Physics-Theory Community: Bohm theory can't make testable predictions; we should therefore reject it. Also Physics-Theory Community: String Theory can't make testable predictions; sounds excellent; let's focus 100% of our efforts there and never hire anyone who wants to consider alternatives. Swizz Patent Office: Wanted: Patent Clerk. Must possess a physics degree.
Sabine's songs are amazing too especially about TTOE, or rather not hearing about it. So I wrote a song for her and you all. I hope she does her own version. Sabine could win a Grammy and a Noble in shot: Bohmian Rhapsody The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!) Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, No escape from Relativity. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see, I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy, (seriously both) Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low, Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me. Mama, just killed Relativity, Put logic in his head, Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead". Mama, my new life has just begun, Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away. Mama, ooh, Didn't mean to make you happy, If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum, because Relativity doesn't matter. Too late, the time of the Æther has come, Sends shivers down my spine, Mind is thinking all the time. Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go, Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind , and face the truth. Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows), I don't want to sigh, I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all. I see a little silhouetto of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango? Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me. (Galileo) Galileo. (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figured it out. Magnifico-o-o-o-o. I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity. He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family, Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity). Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go? Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go) Oh oh oh oh No, no, no, no, no, no, no Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.) Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me. So you think you can warp space and time, LOL? So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny? Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby, Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here. (Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah) EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, Anyone can see, EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see. Any way the Æther blows... BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE 1. Space cannot be bent or warped. 2. Time cannot be bent or warped. 3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. 4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. The readers digest version of how Nature actually works. [The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".] [ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.] [In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 micrograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).] [ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ] BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
@@johnboze Let me add to the above - Space-Time doesn't exist. Duration and Distance are NOT the same thing. Space & Light have no properties. Thus, can not bend or curve. (Polarisation between Electrochemical Interaction led to the ILLusion!) Light doesn't have a "Speed". Its a Velocity/Rate of Induction. The Limit isn't real. Plasma has a Refractive Index -1 and is an ACTUAL INCREASE! Mass does NOT increase with Velocity. Sensory phenomena is not proof of it. Time is NOT an Ion Clock. And Time is NOT Relative. Time is objectively CONSTANT while simultaneously subjectively DYNAMIC! The Photon doesn't exist. It's an Electron emitting Radiation into our Visible Spectrum. (It conserves its charge when in a Vacuum) And if that last part didn't make sense, well get ready... Space. Isn't. Empty. IT'S FULL! Of Sparse Gas that expands when it escapes the "gravitational" Pressure of our Electromagnetically bound Atmosphere. The Moon is in Earth's Geocorona while OUR ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is in The Sun's Atmosphere, better know as the Heliosphere! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! I WIN "SCIENCE"! FUQQ DA WESTERN CHURCH! FUQQ THE WHITE HATS! FUQQ THE BLACK HATS! FUQQ THE GLOBALISTS! FUQQ THE INTERNATION SYSTEM OF METRICS!! I'm 30. Self-studied and KNOW MORE THAN 99.9% of Scientists. (Who needs Academia when I've got the Internet, AI, and loads of Science from the "Forbidden Section".) Oh also! The Wave-Particle Duality is based on "probability" but MY Omni-Wobble (Soliton) Model is "Deterministic"!! Every interaction is between Chemical Mass & Electromagnetic Radiation. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Its not that hard. But unfortunately modern Scientists think that their lack of clarity and depth must be evidence of the Shallowness of our understanding. But it isn't. Its just them that avoid Reason & Logic. .... Anybody want the Fundamental difference that Separates everything in our Cosmos? State. Of. Motion. Quantum Motion dictates Atomic Motion dictates Molecular Motion dictates Cellular Motion dictates Micro Motion dictates Macro Motion. ITS ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL MOTION DUDE! Just "different" Motion. LOL How simple is that? So simple yet they complicate it with "magic" and imaginary "force". But it's just Energy in different states of Motion. (Even Mass is just frozen/pressured Energy) ALSO! "Consciousness" is Mind. And Mind is that Quantum "Centre of Gravity" that acts as a Nuclei of EVERY ORGANISM IN OUR COSMOS TOO! (Wait till we get to the level where we can prove it.... not far off now. Consciousness is not an emergent property of the Brain. ALL OF PHYSICAL REALITY IS EMERGENT VIA.... MIND as in mINd.)
I know a couple of highly intelligent people like yourself, but those two guys DO NOT like to share thoughts and ideas. I am very grateful that YOU do share. I'm sorry it ends up being through the internet, because we all know how that usually ends up. But, anyway. Thank YOU for your service!!
Quantum Mechanics has a monster in it, but it takes different forms depending on the interpretation. In Bohmian mechanics, the monster is the pilot wave; in Many Worlds, the monster is the universal wave function; in the Copenhagen interpretation, the monster is measurement; in Quantum Bayesianism, the monster was you all along, lovable Grover!
But the pilot wave concept is not a problem if Relativity is wrong and is replaced by Galilean Relativity, where space and time are absolute and instantaneous field propagation is possible. See my post at the very top of the comments.
Maybe there is a Dimension W where everything is conected with everything and where any message can be sent instantaneously. In our 3D+T universe speed is limited by c , but in W no such a limit exists. And for some reson W can be accesed by entanglement only. The rest is Bohemian Bohmian.
Even Bohr's grandson took a swing at Pilot Wave. He saw an experiment involving a bouncing droplet on a double slit experiment, was amazed by it, and decided to do research. He came to the conclusion that the walls between the slits can be made arbitrarily long or short in traditional quantum mechanics, you still get and interference pattern. But in Pilot Wave you'll find that the particle can go only one way or the other, losing contact with the part of the pilot wave that passes to the other side of the wall, if the wall is too long. The wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there'll be no interference pattern.
How can this be? Aren't the two theories supposed to make exactly the same predictions? I thought one could prove analytically that this is the case, assuming this quantum equilibrium hypothesis Sabine talked about
@@quinson93 it came out as an article on Quanta Magazine 2 years ago, here's a link: www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/
This research was actually on walking droplets, not quantum theory. His results basically said that the analogy between the two has its limits. Rather uncontroversial.
Really wish you’d do more proofs and derivations on your channel. You have a good amount of viewers that would appreciate you supporting your explanation of theory with math when possible.
Bohm is, if I remember correctly, simply the solution of the Schroedinger equation in polar coordinates (i.e. you express complex numbers as magnitude and phase instead of real and imaginary component). Absolutely nothing follows from such a transformation about physics.
Ty for this, I love your clear explanation with zero bias in your tone. Also, reference all materials accurately, I seen you around the Physics community and found you through research I did on Prof LeeSmo “Einstein unfinished revolution “. Prof Lee talks very highly of you and after watching this I can understand why. Thank you for dedicating so much to educating us who are willing to listen and learn.
Anyone else think that Dr H (or is it Prof H? If not it bloody well ought to be in my book) knocks this sort of stuff out of the park compared to anybody else?
i dont want to repeat compliments already put forth in the comments, so i may just add: thanks for being one of the few who does pronounce deBroglie 'corect' instead of as something reminiscent of Brockoli
As a non physicist, Bohm's guiding field looks a lot like a quantum version of Einstein's folded space/time as the explanation of gravitational movement of larger bodies.
The problem before watching this video was measuring how many little circles one can fit in the background, the probability of their size, color, and placement for the the perfect distraction from the actual content of the video
Electrons, like atoms, and black holes, and the universe as a whole, are horn toroidal fluid vortices (hence "point-particles") in/of the single, scale-uniform 'super-fluid' medium (I call it the SUM, a.k.a. "space-time") whose self-relative motion (a.k.a. "acceleration"; "momentum"; "push") as vortices and waves, comprises the evolving (hence "time") structure of the universe and all of its content "physical objects". Therefore we can say that the "material universe" is 'pure motion' (primarily point-radial in trajectory). The Einsteinian "time dilation/ length contraction" principle applies to the SUM itself, meaning that its self-relative motion ("acceleration" as 'motion relative to itself') is the mechanism by which the otherwise absolutely homogenous SUM 'self-differentiates' into the structural diversity of the observable universe, including our own bodies. Also, therefore, not only do massive objects "curve spacetime", massive objects ARE "curved spacetime". The inflow of the SUM equals the point-radial outflow "expansion" of the SUM compression wavefront that is the surface of the mass-object (e.g. the Earth). Ergo the "gravitational (and smaller scale) field(s)". Since SUM fluid vortices, and every complex manifold thereof, including ourselves, constitute 'I/O devices' (inflow/outflow; input/output; positive/negative; "yin/yang"; etc.), we can say that the physical universe is comprised by an otherwise, absolutely continuous SUM "simulating" (by means of its self-differentiating, self-relative motion) a "discrete particle" - based "material universe" as "a universal self-organizing network of distributed I/O devices" which are manifested in terms of their inter-communication by means of the specific sequence of SUM 'vibrational acceleration waves' traveling at the "constant, finite, but asymptotic limit for all mass-objects" speed of light which they emit and absorb. We "human beings" are momentum routers ("pushers" of "things") in that network. In order for there to be a "push", there must be a "something else" to "push against". "Yin/Yang". Consider that every "sensation" - i.e. that you are "conscious" of - is comprised of a "push" (or vibrational series of "pushes") at some scale, at some amplitude, in some 'direction', as a "transfer of momentum"; a displacement of a mass object from its otherwise geodesic path. So the "material universe" is apparently a self-configuring momentum-routing circuit /network. "Consciousness" is 'a self-configuring momentum waveform' in/of the SUM. P.S. "Dark matter" is the SUM itself concentrated around its "material" vortices, and "dark energy" is its larger-scale flow. ua-cam.com/video/MmG2ah5Df4g/v-deo.html 0:22/11:57 They are being carried along by the outwardly expanding flow of the SUM (scale-uniform medium) itself from its horn toroidal fluid vortexual architecture "output". They are not, themselves "accelerating" (undergoing "proper acceleration") by means of an 'on-board' power supply. Thus, in this case, they are not moving "through space over time", they are moving "with space over time". Light waves are the universal 'CPU clock ticks' of 'time'. They make up the 'Cartesian coordinate system' of the 'space-time epic' in which we are taking place. ... Call the Y axis "time", and the X axis "space". Let your eye be at 0 looking in the positive Y direction, and let any other detector be placed anywhere else along the X axis. The photon (or physical increment of "time") is propagating toward your eye, or other detector, as a spread-out 'shock wave' front, and collapsing point radially toward its detector, only being "detected" when the momentum (acceleration) pulse it is transferring through the SUM (scale-uniform medium, or "space-time") literally from its horn toroidal 'point' of origin is transferred to its corresponding destination point of detection. The universe might be described as a 'self-calculating quantum computer'. Let's discuss: ua-cam.com/users/onemediuminmotiondiscussion
😊..to my understanding the terminology of 'quantum' is something in 'material domain' having property that something in 'conscious domain', perhaps the 'Bohemian Mechanic' drive the formula that fits in 'conscious domain'..as EPR paradox said "physical reality provided by quantum mechanic was incomplete" seem perhaps the 'conscious domain' is not applied yet..😊 🙏..pardon me if my comments is a bit weird..🙏
I'm late to the party, but the reason so many people ask about it is because of a video by Veritasium a few years ago which explained it, and suggested that it was a viable interpretation of quantum mechanics.
this theory, is soo much more elegant! at least here, the corpuscule is only in one place in the same place. maybe the corpuscuse is not in the valley but i think that is a good way to explore
It's just too bad that corpuscles don't exit. It's called "quantum mechanics" for a good reason. Quanta are not corpuscles and they are not particles. They are amounts of energy. Energy does not behave like a physical body because it is not a physical body. It's a property of a physical system.
1:33 The right side of the equation there are two symbols, < and > enclosing Psi and Psi subscript i. A vertical line, | separates them. The left hand side is called Ket. When they are put together we have a Braket (Bracket). We Physicists, what a wacky group. LOL
It's a bit unfair to the Copenhagen interpretation to characterize it as saying, "That's a question you're not supposed to ask." I think it's more fair to take its point of view as: "What is the measurement of an unmeasurable thing?" is a meaningless question, a statement that I think many people would take as obviously true.
The Copenhagen interpretation never sat well with me The "hidden variables" are much more satisfying than something else, even more plausible than the "many worlds" interpretation. Of course, it isn't provable either way, which tosses it into the box of philosophy rather than physics. I have liked Bohm's idea for a long time. It's well worth reading his book, "The Undivided Universe" (with B. J. Hiley).
the statement about rapid measurements revealing underlying processes reminds me distinctly of what you said about superdeterminism, where you made a similar point that multiple successive measurements (ideally of the same particle) could validate a deterministic view of quantum mechanics. i wonder what there is to be said about the compatibility of bohmian mechanics and superdeterminism - what subset of deterministic quantum theories could be pilot wave theories, and how you could tell whether a deterministic quantum theory is a pilot wave theory.
The thing about the pilot-wave theory that’s important is that it actually describes an interaction between space and matter.. quantum field theory doesn’t as it’s purely a probabilistic model and nothing more. Given that space=energy=matter and where the boundaries are and how one becomes the other should be the next avenue of research, having a model that actually describes the interaction will be order-of-magnitude better.
When break up the quantum wave into real and imaginary, could separate the particle from the wave rather than the wave guiding the particle. Conservation of probabillity and quantum equilibrium would go with the wave function, while the particle position would separate without guiding field from wave function. Would also allow more particles to be created from superposition, only one at a time, sequentially rather than simultaneously. The particles ought to retain locality and speed of light limit as separate from wave function.
Love your videos! One correction: in English, we NEVER say "How it looks like" that's something that's incorrectly taught by European English classes. "What it looks like" or "What does it look like" are correct. It's never correct to say "How the particle looks like".
The grammar police is here to arrest all of us for willful destruction of the English language. Everybody who is not a native English speaker, please quickly leave the premises through the back door!
@@lepidoptera9337 Are you saying you know what Dr. H's wishes are? Do you know for a fact that she does NOT want to learn more about correct grammar? If so, please show your evidence. If not, perhaps you should keep your comments like this to yourself?
