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).
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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”
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!
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? ;)
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?
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.
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.
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".
@@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.
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.
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.
The multiverse hypothesis is not compatible with any data. The equations are just telling you what is possible, not what exists. The multiverse interpretation is akin to looking at many mirrors and thinking there are many of you.
Quantum mechanics is based on both the Schrodinger equation _and_ the Born rule. Many Worlds proponents just find the Born rule "icky" because it's not "mathematically beautiful" enough, so they demand it must go. If you get rid of it, then you don't have quantum mechanics at all any more, but some different theory that makes the wrong predictions! And then they insist we must believe this is how reality "really is" or else _we're_ the unreasonable ones.
...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!
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.
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.)
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
How in this great quantum mechanically driven world can you say it's an embarrassment that we haven't answered the question of "What really is QM?" if that question also means "What is the universe?" a.k.a., the 'most important question'. You think the 'single most important question' in all of humanity can be answered just like that? Not to mention he then says, "my favorite..." as if the answer's subjective. I think it's outstanding that it's not answered yet. That either means the question wasn't meant to be answered, or when we do answer it, the answer will be something so profound it will be pushing the limits of the comprehensibility of our universe. Apologies if you were being sarcastic sir (didn't sound like it). Ha and thank you reader for reading my rant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
The problem isn’t the equations it’s the ego. Consciousness is universal but if we posit a priori that it is particular, then we’ve bound our equations to this hypothesis. Put consciousness first as per biocentrism, then it becomes much simpler
The Many Worlds Interpretation has to be the most outlandish, far fetched, ridiculous 'explanation' for anything ever invented. It's like the dog ate my homework times infinity. I would think it far less embarrassing to espouse a 'We Don't Know Why, Yet' interpretation of QM rather than some outlandish, completely (and conveniently) unverifiable tall tale.
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 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 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.
@@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?
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.
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»?
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).
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"
What is the universe really? Yes, we can answer that in 80 years, obviously. This question sucks; replace the subject of the question with another noun and if it does not make sense, your question is bad. What is the potato really?
I'm not quantum physicist but I think I can break this down to help you understand it. All atoms are made of sub-atomic particles, and sub-atomic particles are even further broken down into other things such as quarks. At this tiny level, things follow quantum physics. As we are made of atoms, we are also made of quantum systems. When we observe a quantum event (say the decay of some element), that quantum system (did the element decay?) effects us (we realize, "oh look it decayed!").
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?
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.
I detest the ignorance voicing opinions. There are so many examples of it in this comment section that I couldnt pick a single example. just too many to choose from, although, "Kai Tale" comes damn close to being the worst offender.
Modern physics has 4 basic measurements from which a myriad of different "quantizations" can be made. Mass, size, current and time. Force = Kgm/s^2, Energy = Kgm^2/s^2, Power = Kgm^2/s^2, Potential = Kgm^2/As^3, Frequency = 1/s, etc.. Two other parameters are amplitude W/m^2 = (dB)^2 and temperature measured in Kelvin. When the kelvin can be interpreted and properly combined with the other measurements then quantum mechanics can finally be taken seriously.
For me, my interpretation of quantum mechanics is how particles behave, completely defying human intuition. Existing as probabilites until the wave functions collapse and so on. When quantum mechanics is used to describe to the macroscopic however, like with the many world's interpretation, I take that with a grain of salt. " I'm not saying it isn't true tho! It just feels like building a unimaginably vast infinite multiverse on the Copenhagen interpretation is taking a REALLY big leap"
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.
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.
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 think it is embarrassing to assume that everyone in the field must use the same "why" as the mechanic when the "how" of the driver is severely tested over and over. The "why" of the mechanic does have an effect on the "how." There are many ways to build an engine and all of them make it go, assuming that any one configuration should be the basis for a whole community is embarrassing to science as a whole. Honestly QM is a bit above me but have more than one hypothesis is much better than choosing to use a single one at a time. Basically what I heard this man say is "We should assume that one thing is always correct and ignore other possibilities."
