Nobody asks you to shut up and calculate in physics courses. Most students are simply not interested in thinking about the why the theory is the way it is.
David's consternation at introducing the conference rather than as a "formal" contributor seems both telling and confusing. On one hand he seems to squarely grasp the scope of the issue, and on the other renounces any association or involvement with it. Both views are totally valid, is David the Pontius Pilate of Physics?
Every point in the field has the same information. When an observer passes through it , yesterday (the past) interacts with tomorrow (the future, ,delayed choice) and it make the Now ( the observers perspectives at that time) three collapse's of the same state making a virtual background we see,
Inside our atmosphere brane we have a multiverse of points and many worlds Every point has it is own time frame.it is one point being everything at the same time in the virtual background
The simplest quantum theory takes its cue from Reinhold Furth and models a system as a Hamiltonian system plus a bit of Brownian motion on the scale of Planck's constant. This theory cannot describe wavelike behaviour, but tables, chairs and baseballs all have Compton wavelengths less than the Planck length, so we need not be too worried. Advantages of this theory are the lack of any arrow of time issue and the lack of any need for an army of philosophers to explain it to us. Any more upmarket theory should preserve these advantages. I will kick off the next level by proposing that we need to add co-ordinated tachyonic Brownian motion to any numerical solution of the coupled Dirac and Maxwell equations.
At 28:24 Albert says that we can have no empirical way of using Bohm's particle trajectories. But this is only currently true, when electrons, photons, and atoms are generated in beams with only the crudest of (statistical) positions in spacetime. Certainly we will soon be able to manipulate single electrons and single photons, in which case the experimental results validating Bohm's deterministic trajectories will have eminent practical application. Imagine being able to aim a single electron at a silicon target and knowing for sure what effect it will have on the doping of a tiny area of the target, based on knowing the quantum guiding force and the exact initial position of the particle. We won't be limited to statistical patterns (distributions), but we'll be able to correct the aiming of the particle (with variable but known precision) to account for the device geometry by knowing its wave function.
David Albert reminds me of Einstein, in that he wants to cling onto the most "classical" interpretation of the world, even within the framework of quantum mechanics, and he therefore rejects Everett and Qbism. These "tunnel" into his realm of his "philosophical shenanigans". Whatever interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, reality is a strange thing indeed, and it will not be constrained by the limits of human intuition or adhere to human aesthetics. We should have learned that by now?
Not that I disagree with you but David has published several papers in theoretical physics as well, one of which has been cited over 1500 times. He's not just a philosopher of science.
Really? If you are unconvinced by the Everett interpretation of QM, you are necessarily "clinging onto the most classical interpretation of the world"? That's a pretty bold assertion by some random dude with an internet connection.
Can we generalize this? How about science without scientists? This idea is funny as fuck. In practice, it fails the unfalsifiability test. QTWO is pseudoscience.
@@TheD4VR0S Why do you lie, sorry you might be following the father of lies, santa or satan. Nowhere does the Bible say the Earth is flat. Come to Jesus today and be saved from your sin and eternal hell fire. Study Dr Jason Lisle. The Earth is truly only 6000 years old.
@@etienne7774 In the bible there is a tree that can be seen from everywhere, only possible on a flat planet, so the question is why do you lie, ps: what about the dome you know the crystal one with holes in to let in the rain ? pps: saved from my sin you mean your evil sky god sending people to be tortured for eternity
@@etienne7774 I think you will find the Godless English put paid to this bollocks nearly 200 years ago . Poor minds except poor explanations , does your brain hurt when you think for yourself .
@@ianmarshall9144 Don't know what your trying to say. But that put aside, for true science view DR JASON LISLE, ultimate proof of creation and Dr Stephen Crothers . Jesus is coming back soon. Hope your ready. Not much time left.
I Love the view here from the high ground; the place where it does not suffice to merely shut up and calculate.
Nobody asks you to shut up and calculate in physics courses. Most students are simply not interested in thinking about the why the theory is the way it is.
In his opening remarks he states his problem. He wants QM to be understandable in classical terms - 6:40 !
Hey said 'Jehova'!
David's consternation at introducing the conference rather than as a "formal" contributor seems both telling and confusing. On one hand he seems to squarely grasp the scope of the issue, and on the other renounces any association or involvement with it. Both views are totally valid, is David the Pontius Pilate of Physics?
