also would like to complement alan alda for doing his physics homework and einstein homework well enough to have a discussion with brian that bridges the gap between lay and expert.
@@rodrigolara6263 Alan Alda is valuable because he is the average person who is interested but doesn't want to take the 'course' Physicist can often be full of themselves. Alda & the physicist Brian Greene are terrific. For me physics is the opportunity to understand the 'mind of God"
9:58 Brian: "... Jump out a window, and then gravity goes away." Alan Alda: "What? You jump out the window, gravity makes a quick entrance." hardest I've laughed all day.
@@DeathBringer769 he is right what goes away is WEIGHT u still have mass,as mass is the amount of substance present in you and gravity is still pulling u down.
A Higgs boson goes into a church, a priest stops it at the door and says they don't allow Higgs bosons in church, the boson replies, if I'm not here, how do you expect to have mass?
I love science, it is art, it is imagination, it is specific, intellectual, considered, controversial, creative, psycholically impacted by the researchers and possibly the assessors. It opens up many possibilities and chaos. What a stimulating endless field.
if God exists, he cannot be a scientist. That is absurd. Science starts by the recognition that we cannot have direct knowledge of the natural world, so we formulate a hypothesis about it, we test it and if it shows right we ask someone else to come to the same conclusion independently, if not, we discard it. Then we continue building on the hypothesis proven right, to build an understanding that could be demolished at any point if someone finds a condition where one of the previous conclusions fails to comply with the theory, and back to the drawing board. If God exists, he should be the original designer with direct knowledge of the natural world. He would have the same use for science than an Olympic runner would have to a baby's walker.
@@tb14.7 this demonstration supported nothing, but it perfectly showed the main idea of general relativity. The free faling bottle with holes in it and water inside had the same "expirience" as the same bottle in a space whithout gravitional field. These are two invariant reference frames, and existence of those reference frames is the main idea behind general reletivity.
@@tb14.7 It completely supported it. If you are falling, you are moving freely along the curve of gravity, so you don't feel gravity. When we feel gravity we are really feeling our resistance against it. When you're in freefall, there is no resistance except maybe wind resistance. But essentially, when fully experiencing gravity, you don't feel gravity. In the vacuum of space, there is no gravity, but for people on the space station there is. The reason they float is because they're in orbit, which is just freefall. They're falling along the curve of gravity, so they don't feel it. Just like when you're in freefall on earth.
When Kaku started embracing the idea of the alien mega structure around that distant star as an explanation for its varying brightness, I knew it was time to stop taking him seriously.
@nineball26 swinging something around like the elevator is acceleration and the system at play which is isolated inside the elevator does attract masses...you don't know what you're talking about
You’re wrong. He introduced the cosmological constant in his field equations for uses with cosmology. When you look at positive values for the constant in the Newtonian Limit, you get an expanding universe. He called it his biggest blunder because he was convinced, and MANY many other people, that the universe was static. It turns out he was wrong. We have multiple pieces of evidence for this, including the recession of a supernova.
@@Godakuri the point is that the cosmological constant is still used today, because there IS an underlying force that is actually pushing our universe outwards. So, even though the constant was implemented because of a blunder, it actually proved to be the correct implementation.
@@argosron9838 that came from a mistake in his calculations of tensor calculus though didn't it? Friedmann used Einstein's own field equations to prove that the universe can expand or contract
Einstein took the simple observation that light had a fixed speed ...and like pulling a thread on a sweater, unraveled all of these other equations and revelations. But Einstein viewed things as concrete and could never accept the uncertainty of quantum mechanics.
I see +Max GT is a classic determinist/proponent of determinism, lol. Einstein would be happy since he didn't think the universe played dice either, even though he also came up with many things (he tried to throw out) that ended up being true that directly went against what he wanted to universe to behave like, lol. There's an old saying in Physics that goes "even when Einstein's wrong, he's usually still right" lol. Even the stuff he thought he wrong that he came up with often ended up being used later and shown to have some truth or insight there ;)
Brian Greene, he is the best at explaining (Classic physic,Quantum theory,String theory,.....)Science in general.I think one day he will surprise us with something new, we all need to understand. ( Greene joined the physics faculty of Cornell University in 1990, and was appointed to a full professorship in 1995. The following year, he joined the staff of Columbia University as a full professor. At Columbia, Greene is co-director of the university's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP), and is leading a research program applying superstring theory to cosmological questions. He is also one of the FQXi large grant awardees, his project title being "Arrow of Time in the Quantum Universe". His co-investigators are David Albert and Maulik Parikh.)....
@@tb14.7 He demonstrated the necessary. Other factors? Sure but the water doesn't feel the force of gravity. That's what he was out there to demonstrate.
The title should be, "Einstein's Happiest Thought: If a person falls freely, he cannot feel his own weight!" Turn to 9:00 for this thought, a demonstration of it using water, and some comments on the role it plays in Einstein's general theory of relativity. Turn to Kip S. Thorne's book Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy chapter 2, for a good telling of the way this happiest thought came to Einstein in 1907 and how it bloomed into a theory of curved space-time eight years later.
But i can't see the connection between curved space time and what he just explained, that gravity is the ground pushing against us. In the theory of curved space time, how i get it, gravity goes towards the biggest mass because it bends space and everything lighter than this mass falls in this direction where the biggest mass is, so we do fall in direction of the center of earth? But then why is there no gravity if we actually fall? Why does earth push against us? Because it's moving? Or rotating?
Gravity is a pseudo-force. You only *feel* what we call gravity if you are in an accelerated frame of reference, like we are here on Earth. Your natural free-fall is hindered by Earth pushing up against you. Einsteins happiest thought was that free falling/acceleration does away with gravity as a force; it cannot be felt or measured while falling. One way of visualising the equivalence between gravity and acceleration is to imagine a light beam entering a hole on the side of an accelerating elevator. The light bends according to a curve. If gravity and acceleration are equivalent, gravity must bend light in the same way.
A photon checks into a hotel when the bellhop asks, "Would you like help with your luggage?" The photon replies, "I don't have any. I always travel light."
Frankly, I think Einstein was right. Once we have a grand unified theory, I think the seemingly randomness of quantum mechanics will be shown its not pure chance & probability & Einstein will be proven right. String theory or/and M theory might be the answer. Higher dimensions might explain entanglement.
I also think this. The story on quantum mechanics is not true. The Pilot Wave Theory shows that you can get exactly quantum mechanical motion from macro objects. Why don't we formulate a theory that follows the structure of the Pilot Wave Theory? Because it goes against the chaotic narrative of our times. But we could easily posit a model that creates the same observations of the double slit experiment through concise and totally explainable underlying phenomenon. I'm working on this very thing. All it is, is waves upon waves. That's what creates this seemingly "random" phenomenon.
Well if Quantum mechanics' probability can be eliminated by grand unified theorg then the physics ( classical mechanics and maxwell eqn ) will also go into trash . So you can't really overide QM *now* that it has given us many splendid results
@@shaunakmarathe86 A theory doesn't "go into the trash" when its limitations are discovered. For example, Einstein's theory of gravity superseded Newton's but calculations based on Newton's theory are still accurate enough to enable us to send probes to the moon and to other planets.
@@rclrd1 I meant that the previously established fundamentals will go into trash ( Uncertainty and all which is near impossible to disprove ). I just meant that sometimes u can't find the exact answer .
@Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 I saw you everywhere on things about Einstein vs Bohr, or Einstein against QM. Lol. I am quite interested, mind if you tell me personally and taught what you know about it?
I hope to attend one of Brian greens world science festivals one day .Alan alda was or is a very underrated actor. I actually was working on a script at one time with him in mind in the leading role.
You don't see round earth deniers or conspiracy theorist about the earth or universe on these type videos, it's too much information for them to comprehend.
