@@drphilipdavies Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) 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. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. 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.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
I'd recommend to Dr. Maudlin that he take a look at casting his discrete theory using geometric algebra rather than the standard vector calculus. It's just far more graceful, particularly in higher dimensionality. Curl in particular is an issue - it only really properly exists in three dimensional manifolds, because in such manifolds you can make a one-to-one correspondence between bivectors (the things that REALLY describe certain things) and vectors (the things we represent with curl or other cross-product related quantities). The bivector formulation extends naturally and comfortably to any number of dimensions. It's the same stuff, really, just with an adjusted mathematical representation.
I watch a good number of these videos and I complain sometime the speakers come on and talk - and it this case Philip jumps in a starts asking questions. It is a frustrating and refreshing at the same time. It gets at some great material in a kind of behind the scenes kind of way - Tim knows a lot and it’s great to see him wrestling with these questions.
Powerful interview, big thank you, both. Donald Hoffman is definitely working towards finding out what lies beneath/beyond our current, obviously limited, understanding of reality. He's done some very thought provoking interviews available here on YT. Maybe you could use your easy-to-listen-to and most effective interview style to coax some more out of him. Thanks again for your great shows.
This interview was a great success in that it allowed us access to the spirit of Tim's interests and approaches without just being some rhetoric win against other views while giving a clear flavor for Tim's bias and humor.
Phillip, 22:00, I think the straightforward answer is, yes, wavefunction/quantum state description could just be a model that falls out of some property of whatever is “beneath”.
Hey, I’m pretty new to all this, it’s all fascinating. One question I have is- what do we even mean when we say that something is “weird” or “spooky” or “strange”, with regards to discoveries about the fundamental processes that give rise to the universe? Strange in relation to what? How are we defining “strange” here? We have no other universes that we can observe that are behaving in a way that’s “normal”, for us to call this one “strange”? Is it simply that people are just feeling that its “strange”, with relation to our macro physics and classical models? That it’s counter intuitive and not entirely compatible with how we perceive reality from a first person perspective? Because if so, that’s… oddly unscientific? We can’t reject things like non-locality and branching wave forms, simply because they don’t conform to intuitions formed by our tree climbing, apple eating ape brains, about how these things “should” be? It feels intuitive to me that we should expect the ultimate nature of reality, to be far stranger than we can possibly imagine.
The only strange thing here is the way we teach quantum mechanics. We are doing this for historical reasons and it confuses the heck out of people. There is no need for that. The actual subjects is close to trivial IF taught correctly.
I think that in the end the "right way of looking at things" will have to at least ACKNOWLEDGE, if not describe rigorously, the notion of mind. There is an appealing parallel with quantum ideas here. Consider some internal experience you have. The sensation of red, the love you feel for your child, or whatever. This is real - we have all had these internal experiences. They are undeniable. But you can't "share" such an experience, in its totality, with anyone else. It is private to you. You also can't REALLY "store" that full experience and re-live it again later. There's just too much to it. You can try to use words to describe it to someone, or write it down in your private journal to read later yourself, but at best this is just a "surface semblance" of the experience. I find this to be a strong analogy to a quantum state. Quantum states seem to have SOME kind of reality - if they didn't it's hard to see how quantum computing would work at all. But we can't "snapshot" them - we can't COPY them (no cloning theorem). We can extract some hard information from them, via measurement, and THAT we can write down or copy or communicate, but that's just a nuance of the full quantum state. This similarity is striking to me. Science as a discipline revolves around objective information that we can share and discuss and, most importantly, AGREE ON. The information inherently MUST be shared (copied an arbitrary number of times) in order for us to run our collaborative scientific method. So that method is innately constrained to these "collapsed representations" of what's really going on in the world. We simply can't do science with quantum states in full. We can dance around them and say a few things about them, but we can't truly "get at them" with our methods. I think that the reality has a "mental component" that we will never be able to access in full, and that the best we can do is build science around our (collapsed) objective PERCEPTIONS of this reality. Some particularly hard core materialists have tried to dodge this whole issue by simply DENYING the reality of these internal subjective experiences. That's just sheer madness in my eyes. Or arrogance - the desire to claim full victory in the scientific quests leads them to simply throw out the parts that we can't capture scientifically. It just doesn't feel like the right approach to me. I do think the fullness of these things is forever out of our scientific reach, but I think we can't get away with not at least acknowledging them. What our theories are really doing is trying to predict future collapsed representations - future perceptions. These perceptions, taken in aggregate, are like a movie playing out for us on some kind of a canvas. We can make models of that canvas and models of the underlying mechanisms of the perceptions to our heart's content. Maudlin likes Bohmian-style approaches. Fine - there's nothing wrong at all with adding local beables to your model of what's happening on the canvas. If the predictions come out right, that's groovy. But we just need to remember that we are not modeling all of reality - we are modeling the aspects of it we can see, copy, and talk about. The fullness of it is just beyond us.
Best video ever - re. getting to the bottom; that's what we want to know. I'm good with waves in fields. End of story (just some details left to sort). You got your beables and your formula for its evolution or dynamics living in space time (gravity). I've like Bohm for 50 years and I'm nonlocal (I live in Canada). If Tim and Sabine had a child, you would have the next Einstein.
There is indeed an empirical test for whether a pink elephant materializes in the refrigerator when you close the door. The overall mass of the refrigerator would suddenly increase far beyond the ability of the floor to hold it. If the refrigerator crashes down into the apartment below on closing the door, you've shown the appearance of an elephant-mass object. You might also rig a camera in the refrigerator to be triggered if an object appears in it. The camera is of course color-sensitive; so pinkness and mass may be jointly tested. QED. But no QED invoked.
A thought that's been on my mind lately: I wonder if, in attempting to unite QM & GR, that we are pursuing an impossibility? Maybe we can't find the link because there simply isn't one - why couldn't two separate "entities" come together to make the Universe work without there being any direct connection between them? What exactly convinces Physicists that they must be connected, other than pure human want? Because both act within or upon Space-Time? That doesn't appear to be sufficient enough for me. I've never heard this be argued by anyone before... and would really like to know what those more involved in the Philosophy side of things think of this inquiry... Or... are we "not supposed to ask such questions"? Edit: Typos and some slight changes.
