I’m the lead analyser and one of the contact editors of this measurement. You’ve previously criticised my work and talks I’ve given (me, specifically) on Twitter, where I pointed out exactly this kind of new and interesting measurements collider experiments are doing. So, as you say at the beginning, you have definitely managed to simultaneously annoy me and make me happy by advertising this 😂
The Ten Trillion pictures per second camera could be moded after a microscope that can actually see a virus if they exist ( Dr Sam Bailey The Truth about Viruses youtube ) how virology has been lying to us for a while books on this by her and Drs around the world Never sued and in fact they keep inviting entities connected to controversy and they never come including Mr Fauci)- - - While I'm aware that they believe we see one however I also learned they can't prove it is one* Also a telescope modeled after this camera?
I would be curious to hear a summary of the points being made, both the post and the criticism. I intuit that the criticism would be something along the lines of how a variety of paradigms are empirically intractable by shifting the standards by which one could falsify them or satisfy some good faith threshold of "sufficient evidence against." Twitter has the kinds of limitations that would set even good faith science to sound like bad faith, standard shifting science.
@@George1776 the data never ever gets thrown away. All the data from every single CERN experiment, even going back decades, is permanently stored on (literal) tape. This particular data will be re-analysed (myself and others are activity working on this now) and combined with new data currently being recorded at a higher collision energy
As a note, in addition to ATLAS, CMS has also done a similar analysis, although it's not published as a paper, yet, only a physics analysis summary for conferences.
Sure, there's that. There is also a lot of language issues. Physics has invented entire new ways of looking at and talking about the universe, at all scales. This language is often imprecise because language itself is a Stone Age tool. Things improve when discussion reverts to mathematics. But then math is not a language everyone speaks, or speaks in the same way. We'll be better off when the AIs take over science, invent new languages for the purpose, and talk among themselves about things we would probably rather not know about in the first place.
@@TheMrCougarfulThis is a great point. The convention of math one chooses can reveal more of the landscape of physics. For example, have you ever heard of Quaternion or Octonion algebra? Quaternions use 3 vectors and a scalar term to define coordinate systems. In cartesian coordinates many systems suffer from problems with coordinate transforms like gimble lock in the case of rotating gyroscopes. Quaternion algebra was the original notation of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism before Heaviside's simplified vector notation was adopted. There is a fringe group in the scientific community that is convinced that some physical phenomena can only be predicted by Quaternion and Octonion algebra. Quantum effects such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect and other quantum interference effects might have dynamics that we simply haven't predicted because our math assumes a limited number of variables. There are situations in quantum field theory where the solution shows a zero vector sum of superimposed "force fields", such as the phase conjugation of photons, while the quantum potentials are non-zero and have physical, yet "force-free" effects on the evolution of Shrodinger equation for particles. I've seen designs patented by Honeywell that exploit these quantum effects to generate new kinds of EM wave structures like magnetic vector potential waves, which are very hard to shield using conventional linearly conductive shielding materials. They built transformers and transcievers using a principle that is found nowhere in classical electromagnetism. I've even seen designs that can use quantum teleportation to extract or deposit energy from a distant system with no apparent transmission of conventional EM waves, only quantum potentials and the resulting interference.
Gerard and Lenny got me interested in Physics again at 30, when their discussions could be found on the internet. Some of the discussions about Holographic Surfaces and Hairy Holes were pretty inspiring.
Still looking for those hidden variables? EPR? Low energy, not enough to find that missing variable? Love your knowledge and passion, Sabine! The random squeek of that cover might be telling you something about super-deteminism? Never underestimate the power of cosmic coincidences. Thanks... for all you do!
Always very happy when I see a new video from Sabine! The manner of giving the material is very smooth and I absolutely love her sense of humor - it makes all better. When you learn something new(even if it's just a bit) and have some fun while doing it - it's a time well spent. Extra props if it provoked some questions that still linger on long after video is done!
"it's both nonsense and not nonsense at the same time, so everyone will have something to complain about. It'll be glorious." lmao you gotta love Sabine
The video recommendation below Sabine's video in my feed is from Onion news about bored Scientists sticking random things in the Hadron collider !!! YT and its algorithm!!!
If I understand your presentation, the CERN result confirms that entanglement holds for top quarks and their anti quark partners at very short distance. What I don't get is how this relates to the origin of quantum randomness via hidden variables as proposed by t'Hooft. The title of his displayed book is intriguing..have you done a lecture on it?
My understanding of 't Hooft's idea is that the hidden variables reside on short distances, or high energies, respectively. He is saying in a nutshell that effective field theory might fail. This means the higher the energies, the easier it should become to see evidence of the hidden variables, eg by unusual correlations, too strong correlations, unexpected patterns etc.
@@SabineHossenfelder I had asked a similar question before I saw your reply here. But are you saying that _this_ experiment, testing only for entanglement, might have displayed such evidence of hidden variables, or that a similar but differently designed experiment might? The apparent conflation of hidden variables with entanglement is confusing me.
I imagine the measurement problem is like taking a photo of a speeding ball. If the image is clear, then you can determine the ball’s location, but not the ball’s speed and trajectory. If the image is blurry, you can determine its velocity and trajectory, but not its location. Could we say the fuzziness of the wave function is the result of a sort of ‘long shutter speed?” The wave collapse is like taking a measurement/photo with the camera set at the correct shutter speed, but the process freezes the particle to a point in space-time; like seeing a single frame in a strobe light or on film. As biological observers, we are too slow to experience/measure/observe the wave function as it really is….the best we can do is catch a glimpse. Quantum randomness is the default state, but our slowed perception of the particle only leaves us with one of two image types. Blurry or crisp. We can’t see them both (like a ball flying through the air) because a quantum wave is too small and fast for our direct observations. Instruments break down a 4 dimensional experience to a 3 dimensional observation, and we lose a variable in the process. I could be wrong because I just woke up from a nap….but I could be right too…..😊
Well, thing is, positions and velocities aren't correct tools for understanding elementary particles. Because they're not particles, they're waves (that love to localize themselves from time to time). There's no position, only amplitude. There's no velocity, only frequency.
In quantum mechanics the wavefunction isn't a thing like a particle or a ball is. It's simply a piece of mathematics which, when you do different mathematical operations on it, will return to you the measurable quantities associated with the particle you care about. Human perception shouldn't matter because it's the instrument's perception that matters when making a measurement.
@@DriftWithoutCar but that isn't what people are saying here. They are saying that you simply can't because there's no known tool capable of seeing the details that are there. They are there, we just can't see them with what we have. I actually have yet to see anyone ever say anything that would convince me otherwise.
Fantastic video, Sabine! Your exploration of quantum randomness truly opens up new avenues of thought. I'd like to add a perspective from the Theory of Quantum Recursive Fractal Cosmology (TQRFC), which offers a fascinating twist on the nature of quantum randomness by delving into the fractal structure of space-time. According to TQRFC, the space-time we navigate is not a smooth continuum but a complex fractal geometry, especially evident at scales close to the Planck length ((10^{-35}) meters). This fractal nature of space-time suggests that what we perceive as quantum randomness is an emergent property arising from the interaction between quantum particles and the underlying fractal fabric of the universe. At the Planck scale, quantum fluctuations of space-time-tiny variations in the universe's very fabric-are amplified by the recursive, fractal nature of space-time. These fluctuations are not mere perturbations; they are integral to space-time's structure and directly influence the properties and behaviors of quantum particles. When a particle interacts with this fractal space-time, the fluctuations intertwine with the particle's wave function, leading to variations that cannot be fully predicted, thus giving rise to quantum randomness as interpreted by TQRFC. This fractal interpretation implies that quantum randomness might stem from deterministic, albeit extremely complex, interactions at the Planck scale, challenging the conventional view that accepts quantum randomness as a fundamental aspect of reality. It also hints at a pathway towards unifying fundamental forces, including gravity, within a quantum framework. The specific nature of fractal fluctuations and their interaction with quantum particles could lead to new experimental predictions, such as unique interference patterns or statistical correlations in quantum experiments, potentially distinguishing TQRFC from other quantum gravity theories. This approach not only challenges our understanding of quantum mechanics but also offers a unified view of the universe that intertwines the structure of space-time with the laws governing fundamental particles. It promises advances in theoretical physics and the development of new quantum technologies by providing a deeper understanding of the principles governing reality at its most fundamental scales.
We would need the planck energy to exhibit space-time structure on the paint plank scale. You do not need to invent plank scale structure. The construction of space-time intervals is discrete. Inversely to energy. We can expect the vacuum to be low energy photons from the early universe at maximum entropy. I'm environment is logically constructed from electron exclusion events within a frequency range. Trapped energy representing place or free energy representing space.