He has a great sense of humor ☺
Every point in the field has the same information. When an observer passes through it , yesterday (the past) interacts with tomorrow (the future, ,delayed choice) and it make the Now ( the observers perspectives at that time) three collapse's of the same state making a virtual background we see,
Inside our atmosphere brane we have a multiverse of points and many worlds
Every point has it is own time frame.it is one point being everything at the same time in the virtual background
And that backs him up
Great Talk!
Do you know what the aim of artificial intelligence is ?
That is to create a computer that understand the world just as bad as we humans do ;-) Hi hi
Ah crap this is how I have been accidentally interpreting Quantum Mechanics for years
Sure, genius always happens by accident.
The simplest quantum theory takes its cue from Reinhold Furth and models a system as a Hamiltonian system plus a bit of Brownian motion on the scale of Planck's constant. This theory cannot describe wavelike behaviour, but tables, chairs and baseballs all have Compton wavelengths less than the Planck length, so we need not be too worried.
Advantages of this theory are the lack of any arrow of time issue and the lack of any need for an army of philosophers to explain it to us. Any more upmarket theory should preserve these advantages. I will kick off the next level by proposing that we need to add co-ordinated tachyonic Brownian motion to any numerical solution of the coupled Dirac and Maxwell equations.
Yeah, there is a lot of such bullshit around. ;-)
There are no observers in the Copenhagen interpretation. ;-)
My God, are you trying to make this as annoying as possible?
At 28:24 Albert says that we can have no empirical way of using Bohm's particle trajectories. But this is only currently true, when electrons, photons, and atoms are generated in beams with only the crudest of (statistical) positions in spacetime. Certainly we will soon be able to manipulate single electrons and single photons, in which case the experimental results validating Bohm's deterministic trajectories will have eminent practical application. Imagine being able to aim a single electron at a silicon target and knowing for sure what effect it will have on the doping of a tiny area of the target, based on knowing the quantum guiding force and the exact initial position of the particle. We won't be limited to statistical patterns (distributions), but we'll be able to correct the aiming of the particle (with variable but known precision) to account for the device geometry by knowing its wave function.
How is you ansible research coming? ;-)
David Albert reminds me of Einstein, in that he wants to cling onto the most "classical" interpretation of the world, even within the framework of quantum mechanics, and he therefore rejects Everett and Qbism. These "tunnel" into his realm of his "philosophical shenanigans".
Whatever interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, reality is a strange thing indeed, and it will not be constrained by the limits of human intuition or adhere to human aesthetics. We should have learned that by now?
Not that I disagree with you but David has published several papers in theoretical physics as well, one of which has been cited over 1500 times. He's not just a philosopher of science.
Really? If you are unconvinced by the Everett interpretation of QM, you are necessarily "clinging onto the most classical interpretation of the world"?
That's a pretty bold assertion by some random dude with an internet connection.
sounds like shenanigans
Can we generalize this? How about science without scientists? This idea is funny as fuck. In practice, it fails the unfalsifiability test. QTWO is pseudoscience.
You have been given the obvious intellectual solution to all of this in high school, you simply didn't pay any attention to what you were taught. ;-)
My God what is he talking about?
I think is saying your not special.
(in as far as you are observer)
@Oners82 Then I'm not in the wrong place. Can I help find where you ought to be?
@Oners82 You'd be a fool to believe whatever claims anonymous poster on youtube make about themselves. That's true for me to so I don't believe them.
@Oners82 Then at least you know I am funny, or was one time at least.
@Oners82 Even if it was intentional? You may not have been the first person in this conversation to laugh at a counterfactual assumption.
Particles do not exist. Or maybe they do.
I think it's time for 'scientists' to get back to God and the Bible.
You mean the book that says the world is flat and covered by a dome ?
@@TheD4VR0S Why do you lie, sorry you might be following the father of lies, santa or satan. Nowhere does the Bible say the Earth is flat. Come to Jesus today and be saved from your sin and eternal hell fire.
Study Dr Jason Lisle. The Earth is truly only 6000 years old.
@@etienne7774 In the bible there is a tree that can be seen from everywhere, only possible on a flat planet, so the question is why do you lie, ps: what about the dome you know the crystal one with holes in to let in the rain ?
pps: saved from my sin you mean your evil sky god sending people to be tortured for eternity
@@etienne7774 I think you will find the Godless English put paid to this bollocks nearly 200 years ago . Poor minds except poor explanations , does your brain hurt when you think for yourself .
@@ianmarshall9144 Don't know what your trying to say. But that put aside, for true science view DR JASON LISLE, ultimate proof of creation and Dr Stephen Crothers . Jesus is coming back soon. Hope your ready. Not much time left.