We aren't trying to unite QM and GR. We know that GR is the wrong theory and we are trying to replace it. The problem with that is empirical. We don't know how quantum gravity behaves. There is not a single experiment or observation that could tell us.
Plenty of people still don’t like non-locality so no need to dump on Einstein. I think we understand more why we need it but are still working on the ramifications
Bell's proof doesn't rule out locality. It only rules out locality if you (1) believe there are hidden variables, or (2) think the wave function represents a literal entity which collapses when observed. The PBR theorem only rules out psi-epistemic models under non-relational frameworks. It doesn't address relational quantum mechanics. There's also superdeterminism it doesn't address, although that approach has its own problems.
Of course it doesn't rule out locality. All physics is local. What it rules out is that we can model quantum mechanics with models that use nothing but local hidden variables. What Bell does not tell you is why this is the case, but even a cursory look at special relativity will. In other words, if you know physics, then you don't need Bell to begin with. You already know much, much more than what Bell's argument reveals. Well, not you. You are clearly still laboring at the level of the unphysical basics of the theory. ;-)
@@amihartz Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. You won't become really attractive, though, until you grow up and stop being so full of yourself. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 You are _the_ most insufferable poster on Physics UA-cam and, in a world where Sean Carroll still exists, that is a _real_ accomplishment.
There is at least one issue with the 'pilot wave' theory. According to this theory both the 'wave' and the particle 'trajectory' are physical entities (or, physically 'real'). But, only the wave acts on the trajectory (e.g. 'guides' it) but the trajectory does n o t act on the wave! Why is this asymmetry? This is unlike any two physical entities that, if they interact at all, they 'inter-act' on each other mutually.
Very good. You were paying attention in undergrad physics. Not many do. The guide wave in Bohm is basically a reformulation of the wave function. That the wave function is not a physical object follows directly from its construction, but we do, unfortunately, not teach where it comes from when we teach quantum mechanics. It is a little strange that so many otherwise capable theorists seem to have trouble with distinguishing abstract quantities like the wave function (or a probability distribution) from concrete systems and their physical properties like energy and momentum, but that lack of differentiation between different categories seems to play a major role in misinterpretations of physics.
@@schmetterling4477 Alas, you have missed the issue! You are putting your own spin to the interpretation of the wave function. (Perhaps more than „undergrad physics“ is needed to grasp the ontological claim of de Broglie/Bohm of their pilot wave theory.) The claim of their theory is that both the guiding „wave“ and the „guided particle“ are ontologically real.
@@farhadfaisal9410 Awh, you got off to a good start and now you crashed and burned. Pity. I thought I had met an intelligent person, but it was just an intellectual fluctuation. :-) No, undergrad physics is more than enough. I can actually explain this to a smart middle schooler, if needed. Not you, though, if you already believe religiously that wave functions are anything other than abstracts. :-)
I eventually came to understand this, but the first times I heard Maudlin talk about "adding a foliation" I had no idea what he meant. It would probably be worth defining that when making the argument, just for people unfamiliar with the terminology. Just say out loud that a foliation is a set of slices in spacetime, stacked together, such that each slice is a "slice of simultaneity" - a "now" slice. Best I can tell that's all the term means. Lingo is an impediment to people building their knowledge. Mathematicians are particularly bad about this - they tend to develop their specialized terminology, and then write papers using only that terminology. Many a time this has kept me from grasping papers I'm trying to read. I'm dogged about it, though, and eventually I will find a paper written to TEACH rather than just to communicate with other mathematicians already in the club, and more often than not my reaction then is "Oh, now I see. Well, that's actually simple as it can be." So, if you define your less than completely common terms, you'll reach a wider audience.
Why do people seem to forget the difference between actuality and reality, that was clarified by Alfred North Whitehead nearly a century ago? On the other hand, it is good at 5:40 to hear it said straight out that Bohr did a lot of damage with his pseudo-philosophy.
I used chat GPT for this: Just as Watson and Crick uncovered the structure of DNA by building upon others' research and making connections, a potential advancement in comprehending the fundamentals of physics might arise through insights gained from T. Maudlin's elucidation of the current state.
Greetings! For the EPR/Bell lab setups: As a matter of fact QM can predict for all differences of direction the fraction of one series of pairs that will have had or would have had the same outcome at two different datacollectors. For example in the case of fotons and polarisation filters "the same" means "both of an entangled pair pass or neither does". If one adds a prediction for a third direction, then for some combinations of directions of, in the foton example, polarisation filters, it is impossible to, without contradiction, and using current QM theory, predict a hypothetical combination for the hypothetical three direction for one beam of pairs out of the same source. So, simply, induction for two measurements is ok but three or more is a nono. I don't understand how from there one must go to theorys of non-locality, superdeterminism, tachyons etc. For determinism QM theory is incomplete in the sense that if there is something that determines the empiric correlation it is not accounted for in current QM.
@@bruceshaw3881 No, be-able is an idea by John Bell, it's used in a lot of theories and interpretations. It just means "something that exists that you can point to and identify it in some context." Bell's point was that some interpretations of quantum mechanics did not posit clearly defined beables, and without clearly defined beables, without things you can really point to in the real world and say "that's what I'm talking about," then you just end up with confusion without any way to concretely connect the theory to reality.
Excellent! At 57:10 a question came as to why mathematics is able to represent the physical world so well and I was frankly surprised by Tim's answer. To me it is not at all surprising. It is not that ALL of mathematics represents the reality, but that the specific mathematics that seems to describe our physical universe, by definition can represent it well. Duh? And why did we discover that mathematics first, again, duh, because we were trying to observe the patterns in our physical world and then figure out the math to model IT. So by definition we are going to naturally figure out that mathematics first (proverbial looking under the lamp post) . And historically our thinking was not that sophisticated and we had learned to use spherical cows (simplified models). For example, locally, at our scales Euclidean geometry feels intuitively correct (flat earth etc). But once we mastered these basics and then progressed to think of more abstract math, we discovered the hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry. We figured out math of arbitrary number of dimensions. on and on... Now it is clear that subset of math does and is good at representing our world but there is vast areas of math that are purely abstract and have nothing to do with our physical world. Secondly, pretty much any universe with regularities (obvious candidate for math) and even highly irregular universe can have some math that will fit it. Laminar flows (regular) have very nice math, but even turbulent flows (irregular) have some math that can model it. So what. Thus I do not buy this business of unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (to describe our physical world). A more interesting issue is how come there is so much more math that is not realizable in physical world and our minds are able to think about it. Only a subset of math represents our physical universe.
