Really enjoyed watching when I could Bob Ross. His art was good, but I watched also due to his personality. I like folk with poise, quite personality and peaceful
@@shawnshawn2699 sort of agree with you but, his facial expression seems to be one of interest, as far as I can tell. Plus, if he misses anything the interview subject says, the topic is so intricate that he'll embarrass himself by having zoned out. I don't get that impression from the way he engages.
Robert and Mr. Żurek doing that for ordinary people, I think. The glass may be in two or more places and interfering states before measurement. Robert could have asked.
@@piotrm9260 I think I understand. The idea of a foundational state of reality that we, as macroscopic beings see as objectively definable , emerging from the Planck level, in which what a physicist would call "reality" exists in a less macroscopically definable state. But something so infinitesimally small would objectively seem to exist in such a different plane, or dimension I don't see what the "fuss" is about anyway. Maybe the amazing idea is that you could hope to attribute the same measurement standards to both "levels of reality" and hope to have them be consistent.
You know, I've been steadfast in my refusal to indulge a bucket list, but now that I've seen this.. doing shots of Vodka while discussing quantum physics next to a hot-spring in Iceland is going to be the first entry.
A very interesting episode, especially the first part with Wojciech Zurek, a scientist I had not heard of before. I thhink it might be useful to work out each of the subjects even further.
The more I listen to experts on Quantum theory, the more I'm convinced that most of them don't understand the Quantum world very well. I like Lee Smolin's position on this. Thank you CTT for another good video.
Thank you for another provocative video in the series. The quantum world is indeed the strangest of all. At least, it seems so to us macro-world creatures trapped forever inside classical mechanics. I am persuaded however that quantum theory is the ultimate fundamental scientific paradigm. Superposition of probabilities just means that all things originally exist as possibilities - that all permutations could indeed exist once (and if) realized. My thinking is that as the wave function evolves over time, atoms combine and re-combine to grow ever larger. Thus, they become discrete localized macro pieces, and transform into independent quantum mechanical states. As independent quantum mechanical states interact, the macro world and classical mechanics emerge. In other words, it is simply an emergent property from the original quantum state. No; the wave function does not “collapse” to settle into a defined macro state based on an observer or consciousness. Rather, the observer and his consciousness is simply an independent mechanical state that interacts with the cat when the box is opened. Not to mention, the independent quantum states of the surrounding light and air also interacting with both the cat and observer with the box being opened. Query if that advances the ball in terms of reconciling quantum theory and classical relativity.
Happiness Guide for the young lovers of science: 1. If a religious man or a mystic tells you of something (like “miracle” or “paranormal”) that goes against the obvious natural laws defying common sense, make sure you mock him, call him names, and don’t consider even the possibility of such nonsensical claims. 2. If a professional scientist who despises religion and mysticism and paranormal tells you something with a label of “quantum” that defies everything you have learned so far (like “a thing can be at two different places at the same time” or “there is instantaneous information exchange between particles x and y at two ends of the cosmos billion light years apart”), accept it without showing any doubt, don’t worry about common sense, don’t even worry about Einstein’s disbelief of quantum stuff (you know, he belongs to the older generation; truth is above Einstein) and you’ll be considered bright. You can even celebrate this easy belief-formation attitude with a glass of vodka.
We'll never get closer to the truth with CTT only re-releasing old episodes from the early 1900's. Has science figured out the answers to these questions and you're afraid to find out? It sure would explain how we never get any closer. : )
Hi Dr Kuhn, I really enjoy your videos very much. I think I have a theistic solution to QM. Lets say that at the ‘bottom’ level it really is indeterminism. That there are no hidden variables. I argue that it cant be ‘true indeterminism’ or ‘true randomness’. That kind of indeterminism could not be contained to the limits set by the wave function, by its very nature it would eat into and take over the macro laws and stability we are used to. Also what would be true randomness. So far in physics (up till QM)randomness or indeterminism has just been used as a placeholder when we don’t know how something works. When we discover the laws it works by that phenomenon is no longer random or indeterminate. How would ‘true indetermenism’ look? Why would we stop to look for deeper explanations, and how would we know where to stop? Instead I have another solution. The indeterminism of QM is real. But it is the indeterminism of a free will mind making decisions. It is God controlling all the particles/strings all the time. God has chosen to move the particles in such a way so at a macro level they appear to follow laws. But He can also move them in such a way to form structures not explained by the apparent laws. This for example explains the appearance and ‘evolution’ of life. Naturalists also recognise that life does not arise simply as a result of the laws themselves. It arises within the framework of the laws but the laws can not cause it to arise. That’s why naturalists appeal to ridiculously ‘lucky’ chance events to explain origin and development of life. But ‘chance’ doesn’t exist. Chance is only a word to describe our lack of knowledge. God is controlling all the particles all the time. There is no chance, no multiple universes, just our lack of knowledge and the indeterminism (from our perspective) of decisions of the ultimate intelligence. We can not know what God is doing.
@@djgenetic111 may be most adbanced cultures if not all with advansed math got to that same thing as old as to 10000 years and more back of our time in most all of the continents with out one with an exepsion as kind they all knew same old thing but some way man lost the natural way to go.
@@djgenetic111 Did he left a record how entanglement at all levels is done? check mine just click my logo to see is very alike anlist the figures in part of that made by light in some Indue drawings that have no numbers or anlist that I know if you see any patterns dont waite please and let me know where to look for more.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace well, Buddha was not a physicist 😉 He said this: "As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken. It is called a net because it is made up of a series of a interconnected meshes, and each mesh has its place and responsibility in relation to other meshes."
Until we can alter our prejudices of what we think time is, we will have problems arriving at a unified theory. "We can't have two electrons at the same place at the same time." Yes, we can . . . but not with our current view of what time is. I tend to think of time as a property of scale. In the same mode as I think of mass as a property of energy. It is a concept more than a "thing" entirely. Quantum cosmology hints at the importance of scale but doesn't go far enough. We must understand that time only matters from a certain point of view. It is healthy and helpful to remember that massless particles don't experience time and therefore MUST travel at the speed of light. The end of their trip and the beginning of their trip is the same for them, therefore being two places at the same 'time' isn't such a problem. Modifying one's understanding of time also aids in understanding 'spooky' interaction at a distance or entanglement (if indeed) time is a property of scale.
