Robert Spekkens Public Lecture: The Riddle of the Quantum Sphinx
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2018
- In his Feb. 7 public lecture at Perimeter Institute, Robert Spekkens will explain why he believes that many quantum mysteries are a result of a category mistake concerning the nature of quantum states.
Perimeter Institute (charitable registration number 88981 4323 RR0001) is the world’s largest independent research hub devoted to theoretical physics, created to foster breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of our universe, from the smallest particles to the entire cosmos. The Perimeter Institute Public Lecture Series is made possible in part by the support of donors like you. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/inspiri...
Subscribe for updates on future live webcasts, events, free posters, and more: insidetheperimeter.ca/newslet...
pioutreach
perimeter
perimeterinstitute
Donate: perimeterinstitute.ca/give-today - Наука та технологія
Robert Spekkens - Thank you so much for this lecture. You have articulated perfectly something I have been trying to say to friends for many years. Nothing spooky, no hocus pocus necessary.. Awesome talk..
This man proves that thought travels at the speed of light!
How did he prove that ?
Best talk on this topic I've ever seen.
Thanks for making such a weird subject a little more comprehensible. Nice talk.
I came for the physics, stayed for the hieroglyphics.
The last 10 -15 minutes fascinated me the most.
This is the kind of lecture you watch two or three times; it's so dense.
Marc Marc - If it isn't easy to understand, its usually just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. That's why they call it, "Theoritical Sciences"...
Honestly this is an easy lecture, but I disagree with his conclusion or it went over my head.
I still beleive in the bell theorem, I dont think he changed my mind. He is arguing in a subjective way rather than objective.
Bell showed that the type of measurement on A is changing the probability on B. That plainly means measurement S applied on A is effecting the quantume state of particle B eventhough the measurement was done in the future.
For me the only logical solution for this question is destiny and complete determination, if you want to keep the speed of causality intact.
Dr. Spekkens gave a very brief but good description of several areas of human study. The discussion of logic, philosophy and reason as linked to the mathematics of quantum mechanics was very enjoyable. The very best part was in the opening discription of supporting the already proven known facts of nature, physics!
Where has this guy been hiding!?
Robert Spekkins absolutely killed it! This was a fascinating insight into his research (and mind). He was also a fantastic public speaker - reminded me of a combination of Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss.
other guy? Hans Halvorson?
I couldn't think of his name last night, when I left that comment. I've since edited my comment; I couldn't remember the fantastic lecturer 'Lawrence Krauss'.
Talk _physics_ and stop blabbering.
Totally hidden: Canada!
www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/robert-spekkens
🔥👤😐 💀🔥
This was a very interesting lecture which postulates that some interpretations of quantum mechanics might be a messed up as were early ideas about translating Egyptian hieroglyphics (which we not entirely obvious even after the discovery of he Rosetta Stone)
WOW thankyou for this !
Wow, this is a very good explanation of quantum state!!!
The quantum state we can measure is just knowledge of certain aspects of reality
Yep Feynman said damn near the same thing.
A third option: A measurement reveals neither the quantum state of the measured object nor the state of our knowledge of the object's quantum state. It instead produces a result determined by the entanglement of the measured object with the measurement device. The choice of which measurement to take determines the nature of that measurement device's entanglement with the measured object (and any other entangled objects).
There are some inaccuracies in this lecture. 1. The "Drug"-Experiment works perfectly well (or not) - it simply depends on the question you ask. If you want to know whether men - compared to women - chose the drug more often, you got a reliable result. If you want to know about the effect of drug-treatment, you of course test the same amount of women and men who TOOK the drug. 2. Quantum entanglement doesn't violate speed of light-limit because there's no information transferred - that's what entanglement is all about. In other words: You can't send signals, because the "two" particles behave like one.
This guide to sudoku is very comprehensive 🤔
Did you miss the word ' not ' in your comment ?
Love this so much
Impressive. I like the emphasis on causal structure and the hint of information, disguised as probability. May be worth looking up work of Judea Pearl and Ron Garret too.
