Carlo Rovelli | Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution | Talks at Google
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- Carlo Rovelli discusses his recent book "HELGOLAND: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution", a startling new look at quantum theory, from one of the world's most renowned theoretical physicists.
Helgoland is a treeless island in the North Sea where the twenty-three-year-old Werner Heisenberg made the crucial breakthrough for the creation of quantum mechanics, setting off a century of scientific revolution. Full of alarming ideas (ghost waves, distant objects that seem to be magically connected, cats that appear both dead and alive), quantum physics has led to countless discoveries and technological advancements. Today our understanding of the world is based on this theory, yet it is still profoundly mysterious.
As scientists and philosophers continue to fiercely debate the meaning of the theory, Rovelli argues that its most unsettling contradictions can be explained by seeing the world as fundamentally made of relationships rather than substances. We and everything around us exist only in our interactions with one another. This bold idea suggests new directions for thinking about the structure of reality and even the nature of consciousness. Rovelli makes learning about quantum mechanics an almost psychedelic experience. Shifting our perspective once again, he takes us on a riveting journey through the universe so we can better comprehend our place in it.
Carlo Rovelli is a theoretical physicist who has made significant contributions to the physics of space and time. He has worked in Italy and the United States, and is currently directing the Quantum Gravity research group of the Centre de Physique Théorique in Marseille, France. His books "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics", "Reality Is Not What It Seems", and "The Order of Time" are international bestsellers that have been translated into more than forty languages.
Get the book here: goo.gle/2SMPoJR.
Moderated by Sanders Kleinfeld.
#quantumtheory #quantumphysics #carlorovelli
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Such likeable genius! I have served on a university faculty (as p-chem prof), and I have come especially appreciate people like CR who are so clearly about the wonder and joy of discovery and its sharing rather than about ego and gravitas-of-opinion. I know a few such refreshing geniuses and consider them to be the highest inspirations.
In his answer to the last question, Carlo Rovelli refers to Max Born, not Max Bohr as the subtitles text shows. Born, Werner Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan (the authors of quantum mechanics) all worked for Niels Bohr.
The idea that the observables instead of wave function are fundamental is in my opinion very powerful and prof. Rovelli touches here a very important point which I would like to stress even more: the appearance of noncommutativity is a drastic conceptual change and no surprise that physicist were not ready to embrace it (as pointed out by prof. Rovelli, Heisenberg didn;t know matrices in fact at the time!). So consequently it is not surprising that if something familiar appeared, i.e. wavelike PDE people moved to this approach. In this framework the wave function for a single particle is an L^2 function defined on R^3 and it is very tempting to think that this R^3 somehow corresponds to possible positions of a particle-but if you take two particles you need to consider a tensor product L^2(R^3) \otimes L^2(R^3) which can be identified with L^2(R^6) and thinking of entangled states in terms of position is no longer valid-the whole state does not specify the states of single particles! Somehow this geometric picture starts to disintegrate-which seems very strange and people were not ready for it. But it disintegrates even further! After all hermitian operators can be diagonalised (using spectral theorem-provided discrete spectrum) and in the eigenbasis the underlying Hilbert space is just l^2(N) (sequences!)-so the geometric space R^3 disappears! I believe that this is a very important lesson, a lesson which was understood by Alain Connes who took this idea very seriously and founded a new branch of mathematics called Noncommutative Geometry. This is an attempt to try to do geometry in spaces which do not have ordinary points (which can be made precise)-my feeling is that people do not yet fully grasped the power of noncommutative geometry but there are more and more examples coming from various areas of mathematics and physics which show how this philosophy is fruitful.
Tim Maudlin also made an interesting point about the importance of "local beables" being primary and also had a similar criticism of MWI to what Rovelli put in the book, that it's unclear how the theory relates to anything we observe since it contains no observables at all. Although I find Rovelli's view more helpful than the Bohmian view Maudlin endorses because I mainly got into philosophy relating to quantum mechanics due to quantum computing. The Bohmian view explains paths particles move through space very intuitively, but apply it to anything else at all, like how qubit values changes throughout a program, and I cannot even fathom how that could be comprehended in a Bohmian view.
