Alan Guth - What are Observers?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 дек 2023
- Watch more videos on quantum theory: shorturl.at/abp26
Why is an observer a critical part of quantum physics? What does it mean to be an observer? Does the act of observation affect what exists and what happens in the external world? Why is observation in the quantum world still a mystery?
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Alan Harvey Guth is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He has researched elementary particle theory (and how particle theory is applicable to the early universe). He is currently serving as Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is the originator of the inflationary universe theory.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I enjoyed observing this conversation.
"Observers are to keep the integrity of the Universe intact." - Thomas Soler
Not to be confused with Thomas Sowell
Andrew H. Thomas book .
Using a logical approach, it is explained how the great 20th century theories of relativity and quantum mechanics share a common base, and how they can be linked using an idea so simple that anyone can understand it. An idea which is so simple it has been hidden in plain sight.
What idea ?
Observers were evolved humans from one possible future of mankind. In an attempt to ensure their existence and brain evolution, they used their time period's technology, which allowed them to travel through time and space. Because of that technology, they existed quite literally "outside" of time. In their own future, the world is damaged beyond repair and unsustainable. Their endgame was to rise to a position of totalitarian power in the past, which they assumed in 2015. (Fringe Wiki)
And Tom Sawyer
It's lovely to hear a discussion where we are at the boundary of cosmology and philosophy.
There's mystery there, and we must accept it.
Let me hark back to the academic method before Scientific Method. That was the Quadrivium, which was more complicated, because it matched the hemispheres of the mind, scientific left and emotional right. Where the left has arithmetic, the right has music, where the left has geometry, the right has cosmology, to anchor my comments in this debate. These two pairs, four facets, were combined in a focus common to all, a capstone which, in accordance with the norms of the day, was usually religious.
These theses were used in exactly the same way Scientific Rationalism is used today, to support policy with what passes for reason. I was Europe's top crisis management economist at the end of the last century, on the team which reintegrated Eastern and Western Europe. My wife ran the Council of the Western European Union, my day job was HQ Accountant, my real job was to handle crises, for example when the Albanian Economy collapsed in the Banking Ponzi of 1997: I led the team which restabilised it. There are too many similar activities to mention, and it would be boastful to do so: suffice it to say we won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, about 40% is my work, unsolicited initiatives which may have inspired the UK Government to rethink the leadership of the Civil Service.
As a result, I'm quite at home with the mechanics of the forerunner to the EU Council and WEU's before that, in the Papal Concilium such as that convened by the Holy Roman Emperor in Constance in 1414. The Convenor, Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, had an academic justification up his sleeve to substantiate a major inversion of the power politics in the Council: the Valois had controlled the Papacy in the "Babylonian Exile" in Avignon for nearly a century, and the rest of Europe found this unacceptable. It came to a head when Savoy reasoned that if the Valois could have a puppet Pope, so could they, and that caused schism in the Church which d'Ailly, as Chancellor of the University of Paris and thereby Chief Theologian, felt obliged to address. You'll find details of this in his biography in the Sorbonne's Professor Bernard Scouller's Beyond Church and State. A first administrative effort displaced him, but he managed to pass his honours to a friend and former pupil, Jean Gerson, and between them, they came up with an argued theological case, the Devotio Moderna, which in turn inspired the Enlightenment. The capstone was Jan van Ruusbroec's Spiritual Tabernacle, the theological case we have just celebrated in the Christmas scriptures, with the initiative moving to Gerardus Groot and Windesheim in Ruusbroec's final years. The four facets date from the 1430s, in the hands of two members of d'Ailly's entourage at Constance, Guillaume Dufay and Jan van Eyck. Dufay's the composer whose folk mass (in the vernacular of the day, cantus-firmus) L'Homme Armé is the greatest musical hit of the last millennium. Over 80 retakes have been made, the latest, Sir Karl Jenkins' The Armed Man, a Mass for Peace, revisits my work in diplomacy: my family has connections to his home village, and one of my solo coups was the completion of Gandhi's unfinished business. van Eyck's contribution was, of course, graphic, in the form of the Prado's Fountain of Life and the Mystic Lamb. The thinking's been checked with Yale's Professor Craig Wright, on Dufay, Till Holger Borchert, recently retired head of the Bruges Musea, and Professor Charles Burnett of the Warburg Institute, where I'm a founder member of the post-doctoral Esoteric Studies study group.
This demonstrates the wider viewpoint of Sir Isaac Newton, in particular, as his employment as Master of the Royal Mint bears on the same Eucharistic Alchemical foundations as this. A particular pertinacity lies in Felipe II's retasking of the Escorial as the Third Alchemical Temple of Solomon, in the wake of the ostensibly successful refinancing of the Flemish Cause in 1568, which cost the Counts of Hoornes and Egmont their heads for heresy: a local historian, Paul de Saint Hilaire, sees a connection between this and the 1618 van Helmont experiment in the person of the alchemist involved, Nicholas de Cerclaers. Certainly the money existed, the receipt for it's ultimate delivery to the widowed Countess of Egmont is in the French Regional Archives in Lille. For more on the Escorial, see Professor René Taylor's Magia y Arquitectura: get the Spanish Siruela edition, as the English translation omits the annexes where the meat of the argument lie.
