Roger Penrose - Many Worlds of Quantum Theory
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 мар 2020
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Quantum theory is very strange. No act is wholly sure. Everything works by probabilities, described by a wave function. But what is a wave function? One theory is that every possibility is in fact a real world of sorts. This is the Many Worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett and what it claims boggles the brain. You can't imagine how many worlds there would be.
Watch more interviews on quantum theory: bit.ly/33dKkQ4
Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth 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.
Quick reminder that if you haven't subscribed or set a notification yet, be sure to do so so you don't miss our 3/23 premiere of full length episodes! These are the broadcast TV episodes that we will be bringing to RUclips in their entirety. All of Season 19 will be available starting 3/23, and an episode a day of our other seasons will be uploaded thereafter. Come explore cosmos, consciousness, and meaning with us!
In the many worlds interpretation, Trump is alive in all the worlds, there is no escape.
Mr Penrose always brings me back down to good ol solid earth.
Reading his books, or watching his videos, I always think that I would be glad to know him in person.
Mr Penrose is rightly one of the greatest scientists in the world. His scientific works deserve not one but more Nobel prizes. His books and publications are clearly written in style so that everyone can understand them. therefore he owes him great thanks
Dr. Penrose and CTT continue to explore and share their progress with the rest of us which is great. Why do I feel this quest is unlikely to ever end?
Can you ask sir Penrose about the the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?
Why do I just feel that every thing Roger says is just spot on? It’s how he explains it I think. Very credible indeed.
He is a seeker of truth.
@@acetate909 in your humble opinion. Maybe if you are so sure of your scientific credentials and ultimate knowledge of the universe and creation you can create a cure for Covid 19 please.....
Thank you Penrose!
That’s the most sense I’ve ever heard been spoken about QM.
Why does no one bring up the point to Penrose that the Many Worlds perceived split is due to decoherence? The Many Worlds proponents have a perfectly self consistent view of QM (they claim). The two wave functions essentially rapidly become orthogonal due to interactions with the environment. I was trained as a physicist and I agree with Penrose, but the rejection of Many Worlds currently boils down to a matter of taste.
Though I'm not particularly fond of Many Worlds, it seems just as easy to think that two sets of consciousnesses could evolve as any other two sets of material. It appears consciousness goes hand in hand with brains after all.
When I was younger and heard about quantum mechanics, I was imagining we're living at different frequencies and cand interact with matter at only these frequencies, Or gradient towards close frequencies like metronomes on the same table tend to synchronize themselves to the same tempo
Very good.
you can perceive more but you must open your consciousness to observe and experience more
the gateway project opens one up to the many perspectives in understanding quantum mechanics
We human beings really like to destroy superpositions, we are the king of the position. Until a black hole comes along 😭
True ... Until decoherence happens.
Penrose tells his colleagues don't like his interpretation. I can see why they don't like it.
Do what?
Decoherence is just a postulate, not something found within the wave function. Decoherence was proposed to explain why we don't experience superpositions of states and is therefore part of the *interpretation* of quantum mechanics, rather than part of quantum mechanics itself. Not saying decoherence is wrong, just that saying it occurs already commits to to a certain interpretation. The crux of Everettian Many Worlds is that it proposed a different interpretation, one that does not include decoherence.
I was just having a hard time making sense of the grammar and sentence structure of your initial comment..
@@88_TROUBLE_88 oh I'm just responding to the initial comment and well. In particular the phrase "until decoherence happens" which of course assumes that decoherence does in fact happen.
@@aforsy Thank you for the clarification.
I would love to listen his opinion of the double slit experiment.
Penrose: "It's one world. It's just a funny world." So much more sensible than the usual pop ways of approaching "many worlds".
One thing is for sure humans are constantly underestimating the size of there reality and not taking Schrodinger's equations and the cosmic landscape in general seriously is just another way of doing this why can't we error on the the side of a larger reality on occasion.
“We don’t take Schroedinger seriously”. Then what alternative equation are there?
Saying multiverse theory is absurd then not taking Schroedinger seriously is just circular reasoning.
I don’t think anybody “wanted” the multiverse theory. It’s just that there’s no other way to make sense out of the Schroedinger’s equation.
