Scott Aaronson - What Does Quantum Theory Mean?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world's deepest questions without the need for paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Quantum theory may be weird-superposition and entanglement of particles that in our normal world would make no sense-but quantum theory is truly how the microworld works. What does all this weirdness mean? How to go from microworld weirdness to macroworld normalcy? Will we ever make sense out of quantum mechanics?
Shop Closer To Truth merchandise like mugs and hoodies: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more videos on quantum theory: bit.ly/3RL7siz
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Very nice and informative. However, there is a suggestion, if you can kindly add few words about the guest, his edge in the subject and why Closer To Truth Team opted to go into this conversation (maybe some inkling about the connection it has with some past activity or this as a new thread or whatever, just few words). This may spark more interest professionally. Thanks for this wonderful production.
That is a great little clip, thx.
Ah so that's why my new processor collapsed into a black hole when I overclocked it.
And you were otherwise going to notify the rest of the planet about this when, exactly…??
That may have violated the warranty.
I read professor,I was confused
Wow. That was a great piece. Bob is the best interviewer on YT.
*YT
Thanks. I'm stupid. @@cube2fox
Certainly in my top 65 interviewers - no doubt about that
Who is Bob?
@@haiderkhagga
KUHN
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank you for this ..
when energy reaches 1 / c, particle at speed of light c is measured from quantum field? so at c speed of light, have both particle (with zero mass and time) and quantum field / wave with energy 1 / c?
Now that was good!
time at E / c becomes space with particle at c?
This is an odd take as there are a potentially infinite pool of efficient mechanisms to implement in any computational problem. We don’t know what forms and constructions of matter might render more efficient computation.
That's what I was thinking. Isn't the justification that some physics is impossible because it would allow us to do some computation just reasoning by induction? Seems like a weak argument.
You gotta' give credit to RK to have the stamina to keep "Tilting At Windmills" , Don Quijote would've been proud....
Computing on probabilities seems funny because by definition it's based on odds, which may or may not be true.
It means things come in small packages
Story of my life
Which is really just Democritus' and Leucippus' ancient idea of atoms, when you think about it. Of course, the things we call atoms are not true atoms - indivisible components of matter. But that was just an accident of history. We thought they were atoms at the time.
More. ❤
Fascinating.. History suggests that building a metaphorical wall AGAINST what future scientific insights might enable is nearly always a mistake..
I'd argue that the principle of energy conservation is a metaphorical wall against physics in which energy isn't conserved.
More broadly, in analysis we use mathematics to describe all hypothetical universes, and our physical theories narrow the search to a hypothetical universe we exist in. There's a fundamental orientation problem being solved by physics.
Science needs to solve simultaneously a problem of accurate contextualization and a problem of precise description.
Mathematics is both infinitely precise, and infinitely inaccurate.
Hence the need to physically/experimentally orient our mathematics in order to produce accurate scientific answers to scientific questions.
@ywtcc Thanks.. My opinions on this are simple. I would answer by saying your example is arguably a straw dog.. We live in a universe where the conservation of energy is fortunately maintained AND malleable.. It doesn't come from nowhere and vanish to nowhere.. I can't even imagine such a universe being stable enough to grow in complexity.. Rather than a "wall" against the advancement of SCIENCE, that idea could be a wall against existence.. Who knows?
Thank you Sir Scott...🎉
he didnt actually answer the title question. but fine video nonetheless.
The titles are about the topic for the series of clips the video is in, rather than literally the actual question posed to the guest in the video.
Physicists are like that. All of them.
@@mohinderkumar7298 Answering the question actually posed to them in the interview? I hope so.
What's the difference between 3, 6, 7, and 9? Until you have tested it on yourself, building anything based on opinions or guesses you never found will cause so much grief. Please, try it.
Scott is a gem
My best? The Planck scale is the resolution of the monitor we all see.
Randomly had the same thought about an our ago : )
Are they in a space ship?