All this start to add colour to the question at hand, leading me to ask whether a baby may not have been thrown out with the bathwater in the Enlightenment's refutation of the emotive. Mathematics has shown itself to be bounded, and so any science using it as a lemma is similarly constrained. A bound has two sides, and so from an ontological viewpoint, the non-scientific is as valid a domain as the scientific. Indeed, in psychology, Maslow's Transpersonal pinnacle of his Pyramid of Aspiration is as valid as any of your work: I've recently rebadged it as Transception, perception of the intangible, alongside the established perceptions of the tangible, namely Neuroception (perception of our cognition), Interoception (perception of our corporeal condition), proprioception (perception of our immediate surroundings) and exteroception (perception of our wider environment) - these are all tangible things. However, it's clear from wider psychiatry that the empathic, third sector medicine, and the numinous are all valid domains of the intangible, and so should be recognised. Many other instances also exist: there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.
The biggie is the numinous, more specifically neurotheology. The current work on healing points to almost complete ignorance of the limbic processes of the subconscious, but it is NOT my intention to open the door to Organised Religion here: I don't care what your dogma says, unless it's tangible in something like trauma therapy (which does use a limbic process normally blocked by our cognition). Now the question arises, dealing with the wave functions at the core of existence, are you rationally certain your model of existence, in the rules-based sense of scientific, has no space for anything outside of Fortress Science? It's very much the essence of the question at the heart of this: turning a blind eye to the non-scientific may be a huge mistake.
It’s always an immense pleasure and a learning experience to listen to Alan Guth.
And he's continuing his love of research even at his advanced age, by proving the concept of an impulse engine. Practicality is a different question but he made a device that can push off from it's own mass.
"The beauty of the many worlds interpretation is the simplicity of the laws". Since when it is about beauty or simplicity? Not to mention that many worlds is anything but simple.
Many worlds theories are the least simple since they descibe the reality of infinite worlds happening at the same time, but somehow we only observe one. Our imagination can invent more though, that is it's nature, there're many artworks (books - films) about that. Is this science though?
Many years later... not a single question answered.
No closer to truth. Poor Robert was born about a century too early.
@@brothermine2292Or too late. They thought they had it all pretty well wrapped up 100 yrs before he was born.
So refreshing to hear two people having completely conflicting beliefs and being perfectly happy to disagree.
Fred Hoyle said that you could interpret the Many Worlds discription as a world for each person, within which, they personally, never actually die--but everyone else does. He illustrated this idea in the book "October the First os Too Late".
When I was a about ten years old the fam went to the mountains. I went exploring on my own and climbed, high, there was snow. At some point I lost control, it was very steep and I was running down this mountain unable to stop until I got to à cliff and fell several meters.
To this day I dunno what happened, next thing I remember is just me walking back to where the fam was talking and cooking. I think I might have died that day but somehow I'm still alive.
Thanks. Yes I believe that is possible.
@@tzzeek
@@tzzeek I've had a few experiences, once I shocked myself during a high voltage experiment and everything went bright white and then black. I was in pure blackness and had an overwhelming feeling of "I'm not done" and then I woke up on the floor a few feet away from where I was working.
We exist, only because cats observe us. Cats die, we die.
From the perspective of Schrödinger’s cat were the ones in a superposition of states, thus proving the multiverse hypothesis.😂
Did I hear a suppressed meow in there somewhere? What have you done with your master?
Cats don’t die. They just come back as another cat.
Finally someone with a brain and proper theory.
@@simonhibbs887Can a hypothetical experiment have a perspective?
Whenever I feel that the world or my life's gone crazy, I just come to this channel. Only then do I get to know the true meaning of the word "crazy".....
Finally! It's so nice to hear someone plainly explain the problem with comparing Infinities! Not all infinities are the same just like the singularity at the beginning of the arrow of time is not the same singularity at the stoppage of time inside a black hole, which points to the limitations of our math
Picking out the relevant observer is what? To assume there are an infinite number of identical ones?
That because in math, infinity means no limits.
Gabriel's horn = Cantor's conjecture?
I'm an observer of the mysterious universe we live in. The more scientists resolve their observations, the more questions other scientists have about the same observations. The more we learn, the more there is to learn.
The more we learn, the more we understand that we were wrong.
To know is to know that to know is not to know.
You have forgotten that some other guys like him have found the equation which explains everything! Ha ha ha!
I always understood "observer" to essentially mean "the rest of the universe". I.e "looking at something" is a photon bouncing off of an atom, reaching our pupil, and triggering a chain reaction through our eye and brain. The something was "observed" in this case by the photon, and then the rest if the universe observed it shortly afterwards - our eye, our brain, our body, our clothes, the floor etc.
