I love this! His enthusiasm and ease of explaining comes across and you can tell he's in love with physics. Really enjoyed this presentation - must've been a bit of a change being behind a desk like that, rather than walking around during the presentation. Brilliant stuff.
Good talk. I wonder why nobody asked about the negative energy particles. On the fundamental level there are no negative energy particles. I think Dr. Tong is referring to antiparticles in the old Dirac sea picture, which makes literal sense in condensed matter physics, where there are electrons and holes, and the hole is literally the absence of an electron.
I'm a dummie when comes to science, I'm trying to learn, your video on building blocks of universe taught me so much, I couldn't believe. I understood all you were saying, that's how good a lecturer you are my question is, take a neutron particle or a electromagnetic field, does everything in the universe have a momentum, does the particle from a flower to the particle in an asteroid in space have momentum, as in needs a perfect pattern to follow, like the firmions follow a kind of legal momentum? A beautiful pattern where a particle in an asteroid has to follow this beautiful arc, where it needs both left & right firmion, momentum?
omg so many questions... does this mean the weak force has inherent chirality? could this lack of parity be an indicator that the electron has substructure that we have not yet been able to measure? does the notion of double cover (in quaternionic notation) apply to particle spin? so many rabbit holes, so little time...
Exactly - With our DNA, Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems serving as the mother board, circuit board, receiver, translator and projector, we "gravitate" toward those with "magnetic" personalities while "bonding" when we feel "chemistry" - "reality" is a bio-electric light show with fireworks, explosive upheavals, "conveyor belts" and "tractor beams" - securing our perimeters results in keeping out villainous infiltrators - but few manage to learn that part.
but I think the problem is the simulation itself, he talks about the algorithm that would need to be written down is impossible and, as I understood, this algorithm would be like a mirror that does not show the reality, of course in what you say, the mind would not be able to tell the difference, until it can, or more terribly, are we on the "correct" side of mathematics, or the correct CPT 😂, I guess we don't know
There might be a different way at looking at the question. It might not be as much as if someone in space time can simulate reality with whatever means but rather if what emerges out from the quantum reality is a computation or not. Sorry David for what follows since you understand it better than me, but I kind of have to do some explaining if I want to claim you missed answering the video questions in the title. When nature decides where she will show you where a particle is when you look at it, she apparently knows all of the probable positions and trajectories it can have, instantly an independently of the speed of light limitations, and collapse the wave function based on the probabilities. The collapse of the wave function itself seems to be the result of a quantum computation or simulation. The matrix would then be nature itself computing reality from moment to moment. As Feynman famously said, the quantum reality appears as if two electrons come into an agreement to exchange a photon, even when separated by light years apart in space and time. In one of his lectures you can find on RUclips, he describes the interference patterns of photon reflections at an air-to-glass boundary depending on how far the glass-to-air second boundary is if the photon had crossed the thickness of the glass in some distance in space and time. This works even if photons are emitted one at a time and if the glass is a kilometers thick. When the photon arrives at the first surface, nature decides if it can reflect or not base on how far the second surface is in space and time. This definitely looks like the result of a computation that knows all present and future outcomes. In the movie, reality is rigged, with backdoors and adjustment. The quantum tunnelling effect or the entanglement seems to be one of these backdoors. It might even be possible for a consciousness to affect to a degree, the decisions nature takes. To guide the matérialisation of an impossibly thin probability for an unlikely outcome. I meet long ago a park ranger that told me he got hit 7 times by lightning, with scars to prove it, in impossible circumstances, twice killing the horse he was riding. Looks like if nature holds grudges against you, she will still hit you even in a cave.😂 The path a lightning takes is all quantum mechanical. If reality was really a simulation, I guess we would expect it to be based on mathematics.
Are you claiming there are physical objects that cannot be simulated (to arbitrary accuracy) on a universal quantum computer? Well, then “universal” needs redefinition!
I love ya David Tong but the movie is set in the future, also it's. Not done on a computer, the. Simulated world in matrix is the computer, I remember I was 18-19 years old when matrix came out and it literally scared the hell out of me, it had me really thinking this could be done in future if not by now, though I'm much more a believer in parralel universe than matrix but again matrix is set in future, we know for fact we don't live in the exact year it should be, it could be 40th century & no way to know for certain
The fact he dismissed an idea because of his hate for Elon is baffling. I thought intelligent people like Tong thought objectively, but even they can be influenced by politics and the media.
