He’s conscious that anyone who spends time on these questions only needs to be trained in physics to understand physics but to understand life he treats everyone as capable. For most scientists, only sacrificing the position of their career and life’s work can they allow normal humans in to ask these questions with them. This doesn’t happen. Brian is a representation of humility & divinity meaning his intention comes from his heart first and survival secondly.
I'm impressed at his patience and focus he's over discribing things because he's got a very enthusiastic but under prepared speaker and the layed back tone of the conversation is leading her into the weeds without us
Don't get me wrong I like Brian but what he's dropping is Dogma unproven stuff check out James Webb Space Telescope new findings all this stuff is being disproven
"Elise Crull received a B Sc (Honors) in Physics & Astronomy from Calvin University, and holds an M.A. in Philosophy and Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to City College, Dr. Crull held post-doctoral fellowships at the University of Aberdeen and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducting research into the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. In addition to history and philosophy of science, Crull frequently ponders (sometimes aloud in front of audiences) philosophical problems associated with quantum theory: the quantum-to-classical transition, quantizing gravity, understanding quantum causal models, the metaphysical nature of entanglement (including temporal entanglement!) and, as of late, interpreting the alternate quantum formalisms used in quantum computing. She also has the occasional thought about quantum cosmology. While these questions keep Prof. Crull in conversation with physicists, she also loves a good metaphysics chin-wag. Topics of special interest there include ontology, meta-ontology, and mereology. Since her research interests are fundamentally interdisciplinary, Crull often finds herself engaging with related "meta" issues, such as the ethics of emergent techno-science, science in the public sphere/ in education, and the nature of the science-theology-philosophy triad."
@@wcsartanddesign When I get some time I will have a closer look at Elise's work. I have a lot of unanswered philosophical questions about how the current physics paradigm relates to the real universe and how much bias the human condition projects onto the pseudo reality of physics.
I usually get stomped on for suggesting that there is a certain connection that appears to exist "Across" time. I am no physicist but this seams to lend toward agency in what we loosely call time. In some sense this leaves me feeling that time is more fundamental and containing rules that are not obvious to us or are just outside of our ability to speculate on, measure or test (Maybe Time is a poor or misleading word, but I am not speaking of the measuring device or the measurement as we commonly conceive it). I have looked around and I am seeing many physicists who have and are questioning. The problem is that for now the best we can do is attempt to look at the problem from a different perspective and typically that falls into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics which are 2 taboo words in modern physics lol > Personally I suspect the missing information lays within the hidden layer of the event horizons. Event horizons and singularities appear to take us into that infinitely small moment in time which is hidden from us. Without a concept of progression or time the universe has no human meaning to us, so it becomes a difficult realm for the mind to conceptualize.
ah, the old "FAILED SCIENTIST GOES SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR" shtick. I think you are onto something here! and before you reply: String Theory is dead. and so is Greenes research. what choice does he have, then to write popular books for the masses and make science shows?
15:58-Don't we see a similar level of probability distribution across far distances in space and time at the macro level as well? Meaning, when we observe a star or galaxy here on Earth we are measuring it, so it's in a relatively fixed position. But if we were to travel to it's location to directly interact with it, would it not wildly fluctuate in speed and position on our way there? Mirroring the same pattern of behavior we see at the atomic scale?
I'm not a scientist, but i think even stars are probabilistic based on a logical thought expirement I'll share with you. If u exist at the center of a circle, the angle u need to leave the center to reach a given spot on the edge gets more presise as the circle grows. Eventually, when the circle is so big due to the limits of space time (planck length), the angle can no longer become more presice, making any path traveled to the star probabilistic, as u can no longer be certain.
Okay. I must continue watching these conversations.. even though it's way above my intellectual weight class. I really like listening and trying to pick up what I can and examine it.
5:06 This is the best description of Quantum Mechanics, that explains exactly, the relation between the "everyday" perception of the reality and the scientific approach to the "real" reality, the scientific perception of the world! Dear Professor Mr. Brian Greene, thank you, so much for this. I think this description is what we all (the amateur scientists), need to have in our minds to be thinking more "clear", about all this. And thank you Elise Crull, you are presenting the Quantum World with the philosophical background we all the amateur scientists need to have in our minds when we trying to understand "Quantum Theory" and all those wonderful abstract ideas around "modern" or synchronous Science! World Science Festival: You are the Oasis in the Desert of this World! 💚Thank you All! 🌈
@@markoszouganelis5755 I can explain the problem of the "Human Condition" and our inescapable subjective awareness of the world (universe) beyond the self in far more detail, but put simply even the physicists and mathematicians ultimately paint there own version (description) of reality over the real universe. Philosophers are the only people who have capacity to relate that subjective reality to the real universe (objective truth), and even for them it is a difficult if not close to impossible task. Elise seams to have and is acquiring the skills to act as a translator, so I see her and any others with her ability as a necessary and needed part of a discipline (Physics) that has been stalled within it's own self defined prison for near 70 years :)
@@axle.student I think we us all ARE: "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and everyone of us thinks he is the center of the universe. And!...after all it's true! "And as he believed, we believe. So what it was for him, now it is for us too, and forever..!" (..and ever! And NEVER forget that)! Thank you my Good friend for commenting my comment! 🛸😊🌸= PEACE and LOVE and SCIENCE!
What epic timing. Last one week I have been researching about black holes and quantum entanglement, even accidently watched the show 3 body problem which had quantum entanglement in it.
Prof. Crull describes quantum phenomena beautifully. Schrodinger got it right. Entanglement isn't one of the properties of quantum mechanics, it's THE property. Instead of using decoherence to explain the suppression of quantum fluctuation in our world of macroscopic objects, maybe we should explain it with entanglement. The network of entanglements between particles in a large system makes it virtually impossible for particles to spontaneously change their state because they share their properties with all other particles in the system. The collective "state" of the proverbial cat is locked in by this network of entanglements, and the probability of superposition of living and dead states is vanishing small.
Elise, Thank you for what you do. I would take your course since the description of what you teach applies directly to my interests. I loved your enthusiasm! Another example of correlation over time comes from a version of the double slit experiment wherein a single photon or particle at a time is emitted, yet a wave pattern still forms. Q1. What does universal entanglement, should that be the case across spacetime, imply about the probabilistic nature of reality? Indeed, no one discusses how two spatially separated entities could communicate. (In the absence of any other explanations, I postulate that they do not see spacetime (a photon also does not). This possibility (somewhat outside the box - but others have questioned the existence and/or nature of spacetime) means there is no separation and no "communication" between the entangled particles. They remain two sides of the same coin. Q2. How is decoherence manifested in the double-slit experiment? Are the peaks somehow lower than they ought to be? Q3. How does relativity affect the wave function? Q4. What do you think of Donald Hoffman's work?
This idea that particle 1 and particle 4 are entangled through time, is thin at best. As all of the opposite qualities of 1 are alive in 2, and you use 2 to flip the spin of 3, which is entangled with 4. There is no spooky action backward through time. You measure the spin of 1. That value doesn't change when you measure 4. It's no surprise they agree because you made that happen normally through time.
@@7ramnique I would love to see an experiment that proved there was action forward or backward through time, outside normal means. That would show that the universe is time sliced, and our reality is the one we are "currently" experiencing. That would be HUGE. This is not that experiment.
QM certainly remains a set of principles but not yet a theory, even if entanglement involves space and time. Unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function involves much more than entanglement. It seems to involve 'error correction' mathematics or its algorithm that hides the truth.
