the expected behavior is different. So it does not seem that the universe works different when you are looking vs. not looking but rather if you are looking then you are interfering with the scenario and hence it is a different system with different wave functions. The wave functions of one scenario are different than the wave functions of the different scenario.
The problem I have with the Many Worlds interpretation is it's complete opposition to the philosophical principle of Occams Razor, where the theory that makes the least amount of assumptions is better. With the Many Worlds theory, you have essentially unprovable assumptions (existence of other universes) ad infinitum
But that applies to the Copenhagen Interpretation as well. They had to make up the concept of a collapsing wave fuction in order to make it work.
It's nothing but another assumption. You can't prove that the universe splits and you can't prove that it doesn't (which is what Copenhagen is saying).
Occams razor applies more to the many worlds interpretation though.
I have felt for a long time that Occam's Razor is rubbish. It confuses the pragmatics of theory making with its truth value. A simpler theory that gives you the same answers as a more complex one is clearly preferable for purely practical reasons; but that in no way suggests that simpler theories are a priori likely to be in general more correct, i.e. a more accurate reflection of reality. I may not know the answer to the problems of interpreting quantum mechanics, but I would suggest that getting rid of Occam's Razor would at least get rid of the problem of rejecting theories essentially for no better reason than it makes someone's head hurt because it's to complicated for them.
+John Tate I have felt exactly the same as you have about Occam's Over-used & Mis-used Razor.
Maybe Occams Razor is BS
And here comes my own favorite interpretation... :-)
"Quantum Ethics - A Spinozist interpretation of Quantum Field Theory"
He is a d catecprofessor. Cal technology very bright. I,love the many worlds theory this one sis fooled up
Are the subtitles computer generated or something?
To be on topic.. what I don't get is why you would assume something is in two states and when it is observed (or interacts with another system) it will be in one of the two states. Why can't it already be in one state?
Sean is smart. I like listening to Sean. I also enjoy Brady asking questions.
Or, we could all be living in independent universes until we start interacting with one another, and whenever we get entangled our two universes merge and there's really only one path forward.
The Everett Wheleer model is the correct one. Check my comment in exactly 11 years.
hi yall... what about semi conductors?... if they are corncerned with the quantum relm, in order to operate. Then does the universe split each time a transistor or IC is manufactured? ... or each time a computer or smart phone is used or switched on?
I think you are missing the point, there are no particular events that causes these splits, it just happens all the time. So the observable collapse of the wave function does not cause these splits, more like our observations at the quantum level just allow us a glimpse of what is actually happening.
If this is correct then Infinite universes are created all the time, not by any particular event, it happens for any and all events no matter how small. If the universe is infinite then by basic statistical logic, we can conclude that anything that can happen does happen, and it happens an infinite number of times.
So if the universe is infinite, well, we are part of the universe, so by association we would also infinite. So if you say the universe is finite, then let me know when you find the end. It is mind boggling I know, but from what I can tell this seems to be the situation.
Out of all of the disciplines of hard science, physicists by far have the most hubris
Maybe we're just in a simulation that's coded this way?
I wonder which interpretation the coder prefers?
Simulation of what? Of what we already are?
I think. Therefore I am not in a simulation. Do _you_ think? Or do you just think you're thinking?
Sorry but the difference between "interpretations" is semantics. They all agree on the fundamentals that once something has happened it cannot unhappen. To say that another universe in which something else happened, spawns simultaneously is a fine "interpretation" but since there is absolutely no cross-over between the two universes, why bother with it? We continue to inhabit a universe, completely and consistently regardless of whether a state of possibility has collapsed or a new universe has split off.
After the fact, we are logically beyond measuring the alternative, which to my mind brings the question into a philosophical paradigm instead of a scientific one.
PLEASE: show me an example of a wavefunction f(t,x,y,z), where x,y,z are 3 spatial dimensions & t is time, that has NOT collapse, and show me an example of a wavefunction which HAS collapse.
This video should be higher in the play list as I kept feeling the earlier videos in sixty symbols were statements based upon early theories we learned in school but since disproved. This video makes it much easier to understand there is not a "right" answer to the most fundamental questions at the moment but rather ideas. I kept wondering why I was obviously more capable of seeing obvious false statements created by false observation or limited conceptual thinking. Until this video I felt I was watching obviously more intelligent men than me acting like ants in a Hollywood movie unable to observe but not imagine the world that exists all around them. All the other videos felt informational while this one on the many definitions of QM was an exciting moment of discovery for me personally. All the videos are wonderfully enjoyable but left me feeling I was alone in how to think.
The problem is that the interpretations, as of right now, aren't really scientific but more hugging the wall of philosophy. The ideas aren't falsifiable so speaking about them as truths is unscientific.
Well, I think there are currently 3 distinct theories of the physicality of the multiverses. So we can't take anything as a truth, only theories.
CJ L Hypotheses is the proper term!