What is Newtonian gravity *really*? is there really "action at a distance?" Before Einstein's SR and GR, I don't see how any such question could have been answered. As it turns out, Newtonian gravity is an approximate theory. For that reason it no longer seems to require any further elucidation. No doubt QM is also an approximate theory. It too will have no particular explanation.
All such theories are models of reality and hence approximations but some are better than others at predicting experimental results. Newtonian gravity is still immensely useful at "everyday" non-relativistic speeds, so while it has been supplanted as an explanation, it's has not yet been discarded.
+TheShreester Exactly. Likewise, one of my reasons for no longer feeling troubled by QM's predicted and observed correlations at a distance is that, like every other physical theory made by humans, QM as we know it now is not the "true reality" of particles and waves. Only the actual stuff of the universe corresponds exactly with itself. Since we can both predict and observe certain correlations that puzzle us, it simply means that we haven't understood or described everything in the big picture of our universe. And that, at least, is obviously and definitely true.
+Ralph Dratman -- The problem is that todasys physicists are still living in a 3D world. We exist within a 4 dimensional environment known as Space-Time. It extends across 3 spatial axis, and 1 time axis. It is a 4 dimensional structure. However, while existing within it, we are all confined to what is known as the present time, or the "Now". This is the inside of our reality. The outside of our reality extends across all time of the 4D space-time environment, other than the now. The laws of physics on the outside are different than those on the inside. Today's physicist do not include this second set of laws of physics. Once included, the understanding of particle/wave duality, action at a distance, entangled pairs, quantum erasure, etc., all become fetus play to understand. Yes, fetus play, meaning far simpler than child's play.
+Ralph Dratman i think what you are saying is closest to the "hidden variables" theory mentioned in the video, in that one there could (and i agree there almost certainly is) a higher order system that explains the universe in greater detail, and includes variables that are currently hidden from view and impossible to understand without knowledge of that system.
How would you explain when someone suddenly appeared pulling into my lane of traffic out of nowhere, as if I was the one who had suddenly appeared, judging BY the startled look on the drivers face, as I narrowly averted tragedy by swerving into the left lane of traffic to avoid a collision that would undoubtedly have ended the mans life. THEN 10 MINUTES LATER TO COME UPON THE SAME MOTORCYCLE WITH A SIDECAR, and pass him again after overtaking him 10 minutes earlier, and traveling about twice the speed his vehicle was capable of traveling. I have a witness to this event.
..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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
My problem with the many-worlds bit is this: What determines the path that _you_ take? Even collectively we see only one reality -- one path through these supposed infinite number of split universes. Would this not be the same randomness that determines what wave functions collapse to? And even then, it's not really a total collapse. Take spin (which can be up or down and has to do with angular momentum and magnetic moment, but forget about that for now). Choose a particular direction and call it the z-axis. If you measure spin along say the z-axis and find it to be spin up, the wave function becomes pure spin up. Measure it again and again and it will always be found to be spin up. Take that pure z-spin-up particle and measure the spin along the y-axis (choose a direction that's perpendicular to the z-axis -- any will do - and make that your y-axis). You'll find that half of the time you get y-spin up, and the other half you get y-spin down. Now let's say you find the y-spin to be down. You'll find that subsequent measurements of the y-spin will always be y-spin down. But if you measure the z-spin, you'll find it's back to a 50-50 probability of being z-spin up or z-spin down. The original definiteness of the z-spin being up has been wiped out by the y-spin measurement! If you have a wave function where an electron can be in either of two places (think two-slit experiment), the position is uncertain. Now measure the position and you'll always get one place or the other. But now its momentum is uncertain. Measure that, and then the position will again be uncertain. So collapse is relative to what you're measuring, and if you measure mutually incompatible variables, like z-spin and y-spin, or momentum and position, you will get "collapse" relative to the variable you chose to measure.
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 )
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.
I would suggest that the collapse of the wave function is a real nonlinear collective phenomenon. Its description would require many dimensions of configuration space. This transcends the ability of pencil-and-paper analytical methods since it is nonlinear. It also transcends the ability of numerical methods since we just don’t have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms. The typical micro-detector is two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. We can propose theories about it, but can neither prove nor disprove our theories.