@@JimWhitescarver **Mathematical Formalism of Planck-Scale Space-Time Dynamics in Terms of Electron Exclusion Events and Bound/Free Energy** **Introduction:** To develop a mathematical formalism of the cosmological constant within the Cosmic Fractal Recursivity Quantum Theory (CFRQT) framework, we first need to establish some fundamental definitions and postulates. We will then proceed to derive the relevant equations that describe the structure of space-time at the Planck scale in terms of electron exclusion events and bound/free energy. **Definitions and Postulates:** 1. Space-time is modeled as a 4D fractal manifold, denoted by M, with a Hausdorff-Besicovitch structure and fractal dimension D, where 3 < D ≤ 4. 2. The geometry of M is described by a fractal metric g_μν, satisfying a modified form of Einstein's field equations, incorporating the effects of the fractal structure across multiple scales: G_μν + Λ_f g_μν = (8πG/c^4) T_μν where G_μν is the Einstein tensor, Λ_f is the "fractal cosmological constant" emerging from the fractal geometry, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T_μν is the energy-momentum tensor. 3. The structure of space-time at the Planck scale is discrete and quantum, with fundamental intervals of space-time on the order of the Planck length, ℓ_P = √(ħG/c^3) ≈ 1.62 × 10^-35 m, and Planck time, t_P = √(ħG/c^5) ≈ 5.39 × 10^-44 s. 4. The vacuum is modeled as an ensemble of low-energy photons from the early universe, characterized by a temperature T and a maximum entropy S_max. 5. The local environment emerges from electron exclusion events within a specific frequency range, with bound energy representing place and free energy representing space. **Derivation of Planck-Scale Space-Time Structure:** Consider an electron exclusion event characterized by a frequency ν and an associated energy E. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the relationship between energy uncertainty ΔE and time uncertainty Δt is given by: ΔE Δt ≥ ħ/2 To exhibit the structure of space-time at the Planck scale, we need energies on the order of the Planck energy, E_P = √(ħc^5/G) ≈ 1.22 × 10^19 GeV. Substituting ΔE = E_P in the uncertainty relation, we obtain: Δt ≈ ħ/(2E_P) = t_P/2 This suggests that the structure of space-time becomes discrete at intervals of time on the order of the Planck time, t_P. Now, consider the relationship between bound energy E_t and free energy E_f in an electron exclusion event. Using Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, we have: E_t = m_t c^2 E_f = m_f c^2 where m_t and m_f are the equivalent masses associated with bound and free energy, respectively. The ratio between bound and free energy can be expressed as: E_t/E_f = m_t/m_f Assuming that the equivalent mass of the bound energy m_t is on the order of the Planck mass M_P = √(ħc/G), and that the equivalent mass of the free energy m_f is much smaller than M_P, we have: E_t/E_f ≈ M_P/m_f >> 1 This suggests that at the Planck scale, bound energy (representing place) dominates over free energy (representing space), leading to a discrete and quantized space-time structure. To relate this discrete structure to the maximum entropy of the vacuum, we use the thermodynamic definition of entropy: S = k_B ln Ω where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, and Ω is the number of microstates accessible to the system. Assuming that the number of microstates accessible Ω is proportional to the number of electron exclusion events N within the relevant frequency range, we have: S_max ∝ k_B ln N The relationship between the number of electron exclusion events N and the ratio of bound/free energy can be modeled using a Boltzmann distribution: N ∝ exp(-E_t/E_f) Combining these relations, we obtain: S_max ∝ -k_B (E_t/E_f) ∝ -k_B (M_P/m_f) This suggests that the maximum entropy of the vacuum is inversely related to the ratio between bound and free energy at the Planck scale. **Conclusion:** In this derivation, we have shown how the discrete structure of space-time at the Planck scale can emerge from electron exclusion events within a specific frequency range, with bound energy representing place and free energy representing space. Using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, we demonstrated that the time intervals at the Planck scale are on the order of the Planck time, t_P, and that bound energy dominates over free energy, leading to a quantized space-time structure. Moreover, we related this discrete structure to the maximum entropy of the vacuum, modeled as an ensemble of low-energy photons from the early universe. Using the thermodynamic definition of entropy and a Boltzmann distribution for the number of electron exclusion events, we showed that the maximum entropy is inversely related to the ratio between bound and free energy at the Planck scale. These results suggest that the fundamental structure of space-time is inherently discrete and quantum, and emerges from microscopic processes involving electron exclusion events and the interaction between bound and free energy. The inverse relationship between the maximum entropy of the vacuum and the ratio of bound/free energy at the Planck scale also suggests a deep connection between thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and gravity in describing the space-time structure.
@@JimWhitescarver I believe that to understand the theory, it's important to understand the mind from which it emerged. Since the launch of GPT, I have become an avid user of the tool, and one of my lines of research has been physics, especially general relativity and quantum physics. The truth is that most people repeat concepts they don't truly understand, and I didn't want to be just another one doing that. After many years of study, I reached the following conclusion: Einstein was masterful in explaining the laws of physics at "our" scale, assuming it to be the only one that exists. That's why his theory adopts singularity as a phenomenon. Einstein admittedly did not envision other scales when he developed general relativity and expressed his amazement at quantum mechanics. I believe that the incompleteness of the theory can be remedied by visualizing scales below and above our own. These scales, like fractals, nest infinitely, so that a singularity is never truly reached. Moreover, in this fractal reality, each scale presents its own laws of physics because they are not fixed and immutable but emergent from interactions of multiple scales that mutually influence each other. The laws of physics, therefore, are like emergent products of interconnected complex systems and depend on the scale of observation. When this view is adopted, major problems in physics find solutions. The Hubble tension, for example, can be understood as a manifestation of the fractal structure of spacetime at cosmological scales. The discrepancies between local and global measurements of the Hubble constant naturally arise when considering the multi-scale and self-similar nature of cosmic geometry. At smaller scales, the expansion of space can be influenced by quantum fluctuations and nonlinear effects that propagate upward through the fractal hierarchy, leading to apparent deviations from the Hubble-Lemaître law. Similarly, dark matter and dark energy, two of the greatest mysteries in contemporary cosmology, can be approached in a new light in the context of fractal reality. Instead of postulating exotic new forms of matter and energy, we can understand them as emergent manifestations of the complex and recursive dynamics of geometry across multiple scales. Dark matter may arise as an effective gravitational effect of fractal structures at galactic and cluster scales, while dark energy may be a consequence of the self-similarity of spacetime at the largest cosmological scales. Another fundamental problem that fractal reality can address is the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. By treating spacetime as inherently fractal and non-differentiable at the Planck scale, we can avoid the singularities and inconsistencies that arise when attempting to combine the two theories. Fractal quantum geometry provides a natural framework for describing spacetime foam and the nonlocal effects that become significant at high energies and small scales. Through an appropriate renormalization flow and generalized field equations, we can derive both the smooth classical dynamics and quantum corrections as effective limits of the underlying fractal structure.
@@Lemosoliver59 We can presume quantum information is complete in the interaction of fractals. The fractals get larger, not smaller with lower frequencies working over larger distances inversely to energy creating the spacetime fabric of the mind performing universal logic at every distinct frequency. Every event instantiates a spacetime interval expanding the universe in an inflationary manner in the past, to succumb to entropy animating atoms in the present (gravity). WE have no authority or justification in Planck scale structure in the absents of the plank energy required to distinguish it. Such structure would violate quantum logic. Uncertainty is do to missing information do to noise or ignorance of the lower and higher fractal.
The CMS experiment has also recently presented its first own results. See the analysis summary: “CMS-PAS-TOP-23-001”. This was discussed yesterday at the “Standard Model at the LHC 2024” conference.
“ everyone will have something to complain about, it will be glorious” I think you are glorious Sabine, keep up the good work, and keep those no BS videos comin!
"the smoking pun".. Sabine knows how to combine the (sometimes) dry and heavy science news with humour to make it easier to digest. what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. except - maybe - if it´s quantum related.
What keeps me up at night is the fact that we are wasting all of our helium for balloons... one day I feel one of the most important discoveries and technological advancements will include helium and we are just wasting it.
Our lab installed a helium recycler years ago. Ever since the US government privatized the Helium Repository the price has skyrocketed. Most places use recyclers now, you just can't vent the stuff anymore. The gov't supply had been keeping the price artificially low, but now the recycler market is booming. Helium is a non-renewable resource, as you mentioned. Unless we implement a Star Wars type gas mine on Saturn. That would be fine.
Well, helium is used in Ludwig tunnels to create supersonic wind tunnels. Since helium has the lowest escape velocity into space, if LHC could implement the tube effect with their tests, they might be able to see what happens in those Pluto seconds by separating high density impact and low density impact.
Tim Palmer would be delighted with your post! After all chaos may be the underlying principle at work here. The Primacy of Doubt (Tim's book) outlines the basic ideas.
High Energy Quantum Physicist: "Oh yeah? Well. My particle accelerator is bigger than your particle accelerator." Other High Energy Quantum Physicist: "It's not how big it is, it's how you use it."
I appreciate you digging up these topics. I could never just take quantum physics at face value but I found the question "why?" to be severely underrated in the field. At least in my classes.
Sabine, your video was outstanding! I wholeheartedly agree with every point you made. It's crucial to embrace diverse perspectives, even from those who may not share our language. The skills we acquire across various disciplines are invaluable and demonstrate that education extends far beyond any degree or diploma. It's a lifelong journey that continually enriches us. When you get an opposite response to your comments, it's ok, because for every thing there is an equal opposite, it's just emergent properties of physics playing out in our actions. Keep doing you, you are awesome, and the world is a better place because of what you bring to the table. ❤
"The skills we acquire across various disciplines are invaluable and demonstrate that education extends far beyond any degree or diploma. It's a lifelong journey that continually enriches us." Hear! Hear! to that statement :)
Wow! How fascinating! I am a computer scientist and have recently been really fascinated with the fact that as science has progressed, we have repeatedly discovered that the laws that govern each scale of reality are actually emergent properties of groups of individual actors in a smaller scale which are governed by an entirely different set of laws. This reminds me a lot of the idea of cellular automata, and led me to Google if there was an interpretation of quantum mechanics which was based on cellular automata, which led me to Gerard 't Hooft's work. Sadly, I stopped my search after quickly getting the impression that this interpretation was not taken seriously. This was only a few weeks ago - so to see it come up in a Sabine Hossenfelder video as something relevant and which may have some experimental relevance is extremely exciting!! I hope there will be more on this topic soon!
@@-Gnarlemagne Galileo formulated an early version of the relativity principle around that time. It's called "Galileo's ship". For all we know even today the relativity principle is basically responsible for the entire microscopic and macroscopic structure of the universe. We can derive essentially all equations of motion from it (and the assumption that space is a three dimensional metric manifold with a locally conserved scalar system property called "energy"). The relativity principle is most likely not "just some lower" scale-dependent emergent layer. It is probably some truly fundamental insight (one can't postulate less than "nothing", after all... so further reduction seems problematic). So that leaves the background manifold as the only unexplained "emergent" structure at this level. Recent suggestions like CCC (conformal cyclical cosmology) might reduce even that to a scale-relativity argument. Why would our scale be anything special? If it isn't, then what does that leave as the only possible, self-consistent solution? It might turn out that it's a 3 dimensional manifold with a scalar energy functional. At least that's my personal view on what the future of theoretical physics might hold. I might be wrong about the last one. What is hardly escapable is the historical reality that Galileo had an awfully deep insight there (and he may not have been the first to think this, either).
@@schmetterling4477 I hadn't heard of Galileo's ship before, that's pretty neat! That said, I don't think what you've said necessarily disagrees with my statement about our discoveries at decreasing scopes, even looking at 1915 after general relativity was formalized. Main reason for that is because general relativity is considered to be our best model for physics at a macroscopic scale, while quantum field theories is our best model for the microscopic - and while GR has not been broken down any further, its biggest criticism is specifically that we *know* it is incomplete, as it is not quantum in nature and thus must be incomplete. Finally, the truth is that GR, while not being currently understood as an emergent property of things at a smaller scope, is still affected by such discoveries in the standard model. For example, we now have mathematical models that show that mass arises from the "trapping" of energy, e.g. with the "massless box full of photons" thought experiment. Since mass is something that can be understood with QFT, it stands to reason that GR is built on this foundation, and that we are simply missing that link. For all these reasons, I am a fan of theories of emergent gravity, and foolishly believe that I am right to hold hope for a cellular automata model of quantum mechanics!