Elise Crull and Brian Greene try so hard to communicate theories that reveal the uncertainty of how the universe works. I don't understand them but I get a sense of how connected and complex the universe is.
It isn't. It can be summarized all of it in the following: The universe is an empty three dimensional metric manifold on which systems (arbitrary human made partitions of the manifold) have one additive property called energy. ;-)
Well, this was impressive. Prof. Crull certainly has that persuasive storytelling ability, as does Greene. The last three minutes or so got complicated, but was still intriguing. Many thanks.
@JamesMulvale you need to look up bob greenyer, fractal tyroidal tripole moment. There is a plank force that travels 4c. There is more evidence then people realize. I'm going to give you a string of names you need to look into. Bob greenyer, John hutchison, salvitore pais, Ashton forbes, Dave rossi, there are people working on the technology of this problem. from the look of it military has had this figured out for some time. Mh370x flight.
@ 18:48 Brian says "all of those interaction (petting the cat, etc.) affect the quantum description of the cat, and… those interactions suppress the very parts of the quantum probability that are at odds with our experience, which is why our experience is as it is …" All that this statement is saying, which should not be too difficult to accept as reasonable, is that the function of the "conscious" human participant in these "interactions" is, first to 'map' them with his body's intelligent 'on-board, sensory-environment mapping computer' (or "conscious brain"), and then to use that map (and likewise previously derived/constructed related maps) to direct his body's subsequent momentum routing decisions (actions), thereby affecting the probability (by increasing some and reducing others) of the specific sequence of quantum 'detection' events which (in toto) constitute those 'self-perceived behavioral (inter-)actions', and thus of the set of 'quantum particle location- manifestations' that (in toto) comprise the structure of that perception. This boils down to recognition that the human observer's "sensory [self and his actions]-awareness waveform" is this otherwise purely random quantum probability wave universe engaged in its own "intelligent" (and hopefully soon to be "more intelligent") self-design and self-construction / configuration. I propose that the _structure_ of "the material universe" that we find ourselves participants in is comprised of the 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") of an otherwise structureless 'Scale-Uniform' superfluid Medium (SUM) -- Einstein's "spacetime", the 'stuff' whose otherwise featureless flow appears to "curve" with proximity to a gravitating particulate mass. The overall geometric "structure" of this otherwise structureless fluid's "pure" self-relative motion is that of a "particulate" horn toroidal fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole"), which -- apparently, by some means and mechanism [intimately related to and/or involving "the speed of light"], can 'self-fractalize', and/or generate the "appearance" of doing so. So, welcome to 'The Graviton', and let's recognize our [hopefully soon to be] intelligently self-aware human societal network (HSN) as a higher order extension and expression of the 'distributed network of "momentum" (or self-relative SUM-flow) re-routing particulate I/O devices' that "It" has apparently "selected" (or de facto "settled upon" if you prefer) as the foundational architecture (and operating principle) of its "self-organizing" mechanism.
we called it space-time for a reason , if particles are entangled in space , they're Also entangled in time time is the changing of space , or in short ... change
I would say yes.. if we imagine time like waves from droplet Round or like a ocean current maybe.. its connected throughout time yes? An maybe the past resonates through time. Having a littel hard wrapping my mind around it but think theres something to be said about the theory?
Since the fundamental particles dictate how the Universe works at the Planck scale, you could argue that is the real behavior of the Universe, and the way it appears to work at our scale and larger is the weird stuff.
The answer to the question posed @16:00 is NOT solely quantum mechanical. It lies within the combination of Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity. Aka Quantum Field Theory. This combined understanding of reality reveals our universe is a block-timed reality fundamentally emerging from fields of energy that span all of space and all of time.
10:45 I think its interesting to hear her talk,..I'm seeing (and hearing) a Jody Foster impersonator from the movie "Contact"...lol. She brilliant and gorgious!!!... maybe it's just me.
They were at one point real because I’ve seen them as a child. But never again since the 70s. My folks called them angels. But I’ve never met anyone past a certain age that has seen them. It’s been patched. Also our entire existing/reality is on a flat screen In space… no idea but creepy
Interested how you programmed an observation to make a spike other than suddenly change the potential field in the schroedinger equation. Did the clock speed of the iterative digital processor make a difference?
This one will be fun cannot wait to watch it tonight :) In the Ender's Game books they used a device called the Ansible that could communicate across many light years. The term was first used in a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1966 and some other authors also borrowed the term. In Enders Game this is how it worked (From wikipedia) It involved a fictional subatomic particle, the philote. The two quarks inside a pi meson can be separated by an arbitrary distance, while remaining connected by "philotic rays".This concept is similar to quantum teleportation due to entanglement; however, in reality, quark confinement prevents quarks from being separated by any observable distance.
SF so often predicts things before science gets around to discovering, proving or acknowledging them. Star Trek (somewhat) predicted the Moon landing 2.5 years before it actually took place (to be fair, he said "late '60s") One must be able to imagine a thing before it can be proven to exist.
Brian Green is very good at presenting arguments for thought and discussion. Elsie is very good at presenting arguments as well. Her doctorate degree is quite obvious. I enjoyed the discussion.
Thee question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete has been a subject of significant debate and discussion in the field of physics. This debate was sparked by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR), which questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics and argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory. In their paper, EPR argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of physical reality They proposed a criterion of physical reality, stating that in a complete theory, there should be an element corresponding to each element of reality, and a physical quantity should be predictable with certainty without disturbing the system . However, the debate surrounding this issue has continued, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward. Some have argued that the quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena fulfills all rational demands of completeness within its scope, particularly when viewed from the perspective of complementarity . The EPR paradox and its implications have been the subject of extensive analysis and debate, with important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The debate has also involved significant exchanges between Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning the completeness and locality of quantum mechanics . In summary, the question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete remains a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within the field of physics, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward.
Never having taken a science class, self taught, such as it is, one mystery, amongst many, that I will take to the grave with me, is why so many Physicist purported to have knowledge of QM , just seem to not understand the “Black Body Radiation Problem”, and what exactly Planck proposed as a solution. For instance, one, of many, Planck never believed or proposed that light consistent of particles and in fact later found such an idea nonsensical. An amazing distortion of the history of physics, by both Brian and Elise. Einstein gets full credit.
32:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties. P.S. 0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough. Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). 1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock. 2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
So the graph shown at 28:10 shows the interconnectedness of particles through time, while the Chinese experiment with entanglement from earth to a satellite would indicate a connection across time because of the American experiment that showed that astronauts traveling at high speed around the earth actually had a very slightly slower rate of the normal passage of time compared to that back on earth.
Could it be that measuring extremely distant macroscopic interactions is synonymous with measuring extremely microscopic interactions? Taking an unfathomably long time to reach and interact with a macroscopic object has a similar window of probabilistic outcome for said object, just as a microscopic object like particles has a window of probability prior to measurement? It's neat to think that fast forwarding the VERY distant macroscopic journey of a measurement/interaction to a very brief moment would be analogous to a brief quantum measurement. It uses the classical world to picture the quantum world, but just like any attempt at that it breaks down with things like entanglement.
At 26:43 for any of you younggins out there who do the PlayStation thing. During the PlayStation 2's lifetime they the company were playing around with this idea. Not sure if they're still using the spooky theory but in PlayStation 2 console it made some of the games I feel way better. While watching this I wonder if anyone's correlated information perhaps new eyes type of thing. Be well everyone, never stop being the chaos engines you are.