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.
I never understood why people think the many worlds interpretation solves anything. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the particles are entangled until an "observation" occurs, and one of the possible options is chosen. It is still not known what constitutes an "observation" and when in time that occurs. In the many worlds interpretation, the different worlds are entangled until they separate. It is still not known what causes them to separate and when in time that occurs. How is that different?
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).
Exactly two copies of the car all along that were precisely the same UNTIL they split... why just two? How many of anything? How many universes? Either this is an explanation improperly couched in non-quantum terms and therefore a fallacy of incomplete analysis, or it's a theory of infinite posits and flagrantly violates the theoretic simplicity constraint.
***** That's kind of what I was getting at, actually; in the video they make it sound like things "split" into "two," but the actual "splitting" would entail compounded infinities and thus would seem to do very little-even if it _were_ somehow confirmed-to explain the actual world other than that "this is one of a practically infinite plenitude of possibilities."
In the actual quantum theory there is a finite and usually small number of possibilities. That said, it's still not a particularly convincing interpretation. One, it doesn't really posit anything testable. Sure, it's technically possible to disprove if another Bell's Theorem esque experiment comes out, but that's not particularly likely. Two, the virtue of the theory is that you don't have copenhagen's whimsical collapse, but you trade that for whimsical probabilities. To use spin of a fermion as an example, before the wave function collapses the spin can either be 1/2 or -1/2. It can't be 1. It can't be 3/4. It can't be -56/111. It has to be 1/2 or -1/2.
Anything that *can* happen, *will* happen. In actual quantum theory the possibilities are finite because, like I said earlier, you're limited to what *can* happen. There's certain things beyond possibility, even if you grant every possible configuration existence in some alternate timeline/universe. There's still only X ways something can happen given our current laws of Physics and constants present. The idea is that these alternate "splitting" timelines would just be similar divergences of our own, not ones with completely different laws or constants (some interpretations allow this, but I'm strictly speaking in the context of this present example, where we are thinking about how every action or possible action in our universe potentially creates many-worlds where all of these possibilities are expressed. You still are bound by what IS possible given this universe's present configuration and physical laws, if that makes sense.) ;)
I doubt that we are capable of understanding what QM means. The apparently silly interpretations seem to reflect our inability to explain what the math says.
Superposition of bosons makes sense, uncertainty seems real. Entangling two atoms, advantageously sending them on two paths, then recombining them using an interferometer, makes sense. Tunneling apparently works. Quantum particles seem to have a fundamental wavelike degree of nonlocality to them, photons apparently need several wave-cycles to carry front and back tail effects Dipole-dipole interactions can create temporary dropouts, collapse is dubious, one particle showing self-interference by taking two paths at once is dubious. Gravity is clearly quantized on the subnuclear level otherwise entanglement-based gravity sensors wouldn't work. Gravity-dependent lightspeed eventually makes bent space-time experts tragically shrivel up as the metrological approach they elevated to the status of undeniability everywhere but in a black hole continues to crack at its worthless seams. Dipoles expressing an attraction of opposites up to various distance limits seem to be a fundamental aspect of all matter and forces, suggesting vacuum energy dipoles express gravity flow at the smallest useful scale.
actually, as a professional driver (and not a mechanic) i can tell you definitively that the only thing that matters is the amount of time spent driving. since the professional mechanic likely spends most of his time practicing his work with motors, he likely does not spend enough time driving to perform better than the person who specializes in driving and devotes time to that end. the argument that knowing the car from a mechanical view can improve driving reaches a point of diminishing returns rather quickly, and is generally knowledge that is compensated for with instruments, for example oil temperature. applied to the specific argument for physicists or engineers knowing the workings of quantum mechanics, i'd argue it is much the same situation. there is probably a point of diminishing returns to knowing more (spending time experimenting, measuring) than enough to work it out on the back of a napkin and cross out like terms, as it were. for most practical work it would likely take away time from working in their corner of the field, and is therefore best left to specialists. then later on, like the mechanic is able to create gauges for the driver to follow, quantum theorists will be able to inform physicists that work in broader frames of reference; to which they'll say something trite like "oh well, we thought it was something like that all along. cheers."