One hour, 14 minutes and 36 seconds just to say, "Consider the man who took the wrong approach in translating an ancient language that proved NOT to be successful. Then he took the right approach that DID prove to be successful. Therefore, quantum theory is the wrong approach, even though it's been proven to be successful(for the last 100 years). The right approach is to know what we will know, by calculating the probability of what we will know. I don't know how to calculate that." I wish I knew how to calculate that. I would have calculated the certainty I wouldn't know anything new by watching this video.
Excellent information! Misconceptions about quantum physics are perpetuated by misinterpreting statistical representation.
What is a mistake is to be certain about anything.
I'm not well-versed in quantum mechanics (at all) but from reading and watching these sorts of lectures and discussions, I thought there was not considered to be any conflict between entanglement producing "spooky action at a distance" and the limitation of the speed of light. Something along the lines of (which Spekkens did mention momentarily) that no actual, useful "information" can be sent in the process. Am I wrong about this? If I'm right, why does Spekkens argue that the entanglement concept (with the confirming results of Bell's) and the limitations of light speed are in "tension" or disagreement?
Excellent lecture! I'm also amazed at how much information he was able to cover so deftly in an hour. Truly fascinating, and what he's saying here seems perfectly plausible-and obviously more intuitive, particularly from the standpoint of relativity theory and how well it describes the universe that we know. Bravo!
How is it more plausable? I dont think he disprovee the Bell experiment. How is he proving anything mathematically.
This lecture seems more emotional rather than anything. The lecture started great, but then he lost me or at least I disagreed with him later on.
If measurement on A is effecting the results on B, this does not mean that there is imperfect knowledge that we have not yet grasped.
@@kaskoosek I was looking out a window and my eye caught the sight of a squirrel eating the bird's seeds. Immediately as I observed the squirrel, his motion froze.
I'm not sure what it means, but it's spooky.
Great arguments from Analogy.
The good old epistemic vs ontic debate of QE never gets old but why do I get the feeling that 1) the epistemic view proponents are just repackaging (old wine in a new bottle) when stating that spookiness at a distance is just a category mistake and that 2) it is motivated by the fact that philosophers just can't accept the weirdness of indeterminacy and are still trying to impose their classical expectations on quantum reality?
11:50 Nice shot of the audience dozing off :D
Yeah ,,, I had to rewind a few times, because I stopped listening. - It's his voice. He needs a narrator if ever he makes a documentary .
The " Spooky action at a Distance " , suggests to me that those sub atomic particle are STILL in the singularity.
( oops , Have I just given the game away ? )
There are some movies, where the Hero/Victim keeps thinking they are Safe !
They even live a full life, have kids, only when they 'die' , do they realize they are STILL in the game and haven't gone anywhere.
More people should know about this channel
Skip the sudoku analogy and start at 14:00 for quantum mechanics.
GREAT!!!!!!
I like the parallel between the search to understand Egyptian hieroglyphs and quantum theory....I'll go so far as to say we have another parallel here....Jean Francois Champollion and Robert Spekkens
Have you tried to connect your ideas with the work done by Nichol Furey and Mia Hughes using octonions?
A fascinating talk. If quantum state is a category mistake, what happens to classical state (and trajectories and orbits in a phase space) as used in state space models of dynamical systems? I have been trying to study how to model certain cognitive systems using some kind of generalized state space (technically, as objects and morphisms in a star-autonomous category). Spekkens has co-authored an article with Bob Coecke, who writes on both quantum foundations (e.g. Categorical Quantum Mechanics with Samson Abramsky) and cognitive-linguistic models, arguing that some of the mathematical structure of, for example Feynman diagrams and Penrose string diagrams of quantum interactions (not related to string theory) are similar to pregroup grammars as developed by the category theorist Joachim Lambek for modeling natural language. I am not sure how Spekkens work might relate to cognitive systems, but going beyond Bayesian probability could be quite relevant. And his comments about Clifford groups makes me wonder about Clifford algebras, quaternions, the unitary group SU(2), and quantum groups more generally.