Either that or youtube doesn't recommend/suggest these videos to them. If they searched for things that could disprove their theories then youtube would give them some great suggestions. Especially now that people are putting almost everything on youtube.
why the hell are you bringing this topic here?? don't you know that almost all the famous conspiracy theories are now being proved true ? or are you also one of the idiots who consider themselves scientific yet don't there is life outside earth. wow, you are ruining this talk with your nonsense comment, grow a fucking brain before you talk yourself completely stupid
Relativity describes the relationship between the force and the observer . . . a great deal of this discussion is pretty confounded. Gravity is simply an expression of momentum, albeit on a planetary (or cosmic) scale, and indeed the two forces (gravity and momentum) behave in an almost identical manner. Greene seems to rush through the most pivotal portion of Einsteins discovery. When Einstein envisioned a man trapped inside of an elevator, one that was caught in free-fall down its shaft, the man inside that elevator observes an actual weightlessness as real as any scale could possibly register him in that moment (without the force of gravity acting upon his body at all.) That was actually the apex of his theory, not the man simply jumping out the window. We, observing outside of the falling elevator, know that the force of gravity is working equally upon the man as it is on the environment around him, making the negation of the force of gravity relative to his personal observation. It is the same for an object caught in orbit around a cosmic body: The "weightlessness" an object experiences in space is actually micro-gravity, not "anti-gravity". That micro-gravity is a point of free-fall that holds its own momentum equally in tandem with that of the Earth, skirting just around the very edge of the dent the Earth's mass affects onto space/time. That relativity is the same with the water bottle: Gravity did not go away inside the bottle when it was dropped, but the force of gravity was working equally on the water molecules inside it as it was on the bottle itself. Only the observation was that of "anti-gravity". It does not matter if the observable point - and in that case the water - contains no conscious sensory organs to observe the negated effects (such as proprioception or visual orientation;) There is still a physical point which can be observed. What seems to be missed in this discussion is the objective mass of an observer (or point of observation,) and the most vital ramification of a scale registering an equal amount of applied gravitational force when the elevator is lifted, adding momentum to the already existing force generated by the Earth itself. Quantum Mechanics never negated the empirical reality of General Relativity, and I cannot understand why Einstein couldn't see that - as Greene suggests here. I've only studied Einstein's work, not his personal life. What he actually nailed exactly was the reality of the physical universe, of gross matter, which we also know he described as being composed of energetic constituents (of course though E=MC^2.) It is those energetic constituents that defy observation, which is why pure energy particles must be considered in terms of a wave and their location deduced with uncertainty. But quantum phenomenon, such as entanglement, may very well adhere to a certain type of relativity that simply defies our current understanding of existence, being unobservable (except perhaps in their effects.) And I would bet every dime that I have, or ever will have, against there being found a "graviton" or any quantum particle to equate the force of gravity.
Generally, I like Brian Greene, he knows his stuff but his commentary is a bit confused. Einstein's problem was indeed with non-locality, (*not* with determinism, or entanglement), entanglement just implies some correlation, not causation, and Einstein rejected non-local hidden variable theories, like David Bohm's. His position was that determinism and hidden variables would follow as a consequence of the principle or locality. Of course, we now know Einstein was wrong, not because of any experimental confirmation of entanglement (much less spooky-action-at-a-distance) but because of Bell's inequality theorem. I think it would be more accurate to say Einstein hated the Copenhagen interpretation, rather than quantum mechanics, as-a-whole. Unfortunately, those two are used interchangeably.
I'm an Einstein fan have read several biographys and have university degree in Physics. I can tell you that, imho, Einstein hated indeterminism and hit upon non-locality as a way to demonstrate that QM was incomplete and that a complete theory would be deterministic. So it was quite the other way round from what you say. Why else would he say "God does not play dice with the universe!?"
It came as a great annoyance to people like John Bell when anyone had accused Einstein of being wedded to strictly to determinism. The EPR argument doesnt presuppose determinism and Bell's theorem does not disprove determinism. It's just not in the argument. Here's what Pauli said to Born in a letter in 1952 _". . . I was unable to recognize Einstein whenever you talked about him in either your letter or your manuscript. It seemed to me as if you had erected some dununy Einstein for yourself, which you then knocked down with great pomp. In particular Einstein does not consider the concept of "determinism" to be as fundamental as it is frequently held to be (as he told me emphatically many times) ... he disputes that he uses as a criterion for the admissibility of a theory the question : "Is it rigorously deterministic?"..-he was not at all annoyed with you, but only said you were a person who will not listen"._ Here's what Bell said _"It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a presupposition of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always the sacred principle. The quotability of his famous "God does not play dice" has not helped in this respect"_
Andrew Wells Ok good. However, that is hearsay evidence - things that other, albeit reputable, people say was Einstein's outlook. Are there any writings or quotes by/of the man himself to corroborate?
Ya well your boy got OWNED by bohr at Copenhagen. and he's gonna get owned again once dark matter is discarded! then we'll see who the real gangsta is.
In quantum mechanics the physical system is described through a wave function whose evolution over time is determined by the Schrodinger equation. The wave function represents infinite different possible results for the physical quantities related to the system, but when we take a measurement, only one of these infinite possibilities becomes real; after the measurement, we must therefore modify the wave function “by hand” to eliminate all other possible results, and this modification is called the “collapse” of the wave function. The fundamental problem with quantum mechanics is that interactions among particles are already included in the Schrodinger equation and such equation does not predict any collapse. The collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is what allows us to make quantitative predictions about the outcomes of future measurements; everytime we make a measurement, we receive new information about the system, and we need to "update" our wave function, i.e. to collapse it, otherwise the Schrodinger equation would provides wrong predictions relative to successive measurements. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality (the universe) consists of the collection of all observed phenomena and such phenomena do not exist independently of consciousness. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself. The collapse represents the transition from a hypothetical system to an actual system. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave function must be an eternal consciousness, that is, a conscious God. This is the idealistic perspective, which implies that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God who directly creates the phenomena we observe, according to the matematical models through which He conceived the universe (the laws of physics); the collapse of the wave function is a representation of the moment when God creates the observed phenomenon. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
Enjoy listening to that great conversation. Love physics. Brian Greene and Alan Alda are both great communicators for science. Have been following Brian Greene from the 90s greatly enjoying his book The Elegant Universe as well as his other books, appearances on science panels which I watch often on RUclips, CSPAN, PBS specials and whatever else. He is very good at conveying physics and making it clear and understandable. Love listening to him.
I feel privileged to be here listening to Brian Greene and laughing at his sarcasm like anyone else present there with him in the room... I feel privileged that I am among those curious people who understands such complex things
I love Alan Alda's science shows. He's funny and asks the questions people like myself, who are interested but don't know much, want to get answers for!
Not that he hated Quantum Mechanics, but rather, he loved a Universe that is independent of us mortals, a Universe where its existence has nothing to do with our existence, a Universe more akin to the God of Spinoza (the Dutch philosopher) than to our feeble perceptions. The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics includes observation as an essential component of the objectivity of nature, that is, the subject and the object need to be together in order to have a complete description of phenomena. But, for Einstein, to include the subjective as part of the objective was sacrilege. He once asked: "Do you really believe that the Moon only exists when you are looking at it?". It is only in this sense, the conviction that reality is comprehensible, even though we are not part of its objectivity, it is only in this sense, that Einstein was a deep religious person.
In the water experiment, Greene said gravity goes away. But it doesn't. The water that poured out of the holes is still being pulled down by gravity, just not out of holes. Am I the only one noticing it, or am I missing something?
@jesusbermudez6775 i just watched it again and still don't see how someone cannot understand that all the water - not just that coming out of the holes - was acted on by gravity. It's an extremely simple and wrong example trying to explain a complex thought. But maybe it's me.
Well the truth is that isn't really high level quantum physics, it's just 1% of 1% of the field. Quantum Physics is full of crazy math, understanding that IS hard.
Dear Publisher, Please make following corrections: at 14:30, acceleration does not bring "Gravity" into "existence", Gravity was still there, acceleration makes it perceptible, i.e. it brings "Gravitation" into our perception.
I don't think Einstein was wrong about the quantum mechanics. I think what Einstein was trying to figure out was a theory that is able to describe the motion of subatomic particles when they were not interfered by human observation. Once observed, the particles are already interfered by human being's observation. Quantum mechanics best describes the subatomic world only because it can explain the result of experiments, which are all human intervention. In my humble opinion, quantum mechanics works but still a superficial theory. A deep, fundamental theory should be just one theory that explains all.
@@patriksjokvist6431 Hey Bohr, don't you mean measurement...not observation?! 'I said Observation! And that's what I Meant!' It's been known for decades that that explanation doesn't cover the empirical 'observations'. That's why we Still have the Measurement Problem.
@@aaroncurtis8545 Regardless of language, previous commenter is right. A conscious measurement or not does not need to be present to cause interference in a quantum system. If two systems interact at all, there is interference. Period. A human scientist making a measurement is just one type of interaction.
