I'd recommend people looking into the contextual realist interpretation as expressed by Francois-Igor Pris. The way he interprets quantum mechanics is both philosophically realistic and _very obviously local_ without evoking anything like hidden variables or multiverses or objective collapse or superdeterminism. If you step through the EPR paradox or Bell tests with this interpretation, there isn't even the appearance of nonlocality. The wave function is instead reinterpreted as representing the _context_ in which an interaction takes place, sort of like a coordinate system related to the frame of reference in which an interaction is being described from, and thus naturally has to be updated after each interaction to take into account a change in that context. Edit: Some people getting angry in the replies. QFT is a local theory. 😏
An unrecognized 1996 paper that has had little attention may hold the key. "Logic, states, and quantum probabilities" by Dr. Rachel Garden shows how inferences built on classical logic statements about classical properties differ from the inferences one can make about the results of quantum interactions. If she is correct, then there is no need to presume some ill-defined spooky action for the experimentally observed correlations to occur, and that those seeking to eliminate the possibility of spooky action are barking up the wrong tree. The proof of Bell's theorem depends on negation, whereas quantum interactions produce denials. When denials are included, then it is expected that correlations should be able to break the Bell limit.
Spooky action at a distance is the connection to the universe!! Just like the internet!!🛜 👻 Connect to your higher self and twin flames!! Heaven on earth is created here, through galaxy collisions !! Andromeda is like a drop of water!!💧 🌌
I”d consider a possibility of such a great characteristic speed of some underlying structure of the universe(matter), that the transfer seems instantaneous to us? If it’s realistically possible, why not to consider it?
Honestly, I love philosophy, but I don't mind physicists hate philosophers, because most philosophers don't do their job. They spend all their time going "ooo" and "aah" at philosophical problems without even trying to find a reasonable solution to them, or many just abandon reason entirely and devolve into mysticism (*cough* Kastrup *cough*). The worst of the worst try to turn these philosophical problems into physics problems and then lead physicists astray, such as the "hard problem" which has been debunked time and time again but most philosophers ignore the debunking and many have even started to try and convince physicists it's a physical problem, leading to people like Penrose wasting his brilliance on pseudoscience. While I do like philosopher, the overwhelming majority of philosophers are atrocious and only have a negative impact. It will be the year 4082 and they will still be talking about nonsense like the "hard problem" and "cosmic consciousness" and whatever.
@@Mentaculus42 Read Carlo Rovelli's paper "Relational EPR." There is no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Please, I'm just going to block you if you keep bringing up the Nobel prize. The fact someone got a Nobel prize in performing Bell tests does not prove your very specific philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. You are trying to raise your philosophical interpretation up to the level of proven fact by just pointing out an aspect of quantum mechanics was verified, which is irrelevant as all interpretations are compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell tests do not violate locality unless you make certain presumptions which are not part of quantum theory (value definiteness, i.e. separability, i.e. sometimes bizarrely called "realism"). One of the most common presumption is that there is some sort of superobserver which can see both particles "at the same time," which is not physically possible, and if you discard it there is never an inconsistency with saying Alice measuring her particle simply does nothing at all to Bob's particle and she is merely updating her prediction of what it will be in the future if she were to measure it.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
41:49 When cofee cools down, it needed to be in higher temperature than the environment first. It (entropy) is not an isolated property. When on the contrary ice melts for the same reversed reason, this is the time reversal of the previous process. Would you still call that entropy??? Entropy from what condition. Why would smoke evaporate into the air from a cigaret? It moves forward in time by itself. Because the gas concentrated in the tobacco could carry the carbon particles with it. Which is the reverse of its previous position. It does not matter whether it does that. But what matters is its first position was in the past of the second.
@@petervandenengel1208 When ice melts, it does not simply heat up to ambient temperature, but it undergoes a phase change from an ordered crystal to a disordered liquid. The heat of fusion for that process is the reason me we use ice to chill things.
@DavidMFChapman Exactly. Although I would not call a flued a disorder, but a different order. Since the crystals in ice 'create' heat when turning into flued, this proves the second law of thermodynamics is false. Because heat should always lead to a descent in temperature. It gets lower. Not higher. So attribution entropy to disorder creates a dichotomy. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Maybe Eric Reiter’s experiments are really telling us the illusion that is happening in quantum mechanics. He goes back to Planck then traces the historical errors that happened. Planck second hypothesis is revised and theoretical counters to it addressed. Once the problem is known and accounted for in experiments then the quantum effects disappear. Is Eric right.
It seems that the status of the background theories needed (as pointed out by Duhem/Albert), in so far as they are not yet actually falsified in a single instance, may be assumed to be valid ('true') in order to draw conclusions about the status of a proposed theory at present (as to whether it is falsifiable/falsified or not).
When some particle splits into 2 particless with a property called spin that takes values of either +1 or -1 that travel off in opposite directions are their spins already determined?
yeah i was wondering the same thing.. like its not really "spooky" if you shoot 2 balls together to the point of a triangle (or anything that serves as a divider that interacts with the ball), there two balls or particles "split" one ball goes left one goes right both with a 'locked in' spin on the ball (left clockwise, right counter)
If the degrees of freedom at the start of the big bang was 0 or very low, does it not automatically mean the entropy would be minimum. What is the big deal about past hypothesis?
Great interview! Regarding the arrow of time, the radiation of an isolated classical or quantum charged particle that is undergoing acceleration is broadcast into the future and not the past. We don't hear a radio program before it's scheduled time. This time asymmetry is enforced by requiring that the retarded potential be used to calculate the fields from the moving charge. I know that Wheeler and Feynman proposed a time-symmetric version of electromagnetism that had the fantastic property that the advanced potential could be cancelled by an absorbing universe in the the future. How would you explain the radiation asymmetry by adjusting the initial conditions in the distant past, rather than a perfect absorber in the future?
Great to hear from someone who knows the difference between a mathematical model and an understanding. Unfortunately, philosophies which descend from the Aristotelian misunderstanding which got us into this mess are not much help. Good to be thinking about these things though ;)
Time can only flow in before to after event flow. The use of forward and backward for flow of time is meaningless. Microphysics is velocity reversible not time reversible because reverse time is a meaningless concept. Just like 3 apples or positive 3 apples is OK to say it that way, does not mean negative 3 apples is physically meaningless concept. Even after the ultimate equilibrium is reached with constant/maximum entropy but there is change in configuration in some sense time will flow (by definition because there is change in configuration). Sure there will be no entities who can feel that time in psychological terms. But the time of physics will be flowing, because time is basically change. Existence is static time. Change is flowing time. If there is a cyclical subsystem of universe then and only then the rate of flow of time can be measured. Why we can remember the past? We can only remember the past if events in the past leave traces that can be recovered in the present. If none of the traces can be recovered we cannot remember the past. If the footstep on the wet sand beach are washed away we cannot know/remember that someone walked on the beach last night. Causality as dictated by light cones, prevents future events from leaving traces that can be recovered in the present. That is why we do not remember the future. BFD.
What is EAST AND WEST? Beloved balance! Now what is NEWS? Bring all journalists in front to bring forth clarity, coherence, adequacy, evidence, and witnesses. What is NEWS?
It seems to me that our empirical observation of ourselves and other animals, as highly adapted to our environment, is strong evidence against the multiverse theory. If reality split into separate universes at each decision point evolution would not work. There would be no penalty for bad choices or evolutionary chances and no benefit for good choices or chances. We would then have to assume an anthropic idea that our adaptation was actually just chance, that we happen by chance to be in a universe where we are adapted. If that were true it would be far more likely that we would be crudely adapted, not finely adapted as we observe.
Theoretical physics isn't. Physics is a branch of science which deals in empirical observation. String Theory is a twin sibling to scientology and pastafarianism.
String theory is not theoretical physics. Theoretical physics deals with the structure of physical theories. String theory is not a physical theory, at least not yet.
The arrow of time is an epi-phenomenon which arises from large groups of time independent underlying reversible processes. But philosophy is needed to answer questions like, "well, what is Sace expanding into over time?"
No one is saying, I suggest, that falsifiability is a sufficient condition of science (all kinds of nonsense is falsifiable). At best it is a necessary condition...
it all explained in the law of one. first density beings like rocks have consciousness. pets are second density beings. the book is free in the law of one site.
Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness, and the wave-particle duality nonsense! There is no measurement problem. The double-slit experiment was grossly misinterpreted! Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. There is no wave interference. The fringe pattern is a simple reflection pattern. What was interpreted as particles, might actually be individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. There is no wave-function. That's only a mathemagical abstraction.
