Scott Aaronson - Many Worlds of Quantum Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2024
- Quantum theory is very strange. No act is wholly sure. Everything works by probabilities, described by a wave function. But what is a wavefunction? One theory is that every possibility is in fact a real world of sorts. This is the Many Worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett and what it claims boggles the brain. You can't imagine how many worlds there would be.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on quantum mechanics: bit.ly/3aWMRBR
Scott Joel Aaronson is a theoretical computer scientist and faculty member in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at MIT. His primary area of research is quantum computing and computational complexity theory more generally.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Absolutely fascinating I'm glad you guys put in the hard work for this channel!
Wow, the most clearcut, concise and logical explanation of quantum computers that's out there. Excellent! Scott Aaronson is a name to remember.
Dam, what an interesting and well spoken dude!
He explains it really well. Thank you. (This reply is given in amplitude 1).
I agree, very different than the usual explanations
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve-Max Planck.
Nature is comprised of many parts and systems. Many of those systems has been solved. Otherwise we would be worshiping the sun god and dancing for rain.
@@anthonycraig274 I might not dance for Rain.
But man, do I dance in the Rain.😁
Because "I" am always bigger! 😎
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ yes!! I is infinite consciousness aka God.
Alan Watts has entered the chat.
Could it be that there is one quantum universe that is composed of a tapestry of infinite theoretical universes which, when stitched together, become so dense as to appear materially unified?
I think that's a reasonable way to look at it
Maybe in Copenhagen;)
I mean, I think that's simply what reality is, yes. I don't believe that there exist all of these other universes/many worlds, I think it's pretty clear that until information becomes known/determined, it's not anything real...& so calling it theoretical seems fine to me. As a writer, I find your sentence quite elegant - bravo.
Interesting and worthwhile video.
This guy has almost the exact same speech pattern as Dr. David Albert (“oK?!”). Interesting that they’re both brilliant, & have this odd way of speaking.
Interesting observation. My philosophy professor also has the same pattern. He's also a brilliant guy with two PhD's, the last one was from Cambridge, UK.
Finally got a whole new set of intuitions about quantum computing, thank you!
Related: I will now be amazed if nature doesn't conspire to make it _very_ hard to entangle 1,000 qubits. If we can do it, it's a sign of even more powerful physics than our current vision of quantum computing.
Really good!!
What if the universe isn't quantum in nature? Physicists haven't made any major discoveries for many decades, but you will know we have made several significant discoveries in mathematics. Before the 70's we were unaware of any structure in which we could look into an infinite number of times and see exactly the same amount of complexity (see: @. Perhaps the universe is structured like this? I can't get my head around the multiverse theory because I cannot imagine that there are an infinite number of separate universes in which the same wave-function collapse plays out. However, we can now actually see how the fractal structure works and it shows that we can zoom in or out an infinite number of times to get the same look. We can also now see that there is a ratio between 'similar looks' when we zoom in or out - perhaps the G-2 anomaly hints that this ratio is roughly 10^-10 between each 'fractal scale' in our own universe? Is it possible that the wave-function collapse plays out in the infinite number of fractal scales all at once in a single fractal universe? Could this account for dark matter as the sum of all the 'information energies' in the infinite number of fractal scales?
Anyone read the theory how each moment e.g. a frame of time that passes is liken to a frame of film - but it appears fluid and continuous to us - and during these moments of framing - we are going in and out between other parallel realities? I can't find the article but it stated a possibility that we, all of the universe is going in and out and possibly, we are phasing between the parallel multiverse? This could better explain the many worlds theory hypothesis and possibly explain our brains as receivers at the quantum foam levels, tied into the fabric of space, fields, vibrations. I need to find that article as this sounds less than articulate. Help!
Is it related to the idea that particles are flashing in and out of "existence," and perhaps when they aren't "here" at the moment they exist in a parallel 'overlay' of some kind? For me it's the only way of explaining a multiverse without imagining them entangled but distant, or existent in separate imperceptible (to us) dimensions.