Quantum Mechanics has as much meaning or rational content as the reason why 2+2=4. There is a sense that the rules and definitions are less rational and understandable than is said to be. Less certain in their "generality" and "homogeneity". More imposition than observation that "science" CAN'T acknowledge.
The trouble with quantum computing is the same trouble with holograms. No amount of energy can turn a hologram into a living being, so no amount of energy can solve different equations simultaneously to be "meaningful" to what we don't currently "control". No amount of computing can predict the roll of dice, but a small amount can "control" the roll of dice. The two things: prediction and control, are not the same.
The more we can predict the more control we have. The more we can predict the position of an electron the less it is a wave. The more we predict its momentum the less it is a particle. Our "control" tells an electron what it is. An electron cannot limit our control of it, can it?
If humans beings were blind and dint had site or sens of vision like bats then we could have considered nothing travel faster then speed of sound. So it's mind and consiousness that can travel faster then speed of light but since human being can't understand the mind and consiousness they are ignorant of its speed same way we could have been ignorant of speed of light if humans not had sens of vission. But sound waves doesn't propagate thru vacuum of outer space only on earth's and others planets atmosphere and space. This is why there is no sound in space. but you can convert sound waves into electromagnetic waves if you want to send sound thru vacuum of space
And then converte back into sound. In the case of sound to electromagnetic wave conversion, this can be achieved through the use of a microphone, which converts sound waves into electrical signals. These electrical signals can then be further converted into electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves, for transmission. But light travel in vacuum of space. Nothing travels faster then light only in vaccum of spacetime but qauntum entanglement happens outside of spacetime or even cause of spacetime. So in this case it's win win for both Einstein special relativity beacuse quantum entanglement do not violate Einstein special relativity and cause it happens outside of spacetime and there is also speed faster then light. So both Einstein and faster then speed of light concepts wins.
Quantum physics is the next immeasurable method.
QM rejects reification of quantification
Energy drops from c-squared to c when particle is measured from quantum wave / field? if quantum is inverse to classical, then square root of energy represents and increase of energy to the speed of light / causation, when a particle is measured?
Pretty good but I think he got that part in the middle wrong.
Many worlds.
Time travelers. If anybody lives long enough to figure out how, they will know when to look.
No
There's a parallel universe in which you said "yes", and another in which you said "maybe". And another in which I'm into the Copenhagen interpretation. And so on... 😉
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik many worlds might be popular in pop-sci but it’s not science. It’s an interpretation for people who get anxiety from indeterminism.
@@vonneumann6161 David Deutsch disagrees, and he's a scientist. It's definitely science.
in the quantum wave function, E = m * (1 / c-squared) is squared (Born's rule) to become probability of E = m * (1/c)?
Everythhing that you call Real is not made of things that cannot be regarded as real but made of immaterial information called bits of consiousness and laws which comes from this consiousness. This is the reason it was so hard for ex matrealist niel bohr to fathom quantum beacuse he was seeing quantum in materialistic point of view. When you see immaterial in materialistic point of view it looks and appears as if made of unreal things or not real things.
👌💯
Physics 102. Thanks.
Why are we on a boat?
I really like this direction for research.
I see this as an application of theories of computation and complexity in scientific metaphysics.
To me, this is the appropriate way to look for applications of this kind of mathematics in the sciences.
The study of algorithms is ancient, it's the study of instructions, and doings.
Science ultimately reduces to doings. It's presented as sets of instructions for experiments and producing predictions.
Then, science and the metaphysics of science should be ripe for opportunities to apply algorithmic thinking.
Beyond hypothetical, mathematically perfect computers, there are hypothetical sensory devices, hypothetical experimental set ups, energy sources, kinetic devices, etc.
I suspect there has been a mathematical revolution, and the findings and expansion of capabilities haven't been fully appreciated yet.
(It would be nice to save some people from code monkey drudgery and put them to work hacking reality!)
Maybe math and logic need to be set aside for new or enhanced math and logic-that don’t resolve in infinities when addressing these kinds of problems. If what the guest discusses is true.