Times arrow is incredibly simple to understand. Thats because Time is actually the only absolutely fundamental thing that exists - it is omni-directional self-expanding 'energy' ('energy 'as non-reducible existence). Things are ultimately just layered and interwoven spacetime. With the concept of spacetime we have 3-dimensional existence + continuous time. Does this then infer that Time might be the cause of space and thus can be classed as a physical entity, not just as an observation of change. If Time causes space and remains active, as per "spacetime" does this not indicate that its basic and sole property is expansion. If what's at the bottom is self-expanding existence this means it never can contract, thus it causes a) Times arrows always forward direction b) provides the universes energy c) explains why infinity exists d) why the irrational 'first cause' concept; is really a continuous cause. Note that this expansion is omni-directional so by default it is always creating 3-dimensional orb shaped existence; creating more space via outwards expansion and causes pressure tot exist due to the inwards expansion. Being bound by everything that already exists this creates differing rates of spatial expansion based on the age of the spatial territory it exists within, causing laws such as the speed of light (just as light travels slower in air or water than in space). As Time passes, as more inwards pressure continues to build, it becomes greater than the restraint of pre-existence in that spatial territory and the 3-dimensional 'shell' fractures and the 'existence energy' begins to flow according to the path of least resistance (just as say light flows out from nuclear fission). This process creates the required differentiation that is necessary for the evolution of things, as it allows differing energy flows to equalize, forming 'static' units, which then enables compounds to evolve.
See the name, always listen. I'll admit, at first I wasn't a fan of David, because I was uneducated and thought he was always saying a whole bunch of nothing! But As you, and I, figured out, he's an incredible explainer of the broad picture of a certain unsolved thing, subject, or theory, as it relates to logic and reason in physics. I relate him to Sean Carroll even though they explain a bit differently, they explain equally well and better than anyone. The longer the video the better when it's with David. It's enjoyable to see him milk every last ounce of thought out of an issue.
59:21 That is nonsense. When scientific laws have later been replaced by better ones (so the old ones were incomplete, or in a certain sense false) this did not mean earlier assumptions had not functioned. Like before the invention of the metric system no one knew how to handle distances, weights and content. Maybe the mile is based on a false assumption. But it still works for the purpose. Bloodletting however made no sense at all. Although perhaps people believing it would do them good, were still relieved by it. In short: one cannot state all future nondiscovered scientific laws, can be found sooner by falsifying the existing ones as quickly as possible. So, what are you left with. With nothing. This is an expression of crazyness. Being totally unrealistic. A confused mind.
Thank you for inviting Dr. Albert. Perhaps it was your format and style (or simply being in Southern California, the weather not withstanding) that allowed Dr. Albert to appear more comfortable, relaxed, approachable and human. There wasn’t a hint of defensiveness, arrogance or stuffiness. You allowed Dr. Albert to respond without being interrupted. It was a pleasure to listen! Thank you.
11:15 David Albert, "I was interested, when I was in graduate school, in working on issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics." It would seem that Academia would use coercion to prevent students from so much as to question the fundamental assumptions of the prior generations? (What history records are Published Conclusions based on their fallacious reasoning.) His point about when the Church leaders toured Galileo through the dungeons, showing him various means of torture? They forced Galileo to publicly renounce that the Earth moved. Humanity, (academia) better our grow this childish behavior before emergent General-AI passes out-smarts them -- passing judgement on their obsolete education system. Just as the criminal element of society hijacked health care and perverted it into a sick-care system. So too, the systems of "indoctrination" MUST be replaced by impowering the next generation with critical thinking that questions everything. Elon is right when he says, "AI must seek truth above all else."
55:03 Falsifiable IMO is a mispronounced concept. Maybe due to the old English use of wording at the time. What it actually means is veryfiable, based on supportive proof or not. I can imagine the discussion at the time went like this. "So you want this concept to be veryfiable. If it is true or not?" Popper was a sceptic. So he replied in denial. "No. It should be falsifiable. Be able to be proven wrong first. If you cannot do that, it is not true." How do you mean. Disprove gravity? Or prove it exists under certain conditions. And not under others. That is not exactly falsifying it. But testing it for its conditions. Which is veryfying. They were using the wrong vocabulary. But driven by the disussion with a sceptic (there probably was a lot he did not agree upon at the time), they landed in falsifiable as an agreement on the subject. They had not been thinking through carefully. Because testing on conditions and properties, could support the theory, or not. Verify or falsify.
Back to the double slit again. The results look like wave interference but that does not mean particles are waves. The schroedinger equation gives probabilities if u graph looks like a wave but they are probabilities not waves in any physical sense. QM gives u tools which work but give zero insight on the physical reality. The problem with “modern” physics is u seen an anology like angular momentum in an electron and u use the term spin when electrons dont spin. Time we revisted QM as it is an incomplete theory. Or just give up and say the math works and focus on Applications.
I don’t know enuf to do algebra. That being said I get a sense that physics is crawling along. They have been trying to figure out string theory for nearly half a decade. Now we have this debate. Perhaps a Newton or Einstein only comes along every two hundred years or so, not surprising. It seems to me we have people pursuing dead ends and refusing to give up. Some freedom of thought and a few nonconformists are needed to get physics some revolutionary progress?
For me, what he is getting at is the attempt to discover what the details are beyond the sub atomic scale that lead to emergent properties we see in classical physics with gravity for example. A guess a the riddle. Humans have a decent understanding of what happens at the micro and macro scales, and we are approaching our limitations to observe any smaller or larger than we already have. It's just something we need to accept. It's ok to not know everything.
Physics is limited to the measurable/countable, philosophy. the infinite. We count/measure within the infinite but we cannot count/measure the infinite-
David makes an important point when he says philosophical thinking contributed to the development of special relativity (SR). As Einstein pointed out, SR is a “principle theory” as opposed to a “constructive theory.” This philosophical distinction was key to its success, leading physicists out of the morass caused by constructive attempts (via causal mechanisms) to understand the observer-independence of the speed of light c, e.g., via the luminiferous aether. Einstein himself worked on a causal account, but gave up saying: “By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.” Per Einstein, a principle theory is one whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. SR is a principle theory because its kinematics (Lorentz transformations) follows from an empirically discovered fact called the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for c, regardless of their relative motions (the observer-independence of c). Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames -- says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR. This same philosophical move was recently used to escape the morass in the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) caused by trying to understand it constructively. Specifically, quantum information theorists have shown that the kinematics of QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) follows from an empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity. In layman’s terms that simply means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the “Planck postulate”). Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, and inertial reference frames are related by different spatial orientations (rotations), that empirically discovered fact can also be justified with the relativity principle. Using this philosophical maneuver, we can understand QM as a principle theory just like SR. Consequently, QM need not violate locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024).
Spooky action at a distance is the connection to the universe!! Just like the internet!!🛜 👻 Connect to your higher self and twin flames!! Heaven on earth is created here, through galaxy collisions !! Andromeda is like a drop of water!!💧 🌌
59:53 It seems to me that you don't have to assume other theories are true. You just need to say the assumptions you're using are the most predictive theories that haven't yet been falsified. You're not proving something is false. You're showing it's more likely that it is false.
Thumbs up! Enjoyed this philosophical perspective on physics and cosmology. And good to have David present in person which always adds a vibe to a podcast. The subject of philosophy should be back in vogue big time. We need much more scrutiny. If physicists after 100 years can’t resolve the same old simple questions (like the merger of GR and QP or an explanation of the double experiment) then something must be off. Instead of time and again trying and failing to get answers, we should stop and consider we may have been handed an incorrect question. You cannot find an answer if the question is intrinsically flawed to begin with. An Example? Take the infamous double slit experiment where we are taught to say ‘...we see objects (e.g. electrons) behaving both like particles and waves…’ Well no…that’s not true, is it?! We don’t see ‘electrons’ at all in the double slit experiment. What we see is the ENERGY associated with these particles (electrons) and it is this ENERGY (not ‘the particle’) that behaves in a dual way; because we see the particle’s ENERGY behaving either like the grid around the particle, piercing through both slits and interfering with itself of the screen behind it. OR we see the same Energy in the form of the point-like potential, associated with the particle when we actually measure it at one of the slits. Also, we must conclude both manifestations of ENERGY cancel each other out, like the inverse relation of Heisenberg’s dxdp>=h/2 . So then; there is no ‘particle mystery’ at all in the double slit experiment. It simply proves that ENERGY behaves like the grid in the QP world, next to its ‘potential’ function in the macro grid. A dual function thus. But it gets better; we have Sir Roger Penrose stressing likewise that MASS has the alter ego function of CLOCK in the QP world (he substitutes Planck’s E=hf into E=MC2 to reach this conclusion). So then, combined with the double slit experiment we can conclude that in the QP world the grid is defined by the ENERGYMASS, as opposed to its inversely related SPACETIME grid in our macro world. Simple. Why do physicists keep denying this obvious reality of duality of measures that the double slit experiment is presenting us. This is the ultimate answer. I hope renowned people like David can spread the word to the community. Because once you understand this, then you also understand where QP and GR meet.