Agreed … we certainly invented math to describe nature. It wasn’t the dinosaurs nor the universe that though of it, though it’s based on the universe’s behavior.
E=mc² - If it is a constant, then all the universe would know about it - Mass, Energy and all the rest... "A derived Value must not violate the Concept of its Value. In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
As one surfs quantum and wave investigation videos, now and then something stands out as having more potential than the usual dead-ends. ua-cam.com/video/ExhSqq1jysg/v-deo.html&pp=ygUSVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSB3YXZl One of these I saw was an effort to study how a classical standing wave pattern shifts into another by introducing a phase shift from outside the boundary where the original standing wave is contained. It turns out that during the relatively short transition time between “states”, there exists a mixture of both frequencies, and the beat frequency is present also. Would that be akin to emitting or absorbing a photon? Sounds like a nice philosophical starting point to get at the question of transitions between energy states of the electron, then if this can be extended perhaps have more to say about the quantum wave function.
Can’t go on infinity, because if there were infinite degrees of freedom for motion, Boltzmann’s equipartition of energy principle would mean things could absorb an infinite amount of heat. Another consideration is there is nothing with a small enough wavelength to resolve the “length” of things smaller than 10^-34 cm (Planck length) without collapsing into a black hole singularity. At least, until we have a better model of what quantum gravity is via experiment.
@@enterprisesoftwarearchitect The principle doesn't forbid it, because all the d.o.f. are effective. Gravity doesn't forbid anything either, because it is an effective theory. The fact we don't have the instruments to resolve trans-plankian distances doesn't mean they don't exist.
Tim is mistaken on the Einstein bit: John Bell himself was not convinced in 1990 when he spoke about counter efficiency and detecting only the yes's. I'd like to think Einstein would have wanted to see the rough data before he accepted an extraordinary claim - an expectation the scientific community does not share.
Bell doesn't matter. We know how quantum physics works and why: it all follows from relativity. That Einstein couldn't see it is a remarkable fact of science history, but that is all it is.
@@schmetterling4477 that is just wishful thinking: the standard model is not derived from relativity. Indeed, the EPR paper exists because the dependencies of entangled particle states make immediate reference to each other without c. You are doing stand up physics.
@@BenjaminGatti Dude, the standard model is a product of three unitary representations of the Poincare group. Bell can only tell you how physics can't work. Relativity tells you how it works in excruciating detail. You need to get a life and pay better attention in undergrad physics. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Yes and No: QM incorporates c by PG->Lorenz->c ; however, the collapse of psi is argued to be spaciotemporally invariant - how do you describe the collapse using relativity?
@@BenjaminGatti Yes, that was bullshit. Collapse is simple bullshit. You can't even find the term in well written quantum mechanics textbooks like Sakurai. Why are you telling me that you don't know the literature? I don't care about all the things that you don't know. ;-)
At the bottom of reality is the wave function, and that is all. Any integration of the wave function needs to make a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration. Any computer simulation of reality therefore needs to make use of a random number generator.
Life is consciousness >> a thinking-feeling entity who is aware it is a thinking-feeling entity. Consciousness is consciousness is consciousness >> there is only one kind: Perfect Eternal Conscious Energy. Every living physical creature is actually an eternal, conscious spiritual entity. Not one is older or younger, dumber or smarter than any other. They are all perfectly equal & equally perfect. They have always been alive. They never change or diminish. This world you are in is a spiritual movie that was predetermined, scripted, designed and engineered by all of us in collusion & collaboration with each other before this physical world ever manifested. It was all packed & programmed to unfurl & unfold & unspool exactly as it is doing. There are no actual wrongs or accidents or chances or choices or random happenings. It is all unfolding exactly as planned by all of us. We, as eternal spirits, are not harmed or changed by anything ever. We are not here to learn or grow. We are here as a vacation from our never-changing Homestate of never-changing Spiritual Sanity & Sobriety. Our Home is Reality and it never changes. It is blissful and bliss gets boring after awhile. Consciousness needs an experience with contrast once in awhile or otherwise bliss is no longer experienced as bliss. It gets dull. So we create these spiritual movies as an escape and for the relief of waking up divine upon our mortal deaths.