Damn man, I’m going to write a screenplay about this
I'm trying so hard to think. I've read this and watched discussions about it and sadly can't remember a name or source.
Drinking game: take one shot every time he says OK!
1
2
3
OK
OK
A eastern mystic, a quantum physicist, and a computer scientist walk into a bar. All three yell Ouch!
Prize for most disappointing punchline 😏
45 seconds in the robot drops the camera.
So are they on a ferry boat or a ship or what?
I concur with the okay
great talk but its more about quantum computing...
i do not understand any of it, and probably never will.
This was certainly quite interesting. But I think he “misunderstands” the Schroedinger Equation (SE).
He is superimposing his own version of statistical theory on QM to explain away the quantum multiverse.
In its purest and simplest form, the SE simply says our probabilistic world inexorably branches into alternate realities. There is never a “collapse” of anything.
There are no “negative” probabilities; something is either probable or not, and by a certain percentage.
Somewhere this guy has branched into alternate worlds arguing slightly different things about QM.
I agree. It's like there was a giant category mistake that equated the interference pattern amplitude with the probability wave function: thus quantum computing, but they are two very different things. Quantum computing, in my opinion, is trying to get it's lunch for free. No such thing.
**
Have you ever read any of Schrodinger's papers on creating his Equation (1925/26)?
**
Schrodinger's Equation has NOTHING to do with probabilities!
**
You can argue anything you want about Quantum Mechanics, because it is completely wrong. QM is just Born's Incorrect Rule of Probability Waves applied to Schrodinger's Equation. It's very simple to see...example: Waves collide and pass through each other. Particles collide and bounce off each other. So how can a particles (like electrons) both pass through each other and bounce off each other? The logic of representing particles with a WAVE equation is ludicrous or burleske, as Schrodinger would say.
@@itsbs Schrodinger said “I insist upon the view that all is waves “.
@@10thdim **
Yes, and waves of what? Electrical charge medium based on Maxwell-Lorentz Ether medium theory. That is what is waving in Schrodinger's Equation (by design), and not some abstract math idea like "probability wave" of Born/Copenhagen. Schrodinger "negative charge" waving solved the atomic experiments of the time without the need for a special physics of QUANTUM leaps and stationary states.
I reviewed the 1x and 2x slit experiments. The interference pattern and the probability wave form coincide, so they are at least are functionally tied together. Then Scott's extrapolation of the QCing as an analysis of interference patterns of computer algorithm outputs was very cool, and I guess possible. It does seem like the biggest free lunch ever though: that a QC could do all the computations necessary to solve each new instance with increasing complexity of 2^x for every x. The computational resources necessary to do this are absurd!! I wonder what the interference print out is like, how it maps out algorithmic space. Each instance must be computed... so... if it is to be accurate the computing must be coherent/effective. Each strand or possible world is effectively computed, like normal computing. ...
Nothing is Impossible
I don’t understand David Deutsch’s argument that he mentioned.
**
At 6:41, David Deutsch supports the "many worlds" interpretation of Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics equation that is waving an electrical charge medium. The "many worlds" idea applied to Quantum Computer is that the "computation" occurring via Qubit's "Quantum State" is occurring outside of what we would consider our own Time and Space reality. That's a very philosophical/metaphysical idea and David Deutsch might consider this a confirmation, because of the idea "where did the actual computation (using nature) come from then?"
He seems to be in the "Shut up and Calculate" camp. Idk.. maybe.
Second to agriculture, humbug is the biggest industry of our age-Alfred Nobel.
I have solved for more quantum computing equations than any other person. The measurement problem went fastly to 144,000 ns/c^2 ~ 1 nanosecond.
Do you mind elaborating?
Have you now? Tell us more
Your intuitions are emergent from the quantum soup
Stephen Meyer's Return of the God Hypothesis points out the shortcomings of many worlds and a multiverse. Next.
