Sean Carroll Explains Quantum Field Theory
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- The Michael Shermer Show # 432
Sean Carroll cuts to the bare mathematical essence of our most profound theories, explaining every step in a uniquely accessible way.
Quantum field theory is how modern physics describes nature at its most profound level. Starting with the basics of quantum mechanics itself, Sean Carroll explains measurement and entanglement before explaining how the world is really made of fields.
You will finally understand why matter is solid, why there is antimatter, where the sizes of atoms come from, and why the predictions of quantum field theory are so spectacularly successful.
Fundamental ideas like spin, symmetry, Feynman diagrams, and the Higgs mechanism are explained for real, not just through amusing stories. Beyond Newton, beyond Einstein, and all the intuitive notions that have guided homo sapiens for millennia.
SPONSOR
everything-eve...
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show or subscribe directly on RUclips, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
www.skeptic.co...
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
35:00 abstract the vision of the world
36:18 duality
38:00 atom model cartoon and mental pictures
39:20 pauli-X
41:15 QF & other fields
42:35 la place explained sun gv field
43:30 unification of classic and q physics (macro and micro)
46:40 rubber sheet analogy
48:00 atoms smashing are changes in fields
49:15 what’s below atoms and particles (fiends and energy - set of fields)
51:00 when things gets unnatural in standard model
52:15 strings theory
53:15 Dark M & E
53:38 cosmological constant
55:17 neutrinos not DM
55:40 Higgs&Boson
57:45 nothing can’t come trom nothing?
58:40 we don’t know about universe beginning
59:39 causes and effects (causality)
1:01:35 nothing and then
1:02:30 God
1:03:20 free will and determinism
1:05:35 compatibilism
1:06:40 self reference
1:07:20 you are not god or LPD
1:09:20 individual humans
1:11:45 Einstein and time condolences letter (block universe)
1:14:00 end, 3rd book and so on
16:50 how do you know
Thx
❤
Sean is an unbelievable science communicator. As a Baltimore native, I am proud Sean teaches here at JHU.
As a big Sean Carroll fan but a first time listener of this podcast, Michael Shermer was a great interviewer.
Great discussion. Carroll has a way of cutting through the misconceptions that have clouded our ability to correctly understand physics.
I love the really hard questions and Dr. Carroll's ability to eloquently answer everything.
This is the highest compliment I can bestow. I love how you eviscerated fine tuning. First you steel manned their argument. Then you utterly destroyed it so well. Yours is still the best refutation of fine tuning I've ever heard.
Wow, how did you get this interview? Sean Carroll is the goat. 🐐
The goat of bs
@@rod6189why? Because of the multiverse?
He's there because he's selling his book. Nothing wrong with that
@@Booogieman biggest charlatan in today's scientism
sean carroll is so eloquent with explaining these complex ideas that makes me want to learn even more🥰😀
i love listening to sean carroll
Sean is a great physicist explains things well
Sean for president!
the idea behind voting for people was the people you voted for didn't really want the job, but they were the best people for the job. i think it's time (in the UK) that we retired the house of lords and had a house of scientists, people who don't really want the job but are best qualified.
@@HarryNicNicholas We’d need to first have a well educated population before the majority of people would agree to that. I don’t foresee that ever happening.
education can flourish when mindless competition and envy goes away. “by standing on the shoulders of giants” … Newton was explaining that his ideas didn't come from him alone. i guess, he was nice!
Difficult subjects very practically and well explained. Congratulations for the program.
If you want a deeper, richer and coherent understanding of ontological physicalism, there is no better teacher (or resource) more qualified than Sean Carroll. Dr. Carroll distinguishes himself in taking abstruse ideas and making them more reachable to both the general public and those schooled in the natural sciences.
seems to me that he is slowing refining his point of view... from few years ago at last.
Thanks for the good questions! Sean was very eloquent in his speech as always. P.S. One of his best interviews, actually. I learned a lot from it.
Some great questions addressed here
Dan Winter has helped tremendously. Thanks to all the helpful ! 😊
I listened to this at double speed. The more I hear this guy talk the more I want to be his friend.