For me the problem is that they have spent so much time looking for the letters of the alphabet (low level physics), they are oblivious to the meaning of the sentences expressed in the book (high level physics). Hence they are utterly oblivious to high level abstractions that are also based upon the fundamentals. Our ancestors from millenia ago did not uphold such ignorance. Alas, high level abstractions of objective reality necessitate intelligent design of course. That is an anathema to the modern world of science. One example is discoveing an 'abstract' repsentation of reality as a specific idealised time and place, that is locked within the fundamenals. Hence using pure spherical trigonometry, and the ecliptic of acos (2/3)/2, as the latitude of Syene from which all the old measurements of the Earth were based. Then basing the ecliptic upon a great circle cut into 24 equal divisions. At that point a whole cascade of 2D and 3D geometrical relationships fall into place. These not only reveal the nature of 3:4:5 and subsequent squares, but also the platonic solids, where the points of a cube are used as the origin of sunrise calculations, that become hexagonal on the solstices, that link all 8 corners as via great circles, while crossing over at the cardinal points of an octahedron, with octagonal alignements. But the relationships also go far beyond this (with 100% precision). Such that the azimuth of solstice sunrise + the azimuth of the 1/8th year sunrise, create a perfect octagon that is rotated. This rotated octagon contains a square, that is the 3/4th square of a light path through a spherical raindrop at dawn on the equinox (R.I sqaure root 9/5th), with an elevation and conal azimuth of a 3:4:5 triangle. As a double horizon circle instead of one based on 24 points, the orientation of solstice and 1/8th year sunrise is defined by squaring the circle by area and perimeter using 25/8th as Pi. This was all subsequently related to the proportions and geomtetry of an idealised human anatomy using Pi as 25/8th. While also relating the size of the earth as 100 days march diameter (Shen Ring), to that of a temple that was 100 foot diameter (Stonehenge) or 1:432,000 scale, where the human Orphic egg, the solar burst of the skull, and the 3rd eye or ashen cross, were all 10:1 fractals of that 3:4:5 based egg geometry. i.e 3600" cord/temple > 360" orphic egg > 36" solar burst > 3.6" 3rd eye circumference. Hence 5x5 common cubit perimeter or 5x5 remen diagonal royal cubit area = that of a circle with cirumference of 360 using 25/8th Pi, where the tilt of the area square has a 1:7 gradient within an 8x8 grid, while the circle sits within that 8x8 grid. This was related to time as a primordial Sothic 360 days (+ 5 epagomenal days), that had 12 full moons & 12 new moons of 30 days and 13 sidereal/phased moons, that later became embodied as Draughts/Checkers/Alquerque. All of which was encapsulated within later Christian symbolism, as the Rainbow covenant, the Eucharist, In hoc signo vinces and made in the 'image of God(s)' as divine measure. Thus phrases like 'the iron ulna of our lord' and regulus, regal, ruler....to measure or the one that measures.
I'd say every classical American linage, every artist, most precision machinist and technicians probably gets upset when they hear someone claim that the smallest scales are not intuitive. On the contrary we straddle this scale ,2 known standards we can be precise enough but its never perfect. Someone living in a class or a few replicating test doesn't witness our equations stressed to the limits. For sake of efficiency they to invoke hidden variables scrap it and write down some super positions musical chairs to document the answer they want. Because sending equations back to 1900s higher ed will not accept or try to fix it.lol . Our 5 senses absolutely correlates With low energy state of a cool red apple . And once a consensus is built no magician can come along and trick into thinking purple high entropic state hot apples are really red .. Smell ,touch, taste ,hearing is very active when it comes to this. Denying it as if we all live in 3 degrees of motion on classical scale is silly. We are now able to use inferred and enhanced cameras to share exactly what intuitiveness many all encompassing intelligent minds have always had in common . 1900s structuralism demands for recruitment of Euclidean abstract minds with good memorization skills who also tend to be more passive appropriately lacks such intuitive skill sets.
Thermodynamics and entropy are extremely intuitive to at minimum, half the world minds it plays a large role in how they navigate this world. Especially in environments where all the complexity is on them to deal with ,like where things actually matters. Our Ben Franklin systems if you will .
1980s-1950 generation was on this heavily influenced old world, industrial revolutionary mindset form and shape was all that had ,many deterministic views about reality which brought wonderful things for that generation and its still valuable and beneficial but it's been an undeniable jail for newer gens. Plenty of room inside to play connect the dots but still prescribed values of objects with premium on carbon based life. We mapped the conprencous dna code of life yet still call it ptolemaic evolution. We deny the phenotypical transfer of accountability or valued credit that is definitely ready for explanation. Young pupils need task, goals of ordering ,categorizing checking the work of the past gen. Stangnet living on old classical American momentum that was always going to do these things but got a eurpeanized ecclesiastical top hat that to tight and stuffy
If I was Tim I wouldn’t laugh after pointing out what other people believe. He says if you are Physicist you think that things are there only one you’re looking at them. Ha, ha, ha ha ha, ha ha what does that mean? That he thinks physicists are stupid? As Tim very well knows, the dual slit experiment makes a particle behave like a particle and not like a wave only when you’re looking or measuring. why would he laugh of that? The world does behave differently when we re not looking. He has completely confused me, because he knows that is true. So I don’t know if I u de estand.
Yes, physicists like Einstein, wherever they went in physics, wanted to get to know and mix with the locals. But now the newer physicists, for whom the Bell tolled, know it to be just the opposite: get to know and mix with....the non-locals. Pretty (Niels) boring stuff.
Was gonna watch but read the enwiki Tim Maudlin article instead. DIdn find any stinkers, e.g. countenancing religion but also didn have any interest in opinings on the shit show that is modern physics if there wasn gonna be some payback for the time which I assessed there wouldn.
This was great a interview, touching on nearly everything that has been argued since antiquity. Bravo!
Thanks. Appreciated.
@@drphilipdavies
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
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. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole.
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.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
I'd recommend to Dr. Maudlin that he take a look at casting his discrete theory using geometric algebra rather than the standard vector calculus. It's just far more graceful, particularly in higher dimensionality. Curl in particular is an issue - it only really properly exists in three dimensional manifolds, because in such manifolds you can make a one-to-one correspondence between bivectors (the things that REALLY describe certain things) and vectors (the things we represent with curl or other cross-product related quantities). The bivector formulation extends naturally and comfortably to any number of dimensions. It's the same stuff, really, just with an adjusted mathematical representation.
I watch a good number of these videos and I complain sometime the speakers come on and talk - and it this case Philip jumps in a starts asking questions. It is a frustrating and refreshing at the same time. It gets at some great material in a kind of behind the scenes kind of way - Tim knows a lot and it’s great to see him wrestling with these questions.
Great interview to Tim Maudlin man!!
I admire Maudlin. Nice interview. Interviewer and Maudlin both know the basics and more of the theories and frameworks out there!
I would have liked more in depth discussion about the QM theories but Tim goes into more depth in different interviews.
Very interesting discussion. Thanks for sharing Philip.
Powerful interview, big thank you, both. Donald Hoffman is definitely working towards finding out what lies beneath/beyond our current, obviously limited, understanding of reality. He's done some very thought provoking interviews available here on YT. Maybe you could use your easy-to-listen-to and most effective interview style to coax some more out of him. Thanks again for your great shows.
Besides some inevitable disagreements, that was an enjoyable discussion, with good and relevant questions and answers.