@@keithmichael112 as is the PlayStation 2 itself of some time The article itself might still be out there as well who knows. I agree it's amazing as well, definitely would put a twist on things with possibilities.
@@keithmichael112 lol. It's been a while although even that main screen's pretty interesting. By the way if it's your type of game maybe check out kingsfield or even drakengard.
Used properly with the right teacher at the right time that line just MIGHT get you out of trouble for late homework lol... BUT...even if it didn't it will ALWAYS be worth giving it a try! 🖖⚛️
I don’t know about you but my head fell clean off when she spat out “There are many people who still haven’t accepted what quantum mechanics is saying is that we have an Irrevocably probabilistic universe….”
As always, most stimulating! Quick questions: since entanglement is so ubiquitous, can I create entanglement in a kitchen counter experiment? If I have a liter of water at room temperature on the kitchen counter, what percentage of the water molecules should I expect to be entangled at any given time?
Questions regarding wave probability collapse due to measurement: how precise (localized) is the collapse? Shouldn't the precision of the localization itself have an uncertainty (related to the energy exchanged with the field quanta being measured)?
26:18 The "they are not talking to each other" is as much a philosophical stance because it allows you to say that there is no communication. But I am not so sure. Instead of "talking" to each other we reduce it to a "corroboration" - but we are just playing with words. What if, despite the fact that we don't want it to be, that information is being transmitted, then our view of time and space is far from complete and we still have not solved what "reality" really is, except it allows us to "be." Are we subservient to a system that we are yet to figure out. Is space folded back on itself, is infinity only a concept inside the human mind and that distance is another illusion as to the question about space and time; how can space be defined as nothing and yet have a characteristic that can be curved in the presence of matter. How can nothing be curved at all? But if it can, then why can distance not also be manipulated when we are observing and measuring entangled particles?
I want to see Elise Crull and Sean Carroll have a long debate. It'd be interesting to have Sabine Hossenfelder in there too. I find all their views plausible (mere decoherence, many worlds, and superdeterminism respectively). I want to know why each thinker rejects the others' views, and what each of their responses to those reasons for rejection are.
A very ancient indian thought in scriptures is about variable speed of time in different 'lokas' or 'realms'; It is interesting that those Indian texts are talking about these concepts much earlier than anything came out from western sciences about these topics. Also various celestial objects and their resident devas are said to have widely different scales of time based upon variable gravity of each. So it is not about only gravity bends space, gravity also slows time. One outcome of this concept is:- duration of a day on earth for humans [with our life span] is very different to a day for a moth's lifespan. Similarly a day of 'Brahma' is billions of years in human scale. Thus it is plausible that what we call as the uncertainty principle [for example of a particle] of being in this state or the other, is that, the particle in its time scale was in a particular definitive state, and in cyclical universe, was subsequently in a different state. But with our time scale, we see the particle as flicking speedily and thus following uncertainty principle in our time scale. Expand this thought, and for 'Brahma' the virtual game of humans [with very tiny time scales compared to Brahma's scale] is also akin to what the uncertainty of a quantum particle is to humans. I think it will be good idea to read ancient Indian scriptures with scientific curiosity. We might be sitting on a goldmine and not know about it!
I have a question. This maybe, because I am still learning. Has it been considered that our instruments are not advanced enough to make a proper detection of a particles position? Or, that the particles movement is too extreme to make a proper detection. Therefore, making the "observer effect" an equipment issue ? I read all these papers and picture these particles vibrating at a rate to extreme to detect. I ask this in all humility.Any response would be appreciated.
If you are really interested in understanding the position of particles or any other seemingly immeasurable or illogical particle behaviour then I recommend removing time from the equation and replace it with length. Using maths and classic physics you can define a single quanta of parameterized space which can be searched over to discover and isolate whatever you are wanting to learn more about using tools or hardware that can measure everything from photons to phonon wave forms to natural forces. These existed 14 billion years ago and are in the world you live in right now. They are natural and real and exist whether or not they have been observed. The lady on stage should maybe learn physics as she seems a little confused
The problem here is that there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. We teach this in high school, but absolutely nobody seems to be paying any attention. Then people go online and are being bombarded with the particle nonsense. Whatever nonsense they hear on the internet immediately overwrites their correct high school knowledge and that's why millions of folks like you are asking the same nonsensical question over and over again. ;-)
'The Ship of Theseus' come to mind when thinking about these sorts of things. As well, the idea of the "spime" of every Human life (look it up if you don't know, it's pretty cool). Hard to define oneself as a singular entity when we're always sloughing away particles, eating biomatter and shitting it out, regrowing hair and tissues, et cetera... All things are in a constant state of metamorphosis: select which state you wish to observe
My intuition on many worlds is that it resembles the picture I get when I try to imagine multiple time dimensions intersecting. Can someone with more skill than I have try thinking about the possible relationship between probability and orthogonal time?
During measurement what kind of interaction happens? Is it from the wavelength of the light? Is the measurement changes the energy of the object? Is scale of measurement matters? What would happen if we measure the object from small perspective?
Could it be that what we perceive as probabilistic properties of the quantum world be in reality the result of complex relations or entanglement with other particles ? In that senses if we could know of all the past or distant network of entanglement with other particles we could deduct the next position of an electron or whatever properties we identfy now as probabilistic ?
The discussion that starts at the 27:12 is fascinating. Non-locality is a very interesting phenomenon that I reading much on. I have not figured it out yet, but when I do, the Nobel Committee will be calling. Yea, right! Better wake up now from this entangled state :).
One thing I saw as missing is discussion of the axis about which spin is measured. I think, or my understanding is, that such spin is inherently aligned (up or down) with an axis of random choice. As such, it seems that spin is occurring about any and all axes simultaneously until measured. To me, that's not trivial. Doesn't this arise from the Stern-Gerlach experiment? How wrong am I?
The problem with trying to define particles that are entangled that never lived at the same time is in our definition and understanding of Time and the lack of a proper model for time that facilitates this necessary understanding. If you truly understand time, then you'll know that it doesn't matter what timestamp any particle carries since they do not truly exist solely in the type of "time" that current science has defined it as and may not at all. That's perplexing isn't it? Stay tuned for the philosophical explanation and model.
If everything is quantum waves in Einstein's time-space understanding the quantum entanglement of particles is closer to the advancement of overall physics. May the pioneers keep pushing forward. I especially like the equal and opposite spin after the measurement. I am exploring spin propulsion
You are asking very difficult question my friend! - Modern science has no idea what Field is!, Needier Energy, needier Space, Time, Gravity, El magnetism, Attraction....
In the two slit experiment the particles must experience a transverse randomisation effect of some kind. Maybe that is on the electromagnetic sinusoidal part of the particle perpendicular to the direction of its emission or some other unknown aspect of nature applicable at Planck lengths. This may sound like an hidden variables argument disputed by Bell but if entanglement exists in macroscopic space, then the influences on particles may be due to external variations interacting on matching internal ones over measurable distance.
What statement at 19:03 “it should be because it’s right”. Interesting…she says we can’t prove it or test it but it should be wildly accepted because “it’s right”. WHAT?
see TIQM by Cramer. Atomic scale events create QM waves going both forward in time & backwards in time. The reverse QM waves are essential to forming an entanglement. This approach eliminates the "spookiness".
