UPDATE: A few of you were asking about the Alice and Bob analogy used in this talk so we asked Phil Bill if he'd be happy to explain it in more detail. He was, so here's the follow up - ua-cam.com/video/5_0o2fJhtSc/v-deo.html
When we say that physics looks the same, we mean that two observers (Alice and Bob, say) using two different sets of coordinates (representing two different inertial frames) should agree on the predicted results of all possible experiments. In the case of quantum mechanics, this requires Alice & Bob to agree on the value of the wave function at a particular spacetime point, a point that is called x by Alice and ¯x by Bob. Thus if Alice’s predicted wave function is ψ(x), and Bob’s is ψ¯(¯x), then we should have ψ(x) = ψ¯(¯x).
The Royal Institution SOMETHING HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME TO NO END.IF THE EARTH IS ORBITING THE SUN,AND MOVING AT A SPEED OF AN ASTOUNDING 67,000 MILES PER HOUR.HOW CAN THE SPACE STATION STAY CLOSE IN EARTHS ORBIT,AND HOW COME THESE SPACE WALKERS DON'T FLY AWAY INTO THE VACUUM OF SPACE? HOW DID RETURNING MOON VISITING ASTRONAUTS CATCH UP WITH US AT THAT SPEED? I'LL WAIT.
The issue, like most things quantum, lies in information and information theory. In this case, there was crucial information missing from both the slides and the talk. He knew those missing bits, but we in the audience didn't. So, according to the laws of information theory, the analogy becomes completely unintelligible for the audience while it made complete sense in his head, where he had access to the missing information. /s
I watched a young woman give a UA-cam lecture 10yrs ago saying the same thing, "The wave function never collapses it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment". There is no collapse and never was.
How can it make sense that it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment? That would be suggesting the measuring equipment knew where the particle was in the first place, when you can only measure *the probability* of where the particle may be at any given time. However if her theory is true, that would mean that everything is entangled all of the time, which in theory means we would be able to have an affect on *anything* we choose to from a distance. Do you have a link to look into further?
26:34 "This Box's blackness is in the box, what would it possibly mean to say this box blackness is also kinda partly in this box" Perfect analogy for understanding the misconception of locality!! The Blackness itself is an emergent quality of our measurement of it. It can only be measured when the lights are on. The color is tied up in the very properties of light itself... the very thing used to measure the blackness is PARTICIPATING in its very existence. This is because, in our perceptual experience of certain things, we draw borders where none exist. (blackness is not something that can exist on its own but only as a combination of things) Both boxes have the local hidden variable of a suface that interacts with light, but depending upon the light I shine on them, they will reflect a different color to my sensors (eyes). So we are measuring an aspect of the sensor(eyes) and the intermediary device (light) simultaneously when we say "blackness." (the problem is conception and language) THAT is what it means to say that the blackness is also kinda partly in the other box and this analogy holds with QM as well. Some qualities are combinations not fully contained within an object and are therefore "nonlocal" in a very non mysterious way.
I love this theme and I've been studying about quantum physics by myself for 3 years.. I wish I could make an "university" about.. the course would be phenomenal
The real question here, at least to me, seems to be the question of whether quantum mechanics is purely epistemological (that is, it is only a theory about what we know) or does it also contain an ontological (that is, this truly is the nature of the Universe and not merely a product of how we're looking at it) component. Another question that I think needs to be asked is what separates a measurement, such as what we do in a laboratory, from an interaction such as what quantum particles will undergo. Does a quantum particle, when interacting with another quantum particle, go through all the same problems of dealing with probabilities of the values of various properties when determining how to respond to those properties as part of the interaction? For example, electrons A and B undergo a spin-spin interaction with each other. Do they also, like physicists measuring spin in a laboratory, have to suffer through the problem that they each have a 50-50 chance of seeing the spin of the other electron as being up or down relative to some intrinsic orientation relative to the reference frame of a given electron, and then, only after making the "measurement" can it determine how it orients its own spin? However, even as I write the question, I realize there is a fundamental error in the question because it accidentally introduces a classical idea that the electron is definitively in one state or the other, and that's precisely the sort of thing that quantum mechanics says is not happening. So then, I'm left to ask the question, what exactly is happening when two particles interact? How do those particles resolve their quantum mechanical nature with each other in obtaining a particular set of responses, with various corresponding probabilities, based on the probabilities of allowed values of the various properties that the two particles have and interact on the basis of those properties? Is this interaction the same as one particle somehow measuring the other, or is performing a measurement fundamentally different from quantum interaction? If measurement is a fundamentally different process, then does that not introduce the possibility that quantum mechanics may not be intrinsic to the nature of the Universe but merely a by-product of how we've been observing it?
To answer some of your later questions, I did propose them too to one of my teachers at the university quantum lab back when I was studying. He described to me why measurement and entanglement are fundamentally different things. In your case why interaction and measurement are fundamentally different. When you make a measurement as you know the quantum wave function collapses, and that's it you have a definit state. When you entangle a particle to another you can do this by not making a measurement on them, in this case you just add two wave functions together or combine them. You distort the wave function of the first one but you dont make it collapse. The metaphor he used was, Imagine Schrödinger's cat, it is both alive and dead at the same time(50-50%). Now you add a poisoned and also not poisoned sandwich to it, maybe 36% poisoned, 64% poisoned sandwich (another wave function like particle). You open the box, you dont look at the cat if it is alive or not, (you dont make a measurement), and you wait some time. At the end you open up the box and you can find a dead cat or one alive if you look, but with the sandwich you changed the probability of finding a dead cat without looking at it or knowing if it's dead or alive.
Also to answer your last question, they dont know the answer, that's why there are many interpretations. In the Copenhagen interpretation you simply ignore that you might be right and the Universe is just a by-product of your measurements you accept that there is a mathematical function, a probabilty of finding things in a different state and that's it, you don't think of what it means. In the many worlds interpretation you by measuring it cause decoherence and all the possibilites are present at the same time in another world. So if you measured A in one Universe you also measure B in another. You are also in two different states in these universes. And there are many more explanations to this.
@@sgeraaa Dude, a measurement is an irreversible energy exchange process and entanglement is not a process, at all. It's a symmetry condition. If your teacher couldn't explain that to you in a couple of sentences, then you didn't have a good teacher (or you were not listening).
Thanks for the upload. Fantastic lecture by Phil Bill whose eloquence and way of speech reminds me of Cicero from Rome (the TV show). Really enjoyed it and felt enlightened.
One reason why Quantum Mechanics is confusing is that explanation often involve the term "particle". This is because we normally think of matter as consisting of objects of some kind. If one (mistakenly) defines a "piece of matter" to be an object that, with sufficient energy, can be broken down into smaller "pieces of matter", e.g. particles, it becomes a recursive never-ending loop that makes no sense intuitively. How could a "piece of matter" be divisible into smaller "pieces of matter" which themselves could be further divisible, and so on, to infinite levels. No. That makes no logical or intuitive sense. Hence, at some level a "piece of matter" can only be divided into something else, something that is not a piece of matter or a particle. In a way, Leucippus and Democritus were right when they said that the atom was indivisible. When smashed, the atom produces not atomic particles but waves. Avoiding the concept of particles in the first place could make Quantum Mechanics much more explainable.
Originally the atom was defined as the smallest particle of matter. It's still true. While atoms can indeed be broken down into smaller sub-atomic particles, these particles are no longer matter, just as nuts and bolts are no longer cars.
I've been watching videos about Quantum Physics for a few days now, and I think this is the best explanation of what QP is, and how to approach it. Philip Ball is an excellent thinker and teacher.
I've watched likely 100 or so programs/ lectures about quantum physics over many years and to me this could have been the worst explanation I've seen yet. But we all tend to click with different things so I guess if this one made sense to you maybe it's not terrible.
@@mkteku I don't think I could pick a specific lecture. More that I would have lecturers I like. Sean Carroll, Brian Cox, Jim Al-Kalili, Brian greene and the presentations from PBS spacetime to name a few. Keeping in mind I don't necessarily believe any of them are specifically correct or incorrect just that they seem to do a better job at communicating the information they present in an easy to understand way. Since the video we are commenting on was something I watched 4 months ago specifically explaining why didn't like it might lead me to need a reviewing, I just remember finding his presentation confusing.
@@gizmogremlin1872 Agreed. This guy doesn't understand QP. He says entanglement=decoherence but entanglement=coherence as proven by the fact that the atoms/electrons emitting the *coherent* light/photons in a laser are entangled. Maybe he simply meant a particle/object becomes decohered from whatever it was entangled with previously which I wouldn't be so inclined to argue with but he just says entanglement=decoherence. In addition he says entanglement proves there is no FTL action at a distance rather than proving FTL action at a distance, insisting that nothing including information can travel FTL, without providing a logical explanation of how he came to that conclusion so I have to conclude that he simply doesn't understand QP. This video should be deleted by the royal society. It shames them to have this video on their channel.
@@gizmogremlin1872 Ball also says the most basic elements of a system can represent no more than 1 bit, that a qubit can only represent a single bit, but a particle/qubit can be in a potentially infinite number of states (polarisations) in between spin up and spin down. That means a qubit can represent any number of bits. The limit is determined only by the number of positions we decide to use to represent all the possible sequences of bits and the sensitivity and accuracy of our measurement instruments. For example, 8 different angles from spin up to spin down for an electron or nucleus would allow for each qubit to represent a sequence (or "byte" or "word") of 3 bits as follows: spin angle 1=000 spin angle 2=001 spin angle 3=010 spin angle 4=011 spin angle 5=100 spin angle 6=101 spin angle 7=110 spin angle 8=111
There's usually some cats in there too. Chasing around and sometimes raining. Don't know about those rabbits, actually. Isn't there a sport with dogs chasing rabbits? Maybe that's what got everyone confused.
brilliant. loved this. i found the box exercise too difficult to follow for me but that aside, i learnt a lot. i watched a stack more after this as well.
