The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2011
- Google Tech Talk
January 6, 2011
Presented by Ron Garret.
ABSTRACT
Richard Feynman once famously quipped that no one understands quantum mechanics, and popular accounts continue to promulgate the view that QM is an intractable mystery (probably because that helps to sell books). QM is certainly unintuitive, but the idea that no one understands it is far from the truth. In fact, QM is no more difficult to understand than relativity. The problem is that the vast majority of popular accounts of QM are simply flat-out wrong. They are based on the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which has been thoroughly discredited for decades. It turns out that if Copenhagen were true then it would be possible to communicate faster than light, and hence send signals backwards in time. This talk describes an alternative interpretation based on quantum information theory (QIT) which is consistent with current scientific knowledge. It turns out that there is a simple intuition that makes almost all quantum mysteries simply evaporate, and replaces them with an easily understood (albeit strange) insight: measurement and entanglement are the same physical phenomenon, and you don't really exist.
Slides are available here:
docs.google.com/a/google.com/...
Link to the paper:
www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf
About the speaker:
Dr. Ron Garret was an AI and robotics researcher at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab for fifteen years before taking a year off to work at Google in June of 2000. He was the lead engineer on the first release of AdWords, and the original author of the Google Translation Console. Since leaving Google he has started a new career as an entrepreneur, angel investor and filmmaker. He has co-founded three startups, invested in a dozen others, and made a feature-length documentary about homelessness. 
Наука
![Natanael Cano x Oscar Maydon - Giza [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eXCS6-MSQ_Y/mqdefault.jpg)
"This experiment has not been done because physicists know what the result would be"... WTF? that's the most unscientific excuse I've ever heard :-D
Well, they're hiding it because they know it would disprove their entire theory, and that would result in Nasa losing its million dollar budget, right? This talk reminded me quite a bit of listening to a flat farther try to talk about physics.
Yes our intuitions effect the outcome of experiment
@@omnimacrox time is not existing
This may come as a shock, but the single-electron, double-slit experiment was not performed until 2013. Before that, it was a total thought experiment.
Moreover, the slit detector version of the single-electron experiment has yet to be performed. It's also just a thought experiment.
@@novidtoshowHe uses pictures of the electron double slit in this talk, 7 minutes in, and it's from 2011
I love how the first thing this guy says is basically "the title of this lecture is clickbait".
The gentleman who came to the microphone to ask a question was first interrupted and then ignored
When I listen to lectures on Quantum Mechanics, for the first 10 minutes I feel dumb cause I have no idea what the speaker is talking about. In the next 10 minutes I realise the speaker has no idea what he's talking about either.
Quantum real experiments are quite clear and simple : you take a single Uranium atom and wait when it will explose or disintegrate into smaller atoms !!
It is quite random, impossible to predict, the waiting time ranging from less of a second to one billion years with a probability of half disintegration of roughly a billion years !!
The wave function of this unstable atom is a mixture of starting localized Ur atom with the wave functions of the smaller moving atoms at the different times, in quite small proportion related to the very small probability corresponding to the large billion years of half life.
Thus our universe is full of the virtual wave function of all the radioactive atoms that will disintegrate in the future in our universe !!
Indeed. Speeding through the math saying "trust me", and then saying the entire conclusion flows obviously from the math (!?) doesn't really inspire confidence for me either.
jean redera "It is quite random, impossible to predict".. or it's easy predict we just dont see what is really going on.
Yes, "we just dont see what is really going on." in all the multi-universes described by the mathematical wavefunction of all theses universes, each with the different possible disintegrations of Ur at different times over billion years !!
And we are at random living in one of these universes, because our lifes are completely different in theses different universes, and the wavefunction of our quantum sosies are separated by decoherence.
It is so strange that the arbitrary collapse is a simple way to suppress all the other universes separated from us.
Quantum computers calculating with interferences in all theses parallel micro-universes will prove this reality !!
Different exact math can describe the same reality in many physical experiments .
I find it interesting that everyone wanted to talk about the physics side of it at the end rather than the information theory the presentation was trying to communicate.
+Geneticus0 Don't be surprised physicists in the audience want to challenge the physics being presented.
Because information theory is bullshit
So the computer engineer thinks we are all living inside of a gigantic computer simulation huh? ;)
he also conveniently left out any mention of pilot wave debroglie bohm interpretation. which is real interpretation thats more popular than all the other alterntaives he mentioned except maybe mulitverse. thats what a SV bubble will do to you. see bits all day so you only think in bits.
@@julsius "Real" is a misleading term, because there's nothing in quantum mechanics that contradictions with realism. Realism means belief in an objective reality independent of the observer, which has no relevance to Bell's theorem. What is sometimes incorrectly called "realism" is a term Bell himself never used, but was used to refer to the "criterion" in the EPR paper. The EPR paper put forward a "criterion" for determining whether or not a physical theory is a complete description of reality: that all observables have definite values at all times in the theory. Not believing the universe is structured this way does not in any way require a rejection of realism, there are variations of realism that are compatible with a universe where, from a particular frame of reference, not all observables can be physically tracked at all times, such as Francois-Igor Pris' contextual realism, Michel Bitbol's perspectival realism, and Carlo Rovelli's relational realism. All are also compatible with quantum mechanics taken as a local theory.
@@amihart9269 im glad you added some context for the reader, but its not misleading if you know the distinction between what is real and what is not
@@julsius It is misleading because "realism" has a definition and that definition has nothing to do with Bell's theorem. Many physicists, even Nobel prize winning academics, get mislead by this abuse of terminology and falsely declare that quantum mechanics calls into question the belief that objective reality even exists.
I thought I was following his arguments quite well, until he pulled the rabbit out of his hat and declared that we don't exist, the universe is just a good digital (quantum) simulation. How he managed to reach that conclusion based on the excellent start he made is beyond my feeble comprehension. Just because measuring things inherently entangles us in our experiments doesn't lead me to conclude that neither us nor our experiments don't exist. It leads me to conclude that measurement at the quantum level is inherently a rather futile pursuit. The more bits we try to measure, the more the bits go out of focus and smear and become probabilistic, and as he explained earlier in his lecture, that function is continuous, not discontinuous as one might intuitively expect in a digital (i.e. quantum) universe.
His argument seems to be that because non-experimental entanglements (i.e. entanglements just within the measurement apparatus) *can* produce spurious measurements that they *necessarily always* produce spurious measurements and we can never know *anything* about the universe. That conclusion is obviously a failure in logic (mistaking a probability for an absolute), and leads him out into the weeds where he declares we don't exist. Silly fool! He already showed that there was only a probability that quantum measurements could be spurious, and in fact we can calculate that probability. At the scale of classical physics, of course, our measurements are very reliable and only rarely produce a spurious result such that we observe an extremely consistent universe. Any *reasonable person* ought to conclude that we do, in fact exist, and so does the universe. Any *reasonable* person ought to conclude that there's nothing at all wrong with reality as we know it in classical physics, we just can't rely on statistically insignificant measurements at the quantum scale to tell us that.
dlwatib Thanks for your comment, well put and sharp. I sent mine before reading yours and agree with you. It is a shame as he had a good afgument before his interpretive ending. BTW you might be interested to see a new paper by Witten on a summary of Classical and Quantum information theory.