In other words that all of existence is a fabric and each bit of matter or unit of energy is a ripple that causes a chain reaction to the next.
Doesn't that beg the question of what is "you"? If the body/environment are not fundamentally different, only different forms, communicating/transacting energy; what aspect of reality is the limitation factor of consciousness? What is it that actually narrows the awareness from infinite observation to finite observation? How is this aspect explained outside of mechanical transaction which has no distinct connection to the qualia of consciousness?
Wouldn't reducing down our understanding that anything that can emerge consciously out of this body be fundamentally driven by the "forces" we describe in physics? Therefore whatever it is that is "me/I" IS ultimately the forces. Only its the narrowing of agency that gives rise to impotent (action) in contrast to omnipotent (action), the realest part of "me/I". This seems to resonate the deep questions of religious ideology about limitation that I don't think physics has really answered has it?
@@F8LDragon2 I think what we regard of as "me" is simply the emergent pattern of impulses within our brain. The rules of the universe give rise to all the phenomena we encounter. That one such phenomena is a complex brain.
Also to add to that original post. As I think of this chain reaction I imagine a theoretical thermos flask with a perfect vacuum - the contents entirely shielded from interacting with any part of the rest of the universe. As soon as the flask is opened, it interacts with the rest of the universe and thus those outside it (and hypothetically those within it) are suddenly able to measure the other. That flask is precisely the same thing as the box containing Schroeder's cat, and the instant the flask is opened triggers the collapse of the wave function.
@@dg8620 but from the first person perspective we refer to our self as something “inside” or separate from the form/body that is what produces the brain patterns.
The qualia (visual field, spectrum of smells/flavors, hunger, thoughts, etc). These are not physical qualities, they are exterior to any kind of physical model of thought. Yet we understand the concept of self/I as something not physical. “My” body, “my” thoughts. It seems it’s a conscious structure of separation which under abnormal circumstances can be dissolved in a way that makes no sense in normal thinking conditions…
@@F8LDragon2 yes I don't think "me" IS my brain, I think it's the pattern within my brain. Much like Windows isn't my computer, but that within my computer is a pattern of bits in such a sequence that Windows exists. Our body is the hardware, our sense of self aka consciousness aka soul is the software.
Donald Hoffman figured it out, the observer effect makes sense if the 4 dimensions are emerging from some deeper reality. Quantum Field theory almost touches on this. Our senses and thinking evolved within the 4 dimensions so it is extremely difficult to imagine outside of it. It’s super freaky stuff but Hoffman has made a breakthrough in understanding this
String theory and M theory reveal an 11 dimensional reality. The mystics have always known this and experienced the other dimensions directly. The other unseen dimensions are enfolded in our 3 dimensional space - time reality.
No, no advance by him really. Many varying quantum theories require more than 4 dimensions. String theory, Brane theory, M theory, etc.
String theory is bs.@@melgross
@@mikehunt1528 no more so than theological ideas or “universal consciousness”.
what he's saying in this video is profoundly simplistic like what a teenager would think of, then to make something work he suddenly adds observers back into it again , considering he started off by disliking it, this is an approximate I'm not spending more time on this but anyway adding observers back into the silly model, you know what I don't know okay I'm never going to read about this silly theory , you people dissing string theory have smoked your own butt hairs anyway so this video ofc is just a waste of time and so is the comments. This theory sounds like what some teenager would make up 100%, and why, to explain away observers in quantum phenomenology wow that's so inept
Maybe we should be talking about interactions the wave/particle are having with the detectors, and not our observation of those detectors. The wave functions collapse regardless we an observer sees the detector interaction with the wave/particle.
Wherever this was shot at is beautiful
I prefer defining an "observer" as any system complicated enough to interfere with the system in question's wavefunction to the degree that the system in question loses whatever quantum attribute we're interested in.
All systems, from single "particles" upwards, have a wavefunction. At a certain level of complexity this becomes essentially non-quantum in nature. Every time a system interacts with another system, their wavefunctions combine. If you start with a quantum-behaving wavefunction and combine it with enough other wavefunctions (quantum-behaving or not) the combined system will stop looking quantum - ie the wavefunction will "collapse".
Thus, the observer in the double slit experiment is the detector - if this is placed at one of the slits it will collapse the function there, otherwise it will collapse at the "final" detector. Again, by collapse we mean "the wavefunctions of the photon and the detector will combine".
No conscious or even living observer needed, and no "multiple worlds".
I think it was Ethan Siegel who gave the first explanation of this viewpoint that I read, but there's a Wikipedia article here that also explains it... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
You could have an observation of something if your sensory organs somehow interact with the experiment. So, the experiment could change its result if you put your observing devise in one place the interaction will have one result if you put it in another place the interaction will be different and also and the result. No magic, just tragic interpretation of Bohr.
observer vs. the observation! I get it now. Thanks so much for this video.
