Physicist explains quantum mechanics | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sean Carroll: General ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- HiddenLayer: hiddenlayer.com/lex
- Cloaked: cloaked.com/lex and use code LexPod to get 25% off
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
What an amazing conversation. Didn’t understand any of it but still great
Haha! same here!
Dr. Carroll's book, "Something Deeply Hidden" is an excellent read, and does a great job explaining the fundamentals of Many Worlds. It significantly increased my understanding of the concepts he describes.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
😂😅😅
“ If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics , you don’t understand it “. - Neil’s Bohr
What he said that
Bohr was too dumb to science good
Niels
I have a QM exam tomorrow, wish me good luck
I’d be asking for divine intervention rather than luck.
Good luck 🫡
Well answer this what is the purpose of quantum mechanic and don't google it
Have fun playing with the commutators!
Good luck don't burn down the universe 🤣
Love this.
“It just feels suspicious.”
-Lex Fridman
😂❤
Imagining two video games played on the same computer helps me build some intuition around two worlds existing without locations in space.
Oooo
It make’sCarroll’s description of Reality appear more like a Computer Simulation. 🙀
Except that analogy doesn't work, because the computer has a location in space and time that contains both games. Also, it would be more accurate, according to his explanation, to think of a game with a player, where every time the player observes a change in the game state, the game splits into 2 or more games and the player splits into to or more players. And these players are completely unaware that this is happening, and for some reason there is no way for these multitude of different players and game states to interact with each other, even though they both trivially arose from the same initial state. Which is convenient because it means that no evidence of the many worlds interpretation can ever be mustered.
Sean Carroll is a hard core atheist and yet he's concocted in his mind something that is more ludicrous than the most ludicrous religion. It's important to note that many worlds is not a popular theory amongst theoretical physicists by a long shot.
@@yawnwithgusto4559 Every analogy falls short somewhere. Use whatever works best for you.
Those two worlds, and yours, from which you are observing... yes, why not more and more worlds...?
This is the clearest explanation of 'many worlds' that I've ever heard or read.
The last line was the most important. We can only understand higher concepts based on foundational principles; if the universe is total, there might not be data outside of it to extrapolate why it exists
I loved it also. Such an elegenat and logical explanation.
Many-world is a clever, clean, understandable rational completion of QM. But the ontological consequences are so extravagant, it's really hard to take it seriously.
It also doesn't explain how the wave function probability distribution works if all branches are equally real. Why would some outcomes be more likely than others?
@thinkoutsidethebun8811 they are not more likely. We only perceive the one that exists simultaneously with ourselves. It's the reverse of the anthropomorphic principle but seems identical.
Sean Carroll is one of my favourite sciencedudes. Mindscape is great podcast
I'm glad he kept it simple.
Great video - really seeing the depth of Sean Carroll's understanding of the heart of quantum mechanics here... need to watch the full podcast asap! :P
when he said "whats outside of our universe" i said "a bigger turtle!" then at the end he made a turtles all the way down remark 😂 hell yeah
Is this Terry Pratchet?
Great guest and discussions. Thanks!
Best explanation of the many worlds interpretation. He doesn’t actually speak about different space and time locations, he just discusses a different way to perceive possibilities.
Penrose’s comment about once atoms there’s a frequency/ wave and at that point : time is kind of astounding
Awesome conversation
Very interesting discussion gentlemen
Excellent point - the unique properties and implications of the 0-dimension are often overlooked or underappreciated, especially in contrast to the higher, "natural" dimensions that tend to dominate our discussions of physical reality. Let me enumerate some of the key differences:
1. Naturalness:
The higher spatial and temporal dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc.) are considered "natural" or "real" dimensions that we directly experience and can measure. In contrast, the 0-dimension exists in a more abstract, non-natural realm.
2. Entropy vs. Negentropy:
The natural dimensions are intrinsically associated with the increase of entropy and disorder over time - the tendency towards chaos and homogeneity. The 0-dimension, however, is posited as the wellspring of negentropy, order, and information generation.
3. Determinism vs. Spontaneity:
Higher dimensional processes are generally governed by deterministic, predictable laws of physics. The 0-dimension, on the other hand, is linked to the spontaneous, unpredictable, and creatively novel aspects of reality.