Okay, let's start by imagining that particles have no wave properties, but that they do have spin properties. Step two, we will imagine that these particles exist within a 4D environment known as Space-Time. As we are confined within the "NOW" time, we see these particles being confined to that very same "NOW" time. We, in our 3D "NOW" reality, have our set of laws of physics. Space-Time, a much bigger 4D reality, also has its own set of laws of physics. Now when you have an interaction of particles, the outcome of this interaction will depend which set of laws of physics it is that is governing the interaction. So lets say we look at spinning particles such as photons. We see them as mere particles, but from Space-Times 4D point of view, it sees them as corkscrew like shaped paths that extend across space, each path leading from their source to their destination. So if you took the famous 2 slit light experiment, and you released two photons, but you release them only one at a time, from space-times 4D point of view, one will see the complete corkscrew like shaped paths of each of these two photons, and see how these paths interact with each other. Or if you let the light experiment run for say 1 hour, and again released photons only one at a time, here from space-times point of view, you will see how all of the photon paths have interacted with each other, and thus see how it is that they have created a wave-like interference pattern that is seen at the destination screen or wall of this 2 slit light experiment. From space -times point of view, this is a single 1 hour 4D event. However, we could repeat the experiment and eliminate this single 1 hour 4D event from occurring again. Simply detect the photons as they pass through the slits. Each detection is an event in itself, thus the experiment is broken down into real-time events, thus it can no longer be a single 1 hour 4D event, thus the corkscrew like shaped paths are no longer being taken into account to produce a result, thus there will now not be an interference pattern seen at the destination screen or wall. What I don't understand, is why physicists don't see it this way ???
Einstein was born and grew up in Ulm. In that region of Germany, his name is pronounced aɪnʃtaɪn. If he had been from Hamburg, the pronounciation would be aɪnstaɪn.
This seems more like a soap opera filled with egos than a scientific inquiry. Its power lies in a different explanation that is easier for the layperson to understand and connect with than the Copenhagan interpretation, which should be viewed as a great asset. When you make something easier to understand that is equivalent, you always increase the depth that an average person can dive into the theory.
Thank you Sabine, very interesting. I have looked at a situation that seems to support some version of the pilot wave idea when looking at very low energy photons. Imagine an AM radio with a loop antenna. This is conventionally analysed using Maxwell's theories for electro magnetic waves. But Feynman says what's actually happening is photons are exciting electrons in the antenna conductor. If we now introduce a ferrite rod in the loop this concentrates the magnetic fields within the loop, greatly increasing the recovered signal (principle behind a pocket AM radio). Does this mean the concentration of waves by the piece of ferrite also direct more photons onto the loop's conductor?
@@david203 Too true, Feynman is reported to have said 'it is particles all the way down' suggesting photons are a reality to the lowest energy levels. Although there is some indirect evidence for photons down to around 1GHz (associated with some decays) there is no direct observational evidence below about 100GHz because the energy levels of individual photons are simply too low. Below 100GHz the particle nature of EM seems to simply fade away.
What about time arrival statistics? This is a question quantum mechanics has not been able to conclusively answer but Bohmian mechanics has a good answer for. Experiments are being developed currently. As a theory of hidden variables, Bohm's theory contains way more information that QM itself.
I have noted the comments by Professor Sabine Hossenfelder, who asserts that "quantum mechanics is, strictly speaking, only an approximation," and that "the correct theory is a more complicated version of quantum mechanics, known as quantum field theory," which utilizes the "standard model of particle physics." This prompts me to consider whether the uneasiness expressed by many prominent physicists, such as Einstein, de Broglie, and Schrödinger, with quantum theory during the period from 1930 to 1960, was partially justified. Einstein viewed quantum theory as an approximation of a more fundamental description of nature, which subsequently influenced David Bohm to develop an alternative approach. Am I correct in my understanding?
No, you are not. Quantum field theory is quantum mechanics applied to fields. Sabine is just talking bullshit again. There is no approximation in quantum mechanics. She simply doesn't understand where quantum mechanics originates from and why it is an exact theory. Bohm is like Sabine, bullshit pure.
Sometimes when you try to think of the right word but nobody says it so you know it but You can not found it . Particles guided By a waves should always say it that way . thanks
WAVE OR PARTICLE; Psy Phy Physics from a science fiction writer Why do I look at waves not particles? Looking at waves, not particles shows the weaknesses and problems yet to be solved in quantum mechanics, also the clues to move forward. More and more I see the particle as a SUBSET of the wave. The particle is most probably in the crests and troughs, that means it is part of the wave. The particle is almost never in the nodes of the waves. There seems to be some type of duality here where the particle seems more mass like, and the wave, more energy like. Could almost say one is in space time, the other in a dimensionless point. The quantum world is never cut and dried - so that for me means spin, superposition of waves, destructive interference of waves, virtual particles, magnetic properties, direction of the waves, orbitals, binding energy, charge properties and particle wave duality: they are all going on at once, and everywhere in the atom at the same time.
Just heard your name pronounced by you for the first time - You *are* german :). And THANK YOU for bringing up this altenate theory, and einstein's criticism of it. I refuse to believe in non-locality, because that would mean magic. If someone can show me a mechanism for magic, I'm all ears, but then that would make everything local.
The time derivative in the Schroedinger equation, required to be able to calculate the wave function, must occur at exactly the time that the "particle" is deciding which way to go, thus obviating tha possibility of obtaining a valid derivative from the (nonlinear) step function change. Thefore, time is not well defined in the theory and the theory is internally inconsistent and can only be used in a "before-and-after" manner.
Non locality is fundamental. The problem is the human mind which wants to linearize things. To humans, the idea of a particle existing in multiple places at once appears contradictory. There's nothing inherently strange about non-locality. It is strange only to the human mind which cannot readily conceive of such a thing. Nor do we perceive ourselves as existing in multiple places at once - hence the existence of linear time which is a function of how the human mind perceives reality.
Bohm's interpretation has more appealing physical underpinnings than the Copenhagen interpretation, but Lorentz invariance needs to be worked out. I have worked out most aspects of Lorentz invariant entanglement in terms of hidden, complex variables plus hidden, non-local complex noise. I just need to figure out why the terms are complex.
@@kenlogsdon7095 I'll address the g-factor, which is already done in QED. The fine structure constant is a collection of physical constants, so I'd have to explain each one and then why they magically produce alpha.
@@kenlogsdon7095 The electron charge and mass should be one of the essential things a complete theory derives and doesn't just assume, whether it is the "bare" versions, or the "shielded by vacuum polarization" versions of these quantities.
A pedantic quibble: my understanding is that the Born Rule at 1:30 shouldn’t have the absolute value signs with the “squared” exponent 2. The bra-ket product will be nonnegative and already the squared modulus, Squaring it again would lose the normalization. Also, the bra Psi should have the same subscript as the ket Psi. Alternatively, one could remove the bra and the ket bracket symbol “>” and retain just the squared absolute value of Psi_i. I love your videos, by the way.
The other indices give zero since it is in an orthogonal basis, it is really the standard way to write the probability. There is no square, but the modulus is not wrong, it is an emphasis.
Actually, the ψ_i are the basis vectors whose norm is one, so that = 1. The wave function is written as ψ = c_i ψ_i, and the probability is |c_i|^2 = , = 0 if i and j are distinct.
@@clmasse I accept that all those cross terms are zero, but why include them in the equation? One wouldn’t actually compute all those zeroes. But I agree that technically one doesn’t actually need both the bra and the ket to have the subscript “i”. “modulus is not wrong, it is an emphasis” I would say “redundant”, and it is usually there when the square IS actually needed, and since you agree that the square should not be there, it isn’t needed, and what isn't needed is potentially misleading. “the ψ_i are the basis vectors”. That’s certainly not “standard” in any of my QM textbooks. For example, my most recent, Binney and Skinner, show psi = Sum_i a_i|i> i.e., the basis vector is “|i>”. Otherwise psi = Sum_i psi_i would just be the vector sum of all the basis vectors, not very useful. In this notation, psi_i is a_i|i>, and would just be |a_i|^2, the probability of state i. So I still think the video would be improved by removing redundant elements and incorrect powers of 2. But that’s not up to me!
@@johnfowler3132 We have the wave function ψ, say from a preparation, and we can make a measurement on it with ψ_i as the states that diagonalise the associated operator. The basis depends on the type of measurement, it can't be included beforehand. ψ_i is just the same as |i> up to the notation, it is but a shorthand. I wrote c_i |ψ_i> (summation understood.)
@@clmasse “ψ_i is just the same as |i>” OK, let’s go with that convention. Then the equation in the video at 1:30 for Born’s Rule evaluates to 1.0 for all i. So all possible states are not only equally likely, they are all certain. I guess this is where the “Many Worlds Interpretation” comes in?
Let me state this succinctly: Space-time can NEVER be made up of discrete objects floating in some kind of medium - everything is made of the same thing. The entirety of our experience can only be described as interference patterns at the subatomic level governed by our perception of time. We can say that this universe is 13.8billion years old, but what does that really mean, apart from our own point of reference? I am not rejecting any theories here, but merely addling m,y 2 cents worth. The 'Oh My God" particle traversed the Universe in 13 seconds relative to itself, but 13 billion years for us. We are but a flicker in the dying of the light.
I still don't see why Pilot Wave theory is a non-local one. Sure it depends on a guiding field, and that field propagates waves caused by all particles in it, but that propagation isn't necessary FTL, right? I mean that even if two entangled particles are too far away in order to explain sudden correlation with communication limited by lightspeed, it doesn't mean that at the moment of measurement there's something flying between them FTL. It only means that that the guiding field has specific properties (or waves) that affect both (actually all) particles simultaneously. But that guiding field is likely different in different regions, because of different number and magnitude of disturbances (ie particles or field-wave interferences) in those regions. I don't see why a non-local behavior is necessary - for example a particle at one place can cause disturbance propagating outwards, but not have to (and probably doesn't) cause disturbance in the field instantly everywhere. Right?
What I miss here is ... did anyone follow up on the 'experiments in rapid succession' remark by Bohm. I can imagine a double slit experiment with a stroboscope and connected timed camera, so a few thousand measurements in a few minutes. If there really was a difference in predictions you could find out easily. Right ?
Well, wait a minute. Say we do measure a particle position. *Now* we know where the particle is. So shouldn't we be able to predict where it will be forever after? It seems like that should be easy to investigate experimentally.
You aren't measuring particles. You are measuring quanta of energy. As soon as you make that measurement the energy is in your measurement system. It will never go anywhere else. That is the fact that 99% of mankind is missing about quantum mechanics.
I first read the title as Bohemian Mechanics and so was expecting a music video using lyrics sung by Sabine HOssenfelder to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody to explain quantum mechanics... I mean, Brian May, so it would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
But why say Bohmian mechanics _can't_ reproduce the achievements of the Copenhagen interpretation? Sure, no one's come up with a workable Bohmian version of QFT yet, but how many people are even working on it in the first place? The Copenhagen interpretation has always been a lot more popular, and so not nearly as much research has been done into Bohmian mechanics. It shouldn't be that surprising then that it doesn't yet have a workable analog to QFT. Honestly, since the Copenhagen "interpretation" simply gives no answer at all to the measurement problem, it seems to be as lacking as Bohmian mechanics.
The particle was never in 'two places at once', according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Apart from observation there only existed multiple probabilities, evolving according to the Schrödinger equation, of the observer finding the particle in a particular location, right?
Yes, one of the numerous error in her presentation. Actually the corpuscle "is" not before the measurement, the wave function only describe the probability that it be detected at particular point, if only a position measurement is performed.
@@clmasse Thanks! I thought there were numerous errors, as well, but this one jumped out at me. It's rather common for lay people, but I've seen other credentialed physicists make it, too. And standing in front of a giant title banner "Copenhagen Interpretation!" smh
what if we say the phyical manifistation of matter (the measured observation of a physical object that has been obsvered to have followed a specific path) is merely interaction between waves.. and the waves are the real "stuff" that makes the matter.. what in QM we called a probabilty wave. What if... the waves never collapse... in fact they never go anywhere.. but "they" are not directly measurable.. only the net result of their presence is... when there is an outcome of interaction soemwhere where their net amplitude is not zero. if this were true.. then taking the double slit.. we send our electron through.. we think it travels as a particle (unless we understand QM).. thus should have one path.. but if the electron does not exist as a particle .. if the thing behind the electron doesn't so to say... if it only is a wave which we cannot directly measure.. in that case.. when it is brough into contact with another physical disturbance then the two interact and thus appears the physical manifestation of the physical particle of an electron... localised.. with position.
Confused from a conceptual perspective about the "nonlocality" of Bohmian Mechanics. Hasn't the idea of nonlocality been firmly established in QM, e.g. entanglement of particles separated by great distances? In what way is Bohmian Mechanics more nonlocal than the Copenhagen interpretation?
Quantum mechanics is perfectly local, it's just not separable. If you don't understand the difference, then the whole thing is entirely over your head. Bohmian mechanics in particular is total bullshit. It's a trivial reformulation of Schroedinger's equation taken together with the physics equivalent of an invisible angel that is dancing on the tip of a needle. It predicts exactly the same as standard quantum mechanics but will send you eight times around the block and once into the department for supernatural phenomena to arrive at the same results.
Stochastic Electro-Dynamics includes calculation of variables thought to be unknown by QED. Ie microwaves all the way down to the sub-atomic level for one, which greatly interfere with electron travel.
It's also worth mentioning that Bohm was fired, his PhD research confiscated and classified before he could write a thesis, and shortly after publishing his theory he was exiled to Brazil and not able to return. Kinda makes giving talks and defending one's ideas pretty tricky.
Thank you! My professor summed up the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM for us by saying, "There are questions you are not supposed to ask" - which is so hilarious from a scientific view that it's plainly sad.
That is literally the antithesis of what science is. That almost sounds like something you would ear from church leaders in the 1400s in Europe or something
@@andrefigueiredo4805 Ask whatever you want, but every scientific theory has some assumptions and some region where it is applicable. Newton only tells you how to calculate gravitational forces. He cannot tell you why masses pull on each other, so don't ask him. Ask Einstein instead. Also, I absolutely forbid you to divide by zero, lest the devil seek your soul. Besides, it is beyond the scope of this discussion.
