The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- Google Tech Talk
January 6, 2011
Presented by Ron Garret.
ABSTRACT
Richard Feynman once famously quipped that no one understands quantum mechanics, and popular accounts continue to promulgate the view that QM is an intractable mystery (probably because that helps to sell books). QM is certainly unintuitive, but the idea that no one understands it is far from the truth. In fact, QM is no more difficult to understand than relativity. The problem is that the vast majority of popular accounts of QM are simply flat-out wrong. They are based on the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which has been thoroughly discredited for decades. It turns out that if Copenhagen were true then it would be possible to communicate faster than light, and hence send signals backwards in time. This talk describes an alternative interpretation based on quantum information theory (QIT) which is consistent with current scientific knowledge. It turns out that there is a simple intuition that makes almost all quantum mysteries simply evaporate, and replaces them with an easily understood (albeit strange) insight: measurement and entanglement are the same physical phenomenon, and you don't really exist.
Slides are available here:
docs.google.co...
Link to the paper:
www.flownet.com...
About the speaker:
Dr. Ron Garret was an AI and robotics researcher at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab for fifteen years before taking a year off to work at Google in June of 2000. He was the lead engineer on the first release of AdWords, and the original author of the Google Translation Console. Since leaving Google he has started a new career as an entrepreneur, angel investor and filmmaker. He has co-founded three startups, invested in a dozen others, and made a feature-length documentary about homelessness.
"This experiment has not been done because physicists know what the result would be"... WTF? that's the most unscientific excuse I've ever heard :-D
Well, they're hiding it because they know it would disprove their entire theory, and that would result in Nasa losing its million dollar budget, right? This talk reminded me quite a bit of listening to a flat farther try to talk about physics.
Yes our intuitions effect the outcome of experiment
@@omnimacrox time is not existing
This may come as a shock, but the single-electron, double-slit experiment was not performed until 2013. Before that, it was a total thought experiment.
Moreover, the slit detector version of the single-electron experiment has yet to be performed. It's also just a thought experiment.
@@novidtoshowHe uses pictures of the electron double slit in this talk, 7 minutes in, and it's from 2011
I love how the first thing this guy says is basically "the title of this lecture is clickbait".
When I listen to lectures on Quantum Mechanics, for the first 10 minutes I feel dumb cause I have no idea what the speaker is talking about. In the next 10 minutes I realise the speaker has no idea what he's talking about either.
Quantum real experiments are quite clear and simple : you take a single Uranium atom and wait when it will explose or disintegrate into smaller atoms !!
It is quite random, impossible to predict, the waiting time ranging from less of a second to one billion years with a probability of half disintegration of roughly a billion years !!
The wave function of this unstable atom is a mixture of starting localized Ur atom with the wave functions of the smaller moving atoms at the different times, in quite small proportion related to the very small probability corresponding to the large billion years of half life.
Thus our universe is full of the virtual wave function of all the radioactive atoms that will disintegrate in the future in our universe !!
Indeed. Speeding through the math saying "trust me", and then saying the entire conclusion flows obviously from the math (!?) doesn't really inspire confidence for me either.
jean redera "It is quite random, impossible to predict".. or it's easy predict we just dont see what is really going on.
Yes, "we just dont see what is really going on." in all the multi-universes described by the mathematical wavefunction of all theses universes, each with the different possible disintegrations of Ur at different times over billion years !!
And we are at random living in one of these universes, because our lifes are completely different in theses different universes, and the wavefunction of our quantum sosies are separated by decoherence.
It is so strange that the arbitrary collapse is a simple way to suppress all the other universes separated from us.
Quantum computers calculating with interferences in all theses parallel micro-universes will prove this reality !!
Different exact math can describe the same reality in many physical experiments .
The gentleman who came to the microphone to ask a question was first interrupted and then ignored
I find it interesting that everyone wanted to talk about the physics side of it at the end rather than the information theory the presentation was trying to communicate.
+Geneticus0 Don't be surprised physicists in the audience want to challenge the physics being presented.
Because information theory is bullshit
So the computer engineer thinks we are all living inside of a gigantic computer simulation huh? ;)
he also conveniently left out any mention of pilot wave debroglie bohm interpretation. which is real interpretation thats more popular than all the other alterntaives he mentioned except maybe mulitverse. thats what a SV bubble will do to you. see bits all day so you only think in bits.
@@julsius "Real" is a misleading term, because there's nothing in quantum mechanics that contradictions with realism. Realism means belief in an objective reality independent of the observer, which has no relevance to Bell's theorem. What is sometimes incorrectly called "realism" is a term Bell himself never used, but was used to refer to the "criterion" in the EPR paper. The EPR paper put forward a "criterion" for determining whether or not a physical theory is a complete description of reality: that all observables have definite values at all times in the theory. Not believing the universe is structured this way does not in any way require a rejection of realism, there are variations of realism that are compatible with a universe where, from a particular frame of reference, not all observables can be physically tracked at all times, such as Francois-Igor Pris' contextual realism, Michel Bitbol's perspectival realism, and Carlo Rovelli's relational realism. All are also compatible with quantum mechanics taken as a local theory.
@@amihart9269 im glad you added some context for the reader, but its not misleading if you know the distinction between what is real and what is not
@@julsius It is misleading because "realism" has a definition and that definition has nothing to do with Bell's theorem. Many physicists, even Nobel prize winning academics, get mislead by this abuse of terminology and falsely declare that quantum mechanics calls into question the belief that objective reality even exists.
I thought I was following his arguments quite well, until he pulled the rabbit out of his hat and declared that we don't exist, the universe is just a good digital (quantum) simulation. How he managed to reach that conclusion based on the excellent start he made is beyond my feeble comprehension. Just because measuring things inherently entangles us in our experiments doesn't lead me to conclude that neither us nor our experiments don't exist. It leads me to conclude that measurement at the quantum level is inherently a rather futile pursuit. The more bits we try to measure, the more the bits go out of focus and smear and become probabilistic, and as he explained earlier in his lecture, that function is continuous, not discontinuous as one might intuitively expect in a digital (i.e. quantum) universe.
His argument seems to be that because non-experimental entanglements (i.e. entanglements just within the measurement apparatus) *can* produce spurious measurements that they *necessarily always* produce spurious measurements and we can never know *anything* about the universe. That conclusion is obviously a failure in logic (mistaking a probability for an absolute), and leads him out into the weeds where he declares we don't exist. Silly fool! He already showed that there was only a probability that quantum measurements could be spurious, and in fact we can calculate that probability. At the scale of classical physics, of course, our measurements are very reliable and only rarely produce a spurious result such that we observe an extremely consistent universe. Any *reasonable person* ought to conclude that we do, in fact exist, and so does the universe. Any *reasonable* person ought to conclude that there's nothing at all wrong with reality as we know it in classical physics, we just can't rely on statistically insignificant measurements at the quantum scale to tell us that.
dlwatib Thanks for your comment, well put and sharp. I sent mine before reading yours and agree with you. It is a shame as he had a good afgument before his interpretive ending. BTW you might be interested to see a new paper by Witten on a summary of Classical and Quantum information theory.
Wholeheartedly agree. It is not possible to know whether we are in a simulated universe, anyway. A simulation could hypothetically be implemented in any desired way, and there is no intrinsic law that a real universe be entirely knowable or - hell, even self-consistent - in the first place. To proclaim that the apparent rules of our universe suggest its non-reality strikes me as a vacuous assertion.
As "separate entities", nothing exists in that way; rather,
all patterning, animate & inanimate, can only happen inseparably , _inter - dependently_ ;
as this patterning still must be spoken-of {even right here} as if composed of "separate things" (in order for it all to be _approximated_ , in our speech & thoughts, w/ Science being the process of these convened-upon approximations being ever refined toward closer fitting over all of the actual infinitely-complex inseparability of the inter-relativity of all of reality ) ,
these approximations, cartoonish simplifications of artificial partitionings of the actual infinite Flow, still can't ever actually happen as such, can't even exist as we must agree to speak of them (as if "they" "exist", as "separate things" or "separate beings") , even as we gradually refine "them" to where we all see what some knew all along: that we could already always refute the _actual_ _separate_ existence of each "one" (even as we continue to use "each" as a mere concept for approximating some mentally-imposed partitioning upon the infinite Flow that we're discussing & experimenting upon).
@@waking-tokindness5952 sounds like you're advocating mereological nihilism? a philosophical theory, not a physical theory. I mean, it could be deployed as physics conjecture, but that's about it. from the point of view of physics it's much easier to accept that composite objects do exist, because in quantum field theory, the universe itself appears to be an elaborate composite object.
just because the universe we observe & experience is "consistent " at the classical level doesn't mean it's not a simation either, you're literally doing the exact same thing in reverse. we could still "reliably measure" the very same classical universe even if it was simulated... it's not possible to know whether where in a simulation or not in one, but youre idea that you're experience & our reliable measurements& classical understanding somehow proves that it's not a simulation is faulty because a simulation would be able to appear & be experienced & be measured that way, anyone in a simulation would think it was very real & it would appear so & have measurements that reliably explain what we see, that still doesn't mean it actually IS real & not just a simulation. there is no way to prove nor disprove that we are or are not In one.