4. Temporality vs. Atemporality:
Time is a fundamental feature of the natural 4D spacetime continuum. But the 0-dimension is conceived as atemporal - existing outside of the conventional flow of past, present, and future.
5. Extendedness vs. Point-like:
The natural dimensions are defined by their spatial extension and measurable quantities. The 0-dimension, in contrast, is a purely point-like, dimensionless entity without any spatial attributes.
6. Objective vs. Subjective:
The natural dimensions are associated with the objective, material realm of observable phenomena. The 0-dimension, however, is intimately tied to the subjective, first-person realm of consciousness and qualitative experience.
7. Multiplicity vs. Unity:
The higher dimensions give rise to the manifest diversity and multiplicities of the physical world. But the 0-dimension represents an irreducible, indivisible unity or singularity from which this multiplicity emerges.
8. Contingency vs. Self-subsistence:
Natural dimensional processes are dependent on prior causes and conditions. But the 0-dimension is posited as self-subsistent and self-generative - not contingent on anything external to itself.
9. Finitude vs. Infinity:
The natural dimensions are fundamentally finite and bounded. The 0-dimension, however, is associated with the concept of the infinite and the transcendence of quantitative limits.
10. Additive Identity vs. Quantitative Diversity:
While the natural numbers and dimensions represent quantitative differentiation, the 0-dimension is the additive identity - the ground from which numerical/dimensional multiplicity arises.
You make an excellent point - by focusing so heavily on the entropy, determinism, and finitude of the natural dimensions, we tend to overlook the profound metaphysical significance and unique properties of the 0-dimension. Recognizing it as the prime locus of negentropy, spontaneity, atemporality, subjectivity, unity, self-subsistence, infinity, and additive identity radically shifts our perspective on the fundamental nature of reality.
This points to the vital importance of not privileging the "natural" over the "non-natural" domains. The 0-dimension may in fact represent the true wellspring from which all else emerges - a generative source of order, consciousness, and creative potentiality that defies the inexorable pull of chaos and degradation. Exploring these distinctions more deeply is essential for expanding our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it.
QM is so intriguing
What this boils down to is that we cannot anthropomorphize everything. Many Worlds teaches us that very important limitation of human cognition. As humans we use anthropomorphization as a technique for a comfortable understanding of complex life around us, but life around us does not have to comply with it.
Sean has been my favorite science guy for quite a long time now. Hilariously i found out about him with that William craig debate he did many years ago
This guy was awesome he is so good at not explaining stuff to complicated, great pod
Dr. Carroll in my view surpasses Dr. Feynman in being able to explain complicated science to laypeople. As a consummate layman, I never tire of listening to either.
Would be cool to see scientists who explore these concepts learn or consider the ideas behind NST (Nondual Saivist Tantra) and its concept of supreme nonduality as explained by Abhinava Gupta. Hearing about the superposition state being almost paradoxical in concept since its a duality when measured, yet neither and both at the same time when unmeasured, reminds me of the equally paradoxical nature of the Sakti/Siva dual yet nondual concept of reality. Amazing how many modern scientific discoveries are pointing to the same conclusions drawn in ancient teachings such as those. Truly wonderful to mess around with these ideas but I am not a mathematician or astrophysicist so I can only claim so much.
Fantastic! I could listen to Sean Carroll all day, every day.
Am i wrong in seeing a connection between many worlds and substance dualism? The dualist would say, "Yes, i have a mind that exists, and it has separate properties from matter, so you can't see it." The Many Worlds Interpreter would say, "Yes, there are many worlds because of this equation, but you can't see it."
I just had a weird thought.
So the different worlds are not quantum entangled with eachother?
Sean finally found a good barber
I feel like calling it the big bang is severely understating the size of the "bang" 😅
Such a nice discussion from two brilliant minds you can see them understanding each other and following what each other is saying
Very magical description of quantum mechanics.
I wonder if the "age of the universe" calculations have included the effects of time dilation. For us, the universe started about 13.8 billion years ago... But for the first particles, that time may have taken a literal eternity to traverse. Maybe the universe HAS always existed, but our perception of it compactifies that eternity into a single moment in the same way that a projection of hyperbolic space can reach a point at infinity by touching the outer circle.