@@-Gnarlemagne I am not saying that we haven't been discovering all the neat consequences of relativity over the last four centuries. Of course we have. We have multiplied Galileo's knowledge millionfolds. My point is simply that relativity, just like atomism, was intellectually "discovered" quite early. If Plato had been right about the cave and the shadows on its wall, those discoveries should have been enough for natural philosophers to deduce everything from first principles. In reality that's not how it works. We are still studying the shadows any which way we can and we are finding that at the core they are obeying some extremely simple rules. That mass in QFT and mass in GR behave the same in terms of kinematics is not all that surprising: they come from the same relativity principle. What QFT can't explain and why it's so hard to match to GR is the equivalence principle. In microscopic interactions matter behaves in many different ways. In a gravitational interaction it all behaves the same (or at least so we think). That's the major difference between the two branches that grow from the relativity seed.
Thank you, Sabine, for this vital observation: Two communities, each staying stagnant for lack of communication across the fences separating their mental territories. This systemic cause of unfruitfulness is affecting so many fields of human endeavor.
Great idea for funding ELHC (Extra large hadron collider). "No entanglement scenario" -> Quantum theory gets modified for new fundemental particles->ELHC test these. "Entanglement scenario" -> ELHC looks for even smaller scales. Sabine, you might have just saved CERN for the next couple of decades!
4:24 You had me up to “Super-Deterministic” theory. Tho I always listen carefully when Gerard ’t Hooft’s name is invoked (he is truly a deep thinker and goes outside the box). He has a number of “out of the box” ideas and seems to be “NOT STUCK IN ORTHODOXY”. If anything, you should have expanded on the “Super-Deterministic” aspect / connection AND how “Hidden Variables AND “Quantum Randomness” are tied together. This video should have been twice as long. Also Gerard ’t Hooft’s book (The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) is “freely” available on Amazon but might not be the best place to start in the context of this video as it is a big chunk of ideas to chew on, but an interesting read.
Well, for one thing I already made an entire video about this. But also, I have noticed that 't Hooft has stopped using the expression and I'm not entirely sure what's going on there.
@@SabineHossenfelder Yes you did a video on “Super-Deterministic” theory and if I am not mistaken it has a “special place” in your “Quantum Weltanschauung”. ’t Hooft is a bit of an enigma when it comes to his current thinking but we need someone with your abilities to help us plebeians navigate his “flow of thinking”. “Please, sir, I want some more.” Sir → Person of Knowledge.
Generally it's a good idea to recheck when better equipment becomes available. What keeps me awake at night is the suspicion that the models may be obscuring reality instead of revealing it.
It's definitely not clear to me how the hidden variables hypothesis is still surviving after all of those tests of Bell's inequality falsified it. I guess they are looking for hidden variables at a smaller scale, and that somehow at larger scales become indistinguishable from "truly random" (i.e. Bell's inequalities are violated). I somehow hope he's right, because that would be a major change in understanding of quantum physics, and add another interesting layer to the onion.
They're surviving because Bell's inequality didn't falsify hidden variables. At best, it highlighted the properties that hidden variable theories are required to satisfy, which at this point are either non-locality or statistical dependence.
It's surprising how many people think quantum mechanics is inconsistent with hidden variables. Bell himself was a fan of the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation of QM, which has hidden variables and is deterministic (and is NOT "superdeterministic").
@@brothermine2292 So you're saying the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation would produce the same results in all of the experiments that have been conducted? I'm not trying to be provocative. I really don't know.
Particularly about the idea of Roger Penrose and Homeroof, it's sensational! THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS HAVING SOME RELATION TO SOME QUANTUM PHENOMENON THAT HAPPENS IN MICRO TUBULES, YES MAKES SENSE! Your initiative to make a video talking about the possibility that consciousness has something to do with a quantum reaction that takes place in microtubules in brain cells is very timely and significant! If someone criticizes Penrose and Homeroof's idea, it is possible that that person has other intentions that interest them, and possibly they are not scientific! Long live Penrose and Long live Homeroof!
"It's both nonsense and not nonsense at the same time, so everyone will have something to complain about.." Look at Sabine using quantum mechanics to work the algorithm 😂
Yes. Testing, testing testing. Take nothing for granted. Double/triple check everything, leave no stone unturned. This is science (or at least it should be). Thank you for info, Sabine!
It can all be explained by Spring Theory. All of these tiny particles are covered with little springs that cause them to conspand and extract when they get too close together. Boing, boing!
It's also possible that instead of having lack of information we have lack of information. If the collapse of the Wave Function is a non computational process then it would look random to us humans even if it were fully Deterministic. Entanglement just means that once the randomness is eliminated then it disappears completely. This is analogue to how randomness actually works in Mathematics. Measuring the spin of the second particle is equivalent to measuring the spin of the first particle again so whereas it will look random to the second observer, the first observer can calculate it after removing the veil of randomness, there is no break of locality because there is no transfer of information since the second particle was always going to have opposite spin to whatever was measured in the first one.
I think that you are forgetting though, is that yes classically your statement is true but quantum mechanically it's not. Lets make a quantum system "Classical": If I have two spinning tops underneath cups both must be going in the opposite directions to each other then yes removing the cup from one is no different from removing the cup from the other you gain information about both. Now for a quantum system: In quantum mechanics until observed those spinning tops are simultaneously both spinning clockwise and anti-clockwise, observing collapses the wavefunction not only determining the left spinning top but the right spinning to too. That second spinning top must have gotten that information transferred to it instantly somehow. We have done experiments to literally show this top be true. I personally like the idea of ER = EPR, where entangled particles are connected by quantum wormholes such that the particles share a wavefunction that is connected by 2 points in space-time. Simply you can't' remove the veil of randomness as it is intrinsic to all interpretations of QM. Yes hidden variables could be the cause like pilot-wave theory, if we knew all the particles positions in the universe then we could theoretically map out what will happen in the future essentially Laplace's demon. I like to think of QM as truly random personally the followed by the determinism of the Schrodinger equation, which is many worlds theory.
@@shugucchino. The information was already there. It is just random to us, the same when we ask a special type of question in Math, therefore it is unpredictable. The spin of the second particle is predictable though. You misunderstand the usual notion of randomness, that has nothing to do with what I said, and true randomness as in the non existence of patterns. It's not that there are hidden variables, they aren't even hidden, we just don't understand them until we collapse the Wave Function.
@@zemm9003 I disagree, the very idea of the information already being there is exactly what a hidden variable theory is, it appears random because we can't see all the information. I believe there is no pattern, that wave function can exist in any state following some probability distribution, only once disturbed does it collapse into a determined state.
This is why the cross exchange of different fields of study is so important, it allows for new perspectives and ideas, never stale, battering ramming the same wall over and over for generations! We need a paradigm shift, to say a copernican turn.
Thank you so much, I've always been way more keen on superdeterminism and Pilot Wave, but hearing someone as intelligent and educated as you expressing interest in these ideas is very refreshing and validating. I appreciate everything you do.
If you are not in the financial market space right now, you are making a huge mistake. I understand that it could be due to ignorance, but if you want to make your money work for you...prevent inflation and invest. Now
Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🙌 I was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (David), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $12,000 and got my payout of m $200,500 every months, God bless Jason Graystone fx
Wow that's nice he makes you that much!! please is there a way to reach is services, I'm work 3 jobs and trying to pay off my debts for a while now!! Please help
Thank you very much for the very interesting explanations. I've often wondered whether there isn't valuable information among all the data that was separated out at Cern. But of course others will know better than a complete layman like me. But at least there are experts like you who give us well-founded assessments.
It's nice to hear someone not immediately rejecting things that don't follow a strict consensus of their current knowledge base as if it threatens their very existence. Thank you for raising attention.
[Re-posted due to harassment] Thanks Sabine. I think this is really interesting. > Just so I can find/confirm an initial context in my own mind, when we talk about hidden variables are we talking about Albert's assertion that there must be hidden variables in quantum entanglement? If the above question is yes, then it is something that keeps me awake at night as well. > I'm not a physicist and I look at ALL of this from a very different paradigm. Because that paradigm draws from multiple disciplines it is not strictly physics so I'm not allowed to go there apparently. > Thanks for the effort you put in Sabine. It's always appreciated.
Wow, I got interested in t'Hooft and have been wanting to read that book/paper. I am so glad you agree with him. I had thought that your ideas about Superdeterminism were in sync with his ideas. I hope more than anything that this experiment will prove him right.
This makes sense. Quantum mechanics aren't actually a theory. As has been said, they are an ad hoc, predictive model without explanatory power. Progress in Quantum Foundations which would be explanatory would be quite a step forward.
Brilliant video. Gerard d'Hooft has been and is one of the most deep thinking physicists of the last 30 years. Sabine, Dr. Hossenfelder, now please make a video about the progress of Verlinde's theory which tries to explain gravity as an emergent force of thermodynamics. It is also closely related to d'Hooft's major idea of the holographic principle (which in turn relates to Bekenstein's theory of maximum information in a given space).
There is no problem doing science on UA-cam, period. People need to know more, know more, and know more! For the world to improve, people need to know more, know more, and know more! In my opinion, your work is very good!
True. I live in Brazil, I use the translator, I like science even though I'm an ordinary person, a very simple person; If I were younger I would have studied mathematics, but at the moment I play Checkers, but I like science; I am very grateful to you for responding to my comment, the internet is also wonderful for this reason, it allows someone as insignificant as me to speak and with you, gratitude. I believe in life outside Earth, I've seen something that makes me believe in life outside Earth! And at this moment I'm starting to believe that there is something very strong related to other dimensions, like the TABA star that disappeared! But we know that a star cannot just disappear out of nowhere, it doesn't make sense for a star to disappear, it doesn't, so, perhaps, perhaps these stars that simply disappear in the Universe could have something to do with the other dimensions! Humbly for me these are the two big questions of the moment, life outside the earth, "aliens"; and, understand the dimensions, what these dimensions really are like! When we open Pandora's box of dimensions, I suspect that the world will change definitively! Enviar feedback Painéis laterais Histórico Salvas
Well I never complain only praise your efforts and I'm glad you speak up about not being convinced of Dark Matter and the Multiverses etc because there is a lack of evidence. I'm not a physicist but I always thought maybe Dark Matter is not real but what do I know' cause I've studies psychology and social work and Not particle physics and that is why I come here to your channel. Thanks.