Location seems like a classical format to understand nature when all matter is energy. We can use relative location but it doesn't hold up describing the flow of the river
I'm not a physicist, but the non-locality principle makes me wonder if there is something unknown about spacetime yet to be discovered which might explain all this weirdness. Superposition, entanglement, and quantum tunneling all have one thing in common: the flagrant violation of our classical notion of how an object is supposed to move through spacetime.
ONE of my favorite shows.. Unless Hugh Everett was right, decoherence occurs when one particle interacts with another. BUT if THATS true, how do we explain the apparent retro-causation implied by the delayed choice quantum eraser..? Strange indeed.. I've NEVER heard a good answer for that..Thanks..
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment was created by John Wheeler who worked on the atomic bomb.I'd trust John Wheeler's word over Hugh Everett's word ANY DAY.According to Hugh Everett there's no wave function collapse.However there HAS to be wave function collapse or we have no atoms to make things up on a bigger level.
@@Sharperthanu1 There's a growing number of luminaries who would suggest the notion of a COLLAPSE is extraneous if we assume that virtually ALL random possibilities occur.. furthermore, Particles can be seen as FIXTURES within the wave function resulting from perturbations and evolving according to the Schrodinger equation..Thoughts friend?
@@Present4 I "Liked" your comment, mainly because we may not understand the TRUE nature of superposition..As it is now, it applies only to the probability of finding a PARTICLE at any given location..STILL though, it makes for stimulating conversation..
One approach to probabilities is to consider that there are a growing number of ideas wrought by competent men and women in physics that should work, but do not pan out in experiments. What is the probability that something important and universal is being overlooked? One number in mathematics that, to me, does not get enough attention is the number, 2. Before jumping off into many worlds, I think, one must pass muster at two worlds. Time is the realm of dualism. Is there a counterpart of the Universe that is being omitted at our peril? Are two-verses implicit in reality, yet overlooked? What I think imaginary math expresses is despite the violation of logic, -1 x -1 = -1 ^2 is true math, but we do not know why. Yet, applications of imaginary math enabled the finding of the positron, the development of quantum mechanics, developing and manipulating alternating current, and many more uses. So here are my questions: Since the legitimacy of using imaginary numbers is now well established, should we not explore more deeply why a minus times a minus is a minus? Isn't it true that the universe we recognize may have a counterpart? Should not it be likely that minus one in the realm of the counterpart universe be plus one, and a brand new, vast, realm then opens up for us to grow into? Quantum entities seem to me to be tailor-made to exist in a two-part universe. Gravity may not remain so mysterious, if we know what is its counterpart. Dark (invisible) matter may become visible, and maybe there is a counterpart to entanglement which, when known, will make a lot more sense than it does now. Show less
Mind is not real, “mind” is what happens when we are not occupied with staying alive. When we have time to think, instead of being completely focused of staying alive, we create mind scapes that are completely unconnected to reality.
What causes non-local quantum information to become local classical information? Something to do with measurement of quantum wave function, but what is measuring?
What we call the normal non quantum world we live in, is really the rarety in the universe. When they are at the quanta level there really is no time, position, forces or even energy in which are all emergent phenomena in the classical world. When Galileo reversed the telescope and made the microscope, our intuition assumed all of the formulas would work in reverse..peek a boo!
You can't begin to understand QM until you study the various (all experimentally equally valid) Interpretations of QM, each with contradictory descriptions. Also an error: there are interpretations of QM that state all particles have defined positions and momenta at all times (just that we can't know them), but that they are still affected instantaneously by non-local effects.
I watched and intently listened for 26mins and 46secs. I heard familiar English words but the way they were put together to explain QM left me bewildered! I could understand the individual words but couldn't comprehend the QM concept.
Didn't understand a thing but I learnt that I definitely want to listen to that polish dude talk about quantum physics while drinking vodka in a thermal bath in Iceland.
I’m not opposed to the idea of a creator. In my subjective yet unprovable (to you) experiences there’s more than just this dimension of reality. God is still a paradox though, if god exists. Because an all powerful being who always was and will be is the definition of magic, as the impossible which is somehow possible anyway.
Marvelous program. It is highly stimulating to hear these learned men in these Q and A's. In a paradox the limitations and of language are exposed. In experiments there must be an interpretation of its outcome. The interpreter is the intellect. If we are to observe the intellects dependencies and influences it is not reliable, it is incomplete. The intellect itself if where to observe itself to the very end of its abilities it must necessarily admit its own defeat. The question of consciousness, existence and reality are the wrong questions. We are not in a position to describe these matters in the present state of mans existence..Man is extraordinarily limited almost in every imaginable way.Therefore, we have theories, concepts and probabilities not certainties If you do not possess an answer make one up and claim authority! Historically, creative minds seldom agree on anything, in the meantime the theater of creative chaos shall continue. If you understand the limitation of anything you can also see its potential. Thank you Robert. revealing query Humble observer
We as human beings, behaves like never see a chef cook, only taste the food, so we are always amazed by the food taste and textures, beauty plus mystery feeling...
are quantum steps of energy related to the planck length or space? maybe in between particles separated in space by planck length is quantum wave properties?
You are alluding to hidden variables? Well, the reasoning from Heisenberg's time is that if the variables are truly hidden, it makes no detectable difference if they exist or not. If this would make a difference, they wouldn't really be hidden, because you could use the difference to reveal them. So, if you prefer, you can believe in hidden variables, and thereby keep your metaphysical belief in determinism, but it won't make a practical difference, so you might as well not bother. Occam's razor would suggest that you are better off not presupposing such undetectable entities. In younger times, scientists have tried to come up with scenarios and arrangements that allow determining experimentally whether such hidden variables can exist, and it seems they don't, but I am not sure this is conclusive, yet. Somebody else may be able to shed more light on this. My tentative position is that it is prudent to not rely on the existence of hidden variables, i.e. you should be prepared to accept that the uncertainty principle doesn't just hide information that is there, but that the information in fact doesn't exist in the first place. It doesn't seem to be a problem of incomplete knowledge, but a principle that is built into the fabric of reality. Tentatively.
Hmmm.. Does the uncertainty principle negate hard determinism? If truely unpredictable randomness is part of our quantum makeup, then determinism seems like a tougher conclusion, or recedes much further over the horizon.
does planck length / space have something to do with going from quantum to classical? in using equation for causation, when change in time is greater than change in space (causation) may be quantum; and when change in space is greater than change in time (effect, and expansion?), may be classical?