Thank you. Very intelligent woman :) I have been getting stomped on for ages for even remotely suggesting that space-time may have some form of fundamental agency. When we change our context/perspective and allow the agency of space and time to have effect on on the material universe many of the unanswerable questions appear to fall into place. > I accept that it is difficult for humans to think or conceptualize complex ideas in 4D. It takes training to separate the classical human thinking out of the paradigm and it is not easy. The most difficult part is holding a thought containing an infinite number of event horizons in that 4D abstraction, but simplifying that abstraction down to a single and then just a small number of those event horizons makes it possible. Explaining to another person via a 2D or 3D realm is extremely difficult if not near impossible as the 4D context is immediately lost thus destroying the understanding that we are attempting to relate. > 2 good staring points are the spherical time histograms showing 3D space as flat spherical shells or layers of moments of the 3D in time. There are many hidden points of singularities as well as event horizons that are not immediately obvious. The other being that of the past and future light cones representations which also contain a large number (if not infinite) of intersecting singularities and event horizons. The 4 most notable being the event horizons at the side of the cones, the infinitely small intersect of the light cones past and forward event horizons at an infinitely small point in the "Now" present. and the depiction of the 2D plane that slices the "Now" moment at that intersect. That depiction of the "Now" plane in time is the event horizon where the quantum world is unfolding from moment to moment. There are an infinite number of event horizons (light cones) intersection at an infinitely small point across that 2D event plane. . So, we are at the question of what is connecting the intersect of ALL of those infinitely small points (light cone intersects) across that plane, that moment in time, that event horizon? We know if 2 or more of those intersecting points touch we have a classical interaction between particles in space at that event horizon in time, but what is the connection "across" that time plane for all entangled particles for that moment in time? The particle has no awareness of another particle outside of its infinitely small event horizon in that now moment. > I find myself separating that plane into a static moment of time (event horizon), and when that plane is progressing the concepts of relativity such as gravity and mass emerge and are knowable in the past light cone (in the wake of and trailing the event horizon of the time line).
RE entanglement, what if you applied conformal mapping to the spatial framework of the particles? Then in some transformed geometric sense you could end up with particles that are closer together or overlapping and would no longer have nonlocality from a non-Euclidean perspective. I mean I'm not a mathematican, but seems plausible?
Could it be that at that level subatomic particles are capable of illuminating linguistic prepositions that define their location in regards to a body?
The thing about entanglement is there were some thoughts that it was like a pair of gloves. If at the end if a party I go home with one glove and my friend accidentally took the other.... if I have the left hand glove I immediately know he has the right hand glove. These properties were known to exist before the so called entanglement of two gloves...this quality is always entangled for the pair.... but its pre-existing...of course if I measure left i immediately know you measure right. But an experiment by a guy named Bell in the 1960s showed statistically that the entanglement qualities we measure are not pre existing like a pair of gloves. More than this is cannot explain but its been shown entanglement is not a pre-existing quality but really is only determined when measured.
it is interesting that scientists come up with different questions every time. To the question, yes they can be, as the question does not mention about space. Space and time are same but look different for observers viewing differently.
I like the dart board bit. If the board were swinging on it's nail and the dart were moving in a straight line; it's eventual position on the board would be a probability, like a wave function. But if the frequency of the board and speed of the dart were at the speed of light then they would inevitably meet. There would be a simultaneity.
I would assume it would have to seeing how space and time are basically the same. if you entangled 2 particles then moved them to the other side of our galaxy, would they not experience time dilation in some manner proving entanglement across "time"?
Just curious, isn't entanglement proof of higher dimension? I postulate that the information is actually travelling on or is connected via a different plane or higher dimension beyond our accessible 3-dimensional space, perhaps the higher dimensions begin to manifest at smaller and smaller scales of our 3D universe. I'd be keen to hear a string theorist opinion on this. Thanks for the informative clips.
Is there quantum entanglement over vast distance as a result of Hawking radiated particles that lost half their identity into an event horizon? Does charge of a black hole bias in favor of positive or negative charge of the radiation, which would sift matter from antimatter, depending.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
I keep being impressed by how precise Brian describes everything when he formulates the questions. He never oversimplifies too much. It's great
We need to protect this kind of people! Give them more than they are given!
He’s conscious that anyone who spends time on these questions only needs to be trained in physics to understand physics but to understand life he treats everyone as capable.
For most scientists, only sacrificing the position of their career and life’s work can they allow normal humans in to ask these questions with them. This doesn’t happen.
Brian is a representation of humility & divinity meaning his intention comes from his heart first and survival secondly.
What I took away from this is that what happens in Vegas does *not* stay in Vegas.
UH-OH
I'm impressed at his patience and focus he's over discribing things because he's got a very enthusiastic but under prepared speaker and the layed back tone of the conversation is leading her into the weeds without us
The smallest unit of matter called Rupa-Kalapa contains 24 derived matter based on 4 basic matter.
This is better than anything on streaming services right now and Brian Greene is dropping 🔥🔥🔥 for FREEEE
Interesting when weird physics model is drawing room to bed room needed an explanation for realty.
After all it fire band .
oh, he dropped (his research and the ball) a long time ago. in the trashcan, where they belong!
Buddhist Cosmology and the ultimate truths of nature are super amazing.
Don't get me wrong I like Brian but what he's dropping is Dogma unproven stuff check out James Webb Space Telescope new findings all this stuff is being disproven
@@smlanka4u Not really
"Elise Crull received a B Sc (Honors) in Physics & Astronomy from Calvin University, and holds an M.A. in Philosophy and Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to City College, Dr. Crull held post-doctoral fellowships at the University of Aberdeen and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducting research into the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics.
In addition to history and philosophy of science, Crull frequently ponders (sometimes aloud in front of audiences) philosophical problems associated with quantum theory: the quantum-to-classical transition, quantizing gravity, understanding quantum causal models, the metaphysical nature of entanglement (including temporal entanglement!) and, as of late, interpreting the alternate quantum formalisms used in quantum computing. She also has the occasional thought about quantum cosmology.
While these questions keep Prof. Crull in conversation with physicists, she also loves a good metaphysics chin-wag. Topics of special interest there include ontology, meta-ontology, and mereology.
Since her research interests are fundamentally interdisciplinary, Crull often finds herself engaging with related "meta" issues, such as the ethics of emergent techno-science, science in the public sphere/ in education, and the nature of the science-theology-philosophy triad."
Thanks for the background. Elise seams like someone I could relate to and listen to all day.
@@axle.student They deserve their own show, it's simple really.
@@wcsartanddesign When I get some time I will have a closer look at Elise's work. I have a lot of unanswered philosophical questions about how the current physics paradigm relates to the real universe and how much bias the human condition projects onto the pseudo reality of physics.
I usually get stomped on for suggesting that there is a certain connection that appears to exist "Across" time. I am no physicist but this seams to lend toward agency in what we loosely call time. In some sense this leaves me feeling that time is more fundamental and containing rules that are not obvious to us or are just outside of our ability to speculate on, measure or test (Maybe Time is a poor or misleading word, but I am not speaking of the measuring device or the measurement as we commonly conceive it).
I have looked around and I am seeing many physicists who have and are questioning. The problem is that for now the best we can do is attempt to look at the problem from a different perspective and typically that falls into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics which are 2 taboo words in modern physics lol
>
Personally I suspect the missing information lays within the hidden layer of the event horizons. Event horizons and singularities appear to take us into that infinitely small moment in time which is hidden from us. Without a concept of progression or time the universe has no human meaning to us, so it becomes a difficult realm for the mind to conceptualize.