Reading the comments, I can see that many don't get that what he is saying is that what has been described as Quantum Mechanics thusfar is really a set of observations about EFFECTS produced by the quantum realm and not the actual MECHANISM by which the effects are produced. He's directing our attention to the basis of these effects in INFORMATION.
The problem is that he is just wrong. If it were really the case that particles had a real definite state that simply couldn't be measured the whole idea of using QM computers wouldn't work. They critically depend on being able to examine multiple paths at the same time by splitting into separate discrete histories. For F's sake, a idiot layperson like me can get a better understanding on QM simply by reading QED by Richard Feynman. Just look at the mirror example and the sum over histories equation you need to do. How can a single particle interfere with ITSELF? Aka the double slit experiment?
Only a really smart person or genius would have the ego confidence to refer to himself as an "idiot." Thats because we know we know and understand a hell of a lot of stuff, but are quite painfully aware of all the stuff we don't know and don't understand. Hats off to you. I still think it's God keeping himself inscrutable by hiding behind all the QM smoke and mirrors. He let us learn all about classical mechanics so we could engineer a nice, relatively toil-free life for ourselves. My acknowledgement of God was an existential choice since that is the best explanation to which this idiot could arrive. It's understandable if people throw baby Jesus out with the bath water (LOL!) but there's a lot of great moral teaching in the New Testament. When we kick, the only thing left will be people's memories of how we treated them. Here's two for you: Each of us is really really infinitely complicated. Trillions of chemical reactions going on each second, and then there's that brain with 200 billion cells ticking away. Embryology is infinitely complicated too. # 2: The chances of anyone of us being here are infinity/zero. So each of us is precious, and we ought to treat each other as such. Giving people attention, and making them laugh with self-deprecating jokes don't cost anything, but makes life more gratifying and enjoyable. Maybe it is selfishness, but spontaneously doing something for someone makes me feel big and good. I wish we could have a party with all the commentators here. Damn wouldn't that be interesting! We could think tank and come up with a New Copenhagen Manifesto!
The analogy isn't bad, it's the presentation, expression of it. Terrible! took me 10min to get my head around it by replaying the part again and again (I'm not a native english speaker), never had a similar problem with another physicist lecturer before. I'm glad I finally got past that part!
so basically this guy says: 1. Electrons stay as particles the whole time, they do not change their density into wave like matter. 2. The wave function is merely a mathematical field that tells us a probability in exchange for a position guess. 3.Quantum entanglement is when two particles interact and become linked in a way that can only be explained as becoming one system, not transmitting information between them, but actually being affected as if both of them were at the same place under one quantum system. 4.*not sure if i got this one right*- A measurement does not change reality and affect what is being measured, it simply changes our level of knowledge.. the path of an electron is determined already before measuring, its just that before measuring, the position cant be known for sure by equations. but in the double slit experiment we can see that electrons are actually waves because of the spread outcome that cannot be attributed to particles. so 1 is not correct. 2 is not correct. about 3- if thats true (if not then special relativity is wrong) it means that there is a dimension in which these two particles stay together, unaffected by space-time and its laws, maybe a dimension though time in which the past affects the present is ways that make certain past events meaningful, which makes every quantum particle have a memory in a way.. about 4- i have no clue. Help here?
I'm not a physicist but this is the same reaction I had. Double slit proves that particles are waves until measured. He never even brings this up, as it seems to completely contradict what he is saying. In fact his statement on the wave collapse is the logical answer, which is what make reality that much more confusing because the obvious answer is wrong. Anyone know what we're missing?
I appreciate this talk because scientists are always saying " that's the wrong question to ask". I hear it over and over again. So this is a refreshing look at that phrase. Nice viewpoint and it makes sense.
'Superposition' is a vast field. Let (1;0) demean 'like' and (0;1) 'dislike', a superposition can be everything of the form (cos(θ);sin(θ)) with some θ for cos²(θ) + sin²(θ).
@ 32:06 1) Information is not an already existing and fixed property of a single component but is created only when two components are interacting with each other. 2) Even the most elementary component has the potential to create every possible information, only depending on the properties of the component or system it is interacting with. 3) Information can be seen as the pattern created by the interfering of the energies (properties) of two components. 4) The created information (pattern) is a shared (interwoven) property of both components. 5) If two components interact they create information as an energy pattern that is a new component in it´s own. I = e2
I had never actually heard of that "20 questions" example/experiment before. That drastically increased my understanding. Thank you. Not only is information influenced by it's environment, it is, at least partially, DERIVED by it. Makes me think of a falling & cascading pattern of black and white domino's, which either reads "707" or "LOL" depending on how you "spin it." Yukyukyuk.
We play "Who am I" every Xmas. Somebody makes out a post it note with a name written on it and sticks it on the "victim's" forehead where he can't see it. The victim then goes round all the participants asking 20 questions with a yes or no answer, with each answer building to a logical conclusion. By a process of elimination, I identified my name as EINSTEIN!
At 39 he talks of particles and waves. He gives the same explanation that I arrived at years ago except that I put it "A photon is a particle or a wave depending on when you measure it." I thoroughly approve of the whole talk where he removes superstition from the quantum project.
Sounds, to me, like our understanding of our understanding has reached a point of recognition that all we have are measurements, and we can hypothesize about what's beyond them but we still only have what we measure to be certain of. Which, frankly, makes perfect sense if you think about it. We have the data points collected by measurement, and we can describe patterns across them, but of course we don't know what it "is" that drives the patterns - only that the patterns are consistent when we make more measurements in a consistent manner. What happens between our measurements? Who knows - we have zero information to base anything on with certainty, because we haven't measured between our measurements. We just know, with some certainty, what will probably happen when we measure again.
But this doesn't mean we cannot try to find an answer to "what is happening between measurements ?". But to find the answer is to comprehend what space-time and matter within are. Not to mention dark matter or energy which are just things that we need to be to the universe to work :P
@war monger I think we think about two different things - my point was that we can try to find out what's happening between measurements, but we still don't know about basic stuff like dark matter or energy - I didn't mean to live these two aside. And I'm curious how u could mess with dark energy :P When we even can't measure it directly :D :D :D Not to mention dark matter which only interacts with gravitation field :P
What is the path of information in the detector? The quantum object hits an atom in the detector. How does that flow through the rest of the equipment to become a reading on a dial?
About entanglement and the sharing of information: Information is not actually traveling but it is local at the site of measurement. Basically, the observer already has the possible outcomes onsite at the time of measurement, and the state of the entangled object at a distance is not actually shared, and it never changes based on measurements, and information doesn't travel when measuring but each object contains information about the other object and the state is determined LOCALLY by the entanglement rules that were set prior experimentation. When you measure one object, you automatically know the state of the other with the info and rules you have on hand, without sending any info to the other object. The objects are in fact completely detached from each other.
I was getting frustrated and disappointed as you started listing things right at the beginning of your talk, but you made me laugh with relief when you crossed it all out. That was fun. Thanks!
As I see it, this man is suggesting that Richard Feynman's approach and to a large extent Leonard Susskind's also, are preferable as they do not offer metaphors which necessarily have serious limitations and also have a tendency to ultimately mislead.
omg that box analogy was a huge mess. first of all he interpreted his rules wrong. A1? = R? A2B2 = RD or DR anything else = RR or DD so the combinations are A1B1 = R? A1B2 = R? A2B1 = RR or DD A2B2 = RD or DR nothing else was specified. So now the question is how do you solve for A1, A2, B1, B2 A1 is already known to be R so we have that knocked out. A2 is not known as it was not specified whether A or B returned the R. Same with B2, not known since we don't know whether A or B returned the R. IF in A2B2, A2 returned the R, then A2=R, then no matter what, A returns R. Thus: A1B1 = R? A1B2 = R? A2B1 = RR A2B2 = RD this means that B1 = R and B2 = D A1B1 = RR A1B2 = RD A2B1 = RR A2B2 = RD A1B2 satisfies the rule since the rule does not say that ONLY A2B2 returns RD. It says A2B2 returns RD but it does not claim that no other combination returns RD. IF in A2B2, A2 returned D, then A2 = D, Thus: A1B1 = R? A2B2 = R? A2B1 = DD A2B2 = DR This means that B1 = D and B2 = R. A1B1 = RD A2B2 = RR A2B1 = DD A2B2 = DR Again, A1B2 satisfies the rule, as does A1B1. TLDR he could have looked for some other analogy. This one was badly constructed and made my head hurt.
No, if A2 equals R, A1B2 does not satisfy the rule as any other combination except A2B2 has to be RR or DD. Similarly, when A2 equals D, A1B1 does not satisfy the rule by the same logic and therefore the overall probability of it being correct is indeed 3/4. Although right, I do agree he could have explained it a bit better. His rules are: A1...=R... A2B2=RD or DR Anything except A2B2 is RR or DD. Therefore, A1B1 and A1B2 both have to be RR because of the third rule. A2 has to be D now because of the second rule therefore A2B2=DR, A2B1==DR which is wrong.
@Laksh Arora Actually the problem with rule 3 is that "anything else" does not specify only applying to rule 2. it could mean anything else besides rule1 and 2, which leaves A1? unspecified.
A1B2 does not satisfy rule 3 which states that ANY combination that is not A2B2 will produce either RR or DD. So in my opinion the problem has no valid solution that is compatible with the set of rules that were stated. But I totaly agree with you that this was a bad analogy and was painful to watch.