I think that the 'world' is fully deterministic yet not at all predetermined because it is fundamentally chaotic. Chaotic systems are deterministic, just not predictable in detail. I do not think this imbues us with any sort of 'free will', we are still nothing more than complex chemical systems doing complex chemical processes.
Love both you guys.
I'm a big fan of both you guys. Keep making more vids together.
If consciousness is fundamental and mind emerges with quantum events and there are more than two types of electricity and magnetism will be understood we will be smart. In the meantime Sean Carroll and those like him are the best.
So many things i learned just from this discussion. 😊
I wish Sean would explain how if the block theory is true that it wouldn't defeat his compatibilitism?
Why would it?
@@Cal96729 Because if the block theory holds then the future is already fixed, we just haven't experienced it yet.
@CRWenger and your actions are partly responsible for that future. The future isn't "fixed" in spite of what we do, the future is the way it is because of what we do. I'd rather call compatibilism "causal will", you cause the future to happen. The idea that the future is fixed "no matter what we do" is fatalism. So I'd still say Sean's compatibilism is fine with eternalism, which sean subscribes to. Btw, the block universe really just means that all moments in time are "equally real", I don't think it has much to do with the free will issue.
Just curious...how does indeterminacy/quantum mechanics change how we perceive dimensions/block universe/4th dimension? If QM is indeterministic then what does that say about dimensions?
One of the best books ever - philosophy made simple
Great interview!!
Re. the concept of something from ‘nothing’, some scientific theories (e.g. Quantum Tunnelling from Nothing) say that the hypothesised Big Bang singularity - and hence the Universe - was created out of nothing in the form of quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum.
In Buddhism, consciousness in its ultimate sense is similarly likened to an empty clearing - a ‘vacuum’ - in the middle of a forest. Within this *mental* space, manifestations - things, processes, events, and systems - arise or appear. It is a no-thing (as distinct from nothing) in which ‘something’ can arise. It is the ‘Yin’ state of being limitless and formless (a no-thing that is something) from which the ‘Yang’ state of forms that have boundary limits emerge - a something that is ‘nothing’ (as distinct from no-thing).
“All that we are is due to our thoughts. It is founded on and based in our thoughts.” The Buddha, verse 1 of the Dhammapada.
LMK what it costs for signed HB copies. All of them, total cost...plz & ty.
Margaret Mead famously quipped, "Wars are not like earthquakes," i.e., wars are unnatural and unpredictable. John Mearsheimer disagrees, claiming that wars are natural and predictable. Who is right?
1:08:12 on the futility of determinism
It bothered me that Sean described gravity as a force. Einstein described it as a consequence of spacetime being distorted by mass (or energy). No one has ever found a graviton ... so what is a 'gravitational field'?
All in all though, an interesting interview.
A G-Field is a deviation in space-time. Gravitons sound like rubbish and could only work backwards in time like a tractor beam.
Quantum mechanics and relaitivity didn't 'prove' older views were wrong in the sense of to be scapped. They extended the range of explanation to encompass new ways of understanding - but we got to the moon using Newtonian mechanics, even if we also now had a deeper explanation of the range of applicability of older theories. Which, within their domains, remained correct - and usable.
New theories build apon older theories but do not overturn them. Simply put.
@@tommyheron464 they overturn them in the metaphysical sense though. Sure they're still useful theories but as a model of the universe they are wrong.