There is a paper from the physicist Dmitry Blokhintsev back in like 1951 who also argued that quantum theory is better explained by getting rid of the idea that you can consider anything in isolation from anything else. Einstein wrote a paper in _Dialectica_ arguing that if nonlocal effects were real, then no objects could be truly isolated, and thus he was concerned about the future of physics, seeming to suggest that it would imply the inability to isolate phenomena and reduce nature down to its essential causes. Blokhintsev's respond is interesting because, in responding to Einstein, he tied a rejection of things-in-itself directly to unpredictability. Indeed, Einstein is correct that if things cannot be isolated such that they can be free of the environment and exist _in themselves,_ then Laplacian determinism would be dead. Blokhintsev argued that this is just the reality we live in, the causality of classical physics is just an approximation and in reality we have to accept irreducible randomness _precisely because_ things do not exist in themselves.
Great talk! This really echoes Wolfram's recent ideas
these points on superposition and relationality are key in buddhist sciences - might be of interest to some of you - they talk of equipoised superposition and also the concept of emptiness - being how Rovelli says here that the pen is relational - eg. Vimalakirti and Avatamsaka texts & I recommend talks by Robert Thurman on this connection with quantum physics; even about holographic universe (1500 yrs before Leonard Susskind) - Rovelli talks about Nagarjuna - there are so many more
The notion of all things only existing in relation to everything else, and thus things-in-themselves not existing in reality, is not unique to Buddhism. It was a conclusion derived uniquely from dialectical materialist philosophy going back to Marx and Engels. Some interpretations of Ludwig Wittgenstein also come to similar conclusions.
Many thanks! Very interesting dialogue!
There is a fundamental basis...
How to overcome the conceptual and paradigmatic crisis in the foundations of knowledge?
Yes, dear Carlo, "Physics needs Philosophy." Philosophical ontology needs new breakthrough ideas in order to build a new Ideality as a fundamental ontological basis of Reality (Universe).
But one must start with a new understanding of matter in the spirit of Plato ...
MATTER is that from which all forms are born.
Good metaphors of Plato: "nurse", "recipient".
Then the triune (ontological) structure of MATTER is born: absolute rest (linear state) + absolute motion (circular motion, vortex) + absolute becoming (absolute wave). Each absolute (unconditional) state of matter has its OWN ONTOLOGICAL WAY (!!!).
Accordingly, the triune (absolute) SPACE (the ideal entity - ontological, ideal limit for matter) has 9 gnoseological dimensions (three ontological).
What keeps, protects, develops, directs matter? This is a metanoumenon - ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, "soul of matter", its measure. Thus we create a new Ideality for understanding Reality as a whole or a new ontological basis of knowledge: ontological framework (ontological boundaries, limits), carcass (absolute coordinate system), foundation (meanings / values).
Then we establish the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of information, time, consciousness.
In a word, it is necessary to rethink the entire dialectical line from Heraclitus to Whitehead and Losev. Special attention is paid to N. Kuzansky's dialectics: "coincidence of opposites". "coincidence of maximum and minimum", as well as Whitehead's metaphysics of process.
Good philosophical precepts were given to physicists by John Archibald Wheeler:
>
Forward, to understanding the world (Universe) as an eternal integral process of generating more and more new meanings and structures.
(Vasily Nalimov)
The quantum revolution should turn into the Big Ontological Revolution: "Understand and count quickly!"
Intriguingly at one point Carlo asks: ''if you were in a superposition how would you feel?''
Well probably like Hamlet, to be or not to be!
(Superposition of mental states seems to be quite common, say, when one hesitates.)
Thank you for the beautiful interview.
Thank you!
Yes, relativity hurray! Great video! :)
Very good indeed!