How is inflational cosmology considered a science? With JWST Finding the age of the universe to be much older inflation is just not valid, right? It was just a patchwork solution to get from a singularity to forming everything.
David Albert does everybody a favour by reminding them that it was the Aristotelian model of the cosmos that Galileo undermined, which the Catholic church uncritically appropriated.
42:30 “The fundamental laws don’t make any distinction” about the direction of time BUT there is an → of time, ⛬ the orthodox fundamental laws must be incomplete ‽
Quantum mechanics does not attempt to "paint a realistic picture". It calculates probabilities of detections. We have yet to work out how to paint a realistic picture.
@@Mentaculus42 I am referring to quantum mechanics itself. It is just a calculus. It just produces numbers. It doesn't attempt to paint pictures, realistic or not. Talk of "pictures" and of "reality"/"no reality" is about interpretations.
A terrific podcast. David Albert is a most fascinating man, having true insights to expose with such humility and personal insight (so much more to say, but I won’t). 🍂🍃🌈
Please Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating Many trivial, personal reflections, including National coincidence (which also act to bias me favourably to him). WRT more direct/intended content, there were also many! But, to choose, the Popperian references are notable (remember their salience in 80s & 90s academia).
Advent of the internet (u tube) makes this adventure in Physics fun, I have a feeling because of your program and others like it, lots of young people will gravitate towards this subject.
I am a physicist and I would like to expleian why David Albert is wrong when he says that Bohr was wrong about the measurement problem and that we can hope to solve the measurement problem in the way we solve other scientific problems. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's 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's equation. 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. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. 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; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. 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, events can only exist when 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 existence of an event (associated to 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. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. 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. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. 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. Marco Biagini
I'm sure you know that the vast majority of highly intelligent people have very closed minds. Very nearly no one will even consider that the material universe does not exist. The existence of the material universe is an assumption. There is no way to prove it. Therefore, any open-minded person would have to concede that it very well might not exist. And anyone familiar with the dead end that physics has achieved should lean towards its non-existence. A universe that consists of experiences within consciousness can easily support all the physical laws that science relies on, including those associated with quantum physics. People today should at least be informed by the analogy with virtual worlds. That is not a view of a universe you see on your screen. It is a bunch of pixels. But, as I said, this is very very difficult for people to consider. It is terrifying, in fact. I admire your putting this idea forward despite the inevitable hostility.
what Einstein meant spooky action was the immediate collapse of the wave function over space and time which requires 0 time. The entanglement is a consequence of that but not the spooky action he meant. However it is spooky as well. But the so called wave function is not a function at all it is actually a section of the C line bundle over physical space for instance R3. it goes from physical space to complex numbers. if it always were the case that the C line bundle over M is a product M x C the wave function would be appropriate term, but you cannot always do MxC at least as long as you stay in cartesian coordinates in the physical space. A C line bundle is more than just attaching a line to every point. A deeper topological analogy of this with the physical reality is indeed makes it reasonable that spooky action is real, just remember that space can expand faster than speed of light and spooky action is completely makes sense if you consider the universe only as subset (sub manifold) of the C line bundle (in mathematical representation) . it is just a theory of mine I may be wrong.
The “Spooky Action at a Distance” that you mention is what I believe Sabine stated is what Einstein was talking about. But it seems that the general understanding or usage of the term is more generally applied to the Bell Test. Since the question was asked by the youtube channel, maybe some clarification is needed as to what was precisely meant by the question. Was it a question about which one?
@@P________ It violates causality or the “speed of causality”? Was interested in a clarification vs the term “locality” that gets interjected in Bell discussions also.
what Einstein meant spooky action was the immediate collapse of the wave function over space and time which requires 0 time. The entanglement is a consequence of that but not the spooky action he meant. However it is spooky as well. But the so called wave function is not a function at all it is actually a section of the C line bundle over physical space for instance R3. it goes from physical space to complex numbers. if it always were the case that the C line bundle over M is a product M x C the wave function would be appropriate term, but you cannot always do MxC at least as long as you stay in cartesian coordinates in the physical space. A C line bundle is more than just attaching a line to every point. A deeper topological analogy of this with the physical reality is indeed makes it reasonable that spooky action is real, just remember that space can expand faster than speed of light and spooky action is completely makes sense if you consider the universe only as subset of the C line bundle (in mathematical representation) . it is just a theory of mine I may be wrong.
The immediate collapse of the wave function over spacetime violates the laws of physics and isn't real. If Alice and Bob have entangled particles millions of light years apart, how can you even claim that Alice measuring hers "collapses" it across spacetime and "spontaneously creates" (as Zeilinger puts it) Bob's particle as well? Alice cannot see Bob's particle, so claiming it does anything to it is an unverifiable guess. A completely metaphysical assumption that could never be proven right or wrong. All she can do is make a prediction of what Bob's particle will be _if she were to travel there and measure it,_ which is a local phenomenon. She never observes anything nonlocal from her frame of reference, you only run into nonlocality after they locally compare results and she makes the unprovable metaphysical assumption that her measurement "determined" Bob's particle in that moment (which gets even more confusing if you bring special relativity into the mix, because who caused the wave function to collapse would change depending on reference frame).
@@amihartz "The immediate collapse of the wave function over spacetime violates the laws of physics and isn't real. " this statement is conditional on the fact that you (we) are aware of all laws of physics which you cannot 100% convince anyone even yourself. therefore the rest you wrote is just based what is currently known and therefore partly philosophy. the history of science is full of such interpretations, our time is no different. remember the wave function is not real, QM is not real it is just a scientific model. If you calculate the entropy of a black hole you involve pi but pi has infinite digits so surely in reality there is no any real state which represented by a number with infinite digits, as there are no real spheres in the universe, a sphere is a mathematical object, it does not exist in reality only 'almost' spheres , it is just a model
@@szjozsi God of the Gaps. You're basically arguing that the mystical thing you believe in lies in the gaps of what we might not know. I mean, you can believe that, but I prefer to stick with what we do know. Personal preference. Also, I am indeed taking the position that the wave function is not a real entity / object in nature, hence why it is not meaningful to say it "collapses".
My theory is that time is NOT a physical phenomenon like energy or mass. Time is simply a concept or idea that exists in the mind of man. Man created the concept of time in order to deal with the inevitability of death. Life is then a line segment beginning at birth and ending at death. Time becomes a gauge that allows us to measure where we are on that line segment - this provides both psychological and practical benefits. Psychological in that it reduces the anxiety that we feel in regard to death and practical in that it allows us to order our affairs in accordance with age. For example, we normally begin college at age 18, not at age 60. So then time and death are two sides of the same coin - you cannot have one without the other.
Time what is mistake? Lord thy Time sent forth! To bring to remembrance and comes with comfort Thy Love with patience, mercy, and grace! Time will say, remember HE HAVE LOVED THEE! Instead to bound hands and feet upon all dry grounds nor the world.
So glad that David concludes that human mind will be able to understand everything. However, he should check this with Chomsky for validation. Not sure how this will hold.
Tiny changes in the coordinates of a point on the Mandelbrodt set produce radically different results. The 3 body problem may ghave been solved, and a Klemperer rosette may be stable, as are electrons "stable" within the energy values within orbitals and shells. But more than 4 bodies with interactive forces cannot be predicted, and, "the collapse of the wave function is us humans using our instruments to take a snapshot of what is ever changing and saying, Aha! Gotcha!
The irreversibility that belongs to thermodynamics is based on a paradigm that is fundamentally different from that of dynamically systems theory. The irreversibility that belongs to thermodynamics is about two given systems each in its own state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The usual paradigm of dynamical systems theory is about one system with its own initial specified state. Of course, the entropy of the universe is not defined for the times of the big bang.
I wonder about the tearing of the fabric of reality by the detonation of each one of the big bombs. Some wonder about the Mandela effect being caused by Cern and others.
@@lubricustheslippery5028 Dear lubricustheslippery, thank you for your comment. Thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory that gets its great power from taking no account of such microscopic things as atoms and molecules. Statistical mechanics aims at explaining the macroscopic observations of thermodynamics, in terms of such things as atoms and molecules. Thermodynamics was a settled science mostly by 1851 and fully by 1865. The explanations in terms of atoms and molecules were contentious or dubious until decades later, particularly with the work of Boltzmann. It was in 1905 that Einstein eventually produced the convincing proof of the existence of atoms. You can check this out by reading a textbook of thermodynamics. Many systems have thermodynamic properties that are not easily actually accounted for by statistical mechanics, which works easily only for certain relatively simple actual systems, such as practically ideal gases.