The idea is the use of Vitali theorem, which introduces the idea of complex measures instead of real numbers in the use of measure theory. Based on this idea a non measurable space is introduced upon which quantum mechanics are generated without compromising consistency and incompleteness. This lecture is really outstandingly helpful. Really a hidden gem....
Just one thing - The wave interference can't be "restored" when you do something like re-polarize the light. It can just happen AGAIN. It's a completely separate instance that's not connected to the initial wave/particle interference other than it's a later point on the same trajectory.
Exactly Bob
?... you can erase a measurement? You mean there is an 'opposite' measurement occurring?... or the wave is there and the polarizer lets you see it.
In other words, does the film polarize? ... change it... or does it FILTER what you see?
In addition to the other criticisms, Garret says something plainly false. He says, "entanglement is very delicate and easy to destroy." This is a common misconception of amateurs. Entanglement is in fact extraordinarily robust. What most popularisers are thinking of as "delicate" is coherent superposition between a pair of states, which is indeed extremely fragile, and one reason why it is hard to get a quantum computer to work, since thermal noise easily destroys simple coherent states. It does not however destroy entanglement. In fact, entanglement is part of the problem in quantum computation, any slight interaction and a physical qubit will get entangled with other quanta, and thus become useless for the desired computation. In a sense with interaction open gets too much coherence, too much entanglement, and thus simple interference effects become practically impossible to cleanly observe. Once this is realised I believe Garret's claim falls flat.
But Garret has a heart. He's brought attention to homeless folks. You also have to admire his guts, speaking in front of physicists on a subject he is not expert in, but still prepared to stick his neck out and make some wild claims. That sort of audacity is not easy to culture, and does have some value. I bet he at least made a few physicists scratch their heads for a bit, which is a good thing.
Holy shit I didn't think I would find someone with a balanced opinion in the comments.
+Stephen Ikerd the same here. Regards to Bijou Smith
but your not an expert are you
It was clearly implied that he was referring specifically to maintaining coherent superposition states, which by its own definition is fragile, and not universally speaking of entanglement conceptually. You've asserted absolutely nothing running counter to his explanations, so it's puzzling that you would say his "claims fall flat". To the contrary, you're only supporting him by noting how trivially interference is destroyed by entanglement of any nature. What truly fell flat was your comment.
The bottom line of this talk starts at 53:21
Doesn't it just..
Thank you
Thanks a lot!
Mind moved.
That roadmap looks really familiar
Step 1 : collect underpants
Step 2 : ?
Step 3 : profit !
+Ynse Schaap wow, an early season reference!
Back when Google was a tech company and its tech talks were full of technology... and not social justice feels and quota hires.
quantum popularizers don't want you to know that they have no idea what they are observing
sooooooo, his bottom line: 1) he likes the 0 worlds interpretation (because he can wrap his mind around it); 2) we are living in a Simulation (as he smiles his software engineering smile). Hmmmm, did I miss anything?
The problem with quantum mechanics is that scientists assume "little things are either particles or waves". When they come accross a little thing behaving as both, they go "Doh - how can this be". If scientists would change their assumption to "little things are neither particles nor waves, they are something else" then some day they might figure out what "something else" is. When they do that, the wave / particle and spin up / spin down problems will disappear.
It really amazes me that people who constantly put down God and they don't even believe in it. So if God is not real, then why is it something the non believers hate so much? I think I know why, but I would love to hear their reasons.
. . . because faith in a god misleads people to believe things for which they have no evidence. Faith is inherently irrational and rationality is humans only hope of raising ourselves above animals.
Why do so many believers hate evolution? Because it's against what they believe and they think it's wrong.
Why should anyone fear or hate something they don't believe in?
Because we are humans. We like to think that if we are right, something that opposes us must be put down/argued against.
Today non-believers are indifferent to religion, non-believers only fear and hate religion if they have been abused by religious people. In the modern day very few people are abused by religion, but before the enlightenment, a non-believer could be tortured or burned at the stake as heretic. In those days non-believers were right to fear and hate religion. You only need to read Deuteronomy Chapter 13 to see how from the very beginning monotheism was a system designed by tyrants who promoted a tyranny in heaven to justify their tyranny on earth. In Deuteronomy Ch 13 Yahweh commands Hebrews to murder any Hebrews who do not worship Yahweh. Yahweh commands Hebrew men to cast the first stones against their own wives and children, followed by stones from all other Jews, whole Jewish towns are destroyed so that "all Israel will hear and be afraid so no one among you will do such an evil thing again". As demonstrated by the Old Testament, if the devil existed, his name would be Yahweh.
28:25 "I'm about to tell you what the outcome will be." But I missed the moment at which he told us what the outcome would be.
Funny how they took that out.
I also hate (apparently, part 2 in a series of me complaining about this video) when people say (as I know Richard Dawkins has) that, well, we just live in a classical world, "[our] brain is classical", and so shouldn't expect to find the "quantum world" intuitive. By that logic, it would be impossible for anyone to understand how the Earth orbits the Sun. After all, our brain (and civilization) evolved in an environment where, to first approximation, the Sun seems to intuitively go around a stationary Earth.
***** Two things. 1) I think if we took your spear thrower and explained, say, how to calculate a spear's trajectory using equations of kinematics, he'd be about as mystified as us explaining how all matter comes with a complementary wavefunction. Coming up with those equations, by the way, was rather hard, requiring abandonment of more intuitive concepts (objects have a natural place) in favor of experiments (by Galileo) only fully explained decades later with calculus.
Which sort of leads me to, 2) Force and acceleration are not really that intuitive. I mean sure, we expect freshman students to absorb it because, if they don't, they fail physics. On my end, I was completly mystified by F=ma (presented as if from heaven). Minimizing the action (flipping through a collection of possible paths until the right one emerged) was more intuitive. I wounder how much of F=ma is just operational knowledge used to solve "engineering problems" (no offense ment to passing engineers), and how much of it people actually "know" (whatever that means).
The earth orbiting the sun is still dealing with classical physics, the type of physics that describes events that our brain evolved to intuitively understand. We can play with model solar systems in hour hands, hard to do the same with quantum phenomenon. Although you should look up some of the recent pilot wave experiments that reproduce quantum phenomena at the classical level, it actually does make the pilot wave interpretation of QM much more intuitive.
***** I'm not saying QM would be obvious to the spear thrower. But saying that we evolved in a world that makes it easy for us to understand CM and not QM is just something that (some) people say, based on no evidence at all. It's also a bit weird: did we evolve to understand specifically CM? That's not the first physics we thought up, after all. Does that mean that certain abstract fields in mathematics are also out of our conceptual grasp, because of some evolutionary argument? And the reason I take issue with what I see as bad reasoning, is that it's basically equivalent to the "shut up and calculate" mantra, by having QM be, by its very defenition, something that we should not try to understand. I'm not saying it should be understood in classical ways (read: it cannot be). But it's equally bad to wave your hands and say it's all a big mystery that our puny classical brains can't handle (and what is this classical brain, anyway?).
You also assume the spear thrower is intelligent enough to understand dumbed down classical concepts, but not dumbed down QM concepts. But explaining QM with "y isn't a number but an operator on a vector space of functions" is like explaining CM by writing down hamilton's equations. And again: CM is not that intuitive. Explain to me what a force is, without reffering to, a) the effect it has on other objects (ma, or dp/dt, if you prefer) or, b) a coulomb's law type equation.
gakxz It's just a casual statement made by some old-timers that have spent several decades studying classical mechanics and think the younger generation is going to have any more of an issue with QM than they already do with thermodynamics.
Ironically, someone in the audience fails to mute his microphone, and there is quite about of interference.
But the interference went away as soon as I viewed the video.
The title of this talk should be, "Solipsist misunderstands Quantum Mechanics in detail".
If nothing exists then there is nothing to define what 'nothing' is.
He is not saying that nothing exists. He´s saying that things the way we see it does not exist. The world would be like bits of information in a "computer" (analogy), and what we see would just be a image, but not the real deal.
Marcílio da Costa Ramos Could be. That is one of the new theories. Hologram theory.
Marcílio da Costa Ramos What I am saying is that if anything exists then there will always be the problem of "something from nothing" because there is no explanation as to why anything exists, & the only 'thing' that DOES NOT REQUIRE an explanation as to why 'it' exists is 'nothing', & so there is the source of all the 'information' in the universe, because no matter how much of this 'information' exists, as long as what it is about (what it defnes the EXISTENCE OF) is 'nothing', then NO EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED as to why the 'information' exists because the information itself points directly to the existence of nothing:- I can prove this right now....
Where the not-yet-existent future meets the no-longer-existent past the net amount of energy that exists is the sum of all actions & equal-opposite reactions: ZERO.
So next time you start talking about 'the universe'.... What Universe?
Zero Universe.
Galv140577 Sounds like you don't know what you are asking. Are you trying to say that (nothing) as a concrete item exists or doesn't? Or are you trying to say that that there is nothing in existence. Something exists. I am here. I exist. People respond to me. They think I exist. They exist. I interact with them. There is plenty of explanation as to why things exist. We measure them.