It reminds me of capillary waves in oceans. at their small scale, surface tension is the dominant force, which combines them into larger wave packets. You're right to be excited about this research looking for the source of the effect of randomness
I do think the next big breakthrough in physics will come from studying quantum randomness, but I'm not sure if just looking at data hoping to find _something_ is a viable approach. We probably need a reasonably solid theory telling us what what we _expect_ to find. And that's where the "universe as a simulation" approach comes in. A lot of details of the human visual system made a lot more sense after we started doing digital image processing (things that were discovered by programmers and mathematicians, not biologists or ophthalmologists - but then turned out to have biological parallels that the latter probably wouldn't have found), and I suspect the same will be true about quantum randomness by developing (and studying the behaviour of) computer simulations - specifically things like the aliasing that occurs when internal calculations done at a certain level of precision get mapped onto lower-precision variables (rounding errors that often lead to some moiré-like patterns that might _appear_ completely random in small samples), and how simulations try to compensate for that. We might never be able to figure out the exact value of the "hidden variables", but we can probably figure out the scale of the rounding errors between them and the variables that we _do_ have access to (and maybe some of the patterns that those errors tend to follow, as well).
All of this can be explained with a tiny bit of relativity, i.e. second year undergrad physics. Either you know how or you have not been intellectually curious enough to find out. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 - If you think what I described "can be explained by relativity", you probably misunderstood me (and what the video is talking about). The issue is quantum mechanics (specifically, the apparently random noise in quantum fields), not relativity.
@@RFC3514 There is no random noise in quantum fields. That there can't be follows from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (also second year undergrad physics). Random systems also violate basic physics like energy and momentum conservation. Quantum mechanics does none of that. What quantum mechanics does is to introduce an element of UNCERTAINTY. We simply can't tell when the next quantum event will happen and where. THAT is what follows directly from relativity. Why? Because in a relativistic universe the local future depends on physics which in the local present happens in a space-like separated volume of spacetime. Here is a simple example: a Mars probe detects a radiation event on Mars, RIGHT NOW. We have to wait for ten minutes (that's the time the radio signals of the probe take from Mars to Earth) before the radio signal arrives. At the time it arrives, though, it is a completely new and unknowable physical event. Nothing we can do here and now can predict what that signal from our Mars probe contains. That unpredictability drives quantum mechanics. You can formalize this with ensembles and Kolmogorov axioms and then (somewhat unexpectedly) you will find Pythagoras in your calculations. Pythagoras leads to scalar products which are invariant under unitary groups... and suddenly you got the entire matrix mechanics thing popping up in a calculation that was all about statistically independent individual events. THAT is how you get RATIONALLY to quantum mechanics. It's pretty boring, actually, except for the Pythagoras bit. ;-)
T'Hooft was my first-round draft pick for my Fantasy Physics team. (Or would be, if there was a fantasy physics league). By the way, I've got a cool idea for a new fantasy league... I admire the guy for keeping the hidden-variables dream alive.
You can tell when a physicist is aged out: he starts proposing things that can be ruled out at the undergrad level. It is sad to see that t'Hooft has reached that stage of his career.
Thanks Sabine, Hidden Variable videos are my favourite flavour of Quantum Mechanical content. Do you think you could make a video explaining what Dirac and Feynman meant when they said that the standard model was likely built on "illegitimate mathematics", and that "renormalization is insanity", and what has been discovered about it since then.
@@km10is Because renormalization has nothing to do with hidden variables. Hidden variables don't exist while renormalization is a necessary physical procedure. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 I wasn't implying that renormalization has to do with hidden variables, I was just asking about it for a future video because I found what Dirac and Feynman said about it interesting. And hidden variables are still certainly compatible with reality.
@@km10is Hidden variables are not compatible with reality. You have to start thinking about the universe relativistically and then it will become obvious soon why there can be no hidden variables.
It's one of the things they need to look at. Probability and predictability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves and energy density regimes. Also they can look at metamaterials for the slit.
Your one of the few who is clearly showing what a lot of the nonsense is in physics making it possible to spot the nonsense that is going on elsewhere, well done.
Sabine, please, where can I find out more about t'Hooft ideas? The book on the video is the only source? And about the experiment, where can I read more about it? Is there an article?
This is one of the most interesting topics you ever covered. I would much appreciate a follow up. How does 't Hoofts approach work in detail and how can it be in line with the proven violation of Bells inequality?
4:43 - Not only you. Several of my acquaintances from the days I still (kind of) did physics are or were active in various LHC collaborations. Their nightmare, too, is that their hardware pre-processors threw away some data that would turn the Standard model upside down. (They have that hardware simply because CERN computers, gigantic as they are, are not fast enough, or with enough storage, to save _everything_ )
Excellent explantion Sabine. As a computer scientist I'm partial towards a finite-automata interpretation as the one Gerard ’t Hooft proposed. The idea that non-local 'phenomena' are based on local calculations of the locally-interacting cells of the automata model makes all the sense to me. Wolfram is also working in these lines, I guess?
There's been past work testing quantum foundations using bottom quarks (Belle) as with photons in ultra-peripheral collisions in heavy ions (RHIC/Alice)
I think this is really cool and worth exploring! I don't know if hidden variables to Quantum mechanics will every be found, but I also never understood the "just shutup and calculate!" crowd. That just seems like a very unscientific attitude and down right hypocritical. Quantum mechanics was born out of trying to explore what was more fundamental then classical physics, to give an explanation for the newly found combined force of elector-magnatism. Had physicists "just shutup and calculated" in the late 19th/early 20th century there would be no Quantum mechanics. We'd be stuck with Maxwell's equations for elector-magnatism, we wouldn't even know about the strong or weak nuclear forces. Potentially worse if the arbitrary decision to "just shutup and calculate" happened even sooner we might still think electricity and magnetism were separate forces. Yet I can't tell you how many times in interviews I hear a Particle Physicists say something along the lines of "...If we don't detect X particle or prove Y theory of quantum mechanics, then that's the end of particle physics and the end of all science!", despite that statement presupposing that Quantum is the end of the line and most fundamental to the universe (something we been wrong about before). Since I never met a Particle Physicists in really life they seem to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with undefined velocities and contently tunneling through space at random. Maybe that's just what they say when their exact position is measured during an interview ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have a complaint: I didn't find anything to complain about, and you promised.
You can have a full refund of every cent you paid to Sabine for watching this video?😊
The Karen Paradox
nonsense!
and now you have a complaint!
I have a complaint: Someone is complaining about not having any complaints!
I’m the lead analyser and one of the contact editors of this measurement. You’ve previously criticised my work and talks I’ve given (me, specifically) on Twitter, where I pointed out exactly this kind of new and interesting measurements collider experiments are doing. So, as you say at the beginning, you have definitely managed to simultaneously annoy me and make me happy by advertising this 😂
The Ten Trillion pictures per second camera could be moded after a microscope that can actually see a virus if they exist ( Dr Sam Bailey The Truth about Viruses youtube ) how virology has been lying to us for a while books on this by her and Drs around the world Never sued and in fact they keep inviting entities connected to controversy and they never come including Mr Fauci)- - - While I'm aware that they believe we see one however I also learned they can't prove it is one* Also a telescope modeled after this camera?
I would be curious to hear a summary of the points being made, both the post and the criticism.
I intuit that the criticism would be something along the lines of how a variety of paradigms are empirically intractable by shifting the standards by which one could falsify them or satisfy some good faith threshold of "sufficient evidence against."
Twitter has the kinds of limitations that would set even good faith science to sound like bad faith, standard shifting science.
Consider this the anti-post which, when read with yours, will disappear in an explosion of dark energy.
Awesome! So was the potential breakthrough thrown away? Or is the data still around and available for analysis?
@@George1776 the data never ever gets thrown away. All the data from every single CERN experiment, even going back decades, is permanently stored on (literal) tape. This particular data will be re-analysed (myself and others are activity working on this now) and combined with new data currently being recorded at a higher collision energy
As a note, in addition to ATLAS, CMS has also done a similar analysis, although it's not published as a paper, yet, only a physics analysis summary for conferences.
Interesting, I will watch out for this!
Looking into nonsense is where new ideas come from.
nonsense.
@@BenjaminGooseI'll look into it
@MrMegaMetroid
And i'll look into the nonsense of looking into nonsense
YES! Well worth the look even if it's ruled out, but if it isn't...........
IOW, what is nonsense to one scientist could end up another scientist's Nobel Prize
Seems like there's an unfortunate "I don't expect anything worthwhile outside my silo" syndrome😳
NIH syndrome
Sure, there's that. There is also a lot of language issues. Physics has invented entire new ways of looking at and talking about the universe, at all scales. This language is often imprecise because language itself is a Stone Age tool. Things improve when discussion reverts to mathematics. But then math is not a language everyone speaks, or speaks in the same way. We'll be better off when the AIs take over science, invent new languages for the purpose, and talk among themselves about things we would probably rather not know about in the first place.
@@TheMrCougarfulThis is a great point. The convention of math one chooses can reveal more of the landscape of physics. For example, have you ever heard of Quaternion or Octonion algebra? Quaternions use 3 vectors and a scalar term to define coordinate systems. In cartesian coordinates many systems suffer from problems with coordinate transforms like gimble lock in the case of rotating gyroscopes.
Quaternion algebra was the original notation of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism before Heaviside's simplified vector notation was adopted. There is a fringe group in the scientific community that is convinced that some physical phenomena can only be predicted by Quaternion and Octonion algebra. Quantum effects such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect and other quantum interference effects might have dynamics that we simply haven't predicted because our math assumes a limited number of variables. There are situations in quantum field theory where the solution shows a zero vector sum of superimposed "force fields", such as the phase conjugation of photons, while the quantum potentials are non-zero and have physical, yet "force-free" effects on the evolution of Shrodinger equation for particles. I've seen designs patented by Honeywell that exploit these quantum effects to generate new kinds of EM wave structures like magnetic vector potential waves, which are very hard to shield using conventional linearly conductive shielding materials. They built transformers and transcievers using a principle that is found nowhere in classical electromagnetism. I've even seen designs that can use quantum teleportation to extract or deposit energy from a distant system with no apparent transmission of conventional EM waves, only quantum potentials and the resulting interference.