I think that some of the confusion about quantum mechanics stems from what we consider a particle to be. Most people tend to think of an extremely small spherical object, like a tiny ball bearing. I would propose that a particle is actually a disturbance in space/time. This can be wide spread like a wave or more localized like a particle, but both are our interpretations of the same thing. Why is it that things can only travel one direction in time? You might say because of the laws of causality. Something has to happen at a later time than the thing which caused it. But what if particles at the quantum level do not recognize the laws of causality because they do not have to? They travel both directions in time and so appear to be in many places at the same time until they interact with something which does obey the laws of causality (this may be our attempt to measure their position) in which case they too have to obey the laws of causality and appear to have definite position. This is only a theory and is not a complete explanation, so feel free to criticize it.
12:30 - THANK YOU. You are literally the first person I've heard get that EXACTLY RIGHT. Most people talking to lay audiences just cannot resist saying "the particle can be in two places at once." It's so mysterious and exciting.
@@cybergornstartrooper2157 The WAVE is in many places at once. But a WAVE may represent just one particle located at a single place. The way nature works in tiny scale is very different from how it works at our scale. Physics at our scale is like the summation of billions of individual quantum operations at the atomic scale.
“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane”- Nicola Tesla
Yes sir you are firmly committed in Tesla and you can do much more than he thought about the situation of the world problem with monitoring people who don't understand that density of the world between world's every vibration has moved in the works for expansion and contraction in a state of motion and mindfulness of it.
Philip Ball says he's talking about QM itself, rather than any interpretation of it. But then he discusses the Born probability theory and wave function collapse, two features of the Copenhagen Interpretation that are not needed in David Bohm's 1952 interpretation of QM. He says that QM tells us what can be known and what cannot be known, but that is actually true of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In Bohmian mechanics, the only "weird" behavior left is the wave function itself. The paths of particles are completely deterministic, and indeed have been measured in recent "weak measurement" experiments.
@Dirk Knight Nonsense. There is no such thing as "physical sense" because our commonsense understanding of physics was learned in our scale, not in the atomic scale. All the QM interpretations are accepted for the good reason that they all make mathematical sense in one way or another. Given that we (hopefully) have hundreds of years of development of physics still ahead of us, I think we are in a pretty good place.
Great lecture. My very humble opinion (from the point of view of a programmer), Philip is describing a code written specifically with object oriented language. So I guess there is no one formula or unification of formulas. These objects with properties. An object can have children that inherit its properties. A child can stay attached to its parent or become independent object. All these classical formulas only describe how to inherit a property and how this affect the parent properties values. How a child stay attached or become independent. Such view will satisfy all the ifs Philip was mentioning. Which may result in no extra dimensions also. If the brain is physical thing that behaves like a computer code, then why not quantum world also.
The way around it is to think of entangle objects as not two objects, but one object. They are two things that are connected and locked into position..which basically makes them one thing. The distance between them doesn't matter, because no matter how far apart they are, they are still basically one system of merged objects. They are probably "landlocked" by all five of the forces..
@Yogi Steven): Yogi Steven, here's how I understand the intriguing comment that you made: "What Philip Ball is saying is that what has been described as QM thus far is really a set of statements about OBSERVABLE effects in the quantum realm, and NOT the actual mechanism by which those observable effects are produced." Ball also seems to be saying that QM thus far is a description of what to expect when you MEASURE an object in the quantum realm, and NOT necessarily a description of the quantum object itself. "As it stands, QM does not permit us to say anything with confidence about reality, beyond what we can MEASURE." [1:05, 3:27, 4:12, 8:10, 9:05]
So, this reminds me of looking at a 2D poster that reveals a 3D image, if you relax your focus. However, I'm still not able to relax my eyes, so I have to simply believe I can see it eventually.
I get out of this the same thing I get out of several other talks (and books) that try to explain how to interpret quantum mechanics: QM is trying to tell us something about the nature of reality that our brains are not wired to be able to process. Or at least not easily or reliably process. Luckily we can deal with it indirectly via mathematical formalism.
I'm quite certain that an eternally inquisitive mind like Richard P. Feynman would not have said "What more do you want?". I've read enough about him and seen enough of his interviews that I'm convinced he wasn't the kind who was merely satisfied with a mathematical answer. I think it's more likely that he admitted his inability to understand QM at a deeper level at the time, which speaks more about his integrity as a scientist and a researcher.
Not really: Feynman didn't cover himself in glory in this area at first. Search arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf for 'Feynman' (arXiv link is arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508180 ).
I'm just a layman in all this but it seems to me that wave simply refers to all the potential or statistically possible outcomes of a quantum particle depending on where, how and when it ends up interacting with another quantum particle (with our measurements within quantum systems being just one of an infinite number of ways such interactions might occur) at which time the wave "collapses" or ceases to exist for the simple reason that what was once just statistical probability is now reality.
The problem is that those interactions are interactions with itself sometimes, as if a particle could be in two places at once! The double slit uses photons one at a time and observes wave interference as if (much like with water waves, or any waves) the wave has gone through both slits and interfered with itself, even though its only a single particle.
3:48 : “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.” ― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
These ideas make sense, and to me at least, make the weirdness associated with Quantum Mechanics much less weird. Like so many others, I worked with the equations in graduate school, and listened to the unsatisfying attempts to explain what the results meant in the real world. This short video has motivated me to pull out my dusty textbooks, and go back and re-read them with a completely different perspective. I just moved his book to the top of my reading list and plan to read it immediately after I watch his second video. Just scanning the book shows that while difficult, it is understandable to the non-scientist. You do not need a Kindle to read it, Amazon provides a reader online.
He screwed up with the boxes. If I didn't know about Bell's theorem, I would never understand what he means. Very confusing. The 20 question game, on the other side, was a great example I never heard of before. Does anybody know where to read about it more?
That game reminds me how we arrive at "correct" answers regarding our life. Imagine for example: you are in a sect... others share the same axioms You as a sect member are likely to believe in, or at least you really deeply want to believe in them. In most of the cases these axioms support such human qualities, that most of us would agree upon the need of them). Those who are around You will answer your questions according to a more or less developed ideology based on these suppositions. Even the stupidest religious "system" can fulfill your needs to be guided in situations which are beyond your capabilities of problem solving. Most of the solutions will aim at preserving the integrity of the sect. So in many cases You will have to sacrifice leisure-time/spare-money/hobby... something. BUT isn`t it so with every society? The basic and most conspicuous difference between a modern, relatively young sect and a primitive tribe (with naive worldview) is that while the rules of the tribe allows Your deep integration not only with the tribe but also with the surroundings (mostly nature). Sects, on the other hand emphasises group coherence at the expense of Your natural roots... the less roots You have outside the sect, the more dependent You are on it...
It is surprisingly difficult to design an analogy that works as well as Philip's black boxes do, with their 75% and 85% predictions. Yes, it can be confusing. There is an excellent long answer here that clarifies it wonderfully.
If only had this lecture existed in the times when I've been studying optoelectronics! I can see how some of the tough concepts would've been easier to comprehend. This guy is an absolute wonder in terms of how such a difficult topic is explained and how he keeps you engaged throughout the presentation. Perhaps there's no easier way to summarise what's quantum mechanics is all about.
Mindboggling lecture..this guy's ahead of his time. Quote that I took (and updated) from this: "The very notion of there being an answer only makes sense when you play the game. _So start playing.”_
Life teaches us stuff and if we can catch those moments, we are truly blessed. For example, years ago I was passing through El Paso and happened upon a barbershop that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Hair Returned*". Upon seeing the asterisk, I read the fine print down below, which said, "If you can't read ask the bootmaker next door." In the same spirit of integrity, I think certain videos really ought to come with a notarized promise stating, "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Time Refunded". And this video clip by Mr. Ball should be one of them. Furthermore, after the whole Lance Armstrong doping fiasco, my takeaway was don't trust anyone who only has one ball, even if they openly declare it in their name.
Huzzah! Thanks to the generous support of our Patreon supporters, we now have English language subtitles for this video! If you have a spare dollar or pound to support our work, you can head over to Patreon too and see what we're up to: www.patreon.com/TheRoyalInstitution
So you are not only a physicist but a quantum physicist but you got it wrong? The intersection of a Venn diagram is bleak not to mention your asking me to be a descendent of the 11th Hussars.
Could it be that ,,gues a person" outcome would depend on the same algorithme as ,,natural selections" algorithme? Reading ,,Darwin's dangerous" book and watching this video...
The Bell Inequality is not easy to understand or accept without the full maths, which I recall took three one-hour lectures to get through. I'd be interested to hear a better condensation of the material, but my recommendation is to do it properly as it's quite a revelation.
OUTSTANDING! ( I hated all the interruptions by commercials but) this was one of the best lectures on quantum theory I have heard in awhile... I must get his book! I followed what he was saying very well and he simplified things to a point that I think we needed in this field and have needed for awhile.. I see that a lot of people here did not appreciate this much.. One person said it made them doubt all the QM people he knew and that he was looking for something new... I found that it reinforced what I have learned and cleared away some of the complicated fog that surrounds the quantum world... This was not a lecture about quantum theory but on the perspectives of interpretations of quantum theory.. and as such I enjoyed it... thank you Dr. Ball.
I agree! Brilliant! Definitely moving in the right direction. And entirely consistent with the primacy of Consciousness as the basis of reality. What he is saying is that what has been described as Quantum Mechanics thusfar is really a set of observations about EFFECTS produced by the quantum realm and not the actual MECHANISM by which the effects are produced. He's directing our attention to the basis of these effects in INFORMATION. Consciousness = Information = Quantum Particle Effects = Classical Physics = Existence. The missing link to complete the conscious feedback loop between Existence and Consciousness and back again is the emergent Information Theoretic. www.SpiritScienceYoga.com facebook.com/SpiritScienceYoga #SpiritScienceYoga
Excellent point. Perspectives!!!!! not the theory. Thought it was a great talk also. Even the "rules" aren't absolute as a particles position is not absolute.