You're onto something buddy. It was the Church and continually IS the Church. The "Invisible" Church behind the Abrahamic Religions. LOL The White Hats and Black Hats are one in the same. They play the Villain and Hero. While leading Society closer and closer to the Abyss. And when one finally finds "God" ..... then welcome to the commercialisation of one's personally relationship to said God. @@andrefigueiredo4805
@@Ottmar555 Interesting paper. I will not be very surprised that with basic electrodynamics you can get QM-level results, since Maxwell's equations were ahead of its time by far, to the point of being already covariant under Lorentz transformations.
Premise: we have only one Universe, Problem: a particle "can be in several places at same time", Solution 1: many-worlds interpretation, Solution 2: David Bohm pilot wave interpretation. Solution 1 is the same as solution 2, because both solution is the going from the uncertainty principle into classical determinism and classical trajectories. I mean, if it is given, that if Bob is in Moscow and in London at a given moment, then Solution 1: Bob only in Moscow in Universe A (no Bob in London then), and Bob in London in Universe B, Solution 2: Bob only in Moscow, and there is only one Universe. However, the rejection of the uncertainty principle comes with wrong-hood.
@@eestidima: the problem is not with superposition, but with measurement: why is it that when we measure a quantum system we don't find a superposition of detector readings but a definite "outcome"? (And this is distinct from the uncertainty principle, by the way. The latter has to do with statistical variance of measurements of non-commuting observables)
But maybe the universe isn’t Lorentz invariant per se? Bohmian mechanics makes more sense when you, instead assume that there can exist a preferential reference frame. I believe that’s the 3rd axiom of Lorenz invariance.
First Thing I Thought Of Too, So Here It Goes: Bohmian Rhapsody The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!) Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, No escape from Relativity. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see, I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy, (seriously both) Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low, Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me. Mama, just killed Relativity, Put logic in his head, Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead". Mama, my new life has just begun, Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away. Mama, ooh, Didn't mean to make you happy, If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum, because Relativity doesn't matter. Too late, the time of the Æther has come, Sends shivers down my spine, Mind is thinking all the time. Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go, Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind , and face the truth. Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows), I don't want to sigh, I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all. I see a little silhouetto of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango? Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me. (Galileo) Galileo. (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figured it out. Magnifico-o-o-o-o. I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity. He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family, Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity). Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go? Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go) Oh oh oh oh No, no, no, no, no, no, no Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.) Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me. So you think you can warp space and time, LOL? So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny? Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby, Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here. (Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah) EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, Anyone can see, EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see. Any way the Æther blows... BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE 1. Space cannot be bent or warped. 2. Time cannot be bent or warped. 3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. 4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. The readers digest version of how Nature actually works. [The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".] [ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.] [In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 micrograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).] [ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ] BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
Schrödinger wasn't in the Copenhagen group. At the Solvay congress, he disputed the Copenhagen interpretation together with Einstein, De Broglie and others. This is related in De Broglie's books.
Schrodinger cat in itself was his thought experiment to show how ridiculous Copenhagen interpretation is. But I don't think he had an alternative interpretation so over time he just de facto fell into Copenhagen camp, I guess.
@@Alexander_Sannikov Schrödinger had penty of interpretations, verging to the paranormal. At the same congress, alternatives were presented and discussed, especially the pilot wave theory of De Broglie. This is the usual rewriting of history.
There's a fine line. Really though, "insane" is relative to social norms and needs a normative grounding. That being said, I'M NOT INSANE, YOU'rE INSANE. YOU'RE ALLLLLL INSAAAAAAAAAAAAANEEEEEEeeee oops my stomach is gone, oh it's back thank goodness, nope lost it again, ha,ha aha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An excellent accompaniment to Sabine's videos about quantum mechanics is Adam Becker's book "What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics", since it is the only book which I am aware of that attempts to clarify and demystify the progressive history of the field by especially focusing on the individuals responsible for shaping the development of this revolution. I particularly liked the correction of historical myths that are repeated as facts by many people to this very day. ... Spoiler: Bohr and the Copenhagen group essentially functioned as a exclusive cult which delayed progress after the initial success by at least 2 generations and derailed the careers of some brilliant people.
Came here to say exactly this. What a fantastic book! Adam Becker also has 2-3 one-hour talks on UA-cam that he did when the book came out, highly recommanded!
I read it in consequence of an earlier recommendation on this channel. It was a crackin' read and jolly good fun and explained a lot only hinted at in books by other's. I must admit to be being stuck in 'Lost In Math' at the moment. Too much time watching videos :-) Becker's book is also a very powerful critique of 'funding' as your 'spoiler' suggests :-)
Well theoretical physics hasn't made a major leap in theory in decades. That's a problem, and it means there's an orthodoxy that's false that's in the way.
"Bohr and the Copenhagen group essentially functioned as a exclusive CULT". The Cult of Personality!!! Just another song in a universe of songs. The Cult of Reality just wrote the Song of the Universe: Bohmian Rhapsody The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!) Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, No escape from Relativity. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see, I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy, (seriously both) Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low, Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me. Mama, just killed Relativity, Put logic in his head, Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead". Mama, my new life has just begun, Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away. Mama, ooh, Didn't mean to make you happy, If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum, because Relativity doesn't matter. Too late, the time of the Æther has come, Sends shivers down my spine, Mind is thinking all the time. Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go, Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind , and face the truth. Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows), I don't want to sigh, I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all. I see a little silhouetto of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango? Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me. (Galileo) Galileo. (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figured it out. Magnifico-o-o-o-o. I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity. He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family, Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity). Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go? Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go) Oh oh oh oh No, no, no, no, no, no, no Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.) Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me. So you think you can warp space and time, LOL? So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny? Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby, Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here. (Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah) EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, Anyone can see, EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see. Any way the Æther blows... BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE 1. Space cannot be bent or warped. 2. Time cannot be bent or warped. 3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. 4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. The readers digest version of how Nature actually works. [The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".] [ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.] [In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 nanograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).] [ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ] BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
I like that Bohm started out by questioning what happens before the measurement. The only way to make real progress sometimes is to start from scratch gather all observations and work out another explanation or rather start by assuming the accepted theory has a wrong assumption or assumptions. Close some doors and open a window or just take a sledgehammer to a wall just watch out the house might fall down.
Really enjoy the content on this channel. It actually goes into the details about the subject, instead of the other "physics" related channels that just spit out the same information already floating around the internet, but just reworded with bad analogies and iterated by people pretending to know details. Honestly, this is one of the best channels out there, on the same level as PBS space time. Keep up the awesome content!
I'd really want to see you on Sean Carroll's podcast. That has to be a really interesting clash of minds because you're an anti-many-worlds person and he's probably the biggest many-worlds evangelist.
That *would* be interesting. I heard him in a recent video on "Closer to Truth" say he's something like 98% certain of the many worlds interpretation. I don't see how he *can* be that sure, so it would be interesting to see a conversation between him and Hossenfelder. Personally, I'm with Hossenfelder on this one.
@@philochristos yeah. His strong belief in that interpretation is not really based on scientific thinking. It is a personal belief that he is pushing. I can agree that in some ways it works better as a placeholder interpretation than the Copenhagen interpretation, but I have a hard time watching him be so critical of the "shut up and calculate" approach while being a salesman for "shut up and just listen to the math and assume many world's is true". But what do I know, I'm an idiot. But his evangelical approach feels unscientific to me.
I think that both of them would be very polite while holding on to their own views. The only thing I would expect to get out of it is lessons in how to pretend to be a nice person. Ba Humbug.
@@philochristos In his series "Big ideas" he elaborated on that in great detail. Even though that series is supposed to be unbiased and many-worlds agnostic, he again in great detail stated that it's "98% many-worlds" in his opinion. Which's an extremely strong statement considering how flimsy some of its aspects are (energy conservation, Borne's rule derivation, self-locating uncertainty, etc). I'm kinda in agnostic camp with Sabine on this one.
Na. I would not be interested. Both are just stocking to their own dogmatic believes which got us exactly...no where. One believing math is physics and the other believing physics is like Disneyland
I am super determined for humans to realize the EM Dipole is an actual Solid Kinetic Dipole Particle so I cowrote a song: Bohmian Rhapsody The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!) Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, No escape from Relativity. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see, I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy, (seriously both) Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low, Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me. Mama, just killed Relativity, Put logic in his head, Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead". Mama, my new life has just begun, Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away. Mama, ooh, Didn't mean to make you happy, If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum, because Relativity doesn't matter. Too late, the time of the Æther has come, Sends shivers down my spine, Mind is thinking all the time. Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go, Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind , and face the truth. Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows), I don't want to sigh, I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all. I see a little silhouetto of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango? Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me. (Galileo) Galileo. (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figured it out. Magnifico-o-o-o-o. I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity. He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family, Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity). Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go? Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!) Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go) Oh oh oh oh No, no, no, no, no, no, no Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.) Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me. So you think you can warp space and time, LOL? So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny? Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby, Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here. (Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah) EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, Anyone can see, EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter, EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see. Any way the Æther blows... BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE 1. Space cannot be bent or warped. 2. Time cannot be bent or warped. 3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. 4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles. The readers digest version of how Nature actually works. [The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".] [ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.] [In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 micrograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).] [ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ] BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
You have such uncany ability to add enought complexity to create a basic intuition / understanding, but not enough to make the videos hard or requiring a one year course.
Everyone used to want locality, because our commonsense physics is local. But the truth is that observations at tiny scales almost always show nonlocal effects, all of which are specified in the Schrödinger equation.
But Bell literally proved quantum mechanics is non-local. Why do you make the claim of locality without even mentioning Bell? This was a very important experiment. Proven to be true many many times.
Bell: reality is either non-local, non-causal, or non-real. Or some combination. I prefer non-causal but whatever, Bell showed that at least one of those had to be so. Bohmian theory obeys bell's inequalities therefore cannot be a good theory of reality, even if reality is non-real. Isn't physics fun?
Bell was a one of the main proponents of Bohmian Mechanics. For example, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, he wrote : "... conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way. "
I do agree that Bell's theorem is a theorem on non-locality. The starting point is the EPR argument; basically either the results of measurments pre-exist to the measurment process (hence, QM is incomplete) or there is some kind of spooky action at a distance, i.e., non-locality. What Bell has shown is that the mere assumption that the results of measurments pre-exist to the measurment process is in conflict with the predictions of QM, hence there should be a form of non-locality in QM (in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, it is the collapse of the wave-function which is non-local). Bohmian mechanics is certainly not ruled out by Bell's theorem. It is clearly non-local and does not claim that the results of measurments pre-exist to the measurment process, because the measuring device has an active role in the theory. The process of measurment is understood as an interaction between the system and the apparatus.
I thought it said "Bohemian Mechanics". I envisioned guys wearing berets fixing Citroëns while smoking Gauloises and arguing passionately about the meaning of life. LOL!
I just follow the waves, man...the hip sounds of the upright bass tell me where to play horn...on the negative space and syncopation, the particles move like a jazz solo over a tight rhythm section.
You are describing an outdated stereotype of french. Who are far from being "bohemians", moreover the 60's blue collars you "described", quite the opposite.
Why do we need particles in the first place? Why can't the field potentials stand on their own and we just consider the probability of position always as a probability? We perceive point/particle behavior simply because that's the location the field potential collapses to a place to be measured. e.g. Storm clouds have an electrical potential and only when the field condenses into a lightning bolt do we see it; before that, the charge potential in the cloud was a much larger area. Just keep electrons as wave potentials and the "appearance" of point electrons are just the result of the field condensing to a location of measurement.
Yes, that's a very good question. Indeed, I don't quite understand why people like working with particles. They seem to me far more questionable than fields.
Because of the real life needs? If you have a very good photomultiplier, you are actually successfully counting photons. And suddenly you learn they do not exist 😱 By the way, the unit for the number of photons (a mole of photons) is called einstein.
Interesting, I didn’t know that bit of history. I’ve only read reviews of bohemian mechanics. Though I think I’ve read De Broglies article about ‘De Broglie wavelength’ which is quite short and elementary if I remember correctly and definitely of topic for this discussion ^_^. Take ‘treatment’ with a grain of salt. UA-cam videos can’t go into too much depth. The part about a high dimensional phase space in QM is general to all interpretations though right. To put it in context the phase space is even bigger in QFT. My impression of Bohmian mechanics is that it doesn’t generalize to well to qft, I think Sabine mentioned that as well. That’s it’s main strikeout as far as I’m concerned. What are your thoughts on that?
The negative attitude toward Bohm's interpretation is a myopic attitude. Not because the objections expressed about it don't have validity, but because the philosophy behind the Copenhagen theory is even more silly: shut up and don't ask questions! If Bohm doesn't work, then Copenhagen doesn't work even more. Bohm doesn't appear to work as an interpretation for reasons enumerated in the video. But Copenhagen is no interpretation at all. It's just a capitulation to ignorance. The truth is, quantum physics at this point has no interpretation, and arguments one way or another about candidate interpretations are based more on biases than facts.
"But Copenhagen is no interpretation at all. It's just a capitulation to ignorance." Exactly! Appealing to chance should only be done as an absolute last resort, like appealing to aliens or God.
The Copenhagen interpretation is not exactly what Sabine said, very tersely. The wave function represents the information on the system, and when a measurement is made, further information is gathered, so that the wave function changes. The collapse is not a physical process. That doesn't mean at all that the corpuscule is at two places at the same time, and then concentrate at a single place. It is a positivist interpretation, because all that is real is the result of the measurements. It doesn't make sense to ask questions about anything else, but in no way it is forbidden. You may ask: what is the mass of this color? but this doesn't prevent that any answer would be nonsense.
@@clmasse I've known about the various interpretations for decades. I'm not operating off of Sabine's description alone. The way she and I characterize it really is the essence of the philosophy behind the interpretation. It's a non-interpretation. What you'rd describing is how it doesn't rise to the level of a theory. That's why it's called an interpretation, not a theory. None of the interpretations of quantum physics rise to the status of theory because none of them are testable.