Science and religion work similarly - both try to give an idea that explains everything (before creation + creation + the end). Science uses logic & equations, while religion uses faith & philosophy to come to their respective theories/conclusions. Unfortunately, the universe is so vast and random that none can completely understand/explain even a tiny percentage of it.
13:05 Einstein reduced gravity to motion. Now we just have to reduce electromagnetism to motion and we have a theory of everything. Walter Russell has done this already and it is worth investigating.
The man in free fall is 100 percent experiencing gravity. It's the force rocketing him toward the ground . Just because the scale is also rocketing toward the ground, and he is no longer experiencing gravity RELATIVE to the scale, does not mean he's not experiencing gravity at all. Think Brian could have done a much better job of explaining how this served as a gateway into general relativity for Einstein. Hell, I'm not sure he ever even used the word relativity after initially bringing it up.
What they are trying to say is that in free fall, your body does not feel any force pushing you, other than air molecules rushing by and hitting your body.
Gravity is clearly an emergent force as per #Verlinde . It's becoming more and more clear that what Einstein said, that Quantum Mechanics is "incomplete," is undoubtedly correct. .
That's a terrible description. It's not that gravity no longer exists. It's just that the bottle and the water are both experiencing gravity's force, so they would both fall at the same rate if it weren't for air resistance.
Very important comment by Brian Greene in the last paragraph of this video: "Einstein didn't use acceleration in his formulas for special relativity"! Many people forget that, even physicists when they try to explain time dilation and other special relativity effects. There are only relative speeds and different observer positions, but never acceleration. That is why special relativity only talk about energy increase of objects close to c, not mass increase as many also get wrong.
He did. He is actually known as the father of QM. He especially did a lot of Quantum statics and all other kinds of stuff. He just didn't like the Copenhagen interpertation.
Keshen Govender I think the sad part is all the time he wasted trying to unify the forces. If he had spent all that time excepting the forces could not be unified and working with those forces to develop and understand them the whole world could be ahead further. That said at least once Einstein could not unify the forces at least it stopped any one else bothering to try to do so. So I guess its as long as it is short.
@@roland20002000 No. In fact, the reason why a Unified Field Theory is impossible, at present, is because QM and Relativity are incompatible on a fundamental level. Given how much time, money and effort has been made to correct this problem, it is concievable at this stage that one of them is probably wrong.
Quantom mechanics is just a means of describing whats happening, it isn't what's actually happening. That's why he hated quantom mechanics. Any person with common sense knows that something cannot exist and not exist at the same time... QM sees entire reality in terms of probabilities
Nice, this video finally made me understand how gravity really isn't a force of attraction but, as Einstein proposed it, a warping of space time which creates an accelerating field.
I've had so-called quantum physicists explain different facets of that science and contradict themselves within three sentences. They were quite secure in their explanations. Do not, under any circumstance allow a quantum mechanic to repair your car.
Maybe someone can answer a question about the video experiment. Situation 1: Brain holds the bottle. Water is accelerated out at 9.81m / s. Situation 2: Brain drops the bottle. And water comes to a standstill. Water come to 0m / s Situation 3: Brain throws the bottle in the air? Now my question: Then water should come out faster for a short period of time? 9.81M + speed up?
Greene is a theoretical physicist and professor at Columbia. He has written several books popularizing concepts in the field, particularly string theory. His father, Alan Greene, was a vaudeville performer, and that influence is evident in Brian's flamboyant personality and the water jar demonstration. Brian Greene also studied piano with concert pianist, Jack Gibbons. In my day, physics profs were not this entertaining.
When he unscrewed the cap, the pressure of the air is what is pushing the water through the holes in the container. When he drops the container the the water is dropping with the same amount of force it would take the air-pressure to push the water out. If you had enough distance and you could accelerate the container fast enough, the air-pressure pushing on the holes would push the water up and out of the container.
Maybe gravity is so weak because it extends through the dimensions... we don't really know how to do it yet. Maybe after confirming the gravity force (we have detected gravity waves so far) with gravitons we can find the best path for explaining the force better.
Quantum mechanics are applied to the atomic and subatomic world. Relativity handles the larger scale physical processes. Gravity is a property of space. Objects are not attracted to each other, they interact with the gravitational field according to their mass.
@@wallacegrommet9343 but then why they even form gravitational field ? Why is it that the force applied by them on another mass is always attractive ? (Unlike electrostatic force)
@@darkseid856 In principle because that's how space-time works, at least in this universe, all matter bends the space-time where it's located, in an uniformly way from it's center of gravity, expanding outwards decaying on intensity of the gravitational 'force' infinitely
Zero gravity=weightlessness. Freefall=weightlessness. Hence, freely falling objects do not experience gravity at all. It follows that it is not physically correct to say that objects are in a state freefall if and only if they are pulled by the force of gravity since they cancelled out the force of gravity to begin with.
That's BS. Einstein didn't reject quantum physics, he rejected Copenhagen interpretation of it. Which was, thanks to Bohr, a the time the only allowed way of thinking about QP.
Starting to wonder what if the uncertainty in quantum physics is somehow tied to our consciousness. What if our thought/choice itself is the hidden variable upon which all these mysterious phenomenon are taking place?
Yes, exactly. That's kind of a rephrasing of the measurement problem. Bohr kind of thought what you said... I think. Trying to figure out what Bohr thought is like trying figure out quantum mechanics, 😄
Dear Brian, with due respect -Gravity goes away - when Water stopped spewing from holes..NO.. gravity was still very much there without any change..When bottle was still...gravity pulled water..when bottle was dropped gravity pulled the bottle and water both at same force (resulting same speed)..as a result water followed the bottle ..still going down . If gravity would have gone away than water should have been coming out top of the bottle.. Gravity was always doing it's job ..very honestly !! I always admire you dear Brian -you being a excellent Guru for me and will always be.
When Dr. Greene said “(Dr. Einstein) was tied to a philosophical perspective of the reality”, was is just me? or Was there anyone who think he was made a joke. “Strings Theorists” have been both Philosophically and Psychologically tied to that theory, which they knew decades ago that it’s not real. Einstein didn’t hate or regret about Quantum Mechanics. He was smart enough to realize that it was Easier, Closer and Better to disprove than to prove. Well, It’s a very low probability, but to be on my safe-side; Even if it was real, it could not be proven/proved (Stupid Grammar) .... Unless they can prove ‘there are 24+ dimensions’ + ‘all waves and particles are basically come from vibrations’ + ‘Quantum Fluctuations is real and our bubbly universe didn’t need any temperature or pressure to form’. M-theorists are tied to their perspectives, they spent billions of $$$ to build useless tunnels and Star-War-liked Laser Toys. So, Dr. Greene might be joking about that, or he might be one of those tied-up Physicists.
Yes, but no. String theories is basically another einstein version of simplified theory of universe. And particle accelerator built to study quantum physics, not satisfying anybody lust.
Greene explains Einsteins equivalence of gravity field and accelerated frame of reference but should have taken it to next level explaining the affect of light traveling in that gravity field and how it provided the insight that gravity is the consequence of the variations of the geometry of space-time (where mass-energy tells us the geometry).
6:45 The German words for 'spooky action at a distance' would be 'gespenstische Fernwirkung' or spukhafte Fernwirkung'. Both translations can be found in the German literature. That is because the paper where the term was first used was written in English. Einstein had emigrated from Germany and he lived and worked in princeton when the paper was published. We can't be sure if the term really was coined by Einstein himself. The paper has three Authors. Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. It was written by Boris Podolsky, most probably because of the three, he had the best command of the English language. In a letter to Heisenberg Einstein later expressed his dissatisfaction with the published version of the article. So maybe he would not even have used those words.
Loved the analogy of the elvator speeding up in free space. But 8f thats the case , why does earth stops "rushing" towards you when you are above it in space ? By this theory , even if your are in outer space above the earth , the earth shoukd rush towards you ? Right ? Anyone ?
I truly agree with Brian green, you have to find deep pattern in the nature to understand how universe works in broader spectrum, & exactly that is what I did.
+MaDrung It's easy to say than done, first of all I'm committed to all human kind not just one government. I have to be in neutral country before I will do that make sure no government with any means try to interfere with me and the knowledge I will put out there.