So it makes sense to me that the uncertainty principle happens because electrons traveling around a nucleus at light speed in such close proximity essentially create a solid. Just like a propellor occupies a fraction the mass of a disc, when in motion is impenetrable. At light speed in atomic proximity saying an electron occupies many positions simultaneously makes sense...
I think it's because there IS NO DISTANCE betwen anything because we are in something like a computer program. That would explain spooky action completely
I share this notion entirely. That 'distance' is an emergent side effect of the macroscopic environment.. An illusion if you will. If this is true 'spooky action at a distance' suddenly becomes 'action'
Non-locality might be evidence of a fifth dimension where entangled particles are still physically connected to each other, even while they far apart in other dimensions. If there is another dimension that we don't know about, then this might be the reason why quantum mechanics needs to describe reality in terms of probability and statistics. You can ignore the fifth dimension and describe reality in four dimensions by substituting the fifth dimension with the uncertainty principle. Which requires the use of probability and statistics. And the reason why large objects don't behave the same way as quantum objects is because this fifth dimension is like a sieve of very small wormholes that only small objects can get through but not large objects. So, quantum objects move in five dimensions, while large object move only in four dimensions.
@@krzysztofciuba271 When something doesn't make intuitive sense, but it works in terms of logic and math, then chances are that there is an intuitive explanation which makes sense, but you haven't found it yet. Because logic and math can describe the same thing in many different ways, which look vastly different from each other. But these different descriptions are logically and mathematically equivalent to each other. For example, when somebody first comes up with a proof for some mathematical theorem, then this proof is usually much longer and more complicated, than it needs to be. And other people later on simplify and shorten it. The new form of this proof is simpler and shorter, but it's still logically equivalent to the initial proof. Another example you can find in computer programming, which is also based on logic and math. You can have vastly different computer programs that are doing the same thing. One of them can do it through recursion, while the other does it the conventional way. And one of them isn't necessarily more complex than the other. They might have equivalent complexity but do the same thing in different ways. So, just because something works in terms of logic and math and it makes correct predictions doesn't necessarily mean that this is the only and the best description of what's going on. It's just one description of many possible descriptions. And the one you have might not be the best one in terms of describing reality. If there is a fifth dimension that only quantum objects can move in, then this would need to be shown in experiments. And that's how you would know which logical description is the most accurate one for describing reality. Reality itself is the final arbiter of which theory is correct. Okham's Razor is just a rule of thumb that might be helpful in many situations. But it should be a barrier to your thinking. And it shouldn't be a substitute for experimental evidence. Because quite often the initial idea and description isn't the shortest or the best one, even when it's correct. You only shorten it later on, when you understand it better.
@@mikedziuba8617" f there is a fifth dimension that only quantum objects can move in, then this would need to be shown in experiments." You have all the time any experiment,i.e. data from a laboratory available. 4-th dimensional model is a natural one,then why do you need another one? Eventually to make a more compact the same math's formulas (from 4th dimension). If you speak about logic you should know that "if p,then p"(material implication) does not equal p"(p-any sentence) known already to Stoics but this the source of fiction models of un-educated natural scientist: sth "possible" does not mean "real"!
@@krzysztofciuba271 If having a fifth dimension is a more accurate description of reality, then describing it mathematically will enable more accurate predictions in quantum mechanics than current theory allows. You would basically do away with the uncertainty principle and get rid of using probability and statistics for making predictions. So, theory and a mathematical description needs to come first, before relevant experiments can be done.
could superposition in quantum state be different observations of the same particle or quantum state, similar to different observers in space-time having different views of time and space?
Anyone else think it is ironic that it is hard to hear the guy talking about quantum mechanics because of the classical physics sound waves coming from the engine at the back of the boat :)
The man himself admitted it before he died.... “Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]. -Albert Einstein "Time and space are modes of thinking rather than conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein
Bob Ross should have trademarked his look. He might not have known he is a legend but everytime you see a white guy with a dope fro and goatee bob always comes to mind.
The irony about "quantum leap" is that quantum means an infinitesimally smallest unit. So quantum leap means tiny leap. Language is imprecise or ambiguous by nature. Within a culture or community, certain terms or terminologies can have a common definition or interpretation. But outside it, ambiguity remains
I see mixed comments from lay people between understanding and confusion If you aren't strong with maths, then I suggest looking up a short video about the "two-slit experiment" for a more concrete idea If you know your high school physics and calculus, I recommend Prof Leonard Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum" lectures (via RUclips or Google the website) He's made various series which get to the specifics of whichever field of physics takes your fancy, while keeping the maths as accessible as possible. (and has enough personality to keep you awake lol) His lectures were my first exposure to the details of quantum mechanics, particle physics, general relativity, and modern cosmology Goes way beyond the "pop-sci" type stuff, but focuses on getting to the important points Aaaaand just noticed that you interview with him, guess I'm watching that next lol
The uncertainty principle stems from the wave-particle duality. When the behaviour is like a particle, the location is more certain, and when the behaviour is like a wave, the velocity is more certain. This is because motion is ensured by the wave. The wave prevents arbitrary positions around the nucleus.