When it looks like like a sphere, behaves like a sphere and is experienced as a sphere, it is a sphere. When one can walk right through a hologram, and the earth not. This proves it is not a hologram. Nor flat. You are confusing underlying principles with effects. A mathematician I presume? A blueprint is not the radio. Nor is it flat. The effect is not the cause. When the Galaxy looks flat. This is an approximation. Within the Galaxy it clearly contains spheres with in comparison a lot of (round, undetermined) space surrounding it. When you have no concept about why the Galaxy behaves flatish, arguing about the shape can be endless and fruitless. It is like an ape watching in the mirror believing there is another ape out there.
I can imagine a photographic hologram which source is flat, leads to the suggestions of a sphere because of the gradient in sharpness definition. And because it is projected in space. The angle in sight (if that is true: not when watching a 3D movie) does not matter and always takes the view as if it was looking at a flat surfice. Like when someone is looking straight in the lens, when walking by, he would suggest to be following you.
What I hope @Dr Brian Keating appreciate, and what I hope that David Albert would say, is that the very philosophers who insist that the measurement problem is a “physics problem” is the fact that the philosophers who are saying nonsense are themselves physicalists so OF COURSE they would say that such metaphysical transitions are in fact just physical transitions. this is why it is critical that PhDs like Brian understand this philosophical landscape. I wish I were in the room to talk to Albert about this.
Hey Brian, Thank you for the great channel you've been running on RUclips. Big fan here. Suggestion: Would it be possible to maybe add a pic of the physicist/philosopher/equation superimposed on the video as they are being mentioned? It helps with creating some sort of a connection with whatever is being quoted/referred to once we can see what it is or who it is that's being talked about. Thank you.
Who are we????? Nikola(i) Tesla got "it" all right and others as well have done magical work. Unfortunately main-stream know and have been taught so little that there are several unsung heroes who where totally brilliant and so wise but you know how it goes with The Game of Watchers / Controllers ......
Absolutely fascinating Podcast. Coffee with Dr. Albert would be such an amazing experience. Wish I could sit down and ask all the questions I have about reality with Dr. Albert. ❤
There is only energy and what energy I used to jump > is still around and so will be. We move forwards at the same we move from backwards to the forth/the here now but I get your point. Kinda rid.
Is Albert implying that quantum field theory is not Lozentz invariant and/or that the states of its amplitude can not be ordered by the 'proper time' (or 'tau') as an ordering parameter?
My pop King David, Saul to Paul, and my pop Einstein knows WHO? Given enough yet knows can't pass beyond this point! Keep watch! Time liken unto my messenger sent forth. Beloved HOW'S MY TIME SENT FORTH? Before HIS COMING visitations. Gratitude and Honor go find thy rightful place upon all shared clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! Ascending and descending upon all shared Feet resting upon HIS FOOTSTOOL!
My pop David Albert will say, bring all books upon the NEW Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand! He will command HIS ANGELS TO BLOW OVERWHELMING WIND! What remains upon the New Table KEPT!
Pop David will ye blame my ANGELS WHO PERSEVERE AND HEARD THE WORD AND ALL MY HOSTS SHARED "i" AM. So with delight and adventure to make HIS HOUSE. WHAT IS A REBELLIOUS HOUSE? THEN CAN CONTINUE ON
42:22 When a law is abandoned, you have changed the past. Because it travels with you. Had you not abandoned it, you would not have changed the future.
Yes, David once a little NEW Minds. David remember thy shared "i" AM. Bring all in front of thee! Sitting with Thee. David what is capital I? Lord will be a little Child "i" sitteth with Thee! The "i" AM. GRATITUDE and Honor
Students what is the WILL OF GOD OF LIFE OF THE LIVING? Hold thy peace. Let ALL shared Feet to come forth! Yes, for Thee to eat kept nor spitting out in the same time. While walking forward! Yes, chewing and spitting in the same time.
Tee hee... I'm pretty close(also by definition, infinitely far, but much closer than anyone else appears to have gotten) at subverting QED, the Standard Model, as well as Numbers themselves. It is both unfalsifiable and irreducible, yet predictive and prescriptive. No one is addressing the real issue, so I'm starting from the ground up. My analysis is that a small segment of humanity's collectively elevated intellectual elite, has used and abused Base10Linear so egregiously that, most of the complicated and often arbitrarily derived attempts to formalize and unify the 'different maths', are inherently proofless due to the usage of '0' and '1' as term expressions in the calculations. Furthermore. The first 2 things we can all get rid of that will help us rip the bandaid off here = At the levels of precision, scale, and energy we seek to describe, no function exists that will take input x and output x. All interactions preserving information have an an "offset cost". I'm still barely ankle deep in this ocean though. I'll probably get eaten by sharks. I honestly don't think the world will adopt my system anytime soon, and hopefully others add to this kind of work or take similar approaches, expanding further, and teaching it more broadly and at younger ages, so that the intuitive "experience" of a 'number', is expressed more efficiently and accurately. My biggest hurdle at this stage is fundamentally re-imagining how to perform any function to a single value when I try to perform it IN the terms of another Base-system, without repetitive mental-translation to Base10. The labels on the lines don't matter, and we shouldn't assume anything about any distance between any two of them. *Anyone with ideas or questions, criticisms, dunks, please and thank you for your time and contributions. I'm always open and eager to take shortcuts if someone has a good map.
Hosts what is a bastard? Lord no bastard here! But thy shared "i" AM adopted SONS. As the SON OF MAN sitteth upon the NEW Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand. Resting upon the NEW Permanent Foundation.
Some will say HOW? Nor why? Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM! Including all that are made that are made including all Thy shared Feet resting upon all dry grounds nor the world.
👋🙂👉 *Hello Dr. Brian Keating, can you guest Tom Campbell to your show? He is one of those people that think that consciousness is fundamental, and that there's free will. I just want to hear your thoughts on his ideas. I want to know if you agree or disagree with his statements; I want to hear your criticisms about his theories.*
![Three Reasons Why Elon Musk Will FAIL To Colonize Mars | Zach Weinersmith [Ep. 434]](/img/1.gif)
Is there "spooky action at a distance" or not?
I'd recommend people looking into the contextual realist interpretation as expressed by Francois-Igor Pris. The way he interprets quantum mechanics is both philosophically realistic and _very obviously local_ without evoking anything like hidden variables or multiverses or objective collapse or superdeterminism. If you step through the EPR paradox or Bell tests with this interpretation, there isn't even the appearance of nonlocality. The wave function is instead reinterpreted as representing the _context_ in which an interaction takes place, sort of like a coordinate system related to the frame of reference in which an interaction is being described from, and thus naturally has to be updated after each interaction to take into account a change in that context.
Edit: Some people getting angry in the replies. QFT is a local theory. 😏
An unrecognized 1996 paper that has had little attention may hold the key. "Logic, states, and quantum probabilities" by Dr. Rachel Garden shows how inferences built on classical logic statements about classical properties differ from the inferences one can make about the results of quantum interactions.
If she is correct, then there is no need to presume some ill-defined spooky action for the experimentally observed correlations to occur, and that those seeking to eliminate the possibility of spooky action are barking up the wrong tree.
The proof of Bell's theorem depends on negation, whereas quantum interactions produce denials. When denials are included, then it is expected that correlations should be able to break the Bell limit.
there is not
Spooky action at a distance is the connection to the universe!! Just like the internet!!🛜 👻
Connect to your higher self and twin flames!! Heaven on earth is created here, through galaxy collisions !! Andromeda is like a drop of water!!💧 🌌
I”d consider a possibility of such a great characteristic speed of some underlying structure of the universe(matter), that the transfer seems instantaneous to us? If it’s realistically possible, why not to consider it?
Fish gotta swim, bird gotta fly. Man gotta ask himself, "Why? Why? Why?
From, South Pacific
27:01
Physics Fundamentalists: Philosophy is dead
Also Physics Fundamentalists: Let me tell you why (in philosophical language)
This is so annoyingly true.
Honestly, I love philosophy, but I don't mind physicists hate philosophers, because most philosophers don't do their job. They spend all their time going "ooo" and "aah" at philosophical problems without even trying to find a reasonable solution to them, or many just abandon reason entirely and devolve into mysticism (*cough* Kastrup *cough*). The worst of the worst try to turn these philosophical problems into physics problems and then lead physicists astray, such as the "hard problem" which has been debunked time and time again but most philosophers ignore the debunking and many have even started to try and convince physicists it's a physical problem, leading to people like Penrose wasting his brilliance on pseudoscience. While I do like philosopher, the overwhelming majority of philosophers are atrocious and only have a negative impact. It will be the year 4082 and they will still be talking about nonsense like the "hard problem" and "cosmic consciousness" and whatever.