Stephen Anderle You will notice at the end of the lecture the conclusion reached is that there are 2 interpretations that fit the math, the 'zero universe' interpretation & the 'infinite number of universes' interpretation. The correct one is both because there are an infinite number of points of view in the zero universe & each one is a seperate universe: The universe as observed by you, the universe as observed by me, the universe as observed from each & every view, angle, or point of observation. Each one is a universe& each universe is an observation & each observation is of the 'concrete item' that is nothing. It exists & doesn't require any explanation because it is self-explanatory. There is one binding principle in quantum mechanics that makes the infinite number of observed universes the same but as seen from a different perspective & that binding principle is quantum-coherence. Look at a flame on a candle there is quantum coherence, look at a living brain, there is quantum coherence, look at the universe there is quantum coherence. The past is an illusion, the future is an illusion, the depth of space is an illusion, the thing that makes everything seem real is the coherence between an infinite number of illusions. The thing that was lacking from this lecture was an in-depth explanation of the 'transactional interpretation'.
Fantastic. The “measurement = entanglement” is the punchline. I like the spin on Many Worlds. I wonder why there are any Physicist clinging to the Copenhagen interpretation.
@@fealdorf many-worlds interpretation will be proven by the observation of quantum supremacy, i.e. quantum complexity of the reality impossible to be studied by macrocospic classical systems like our usual computers ans our usual brains, working in a single world..
Quantum supremacy is already proven !!
@@fealdorf pilot-wave or a single world piloted by the wave function is quite more strange, because the virtual pilot wave is exploring all the quantum possibilities i.e; all the parallel worlds described in the pilot wave (extrememly complex with the quantum supremacy inside ) and thus it is better to say that they are a reality and not a strange complex pilot for our world.
The pilot wae is infinitvely more complex than our visible world as proven by the quantum supremacy !!
Because of Occam's razor all other interpretations are actually fringe interpretations.
@@sumsar01 Nearly all interprétations are attemps to apply our macroscopic classical simple usual properties to the quantum real world that is impossible, all is delocalized even if we live with copies of us in others parallel universes..Copenhagen interpretation is simply cutting out all theses parallel worlds with all other different possible experimental results. This is not an interpratation, but a practical simple cutting to obtain randomly the experimental results. Each parallel universe obtain a random different experimental result and all the parallel universes all together are not random, but deterministic like the quantum evolution equations, but with multiplying the parallel universe endless. The same multiplication happens in a quantum computer before the ending measurement.
What looks simpler, "Occam's razor", cutting all what is not observed, is not the real simpler scientifically, because it destroys strongly the simplicity and coherence ot quantum linear evolution of the wave equation.
It is like having a rope with too much knots, the simpler " Occam's razor" is to cut with a knife or an axe all the knots, but you have no more an useful rope to climb.
So strongly, that no physiscists never measured or studied the details of this collapse of wave function. This cutting of the wavefunction by Copenhagen approach is violent, like cutting with an axe, completely non linear, out of the quantum linear evolution, and it destroys the coherence of the wavefunction and no body has been able to show how it happens with what kind of evolution method. .Decoherence, i.e. destructive interferences in the quantum wave function linear evolution gives quantitatively the passage to the classical worlds, but with the very disturbing result that it ends in many parallel worlds, each one classical living with one of the possible measurements. The simpler Copenhagen method is completely out of the quantum mechanics and never described by any quantum equations by any physicist !
Information is not moving faster than light with entangled particles it's instantaneous. It isn't traveling or moving at all since time unless measured is in solid state.
+Alexandre Boutin Katzmann i agree, info doesn't actually move when one particle of an entangled pair is measured. The info was 'stored' in the whole wavefunction, nonlocally (?).
+Alexandre Boutin Katzmann I agree, apart from the the matter of information exchange. From what Ron Garret appears to be saying, in the quantum world entangled particles may not be in different places but may actually be in the same place as one particle. Therefore no information need actually be exchanged. He is inferring that classical physics merely gives the illusion that they are in different places.
+Alexandre Boutin Katzmann Or just take time out of the equation. Einstein had trouble reconciling the fact that gravity didn't govern QM. Why do people still insist that space-time does as well? Why would a particle that can be where it wants, when it wants, care about space-time? If time and distance are a non factor, then it's not sending information faster than light, It's not "sending" anything because there is no time, no space, no space-time. Just like sticking matter into space-time generates gravity, subatomic particles entangling with each other creates time.
Our brains can only function in past-present-future. Doesn't mean the Universe is also linear.
I also think the Universe is a tesseract and we only are able to view it in three dimensions.
Quote from the linked paper: “[The] idea of measurement as described in the QM story leads directly to a physical impossibility, specifically faster-than-light communication.”
[end quote]
Fact: No matter how you redefine measurement, via information theory or otherwise, there is absolutely no question that entanglement is real, actually happens, does not require any conscious observation or measurement. It does not require any measurement apparatus, and does not require two or more ‘classical’ observers to compare notes and verify the entanglement.
Fortunately, nature is not required to behave in a way that we consider ‘physically possible’. Fortunately, nature is more interesting.
R C | Entanglement is the best experiment designed to date, to prove superposition is nonsense.
@@criticalargument8667 If I tell you some physical phenomena can be described with a binomial distribution (e.g. single measurements of such phenomena result in X == +/- , true/false, 1/0 type outcomes), we can describe X in terms of the probability distribution parameters X~B(n,p); we can also compute statistics like the probability of getting exactly k +'s in N independent measurements, which has a probability mass function: N_choose_k p^k (1-p)^N-k. Now, say we are measuring the spin of single qubits emitted from a quantum dot. We can ask questions like "what is the probability of measuring 20 qubits in a row with the same spin?" And we can actually test the hypothesis that qubits emitted from our quantum dot have random spins.
What if someone asks "are we are supposed to take the probability distribution X~B(n,p) literally? Like... are these qubits really in multiple states simultaneously?" Or like, are they being emitted with a particular spin and we simply describe the probability of that spin mathematically using X~B(n,p), because that's the best way to do it?" I would propose the following experiment: we could attempt to interact pairs of qubits such that they might influence the spin of each other in some non-random way: if we were to find that such interactions existed that yielded pairs of qubits that always had, say, opposite spins, this would surely prove these qubits are emitted with definite but unknown spins (since, in our universe, information cannot propagate faster than light, and certainly not instantaneously). And yes, I'm aware of Bell's theorem - it's a good theorem for describing how uncertainty re-emerges after light interacts with a physical medium, like a filter. There is nothing spooky about this to me.
R C
They did a study on the messages that the brain sends to the heart..
and somehow discovered that the heart sends more messages to the brain, than it receives.. by a bunch.
They didn’t know why, nor did any of the researchers dare speculate the reasons for this
I myself thought right from the start one possible reason.. Could it be, that
the observer is within your very heart, and the reason throughout history things were always heartfelt.. or in your heart of hearts you knew
Infact the strongest feelings of what is right, or wrong.. let alone.. When falling in love..
are all from your heart, and seems to always shape your thoughts, long before the what some say is rational thinking, that you may think is in your brain..?
Any chance of this being the observer? It makes you think about the way you treat them,and or me as in you’re own self.. esteem of the pride and ownership in lifelong caring relationships.
Be good to others who have been made to believe that they have a purpose in their own life, and Forgivness is the blessing that you allowed to give yourself not just to these others.,
1. Because in doing all that means is you’re wanting to change!! Think about it
Bradley Monk the Bell inequality experiments prove quite clearly that entanglement and superposition are real.
R C Entanglement is real. Superpositions are a statistical construct, unless you believe a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time.
For such an interesting and thoughts provoking (or mind blowing) presentation, the comments section is disappointing to say the least.
@Max Mccurdy Did you even watch the talk?
Yes, your comment sucked you are correct.
Light detectors are 'square law' devices. They don't measure amplitudes, they measure the square of the amplitude, which is power or intensity. As an electronics engineer, this seems to explain the results completely in my mind.
To John German: Plz explain to us neophytes why or how a light detector can't detect merely amplitudes ( which "aren't intensities"? -wow! ) ; & so, must detect the amplitudes' _squares_ ?
(!)
( &/or, refer us to a good intro re this, if you know of one. )
Thanks, in advance?
@@waking-tokindness5952 Sorry about the delay. Here's how it works. To transfer information about anything (the light wave in this case) requires a transfer of eneregy from the measureand - the light wave - to the measuring device. - the detector. The energy in a light wave is derived from the square of the amplitude, not the amplitude itself. A deeper answer requires delving into quantum physics, which I am unqualified to pursue. One of my hopes when I get to heaven is that God will explain quantum physics to me.
I think you are right. Part of the confusion is that the measurement is inherently nonlinear because the measured quantity is the square of the electric field and not the amplitude.
Copenhagen interpretation has not been "discredited for decades", and doesn't imply any "faster than light" communication.
For a correct description of Copenhagen interpretation read Anton Zeilinger's "Einstein's Veil". Anton Zeilinger is a world renowned experimental physicist at the University of Vienna and is doing cutting-edge research on quantum mechanics.
Amen!
Interesting title. Might have been an interesting talk had the speaker had a better handle on his topic. If you're not already familiar with QM, don't make this your first foray into it.
Read all of Milesmathis at his homepage. Only there. There are fakers. Many physics problems solved. Literally.
Staar, qm is over. Bc it's only application is cryprography.
@@KibyNykraft rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 The only application of quantum mechanics is cryptography? Oh dear...
Ray - amen to that. Instead, try Susskind's lectures on Quantum Entanglement. Fascinating, mathematical, and amazingly understandable, assuming a basic understanding of algebra and calculus.