do you want an answer?.. or is it a rhetorical question?... it's very strange when you start with a finite Universe.. and expect entropy to be the final solution.. the second "law" of thermodynamics.. which creates only as much stuff as someone can stuff into one of my dots... finite fer sure... and when we get down to the Planck length level..( 1.6169 × 10 -³⁵) we find that vacuum seethes with sub quark particles that pop in and out of existence... finite universes require invisible guys in the sky.. or guy.. depending on where you are from... it's the same thing.. and when we "know" the Universe began some finite time in the past.. with or without the invisible guy(s).. it's the same thing... and we see stuff popping out of nowhere, so to speak, it looks very much like more magic.. in a universe begun with magic any damned thing can happen... and when our observations don't match our "beliefs"... we make something up... like dark matter... more pseudo science with no math.. because the math didn't agree with observations.. because they started with a bang... prior to Edwin Hubble the primary alternative to the guy in the sky theory was called the "steady state universe".. and Hubble found galaxies moving away from us, and towards us.. and tangent to us.. red, blue, and green, yellow and orange, respectively.. a catholic priest promptly came up with the BB "theory" .. Einstein gave us the relativity equations in his theory... that's what science is.. no math can explain how to shove a universe in one of my dots... it's clearly impossible.. as is matter that can't be seen or measured.. except through its non appearance in calculations begun with a bang... in fractal mathematics we talk about randomness.. if I balance a bb on top of a larger ball... or try to, anyway,.. which way is it going to fall?... knowing all the parameters is necessary to make accurate predictions.. clearly impossible... so when we make calculations, the starting point is critical to the result.. necessarily so, eh?.. Richard Feynman had to normallize, and re normalize.. his datasets to get them to agree with his beliefs.. or, at least the acceptable beliefs.. if one doesn't teach BB theory one does not teach physics in America today... ok... so... the rumors tell us when A Einstein published his relativity equations, it has been said possibly only a few people actually understood those equations... my introduction to quantum physics was at the age of 3.. my father was a nuclear engineer and physicist, taught reactor theory at the graduate level when I was in high school... but I am a chemist and geologist.. and computer programmer for a living.. chemist and geology are my passion and my life.. programming paid for my non government funded education... I picked up the theory of relativity, general and special, by A Einstein.. published in English in 1919.. 27 years ago as I started graduate work at Southern Oregon State University in 93.. at the public library in Ashland.. it was an original edition.. a little tattered.. but very very easy to understand because Herr Doktor Einstein made each proposition crystal clear... with very simple math.. and "measuring rods of a fixed length".. in the German version the speed of light was given as 300Mm/sec... it's always 300 thousand kilometers per second in the English version published in the US.. to people who grow up using Imperial system measurements.. this is entirely mysterious... so.. it makes the mathematics hard to figure out.. because they must convert to inches and feet and miles.. which have no relationship to each other.. or anything else... that's why
If I were to speak as a Kantian, probability itself is an order forced upon chaotic reality by consciousness to understand it, so how can probability be used as a causal argument for order in the natural world without the involvement of consciousness? I see the problems physicists had in the 30s and on to today, it really just seems like a descriptor and accounting technique for things which are still truly unknowable to us today (not just uncertain)
Einstein predicted quantum entanglement in 1935 in his famous EPR paper. He meant it to show how preposterously bizarre quantum mechanics was. Entanglement implies that locality or realism is cast into doubt. This is the biggest reason why Einstein thought QM was "incomplete." The Bob Ross physicist here is over-shooting the scope of known science. We still don't know why the electron has the mass it does, quantum field theory has singularities (renormalization), and quantum mechanics cannot explain dark energy and dark matter. It's a theory that works very well as a predictive machine but we don't have a theory in the traditional sense of word. A theory is fundamentally EXPLANATORY. A theory is supposed to, in some sense, answer the "why" and "how" of the question not just the "what." Quantum mechanics makes excellent predictions but we don't fundamentally know how it works nor do we know why it works.
If you stopped putting ads in the middle of these video I would watch them a whole lot more. I watch this stuff at bed time and having ads in the middle means I have to keep skipping past them so I now just avoid. Maybe other people would watch them more too.?
I have to say, this is the most educational and impressive series to watch on you tube. Thanks Robert
Absolutely! 👌
I watch them at the bed every night i find it spiritual and mind relaxing.
100000%
@@ShowUsTruth same
No argument here.
Bob Ross is back and he’s describing all kinds of happy little quantum states.
Ohhhh here they come!
@@bluemamba5317 we don’t make mistakes, only happy probabilities with greater than 0 odds.
Ever made mistakes in life ? Let’s make them birds , yea their birds now .-bob ross .
Every particle needs an entanglement friend no matter how far:))
Really enjoyed watching when I could Bob Ross.
His art was good, but I watched also due to his personality.
I like folk with poise, quite personality and peaceful
robert is so patient with people telling him things he's heard a thousand times before
Nah, he does that thing where after a while he tunes them out and zones out into his inner dialogue. I do that all the time at work.
@@shawnshawn2699 sort of agree with you but, his facial expression seems to be one of interest, as far as I can tell. Plus, if he misses anything the interview subject says, the topic is so intricate that he'll embarrass himself by having zoned out. I don't get that impression from the way he engages.
Robert and Mr. Żurek doing that for ordinary people, I think. The glass may be in two or more places and interfering states before measurement. Robert could have asked.
@@piotrm9260 I think I understand. The idea of a foundational state of reality that we, as macroscopic beings see as objectively definable , emerging from the Planck level, in which what a physicist would call "reality" exists in a less macroscopically definable state. But something so infinitesimally small would objectively seem to exist in such a different plane, or dimension I don't see what the "fuss" is about anyway. Maybe the amazing idea is that you could hope to attribute the same measurement standards to both "levels of reality" and hope to have them be consistent.
Lecture: Artificial intelligence/ life given to the image of the beast ruclips.net/video/lU8AVlQZlpI/видео.html
Your man is taking shots while spittin facts about QM. Im putting him in my next novel
He looks the part of a theoretical physicist too.
You know, I've been steadfast in my refusal to indulge a bucket list, but now that I've seen this.. doing shots of Vodka while discussing quantum physics next to a hot-spring in Iceland is going to be the first entry.
@@HumanistAtheist hell yeah. Looks lit 🔥
He is polish. Those people don't tolerate water.
Lmaoo
Such a fascinating journey Robert is taking us on together! Thank you! 🙏🏽
I am addicted to 'Closer to Truth'. Please get the keys to reality soon or my dependence will persist.
I just love the clips of him walking around
The cinematography is great in his videos. Great scenery and architecture.
Or bathing in hot springs.
Yeah, very relaxing. And helps my brain not burn...
Lmao
A very interesting episode, especially the first part with Wojciech Zurek, a scientist I had not heard of before. I thhink it might be useful to work out each of the subjects even further.
5:03 is my favorite part! I never seen Mr. Kuhn so baffled and shocked in this series.
The more I listen to experts on Quantum theory, the more I'm convinced that most of them don't understand the Quantum world very well. I like Lee Smolin's position on this. Thank you CTT for another good video.
I get the feeling quantum mechanics is just a mathematical abstraction to describe what's really going on.
@@Tom_Quixote Just like any other physical theory.
“If you think you understand, quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”-General George Patton!
@@michael-4k4000 I definitely do not understand quantum mechanics/physics.
I swear I've watched Robert Lawrence Kuhn walk a 1,000 miles...
He's one step closer to the truth
That feeling you get spinning around as fast as you can really was insightful after all
Great video, especially Dr. Kuhn’s wrap-up at the end.
Love ur series
Very useful video
Thanks Robert
I like this interview!
2:20 Russians would say: Bez vodki ne razberyosh (Without vodka you won't understand it). Greetings from Poland.