What a beautiful, brilliant mind.
I have read his books , but Greene in this program is even better along with his colleagues. How great is it to have access to such programming!
See?!
Thank you for all you do Dr. Greene!
Brian Greene is one of the best Science communicators ever!
ya Physics for dummies. MOst of us :))
kinda not, hes been pushing string theory for 30 years but still better than kaku
@@marting2003 true:))
@@marting2003 ads/cft proved him right
ah, the old "FAILED SCIENTIST GOES SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR" shtick. I think you are onto something here!
and before you reply: String Theory is dead. and so is Greenes research.
what choice does he have, then to write popular books for the masses and make science shows?
I love Dr Crulls energy. Super excited. Like me trying to explaine the new videos at work lol. Thank you both greatly
She sounds like Dr. Ellie from Contact (1997)
The facts are doing most of the work. I could read you my shopping list in an overexcited manner if you doubt me
@@paulo.8899Look for my post before I saw yours.😉😇
@@paulo.8899It seems we are simpatico.😉😁
Nervous excitement
Only a stepping stone. But one of the most important ones you will explore. Much awaits you.
That was enlightening and wonderful all at once! Great questions and great responses!!
This popular education work that you are all doing (you both and your team(S)!) is respectble and potentially essential work. Thank you so much!
What an introduction! Amazing! I don't know how I missed this episode... glad to see it 6 month later.
Elise is a brilliant science communicator!
15:58-Don't we see a similar level of probability distribution across far distances in space and time at the macro level as well? Meaning, when we observe a star or galaxy here on Earth we are measuring it, so it's in a relatively fixed position. But if we were to travel to it's location to directly interact with it, would it not wildly fluctuate in speed and position on our way there? Mirroring the same pattern of behavior we see at the atomic scale?
I'm not a scientist, but i think even stars are probabilistic based on a logical thought expirement I'll share with you. If u exist at the center of a circle, the angle u need to leave the center to reach a given spot on the edge gets more presise as the circle grows. Eventually, when the circle is so big due to the limits of space time (planck length), the angle can no longer become more presice, making any path traveled to the star probabilistic, as u can no longer be certain.
Okay. I must continue watching these conversations.. even though it's way above my intellectual weight class. I really like listening and trying to pick up what I can and examine it.
5:06 This is the best description of Quantum Mechanics, that explains exactly, the relation between the "everyday" perception of the reality and the scientific approach to the "real" reality, the scientific perception of the world! Dear Professor Mr. Brian Greene, thank you, so much for this. I think this description is what we all (the amateur scientists), need to have in our minds to be thinking more "clear", about all this. And thank you Elise Crull, you are presenting the Quantum World with the philosophical background we all the amateur scientists need to have in our minds when we trying to understand "Quantum Theory" and all those wonderful abstract ideas around "modern" or synchronous Science!
World Science Festival: You are the Oasis in the Desert of this World!
💚Thank you All! 🌈
This is why Physics also needs philosophers :)
@@axle.student And also thats why Philosophy wants to be needed from the Physicists! It is the well known😊 Juliet-Romeo syndrome! 😊😊🌈🌈💚💚🤖🤖🌸🌸
@@markoszouganelis5755 I can explain the problem of the "Human Condition" and our inescapable subjective awareness of the world (universe) beyond the self in far more detail, but put simply even the physicists and mathematicians ultimately paint there own version (description) of reality over the real universe. Philosophers are the only people who have capacity to relate that subjective reality to the real universe (objective truth), and even for them it is a difficult if not close to impossible task.
Elise seams to have and is acquiring the skills to act as a translator, so I see her and any others with her ability as a necessary and needed part of a discipline (Physics) that has been stalled within it's own self defined prison for near 70 years :)
@@markoszouganelis5755 I will throw in a quote from one of my favourite fiction authors "And as he believed, so it was for him" - Richard Bach
@@axle.student I think we us all ARE: "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and everyone of us thinks he is the center of the universe. And!...after all it's true! "And as he believed, we believe. So what it was for him, now it is for us too, and forever..!" (..and ever! And NEVER forget that)! Thank you my Good friend for commenting my comment! 🛸😊🌸= PEACE and LOVE and SCIENCE!
Elise Crull is an excellent teacher!
she's too nervous. too much coffee
I gave this a thumbs up because the intro is, probably, perfect. Now...well, we shall see.
What epic timing. Last one week I have been researching about black holes and quantum entanglement, even accidently watched the show 3 body problem which had quantum entanglement in it.
Prof. Crull describes quantum phenomena beautifully. Schrodinger got it right. Entanglement isn't one of the properties of quantum mechanics, it's THE property. Instead of using decoherence to explain the suppression of quantum fluctuation in our world of macroscopic objects, maybe we should explain it with entanglement. The network of entanglements between particles in a large system makes it virtually impossible for particles to spontaneously change their state because they share their properties with all other particles in the system. The collective "state" of the proverbial cat is locked in by this network of entanglements, and the probability of superposition of living and dead states is vanishing small.
Sounds cool and it's 100% wrong. Schroedinger didn't get it right. His equation is just a crude approximation of reality.
This is SO AWESOME! What a wonderful conversation and love the enthusiasm!
Elise, Thank you for what you do. I would take your course since the description of what you teach applies directly to my interests. I loved your enthusiasm!
Another example of correlation over time comes from a version of the double slit experiment wherein a single photon or particle at a time is emitted, yet a wave pattern still forms.
Q1. What does universal entanglement, should that be the case across spacetime, imply about the probabilistic nature of reality?
Indeed, no one discusses how two spatially separated entities could communicate. (In the absence of any other explanations, I postulate that they do not see spacetime (a photon also does not). This possibility (somewhat outside the box - but others have questioned the existence and/or nature of spacetime) means there is no separation and no "communication" between the entangled particles. They remain two sides of the same coin.
Q2. How is decoherence manifested in the double-slit experiment? Are the peaks somehow lower than they ought to be?
Q3. How does relativity affect the wave function?
Q4. What do you think of Donald Hoffman's work?
Brian Greene explains complex concepts in simple terms with a clear and likable voice!!
But we have Godel to thank for keeping us all grounded.
This idea that particle 1 and particle 4 are entangled through time, is thin at best. As all of the opposite qualities of 1 are alive in 2, and you use 2 to flip the spin of 3, which is entangled with 4. There is no spooky action backward through time. You measure the spin of 1. That value doesn't change when you measure 4. It's no surprise they agree because you made that happen normally through time.
Pretty much this. That result is sensationalized to no end.
Agree...nothing profound there.
There may be spooky action backward through time, massive at that.
@@7ramnique I would love to see an experiment that proved there was action forward or backward through time, outside normal means. That would show that the universe is time sliced, and our reality is the one we are "currently" experiencing. That would be HUGE. This is not that experiment.
QM certainly remains a set of principles but not yet a theory, even if entanglement involves space and time. Unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function involves much more than entanglement. It seems to involve 'error correction' mathematics or its algorithm that hides the truth.
Elise Crull and Brian Greene try so hard to communicate theories that reveal the uncertainty of how the universe works. I don't understand them but I get a sense of how connected and complex the universe is.