Wow amazing
37:55 but at the end , conscious being is veryfying the result,
Those machines are working as extended senses, but at the final stage, a conscious observer is taking a look at results, and declaring the result
Lee Smolin explained the relational reality as stated by Leibniz. In LIFE OF THE COSMOS, Lee Smolin explained classical physics as relations, but didn't explain the relational physics of quantum mechanics or its interpretation. Carlo Rovelli is known for his version of relational physics of QM, but I am still waiting for the new interpretation. Since Penrose still find quantum physic of measurement as confusing, I resort to Susskind claiming various path of electron's trajectory as entangled with any path, so this entanglement collapses the wave function to the deter mistic measurement, claiming coherence as in Penrose/Hameroff's microtubules can represent coherent quantum states of consciousness (as a deterministic QC function).
Nothing is fundamental, therefore nothing is emergent. Complexity naturally arises but the relational aspect of reality places our experiences at the same level of quantum interactions. That’s has huge implications
29:30 If there are many worlds, would in any of them electromagnetic waves travel on a medium called aether?
In trying to explain Quantum Weirdness... Mr Rovelli made me think of Politicians trying to speak about the Truth!!
What Mr Rovelli says in Min.32:16... And 37:25 (Responding to first Question from the Audience)... In my view, this stances seem to contradict one-another... Robots, Cameras and Whatever Apparatus "making" the Observation... Is NOTHING until SOMEONE Observes it, many People think... ... And... Other BEINGS making an Observation ... How do you register that in any experimental setting??!!... Mr Rovelli throws to the garbage-can this reasoning STRONGLY... Well...I guess... That's how Quantum Weirdness goes!!!
I´m all in. with Mr Rovelli stance on RELATIONSHIP-GOING-ON ... AMONG-ALL-THINGS!!... Yes... But ... I think you have to consider and VALIDATE... INDIVIDUALITY FIRST... I mean... ... Me... Myself.. I PERCEIVE!!.. (I notice, I'm talking to myself... YEAH!!!... EUREKA!!!... THAT'S WHAT I MEANT!!!... haha)
17:40 I believe that was one of Schrödinger's goal with the cat. You know all those t-shirts and posters "Schrodinger's Cat: Wanted - Dead and Alive"? They are all wrong!
Are they really all wrong? Here is an easy to understand solution (!).
The interpretation of the ''macroscopic superposition state'' of the simultaneously dead and live cat of Dr. Schödinger is rather obvious: ''it's very sick''! (Where upon the doctor may reduce it to one or the other state by simply pronouncing his finding.)
How about Dr. Rovelli's simultaneously sleeping and awake cat? Well, ''it's dosing''!
✨
:Velocity is relative to the observer" is what Einstein took so much trouble to explain. His conclusion is simply that velocity is independent of the observer, " made possible by relativistic situation of the two 'observers'", making them background independent. Carlo Rovelli's 'relational' criteria to define QM isn't true. 'Observation' makes probability make way for determinism. Rovelli himself admits background independence 22:00, and specifically exclaims it was his mistake.
This have to be a videogame
19:54 Dependent arisising!!!
30:28 Maybe we don't want to predict. May be we are just simply scared of an idea that there's nothing to predict? 🤔
I knew you'd say that.
@@CarminaIguana is it bad news for me? 😁
Or Just god that play's a game of dice
The notion of all things only existing in relation to everything else, and thus things-in-themselves not existing in reality, is not unique to Buddhism. It was a conclusion derived uniquely from dialectical materialist philosophy going back to Marx and Engels. Some interpretations of Ludwig Wittgenstein also come to similar conclusions.
what the heck is Sanders doing in the frame?
Why is this comment section open but ALOK's comment section is disabled?
Because of white cis gender males of course!
Didnt you hear? It is all because of them
Maybe it's magic.. where all fundamental laws we know breaks and there is no way to actually crack the quantum phenomenon. Would that be the end to the discovering part of physics? Have we completed STUDYING physics and have nothing more to do?
Can any good physicist out there tell me 6-7 different explanations for any single phenomenon ?
You can find many different equivalent explanations for computing the classical trajectory of a body thrown into the air by a person in books, including Newtonian mechanics, setting the derivative of the Lagrangian to zero, computing using the Hamiltonian, etc.
Don't give kids on trains any ideas, Carlo! ;)
We would like to predict the future but Judaism, since long ago, claimed on the Ecclesiastes, we cannot predict the future and that sh!t happens and there's nothing we can do about it.