Wholeheartedly agree. It is not possible to know whether we are in a simulated universe, anyway. A simulation could hypothetically be implemented in any desired way, and there is no intrinsic law that a real universe be entirely knowable or - hell, even self-consistent - in the first place. To proclaim that the apparent rules of our universe suggest its non-reality strikes me as a vacuous assertion.
As "separate entities", nothing exists in that way; rather,
all patterning, animate & inanimate, can only happen inseparably , _inter - dependently_ ;
as this patterning still must be spoken-of {even right here} as if composed of "separate things" (in order for it all to be _approximated_ , in our speech & thoughts, w/ Science being the process of these convened-upon approximations being ever refined toward closer fitting over all of the actual infinitely-complex inseparability of the inter-relativity of all of reality ) ,
these approximations, cartoonish simplifications of artificial partitionings of the actual infinite Flow, still can't ever actually happen as such, can't even exist as we must agree to speak of them (as if "they" "exist", as "separate things" or "separate beings") , even as we gradually refine "them" to where we all see what some knew all along: that we could already always refute the _actual_ _separate_ existence of each "one" (even as we continue to use "each" as a mere concept for approximating some mentally-imposed partitioning upon the infinite Flow that we're discussing & experimenting upon).
@@waking-tokindness5952 sounds like you're advocating mereological nihilism? a philosophical theory, not a physical theory. I mean, it could be deployed as physics conjecture, but that's about it. from the point of view of physics it's much easier to accept that composite objects do exist, because in quantum field theory, the universe itself appears to be an elaborate composite object.
just because the universe we observe & experience is "consistent " at the classical level doesn't mean it's not a simation either, you're literally doing the exact same thing in reverse. we could still "reliably measure" the very same classical universe even if it was simulated... it's not possible to know whether where in a simulation or not in one, but youre idea that you're experience & our reliable measurements& classical understanding somehow proves that it's not a simulation is faulty because a simulation would be able to appear & be experienced & be measured that way, anyone in a simulation would think it was very real & it would appear so & have measurements that reliably explain what we see, that still doesn't mean it actually IS real & not just a simulation. there is no way to prove nor disprove that we are or are not In one.
26:49 Which particle do we know the position of? Only the one that was directly measured on the left? Is it enough to violate QM if we know the position of the particle on the left but see interference on the right, or do we need to know the position of the particle on the right too?
The bottom line of this talk starts at 53:21
Doesn't it just..
Thank you
Thanks a lot!
Mind moved.
Just one thing - The wave interference can't be "restored" when you do something like re-polarize the light. It can just happen AGAIN. It's a completely separate instance that's not connected to the initial wave/particle interference other than it's a later point on the same trajectory.
Exactly Bob
?... you can erase a measurement? You mean there is an 'opposite' measurement occurring?... or the wave is there and the polarizer lets you see it.
In other words, does the film polarize? ... change it... or does it FILTER what you see?
The idea is the use of Vitali theorem, which introduces the idea of complex measures instead of real numbers in the use of measure theory. Based on this idea a non measurable space is introduced upon which quantum mechanics are generated without compromising consistency and incompleteness. This lecture is really outstandingly helpful. Really a hidden gem....
Ironically, someone in the audience fails to mute his microphone, and there is quite about of interference.
But the interference went away as soon as I viewed the video.
28:25 "I'm about to tell you what the outcome will be." But I missed the moment at which he told us what the outcome would be.
Funny how they took that out.
Having "conspiracy" in the title turns out to be a deception to get viewers.
Yes this "talk" or rather previous experiment rehash then blatant blindly jumping to a Zero universe conclusion, has nothing to do with the title, except perhaps the word "quantum".
How did he have the massive brass balls to do this at Google in front of physicists, who didn't keep him honest....
*He should have spoke on debugging spacecraft hundreds of thousands of Km away!*
He would have been better of leaving out the conspiracy angle. I think this is pretty close to a common interpretation among experts. The theory is pretty crazy, but less so than Copenhagen. This or multiple universes is (as he says) a matter of taste.
We don't know what the universe is like, but this math is consistent with our observations.
There are much simpler and more complex explanations, for people at exactly the right level of Math and background this is a great explanation.
(Disclaimer: I am a Physics graduate but not a practicing Physicist)
He would be better off leaving the math out of it. I didn't understand it himself so it truly polluted the concept he wanted to convey.
Absolutely, clicky'est title I've ever been baited with.
Inadequate rehash of popular experiments, then fumbling into a poorly defined conclusion.
Except for maybe the 'conspiracy' part, to a great extent he's right, that there seems to be a 'yuge' number of science 'popularizers' who make a living promulgating the latest Theories Du Jour, and often so 'aggressively' that any competing POV or theories are outright dismissed as 'crackpot' or 'fringe'. Not a very good, or objective way to do 'Science'. And the Big Bang, Dark Matter and Dark Energy all come quickly to mind... aka, "the data doesn't fit our current reigning theories, and we can't explain it, so we'll just invent some mysterious 'stuff', even if we're totally unable to detect any of it!"
30:59 - That's not the Schroedinger equation for the dynamics (there's no time derivative): it's just its corresponding eigenvalue problem describing stationary states.
where can I get my hands on that polarization rotator film? i only find expensive optics for scientific experiments online.
This lecture was a good high-quality explanation of QM, but that's a matter of taste.
For such an interesting and thoughts provoking (or mind blowing) presentation, the comments section is disappointing to say the least.
@Max Mccurdy Did you even watch the talk?
Yes, your comment sucked you are correct.
Nice lecture, thanks for sharing! Audio and editing could have been better but in the end the content is the most important part.
Ok. Here's a quick question. Do quantum entanglements exist within our outside of the system? If latter - then FTL communication doesn't violate anything (Alcuberrie warp drive), but that means that they correlated within their own system. Which means that FTL coms are possible?
Light detectors are 'square law' devices. They don't measure amplitudes, they measure the square of the amplitude, which is power or intensity. As an electronics engineer, this seems to explain the results completely in my mind.
To John German: Plz explain to us neophytes why or how a light detector can't detect merely amplitudes ( which "aren't intensities"? -wow! ) ; & so, must detect the amplitudes' _squares_ ?
(!)
( &/or, refer us to a good intro re this, if you know of one. )
Thanks, in advance?
@@waking-tokindness5952 Sorry about the delay. Here's how it works. To transfer information about anything (the light wave in this case) requires a transfer of eneregy from the measureand - the light wave - to the measuring device. - the detector. The energy in a light wave is derived from the square of the amplitude, not the amplitude itself. A deeper answer requires delving into quantum physics, which I am unqualified to pursue. One of my hopes when I get to heaven is that God will explain quantum physics to me.