@@DMichaelAtLarge To date, no interpretation is a yes interpretation. They all have a fatal failing. An interpretation is by nature non testable, and it is always an interpretation of an already existing theory. Quantum theory have been tested and validated in many extreme conditions. You got the definition of interpretation wrong.
I still oppose the arrogance of physicists coming up with non-deterministic theories. It coincided with art becoming abstract, and music atonal, etc. Scientists that choose to ignore reality are philosophers, or mathematicians, not physicists.
That would be an interesting one. I don't simpathize to much with penrose, because he is an idealist, but he sure is a great mathematician and has also great contributions to science.
The more of the letters and biographies I read about the giants of the field at that time just make me sad. Here they are digging at very fundamental questions while at the same time being pretty shitty people. Wouldn't surprise me if somewhere out there was a letter from Heisenburg calling people working on QED little better than lobotomy patients or somethings.
@@talldarkhansome1 I don’t think he does...but we all hope a little at least that people we admire can be admirable in other areas of their lives. Sadly as I recently pointed out myself a lot of people regardless of discipline may be giants in their field but massive disappointments as human beings.
@@talldarkhansome1 Naw, it just feels better in the head to imagine them cheering each other on rather than emotionally hamstringing but eh, sometimes reality is the worse alternative lol
Lightning will reach in varying directions until it finds a path to ground at which time the bulk of energy discharges in a single bolt. I know particles behave differently under various conditions, including scale, but I can't help but think of lightning as one example of physical phenomenon expressing a kind of potential until it meets a condition causing a fixed form/location. ua-cam.com/video/qQKhIK4pvYo/v-deo.html
A battery gas potential electrical energy. There is already a potential difference built up before lightning discharges, which lightning can also do above the clouds
Well, with the whole wave/particle duality conundrum, it could be that particles only appear to exist when certain conditions are met, and outside of those conditions exist only as the wave component. There's a fringe theory called "Wave Structure of Matter" that posits the particles themselves are strictly a wave phenomenon, but standing waves instead of the normal waves we usually talk about. In that theory, it is a combination of the local conditions and the conditions in the surrounding universe (the entirety of it, by Mach's principle) that together form a particular standing wave at each location where we see a particle. If the "in wave" from the universe superimposed on the "out wave" emanating from any particular location can form a stable standing wave configuration, according to the laws of wave mechanics, then a particle will appear, and if not, then we see no particles, only waves.
Why cling to the fiction of "particles?" Photoelectric-effect is most cited for defense of particles, yet we know ejection of an electron is defined by the boundary conditions of the atom, not whether the incoming object has a "particle-nature," as thought at the time. And the boundary-condition problem of the atom is entirely a wave-equation problem, not a particle problem. There is simply nowhere in physics where matter or light can be found to be violating the wave equations (Shrodinger's or Maxwell's respectively). In all the universe, there is not one single particle.
@@coryharasha - There's a better than even chance the whole visible universe is inside a Black-hole, if that makes you happy? Standard model says so, even though physicists won't admit it. Look at any of their timelines. Calculate the Schwarzschild-Radius of the visible universe (today, it's 13Blyrs, the farther back in time, the larger that Radius was, according to physicists, because earlier there was more matter/mass within our view). (more...) So in order for physicist's model to tell a consistent story, all the visible matter was once concentrated within a radius much smaller than the Schwarzschild-Radius (the very definition of a black-hole, where not even light can escape), expanding through to today, where much of that matter magically broke through Schwarzschild's black-hole horizon barrier. Both things can't be true. Either Big-Bang expansion is false or Schwarzschild/black-hole theory is false. Saying it more simply, How did the mass of the visible universe ever break through its 13Blyr Schwarzschild barrier? Answer? It didn't; our universe lies within a black-hole and many cosmological mysteries can be answered by asking, What happens when matter approaches the event horizon from the inside?
@@tomnoyb8301 correct, this is why ER=EPR is so attractive, we know particles themselves are really like black holes themselves (obviously not literal ones...) but they do follow the horizon problems (boundary conditions problems) that follow from black holes and much much more....
Would there be any benefit of using multiple interpretations to get closer to a practical result? I always wondered if the difference in approaches could be used to build on one another.
I know it’s a year late, but there’s not really a benefit to using any variety of interpretations. Generally the Copenhagen is viewed as “correct” but it’s rather useless to argue about which is best as no matter what you think of or argue about: it’s all the same data. Whether there’s a wave pushing a particle, or a wave becomes a particle, since the math is identical, it doesn’t really matter since neither can ever possibly be proven nor disproven
There are problems with bohmian mechanics. But from a philosophical point of view the copenhagen interpretation is essentialy idealist mysticism and unscientific. If you want to know more look up the quantum mechanics videos of Paul Cockshott from glasgow university
See _Leap Of Logic_ by physicist, David Harriman (web site) , for an anti-deductivist, inductive history of science and a radically new, non-statistical identification of the process of of the alleged problem of induction. Existence is Identity.
So far nobody has a complete valid interpretation of quantum mechanics and the measurement problem. So right now, just about all theories are still valid until proven wrong. And even the Copenhagen interpretation has not been proven wrong. Some people disagree with it, but it has not been proven wrong.
@@dankuchar6821 Copenhagen is the claim that the universe is random. But the universe is the universe. It is what it is and acts accordingly. Its causal. This knowledge is part of common human experience, prior to math and science.
@@TeaParty1776 To say that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is somehow a claim that the universe is random is such an astronomical oversimplification that it makes absolutely no sense. But absolutely is not what the Copenhagen interpretation means at its core. Not even remotely close. It has to do with the measurement problem. Not about the universe being random. in fact saying that the universe is random is not even any kind of a statement to any physicist would have any clue what to do with. It really means nothing.
Again a brilliant video. Never seen a clearer explanation of Bohm’s interpretation. By the way, it was in a a recent web discussion on Bohm that I first ‘met’ Sabine Hossenfelder. She seemed the most ‘down to earth’ member of the panel and so I was interested to learn more of her. The other participants seem to believe in a sort of ‘universal consciousness’ which was fundamental for all reality, and which appeared to be another theory of Bohm.
Bohm later was a follower and secretary to J. Krishnamurthi and he was interested in philosophical nonduality. But his physics, even his later physics, was truly independent of this interest, and focused on providing nonlocal but deterministic explanations. The view that most satisfies people who love consciousness is the Copenhagen Interpretation, because it contains and justifies much more ignorance and mysticism than does the Bohm Interpretation.
@@VelvetCondoms Thank you. I try to make such comments in lots of places, since UA-cam comments tend to get buried among all the "this physicist finally explained quantum mechanics in a way I can understand, and I'm a longtime, severe dummy." Bohm and Bell showed that QM works simply and nonlocally, unlike classical mechanics. Bohm also showed that QM is deterministic, not mystical, and that no human observer or consciousness is relevant or needed. Yet few physicists today understand Bohm's theory fully, and most think it was disproven, which it was not, or that there is no experimental evidence for it, which is untrue, or that it can't handle special relativity, which is true but is currently being fixed (and, more importantly, the Copenhagen interpretation itself is non-relativistic).
5:56 Yea, this is a problem. This makes me think that there is a chance of violating the Uncertainty Principle. By the way, you're missing an h _bar squared at 1:24 IIRC.
Bohm's theory does not violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. No physics can, because it is due to the related definitions of position and momentum.
Feynman: I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
I'm gonna have to try to remember that one :)
Yeah, that not being allowed to question the textbook narrative is actually one of the reasons why Bohm developed his theory.
The irony here is that his obtuseness is what led directly to the mysticism of QM and its gross misunderstanding in academia.
Actually, Bohr and the rest of the Copenhagen school are to a large part to blame for this. Mara Beller has written on this extensively.
Physics-Theory Community: Bohm theory can't make testable predictions; we should therefore reject it.
Also Physics-Theory Community: String Theory can't make testable predictions; sounds excellent; let's focus 100% of our efforts there and never hire anyone who wants to consider alternatives.
Swizz Patent Office: Wanted: Patent Clerk. Must possess a physics degree.
I really thank you Doc Sabine, because now I have a better understanding of the real pros and cons of the Bohmian approach.
Your videos are amazing, Sabine. Keep up the good work!
Happy you like them!
Sabine's songs are amazing too especially about TTOE, or rather not hearing about it. So I wrote a song for her and you all. I hope she does her own version. Sabine could win a Grammy and a Noble in shot:
Bohmian Rhapsody
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!)
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from Relativity.
Open your eyes,
Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
(seriously both)
Because I'm easy come, easy go,
Little high, little low,
Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Mama, just killed Relativity,
Put logic in his head,
Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead".
Mama, my new life has just begun,
Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away.
Mama, ooh,
Didn't mean to make you happy,
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow,
Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum,
because Relativity doesn't matter.
Too late, the time of the Æther has come,
Sends shivers down my spine,
Mind is thinking all the time.
Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go,
Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind ,
and face the truth.
Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows),
I don't want to sigh,
I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all.
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me.
(Galileo) Galileo.
(Galileo) Galileo,
Galileo Figured it out.
Magnifico-o-o-o-o.
I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity.
He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family,
Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity).
Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go?
Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go)
Oh oh oh oh
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.)
Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me.
So you think you can warp space and time, LOL?
So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny?
Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby,
Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here.
(Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah)
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
Anyone can see,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see.
Any way the Æther blows...
BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE
1. Space cannot be bent or warped.
2. Time cannot be bent or warped.
3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
The readers digest version of how Nature actually works.
[The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".]
[ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.]
[In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 micrograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).]
[ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ]
BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
Zabina is a little "barraqueira" kkk
@@johnboze Let me add to the above -
Space-Time doesn't exist. Duration and Distance are NOT the same thing.
Space & Light have no properties. Thus, can not bend or curve. (Polarisation between Electrochemical Interaction led to the ILLusion!)
Light doesn't have a "Speed". Its a Velocity/Rate of Induction.
The Limit isn't real. Plasma has a Refractive Index -1 and is an ACTUAL INCREASE!
Mass does NOT increase with Velocity. Sensory phenomena is not proof of it.
Time is NOT an Ion Clock. And Time is NOT Relative. Time is objectively CONSTANT while simultaneously subjectively DYNAMIC!
The Photon doesn't exist. It's an Electron emitting Radiation into our Visible Spectrum. (It conserves its charge when in a Vacuum)
And if that last part didn't make sense, well get ready...
Space. Isn't. Empty.
IT'S FULL!
Of Sparse Gas that expands when it escapes the "gravitational" Pressure of our Electromagnetically bound Atmosphere.
The Moon is in Earth's Geocorona while OUR ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is in The Sun's Atmosphere, better know as the Heliosphere!
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I WIN "SCIENCE"! FUQQ DA WESTERN CHURCH! FUQQ THE WHITE HATS! FUQQ THE BLACK HATS! FUQQ THE GLOBALISTS! FUQQ THE INTERNATION SYSTEM OF METRICS!!
I'm 30. Self-studied and KNOW MORE THAN 99.9% of Scientists. (Who needs Academia when I've got the Internet, AI, and loads of Science from the "Forbidden Section".)
Oh also!
The Wave-Particle Duality is based on "probability" but MY Omni-Wobble (Soliton) Model is "Deterministic"!!
Every interaction is between Chemical Mass & Electromagnetic Radiation. EVERY SINGLE ONE!
Its not that hard. But unfortunately modern Scientists think that their lack of clarity and depth must be evidence of the Shallowness of our understanding.
But it isn't. Its just them that avoid Reason & Logic.
....
Anybody want the Fundamental difference that Separates everything in our Cosmos?
State. Of. Motion.
Quantum Motion dictates Atomic Motion dictates Molecular Motion dictates Cellular Motion dictates Micro Motion dictates Macro Motion.
ITS ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL MOTION DUDE!
Just "different" Motion.
LOL
How simple is that? So simple yet they complicate it with "magic" and imaginary "force".
But it's just Energy in different states of Motion. (Even Mass is just frozen/pressured Energy)
ALSO!
"Consciousness" is Mind. And Mind is that Quantum "Centre of Gravity" that acts as a Nuclei of EVERY ORGANISM IN OUR COSMOS TOO! (Wait till we get to the level where we can prove it.... not far off now. Consciousness is not an emergent property of the Brain. ALL OF PHYSICAL REALITY IS EMERGENT VIA.... MIND as in mINd.)
I know a couple of highly intelligent people like yourself, but those two guys DO NOT like to share thoughts and ideas. I am very grateful that YOU do share. I'm sorry it ends up being through the internet, because we all know how that usually ends up. But, anyway. Thank YOU for your service!!
Not all of us have access to publications, faxes, or telegraphs, so the internet lends itself to such things
Quantum Mechanics has a monster in it, but it takes different forms depending on the interpretation. In Bohmian mechanics, the monster is the pilot wave; in Many Worlds, the monster is the universal wave function; in the Copenhagen interpretation, the monster is measurement; in Quantum Bayesianism, the monster was you all along, lovable Grover!
Honestly this is a great summary of current theories
But the pilot wave concept is not a problem if Relativity is wrong and is replaced by Galilean Relativity, where space and time are absolute and instantaneous field propagation is possible. See my post at the very top of the comments.
Maybe there is a Dimension W where everything is conected with everything and where any message can be sent instantaneously. In our 3D+T universe speed is limited by c , but in W no such a limit exists. And for some reson W can be accesed by entanglement only. The rest is Bohemian Bohmian.
Even Bohr's grandson took a swing at Pilot Wave. He saw an experiment involving a bouncing droplet on a double slit experiment, was amazed by it, and decided to do research. He came to the conclusion that the walls between the slits can be made arbitrarily long or short in traditional quantum mechanics, you still get and interference pattern. But in Pilot Wave you'll find that the particle can go only one way or the other, losing contact with the part of the pilot wave that passes to the other side of the wall, if the wall is too long. The wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there'll be no interference pattern.