I like a couple places where Philips just goes hmmm hmmm and you know he disagrees or is willing to let it go for the sake of the discussion
This interview was a great success in that it allowed us access to the spirit of Tim's interests and approaches without just being some rhetoric win against other views while giving a clear flavor for Tim's bias and humor.
Thanks. Appreciated.
Predictive formalism it is. Thank both of you.
Fascinating and well done!
Phillip, 22:00, I think the straightforward answer is, yes, wavefunction/quantum state description could just be a model that falls out of some property of whatever is “beneath”.
Truly fascinating and what a fabulously optimistic view of mankind's possibilities there at the end!
12/10.
Enjoyed the ponderings and reasoned positions.
Hey, I’m pretty new to all this, it’s all fascinating.
One question I have is- what do we even mean when we say that something is “weird” or “spooky” or “strange”, with regards to discoveries about the fundamental processes that give rise to the universe? Strange in relation to what? How are we defining “strange” here?
We have no other universes that we can observe that are behaving in a way that’s “normal”, for us to call this one “strange”?
Is it simply that people are just feeling that its “strange”, with relation to our macro physics and classical models? That it’s counter intuitive and not entirely compatible with how we perceive reality from a first person perspective?
Because if so, that’s… oddly unscientific? We can’t reject things like non-locality and branching wave forms, simply because they don’t conform to intuitions formed by our tree climbing, apple eating ape brains, about how these things “should” be?
It feels intuitive to me that we should expect the ultimate nature of reality, to be far stranger than we can possibly imagine.
The only strange thing here is the way we teach quantum mechanics. We are doing this for historical reasons and it confuses the heck out of people. There is no need for that. The actual subjects is close to trivial IF taught correctly.
I think that in the end the "right way of looking at things" will have to at least ACKNOWLEDGE, if not describe rigorously, the notion of mind. There is an appealing parallel with quantum ideas here. Consider some internal experience you have. The sensation of red, the love you feel for your child, or whatever. This is real - we have all had these internal experiences. They are undeniable. But you can't "share" such an experience, in its totality, with anyone else. It is private to you. You also can't REALLY "store" that full experience and re-live it again later. There's just too much to it. You can try to use words to describe it to someone, or write it down in your private journal to read later yourself, but at best this is just a "surface semblance" of the experience.
I find this to be a strong analogy to a quantum state. Quantum states seem to have SOME kind of reality - if they didn't it's hard to see how quantum computing would work at all. But we can't "snapshot" them - we can't COPY them (no cloning theorem). We can extract some hard information from them, via measurement, and THAT we can write down or copy or communicate, but that's just a nuance of the full quantum state. This similarity is striking to me.
Science as a discipline revolves around objective information that we can share and discuss and, most importantly, AGREE ON. The information inherently MUST be shared (copied an arbitrary number of times) in order for us to run our collaborative scientific method. So that method is innately constrained to these "collapsed representations" of what's really going on in the world. We simply can't do science with quantum states in full. We can dance around them and say a few things about them, but we can't truly "get at them" with our methods. I think that the reality has a "mental component" that we will never be able to access in full, and that the best we can do is build science around our (collapsed) objective PERCEPTIONS of this reality.
Some particularly hard core materialists have tried to dodge this whole issue by simply DENYING the reality of these internal subjective experiences. That's just sheer madness in my eyes. Or arrogance - the desire to claim full victory in the scientific quests leads them to simply throw out the parts that we can't capture scientifically. It just doesn't feel like the right approach to me. I do think the fullness of these things is forever out of our scientific reach, but I think we can't get away with not at least acknowledging them.
What our theories are really doing is trying to predict future collapsed representations - future perceptions. These perceptions, taken in aggregate, are like a movie playing out for us on some kind of a canvas. We can make models of that canvas and models of the underlying mechanisms of the perceptions to our heart's content. Maudlin likes Bohmian-style approaches. Fine - there's nothing wrong at all with adding local beables to your model of what's happening on the canvas. If the predictions come out right, that's groovy. But we just need to remember that we are not modeling all of reality - we are modeling the aspects of it we can see, copy, and talk about. The fullness of it is just beyond us.
Yes, that was total nonsense.
Best video ever - re. getting to the bottom; that's what we want to know. I'm good with waves in fields. End of story (just some details left to sort). You got your beables and your formula for its evolution or dynamics living in space time (gravity). I've like Bohm for 50 years and I'm nonlocal (I live in Canada). If Tim and Sabine had a child, you would have the next Einstein.
There is indeed an empirical test for whether a pink elephant materializes in the refrigerator when you close the door. The overall mass of the refrigerator would suddenly increase far beyond the ability of the floor to hold it. If the refrigerator crashes down into the apartment below on closing the door, you've shown the appearance of an elephant-mass object. You might also rig a camera in the refrigerator to be triggered if an object appears in it. The camera is of course color-sensitive; so pinkness and mass may be jointly tested. QED. But no QED invoked.
53:25 Maxwell used quaternions because he was formulating his equations in conjunction with the lumineforus aether.
Maxwell had discovered the "Higgs Field"...
A thought that's been on my mind lately:
I wonder if, in attempting to unite QM & GR, that we are pursuing an impossibility? Maybe we can't find the link because there simply isn't one - why couldn't two separate "entities" come together to make the Universe work without there being any direct connection between them? What exactly convinces Physicists that they must be connected, other than pure human want? Because both act within or upon Space-Time? That doesn't appear to be sufficient enough for me.
I've never heard this be argued by anyone before... and would really like to know what those more involved in the Philosophy side of things think of this inquiry...
Or... are we "not supposed to ask such questions"?
Edit: Typos and some slight changes.
We aren't trying to unite QM and GR. We know that GR is the wrong theory and we are trying to replace it. The problem with that is empirical. We don't know how quantum gravity behaves. There is not a single experiment or observation that could tell us.