I think you are right. Part of the confusion is that the measurement is inherently nonlinear because the measured quantity is the square of the electric field and not the amplitude.
I also hate (apparently, part 2 in a series of me complaining about this video) when people say (as I know Richard Dawkins has) that, well, we just live in a classical world, "[our] brain is classical", and so shouldn't expect to find the "quantum world" intuitive. By that logic, it would be impossible for anyone to understand how the Earth orbits the Sun. After all, our brain (and civilization) evolved in an environment where, to first approximation, the Sun seems to intuitively go around a stationary Earth.
***** Two things. 1) I think if we took your spear thrower and explained, say, how to calculate a spear's trajectory using equations of kinematics, he'd be about as mystified as us explaining how all matter comes with a complementary wavefunction. Coming up with those equations, by the way, was rather hard, requiring abandonment of more intuitive concepts (objects have a natural place) in favor of experiments (by Galileo) only fully explained decades later with calculus.
Which sort of leads me to, 2) Force and acceleration are not really that intuitive. I mean sure, we expect freshman students to absorb it because, if they don't, they fail physics. On my end, I was completly mystified by F=ma (presented as if from heaven). Minimizing the action (flipping through a collection of possible paths until the right one emerged) was more intuitive. I wounder how much of F=ma is just operational knowledge used to solve "engineering problems" (no offense ment to passing engineers), and how much of it people actually "know" (whatever that means).
The earth orbiting the sun is still dealing with classical physics, the type of physics that describes events that our brain evolved to intuitively understand. We can play with model solar systems in hour hands, hard to do the same with quantum phenomenon. Although you should look up some of the recent pilot wave experiments that reproduce quantum phenomena at the classical level, it actually does make the pilot wave interpretation of QM much more intuitive.
***** I'm not saying QM would be obvious to the spear thrower. But saying that we evolved in a world that makes it easy for us to understand CM and not QM is just something that (some) people say, based on no evidence at all. It's also a bit weird: did we evolve to understand specifically CM? That's not the first physics we thought up, after all. Does that mean that certain abstract fields in mathematics are also out of our conceptual grasp, because of some evolutionary argument? And the reason I take issue with what I see as bad reasoning, is that it's basically equivalent to the "shut up and calculate" mantra, by having QM be, by its very defenition, something that we should not try to understand. I'm not saying it should be understood in classical ways (read: it cannot be). But it's equally bad to wave your hands and say it's all a big mystery that our puny classical brains can't handle (and what is this classical brain, anyway?).
You also assume the spear thrower is intelligent enough to understand dumbed down classical concepts, but not dumbed down QM concepts. But explaining QM with "y isn't a number but an operator on a vector space of functions" is like explaining CM by writing down hamilton's equations. And again: CM is not that intuitive. Explain to me what a force is, without reffering to, a) the effect it has on other objects (ma, or dp/dt, if you prefer) or, b) a coulomb's law type equation.
gakxz It's just a casual statement made by some old-timers that have spent several decades studying classical mechanics and think the younger generation is going to have any more of an issue with QM than they already do with thermodynamics.
Interesting talk but frustrating that the audio quality is so terrible, especially on a GoogleTechTalk video who you would expect to have the best of qualities.
Can these measurements be individualized so that only one measuring device can be used, no other measuring device can "jam" the signal so that it will get through, how far away can they be, & is this limited to the speed of light so that when you do something ,like moving a polarized film, the measuring device has to wait for the light to get there (or does it happen now)?
In addition to the other criticisms, Garret says something plainly false. He says, "entanglement is very delicate and easy to destroy." This is a common misconception of amateurs. Entanglement is in fact extraordinarily robust. What most popularisers are thinking of as "delicate" is coherent superposition between a pair of states, which is indeed extremely fragile, and one reason why it is hard to get a quantum computer to work, since thermal noise easily destroys simple coherent states. It does not however destroy entanglement. In fact, entanglement is part of the problem in quantum computation, any slight interaction and a physical qubit will get entangled with other quanta, and thus become useless for the desired computation. In a sense with interaction open gets too much coherence, too much entanglement, and thus simple interference effects become practically impossible to cleanly observe. Once this is realised I believe Garret's claim falls flat.
But Garret has a heart. He's brought attention to homeless folks. You also have to admire his guts, speaking in front of physicists on a subject he is not expert in, but still prepared to stick his neck out and make some wild claims. That sort of audacity is not easy to culture, and does have some value. I bet he at least made a few physicists scratch their heads for a bit, which is a good thing.
Holy shit I didn't think I would find someone with a balanced opinion in the comments.
+Stephen Ikerd the same here. Regards to Bijou Smith
but your not an expert are you
It was clearly implied that he was referring specifically to maintaining coherent superposition states, which by its own definition is fragile, and not universally speaking of entanglement conceptually. You've asserted absolutely nothing running counter to his explanations, so it's puzzling that you would say his "claims fall flat". To the contrary, you're only supporting him by noting how trivially interference is destroyed by entanglement of any nature. What truly fell flat was your comment.
sooooooo, his bottom line: 1) he likes the 0 worlds interpretation (because he can wrap his mind around it); 2) we are living in a Simulation (as he smiles his software engineering smile). Hmmmm, did I miss anything?
The problem with quantum mechanics is that scientists assume "little things are either particles or waves". When they come accross a little thing behaving as both, they go "Doh - how can this be". If scientists would change their assumption to "little things are neither particles nor waves, they are something else" then some day they might figure out what "something else" is. When they do that, the wave / particle and spin up / spin down problems will disappear.
Interesting title. Might have been an interesting talk had the speaker had a better handle on his topic. If you're not already familiar with QM, don't make this your first foray into it.
Read all of Milesmathis at his homepage. Only there. There are fakers. Many physics problems solved. Literally.
Staar, qm is over. Bc it's only application is cryprography.
@@KibyNykraft rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 The only application of quantum mechanics is cryptography? Oh dear...
Ray - amen to that. Instead, try Susskind's lectures on Quantum Entanglement. Fascinating, mathematical, and amazingly understandable, assuming a basic understanding of algebra and calculus.
The title of this talk should be, "Solipsist misunderstands Quantum Mechanics in detail".
Fantastic. The “measurement = entanglement” is the punchline. I like the spin on Many Worlds. I wonder why there are any Physicist clinging to the Copenhagen interpretation.
@@fealdorf many-worlds interpretation will be proven by the observation of quantum supremacy, i.e. quantum complexity of the reality impossible to be studied by macrocospic classical systems like our usual computers ans our usual brains, working in a single world..
Quantum supremacy is already proven !!
@@fealdorf pilot-wave or a single world piloted by the wave function is quite more strange, because the virtual pilot wave is exploring all the quantum possibilities i.e; all the parallel worlds described in the pilot wave (extrememly complex with the quantum supremacy inside ) and thus it is better to say that they are a reality and not a strange complex pilot for our world.
The pilot wae is infinitvely more complex than our visible world as proven by the quantum supremacy !!
Because of Occam's razor all other interpretations are actually fringe interpretations.