This lecture was a good high-quality explanation of QM, but that's a matter of taste.
Having "conspiracy" in the title turns out to be a deception to get viewers.
Yes this "talk" or rather previous experiment rehash then blatant blindly jumping to a Zero universe conclusion, has nothing to do with the title, except perhaps the word "quantum".
How did he have the massive brass balls to do this at Google in front of physicists, who didn't keep him honest....
*He should have spoke on debugging spacecraft hundreds of thousands of Km away!*
He would have been better of leaving out the conspiracy angle. I think this is pretty close to a common interpretation among experts. The theory is pretty crazy, but less so than Copenhagen. This or multiple universes is (as he says) a matter of taste.
We don't know what the universe is like, but this math is consistent with our observations.
There are much simpler and more complex explanations, for people at exactly the right level of Math and background this is a great explanation.
(Disclaimer: I am a Physics graduate but not a practicing Physicist)
He would be better off leaving the math out of it. I didn't understand it himself so it truly polluted the concept he wanted to convey.
Absolutely, clicky'est title I've ever been baited with.
Inadequate rehash of popular experiments, then fumbling into a poorly defined conclusion.
Except for maybe the 'conspiracy' part, to a great extent he's right, that there seems to be a 'yuge' number of science 'popularizers' who make a living promulgating the latest Theories Du Jour, and often so 'aggressively' that any competing POV or theories are outright dismissed as 'crackpot' or 'fringe'. Not a very good, or objective way to do 'Science'. And the Big Bang, Dark Matter and Dark Energy all come quickly to mind... aka, "the data doesn't fit our current reigning theories, and we can't explain it, so we'll just invent some mysterious 'stuff', even if we're totally unable to detect any of it!"
Back in 1983 in my High School days. I spent a long time postulating these issues .. The answer I came up with was that : Matter was the result of an illusion caused by the interference patterns of energy events governed by an information layer, that filtered an energy layer. The past present and future are all entangled in the energy layer. Time is needed to create distance, speed, waves. Time would be created / governed by entropy, so that a rate of entropy change of the origin energy layer manifests fields that form the information layer, and thus time could be vector rather than scalar. Entropy is the key I think to the base frequencies that drive the information layer, that result in the Quanta, and Plank length, essentially a classical digital macroscopic reality composed of the base units. I think that Fourier Transform of these base frequencies fractalise creation and form the fields and particals. I guess that is a zero universe idea.
OMG it's very close to that I envisaged in 1983 in high school and was ridiculed for since. Thanks for making me aware of this video .. At least I am not alone in the universe ! ha ha ..
30:59 - That's not the Schroedinger equation for the dynamics (there's no time derivative): it's just its corresponding eigenvalue problem describing stationary states.
The real lecturer was delayed and this janitor winged it for an entire hour.
ColonelDecker001 LOL!
lol tu che
lol
Anthony Falk 😂😂
Oh... You're harsh.
Seems odd someone with no quantum mechanics work experience or academic experience would be lecturing.
+Roedy Green Yeah he kinda brushed through the experiment and missed the main conclusion points of the experiment entirely. Teaching basic quantum mechanics should be left to experts in the field.
+Roedy Green You know someone doesn't know anything about quantum mechanics when he says the "two slit experiment"
+Roedy Green Only a non-expert has the non-expertise necessary to produce the slide at 53:25. You can interpret that however you'd like.
+Roedy Green Why should it be odd? It happens all the time.
+Roedy Green Seems odd that someone finds it odd that "authority" is not of paramount importance in science.
Well, you just manged to convince me that either you don't know what it is that you are talking about, or I don't know anything.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
S. Chase.
Like gods.
@@int16_t This wasn't so much about God or God(S) as it is much more about FAITH.
@@2serveand2protect I didn't expect a 6 year old comment to reply back. Anyway, I respect your comment. Thank you :-)
@@int16_t Wait! ...WHAT??
...I was notified by YOUR comment ...6 HOUR AGO! ...
(at least - that's what it says here!)
I do wonder about YT sometimes! - there's something SERIOUSLY WRONG with them!
@@int16_t PS. Anyway! All's fine! :) Have a Great Day! ;)
LOL, "The math supporting the Multiverse Theory adds up, but it hurts my brain so I don't wanna."
Laughing out loud, Dude! Gotta love the Math. That was pivotal to my capitulation.
the real quantum supremacy is infinitively more complex than our mathematical possibilities of our best brains or of our classical computers.
Proven by experiments.
This video has a lot to absorb. The multiverse splitting is, well weird. Just found The Banach-Tarski Paradox, it's weird too. We have come a long way but have not learned a lot, the only thing we know at this time is, there is so much more we still need to learn.
Literallyy first thing on the screen: (to paraphrase) "Google was designed to disseminate views"
I kinda already knew that, but what a great way to put it.
That echo is really getting to me.
..to me... to me... to me....
You missed something. Read Paul Dirac: "Photons do not interfere with other photons. The photon only interferes with itself."
Bill Dixon Are you insinuating that photons cannot be entangled? Or are you saying that the entanglement of photons does not constitute interference?
Entanglement is not interference. Entangled photons could not, for example, destructively interfere, since that would violate the law of conservation of energy. More generally, that applies to any photons, whether they are entangled or not.
I expect this guy means well and believes he has some point to make but it's tragic how little he understands about basic physics, never mind quantum mechanics. I nearly cried when he did his laser & pencil lead demonstration. He clearly doesn't understand that the point of the double-slit experiment is that interference patterns emerge despite single photons (or electrons, depending on the apparatus being used) being sent, one after another. The guy uses a laser and of course gets the classic interference pattern because millions of photons are being delivered at the same time. So of course they interfere. This "demonstration" has nothing to do with the quantum double-split phenomenon and serves only to demonstrate the guy's total lack of comprehension of basic physics. So he starts out badly and goes straight downhill from there. I suspect he'd be happier focusing on "who really killed Kennedy" theories, or perhaps just selling ice-cream to children.
Whenever someone says they have a simple solution to some problem that's keeping physicists and mathematicians up at night, it's always a kooky engineer. These guys give engineers a bad name, TBH.
Funny how he has proven everyone wrong and he hasn't got the Nobel Prize.
Good lecture. This is an example of how information theory changes our view of things. This is just one such example. Computer science is becoming revolutionary for thinking in many other fields.
Ah, hammer-nail blindness has set in. :-)
Interesting talk but frustrating that the audio quality is so terrible, especially on a GoogleTechTalk video who you would expect to have the best of qualities.
"physicists work very hard to make and maintain quantum entanglement." the though that come to mind after hearing this makes me giggle.
our view of reality is based on our best instruments as the instruments improve our view of reality will change
+jdsol1938 Yes but... improved instruments are based on us better understanding reality, so as our understanding of reality improves, our instruments will change
+Fali Akuna and round and around we go, which is why they have built a fucking inter-dimensional death ray, underground in Switzerland and hope to 'leak some gravity' into a fucking parallel universe, based on 100 years of miscalculation... what can possibly go wrong? :/
+Simian Gimp I hope that was only a good joke ;)
+Simian Gimp - What can fucking go wrong is everything you can fucking hope to fucking go real fucking wrong.
Martin Zitter let me guess MIT or Harvard
"Measurement is entanglement" would have been a more suitable title, perhaps?
No. This video title was aimed at a specific level of intelligence. The terms you just used are outdated and hold no meaning anymore to regular folk. Most hit the quantum mechanics theory and don't get past the "event horizon outskirts." The title is perfect for pulling those minds in deeper, so that they can get another angle of what has already been proposed over and over. What eventually will happen is we will go back to "Magical" belief. Because we can never figure "it" out, magick (the logical code/meaning) will fill that gap for people's minds. Nuclear physics and quantum mechanics is basically magical work. Logic and science go out the window, as you can reprogram anything (logic/meaning) into anything, creating a "chrono-holonomic-morphology." The bibles each teach a part. The Christians (Psychosomatic emotional intelligence) Judaism (Mathematics/pattern/molecular-chemistry) Muslim - Quaran (programmable matter/intents/wishes/prayers/manifestdestiny) the big trifecta.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 genetic clones, living recycled
@@andrewfrankovic6821 no I am an autosome. A source player. Think of it like Matrix stock holders. A group powers this place. The rest just function and work here.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 check my video out. You'll see where my mind's at. ua-cam.com/video/-c9mfeRuZWU/v-deo.html
@@andrewfrankovic6821 pt 2 ua-cam.com/video/n52CnV2AyLM/v-deo.html
I like how he starts with checking audience for physicist to figure out how much bs will be tolerated :) EDIT: log does not denote logarithm base 2 but logarithm base 10, if you want logarithm base 2 you write log2
Or ln, yes?
In information theory log(x) is standard notation for log of x in base 2. In advanced math, log is standard for log in base 2 and ln is standard for base e, no other base besides 2 and e are actually used in advanced math.
The universe is under no obligation to make intuitive sense to anybody.
EXACTLY!
How can a physicist claim that a particle is in multiple spin states at the same time... then turn around and say that it is completely impossible to know it's spin state because of uncertainty? If you are uncertain about something, you can't then say it is in multiple states at the same time. lmao
Wow I agree!
I like how he completely glosses over how convenient it is that our little symbols work so well and the Einstein quote. That's kinda the point. The universe is mega fucking wierd and we are some seriously lucky mofos.