In view of Bell’s theorem, Kochen-Specker’s theorem, etc., I think Spekkens‘ idea could only be extended to cover the whole of QM, and not just the Clifford fragments, if at the same time we accept that quantum states are states of knowledge, we acknowledge that the underlying ontological states, which are assumed to be determinate all along, are not physical, so that their properties are not the same as the properties that enter into quantum states. That would fit rather well Kant’s distinction between phenomena and things in themselves. Perhaps it is taking Kant a bit more seriously that is required to make sense of QM.
Laureano Luna It is such a pleasure to read thoughtful, intelligent posts on UA-cam every now and then! 👍😃
Thanks!
Help me help you ;)
Not sure. It seemed to me your topic shifted throughout your comment a couple of times. So, finally, I was uncertain what you really meant.
I'm not sure what you're saying - I understand you saying the whole QM state are states of knowledge while the underlying states are ontological but are you also saying that the ontic states are deterministic? - the pure quantum state seems indeterministic since the collapse of the wave particle to particles is random and we are left with statistical predictions but no causal account Since one is random (collapse of wave to particles) and the other deterministic (the wave itself), we don't really have a deterministic dualism in the way Kant would feel comfortable. One thing I did agree with him was that the epistemic and ontic view are competitors and are not compatible. He is squarely on the epistemic side and would disagree with dualism as an explanation.
This is an invitation to see a theory on the physics of light and time that gives us an objective understanding of quantum mechanics.
Might another way to explain this perceptual/intuitive discrepancy between knowledge/reality be the fields of endeavors? Matter and energy though connected need different tools to categorize, interpret, perceive and intuit. With mathematical frameworks we can bridge those discrepancies and comprehend them using virtual time-space fields of infinite dimensions. Quantum computers might enable us to understand the causation s long before experimental validations.
is it possible to link a charged particle with an uncharged particle ? this would technically generate infinite energy
What has statistics to do with time-space?
If relativity suggests that there is a top speed which is constant while we have a an apparent artifact that disapproves shouldn't we look at sub spaces that introduce lower-dimensional systems which facilitate the interactions(not transactions since if there were any those should be measurable) and introduce the variation observed compared to effective reduction of complexity(looking from the amount of knowledge of the system) combined with increase in the complexity in regards of the mathematical description that is supposed to account for the knowledge we loose?
Tim Stoev if we let loose this knowledge it could be damaging.
I don't understand your comment. Do you mean that if we try to pinpoint the exact state of the entangled particle we introduce uncertainty in the whole system which will render it unpredictable thus non-describable?
I think that it is much more complicates and much less useful. Science fiction kind of thrives the closer we get to real understanding of quantum events mainly because we forget the scales and complexities of the systems that are being analysed
ok Tim .o.k .
4491541391
Unfortunately, in the summary at 1:04:00 he totally misses the point.
It is the *data* (in particular the fact that it contradicts Bell's inequality) that leads to the conclusion that there is a "spooky action". You do not need quantum theory to (derive Bell's inequality, look at the data, and) conclude this. Therefore, the problem cannot be solved by changing the "interpretation of the quantum state", because you do not even need to know what this is to "see" the spooky action.
Interestingly, he uses a similar kind of fallacy as described earlier in the talk. The facts are:
(1) The assumptions that information cannot travel faster than light and that the (probability distribution for the) outcome of a measurement is a property of the object on which the measurement is carried out implies Bell's inequality.
(2) The experimental data contradicts Bell's inequality.
(3) The experimental data is predicted correctly by quantum theory.
(2) implies that at least one assumption made in (1) is false, which implies that either infomation travels faster than light or something even more spooky influences the choice of the operator which measurement to make. None of these arguments uses or relies on quantum theory. It could have been derived in 1900 if someone made such an experiment (for whatever reason). (3) is logically completely independent of (1) and (2).