@@Mentaculus42 Read Carlo Rovelli's paper "Relational EPR." There is no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Please, I'm just going to block you if you keep bringing up the Nobel prize. The fact someone got a Nobel prize in performing Bell tests does not prove your very specific philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. You are trying to raise your philosophical interpretation up to the level of proven fact by just pointing out an aspect of quantum mechanics was verified, which is irrelevant as all interpretations are compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Bell tests do not violate locality unless you make certain presumptions which are not part of quantum theory (value definiteness, i.e. separability, i.e. sometimes bizarrely called "realism"). One of the most common presumption is that there is some sort of superobserver which can see both particles "at the same time," which is not physically possible, and if you discard it there is never an inconsistency with saying Alice measuring her particle simply does nothing at all to Bob's particle and she is merely updating her prediction of what it will be in the future if she were to measure it.
@@Mentaculus42 My comments keep disappearing when they are more than a few sentences: just read Carlo Rovelli's paper "Relational EPR".
@@amihartz read Hegoland by Rovelli. It's his physics understanding with his philosophical viewpoints too.
Because of David Albert, this particular podcast episode has been a solid for me. I can just sit and listen to Albert talk all day long
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I did a happy dance seeing this to watch this evening. I've been dealing with fire alarm panel faults in a grade 1 listed building all day. ❤
41:49 When cofee cools down, it needed to be in higher temperature than the environment first. It (entropy) is not an isolated property. When on the contrary ice melts for the same reversed reason, this is the time reversal of the previous process. Would you still call that entropy??? Entropy from what condition.
Why would smoke evaporate into the air from a cigaret? It moves forward in time by itself. Because the gas concentrated in the tobacco could carry the carbon particles with it. Which is the reverse of its previous position. It does not matter whether it does that. But what matters is its first position was in the past of the second.
@@petervandenengel1208 When ice melts, it does not simply heat up to ambient temperature, but it undergoes a phase change from an ordered crystal to a disordered liquid. The heat of fusion for that process is the reason me we use ice to chill things.
@DavidMFChapman Exactly. Although I would not call a flued a disorder, but a different order.
Since the crystals in ice 'create' heat when turning into flued, this proves the second law of thermodynamics is false. Because heat should always lead to a descent in temperature. It gets lower. Not higher.
So attribution entropy to disorder creates a dichotomy. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Please take a good read of the article in arXiv by Prof. Unnikrishnan, reconstructing quantum mechanics without foundational problems.
Maybe Eric Reiter’s experiments are really telling us the illusion that is happening in quantum mechanics. He goes back to Planck then traces the historical errors that happened. Planck second hypothesis is revised and theoretical counters to it addressed. Once the problem is known and accounted for in experiments then the quantum effects disappear. Is Eric right.
It seems that the status of the background theories needed (as pointed out by Duhem/Albert), in so far as they are not yet actually falsified in a single instance, may be assumed to be valid ('true') in order to draw conclusions about the status of a proposed theory at present (as to whether it is falsifiable/falsified or not).
When some particle splits into 2 particless with a property called spin that takes values of either +1 or -1 that travel off in opposite directions are their spins already determined?
yeah i was wondering the same thing.. like its not really "spooky" if you shoot 2 balls together to the point of a triangle (or anything that serves as a divider that interacts with the ball), there two balls or particles "split" one ball goes left one goes right both with a 'locked in' spin on the ball (left clockwise, right counter)
There are no particles in nature. There are only people who weren't paying attention in science class. :-)
If the degrees of freedom at the start of the big bang was 0 or very low, does it not automatically mean the entropy would be minimum. What is the big deal about past hypothesis?
Great interview! Regarding the arrow of time, the radiation of an isolated classical or quantum charged particle that is undergoing acceleration is broadcast into the future and not the past. We don't hear a radio program before it's scheduled time. This time asymmetry is enforced by requiring that the retarded potential be used to calculate the fields from the moving charge. I know that Wheeler and Feynman proposed a time-symmetric version of electromagnetism that had the fantastic property that the advanced potential could be cancelled by an absorbing universe in the the future. How would you explain the radiation asymmetry by adjusting the initial conditions in the distant past, rather than a perfect absorber in the future?
Great to hear from someone who knows the difference between a mathematical model and an understanding.
Unfortunately, philosophies which descend from the Aristotelian misunderstanding which got us into this mess are not much help.
Good to be thinking about these things though ;)
Time can only flow in before to after event flow. The use of forward and backward for flow of time is meaningless. Microphysics is velocity reversible not time reversible because reverse time is a meaningless concept. Just like 3 apples or positive 3 apples is OK to say it that way, does not mean negative 3 apples is physically meaningless concept.
Even after the ultimate equilibrium is reached with constant/maximum entropy but there is change in configuration in some sense time will flow (by definition because there is change in configuration). Sure there will be no entities who can feel that time in psychological terms. But the time of physics will be flowing, because time is basically change.
Existence is static time.
Change is flowing time.
If there is a cyclical subsystem of universe then and only then the rate of flow of time can be measured.
Why we can remember the past? We can only remember the past if events in the past leave traces that can be recovered in the present. If none of the traces can be recovered we cannot remember the past. If the footstep on the wet sand beach are washed away we cannot know/remember that someone walked on the beach last night. Causality as dictated by light cones, prevents future events from leaving traces that can be recovered in the present. That is why we do not remember the future. BFD.
This was the most excellent accompaniment to breakfast. RUclips at its very best.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very interesting talk. Thanks. (always very interesting when David Albert is present!)
Why are there so many Fn bots in the comments? I think physics is lazy if concludes, "This is just how subatomic particles work".
Remember Trust comes with confidence!
What is EAST AND WEST? Beloved balance! Now what is NEWS? Bring all journalists in front to bring forth clarity, coherence, adequacy, evidence, and witnesses. What is NEWS?
I like this! How does this affect spooky calculation (quantum computing)?
It doesn't. Things that don't exist don't affect other things that also don't exist. ;-)
Brian, you seem to push comments you don’t like under the carpet. Which tells me Eric was right about you.
What did Eric say?
@@DrBrianKeating Just kidding he is a scientist and a gentleman.
It seems to me that our empirical observation of ourselves and other animals, as highly adapted to our environment, is strong evidence against the multiverse theory. If reality split into separate universes at each decision point evolution would not work. There would be no penalty for bad choices or evolutionary chances and no benefit for good choices or chances. We would then have to assume an anthropic idea that our adaptation was actually just chance, that we happen by chance to be in a universe where we are adapted. If that were true it would be far more likely that we would be crudely adapted, not finely adapted as we observe.
Beloved is like close thy eyes! Shepherd come here. Beloved follow HIS VOICE!
Theoretical physics isn't. Physics is a branch of science which deals in empirical observation. String Theory is a twin sibling to scientology and pastafarianism.
String theory is not theoretical physics. Theoretical physics deals with the structure of physical theories. String theory is not a physical theory, at least not yet.
So much philosophy, so much science, so much techie, everything great. the next stage is experience, mysticism.
The arrow of time is an epi-phenomenon which arises from large groups of time independent underlying reversible processes.
But philosophy is needed to answer questions like, "well, what is Sace expanding into over time?"
The dispersion of energy or the increase in entropy resulting from the second Law of thermodynamics ?
No one is saying, I suggest, that falsifiability is a sufficient condition of science (all kinds of nonsense is falsifiable). At best it is a necessary condition...
Another book commercial. Nothing else was said.
Love this guy., he’s like a scientist in a movie .
I love this podcast. 😍
Creation will say can ye be trusted?
it all explained in the law of one. first density beings like rocks have consciousness. pets are second density beings. the book is free in the law of one site.
What is false? Brian will say, What is TIME is for? If there's false there's true!
What a wonderful guest! First, he's a clear presenter. But second, he comes across as a kind and humble soul. Thank you for bringing him on.
My pleasure
Clear ??? Turok is clear, Davies is clear, Anyone else is clear compared to Albert.
Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness, and the wave-particle duality nonsense! There is no measurement problem. The double-slit experiment was grossly misinterpreted! Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. There is no wave interference. The fringe pattern is a simple reflection pattern. What was interpreted as particles, might actually be individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. There is no wave-function. That's only a mathemagical abstraction.
Times arrow is incredibly simple to understand. Thats because Time is actually the only absolutely fundamental thing that exists - it is omni-directional self-expanding 'energy' ('energy 'as non-reducible existence). Things are ultimately just layered and interwoven spacetime.
With the concept of spacetime we have 3-dimensional existence + continuous time. Does this then infer that Time might be the cause of space and thus can be classed as a physical entity, not just as an observation of change. If Time causes space and remains active, as per "spacetime" does this not indicate that its basic and sole property is expansion.