@@ryanfranks9441 Physicists are uncertain as to which spin state a particle is in because the particle is in a superposition of spins and when you try to measure its spin there is a uncertainty associated with it because it is in a superposition of spins .
Well the problem with this video is that it does not talk about delayed choice quantum eraser because in that experiment we do not measure the interfering photons but their entangled partners. So if entanglement and measurement are same, entanglement should collapse the wave function. But the wave function collapses only when the entangled partner is detected.
“Conspiracy: What Popularizers of (insert anything) Don't Want You to Know”
That right there is just screaming crackpot.
didnt listen to the first 30 seconds?
Did you ever get the "feeling" QM will be belittled sometime in the future, when our understanding is more "complete". It currently seems oddly analogous to grabbing a handful of smoke.
it will be superseded by a more complete theory that will be even stranger. all the strangeness will remain and more added.
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism).
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism).
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism). @@nmarbletoe8210
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism).
The part at 20:35 about Schrõdinger's cat being in a state of superposition between dead and alive ("as far as we can tell, that's what really happens") is not a fair description of how most physicists see that thought experiment.
*That echo is getting to me*
Billion dollar Google, $1 audio systems
I dont like when people call it QM. I like it said fully. makes it feel more futuristic.
Same for me about GR, too. General Relativity just sounds more... epic.
I've discovered that the best place to find a concentration of Dunning-Kruger examples is not creationist videos, not anti-AGW videos, not even aliens and UFO videos. Nope, its the anti-Quantum Mechanics videos, where countless laymen babble endlessly about the superiority of their common sense in understanding something they've done about 1% of the reading necessary to get through week 1 of an introductory course on the matter.
+BollocksUtwat Once again like the rest of the adherents to the substance-philosophy metaphysics, you've demonstrated an appeal to authority in the poorly veiled guise of an argument; it's beneath you and the rest who think this way to continue demonstrating your lack of awareness.
xxxYYZxxx Its not an appeal to authority if I suggest that they are simply too ignorant to know how wrong they are, unless the authority you think I'm appealing to is knowledge and insight itself.
Sorry, I don't think its fallacious to suggest that failing to possess these things is critical to being wrong.
+BollocksUtwat Your rant could lead one to believe that you feel a little bit insecure about your "knowledge." Might wanna keep a lid on that shit, Einstein.
INF1D3L010 I feel insecure about my knowledge? Because I think that woo peddlers derive their confidence from their ignorance?
I feel very confident in my tenuous grasp of physics, but when even I know things that the skeptics make mistakes about its when you realize how the delusions work.
BollocksUtwat
Your tone betrays you, silly little narcissist... You can act like you didn't take it personally, but it's clear as day that you took this lecture as an affront to your "knowledge." Then you replied to me in the exact same tone that gave you away in the first place. Dead giveaway, dude. Don't play poker. It is the intelligent mind that can entertain an idea without accepting it. It is the petty mind that complains about idealists for being idealistic.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Feynman
I'm gonna stick to that, even if this highschool teacher thinks he understands it.
Here's how to understand it in a way even Richard Feynman would approve:
There are three ways to characterize mechanics: True Particles, such as billiard balls, True Waves, like sound or ocean waves, and Quanta, like electrons, photons, or other elementary "particles". As long as you don't mind the historic mistake of confusing elementary "particles"--quanta-- with True Particles and True Waves and learn the mathematics that govern quanta, which is different from those that govern True Waves and True Particles, you can understand it.
It's a hubristic notion to assume one understands any field with utter certainty since science is always asymptotically approaching the truth. It's kind of a no-brainer.
I was with him all the way up to "Philosophical implications". It seemed that the whole point of the drawn out math was to simply explain that the observer effect of quantum mechanics is not real. The wave never actually collapses, we just alter it by measuring it. That, in fact, particles are still obeying the normal laws of physics. Then he says that this proves that reality is an illusion? How does that follow?
Same, that is completely wrong and pointless, but lets not get distracted, the lecture is still great.
Lost me when it was asserted that the extended form of Einstein's second postulate must be true. If that's the basis of your physics you might stick to coding.
I don't understand the critique. I've found this QM interpretation much more logically sound than any other so far. It dispels the Quantum Magic.
He makes an interesting relationship between observation/measurement and entanglement, and at the mathematical level... but that makes it "illogical" in the sense that perception is a different conscious dimension than cognition/thinking.
In light of what he is intending to convince us of (no pun intended by me), he should be better prepared. As is, this lecture is disjointed and unclear.
Isn't his suggested 'EPRG Paradox' experiment just a delayed choice quantum eraser? This HAS been done and the answer is actually YES, but it doesn't allow FTL communication because the receiver can't tell if individual photons are part of an interference pattern or not. In other words, the receiver can't tell if the sender is erasing with any certainty.
Potentially a good lecture otherwise spoilt by the interference pattern from sounds in the room. Pity, a leading edge company cannot get the basics right !
I stopped enjoying at 12min.
+Bacon Life you beat me by 4 mins ? So cruel !
+exwhyz33 Damn comfort. It was worth bearing with this for the information.
+exwhyz33 yeah it's pretty bad, I'm nearly at 10m & my ears are hurting, finding it hard to enjoy.
+Duck Life Says the person with a "Crocoduck" as their profile photo x'D
+exwhyz33 It stops echoing at around 17:45.
Very good video. Clasical intuition is not annulled. It is confirmed!
"The End of Quantum Reality" by Wolfgang Smith.
Quantum - Particle
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
He started out strong, but by the end I was totally lost as to his actual point. His initial assertion was that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally wrong, and I agree (the term “observer”, in particular, sets off my pseudoscience alarm; it reeks of the silly belief that consciousness has some special use in the universe), but his interpretation doesn't even seem fully coherent. No classical reality exists? What does that even mean? What are we in right now? He doesn't adequately explain it. In the end, it seems to just be an even more confusing way to put the Many Worlds Hypothesis, in which case why doesn't he just say so?
+Badly Drawn Turtle I think 'observer' has to mean any interacting particle or system, or else like you say it seems like total pseudoscience. As if humans, or life forms, have special laws of physics, lol. Any detector that a human could turn on could also be turned on by a falling pinecone hitting the right button.
Stu Digio
Tip for trolls: Be less obvious than this guy.
+Stu Digio Implosion cannot be modeled or understood by thermodynamics? Sure, it's not easy... have to do simulations...
+Stu Digio Cool name, PSI PHI. I think it is possible that ZPE will be extractable, but not sure.
Stu Digio
that's better. Now you're safely in the ‘my nonsense is just complicated enough that some people will fall for it’ zone.
so, was lost on a lot of the technical details, but I think I got the bottom line. It has now been mathematically proven that measurement IS entanglement. Therefore Schrodinger's cat is nonsense. The experiment can't exist, therefore the conclusion is nullified. The situation leading to the cat being both dead and not dead can't happen, since the particle can't be both entangled and in superposition at the same time. Entagled = measured, and measured = collapse of the waveform. That's what he was rather awkwardly trying to explain..right??
Pity that his laser pointer was NEVER seen when explaining various aspects/comparisons between items on screen.
Why here in YT we don't see the laser-pointing on the slides:
For this YT version, we're shown each of the actual slides (in their original format) , not the audience's view of them, upon which the lecturer was shining the pointer.
What happened here is that the gentleman did not "like" some of the non-intuitive feel of QM, so he reverse engineered an explanation more fitting to how he likes to conceive of "it all", and he more or less admitted that at the end. Note that he moved form Q entanglement is measurement, to the example of a coin and "coin state detector", and said that the state of one is determined by the other. That was slight-of-hand. The state of the coin is not determined by the state of the detector, but only vice versa. time must pass for the detector to render the state of the coin. With entaglement, the claim is that no time passes. I don't know how that has been proven, but let's say it has. Analogies can be sloppy in casual conversation, but engineers and scientists are held to higher standards - an analogy implies something like a commutative property and so the most fundamental parts of analogy, that on the left of the = sign, and that on the right, must track. This wrong analogy between QE and the coin&detector is a key pivot point for the gentleman's claims. And that pivot may be been a feint. Also, there are many semantic problems when talking about QM. We use mostly "classical" words to describe something that does not seem to adhere to classical reasoning. That leads to a lot of confusion.
Just adding... it's simple like this. As I said before 3 - 3d spaces. One "observable" 3d, one "indirectly observable' 3d, and one 'unobservable' 3d. Each one behaves like 3d, pretty much, except for where it is. Once you can see that, that accounts for 100% of everything (or so it appears at first blush), except for Zero Point Space energy (which are fractalized dimensionless energy states, which we don't see much, except that it adds a portion of what we see. (Because every 'particle' had a foot in it). I always put 'particle' in single quotes because it's a misnomer. All particles are energy, so when I say 'particle' I'm generally referring to what we 'classically' think of as particles.
When I say, every particle has a foot in ZPS (Zero Point Space), I mean whatever the total energy value of the particle is, one would add the 'foot' as the 'plug' that sits in a socket, of each individual wave packet that represents one quantum of the energy that makes up the 'particle'. But, that gets complicated, as one would need to know how many of what 'particle' makes up the 'particle' you refer to. For example: at one time, we thought of 'protons' as a single particle, now, so far, we know it's made up of quarks.