@@patriksjokvist6431 OK, but the OP's point being that they drop at the same (albeit accelerated) rate. It's still 10 m/s^2 for both. At a given instant in any point in time, the water molecules and the container are travelling at the same speed. That kind of aligns with what we learn at an early age.. objects fall at the same velocities (note, not constant velocity), not accounting for the variance in effect of resistance from the air on objects. Anyways, I think Einstein's theory on all of this is explained well by Brian Greene, but I'd suggest people find the video with him on Stephen Colbert where he talks about relativity (and does this same experiment). It's a newer video and a bit more thoroughly/better explained, IMO.
As a non-scientist (to put it mildly) a lot of things puzzle me about all this. If the man wasn't experiencing gravity after jumping off the building wouldn't he just float there? I would have thought that the rapidly approaching sidewalk below would rather messily disprove the theory. Gravity seems to stop working on the water in the bottle but not on the bottle itself which still falls to the ground. Or is gravity just exerting a greater force on the bottle than the water so that the water can't get to the outside of the holes in the bottle fast enough to leak out meaning that gravity is relative ? If you equate the falling man with the bottle not the water does that mean that if you puncture the man's body then blood wouldn't leak out (until he met the sidewalk that is, obviously)?
Time also appears in this business of acceleration, or energy levels and motion. However, there is one concept missing: infinite complexity. Why? it's not math.
11:50 "As the bottle is--in free fall, it no longer feels the force of gravity." Isn't the bottle only falling because of gravity? How does it not "feel" the force of gravity as it is being pulled by gravity? Do you mean the water isn't being pulled by gravity agains't the force from the bottom of the container, while the container is in free fall?
Dylan C No. If you were to be in freefall, you would feel as if you are in zero-gravity. This is why astronauts float on the space station. They're in freefall in orbit.
I'm not sure it's a simple as him being just wrong/stubborn. There is a lot of logic to Einstein's perspective. When he says "god doesn't play dice" I feel it speaks to a truth that randomness isn't a solid mathematical foundation, which is something we accept with probability fields. We definitely know a lot more now and quantum mechanics is a beautifully accurate model of some of the most important observations but we still don't have a theory of everything or understand why it is this way. When he diverged around the issue, I don't think he was saying the model didn't fit the observations, just that there were underlying principles as to why it it is this way that we're missing. I'm not saying that he was right or that the current theories aren't correct, but that current theories are still very incomplete and physicists don't even have a majority consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics - we're clearly still missing something, or perhaps many things.
I don't quite understand equating gravity with acceleration. I understand perfectly that they feel the same and that gravity can be simulated with acceleration, but if we equate gravity with acceleration, wouldn't it follow that as long as we're experiencing gravity, we're accelerating? If we're all constantly accelerating, wouldn't our speed be increasing without limit? How does that square with our speed being limited by the speed of light?
***** Light has no mass. An object with zero mass can't accelerate. Any object that reaches the speed of light will also have zero mass and hence it can't be accelerated and so its speed won't increase.
***** Actually neutrinos don't exceed the speed of light. It was an anomalous result to a few certain experiments. For more info go to- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly or if you don't trust wikipedia- www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html#.VYF21bY9vBk
***** Matter is limited to sublight speed when traversing THROUGH space. The general theory permits superluminal speeds provided that it is the space containing the matter that is moving. This is the case for galaxies that are observed to have a red-shift greater than 1.4, they are actually receding at a superluminal speed and will eventually disappear over a horizon.
And yet, even today, his "theories" are being proven right. Even after immense efforts of proving them wrong. Maybe he was the only one who understood.
I'm glad they at least mentioned the "spooky action at a distance" problem, which was Einstein's real problem with quantum mechanics. The not playing dice thing is just the other side of the coin. He would have accepted the dice, just not with the spooky action. And it didn't help that Bohr and the Copenhagen folks were saying manifestly absurd things (no amount of experimenting is going to change that it is absurd to propose that the very particles composing the scientists, the laboratory, the computers, etc do not exist until they are observed (whatever the heck that means).
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
also would like to complement alan alda for doing his physics homework and einstein homework well enough to have a discussion with brian that bridges the gap between lay and expert.
yeah me too! but i still think that the conversation could have gone better...alan seems lost at times,in my opinion
drop expert from Brian's title and your good. nobody is an expert in metaphysics, this is not physics, this is a discussion about what physics means.
@@rodrigolara6263 He is almost 80 there, give him a break. I liked his method.
@@ronik24 yea...you are right, perhaps i was too harsh on him
@@rodrigolara6263 Alan Alda is valuable because he is the average
person who is interested but doesn't want to take the 'course'
Physicist can often be full of themselves. Alda & the
physicist Brian Greene are terrific.
For me physics is the opportunity to understand the
'mind of God"
9:58 Brian: "... Jump out a window, and then gravity goes away."
Alan Alda: "What? You jump out the window, gravity makes a quick entrance." hardest I've laughed all day.
Shows you the difference in perspective between a Physicist and a layman, lol. Words can mean completely different things.
That was Hawkeye making an entrance. LOL
The difference between a Physicist and a Comedian. Comedians live in the relative world of their own perspective.
@@DeathBringer769 he is right what goes away is WEIGHT u still have mass,as mass is the amount of substance present in you and gravity is still pulling u down.
@John Digsby well weight is nothing but mass×acceleration due to gravity so yes you need gravity to measure weight
A particle walked into a bar.... and it didn't
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nice
Zecariah Aden Nah, it was that damned cat Schroedinger brought.
eatenbytheweasel Sounds like the Uncertainty principle of electrons
A Higgs boson goes into a church, a priest stops it at the door and says they don't allow Higgs bosons in church, the boson replies, if I'm not here, how do you expect to have mass?
robbiewit69 LOL!
I love science, it is art, it is imagination, it is specific, intellectual, considered, controversial, creative, psycholically impacted by the researchers and possibly the assessors. It opens up many possibilities and chaos. What a stimulating endless field.
In other words, you have no idea what science is.
+Galactic President Superstar McAwesomeville does anyone?
denise brooks yet it's so limited by limited minds true science is in The Great scientist -Göd-
if God exists, he cannot be a scientist. That is absurd.
Science starts by the recognition that we cannot have direct knowledge of the natural world, so we formulate a hypothesis about it, we test it and if it shows right we ask someone else to come to the same conclusion independently, if not, we discard it. Then we continue building on the hypothesis proven right, to build an understanding that could be demolished at any point if someone finds a condition where one of the previous conclusions fails to comply with the theory, and back to the drawing board.
If God exists, he should be the original designer with direct knowledge of the natural world. He would have the same use for science than an Olympic runner would have to a baby's walker.
Make me a sandwich first
This is how science should be, the impossible comment followed by clear as a bell demonstration - terrific
🛎
@@tb14.7 this demonstration supported nothing, but it perfectly showed the main idea of general relativity. The free faling bottle with holes in it and water inside had the same "expirience" as the same bottle in a space whithout gravitional field. These are two invariant reference frames, and existence of those reference frames is the main idea behind general reletivity.
@@tb14.7 It completely supported it. If you are falling, you are moving freely along the curve of gravity, so you don't feel gravity. When we feel gravity we are really feeling our resistance against it. When you're in freefall, there is no resistance except maybe wind resistance. But essentially, when fully experiencing gravity, you don't feel gravity. In the vacuum of space, there is no gravity, but for people on the space station there is. The reason they float is because they're in orbit, which is just freefall. They're falling along the curve of gravity, so they don't feel it. Just like when you're in freefall on earth.
The world Needs more professors like Brian Green 😌👏👏👏👌👌👌
Darn he explained things better than professor michio kaku....damn this explanation was worthwhile..15 minutes well spent
Michio Kaku is highly overrated, according to my physics prof.
When Kaku started embracing the idea of the alien mega structure around that distant star as an explanation for its varying brightness, I knew it was time to stop taking him seriously.
@nineball26 swinging something around like the elevator is acceleration and the system at play which is isolated inside the elevator does attract masses...you don't know what you're talking about
@nineball26 why you don't know what you are talking about?
I'm sure Brian is making so many people smart with his explanations.
It's always worth bearing in mind that usually, whenever we think that Einstein was wrong about something, it turns out he was right all along.
Wrong, he was thinking this universe is static, observation proved him wrong, this universe is expanding exponentially.
You’re wrong. He introduced the cosmological constant in his field equations for uses with cosmology. When you look at positive values for the constant in the Newtonian Limit, you get an expanding universe. He called it his biggest blunder because he was convinced, and MANY many other people, that the universe was static. It turns out he was wrong. We have multiple pieces of evidence for this, including the recession of a supernova.