😂😂😂
😂
I like this man with VODKA , the best way to describe Quantum !
The brain is one of the most powerful quantum computers ever made.
Wrong. It is THE most powerful quantum computer ever created.
@@royedwards51 nature's evolution. Amazing.
Quantum computers are garbage, apart from the brain.
nope
I am happy with the result that science has reached, whether a non-believer wants or not. Thanks.
Fantastic episode
Why isn't this channel as famous as Vsauce? Because of a lack of theatrics? But the background music makes it all so sublime.
Robert Kuhn has the best "job".
Hi I am studying physics myself and decided to go to college this year. I hope someday I will apear in this show and talk about quantum
Thank you for another provocative video in the series.
The quantum world is indeed the strangest of all. At least, it seems so to us macro-world creatures trapped forever inside classical mechanics.
I am persuaded however that quantum theory is the ultimate fundamental scientific paradigm.
Superposition of probabilities just means that all things originally exist as possibilities - that all permutations could indeed exist once (and if) realized.
My thinking is that as the wave function evolves over time, atoms combine and re-combine to grow ever larger. Thus, they become discrete localized macro pieces, and transform into independent quantum mechanical states.
As independent quantum mechanical states interact, the macro world and classical mechanics emerge. In other words, it is simply an emergent property from the original quantum state.
No; the wave function does not “collapse” to settle into a defined macro state based on an observer or consciousness.
Rather, the observer and his consciousness is simply an independent mechanical state that interacts with the cat when the box is opened.
Not to mention, the independent quantum states of the surrounding light and air also interacting with both the cat and observer with the box being opened.
Query if that advances the ball in terms of reconciling quantum theory and classical relativity.
Wodka is best stuff to understand Quantum Physics! 😅
This guy just chatting about quantum superposition with a glass of vodka in one hand. A hero.
Could be useful for his imagination. Maybe he sees the superposition of two glasses of vodka before his eyes.
15:23 The name of the boat "Part and Wave" Genius!
Oh dear. As Philip Ball has it, we’re getting "beyond weird" now: there’s a convergence of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in process.
Excellent..... thanks 🙏.
Not sure what this guy loves more... the pursuit of knowledge or dark turtlenecks.
I love this episode with swimming pool and vodka! :D It tingles my easteuropeanness
Happiness Guide for the young lovers of science:
1. If a religious man or a mystic tells you of something (like “miracle” or “paranormal”) that goes against the obvious natural laws defying common sense, make sure you mock him, call him names, and don’t consider even the possibility of such nonsensical claims.
2. If a professional scientist who despises religion and mysticism and paranormal tells you something with a label of “quantum” that defies everything you have learned so far (like “a thing can be at two different places at the same time” or “there is instantaneous information exchange between particles x and y at two ends of the cosmos billion light years apart”), accept it without showing any doubt, don’t worry about common sense, don’t even worry about Einstein’s disbelief of quantum stuff (you know, he belongs to the older generation; truth is above Einstein) and you’ll be considered bright. You can even celebrate this easy belief-formation attitude with a glass of vodka.
Well spotted
Oodles of possibilities, excellent!
“If you think you understand, quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”-General George Patton!
it hurts but thankyou all the same
Great!!
We'll never get closer to the truth with CTT only re-releasing old episodes from the early 1900's. Has science figured out the answers to these questions and you're afraid to find out?
It sure would explain how we never get any closer. : )
Hi Dr Kuhn, I really enjoy your videos very much. I think I have a theistic solution to QM. Lets say that at the ‘bottom’ level it really is indeterminism. That there are no hidden variables. I argue that it cant be ‘true indeterminism’ or ‘true randomness’. That kind of indeterminism could not be contained to the limits set by the wave function, by its very nature it would eat into and take over the macro laws and stability we are used to.
Also what would be true randomness. So far in physics (up till QM)randomness or indeterminism has just been used as a placeholder when we don’t know how something works. When we discover the laws it works by that phenomenon is no longer random or indeterminate. How would ‘true indetermenism’ look? Why would we stop to look for deeper explanations, and how would we know where to stop?
Instead I have another solution. The indeterminism of QM is real. But it is the indeterminism of a free will mind making decisions. It is God controlling all the particles/strings all the time. God has chosen to move the particles in such a way so at a macro level they appear to follow laws. But He can also move them in such a way to form structures not explained by the apparent laws. This for example explains the appearance and ‘evolution’ of life. Naturalists also recognise that life does not arise simply as a result of the laws themselves. It arises within the framework of the laws but the laws can not cause it to arise. That’s why naturalists appeal to ridiculously ‘lucky’ chance events to explain origin and development of life. But ‘chance’ doesn’t exist. Chance is only a word to describe our lack of knowledge. God is controlling all the particles all the time. There is no chance, no multiple universes, just our lack of knowledge and the indeterminism (from our perspective) of decisions of the ultimate intelligence. We can not know what God is doing.
Those are my thoughts too!
To me entanglement means that everything in the universe is connected.
Not a thing may get out of entanglement due that every thing is made of atoms.
Which Buddha said 2500 years ago 😉
@@djgenetic111 may be most adbanced cultures if not all with advansed math got to that same thing as old as to 10000 years and more back of our time in most all of the continents with out one with an exepsion as kind they all knew same old thing but some way man lost the natural way to go.
@@djgenetic111 Did he left a record how entanglement at all levels is done? check mine just click my logo to see is very alike anlist the figures in part of that made by light in some Indue drawings that have no numbers or anlist that I know if you see any patterns dont waite please and let me know where to look for more.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace well, Buddha was not a physicist 😉 He said this:
"As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken. It is called a net because it is made up of a series of a interconnected meshes, and each mesh has its place and responsibility in relation to other meshes."
I also understand a little bit better Robert 😊
Until we can alter our prejudices of what we think time is, we will have problems arriving at a unified theory. "We can't have two electrons at the same place at the same time." Yes, we can . . . but not with our current view of what time is. I tend to think of time as a property of scale. In the same mode as I think of mass as a property of energy. It is a concept more than a "thing" entirely. Quantum cosmology hints at the importance of scale but doesn't go far enough. We must understand that time only matters from a certain point of view. It is healthy and helpful to remember that massless particles don't experience time and therefore MUST travel at the speed of light. The end of their trip and the beginning of their trip is the same for them, therefore being two places at the same 'time' isn't such a problem. Modifying one's understanding of time also aids in understanding 'spooky' interaction at a distance or entanglement (if indeed) time is a property of scale.