So, when we say only 4% of all visible matter makes up our di-sitter space. We have to realize that's an indication of how much of space is 'observable' vs how much isn't 'observable', as di-sitter space makes up half of Riemann space, and we live in Riemann space, both 'observable' and 'indirectly observable'; And anything we can't see either resides in that 'indirectly' observable, or 'unobservable' space, which includes pieces of most 'particles' and things like the 'anti-matter' part of a lot of particles. Matter, and anti-matter reside in particles as a part of that particle and based on their phase relationship do not annihilate. When we do that, then we begin to see just how much E equals mc squared, where mass is static energy, and c squared is the area of effect of that mass, as in area, pi r squared which is kinetic, and in motion in the area whose length is defined by the number of qubits of energy and the area of a circle, in a 3d space. Same thing for 'indirectly observable' and 'unobservable' qubits too!. Once we create a blackhole, and everything is contained in an area defined by an area of the schwarzschild radius, which is basically the area of a sphere, and not it's volume, because that's what happens when you pump enough energy into ZPS, superpositional phase cancellation creates orthogonal rotations in n-space, or basically, in ZPS, orthogonal rotation creates a 0 point + 1 dimension, or creates 'space', and any energy level greater than the capacity of ZPS, which is fractalized phase space occupying fractalized dimensions of everything that is less than 1/1, starting at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4... 1/n as n approaches infinity, and 1/n approaches zero, where we not only move beyond 'unobservable' and into 'sub space', which is a whole 'nother animal... monster might be more appropriate. Though, it's not a plasma, it might be best to think of it that way... fractalized plasma of less than 1 d, phase canceled, and yet... not.... if you ever want to peer into *that* rabbit hole. Go ahead, call me a quack if you will. cause I sure as hell feel crazy as a Mad Hatter, when I look at it. To quote something I heard once. 'When one stares at the abyss too long... the abyss stares back."
Just wanted to add... when we talk about virtual black holes (low energy) or black holes (high energy) the reason no one knows what's inside a schwarzschild radius is because, as you can imagine from what I said before... it's space turned inside out, so, between the ZPS or singularity center, and the schwarzschild radius, there is not only literally 'nothing', it's less than nothing, the radius is an illusion of our 'classical' thinking. It is 'fractured' space, or more classically... the distance from the radius to the singularity is infinitely less than nothing, depending upon how much nothing there is... now there's a 'true' vacuum for ya.
Now, add to the knowledge we know about classical space time... black holes occasionally explode. And how does this energy go from the singularity and out to the schwarzschild radius? Like in classical distance time problems, to get to the whole length, say of 1 length of anything, one first travels 1/2 the distance, then half of that 1/4, then half 1/8... 1/n, but it's done in fractional amounts of time, like say we can go 1 m in one second, we first go 1/2 distance in 1/2s, then 1/4s, and 1/8s. Only in fractalized sub space, we would take an infinitely long time to do it. Only we do it backwards... first we move a 1/n 'distance' in 1/n fraction of infinite time, then 1/n-1, etc in ever larger distances until we come out, in classical terms instantly, because, as energy leaves the singularity, it creates space, and as it creates space, it creates dimensions, and the Schwarzschild radius gets smaller, until its all out, instantly. Like a big bang, only smaller. And, so... I reveal myself to be a true QM believer.
Chip Cooper Hi Chip, how ya doin'? Well, at this point in history one has to be a "believer" (or not) in QM cuz all of that eludes proof, what I mean is, that the goal post is simply moved back and mysterious forces still lie at the ground of it all, such as nuclear weak force and nuclear strong force, "positive charges" and "negative charges". And then there is the sleight of hand move, saying that our "classical minds" may not be able to comprehend it all. But what avenues of pursuit in QM don't involve quantifying and qualifying in traditional classical thinking? All the discoveries of yet smaller particles have relied on detection using classical detectors. And all the promised "miracles" to come from peering way down to the quantum level are always things we wish for from our "classical" thinking and being context. I'm still looking forward to the day when they announce that they have managed to turn lead into gold - that'll be a humdinger! Or the announcement that some one or some thing, maybe a chimp, has been passed through a worm hole, traveling 1 million light years in only a minute! But why would anyone want to do that? If we knew in advance that nothing would come of that we would probably forget the whole idea. But what holds out the hope for such possibilities are the typically "classical" human desire for more, more ore, more real estate, more power.
And if we say we're just going to abandon classical thinking, well, how do we know where to go with that? So we get the many universe theories, which suggest that one has stared into the abyss for to long and gone mad. According to many universe theory, with each decision or impulse acted upon I create a new universe for myself. Then how is it that one can see the auto deposit of paycheck, scheduled in some past universe, still happen in one's new universe, many universes later? I've noticed that when the profs on You Tube speak with certainty about the many universes they never tie in the paradox that all that was scheduled in the past universes keep happening in the new universe.....so how then can one know if one has entered a new universe? There was that guy that Oprah made famous, who was claiming from a supposed Buddhistic veiwpoint, that as each moment passes, one is in a new moment, so why hang on to the past? Well, one reason to hang on to the past is that one expects payments promised to actually be made. I would ask people who spoke enthusiasticly about his book (what was his name...?) what they liked about it. They would ask me if I had read the book (answering a question with a question is an evasion tactic known even to the ancients, quite favored still today in Asia). I would say yes, and I found nothing interesting or useful in it. And none ever could say why they "liked it". At best, some would say that it's best to let bygones be bygones.....they didn't know that? Yeah, but all they were talking about was petty grievances - none wanted to let go of the regular alimony payments. Sorry for being lengthy, but my point is that so far as I can tell, only nonsense comes from abandonment of classical thinking and what can we do with nonsense?
You said: "How is it that one can see the auto deposit of paycheck, scheduled in some past universe, still happen in one's new universe" and "But what avenues of pursuit in QM don't involve quantifying and qualifying in traditional classical thinking?"
So, bring up the second again, if I forget... first things first. I think your first assumption is in the many universe theory that the person who made the decision 'not' to send your check, and "to" send your check is resolved. It doesn't resolve until you either get your check, or you do not. So for you, both universes exist in 'quantum' states, because that's a fundamental concept of QM, that a state of a particle is not known until it is observed. For the guy who sent it, he exists on one universe, and the guy who didn't send it exists in another. For you, they can both exist until you either get your check, or you don't. How will you know which one you're in. Well, this also includes another concept of QM which basically states that all things being energy, every quantum of energy has influence over every other quantum of energy. In other words, from a spiritual point of view, we're all connected. Yes, QM has gone spiritual; but, die hards are still holding on that God doesn't have to enter the picture yet, many have converted. One answer for this, so that things can exist when they're not being observed by you, in your universe, is that the ever present omniscient eye of God observes everything, but at some more elusive concept, in reality, you don't choose your universe until you observe it, and yes... this suggests that if you're in a 'foul' or 'wrong' mood, it could be your unlucky day if you supposed or thought something like (just as an example, BOCTOE) "Geez, the way my luck is going, I'll bet my check didn't get deposited this week... month... whatever, and you postulate into existence which path you took. Fortunately, it usually takes more than a 'sour' thought to fix a path. So, you actually get your check anyway.
As to how you would know you switched universes? Well, I'll give you a humorous example of how; but, first I'll say...you wouldn't, except spiritualist say "We create the universe we live in... I'll give you an example of such group at the end of this..., and, by the way. I believe this, and so does my wife; but, I'm a recent convert. In the universe I imagined, a utopia I might add, the discovery of free energy leads to a huge paradigm shift in the world which leads to world peace. But, that's not my humorous example.
This example shows how my wife and I came to believe what I just said above, and is only one of many examples of things that "happened" to us.
My wife and I weren't getting along very well early in our marriage. We fight endlessly over sometimes the smallest of things, in spite of my desire to stay out of the fights, I kept getting pulled in, and if I didn't go, it would often be followed by days of her ranting until I flipped. One day, right after one of these fights I said to her, "I really don't like the universe I'm living in. I just read a science fiction book that said we live in multiple universes. (Aside: to show the proof of this, ask me another time, and I'll explain, but basically, it starts with the question of Euclid's "parallel postulate", look it up:, and since we're talking parallel universes, so you might want to know this ;-) ... back to the story) ...said we live in multiple universe. Well, say goodbye, because I'm sliding to a universe where I get along with my wife, and we don't argue all the time." "Fine!" she said, "good luck and good riddance.".
The next day, the oddest thing happened involving a hairbrush. I had put it down, and when I went back... it wasn't where I left it. It seemed strange, and my wife wasn't there when it happened so... I finally found it, but not where I left it. I jokingly thought 'hmmm, good, I switched universes' and I seriously did not give it much thought till later.
Later, my wife came home, and I told her about the brush, and remembering our previous conversation about the universe (so that hadn't changed) she jokingly said. "Well, you must have switched universes." Laughing, I agreed. "Then I said, well I wanted to switch to a universe where I got along with my wife... so, glad to meet you!". We laughed again, and she said, "that's funny, I wanted the same thing.". We pretty much just dropped it after that, and over the next many days, we got along swimmingly. "Every once in a while, some small thing would change in either her or my awareness, nothing big, and one of us would say "hey, I had one of those slips again, must have shifted universes." and the other would reply... it was OK, and something like, I must have shifted to a better deal. Either way, something changed... forever, many times. We couldn't say whether it was one of us, or the other; but, ultimately decided it didn't matter. This when on for years, and we still get along. Minor fights over much bigger things now; but, it doesn't go on for days, just minutes or maybe an hour; but, that's it. So, what does it mean? Who knows, we still don't take it seriously, but every so once in a while, one of us says... I think I must have shifted, when something odd happens. "Still happy with your choice?" one will ask... the answer is always...yes.