Plenty of people still don’t like non-locality so no need to dump on Einstein. I think we understand more why we need it but are still working on the ramifications
Bell's proof doesn't rule out locality. It only rules out locality if you (1) believe there are hidden variables, or (2) think the wave function represents a literal entity which collapses when observed. The PBR theorem only rules out psi-epistemic models under non-relational frameworks. It doesn't address relational quantum mechanics. There's also superdeterminism it doesn't address, although that approach has its own problems.
Of course it doesn't rule out locality. All physics is local. What it rules out is that we can model quantum mechanics with models that use nothing but local hidden variables. What Bell does not tell you is why this is the case, but even a cursory look at special relativity will. In other words, if you know physics, then you don't need Bell to begin with. You already know much, much more than what Bell's argument reveals. Well, not you. You are clearly still laboring at the level of the unphysical basics of the theory. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Can you please stop replying to me? I do not respect your opinion and do not care for it.
@@amihartz Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. You won't become really attractive, though, until you grow up and stop being so full of yourself. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Please just leave me alone. Stop replying to all my comments and harassing me.
@@schmetterling4477 You are _the_ most insufferable poster on Physics UA-cam and, in a world where Sean Carroll still exists, that is a _real_ accomplishment.
There is at least one issue with the 'pilot wave' theory. According to this theory both the 'wave' and the particle 'trajectory' are physical entities (or, physically 'real'). But, only the wave acts on the trajectory (e.g. 'guides' it) but the trajectory does n o t act on the wave! Why is this asymmetry? This is unlike any two physical entities that, if they interact at all, they 'inter-act' on each other mutually.
Very good. You were paying attention in undergrad physics. Not many do. The guide wave in Bohm is basically a reformulation of the wave function. That the wave function is not a physical object follows directly from its construction, but we do, unfortunately, not teach where it comes from when we teach quantum mechanics. It is a little strange that so many otherwise capable theorists seem to have trouble with distinguishing abstract quantities like the wave function (or a probability distribution) from concrete systems and their physical properties like energy and momentum, but that lack of differentiation between different categories seems to play a major role in misinterpretations of physics.
@@schmetterling4477 Alas, you have missed the issue! You are putting your own spin to the interpretation of the wave function. (Perhaps more than „undergrad physics“ is needed to grasp the ontological claim of de Broglie/Bohm of their pilot wave theory.)
The claim of their theory is that both the guiding „wave“ and the „guided particle“ are ontologically real.
@@farhadfaisal9410 Awh, you got off to a good start and now you crashed and burned. Pity. I thought I had met an intelligent person, but it was just an intellectual fluctuation. :-)
No, undergrad physics is more than enough. I can actually explain this to a smart middle schooler, if needed. Not you, though, if you already believe religiously that wave functions are anything other than abstracts. :-)
@@schmetterling4477
Have a nice day.
@@farhadfaisal9410 Oh, boy, and now you are feeling sorry for yourself like a small child. It's just getting worse and worse. ;-)
I wonder what Tim Maudlin thinks about the map-territory relation.
I eventually came to understand this, but the first times I heard Maudlin talk about "adding a foliation" I had no idea what he meant. It would probably be worth defining that when making the argument, just for people unfamiliar with the terminology. Just say out loud that a foliation is a set of slices in spacetime, stacked together, such that each slice is a "slice of simultaneity" - a "now" slice. Best I can tell that's all the term means.
Lingo is an impediment to people building their knowledge. Mathematicians are particularly bad about this - they tend to develop their specialized terminology, and then write papers using only that terminology. Many a time this has kept me from grasping papers I'm trying to read. I'm dogged about it, though, and eventually I will find a paper written to TEACH rather than just to communicate with other mathematicians already in the club, and more often than not my reaction then is "Oh, now I see. Well, that's actually simple as it can be." So, if you define your less than completely common terms, you'll reach a wider audience.
Why do people seem to forget the difference between actuality and reality, that was clarified by Alfred North Whitehead nearly a century ago? On the other hand, it is good at 5:40 to hear it said straight out that Bohr did a lot of damage with his pseudo-philosophy.
I used chat GPT for this: Just as Watson and Crick uncovered the structure of DNA by building upon others' research and making connections, a potential advancement in comprehending the fundamentals of physics might arise through insights gained from T. Maudlin's elucidation of the current state.
Math is effective in physics because physicists look for regularities, which are structural, and math describes structures.
What about matrix mechanics then
Greetings!
For the EPR/Bell lab setups: As a matter of fact QM can predict for all differences of direction the fraction of one series of pairs that will have had or would have had the same outcome at two different datacollectors. For example in the case of fotons and polarisation filters "the same" means "both of an entangled pair pass or neither does". If one adds a prediction for a third direction, then for some combinations of directions of, in the foton example, polarisation filters, it is impossible to, without contradiction, and using current QM theory, predict a hypothetical combination for the hypothetical three direction for one beam of pairs out of the same source. So, simply, induction for two measurements is ok but three or more is a nono. I don't understand how from there one must go to theorys of non-locality, superdeterminism, tachyons etc. For determinism QM theory is incomplete in the sense that if there is something that determines the empiric correlation it is not accounted for in current QM.
The interviewer was apparently so busy reading the many books in his library that he had no time to read prof. Maudlin's recent book.
They keep saying a word in association with Bell's theories that sounds like "beable" or "vehicle". Google is failing me. What are they talking about?
Found it. It's "beable" part of pilot wave theory
@@bruceshaw3881 No, be-able is an idea by John Bell, it's used in a lot of theories and interpretations. It just means "something that exists that you can point to and identify it in some context." Bell's point was that some interpretations of quantum mechanics did not posit clearly defined beables, and without clearly defined beables, without things you can really point to in the real world and say "that's what I'm talking about," then you just end up with confusion without any way to concretely connect the theory to reality.
Excellent!
At 57:10 a question came as to why mathematics is able to represent the physical world so well and I was frankly surprised by Tim's answer. To me it is not at all surprising. It is not that ALL of mathematics represents the reality, but that the specific mathematics that seems to describe our physical universe, by definition can represent it well. Duh? And why did we discover that mathematics first, again, duh, because we were trying to observe the patterns in our physical world and then figure out the math to model IT. So by definition we are going to naturally figure out that mathematics first (proverbial looking under the lamp post) . And historically our thinking was not that sophisticated and we had learned to use spherical cows (simplified models). For example, locally, at our scales Euclidean geometry feels intuitively correct (flat earth etc). But once we mastered these basics and then progressed to think of more abstract math, we discovered the hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry. We figured out math of arbitrary number of dimensions. on and on... Now it is clear that subset of math does and is good at representing our world but there is vast areas of math that are purely abstract and have nothing to do with our physical world.