When it comes to cosmology, modern physics and science are not in the same class as the ancient scientists of the past. They barely chew on the fringe of what has been known for many thousands of years.
Even more so with philosophy.
Wherever these two are talking, I want to be there. Such a beautiful place.
Tom Sisson
Fabulous thought provoking interview!
Allen gives you permission to think the multiple universe scenario is weird because he has probably thought the same thing from time to time.😊
"Observer" is when a reaction is required to yield a result within a superposition. Outside this superposition you don't have an observer, but within, the result is required of the interaction and thus the requirement for a result is the observer. It has nothing to do with human being the observer.
Ah! Finally someone who explains this in simple terms!
Thank you!
@@marmactwins You're welcome :)
Wonderful interview! Could someone recommend an AI to fix the audio?
Acon Digital Acoustica
I observe the flowing river behind and Robert Lawrence voice.
so what i mean is pretty simple if there are always ways to account for what happened before you looked at the tapes, just because the machine that made the tapes did have a look, it is always possible to account for the observer related effects as just different physical cases, therefore there is never a great need for explaining anything in other terms.
Wow, thank you for this mister.
Beautiful background ❤❤❤❤
It's interesting to hear academics occasionally discuss their mental disorders in public, instead of trying to confine the evidence to the insane peer review process. Occam's schizophrenia is a serious brain condition which receives pitifully little attention not only in this universe, but also in all the other universes that don't exist.
lol
So...many worlds is crazy, but the Copenhagen interpretation (things become real when you look at them) isn't?
@user-ew9gt3dg8x You’re ableist. Get help.
Glad to hear that God told you what's going on. You should write a book for the rest of us.
😅
5:00 That's a point most laymen miss: the "observer" is the interaction with the external world, not a human observerving quantum physics.
The observer will always be a conscious being.
There is no external world according to quantum physics. Particles have no locality without the observer.
@@dcoded5217 Not in the context of the wave function.
@jamescarter8311 "External" doesn't mean as "apart", it's just its interaction with nature.
@CesarClouds yes in that context brother but can you tell me how a concious agent has nothing to do with the collapse of the wave function?...
Anyone know what location they filmed this?
Looking at the list of fqxi conferences, it's Banff Alberta, 2016
Any experiment requires a conscious observer, not just quantum mechanics. There's no escaping it, it's just the way reality is. Reality is clearly mental, not physical and its amazing this fact is still so obscure to people that they keep arguing if we really need an observer.
Yes, although if we could agree that consciousness is simply a resonance at its essence, can't we imply all physical matter 'observes' its environment at different levels. Even hydrogen seeking hydrogen or a tree's interaction with its environment could be considered a form of observation. A single hydrogen element observes another and binds to it.. the tree root observes a rock and moves around it.
Human consciousness is then simply a greater form of observation and means we are able to interact as higher level observers.
They keep arguing because events obviously still happen in the physical world without anyone observing them, which is such a basic disproof of your argument as you state it here. The only thing your idea leads to is the conclusion that everything that exists must be a conscious observer, which becomes meaningless when thought through. From your point of view, reality is clearly mental, but that is a limitation, not a metaphysical truth. You only have access to a subjective mental model of reality brought into your brain by the senses. It is because of that limitation that naturalism was developed (and later science) - a method of trying to see the objective reality behind what our limited model appears to be. Calling that mental model the truth is a cop-out.
Of course an experiment needs a conscious observer. Experiments are done solely for the purpose of observation, so the observer is wrapped up in the definition of the word ‘experiment’.
@@Subtlenimbus Obviously events happen outside your personal mind or my mind, the point is they happen in the mind, every event is mental.
All we know is mental, everything else is a theory based on assumptions. This's it basically.
Yes, you can imagine a physical world existing with no observers, in your imagination yes, what would it be without it? Even if such a world could exist, it would leave out the existence of consciousness and yet consciousness is our only reality.
Even the notions of subject and object require a mental state. What would we gain by insisting reality exists without consciousness? It creates no new insights, just preserves the delusion.
Please take it as my perspective, not the absolute truth, as nobody knows what reality is and what do I know? Not much, but even if I'm wrong, the reality being mental is the surest thing I can tell.
@@jamescgardner1269 Interesting points, I agree that human consciousness is just a certain perspective.
The variation of panpsychism you're describing gets complicated because "atoms and particles" are just interpretations of our conscious perspective, not the way reality is, though I certainly agree some implications of reality being mental are not clear.
It's interesting that we always experience consciousness as a singular perspective, it's never experienced in the plural. It might give us some clue to what's going on, as Schrodinger pointed out in his essay on the paradox of one mind. Of course nobody really knows what reality is, it's just fun to contemplate some possible perspectives.