At 49:00 (after distracting for 10min with this Clifford stuff and his baby) he got it almost right, but still missed the cruicial point: Bell has shown that the if you assume the causal structure as shown in the graph on the right, then the statistical data shown in the table on the left is impossible. Period. Again, no quantum theory here. His statement is logically correct, but the additional assumption "… and assume that the quantum state blah blah…" suggest that the statement becomes wrong if you drop this. It doesn't. And therefore, even if you replace quantum theory by something complete different, the spooky action will not go away. It might become less spooky within a better theory, but this theory then has to modify *other* theories as well, namely those that are used in (1), e.g. relativity.
To prove exactly this was the contribution of Bell. The Bohr-Einstein debate would have proceeded very differently if Bell did it twenty years earlier.
why dont you just feed all these problems into a quantum computer. When you gat the answer try not to observe it
This was a pretty good talk. Why were so many people falling asleep?
I dare mr. Spekkens to explain how incomplete knowledge results in the interference pattern of the 2 slits experiment.
Алексей Салихов look into pilot wave theory, I think it explains it pretty well
I think "Spooky action at a distance" really is a result of the possibility that changes for elementary particles happens in another dimension , the 6th to be exact ! This dimension is (as I understand) the "RIFT"-dimension which separates matter/antimatter !
Bell's inequality is about hidden reality, that depends on something we still do not know. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says knowledge of position hides knowledge of momentum. So with one measurement we know 50% about position and in another setting we know 50% momentum but not of the same phenomenon or the same set up.
However, QM's abstractness does not prevent us from appreciating how the SINGLE probability wave function governs all phenomenon as quantum process with certainty ( quantum physics is better formulated than classical).
As a former stammerer who as a child could sometimes hardly get a word out, and subsequently managed to give presentations at conferences, I am disappointed that modern speakers seem to have adopted the affectation - for that is what it is - of saying 'er' every other word. Speakers - please do view your own presentations!
consensus will require making things simpler, not more complicated :)
Hasn't entanglement been pretty well established in experiment, unlike many worlds or Copenhagen?
Following the thought ... if the problem is join 3D (the positions) with 2D (the knowledge) is a geometry problem. So, if we have a sphere we need PI. Add PI to PSI. Dont have any clue of the outcome but its only a thought....
Wow!
Oh my God! Once you hear him say uh you can't stop hearing it uh it's uh like uh every word uh
Solving Sudoku puzzles are easy to solve using process of elimination marking algorithms.
Featured in the top 10 videos of the day on walnut.tv/science
This was just an overview. If you are interested in Spekkens work, check out the full series of lectures here: ua-cam.com/video/0C8iX2Uhbzg/v-deo.html
quantum queff is my new handle.
When I studied QM, the pièce de résistance against this type of thinking was the double slit experiment. Yet he claims that interference is part of the "clifford fragments". I'd like to see that laid out in detail.
That was my first thought as well. It's pleasant not to have to deal with super-cats, but double slits?
Pilot wave.
All double slit seems to show is that photons are waves.
@@Zamicol Clinging to pilot wave theory is kind of like clinging to Creationism at this point. Time to move on people...
@Aaron Curtis - Resorting to insults is kind of like trivializing QM interpretation into a popularity contest.
@@lishlash3749 How is that an insult? It's an observation. One based on the logic of science. If you're promulgating experimentally unsound theories that never had much footing, and have had no footing at all for years, then what should we say? I want logic in my science, not such cult like devotion to a dogma that it gets in the way of furthering Science. And that's what's happening here.
Billy Connolly in audience at 14.34 ?
arbitrary in a non trivial way. v + v = W, v (entangled) v = Z, what is a boson? H ori Z on ?
Video starts at 3:10
[1] Category Error:
If you ask the wrong question, you might get nonsense as an answer.
[2] Career Choice:
If you follow the crowd, you end up waiting in line.