Secondly, pretty much any universe with regularities (obvious candidate for math) and even highly irregular universe can have some math that will fit it. Laminar flows (regular) have very nice math, but even turbulent flows (irregular) have some math that can model it. So what. Thus I do not buy this business of unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (to describe our physical world). A more interesting issue is how come there is so much more math that is not realizable in physical world and our minds are able to think about it. Only a subset of math represents our physical universe.
Agreed … we certainly invented math to describe nature. It wasn’t the dinosaurs nor the universe that though of it, though it’s based on the universe’s behavior.
@eugenebird5498 Looks like you missed my subtle point :). I think the latent math landscape is there. We explore and discover it. We do not invent it.
E=mc² - If it is a constant, then all the universe would know about it - Mass, Energy and all the rest...
"A derived Value must not violate the Concept of its Value.
In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
As one surfs quantum and wave investigation videos, now and then something stands out as having more potential than the usual dead-ends.
ua-cam.com/video/ExhSqq1jysg/v-deo.html&pp=ygUSVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSB3YXZl
One of these I saw was an effort to study how a classical standing wave pattern shifts into another by introducing a phase shift from outside the boundary where the original standing wave is contained. It turns out that during the relatively short transition time between “states”, there exists a mixture of both frequencies, and the beat frequency is present also. Would that be akin to emitting or absorbing a photon? Sounds like a nice philosophical starting point to get at the question of transitions between energy states of the electron, then if this can be extended perhaps have more to say about the quantum wave function.
There is no bottom, it goes on forever, infinite sequence of emergent physical processes and structures.
Yes, i'm 99% sure this is true. There are a few scientific papers 📜 i found on the subject.
Can’t go on infinity, because if there were infinite degrees of freedom for motion, Boltzmann’s equipartition of energy principle would mean things could absorb an infinite amount of heat. Another consideration is there is nothing with a small enough wavelength to resolve the “length” of things smaller than 10^-34 cm (Planck length) without collapsing into a black hole singularity. At least, until we have a better model of what quantum gravity is via experiment.
@@enterprisesoftwarearchitect The principle doesn't forbid it, because all the d.o.f. are effective. Gravity doesn't forbid anything either, because it is an effective theory. The fact we don't have the instruments to resolve trans-plankian distances doesn't mean they don't exist.
@@frun surprises are fun; it’ll be thrilling to hear about if someone does find something down there.
No, ontologically, an infinite chain of contingencies is logically impossible.
Tim is mistaken on the Einstein bit: John Bell himself was not convinced in 1990 when he spoke about counter efficiency and detecting only the yes's.
I'd like to think Einstein would have wanted to see the rough data before he accepted an extraordinary claim - an expectation the scientific community does not share.
Bell doesn't matter. We know how quantum physics works and why: it all follows from relativity. That Einstein couldn't see it is a remarkable fact of science history, but that is all it is.
@@schmetterling4477 that is just wishful thinking: the standard model is not derived from relativity. Indeed, the EPR paper exists because the dependencies of entangled particle states make immediate reference to each other without c. You are doing stand up physics.
@@BenjaminGatti Dude, the standard model is a product of three unitary representations of the Poincare group. Bell can only tell you how physics can't work. Relativity tells you how it works in excruciating detail. You need to get a life and pay better attention in undergrad physics. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Yes and No: QM incorporates c by PG->Lorenz->c ; however, the collapse of psi is argued to be spaciotemporally invariant - how do you describe the collapse using relativity?
@@BenjaminGatti Yes, that was bullshit. Collapse is simple bullshit. You can't even find the term in well written quantum mechanics textbooks like Sakurai. Why are you telling me that you don't know the literature? I don't care about all the things that you don't know. ;-)
* commutativity (not "commutivity"...)
Rather the world is made of discrete sets that behave like quaternions, in my view.
At the bottom of reality is the wave function, and that is all. Any integration of the wave function needs to make a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration. Any computer simulation of reality therefore needs to make use of a random number generator.
Life is consciousness >> a thinking-feeling entity who is aware it is a thinking-feeling entity. Consciousness is consciousness is consciousness >> there is only one kind: Perfect Eternal Conscious Energy.
Every living physical creature is actually an eternal, conscious spiritual entity. Not one is older or younger, dumber or smarter than any other. They are all perfectly equal & equally perfect. They have always been alive. They never change or diminish.
This world you are in is a spiritual movie that was predetermined, scripted, designed and engineered by all of us in collusion & collaboration with each other before this physical world ever manifested. It was all packed & programmed to unfurl & unfold & unspool exactly as it is doing.
There are no actual wrongs or accidents or chances or choices or random happenings. It is all unfolding exactly as planned by all of us.
We, as eternal spirits, are not harmed or changed by anything ever. We are not here to learn or grow. We are here as a vacation from our never-changing Homestate of never-changing Spiritual Sanity & Sobriety.
Our Home is Reality and it never changes. It is blissful and bliss gets boring after awhile. Consciousness needs an experience with contrast once in awhile or otherwise bliss is no longer experienced as bliss. It gets dull. So we create these spiritual movies as an escape and for the relief of waking up divine upon our mortal deaths.
cringe
"Does Tim Maudlin...?"
For me the problem is that they have spent so much time looking for the letters of the alphabet (low level physics),
they are oblivious to the meaning of the sentences expressed in the book (high level physics).
Hence they are utterly oblivious to high level abstractions that are also based upon the fundamentals.
Our ancestors from millenia ago did not uphold such ignorance.
Alas, high level abstractions of objective reality necessitate intelligent design of course.
That is an anathema to the modern world of science.
One example is discoveing an 'abstract' repsentation of reality as a specific idealised time and place, that is locked within the fundamenals.