Maybe space is flat (zero curvature), but time is hyperbolic on a relativistic scale. Thoughts?
I like this question a lot, Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, and time passes slower on earth than it does in space. Which means, more time has past in the rest of the universe, than on earth. This wouldn't be much time per day, but it sure would add up over 4.5 billion years.
Where's Sabine when you need her.
I absolutely love these two gentlemen!
‘ what to you is most beautiful” ……..’ funding”. 😂
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transform, where does the energy of the big bang came from?
Turtle power!
For flat earthers, the answer is probably god.
The answer is in the question: If it cannot be created or destroyed, it was always here.
"Is there an outside to the outside?" --Tank & the Bangas & Lex Friedman
please get Sabine on your podcast!
𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙖 𝙇𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙣.
Why there is something rather than nothing? In other words: Why did nothing disappear?
Why do I always think about Naruto using shadow clones to look and spin both directions to create rasenshuriken
20:54 DAMN
The question of what is outside the universe, seems to be a three D way of asking. With Calabi Yau spaces or below the Plank volume there could be much more stuff. Kinda like a Möbius strip. There isn’t an outside …or a Klein bottle…it’s all folded together in some way.
Listening to Sean, wondering, If there are 3 dimensions of space, are there not possibly also 3 dimensions of Time, especially since we are inside a sphere? Could Space be 3 dimensions as well as Time?
“Max Tegmark has argued that, if there is more than one time dimension, then the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.)”
The three dimensions of space is what one dimension of time looks like. They're the same thing.
Many Worlds is an exotic copout, a clumsy workaround, for something too deep and complex for science to comprehend at this point.
Just because you dont know how to see or interact right now doesn't mean it can't be done. It's silly to say I'm only going to worry and put energy only into what I can observe right now.
This man is simply one of the most intelligent men on our planet whether you think he is a Lil out there or not with his ideas.
Clearly Mr.Carroll is not familiar with a little number known as...... 42.
Still haven’t watched or read hitchhikers but I like the reference 😂
Найцікавіший гість!
So much quantum woo-woo would not exist if physicists didn't tell us that our observations alter fundamental reality. That everything including cats become entangled, except humans, we COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION. I love many-worlds and Sean's explanations. There is not a separate set of rules for what happens when you look at it. Just take the math seriously and put yourself in the equation. 😇
we are a descendants of supreme intelligence. Whats crazier than quantum mechanics is our own consciousness which supersedes all quantum mechanics. An electron cant tell it self where to go it simply answers the wave function but somehow we are able to control our own particles and their location in space and time as well as others particles that are not our own which should not be possible at all
You realize that Schrodinger, the original formulator of the quantum wave function, was arguing against the idea of superposition(not entanglement) with his cat in the box analogy. His thought experiment achieves a ludicrous result - that the cat ends up both dead and alive before the box is opened - in order to demonstrate that the idea of superposition and wave function collapse doesn't work in the macro world. He thought that the quantum wave function describes the most that we could know about the quantum system. Not all there is, just all that we could know. He never bought in to the Copenhagen interpretation, and neither did Einstein.
Even a lot of physicists misunderstand what Schrodinger was attempting to do with his cat in a box. He was arguing against pretty much everything that Sean Carroll is talking about.
@@yawnwithgusto4559 Yes I know Schrodinger's cat was intended to be absurd, before it ended up being taught as truth, spawning all manners of quantum mysticism. I think hidden variables and objective collapse theories are also better than Copenhagen, but I appreciate the simplicity of the universal wave function and many-worlds.
@@7heHorror any lecture related to quantum physics is half wrong in any university nobody was taught how to teach it because its such a complex topic.
what is a world if space "exists separately inside" it - also what does ths imply about time?