@@Godakuri the point is that the cosmological constant is still used today, because there IS an underlying force that is actually pushing our universe outwards. So, even though the constant was implemented because of a blunder, it actually proved to be the correct implementation.
Not about quantum mechanics though
@@argosron9838 that came from a mistake in his calculations of tensor calculus though didn't it? Friedmann used Einstein's own field equations to prove that the universe can expand or contract
Einstein took the simple observation that light had a fixed speed ...and like pulling a thread on a sweater, unraveled all of these other equations and revelations. But Einstein viewed things as concrete and could never accept the uncertainty of quantum mechanics.
But still theorized the confirmed Bose-Einsten Condensation we make at the labs today.
we dont serve faster than light traveling particles ....said the bartender .
a tachyon walks into a bar
I see +Max GT is a classic determinist/proponent of determinism, lol. Einstein would be happy since he didn't think the universe played dice either, even though he also came up with many things (he tried to throw out) that ended up being true that directly went against what he wanted to universe to behave like, lol. There's an old saying in Physics that goes "even when Einstein's wrong, he's usually still right" lol. Even the stuff he thought he wrong that he came up with often ended up being used later and shown to have some truth or insight there ;)
+Joe Shmoe
Didn't Einstein ignore all evidence pointing toward the Expanding Universe Theory because he didn't want to believe it?
Max GT im agreed with you
can we just acknowledge those 2 catches :)
ikr
Nopeee dopeee
Ookkkkk dokkk
@@RuhulAmin-bg5st poo in the loo
spooky = spukhaft
Einstein called it "spukhafte Fernwirkung" = spooky remote/distance-effect"
That sounds like what you yell when you just dropped something heavy on your toe before you can manage a proper curse.
Meep Changeling What is with freaking you guys against German
+matyourin people speaking German to me also kinda feels like spooky distance-effect.
This convo XD
Spooky= Geistliche?
11:28 is no one gonna appreciate Brian's catching damn
love to see an actor not only good at acting, but has enough knowledge to talk about Einstein with a physicist
Well said.
Bro, stop screaming Stella at the top of your lungs all the time
Brian is so great at explaining concepts, it's great to listen to him
i could never imagine an old man this cool,..
What a wonderful chat.
great video. I feel like I'm discovering Mr. Alda for the first time even though I've known who he is for about 40 years. what a cool guy to listen to
Brian Greene, he is the best at explaining (Classic physic,Quantum theory,String theory,.....)Science in general.I think one day he will surprise us with something new, we all need to understand.
( Greene joined the physics faculty of Cornell University in 1990, and was appointed to a full professorship in 1995. The following year, he joined the staff of Columbia University as a full professor. At Columbia, Greene is co-director of the university's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP), and is leading a research program applying superstring theory to cosmological questions. He is also one of the FQXi large grant awardees, his project title being "Arrow of Time in the Quantum Universe". His co-investigators are David Albert and Maulik Parikh.)....
I like the reaction "What?!!?
you jump out of window, gravity makes a quick entrance!".
Brian Greene always speaks so well. He's got the gift of gab!
BRIAN GREENE IS ONE OF THE BEST.
NOT TOO MANY UNDERSTAND QUANTUM MECHANIC LIKE HIM.
THANK YOU
@@tb14.7 He demonstrated the necessary. Other factors? Sure but the water doesn't feel the force of gravity. That's what he was out there to demonstrate.
There is many others who know their stuff as good as him, but he can explain these things to us dummies so good.
Two more intelligent and gracious people I have never seen having a public discussion.
The title should be, "Einstein's Happiest Thought: If a person falls freely, he cannot feel his own weight!" Turn to 9:00 for this thought, a demonstration of it using water, and some comments on the role it plays in Einstein's general theory of relativity. Turn to Kip S. Thorne's book Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy chapter 2, for a good telling of the way this happiest thought came to Einstein in 1907 and how it bloomed into a theory of curved space-time eight years later.
But i can't see the connection between curved space time and what he just explained, that gravity is the ground pushing against us. In the theory of curved space time, how i get it, gravity goes towards the biggest mass because it bends space and everything lighter than this mass falls in this direction where the biggest mass is, so we do fall in direction of the center of earth? But then why is there no gravity if we actually fall? Why does earth push against us? Because it's moving? Or rotating?
Gravity is a pseudo-force. You only *feel* what we call gravity if you are in an accelerated frame of reference, like we are here on Earth. Your natural free-fall is hindered by Earth pushing up against you. Einsteins happiest thought was that free falling/acceleration does away with gravity as a force; it cannot be felt or measured while falling.
One way of visualising the equivalence between gravity and acceleration is to imagine a light beam entering a hole on the side of an accelerating elevator. The light bends according to a curve. If gravity and acceleration are equivalent, gravity must bend light in the same way.
A photon checks into a hotel when the bellhop asks, "Would you like help with your luggage?"
The photon replies, "I don't have any. I always travel light."
@@vairavanrenganathan4752 lol
Well this sucks
Sad no one get it haha. It's a funny joke yet.
Two hydrogen atoms are talking one day. One says to the other, "I think I lost an electron". The other says "Are you sure?". "I'm positive".
I like Brian Greene because he explains things in a simple manner. My favorite book of his is The Fabric of The Cosmos.
Spukhafte Fernwirkung
Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough", Only a few can explain Quantum physics as Brian did.
My new favorite explanation of General Relativity. Thanks, Dr. Greene.
Here are two people I never thought I would see together. So heartwarming
@David Mudry what does your comment have to do with what I said. Gonna report for spam
Frankly, I think Einstein was right. Once we have a grand unified theory, I think the seemingly randomness of quantum mechanics will be shown its not pure chance & probability & Einstein will be proven right. String theory or/and M theory might be the answer. Higher dimensions might explain entanglement.
I also think this. The story on quantum mechanics is not true. The Pilot Wave Theory shows that you can get exactly quantum mechanical motion from macro objects. Why don't we formulate a theory that follows the structure of the Pilot Wave Theory? Because it goes against the chaotic narrative of our times. But we could easily posit a model that creates the same observations of the double slit experiment through concise and totally explainable underlying phenomenon. I'm working on this very thing. All it is, is waves upon waves. That's what creates this seemingly "random" phenomenon.
Well if Quantum mechanics' probability can be eliminated by grand unified theorg then the physics ( classical mechanics and maxwell eqn ) will also go into trash . So you can't really overide QM *now* that it has given us many splendid results
@@shaunakmarathe86 A theory doesn't "go into the trash" when its limitations are discovered. For example, Einstein's theory of gravity superseded Newton's but calculations based on Newton's theory are still accurate enough to enable us to send probes to the moon and to other planets.
@@rclrd1 I meant that the previously established fundamentals will go into trash ( Uncertainty and all which is near impossible to disprove ). I just meant that sometimes u can't find the exact answer .
@Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 I saw you everywhere on things about Einstein vs Bohr, or Einstein against QM. Lol. I am quite interested, mind if you tell me personally and taught what you know about it?
I hope to attend one of Brian greens world science festivals one day .Alan alda was or is a very underrated actor. I actually was working on a script at one time with him in mind in the leading role.
You don't see round earth deniers or conspiracy theorist about the earth or universe on these type videos, it's too much information for them to comprehend.
Either that or youtube doesn't recommend/suggest these videos to them. If they searched for things that could disprove their theories then youtube would give them some great suggestions. Especially now that people are putting almost everything on youtube.
why the hell are you bringing this topic here?? don't you know that almost all the famous conspiracy theories are now being proved true ? or are you also one of the idiots who consider themselves scientific yet don't there is life outside earth. wow, you are ruining this talk with your nonsense comment, grow a fucking brain before you talk yourself completely stupid
@@kt_drul a good laugh, we all know that's a good enough excuse for them to lie. Trump is from Jupiter, bet you didn't even know that.
EpicBunty “almost all the famous conspiracy theories are now being proved true” lmfao great one bro you had me good
Investigate 311
Relativity describes the relationship between the force and the observer . . . a great deal of this discussion is pretty confounded. Gravity is simply an expression of momentum, albeit on a planetary (or cosmic) scale, and indeed the two forces (gravity and momentum) behave in an almost identical manner.