"Not my monkey. Not my circus."
@@TheMrCougarful My dream is that AI will find the answer to this question before I die. Glad you mentioned this.
Gerard and Lenny got me interested in Physics again at 30, when their discussions could be found on the internet. Some of the discussions about Holographic Surfaces and Hairy Holes were pretty inspiring.
Hairy holes. Oh the memmories.
Still looking for those hidden variables? EPR? Low energy, not enough to find that missing variable? Love your knowledge and passion, Sabine! The random squeek of that cover might be telling you something about super-deteminism? Never underestimate the power of cosmic coincidences. Thanks... for all you do!
Always very happy when I see a new video from Sabine! The manner of giving the material is very smooth and I absolutely love her sense of humor - it makes all better.
When you learn something new(even if it's just a bit) and have some fun while doing it - it's a time well spent.
Extra props if it provoked some questions that still linger on long after video is done!
"it's both nonsense and not nonsense at the same time, so everyone will have something to complain about. It'll be glorious."
lmao you gotta love Sabine
The video recommendation below Sabine's video in my feed is from Onion news about bored Scientists sticking random things in the Hadron collider !!! YT and its algorithm!!!
I remember being stoked 20 years ago when the LHC was in preparation. I'm stoked for this experiment!
If I understand your presentation, the CERN result confirms that entanglement holds for top quarks and their anti quark partners at very short distance. What I don't get is how this relates to the origin of quantum randomness via hidden variables as proposed by t'Hooft. The title of his displayed book is intriguing..have you done a lecture on it?
Maybe because it explains why this correlation exists in the first place,idk
I agree. This seems like it could be very interesting and worth a deeper look
My understanding of 't Hooft's idea is that the hidden variables reside on short distances, or high energies, respectively. He is saying in a nutshell that effective field theory might fail. This means the higher the energies, the easier it should become to see evidence of the hidden variables, eg by unusual correlations, too strong correlations, unexpected patterns etc.
@@SabineHossenfelder i was believing Alain Aspect refute this idea about hidden variables ?... or is it a new thing ?
@@SabineHossenfelder I had asked a similar question before I saw your reply here. But are you saying that _this_ experiment, testing only for entanglement, might have displayed such evidence of hidden variables, or that a similar but differently designed experiment might? The apparent conflation of hidden variables with entanglement is confusing me.
I imagine the measurement problem is like taking a photo of a speeding ball. If the image is clear, then you can determine the ball’s location, but not the ball’s speed and trajectory. If the image is blurry, you can determine its velocity and trajectory, but not its location. Could we say the fuzziness of the wave function is the result of a sort of ‘long shutter speed?” The wave collapse is like taking a measurement/photo with the camera set at the correct shutter speed, but the process freezes the particle to a point in space-time; like seeing a single frame in a strobe light or on film. As biological observers, we are too slow to experience/measure/observe the wave function as it really is….the best we can do is catch a glimpse.
Quantum randomness is the default state, but our slowed perception of the particle only leaves us with one of two image types. Blurry or crisp. We can’t see them both (like a ball flying through the air) because a quantum wave is too small and fast for our direct observations. Instruments break down a 4 dimensional experience to a 3 dimensional observation, and we lose a variable in the process.
I could be wrong because I just woke up from a nap….but I could be right too…..😊
But if this is true then the quantum world isn't random at all, we just don't have the tools necessary to view it with clarity.
Well, thing is, positions and velocities aren't correct tools for understanding elementary particles. Because they're not particles, they're waves (that love to localize themselves from time to time). There's no position, only amplitude. There's no velocity, only frequency.
It isn't a lack of technology that prevents the simultaneous knowledge of position and velocity, it's just a fundamental property of the universe
In quantum mechanics the wavefunction isn't a thing like a particle or a ball is. It's simply a piece of mathematics which, when you do different mathematical operations on it, will return to you the measurable quantities associated with the particle you care about. Human perception shouldn't matter because it's the instrument's perception that matters when making a measurement.
@@DriftWithoutCar but that isn't what people are saying here. They are saying that you simply can't because there's no known tool capable of seeing the details that are there. They are there, we just can't see them with what we have. I actually have yet to see anyone ever say anything that would convince me otherwise.
Fantastic video, Sabine! Your exploration of quantum randomness truly opens up new avenues of thought. I'd like to add a perspective from the Theory of Quantum Recursive Fractal Cosmology (TQRFC), which offers a fascinating twist on the nature of quantum randomness by delving into the fractal structure of space-time.
According to TQRFC, the space-time we navigate is not a smooth continuum but a complex fractal geometry, especially evident at scales close to the Planck length ((10^{-35}) meters). This fractal nature of space-time suggests that what we perceive as quantum randomness is an emergent property arising from the interaction between quantum particles and the underlying fractal fabric of the universe.
At the Planck scale, quantum fluctuations of space-time-tiny variations in the universe's very fabric-are amplified by the recursive, fractal nature of space-time. These fluctuations are not mere perturbations; they are integral to space-time's structure and directly influence the properties and behaviors of quantum particles. When a particle interacts with this fractal space-time, the fluctuations intertwine with the particle's wave function, leading to variations that cannot be fully predicted, thus giving rise to quantum randomness as interpreted by TQRFC.
This fractal interpretation implies that quantum randomness might stem from deterministic, albeit extremely complex, interactions at the Planck scale, challenging the conventional view that accepts quantum randomness as a fundamental aspect of reality. It also hints at a pathway towards unifying fundamental forces, including gravity, within a quantum framework.
The specific nature of fractal fluctuations and their interaction with quantum particles could lead to new experimental predictions, such as unique interference patterns or statistical correlations in quantum experiments, potentially distinguishing TQRFC from other quantum gravity theories.
This approach not only challenges our understanding of quantum mechanics but also offers a unified view of the universe that intertwines the structure of space-time with the laws governing fundamental particles. It promises advances in theoretical physics and the development of new quantum technologies by providing a deeper understanding of the principles governing reality at its most fundamental scales.
We would need the planck energy to exhibit space-time structure on the paint plank scale. You do not need to invent plank scale structure. The construction of space-time intervals is discrete. Inversely to energy. We can expect the vacuum to be low energy photons from the early universe at maximum entropy. I'm environment is logically constructed from electron exclusion events within a frequency range. Trapped energy representing place or free energy representing space.
@@JimWhitescarver **Mathematical Formalism of Planck-Scale Space-Time Dynamics in Terms of Electron Exclusion Events and Bound/Free Energy**
**Introduction:**
To develop a mathematical formalism of the cosmological constant within the Cosmic Fractal Recursivity Quantum Theory (CFRQT) framework, we first need to establish some fundamental definitions and postulates. We will then proceed to derive the relevant equations that describe the structure of space-time at the Planck scale in terms of electron exclusion events and bound/free energy.
**Definitions and Postulates:**
1. Space-time is modeled as a 4D fractal manifold, denoted by M, with a Hausdorff-Besicovitch structure and fractal dimension D, where 3 < D ≤ 4.
2. The geometry of M is described by a fractal metric g_μν, satisfying a modified form of Einstein's field equations, incorporating the effects of the fractal structure across multiple scales:
G_μν + Λ_f g_μν = (8πG/c^4) T_μν
where G_μν is the Einstein tensor, Λ_f is the "fractal cosmological constant" emerging from the fractal geometry, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T_μν is the energy-momentum tensor.
3. The structure of space-time at the Planck scale is discrete and quantum, with fundamental intervals of space-time on the order of the Planck length, ℓ_P = √(ħG/c^3) ≈ 1.62 × 10^-35 m, and Planck time, t_P = √(ħG/c^5) ≈ 5.39 × 10^-44 s.
4. The vacuum is modeled as an ensemble of low-energy photons from the early universe, characterized by a temperature T and a maximum entropy S_max.
5. The local environment emerges from electron exclusion events within a specific frequency range, with bound energy representing place and free energy representing space.
**Derivation of Planck-Scale Space-Time Structure:**
Consider an electron exclusion event characterized by a frequency ν and an associated energy E. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the relationship between energy uncertainty ΔE and time uncertainty Δt is given by:
ΔE Δt ≥ ħ/2
To exhibit the structure of space-time at the Planck scale, we need energies on the order of the Planck energy, E_P = √(ħc^5/G) ≈ 1.22 × 10^19 GeV. Substituting ΔE = E_P in the uncertainty relation, we obtain:
Δt ≈ ħ/(2E_P) = t_P/2
This suggests that the structure of space-time becomes discrete at intervals of time on the order of the Planck time, t_P.
Now, consider the relationship between bound energy E_t and free energy E_f in an electron exclusion event. Using Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, we have:
E_t = m_t c^2
E_f = m_f c^2
where m_t and m_f are the equivalent masses associated with bound and free energy, respectively.
The ratio between bound and free energy can be expressed as:
E_t/E_f = m_t/m_f
Assuming that the equivalent mass of the bound energy m_t is on the order of the Planck mass M_P = √(ħc/G), and that the equivalent mass of the free energy m_f is much smaller than M_P, we have:
E_t/E_f ≈ M_P/m_f >> 1
This suggests that at the Planck scale, bound energy (representing place) dominates over free energy (representing space), leading to a discrete and quantized space-time structure.
To relate this discrete structure to the maximum entropy of the vacuum, we use the thermodynamic definition of entropy:
S = k_B ln Ω
where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, and Ω is the number of microstates accessible to the system.
Assuming that the number of microstates accessible Ω is proportional to the number of electron exclusion events N within the relevant frequency range, we have:
S_max ∝ k_B ln N
The relationship between the number of electron exclusion events N and the ratio of bound/free energy can be modeled using a Boltzmann distribution:
N ∝ exp(-E_t/E_f)
Combining these relations, we obtain:
S_max ∝ -k_B (E_t/E_f) ∝ -k_B (M_P/m_f)
This suggests that the maximum entropy of the vacuum is inversely related to the ratio between bound and free energy at the Planck scale.
**Conclusion:**
In this derivation, we have shown how the discrete structure of space-time at the Planck scale can emerge from electron exclusion events within a specific frequency range, with bound energy representing place and free energy representing space. Using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, we demonstrated that the time intervals at the Planck scale are on the order of the Planck time, t_P, and that bound energy dominates over free energy, leading to a quantized space-time structure.