Hence using pure spherical trigonometry, and the ecliptic of acos (2/3)/2, as the latitude of Syene from which all the old measurements of the Earth were based.
Then basing the ecliptic upon a great circle cut into 24 equal divisions.
At that point a whole cascade of 2D and 3D geometrical relationships fall into place.
These not only reveal the nature of 3:4:5 and subsequent squares, but also the platonic solids, where the points of a cube are used as the origin of sunrise calculations, that become hexagonal on the solstices, that link all 8 corners as via great circles, while crossing over at the cardinal points of an octahedron, with octagonal alignements.
But the relationships also go far beyond this (with 100% precision).
Such that the azimuth of solstice sunrise + the azimuth of the 1/8th year sunrise, create a perfect octagon that is rotated.
This rotated octagon contains a square, that is the 3/4th square of a light path through a spherical raindrop at dawn on the equinox (R.I sqaure root 9/5th), with an elevation and conal azimuth of a 3:4:5 triangle.
As a double horizon circle instead of one based on 24 points, the orientation of solstice and 1/8th year sunrise is defined by squaring the circle by area and perimeter using 25/8th as Pi.
This was all subsequently related to the proportions and geomtetry of an idealised human anatomy using Pi as 25/8th.
While also relating the size of the earth as 100 days march diameter (Shen Ring), to that of a temple that was 100 foot diameter (Stonehenge) or 1:432,000 scale, where the human Orphic egg, the solar burst of the skull, and the 3rd eye or ashen cross, were all 10:1 fractals of that 3:4:5 based egg geometry.
i.e 3600" cord/temple > 360" orphic egg > 36" solar burst > 3.6" 3rd eye circumference.
Hence 5x5 common cubit perimeter or 5x5 remen diagonal royal cubit area = that of a circle with cirumference of 360 using 25/8th Pi, where the tilt of the area square has a 1:7 gradient within an 8x8 grid, while the circle sits within that 8x8 grid.
This was related to time as a primordial Sothic 360 days (+ 5 epagomenal days), that had 12 full moons & 12 new moons of 30 days and 13 sidereal/phased moons, that later became embodied as Draughts/Checkers/Alquerque.
All of which was encapsulated within later Christian symbolism, as the Rainbow covenant, the Eucharist, In hoc signo vinces and made in the 'image of God(s)' as divine measure.
Thus phrases like 'the iron ulna of our lord' and regulus, regal, ruler....to measure or the one that measures.
the top?
Ha!
Hernandez Elizabeth Moore Brian Rodriguez Kimberly
GOD.
God is a small amount of energy? OK, that explains why he doesn't do any macroscopic work. ;-)
@schmetterling4477 I think you think you made a joke. Poor you.
@@atmanbrahman1872 I was simply testing your sense of humor. You failed to exhibit one. ;-)
I'd say every classical American linage, every artist, most precision machinist and technicians probably gets upset when they hear someone claim that the smallest scales are not intuitive.
On the contrary we straddle this scale ,2 known standards we can be precise enough but its never perfect. Someone living in a class or a few replicating test doesn't witness our equations stressed to the limits. For sake of efficiency they to invoke hidden variables scrap it and write down some super positions musical chairs to document the answer they want. Because sending equations back to 1900s higher ed will not accept or try to fix it.lol
. Our 5 senses absolutely correlates With low energy state of a cool red apple . And once a consensus is built no magician can come along and trick into thinking purple high entropic state hot apples are really red ..
Smell ,touch, taste ,hearing is very active when it comes to this.
Denying it as if we all live in 3 degrees of motion on classical scale is silly.
We are now able to use inferred and enhanced cameras to share exactly what intuitiveness many all encompassing intelligent minds have always had in common .
1900s structuralism demands for recruitment of Euclidean abstract minds with good memorization skills who also tend to be more passive appropriately lacks such intuitive skill sets.
Thermodynamics and entropy are extremely intuitive to at minimum, half the world minds it plays a large role in how they navigate this world.
Especially in environments where all the complexity is on them to deal with ,like where things actually matters. Our Ben Franklin systems if you will .
1980s-1950 generation was on this heavily influenced old world, industrial revolutionary mindset form and shape was all that had ,many deterministic views about reality which brought wonderful things for that generation and its still valuable and beneficial but it's been an undeniable jail for newer gens.
Plenty of room inside to play connect the dots but still prescribed values of objects with premium on carbon based life.
We mapped the conprencous dna code of life yet still call it ptolemaic evolution.
We deny the phenotypical transfer of accountability or valued credit that is definitely ready for explanation.
Young pupils need task, goals of ordering ,categorizing checking the work of the past gen.
Stangnet living on old classical American momentum that was always going to do these things but got a eurpeanized ecclesiastical top hat that to tight and stuffy
Yes, you are confused. Why were you asking me to confirm that for you? ;-)
If I was Tim I wouldn’t laugh after pointing out what other people believe. He says if you are Physicist you think that things are there only one you’re looking at them. Ha, ha, ha ha ha, ha ha what does that mean? That he thinks physicists are stupid? As Tim very well knows, the dual slit experiment makes a particle behave like a particle and not like a wave only when you’re looking or measuring. why would he laugh of that? The world does behave differently when we re not looking. He has completely confused me, because he knows that is true. So I don’t know if I u de estand.
Smith Jennifer Perez Mary Perez Gary
Yes, physicists like Einstein, wherever they went in physics, wanted to get to know and mix with the locals. But now the newer physicists, for whom the Bell tolled, know it to be just the opposite: get to know and mix with....the non-locals. Pretty (Niels) boring stuff.
"EinSHtein" - 😂 Give me a break! Pretentious much?
Was gonna watch but read the enwiki Tim Maudlin article instead. DIdn find any stinkers, e.g. countenancing religion but also didn have any interest in opinings on the shit show that is modern physics if there wasn gonna be some payback for the time which I assessed there wouldn.
Awh, there is the kid who is begging for attention. So cute! :-)
If you're an American just say Einstein like an American ffs
Miller Larry Martin Elizabeth Anderson Brenda