Greene seems to rush through the most pivotal portion of Einsteins discovery. When Einstein envisioned a man trapped inside of an elevator, one that was caught in free-fall down its shaft, the man inside that elevator observes an actual weightlessness as real as any scale could possibly register him in that moment (without the force of gravity acting upon his body at all.) That was actually the apex of his theory, not the man simply jumping out the window. We, observing outside of the falling elevator, know that the force of gravity is working equally upon the man as it is on the environment around him, making the negation of the force of gravity relative to his personal observation.
It is the same for an object caught in orbit around a cosmic body: The "weightlessness" an object experiences in space is actually micro-gravity, not "anti-gravity". That micro-gravity is a point of free-fall that holds its own momentum equally in tandem with that of the Earth, skirting just around the very edge of the dent the Earth's mass affects onto space/time. That relativity is the same with the water bottle: Gravity did not go away inside the bottle when it was dropped, but the force of gravity was working equally on the water molecules inside it as it was on the bottle itself. Only the observation was that of "anti-gravity". It does not matter if the observable point - and in that case the water - contains no conscious sensory organs to observe the negated effects (such as proprioception or visual orientation;) There is still a physical point which can be observed. What seems to be missed in this discussion is the objective mass of an observer (or point of observation,) and the most vital ramification of a scale registering an equal amount of applied gravitational force when the elevator is lifted, adding momentum to the already existing force generated by the Earth itself.
Quantum Mechanics never negated the empirical reality of General Relativity, and I cannot understand why Einstein couldn't see that - as Greene suggests here. I've only studied Einstein's work, not his personal life. What he actually nailed exactly was the reality of the physical universe, of gross matter, which we also know he described as being composed of energetic constituents (of course though E=MC^2.) It is those energetic constituents that defy observation, which is why pure energy particles must be considered in terms of a wave and their location deduced with uncertainty. But quantum phenomenon, such as entanglement, may very well adhere to a certain type of relativity that simply defies our current understanding of existence, being unobservable (except perhaps in their effects.) And I would bet every dime that I have, or ever will have, against there being found a "graviton" or any quantum particle to equate the force of gravity.
Generally, I like Brian Greene, he knows his stuff but his commentary is a bit confused. Einstein's problem was indeed with non-locality, (*not* with determinism, or entanglement), entanglement just implies some correlation, not causation, and Einstein rejected non-local hidden variable theories, like David Bohm's. His position was that determinism and hidden variables would follow as a consequence of the principle or locality. Of course, we now know Einstein was wrong, not because of any experimental confirmation of entanglement (much less spooky-action-at-a-distance) but because of Bell's inequality theorem.
I think it would be more accurate to say Einstein hated the Copenhagen interpretation, rather than quantum mechanics, as-a-whole. Unfortunately, those two are used interchangeably.
I'm an Einstein fan have read several biographys and have university degree in Physics. I can tell you that, imho, Einstein hated indeterminism and hit upon non-locality as a way to demonstrate that QM was incomplete and that a complete theory would be deterministic. So it was quite the other way round from what you say. Why else would he say "God does not play dice with the universe!?"
It came as a great annoyance to people like John Bell when anyone had accused Einstein of being wedded to strictly to determinism. The EPR argument doesnt presuppose determinism and Bell's theorem does not disprove determinism. It's just not in the argument.
Here's what Pauli said to Born in a letter in 1952 _". . . I was unable to recognize Einstein whenever you talked about him in either your letter or your manuscript. It seemed to me as if you had erected some dununy Einstein for yourself, which you then knocked down with great pomp. In particular Einstein does not consider the concept of "determinism" to be as fundamental as it is frequently held to be (as he told me emphatically many times) ... he disputes that he uses as a criterion for the admissibility of a theory the question : "Is it rigorously deterministic?"..-he was not at all annoyed with you, but only said you were a person who will not listen"._
Here's what Bell said _"It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a presupposition of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always the sacred principle. The quotability of his famous "God does not play dice" has not helped in this respect"_
Andrew Wells Ok good. However, that is hearsay evidence - things that other, albeit reputable, people say was Einstein's outlook. Are there any writings or quotes by/of the man himself to corroborate?
I think it's better than hearsay but, just read the original EPR paper.
Ya well your boy got OWNED by bohr at Copenhagen. and he's gonna get owned again once dark matter is discarded! then we'll see who the real gangsta is.
In quantum mechanics the physical system is described through a wave function whose evolution over time is determined by the Schrodinger equation. The wave function represents infinite different possible results for the physical quantities related to the system, but when we take a measurement, only one of these infinite possibilities becomes real; after the measurement, we must therefore modify the wave function “by hand” to eliminate all other possible results, and this modification is called the “collapse” of the wave function.
The fundamental problem with quantum mechanics is that interactions among particles are already included in the Schrodinger equation and such equation does not predict any collapse. The collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is what allows us to make quantitative predictions about the outcomes of future measurements; everytime we make a measurement, we receive new information about the system, and we need to "update" our wave function, i.e. to collapse it, otherwise the Schrodinger equation would provides wrong predictions relative to successive measurements. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.
Quantum mechanics is incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality (the universe) consists of the collection of all observed phenomena and such phenomena do not exist independently of consciousness. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself. The collapse represents the transition from a hypothetical system to an actual system.
The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave function must be an eternal consciousness, that is, a conscious God. This is the idealistic perspective, which implies that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God who directly creates the phenomena we observe, according to the matematical models through which He conceived the universe (the laws of physics); the collapse of the wave function is a representation of the moment when God creates the observed phenomenon. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
Yes, that was bullshit. :-)
Alan Alda is brilliant. Great comic timing, and he obviously knows his stuff about physics. Great way to make it interesting and comprehensible.
He continues to demonstrate that he doesn't understand it!
Enjoy listening to that great conversation. Love physics. Brian Greene and Alan Alda are both great communicators for science. Have been following Brian Greene from the 90s greatly enjoying his book The Elegant Universe as well as his other books, appearances on science panels which I watch often on RUclips, CSPAN, PBS specials and whatever else. He is very good at conveying physics and making it clear and understandable. Love listening to him.
I feel privileged to be here listening to Brian Greene and laughing at his sarcasm like anyone else present there with him in the room...
I feel privileged that I am among those curious people who understands such complex things
I love Alan Alda's science shows. He's funny and asks the questions people like myself, who are interested but don't know much, want to get answers for!
I loved this conversation and the older gentleman was just a delight haha
Every now and then i return to this beautiful conversation
For those who ask: the video starts at 0:00 and ends at 15:14
That's true if you are at rest. In motion, or in acceleration, the values change.
The video ends duration is only true if you're about twice the distance from sun to earth and move at the speed of about
3 x 10^8 m/s
Not that he hated Quantum Mechanics, but rather, he loved a Universe that is independent of us mortals, a Universe where its existence has nothing to do with our existence, a Universe more akin to the God of Spinoza (the Dutch philosopher) than to our feeble perceptions. The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics includes observation as an essential component of the objectivity of nature, that is, the subject and the object need to be together in order to have a complete description of phenomena. But, for Einstein, to include the subjective as part of the objective was sacrilege. He once asked: "Do you really believe that the Moon only exists when you are looking at it?". It is only in this sense, the conviction that reality is comprehensible, even though we are not part of its objectivity, it is only in this sense, that Einstein was a deep religious person.
Observation is irreversible energy transfer, kid. It has been that since roughly 1927 or so. Why are you making a fool of yourself? ;-)
Seriously? We have 41 people NOT LINKING this video? What has happened to this world?
Many people are still in denial of quantum theory. Taking science as a religion with separatism and dogmatic beliefs. With their Einstein God.
Why do you have the need for other people to like same things as you do? Cant you just enjoy the clip?
Kunal Mehta most people are idiots
In the water experiment, Greene said gravity goes away. But it doesn't. The water that poured out of the holes is still being pulled down by gravity, just not out of holes. Am I the only one noticing it, or am I missing something?
@jesusbermudez6775 i just watched it again and still don't see how someone cannot understand that all the water - not just that coming out of the holes - was acted on by gravity. It's an extremely simple and wrong example trying to explain a complex thought. But maybe it's me.
I love listening to Brian Greene, he explains things in such a clear way, even a layman (like me) can understand quantum physics at a high level.
Well the truth is that isn't really high level quantum physics, it's just 1% of 1% of the field. Quantum Physics is full of crazy math, understanding that IS hard.
Dear Publisher, Please make following corrections:
at 14:30, acceleration does not bring "Gravity" into "existence", Gravity was still there, acceleration makes it perceptible, i.e. it brings "Gravitation" into our perception.