How can this be? Aren't the two theories supposed to make exactly the same predictions? I thought one could prove analytically that this is the case, assuming this quantum equilibrium hypothesis Sabine talked about
Do you have a link to the paper or an article?
@@quinson93 it came out as an article on Quanta Magazine 2 years ago, here's a link: www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/
This research was actually on walking droplets, not quantum theory. His results basically said that the analogy between the two has its limits. Rather uncontroversial.
You got this all messed up. It's all wrong as stated.
Really wish you’d do more proofs and derivations on your channel. You have a good amount of viewers that would appreciate you supporting your explanation of theory with math when possible.
Bohm is, if I remember correctly, simply the solution of the Schroedinger equation in polar coordinates (i.e. you express complex numbers as magnitude and phase instead of real and imaginary component). Absolutely nothing follows from such a transformation about physics.
Ty for this, I love your clear explanation with zero bias in your tone. Also, reference all materials accurately, I seen you around the Physics community and found you through research I did on Prof LeeSmo “Einstein unfinished revolution “. Prof Lee talks very highly of you and after watching this I can understand why. Thank you for dedicating so much to educating us who are willing to listen and learn.
I think Bohm made an interesting and courageous attempt to discover a mechanism underlying the observations of quantum mechanics.
It wasn't just an attempt. It works. It's been verified by experiments in spite of the bias against it.
I think he was right. See my post at the top of these comments.
Can you make a video describing "The different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics"
Anyone else think that Dr H (or is it Prof H? If not it bloody well ought to be in my book) knocks this sort of stuff out of the park compared to anybody else?
i dont want to repeat compliments already put forth in the comments, so i may just add: thanks for being one of the few who does pronounce deBroglie 'corect' instead of as something reminiscent of Brockoli
As a non physicist, Bohm's guiding field looks a lot like a quantum version of Einstein's folded space/time as the explanation of gravitational movement of larger bodies.
I might see that - the wave is the folding of the field like how a mass folds spacetime... interesting. I think is what you are saying
No, sorry, I don't see that at all. The guiding field is not at all like gravity--it defines where a particle is, not an acceleration on the particle.
The problem before watching this video was measuring how many little circles one can fit in the background, the probability of their size, color, and placement for the the perfect distraction from the actual content of the video
Electrons, like atoms, and black holes, and the universe as a whole, are horn toroidal fluid vortices (hence "point-particles") in/of the single, scale-uniform 'super-fluid' medium (I call it the SUM, a.k.a. "space-time") whose self-relative motion (a.k.a. "acceleration"; "momentum"; "push") as vortices and waves, comprises the evolving (hence "time") structure of the universe and all of its content "physical objects". Therefore we can say that the "material universe" is 'pure motion' (primarily point-radial in trajectory). The Einsteinian "time dilation/ length contraction" principle applies to the SUM itself, meaning that its self-relative motion ("acceleration" as 'motion relative to itself') is the mechanism by which the otherwise absolutely homogenous SUM 'self-differentiates' into the structural diversity of the observable universe, including our own bodies.
Also, therefore, not only do massive objects "curve spacetime", massive objects ARE "curved spacetime". The inflow of the SUM equals the point-radial outflow "expansion" of the SUM compression wavefront that is the surface of the mass-object (e.g. the Earth). Ergo the "gravitational (and smaller scale) field(s)". Since SUM fluid vortices, and every complex manifold thereof, including ourselves, constitute 'I/O devices' (inflow/outflow; input/output; positive/negative; "yin/yang"; etc.), we can say that the physical universe is comprised by an otherwise, absolutely continuous SUM "simulating" (by means of its self-differentiating, self-relative motion) a "discrete particle" - based "material universe" as "a universal self-organizing network of distributed I/O devices" which are manifested in terms of their inter-communication by means of the specific sequence of SUM 'vibrational acceleration waves' traveling at the "constant, finite, but asymptotic limit for all mass-objects" speed of light which they emit and absorb. We "human beings" are momentum routers ("pushers" of "things") in that network. In order for there to be a "push", there must be a "something else" to "push against". "Yin/Yang". Consider that every "sensation" - i.e. that you are "conscious" of - is comprised of a "push" (or vibrational series of "pushes") at some scale, at some amplitude, in some 'direction', as a "transfer of momentum"; a displacement of a mass object from its otherwise geodesic path. So the "material universe" is apparently a self-configuring momentum-routing circuit /network. "Consciousness" is 'a self-configuring momentum waveform' in/of the SUM.
P.S. "Dark matter" is the SUM itself concentrated around its "material" vortices, and "dark energy" is its larger-scale flow.
ua-cam.com/video/MmG2ah5Df4g/v-deo.html 0:22/11:57 They are being carried along by the outwardly expanding flow of the SUM (scale-uniform medium) itself from its horn toroidal fluid vortexual architecture "output". They are not, themselves "accelerating" (undergoing "proper acceleration") by means of an 'on-board' power supply. Thus, in this case, they are not moving "through space over time", they are moving "with space over time". Light waves are the universal 'CPU clock ticks' of 'time'. They make up the 'Cartesian coordinate system' of the 'space-time epic' in which we are taking place. ...
Call the Y axis "time", and the X axis "space". Let your eye be at 0 looking in the positive Y direction, and let any other detector be placed anywhere else along the X axis. The photon (or physical increment of "time") is propagating toward your eye, or other detector, as a spread-out 'shock wave' front, and collapsing point radially toward its detector, only being "detected" when the momentum (acceleration) pulse it is transferring through the SUM (scale-uniform medium, or "space-time") literally from its horn toroidal 'point' of origin is transferred to its corresponding destination point of detection.
The universe might be described as a 'self-calculating quantum computer'.
Let's discuss: ua-cam.com/users/onemediuminmotiondiscussion
You should get together with Newknowledge and the other crackpot theorists and have a convention.
😊..to my understanding the terminology of 'quantum' is something in 'material domain' having property that something in 'conscious domain', perhaps the 'Bohemian Mechanic' drive the formula that fits in 'conscious domain'..as EPR paradox said "physical reality provided by quantum mechanic was incomplete" seem perhaps the 'conscious domain' is not applied yet..😊
🙏..pardon me if my comments is a bit weird..🙏
I'm late to the party, but the reason so many people ask about it is because of a video by Veritasium a few years ago which explained it, and suggested that it was a viable interpretation of quantum mechanics.
this theory, is soo much more elegant! at least here, the corpuscule is only in one place in the same place. maybe the corpuscuse is not in the valley but i think that is a good way to explore
It's just too bad that corpuscles don't exit. It's called "quantum mechanics" for a good reason. Quanta are not corpuscles and they are not particles. They are amounts of energy. Energy does not behave like a physical body because it is not a physical body. It's a property of a physical system.
Pbs spacetime suggests that non locality in bohemian mechanics might be manifested in our current observations as entanglement
1:33 The right side of the equation there are two symbols, < and > enclosing Psi and Psi subscript i. A vertical line, | separates them. The left hand side is called Ket. When they are put together we have a Braket (Bracket). We Physicists, what a wacky group. LOL
Perfect Star Trek Outfit for this topic.
It's a bit unfair to the Copenhagen interpretation to characterize it as saying, "That's a question you're not supposed to ask." I think it's more fair to take its point of view as: "What is the measurement of an unmeasurable thing?" is a meaningless question, a statement that I think many people would take as obviously true.
Nice storytelling sabine
The Copenhagen interpretation never sat well with me The "hidden variables" are much more satisfying than something else, even more plausible than the "many worlds" interpretation. Of course, it isn't provable either way, which tosses it into the box of philosophy rather than physics. I have liked Bohm's idea for a long time. It's well worth reading his book, "The Undivided Universe" (with B. J. Hiley).
Sabine is still working on hidden variables, superdeterminism. She suggested experiments to test it.
the statement about rapid measurements revealing underlying processes reminds me distinctly of what you said about superdeterminism, where you made a similar point that multiple successive measurements (ideally of the same particle) could validate a deterministic view of quantum mechanics. i wonder what there is to be said about the compatibility of bohmian mechanics and superdeterminism - what subset of deterministic quantum theories could be pilot wave theories, and how you could tell whether a deterministic quantum theory is a pilot wave theory.
Why are you telling us that you are clueless about physics? ;-)
The thing about the pilot-wave theory that’s important is that it actually describes an interaction between space and matter.. quantum field theory doesn’t as it’s purely a probabilistic model and nothing more. Given that space=energy=matter and where the boundaries are and how one becomes the other should be the next avenue of research, having a model that actually describes the interaction will be order-of-magnitude better.
When break up the quantum wave into real and imaginary, could separate the particle from the wave rather than the wave guiding the particle. Conservation of probabillity and quantum equilibrium would go with the wave function, while the particle position would separate without guiding field from wave function. Would also allow more particles to be created from superposition, only one at a time, sequentially rather than simultaneously. The particles ought to retain locality and speed of light limit as separate from wave function.
Sounds like stream of consciousness nonsense. This is not physics.a
Great video and, also, killer outfit Sabine.
I might be one of the many who asked you about this in a comment at some point -- thank you so much!
Love your videos! One correction: in English, we NEVER say "How it looks like" that's something that's incorrectly taught by European English classes. "What it looks like" or "What does it look like" are correct. It's never correct to say "How the particle looks like".
The grammar police is here to arrest all of us for willful destruction of the English language. Everybody who is not a native English speaker, please quickly leave the premises through the back door!
@@lepidoptera9337 Are you saying you know what Dr. H's wishes are? Do you know for a fact that she does NOT want to learn more about correct grammar? If so, please show your evidence. If not, perhaps you should keep your comments like this to yourself?
@@jamesbond_007 I am saying that you didn't say anything about physics.
Caught that sciopomorphic notion of 'where does it come from, what is it's purpose?'. Will listen again and try to stick to pure theory.
I'd like to hear a talk about the Dirac equation : why it was needed, and what it predicted.
Dirac equation was needed because no previous theory was relativistic. It predicted antimatter. That earned Dirac a Nobel prize.
Okay, let's start by imagining that particles have no wave properties, but that they do have spin properties. Step two, we will imagine that these particles exist within a 4D environment known as Space-Time. As we are confined within the "NOW" time, we see these particles being confined to that very same "NOW" time. We, in our 3D "NOW" reality, have our set of laws of physics. Space-Time, a much bigger 4D reality, also has its own set of laws of physics. Now when you have an interaction of particles, the outcome of this interaction will depend which set of laws of physics it is that is governing the interaction. So lets say we look at spinning particles such as photons. We see them as mere particles, but from Space-Times 4D point of view, it sees them as corkscrew like shaped paths that extend across space, each path leading from their source to their destination. So if you took the famous 2 slit light experiment, and you released two photons, but you release them only one at a time, from space-times 4D point of view, one will see the complete corkscrew like shaped paths of each of these two photons, and see how these paths interact with each other. Or if you let the light experiment run for say 1 hour, and again released photons only one at a time, here from space-times point of view, you will see how all of the photon paths have interacted with each other, and thus see how it is that they have created a wave-like interference pattern that is seen at the destination screen or wall of this 2 slit light experiment. From space -times point of view, this is a single 1 hour 4D event. However, we could repeat the experiment and eliminate this single 1 hour 4D event from occurring again. Simply detect the photons as they pass through the slits. Each detection is an event in itself, thus the experiment is broken down into real-time events, thus it can no longer be a single 1 hour 4D event, thus the corkscrew like shaped paths are no longer being taken into account to produce a result, thus there will now not be an interference pattern seen at the destination screen or wall. What I don't understand, is why physicists don't see it this way ???
The piece in the field theory is the Holbach effect that unifies the fields because of their mutual interactions.
Love the way you pronounce Albert's last name, most say Ein-stine, you say Ein-sh-tine.
Einstein was born and grew up in Ulm. In that region of Germany, his name is pronounced aɪnʃtaɪn. If he had been from Hamburg, the pronounciation would be aɪnstaɪn.
This seems more like a soap opera filled with egos than a scientific inquiry. Its power lies in a different explanation that is easier for the layperson to understand and connect with than the Copenhagan interpretation, which should be viewed as a great asset. When you make something easier to understand that is equivalent, you always increase the depth that an average person can dive into the theory.
@Ron Maimon I never said the math was any easier. Just that the explanation is easier for the layperson to understand and connect with.
that´s "scientific community", 101......
@Ron Maimon I’m going to call BS on your claim about people in the 1940s.
The big advantage is not a better explanation for laypeople, but for physicists! Lots of weird concepts disappear, so theorizing becomes easier.
Thank you Sabine, very interesting. I have looked at a situation that seems to support some version of the pilot wave idea when looking at very low energy photons.
Imagine an AM radio with a loop antenna. This is conventionally analysed using Maxwell's theories for electro magnetic waves. But Feynman says what's actually happening is photons are exciting electrons in the antenna conductor.
If we now introduce a ferrite rod in the loop this concentrates the magnetic fields within the loop, greatly increasing the recovered signal (principle behind a pocket AM radio).
Does this mean the concentration of waves by the piece of ferrite also direct more photons onto the loop's conductor?
It would seem so. But the theory of electromagnetism works more naturally in this application.
@@david203 Too true, Feynman is reported to have said 'it is particles all the way down' suggesting photons are a reality to the lowest energy levels. Although there is some indirect evidence for photons down to around 1GHz (associated with some decays) there is no direct observational evidence below about 100GHz because the energy levels of individual photons are simply too low. Below 100GHz the particle nature of EM seems to simply fade away.
What about time arrival statistics? This is a question quantum mechanics has not been able to conclusively answer but Bohmian mechanics has a good answer for. Experiments are being developed currently. As a theory of hidden variables, Bohm's theory contains way more information that QM itself.
The best book on this subject is Quantum Physics Without Quantum Philosophy by Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein, and Nino Zanghi. Highly recommended.
Agree. These are great physicists. The book, though, is very expensive.
