Brian Greene and Alan Alda Discuss Why Einstein Hated Quantum Mechanics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2014
- Albert Einstein was not a fan of quantum mechanics. He was annoyed by the uncertain, random nature of the universe it implied (hence the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe"). So, Einstein tried to develop a unified theory that would circumvent what he saw as quantum mechanics' flaws. In this excerpt from the 2014 World Science Festival Program Dear Albert, Alan Alda and Brian Greene discuss Einstein's relationship with the "unruly child" of quantum mechanics, and how the famed physicist came up with the Special Theory of Relativity.
Original Program Date: May 28, 2014
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest 
Наука
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!
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
can we just acknowledge those 2 catches :)
ikr
Nopeee dopeee
Ookkkkk dokkk
@@RuhulAmin-bg5st poo in the loo
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
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
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.
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
The world Needs more professors like Brian Green 😌👏👏👏👌👌👌
How does the Twin Tower on 9/11 fall from the top down, "ESSENTIALLY in FREE FALL", if according to Brian Greene gravity essentially goes away, weight goes way, no weight force pushing down?
NIST WTC FAQ 31 - How could the WTC towers collapse in speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST - "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall."
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?
What a wonderful chat.
I like the reaction "What?!!?
you jump out of window, gravity makes a quick entrance!".
Every now and then i return to this beautiful conversation
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
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".
11:28 is no one gonna appreciate Brian's catching damn
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 could never imagine an old man this cool,..
Brian is so great at explaining concepts, it's great to listen to him
How does the Twin Tower on 9/11 fall from the top down, "ESSENTIALLY in FREE FALL", if according to Brian Greene gravity essentially goes away, weight goes way, no weight force pushing down?
NIST WTC FAQ 31 - How could the WTC towers collapse in speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST - "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall."
Great simplified explanation and discussion :)
My new favorite explanation of General Relativity. Thanks, Dr. Greene.
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
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.)....
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.
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.
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.
Here are two people I never thought I would see together. So heartwarming
@@davidmudry5622 what does your comment have to do with what I said. Gonna report for spam
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
Two more intelligent and gracious people I have never seen having a public discussion.
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 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
How does the Twin Tower on 9/11 fall from the top down, "ESSENTIALLY in FREE FALL", if according to Brian Greene gravity essentially goes away, weight goes way, no weight force pushing down?
NIST WTC FAQ 31 - How could the WTC towers collapse in speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST - "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall."
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
Could it be possible if unlike single particle acting as a wave can't be given a prediction but if multiple particles are taken together as one they could definitely be predicted with certainty.
Or as the number of interacting particles increase the certainty increase?
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 ?
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.
gravity and motion have the same effect on angular momentum
play with that and you will win
No. Gravity and acceleration do.
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).
I wish they would put the date on these videos.
Alan Alda is brilliant. Great comic timing, and he obviously knows his stuff about physics. Great way to make it interesting and comprehensible.
How does the Twin Tower on 9/11 fall from the top down, "ESSENTIALLY in FREE FALL", if according to Brian Greene gravity essentially goes away?
NIST WTC FAQ 31 - How could the WTC towers collapse in speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST - "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall."
He continues to demonstrate that he doesn't understand 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.
I have a question,
I think quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which if two Entangled electrons are separated then the any action caused on one should reflect on other that's what experiments conclude so my question is can it be an effect of probability means if we measure the property of an electron at one end so we are only measuring the probability of that property and every electron in existing universe has the same property if Ur getting my point then uh might have a question then each and every electron should show similar Entangled behaviour but wait it's the matter of what uh want to see I means we saw two electrons Entangled because we are searching for same properties.
Apologies if I'm wrong but please correct me
Thank you Brian, Thank you Allen, that was beautiful, peace and love, Doug.
I loved this conversation and the older gentleman was just a delight haha
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?
Einstein, my number 1 teach who taught me about everything that exist through general relativity.
amazing host and guest
Brilliant watch
Tw!zted Metal idiot
Tw!zted Metal ur still an idiot.. lying idiot
What am I lying about, fool? Perhaps you're the one who is lying?
Tw!zted Metal no am not u are i know better. i understand this world better
Ivan Ereiz What is he lying about?
change places with heat and motion. Interesting relationships starts to be revealed.
Why when the lid is closed tightly on the bottle water does not pour out from the holes at the bottle's bottom?
Air pressure. Don't try that trick in a vacuum. You will make a mess. ;-)
I did try the experiment and water would not come out of the holes as long as the lid was on. I only had two holes on the bottom. @@schmetterling4477
where is this complete talk?
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
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" because imagination GETS YOU TO KNOWLEDGE.
The guest of owner is from the TV series called the blacklist
Alan Alda has one of the beutiful voices in cinematic history i know of. He is truly inn the likes of Swaggersoul
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
@@shadowmanx 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
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?
everything is flowing electro magnetic pressure, sometimes through unperceivable scales
Has anyone thought that the way space an time are tied together in GE is similar to the way momentum and position are tied together in QM?
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.
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 .
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.
Who else misses Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda?
Such a fantastic show.
A particle walks into a bar ... through two different doors ... waving.
...waving... until they watch him, then collapses!
😂🤣😂😂
@@radiowallofsound that's it xD
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 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.
Well, kind of. The photoelectric effect was already established, by Hertz I think. Einstein demonstrated that the kinetic energy (speed) of electrons expelled by light was not proportional to the amplitude (amount) of light, but the wavelength. More light expels more electrons, but if the wavelength/frequency of light remains the same, the speed the electrons leave will be the same... suggesting the energy from light is deposited in discrete/quantum packets
11:35 I love how puzzled Alda looks at the wet floor, for a solid five seconds 😂
These guys are good. I already knew all that science, but I did not know it could be presented that well.
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.
thanks for pointing out that gravity is not a force of attraction.
Explanation 👌🏼
alda reminds me of a cross between ralph nader and carl sagen.. 'thats a compliment of major proportions'..
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.
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.
Love Brian Green and Alan Alda is such an intelligent interviewer. Nice video
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.
Alan Alda!
Correct me if I am wrong but what Dr Greene is explaining can also be explained by Newtonian Relativity i.e. in free fall, within the falling frame you experience no net force.
IT IS explained using Newtonian mechanics . He is just saying that Einstein previously was confused about this , after a while he *realised* it .
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.
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.
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.
doesn't the effect of atmosphere which has weight due to gravity push the man down off building. doesn't the lensing effect of stars due to gravity. Isn't space time bent by gravity? I'm confused.
Great interview
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.
That look 14:00 😂😂😂
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.
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.
How does the Twin Tower on 9/11 fall from the top down, "ESSENTIALLY in FREE FALL", if according to Brian Greene gravity essentially goes away, weight goes way, no weight force pushing down?
NIST WTC FAQ 31 - How could the WTC towers collapse in speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST - "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall."
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.
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
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.
13:20 what is that sound??
The demonstration was excellent.
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
That water bottle tipping over at the beginning bothered me for the rest of the video
I wished this guy was my professor in college ❤️
Loved Brian Green from his work as David Silver back in the 90's. Too bad he wound up paired off with that 40y.o. student, Gabrielle someoneorother. _guitar riff_ [90210.]
Very well explained and demonstrated. Thank you Brian! 🙏
How does the Twin Tower on 9/11 fall from the top down, "ESSENTIALLY in FREE FALL", if according to Brian Greene gravity essentially goes away, weight goes way, no weight force pushing down?
NIST WTC FAQ 31 - How could the WTC towers collapse in speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST - "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall."
Brian talks like he's about to sneeze.
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?
So do photons ride the em wave or are they the wave itself?