I don't think Einstein was wrong about the quantum mechanics. I think what Einstein was trying to figure out was a theory that is able to describe the motion of subatomic particles when they were not interfered by human observation. Once observed, the particles are already interfered by human being's observation. Quantum mechanics best describes the subatomic world only because it can explain the result of experiments, which are all human intervention. In my humble opinion, quantum mechanics works but still a superficial theory. A deep, fundamental theory should be just one theory that explains all.
An 'observation' in quantum mechanics is just an interaction between systems, it has nothing to do with a conscious observer.
@@patriksjokvist6431 Hey Bohr, don't you mean measurement...not observation?! 'I said Observation! And that's what I Meant!' It's been known for decades that that explanation doesn't cover the empirical 'observations'. That's why we Still have the Measurement Problem.
@@aaroncurtis8545 Regardless of language, previous commenter is right. A conscious measurement or not does not need to be present to cause interference in a quantum system. If two systems interact at all, there is interference. Period. A human scientist making a measurement is just one type of interaction.
Science and religion work similarly - both try to give an idea that explains everything (before creation + creation + the end). Science uses logic & equations, while religion uses faith & philosophy to come to their respective theories/conclusions. Unfortunately, the universe is so vast and random that none can completely understand/explain even a tiny percentage of it.
13:05 Einstein reduced gravity to motion. Now we just have to reduce electromagnetism to motion and we have a theory of everything. Walter Russell has done this already and it is worth investigating.
The man in free fall is 100 percent experiencing gravity. It's the force rocketing him toward the ground . Just because the scale is also rocketing toward the ground, and he is no longer experiencing gravity RELATIVE to the scale, does not mean he's not experiencing gravity at all.
Think Brian could have done a much better job of explaining how this served as a gateway into general relativity for Einstein. Hell, I'm not sure he ever even used the word relativity after initially bringing it up.
What he is doing is kind of using a metaphor to get the concept across.
The guy falling no longer feels gravity.
What they are trying to say is that in free fall, your body does not feel any force pushing you, other than air molecules rushing by and hitting your body.
Gravity is clearly an emergent force as per #Verlinde . It's becoming more and more clear that what Einstein said, that Quantum Mechanics is "incomplete," is undoubtedly correct.
.
What happens before an after a black hole hits a white hole ?
@@AdamStanway1248163264128 An Oreo Cookie ??
@@docfisher948 but then we would require 2 black holes .
Einstein, my number 1 teach who taught me about everything that exist through general relativity.
A particle walks into a bar ... through two different doors ... waving.
...waving... until they watch him, then collapses!
😂🤣😂😂
@@radiowallofsound that's it xD
That's a terrible description. It's not that gravity no longer exists. It's just that the bottle and the water are both experiencing gravity's force, so they would both fall at the same rate if it weren't for air resistance.
I love this stuff so much.... when I was younger I didn't have much interest but now I find this very intriguing
Yes me too liked more girls than physics
Very important comment by Brian Greene in the last paragraph of this video: "Einstein didn't use acceleration in his formulas for special relativity"! Many people forget that, even physicists when they try to explain time dilation and other special relativity effects. There are only relative speeds and different observer positions, but never acceleration. That is why special relativity only talk about energy increase of objects close to c, not mass increase as many also get wrong.
Imagine if Einstein embraced Quantum Mechanics i wonder if he would have been able to unify the forces then.
He did. He is actually known as the father of QM. He especially did a lot of Quantum statics and all other kinds of stuff. He just didn't like the Copenhagen interpertation.
Probably.
he tried to unify QM for a long time. He and many other top scientist at the time. they were'nt succesful
Keshen Govender
I think the sad part is all the time he wasted trying to unify the forces. If he had spent all that time excepting the forces could not be unified and working with those forces to develop and understand them the whole world could be ahead further. That said at least once Einstein could not unify the forces at least it stopped any one else bothering to try to do so. So I guess its as long as it is short.
@@roland20002000 No. In fact, the reason why a Unified Field Theory is impossible, at present, is because QM and Relativity are incompatible on a fundamental level. Given how much time, money and effort has been made to correct this problem, it is concievable at this stage that one of them is probably wrong.
Quantom mechanics is just a means of describing whats happening, it isn't what's actually happening. That's why he hated quantom mechanics. Any person with common sense knows that something cannot exist and not exist at the same time... QM sees entire reality in terms of probabilities
Not really. The "spoky action at distance" of QM is real, but it doesn't violate special relativity.
change places with heat and motion. Interesting relationships starts to be revealed.
General Relativity: G(F/m)(H/m) = 7.426157905 x 10^-28 m/Kg. Special Relativity: (F/m)(H/m)c^2 = 1.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" because imagination GETS YOU TO KNOWLEDGE.
Nice, this video finally made me understand how gravity really isn't a force of attraction but, as Einstein proposed it, a warping of space time which creates an accelerating field.
Thank you Brian, Thank you Allen, that was beautiful, peace and love, Doug.
I've had so-called quantum physicists explain different facets of that science and contradict themselves within three sentences. They were quite secure in their explanations. Do not, under any circumstance allow a quantum mechanic to repair your car.
11:35 I love how puzzled Alda looks at the wet floor, for a solid five seconds 😂
Maybe someone can answer a question about the video experiment.
Situation 1: Brain holds the bottle. Water is accelerated out at 9.81m / s.
Situation 2: Brain drops the bottle. And water comes to a standstill. Water come to 0m / s
Situation 3:
Brain throws the bottle in the air?
Now my question: Then water should come out faster for a short period of time? 9.81M + speed up?
I'm looking for Alan Alda stuff because I love him as an actor, not a scientist. You guys are way too smart for me, I feel belittled xD
+Metalmanmick13 HAHA Stop a Douchbag?
Greene is a theoretical physicist and professor at Columbia. He has written several books popularizing concepts in the field, particularly string theory. His father, Alan Greene, was a vaudeville performer, and that influence is evident in Brian's flamboyant personality and the water jar demonstration. Brian Greene also studied piano with concert pianist, Jack Gibbons. In my day, physics profs were not this entertaining.
gravity and motion have the same effect on angular momentum
play with that and you will win
No. Gravity and acceleration do.
When he unscrewed the cap, the pressure of the air is what is pushing the water through the holes in the container. When he drops the container the the water is dropping with the same amount of force it would take the air-pressure to push the water out. If you had enough distance and you could accelerate the container fast enough, the air-pressure pushing on the holes would push the water up and out of the container.
Yet we still dont have a distinct quantum theory for gravity.
Maybe gravity is so weak because it extends through the dimensions... we don't really know how to do it yet. Maybe after confirming the gravity force (we have detected gravity waves so far) with gravitons we can find the best path for explaining the force better.
what about those trampoline experiments though
Quantum mechanics are applied to the atomic and subatomic world. Relativity handles the larger scale physical processes. Gravity is a property of space. Objects are not attracted to each other, they interact with the gravitational field according to their mass.
@@wallacegrommet9343 but then why they even form gravitational field ? Why is it that the force applied by them on another mass is always attractive ? (Unlike electrostatic force)
@@darkseid856 In principle because that's how space-time works, at least in this universe, all matter bends the space-time where it's located, in an uniformly way from it's center of gravity, expanding outwards decaying on intensity of the gravitational 'force' infinitely
Zero gravity=weightlessness. Freefall=weightlessness. Hence, freely falling objects do not experience gravity at all. It follows that it is not physically correct to say that objects are in a state freefall if and only if they are pulled by the force of gravity since they cancelled out the force of gravity to begin with.
Great simplified explanation and discussion :)
That's BS. Einstein didn't reject quantum physics, he rejected Copenhagen interpretation of it. Which was, thanks to Bohr, a the time the only allowed way of thinking about QP.
The water experiment was invented by Isaac Newton :)
Who else misses Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda?
Such a fantastic show.
Starting to wonder what if the uncertainty in quantum physics is somehow tied to our consciousness. What if our thought/choice itself is the hidden variable upon which all these mysterious phenomenon are taking place?
Yes, exactly. That's kind of a rephrasing of the measurement problem. Bohr kind of thought what you said... I think. Trying to figure out what Bohr thought is like trying figure out quantum mechanics, 😄
uncertainity principle arises from mathematics of fourier tramsforms even without any connection to physical world.