@Yogi Steven: "What Philip Ball is saying is that what has been described as QM thus far is really a set of OBSERVATIONS about effects PRODUCED BY the quantum realm and not the actual mechanism by which the effects are produced." Yogi Steven, here's what I understand you to be saying: "What Philip Ball is saying is that what has been described as QM thus far is really a set of STATEMENTS about effects OBSERVED IN the quantum realm and not the actual mechanism by which the OBSERVED effects are produced."
I realize that I'm totally in the dark about these things but it sounded to me that this ignores the whole double-slit experiment stuff. If the wave collapse is simply illustrating the collapse of uncertainty, how does that create changes in interference patterns? Maybe I should stay awake when I listen.
Its not ignoring double slit at the very end he talks about the ifs and the is's of quantum mechanics. Double slit is an observation of a phenomenon a "measurement" of the property of light quantum mechanics tells us that IF we run the double slit experiment we get interference patterns. It doesnt tell us that light IS a wave that IS is an interpretation. At the same time experiments involving photoelectron creation and photon absorption shows us that IF we run this experiement then we get this result. The IS (light IS a stream of particles) is an interpretation but NOT what quantum mechanics in and of itself states
@@angusyim7395 how do we explain the patterns and the "collapse" when we measure then? Surely everything he said would negate results like that being possible. I believe that the interference caused by the equipment theory was debunked if I'm not mistaken?
The 20 questions metaphor is brilliant! Pedagogically at least. And to make a joke about the ifness versus the isness. The answer just went from 42 to "if 42". And we are all the wiser.
the game example was very interesting was the best explanation ,I had ever seen as a non-physicist of how quantum physics works/might work. This speech made me wander: as the scale gap is huge; how many forms of the same physics are there beyond classical and quantum ? . (there is at least the 3rd form where both rules apply , and may be there is a 4th , 5th , 6th one as well?
QM-TIMESPACE wave-package is a composite of resonant tuning, the multi-phase state. Everyone understands QM when it's correctly identified in a rational and reasonable terminology.
10:22 - Not "where the particle is" but "where we measure the particle to be". There is an important distiction. A different measuring apparatus measuring the same event would result in a different conclusion, different data. All we have is the result of measurement, not the thing-in-itself. Unless we decide to call the result of our measurement the "thing-in-itself", which would be very restrictive and close down further enquiry and speculation and experimentation.
What Dr Ball is advocating is a way of speaking about QM that just shoves its jarring philosophical implications out of the picture. As he says at the end the stuff that the iffness (his language info approach) refers to we do not know (its a tricky business he says). But it only reinforces the mystery he seeks to obviate. A good lecture.
A novice in QM (Quantum Mechanics) might find some useful thought provoking sentiments in this. But if you've already come to terms with how QM works - it's not really anything new. I did like the part about "Ifness" vs "Isness" - It's far better to explain QM's to others using this. Anything beyond that would be conjecture anyway.
Personally, I think this is mostly a lot of slightly dishonest hand-waving in an attempt to cling to determinism by marginalizing real science. He acts like the wave function is purely an abstract tool for visualization, with no real relationship to measurable behavior. The double slit experiment shows that the actual phenomena behave according to probabilistic wave functions, in ways which are not in line with his attempted marginalization of everything which brings into question materialistic determinism. He starts out by saying that common interpretations of quantum effects are misleading, or untrue, but then virtually every objection he is able to raise against those interpretations depends entirely upon leaving out key pieces of very pertinent information, or through logical acrobatics that ultimately simply appeal to the notion that materialistic determinism must be valid, therefore some convoluted interpretation must be chosen over a more straightforward one. Scientism...
How is entanglement and superposition different? It looks like everything is already entangled, then we isolat two particle/region of space and time. We make them synchronize. Synchronize to the point that they are identical. This should illustrate that the whole universe is in a state of entanglement. It is the bending of space and time that makes it look so divers. So each point in the universe is the singularity of the big bag in a superposition and spread through space and time. To say it like that is missleading. Let me do that again: The singularity of the big bang is in a superposition state. Some of these states are expressed in our universe as perceived objects. When in fact those objects are just space.
Superposition can be observed in a single particle. Entanglement is found with two or more particles. That is, a single electron's spin can be indeterminate between up and down--that's superposition of the two spin states.
@@stevec7923 Thank you. So superposition: one or several particle in different states at the same place and time. Entanglement: one or several particle in the same state at the same time but in different places. I say "one particle" because it could be the same particle at different places. And of course when I say particle i mean "the way space and time is bent". Did i understand? Thank you for clarifying.
I like the 20-questions analogy. It's a very intuitive way to look at QM's behaviour. What I did not get is what's the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation. It has no hidden variables and according to Bell's theorem is a valid interpretation of QM. Also, IMO it gives a deeper insight into QM than MWT or superdeterminism by introducing a subject observing the object.
There is nothing really "wrong" with standard QM (the Copenhagen Interpretation). However, several other interpretations are considerably simpler in their axioms, assumptions, or in whether something must be hidden or mysterious. We need 10 or 20 years more to find out which interpretations are valid. Meanwhile, we have Occam's Razor to guide us.
"That remains to be seen" I agree. Could it be that the Quantum field knows what we are thinking, what we want, desire? That it knows our actions even before we become conscious of them ourselves as being planned in our awareness? How would we define such a Quantum Field?
UPDATE: A few of you were asking about the Alice and Bob analogy used in this talk so we asked Phil Bill if he'd be happy to explain it in more detail. He was, so here's the follow up - ua-cam.com/video/5_0o2fJhtSc/v-deo.html
So the suggestion after watching one sloppy lecture by Phil Ball is to suggest that watch another? No thanks.
When we say that physics looks the same, we mean that two observers
(Alice and Bob, say) using two different sets of coordinates (representing two different inertial frames) should agree on the predicted results of all
possible experiments. In the case of quantum mechanics, this requires Alice & Bob to agree on the value of the wave function at a particular spacetime
point, a point that is called
x by Alice and ¯x by Bob. Thus if Alice’s
predicted wave function is ψ(x), and Bob’s is ψ¯(¯x), then we should have
ψ(x) = ψ¯(¯x).
So is Phil Bill better at explaining things than Phil Ball?
@Die Erklärung That depends on who you ask/observe
The Royal Institution SOMETHING HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME TO NO END.IF THE EARTH IS ORBITING THE SUN,AND MOVING AT A SPEED OF AN ASTOUNDING 67,000 MILES PER HOUR.HOW CAN THE SPACE STATION STAY CLOSE IN EARTHS ORBIT,AND HOW COME THESE SPACE WALKERS DON'T FLY AWAY INTO THE VACUUM OF SPACE? HOW DID RETURNING MOON VISITING ASTRONAUTS CATCH UP WITH US AT THAT SPEED?
I'LL WAIT.
Finally someone that explains quantum mechanics to the popular audience without abusing analogies and making vague claims. I love this guy!
Right? We're smart enough.
Alice and Bob's relationship..."It's complicated". lol
Yes. and Carol and Ted feel the same way.
One of the poorest analogies ever generated. The rest of this talk wasn't much better.
"Nobody understands the Alice and Bob analogy" (Richard Feynman)
The explanation, it seemed, tried applying a form of gravity.
@@shannonchuprevich3021 You mean levity -- har har!!
Yar!
Man, even he didn't understand his own example.
The issue, like most things quantum, lies in information and information theory. In this case, there was crucial information missing from both the slides and the talk. He knew those missing bits, but we in the audience didn't. So, according to the laws of information theory, the analogy becomes completely unintelligible for the audience while it made complete sense in his head, where he had access to the missing information. /s
I watched a young woman give a UA-cam lecture 10yrs ago saying the same thing,
"The wave function never collapses it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment".
There is no collapse and never was.
She is probabilistically younger now.
@vinm300 do you have the link? Im interested in watching
That seems to me to be a distintion without a difference. Lets face it Schrödingers cat will eventually die.
Are you sure? 😏
How can it make sense that it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment? That would be suggesting the measuring equipment knew where the particle was in the first place, when you can only measure *the probability* of where the particle may be at any given time. However if her theory is true, that would mean that everything is entangled all of the time, which in theory means we would be able to have an affect on *anything* we choose to from a distance. Do you have a link to look into further?
26:34 "This Box's blackness is in the box, what would it possibly mean to say this box blackness is also kinda partly in this box" Perfect analogy for understanding the misconception of locality!!
The Blackness itself is an emergent quality of our measurement of it. It can only be measured when the lights are on. The color is tied up in the very properties of light itself... the very thing used to measure the blackness is PARTICIPATING in its very existence. This is because, in our perceptual experience of certain things, we draw borders where none exist. (blackness is not something that can exist on its own but only as a combination of things) Both boxes have the local hidden variable of a suface that interacts with light, but depending upon the light I shine on them, they will reflect a different color to my sensors (eyes).
So we are measuring an aspect of the sensor(eyes) and the intermediary device (light) simultaneously when we say "blackness." (the problem is conception and language)
THAT is what it means to say that the blackness is also kinda partly in the other box and this analogy holds with QM as well. Some qualities are combinations not fully contained within an object and are therefore "nonlocal" in a very non mysterious way.
Schrodinger arrives at the vets to pick up his cat. The vet says, "Well, Mr. Schrodinger, I've got some good news and some bad news..."
Actually, it's: "I've got some good news or some bad news. Let's have a look and find out which one."
@@tomstarr845 It's "and" not "or", because the cat is in a superposition in which the cat is alive and dead at the same time.
@@AL-SH After they "have a look", it's one or the other.