Also, why does Sean say about exactly what kind of event causes the de-coherence when talking about the Everett model, but when using Schroedingers cat to discredit the Copenhagen interpretation uses examples of exactly these events that he said are not relevant? Looking at the cat 'with your eyes closed' is not the kind of event that we are talking about, as he himself said earlier when talking about the car turning both ways- it's a quantum interaction independent of a conscious observer.
The trouble with using words like observer and "cat" is that it makes people think we are talking about things on the macro-scale. A cat has so many particles within itself interacting and it interacts with the air in the box etc. that it is defined. Maybe if we said there's a particle in a box with a vacuum, we don't know it's details until we measure it, people will understand we aren't talking about the macroscopic world.
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"
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.
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
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"What counts as an observation" is the perfect question Brady, thanks!
Particle interaction
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.
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!
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”
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!
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?
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.
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
I sat through the entire 14 minute video and it never lost my attention, really great stuff
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.
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.
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.
The multiverse hypothesis is not compatible with any data. The equations are just telling you what is possible, not what exists. The multiverse interpretation is akin to looking at many mirrors and thinking there are many of you.
The equations aren't telling you anything about the existence of other worlds. The entire thing is more of a sad physics joke that won't die.
Quantum mechanics is based on both the Schrodinger equation _and_ the Born rule. Many Worlds proponents just find the Born rule "icky" because it's not "mathematically beautiful" enough, so they demand it must go. If you get rid of it, then you don't have quantum mechanics at all any more, but some different theory that makes the wrong predictions! And then they insist we must believe this is how reality "really is" or else _we're_ the unreasonable ones.
...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%.
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.
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 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.
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
How in this great quantum mechanically driven world can you say it's an embarrassment that we haven't answered the question of "What really is QM?" if that question also means "What is the universe?" a.k.a., the 'most important question'. You think the 'single most important question' in all of humanity can be answered just like that? Not to mention he then says, "my favorite..." as if the answer's subjective. I think it's outstanding that it's not answered yet. That either means the question wasn't meant to be answered, or when we do answer it, the answer will be something so profound it will be pushing the limits of the comprehensibility of our universe. Apologies if you were being sarcastic sir (didn't sound like it). Ha and thank you reader for reading my rant.
Whether he may be right or wrong he's a very pleasing persuasive speaker.
Wow, why is De Broglie-Bohm mechanics ignored completely?! :O
The numbers in that survey are completely random
so in one universe, I finish this sentence, and in another universe, I just don
Who is don
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.
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.
So each atom has universe of probabilities? That is a ludicrous idea.
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!
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.
Sean is smart. I like listening to Sean. I also enjoy Brady asking questions.
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?
Thank you so much for posting this video. I could listen to Dr. Carroll talk about science all day.
Consensus sometimes slows progress.
I can't think of another Sixty Symbols video that has attracted this many ignorant comment trolls.
Absolutely
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.
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.
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
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.
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
The problem isn’t the equations it’s the ego. Consciousness is universal but if we posit a priori that it is particular, then we’ve bound our equations to this hypothesis. Put consciousness first as per biocentrism, then it becomes much simpler
The Many Worlds Interpretation has to be the most outlandish, far fetched, ridiculous 'explanation' for anything ever invented. It's like the dog ate my homework times infinity. I would think it far less embarrassing to espouse a 'We Don't Know Why, Yet' interpretation of QM rather than some outlandish, completely (and conveniently) unverifiable tall tale.
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 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 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.
maybe the U splits only when particles interact, because that's the only time anything is measured.
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?
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.
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»?
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).
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"
His voice is awesome. So easy to listen to.
Yep... like Kermit.
cameraman...........in debates his voice is ARROGANT & SMUG check it out.
What is the universe really? Yes, we can answer that in 80 years, obviously. This question sucks; replace the subject of the question with another noun and if it does not make sense, your question is bad. What is the potato really?