@andyjurko75 'panpsychism'.. nice.. learnt a new term and a new perspective.. probably sounds close to a sensible idea 😄😄👍 Does this sound feasable then? ...If all matter has its own frequency, and that frequency changes as it interacts (and too evolves), then could this 'metaphysical aura' be the relative connection to the observation theory?
...I only think this because I have recently formed the belief that matter could be more a 'conduit' for consciousness/the wave/the metaphisical.. and that the higher the forms frequency, then the greater that material form is able to function as a conduit for consciousness. Also then, the greater the concious connection/frequency the greater the ability to change physical reality through conscious manifestation (like observing a desired future reality and manafesting it as opposed to simply interacting in a purely reactionary form). Not the best communicator lol but yea, an interesting subject, cheers. 🍺
..that consciousness as an individual perspective is interesting, but what if we regard the metaphysical in the same way.. like our phisical form is purely a construct of matter from our immediate phisical environment, couldnt consciousness be relative to that particular formation of matters actual unique frequency?
We are not all matter, only a part of all matter.. could we not also be a part of all consciousness ..being totally relative to our physical form? Wave and particle? I dunno, its all speculation 😄 all good 👍
Guth and Carrol my heroes!❤ (Kuhn you rock too!)
ok, ok....
That’s interesting. My both astro and quantum adventure ended in 1998 when I decided to find a day job.
There IS an argument against the many worlds theory. It's called Occam's Razor. To imagine there are an infinite number of other world's we cannot see is not a simple interpretation of quantum physics. There is something we are missing, something we cannot understand, behind the theory. Remember, " The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine"....J.B.S. Haldane
Physicists who prefer Many Worlds argue that Occam's Razor favors Many Worlds.
There's more than one way to measure simplicity.
@@brothermine2292 They consider it simpler because it allows them to explain away the difficulties of QT without having to prove their hypothesis, just as they do when using the multiverse to explain the fine tuning of the constants that allow life in our universe. Dark energy and dark matter? Same idea: simple constructs that explain what they see without any proof of their validity. Inflation? Again, nothing but fudge. The issue is that much of today's physics is based on "simple" explanations that cannot be proven. No progress will be made until another Einstein comes along who cuts through the BS and gives us a new paradigm to explore. The JWST is already throwing shade on some of our most cherished theories. Falling for simplicity alone will get us nowhere.
It favors there theories not reality or common sense.
Is one really a simpler number than infinity? Zero universes seems simpler than one universe, and if we can have more than zero is there a reason why we can't have any arbitrary amount? There's an old British saying: In for a penny, in for a pound. (Or was it a pence?)
Although we see only one, that doesn't imply there's only one, because we would see only one no matter how many there are.
Personally, though, I'm more fond of the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation of QM. It offers a single, deterministic universe. Einstein didn't like it due to its flagrant nonlocality, but the experimental confirmation that the universe violates Bell's Inequality indicates entanglement is nonlocal. As with the number of universes, so too with nonlocality: in for a penny, in for a pound.
In this case, Occam's razor cuts both ways. In fact, the problem with MWI, in my opinion, is that it is too simple. It's just an ever-evolving universal wave-function. But there's no explanation for why we experience a consistent subset of this. That's not to say it's wrong. It's too simplistic in my view.
The advantage of the Everett interpretation is all the science fiction it inspires :).
I luv that fast flowing river. I grew up next to something similar, swam in it often, drank from it and ate from it. Mine is sandy, not rocky. They're both, as with all flowing water meditative, soothing and alot of fun.
It looks like the Bow River near the Banff Springs Hotel.
Everything is in a superposition of probability waves until "an observer" sees it, or makes a decision or whatever the observer is supposed to do. Then the waves collapse into whatever is seen or experienced or whatever. It's a pretty bizarre thing because there needs to be an observer for anything to happen, so the door is closed/open/both until you need it to open or close. So even the beginning needed an observer to begin, so that means the universe itself is its own observer? We seem to be sliding into a paradox here.
There's a simple axiom that helps explain the quantum observer effect.
All observers are within the universe itself, even postulated ones.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that observers have effects on experiments they observe, there is an element of feedback that connects them and can effect results.
No, the real answer is that every observation of some experiment means that you have to interact with your machinery with the experiment and for that reason your observation could be only an interaction. There isn't any way to have a pure experiment result when you do observation.
And so perception gives rise to awareness.
Observing the reality
Consciousness creates reality. Life and the physical universe are intertwined. The two cannot be separated.
@@jamescarter8311 there are layers between realities or consciousness. I think observing enables going deeper.
"The disease of the observer..."
Now we know why science advances one funeral at a time.
👁 hey it's me the observer. What a beautiful background. Spread love love and unity or else. It's always easier to love. I'll be watching.
I've always wondered if rather than an "observer" causing the wave function to collapse it were simply the case that once the wave gains information that event causes the wave function to collapse. I would state it this way, wave function + information = particle. So, in the case of the double slit experiment, if the wave goes through slot 1 and that is "revealed" to our reality, then the wave must collapse to a particle because it has now gained information in our dimension - our reality plane. It's as if the particle was revealed to us in our dimension or our reality if you will, because the wave was recorded, measured, sensed, observed, etc., and critically information was gained regarding which slot.