2:21 _"...and over here let's paint some happy little quanta"_
8:45 *”and over here let’s drink some happy little shots of vodka”*
Location seems like a classical format to understand nature when all matter is energy. We can use relative location but it doesn't hold up describing the flow of the river
I'm not a physicist, but the non-locality principle makes me wonder if there is something unknown about spacetime yet to be discovered which might explain all this weirdness. Superposition, entanglement, and quantum tunneling all have one thing in common: the flagrant violation of our classical notion of how an object is supposed to move through spacetime.
There's almost certainly something unknown about all this. That's what all those scientists are working on.
Does the Higgs field play an important role with the spooky action at a distance?
ONE of my favorite shows.. Unless Hugh Everett was right, decoherence occurs when one particle interacts with another. BUT if THATS true, how do we explain the apparent retro-causation implied by the delayed choice quantum eraser..? Strange indeed.. I've NEVER heard a good answer for that..Thanks..
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment was created by John Wheeler who worked on the atomic bomb.I'd trust John Wheeler's word over Hugh Everett's word ANY DAY.According to Hugh Everett there's no wave function collapse.However there HAS to be wave function collapse or we have no atoms to make things up on a bigger level.
My guess was 17. I’m way off lol okay I’ll show myself out now....
Both perspectives may be correct based on the possibilities of super-positioning.
@@Sharperthanu1 There's a growing number of luminaries who would suggest the notion of a COLLAPSE is extraneous if we assume that virtually ALL random possibilities occur.. furthermore, Particles can be seen as FIXTURES within the wave function resulting from perturbations and evolving according to the Schrodinger equation..Thoughts friend?
@@Present4 I "Liked" your comment, mainly because we may not understand the TRUE nature of superposition..As it is now, it applies only to the probability of finding a PARTICLE at any given location..STILL though, it makes for stimulating conversation..
This is the 4th time I have watched this video. I'm not sure why.
One approach to probabilities is to consider that there are a growing number of ideas wrought by competent men and women in physics that should work, but do not pan out in experiments. What is the probability that something important and universal is being overlooked? One number in mathematics that, to me, does not get enough attention is the number, 2. Before jumping off into many worlds, I think, one must pass muster at two worlds. Time is the realm of dualism. Is there a counterpart of the Universe that is being omitted at our peril? Are two-verses implicit in reality, yet overlooked? What I think imaginary math expresses is despite the violation of logic, -1 x -1 = -1 ^2 is true math, but we do not know why.
Yet, applications of imaginary math enabled the finding of the positron, the development of quantum mechanics, developing and manipulating alternating current, and many more uses. So here are my questions: Since the legitimacy of using imaginary numbers is now well established, should we not explore more deeply why a minus times a minus is a minus? Isn't it true that the universe we recognize may have a counterpart? Should not it be likely that minus one in the realm of the counterpart universe be plus one, and a brand new, vast, realm then opens up for us to grow into? Quantum entities seem to me to be tailor-made to exist in a two-part universe. Gravity may not remain so mysterious, if we know what is its counterpart. Dark (invisible) matter may become visible, and maybe there is a counterpart to entanglement which, when known, will make a lot more sense than it does now.
Show less
Mind is strange, yet is normal. Mind is deep, yet is real.
Mind is not real, “mind” is what happens when we are not occupied with staying alive. When we have time to think, instead of being completely focused of staying alive, we create mind scapes that are completely unconnected to reality.
What causes non-local quantum information to become local classical information? Something to do with measurement of quantum wave function, but what is measuring?
What we call the normal non quantum world we live in, is really the rarety in the universe. When they are at the quanta level there really is no time, position, forces or even energy in which are all emergent phenomena in the classical world. When Galileo reversed the telescope and made the microscope, our intuition assumed all of the formulas would work in reverse..peek a boo!
That's it, there's no time in the quantum world! That explains why a quantum particle seems to be at 2 different places at the same time!
Can frequencies and amplitudes of quantum waves be measured?
Wojtek had to have bottle of vodka on the table. My type of man
You can't begin to understand QM until you study the various (all experimentally equally valid) Interpretations of QM, each with contradictory descriptions.
Also an error: there are interpretations of QM that state all particles have defined positions and momenta at all times (just that we can't know them), but that they are still affected instantaneously by non-local effects.
I have a bachelor degree in physics; I can't imagine a lay person got anything from the first 10 minutes apart from confusion
I watched and intently listened for 26mins and 46secs. I heard familiar English words but the way they were put together to explain QM left me bewildered! I could understand the individual words but couldn't comprehend the QM concept.
1st- I got the urge to do a shot of vodka beside a hot spring in Iceland. That guy looked fun.
2nd- I got confusion.
Didn't understand a thing but I learnt that I definitely want to listen to that polish dude talk about quantum physics while drinking vodka in a thermal bath in Iceland.
Yes, I agree. I think the vodka got in the way of him making it easier for me as a layman to understand.
I note that the next 3 speakers weren't taking vodka shots and they were far better understood by the layman that I am.
Open your mind to the concept of intelligent design and these confusions become explained.
I’m not opposed to the idea of a creator. In my subjective yet unprovable (to you) experiences there’s more than just this dimension of reality. God is still a paradox though, if god exists. Because an all powerful being who always was and will be is the definition of magic, as the impossible which is somehow possible anyway.
does quantum without limitations have anything to do with infinity?
I don't know if this would help .. .Stephen Wolfram has a unique way of looking at quantum theory using hypergraphs ..
I’m wondering if the study of quantum mechanics isn’t bringing us back full circle into a convergence between the physical and spiritual realms
Shhhh! You're not allowed to say that!
@@bluebee5266 😆
I feel for anyone to fully understand the quantum would be like a two-dimensional being being able to fully understand the third dimension
Marvelous program. It is highly stimulating to hear these learned men in these Q and A's. In a paradox the limitations and of language are exposed. In experiments there must be an interpretation of its outcome. The interpreter is the intellect. If we are to observe the intellects dependencies and influences it is not reliable, it is incomplete. The intellect itself if where to observe itself to the very end of its abilities it must necessarily admit its own defeat. The question of consciousness, existence and reality are the wrong questions. We are not in a position to describe these matters in the present state of mans existence..Man is extraordinarily limited almost in every imaginable way.Therefore, we have theories, concepts and probabilities not certainties If you do not possess an answer make one up and claim authority! Historically, creative minds seldom agree on anything, in the meantime the theater of creative chaos shall continue. If you understand the limitation of anything you can also see its potential. Thank you Robert. revealing query
Humble observer
We as human beings, behaves like never see a chef cook, only taste the food, so we are always amazed by the food taste and textures, beauty plus mystery feeling...