If what's at the bottom is self-expanding existence this means it never can contract, thus it causes
a) Times arrows always forward direction b) provides the universes energy c) explains why infinity exists d) why the irrational 'first cause' concept; is really a continuous cause.
Note that this expansion is omni-directional so by default it is always creating 3-dimensional orb shaped existence; creating more space via outwards expansion and causes pressure tot exist due to the inwards expansion. Being bound by everything that already exists this creates differing rates of spatial expansion based on the age of the spatial territory it exists within, causing laws such as the speed of light (just as light travels slower in air or water than in space). As Time passes, as more inwards pressure continues to build, it becomes greater than the restraint of pre-existence in that spatial territory and the 3-dimensional 'shell' fractures and the 'existence energy' begins to flow according to the path of least resistance (just as say light flows out from nuclear fission). This process creates the required differentiation that is necessary for the evolution of things, as it allows differing energy flows to equalize, forming 'static' units, which then enables compounds to evolve.
See the name, always listen. I'll admit, at first I wasn't a fan of David, because I was uneducated and thought he was always saying a whole bunch of nothing! But As you, and I, figured out, he's an incredible explainer of the broad picture of a certain unsolved thing, subject, or theory, as it relates to logic and reason in physics. I relate him to Sean Carroll even though they explain a bit differently, they explain equally well and better than anyone. The longer the video the better when it's with David. It's enjoyable to see him milk every last ounce of thought out of an issue.
Where does he send papers with 2 equations?
Probably he never makes them with exactly 2...
59:21 That is nonsense. When scientific laws have later been replaced by better ones (so the old ones were incomplete, or in a certain sense false) this did not mean earlier assumptions had not functioned. Like before the invention of the metric system no one knew how to handle distances, weights and content.
Maybe the mile is based on a false assumption. But it still works for the purpose.
Bloodletting however made no sense at all. Although perhaps people believing it would do them good, were still relieved by it.
In short: one cannot state all future nondiscovered scientific laws, can be found sooner by falsifying the existing ones as quickly as possible. So, what are you left with. With nothing. This is an expression of crazyness. Being totally unrealistic. A confused mind.
Dr. Brian “Joe Rogan” Keating.
Thank you for inviting Dr. Albert. Perhaps it was your format and style (or simply being in Southern California, the weather not withstanding) that allowed Dr. Albert to appear more comfortable, relaxed, approachable and human. There wasn’t a hint of defensiveness, arrogance or stuffiness. You allowed Dr. Albert to respond without being interrupted. It was a pleasure to listen! Thank you.
That means Einstein was wrong about some stuff,If your saying Einstein was right about Spooky Quantum.
13:59 ultimatum. This is BECAUSE ITS ROCKEFELLER... LIKE EDISON NOT SCIENTISTs Businessmen.
11:15 David Albert, "I was interested, when I was in graduate school, in working on issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics."
It would seem that Academia would use coercion to prevent students from so much as to question the fundamental assumptions of the prior generations?
(What history records are Published Conclusions based on their fallacious reasoning.)
His point about when the Church leaders toured Galileo through the dungeons, showing him various means of torture? They forced Galileo to publicly renounce that the Earth moved.
Humanity, (academia) better our grow this childish behavior before emergent General-AI passes out-smarts them -- passing judgement on their obsolete education system. Just as the criminal element of society hijacked health care and perverted it into a sick-care system. So too, the systems of "indoctrination" MUST be replaced by impowering the next generation with critical thinking that questions everything. Elon is right when he says, "AI must seek truth above all else."
55:03 Falsifiable IMO is a mispronounced concept. Maybe due to the old English use of wording at the time. What it actually means is veryfiable, based on supportive proof or not.
I can imagine the discussion at the time went like this. "So you want this concept to be veryfiable. If it is true or not?" Popper was a sceptic. So he replied in denial. "No. It should be falsifiable. Be able to be proven wrong first. If you cannot do that, it is not true." How do you mean. Disprove gravity? Or prove it exists under certain conditions. And not under others. That is not exactly falsifying it. But testing it for its conditions. Which is veryfying.
They were using the wrong vocabulary.
But driven by the disussion with a sceptic (there probably was a lot he did not agree upon at the time), they landed in falsifiable as an agreement on the subject. They had not been thinking through carefully.
Because testing on conditions and properties, could support the theory, or not. Verify or falsify.
Back to the double slit again. The results look like wave interference but that does not mean particles are waves. The schroedinger equation gives probabilities if u graph looks like a wave but they are probabilities not waves in any physical sense. QM gives u tools which work but give zero insight on the physical reality. The problem with “modern” physics is u seen an anology like angular momentum in an electron and u use the term spin when electrons dont spin. Time we revisted QM as it is an incomplete theory. Or just give up and say the math works and focus on Applications.
I don’t know enuf to do algebra. That being said I get a sense that physics is crawling along. They have been trying to figure out string theory for nearly half a decade. Now we have this debate. Perhaps a Newton or Einstein only comes along every two hundred years or so, not surprising. It seems to me we have people pursuing dead ends and refusing to give up. Some freedom of thought and a few nonconformists are needed to get physics some revolutionary progress?
Albert is trying to defend Fort Apache but from the Nobel prize of 2022 the Indians are already inside.
For me, what he is getting at is the attempt to discover what the details are beyond the sub atomic scale that lead to emergent properties we see in classical physics with gravity for example. A guess a the riddle. Humans have a decent understanding of what happens at the micro and macro scales, and we are approaching our limitations to observe any smaller or larger than we already have. It's just something we need to accept. It's ok to not know everything.
The only reason you laugh at the joke is because you already know the conspiracy, ergo conspiracy theory jokes are the best.
Physics is limited to the measurable/countable, philosophy. the infinite. We count/measure within the infinite but we cannot count/measure the infinite-
David makes an important point when he says philosophical thinking contributed to the development of special relativity (SR). As Einstein pointed out, SR is a “principle theory” as opposed to a “constructive theory.”
This philosophical distinction was key to its success, leading physicists out of the morass caused by constructive attempts (via causal mechanisms) to understand the observer-independence of the speed of light c, e.g., via the luminiferous aether. Einstein himself worked on a causal account, but gave up saying:
“By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.”
Per Einstein, a principle theory is one whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. SR is a principle theory because its kinematics (Lorentz transformations) follows from an empirically discovered fact called the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for c, regardless of their relative motions (the observer-independence of c). Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames -- says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR.
This same philosophical move was recently used to escape the morass in the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) caused by trying to understand it constructively.
Specifically, quantum information theorists have shown that the kinematics of QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) follows from an empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity. In layman’s terms that simply means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the “Planck postulate”). Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, and inertial reference frames are related by different spatial orientations (rotations), that empirically discovered fact can also be justified with the relativity principle.
Using this philosophical maneuver, we can understand QM as a principle theory just like SR. Consequently, QM need not violate locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds).
We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024).
Spooky action at a distance is the connection to the universe!! Just like the internet!!🛜 👻
Connect to your higher self and twin flames!! Heaven on earth is created here, through galaxy collisions !! Andromeda is like a drop of water!!💧 🌌
59:53 It seems to me that you don't have to assume other theories are true. You just need to say the assumptions you're using are the most predictive theories that haven't yet been falsified. You're not proving something is false. You're showing it's more likely that it is false.
1:20: Bohm's theory of a pilot wave gives up the classical view of reality, too. It is non local. So what?
Think about all the things we will never know, it's crazy 😁
No that’s not true ,prof. dr. Hans Peter Dürr did explain it get the right informations
I don't live in the U.S. Sorry... I also don't play golf, so president is also not an option..
Thumbs up! Enjoyed this philosophical perspective on physics and cosmology. And good to have David present in person which always adds a vibe to a podcast. The subject of philosophy should be back in vogue big time. We need much more scrutiny. If physicists after 100 years can’t resolve the same old simple questions (like the merger of GR and QP or an explanation of the double experiment) then something must be off. Instead of time and again trying and failing to get answers, we should stop and consider we may have been handed an incorrect question. You cannot find an answer if the question is intrinsically flawed to begin with. An Example? Take the infamous double slit experiment where we are taught to say ‘...we see objects (e.g. electrons) behaving both like particles and waves…’ Well no…that’s not true, is it?! We don’t see ‘electrons’ at all in the double slit experiment. What we see is the ENERGY associated with these particles (electrons) and it is this ENERGY (not ‘the particle’) that behaves in a dual way; because we see the particle’s ENERGY behaving either like the grid around the particle, piercing through both slits and interfering with itself of the screen behind it. OR we see the same Energy in the form of the point-like potential, associated with the particle when we actually measure it at one of the slits. Also, we must conclude both manifestations of ENERGY cancel each other out, like the inverse relation of Heisenberg’s dxdp>=h/2 .
