Видео

The issue with superdeterminism is that it can never be experimentally verified (by definition). Therefore it is viewed by many (myself included) as a more of a “cop out” than a legitimate scientific theory.

Never, ever forget that literally everything we have learned so far could be totally, completely, utterly wrong.

Sheldon is confused how probabilistic world of QM can turn deterministic. In QM the quantum numbers can be quite far from one another, but in a classical world the levels are so near each other that the states become deterministic., Sheldon calls 'one world'. Bohm or Everett didn't provide with the mathematics producing the classical from the quantum.

Bell didn't do anything. He said something.

I AGREE WITH YOU, SIR ROGER PENROSE. GOOD JOB!👍

I don't understand why hidden variables are such a problem. I understand the procedural dismissal that Faynman explains in his lectures. But Quantum was the product of obvious failures in the standard theories.

What are the attractors in an empty vacuum ? Does anyone know.

Who really cares. Dimes are dimes and quarters are quarters 🤞

Any computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator (stating the obvious?) but modification of the Schroedinger equation is prohibited, whether the modification be explicit or implicit. Does this bring our enquiries to a quick end? No, because there is a nonlocal degree of freedom to be exploited, as hinted at by Bell's Theorem. I propose tachyonic Brownian motion which is orthogonal to the Schroedinger equation, which is an oscillation in the other way to travel faster than light. I am sure that there are other ideas. Please let's hear them. Surely somebody like me, an amateur, doesn't have this subject all to himself ! I’m an amateur now, but I did a PhD on the computer simulation of the Navier-Stokes equations using Alexandre Chorin’s model of vorticity in Brownian motion. This requires a random number generator and it is pretty obvious to ask questions about doing something similar for quantum mechanics. One difference is that there is no viscosity term that can be added to the Schroedinger equation. We need to think of something new.

Nonlocality follows from ER and EPR, Bell's hidden variable leads to entanglement. Yet ER and EPR (EPR was published first) not only talks on nonlocality but also help debunk singularity, which had hardly been discussed, Charge leads to singularity and neutrinos leads to overcoming singularity. Tim's rejection of Bohm is enough reason to forget it.

The problem here is too many words not enough equations. Talk about the equations not what other ppl say about equations you're not currently looking at. The primary issue here is that when talking about equations the ALL of the details are very important.

Pilot Wave theory is completely compatible with Galilean Relativity, which is proved below to be the correct theory of Relativity. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the same time for the same observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source and been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation if quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler explainatiin explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with the particle and all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. So due to the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics RUclips presentation of above argument: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

What's the reference he quotes from on slide 19 at 22 - 23 minutes (& page 166) ?

In this kind of conference Roger shows more than his theory, he shows that every genius is one world apart of. The rare way that he explain his point of views using diagram drawing by him is really a sign of smart. But for many people this particular way of explanation will be incorrect because they prefer a computer and any kind of screen projector on the wall. I'm not against technology, I just see like more educational way of roger teachings.

Maudlin knocks the heads of physics theorists together!

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) 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. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. 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. .

The two entangled particles don’t care about sub-light speed observations. From their perspective, there is no such thing as distance nor time. These are constructs which only exist in our slower perspective. We see two “entangled” particles. From their perspective, they never separated but are still the same particle. We only perceive these interpretations as shadows of what’s happening.

Well that's it. You heard him. Everyone back to the drawing board.

This was grewat until he played an explanatory video with almost no sound. Science infants.

Where Einstein is on ,yes, the aim is the same

love for Maudlin. Because he pushed the Hammer on the nail. However the world seems non local entangled as a system, if we live in one of the dual CPT symmetric copy multiverses , which are full symmetric. Called the 12x Raspberry multiverse of Q.FFF theory. Non local EPR RELATED.

Sadly, Lev is difficult to understand...couple this with the complexity of the subject. Quantum physics is not well understood even by the pros. How does one explain something when it is not really understood.

I feel so non-local when I listen to Bell clarifications.. I find I get some great non local effects in my photography when I use three polarizing filters. Why are quantum physicists such horrible photographers? You need to know how to manipulate the photons or you will wash out as a photographer.