Moreover, we related this discrete structure to the maximum entropy of the vacuum, modeled as an ensemble of low-energy photons from the early universe. Using the thermodynamic definition of entropy and a Boltzmann distribution for the number of electron exclusion events, we showed that the maximum entropy is inversely related to the ratio between bound and free energy at the Planck scale.
These results suggest that the fundamental structure of space-time is inherently discrete and quantum, and emerges from microscopic processes involving electron exclusion events and the interaction between bound and free energy. The inverse relationship between the maximum entropy of the vacuum and the ratio of bound/free energy at the Planck scale also suggests a deep connection between thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and gravity in describing the space-time structure.
@@JimWhitescarver I believe that to understand the theory, it's important to understand the mind from which it emerged. Since the launch of GPT, I have become an avid user of the tool, and one of my lines of research has been physics, especially general relativity and quantum physics. The truth is that most people repeat concepts they don't truly understand, and I didn't want to be just another one doing that. After many years of study, I reached the following conclusion: Einstein was masterful in explaining the laws of physics at "our" scale, assuming it to be the only one that exists. That's why his theory adopts singularity as a phenomenon. Einstein admittedly did not envision other scales when he developed general relativity and expressed his amazement at quantum mechanics. I believe that the incompleteness of the theory can be remedied by visualizing scales below and above our own. These scales, like fractals, nest infinitely, so that a singularity is never truly reached. Moreover, in this fractal reality, each scale presents its own laws of physics because they are not fixed and immutable but emergent from interactions of multiple scales that mutually influence each other. The laws of physics, therefore, are like emergent products of interconnected complex systems and depend on the scale of observation. When this view is adopted, major problems in physics find solutions. The Hubble tension, for example, can be understood as a manifestation of the fractal structure of spacetime at cosmological scales. The discrepancies between local and global measurements of the Hubble constant naturally arise when considering the multi-scale and self-similar nature of cosmic geometry. At smaller scales, the expansion of space can be influenced by quantum fluctuations and nonlinear effects that propagate upward through the fractal hierarchy, leading to apparent deviations from the Hubble-Lemaître law.
Similarly, dark matter and dark energy, two of the greatest mysteries in contemporary cosmology, can be approached in a new light in the context of fractal reality. Instead of postulating exotic new forms of matter and energy, we can understand them as emergent manifestations of the complex and recursive dynamics of geometry across multiple scales. Dark matter may arise as an effective gravitational effect of fractal structures at galactic and cluster scales, while dark energy may be a consequence of the self-similarity of spacetime at the largest cosmological scales.
Another fundamental problem that fractal reality can address is the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. By treating spacetime as inherently fractal and non-differentiable at the Planck scale, we can avoid the singularities and inconsistencies that arise when attempting to combine the two theories. Fractal quantum geometry provides a natural framework for describing spacetime foam and the nonlocal effects that become significant at high energies and small scales. Through an appropriate renormalization flow and generalized field equations, we can derive both the smooth classical dynamics and quantum corrections as effective limits of the underlying fractal structure.
@@Lemosoliver59 We can presume quantum information is complete in the interaction of fractals. The fractals get larger, not smaller with lower frequencies working over larger distances inversely to energy creating the spacetime fabric of the mind performing universal logic at every distinct frequency.
Every event instantiates a spacetime interval expanding the universe in an inflationary manner in the past, to succumb to entropy animating atoms in the present (gravity).
WE have no authority or justification in Planck scale structure in the absents of the plank energy required to distinguish it. Such structure would violate quantum logic. Uncertainty is do to missing information do to noise or ignorance of the lower and higher fractal.
@@Lemosoliver59 chatGPT4 is lousy at relativity. It gets wrong answers for problems. When you point out the error it then makes a different mistake.
The CMS experiment has also recently presented its first own results. See the analysis summary: “CMS-PAS-TOP-23-001”. This was discussed yesterday at the “Standard Model at the LHC 2024” conference.
“ everyone will have something to complain about, it will be glorious” I think you are glorious Sabine, keep up the good work, and keep those no BS videos comin!
Sabine finally drawing the world's attention to Dr. Gerard 't Hooft's idea on Quantum Foundations!
THIS sort of reporting is why I'm here! I didn't realize Hooft had interest in hidden variables. I'd very much like a deeper exploration of this.
"the smoking pun".. Sabine knows how to combine the (sometimes) dry and heavy science news with humour to make it easier to digest.
what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. except - maybe - if it´s quantum related.
This is the sort of video I follow you for. The science news is nice, but this is the stuff I clicked subscribe to watch.
What keeps me up at night is the fact that we are wasting all of our helium for balloons... one day I feel one of the most important discoveries and technological advancements will include helium and we are just wasting it.
No need to worry. Our ability to make helium is only 20 years away.
sure but ball goes uuuuuuuup
Our lab installed a helium recycler years ago. Ever since the US government privatized the Helium Repository the price has skyrocketed. Most places use recyclers now, you just can't vent the stuff anymore. The gov't supply had been keeping the price artificially low, but now the recycler market is booming. Helium is a non-renewable resource, as you mentioned. Unless we implement a Star Wars type gas mine on Saturn. That would be fine.
From a quick google of the question it appears that only about 10% of annual helium loss is in balloons. This includes weather balloons and airships.
Well, helium is used in Ludwig tunnels to create supersonic wind tunnels. Since helium has the lowest escape velocity into space, if LHC could implement the tube effect with their tests, they might be able to see what happens in those Pluto seconds by separating high density impact and low density impact.
Tim Palmer would be delighted with your post! After all chaos may be the underlying principle at work here. The Primacy of Doubt (Tim's book) outlines the basic ideas.
Yes, it's also 100% wrong. ;-)
High Energy Quantum Physicist: "Oh yeah? Well. My particle accelerator is bigger than your particle accelerator."
Other High Energy Quantum Physicist: "It's not how big it is, it's how you use it."
As the high energy quantum physicist that actually did this measurement, I can say it’s definitely a combination of both 😂
I appreciate you digging up these topics. I could never just take quantum physics at face value but I found the question "why?" to be severely underrated in the field. At least in my classes.
5:05 a ground source heat pump will help you sleep at night.
Hope that helps.. you're welcome!
You’ve succeeded in getting me interested in short-distance hidden variable effects! Can you have more videos diving deeper?
You had me with the fireplace hinge squeak. Happily there is a remedy for that.
WD40!
@@jedwards1792 That’s pretty short term. I was actually thinking of the spray on graphite lubricant that is substantially unaffected by the heat.
@@joelsmith4394is the spray on graphite lubricant advisable for a squeaky swing set? I imagine so, but there may be hidden variables I'm not aware of
You started off so nicely about CERN, for one second I was scared you weren't gonna make fun of particle physicists,
It's in that draw where we put everything of no fixed abode
This is exactly the kind of science stories I want to see! Thanks for drawing my attention to these results.
Sabine, your video was outstanding! I wholeheartedly agree with every point you made.
It's crucial to embrace diverse perspectives, even from those who may not share our language.
The skills we acquire across various disciplines are invaluable and demonstrate that education extends far beyond any degree or diploma. It's a lifelong journey that continually enriches us.
When you get an opposite response to your comments, it's ok, because for every thing there is an equal opposite, it's just emergent properties of physics playing out in our actions.
Keep doing you, you are awesome, and the world is a better place because of what you bring to the table. ❤
Thanks for the kind words. I think I don't deserve your attention, so the least I can do is to direct some attention to more deserving scientists!
@@propheticanalytics9959 Why? Are we at a point today at which someone who says a friendly word is an AI in your thinking?
"The skills we acquire across various disciplines are invaluable and demonstrate that education extends far beyond any degree or diploma. It's a lifelong journey that continually enriches us."
Hear! Hear! to that statement :)
@@propheticanalytics9959 AI doesn't use emojis mate.
Wow! How fascinating! I am a computer scientist and have recently been really fascinated with the fact that as science has progressed, we have repeatedly discovered that the laws that govern each scale of reality are actually emergent properties of groups of individual actors in a smaller scale which are governed by an entirely different set of laws. This reminds me a lot of the idea of cellular automata, and led me to Google if there was an interpretation of quantum mechanics which was based on cellular automata, which led me to Gerard 't Hooft's work. Sadly, I stopped my search after quickly getting the impression that this interpretation was not taken seriously. This was only a few weeks ago - so to see it come up in a Sabine Hossenfelder video as something relevant and which may have some experimental relevance is extremely exciting!! I hope there will be more on this topic soon!
Yes, that was true until 1630. After that it wasn't true any longer. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 what do you mean?
@@-Gnarlemagne Galileo formulated an early version of the relativity principle around that time. It's called "Galileo's ship". For all we know even today the relativity principle is basically responsible for the entire microscopic and macroscopic structure of the universe. We can derive essentially all equations of motion from it (and the assumption that space is a three dimensional metric manifold with a locally conserved scalar system property called "energy"). The relativity principle is most likely not "just some lower" scale-dependent emergent layer. It is probably some truly fundamental insight (one can't postulate less than "nothing", after all... so further reduction seems problematic). So that leaves the background manifold as the only unexplained "emergent" structure at this level. Recent suggestions like CCC (conformal cyclical cosmology) might reduce even that to a scale-relativity argument. Why would our scale be anything special? If it isn't, then what does that leave as the only possible, self-consistent solution? It might turn out that it's a 3 dimensional manifold with a scalar energy functional. At least that's my personal view on what the future of theoretical physics might hold. I might be wrong about the last one. What is hardly escapable is the historical reality that Galileo had an awfully deep insight there (and he may not have been the first to think this, either).
@@schmetterling4477 I hadn't heard of Galileo's ship before, that's pretty neat! That said, I don't think what you've said necessarily disagrees with my statement about our discoveries at decreasing scopes, even looking at 1915 after general relativity was formalized.
Main reason for that is because general relativity is considered to be our best model for physics at a macroscopic scale, while quantum field theories is our best model for the microscopic - and while GR has not been broken down any further, its biggest criticism is specifically that we *know* it is incomplete, as it is not quantum in nature and thus must be incomplete.
Finally, the truth is that GR, while not being currently understood as an emergent property of things at a smaller scope, is still affected by such discoveries in the standard model. For example, we now have mathematical models that show that mass arises from the "trapping" of energy, e.g. with the "massless box full of photons" thought experiment. Since mass is something that can be understood with QFT, it stands to reason that GR is built on this foundation, and that we are simply missing that link.