So then; there is no ‘particle mystery’ at all in the double slit experiment. It simply proves that ENERGY behaves like the grid in the QP world, next to its ‘potential’ function in the macro grid. A dual function thus. But it gets better; we have Sir Roger Penrose stressing likewise that MASS has the alter ego function of CLOCK in the QP world (he substitutes Planck’s E=hf into E=MC2 to reach this conclusion). So then, combined with the double slit experiment we can conclude that in the QP world the grid is defined by the ENERGYMASS, as opposed to its inversely related SPACETIME grid in our macro world. Simple. Why do physicists keep denying this obvious reality of duality of measures that the double slit experiment is presenting us. This is the ultimate answer. I hope renowned people like David can spread the word to the community. Because once you understand this, then you also understand where QP and GR meet.
How is inflational cosmology considered a science? With JWST Finding the age of the universe to be much older inflation is just not valid, right? It was just a patchwork solution to get from a singularity to forming everything.
Did you get that nonsense about JWST changing the age estimate of the universe off the internet? Then it must be true, right? ;-)
David Albert does everybody a favour by reminding them that it was the Aristotelian model of the cosmos that Galileo undermined, which the Catholic church uncritically appropriated.
42:30 “The fundamental laws don’t make any distinction” about the direction of time BUT there is an → of time, ⛬ the orthodox fundamental laws must be incomplete ‽
Quantum mechanics does not attempt to "paint a realistic picture". It calculates probabilities of detections. We have yet to work out how to paint a realistic picture.
Did you mean to say that certain “INTERPRETATIONS of quantum mechanics”, particularly some orthodox interpretations strongly avoid “realism”.
@@Mentaculus42 I am referring to quantum mechanics itself. It is just a calculus. It just produces numbers. It doesn't attempt to paint pictures, realistic or not. Talk of "pictures" and of "reality"/"no reality" is about interpretations.
That is not a philosophy 😒 (21:00)
A terrific podcast. David Albert is a most fascinating man, having true insights to expose with such humility and personal insight (so much more to say, but I won’t). 🍂🍃🌈
Please Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating Many trivial, personal reflections, including National coincidence (which also act to bias me favourably to him). WRT more direct/intended content, there were also many! But, to choose, the Popperian references are notable (remember their salience in 80s & 90s academia).
Advent of the internet (u tube) makes this adventure in Physics fun, I have a feeling because of your program and others like it, lots of young people will gravitate towards this subject.
I hope so!
And thank u for that situation that u defending me about that matter
Your ignoring the superposition of remote viewing. That's the access for understanding the flexibility of time.
I am a physicist and I would like to expleian why David Albert is wrong when he says that Bohr was wrong about the measurement problem and that we can hope to solve the measurement problem in the way we solve other scientific problems.
In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's 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's equation.
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. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities.
This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.
Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events.
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; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event.
Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. 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, events can only exist when 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 existence of an event (associated to 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.
No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. 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. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. 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.
Marco Biagini
You are extremely confused, imvho. Can I verify your claim as to being a practicing physicist?
@@geertdepuydt2683 How is that relevant? He's either correct or not. Being a physicist doesn't change the facts. So what is he confused about?
Too long zzz.
Too much free time?
I'm sure you know that the vast majority of highly intelligent people have very closed minds. Very nearly no one will even consider that the material universe does not exist. The existence of the material universe is an assumption. There is no way to prove it. Therefore, any open-minded person would have to concede that it very well might not exist. And anyone familiar with the dead end that physics has achieved should lean towards its non-existence. A universe that consists of experiences within consciousness can easily support all the physical laws that science relies on, including those associated with quantum physics. People today should at least be informed by the analogy with virtual worlds. That is not a view of a universe you see on your screen. It is a bunch of pixels. But, as I said, this is very very difficult for people to consider. It is terrifying, in fact. I admire your putting this idea forward despite the inevitable hostility.
what Einstein meant spooky action was the immediate collapse of the wave function over space and time which requires 0 time. The entanglement is a consequence of that but not the spooky action he meant. However it is spooky as well. But the so called wave function is not a function at all it is actually a section of the C line bundle over physical space for instance R3. it goes from physical space to complex numbers. if it always were the case that the C line bundle over M is a product M x C the wave function would be appropriate term, but you cannot always do MxC at least as long as you stay in cartesian coordinates in the physical space. A C line bundle is more than just attaching a line to every point. A deeper topological analogy of this with the physical reality is indeed makes it reasonable that spooky action is real, just remember that space can expand faster than speed of light and spooky action is completely makes sense if you consider the universe only as subset (sub manifold) of the C line bundle (in mathematical representation) . it is just a theory of mine I may be wrong.
The “Spooky Action at a Distance” that you mention is what I believe Sabine stated is what Einstein was talking about. But it seems that the general understanding or usage of the term is more generally applied to the Bell Test. Since the question was asked by the youtube channel, maybe some clarification is needed as to what was precisely meant by the question. Was it a question about which one?
@@P________
It violates causality or the “speed of causality”? Was interested in a clarification vs the term “locality” that gets interjected in Bell discussions also.
If the universe is spherical in shape and is expanding from a singularity creating spacetime, then time has to be three dimensional. Simple logic.
It isn't and it wasn't. NEXT! :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 so you know different? Next; explain.
what Einstein meant spooky action was the immediate collapse of the wave function over space and time which requires 0 time. The entanglement is a consequence of that but not the spooky action he meant. However it is spooky as well. But the so called wave function is not a function at all it is actually a section of the C line bundle over physical space for instance R3. it goes from physical space to complex numbers. if it always were the case that the C line bundle over M is a product M x C the wave function would be appropriate term, but you cannot always do MxC at least as long as you stay in cartesian coordinates in the physical space. A C line bundle is more than just attaching a line to every point. A deeper topological analogy of this with the physical reality is indeed makes it reasonable that spooky action is real, just remember that space can expand faster than speed of light and spooky action is completely makes sense if you consider the universe only as subset of the C line bundle (in mathematical representation) . it is just a theory of mine I may be wrong.
The immediate collapse of the wave function over spacetime violates the laws of physics and isn't real. If Alice and Bob have entangled particles millions of light years apart, how can you even claim that Alice measuring hers "collapses" it across spacetime and "spontaneously creates" (as Zeilinger puts it) Bob's particle as well? Alice cannot see Bob's particle, so claiming it does anything to it is an unverifiable guess. A completely metaphysical assumption that could never be proven right or wrong. All she can do is make a prediction of what Bob's particle will be _if she were to travel there and measure it,_ which is a local phenomenon. She never observes anything nonlocal from her frame of reference, you only run into nonlocality after they locally compare results and she makes the unprovable metaphysical assumption that her measurement "determined" Bob's particle in that moment (which gets even more confusing if you bring special relativity into the mix, because who caused the wave function to collapse would change depending on reference frame).
@@amihartz "The immediate collapse of the wave function over spacetime violates the laws of physics and isn't real. " this statement is conditional on the fact that you (we) are aware of all laws of physics which you cannot 100% convince anyone even yourself. therefore the rest you wrote is just based what is currently known and therefore partly philosophy. the history of science is full of such interpretations, our time is no different. remember the wave function is not real, QM is not real it is just a scientific model. If you calculate the entropy of a black hole you involve pi but pi has infinite digits so surely in reality there is no any real state which represented by a number with infinite digits, as there are no real spheres in the universe, a sphere is a mathematical object, it does not exist in reality only 'almost' spheres , it is just a model
@@szjozsi God of the Gaps. You're basically arguing that the mystical thing you believe in lies in the gaps of what we might not know. I mean, you can believe that, but I prefer to stick with what we do know. Personal preference. Also, I am indeed taking the position that the wave function is not a real entity / object in nature, hence why it is not meaningful to say it "collapses".
My theory is that time is NOT a physical phenomenon like energy or mass. Time is simply a concept or idea that exists in the mind of man. Man created the concept of time in order to deal with the inevitability of death. Life is then a line segment beginning at birth and ending at death. Time becomes a gauge that allows us to measure where we are on that line segment - this provides both psychological and practical benefits. Psychological in that it reduces the anxiety that we feel in regard to death and practical in that it allows us to order our affairs in accordance with age. For example, we normally begin college at age 18, not at age 60. So then time and death are two sides of the same coin - you cannot have one without the other.
Time is that which the clocks show. We teach that to five year old children when we teach them how to read the clock. You forgot already? :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Thank you for your response.
@@daves2520 It had to be said. Don't take it personally. :-)
the noise gate has the attack too fast, specially on the voice off the intro. Try giving it a bit more of release.