The Observe-ability, is Motion,
the Observation is Motion,
the Observed is Motion.
The Observers, is the Only Real Steady Point, in Existence
I am not an intelligent person, but I have always thought the "observer"theory was nonsensical. I think that physical processes happen (or don't happen) whether or not the naked ape is looking at it with it's empty, glassy eyes.
Observers, Watchers, same thing; many of us are not even aware we are Observers , and most of us (observers) are Loners...
I’m a simple man. I see a talk by Alan Guth, I click.
The concept of the multiverse presents intriguing challenges, particularly in the context of our own universe where infinity seems more a mathematical construct than a physical reality. Our universe has a beginning and, presumably, an endpoint with the 'heat death'. This inherently limits the presence of infinite quantities within it. The multiverse theory suggests that every possible quantum state of every particle spawns a new universe, leading to an unimaginably vast number of parallel universes, a notion extrapolated from the current estimate of about 10^82 particles in our universe. This implies an exponential multiplication of universes at every moment, a concept both fascinating and overwhelming.
However, this theory, as compelling as it is, lacks empirical evidence. It's a grand and exhilarating idea, but perhaps it merits a more cautious approach. Invoking Occam's razor, it might be more prudent to consider that our understanding of reality is still evolving. Our intellectual efforts might be more productively directed towards refining existing models that are more grounded and less speculative than the many-worlds interpretation. This approach could lead to a deeper and more practical understanding of our universe.
I can't believe he called the many worlds hypothesis simplistic. It's anything but.
Observation is not a function that we obtain and then use. Observation is a wave surf. Style of surfing is a function. Like an antenna is a transciever. Time permits observation, and observation proves local time. Distant time less observation; abundant time, macroscopy and recapitulation. Labelled time (syntax) equals memory retrevial surfing. Abstract time other dimensions. Telescoped time??? Stretched "width" of "forwards and backwards" perception. Resonant with near speed of light relativistic dimensionality. (Nearly infinithe width of "accelerated mass".)
love it!!!
welcome to the motherverse, doc
the place that observers and infinity are irrelevant
little things make big things make us
as we lie in the field of possibilities
in reality
basically any experiment that leaves a macroscopic trace of information for stuff constituting a human being is able to observe is a different physical case than the converse, so there is natural expectation that at some level this is true regardless, and without observers being anything special.for example if you store information about an experiment where you see interference unless you look at something, and you store the result of looking at that something, and then you delete the files for the looking part, it will absolutley not change the files for the interference vs non interference, it is the physical change in the experimental setup which is always responsible for the confusion, it has absolutley nothing to do with knowing or not knowign something and has nothing to do with observation by beings, just by what is changed in an experiment. i think the confusion comes from confusing a counter or some scattered light or something revealing which slit a particle whent through, when there was never a particle at all, but a wave traveling only manifesting as a particle at the detectors, or in other cases the particles having these guiding waves produced by themselves and the experiemental setup that produces the interference, and those always going through both, either way looking for information about which slit it went through changes the stuff propagating, so it is kind of useless to say anything weird is going on.
Everett’s, Many Worlds Model is like Douglas’, Total Perspective Vortex. Way too nauseatingly large. I have more faith in the later being a real thing than I do the former.
Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation is the slimmest theory there is. There's the Schrodinger Equation and done. Other interpretations require you to add extra pieces (with no evidence for more pieces) to explain something that's already explained by the Schrodinger Equation by itself. Now that's nauseatingly gratuitous.
The Observer is simply a measuring device which often changes the state of a Quantum particle
Lol we are still as lost as we were 100 years ago on this topic 😂 News flash, interaction is ‘observation’, be it quantum mechanical or cosmological. The anthropic principle is powerful but cannot be derived, which is sensible because it’s a tautology, although an obviously necessary one. In Copenhagen’s interpretation it is the collapse, in Everett’s MWI it is the problem of basis - either way it’s the same thing! You don’t need to go too far back however to realized we already proved it to be paradoxical to derive ‘truth’ within the system in which we are embedded. So it’s no surprise we cannot develop consistent logical models which do not either ignore the observer or the specifics of their observation. However, until we shift away from this chronologically linear predilection of happenings, what with their beginnings, ends, independent and isolated in their limits, and truly embrace a relationalism and interactionism, of self-generation, where bootstrapping is the law and not a paradox, will we be able to get “closer to the truth”.
Sort of reminds me of a sci fi show called Fringe. The observers were from alternate verse that traveled through time as well.🦋💮🌖🦎🍁
someone watching this in the future will probably compare him to a 1900 doctor who 100% believed that draining blood from someone is healing him.