@@sumsar01 Nearly all interprétations are attemps to apply our macroscopic classical simple usual properties to the quantum real world that is impossible, all is delocalized even if we live with copies of us in others parallel universes..Copenhagen interpretation is simply cutting out all theses parallel worlds with all other different possible experimental results. This is not an interpratation, but a practical simple cutting to obtain randomly the experimental results. Each parallel universe obtain a random different experimental result and all the parallel universes all together are not random, but deterministic like the quantum evolution equations, but with multiplying the parallel universe endless. The same multiplication happens in a quantum computer before the ending measurement.
What looks simpler, "Occam's razor", cutting all what is not observed, is not the real simpler scientifically, because it destroys strongly the simplicity and coherence ot quantum linear evolution of the wave equation.
It is like having a rope with too much knots, the simpler " Occam's razor" is to cut with a knife or an axe all the knots, but you have no more an useful rope to climb.
So strongly, that no physiscists never measured or studied the details of this collapse of wave function. This cutting of the wavefunction by Copenhagen approach is violent, like cutting with an axe, completely non linear, out of the quantum linear evolution, and it destroys the coherence of the wavefunction and no body has been able to show how it happens with what kind of evolution method. .Decoherence, i.e. destructive interferences in the quantum wave function linear evolution gives quantitatively the passage to the classical worlds, but with the very disturbing result that it ends in many parallel worlds, each one classical living with one of the possible measurements. The simpler Copenhagen method is completely out of the quantum mechanics and never described by any quantum equations by any physicist !
Just one potentially dumb question I feel like I need to ask for the sake of clarity - is it really being suggested here that entanglement and collapse are the same thing?
That echo is really getting to me.
..to me... to me... to me....
Quote from the linked paper: “[The] idea of measurement as described in the QM story leads directly to a physical impossibility, specifically faster-than-light communication.”
[end quote]
Fact: No matter how you redefine measurement, via information theory or otherwise, there is absolutely no question that entanglement is real, actually happens, does not require any conscious observation or measurement. It does not require any measurement apparatus, and does not require two or more ‘classical’ observers to compare notes and verify the entanglement.
Fortunately, nature is not required to behave in a way that we consider ‘physically possible’. Fortunately, nature is more interesting.
R C | Entanglement is the best experiment designed to date, to prove superposition is nonsense.
@@criticalargument8667 If I tell you some physical phenomena can be described with a binomial distribution (e.g. single measurements of such phenomena result in X == +/- , true/false, 1/0 type outcomes), we can describe X in terms of the probability distribution parameters X~B(n,p); we can also compute statistics like the probability of getting exactly k +'s in N independent measurements, which has a probability mass function: N_choose_k p^k (1-p)^N-k. Now, say we are measuring the spin of single qubits emitted from a quantum dot. We can ask questions like "what is the probability of measuring 20 qubits in a row with the same spin?" And we can actually test the hypothesis that qubits emitted from our quantum dot have random spins.
What if someone asks "are we are supposed to take the probability distribution X~B(n,p) literally? Like... are these qubits really in multiple states simultaneously?" Or like, are they being emitted with a particular spin and we simply describe the probability of that spin mathematically using X~B(n,p), because that's the best way to do it?" I would propose the following experiment: we could attempt to interact pairs of qubits such that they might influence the spin of each other in some non-random way: if we were to find that such interactions existed that yielded pairs of qubits that always had, say, opposite spins, this would surely prove these qubits are emitted with definite but unknown spins (since, in our universe, information cannot propagate faster than light, and certainly not instantaneously). And yes, I'm aware of Bell's theorem - it's a good theorem for describing how uncertainty re-emerges after light interacts with a physical medium, like a filter. There is nothing spooky about this to me.
R C
They did a study on the messages that the brain sends to the heart..
and somehow discovered that the heart sends more messages to the brain, than it receives.. by a bunch.
They didn’t know why, nor did any of the researchers dare speculate the reasons for this
I myself thought right from the start one possible reason.. Could it be, that
the observer is within your very heart, and the reason throughout history things were always heartfelt.. or in your heart of hearts you knew
Infact the strongest feelings of what is right, or wrong.. let alone.. When falling in love..
are all from your heart, and seems to always shape your thoughts, long before the what some say is rational thinking, that you may think is in your brain..?
Any chance of this being the observer? It makes you think about the way you treat them,and or me as in you’re own self.. esteem of the pride and ownership in lifelong caring relationships.
Be good to others who have been made to believe that they have a purpose in their own life, and Forgivness is the blessing that you allowed to give yourself not just to these others.,
1. Because in doing all that means is you’re wanting to change!! Think about it
Bradley Monk the Bell inequality experiments prove quite clearly that entanglement and superposition are real.
R C Entanglement is real. Superpositions are a statistical construct, unless you believe a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time.
If nothing exists then there is nothing to define what 'nothing' is.
He is not saying that nothing exists. He´s saying that things the way we see it does not exist. The world would be like bits of information in a "computer" (analogy), and what we see would just be a image, but not the real deal.
Marcílio da Costa Ramos Could be. That is one of the new theories. Hologram theory.
Marcílio da Costa Ramos What I am saying is that if anything exists then there will always be the problem of "something from nothing" because there is no explanation as to why anything exists, & the only 'thing' that DOES NOT REQUIRE an explanation as to why 'it' exists is 'nothing', & so there is the source of all the 'information' in the universe, because no matter how much of this 'information' exists, as long as what it is about (what it defnes the EXISTENCE OF) is 'nothing', then NO EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED as to why the 'information' exists because the information itself points directly to the existence of nothing:- I can prove this right now....
Where the not-yet-existent future meets the no-longer-existent past the net amount of energy that exists is the sum of all actions & equal-opposite reactions: ZERO.
So next time you start talking about 'the universe'.... What Universe?
Zero Universe.
Galv140577 Sounds like you don't know what you are asking. Are you trying to say that (nothing) as a concrete item exists or doesn't? Or are you trying to say that that there is nothing in existence. Something exists. I am here. I exist. People respond to me. They think I exist. They exist. I interact with them. There is plenty of explanation as to why things exist. We measure them.
Stephen Anderle You will notice at the end of the lecture the conclusion reached is that there are 2 interpretations that fit the math, the 'zero universe' interpretation & the 'infinite number of universes' interpretation. The correct one is both because there are an infinite number of points of view in the zero universe & each one is a seperate universe: The universe as observed by you, the universe as observed by me, the universe as observed from each & every view, angle, or point of observation. Each one is a universe& each universe is an observation & each observation is of the 'concrete item' that is nothing. It exists & doesn't require any explanation because it is self-explanatory. There is one binding principle in quantum mechanics that makes the infinite number of observed universes the same but as seen from a different perspective & that binding principle is quantum-coherence. Look at a flame on a candle there is quantum coherence, look at a living brain, there is quantum coherence, look at the universe there is quantum coherence. The past is an illusion, the future is an illusion, the depth of space is an illusion, the thing that makes everything seem real is the coherence between an infinite number of illusions. The thing that was lacking from this lecture was an in-depth explanation of the 'transactional interpretation'.