Reality can not handle infiniteness&infinity as that label has no scale! Scale is essential for all to fall within relation with eachother.
"Pentium chips" :)
The universe is a computer/simulation.
...that got built by itself?
Why is this guy so nervous? It's making my skin crawl
When the guy reads this comment he'll definitely be less nervous next time.
lol
it means we're in a simulation.
this was really pessimistic and low brow in the sense that there are tons of quantum algorithms that can speed up functions and compute by orders of magnitude, indeed we are just barely scratching the surface of quantum compute - of course there are limits but we are presently at .001 percent of the capabilities so why start talking about limits - it is absurd and short sighted #there is plenty of room at the bottom
It’s absurd and short sighted to determine the limits of computational physics, why there are limits and how that maps to other areas of physics? Really? All this science stuff, pah, why does anyone even bother with it!
@@simonhibbs887 the limits are so high it is only really useful for theory and constructs and to see how limited we are right now - like when you know you are smart and how much you know but then also to realize how dumb you really are since you know so little - you need to know a lot to know how little you really know - it is kind of funny when you step back. it also makes data projection and prognostication a bit easier and to plot growth of data over th next few year - we are in the midst of a data explosion - whether this equates to knowing more is debatable but we should have better ai to assist, collate, and organize and audit. #bette davis
The most significant thing science has done to us is to set the limits. Energy conservation, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Landauer limit, no-cloning theorem. Setting limits is the most important thing because we build structures on them. If there were no limits or rules there wouldn’t be any structure in the universe.
What I believe doesn't matter. How I reason does. And, it should matter for you too - how you reason about things. One of my first teachers taught: if you can't prove it yourself, then don't believe in it. And this is very good. I see persons today who don't claim God or Spirit, and that's fine, but I notice that they never grow. They don't actually, truly, want to learn. What they commented 4 years ago is the same thing they still comment(believe). It's called 'familiarity', and it's a liar! We hate change. Whether you believe or don't, both are beliefs. Don't you want to confront this, though? Are you scared? Person's claim that believers in God are just afraid, so they believe in God for an afterlife. If you ask me: God is terrifying, something that is beyond ALL, everything, both subtle as an atom and grand as the universe, the entirety and beyond the cosmos, in short, insert juxtapositions here, burn the candle from both ends( hehe) ; i can't wrap my mind around it because the mind wasn't designed to. I don't believe in God. Why would you have to believe in God when you understand how things work - karma, causation, determinism, energy, light, Self, non self, psychology, desires, hope, reason, wisdom, knowledge, being, becoming, information, form, relation, mode, modalities, harmony, procession and regression, emanation, principles, metaphysics, our very animal nature and ignorance.
I try commenting every day, with effort, exercising rhetoric, trying the convey deep thought in a sensible way - they say it's not only thinking deeply, but thinking clearly, that's important. If you want to get good at fighting, you have to fight. Just start. I don't know if you noticed, but there is something going on here. Something incredible! Hare KRSNA!
This is an unreasonably long response.
Who are you after all? Where were you say 100 years ago? Or where will you be 100 years later. These thoughts can be only answered through religion and God and the rest is crap. Philosophy and Science are both a temporary medicine that cannot define me as a soul or being--but the empty chatter and lofty verbosity of philosophers and scientists have always been there to define me. But I feel pissed off as I stick my finger into my existence!
Quantum computers don't live up to their own hype. These conversations make me think physicis relies too much on a big dose of off the wall salesmanship to justify itself.
Does science even need to justify itself? Looking around at this technologically modern world we live in? Religion, on the other hand, has been struggling with how to justify itself for nearly a thousand years-at least on this Planet. And it’s case appears to only grow weaker as the years roll on.
I’m not sure they’ll ever be practical as computers, maybe eventually, but they have been a fantastic vehicle for exploring some of the frontiers of the practical applications of quantum mechanics. Given the astounding success of the practical applications of QM so far, that seems very much worth doing.