Qm is not a complete theory. It breaks down at plank times and distances. There has to be a theory superseding qm and spacetime
Interesting lecture but I noticed that he did not mention the double slit experiment. This would seem to favour the idea that the observation or interaction changes the reality not just our knowledge of the reality.
The underlying nature is not changing. It is how we categorize what is a particle and what is a wave that makes it seem as if reality has changed. Everything is waves / vibrations. A particle is just a "chunk" of the vibrations. Quantum field theory is the thing you should look into. Apparently the only reason we hear about particles is because they think it is too hard to describe to a popular audience how everything is vibrations of various fields.
Caught by the camera.. and only an hour to go, I wonder if he made it to the end? 11:50 :)
The use of back/front and left/right around 33:20 seems peculiar, given the direction of the arrows on the diagrams.
So many different QM interpretations.
And maybe it is an yet unknown interpretation which holds the correct explanation of QM.
Excellent. Maybe some day they will figure out that quantum computers are not proven by QM. The Born rule is metaphysical fluff and QM just gives the expectations of observables. We use probability in QM for the same reason we use it in classical physics. It's actually quite easy to generalize both and in a useful way. The inability to see what Spekkens is saying is why we have nutty many-worlds interpretations becoming popular. These people are making basic mistakes in the theory. However, there is nothing really new here. This doesn't really contradict Copenhagen. People have just piled non-sense on top of it.
Feynman said what this kid said and it only took two minutes.
Great presentation, Robert! Please get in touch. I have sent an email to you. Looking forward to your response.
12:30 it is not for you to decide what we need to know or not :)
On one hand, it's good that someone is looking into this. On the other hand, he never gave any defense of what he's doing to probability theory. The calculus of probabilities is one of the most elegant applications of mathematics to the real world ever invented - trying to explain quantum mechanics by carving a huge swatch of theoretically ugly exceptions through it is really unsatisfying to me.
Ist es nicht schrecklich, wenn die Kamera das Auditorium
zeigt, annehmen zu müssen, das dies typische Vertreter
der wissenschaftlichen Kommunitie sind?
keyphrase: epistemology v ontology. decent lecture. gripe: should have mentioned Bayesianism by name! [ok i retract that - at 52:00 you've done that] and terminology - priors, likelihood [no need to go into cox's theorem]
ok
I thought he said his name was "great dick" 0:47 I need to clean my ears out lol
Am I seriously watching someone arguing for hidden variables? Really? @37:20 [after a bad description of the Everett interpretation]
yes, but I thought hidden parameters were fine with Bell as long as you accept non-local distribution of such positive information (see e.g. Bohm's pilot wave). The parameters could be just not with the particles at the detectors but in some abstract account independent of space time - or at least correlated with spacetime in a "fine-tuned" way that does not allow for signalling faster than light. According to Spekkens here, the wave function is about a description of knowledge from a global perspective, and that can change globally like Bayesian probability updates when we learn about new measurements - but he seems to use some other formalism (the star thingies etc). Let's just let him do his thing - we'll see if he comes up with something that convinces the world - and he has a point that only a few are looking into these matters...
He didn't actually explain his theory, his talk is about how the existing interpretations are a clear indication that something is wrong with our view.
Audience = required participation state
Have you ever heard of Zecharia Sitchin and the SUMERIAN Tablets it predate all other writing to date...
steve davi on coast to coast am😊
You mean Zecharia "I make shit up" Sitchin?
Please don't do this.
Feynman - "Shut up and calculate!"
Sorry, that was David Mermin. but still...
quantum states ARE knowledge, it was know since the old days, Heisenberg put it clear. But lack of philosophical rigor in many scientists led to this mud... Qbism is the best work in quantum foundations since Wheeler.
I think the thing you might be missing with quantum mechanics is time ;)
Energy, Matter, EMF and Time have stumped physics up till now. Not so any more. This is because there is logicaluniverse.com
How about the possibility that the drug is completely useless or makes some people worse. It is ironic that he talks about miscategorisation or looking at something in the wrong way but then proceeds to assume that the expected outcome is that the Drug will cure those who take it.