Time what is mistake? Lord thy Time sent forth! To bring to remembrance and comes with comfort Thy Love with patience, mercy, and grace! Time will say, remember HE HAVE LOVED THEE! Instead to bound hands and feet upon all dry grounds nor the world.
There are so many adverts in this video that it's almost impossible to watch
Just use addblocker.
So glad that David concludes that human mind will be able to understand everything. However, he should check this with Chomsky for validation. Not sure how this will hold.
Tiny changes in the coordinates of a point on the Mandelbrodt set produce radically different results.
The 3 body problem may ghave been solved, and a Klemperer rosette may be stable, as are electrons "stable" within the energy values within orbitals and shells.
But more than 4 bodies with interactive forces cannot be predicted, and, "the collapse of the wave function is us humans using our instruments to take a snapshot of what is ever changing and saying, Aha! Gotcha!
The irreversibility that belongs to thermodynamics is based on a paradigm that is fundamentally different from that of dynamically systems theory. The irreversibility that belongs to thermodynamics is about two given systems each in its own state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The usual paradigm of dynamical systems theory is about one system with its own initial specified state. Of course, the entropy of the universe is not defined for the times of the big bang.
I wonder about the tearing of the fabric of reality by the detonation of each one of the big bombs.
Some wonder about the Mandela effect being caused by Cern and others.
Thermodynamics is an statistical theory. It's just say it's improbable that some stuff is reversed not that it's 100% impossible.
@@lubricustheslippery5028 Dear lubricustheslippery, thank you for your comment. Thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory that gets its great power from taking no account of such microscopic things as atoms and molecules. Statistical mechanics aims at explaining the macroscopic observations of thermodynamics, in terms of such things as atoms and molecules. Thermodynamics was a settled science mostly by 1851 and fully by 1865. The explanations in terms of atoms and molecules were contentious or dubious until decades later, particularly with the work of Boltzmann. It was in 1905 that Einstein eventually produced the convincing proof of the existence of atoms. You can check this out by reading a textbook of thermodynamics. Many systems have thermodynamic properties that are not easily actually accounted for by statistical mechanics, which works easily only for certain relatively simple actual systems, such as practically ideal gases.
Great interview! As one who studies the foundations of physics/mathematics and ended up with degrees in philosophy I can totally relate
Glad you enjoyed it!
The Earth is flat = The Holographic Principle
When it looks like like a sphere, behaves like a sphere and is experienced as a sphere, it is a sphere.
When one can walk right through a hologram, and the earth not. This proves it is not a hologram. Nor flat.
You are confusing underlying principles with effects. A mathematician I presume?
A blueprint is not the radio. Nor is it flat.
The effect is not the cause.
When the Galaxy looks flat. This is an approximation. Within the Galaxy it clearly contains spheres with in comparison a lot of (round, undetermined) space surrounding it.
When you have no concept about why the Galaxy behaves flatish, arguing about the shape can be endless and fruitless.
It is like an ape watching in the mirror believing there is another ape out there.
@@petervandenengel1208the whole flat earth thing was just a joke someone was just screwing around, tragically some people took it seriously
I can imagine a photographic hologram which source is flat, leads to the suggestions of a sphere because of the gradient in sharpness definition. And because it is projected in space. The angle in sight (if that is true: not when watching a 3D movie) does not matter and always takes the view as if it was looking at a flat surfice.
Like when someone is looking straight in the lens, when walking by, he would suggest to be following you.
What I hope @Dr Brian Keating appreciate, and what I hope that David Albert would say, is that the very philosophers who insist that the measurement problem is a “physics problem” is the fact that the philosophers who are saying nonsense are themselves physicalists so OF COURSE they would say that such metaphysical transitions are in fact just physical transitions. this is why it is critical that PhDs like Brian understand this philosophical landscape. I wish I were in the room to talk to Albert about this.
Hey Brian, Thank you for the great channel you've been running on RUclips. Big fan here. Suggestion: Would it be possible to maybe add a pic of the physicist/philosopher/equation superimposed on the video as they are being mentioned? It helps with creating some sort of a connection with whatever is being quoted/referred to once we can see what it is or who it is that's being talked about. Thank you.
Who are we????? Nikola(i) Tesla got "it" all right and others as well have done magical work. Unfortunately main-stream know and have been taught so little that there are several unsung heroes who where totally brilliant and so wise but you know how it goes with The Game of Watchers / Controllers ......
Absolutely fascinating Podcast. Coffee with Dr. Albert would be such an amazing experience. Wish I could sit down and ask all the questions I have about reality with Dr. Albert. ❤
There is only energy and what energy I used to jump > is still around and so will be. We move forwards at the same we move from backwards to the forth/the here now but I get your point. Kinda rid.
Is Albert implying that quantum field theory is not Lozentz invariant and/or that the states of its amplitude can not be ordered by the 'proper time' (or 'tau') as an ordering parameter?
My pop King David, Saul to Paul, and my pop Einstein knows WHO? Given enough yet knows can't pass beyond this point! Keep watch! Time liken unto my messenger sent forth. Beloved HOW'S MY TIME SENT FORTH? Before HIS COMING visitations. Gratitude and Honor go find thy rightful place upon all shared clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! Ascending and descending upon all shared Feet resting upon HIS FOOTSTOOL!
My pop David Albert will say, bring all books upon the NEW Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand! He will command HIS ANGELS TO BLOW OVERWHELMING WIND! What remains upon the New Table KEPT!
...one thing is for sure: he did say it in German! ( He was German not american no matter how hard you try he will never be american.
Pop David will ye blame my ANGELS WHO PERSEVERE AND HEARD THE WORD AND ALL MY HOSTS SHARED "i" AM. So with delight and adventure to make HIS HOUSE. WHAT IS A REBELLIOUS HOUSE? THEN CAN CONTINUE ON
42:22 When a law is abandoned, you have changed the past. Because it travels with you. Had you not abandoned it, you would not have changed the future.
Yes, David once a little NEW Minds. David remember thy shared "i" AM. Bring all in front of thee! Sitting with Thee. David what is capital I? Lord will be a little Child "i" sitteth with Thee! The "i" AM. GRATITUDE and Honor
Albert Einstein was right about absolutely nothing. A bit like you really
Students what is the WILL OF GOD OF LIFE OF THE LIVING? Hold thy peace. Let ALL shared Feet to come forth! Yes, for Thee to eat kept nor spitting out in the same time. While walking forward! Yes, chewing and spitting in the same time.
This was a wonderful, thought provoking conversation that touched on all my favorite questions to ponder.Thanks Brian and David!
Tee hee... I'm pretty close(also by definition, infinitely far, but much closer than anyone else appears to have gotten) at subverting QED, the Standard Model, as well as Numbers themselves. It is both unfalsifiable and irreducible, yet predictive and prescriptive.
No one is addressing the real issue, so I'm starting from the ground up. My analysis is that a small segment of humanity's collectively elevated intellectual elite, has used and abused Base10Linear so egregiously that, most of the complicated and often arbitrarily derived attempts to formalize and unify the 'different maths', are inherently proofless due to the usage of '0' and '1' as term expressions in the calculations. Furthermore. The first 2 things we can all get rid of that will help us rip the bandaid off here
=
At the levels of precision, scale, and energy we seek to describe, no function exists that will take input x and output x. All interactions preserving information have an an "offset cost". I'm still barely ankle deep in this ocean though. I'll probably get eaten by sharks.
I honestly don't think the world will adopt my system anytime soon, and hopefully others add to this kind of work or take similar approaches, expanding further, and teaching it more broadly and at younger ages, so that the intuitive "experience" of a 'number', is expressed more efficiently and accurately. My biggest hurdle at this stage is fundamentally re-imagining how to perform any function to a single value when I try to perform it IN the terms of another Base-system, without repetitive mental-translation to Base10.
The labels on the lines don't matter, and we shouldn't assume anything about any distance between any two of them.
*Anyone with ideas or questions, criticisms, dunks, please and thank you for your time and contributions. I'm always open and eager to take shortcuts if someone has a good map.
Hosts what is a bastard? Lord no bastard here! But thy shared "i" AM adopted SONS. As the SON OF MAN sitteth upon the NEW Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand. Resting upon the NEW Permanent Foundation.
Albert’s “past hypothesis” was already addressed and explained by SHANNON in an early 1950’s paper!!!! 70 years ago!!! Do your research!!! JNRose
Some will say HOW? Nor why? Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM! Including all that are made that are made including all Thy shared Feet resting upon all dry grounds nor the world.
👋🙂👉 *Hello Dr. Brian Keating, can you guest Tom Campbell to your show? He is one of those people that think that consciousness is fundamental, and that there's free will. I just want to hear your thoughts on his ideas. I want to know if you agree or disagree with his statements; I want to hear your criticisms about his theories.*