@@tomstarr845 Yes, but what if they open the box but not look? Or after they observe, what happens to the parts of the cat that died?
@@AL-SH I concede. The sheer force of your yes-butisms has done me in. BTW, sorry about your investments.
I love this theme and I've been studying about quantum physics by myself for 3 years.. I wish I could make an "university" about.. the course would be phenomenal
The real question here, at least to me, seems to be the question of whether quantum mechanics is purely epistemological (that is, it is only a theory about what we know) or does it also contain an ontological (that is, this truly is the nature of the Universe and not merely a product of how we're looking at it) component. Another question that I think needs to be asked is what separates a measurement, such as what we do in a laboratory, from an interaction such as what quantum particles will undergo. Does a quantum particle, when interacting with another quantum particle, go through all the same problems of dealing with probabilities of the values of various properties when determining how to respond to those properties as part of the interaction? For example, electrons A and B undergo a spin-spin interaction with each other. Do they also, like physicists measuring spin in a laboratory, have to suffer through the problem that they each have a 50-50 chance of seeing the spin of the other electron as being up or down relative to some intrinsic orientation relative to the reference frame of a given electron, and then, only after making the "measurement" can it determine how it orients its own spin? However, even as I write the question, I realize there is a fundamental error in the question because it accidentally introduces a classical idea that the electron is definitively in one state or the other, and that's precisely the sort of thing that quantum mechanics says is not happening.
So then, I'm left to ask the question, what exactly is happening when two particles interact? How do those particles resolve their quantum mechanical nature with each other in obtaining a particular set of responses, with various corresponding probabilities, based on the probabilities of allowed values of the various properties that the two particles have and interact on the basis of those properties? Is this interaction the same as one particle somehow measuring the other, or is performing a measurement fundamentally different from quantum interaction? If measurement is a fundamentally different process, then does that not introduce the possibility that quantum mechanics may not be intrinsic to the nature of the Universe but merely a by-product of how we've been observing it?
😲
There is no question here... you didn't pay attention in high school science class. ;-)
To answer some of your later questions, I did propose them too to one of my teachers at the university quantum lab back when I was studying. He described to me why measurement and entanglement are fundamentally different things. In your case why interaction and measurement are fundamentally different. When you make a measurement as you know the quantum wave function collapses, and that's it you have a definit state. When you entangle a particle to another you can do this by not making a measurement on them, in this case you just add two wave functions together or combine them. You distort the wave function of the first one but you dont make it collapse. The metaphor he used was, Imagine Schrödinger's cat, it is both alive and dead at the same time(50-50%). Now you add a poisoned and also not poisoned sandwich to it, maybe 36% poisoned, 64% poisoned sandwich (another wave function like particle). You open the box, you dont look at the cat if it is alive or not, (you dont make a measurement), and you wait some time. At the end you open up the box and you can find a dead cat or one alive if you look, but with the sandwich you changed the probability of finding a dead cat without looking at it or knowing if it's dead or alive.
Also to answer your last question, they dont know the answer, that's why there are many interpretations. In the Copenhagen interpretation you simply ignore that you might be right and the Universe is just a by-product of your measurements you accept that there is a mathematical function, a probabilty of finding things in a different state and that's it, you don't think of what it means. In the many worlds interpretation you by measuring it cause decoherence and all the possibilites are present at the same time in another world. So if you measured A in one Universe you also measure B in another. You are also in two different states in these universes. And there are many more explanations to this.
@@sgeraaa Dude, a measurement is an irreversible energy exchange process and entanglement is not a process, at all. It's a symmetry condition. If your teacher couldn't explain that to you in a couple of sentences, then you didn't have a good teacher (or you were not listening).
Quantum physicist walks into a bar. Bartender says, "Weren't you here tomorrow?"
Quantum physicist says, "No, but I'll be back yesterday."
such a Dad joke, I luv it
the last ten mins OMG full on wisdom right there
Thanks for the upload. Fantastic lecture by Phil Bill whose eloquence and way of speech reminds me of Cicero from Rome (the TV show). Really enjoyed it and felt enlightened.
One reason why Quantum Mechanics is confusing is that explanation often involve the term "particle". This is because we normally think of matter as consisting of objects of some kind. If one (mistakenly) defines a "piece of matter" to be an object that, with sufficient energy, can be broken down into smaller "pieces of matter", e.g. particles, it becomes a recursive never-ending loop that makes no sense intuitively. How could a "piece of matter" be divisible into smaller "pieces of matter" which themselves could be further divisible, and so on, to infinite levels. No. That makes no logical or intuitive sense. Hence, at some level a "piece of matter" can only be divided into something else, something that is not a piece of matter or a particle. In a way, Leucippus and Democritus were right when they said that the atom was indivisible. When smashed, the atom produces not atomic particles but waves. Avoiding the concept of particles in the first place could make Quantum Mechanics much more explainable.
You obv don't know what a particle is,just stop your rant here
Originally the atom was defined as the smallest particle of matter.
It's still true.
While atoms can indeed be broken down into smaller sub-atomic particles, these particles are no longer matter, just as nuts and bolts are no longer cars.
I've been watching videos about Quantum Physics for a few days now, and I think this is the best explanation of what QP is, and how to approach it. Philip Ball is an excellent thinker and teacher.
I've watched likely 100 or so programs/ lectures about quantum physics over many years and to me this could have been the worst explanation I've seen yet.
But we all tend to click with different things so I guess if this one made sense to you maybe it's not terrible.
@@gizmogremlin1872, which lectures are your favs?
@@mkteku
I don't think I could pick a specific lecture. More that I would have lecturers I like. Sean Carroll, Brian Cox, Jim Al-Kalili, Brian greene and the presentations from PBS spacetime to name a few. Keeping in mind I don't necessarily believe any of them are specifically correct or incorrect just that they seem to do a better job at communicating the information they present in an easy to understand way.
Since the video we are commenting on was something I watched 4 months ago specifically explaining why didn't like it might lead me to need a reviewing, I just remember finding his presentation confusing.
@@gizmogremlin1872 Agreed. This guy doesn't understand QP. He says entanglement=decoherence but entanglement=coherence as proven by the fact that the atoms/electrons emitting the *coherent* light/photons in a laser are entangled. Maybe he simply meant a particle/object becomes decohered from whatever it was entangled with previously which I wouldn't be so inclined to argue with but he just says entanglement=decoherence. In addition he says entanglement proves there is no FTL action at a distance rather than proving FTL action at a distance, insisting that nothing including information can travel FTL, without providing a logical explanation of how he came to that conclusion so I have to conclude that he simply doesn't understand QP. This video should be deleted by the royal society. It shames them to have this video on their channel.
@@gizmogremlin1872 Ball also says the most basic elements of a system can represent no more than 1 bit, that a qubit can only represent a single bit, but a particle/qubit can be in a potentially infinite number of states (polarisations) in between spin up and spin down. That means a qubit can represent any number of bits. The limit is determined only by the number of positions we decide to use to represent all the possible sequences of bits and the sensitivity and accuracy of our measurement instruments. For example, 8 different angles from spin up to spin down for an electron or nucleus would allow for each qubit to represent a sequence (or "byte" or "word") of 3 bits as follows:
spin angle 1=000
spin angle 2=001
spin angle 3=010
spin angle 4=011
spin angle 5=100
spin angle 6=101
spin angle 7=110
spin angle 8=111
Thanks Mr Ball for explaining that to me. Thanks for the hard work.
Anyone else scratching their heads at the rabbit/dog analogy? I have a feeling there could've been a better example.
watched that bit twice. missed it completly
There's usually some cats in there too. Chasing around and sometimes raining. Don't know about those rabbits, actually. Isn't there a sport with dogs chasing rabbits? Maybe that's what got everyone confused.
@Tarquin The Rotter WAW that is the superposition state. You did get the point!
yeah me
It seemed unnecessary to me
You just made predestination and free will much clearer for me...Thanks
Sigh of relief. Thank you for this!
The punch line i loved ‘“ nature does it best and we need to adjust our expectation”
karim shah yes! not all models are useful. Some are,
less of the 'we' :)
Fantastic lecture. Very comforting as well, as it proves a lot to me. Thank you!!
brilliant. loved this. i found the box exercise too difficult to follow for me but that aside, i learnt a lot. i watched a stack more after this as well.
rabbits and dogs and coins and boxes 🤔
very irritating example
Amazing talk by Philip Ball! I've learned so much!
Reading the comments, I can see that many don't get that what he is saying is that what has been described as Quantum Mechanics thusfar is really a set of observations about EFFECTS produced by the quantum realm and not the actual MECHANISM by which the effects are produced. He's directing our attention to the basis of these effects in INFORMATION.
Yogi, you're smarter than the average bear!
LOL not really just more determined to get at the Honey inside the tree of Life.
The problem is that he is just wrong. If it were really the case that particles had a real definite state that simply couldn't be measured the whole idea of using QM computers wouldn't work. They critically depend on being able to examine multiple paths at the same time by splitting into separate discrete histories. For F's sake, a idiot layperson like me can get a better understanding on QM simply by reading QED by Richard Feynman. Just look at the mirror example and the sum over histories equation you need to do. How can a single particle interfere with ITSELF? Aka the double slit experiment?
arxiv.org/pdf/1012.4843.pdf
Only a really smart person or genius would have the ego confidence to refer to himself as an "idiot." Thats because we know we know and understand a hell of a lot of stuff, but are quite painfully aware of all the stuff we don't know and don't understand. Hats off to you. I still think it's God keeping himself inscrutable by hiding behind all the QM smoke and mirrors. He let us learn all about classical mechanics so we could engineer a nice, relatively toil-free life for ourselves. My acknowledgement of God was an existential choice since that is the best explanation to which this idiot could arrive. It's understandable if people throw baby Jesus out with the bath water (LOL!) but there's a lot of great moral teaching in the New Testament. When we kick, the only thing left will be people's memories of how we treated them. Here's two for you: Each of us is really really infinitely complicated. Trillions of chemical reactions going on each second, and then there's that brain with 200 billion cells ticking away. Embryology is infinitely complicated too. # 2: The chances of anyone of us being here are infinity/zero. So each of us is precious, and we ought to treat each other as such. Giving people attention, and making them laugh with self-deprecating jokes don't cost anything, but makes life more gratifying and enjoyable. Maybe it is selfishness, but spontaneously doing something for someone makes me feel big and good. I wish we could have a party with all the commentators here. Damn wouldn't that be interesting! We could think tank and come up with a New Copenhagen Manifesto!