Scientists are unnecessarily complicating it as they want to stick to material world paradigm..this universe is a virtual reality and just like all virtual realities it's rendered only for it's players that is consciousness..the consciousness plays various characters according to their level of game expertise..Physicist Tom Campbell and his big TOE will be best way for science to take to solve all paradoxes and put end to crazy ridiculous theories like many world's and what not
Seems to me like "observer" is an overly ambiguous way of saying "measurement device". A measurement device being anything which can "translate" or "carry", through causal interaction (entanglement implied), information about the state of a portion of reality. Essentially we're experiencing the encoding of information through the medium in which the information originated.
Dude started the interview by telling the interviewee, "I think what you're about to say is silly and incorrect"
Copenhagen: the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking at it.
Everett: Infinite moons exist everywhere, and infinitely many more all the time, whether you look or not.
Me: Somehow, no.
Well stated. Neither.
Seems to be extremely different views, both somewhere between woo woo and scientific.
If an observer observed something new for only a few minutes how would he/she define it?
Past is prologue is one type of observer. The Ptolemaic way of observing the motion of planets is not the Copernican way. Why? Is it the observer (the man) that makes the difference? Or something else? Something Kant might have called the antinomies: the cosmological questions of number, spacetime, freedom and being.
Are there other questions to ask? Other antinomies?
This interview was the Sound Guy's nightmare.
The born rule does give a probability....the wave function squared. It gives the probability of what branch of the wave function you find yourself on/entangled with. There is your probability. Yes, all things happen, but you find yourself on only one branch, and with some probability.
All things happen, but you only become entangled with 1 reality.
Am I missed something?
All the experiments do is add, or remove, energy from the observed? If that’s the case, no need to add the observer philosophy?
I probably don't understand... but simply remove time from the total, and infinity is not a problem. A rough analogy is consider all possible states to be a volume. Time is only an experience of moving from one point to another, but it all is there is in all its available forms. It does not matter if this volume is infinite, moving through it would give the experience of time and from certain perspectives an illusion of beginnings and endings.
so to avoid the observer we "simply" assume there are infinite universes with no evidence of them and no way so see them or proving they aren't there. simple enough for me. I'm sold.
Do we have evidence that infinity applies to anything other than mathematical calculations?
Nothing in our universe can be infinite in quantity, for instance, without invoking an infinite volume of space.
So, we have no reason to be believe in an actual infinity, least of all an actual infinity of worlds,
Thank goodness this is well beyond me and I’m happy about that. Thinking and understanding such must absolutely mess with your mind. And now they are saying the universe excited before the Big Bang…😂 Synchronicity is the only thing I’ve encountered and thought wait a moment there is so much more to all this, we simply are part of something so magical we just can’t comprehend it although these guys give it a good go.
What is the wave function of a photon in everetian multiverse after it has been detected for ex. in a ccd detector? :-)
Every possible thing, and every possible permutation of all possible things, and infinitely more of them per thing per Planck second per universe, each in its own new universe.
@@bozo5632 But what is the wave function, that developes according to the Schroedinger equation, of that photon? It can't be every possible thing, it has to be a wave function. Well, in fact the Schroedinger equation is not enough for everetion interpretation to work (there is no perticle creation or destruction in it), there has to be also an everetion quantum field theory.
Isn’t it then no longer a wave, but a particle?
@@longcastle4863 I tend to suspect that nothing is actually either a wave or a particle. That there are no such things. Idk what instead though. But I hate that duality business.
Maybe... Seems like... A 4-D or N-dimensional thingy moving/rotating/evolving through our (presumably 3-D) space might LOOK to us like a wave or a zero-dimensional particle.
(Flatland made a big impression on me.)
@@MrJPI I think the Schroedinger equation does predict and assign probability to every possible thing.
I think Everett doesn't need to produce new particles since it produces whole new universes instead. (Apparently that doesn't bother some people.) I'm not sure, but it seems to amateur me that Everett could work with or without QFT.
Each of us sees the universe in our own individual way, we look in the mirror and see ourselves, but we don't see ourselves as others see us. That's perspective.
Every creature in the universe, must have some type of perception of the universe, but exactly what that would be, depends on how it thinks, what it has already observed.
Therefore, our perception, just like any other creature, is based upon observation and because no one thinks the same as another, this perception varies.
We don't understand perception or reality, it's impossible to determine, again because of our individual perception.
Would there be a Universe if there was no one there to perceive it, or would it be just waiting for that first observer, to quantify it and then begin to try to determine what is real.🤔
Ah, the multi-world answer in cosmology! An example of where the mathematical model becomes more important than reality!
What could be a possible argument against multi-worlds? What could be wrong with a model where every millisecond an infinite number of new universes are created, each with millions of galaxies stretching billions of light years across, and where in the next millisecond an infinite number of universes will be created in EACH of those infinite number of universes?