I'm not quantum physicist but I think I can break this down to help you understand it. All atoms are made of sub-atomic particles, and sub-atomic particles are even further broken down into other things such as quarks. At this tiny level, things follow quantum physics. As we are made of atoms, we are also made of quantum systems. When we observe a quantum event (say the decay of some element), that quantum system (did the element decay?) effects us (we realize, "oh look it decayed!").
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?
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.
I detest the ignorance voicing opinions. There are so many examples of it in this comment section that I couldnt pick a single example. just too many to choose from, although, "Kai Tale" comes damn close to being the worst offender.
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?
Modern physics has 4 basic measurements from which a myriad of different "quantizations" can be made. Mass, size, current and time. Force = Kgm/s^2, Energy = Kgm^2/s^2, Power = Kgm^2/s^2, Potential = Kgm^2/As^3, Frequency = 1/s, etc.. Two other parameters are amplitude W/m^2 = (dB)^2 and temperature measured in Kelvin. When the kelvin can be interpreted and properly combined with the other measurements then quantum mechanics can finally be taken seriously.
For me, my interpretation of quantum mechanics is how particles behave, completely defying human intuition. Existing as probabilites until the wave functions collapse and so on. When quantum mechanics is used to describe to the macroscopic however, like with the many world's interpretation, I take that with a grain of salt. " I'm not saying it isn't true tho! It just feels like building a unimaginably vast infinite multiverse on the Copenhagen interpretation is taking a REALLY big leap"
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.
The one I like pilot wave theory got no votes, figure's
This video made me a better human being. Thank you Brady, Sean, and all who participate in this project.
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.
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.
Just freaky. And after 20 years ago reading about it, it's still freaky. Ahhhhhh!
I think it is embarrassing to assume that everyone in the field must use the same "why" as the mechanic when the "how" of the driver is severely tested over and over.
The "why" of the mechanic does have an effect on the "how."
There are many ways to build an engine and all of them make it go, assuming that any one configuration should be the basis for a whole community is embarrassing to science as a whole. Honestly QM is a bit above me but have more than one hypothesis is much better than choosing to use a single one at a time.
Basically what I heard this man say is "We should assume that one thing is always correct and ignore other possibilities."
What is Newtonian gravity *really*? is there really "action at a distance?" Before Einstein's SR and GR, I don't see how any such question could have been answered. As it turns out, Newtonian gravity is an approximate theory. For that reason it no longer seems to require any further elucidation.
No doubt QM is also an approximate theory. It too will have no particular explanation.
All such theories are models of reality and hence approximations but some are better than others at predicting experimental results. Newtonian gravity is still immensely useful at "everyday" non-relativistic speeds, so while it has been supplanted as an explanation, it's has not yet been discarded.
+TheShreester Exactly. Likewise, one of my reasons for no longer feeling troubled by QM's predicted and observed correlations at a distance is that, like every other physical theory made by humans, QM as we know it now is not the "true reality" of particles and waves. Only the actual stuff of the universe corresponds exactly with itself. Since we can both predict and observe certain correlations that puzzle us, it simply means that we haven't understood or described everything in the big picture of our universe. And that, at least, is obviously and definitely true.
+Ralph Dratman -- The problem is that todasys physicists are still living in a 3D world.
We exist within a 4 dimensional environment known as Space-Time. It extends across 3 spatial axis, and 1 time axis. It is a 4 dimensional structure. However, while existing within it, we are all confined to what is known as the present time, or the "Now". This is the inside of our reality. The outside of our reality extends across all time of the 4D space-time environment, other than the now. The laws of physics on the outside are different than those on the inside. Today's physicist do not include this second set of laws of physics. Once included, the understanding of particle/wave duality, action at a distance, entangled pairs, quantum erasure, etc., all become fetus play to understand. Yes, fetus play, meaning far simpler than child's play.
+Ralph Dratman i think what you are saying is closest to the "hidden variables" theory mentioned in the video, in that one there could (and i agree there almost certainly is) a higher order system that explains the universe in greater detail, and includes variables that are currently hidden from view and impossible to understand without knowledge of that system.