So you see probability evidence as a third person?
What you define future? A person will get rich, married a beautiful wife , have 5 children all these can’t not consider as future, what is evolution going to take our universe to, that is future. It is definitely predictable .
Carlo Rovelli and his friends are bending over backwards trying to save their materialistic framework. Its not untill this these old ideas are given up on that we can make progress in understanding the nature of the universe. At this point its just institutional pressure keeping it in place, too many egos, too many careers have been invested in it for too long, and of course materialism has brought us this far - to its breaking point.
Materialistic framework? Carlo Rovelli represents the opposite. It’s a world without things, just interactions or events.
@@AntonioSanchez-yl9wj A world of interactions and events would have no hope of giveing rise to consciousness. We would never have the ability to talk about it.
Its just materialism, with the material taken out and only its behaviors left over, which is pretty absurd
@Edward Armstrong Prove what?
@Edward Armstrong Do you mean that its absurd to think the world is material and that conscious awareness somehow magically pop's out of it?
@Edward Armstrong my assertion is simple, mind cant be reduced to the images held by mind - such as the brain. That's a philosophical statement. Neither philosophical statements nor theoretical statements resting on the scientific method, can be proven - you are showing yourself to be a moron.... Your position that consciousness most likely emerges from an unconscious substance or state - this cant be proven either; but one philosophical claim is going to be closer than the other.
For heavens sake take Sanders picture / person out of the video. Why? Why? Is he in the frame anyway. Is he supposed to nod and smile and ask insightful questions of Dr. Rovelli?
Quick solution is to zoom in on the right screen on your phone 🎉
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”
So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
Time Theory.
You are a Time Mechanic!
Time lines - Infinity - all information
What is the universe?
The universe consists of pure - Information - is the universe.
What is information?
One bit of information is a technology
Two bits of information create a new independent information- a new information structure
What are atoms or matter?
Structures of information or better, technologies!
One technology = one individual atom
Two technologies make a new technology
A - new structure made up of two inner technologies or structures. Itself is a technology. Independent
What is mathematics?
Information interactions - creating new information / or interactions between set technologies (From & too infinity)
What is time?
Time is Information - interacting to create a order. A sense of entropy is the ordering of the information interactions - creating new technologies and technologies sets.
💯 logic
discuss dark matter in terms of relations
Do you think it's more of a problem for Rovelli's relational approach than ordinary visible matter is? Darks matter weakly interacts with ordinary matter. It mainly interacts gravitationally. And gravitation is a paradigmatic relational property according to Rovelli.
We only know it through its gravitational effects, and gravitational effects are part of, you know, general *_relativity._* lol
LOL to objects have no properties of their own...
Everything happens inside the consciousness. There is only now and there is only happening and everything (including the past and future) is created now.
True, but irrelevant to this video.
Once Bishop Berkeley failed to keep his appointment to meet with his friend (if I recall right) Jonathan Swift in the latter‘s house. When asked what happened, Berkley said, ''none responded to the door-bell, so I left''. Swift said to the veteran idealist: ''couldn't you enter through the door by imagining it?''
Carlo, would you please marry me? You changed my life already. Grazie!
Rovelli is great but that fella from Google just spoils the whole thing. Why do you need that 500 USD headphones + microphones if you sound like you voice goes from inside the toilet? Plus the man just has no idea what Rovelli's talking about.
universatay, ain't that great.
gibberish..when I put a cat in a box from which no information in or out can pass, the question is not what state my cat is in, rather, what cat? The cat only exists in the memory of who put it in the box..the rest is supposition
In this interview Dr Rovelli said that conscience plays no role in collapsing wave function: "robot can perform an experiment". Well, "Delayed choice quantum eraser" experiments clearly show that it does.
And please, stop this childish/woke thing - cat is asleep or awake. We are adults and understand what "dead" and "alive" means in this context. It means two fixed apposite states and not "awoke, but still slippy".
Let's settle on "cat is either woke, or based"
@@notanemoprog Not really. It sounds too foggy. Sort of - if a grandma had balls she would be a grandpa.