Given e=mc2, where did all the energy come from to create all these infinite number of universes, the number of which have grown exponentially every millisecond for the last 13 billion years? And how do these infinite number of universes that originate in every single point in every single universe keep from running into each other? In my index finger alone more new universes have been created in the last minute than can possibly be computed. How did they not run into the ones created in my thumb, let alone my index finger, ring finger, and pinky?
To obtain a simplicity of ideas, multi-world believers create an infinite number of absurdities. Why? Because they need to avoid the idea of an observer from the beginning of time. They refuse to allow for the possibility of God, and so they are forced to accept an infinite number of absurdities.
Always follow the evidence, unless it involves a God or outside intelligence.
The observer is EVERYTHING. The observer is not poison.
You all should be reading Cassidy Arrasmith books with 1692
It’s too bad that Hugh Everett didn’t live long enough to hear this conversation. He died in 1982 at 51.
What if the basic difference between quantum world and our world is about the occurrence of superposition
“The primary nature of an immortal spiritual being is that they live in a timeless state of "is", and the only reason for their existence is that they decide to "be".”
The sound guy was pissed about the location 😂
'Many Worlds' seems to imply that we'd have an effectively-infinite number of new universes being created everywhere, all the time. Observation is not just when some sentient being sits down, takes off their slippers, and explicitly observes; given other considerations (e.g. Relativity), it has to be effectively-infinite new 'worlds' (Universes) being spun-off continually, everywhere. This would (for example) include the surface of your left eardrum. You'd think it might be a bit noisy, considering that your left eardrum can detect motion at fantastically small distances. Also, would there be any signal (such as gravity) as your left eardrum emits a stream of new Universes every millisecond? Also, who pays for all this? The energy required to spin off a gadzillion universes... Appears to be first order nonsense.
We all live multiple simultaneous lives all at the same time ..... An infinite number ..... Immortality is a trip ..... That never ends .....
❤❤❤
The observer is absolutely part of the wave function. There is no way around it. Think about the Mandlebrot set, "It's turtles all the way down!" Once we understand brain functions well, in grasshoppers (!) we can put a grasshopper in front of a double split experiemnt and run it. Afterwards we can read the brain of the grasshopper and see what it saw.... Then what? :)
Consume the crops.
'Observations' are just interactions between probability waves. It's really quite simple, but Alan Guth has to invent infinite universes coming into existence in every instant where anything happens.
Any "thing" when alone is a field, a probability wave, imagine a foggy cloud which is dense in one spot but wispy at the 'edges.' These clouds travel through space. When they interact, they squish together and briefly collapse into a 'particle'. Then they continue to move, having affected each other. That collision is the 'observation,' the interaction, and the only time there might be a particle of matter.
This is more or less how I picture it in my head. But the part I'm struggling with is the limits of interactions. Interactions in the universe should be very frequent, right? Light moving in the air should be interacting with molecules. But in the double slit experiment, when an observer does not observe (interact), we see no collapse. Interaction of molecules with light apparently do not make these probability waves squish together and collapse into a particle. Or when light hits to the screen at the end, same story. Am I missing something?
@@denizkacan8007 The double slit experiment is carried out in a vacuum. Because, indeed, if there were air or other molecules, then we would observe particle behavior.
What are observers?
Layman’s please
I don’t agree that the observer in quantum mechanics is completely different from an observer in astronomy. What does an observer in astronomy do? Basically he looks into a telescope and sees light and that’s exactly a quantum mechanical interaction with light from the universe.
Could the word "observer " be also the " fine tuner"
All outside or all synchronized inside,and always has the chance to be outside.
so occam's razor is used in everything else but when it comes to cosmology, it doesn't apply
THOUGHT THAT WAS JIM CARREY PLAYING A ROLE..OMG MY BRAIN
What is outside is unknown and unknowable .
this unknown furnishes a disturbance in your mind pond and you know something is there
Could we classify a rock as an observer? It retains a record of all the chemical, atomic, quantum etc. interactions it has had with it's environment. The study of geology is essentially extracting and interpreting all of the information that has been stored in rocks.
In a long time line sure, rocks are just so slow
There has never been a more ambiguous or uncertain scientific pronunciation on the role of observers,and that's saying something considering the way the role of the observer is treated by many in the scientific community.One one hand you have one of the most proven cause and effects in the role of the observer,and on the other you have an unproven equation.Those in support of the unproven equation do so with a stammering unconfident round about mannerism,as always.
I believe observers are the measurements themselves right? Once it’s measured by anything it then has a position? So, even though we humans may not be the one observing an electron, a photon might interact with the electron, and the photon would be the one observing the electron?
Some scientists did say that photons could be the observers, but it has a fundamental consequence
The sound is not of good quality, sometimes it's not understandable.
the many worlds are not many world, but many paths to one.
Kuhn is fine form today - must be that rattling, wooden bench Guth and Kuhn are balanced on.
🤠
The Observer in a world that can't be ultimately observed.
Simply turning a blind eye to a feature is simply defining the boundaries of a problem, it doesn't resolve the issue.