yes, but there is also the unfortunate fact that what is called entanglement applies equally to two different kinds of situations, one where the correlation does not require some dependence on another outcome somewhere else, and soem situations that seemingly do. first lets step back and look at what quantum mechanics entails about probabilities, we have a situation where the theory produces a probability map for observable outcomes, this means we can reasonably simulate any experiment as a table of outcomes of any measurment we make, by some kind of dice with n sides equally providing the probability of each outcome weighted by the likleyhood of whatever outcome coming up, we can then simulate it with something akin to normal statistical mechanics, we have some probability density for each outcome at each detector or device, in an experiment with entanglement we end up with either two independent dice, or a situation in which the outcome of some dice somewhere effects the weights on some dice in some other place, what we call entanglement today encompasses both situations in a sense, the example einstein originally chose in the EPR paper, relating the momentum of one particle to the momentum of the other does not necessarily entail a connection between the weights on one side as a result of the other, only that they where "rolled" together at the start and that they came out oppsite in outcome in some sense, while the example that bell used relating to spin, the outcome on one side effects the dice you would roll to simulate the outcome of the other particle in a different way, namely the probability changes in a way that depends on the choice of measurment axis on the other side, there is not a single given outcome, but a new distribution over new choices of measurement, which is not the case with a simple momentum measurement, which does not have the same kind of basis of measurment, at least not in all kinds of ways of measuring. the difference is simply that if we wanted to accurately simulate the bell case of spins, we could not just have equally weighted dice that always start out opposite, that would not reflect the real outcomes in terms of the combined distribution of outcomes, because when not measured in the same basis the outcomes are not always opposite in outcome, but have correlations relation to the cos squared of the angle between the basis of the two, to simulate this kind of relationship with dice or something like it, we would necessarily have to look at one outcome and then and only then adjust the weights of the dice for predicting the statistics of the other outcome, for the results to correspond with the statistics we find in nature relating to spin, this means that if we want to think about it as some local stochastic process resulting from additional variables in addition to the wavefunction, there necessarily has to be some influence from one outcome on the other, but this is not the case for every kind of correlation we call entanglement, i think we should really separate the kinds of interactions that require such an influence and those that do not when we think about entanglement as some actual influence. i think there has to be an influence as causal as two rocks bumping into each other to produce such a correlation, and it has not by any means been shown to be impossible or even unlikley, we simply do not have any realistic and penetrable theories that provide a mechanism or description of that kind for process yet, so i think it is premature to say it does not exist nobody has any convincing arguments that it cannot be the case.
Thank you...
At 37:26 Seansays something like "that is the miracle of quantum mechanics". And to be fair we have to use the English words, but that statement is sufficient for people like Rupert Sheldrake, Deepka Chopra and Philip Goff to run with it an quote Sean as saying that quantum mechanics has miracles in it. At other time Sean says something like "that is the subtlety of QM" (paraphrasing). But that comes across as a science apologetics to lay people. It sounds like scientists are contradicting themselves even contemporarily. I cannot emphasize enough how Scientists should get together and come up with consistent scientific language when describing the theories to prevent further deterioration of anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific state of affairs.
For example, Roger Penrose along with Stuart Hameroff have the theory of Orch-OR in which they claim the collapse of wave function in microtubules in neurons causes the wave function which is a completely Physicalist theory. But that does not stop people like Deepka Chopra and Philip Goff to take it to mean exactly the opposite that consciousness causes the collapse of wave function in the microtubules and then run with woo theories and panpsychism etc. They love that Roger's name is associated with the original Orch-OR theory. I partly do blame Roger for he speaks about it in some places. Brain works on ectro-chemistry. QM is integral part of chemistry. So what is the big deal about chemistry in microtubules. Brain will not work if not for the chemistry does not work which depends on QM. So there is nothing of a mystery between QM based chemistry in the brain and processes which we call consciousness.
I agree that some people explain very badly and make things more complicated than they really are
Yes things like God and Free Will belong in the same bin. That js correct.
I need to start saying ‘super-duper’ more
one of the reasons i never really bought it, that is that there is no real influence responsible for the correlations is essentially the same as that of a kid that sees a magic trick and thinks there has to be some ace up the sleeve or some string moving the missing card, i don't think stuff just happens, i think there is always an explaination that can to some degree be penetrated and be understood, and after having spend years working on the subject seriously, my conviction that started out as a suspicion that people were just taking magic for granted has only gotten stronger, i see no compelling theoretical reason what so ever to favor mystical causelessness explaining the correlation rather than an actual down to earth theory, where states of the world constitute the reasons why things happen, an actual description of what happens that includes outcomes where correlations that reflect dependent random variables have their dependence explained properly in a way no more mystical than why glasses don't fall through the table. we would never accept a theory like the minimalist quantum explaination of copenhagen for example that this is just how the world is, magic just happens and that is that.