Dear Brian, with due respect -Gravity goes away - when Water stopped spewing from holes..NO.. gravity was still very much there without any change..When bottle was still...gravity pulled water..when bottle was dropped gravity pulled the bottle and water both at same force (resulting same speed)..as a result water followed the bottle ..still going down . If gravity would have gone away than water should have been coming out top of the bottle.. Gravity was always doing it's job ..very honestly !! I always admire you dear Brian -you being a excellent Guru for me and will always be.
When Dr. Greene said “(Dr. Einstein) was tied to a philosophical perspective of the reality”, was is just me? or Was there anyone who think he was made a joke.
“Strings Theorists” have been both Philosophically and Psychologically tied to that theory, which they knew decades ago that it’s not real. Einstein didn’t hate or regret about Quantum Mechanics. He was smart enough to realize that it was Easier, Closer and Better to disprove than to prove.
Well, It’s a very low probability, but to be on my safe-side; Even if it was real, it could not be proven/proved (Stupid Grammar) ....
Unless they can prove ‘there are 24+ dimensions’ + ‘all waves and particles are basically come from vibrations’ + ‘Quantum Fluctuations is real and our bubbly universe didn’t need any temperature or pressure to form’.
M-theorists are tied to their perspectives, they spent billions of $$$ to build useless tunnels and Star-War-liked Laser Toys.
So, Dr. Greene might be joking about that, or he might be one of those tied-up Physicists.
Yes, but no.
String theories is basically another einstein version of simplified theory of universe.
And particle accelerator built to study quantum physics, not satisfying anybody lust.
Greene explains Einsteins equivalence of gravity field and accelerated frame of reference but should have taken it to next level explaining the affect of light traveling in that gravity field and how it provided the insight that gravity is the consequence of the variations of the geometry of space-time (where mass-energy tells us the geometry).
These guys are good. I already knew all that science, but I did not know it could be presented that well.
6:45 The German words for 'spooky action at a distance' would be 'gespenstische Fernwirkung' or spukhafte Fernwirkung'. Both translations can be found in the German literature. That is because the paper where the term was first used was written in English. Einstein had emigrated from Germany and he lived and worked in princeton when the paper was published.
We can't be sure if the term really was coined by Einstein himself. The paper has three Authors. Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. It was written by Boris Podolsky, most probably because of the three, he had the best command of the English language.
In a letter to Heisenberg Einstein later expressed his dissatisfaction with the published version of the article. So maybe he would not even have used those words.
Nobody could have stopped Einstein from publishing an article of his own in German, if he had been so inclined. I am not aware that he did.
alda reminds me of a cross between ralph nader and carl sagen.. 'thats a compliment of major proportions'..
Loved the analogy of the elvator speeding up in free space. But 8f thats the case , why does earth stops "rushing" towards you when you are above it in space ? By this theory , even if your are in outer space above the earth , the earth shoukd rush towards you ? Right ? Anyone ?
I truly agree with Brian green, you have to find deep pattern in the nature to understand how universe works in broader spectrum, & exactly that is what I did.
Then write some papers and get them peer reviewed instead of posting videos on the youtube.
+MaDrung It's easy to say than done, first of all I'm committed to all human kind not just one government. I have to be in neutral country before I will do that make sure no government with any means try to interfere with me and the knowledge I will put out there.
Levon Guyumjian i think you're just batshit insane and are too incomplete to write papers. I can speak because I actually am writing papers lol
The water does not leak for the container when it is dropped cause the water and container are dropping at the same constant rate
They are not dropping at a constant rate but at an accelerated rate.
@@patriksjokvist6431 OK, but the OP's point being that they drop at the same (albeit accelerated) rate. It's still 10 m/s^2 for both. At a given instant in any point in time, the water molecules and the container are travelling at the same speed. That kind of aligns with what we learn at an early age.. objects fall at the same velocities (note, not constant velocity), not accounting for the variance in effect of resistance from the air on objects.
Anyways, I think Einstein's theory on all of this is explained well by Brian Greene, but I'd suggest people find the video with him on Stephen Colbert where he talks about relativity (and does this same experiment). It's a newer video and a bit more thoroughly/better explained, IMO.
What's the Spooky word in German is stupid question!
Every word in German is spooky :P
Ja...Ja!
German, the most ugly language to exist.
Forexalised in your opinion
Did Einstein not say it in English anyway, he was bilingual and escaped to USA...
As a non-scientist (to put it mildly) a lot of things puzzle me about all this. If the man wasn't experiencing gravity after jumping off the building wouldn't he just float there? I would have thought that the rapidly approaching sidewalk below would rather messily disprove the theory. Gravity seems to stop working on the water in the bottle but not on the bottle itself which still falls to the ground. Or is gravity just exerting a greater force on the bottle than the water so that the water can't get to the outside of the holes in the bottle fast enough to leak out meaning that gravity is relative ? If you equate the falling man with the bottle not the water does that mean that if you puncture the man's body then blood wouldn't leak out (until he met the sidewalk that is, obviously)?
Summary of Einstein's opinion on quantum mechanics:
"Gott würfelt nicht." - "God doesn't roll dice."
Niels Bohr: "Don't tell God what to do."
It's actually stop telling God what to do but yeah
And the dice are loaded
That reminds me of strict Christians. They are not allowed to play games using dice or playing cards because those can be used in gambling.
Time also appears in this business of acceleration, or energy levels and motion. However, there is one concept missing: infinite complexity. Why? it's not math.
That water bottle tipping over at the beginning bothered me for the rest of the video
11:50 "As the bottle is--in free fall, it no longer feels the force of gravity."
Isn't the bottle only falling because of gravity? How does it not "feel" the force of gravity as it is being pulled by gravity?
Do you mean the water isn't being pulled by gravity agains't the force from the bottom of the container, while the container is in free fall?
Dylan C No. If you were to be in freefall, you would feel as if you are in zero-gravity. This is why astronauts float on the space station. They're in freefall in orbit.
Alan Alda!
I'm not sure it's a simple as him being just wrong/stubborn. There is a lot of logic to Einstein's perspective. When he says "god doesn't play dice" I feel it speaks to a truth that randomness isn't a solid mathematical foundation, which is something we accept with probability fields.
We definitely know a lot more now and quantum mechanics is a beautifully accurate model of some of the most important observations but we still don't have a theory of everything or understand why it is this way. When he diverged around the issue, I don't think he was saying the model didn't fit the observations, just that there were underlying principles as to why it it is this way that we're missing. I'm not saying that he was right or that the current theories aren't correct, but that current theories are still very incomplete and physicists don't even have a majority consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics - we're clearly still missing something, or perhaps many things.
Well put.
I don't quite understand equating gravity with acceleration. I understand perfectly that they feel the same and that gravity can be simulated with acceleration, but if we equate gravity with acceleration, wouldn't it follow that as long as we're experiencing gravity, we're accelerating? If we're all constantly accelerating, wouldn't our speed be increasing without limit? How does that square with our speed being limited by the speed of light?
***** Light has no mass. An object with zero mass can't accelerate. Any object that reaches the speed of light will also have zero mass and hence it can't be accelerated and so its speed won't increase.
***** What sort of explanation?
***** Actually neutrinos don't exceed the speed of light. It was an anomalous result to a few certain experiments. For more info go to-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
or if you don't trust wikipedia-
www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html#.VYF21bY9vBk
***** Just a wee bit slower than light. Approximately you can say its as fast as light.
***** Matter is limited to sublight speed when traversing THROUGH space. The general theory permits superluminal speeds provided that it is the space containing the matter that is moving. This is the case for galaxies that are observed to have a red-shift greater than 1.4, they are actually receding at a superluminal speed and will eventually disappear over a horizon.
I wish they would put the date on these videos.
And yet, even today, his "theories" are being proven right. Even after immense efforts of proving them wrong.
Maybe he was the only one who understood.
I'm glad they at least mentioned the "spooky action at a distance" problem, which was Einstein's real problem with quantum mechanics. The not playing dice thing is just the other side of the coin. He would have accepted the dice, just not with the spooky action. And it didn't help that Bohr and the Copenhagen folks were saying manifestly absurd things (no amount of experimenting is going to change that it is absurd to propose that the very particles composing the scientists, the laboratory, the computers, etc do not exist until they are observed (whatever the heck that means).
Brian Greene is awesome!
Gravity doesn't go away, it simply pulls both water and the bottle. Before, only water was being pulled.