I challenge anyone to give an accurate final "uh" count
KerbalSpaceHD well over a thousand... there were sections with over 20 per minute
Before watching a lecture I always scan the comments for a post like yours. I'm going to pass on this one without even pressing play, so thanks!
@@yargoook3802 Uhhh. Give him a fkn break? Uhhh hes a physicist not a fkn silver tongued politician looking to get something out of you. Uhh.
They say Greg went home and auto-erotically asphyxiated himself after stumbling on a word early in the introduction.
no, only a total twat like you would say such a sorry little thing
Stop arguing start collaborating
Is a glyph a direct image of a concept or the condensed particular origin of holistic field information coordination as in 3D Perspective? Good point, "what is the topic?", identity category in the compound spectrum of the Quantum Fields Mechanism.
A universe that's coherent!,
..a stratified probability history of points in fields, lines in spectra and shells-orbital-particles,
..topological idioglyphs of physical-chemical compounds(?),
..projected multiverse-brane images of quantum information,
..chemical wave-bonding probability-interference, or temporal-field substantiation from a singularity-vanishing point of eternal time,
..now-distributed principle-connection, in the reciprocal-relative dimensional positioning of QF-space,
..measurable modulation in Superspin.
The Measurable Modulated Sum of Superspin is greater than the parts of the constituent compounds of shaped infinities, along the lines of the Banach-Tarski Conjecture. Ie "Particular-particles" are evolved from the naturally occurring probabilities in context and the effect appears to be "emergent" from an infinite "multiverse" of coexisting/parallel possibilities.
Every measurement made in the Standard Model of Physics and Astronomy is a "discovery" of Entangled Quantum Information in which the reciprocal wave-particle Fields Modulation Mechanism relationship is inferred.
The "One Electron" theory is a practical Physicists interpretation of a modulation-demodulation integration of Superspin at the Singularity Vanishing Point, and it's complimentary mathematical conjecture of Banach-Tarski, applies to more specific dimensional interpretation. The combined quantum chemistry phase state of dualistic timing is the subject of Quantum Computation and the cause-effect values of Temporal Superposition.
Ie this topic is another in the set of formulae based on QM-TIME principles of extracting coherent information from the time duration integration-interference of Eternity-now.
Oh please, Simpson's Paradox is nothing but bad math. For fun stick these numbers in a spread sheet. I found two ways of getting the correct answer which is 50%.
Yes correct the mistake was made by Einstein based on the Michelson Morley experiment specifically. The red shift is wrong as well as our understanding of the speed of light
Lot of validation seeking in the comments by people who have watched a handful of videos on UA-cam.
A beautiful mind always simplifies and the speaker categorizes Quantum Cubits as Seduco solutions . In the quantum state matter takes on a varying forms due to the lack of forces one would find in larger matter and the mistake is that we are quantifying and categorizing results prematurely. What I am trying to say is that the external force becomes influencers as to what happens in quantum.
WE MUST TURN ALL TRADITIONAL THINKING ON ITS HEAD AND RATHER MEASURE THE FORCES APPLIED ON THE QUANTUM RATHER THAN MEASURING THE QUANTUM
The Simpson's "Paradox" is flawed in the manner that the number of women and men that take the drug are not equal in actual numbers. You're ignoring the weighting of the function with this example. It only proves which gender is more likely to take the drug. If weighted correctly, it correlates to not taking the drug provides a 6:7 ratio of recovery for men and a 2:3 ratio for women. There's no paradox there because the dataset is misconstrued. If averaged, for every 3 recoveries with taking the drug, there would be 7 recoveries from people who did not take the drug.
It started off promising but it all went a bit meh.