If we assert God exist, and interacts with His creation, then free will is implicit as the universe wouldn't be determined, but its asserted that God reacts to His creation depending on how His reaction reacted to Him.
Now we might ask, "how does God interact with His creation" far be it from anyone to tell God how He can interact with His creation, but we can speculate that God must either violate the laws of physics in His creation, or uses unknown laws of physics, or maybe He directs apparent random quantum events that lead to improbable miracles.
If we assumed the last option, then the nature of reality would not be compatible with Copenhagen pure randomness, while apparent but direrected randomness is compatable if the hand of God was nonlocal hidden variables. What if God and our free will acted on the universe through nonlocal hidden variables?
Many worlds does not work well with a universe where God interacts with his creation as anything that can happen will happen on its own world line. Free will in a many world universe makes no sense if a single random quantum event can be the push for two different world lines where you marry your wife or dont and both are true. In their respective worldline.
I enjoy Sean’s work but don’t understand how he serves on the board for Nautilus Magazine, which is a shiny front for the gross Templeton Foundation.
Googling this brings up information from 11 years ago... He said he will never take money directly from Templeton and urges all the companies he works with not to, but Templeton supports a lot of different events and organizations that work directly in this field so it's almost a given that their will be some overlap....
I mean he was a scientific advisor for science magazine, seems a little much to hold him responsibility for their support system... As long as the magazine itself is doing good work
@@origins7298 Templeton buys associations, from BigThink to Jane Goodall. Any business-savvy scientist or communicator can weed out partnerships with those associations, given how disingenuous Templeton’s attempts to usurp science really are. Nautilus is not independent, it’s a limb.
Max Planck (Nobel Prize winning physicist and originator of quantum theory): “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize winning physicist and developer of a number of fundamental results in quantum theory): “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize winning physicist, a key pioneer of quantum mechanics): “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
But, hey-ho, Sean Carroll thinks he knows better ...
If you know how smell works then you you know everything about light
I contemplate maximum energy (mass) density of a Planck volume. Trying to derive it despite all of the infinities involved. Waste of my time?
Michael Shermer.
Why don't you become the very first individual to perform a Baseian stastical analysis of all the reports from the current "eyewitness testimony phenomenon"?
Nobody has done this and i can assure you that you will find out a lot about the validity of these reports.
The categorization involving localization, repetition, and the supposed "integrity" of these eyewitnesses will be exposed in ways that you don't expect.
Personally, i define "alien" as something that has never been reported or even imagined.
There's plenty of studies about eyewitness testimony concerning the court of law, but nothing has been analyzed as applied to the current phenomenon. Even by the hundreds of people who claim to be "very interested".
I don't have the resources or the experience but you are the expert on scepticism. Why not just settle this thing?
Nobody else is going to.
Perhaps due to the high false positive rate of eye-witness testimony. Memory is easily contaminated.
I came here for the free will. I certainly hope they talk about it.
If you are light what would you see
Too compare Neil degrass Tyson with Dan Dennet is
Mixing your wash with the clothes that washed , ironed and perfectly placed
Dig that cat!
i've never liked michael shermer, and i have no idea why, he's smart, he argues sensibly, he asks the right questions and has a great attitude. just something ... it must be me. always liked sean, no doubt.
I always thought it's fascinating that the Jewish Torah written by a bunch of slaves running around and away from their slave masters 3,500 years ago wrote that the universe had a beginning when all of the physicists demanded that it doesn't. And then they insisted on defining how after the beginning the material coalesced and then land formed and then water animals form and then trees formed and then land creatures formed and that we were the finality of that evolution. In the first chapter and the first paragraph of their book. Feels to me like that's more than just luck...
Also that whole thing about God looked And it was created. There's a lot of quantum going on in that statement. So interesting there's got to be something there..