The real lecturer was delayed and this janitor winged it for an entire hour.
ColonelDecker001 LOL!
lol tu che
lol
Anthony Falk 😂😂
Oh... You're harsh.
Literallyy first thing on the screen: (to paraphrase) "Google was designed to disseminate views"
I kinda already knew that, but what a great way to put it.
This video has a lot to absorb. The multiverse splitting is, well weird. Just found The Banach-Tarski Paradox, it's weird too. We have come a long way but have not learned a lot, the only thing we know at this time is, there is so much more we still need to learn.
That roadmap looks really familiar
Step 1 : collect underpants
Step 2 : ?
Step 3 : profit !
+Ynse Schaap wow, an early season reference!
So altering the density of the panel holding the slits will erase the interference pattern. Is this true??
Could quantum mechanics represent the physics of time with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations? This idea is based on: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.
Good lecture. This is an example of how information theory changes our view of things. This is just one such example. Computer science is becoming revolutionary for thinking in many other fields.
Ah, hammer-nail blindness has set in. :-)
Well, you just manged to convince me that either you don't know what it is that you are talking about, or I don't know anything.
The background sound of reverberating from the talk is a good example for double slits only in sounds. You can even think of it as a teleportation device that sends a multi frequency to pure heavy water like 30 50 90 differential's the water recieved from thoughs from nothing to something but when measuring it disappears from the tests .
Back in 1983 in my High School days. I spent a long time postulating these issues .. The answer I came up with was that : Matter was the result of an illusion caused by the interference patterns of energy events governed by an information layer, that filtered an energy layer. The past present and future are all entangled in the energy layer. Time is needed to create distance, speed, waves. Time would be created / governed by entropy, so that a rate of entropy change of the origin energy layer manifests fields that form the information layer, and thus time could be vector rather than scalar. Entropy is the key I think to the base frequencies that drive the information layer, that result in the Quanta, and Plank length, essentially a classical digital macroscopic reality composed of the base units. I think that Fourier Transform of these base frequencies fractalise creation and form the fields and particals. I guess that is a zero universe idea.
OMG it's very close to that I envisaged in 1983 in high school and was ridiculed for since. Thanks for making me aware of this video .. At least I am not alone in the universe ! ha ha ..
Back when Google was a tech company and its tech talks were full of technology... and not social justice feels and quota hires.
The part at 20:35 about Schrõdinger's cat being in a state of superposition between dead and alive ("as far as we can tell, that's what really happens") is not a fair description of how most physicists see that thought experiment.
I think particles (or waves) do'nt "know" something (video at 11.45). This terminology is also used in other double slit experiment-explanations (on You Tube). Could it be helpful to re-think the experiment from the idea that the particle and the wave are at the same time at place x or y or z ? So a particle-wave concept. If so, measurement does not have to destroy the interference.
Well the problem with this video is that it does not talk about delayed choice quantum eraser because in that experiment we do not measure the interfering photons but their entangled partners. So if entanglement and measurement are same, entanglement should collapse the wave function. But the wave function collapses only when the entangled partner is detected.
So, can you think of entanglement as essentially memory of interaction stored in the particle?
I would say the Bell inequality conflicts with the usual sense of "memory".
"Measurement is entanglement" would have been a more suitable title, perhaps?
No. This video title was aimed at a specific level of intelligence. The terms you just used are outdated and hold no meaning anymore to regular folk. Most hit the quantum mechanics theory and don't get past the "event horizon outskirts." The title is perfect for pulling those minds in deeper, so that they can get another angle of what has already been proposed over and over. What eventually will happen is we will go back to "Magical" belief. Because we can never figure "it" out, magick (the logical code/meaning) will fill that gap for people's minds. Nuclear physics and quantum mechanics is basically magical work. Logic and science go out the window, as you can reprogram anything (logic/meaning) into anything, creating a "chrono-holonomic-morphology." The bibles each teach a part. The Christians (Psychosomatic emotional intelligence) Judaism (Mathematics/pattern/molecular-chemistry) Muslim - Quaran (programmable matter/intents/wishes/prayers/manifestdestiny) the big trifecta.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 genetic clones, living recycled
@@andrewfrankovic6821 no I am an autosome. A source player. Think of it like Matrix stock holders. A group powers this place. The rest just function and work here.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 check my video out. You'll see where my mind's at. ruclips.net/video/-c9mfeRuZWU/видео.html
@@andrewfrankovic6821 pt 2 ruclips.net/video/n52CnV2AyLM/видео.html
If one observes a google employee googling during a google talk does that mean they are both googling and googled at the same time?
What happens if you increase the number of slits from 2 to 3?
It really amazes me that people who constantly put down God and they don't even believe in it. So if God is not real, then why is it something the non believers hate so much? I think I know why, but I would love to hear their reasons.
. . . because faith in a god misleads people to believe things for which they have no evidence. Faith is inherently irrational and rationality is humans only hope of raising ourselves above animals.
Why do so many believers hate evolution? Because it's against what they believe and they think it's wrong.
Why should anyone fear or hate something they don't believe in?
Because we are humans. We like to think that if we are right, something that opposes us must be put down/argued against.
Today non-believers are indifferent to religion, non-believers only fear and hate religion if they have been abused by religious people. In the modern day very few people are abused by religion, but before the enlightenment, a non-believer could be tortured or burned at the stake as heretic. In those days non-believers were right to fear and hate religion. You only need to read Deuteronomy Chapter 13 to see how from the very beginning monotheism was a system designed by tyrants who promoted a tyranny in heaven to justify their tyranny on earth. In Deuteronomy Ch 13 Yahweh commands Hebrews to murder any Hebrews who do not worship Yahweh. Yahweh commands Hebrew men to cast the first stones against their own wives and children, followed by stones from all other Jews, whole Jewish towns are destroyed so that "all Israel will hear and be afraid so no one among you will do such an evil thing again". As demonstrated by the Old Testament, if the devil existed, his name would be Yahweh.
LOL, "The math supporting the Multiverse Theory adds up, but it hurts my brain so I don't wanna."
Laughing out loud, Dude! Gotta love the Math. That was pivotal to my capitulation.
the real quantum supremacy is infinitively more complex than our mathematical possibilities of our best brains or of our classical computers.
Proven by experiments.
Information is not moving faster than light with entangled particles it's instantaneous. It isn't traveling or moving at all since time unless measured is in solid state.
+Alexandre Boutin Katzmann i agree, info doesn't actually move when one particle of an entangled pair is measured. The info was 'stored' in the whole wavefunction, nonlocally (?).
+Alexandre Boutin Katzmann I agree, apart from the the matter of information exchange. From what Ron Garret appears to be saying, in the quantum world entangled particles may not be in different places but may actually be in the same place as one particle. Therefore no information need actually be exchanged. He is inferring that classical physics merely gives the illusion that they are in different places.