I like how he demonstrated reason, or deduction, as a form of quantum entanglement if the subjects are privy to the information.
I love your channel. It makes me a better person each time I watch your video
Alice, Bob, dog, rabbit and coins - an excellent example of how not to do analogies. Speaking as a huge fan of Dr. Ball.
The analogy isn't bad, it's the presentation, expression of it. Terrible! took me 10min to get my head around it by replaying the part again and again (I'm not a native english speaker), never had a similar problem with another physicist lecturer before. I'm glad I finally got past that part!
Please help me. Which box belongs to Alice?
so basically this guy says:
1. Electrons stay as particles the whole time, they do not change their density into wave like matter.
2. The wave function is merely a mathematical field that tells us a probability in exchange for a position guess.
3.Quantum entanglement is when two particles interact and become linked in a way that can only be explained as becoming one system, not transmitting information between them, but actually being affected as if both of them were at the same place under one quantum system.
4.*not sure if i got this one right*- A measurement does not change reality and affect what is being measured, it simply changes our level of knowledge.. the path of an electron is determined already before measuring, its just that before measuring, the position cant be known for sure by equations.
but in the double slit experiment we can see that electrons are actually waves because of the spread outcome that cannot be attributed to particles. so 1 is not correct. 2 is not correct.
about 3- if thats true (if not then special relativity is wrong) it means that there is a dimension in which these two particles stay together, unaffected by space-time and its laws, maybe a dimension though time in which the past affects the present is ways that make certain past events meaningful, which makes every quantum particle have a memory in a way..
about 4- i have no clue.
Help here?
That tells me that velikovsky,Talbott and Thornhill are correct,if Electrons are the constant,we do live in an electric universe
I did think it strange that he avoided the double slit experiment. Perhaps it's because it disproves what he is trying to suggest.
I'm not a physicist but this is the same reaction I had. Double slit proves that particles are waves until measured. He never even brings this up, as it seems to completely contradict what he is saying. In fact his statement on the wave collapse is the logical answer, which is what make reality that much more confusing because the obvious answer is wrong. Anyone know what we're missing?
@@sankarpatel5911 He explained that with entanglement and superpositioning and the shroedinger equation
I appreciate this talk because scientists are always saying " that's the wrong question to ask". I hear it over and over again. So this is a refreshing look at that phrase. Nice viewpoint and it makes sense.
Great stuff. Taking it back to the studs. Love it.
You can tell this guy has been raging about this privately for decades :D My fav lecture in the series.
Nailed it. I raged about quantum privately 10 years now watching this and have some relief.
I am quite in a superposition of liking and disliking this talk :-)
There should be a like\dislike superposition button on UA-cam
I would like to ask why, but I fear interfering with your opinion.
@@mustavogaia2655 HAHA !Funny and CLEVER!
Too funny!
'Superposition' is a vast field.
Let (1;0) demean 'like' and (0;1) 'dislike', a superposition can be everything of the form (cos(θ);sin(θ)) with some θ
for
cos²(θ) + sin²(θ).
Wow...that was very profound. I will meditate on that last part.
@ 32:06
1) Information is not an already existing and fixed property of a single component but is created only when two components are interacting with each other.
2) Even the most elementary component has the potential to create every possible information, only depending on the properties of the component or system it is interacting with.
3) Information can be seen as the pattern created by the interfering of the energies (properties) of two components.
4) The created information (pattern) is a shared (interwoven) property of both components.
5) If two components interact they create information as an energy pattern that is a new component in it´s own.
I = e2
quantum physics - every time you learn something you realize you dont know shit and now need to learn another 10 things
:-)
vern cuckular a old Hebrewism States That very concept.
vern cuckular 👍🏾
Might have said "slit". 😉
I forget who to quote here and I'm probably paraphrasing but someone said "The more you know, the more you know your in the dark about"
Great lecture, very much appreciated
I had never actually heard of that "20 questions" example/experiment before. That drastically increased my understanding. Thank you.
Not only is information influenced by it's environment, it is, at least partially, DERIVED by it. Makes me think of a falling & cascading pattern of black and white domino's, which either reads "707" or "LOL" depending on how you "spin it." Yukyukyuk.
We play "Who am I" every Xmas. Somebody makes out a post it note with a name written on it and sticks it on the "victim's" forehead where he can't see it. The victim then goes round all the participants asking 20 questions with a yes or no answer, with each answer building to a logical conclusion. By a process of elimination, I identified my name as EINSTEIN!
At 39 he talks of particles and waves. He gives the same explanation that I arrived at years ago except that I put it "A photon is a particle or a wave depending on when you measure it." I thoroughly approve of the whole talk where he removes superstition from the quantum project.
Sounds, to me, like our understanding of our understanding has reached a point of recognition that all we have are measurements, and we can hypothesize about what's beyond them but we still only have what we measure to be certain of. Which, frankly, makes perfect sense if you think about it. We have the data points collected by measurement, and we can describe patterns across them, but of course we don't know what it "is" that drives the patterns - only that the patterns are consistent when we make more measurements in a consistent manner. What happens between our measurements? Who knows - we have zero information to base anything on with certainty, because we haven't measured between our measurements. We just know, with some certainty, what will probably happen when we measure again.
But this doesn't mean we cannot try to find an answer to "what is happening between measurements ?". But to find the answer is to comprehend what space-time and matter within are. Not to mention dark matter or energy which are just things that we need to be to the universe to work :P
@war monger I think we think about two different things - my point was that we can try to find out what's happening between measurements, but we still don't know about basic stuff like dark matter or energy - I didn't mean to live these two aside. And I'm curious how u could mess with dark energy :P When we even can't measure it directly :D :D :D Not to mention dark matter which only interacts with gravitation field :P
Well, hey, at least that's something. God knows what else these guys might be out doing if they didn't have all this math to distract them.
What is the path of information in the detector? The quantum object hits an atom in the detector. How does that flow through the rest of the equipment to become a reading on a dial?
What a brilliant lecture. Love it.
you understood nothing
About entanglement and the sharing of information: Information is not actually traveling but it is local at the site of measurement. Basically, the observer already has the possible outcomes onsite at the time of measurement, and the state of the entangled object at a distance is not actually shared, and it never changes based on measurements, and information doesn't travel when measuring but each object contains information about the other object and the state is determined LOCALLY by the entanglement rules that were set prior experimentation. When you measure one object, you automatically know the state of the other with the info and rules you have on hand, without sending any info to the other object. The objects are in fact completely detached from each other.
I was getting frustrated and disappointed as you started listing things right at the beginning of your talk, but you made me laugh with relief when you crossed it all out. That was fun. Thanks!
Same, Lol!
As I see it, this man is suggesting that Richard Feynman's approach and to a large extent Leonard Susskind's also, are preferable as they do not offer metaphors which necessarily have serious limitations and also have a tendency to ultimately mislead.
I find this talk absolutely fascinating!
but am wondering about its implications for quantum computing....it's not obvious.
I think this is probably the most brilliant video about quantum physics that I've seen in many years.
Beautifully presented.
omg that box analogy was a huge mess.
first of all he interpreted his rules wrong.
A1? = R?
A2B2 = RD or DR
anything else = RR or DD
so the combinations are
A1B1 = R?
A1B2 = R?
A2B1 = RR or DD
A2B2 = RD or DR
nothing else was specified. So now the question is how do you solve for A1, A2, B1, B2
A1 is already known to be R so we have that knocked out.
A2 is not known as it was not specified whether A or B returned the R.
Same with B2, not known since we don't know whether A or B returned the R.
IF in A2B2, A2 returned the R, then A2=R, then no matter what, A returns R. Thus:
A1B1 = R?
A1B2 = R?
A2B1 = RR
A2B2 = RD
this means that B1 = R and B2 = D
A1B1 = RR
A1B2 = RD
A2B1 = RR
A2B2 = RD
A1B2 satisfies the rule since the rule does not say that ONLY A2B2 returns RD. It says A2B2 returns RD but it does not claim that no other combination returns RD.
IF in A2B2, A2 returned D, then A2 = D, Thus:
A1B1 = R?
A2B2 = R?
A2B1 = DD
A2B2 = DR
This means that B1 = D and B2 = R.
A1B1 = RD
A2B2 = RR
A2B1 = DD
A2B2 = DR
Again, A1B2 satisfies the rule, as does A1B1.
TLDR he could have looked for some other analogy. This one was badly constructed and made my head hurt.
No, if A2 equals R, A1B2 does not satisfy the rule as any other combination except A2B2 has to be RR or DD. Similarly, when A2 equals D, A1B1 does not satisfy the rule by the same logic and therefore the overall probability of it being correct is indeed 3/4. Although right, I do agree he could have explained it a bit better.
His rules are:
A1...=R...
A2B2=RD or DR
Anything except A2B2 is RR or DD.
Therefore, A1B1 and A1B2 both have to be RR because of the third rule. A2 has to be D now because of the second rule therefore A2B2=DR, A2B1==DR which is wrong.