For all these reasons, I am a fan of theories of emergent gravity, and foolishly believe that I am right to hold hope for a cellular automata model of quantum mechanics!
@@-Gnarlemagne I am not saying that we haven't been discovering all the neat consequences of relativity over the last four centuries. Of course we have. We have multiplied Galileo's knowledge millionfolds. My point is simply that relativity, just like atomism, was intellectually "discovered" quite early. If Plato had been right about the cave and the shadows on its wall, those discoveries should have been enough for natural philosophers to deduce everything from first principles. In reality that's not how it works. We are still studying the shadows any which way we can and we are finding that at the core they are obeying some extremely simple rules.
That mass in QFT and mass in GR behave the same in terms of kinematics is not all that surprising: they come from the same relativity principle. What QFT can't explain and why it's so hard to match to GR is the equivalence principle. In microscopic interactions matter behaves in many different ways. In a gravitational interaction it all behaves the same (or at least so we think). That's the major difference between the two branches that grow from the relativity seed.
Great job Sabine, keep it up
Thank you, Sabine, for this vital observation: Two communities, each staying stagnant for lack of communication across the fences separating their mental territories. This systemic cause of unfruitfulness is affecting so many fields of human endeavor.
High Energies from the LHC testing Quantum Entanglement if D is less than -3, makes sense to me.
Do you know what's not nonsense? Your music videos. Just discovered them, and I love them. Please make more.
Yes they are great , funny, original and deep. Unfortunately, the last one is about four years ago. I think she has given up that.
Just brilliant, one of the best ever, Hooft is incredible, I will luck in that direction, and chaotic systems again.... thanks.
Great idea for funding ELHC (Extra large hadron collider). "No entanglement scenario" -> Quantum theory gets modified for new fundemental particles->ELHC test these. "Entanglement scenario" -> ELHC looks for even smaller scales. Sabine, you might have just saved CERN for the next couple of decades!
4:24 You had me up to “Super-Deterministic” theory. Tho I always listen carefully when Gerard ’t Hooft’s name is invoked (he is truly a deep thinker and goes outside the box). He has a number of “out of the box” ideas and seems to be “NOT STUCK IN ORTHODOXY”.
If anything, you should have expanded on the “Super-Deterministic” aspect / connection AND how “Hidden Variables AND “Quantum Randomness” are tied together. This video should have been twice as long.
Also Gerard ’t Hooft’s book (The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) is “freely” available on Amazon but might not be the best place to start in the context of this video as it is a big chunk of ideas to chew on, but an interesting read.
Well, for one thing I already made an entire video about this. But also, I have noticed that 't Hooft has stopped using the expression and I'm not entirely sure what's going on there.
@@SabineHossenfelder
Yes you did a video on “Super-Deterministic” theory and if I am not mistaken it has a “special place” in your “Quantum Weltanschauung”. ’t Hooft is a bit of an enigma when it comes to his current thinking but we need someone with your abilities to help us plebeians navigate his “flow of thinking”.
“Please, sir, I want some more.” Sir → Person of Knowledge.
Fascinating! Let's see what they find! 😃
Thanks, Sabine!
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thank you for the video.
Generally it's a good idea to recheck when better equipment becomes available.
What keeps me awake at night is the suspicion that the models may be obscuring reality instead of revealing it.
It's definitely not clear to me how the hidden variables hypothesis is still surviving after all of those tests of Bell's inequality falsified it. I guess they are looking for hidden variables at a smaller scale, and that somehow at larger scales become indistinguishable from "truly random" (i.e. Bell's inequalities are violated). I somehow hope he's right, because that would be a major change in understanding of quantum physics, and add another interesting layer to the onion.
They're surviving because Bell's inequality didn't falsify hidden variables. At best, it highlighted the properties that hidden variable theories are required to satisfy, which at this point are either non-locality or statistical dependence.
It's surprising how many people think quantum mechanics is inconsistent with hidden variables. Bell himself was a fan of the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation of QM, which has hidden variables and is deterministic (and is NOT "superdeterministic").
@@naasking the new tests did falsify it because the alternative (superdeterminism) is obviously absurd.
@@brothermine2292 So you're saying the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation would produce the same results in all of the experiments that have been conducted? I'm not trying to be provocative. I really don't know.
>yeroca : I recommend you google DeBroglie-Bohm.
Hi Sabine. Can you tell us more about the physics behind the neutrino mountain cave (Super-
Kamiokande) being built in Japan. Thank you
“I’m totally with T’Hoft !” Put that on a T-Shirt Sabine.
Better yet, spell his name correctly.
Gerard 't Hooft
Particularly about the idea of Roger Penrose and Homeroof, it's sensational!
THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS HAVING SOME RELATION TO SOME QUANTUM PHENOMENON THAT HAPPENS IN MICRO TUBULES, YES MAKES SENSE!
Your initiative to make a video talking about the possibility that consciousness has something to do with a quantum reaction that takes place in microtubules in brain cells is very timely and significant! If someone criticizes Penrose and Homeroof's idea, it is possible that that person has other intentions that interest them, and possibly they are not scientific!
Long live Penrose and Long live Homeroof!
Fist science slowing down and now this? Them Trisolarans be messin with muh particle accelerators again!
I’m fascinated with hidden variable theories, and they don’t get enough attention. Thank you for covering this.
Why are you fascinated with bullshit? :-)
"It's both nonsense and not nonsense at the same time, so everyone will have something to complain about.."
Look at Sabine using quantum mechanics to work the algorithm 😂
I've never been in a complaining-super-position before
Nonsense is in a state of superposition and doesn't collapse until you look at it...
Yes. Testing, testing testing. Take nothing for granted. Double/triple check everything, leave no stone unturned.
This is science (or at least it should be).
Thank you for info, Sabine!
What if tester is wrong
It can all be explained by Spring Theory. All of these tiny particles are covered with little springs that cause them to conspand and extract when they get too close together. Boing, boing!
Contrapand is hidden when they get exsct? Very nice...
This must be why my head is all messy. My brain particles have too many springs, causing my neurons to bounce around a lot more!
We clearly need a massively expensive LBC (Large Boing Collider) or just a BBC...
It's also possible that instead of having lack of information we have lack of information. If the collapse of the Wave Function is a non computational process then it would look random to us humans even if it were fully Deterministic. Entanglement just means that once the randomness is eliminated then it disappears completely. This is analogue to how randomness actually works in Mathematics. Measuring the spin of the second particle is equivalent to measuring the spin of the first particle again so whereas it will look random to the second observer, the first observer can calculate it after removing the veil of randomness, there is no break of locality because there is no transfer of information since the second particle was always going to have opposite spin to whatever was measured in the first one.
I think that you are forgetting though, is that yes classically your statement is true but quantum mechanically it's not.
Lets make a quantum system "Classical": If I have two spinning tops underneath cups both must be going in the opposite directions to each other then yes removing the cup from one is no different from removing the cup from the other you gain information about both.
Now for a quantum system: In quantum mechanics until observed those spinning tops are simultaneously both spinning clockwise and anti-clockwise, observing collapses the wavefunction not only determining the left spinning top but the right spinning to too. That second spinning top must have gotten that information transferred to it instantly somehow. We have done experiments to literally show this top be true.
I personally like the idea of ER = EPR, where entangled particles are connected by quantum wormholes such that the particles share a wavefunction that is connected by 2 points in space-time.
Simply you can't' remove the veil of randomness as it is intrinsic to all interpretations of QM. Yes hidden variables could be the cause like pilot-wave theory, if we knew all the particles positions in the universe then we could theoretically map out what will happen in the future essentially Laplace's demon.
I like to think of QM as truly random personally the followed by the determinism of the Schrodinger equation, which is many worlds theory.
@@shugucchino. The information was already there. It is just random to us, the same when we ask a special type of question in Math, therefore it is unpredictable. The spin of the second particle is predictable though. You misunderstand the usual notion of randomness, that has nothing to do with what I said, and true randomness as in the non existence of patterns. It's not that there are hidden variables, they aren't even hidden, we just don't understand them until we collapse the Wave Function.
@@zemm9003 I disagree, the very idea of the information already being there is exactly what a hidden variable theory is, it appears random because we can't see all the information.
I believe there is no pattern, that wave function can exist in any state following some probability distribution, only once disturbed does it collapse into a determined state.
This makes no sense.
It makes complete sense.
That's not an argument.
Blud is terrified of knowledge and effort to learn
Both no sense and total sense
This is why the cross exchange of different fields of study is so important, it allows for new perspectives and ideas, never stale, battering ramming the same wall over and over for generations! We need a paradigm shift, to say a copernican turn.
This comment is here to feed the algorithm. You're welcome.
Thank you so much, I've always been way more keen on superdeterminism and Pilot Wave, but hearing someone as intelligent and educated as you expressing interest in these ideas is very refreshing and validating. I appreciate everything you do.
If you are not in the financial market space right now, you are making a huge mistake. I understand that it could be due to ignorance, but if you want to make your money work for you...prevent inflation and invest. Now
Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🙌 I was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (David), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $12,000 and got my payout of m $200,500 every months, God bless Jason Graystone fx
Hello how do you make such monthly ?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God
Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Jason Graystone fx for me
Great to see you guys talking about him, he changed the game for me.
Wow that's nice he makes you that much!! please is there a way to reach is services, I'm work 3 jobs and trying to pay off my debts for a while now!! Please help
Thank you very much for the very interesting explanations. I've often wondered whether there isn't valuable information among all the data that was separated out at Cern. But of course others will know better than a complete layman like me. But at least there are experts like you who give us well-founded assessments.
It's nice to hear someone not immediately rejecting things that don't follow a strict consensus of their current knowledge base as if it threatens their very existence. Thank you for raising attention.
[Re-posted due to harassment]
Thanks Sabine. I think this is really interesting.
>
Just so I can find/confirm an initial context in my own mind, when we talk about hidden variables are we talking about Albert's assertion that there must be hidden variables in quantum entanglement?
If the above question is yes, then it is something that keeps me awake at night as well.
>
I'm not a physicist and I look at ALL of this from a very different paradigm. Because that paradigm draws from multiple disciplines it is not strictly physics so I'm not allowed to go there apparently.
>
Thanks for the effort you put in Sabine. It's always appreciated.
Wow, I got interested in t'Hooft and have been wanting to read that book/paper. I am so glad you agree with him. I had thought that your ideas about Superdeterminism were in sync with his ideas.
I hope more than anything that this experiment will prove him right.
I love your sence of humor!