+Alexandre Boutin Katzmann Or just take time out of the equation. Einstein had trouble reconciling the fact that gravity didn't govern QM. Why do people still insist that space-time does as well? Why would a particle that can be where it wants, when it wants, care about space-time? If time and distance are a non factor, then it's not sending information faster than light, It's not "sending" anything because there is no time, no space, no space-time. Just like sticking matter into space-time generates gravity, subatomic particles entangling with each other creates time.
Our brains can only function in past-present-future. Doesn't mean the Universe is also linear.
I also think the Universe is a tesseract and we only are able to view it in three dimensions.
42:33 So are you saying when there appears to be no interference pattern there are actually 2 that optically cancel each other out?
I think he is.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
S. Chase.
Like gods.
@@int16_t This wasn't so much about God or God(S) as it is much more about FAITH.
@@2serveand2protect I didn't expect a 6 year old comment to reply back. Anyway, I respect your comment. Thank you :-)
@@int16_t Wait! ...WHAT??
...I was notified by YOUR comment ...6 HOUR AGO! ...
(at least - that's what it says here!)
I do wonder about YT sometimes! - there's something SERIOUSLY WRONG with them!
@@int16_t PS. Anyway! All's fine! :) Have a Great Day! ;)
In light of what he is intending to convince us of (no pun intended by me), he should be better prepared. As is, this lecture is disjointed and unclear.
Im a little confused if anyone can help me understand how this applies to Kim's DCQE experiment of 1999: The speaker states that entanglement is a measurement, which the Copenhagen interpretation states would cause a destruction of the interference pattern. BUT, according to the speakers view, the wave nature (interference pattern) of light was always there and only "filtered out" in some cases. I understand how this would make sense for the paired photons with no "which path info" in the DCQE. But what is his explanation for the photons that are paired with photons that give "which path" information. These paired photons give no interference pattern seemingly because their pairs have which path info and their entangled pair matches this pattern even though they have not been filtered or altered in any way after entanglement.
That may be a little confusing but essentially I am asking how he applies this theory to Kim's 1999 DCQE experiment.
So measurement equals entanglement. How about Schrödinger's cat? Does the cat become entangled in both alive and death states or just in one state? Either way entanglement does not explain how we end up observing one state (how we become entangled in one state) or am I missing his point?
You missed something. Read Paul Dirac: "Photons do not interfere with other photons. The photon only interferes with itself."
Bill Dixon Are you insinuating that photons cannot be entangled? Or are you saying that the entanglement of photons does not constitute interference?
Entanglement is not interference. Entangled photons could not, for example, destructively interfere, since that would violate the law of conservation of energy. More generally, that applies to any photons, whether they are entangled or not.
Thank you for this. It is a shame there was not enough time for you to expand fully on all aspects. I enjoyed it nonetheless. I get why the double chained experiment is pointless, I also learned at a high level about 4 interpretation which is great food for thought. I also understand that experts in a field often get annoyed at laymen explaining things to novices, as they think it brings confusion - even though they in fact build bridges (and bring funding). What Troubles my tiny mind is the math involved. Is the mathematical technique involved sound? Any videos on that would be helpful to me. I am not sure but in the issues discussed maybe math moved the flag?
I want to do spin 1 transfromation amplitudes giving the polarizing result of 17:00, which are the squares of the spin 1/2 amplitudes meaning probabilities. The cardioid features in spinnors , on the Bloch sphere for spin 1/2 add to 1 for probability sum, while for spin 1 the squares including the spin 0 in the 3x3 amplitude matrix sum to 1 does not work on the bloch sphere. It works only for spin 1/2 where projection operators are projections onto the diameter formed by +,- pure states being antipodal. For spin 1 having 3 states can't be mutually be antipodal, so the bloch sphere does not work for spin>1/2. Also see Arfken p.219 where formula 4.231 is missing exponential minus signs, apparent in evaluating 4.234
How can I follow when he uses the laser pointer but we can't see it?
Potentially a good lecture otherwise spoilt by the interference pattern from sounds in the room. Pity, a leading edge company cannot get the basics right !
I stopped enjoying at 12min.
+Bacon Life you beat me by 4 mins ? So cruel !
+exwhyz33 Damn comfort. It was worth bearing with this for the information.
+exwhyz33 yeah it's pretty bad, I'm nearly at 10m & my ears are hurting, finding it hard to enjoy.
+Duck Life Says the person with a "Crocoduck" as their profile photo x'D
+exwhyz33 It stops echoing at around 17:45.
I like how he starts with checking audience for physicist to figure out how much bs will be tolerated :) EDIT: log does not denote logarithm base 2 but logarithm base 10, if you want logarithm base 2 you write log2
Or ln, yes?
In information theory log(x) is standard notation for log of x in base 2. In advanced math, log is standard for log in base 2 and ln is standard for base e, no other base besides 2 and e are actually used in advanced math.
Is the Copenhagen interpretation the one that says that wave functions are describing something that exists, but is virtual and impossible to verify directly, empirically. What is so bad about wave functions that we have to resort to a many worlds interpretation?
I'm at 35:28, So are you saying that the detectors ARE altering what they are observing?
Very good video. Clasical intuition is not annulled. It is confirmed!
I watch this and think I understand it. The math seem to make a lot of sense. We act classically but are built quantumly. Great, something to think about for the rest of the week. This video is a keeper! Thanks, Ron.
We need people who can share the basically simple concept of Quantum Physics and how it can change our world. Like talking about anything important it also needs a spell binding intro, a fascinating but simple body of the lecture with enough references that the listeners can know this is not just hype, and a awesome conclusion. This subject is important, revolutionary, earth changing, and yet very few people have ever heard of Quantum Physics. The best video so far that I've seen is "The End of Materialism". This lecturer might have all his facts and a good lecture, but so many Physicists have sort of ruined it for many of us, because they go all around the world in non important details and don't tie anything together, and frankly I doubt anyone can understand it. If they don't start off and grab people, they lose us, and despite their intelligence, they don't know how to make it exciting (as it is) or relevant. We need great speakers who simplify the basic fantastic discoveries of Q.P. The subject of Quantum Physics could give humanity a whole new world. It's amazing, incredible, reasonable, shocking and SIMPLE. Basically it says that " there is NO matter as such" (Max Planck) despite all appearances, WHICH MAKES EVERY THING NON MATERIAL, (Digest that for a minute!), and that we create our own reality! [The observer determines the outcome of experiments] We are not at the mercy of ANYTHING! If anyone has ever wondered why the religion of Voo Doo (spelled to be phonetic), can kill a person instantly, or why sugar pills which are said to be "wonder drugs" can quickly clear up cancer, you have stepped into the "spooky " but extremely cool world of Quantum Physics. BELIEF IS EVERYTHING!!! Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr, Max Planck and others have given us the Scientific proof of why we can heal, why we can create a world of peace and love and so much more. It has to be a huge part of the "Revelation" or for agnostics, a "Quantum Leap" for humanity. We need people who can break thru the photons, and amplitudes, and other big distracting words and see the Scientific Truth that can indeed help to set mankind free. Love to all.