Everything is a mathematical as fundamental beginning 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
Go for bigger full 2 hours documentaries
are quantum steps of energy related to the planck length or space? maybe in between particles separated in space by planck length is quantum wave properties?
Why does uncertainty (we cannot know position and velocity) mean that the particle cannot have both?
You are alluding to hidden variables?
Well, the reasoning from Heisenberg's time is that if the variables are truly hidden, it makes no detectable difference if they exist or not. If this would make a difference, they wouldn't really be hidden, because you could use the difference to reveal them. So, if you prefer, you can believe in hidden variables, and thereby keep your metaphysical belief in determinism, but it won't make a practical difference, so you might as well not bother. Occam's razor would suggest that you are better off not presupposing such undetectable entities.
In younger times, scientists have tried to come up with scenarios and arrangements that allow determining experimentally whether such hidden variables can exist, and it seems they don't, but I am not sure this is conclusive, yet. Somebody else may be able to shed more light on this.
My tentative position is that it is prudent to not rely on the existence of hidden variables, i.e. you should be prepared to accept that the uncertainty principle doesn't just hide information that is there, but that the information in fact doesn't exist in the first place. It doesn't seem to be a problem of incomplete knowledge, but a principle that is built into the fabric of reality. Tentatively.
8:45 Cheers. Gentlemen!
Go Bluejays!
Hmmm.. Does the uncertainty principle negate hard determinism? If truely unpredictable randomness is part of our quantum makeup, then determinism seems like a tougher conclusion, or recedes much further over the horizon.
does planck length / space have something to do with going from quantum to classical? in using equation for causation, when change in time is greater than change in space (causation) may be quantum; and when change in space is greater than change in time (effect, and expansion?), may be classical?
My 7 year old daughter just asked me " dad is that bob ross" lol
Is it enough to know the velocity of the quantum wave, then the position of the particle?
So it makes sense to me that the uncertainty principle happens because electrons traveling around a nucleus at light speed in such close proximity essentially create a solid. Just like a propellor occupies a fraction the mass of a disc, when in motion is impenetrable. At light speed in atomic proximity saying an electron occupies many positions simultaneously makes sense...
might quantum waves in time have continuous energy fluctuations? can superposition come from continuous energy fluctuations of quantum waves in time?
I think it's because there IS NO DISTANCE betwen anything because we are in something like a computer program. That would explain spooky action completely
I share this notion entirely. That 'distance' is an emergent side effect of the macroscopic environment.. An illusion if you will. If this is true 'spooky action at a distance' suddenly becomes 'action'
Correct, we are in a simulation
Could it be that Consciousness causes the Quantum to become Physical ? Just a thought...
I would love to hear him explain holographic condensates in the observerse.
Non-locality might be evidence of a fifth dimension where entangled particles are still physically connected to each other, even while they far apart in other dimensions.
If there is another dimension that we don't know about, then this might be the reason why quantum mechanics needs to describe reality in terms of probability and statistics. You can ignore the fifth dimension and describe reality in four dimensions by substituting the fifth dimension with the uncertainty principle. Which requires the use of probability and statistics.
And the reason why large objects don't behave the same way as quantum objects is because this fifth dimension is like a sieve of very small wormholes that only small objects can get through but not large objects. So, quantum objects move in five dimensions, while large object move only in four dimensions.
? Rev.Okham's razor not known?
@@krzysztofciuba271 When something doesn't make intuitive sense, but it works in terms of logic and math, then chances are that there is an intuitive explanation which makes sense, but you haven't found it yet.
Because logic and math can describe the same thing in many different ways, which look vastly different from each other. But these different descriptions are logically and mathematically equivalent to each other.
For example, when somebody first comes up with a proof for some mathematical theorem, then this proof is usually much longer and more complicated, than it needs to be. And other people later on simplify and shorten it. The new form of this proof is simpler and shorter, but it's still logically equivalent to the initial proof.
Another example you can find in computer programming, which is also based on logic and math. You can have vastly different computer programs that are doing the same thing. One of them can do it through recursion, while the other does it the conventional way. And one of them isn't necessarily more complex than the other. They might have equivalent complexity but do the same thing in different ways.
So, just because something works in terms of logic and math and it makes correct predictions doesn't necessarily mean that this is the only and the best description of what's going on. It's just one description of many possible descriptions. And the one you have might not be the best one in terms of describing reality.
If there is a fifth dimension that only quantum objects can move in, then this would need to be shown in experiments. And that's how you would know which logical description is the most accurate one for describing reality. Reality itself is the final arbiter of which theory is correct.
Okham's Razor is just a rule of thumb that might be helpful in many situations. But it should be a barrier to your thinking. And it shouldn't be a substitute for experimental evidence. Because quite often the initial idea and description isn't the shortest or the best one, even when it's correct. You only shorten it later on, when you understand it better.
@@mikedziuba8617" f there is a fifth dimension that only quantum objects can move in, then this would need to be shown in experiments." You have all the time any experiment,i.e. data from a laboratory available. 4-th dimensional model is a natural one,then why do you need another one? Eventually to make a more compact the same math's formulas (from 4th dimension). If you speak about logic you should know that "if p,then p"(material implication) does not equal p"(p-any sentence) known already to Stoics but this the source of fiction models of un-educated natural scientist: sth "possible" does not mean "real"!
@@krzysztofciuba271 If having a fifth dimension is a more accurate description of reality, then describing it mathematically will enable more accurate predictions in quantum mechanics than current theory allows. You would basically do away with the uncertainty principle and get rid of using probability and statistics for making predictions.
So, theory and a mathematical description needs to come first, before relevant experiments can be done.
@@realitycheck1231 you can create 1...0 dimensions but for what?
The quantum universe begins to feed into the simulation theory and provides further substance.
Yes somewhat. But is there an “original reality” which we can’t trace back to? And if so how did it come to exist?
beneath or between particles in space are quantum waves in time?