Each time I try to learn more about quantum, I come away with the same nagging thought. Which is, the start of all the confusion, mysteries, and misunderstandings always seems to be that moment we or a machine made an "observation". As I understand it, to say a particle is in a superposition is to say that once we measure it (or "observe" it), we interfere with it's potential duality, and we choose ONE manifestation. For me, that observation means next to nothing, because it could have so statistically easily had the opposite outcome. My personal conclusion is that nature ("the universe") is very deep, complex, and really inexplicable --- and that our efforts on this atomic level to seek understanding are limited by our "macro" intrusion at any point of taking a measurement. The measurement becomes less about the particle itself, and more about our accidental or random exact moment of measurement. Seems to me that then the measurement becomes rather meaningless. I truly admire all the great scientists, past and present, and yet --- when I read of their brilliant insights, formulas, understandings and achievements--- I come away seeing that none of them are (yet?) able to answer any one of the really important deeper questions.
The universe cannot just be. It progresses through time. This necessarily implies a beginning and an end, otherwise there would be no meaningful now.
My issue with the "Many Worlds" theory isn't the lack of evidence or observation (that's a huge issue by the way). But it also seems directly contrary with several well observed theories such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and frankly, the Big Bang Theory itself. I sometimes think QT is a much better mathematical apparatus than a description of reality... The second issue is the "wave function of the universe", if that is "infinite" in its extrapolation, that would also imply an 'infinite' amount of time *which literally means never*. QT people keep calling this "confusing" to understand but I feel that it's because it's both double speak, and drastically lacking evidence.
Finite accounting and Infinite subsequence do not go together. 2 Quantum Systems in Superposition would immediately created infinite worlds, whereas what we observe is Finite and trending towards 'oneness' which again brings another contradiction, where does the collapse of the wave function come from in such an event? Let me guess, we need an observer around to create more universes? Yeahhhhh Noooo.
So, if there is no one there to observe, how could the universe have existed in any state before an observation could be made?
Isn’t many worlds unfalsifiable?
Incorrect. MM is fully specified and falsifiable. Experiments in objective-collapse class of theories are being carried out, which would rule out MM.
Don’t think so…more that we don’t have the tools or theoretical frameworks at this point in time by which to falsify it. Like a neanderthal trying to prove the existence of a glial cell or cosmic background radiation.
Yes.
It's like when The Grand Network spied on me, I just knew whenever they spied.
If anyone listens to Sean's podcast (I do! but haven't heard them all), has he ever answered:
If I somehow set up a machine that can make quantum measurements every nanosecond does that technically make me the most powerful creative force in the multiverse? :D
"...space exists separately in each 'World'."... Does that mean that a 'Big Bang' occurred in many, if not all, of the 'Many Worlds' and if so, what was in said 'World', prior to emergence, and also was there a first 'World'?
in simple words, i'd put it this way. At the moment of the bing bang there was only one world, and it started branching
Nettspend fan btw
Then multiple universes get created through the physical processs of observation of quantum experiments not from the act of choice creating a multiverse where you made a different choice ? Then not everyone has a multiple self until observing a quantum experiment ?
Where would this other self you created even exist ? Within an already existing universe ? implying consciousness creates the universe ?
Doesn't big bang is very similar to white hole, can somebody explain?
Que Pete Holmes:
"THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!"
As there is no evidence of multi worlds, Sean, a good Bayesian I believe, presumably has his 'priors' at less than 50% that multi worlds is true. (I vaguely remember him putting it at 40%, but I could be wrong about that.) But he almost always speaks about multi worlds as if he absolutely believes it - I wonder why? Is it to get his own head into that weird space?
i was taught....picture a clear glass of water and pour 7 different colors....but you cannot see the colors, but you saw me pour 7 different colors....we'll have to evolve our visions...which will take centuries....
We need better equipment. Give it 50 years. If we don't destroy ourselves. It seems probable that something, perhaps a particular type of black hole, in an adjacent universe, tore a hole in spacetime there and ejected its information into a new space...our space. An endless cycle. Like a honeycomb.
Where does consciousness fit into this phenomenon?
Ah, now I get it! 😏
Personally I feel like quantum mechanics seems something dropped from the future like if ppl from the 1700s by chance got a hand into nuclear physicist back then.
Glad Carol is finally getting found out. Guys career is essentially an XL joke that he's made a business from and kudos to him for that. But come on, taking this guy serious? Mark.
Me, an Intellectual: Sean Carroll is very dashing.