I have noted the comments by Professor Sabine Hossenfelder, who asserts that "quantum mechanics is, strictly speaking, only an approximation," and that "the correct theory is a more complicated version of quantum mechanics, known as quantum field theory," which utilizes the "standard model of particle physics." This prompts me to consider whether the uneasiness expressed by many prominent physicists, such as Einstein, de Broglie, and Schrödinger, with quantum theory during the period from 1930 to 1960, was partially justified. Einstein viewed quantum theory as an approximation of a more fundamental description of nature, which subsequently influenced David Bohm to develop an alternative approach. Am I correct in my understanding?
No, you are not. Quantum field theory is quantum mechanics applied to fields. Sabine is just talking bullshit again. There is no approximation in quantum mechanics. She simply doesn't understand where quantum mechanics originates from and why it is an exact theory. Bohm is like Sabine, bullshit pure.
Sometimes when you try to think of the right word but nobody says it so you know it but
You can not found it . Particles guided
By a waves should always say it that way . thanks
WAVE OR PARTICLE; Psy Phy Physics from a science fiction writer
Why do I look at waves not particles? Looking at waves, not particles shows the weaknesses and problems yet to be solved in quantum mechanics, also the clues to move forward.
More and more I see the particle as a SUBSET of the wave. The particle is most probably in the crests and troughs, that means it is part of the wave. The particle is almost never in the nodes of the waves. There seems to be some type of duality here where the particle seems more mass like, and the wave, more energy like. Could almost say one is in space time, the other in a dimensionless point.
The quantum world is never cut and dried - so that for me means spin, superposition of waves, destructive interference of waves, virtual particles, magnetic properties, direction of the waves, orbitals, binding energy, charge properties and particle wave duality: they are all going on at once, and everywhere in the atom at the same time.
Just heard your name pronounced by you for the first time - You *are* german :). And THANK YOU for bringing up this altenate theory, and einstein's criticism of it. I refuse to believe in non-locality, because that would mean magic. If someone can show me a mechanism for magic, I'm all ears, but then that would make everything local.
The time derivative in the Schroedinger equation, required to be able to calculate the wave function, must occur at exactly the time that the "particle" is deciding which way to go, thus obviating tha possibility of obtaining a valid derivative from the (nonlinear) step function change. Thefore, time is not well defined in the theory and the theory is internally inconsistent and can only be used in a "before-and-after" manner.
There are no particles in quantum mechanics. Quanta are energy values.
Came for the physics, stayed for the background.
Non locality is fundamental. The problem is the human mind which wants to linearize things. To humans, the idea of a particle existing in multiple places at once appears contradictory. There's nothing inherently strange about non-locality. It is strange only to the human mind which cannot readily conceive of such a thing. Nor do we perceive ourselves as existing in multiple places at once - hence the existence of linear time which is a function of how the human mind perceives reality.
Bohm's interpretation has more appealing physical underpinnings than the Copenhagen interpretation, but Lorentz invariance needs to be worked out. I have worked out most aspects of Lorentz invariant entanglement in terms of hidden, complex variables plus hidden, non-local complex noise. I just need to figure out why the terms are complex.
And while you're at it, be sure to explain the value of Alpha! ;)
@@kenlogsdon7095 I'll address the g-factor, which is already done in QED. The fine structure constant is a collection of physical constants, so I'd have to explain each one and then why they magically produce alpha.
@@onehitpick9758 You have my best wishes in doing so! I sincerely look forward to it!
@@onehitpick9758 Why alpha? Because it is Feynman's famous question! Why not the electron's magnetic moment? Why not, indeed? Do that one, too!
@@kenlogsdon7095 The electron charge and mass should be one of the essential things a complete theory derives and doesn't just assume, whether it is the "bare" versions, or the "shielded by vacuum polarization" versions of these quantities.
A pedantic quibble: my understanding is that the Born Rule at 1:30 shouldn’t have the absolute value signs with the “squared” exponent 2. The bra-ket product will be nonnegative and already the squared modulus, Squaring it again would lose the normalization. Also, the bra Psi should have the same subscript as the ket Psi. Alternatively, one could remove the bra and the ket bracket symbol “>” and retain just the squared absolute value of Psi_i.
I love your videos, by the way.
The other indices give zero since it is in an orthogonal basis, it is really the standard way to write the probability. There is no square, but the modulus is not wrong, it is an emphasis.
Actually, the ψ_i are the basis vectors whose norm is one, so that = 1. The wave function is written as ψ = c_i ψ_i, and the probability is |c_i|^2 = , = 0 if i and j are distinct.
@@clmasse I accept that all those cross terms are zero, but why include them in the equation? One wouldn’t actually compute all those zeroes. But I agree that technically one doesn’t actually need both the bra and the ket to have the subscript “i”.
“modulus is not wrong, it is an emphasis”
I would say “redundant”, and it is usually there when the square IS actually needed, and since you agree that the square should not be there, it isn’t needed, and what isn't needed is potentially misleading.
“the ψ_i are the basis vectors”.
That’s certainly not “standard” in any of my QM textbooks. For example, my most recent, Binney and Skinner, show
psi = Sum_i a_i|i>
i.e., the basis vector is “|i>”.
Otherwise psi = Sum_i psi_i would just be the vector sum of all the basis vectors, not very useful.
In this notation, psi_i is a_i|i>, and would just be |a_i|^2, the probability of state i.
So I still think the video would be improved by removing redundant elements and incorrect powers of 2. But that’s not up to me!
@@johnfowler3132 We have the wave function ψ, say from a preparation, and we can make a measurement on it with ψ_i as the states that diagonalise the associated operator. The basis depends on the type of measurement, it can't be included beforehand. ψ_i is just the same as |i> up to the notation, it is but a shorthand. I wrote c_i |ψ_i> (summation understood.)
@@clmasse “ψ_i is just the same as |i>”
OK, let’s go with that convention. Then the equation in the video at 1:30 for Born’s Rule evaluates to 1.0 for all i. So all possible states are not only equally likely, they are all certain. I guess this is where the “Many Worlds Interpretation” comes in?
Sabine is turning into a real firebrand
The messenger was not killed by kindness.
Shout out on your dress game. A lot of content creators don't really put any effort into this and its clear you do. Pretty cool outfits.
If, as claimed here, Erwin Schrodinger was a proponent of The Copenhagen Interpretation, then why did he ridicule it with his cat experiment?
Let me state this succinctly: Space-time can NEVER be made up of discrete objects floating in some kind of medium - everything is made of the same thing. The entirety of our experience can only be described as interference patterns at the subatomic level governed by our perception of time. We can say that this universe is 13.8billion years old, but what does that really mean, apart from our own point of reference? I am not rejecting any theories here, but merely addling m,y 2 cents worth.
The 'Oh My God" particle traversed the Universe in 13 seconds relative to itself, but 13 billion years for us.
We are but a flicker in the dying of the light.
Bohmian Mechanics? Mama, just killed a Schroedinger Cat, he was both dead and alive, now he's dead.
I still don't see why Pilot Wave theory is a non-local one.
Sure it depends on a guiding field, and that field propagates waves caused by all particles in it, but that propagation isn't necessary FTL, right?
I mean that even if two entangled particles are too far away in order to explain sudden correlation with communication limited by lightspeed, it doesn't mean that at the moment of measurement there's something flying between them FTL.
It only means that that the guiding field has specific properties (or waves) that affect both (actually all) particles simultaneously.
But that guiding field is likely different in different regions, because of different number and magnitude of disturbances (ie particles or field-wave interferences) in those regions.
I don't see why a non-local behavior is necessary - for example a particle at one place can cause disturbance propagating outwards, but not have to (and probably doesn't) cause disturbance in the field instantly everywhere.
Right?
What I miss here is ... did anyone follow up on the 'experiments in rapid succession' remark by Bohm. I can imagine a double slit experiment with a stroboscope and connected timed camera, so a few thousand measurements in a few minutes. If there really was a difference in predictions you could find out easily. Right ?
Did you notice that the double slit experiment is not an actual quantum experiment?
We lack an understanding of hidden variables underpinning an undiscovered physics.
Well, wait a minute. Say we do measure a particle position. *Now* we know where the particle is. So shouldn't we be able to predict where it will be forever after? It seems like that should be easy to investigate experimentally.
You aren't measuring particles. You are measuring quanta of energy. As soon as you make that measurement the energy is in your measurement system. It will never go anywhere else. That is the fact that 99% of mankind is missing about quantum mechanics.
I first read the title as Bohemian Mechanics and so was expecting a music video using lyrics sung by Sabine HOssenfelder to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody to explain quantum mechanics... I mean, Brian May, so it would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
Does this mean that Bell's proof of the nonexistance of hidden variables is not water proof?
There's local hidden variables and non local bidden variables. Bell's experiments showed evidence against only the first.
@@alexleung842 Thanks for making that clear.
Yeah, calling it like that is really deceiving.
at least I get the picture
But why say Bohmian mechanics _can't_ reproduce the achievements of the Copenhagen interpretation? Sure, no one's come up with a workable Bohmian version of QFT yet, but how many people are even working on it in the first place? The Copenhagen interpretation has always been a lot more popular, and so not nearly as much research has been done into Bohmian mechanics. It shouldn't be that surprising then that it doesn't yet have a workable analog to QFT. Honestly, since the Copenhagen "interpretation" simply gives no answer at all to the measurement problem, it seems to be as lacking as Bohmian mechanics.
The particle was never in 'two places at once', according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Apart from observation there only existed multiple probabilities, evolving according to the Schrödinger equation, of the observer finding the particle in a particular location, right?
Yes, one of the numerous error in her presentation. Actually the corpuscle "is" not before the measurement, the wave function only describe the probability that it be detected at particular point, if only a position measurement is performed.
@@clmasse Thanks! I thought there were numerous errors, as well, but this one jumped out at me. It's rather common for lay people, but I've seen other credentialed physicists make it, too. And standing in front of a giant title banner "Copenhagen Interpretation!" smh
Bohm's story just makes me really happy I left the toxic environment that academia is.
Duddeeee the contemporary scientists really went for each other’s necks. It’s like battle rapping but slightly more PG but equally offensive.
what if we say the phyical manifistation of matter (the measured observation of a physical object that has been obsvered to have followed a specific path) is merely interaction between waves.. and the waves are the real "stuff" that makes the matter.. what in QM we called a probabilty wave. What if... the waves never collapse... in fact they never go anywhere.. but "they" are not directly measurable.. only the net result of their presence is... when there is an outcome of interaction soemwhere where their net amplitude is not zero.
if this were true.. then taking the double slit.. we send our electron through.. we think it travels as a particle (unless we understand QM).. thus should have one path.. but if the electron does not exist as a particle .. if the thing behind the electron doesn't so to say... if it only is a wave which we cannot directly measure.. in that case.. when it is brough into contact with another physical disturbance then the two interact and thus appears the physical manifestation of the physical particle of an electron... localised.. with position.
Confused from a conceptual perspective about the "nonlocality" of Bohmian Mechanics. Hasn't the idea of nonlocality been firmly established in QM, e.g. entanglement of particles separated by great distances? In what way is Bohmian Mechanics more nonlocal than the Copenhagen interpretation?
Quantum mechanics is perfectly local, it's just not separable. If you don't understand the difference, then the whole thing is entirely over your head. Bohmian mechanics in particular is total bullshit. It's a trivial reformulation of Schroedinger's equation taken together with the physics equivalent of an invisible angel that is dancing on the tip of a needle. It predicts exactly the same as standard quantum mechanics but will send you eight times around the block and once into the department for supernatural phenomena to arrive at the same results.
Stochastic Electro-Dynamics includes calculation of variables thought to be unknown by QED. Ie microwaves all the way down to the sub-atomic level for one, which greatly interfere with electron travel.
The Copenhagen Interpretation is an obvious fairy tale also. If the math works, just use it.
It's also worth mentioning that Bohm was fired, his PhD research confiscated and classified before he could write a thesis, and shortly after publishing his theory he was exiled to Brazil and not able to return. Kinda makes giving talks and defending one's ideas pretty tricky.
Yes, that is detailed in Adam Becker’s book which I mentioned earlier.
@@tech-utuber2219 what a great book
@wubs23 Bohm was at one point a Marxist and because of his communist sympathies he was driven out of academia
McCarthy destroyed a lot of good people.
@@simonlawrenson6972 So was Oppenheimer's "deviationism" remark a reference to Bohm's Marxism? Hmm...
Thank you! My professor summed up the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM for us by saying, "There are questions you are not supposed to ask" - which is so hilarious from a scientific view that it's plainly sad.
That is literally the antithesis of what science is. That almost sounds like something you would ear from church leaders in the 1400s in Europe or something
@@andrefigueiredo4805 Ask whatever you want, but every scientific theory has some assumptions and some region where it is applicable. Newton only tells you how to calculate gravitational forces. He cannot tell you why masses pull on each other, so don't ask him. Ask Einstein instead. Also, I absolutely forbid you to divide by zero, lest the devil seek your soul. Besides, it is beyond the scope of this discussion.
You're onto something buddy.
It was the Church and continually IS the Church.
The "Invisible" Church behind the Abrahamic Religions. LOL
The White Hats and Black Hats are one in the same. They play the Villain and Hero. While leading Society closer and closer to the Abyss.
And when one finally finds "God" ..... then welcome to the commercialisation of one's personally relationship to said God.
@@andrefigueiredo4805
And don't you dare question the Principles or Axioms that dictate that 1*0=0 and 1*1=1 or the Church will come after you too!@@EinsteinsHair
Atheists don't like Bohmian mechanics because it proves the existence of God
Another problem with the theory: Bohmian mechanics is not Lorentz invariant. Nor can it easily be modified to accommodate Lorentz invariance.
@@Ottmar555 Interesting paper. I will not be very surprised that with basic electrodynamics you can get QM-level results, since Maxwell's equations were ahead of its time by far, to the point of being already
covariant under Lorentz transformations.
Premise: we have only one Universe,
Problem: a particle "can be in several places at same time",
Solution 1: many-worlds interpretation,
Solution 2: David Bohm pilot wave interpretation.
Solution 1 is the same as solution 2, because both solution
is the going from the uncertainty principle into classical determinism and classical trajectories.