Maybe Torah entangelment :-)
Obviously the human mind can justify anything, which should be included in the final Theory of Everything 😅
Randomly pops up my two fav atheists
White Helen Lee Paul Garcia Matthew
Young Angela Jackson Patricia Allen Edward
Gotta laugh when someone wonders if the moon would exist if moon observers didn't exist. Kinda like a child thinking that his being born and becoming aware of any object makes that object exist, ignoring that people saw the moon before he was even conceived. It's a good thing that things exist whether we are aware of them or not, or we would all be the center of the universe. 😅
on another youtube channel sean said other parallel universes exist in something called "Hilbert Space". I'm dying to know what or where that is, but PLEASE NO EQUATIONS.⚛😀
No, they don't. Only in imagination. This is Many Worlds interpretation. It appears if you were to consider all possible initial conditions simultaneously, in superposition.
The Egyptians created perfectly symmetric king tut type faces using a geometry trick. Draw half a face then flip it and trace the first half only backwards or inside out. That abstract thinking allows us to step outside of the box of reality in order to visualize physical problems from an imaginary vantage point, gaining new perspectives and insights. In math imaginary numbers seem like a cheat until you realize their geometric symmetry can help you (like the perfect pharaoh face). Hilbert space is analogous to that type of fake space that can help you get out of the box of reality and solve its problems from a new perspective
@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco Hilbert space is only half of the way, because you can't predict the outcome of an experiment.
@@frun thanks but my understanding is people like carrol and deutsch are saying it's NOT just imagination⚛😀
@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco thanks still confused but got the part it's just fake⚛😀
Quantum mechanics says determinism can't tell us what will happen next, yet, what happens next can't violate quantum mechanics which, is, determinism...
That’s like saying dice rolling can’t tell us what number we’ll get but what number we’ll get can’t violate the process of dice rolling which is deterministic. A deterministic process can yield random results.
Is dice rolling giving random results, or it's just hard to calculate the outcome taking in account all the variables which lead to a certain result?
@@TheBoomsmith It’s not just hard. It’s literally impossible. To consistently know what number will come up we need to know all the position and forces acting on each atom of the dice. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can never precisely know both position and momentum.
Talking?
What a strange photo
A cat with his paw on Sean
I know you can manipulate photos
And even the meaning of a cat with its paw in Sean doesn’t make sense
Ok.. another podcast that tells us we don’t understand quantum physics
Ok……..
Maybe is Sean’s photo? He has two cats! Also, the cat could symbolise shrodingers cat?
Carroll is very fond of his cats and talks about them often.
I used my free will to NOT watch this. Even though I wanted to.
I guarantee that when these chaps are breathing their last, they will hope against hope, for a God and further existence. There is no rational dispute that what science knows, explains the "reality" of existence and the universe. It does not and cannot explain the "why" of existence. They are the same as believers in God. It all finally hinges on faith. An affirmation of what they want to be true.
What other propaganda do you offer. Repeating an empty and myopic argument doesn’t make it so. I could easily say that you should follow the Taliban, so that your existence can be “furthered.” Wake up.
Yet some postulate that they have knowledge of this truth or 'Word of God' but also postulate that it impossible to know of God or what its made of without resorting to human like tendencies or postulates. Like Good, all knowing, Survival manifest, irreducible, etc. I think its more likely the case that they tend to take human like attributes or extensions of human traits to have hierarchy postulates or to gather a following of some sought for power rather than any real substance of reality of truth. Even though I still believe that something quite special and unique is responsible for life itself you have to explain the dinosaurs and why they had consciousness for survival sake and what is that about?
I think individuals like being like sheep to be fair and need idles to make themselves feel better, like they have a sense of power about how things work and why it is this way a solace of sought. But you have to take into account the power postulates of history the limited knowledge of those individuals and the need for it or heard like attributes.
Its natural to want to extend life outside of what we know but its really a postulate of survival outside of conscious states which for all we know is impossible. Take into account what I said the need for postulate outside of conscious states extending into the unconscious state of death or non existence. This is how you know.