How would you explain when someone suddenly appeared pulling into my lane of traffic out of nowhere, as if I was the one who had suddenly appeared, judging BY the startled look on the drivers face, as I narrowly averted tragedy by swerving into the left lane of traffic to avoid a collision that would undoubtedly have ended the mans life. THEN 10 MINUTES LATER TO COME UPON THE SAME MOTORCYCLE WITH A SIDECAR, and pass him again after overtaking him 10 minutes earlier, and traveling about twice the speed his vehicle was capable of traveling. I have a witness to this event.
..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.
If the many worlds theory was true then quantum immortality would thus be true also. And I think both theories are bogus tbh
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
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.
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.
My problem with the many-worlds bit is this: What determines the path that _you_ take? Even collectively we see only one reality -- one path through these supposed infinite number of split universes. Would this not be the same randomness that determines what wave functions collapse to?
And even then, it's not really a total collapse. Take spin (which can be up or down and has to do with angular momentum and magnetic moment, but forget about that for now). Choose a particular direction and call it the z-axis. If you measure spin along say the z-axis and find it to be spin up, the wave function becomes pure spin up. Measure it again and again and it will always be found to be spin up. Take that pure z-spin-up particle and measure the spin along the y-axis (choose a direction that's perpendicular to the z-axis -- any will do - and make that your y-axis). You'll find that half of the time you get y-spin up, and the other half you get y-spin down. Now let's say you find the y-spin to be down. You'll find that subsequent measurements of the y-spin will always be y-spin down. But if you measure the z-spin, you'll find it's back to a 50-50 probability of being z-spin up or z-spin down. The original definiteness of the z-spin being up has been wiped out by the y-spin measurement!
If you have a wave function where an electron can be in either of two places (think two-slit experiment), the position is uncertain. Now measure the position and you'll always get one place or the other. But now its momentum is uncertain. Measure that, and then the position will again be uncertain. So collapse is relative to what you're measuring, and if you measure mutually incompatible variables, like z-spin and y-spin, or momentum and position, you will get "collapse" relative to the variable you chose to measure.
So many worlds is falsified by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
If it were that easily falsifiable then it wouldn't have support.
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
I wonder in which universe this guy has eyebrows.
#1469053853687458985489095379644895337
loool
+Dakota Graftt And a small infinity of that universe's offshoots.
+thunda And perhaps another where you are not poorly educated and ignorant. But we can only dream.
*****
Poorly educated and ignorant? I'm not a muslim, sorry.
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.
I would suggest that the collapse of the wave function is a real nonlinear collective phenomenon. Its description would require many dimensions of configuration space. This transcends the ability of pencil-and-paper analytical methods since it is nonlinear. It also transcends the ability of numerical methods since we just don’t have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms. The typical micro-detector is two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. We can propose theories about it, but can neither prove nor disprove our theories.
Your suggestion is as wrong as it can be.
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.
Just trust the math to describe untestable hypothesis..lol
Not likely, that's how we produce fairy tales... and video games.
I love this guy. I agree with everything he said. This is amazing :D
"Shut up & calculate!"
I never understood why people think the many worlds interpretation solves anything. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the particles are entangled until an "observation" occurs, and one of the possible options is chosen. It is still not known what constitutes an "observation" and when in time that occurs. In the many worlds interpretation, the different worlds are entangled until they separate. It is still not known what causes them to separate and when in time that occurs. How is that different?
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).
Exactly two copies of the car all along that were precisely the same UNTIL they split... why just two? How many of anything? How many universes? Either this is an explanation improperly couched in non-quantum terms and therefore a fallacy of incomplete analysis, or it's a theory of infinite posits and flagrantly violates the theoretic simplicity constraint.
i'd think that every time any two particles interact, the whole universe would split...?
***** That's kind of what I was getting at, actually; in the video they make it sound like things "split" into "two," but the actual "splitting" would entail compounded infinities and thus would seem to do very little-even if it _were_ somehow confirmed-to explain the actual world other than that "this is one of a practically infinite plenitude of possibilities."