I mean, if it is given, that if Bob is in Moscow and in London at a given moment, then
Solution 1: Bob only in Moscow in Universe A (no Bob in London then), and Bob in London in Universe B,
Solution 2: Bob only in Moscow, and there is only one Universe.
However, the rejection of the uncertainty principle comes with wrong-hood.
ahhh midlife crisis incoming rip me!
@@eestidima: the problem is not with superposition, but with measurement: why is it that when we measure a quantum system we don't find a superposition of detector readings but a definite "outcome"? (And this is distinct from the uncertainty principle, by the way. The latter has to do with statistical variance of measurements of non-commuting observables)
But maybe the universe isn’t Lorentz invariant per se? Bohmian mechanics makes more sense when you, instead assume that there can exist a preferential reference frame. I believe that’s the 3rd axiom of Lorenz invariance.
I look forward to Sabine's new song "Bohmian Rhapsody."
First Thing I Thought Of Too, So Here It Goes:
Bohmian Rhapsody
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!)
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from Relativity.
Open your eyes,
Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
(seriously both)
Because I'm easy come, easy go,
Little high, little low,
Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Mama, just killed Relativity,
Put logic in his head,
Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead".
Mama, my new life has just begun,
Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away.
Mama, ooh,
Didn't mean to make you happy,
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow,
Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum,
because Relativity doesn't matter.
Too late, the time of the Æther has come,
Sends shivers down my spine,
Mind is thinking all the time.
Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go,
Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind ,
and face the truth.
Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows),
I don't want to sigh,
I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all.
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me.
(Galileo) Galileo.
(Galileo) Galileo,
Galileo Figured it out.
Magnifico-o-o-o-o.
I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity.
He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family,
Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity).
Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go?
Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go)
Oh oh oh oh
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.)
Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me.
So you think you can warp space and time, LOL?
So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny?
Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby,
Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here.
(Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah)
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
Anyone can see,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see.
Any way the Æther blows...
BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE
1. Space cannot be bent or warped.
2. Time cannot be bent or warped.
3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
The readers digest version of how Nature actually works.
[The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".]
[ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.]
[In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 micrograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).]
[ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ]
BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
you can show yourself out
@@Mrch33ky - Mama mia! Mama mia!!
the algebra has a devil put aside for meeeee for meeee for meeeeeeee
Please! Don't make suggestions of that kind :-) :-) :-)
Schrödinger wasn't in the Copenhagen group. At the Solvay congress, he disputed the Copenhagen interpretation together with Einstein, De Broglie and others. This is related in De Broglie's books.
This. Although, he was involved in it. So its not truly accurate to say he "wasn't in it", He was in it, just didnt' agree.
Schrodinger cat in itself was his thought experiment to show how ridiculous Copenhagen interpretation is. But I don't think he had an alternative interpretation so over time he just de facto fell into Copenhagen camp, I guess.
@@Alexander_Sannikov Schrödinger had penty of interpretations, verging to the paranormal. At the same congress, alternatives were presented and discussed, especially the pilot wave theory of De Broglie. This is the usual rewriting of history.
@@jamestheotherone742 Schrödinger worked alone from De Broglie's thesis, he was involved neither in the Göttingen, nor in the Copenhagen schools.
Come to comment section to say this, and was not disappointed to see others have said this. Thanks
i love how half of the comments here sound smart and half sounds like insane people
Schrodinger's cat dual issue strikes again...
There's a fine line. Really though, "insane" is relative to social norms and needs a normative grounding. That being said, I'M NOT INSANE, YOU'rE INSANE. YOU'RE ALLLLLL INSAAAAAAAAAAAAANEEEEEEeeee oops my stomach is gone, oh it's back thank goodness, nope lost it again, ha,ha aha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@Bisquick because of lockdown, you drink too much
My name Kaspars 😌
@Samuel Mullins I'm just a hermit floating through internet. 🙃 (atheist hermit)
An excellent accompaniment to Sabine's videos about quantum mechanics is Adam Becker's book "What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics", since it is the only book which I am aware of that attempts to clarify and demystify the progressive history of the field by especially focusing on the individuals responsible for shaping the development of this revolution.
I particularly liked the correction of historical myths that are repeated as facts by many people to this very day.
...
Spoiler: Bohr and the Copenhagen group essentially functioned as a exclusive cult which delayed progress after the initial success by at least 2 generations and derailed the careers of some brilliant people.
Came here to say exactly this. What a fantastic book! Adam Becker also has 2-3 one-hour talks on UA-cam that he did when the book came out, highly recommanded!
I read it in consequence of an earlier recommendation on this channel. It was a crackin' read and jolly good fun and explained a lot only hinted at in books by other's. I must admit to be being stuck in 'Lost In Math' at the moment. Too much time watching videos :-) Becker's book is also a very powerful critique of 'funding' as your 'spoiler' suggests :-)
Well theoretical physics hasn't made a major leap in theory in decades. That's a problem, and it means there's an orthodoxy that's false that's in the way.
"Bohr and the Copenhagen group essentially functioned as a exclusive CULT". The Cult of Personality!!! Just another song in a universe of songs. The Cult of Reality just wrote the Song of the Universe:
Bohmian Rhapsody
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!)
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from Relativity.
Open your eyes,
Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
(seriously both)
Because I'm easy come, easy go,
Little high, little low,
Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Mama, just killed Relativity,
Put logic in his head,
Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead".
Mama, my new life has just begun,
Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away.
Mama, ooh,
Didn't mean to make you happy,
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow,
Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum,
because Relativity doesn't matter.
Too late, the time of the Æther has come,
Sends shivers down my spine,
Mind is thinking all the time.
Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go,
Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind ,
and face the truth.
Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows),
I don't want to sigh,
I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all.
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me.
(Galileo) Galileo.
(Galileo) Galileo,
Galileo Figured it out.
Magnifico-o-o-o-o.
I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity.
He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family,
Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity).
Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go?
Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go)
Oh oh oh oh
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.)
Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me.
So you think you can warp space and time, LOL?
So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny?
Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby,
Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here.
(Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah)
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
Anyone can see,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see.
Any way the Æther blows...
BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE
1. Space cannot be bent or warped.
2. Time cannot be bent or warped.
3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
The readers digest version of how Nature actually works.
[The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".]
[ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.]
[In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 nanograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).]
[ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ]
BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
@@johnboze , Wow. Perhaps Sabine can do a video of this on her music channel.
I like that Bohm started out by questioning what happens before the measurement. The only way to make real progress sometimes is to start from scratch gather all observations and work out another explanation or rather start by assuming the accepted theory has a wrong assumption or assumptions. Close some doors and open a window or just take a sledgehammer to a wall just watch out the house might fall down.
Really enjoy the content on this channel. It actually goes into the details about the subject, instead of the other "physics" related channels that just spit out the same information already floating around the internet, but just reworded with bad analogies and iterated by people pretending to know details. Honestly, this is one of the best channels out there, on the same level as PBS space time. Keep up the awesome content!
Best physics educator on the internet. Thanks for the clear, concise but accurate explanations Sabine.
Real Talk
Yes l like her explanations too, if only l could understand them.
I'd really want to see you on Sean Carroll's podcast. That has to be a really interesting clash of minds because you're an anti-many-worlds person and he's probably the biggest many-worlds evangelist.
That *would* be interesting. I heard him in a recent video on "Closer to Truth" say he's something like 98% certain of the many worlds interpretation. I don't see how he *can* be that sure, so it would be interesting to see a conversation between him and Hossenfelder. Personally, I'm with Hossenfelder on this one.
@@philochristos yeah. His strong belief in that interpretation is not really based on scientific thinking. It is a personal belief that he is pushing. I can agree that in some ways it works better as a placeholder interpretation than the Copenhagen interpretation, but I have a hard time watching him be so critical of the "shut up and calculate" approach while being a salesman for "shut up and just listen to the math and assume many world's is true". But what do I know, I'm an idiot. But his evangelical approach feels unscientific to me.
I think that both of them would be very polite while holding on to their own views. The only thing I would expect to get out of it is lessons in how to pretend to be a nice person. Ba Humbug.
@@philochristos In his series "Big ideas" he elaborated on that in great detail. Even though that series is supposed to be unbiased and many-worlds agnostic, he again in great detail stated that it's "98% many-worlds" in his opinion. Which's an extremely strong statement considering how flimsy some of its aspects are (energy conservation, Borne's rule derivation, self-locating uncertainty, etc). I'm kinda in agnostic camp with Sabine on this one.
Na. I would not be interested. Both are just stocking to their own dogmatic believes which got us exactly...no where. One believing math is physics and the other believing physics is like Disneyland
What about Superdeterminism theory for QM. I look forward every Saturday for this.
Yes please! I would love a simple explanation of the theory and it's problems.
Bohm's theory is in fact superdeterministic in its core.
YES!! Please upload a video discussing superdeterminism.
I am super determined for humans to realize the EM Dipole is an actual Solid Kinetic Dipole Particle so I cowrote a song:
Bohmian Rhapsody
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: (aka When Geeks Write Lyrics To Classical Mechanics Songs!)
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from Relativity.
Open your eyes,
Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
(seriously both)
Because I'm easy come, easy go,
Little high, little low,
Any way the Æther blows Relativity doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Mama, just killed Relativity,
Put logic in his head,
Pulled my Inception, now Relativity "dead".
Mama, my new life has just begun,
Now I've gone and thrown Relativity away.
Mama, ooh,
Didn't mean to make you happy,
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow,
Carry on, carry on, like the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles carries all Momentum,
because Relativity doesn't matter.
Too late, the time of the Æther has come,
Sends shivers down my spine,
Mind is thinking all the time.
Goodbye, Relativity, time for you to go,
Got to leave all 100 year old lies behind ,
and face the truth.
Mama, ooh (Any way the Æther blows),
I don't want to sigh,
I sometimes wish I'd never solved TTOE at all.
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
Thunderbolt and lightning very, very frightening me.
(Galileo) Galileo.
(Galileo) Galileo,
Galileo Figured it out.
Magnifico-o-o-o-o.
I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves Relativity.
He's just a poor boy from a Space Faring Family,
Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Relativity).
Easy come, easy go, will you let Relativity go?
Bismillah! No, he will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Bismillah! He will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Will not let Relativity go. (Let Relativity go!)
Never let Relativity go (Never, never, never, never let Relativity go)
Oh oh oh oh
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let Relativity go.)
Einstein has a put the devil inside of me, of me, of me.
So you think you can warp space and time, LOL?
So you think you can love Relativity and the truth you deny?
Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby,
Just gotta get out, just gotta get Relativity right outta here.
(Ooooh, ooh yeah, ooh yeah)
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
Anyone can see,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles really are Matter,
EMG Kinetic Dipoles ,really are Matter, you see.
Any way the Æther blows...
BRAVE'S TENET’s of NATURE
1. Space cannot be bent or warped.
2. Time cannot be bent or warped.
3. All forces are from collisions of EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
4. The Vacuum and all Particles are filled with only EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles.
The readers digest version of how Nature actually works.
[The Name of the EMG Kinetic Dipole is the "Bożeon". ("God Particle" in Polish). This is the very same EM Dipole you learned about in 3rd Grade studying bar magnets. Simply put the "Bożeon", the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle is what makes up the "EM and Gravitational Fields" and all particles and causes all forces via collisions. The EMG Kinetic Dipole has mass, Dipole axis dependent Moments of Inertia, volume, surface area, and velocity (linear and angular) with more mass distribution at the North or Positive end. EMG Dipole Particles are on the order of 1x10^120 meters in length. The Fine Structure Constant defines the Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag of the Photon and can be extrapolated down to also describe the EMG Kinetic Dipoles Effective Cross Sectional Area and Coefficient of Drag. The Drag of Photons through the "Wind of Dipoles" causes Photons to reach a Terminal Velocity of "c", the max speed of photon particles in an "atmosphere of kinetic dipole gas".]
[ Polish is the nationality of the one who conceived the EMG Kinetic Dipole Particle and he knew Wernher von Braun, Alan Shepard, John Young, and was in Firing Room 1 at his DDAS Telemetry Network Terminal helping launch Neil and Buzz to the Moon. He had a stellar understanding of reality and Gravity. He helped conquer Gravity in 1969-1973, and post humorously conquered Gravity a Second Time.]
[In short a Bose Gas of Bożeons fills the Vacuum and it's Mass and Energy Density Gradients cause the Bożeon's normal path of travel to deviate, bend, toward higher density Bożeon regions of space. This causes light (Photons, made of Vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles) to change their momentum vector in space under a variable index of refraction due do variable Dipole Density Gradients throughout space. This alters all particle motion around massive objects causes "Gravitational Lensing" and causes "Gravity". It is all redirection of Dipole Momentum due to Collisions. All particles are Bose-Einstein Condensates of trillions and trillions of vortexing EMG Kinetic Dipole Particles (Quantum Superfluid). The Vacuum you occupy know has ~22 micrograms of EMG Kinetic Dipoles hitting your body at the RMS speed of light "c". This collision of EMG Kinetic Dipoles causes a momentum transfer from the Vacuum Dipoles to Your Particle Dipoles and you accelerate toward the higher Dipole Density Field (Down).]
[ The cores of Blackholes are Bose-Einstein Condensate Solids made of fully packed EMG Kinetic Dipoles at a 0.84 packing factor. The centers of blackholes are so packed the dipoles can no longer vibrate and lose most kinetic energy causing core collapse. That is the simple truth of Nature. ]
BRAVE - Bożeon Research and Æther Verification Eταιρεία
The Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge: Record your own version of the Bohmian Rhapsody about how you too killed Relativity in favor of Reality. The reward you will receive if you win the Bohmian Rhapsody Challenge will be Priceless: The Truth.
@@stormtrooper9404 Can you say more about that?
You have such uncany ability to add enought complexity to create a basic intuition / understanding, but not enough to make the videos hard or requiring a one year course.
Sabine, can you make a video on Bell's Theorem? I too were confused when you talked about locality being important.
iT SEEms Bell only hold if the detector is independent of the particles that it measures.
Everyone used to want locality, because our commonsense physics is local. But the truth is that observations at tiny scales almost always show nonlocal effects, all of which are specified in the Schrödinger equation.