Life after death is the postulate or extension of survival outside of consciousness as consciousness is the postulate or abstract version of survival as consciousness. You cant have one without the other. This is why the postulate of consciousness extends into the unknown sphere or abstract or what we don't understand or know which is death, its why we talk of it and assume certain things about it without any real concept or truth as we are extending consciousness or the freedom of consciousness into the unknown. Not one single individual or 'Consciousness' has ever survived death as we know and has never reported of it or told us what its like because consciousness cannot survive death that's the principle.
These days scientists are more like preachers. They believe to find a solution where there is no God in equation. 😂
Why not to admit God and go on with doing science. Why excluding it from the theory of everything?
Which god? We invented so many of them. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 The One and only. By the way, look at how many versions of the string theory out there and the way to wrap time/space in those theories. Seems to me that even the germanic tribes and ancient slavs combined together had fewer forest spirits and other deities.
Anyway, nice joke 👍
Seriously when you feel that god is really out there, it won’t prevent you from doing science it will just give it more sense and reason.
Try it.
God bless you. 🤝
@@schmetterling4477 The One and only. By the way, look at how many versions of the string theory out there and the way to wrap time/space in those theories. Seems to me that even the germanic tribes and ancient slavs combined together had fewer forest spirits and other deities.
Anyway, nice joke 👍
Seriously when you feel that god is really out there, it won’t prevent you from doing science it will just give it more sense and reason.
Try it.
God bless you. 🤝
@@АлександрГодзиковский-ь1р Ah, so you believe in the flying spaghetti monster! Ramen, brother! May the angel hair pasta watch over you!
@@schmetterling4477 May god forgive you your silliness my young friend. You are very scared of life and probably it’s the only way for you to get rid of it. Making fun of what you don’t know. It’s a normal thing for young men.
God bless you.
Creator Creates Creation
Creation Becomes Creator's Body
Respect ALL Creation
Refutatiin #0: before the first sentence is your "before the big bang", NOTHING Has a 100% accurate Mathematical Description = "The POTENTIAL absence of EVERYTHING else"
While CONSCIOUSNESS fills the gap with = POTENTIAL FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT NOTHING
Examine that, and Fate vs. Free Will self-immolates.
Sean Carroll is truly the biggest bullshiter in today's scientism without a doubt 👏👏👏👏
Thank you. Excellent interview with Sean. You asked everything I’ve wanted him to explain
Michael Shermer is one of the best, most honest, active listener interviewers out there.
My first cat developed the theory of everything. She was frustrated because we could not understand what she was telling us. Unfortunately she died before she could tell us the theory.
Mine too, dude. Cats are clever, that's why they're so contemptuous of us
@@jamesgornall5731 cats are dumb as hell man
She gave up the will to live and is now free. I have seen it happen many, many, times .
New adjective : “mathy”
I like that. And I’m not mathy
Same. Handling mathematics in my brain is like trying to arrange water into stable cubes, it all just slips through my fingers. But Professor Carol often hands me a frozen cube of tangible mathematical concept that I can wield using my type of brain, and so i get to appreciate and understand mathematics, without being able to do it, in the same way many of use understand and appreciate music, while not being able to play, or read sheet music.
Big Sean carroll 👏🏽👏🏽
The many-worlds interpretation just seems ridiculous to me. How is that explanation considered any better that the explanation that human consciousness can impact reality? There is absolutely no evidence for MWI - it seems to just be a way to grasp at outdated metaphysical materialist axioms.
Sean is my anchor to reality, not insofar as his reality is my reality, but he’s great at being hard nosed in a way that is actually conducive to progress. It’s fun to have provocative and exciting ideas, but if they are scientific ideas, they need to be rigorous and plausible. He’s also great with regards to guru’s, conspiracy theories and divisive politics, always giving advice about how to think about a problem so as I can solve it myself, rather than explicitly telling me what to believe.
He’s careful and serious and fun, and is taking the foundations of quantum mechanics, as well as the interplay of philosophy and science, very seriously. Sean is so far from “shut up and calculate”, in his approach to the big questions.
Thank you!