@@longcastle4863 please stop saying silly things like "does science.....", It makes you sound like you are a member of a science religion or something. The correct, logical and rational question you should ask is "Do scientists....". Also there is no "itself" of science, again you are giving science some kind of mysterious supernatural identity. With that out of the way, if scientists use public money to conduct research presumably for public benefit then they need to justify the use of that money. That should be pretty obvious and reasonable to any reasonable person. Do you agree?
Of course scientists can do whatever they want that's legal in their own time and on their own dime.
@@simonhibbs887 that freedom needs to still be justified amongst infinite other possible ways to spend resources.
@@404errorpagenotfound.6 And scientists do justify the use of that money. And probably have been more successful at it than any group so far or any endeavor yet in human history. But please, pick away; science can more than handle it. Science hardly even knows you’re there. And politicians will continue to pile in more money . Why? Results. Kind of hard to “un-justify” that. But they try, oh the pathologically religious try.
scammed.
Make the Matrix Great Again
Eminem is still great as far as I’m concerned
Aaronson, you went to school on dad's fund. Your brain power is not close to knowing nor deciphering whatbit means to be nerd. Speaking English and cutting your elder off is not the way to go. If you know, instinctively, you will wait for others to ask you questions.
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So nothing worthwhile here.
That site is hilarious. I love the revised Planck equation ‘adding back’ the missing time variable, missing the point firstly that time is the reciprocal units v is measured in so time is already right there. But also by adding time to the right hand term, they completely mess up the units of energy on the left hand side of the equation. It’s so absurdly amateur it’s delicious!
@@simonhibbs887 Simple logic that exceeds your understanding: no surprise Simon. Goodbye.
Lmao do you actually think this is how science works? Just promoting some dude's website in the UA-cam comment section?
@@carlsagan5189 Very observant Carla. In your brain dead world “Juliana “ is “some dude.” Profound and pathetic ignorance. Go back under your rock. Read - with comprehension- it least 1 of the 158+ pages before babbling. Grow up.
@@carlsagan5189 The actual website is interestingly bonkers. It’s the nearest I’ve seen to looking like real scientific papers, but if you look at the details it quickly falls apart. Silly things like adding terms to existing equations to ‘correct’ them, but forgetting these terms have units, so doing it completely messes up the units of any result you might get. So at first look it’s credible, but you could never use any of the equations to actually do anything.
Another perfect example of a specialist with poor communication skills, speaking to a specialist with poor communication skills, doing an astonishingly poor job explaining *anything* quantum related. I’m beginning to develop disdain not for these horrible communicators, but for the rest of society for not calling them out on their BS. I’m not refuting their knowledge. I’m refuting their capacity to explain it to the lay-person. The next time someone does a piss-poor job explaining something, simply stop them and say the words _“That was atrocious. Nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever. Stop speaking to me if I have the same education you do, and instead, understand that the entire purpose of your explanation is to share your knowledge with people who _*_DON’T_*_ have the same background as you.”_ You don’t need to be quite as blunt as I, but still. The lack of coherent communication surrounding *anything* quantum-related is maddening!
The problem is that there is a reason all you get is a bunch of silly analogies. You don't have to become a mathematician and plug and chug a bunch of equations; but just look at the differences between the classical and quantum equations of things like motion, entropy, and things that don't even exist classically like entanglement. The math isn't too bad for the simplest systems, especially if you are already familiar with matrices. Begin your own personal understanding.
The full form videos provide more context and a more complete narrative than these clips. CTT focuses on the philosophical questions rather than trying to teach physics concepts though, so it's not the best channel for that.There are other channels on YT that specialise in accessible coverage of physics concepts.
Who Cares Loser To Truth Ray, Are Mostly Know As Closer To Truth Ray , ALL GOD ARE GOOD & GOLD FOR YOUR GOLD I , PC SARKAR RAM SABKI AASAAOO KE RAM ASHARAM
I think the quantum computer that is my brain just decohered as I attempted to read this.