What decides which probabilities can happen?
could superposition in quantum state be different observations of the same particle or quantum state, similar to different observers in space-time having different views of time and space?
i didnt knew Bob ross was a physicist
Anyone else think it is ironic that it is hard to hear the guy talking about quantum mechanics because of the classical physics sound waves coming from the engine at the back of the boat :)
Why is so strange ? Because consciousness is the ultimate reality .
No
It's all in our heads.
Don't start that! People are not ready...😘
The man himself admitted it before he died....
“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]. -Albert Einstein
"Time and space are modes of thinking rather than conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein
@Al Garnier but that consciousness is saying this world is material, that ignorant consciousness
Bob Ross should have trademarked his look. He might not have known he is a legend but everytime you see a white guy with a dope fro and goatee bob always comes to mind.
It's weird that's why it is Quantum.
The irony about "quantum leap" is that quantum means an infinitesimally smallest unit. So quantum leap means tiny leap. Language is imprecise or ambiguous by nature. Within a culture or community, certain terms or terminologies can have a common definition or interpretation. But outside it, ambiguity remains
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
I see mixed comments from lay people between understanding and confusion
If you aren't strong with maths, then I suggest looking up a short video about the "two-slit experiment" for a more concrete idea
If you know your high school physics and calculus, I recommend Prof Leonard Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum" lectures (via RUclips or Google the website)
He's made various series which get to the specifics of whichever field of physics takes your fancy, while keeping the maths as accessible as possible. (and has enough personality to keep you awake lol)
His lectures were my first exposure to the details of quantum mechanics, particle physics, general relativity, and modern cosmology
Goes way beyond the "pop-sci" type stuff, but focuses on getting to the important points
Aaaaand just noticed that you interview with him, guess I'm watching that next lol
The uncertainty principle stems from the wave-particle duality. When the behaviour is like a particle, the location is more certain, and when the behaviour is like a wave, the velocity is more certain. This is because motion is ensured by the wave. The wave prevents arbitrary positions around the nucleus.
do you want an answer?.. or is it a rhetorical question?... it's very strange when you start with a finite Universe.. and expect entropy to be the final solution.. the second "law" of thermodynamics.. which creates only as much stuff as someone can stuff into one of my dots... finite fer sure... and when we get down to the Planck length level..( 1.6169 × 10 -³⁵) we find that vacuum seethes with sub quark particles that pop in and out of existence... finite universes require invisible guys in the sky.. or guy.. depending on where you are from... it's the same thing.. and when we "know" the Universe began some finite time in the past.. with or without the invisible guy(s).. it's the same thing... and we see stuff popping out of nowhere, so to speak, it looks very much like more magic.. in a universe begun with magic any damned thing can happen... and when our observations don't match our "beliefs"... we make something up... like dark matter... more pseudo science with no math.. because the math didn't agree with observations.. because they started with a bang... prior to Edwin Hubble the primary alternative to the guy in the sky theory was called the "steady state universe".. and Hubble found galaxies moving away from us, and towards us.. and tangent to us.. red, blue, and green, yellow and orange, respectively.. a catholic priest promptly came up with the BB "theory" .. Einstein gave us the relativity equations in his theory... that's what science is.. no math can explain how to shove a universe in one of my dots... it's clearly impossible.. as is matter that can't be seen or measured.. except through its non appearance in calculations begun with a bang...
in fractal mathematics we talk about randomness.. if I balance a bb on top of a larger ball... or try to, anyway,.. which way is it going to fall?... knowing all the parameters is necessary to make accurate predictions.. clearly impossible... so when we make calculations, the starting point is critical to the result.. necessarily so, eh?.. Richard Feynman had to normallize, and re normalize.. his datasets to get them to agree with his beliefs.. or, at least the acceptable beliefs.. if one doesn't teach BB theory one does not teach physics in America today...
ok... so... the rumors tell us when A Einstein published his relativity equations, it has been said possibly only a few people actually understood those equations... my introduction to quantum physics was at the age of 3.. my father was a nuclear engineer and physicist, taught reactor theory at the graduate level when I was in high school... but I am a chemist and geologist.. and computer programmer for a living.. chemist and geology are my passion and my life.. programming paid for my non government funded education... I picked up the theory of relativity, general and special, by A Einstein.. published in English in 1919.. 27 years ago as I started graduate work at Southern Oregon State University in 93.. at the public library in Ashland.. it was an original edition.. a little tattered.. but very very easy to understand because Herr Doktor Einstein made each proposition crystal clear... with very simple math.. and "measuring rods of a fixed length".. in the German version the speed of light was given as 300Mm/sec... it's always 300 thousand kilometers per second in the English version published in the US.. to people who grow up using Imperial system measurements.. this is entirely mysterious... so.. it makes the mathematics hard to figure out.. because they must convert to inches and feet and miles.. which have no relationship to each other.. or anything else...
that's why
If I were to speak as a Kantian, probability itself is an order forced upon chaotic reality by consciousness to understand it, so how can probability be used as a causal argument for order in the natural world without the involvement of consciousness? I see the problems physicists had in the 30s and on to today, it really just seems like a descriptor and accounting technique for things which are still truly unknowable to us today (not just uncertain)
20:39
What was before the Big Bang? is it a probability we haven't yet evolved enough senses allowing us to perceive or comprehend?
4:46 To me the most weird part in on his lecture is to see European man with the same hair texture like mine.
in quantum mechanics are a class of events in time, in contrast to classic mechanics event in space?
Einstein predicted quantum entanglement in 1935 in his famous EPR paper. He meant it to show how preposterously bizarre quantum mechanics was. Entanglement implies that locality or realism is cast into doubt.
This is the biggest reason why Einstein thought QM was "incomplete."
The Bob Ross physicist here is over-shooting the scope of known science. We still don't know why the electron has the mass it does, quantum field theory has singularities (renormalization), and quantum mechanics cannot explain dark energy and dark matter.
It's a theory that works very well as a predictive machine but we don't have a theory in the traditional sense of word. A theory is fundamentally EXPLANATORY. A theory is supposed to, in some sense, answer the "why" and "how" of the question not just the "what." Quantum mechanics makes excellent predictions but we don't fundamentally know how it works nor do we know why it works.
I calculated the strangeness of the quantum and the answer is 42.
If you stopped putting ads in the middle of these video I would watch them a whole lot more. I watch this stuff at bed time and having ads in the middle means I have to keep skipping past them so I now just avoid. Maybe other people would watch them more too.?
It's so much work to skip a few seconds long ad, isnt it
Not quite get the idea of superposition, have to keep trying.