What gave you the courage 😶
To warn that category errors are serious is worthwhile, but going on to hitting ones head at high speed against the 'quantum weirdness wall' is pathetically futile philosophizing. :-{
No, he's not, he's arguing that you _shouldn't_ reach for such a thing.
all the odl people in audience ...waaaa
its a good well organized lecture but it has no answers. He tries to tie quantum understanding of the true nature of reality to the action of human consciousness (implying there is no universe and no external reality if nobody is conscious to observe it) the overall task is just too herculean......but he spoke well and got the first shovelful of sand off the beach in his attempt to expose the bedrock underneath
He was so close to saying couinciounes..but felll short by the term was knowkedge of reality. This is 3rd lecture & materialism is a true misconception of reality
Found that I couldn’t watch this after a while, because all I could hear was ‘err..ummm..err’ every few words.
He still did a good job 👍 He just isn't a great speaker.
Everyone is confused
This is the least dense, dense lecture Ive ever seen. I'm sure this guys mind works very well when he's not talking, but fuck man this lecture is like a song that stops, starts the intro again, skips around and then keeps going at some point where you have to reorient yourself as to what's actually going on, then the intro starts again and the skipping, and it goes on. This dude is a bad lecturer, but obviously not a bad mind
Dr. SPEEKENS miht be a good scientist, but (I think) not so good teacher.Unless the audeince consists of physics professors.
In lectures such as this one, you've got to bring something to the table to enjoy the thought process going on.
this is a very old idea.
A lot of bald dudes in the audience, nice.
"Robert Spekkens will explain why he believes that many quantum mysteries are a result of a category mistake". Quantum mechanics is based on verifiable and repeatable experiments. You cannot just say something is wrong with Bell experiment because it contradicts to a philosophical view or hidden variables must be there because it seems logical. Try to find a flaw in Bell experiment, first. The rest is not a science.
Evgueni Provad - That’s what I was thinking as well. I thought the whole point of Bell’s experiment was actually to settle this exact question of hidden variables. I didn’t hear anything in this talk about that (granted I didn’t have the stomach to watch to the very end. He is not a good presenter I don’t think).
The point he makes is that this stuff is still not really understood. We can handle the math, yes, but we have no intuition about what is going on. If you find that question irrelevant, then I don't understand your attitude to science at all. For me, it is not only about correctly predicting outcomes in predefined settings - it is not engineering! - but it is about actually understanding stuff.
Watch it again. You obviously didn't grasp what he was saying. Quantum Mechanics is the theory.... Copenhagen is the Interpretation. The Quantum Mechanics theory dictates that the Schroedinger wave equation describes the outcomes. All of the various interpretations agree with that (and so by definition, agree with experiments). They do howe differ in what axioms you need to get to the outcome (what prerequisites are needed for the theory to work) and what the wave function actually MEANS. There are very significant issues with Copenhagen (look at Measurement problem where nothing happens until a well qualified observer looks at it) and there are other issues with other interpretations (Pilot World/Many Worlds/Consistent Histories/etc such as the requirement for non-local hidden variables that mean there is something going on outside our ability to measure that which we yet don't understand). They ALL reproduce the results of the QM Theory in experiments BY DEFINITION. They just have different interpretations of what is going on behind the scenes (and the motivations). Bell's work has been explicitly misrepresented to suggest that it rules out any non-copenhagen theory. That's just plain wrong and Bell himself spent much of his career saying that the PW interpretation seemed much more reasonable to him than Copenhagen and there was no inconsistency and the need for non-local hidden variables was self-evident.
This stuff is not really understood from 1930 and from Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" paradox. Egyptian hieroglyphs, which is a great story by itself to show that we need to think outside the box, would not help to understand QM. Only new experiments and math would help. And what if quantum theory cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics and cannot be understood by using little balls, waves, springs and so on. Would it be a "category mistake"?
There have been thousands of experiments and they all show that the statistical predictions of the wave function are accurate. NOBODY is questioning the ability of the theory to make successful predictions in aggregate anymore and NONE of those experiments can rule out any of the interpretations because they ALL rely upon the SAME quantum wave function to make the SAME predictions. The problem isn't that the interpretations make predictions that don't come true but the problem has been that there are boundaries and assumptions in each of the interpretations about what can be practically tested.