@Laksh Arora Actually the problem with rule 3 is that "anything else" does not specify only applying to rule 2. it could mean anything else besides rule1 and 2, which leaves A1? unspecified.
A1B2 does not satisfy rule 3 which states that ANY combination that is not A2B2 will produce either RR or DD. So in my opinion the problem has no valid solution that is compatible with the set of rules that were stated. But I totaly agree with you that this was a bad analogy and was painful to watch.
Yes you are right. It should have been defined properly. Well we all agree it was painful to watch.
@@SharkiceLP that is not what rule 3 says but i don't blame you i was digging my fingers into my skull
Best lecture I have heard on quantum mechanics.. Infact beyond best.. ❤️❤️❤️
Mind blown. Great insights!
Thank you it was very good and down to earth.
I think that some of the confusion about quantum mechanics stems from what we consider a particle to be. Most people tend to think of an extremely small spherical object, like a tiny ball bearing. I would propose that a particle is actually a disturbance in space/time. This can be wide spread like a wave or more localized like a particle, but both are our interpretations of the same thing.
Why is it that things can only travel one direction in time? You might say because of the laws of causality. Something has to happen at a later time than the thing which caused it. But what if particles at the quantum level do not recognize the laws of causality because they do not have to? They travel both directions in time and so appear to be in many places at the same time until they interact with something which does obey the laws of causality (this may be our attempt to measure their position) in which case they too have to obey the laws of causality and appear to have definite position.
This is only a theory and is not a complete explanation, so feel free to criticize it.
Fantastic, clear and structured without messy mysticism!
12:30 - THANK YOU. You are literally the first person I've heard get that EXACTLY RIGHT. Most people talking to lay audiences just cannot resist saying "the particle can be in two places at once." It's so mysterious and exciting.
Ok - so how does it interfere with itself in the two slit experiment?
@@cybergornstartrooper2157 The WAVE is in many places at once. But a WAVE may represent just one particle located at a single place. The way nature works in tiny scale is very different from how it works at our scale. Physics at our scale is like the summation of billions of individual quantum operations at the atomic scale.
Great lecture, makes you think a lot
“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane”- Nicola Tesla
happy to read a comment like this, insanity rules youtube's autoplay algorithms..
Nicola? Didnt know she was a famous engineer
Yes sir you are firmly committed in Tesla and you can do much more than he thought about the situation of the world problem with monitoring people who don't understand that density of the world between world's every vibration has moved in the works for expansion and contraction in a state of motion and mindfulness of it.
Touché
This was very much needed!! I really have been having issues talking about quantum. To people that understand quantum because of ant man and the wasp.
Philip Ball says he's talking about QM itself, rather than any interpretation of it. But then he discusses the Born probability theory and wave function collapse, two features of the Copenhagen Interpretation that are not needed in David Bohm's 1952 interpretation of QM. He says that QM tells us what can be known and what cannot be known, but that is actually true of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In Bohmian mechanics, the only "weird" behavior left is the wave function itself. The paths of particles are completely deterministic, and indeed have been measured in recent "weak measurement" experiments.
@Dirk Knight Nonsense. There is no such thing as "physical sense" because our commonsense understanding of physics was learned in our scale, not in the atomic scale. All the QM interpretations are accepted for the good reason that they all make mathematical sense in one way or another. Given that we (hopefully) have hundreds of years of development of physics still ahead of us, I think we are in a pretty good place.
Thanks for sharing.
Philip Ball's book Beyond Weird is really good, I'd recommend it to anyone here.
yeah.. i ate it.. STILL CHEWING ;-) NOT BAD THIS FROG IS :-) STILL MOVING :-)
Dancing Wu Li Masters
Watch professor George Lees
Agree completely. I took it out of my public library, but I'm sorely tempted to "liberate" it. No one could love it as much as I do.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Great lecture. My very humble opinion (from the point of view of a programmer), Philip is describing a code written specifically with object oriented language. So I guess there is no one formula or unification of formulas. These objects with properties. An object can have children that inherit its properties. A child can stay attached to its parent or become independent object. All these classical formulas only describe how to inherit a property and how this affect the parent properties values. How a child stay attached or become independent. Such view will satisfy all the ifs Philip was mentioning. Which may result in no extra dimensions also. If the brain is physical thing that behaves like a computer code, then why not quantum world also.
The way around it is to think of entangle objects as not two objects, but one object. They are two things that are connected and locked into position..which basically makes them one thing. The distance between them doesn't matter, because no matter how far apart they are, they are still basically one system of merged objects. They are probably "landlocked" by all five of the forces..
@Yogi Steven):
Yogi Steven, here's how I understand the intriguing comment that you made:
"What Philip Ball is saying is that what has been described as QM thus far is really
a set of statements about OBSERVABLE effects in the quantum realm, and NOT the
actual mechanism by which those observable effects are produced."
Ball also seems to be saying that QM thus far is a description of what to expect
when you MEASURE an object in the quantum realm, and NOT necessarily a
description of the quantum object itself. "As it stands, QM does not permit us
to say anything with confidence about reality, beyond what we can MEASURE."
[1:05, 3:27, 4:12, 8:10, 9:05]
So, this reminds me of looking at a 2D poster that reveals a 3D image, if you relax your focus. However, I'm still not able to relax my eyes, so I have to simply believe I can see it eventually.
I understood it perfectly, which makes me love quantum physics even more !
I get out of this the same thing I get out of several other talks (and books) that try to explain how to interpret quantum mechanics: QM is trying to tell us something about the nature of reality that our brains are not wired to be able to process. Or at least not easily or reliably process. Luckily we can deal with it indirectly via mathematical formalism.
Really great speach!!
I'm quite certain that an eternally inquisitive mind like Richard P. Feynman would not have said "What more do you want?". I've read enough about him and seen enough of his interviews that I'm convinced he wasn't the kind who was merely satisfied with a mathematical answer. I think it's more likely that he admitted his inability to understand QM at a deeper level at the time, which speaks more about his integrity as a scientist and a researcher.
da1otta unless he was just joking around, he does seem to have been a happy go lucky guy🙃
Jack Bean Indeed! :)
well you are entitled to your opinions I am sure we are are just dumbfounded..
Not really: Feynman didn't cover himself in glory in this area at first. Search arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf for 'Feynman' (arXiv link is arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508180 ).
Scientists have unfortunately given up on the ontological and philosophical problems. I hope others will continue though.
I'm just a layman in all this but it seems to me that wave simply refers to all the potential or statistically possible outcomes of a quantum particle depending on where, how and when it ends up interacting with another quantum particle (with our measurements within quantum systems being just one of an infinite number of ways such interactions might occur) at which time the wave "collapses" or ceases to exist for the simple reason that what was once just statistical probability is now reality.
The problem is that those interactions are interactions with itself sometimes, as if a particle could be in two places at once! The double slit uses photons one at a time and observes wave interference as if (much like with water waves, or any waves) the wave has gone through both slits and interfered with itself, even though its only a single particle.
3:48 : “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.
It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.”
― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
These ideas make sense, and to me at least, make the weirdness associated with Quantum Mechanics much less weird. Like so many others, I worked with the equations in graduate school, and listened to the unsatisfying attempts to explain what the results meant in the real world. This short video has motivated me to pull out my dusty textbooks, and go back and re-read them with a completely different perspective.
I just moved his book to the top of my reading list and plan to read it immediately after I watch his second video. Just scanning the book shows that while difficult, it is understandable to the non-scientist. You do not need a Kindle to read it, Amazon provides a reader online.
He screwed up with the boxes. If I didn't know about Bell's theorem, I would never understand what he means. Very confusing.
The 20 question game, on the other side, was a great example I never heard of before. Does anybody know where to read about it more?
That game reminds me how we arrive at "correct" answers regarding our life. Imagine for example: you are in a sect... others share the same axioms You as a sect member are likely to believe in, or at least you really deeply want to believe in them. In most of the cases these axioms support such human qualities, that most of us would agree upon the need of them). Those who are around You will answer your questions according to a more or less developed ideology based on these suppositions. Even the stupidest religious "system" can fulfill your needs to be guided in situations which are beyond your capabilities of problem solving. Most of the solutions will aim at preserving the integrity of the sect. So in many cases You will have to sacrifice leisure-time/spare-money/hobby... something. BUT isn`t it so with every society? The basic and most conspicuous difference between a modern, relatively young sect and a primitive tribe (with naive worldview) is that while the rules of the tribe allows Your deep integration not only with the tribe but also with the surroundings (mostly nature). Sects, on the other hand emphasises group coherence at the expense of Your natural roots... the less roots You have outside the sect, the more dependent You are on it...
Google knows EVERYTHING.
It is surprisingly difficult to design an analogy that works as well as Philip's black boxes do, with their 75% and 85% predictions. Yes, it can be confusing. There is an excellent long answer here that clarifies it wonderfully.
If only had this lecture existed in the times when I've been studying optoelectronics! I can see how some of the tough concepts would've been easier to comprehend. This guy is an absolute wonder in terms of how such a difficult topic is explained and how he keeps you engaged throughout the presentation. Perhaps there's no easier way to summarise what's quantum mechanics is all about.
Nice presentation, Dr. Ball.
The analogy of the 20 questions game is very intriguing.
Mindboggling lecture..this guy's ahead of his time. Quote that I took (and updated) from this: "The very notion of there being an answer only makes sense when you play the game. _So start playing.”_
What I learned: pounding Alice's box produces a rabbit. 15:43
Really great presentation. Although I found the example with the boxes and stuffed animals a little confusing in the way it was set up.