So, the answer about the paycheck. The changes are subtle, often go unnoticed, when they are noticed, you think you just slipped a cog in memory, and for you... you never will know what happened, and who's who. According to the rules... the only thing you need to think about is... what do you want, and let how it happens be a problem for the cosmic consciousness, or the universe, or God, or what ever you want to call it. Everything about your past... remains the same...(and to that I'd say usually), you make up what ever you want to think, won't matter to me a bit.
Here's that link I promised: (it's indirect, through a side door... enjoy) www.thesecret.tv/planet-earth/ (sigh, just went there again. :-))
I recall way back in the '70s, our local AM radio hosts had figured out how to fix the echo effect when people called in "On Air" - perhaps Google Tech Talks should speak to an old DJ and get up to speed with all this newfangled technology ?
yeah, something like alternating channel gate
Seeing as interpretations of quantum mechanics are(until they can produce testable predictions) essentially philosophical concerns. I'll just stick with my current approach of "shut up and calculate" while showing favoritism to the Everett interpretation because it seems far less solipsistic than this approach.
Calculating is what I do all the time. Now, shutting up... THAT'S another matter. :)
The universe cant be a simulation, because the definition of a simulation is an imitation of something. If the universe is a simulation then what is it imitating? This would cause an inflate regress of simulated universe with one having to be the real one. It only seems like a simulation to us because its imitating our mathematics, mathematics that was developed by and around the universe. Which means that we are inventing mathematics to imitate the universe, so its our mathematics that is the simulation, not the universe.
Good argument
jason mathias Can you tell me an answer to the ultimate question of origin that doesn't end in infinite regress?
The only one is an "eternal" which ends the regression. However you can insert that one anywhere you like, we could be simulating a simulation of a simulation of the eternal.
We are limited in how we can think, outside of our universe that we know, it's impossible to comprehend.
Consider this however :- if you believe we will ever create an AI that's capable of creating a simulation indistinguishable from reality, Which most believe will happen. Then what's more likely, that we are part of the millions of AI's that are simulated. Or the original?
Sure, an infinite regress is a causal chain. No causality, no infinite regress. Event horizons are when causality ceases to exist. The singularity before it expanded into what we call the big bang was eternal with no regress, because it was a singularity inside of an event horizon. Matter is energy, and energy is matter (E=M) and the law of conservation states that no new energy can be created or destroyed. So, all of the energy/matter that exists has always existed in the state of the singularity. When it expanded it had the emergent properties of space/time/gravity/matter and causality.
Believe me, I've considered just about everything. And the AI simulated universe hypothesis just kicks the can a little further down the road.
jason mathias However Krauss shows that "Something from nothing" can create matter without violating the laws of conservation. Ergo matter can come from a 0 state, and energy. This means that not all matter needed to arise from the Big Bang, only that there was fundamental physics that could allow it.
The causality you say however in your explanation even defining it in a singularity, with an event horizon surrounding it. It might be regressed to the smallest state possible with no causality outside it, could really then be imagined as our universe as we know it, on a much smaller scale. A pinhead even as explained.
The regression then is, where did the pinhead come from? Somewhere the word eternal has to be used, which is what I was saying, You can add that word here, or if we are simulated. The outcome is the same thus rendering it meaningless in a debate about plausibility.
The nothing that Krauss is talking about is a void in space. Virtual particles for instance come into and out of existence without violating the law of conservation. The mathematics says that its possible for the entire universe to come from nothing i.e. a 0 state. I did use the word eternal in my last comment to describe the state of the singularity. The other explanation is an old eastern philosophy that everything is nothing i.e. the great void.
As ever , Richard Feynman got it right ." I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" .
Because it's all horsepoop, the universe is electric, see Wallace Thornhill physicists hate electricity because their mathematics is not the star.
kilroy1963 those who understand it teach it in stanford and do not make fun of theselves like his programmer proving himself that he did not underetand what he was talking about.trying to get a nobke prize un physics while he cliams and proves he is wrong. what a joke of lecture this was.
@@GregJay yay I found the conspiratard
This is the funniest, saddest, most heroic, and intemidated lecture I have ever seen. Anything this diverse must be worth paying attention to. I just know there is something here to grasp, regardless of his stumbling.
Thats not true
i understand it is complete fucking bullshit
The presenter should have EMPHASIZED the Cerf and Adami slide at 54:18. It reminds me of a boss I once had with a special business card that stated "Your complaints regarding this equipment reveals an unsound technical background." The C&A slide also made me laugh out loud.
i believe double split test changes when you observe it is because you lock it to only one universes(multiverse theory) probable outcome opposed to all of them which cause the interference pattern
PikPobedy how do you know if you don't look at it?
then you are looking at the results of the instrument. it doesn't matter if you look at the actual instruments themselves surely. or have i missed your point?
Your eyes and brain are the actual measuring instruments. The other measuring instruments are just extensions of the eye.
Omondi Akura That doesn't hold up, because the presence of a measuring instrument effects whether you see an interference pattern or not.
Cybjon Of course, this does not make sense; it is quantum mechanics! It is not really the presence of a measuring instrument that effects the interference pattern, it is the act of measuring itself. By mere looking (and not your presence) effects the interference pattern.
I watch this and think I understand it. The math seem to make a lot of sense. We act classically but are built quantumly. Great, something to think about for the rest of the week. This video is a keeper! Thanks, Ron.
Ok, one more quote from the linked paper...
[quote]
Because the effect is instantaneous and the two sides of the experiment can be separated by an arbitrary distance the result would be a faster-than-light communications channel. Note that this is more than just spooky-action-at-a- distance (which really does occur). In this case performing a volitional action (choosing to take a measurement or not) on one side of the apparatus causes an instantaneous observable change (presence or absence of interference) on the other side. We could use this phenomenon to transmit classical information faster than light, which would violate relativity.
[/quote]
Neither scientist can know what the other scientist is doing. There is no superluminal communication channel. If the presenter actually believes that QM predicts such a channel, he is mistaken.
Basically, that’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.
"WHAT WE REALLY ARE IS CORRELATIONS WITHOUT CORRELATA"
YES AS I'VE SAID, NO DATA AT ALL -- THIS IS NOT SCIENCE IT IS FANTASY.
He's not a physicist? Lecturing a bunch of actual physicists about QM.
That's like a psychologist lecturing a bunch of dentist about tooth pulling.
"Anyone can do it"......
Usually I don't double post but I am going to for the UA-cam super hero scientists here who completely missed this guys point. There is literally NO DIFFERENCE between this guys interpretation and the many worlds. He is literally just switching out "many universes" for "no universes many simulations". Then he does some math to show that its "tenable" (all he ever claims it to be) to view ourselves in a simulation when we do X it splits and makes a new simulation.
Also seeing how Susskin and other top tier theoretical physicists are all about the "Hologram theory" he may not be completely wrong seeing how "information" is becoming pretty important to the whole field
***** Well as long as you realize that in 100 years this guys theory is very likely as wrong as the main stream ones. Many worlds as many problems with it and if you have researched it you should be well aware.
Also please show me who won a Nobel Prize for work in Many worlds?
They did not win the nobel prize for their work in many worlds. They won it for inventing a system allowing for the measurement of quantum systems. Two very different things. I don't think classical physics explains everything but I calls em how I sees em and a placeholder theory is a placeholder theory. You people may as well be saying "Its God" for all I'm concerned. Why so scared to say we don't know?
The point of this guys video that pretty much everyone missed is this theory is EVERY. BIT. as valid as many worlds. There is 0 concrete proof for his theory and there is 0 concrete proof for many worlds.
So in closing Many Worlds at the moment is really a way of saying "hey were physicists and were supposed to know what is going on but in this instance we just don't know so maybe its infinite universes or holograms or something stupid". Also paragraphs are your friend.
Lol I don't believe his theory I merely said it is as valid as Many Worlds. Ok watch this
I have a theory. That the problems we see in reconciling classical mechanics with quantum mechanics is solely due to God and Jesus.However, due to the nature of God and Jesus this theory can never be tested or make predictions that can be observed.
Logically the theory I just postulated is identical to Many Worlds. Science is meant to be tested or at least make predictions that can be observed.
Einstein didn't become who he was because his math was so elegant or good. He became who he was because his math made very specific predictions that were observed right away and then later tested and proven. Many worlds admits this short coming and most of the actual proponents of many worlds will admit this is a place holder theory.
Theories can do one of two things to become fact. They can either make predictions that can observed (Like Einsteins bending light with relativity) or they can make predictions that can be tested and then replicated in order to be proven.
Jesus and God can not do these two things and neither can Many Worlds. Many Worlds is closer to religion and philosophy then it is science. When Many Worlds can make a prediction that can in turn be observed or tested then I'll buy into it. Instead it explained past observations never predicting new ones.
So no you are actually talking exactly about religion.