@@david203 not really
@@ThomasJr "not really" is a trivial and useless answer to any question. It shows at the very least mental laziness and at worst a profound ignorance.
@@david203 laziness is better than typing any BS that comes to mind like you did Lol. Not that I am lazy, but you'd better off lazy than spewing BS
But Bell literally proved quantum mechanics is non-local. Why do you make the claim of locality without even mentioning Bell? This was a very important experiment. Proven to be true many many times.
Because hidden variables hold up when they're global, and Bohm's pilot wave is global.
Bell: reality is either non-local, non-causal, or non-real. Or some combination. I prefer non-causal but whatever, Bell showed that at least one of those had to be so. Bohmian theory obeys bell's inequalities therefore cannot be a good theory of reality, even if reality is non-real.
Isn't physics fun?
Bell's theorem ruled out hidden variable theories for LOCAL interpretations. It doesn't say much about non-local theories
Bell was a one of the main proponents of Bohmian Mechanics. For example, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, he wrote :
"... conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.
"
I do agree that Bell's theorem is a theorem on non-locality. The starting point is the EPR argument; basically either the results of measurments pre-exist to the measurment process (hence, QM is incomplete) or there is some kind of spooky action at a distance, i.e., non-locality. What Bell has shown is that the mere assumption that the results of measurments pre-exist to the measurment process is in conflict with the predictions of QM, hence there should be a form of non-locality in QM (in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, it is the collapse of the wave-function which is non-local). Bohmian mechanics is certainly not ruled out by Bell's theorem. It is clearly non-local and does not claim that the results of measurments pre-exist to the measurment process, because the measuring device has an active role in the theory. The process of measurment is understood as an interaction between the system and the apparatus.
I thought it said "Bohemian Mechanics". I envisioned guys wearing berets fixing Citroëns while smoking Gauloises and arguing passionately about the meaning of life. LOL!
Bahahahah
That would be Gaulish Mechanics.
I just follow the waves, man...the hip sounds of the upright bass tell me where to play horn...on the negative space and syncopation, the particles move like a jazz solo over a tight rhythm section.
@@jorgepeterbarton Solid gone, man!
You are describing an outdated stereotype of french. Who are far from being "bohemians", moreover the 60's blue collars you "described", quite the opposite.
Why do we need particles in the first place? Why can't the field potentials stand on their own and we just consider the probability of position always as a probability? We perceive point/particle behavior simply because that's the location the field potential collapses to a place to be measured. e.g. Storm clouds have an electrical potential and only when the field condenses into a lightning bolt do we see it; before that, the charge potential in the cloud was a much larger area. Just keep electrons as wave potentials and the "appearance" of point electrons are just the result of the field condensing to a location of measurement.
Is QFT
Yes, that's a very good question. Indeed, I don't quite understand why people like working with particles. They seem to me far more questionable than fields.
... we also get away from the silly "spooky" notion of entanglement with QFT. It's not mysterious.
I like the storm cloud analogy.
Because of the real life needs? If you have a very good photomultiplier, you are actually successfully counting photons. And suddenly you learn they do not exist 😱
By the way, the unit for the number of photons (a mole of photons) is called einstein.
Best treatment of this subject I have seen, outside of reading technical articles! You're always on point Sabine!
Save that it is all wrong. Read the original articles of Bohm, they are not that difficult. And read the books of De Broglie too.
Interesting, I didn’t know that bit of history. I’ve only read reviews of bohemian mechanics. Though I think I’ve read De Broglies article about ‘De Broglie wavelength’ which is quite short and elementary if I remember correctly and definitely of topic for this discussion ^_^.
Take ‘treatment’ with a grain of salt. UA-cam videos can’t go into too much depth. The part about a high dimensional phase space in QM is general to all interpretations though right. To put it in context the phase space is even bigger in QFT. My impression of Bohmian mechanics is that it doesn’t generalize to well to qft, I think Sabine mentioned that as well. That’s it’s main strikeout as far as I’m concerned. What are your thoughts on that?
The negative attitude toward Bohm's interpretation is a myopic attitude. Not because the objections expressed about it don't have validity, but because the philosophy behind the Copenhagen theory is even more silly: shut up and don't ask questions! If Bohm doesn't work, then Copenhagen doesn't work even more.
Bohm doesn't appear to work as an interpretation for reasons enumerated in the video. But Copenhagen is no interpretation at all. It's just a capitulation to ignorance. The truth is, quantum physics at this point has no interpretation, and arguments one way or another about candidate interpretations are based more on biases than facts.
"But Copenhagen is no interpretation at all. It's just a capitulation to ignorance."
Exactly! Appealing to chance should only be done as an absolute last resort, like appealing to aliens or God.
The Copenhagen interpretation is not exactly what Sabine said, very tersely. The wave function represents the information on the system, and when a measurement is made, further information is gathered, so that the wave function changes. The collapse is not a physical process. That doesn't mean at all that the corpuscule is at two places at the same time, and then concentrate at a single place. It is a positivist interpretation, because all that is real is the result of the measurements. It doesn't make sense to ask questions about anything else, but in no way it is forbidden. You may ask: what is the mass of this color? but this doesn't prevent that any answer would be nonsense.
@@clmasse I've known about the various interpretations for decades. I'm not operating off of Sabine's description alone. The way she and I characterize it really is the essence of the philosophy behind the interpretation. It's a non-interpretation.
What you'rd describing is how it doesn't rise to the level of a theory. That's why it's called an interpretation, not a theory. None of the interpretations of quantum physics rise to the status of theory because none of them are testable.
@@jambec144 I'd even consider an appeal to God more of a meaningful interpretation than Copenhagen, which is mostly just a shrug of the shoulder.
@@DMichaelAtLarge To date, no interpretation is a yes interpretation. They all have a fatal failing. An interpretation is by nature non testable, and it is always an interpretation of an already existing theory. Quantum theory have been tested and validated in many extreme conditions. You got the definition of interpretation wrong.
I still oppose the arrogance of physicists coming up with non-deterministic theories. It coincided with art becoming abstract, and music atonal, etc. Scientists that choose to ignore reality are philosophers, or mathematicians, not physicists.
What an arrogant comment
HI Sabine H. could you comment on Rodger Penrose's conformal geometry cosmological model ?
That would be an interesting one. I don't simpathize to much with penrose, because he is an idealist, but he sure is a great mathematician and has also great contributions to science.
The more of the letters and biographies I read about the giants of the field at that time just make me sad. Here they are digging at very fundamental questions while at the same time being pretty shitty people. Wouldn't surprise me if somewhere out there was a letter from Heisenburg calling people working on QED little better than lobotomy patients or somethings.
You want them to be gods?
@@talldarkhansome1
I don’t think he does...but we all hope a little at least that people we admire can be admirable in other areas of their lives. Sadly as I recently pointed out myself a lot of people regardless of discipline may be giants in their field but massive disappointments as human beings.
@@talldarkhansome1 Naw, it just feels better in the head to imagine them cheering each other on rather than emotionally hamstringing but eh, sometimes reality is the worse alternative lol
Humans. * shrugs *
@@talldarkhansome1 I want them to be objective scientists.
Ah Sabine, somehow you are able to impart difficult concepts to even the most dense of listeners (me); continuously thanking you...
Zabina
Lightning will reach in varying directions until it finds a path to ground at which time the bulk of energy discharges in a single bolt. I know particles behave differently under various conditions, including scale, but I can't help but think of lightning as one example of physical phenomenon expressing a kind of potential until it meets a condition causing a fixed form/location. ua-cam.com/video/qQKhIK4pvYo/v-deo.html
A battery gas potential electrical energy. There is already a potential difference built up before lightning discharges, which lightning can also do above the clouds
Well, with the whole wave/particle duality conundrum, it could be that particles only appear to exist when certain conditions are met, and outside of those conditions exist only as the wave component. There's a fringe theory called "Wave Structure of Matter" that posits the particles themselves are strictly a wave phenomenon, but standing waves instead of the normal waves we usually talk about. In that theory, it is a combination of the local conditions and the conditions in the surrounding universe (the entirety of it, by Mach's principle) that together form a particular standing wave at each location where we see a particle. If the "in wave" from the universe superimposed on the "out wave" emanating from any particular location can form a stable standing wave configuration, according to the laws of wave mechanics, then a particle will appear, and if not, then we see no particles, only waves.
Lightning basically illustrates the Principle of Least Action, meaning the path chosen by Nature will minimize the total energy required.
Why cling to the fiction of "particles?" Photoelectric-effect is most cited for defense of particles, yet we know ejection of an electron is defined by the boundary conditions of the atom, not whether the incoming object has a "particle-nature," as thought at the time. And the boundary-condition problem of the atom is entirely a wave-equation problem, not a particle problem. There is simply nowhere in physics where matter or light can be found to be violating the wave equations (Shrodinger's or Maxwell's respectively). In all the universe, there is not one single particle.
Perhaps the whole Universe is one particle... One giant electron :)
@@coryharasha - There's a better than even chance the whole visible universe is inside a Black-hole, if that makes you happy? Standard model says so, even though physicists won't admit it. Look at any of their timelines. Calculate the Schwarzschild-Radius of the visible universe (today, it's 13Blyrs, the farther back in time, the larger that Radius was, according to physicists, because earlier there was more matter/mass within our view). (more...)
So in order for physicist's model to tell a consistent story, all the visible matter was once concentrated within a radius much smaller than the Schwarzschild-Radius (the very definition of a black-hole, where not even light can escape), expanding through to today, where much of that matter magically broke through Schwarzschild's black-hole horizon barrier.
Both things can't be true. Either Big-Bang expansion is false or Schwarzschild/black-hole theory is false.
Saying it more simply, How did the mass of the visible universe ever break through its 13Blyr Schwarzschild barrier? Answer? It didn't; our universe lies within a black-hole and many cosmological mysteries can be answered by asking, What happens when matter approaches the event horizon from the inside?
@@tomnoyb8301 Fascinating! Thanks for sharing man.
@@coryharasha - Yw.
@@tomnoyb8301 correct, this is why ER=EPR is so attractive, we know particles themselves are really like black holes themselves (obviously not literal ones...) but they do follow the horizon problems (boundary conditions problems) that follow from black holes and much much more....
Would there be any benefit of using multiple interpretations to get closer to a practical result? I always wondered if the difference in approaches could be used to build on one another.
I know it’s a year late, but there’s not really a benefit to using any variety of interpretations. Generally the Copenhagen is viewed as “correct” but it’s rather useless to argue about which is best as no matter what you think of or argue about: it’s all the same data.
Whether there’s a wave pushing a particle, or a wave becomes a particle, since the math is identical, it doesn’t really matter since neither can ever possibly be proven nor disproven
There are problems with bohmian mechanics. But from a philosophical point of view the copenhagen interpretation is essentialy idealist mysticism and unscientific. If you want to know more look up the quantum mechanics videos of Paul Cockshott from glasgow university
See _Leap Of Logic_ by physicist, David Harriman (web site) , for an anti-deductivist, inductive history of science and a radically new, non-statistical identification of the process of of the alleged problem of induction. Existence is Identity.
So far nobody has a complete valid interpretation of quantum mechanics and the measurement problem. So right now, just about all theories are still valid until proven wrong. And even the Copenhagen interpretation has not been proven wrong. Some people disagree with it, but it has not been proven wrong.
@@dankuchar6821 Copenhagen is the claim that the universe is random. But the universe is the universe. It is what it is and acts accordingly. Its causal. This knowledge is part of common human experience, prior to math and science.
@@TeaParty1776
To say that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is somehow a claim that the universe is random is such an astronomical oversimplification that it makes absolutely no sense. But absolutely is not what the Copenhagen interpretation means at its core. Not even remotely close. It has to do with the measurement problem. Not about the universe being random. in fact saying that the universe is random is not even any kind of a statement to any physicist would have any clue what to do with. It really means nothing.
@@dankuchar6821 QM math is valid. But Bohr claimed it meant a non-causal metaphysics. Bohm advocated a causal view but was ignored by the mainstream.
Again a brilliant video. Never seen a clearer explanation of Bohm’s interpretation. By the way, it was in a a recent web discussion on Bohm that I first ‘met’ Sabine Hossenfelder. She seemed the most ‘down to earth’ member of the panel and so I was interested to learn more of her. The other participants seem to believe in a sort of ‘universal consciousness’ which was fundamental for all reality, and which appeared to be another theory of Bohm.
Bohm later was a follower and secretary to J. Krishnamurthi and he was interested in philosophical nonduality. But his physics, even his later physics, was truly independent of this interest, and focused on providing nonlocal but deterministic explanations. The view that most satisfies people who love consciousness is the Copenhagen Interpretation, because it contains and justifies much more ignorance and mysticism than does the Bohm Interpretation.
@@david203 That is the sassiest comment I've ever seen about the Copenhagen interpretation. I fully approve of it.
@@VelvetCondoms Thank you. I try to make such comments in lots of places, since UA-cam comments tend to get buried among all the "this physicist finally explained quantum mechanics in a way I can understand, and I'm a longtime, severe dummy."
Bohm and Bell showed that QM works simply and nonlocally, unlike classical mechanics. Bohm also showed that QM is deterministic, not mystical, and that no human observer or consciousness is relevant or needed.
Yet few physicists today understand Bohm's theory fully, and most think it was disproven, which it was not, or that there is no experimental evidence for it, which is untrue, or that it can't handle special relativity, which is true but is currently being fixed (and, more importantly, the Copenhagen interpretation itself is non-relativistic).
@@david203 Well said.
You're presentations are so clear and concise. Thank you!
5:56 Yea, this is a problem. This makes me think that there is a chance of violating the Uncertainty Principle. By the way, you're missing an h _bar squared at 1:24 IIRC.
This is the feeling I always had about this topic. By the way, well recognized, good job!👍
Bohm's theory does not violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. No physics can, because it is due to the related definitions of position and momentum.
Thank you for making science more accessible, Sabine. I'd love to hear your perspective on the relational interpretation of QM.
she pushes superdeterminism so that her belief that "nothing random exists" can be justified