It isn't. It can be summarized all of it in the following: The universe is an empty three dimensional metric manifold on which systems (arbitrary human made partitions of the manifold) have one additive property called energy. ;-)
Well, this was impressive. Prof. Crull certainly has that persuasive storytelling ability, as does Greene. The last three minutes or so got complicated, but was still intriguing. Many thanks.
Excellent discussion!
I believe that our brains are quantumly entangled through time!!!
Right? Alan Watts had it right all along
@JamesMulvale you need to look up bob greenyer, fractal tyroidal tripole moment. There is a plank force that travels 4c. There is more evidence then people realize. I'm going to give you a string of names you need to look into. Bob greenyer, John hutchison, salvitore pais, Ashton forbes, Dave rossi, there are people working on the technology of this problem. from the look of it military has had this figured out for some time. Mh370x flight.
whatever
Ha! Maybe, I haven't thought about that - but I am now (or was then or will be now - lol)
@ 18:48 Brian says "all of those interaction (petting the cat, etc.) affect the quantum description of the cat, and… those interactions suppress the very parts of the quantum probability that are at odds with our experience, which is why our experience is as it is …" All that this statement is saying, which should not be too difficult to accept as reasonable, is that the function of the "conscious" human participant in these "interactions" is, first to 'map' them with his body's intelligent 'on-board, sensory-environment mapping computer' (or "conscious brain"), and then to use that map (and likewise previously derived/constructed related maps) to direct his body's subsequent momentum routing decisions (actions), thereby affecting the probability (by increasing some and reducing others) of the specific sequence of quantum 'detection' events which (in toto) constitute those 'self-perceived behavioral (inter-)actions', and thus of the set of 'quantum particle location- manifestations' that (in toto) comprise the structure of that perception. This boils down to recognition that the human observer's "sensory [self and his actions]-awareness waveform" is this otherwise purely random quantum probability wave universe engaged in its own "intelligent" (and hopefully soon to be "more intelligent") self-design and self-construction / configuration.
I propose that the _structure_ of "the material universe" that we find ourselves participants in is comprised of the 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") of an otherwise structureless 'Scale-Uniform' superfluid Medium (SUM) -- Einstein's "spacetime", the 'stuff' whose otherwise featureless flow appears to "curve" with proximity to a gravitating particulate mass. The overall geometric "structure" of this otherwise structureless fluid's "pure" self-relative motion is that of a "particulate" horn toroidal fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole"), which -- apparently, by some means and mechanism [intimately related to and/or involving "the speed of light"], can 'self-fractalize', and/or generate the "appearance" of doing so.
So, welcome to 'The Graviton', and let's recognize our [hopefully soon to be] intelligently self-aware human societal network (HSN) as a higher order extension and expression of the 'distributed network of "momentum" (or self-relative SUM-flow) re-routing particulate I/O devices' that "It" has apparently "selected" (or de facto "settled upon" if you prefer) as the foundational architecture (and operating principle) of its "self-organizing" mechanism.
I love the way my brain explodes when you talk about quantum entanglements reaching through time . Thankyou ❤
we called it space-time for a reason ,
if particles are entangled in space , they're Also entangled in time
time is the changing of space , or in short ... change
I would say yes.. if we imagine time like waves from droplet Round or like a ocean current maybe.. its connected throughout time yes? An maybe the past resonates through time. Having a littel hard wrapping my mind around it but think theres something to be said about the theory?
So, if the universe is spooky and weird at Planck length, does it become weirder/spookier, or more ordered at incomprehensibly large scales?
Yes
As above so below
Since the fundamental particles dictate how the Universe works at the Planck scale, you could argue that is the real behavior of the Universe, and the way it appears to work at our scale and larger is the weird stuff.
I like the question.
@@mosquitobightexactly.
Bro just dropped the hardest physics intro edit at the beginning.
Bro visited his friend.
The answer to the question posed @16:00 is NOT solely quantum mechanical. It lies within the combination of Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity. Aka Quantum Field Theory. This combined understanding of reality reveals our universe is a block-timed reality fundamentally emerging from fields of energy that span all of space and all of time.
Excellent.
Brian knows everything his guests present. 😉
10:45 I think its interesting to hear her talk,..I'm seeing (and hearing) a Jody Foster impersonator from the movie "Contact"...lol. She brilliant and gorgious!!!... maybe it's just me.
The idea discussed is the only thing that makes me consider ghosts being a scientific plausibility. Cool to see this question get covered!
They were at one point real because I’ve seen them as a child. But never again since the 70s. My folks called them angels. But I’ve never met anyone past a certain age that has seen them. It’s been patched. Also our entire existing/reality is on a flat screen In space… no idea but creepy
Dr Crull's magnificent hair is physics-defying!
Why so short? Is this being uploaded part by part?
Part 2 is Sean Carroll. Released an hour ago
Interested how you programmed an observation to make a spike other than suddenly change the potential field in the schroedinger equation. Did the clock speed of the iterative digital processor make a difference?
Just listen Brian, don't read the comments, unbelievable how much can i relax with this show.... Thanks for my mom that she beat me to learn English.
Great lectures on the space time and quantum
This one will be fun cannot wait to watch it tonight :)
In the Ender's Game books they used a device called the Ansible that could communicate across many light years.
The term was first used in a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1966 and some other authors also borrowed the term.
In Enders Game this is how it worked (From wikipedia)
It involved a fictional subatomic particle, the philote. The two quarks inside a pi meson can be separated by an arbitrary distance, while remaining connected by "philotic rays".This concept is similar to quantum teleportation due to entanglement; however, in reality, quark confinement prevents quarks from being separated by any observable distance.
SF so often predicts things before science gets around to discovering, proving or acknowledging them.
Star Trek (somewhat) predicted the Moon landing 2.5 years before it actually took place (to be fair, he said "late '60s")
One must be able to imagine a thing before it can be proven to exist.
Brian Green is very good at presenting arguments for thought and discussion. Elsie is very good at presenting arguments as well. Her doctorate degree is quite obvious. I enjoyed the discussion.
Thee question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete has been a subject of significant debate and discussion in the field of physics. This debate was sparked by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR), which questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics and argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory.
In their paper, EPR argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of physical reality They proposed a criterion of physical reality, stating that in a complete theory, there should be an element corresponding to each element of reality, and a physical quantity should be predictable with certainty without disturbing the system
.
However, the debate surrounding this issue has continued, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward. Some have argued that the quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena fulfills all rational demands of completeness within its scope, particularly when viewed from the perspective of complementarity
.
The EPR paradox and its implications have been the subject of extensive analysis and debate, with important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The debate has also involved significant exchanges between Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning the completeness and locality of quantum mechanics
.
In summary, the question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete remains a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within the field of physics, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward.
that rubik’s cube image is such a good image help !
"And that's pretty cool!"
Elise evokes a good Jodie Foster from Contact (1997).
Never having taken a science class, self taught, such as it is, one mystery, amongst many, that I will take to the grave with me, is why so
many Physicist purported to have knowledge of QM , just seem to not understand the “Black Body Radiation Problem”, and what exactly
Planck proposed as a solution.
For instance, one, of many, Planck never believed or proposed that light consistent of particles and in fact later found such an idea nonsensical.
An amazing distortion of the history of physics, by both Brian and Elise.
Einstein gets full credit.
32:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations:
the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging.
Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties.
P.S.
0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough.
Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT).
1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe.
Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H:
ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock.