Also intelligent people can make stupid jokes, just to trigger some people in comments.. Yet I can agree on your media influence point as a general statement
As a physicist, to say no is not a scientific way of thinking. It could be some other form of computers or matematics that it could be possible some day.
hes saying no because he has science and logic on his side to disprove it. I might as well just say that our universe is a dream of a butterfly and we would get the same rubbish as with simulation theory...its literally nonsense that has gotten popular bcs of the media and thats it
if life is just a highway then the soul is just a car and objects in the rear view mirror may spin in the opposite direction but seriously, you sound like you watched the matrix movie. then you know that the matrix doesn't need to simulate physics. it only needs to convince your monkey brain that you are a rock star eating a 200 dollar steak.
Hello David I really enjoy your lectures. I think we really don't know squat. However I believe that God could create the entire universe through his will and thought by manipulating the quantum of fields. Max Planck made exactly that argument and believed it to be true. So do I. I know it sounds fantastic and it is. But our relatively minuscule minds cannot conceive of the ancient of days, The Great I Am. Shalom/gw. PS. I would ask anyone who believes reality evolved on its own by random chance, to take a look at the flagellum motor.
Yes welıvın same matrıc 3d lıne but wanellıan magnetıc fıeld cover all word push to down real space 5d I can not explaın tomuch because my lıfe a rısky please workıng braın search search please look
I’ve been watching Dr Tong for years. He must be such a wonderful professor to have. Thank you all for putting this on.
I love this! His enthusiasm and ease of explaining comes across and you can tell he's in love with physics. Really enjoyed this presentation - must've been a bit of a change being behind a desk like that, rather than walking around during the presentation. Brilliant stuff.
My favorite theoretical physcisist 😊
He's also my favourite!!!🤩
He is in love with Physics !!! Perfect presentation !!!
Good talk. I wonder why nobody asked about the negative energy particles. On the fundamental level there are no negative energy particles. I think Dr. Tong is referring to antiparticles in the old Dirac sea picture, which makes literal sense in condensed matter physics, where there are electrons and holes, and the hole is literally the absence of an electron.
I'm a dummie when comes to science, I'm trying to learn, your video on building blocks of universe taught me so much, I couldn't believe. I understood all you were saying, that's how good a lecturer you are my question is, take a neutron particle or a electromagnetic field, does everything in the universe have a momentum, does the particle from a flower to the particle in an asteroid in space have momentum, as in needs a perfect pattern to follow, like the firmions follow a kind of legal momentum? A beautiful pattern where a particle in an asteroid has to follow this beautiful arc, where it needs both left & right firmion, momentum?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. There is something wonderful about humble and curious people
omg so many questions... does this mean the weak force has inherent chirality? could this lack of parity be an indicator that the electron has substructure that we have not yet been able to measure? does the notion of double cover (in quaternionic notation) apply to particle spin? so many rabbit holes, so little time...
21:58 h-bar should be h in p=hn/R
You can’t just put an IF/THEN statement in there?
the matrix isn’t a comp simulation but a mental simulation
Exactly - With our DNA, Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems serving as the mother board, circuit board, receiver, translator and projector, we "gravitate" toward those with "magnetic" personalities while "bonding" when we feel "chemistry" - "reality" is a bio-electric light show with fireworks, explosive upheavals, "conveyor belts" and "tractor beams" - securing our perimeters results in keeping out villainous infiltrators - but few manage to learn that part.
but I think the problem is the simulation itself, he talks about the algorithm that would need to be written down is impossible and, as I understood, this algorithm would be like a mirror that does not show the reality, of course in what you say, the mind would not be able to tell the difference, until it can, or more terribly, are we on the "correct" side of mathematics, or the correct CPT 😂, I guess we don't know
Reflection is not reality, so the laws of physic (reality) isn't apply to it.