So a book arguing for Intelligent Design is enough to dismiss many worlds and a multiverse? Next.
@@David.C.Velasquez short answer, yes. Many worlds is absurd and a multiverse still would not explain the cause and fine tuning needed of the first universe that created a multiverse, not to mention there is no current evidence of a multiverse. I guess you should read the book before posting.
@@Luke-pc5rb You are the one posting, I merely asked a question about a book, that I am familiar with, but my time only allows so many books to be read. This scenario seems all too familiar, and before you say it, yes, I have read the bible several times. The anthropic principle nullifies the fine tuning issue. Why is it so hard to accept that God is the infinite multiverse itself, eternal with no beginning nor end.
@@David.C.Velasquez Christians will never accept that because if God is the universe, and we're part of the universe, then we're part of God, or maybe God himself. They see God as separate, so no can't do.
@@chmd22 Agreed, christians seem to be all to willing to define limits for the limitless, force a timeframe on the timeless, and know better than the all knowing.
Huh? ... all that quantum computers are gunna prove is that nobody knows nuthin' !
You're projecting
@@ivocanevo Yeeaah ya right … but in the spirit of the eternal multi dimensional quantum Gods I must be kinda right also, and if the anti science dark ages don't return, and the myopic slide rule spinning boffins/eggheads with the HB behind the ear are still around in hundreds of years, I bet they say “we knew nuthin then” … let's hope
@@freehandsky good save 😂
The Many Worlds interpretation is not correct and this has been the viewpoint of physicists for decades. If you posit the existence of Backward Time and that QM operates in that form of time, then QM makes sense. The probabilistic nature of QM is due to our interpretation of a sub quantum world operating in Backward Time, when we reference everything according to Forward Time.
Mmmm what I got from this is that Quantum mechanics is knowing what side a coin will land due to its probability and then when discribing giving the unkown processes quantum names and a made up explanation that fits the theory cos we dont know how to calculate the forces, fields, etc. That acts on the coin toss to determin excatly all that is happening...
How does this jibe with Tegmark's claim that math IS reality?
Many worlds is certainly a wrong interpretation of quantum mechanics; in fact it does not solve the problem of collapse, because, after every measuremnt, we have to collapse the wave function, otherwise the wave function, evolved through the Schrodinger equation, would provide wrong predictions for every successive measurement. On the other hand, if we do not make a measurement, the predictions of the uncollapsed wave functions are correct. In summary, contrary to what many-world people claim, such interpretation does not solve te problem of collapse and add a superfluous, unreasonable and unfalsifiable hypothesis about the existence of infinte universes.
In mwi there is no collapse to explain.
@@grumpytroll6918 This is what many world people claim, but it is a lie. In fact, if you do two successive measurements on the same system, and you do not collapse the wave function after the first measurement, you have to calculate the probability for the second measurement with the initial wave function, and your predictions would be wrong. In order to calculate correctly the probaility after a measurement, you have to re-inizialize the wave function, which means that you have to collapse it.
@@grumpytroll6918 This is what many world people claim, but it is a lie. In fact, if you do two successive measurements on the same system, and you do not collapse the wave function after the first measurement, you have to calculate the probability for the second measurement with the initial wave function, and your predictions would be wrong. In order to calculate correctly the probaility after a measurement, you have to re-inizialize the wave function, which means that you have to collapse it.
@@camcav2042 Mwi claims that after sufficient decoherence has occurred the wave function branches no longer interfere and interact with each other in significant ways, and essentially behave as collapsed wave functions. Mwi does not really have a good model (my personal opinion) for explaining how the probability of finding yourself on different branches of the wave function matches the Born rule. But neither does the Copenhagen interpretation for that matter. all of that said mwi does not need collapse only a more clear rule of how universe splits and how you jump from one branch to the next. Im not a supporter of mwi but this is my best attempt at steelmaning their position.