2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
Brava👏🏼👏🏼 what a woman.. Brian Greene being a boss as always
So the graph shown at 28:10 shows the interconnectedness of particles through time, while the Chinese experiment with entanglement from earth to a satellite would indicate a connection across time because of the American experiment that showed that astronauts traveling at high speed around the earth actually had a very slightly slower rate of the normal passage of time compared to that back on earth.
Love it: “one of the guys” of physics history. 💪🏾
Could it be that measuring extremely distant macroscopic interactions is synonymous with measuring extremely microscopic interactions? Taking an unfathomably long time to reach and interact with a macroscopic object has a similar window of probabilistic outcome for said object, just as a microscopic object like particles has a window of probability prior to measurement? It's neat to think that fast forwarding the VERY distant macroscopic journey of a measurement/interaction to a very brief moment would be analogous to a brief quantum measurement. It uses the classical world to picture the quantum world, but just like any attempt at that it breaks down with things like entanglement.
As soon as I learned about quantum physics I looked upon fractals, sensitive dependents on initial conditions entirely changed my view
At 26:43 for any of you younggins out there who do the PlayStation thing. During the PlayStation 2's lifetime they the company were playing around with this idea.
Not sure if they're still using the spooky theory but in PlayStation 2 console it made some of the games I feel way better. While watching this I wonder if anyone's correlated information perhaps new eyes type of thing.
Be well everyone, never stop being the chaos engines you are.
They quantum entangled the Playstation 2? That's amazing
@@keithmichael112 as is the PlayStation 2 itself of some time The article itself might still be out there as well who knows.
I agree it's amazing as well, definitely would put a twist on things with possibilities.
@@cyrus05w it explains why my PlayStation exhibits spin like properties
@@keithmichael112 lol. It's been a while although even that main screen's pretty interesting. By the way if it's your type of game maybe check out kingsfield or even drakengard.
"Undulating waves of probability."
That line tripped me out a little.
_@dmonvisigoth1651_ -- Yes, it sounds like something H.P. Lovecraft would have written.
I am having trouble focusing as well since I too have become preoccupied with suffocating undulating waves.
Used properly with the right teacher at the right time that line just MIGHT get you out of trouble for late homework lol...
BUT...even if it didn't it will ALWAYS be worth giving it a try! 🖖⚛️
I don’t know about you but my head fell clean off when she spat out “There are many people who still haven’t accepted what quantum mechanics is saying is that we have an Irrevocably probabilistic universe….”
Koan:
Q: Does quantum mechanics have Buddha nature?
A: Uh, probably.
And the acolyte achieved sudden enlightenment.
As always, most stimulating! Quick questions: since entanglement is so ubiquitous, can I create entanglement in a kitchen counter experiment? If I have a liter of water at room temperature on the kitchen counter, what percentage of the water molecules should I expect to be entangled at any given time?
Nice😊😊. I hope to attend WSF when my degree ends.
Questions regarding wave probability collapse due to measurement: how precise (localized) is the collapse? Shouldn't the precision of the localization itself have an uncertainty (related to the energy exchanged with the field quanta being measured)?
26:18 The "they are not talking to each other" is as much a philosophical stance because it allows you to say that there is no communication. But I am not so sure. Instead of "talking" to each other we reduce it to a "corroboration" - but we are just playing with words. What if, despite the fact that we don't want it to be, that information is being transmitted, then our view of time and space is far from complete and we still have not solved what "reality" really is, except it allows us to "be."
Are we subservient to a system that we are yet to figure out. Is space folded back on itself, is infinity only a concept inside the human mind and that distance is another illusion as to the question about space and time; how can space be defined as nothing and yet have a characteristic that can be curved in the presence of matter. How can nothing be curved at all? But if it can, then why can distance not also be manipulated when we are observing and measuring entangled particles?
Exactly I think the word nonsense is the perfect description of this dialogue
I want to see Elise Crull and Sean Carroll have a long debate. It'd be interesting to have Sabine Hossenfelder in there too.
I find all their views plausible (mere decoherence, many worlds, and superdeterminism respectively). I want to know why each thinker rejects the others' views, and what each of their responses to those reasons for rejection are.
None of them understand quantum mechanics. ;-)
Sabine is good at maths but not concepts - she gets confused with real concepts.
@@user_375a82 I dunno, superdeterminism is a pretty cool concept.
Hol’ up, his writing is this fire?
A very ancient indian thought in scriptures is about variable speed of time in different 'lokas' or 'realms'; It is interesting that those Indian texts are talking about these concepts much earlier than anything came out from western sciences about these topics. Also various celestial objects and their resident devas are said to have widely different scales of time based upon variable gravity of each. So it is not about only gravity bends space, gravity also slows time. One outcome of this concept is:- duration of a day on earth for humans [with our life span] is very different to a day for a moth's lifespan. Similarly a day of 'Brahma' is billions of years in human scale. Thus it is plausible that what we call as the uncertainty principle [for example of a particle] of being in this state or the other, is that, the particle in its time scale was in a particular definitive state, and in cyclical universe, was subsequently in a different state. But with our time scale, we see the particle as flicking speedily and thus following uncertainty principle in our time scale. Expand this thought, and for 'Brahma' the virtual game of humans [with very tiny time scales compared to Brahma's scale] is also akin to what the uncertainty of a quantum particle is to humans. I think it will be good idea to read ancient Indian scriptures with scientific curiosity. We might be sitting on a goldmine and not know about it!
Is there a code language like p articles? Pi articles or something like that.
I have a question. This maybe, because I am still learning. Has it been considered that our instruments are not advanced enough to make a proper detection of a particles position? Or, that the particles movement is too extreme to make a proper detection. Therefore, making the "observer effect" an equipment issue ? I read all these papers and picture these particles vibrating at a rate to extreme to detect. I ask this in all humility.Any response would be appreciated.
If you are really interested in understanding the position of particles or any other seemingly immeasurable or illogical particle behaviour then I recommend removing time from the equation and replace it with length. Using maths and classic physics you can define a single quanta of parameterized space which can be searched over to discover and isolate whatever you are wanting to learn more about using tools or hardware that can measure everything from photons to phonon wave forms to natural forces. These existed 14 billion years ago and are in the world you live in right now. They are natural and real and exist whether or not they have been observed. The lady on stage should maybe learn physics as she seems a little confused
The problem here is that there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. We teach this in high school, but absolutely nobody seems to be paying any attention. Then people go online and are being bombarded with the particle nonsense. Whatever nonsense they hear on the internet immediately overwrites their correct high school knowledge and that's why millions of folks like you are asking the same nonsensical question over and over again. ;-)
'The Ship of Theseus' come to mind when thinking about these sorts of things.
As well, the idea of the "spime" of every Human life (look it up if you don't know, it's pretty cool).
Hard to define oneself as a singular entity when we're always sloughing away particles, eating biomatter and shitting it out, regrowing hair and tissues, et cetera...
All things are in a constant state of metamorphosis: select which state you wish to observe
I'm just going to say that I think dark energy is the connection between the entanglement that we cannot detect thus due to quarks and gluons
Nope.
no it’s non local: no hidden variables. u have to abandon classical way of thinking on this one
My intuition on many worlds is that it resembles the picture I get when I try to imagine multiple time dimensions intersecting. Can someone with more skill than I have try thinking about the possible relationship between probability and orthogonal time?
How does a beam splitter make a pair of entangled photons or do the apparatus's single out two that appear to be entangled?