There might be a different way at looking at the question. It might not be as much as if someone in space time can simulate reality with whatever means but rather if what emerges out from the quantum reality is a computation or not. Sorry David for what follows since you understand it better than me, but I kind of have to do some explaining if I want to claim you missed answering the video questions in the title. When nature decides where she will show you where a particle is when you look at it, she apparently knows all of the probable positions and trajectories it can have, instantly an independently of the speed of light limitations, and collapse the wave function based on the probabilities. The collapse of the wave function itself seems to be the result of a quantum computation or simulation. The matrix would then be nature itself computing reality from moment to moment.
As Feynman famously said, the quantum reality appears as if two electrons come into an agreement to exchange a photon, even when separated by light years apart in space and time. In one of his lectures you can find on RUclips, he describes the interference patterns of photon reflections at an air-to-glass boundary depending on how far the glass-to-air second boundary is if the photon had crossed the thickness of the glass in some distance in space and time. This works even if photons are emitted one at a time and if the glass is a kilometers thick. When the photon arrives at the first surface, nature decides if it can reflect or not base on how far the second surface is in space and time. This definitely looks like the result of a computation that knows all present and future outcomes.
In the movie, reality is rigged, with backdoors and adjustment. The quantum tunnelling effect or the entanglement seems to be one of these backdoors. It might even be possible for a consciousness to affect to a degree, the decisions nature takes. To guide the matérialisation of an impossibly thin probability for an unlikely outcome. I meet long ago a park ranger that told me he got hit 7 times by lightning, with scars to prove it, in impossible circumstances, twice killing the horse he was riding. Looks like if nature holds grudges against you, she will still hit you even in a cave.😂 The path a lightning takes is all quantum mechanical.
If reality was really a simulation, I guess we would expect it to be based on mathematics.
Great talk, thanks David I will recollect some of these ideas from my university years.
Solid is there any playlist for me to learn theoritocal particle physics I am ready to pay lol
So, right-handed fermions do not decay? Ever?
Are you claiming there are physical objects that cannot be simulated (to arbitrary accuracy) on a universal quantum computer? Well, then “universal” needs redefinition!
I love ya David Tong but the movie is set in the future, also it's. Not done on a computer, the. Simulated world in matrix is the computer, I remember I was 18-19 years old when matrix came out and it literally scared the hell out of me, it had me really thinking this could be done in future if not by now, though I'm much more a believer in parralel universe than matrix but again matrix is set in future, we know for fact we don't live in the exact year it should be, it could be 40th century & no way to know for certain
Do you have any good links regarding us not knowing what exact year we're in?
Tell me you never past elementary school without telling me you never past elementary school
The fact he dismissed an idea because of his hate for Elon is baffling. I thought intelligent people like Tong thought objectively, but even they can be influenced by politics and the media.
Also intelligent people can make stupid jokes, just to trigger some people in comments..
Yet I can agree on your media influence point as a general statement
@nightvision32768 Triggered or not that was more of a jab than a joke.
As a physicist, to say no is not a scientific way of thinking. It could be some other form of computers or matematics that it could be possible some day.
hes saying no because he has science and logic on his side to disprove it. I might as well just say that our universe is a dream of a butterfly and we would get the same rubbish as with simulation theory...its literally nonsense that has gotten popular bcs of the media and thats it
oh so you are deleting my comment then.. thought it was a bug
if life is just a highway
then the soul is just a car
and objects in the rear view mirror
may spin in the opposite direction
but seriously, you sound like you watched the matrix movie. then you know that the matrix doesn't need to simulate physics. it only needs to convince your monkey brain that you are a rock star eating a 200 dollar steak.
Hello David I really enjoy your lectures. I think we really don't know squat. However I believe that God could create the entire universe through his will and thought by manipulating the quantum of fields. Max Planck made exactly that argument and believed it to be true. So do I. I know it sounds fantastic and it is. But our relatively minuscule minds cannot conceive of the ancient of days, The Great I Am. Shalom/gw. PS. I would ask anyone who believes reality evolved on its own by random chance, to take a look at the flagellum motor.
lol
My money is on Elon
Elon musk has a good lawyer i think...
Yes welıvın same matrıc 3d lıne but wanellıan magnetıc fıeld cover all word push to down real space 5d I can not explaın tomuch because my lıfe a rısky please workıng braın search search please look
Stripped back Christianity dosed w/ Family Guy to atheism to agnosticism to atheism again.