@@grumpytroll6918 Apart from the problems you mentioned, the fact remains that to calculate the probability of an event after each measurement, it is necessary to collapse the wave function. I'll give you a simple example; suppose you use a semi-reflective mirror and place two different detectors on the two beams, one near the mirror and one very far away. Suppose that the first detector does not receive the photon; you know that the probability that the photon is received by the second mirror is 100%. But to get this result, you can't use the non-collapsed wave function, otherwise you would still get 50% probability. This means that in fact, you use the Schrodinger equation before each measurement, but then, after each measurement, you are forced to collapse the wave function to make new predictions.
Scott show up obvius as quantun computer works. However he Universe is linked quantun computer
He minds osbscure Science ant scientif discussion.
The Many Worlds Interpretation would be saying the same thing if quantum mechanics were to be replaced by classical Brownian motion and fails to distinguish between the two. Actually what we have is the destructive interference of probability distributions for which MWI offers no insights.
It’s a multiverse!!
Lets just say i am way to layman to understand this bundle of knowledge speaking. I feel so smallish ..yikes.
multiverses sunk again... and if are sunk by this guy then it's over ... put a stone on that theory ...
Superbly explained. Probably the best I’ve heard anyone elucidate the counter intuitive essence of Quantum mechanics…..
….it’s a real pity that he is profoundly wrong
Wrong on what?
no wonder some days are very different many of usual expectations of people and places change
This all sounds promising, except that they haven't actually been able to put "Quantum computers" to use. The fact that this guy can't even put into simple terms how this works shows that he doesn't understand it himself. He keeps repeating the same words and phrases over and over in this interview and he doesn't sound convincing.
There's an extremely simple explanation that doesn't require many worlds, spooky action at a distance or anything magical like that. But hey, science isn't about understanding reality. It's about feeling smart and accepted.
Pseudoscience like this over real science any day of the week.
Go ahead...give us your simple explanation, then. Don't hold out on us.
@@gerardpavlovich6594 Okay. This is the explanation I believe in myself, until someone shows me something that contradicts it. I don't know what quantum field theory says, but I think it's pretty close to this already.
First, we must recognize that there are waves of various kinds. Those are waves in a medium. This medium in turn isn't made of matter. One accepted name for it is "field". It's something real, but not material. Others stick to the old and not as accepted word ether. You can say spacetime too.
One difference (if it is a difference at all, I'm not sure) between mainstream and my way of thinking is that while mainstream think of those fields as separate things, I think of them as different properties of the *same* medium. They have to be, because how would they be able to interact otherwise?
Now... Let's look at evidence. We have LIGO, proving the existence of gravitational waves. Those are, by definition of a wave, compression and decompression of space. So space can have a density. We also have recent evidence that you can create matter out of light. So matter and light are basically the same thing. Electromagnetic waves. We just don't have a model to describe elementary particles as such. And finally, the idea of virtual particles popping in and out of existence (pair production).
Now... Is there a simple explanation to all this that can explain both the double slit experiment, the probabilistic nature of QM, and entanglement at the same time? I think there is - the wavefunction is real, particles are not.
Think of light as waves, and waves only. Do the same for electrons (hence the electron cloud around a nucleus). The only exception to this rule is the proton. That's the only stable particle that exists. But it isn't fundamental, and that's the point. It is composed by so called quarks, which is this non-existent EM wave model of particles in action, that I mentioned above. Conclusion: everything is trapped wave energy.
So when you shine a light through a double slit, you have waves interfering. Those particles that you see on the detector are only processes when the waves interact with the electrons around atomic nuclei. These processes require some discrete amount of energy, hence the quanta. So there are no quanta/particles flying around. Only waves. The "particles" are simply those interactions, the act of observation itself. No consciousness required, and only one single reality.
And entaglement? Entanglement is a correlation created at a single point. So think of two waves with opposite phases travelling in opposite directions. Both are oscillating, which makes the measurement look random. But they have opposite phases, and thus "entangled". It's just a hidden variable, only not a static one.