Google tech is so brilliant, it can't even collapse the echo in audio
Lost me when it was asserted that the extended form of Einstein's second postulate must be true. If that's the basis of your physics you might stick to coding.
53:00 - Wait a minute... so he's basically claiming that that is a solution to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics?? Where's the catch?
lots of physicists on RUclips tend to do this. You can usually find an experiment proving them wrong. In this case probably not because I don't think we really understand entanglement enough to prove him wrong.
I'm pretty sure all we know for sure about measurement problem right now is that if the which path information is leaked into the universe, the matter (been done with molecules) will act as a 'particle'
This also might be independent of time 😳. Look up the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment.
To me this just pushes back the problem (usefully).
"we now understand somewhat why the universe is understandable granted that entanglement makes it possible"
So we know how the universe is understandable. But not why entanglement exists in the first place. Or why some 'entanglements' happen deferentially than others to reveal the many things we observe in classical physics (atoms, forces and fields)
Putting it another way. Entropy is just how we frame state randomness out of time. But this frame is in context as the measurement includes the means by which we measure which we know by adding to the diagrams, just adds another circle.
So our mind 'sees' physical reality because it can only observe the kind of 'real' randomness if we exclude one bit of information. which he hypothesizes is our thoughts. Since it is the origin of our thoughts it cannot be included by our thoughts except reflectively or by logical assumption. As we do with the venn diagram.
But since it perfectly lines up. It means to say there is some abstract (we infer it must exist) real (our observations necessitate it) bit added by 'us'. And that this bit is more or less our body. With perhaps maybe one ancillary being consciousness. But certainly not much more than that. And consciousness being 'objectively' whatever results in entanglement.
So it is true in that everything we observe lines up. But it does not explain why it happens at all. It does explain why we see things the way we see them in our current time and space and how we see time as we see it.
Basically it means our human sensory awareness is emergent of our entangled physical brain. Because if awareness was not bound by entanglements, then we couldn't have the illusion of determinism/ materialism.
But again, all this does not explain why entanglements happen at all.
The above explanation just makes the valid claim that the universe is of the same substrate of consciousness by necessity. Since for us to trust our observation and modelling of reality as true, we have to make the observation and entangle it with the 'idea' and so confirm its truth by its relationship to the truth concept (truth is just described as an idea which correlates with reality)
So truth for most things must conform to our physical reality. But for some things, is impossible to determine by physical reality, such as those questions which expose the composition of it as information (non-physicality) that are experimentally proofed.
So then what is information composed of?
Has to be consciousness. Just not a 'personal' consciousness since our personal consciousness is bound to our 'bodily' awareness.
But there must be some primitive aspect of it that allows us to recursively correlate the idea with reality and call it truth. Rather than say "why is the universe comprehensible" the question seems to me "why do we experience at all"
Copenhagen interpretation has not been "discredited for decades", and doesn't imply any "faster than light" communication.
For a correct description of Copenhagen interpretation read Anton Zeilinger's "Einstein's Veil". Anton Zeilinger is a world renowned experimental physicist at the University of Vienna and is doing cutting-edge research on quantum mechanics.
Amen!
I dont like when people call it QM. I like it said fully. makes it feel more futuristic.
Same for me about GR, too. General Relativity just sounds more... epic.
"The End of Quantum Reality" by Wolfgang Smith.
Quantum - Particle
ruclips.net/video/nnkvoIHztPw/видео.html
I recall way back in the '70s, our local AM radio hosts had figured out how to fix the echo effect when people called in "On Air" - perhaps Google Tech Talks should speak to an old DJ and get up to speed with all this newfangled technology ?
yeah, something like alternating channel gate
This is not only a Watch Later (now 'Watched') but a Watch Twice... or more. Fascinating.
i believe double split test changes when you observe it is because you lock it to only one universes(multiverse theory) probable outcome opposed to all of them which cause the interference pattern
PikPobedy how do you know if you don't look at it?
then you are looking at the results of the instrument. it doesn't matter if you look at the actual instruments themselves surely. or have i missed your point?
Your eyes and brain are the actual measuring instruments. The other measuring instruments are just extensions of the eye.
Omondi Akura That doesn't hold up, because the presence of a measuring instrument effects whether you see an interference pattern or not.
Cybjon Of course, this does not make sense; it is quantum mechanics! It is not really the presence of a measuring instrument that effects the interference pattern, it is the act of measuring itself. By mere looking (and not your presence) effects the interference pattern.
That's an awesome talk. Recently I was going to ask for some examples where complex numbers emerge in a useful way to interpret common real-life phenomena, but this is more than I expected.
I think you used a poor wording of "illusion" or "simulation". It implies some complex dependency or complete unreality of our classic universe. It seems to me more like "truncation", "projection", "slice" - there's the complex and fully consistent quantum universe, with no randomness, fully reversible and deterministic, and we do exist within it, but everything we can ever perceive - every observable quantity, every observable interaction, all that comprises our "classical universe" is just a slice, taking some properties of the quantum universe while ignoring/losing/discarding/missing others. What we observe/experience are just echoes of the underlying processes. Taking the modulus of a complex number and saying "This is it, this is the actual value" - no, the actual value is the complex number, but the modulus is what carries over to the visible slice of reality, the manifestation of the process that is accessible to our methods of measurements.
So instead of the pessimistic "we are only an illusion, a simulation" you should look at it in a more positive sense: "We are more than meets the eye; we are more than we can perceive. What we know as our universe is just a flickering shadow of something much broader - and much more orderly."
+sharpfang excellent explanation. Thank you.
our view of reality is based on our best instruments as the instruments improve our view of reality will change
+jdsol1938 Yes but... improved instruments are based on us better understanding reality, so as our understanding of reality improves, our instruments will change
+Fali Akuna and round and around we go, which is why they have built a fucking inter-dimensional death ray, underground in Switzerland and hope to 'leak some gravity' into a fucking parallel universe, based on 100 years of miscalculation... what can possibly go wrong? :/
+Simian Gimp I hope that was only a good joke ;)
+Simian Gimp - What can fucking go wrong is everything you can fucking hope to fucking go real fucking wrong.
Martin Zitter let me guess MIT or Harvard
He started out strong, but by the end I was totally lost as to his actual point. His initial assertion was that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally wrong, and I agree (the term “observer”, in particular, sets off my pseudoscience alarm; it reeks of the silly belief that consciousness has some special use in the universe), but his interpretation doesn't even seem fully coherent. No classical reality exists? What does that even mean? What are we in right now? He doesn't adequately explain it. In the end, it seems to just be an even more confusing way to put the Many Worlds Hypothesis, in which case why doesn't he just say so?
+Badly Drawn Turtle I think 'observer' has to mean any interacting particle or system, or else like you say it seems like total pseudoscience. As if humans, or life forms, have special laws of physics, lol. Any detector that a human could turn on could also be turned on by a falling pinecone hitting the right button.
Stu Digio
Tip for trolls: Be less obvious than this guy.