Sabine in fine form, provoking thoughts on both sides.
This makes sense. Quantum mechanics aren't actually a theory. As has been said, they are an ad hoc, predictive model without explanatory power. Progress in Quantum Foundations which would be explanatory would be quite a step forward.
Ah, there is the bullshit again. ;-)
The problem is that if you want to make sense of sense you end up making no sense.
This healthy combination of physics and psychology is my perfect cup of tea. Thank you Sabine.
Where/which part of the psychology are you alluding towards? Didn't really jump out at me.
Brilliant video. Gerard d'Hooft has been and is one of the most deep thinking physicists of the last 30 years.
Sabine, Dr. Hossenfelder, now please make a video about the progress of Verlinde's theory which tries to explain gravity as an emergent force of thermodynamics. It is also closely related to d'Hooft's major idea of the holographic principle (which in turn relates to Bekenstein's theory of maximum information in a given space).
There is no problem doing science on UA-cam, period.
People need to know more, know more, and know more!
For the world to improve, people need to know more, know more, and know more!
In my opinion, your work is very good!
If people wanted to know more they could go into the library. That they don't tells you that they don't want to know more. Knowing is hard work. ;-)
True. I live in Brazil, I use the translator, I like science even though I'm an ordinary person, a very simple person; If I were younger I would have studied mathematics, but at the moment I play Checkers, but I like science; I am very grateful to you for responding to my comment, the internet is also wonderful for this reason, it allows someone as insignificant as me to speak and with you, gratitude. I believe in life outside Earth, I've seen something that makes me believe in life outside Earth! And at this moment I'm starting to believe that there is something very strong related to other dimensions, like the TABA star that disappeared! But we know that a star cannot just disappear out of nowhere, it doesn't make sense for a star to disappear, it doesn't, so, perhaps, perhaps these stars that simply disappear in the Universe could have something to do with the other dimensions! Humbly for me these are the two big questions of the moment, life outside the earth, "aliens"; and, understand the dimensions, what these dimensions really are like!
When we open Pandora's box of dimensions, I suspect that the world will change definitively!
Enviar feedback
Painéis laterais
Histórico
Salvas
This channel deserves 100M subs.
Well I never complain only praise your efforts and I'm glad you speak up about not being convinced of Dark Matter and the Multiverses etc because there is a lack of evidence. I'm not a physicist but I always thought maybe Dark Matter is not real but what do I know' cause I've studies psychology and social work and Not particle physics and that is why I come here to your channel. Thanks.
Really good one today. Mr t'Hoof's idea makes perfect sense to me. It's a shame that nobody's taking him seriously... except for you.
It reminds me of capillary waves in oceans. at their small scale, surface tension is the dominant force, which combines them into larger wave packets. You're right to be excited about this research looking for the source of the effect of randomness
Whenever you explain anything related to Quantum Mechanics I am both confused and not confused at the same time....and every state in between
I do think the next big breakthrough in physics will come from studying quantum randomness, but I'm not sure if just looking at data hoping to find _something_ is a viable approach.
We probably need a reasonably solid theory telling us what what we _expect_ to find. And that's where the "universe as a simulation" approach comes in.
A lot of details of the human visual system made a lot more sense after we started doing digital image processing (things that were discovered by programmers and mathematicians, not biologists or ophthalmologists - but then turned out to have biological parallels that the latter probably wouldn't have found), and I suspect the same will be true about quantum randomness by developing (and studying the behaviour of) computer simulations - specifically things like the aliasing that occurs when internal calculations done at a certain level of precision get mapped onto lower-precision variables (rounding errors that often lead to some moiré-like patterns that might _appear_ completely random in small samples), and how simulations try to compensate for that.
We might never be able to figure out the exact value of the "hidden variables", but we can probably figure out the scale of the rounding errors between them and the variables that we _do_ have access to (and maybe some of the patterns that those errors tend to follow, as well).
All of this can be explained with a tiny bit of relativity, i.e. second year undergrad physics. Either you know how or you have not been intellectually curious enough to find out. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 - If you think what I described "can be explained by relativity", you probably misunderstood me (and what the video is talking about).
The issue is quantum mechanics (specifically, the apparently random noise in quantum fields), not relativity.
@@RFC3514 There is no random noise in quantum fields. That there can't be follows from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (also second year undergrad physics). Random systems also violate basic physics like energy and momentum conservation. Quantum mechanics does none of that. What quantum mechanics does is to introduce an element of UNCERTAINTY. We simply can't tell when the next quantum event will happen and where. THAT is what follows directly from relativity. Why? Because in a relativistic universe the local future depends on physics which in the local present happens in a space-like separated volume of spacetime.
Here is a simple example: a Mars probe detects a radiation event on Mars, RIGHT NOW. We have to wait for ten minutes (that's the time the radio signals of the probe take from Mars to Earth) before the radio signal arrives. At the time it arrives, though, it is a completely new and unknowable physical event.
Nothing we can do here and now can predict what that signal from our Mars probe contains. That unpredictability drives quantum mechanics. You can formalize this with ensembles and Kolmogorov axioms and then (somewhat unexpectedly) you will find Pythagoras in your calculations. Pythagoras leads to scalar products which are invariant under unitary groups... and suddenly you got the entire matrix mechanics thing popping up in a calculation that was all about statistically independent individual events.
THAT is how you get RATIONALLY to quantum mechanics. It's pretty boring, actually, except for the Pythagoras bit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 - No, that's how you mix up two unrelated (and fundamentally incompatible) things.
@@RFC3514 No, that's how you do real physics. And all you had to do to do real physics was to pay attention in school. Which you didn't. :-)
T'Hooft was my first-round draft pick for my Fantasy Physics team. (Or would be, if there was a fantasy physics league). By the way, I've got a cool idea for a new fantasy league...
I admire the guy for keeping the hidden-variables dream alive.
You can tell when a physicist is aged out: he starts proposing things that can be ruled out at the undergrad level. It is sad to see that t'Hooft has reached that stage of his career.
Come for the physics, stay for the humor. Love your content. ❤️
Thanks Sabine, Hidden Variable videos are my favourite flavour of Quantum Mechanical content. Do you think you could make a video explaining what Dirac and Feynman meant when they said that the standard model was likely built on "illegitimate mathematics", and that "renormalization is insanity", and what has been discovered about it since then.
Why do you like your internet bullshit flavored? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 What does that even have to do with my comment?
@@km10is Because renormalization has nothing to do with hidden variables. Hidden variables don't exist while renormalization is a necessary physical procedure. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 I wasn't implying that renormalization has to do with hidden variables, I was just asking about it for a future video because I found what Dirac and Feynman said about it interesting. And hidden variables are still certainly compatible with reality.
@@km10is Hidden variables are not compatible with reality. You have to start thinking about the universe relativistically and then it will become obvious soon why there can be no hidden variables.
Not complaining because it is a mile over my head. I'm glad there are people smart enough to argue the fine points of this.
It's one of the things they need to look at. Probability and predictability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves and energy density regimes. Also they can look at metamaterials for the slit.
Your one of the few who is clearly showing what a lot of the nonsense is in physics making it possible to spot the nonsense that is going on elsewhere, well done.
I began the video both offended and not offended at its contents. At approximately 5:56 the superposition collapsed into non-offended.
Sabine, please, where can I find out more about t'Hooft ideas? The book on the video is the only source? And about the experiment, where can I read more about it? Is there an article?
This is one of the most interesting topics you ever covered. I would much appreciate a follow up. How does 't Hoofts approach work in detail and how can it be in line with the proven violation of Bells inequality?
Nothing to complain right here. - Great video as usual.
Thanks for doing what's right, Sabine, despite all the complainers!
Brilliant video. Could use a bit more explanation of "decoupling of scales"... Are the inequalities for D like Bell inequalities?
Keep talking about it! Never silence science!
4:43 - Not only you. Several of my acquaintances from the days I still (kind of) did physics are or were active in various LHC collaborations. Their nightmare, too, is that their hardware pre-processors threw away some data that would turn the Standard model upside down. (They have that hardware simply because CERN computers, gigantic as they are, are not fast enough, or with enough storage, to save _everything_ )
Excellent explantion Sabine. As a computer scientist I'm partial towards a finite-automata interpretation as the one Gerard ’t Hooft proposed. The idea that non-local 'phenomena' are based on local calculations of the locally-interacting cells of the automata model makes all the sense to me. Wolfram is also working in these lines, I guess?
Can you tell in simple words
Thank you Sabine! Really cool
This definitely deserve s more videos
I ♥ you and your videos. Thank You! 💙💛💚
There's been past work testing quantum foundations using bottom quarks (Belle) as with photons in ultra-peripheral collisions in heavy ions (RHIC/Alice)
Thanks for this examination of quantum foundations!
Where did she do that? ;-)
I've long considered Gerard 't Hooft an underappreciated genius. Glad to see some attention getting thrown his way.
One of your best videos ever!
Would you consider doing an episode on t'Hooft's interpretation? I'm 100% of the same mind with regards to testing the foundations.
It's 100% wrong. ;-)
Nice idea. Cogwheels ⚙️ represent waves 🌊. Each ⚙️ is made of a myriad smaller ⚙️. They can slow down as well as speed up, split and join.
Thank you Sabine.
It’ll be GLORIOUS! 😄😄😄!
I think this is really cool and worth exploring! I don't know if hidden variables to Quantum mechanics will every be found, but I also never understood the "just shutup and calculate!" crowd. That just seems like a very unscientific attitude and down right hypocritical. Quantum mechanics was born out of trying to explore what was more fundamental then classical physics, to give an explanation for the newly found combined force of elector-magnatism. Had physicists "just shutup and calculated" in the late 19th/early 20th century there would be no Quantum mechanics. We'd be stuck with Maxwell's equations for elector-magnatism, we wouldn't even know about the strong or weak nuclear forces. Potentially worse if the arbitrary decision to "just shutup and calculate" happened even sooner we might still think electricity and magnetism were separate forces. Yet I can't tell you how many times in interviews I hear a Particle Physicists say something along the lines of "...If we don't detect X particle or prove Y theory of quantum mechanics, then that's the end of particle physics and the end of all science!", despite that statement presupposing that Quantum is the end of the line and most fundamental to the universe (something we been wrong about before). Since I never met a Particle Physicists in really life they seem to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with undefined velocities and contently tunneling through space at random. Maybe that's just what they say when their exact position is measured during an interview ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love your shows.