In the actual quantum theory there is a finite and usually small number of possibilities. That said, it's still not a particularly convincing interpretation. One, it doesn't really posit anything testable. Sure, it's technically possible to disprove if another Bell's Theorem esque experiment comes out, but that's not particularly likely. Two, the virtue of the theory is that you don't have copenhagen's whimsical collapse, but you trade that for whimsical probabilities.
To use spin of a fermion as an example, before the wave function collapses the spin can either be 1/2 or -1/2. It can't be 1. It can't be 3/4. It can't be -56/111. It has to be 1/2 or -1/2.
Anything that *can* happen, *will* happen. In actual quantum theory the possibilities are finite because, like I said earlier, you're limited to what *can* happen. There's certain things beyond possibility, even if you grant every possible configuration existence in some alternate timeline/universe. There's still only X ways something can happen given our current laws of Physics and constants present. The idea is that these alternate "splitting" timelines would just be similar divergences of our own, not ones with completely different laws or constants (some interpretations allow this, but I'm strictly speaking in the context of this present example, where we are thinking about how every action or possible action in our universe potentially creates many-worlds where all of these possibilities are expressed. You still are bound by what IS possible given this universe's present configuration and physical laws, if that makes sense.) ;)
The Everett Wheleer model is the correct one. Check my comment in exactly 11 years.
I doubt that we are capable of understanding what QM means. The apparently silly interpretations seem to reflect our inability to explain what the math says.
Superposition of bosons makes sense, uncertainty seems real. Entangling two atoms, advantageously sending them on two paths, then recombining them using an interferometer, makes sense. Tunneling apparently works. Quantum particles seem to have a fundamental wavelike degree of nonlocality to them, photons apparently need several wave-cycles to carry front and back tail effects
Dipole-dipole interactions can create temporary dropouts, collapse is dubious, one particle showing self-interference by taking two paths at once is dubious.
Gravity is clearly quantized on the subnuclear level otherwise entanglement-based gravity sensors wouldn't work. Gravity-dependent lightspeed eventually makes bent space-time experts tragically shrivel up as the metrological approach they elevated to the status of undeniability everywhere but in a black hole continues to crack at its worthless seams.
Dipoles expressing an attraction of opposites up to various distance limits seem to be a fundamental aspect of all matter and forces, suggesting vacuum energy dipoles express gravity flow at the smallest useful scale.
actually, as a professional driver (and not a mechanic) i can tell you definitively that the only thing that matters is the amount of time spent driving. since the professional mechanic likely spends most of his time practicing his work with motors, he likely does not spend enough time driving to perform better than the person who specializes in driving and devotes time to that end. the argument that knowing the car from a mechanical view can improve driving reaches a point of diminishing returns rather quickly, and is generally knowledge that is compensated for with instruments, for example oil temperature.
applied to the specific argument for physicists or engineers knowing the workings of quantum mechanics, i'd argue it is much the same situation. there is probably a point of diminishing returns to knowing more (spending time experimenting, measuring) than enough to work it out on the back of a napkin and cross out like terms, as it were. for most practical work it would likely take away time from working in their corner of the field, and is therefore best left to specialists. then later on, like the mechanic is able to create gauges for the driver to follow, quantum theorists will be able to inform physicists that work in broader frames of reference; to which they'll say something trite like "oh well, we thought it was something like that all along. cheers."
All theories exist and are simultaneously right, but the theories collapse when someone picks a favorite. =D
2:18 dat pro video editing skillz
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
Also, why does Sean say about exactly what kind of event causes the de-coherence when talking about the Everett model, but when using Schroedingers cat to discredit the Copenhagen interpretation uses examples of exactly these events that he said are not relevant? Looking at the cat 'with your eyes closed' is not the kind of event that we are talking about, as he himself said earlier when talking about the car turning both ways- it's a quantum interaction independent of a conscious observer.
The trouble with using words like observer and "cat" is that it makes people think we are talking about things on the macro-scale.
A cat has so many particles within itself interacting and it interacts with the air in the box etc. that it is defined.
Maybe if we said there's a particle in a box with a vacuum, we don't know it's details until we measure it, people will understand we aren't talking about the macroscopic world.