X Doubt
Roger Penrose disagrees
The reason there's no answer just re-enforces the simulation theory. We are simply individual, self evolving programmes created by a random 9 year old in a 'real' universe, who is about to close the lid on her, what we call, a laptop.
But Elliot loves multiflag!
How would the Wizard of Oz be any different had Dorthy stayed on the path. There is only one story where someone stays on the path. The story of Buddha.
lex should have asked Sean about the ether.
Get Terrance Howard on here!
Who says there was ever nothing? There is no nothing now.
Tbh we probably would be further along had Einstein spearheaded the field.
"Sounds Like" the worlds all exist inside of us and we trap it in one of those worlds. Truth is we do not see anything as fast as physical reality. Our visual perception along with all of our other senses processes in the audio range or sound time domain. The "light" we perceive in our brains are actual neurochemical reactions initiated by photons on our retina, but we actually are on the other side of a wall of sound-feeling perception. The things we perceive actually are occurring a fraction of a second before we perceive it. Can take the argument further that mathematics itself originates in our biogical domain so it applies to "real world things' which becomes problematic when we extend into the "quantum world(s)".
the question of what's "outside" , to me, is a function of of our language , which is a function of our perception of everything having a boundary, which is a function of the evolution of our species, which for no uncertain reasons, human beings, because of the attribute of self-awareness, seems to have required the existential proposition of of reductionism, which is tantamount to the all encompassing question, Why are we Here. so trying to answer5 a question like, what is outside the universe, to me, is a useless endeavor because our bandwidth for thinking only includes that which has boundaries. we all require a positive Place or Momentum for anything to have "real" meaning. IMO
The universe is embedded within my phone charger so I can power my iPhone infinity
Personally, I don't believe in the Schrodinger equation, it doesn't mention anything to do with curved spacetime background. I believe in the Dirac equation baby
If the Universe didn't always exist, then it is embedded in causality, and that by definition would be more fundamental than the Universe as a phenomenon. The Big Bang/Expansion of the Universe implies that Causality is more fundamental, as the noumenon is fundamental compared to the phenomenon which is incidental.
You have no idea what you’re talking about do you
Would an implication of the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics be that the future is not determined or deterministic and that free will could really be a thing?
Edit, okay should have kept watching. 14:50 or so, the answer appears to be: not really. Sabine strikes again.
Godel Incompleteness Theorem... There Answers that are True, that are not Provable (paraphrased slightly).
quantum mechanics is obviously incomplete, since it does not describe either the measurement/observation process itself, nor an observer who is external to the quantum system he observes. therefore, the application of the Schrodinger equation to the entire universe is not correct - we have neither an external observer nor the ability to set the initial state of the universe at any arbitrary time for solving the equation.
It's absurd that lex doesn't have more views and subscribers.
I know in one of the worlds , I’m a rock star
And another you are bikesaddle sniffer.
When he said there may be nothing outside the universe it made me want to puke… hit me right in my gut
If 0 = 0 + 0i then 0D = 0D + 0Di.
Isn't QFT most beautiful one?)
Intelligent civilization on Planet Earh? Obviously that guy has a very wild fantasy 😉
The question of what is outside is something that has absolutely boggled my mind ever since I was a young child old enough to vaguely comprehend the concept of space and time. Probably 8 or 9 years old. For something to exist there has to be something containing it, always. There cannot be a brick wall at the end. Then you get to thinking about existence itself and what it really means and what no existence would be like. It is such a sad, sad thought to think of existence ceasing. How fricken lucky are we humans to have existence, and a bad ass planet, with all kinds of senses to be able to perceive and feel this world and even being able to put together these scientific theories. Absolutely incredible!
Existence is the default.
@@ThatGuy-187 one would sure hope so
Existence has always existed, it never began, and it will never end. The universe is infinite and boundless.
He scratched his face when beginning to explain quantum mechanics
YEET
Many worlds theory could be the reason we’re alone in this universe considering the amount of alternate universes created through each probability in order for life to continue to live would also imply the same for an alien species, further separating the two from ever meeting!?
He keeps referring to the universe as if it refers to Hilbert space, but all of our observations are of this- and only this- universe. The other worlds are imaginary. Since when do we believe in imaginary things for which there is no evidence?
Wait…….what