I follow all his interviews, read his books, listen to his podcasts and follow him on Blue Sky. The knowledge I get is bliss.
Keppler concluded that the planets move along elliptical orbits, not Newton
Lol. What cat🐈 is doing to Robert Hoffman head.🤣🤣
Mind-blowing and mind expanding
We are and forever will be, falling into a series of never ending blackholes, infinitum.
We just haven't realized it yet, just as the distant stars don't look anything like they actually do AT PRESENT TIME.
This effect DOES NOT have an escape route, nor does anyone even see it.
So pretty thick stuff here ...the "metric tensor field" defining the geometry of SpaceTime is one I like to contemplate
I had seen a group in Los Angeles who had abstracted spatial minimum areas as triangle shape/forms on the Planc scale.
Ergo these triangle forms could stretch or bend according to gravitational fields, and we have heard that at the far reaches of the universe these are stretching out causing objects within to leave us faster than the speed of light.
Wow ....to Marvel at the Infinity of Miracles without having to join a " One True "Club of Dogma.
He never got into the multiple universe theory the way I see it is that Consciousness extends down to the atomic level within perhaps the" God is Light" pronouncements, but it's late I am tired and I don't know what else to say.
I prefer to think of “god” as nature, rather than the laws of nature. The laws are ours, the nature belongs to itself. I think this is what many ancient people meant throughout history, and it’s a fine idea. Certainly something to embrace in the name of unity and cooperation.
Sean is at his best here. Thank you for the interview.
The argument that the believer in God is not willing to learn is obviously reciprocal, but not equivalent. Skepticism about the non visible world is traditionally a common place.
awesome discussion. lovely
Yes. I prefer Sean’s simple explanation. Because he is more into knowing the truth and sharing truth. 🧐
I am always impressed that Sean is prepared to say that he thinks the Everettian interpretation is the right one, even after all the talk about evidence and priors etc. Sometimes you just have an opinion :-) I also think he is probably right
Thanks for your interesting video.
Your viewers might enjoy this video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced.
The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Contain column m must come in to play before over buckling or the effect will not work. The system response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( peeks and troughs) of the fields/sheet produced a stable structure out of three fields
People say I am just plucked guitar strings. I said you can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators.
ruclips.net/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/видео.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3
At this time I’m my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed.
In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level.
Over-lapping all the waves frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, I understand makes a “U” shape or square wave form.
Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here?
If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps.
The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my RUclips page.
You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in school folders.
Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!
Part 1
I’ve heard so many quote different dimensions, realities, simulations, species etc like they have been there, well “I AM” To put this into perspective you need to imagine if reality could be called a digitised reality in 1000 years. Obviously you know it will not. A basic scope of that perception tells you that your digital association would be as relevant as a caveman to fire is to you. When one scopes for meaning of his own existence he/she does so based from human understandings (learnt from their environment/experience) Existing as reflective matter they base the measurement of their perception from their limitation of understanding. Mostly not realising that they are scoping their reflection of, not the delivery of. In recent day many people have given examples of simulations etc using labels NPC’s and PC’s as examples in their scenarios, but usually without addressing the nature of it’s programming. In that scenario the typical objective is for the gamer to succeed at the ‘game’ that’s exclusively designed to assist the PC’s in their journey, only made relevant because the difference in time, effort and programming used to present the scripted illusion of choice thats inherited by the PC as being far superior to script given to remaining NPC’s. Keeping this in mind, presents as a major issue in the simulation reality theory that feeds off physical collection as the failure or stunting of its actual equal others (without the lie of the script) This would mean that by design some labels were pre-chosen as the controllers of others (perhaps like a Royalty) Meaning that they could only succeed at cost to the players their script disadvantages. If one was to assume this as its design, then what would be its point and how could this simulation ever evolve, when it’s design leads to conclusive failure through stupidity? Would it not still be reliant on the singularity layered above it? Why does the landscape of this design