Life teaches us stuff and if we can catch those moments, we are truly blessed. For example, years ago I was passing through El Paso and happened upon a barbershop that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Hair Returned*". Upon seeing the asterisk, I read the fine print down below, which said, "If you can't read ask the bootmaker next door."
In the same spirit of integrity, I think certain videos really ought to come with a notarized promise stating, "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Time Refunded".
And this video clip by Mr. Ball should be one of them.
Furthermore, after the whole Lance Armstrong doping fiasco, my takeaway was don't trust anyone who only has one ball, even if they openly declare it in their name.
Quantum physics - the more you know, the less important knowing becomes.
Thats definitely not true
The more you know, the less certain you become that you knew anything to begin with.
madeupmedia right on!
@@iandoyle5017 In the context of Uncertainty Principle.
@@2001StarChild sure, sure, like a fantasy of a context your absolutely certain is true.
Thank you for your talks, they are awesome. Greetings from Argentina.
Excellent video. Thank you for the upload. Watching on the equator next to Indian ocean. Damn mosquitoes keep interrupting.... whack!
Sounds lovely, maybe if you smoked a cigar the mosquitoes would go away. Then it would be heaven.
The term particle used particularly on quantum physics may be is a energy which is not actually a physical things
Huzzah! Thanks to the generous support of our Patreon supporters, we now have English language subtitles for this video! If you have a spare dollar or pound to support our work, you can head over to Patreon too and see what we're up to: www.patreon.com/TheRoyalInstitution
So you are not only a physicist but a quantum physicist but you got it wrong? The intersection of a Venn diagram is bleak not to mention your asking me to be a descendent of the 11th Hussars.
Could it be that ,,gues a person" outcome would depend on the same algorithme as ,,natural selections" algorithme?
Reading ,,Darwin's dangerous" book and watching this video...
The outcome of the game and biological mutation seem to have similar q.mechanics. ?
And now The Royal Institution will show that Lord Monckton is wrong about the co2 feedback
Robert lanza
The Alice/Bob, rabbit/dog thing was really confusing.
The Bell Inequality is not easy to understand or accept without the full maths, which I recall took three one-hour lectures to get through. I'd be interested to hear a better condensation of the material, but my recommendation is to do it properly as it's quite a revelation.
Lucky you!
He has put an explanation, link in the description.
Very good video. I am glad that I can wrap my mind around this so easily!!!
One of the best QM lectures I've seen. Thank you!
OUTSTANDING! ( I hated all the interruptions by commercials but) this was one of the best lectures on quantum theory I have heard in awhile... I must get his book! I followed what he was saying very well and he simplified things to a point that I think we needed in this field and have needed for awhile.. I see that a lot of people here did not appreciate this much.. One person said it made them doubt all the QM people he knew and that he was looking for something new... I found that it reinforced what I have learned and cleared away some of the complicated fog that surrounds the quantum world... This was not a lecture about quantum theory but on the perspectives of interpretations of quantum theory.. and as such I enjoyed it... thank you Dr. Ball.
I agree! Brilliant! Definitely moving in the right direction. And entirely consistent with the primacy of Consciousness as the basis of reality. What he is saying is that what has been described as Quantum Mechanics thusfar is really a set of observations about EFFECTS produced by the quantum realm and not the actual MECHANISM by which the effects are produced. He's directing our attention to the basis of these effects in INFORMATION. Consciousness = Information = Quantum Particle Effects = Classical Physics = Existence. The missing link to complete the conscious feedback loop between Existence and Consciousness and back again is the emergent Information Theoretic.
www.SpiritScienceYoga.com
facebook.com/SpiritScienceYoga
#SpiritScienceYoga
Excellent point. Perspectives!!!!! not the theory. Thought it was a great talk also. Even the "rules" aren't absolute as a particles position is not absolute.
Is a brilliant lecture. Only thing I found weird was the advert for freddo frogs coming up on a Quantum mechanics lecture 🤔
what did he mean "entanglement lessens over distance"? I thought it worked over great distance...other then that it did not hurt my head..
@Yogi Steven:
"What Philip Ball is saying is that
what has been described as
QM thus far is really a set of
OBSERVATIONS about effects
PRODUCED BY the quantum realm
and not the actual mechanism
by which the effects are produced."
Yogi Steven, here's what I understand you to be saying:
"What Philip Ball is saying is that
what has been described as
QM thus far is really a set of
STATEMENTS about effects
OBSERVED IN the quantum realm
and not the actual mechanism
by which the OBSERVED effects are produced."
I realize that I'm totally in the dark about these things but it sounded to me that this ignores the whole double-slit experiment stuff. If the wave collapse is simply illustrating the collapse of uncertainty, how does that create changes in interference patterns? Maybe I should stay awake when I listen.
Its not ignoring double slit at the very end he talks about the ifs and the is's of quantum mechanics. Double slit is an observation of a phenomenon a "measurement" of the property of light quantum mechanics tells us that IF we run the double slit experiment we get interference patterns. It doesnt tell us that light IS a wave that IS is an interpretation. At the same time experiments involving photoelectron creation and photon absorption shows us that IF we run this experiement then we get this result. The IS (light IS a stream of particles) is an interpretation but NOT what quantum mechanics in and of itself states
@@angusyim7395 how do we explain the patterns and the "collapse" when we measure then? Surely everything he said would negate results like that being possible. I believe that the interference caused by the equipment theory was debunked if I'm not mistaken?
Angus Yim -then explain how a single photon interferes with itself?
More importantly this does not explain how leaving the detector in place but discarding the results still creates an interference pattern.
great talk!
17:15 They can already switch output depending on what's put in without any commuication. This was stipulated in rule 2.
The 20 questions metaphor is brilliant! Pedagogically at least.
And to make a joke about the ifness versus the isness. The answer just went from 42 to "if 42". And we are all the wiser.
One of the best presentations on a misunderstood topic. Awesome discussion, really helped clear up my misconceptions.
not
the game example was very interesting was the best explanation ,I had ever seen as a non-physicist of how quantum physics works/might work. This speech made me wander: as the scale gap is huge; how many forms of the same physics are there beyond classical and quantum ? . (there is at least the 3rd form where both rules apply , and may be there is a 4th , 5th , 6th one as well?
QM-TIMESPACE wave-package is a composite of resonant tuning, the multi-phase state.
Everyone understands QM when it's correctly identified in a rational and reasonable terminology.
This is the most intelligible talk I've heard on Quantum Physics. It starts to make sense. We need more of this perspective.
Watch stanford quantum machanics classes on line this is moving fast.
10:22 - Not "where the particle is" but "where we measure the particle to be". There is an important distiction. A different measuring apparatus measuring the same event would result in a different conclusion, different data. All we have is the result of measurement, not the thing-in-itself. Unless we decide to call the result of our measurement the "thing-in-itself", which would be very restrictive and close down further enquiry and speculation and experimentation.
What Dr Ball is advocating is a way of speaking about QM that just shoves its jarring philosophical implications out of the picture. As he says at the end the stuff that the iffness (his language info approach) refers to we do not know (its a tricky business he says). But it only reinforces the mystery he seeks to obviate. A good lecture.
A novice in QM (Quantum Mechanics) might find some useful thought provoking sentiments in this. But if you've already come to terms with how QM works - it's not really anything new. I did like the part about "Ifness" vs "Isness" - It's far better to explain QM's to others using this. Anything beyond that would be conjecture anyway.
Personally, I think this is mostly a lot of slightly dishonest hand-waving in an attempt to cling to determinism by marginalizing real science. He acts like the wave function is purely an abstract tool for visualization, with no real relationship to measurable behavior. The double slit experiment shows that the actual phenomena behave according to probabilistic wave functions, in ways which are not in line with his attempted marginalization of everything which brings into question materialistic determinism. He starts out by saying that common interpretations of quantum effects are misleading, or untrue, but then virtually every objection he is able to raise against those interpretations depends entirely upon leaving out key pieces of very pertinent information, or through logical acrobatics that ultimately simply appeal to the notion that materialistic determinism must be valid, therefore some convoluted interpretation must be chosen over a more straightforward one. Scientism...
How is entanglement and superposition different?
It looks like everything is already entangled, then we isolat two particle/region of space and time. We make them synchronize.
Synchronize to the point that they are identical.
This should illustrate that the whole universe is in a state of entanglement.
It is the bending of space and time that makes it look so divers.
So each point in the universe is the singularity of the big bag in a superposition and spread through space and time.
To say it like that is missleading.
Let me do that again:
The singularity of the big bang is in a superposition state. Some of these states are expressed in our universe as perceived objects. When in fact those objects are just space.
Superposition can be observed in a single particle. Entanglement is found with two or more particles. That is, a single electron's spin can be indeterminate between up and down--that's superposition of the two spin states.
@@stevec7923 Thank you.
So superposition: one or several particle in different states at the same place and time.
Entanglement: one or several particle in the same state at the same time but in different places.
I say "one particle" because it could be the same particle at different places. And of course when I say particle i mean "the way space and time is bent".
Did i understand?
Thank you for clarifying.
I like the 20-questions analogy. It's a very intuitive way to look at QM's behaviour.
What I did not get is what's the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation. It has no hidden variables and according to Bell's theorem is a valid interpretation of QM. Also, IMO it gives a deeper insight into QM than MWT or superdeterminism by introducing a subject observing the object.
There is nothing really "wrong" with standard QM (the Copenhagen Interpretation). However, several other interpretations are considerably simpler in their axioms, assumptions, or in whether something must be hidden or mysterious. We need 10 or 20 years more to find out which interpretations are valid. Meanwhile, we have Occam's Razor to guide us.
"That remains to be seen" I agree.
Could it be that the Quantum field knows what we are thinking, what we want, desire? That it knows our actions even before we become conscious of them ourselves as being planned in our awareness? How would we define such a Quantum Field?