+Stu Digio Implosion cannot be modeled or understood by thermodynamics? Sure, it's not easy... have to do simulations...
+Stu Digio Cool name, PSI PHI. I think it is possible that ZPE will be extractable, but not sure.
Stu Digio
that's better. Now you're safely in the ‘my nonsense is just complicated enough that some people will fall for it’ zone.
Pity that his laser pointer was NEVER seen when explaining various aspects/comparisons between items on screen.
Why here in YT we don't see the laser-pointing on the slides:
For this YT version, we're shown each of the actual slides (in their original format) , not the audience's view of them, upon which the lecturer was shining the pointer.
I don't understand the critique. I've found this QM interpretation much more logically sound than any other so far. It dispels the Quantum Magic.
He makes an interesting relationship between observation/measurement and entanglement, and at the mathematical level... but that makes it "illogical" in the sense that perception is a different conscious dimension than cognition/thinking.
I was with him all the way up to "Philosophical implications". It seemed that the whole point of the drawn out math was to simply explain that the observer effect of quantum mechanics is not real. The wave never actually collapses, we just alter it by measuring it. That, in fact, particles are still obeying the normal laws of physics. Then he says that this proves that reality is an illusion? How does that follow?
Same, that is completely wrong and pointless, but lets not get distracted, the lecture is still great.
Below is why Penrose considers the Majoriana spin orthogonality "complicated" for higher spin>1/2. see The road to reality p.561 The pure states are maximally entangled due to presence of off diagonal terms not present in mixed states, meaning on the Riemann sphere the pure states are maximally separated, giving points of spherical symmetry on the R.S. For spin 1 then the poles and an equatorial point so a crossection containing all 3. Spin= : 3/2 giving tetrahedron symmetry ; 2 graviton tensor a bi-3 pyramid ;5/2 a bi-4 pyramid ; 3 of 7 states a bi-5pyramid? ; 7/2 a cube,...etc. ( Is this correct?)
Did you ever get the "feeling" QM will be belittled sometime in the future, when our understanding is more "complete". It currently seems oddly analogous to grabbing a handful of smoke.
it will be superseded by a more complete theory that will be even stranger. all the strangeness will remain and more added.
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism).
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism).
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism). @@nmarbletoe8210
Making sense of quantum mechanics only requires accepting that the moment in time in which facts come into being depends upon a frame of reference (similar to how there is no "true" velocity but only velocity in relation to a particular system in Galilean relativity). Nothing else. No nonlocality, retrocausality, "it from bit" idealism, or anything like that. All the superstition around quantum mechanics is self-imposed by trying to avoid such a simple fact. Anything that replaces quantum mechanics would have to be even more bizarre than that (such as nonlocality in pilot wave theory or counterfactual indefiniteness in superdeterminism).
quantum popularizers don't want you to know that they have no idea what they are observing
correct me if I am wrong, but information has no mass. so to tie information and FTL concepts together in one sentence makes no sense. When EPR paradox was proposed (thought up?) in 1935, did Einstein, Podolsky or Rosen understand the nature of information?
Isn't his suggested 'EPRG Paradox' experiment just a delayed choice quantum eraser? This HAS been done and the answer is actually YES, but it doesn't allow FTL communication because the receiver can't tell if individual photons are part of an interference pattern or not. In other words, the receiver can't tell if the sender is erasing with any certainty.
"physicists work very hard to make and maintain quantum entanglement." the though that come to mind after hearing this makes me giggle.
Seeing as interpretations of quantum mechanics are(until they can produce testable predictions) essentially philosophical concerns. I'll just stick with my current approach of "shut up and calculate" while showing favoritism to the Everett interpretation because it seems far less solipsistic than this approach.
Calculating is what I do all the time. Now, shutting up... THAT'S another matter. :)
Are the electrons and quarks and gluons and photons that make up a grand piano all mutually entangled?
If the piano is packed in a moving van and is being taken from Boston to San Francisco and there is a padlock on the door of the van, and it's being driven by an experienced driver, and there is an experienced armed guard along, determined to make sure no one steals the piano, and the weather forecast is consistent with a safe and routine trip, are the fundamental particles that make up the piano entangled with those of the van? If so, are all these entanglements undone when the piano is delivered and unpacked and the van is driven away?
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
ruclips.net/video/nnkvoIHztPw/видео.html
Are "constants" really constant throughout the universe? For example, the speed of light (C)?
All investigations to date that have tried to find evidence that any of them actually vary, have not found it.
so, was lost on a lot of the technical details, but I think I got the bottom line. It has now been mathematically proven that measurement IS entanglement. Therefore Schrodinger's cat is nonsense. The experiment can't exist, therefore the conclusion is nullified. The situation leading to the cat being both dead and not dead can't happen, since the particle can't be both entangled and in superposition at the same time. Entagled = measured, and measured = collapse of the waveform. That's what he was rather awkwardly trying to explain..right??
I am so glad to see that I am not the only one completely obsessed with understanding just what the hell we are and why we are. As a child I vividly remember wondering what I was, why I was, and if what I experienced was real or if I was just a dream that someone else was having- life just didn't seem real. Gradually that fell away and I became one of the lemmings blindly accepting what my senses told me was real, foolishly thinking that I was a separate being from everyone else. Now I'm a pretty smart guy, I work for a technology company (not Google / not Apple / not Microsoft....you can guess the one left), I make a lot of money and a lot of people think I'm really really smart. That said - in the last 6 months I've realized that I'm right back to where I was when I was 4 year old......I have completely reverted back to wondering what I am, why I'm here, and if I'm just some dream that someone else is having. However the difference from when I was 4 years old to the 47 year old me is profound. I see this reality now as something I can bend and mold to fit my needs. Is it placebo? Who the fuck cares? If I believe it then it's my reality. It's my universe and the rest of you simply exist as potentialities and opportunities available to me to prove to whatever being or programmer in charge that I am worthy of leveling up!!!!!!! This mentality fits both the QM view and the spiritual view so I figure I'm covered either way. Karma is real I have seen it way too many times in my nearly half century on this earth - I missed an opportunity to really help a guy today who was literally on the bottom rung of society. 2 hours of my time could have changed his life and I missed this opportunity. What do I believe? I have no idea yet I'm still formulating but I do have a strong feeling that whatever the purpose of this life is, it will align closely to what Jesus/Mohammed/Emerson/Buddha purported.......take your pick, it doesn't matter which one you choose.
Cringe
Ok
I am shocked with these findings. What made this simulation? an extra-terrestrial child playing a cruel game?
You mentioned “what Jesus/Mohammed/Emerson/Buddha purported”…but, if that being is moral, why would it create a simulation in which pain and injustice exist?
Does this has anything to do with that A light coming to me is also light coming to someone else seeing the same thing. B our incapabality to comprehend other then dualistic notions. Subject object? Kant created our perception so what are we really thinking? :D
Along with the interesting content, this video displays THE best visual editing for accommodating Screen & speaker elements which typically suffer in these lecture formats via RUclips. Bravo to the crew. Keep up the excellent work~