The negativity of the comments is what is most interesting. Not one showed any actual analysis, just confirmation bias dribble.
Not a lot of physics people speaking up, are there?
"Negativity" looks like someone cant take criticism
Speaker - "bear with me if you don't understand what I'm about to say"... "because I don't understand what I'm about to say either." Isn't he confusing a simple quantum superposition with "erasure"? And "the light is going that way"? SMH.
How does this guy come to the conclusion that the natural world needs to be more intuitively understandable, so that he can feel better?
Simple answer- He doesn't, it just works out that way
Telling stories to make the world more intuitively understandable and to make us 'feel better' has literally been the longest activity that humans have engaged in throughout our existence. Myths, legends, and religions tell us stories about *why* the world is as it is, or why humans and the world we live in exist at all. The sciences tell us stories about *how* the world is as it is, or how humans and the world we live in exist at all.
Stories let us learn more than we would otherwise figure out on our own, letting us build on prior knowledge. Stories can keep us from wasting time trying to figure out something for which the answers already exist, or inspire us to keep searching even when everyone else is content with the existing answers. And stories let us see different points of view, enable abstraction, one of the most significant upgrades we - with our inherently subjective points of view - have developed over the eons.
And they aren't binding: you can listen to a story and decide that it means nothing to you. Or that it was entertaining, but not particularly relevant. You might never get that hour back, or you might hear something that changes your life.
How did you come to the conclusion that people who are telling stories that they think make the world more intuitively understandable need to be derided so *you* can feel better?
you used exactly the same words I always use to show how those are stupid. It's awesome
Thanks, but I'm not talking about "stories." - This has nothing to do with "stories" - Quantum Mechanics works the way it does, regardless of how you might feel about it.- See?
This guy's reasoning is that QM must be wrong because he can't possibly undeestand it iintuitively.-
Bad idea !!
The same way that Copernicus/Galileo went when they displaced Ptolemy's epicycles theory - a certain "interpretation of Astronomy". Transcendental, mystical theories/interpretations - like Copenhagen QM (CQM) are difficult to develop and base complex calculations (like in quantum chemistry) on. Any interpretation that is intuitively easier and gives SAME computational results - is better way to go. Besides, there may be ways to displace CQM by observing Quantum non-equilibrium states experimentally.
"It took me ten years to finally find a physicist at CalTech who could explain why, in fact, it wasn't right."
Is this not a worrying statement right at the start of the talk?
There might be a reason why it took you ten years to find only a single person who disagreed.
It happens to me all the time, and I usually end up being right, so I'll cut him some slack. He seems honest and humble too. As I am :D
This guy started out OK at first with his mathematical breakdown of the double slit experiment to attempt to show that entanglement is identical to measurement and that it violates FTL travel of information. To claim he isn't qualified because he isn't a theoretical physicist is silly. His resume is very impressive as the lead engineer at Google for a while and many other impressive distinctions. If he were trying to publish a peer reviewed paper with this talk I'd be much more skeptical. He is more than qualified for this type of talk but I will admit he probably should have stopped at the 30 minute mark because his math was a little strange on 2 of his slides. His talk became more philosophical at the end and what he was saying would need way more testing and support to attempt to prove his point . Many of his ideas are not falsifiable therefore just accept it as a thought experiment. He did add several caveats about not being a physicist which was good and showed some humility considering many of the points he raised can only be used Der stood completely by a small group of people
Entanglement doesn't allow for the FTL sending of information.
@@NuclearCraftMod Two things are happening that are connected yet instantaneous.
@@tonybarry787 Are they? How can you know? You make measurements. What do the measurements tell us? No information was sent.
Tom Dodd the theory says they are connected and measurement backs that up by showing what you get at one particle is always the “opposite” of what you get at the other, no matter the distance. If I understand it correctly, this isn’t FTL communication, it’s that because the particles are essentially joined in some way then no communication is required for this effect. In this video, I didn’t understand his example of where you could get a message through by controlling whether interference takes place. Did you get that bit?
@@tonybarry787 The theory says the spins are opposite - it doesn't say any thing about them being 'connected', and you can even prove that measuring one does not 'affect' the other. All that happens is, as you say, the spins are always opposite when measured.
And which bit is this? It's been a few years since I last watched this.
Smart enough to figure out the universe, but can’t figure out how to mute a conference call. Scientists also once thought the sun revolved around the earth.
At 19.57 he says, "if I actually had a laser to shine through that...."
But, He began this lecture with a laser and some graphite sticks.
What the hell kind of ignorance inducing b.s. is this company trying to spawn?
Jonas Salk 19:57
It has occurred to me that a theory of reality which nobody understands, even those who invented said theory (per Feynman), cannot be a true representation of reality. Case in point - the paradox of the "double slit experiment". In college I once had a physics professor who told us that when you encounter a paradox in a theory of physics (or anything), then you can be certain that you are asking the wrong question. The value of the paradox then is to shine a light on a fundamental fallacy of the theory which has produced the paradox.
To me the central and obvious paradox in the double slit experiment is the idea that electrons and photons are by definition point particles with no dimensionality in space. If they have no dimension then how can they occupy space? And then how can you fire a “single electron” at a particle detector when a single electron doesn’t exist in our universe? I submit that you can’t. Once you admit this then the paradox gives way to the understanding that QM is deeply flawed.
At his point someone always says, "But wait, QM is the most successful physical theory ever devised." But is it? There are a score of QM values not intrinsic to the theory which have been derived from experiment and entered by hand. Wouldn’t we expect such an ad hoc construct to be accurate? This seldom mentioned though glaring deficiency proves that QM cannot be considered a fundamental physical theory. Instead QM is just a toolbox of tricks that let us make calculations which, in turn, let us build better iPhones.
Firstly, electrons and photons are not point particles, certainly not by definition. There is only a paradox if you believe electrons and photons are purely particles. Since they both exhibit wave-like characteristics, that's evidently not true.
Secondly, it seems that both electrons and photons *can* be produced individually. It's an experimental fact which anyone could verify given the right equipment. There are some youtube videos demonstrating the double-slit phenomenon (ie not just representations, but actual experiments).
You really have to put some time and effort understanding the rules of the game before playing. It's so easy to fall into traps otherwise. Try watching Leonard Susskind's series on Quantum Entanglements or Quantum Mechanics. It's a bit hard going mathematically, but that's got to be expected.
There are conceptual issues surrounding QM. For example, the 'measurement' problem and the notion of 'action at a distance' arising from entanglement. Both are currently being argued about.
Finally, every theory in physics seems to have ad hoc values derived from experiment. Gravity has the cosmological constant, electromagnetism has charge, etc etc. QM is no different in that respect. In fact, QM has led to the most comprehensive understanding we have to date, namely the Standard Model.
So, can you think of entanglement as essentially memory of interaction stored in the particle?
I would say the Bell inequality conflicts with the usual sense of "memory".
Google tech is so brilliant, it can't even collapse the echo in audio
Quantum Mechanics = Understanding God's design -okay I'm, listening; go on !
We live in a holographic universe with endless dimensions.
we don't live, we are
@@SickPrid3 Man don´t do drugs
That's an awesome talk. Recently I was going to ask for some examples where complex numbers emerge in a useful way to interpret common real-life phenomena, but this is more than I expected.
I think you used a poor wording of "illusion" or "simulation". It implies some complex dependency or complete unreality of our classic universe. It seems to me more like "truncation", "projection", "slice" - there's the complex and fully consistent quantum universe, with no randomness, fully reversible and deterministic, and we do exist within it, but everything we can ever perceive - every observable quantity, every observable interaction, all that comprises our "classical universe" is just a slice, taking some properties of the quantum universe while ignoring/losing/discarding/missing others. What we observe/experience are just echoes of the underlying processes. Taking the modulus of a complex number and saying "This is it, this is the actual value" - no, the actual value is the complex number, but the modulus is what carries over to the visible slice of reality, the manifestation of the process that is accessible to our methods of measurements.
So instead of the pessimistic "we are only an illusion, a simulation" you should look at it in a more positive sense: "We are more than meets the eye; we are more than we can perceive. What we know as our universe is just a flickering shadow of something much broader - and much more orderly."
+sharpfang excellent explanation. Thank you.
I think the problem here is the difference in FTL communication and FTL correlation. Communication implies that information can be extracted/is present. This simply isn't the case in entangled particles because the nature of superposition doesn't allow for someone to deliberately give an input. All someone can do is measure one entangled particle and destroy the wave function of the other, realizing it to be the same/opposite (depending on set up). If the entanglement could be deliberately realized on a specific state, then FTL communication would be possible, but that contradicts the modern mystery and seemingly randomness of how we understand QM.
Using superposition and entanglement is useless for FTL communication because the information necessary to decipher it on the other end has to be transmitted classically, but it's useful for stuff like cryptography.
Seems reasonable up until the philosophical implications. And it's pretty clear that human minds aren't Turing machines, that is out of date thinking.
So, we are simulations running on a quantum computer... which are currently attempting to build quantum computers.
Gives new meaning to, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
:D
And now we know why Google talks failed.
Just because he is a super awesome computer engineer, doesn't mean he's qualified to talk about anything he wants. He even kinda starts blushing when he hears there are physicists in the room... "oops"... This is just a guy that did some research at home, like all of us do.
***** Yeah that was kinda wat I meant :P