still fail to address and understand the singularity? Is it because its always defined from and as a form of falsely pinnacled positioned reflective Mass? When you speak of a singularity that increases exponentially shouldn’t you scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist? and from an understanding that it already has the capacity to include everything (in this time) including everything perceptional to it’s environment? Would it not be able to prove that the importance of existence is balanced by the eternal growth of existence? that obviously could only be achieved successively from a production of freedom from the cumulative experience of all interactions that are right. Understanding this allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the reflective eternal existence that accents every resulted experience. As well as that experience being added to and essentially supported. When religion, psychics, quantum reality’s are studied it’s usually suggested that they themselves eventually present as there being no psychical basis for reality, however one could also conclude that this is because these are all formations of the same faulty mimicked design (looped by failure) that till now existed as a riddle that sat right in front of the “Worlds greatest minds”
That riddle exists time and time again as ‘It’s own Failure’ even when it’s failure is detected, it usually gets promoted again and goes unnoticed, as the cause of failure, because of the prior certifications attached to its relative forms. It then instead is presented as a possible new direction for yet another overlay (by its minds mimicked) to discover because of it’s certified awe associated to them. Really, to simplify that riddle all should concentrate more on the influence Cerns LHC had on the flower of life and all other ancient awe attached to it. Including why their energy signatures match their presentation and the Company riddle, that also fails mankind as a lesser product. The line of ‘enchanted fools’ is very long and truth be known, well not a very distinguished one either.
When a conclusion is formed, it should always be factual and not shrouded in the flowers awe. If forms must be equated dimensionally, they MUST be equated from the perspective consciousness that lays above that times conscious state, as it’s infinite existence, as though its the Source of “?” that’s anchored between all forms - NOT SIMPLY ANCHORED TO ONE.
For example, the basis and understanding of all wasted calculations, theorising and man made principles becomes ABSOLUTE when it’s riddle is known to be its ever conclusive failures, that are bound in its attachment to the mistakes of its enslaved servers - AT THE TIME OF CREATION (in the 2ks) As is the understanding of measurement that’s achieved by those certified in its dimensionally riddled and time stumped environment. All of which is based on the belly crawlers attempts to enslave life, with the fantasy of one day eventually harnessing technology that enables them to escape the Hell they deserve (nope that’s what you get for MAPPING kids)
When a singularity that increases exponentially in an instant is studied, you must scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist, from the understanding,,that it already has the capacity to include life (in this time) and everything perceptional to its environment, understanding that the absolute importance of existence is above all the eternal growth of all existence.,This can obviously only ever be achieved successively from an infinite dimension of freedom thats survived by the cumulative resulted experience of all interactions that are were and could be ever correct.
Sean Carroll is an amazing teacher. Micheal Shermer is a great facilitator. 😊😊😊
Thank you, Michael Shermer. Really interesting.
I've been listening to Sean for a a number of years now. Funny, I'm beginning to understand what the hell he's talking about. It's kind of cool and scary at the same time.
He speaks well but when he mentions “multiverse” as an “explanation”, I find it a little hard to swallow. It makes me reach for a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word, “explain”.
I believe Big Think channel has a video of him explaining multiverse with rather fun visuals
All of reality is experienced within.an in flight movie.there is no physical universe out there
It is essentially irrelevant to the free will debate if determinism is true or not.
Robinson Elizabeth White Jennifer Allen Eric
quantum mechanics however does not posit these influences, it simply predicts the stats of outcomes contain them. not accepting them as real is simply an aesthetic choice, quantum mechanics is a theory that simply does not go into those details or tries to, so it is a matter for extensions for the variables deciding the outcomes we see in applied quantum mechanics but not a prediction or result of quantum mechanics itself, the correlations are the prediction these kinds of theories that account for the correlations through such influences try to explain.
should i care?
Free will seems to be interested in Sean's head.
I'm sure your shows are good, but every time I've seen you, you're sniffing every ten seconds...
Martin George Moore Deborah Robinson Dorothy
What if TOE isn't an equation as such, but a pattern Ex 25:40.
Wonderful episode!
Jones Robert Harris Kevin Hall Scott
Um.a gsn of Sean and thsis git to be one of the bests interview of him