During measurement what kind of interaction happens? Is it from the wavelength of the light? Is the measurement changes the energy of the object? Is scale of measurement matters? What would happen if we measure the object from small perspective?
Could it be that what we perceive as probabilistic properties of the quantum world be in reality the result of complex relations or entanglement with other particles ? In that senses if we could know of all the past or distant network of entanglement with other particles we could deduct the next position of an electron or whatever properties we identfy now as probabilistic ?
The discussion that starts at the 27:12 is fascinating. Non-locality is a very interesting phenomenon that I reading much on. I have not figured it out yet, but when I do, the Nobel Committee will be calling. Yea, right! Better wake up now from this entangled state :).
That's great, except that quantum mechanics is 100% local. Yeah, no Nobel for you, today. ;-)
Elise is a very good science communicator.
I so wanted a video on this ❤️
I get chills watching it. This is exactly what my soul has been yearning for.
One thing I saw as missing is discussion of the axis about which spin is measured. I think, or my understanding is, that such spin is inherently aligned (up or down) with an axis of random choice. As such, it seems that spin is occurring about any and all axes simultaneously until measured. To me, that's not trivial. Doesn't this arise from the Stern-Gerlach experiment? How wrong am I?
What is the boundary between the macroscopic and quantum world ?
The problem with trying to define particles that are entangled that never lived at the same time is in our definition and understanding of Time and the lack of a proper model for time that facilitates this necessary understanding.
If you truly understand time, then you'll know that it doesn't matter what timestamp any particle carries since they do not truly exist solely in the type of "time" that current science has defined it as and may not at all.
That's perplexing isn't it?
Stay tuned for the philosophical explanation and model.
If everything is quantum waves in Einstein's time-space understanding the quantum entanglement of particles is closer to the advancement of overall physics. May the pioneers keep pushing forward. I especially like the equal and opposite spin after the measurement. I am exploring spin propulsion
Question: could the field itself be the intermediary between entangled particles, bypassing any FTL requirement?
You are asking very difficult question my friend! - Modern science has no idea what Field is!, Needier Energy, needier Space, Time, Gravity, El magnetism, Attraction....
She was passionate 👏✌️👍🏼
In the two slit experiment the particles must experience a transverse randomisation effect of some kind. Maybe that is on the electromagnetic sinusoidal part of the particle perpendicular to the direction of its emission or some other unknown aspect of nature applicable at Planck lengths. This may sound like an hidden variables argument disputed by Bell but if entanglement exists in macroscopic space, then the influences on particles may be due to external variations interacting on matching internal ones over measurable distance.
Good Things are always for FREE ❤❤❤❤
What statement at 19:03 “it should be because it’s right”. Interesting…she says we can’t prove it or test it but it should be wildly accepted because “it’s right”. WHAT?
see TIQM by Cramer. Atomic scale events create QM waves going both forward in time & backwards in time. The reverse QM waves are essential to forming an entanglement. This approach eliminates the "spookiness".
Thank you. Very intelligent woman :)
I have been getting stomped on for ages for even remotely suggesting that space-time may have some form of fundamental agency. When we change our context/perspective and allow the agency of space and time to have effect on on the material universe many of the unanswerable questions appear to fall into place.
>
I accept that it is difficult for humans to think or conceptualize complex ideas in 4D. It takes training to separate the classical human thinking out of the paradigm and it is not easy. The most difficult part is holding a thought containing an infinite number of event horizons in that 4D abstraction, but simplifying that abstraction down to a single and then just a small number of those event horizons makes it possible. Explaining to another person via a 2D or 3D realm is extremely difficult if not near impossible as the 4D context is immediately lost thus destroying the understanding that we are attempting to relate.
>
2 good staring points are the spherical time histograms showing 3D space as flat spherical shells or layers of moments of the 3D in time. There are many hidden points of singularities as well as event horizons that are not immediately obvious. The other being that of the past and future light cones representations which also contain a large number (if not infinite) of intersecting singularities and event horizons. The 4 most notable being the event horizons at the side of the cones, the infinitely small intersect of the light cones past and forward event horizons at an infinitely small point in the "Now" present. and the depiction of the 2D plane that slices the "Now" moment at that intersect. That depiction of the "Now" plane in time is the event horizon where the quantum world is unfolding from moment to moment. There are an infinite number of event horizons (light cones) intersection at an infinitely small point across that 2D event plane.
.
So, we are at the question of what is connecting the intersect of ALL of those infinitely small points (light cone intersects) across that plane, that moment in time, that event horizon? We know if 2 or more of those intersecting points touch we have a classical interaction between particles in space at that event horizon in time, but what is the connection "across" that time plane for all entangled particles for that moment in time? The particle has no awareness of another particle outside of its infinitely small event horizon in that now moment.
>
I find myself separating that plane into a static moment of time (event horizon), and when that plane is progressing the concepts of relativity such as gravity and mass emerge and are knowable in the past light cone (in the wake of and trailing the event horizon of the time line).
Because even with time there is an equal and opposite reaction so there has to be balance within the universe
are the particles in the double slit hitting the sides of the slit's and altering their path's and how would you know they are not
RE entanglement, what if you applied conformal mapping to the spatial framework of the particles? Then in some transformed geometric sense you could end up with particles that are closer together or overlapping and would no longer have nonlocality from a non-Euclidean perspective. I mean I'm not a mathematican, but seems plausible?
very insightful
I love the World Science Festival, and am grateful for its existence
Possibilities are endless
No, science defies uncertainties. Chaos is not logical. We could find the answers in AGI and ASI.
Question would be to ask where electron of ball will land ?
Could it be that at that level subatomic particles are capable of illuminating linguistic prepositions that define their location in regards to a body?
The thing about entanglement is there were some thoughts that it was like a pair of gloves. If at the end if a party I go home with one glove and my friend accidentally took the other.... if I have the left hand glove I immediately know he has the right hand glove. These properties were known to exist before the so called entanglement of two gloves...this quality is always entangled for the pair.... but its pre-existing...of course if I measure left i immediately know you measure right. But an experiment by a guy named Bell in the 1960s showed statistically that the entanglement qualities we measure are not pre existing like a pair of gloves. More than this is cannot explain but its been shown entanglement is not a pre-existing quality but really is only determined when measured.
it is interesting that scientists come up with different questions every time. To the question, yes they can be, as the question does not mention about space. Space and time are same but look different for observers viewing differently.
How are space and time the same ?
I like the dart board bit.
If the board were swinging on it's nail and the dart were moving in a straight line; it's eventual position on the board would be a probability, like a wave function.
But if the frequency of the board and speed of the dart were at the speed of light then they would inevitably meet.
There would be a simultaneity.
I would assume it would have to seeing how space and time are basically the same. if you entangled 2 particles then moved them to the other side of our galaxy, would they not experience time dilation in some manner proving entanglement across "time"?
Just curious, isn't entanglement proof of higher dimension? I postulate that the information is actually travelling on or is connected via a different plane or higher dimension beyond our accessible 3-dimensional space, perhaps the higher dimensions begin to manifest at smaller and smaller scales of our 3D universe. I'd be keen to hear a string theorist opinion on this. Thanks for the informative clips.
Is there quantum entanglement over vast distance as a result of Hawking radiated particles that lost half their identity into an event horizon? Does charge of a black hole bias in favor of positive or negative charge of the radiation, which would sift matter from antimatter, depending.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Great discussion, and well moderated (as usual).