Sorry not to much gain or on there camera optical display .and que the video switch to the recievers

Poor guy needs a doctor

52:12. 53:38. 55:52. 56:44

43:39 locality => determinism 44:00 socks. 46:03 paper published 1966 46:35 Einstein on pilot wave non-local

24:41 - So what the paper argues is that if you have events A and B, A cannot be thought of as disturbing or influencing B if B is outside of A's future light cone.

Each trajectory in the family differs by having a different initial particle position. This is the "hidden variable". The result? Nonlocal, because of the use of the Schrödinger equation.

Few comments, I guess because physicists stay away from anything including the character string "bohm".

Nice animation at the end, although I didn't quite understand it without an explicit representation of the measurement pointer, which is part of the system! So long as the measurement system is conceptually located in the world (the environment), you will have a measurement "problem".

It takes awhile to measure speed, but position is instantaneous. Just as time and frequency can't be known at the same time due to Fourier analysis, you can't measure speed and position at the same time due to speed being the time derivative of position. Heisenberg uncertainty has nothing to do with QM, even though many physicists believe it does! It's just the way measuring any derivative works. It can only be measured instantaneously in the limit as delta approaches zero. So there has to be a minimum delta in the physical world, and it is the very small value, Planck's constant.

Finally, a picture of deterministic paths through the double slit experiment--I am looking forward to this "forbidden" video! It is shocking how few comments and views this video got as compared with all the major videos on QM and physics here in YT. Nobody really knows as yet what Bohm achieved. Bell appears to have been the only physicist who bothered to pay attention and recognize what Bohm achieved. "It is...scandalous that...physicists ignore Bohm." Yes, they still do today. They ignore determinism, they ignore QM applied to the entire experiment, with no separate world needed, they ignore the irrelevant nature of human consciousness. Thus the low viewership and comments for this video! It is a scandal that physicists actually prefer mysticism to science. This is a major motivation for physicists to ignore Bohm. Another motivation is historical: Oppenheimer said to ignore him because "he is a Communist". Never mind that Bohm rejected materialism and politics in his long relationship with J. Krishnamurti!

Absolutely brilliant!!!

I've also been told when discussing pilot waves that Bell ruled out hidden variables. I learned then that Bell's result involves non-locality instead. I'm still uncomfortable with non-locality. What sort of connection between entangled particles could account for it? Is that question faulty? Has non-locality really been confirmed experimentally?

Are hidden variables non-observables? If so, do they cancel be-ables?? If they are cancelled, where do they go?

Can't read it, sorry.

Thanks

Maudlin is in a class of his own - for elucidation.

I need a PBS Spacetime of this

Really good Can't recommend highly enough

Complete tripe. He spent an hour dancing around a subject, that those who are interested, would be familiar with. He did NOT explain "What Bell did". I could have given his talk, and I'm just a humble retired Electrical Engineer. Its what I've always thought - academic's are mostly full of BS and get their money for nothing.

For second cohomology, why not use a nested Penrose triangle (2 triangles nested to each other, each triangle representing a massless field)? I think I have found a way to deal with this...

Paths look like geodesics of general relativity

If you didn't understand, just watch the professor at 34:03

See What Bell Did, Tim Maudlin , Department of Philosophy, NYU, arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1408/1408.1826.pdf and John Bell and the Nature of the Quantum World, Reinhold A. Bertlmann arxiv.org/pdf/1411.5322.pdf "It was amazing, how John was able to find this special linear combination of expectation values, which were in contradiction to QM at certain angles, called by himself the“awkward Irish angles”. I got the feeling that there is something deep in it." That infamous Physics World video is from Imperial college London - how dare an Irishman be in equal!

Isn't quantum mechanics itself wrong

I would appreciate seeing some evidence of preparation for this talk so that we can avoid all the ums and ahs that he started with. I’m not staying to watch

is this an art exhibition?

Bottom line: "The world is nonlocal," "actual physics is nonlocal," "there IS spooky action at a distance." Why are educated physicists still trying to deny this great discovery? Thank you Professor Maudlin "vox clamantis in deserto"!