We’re not saying, multiverse theory or else in a religious way. If there’s a better equation that can explain the position of the photons, then we’ll gladly go with that equation without the multiverse theory. But no such equation yet exists.
eatcarpet - Penrose talks about many-worlds quantum theory here, not multiple universes. Those are different things. He does not say we should not take the Schrödinger equation seriously at all - just that we should not be afraid to alter it to remove elements we can replace to the good. Getting rid of the spontaneous formation of parallel realities (parallel multiverses, in fact, with the displacement of one superposed particle) with no known mechanism to save the large-scale application of one equation of a theory shown to be great at predicting subatomic behavior seems not only not absurd but pretty close to the opposite of absurd.
@@bitegoatie Many-worlds and Multiverse are the same thing, they're just different names.
Quantum darwinism
eatcarpet This is completely false.
@@bitegoatie What is false?
A super position is one in which you can checkmate your opponent by a forced sequence of moves; however, in many worlds, one game of chess seems to create a very large number of parallel games. If the universe is a simulation, imagine how much processing power you would need to run a many worlds simulation lol.
Also, considering Magus Carlson considering a position. He could follow one line or another, and each decision point in the game tree would need two Magnuses to follow the different paths.. In reality, players use experience and pattern recognition to determine which paths not to get sucked into.
How does many worlds cope with situations where the balance of experience in effect prohibits Magnus from splitting?
Can many quantum worlds intersect with multiple universes in some way, something like space and time have inverse relationship? Could be the closer in time, the farther away in space, perhaps even other universes; and the longer time in between, the closer in space. Time might cycle back around, like the seasons of the year.
Roger Penrose's argument is that we don't see that kind of world. But people used the same notion to try to explain away the motion of the earth... why won't we feel that we have to hang on and such. Since there would be 2 of us, we could not see the other split wave since these kinds of waves can go right through each other. You'd need to be at a special vantage point to notice both outcomes, and nobody thus far knows how to do that. I'd be cautious about trying to limit the size of reality, or cling to notions of the nature of reality without a solid footing in mathematics showing that. And the math doesn't show us that.
Roger Penrose is one of my 2 favorite modern physicists (the other one is Max Tegmark), but I need to understand better his position on this matter. I actually do think that many worlds, including all the possible histories of our universe, indeed do exist. There is no other explanation why some possible realities should be real and others not. All possible realities should be equally real, somewhere, somehow...
I agree. Also, he kept implying that if it leads to absurdity you should abandon the theory but that's exactly what people were saying about general relativity predicting the existence of black holes. Back then people said it was absurd, including Einstein himself.
@@ruslanbabayan326 I actually don't think it leads to absurdity.
@@ConnoisseurOfExistence I don't think so either but that's what Penrose and many others, like Maudlin,
were saying.
@@ruslanbabayan326 Whatever explanation they can find for why the universe is the way it is, it will never be able to answer why then other possible universes wouldn't exist. I don't even understand why they hold on to the notion of us being able to interact with those universes, or observe them in some way, so to confirm their existence. If our universe is possible and it does exist, there is nothing that would stop other possible universes of existing. The possibility of existence (mathematical consistency) is sufficient condition for existence, in my opinion. And there couldn't be anything that can exist, but doesn't. Somewhere, somehow. That's what I think. And this way of thinking is the only one, that can successfully resolve why the universe is the way it is.
Though I have a lot of respect for Sir Roger Penrose, I think here he is being quite misleading.
1) The many worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (QM) is not in contradiction with observation. MWI + decoherence is a good candidate for explaining what we see, e.g. that we do not see cats in macroscopic superpositions of alive and dead, and it explains it almost from the bare (i.e. unitary) formalism of QM alone.
2) The MWI doesn't postulate a weird physical phenomenon of splitting or branching of the universe into different worlds. It's just a way of saying. What is true is that you can consider different components of the state vector of the universe and interpret each of them as a state of an independent world. The unitary evolution is a physical process; the "branching" is just a way of reading the (objective) structure of the state vector of the universe relative to a base, and that structure looks approximately like it is a "tree" of "branching" worlds minimally affecting each other.
3) The MWI doesn't require a "superposition of perceptions" of the same subject. In fact, the MWI has nothing to do with consciousness. If you really want to explain consciousness in the MWI, it would be done in roughly the same way as in classical field theory (assuming a materialist point of view): the form of the classical electromagnetic (and other) field(s) instantiates a consciousness here (mine) and a consciousness there (yours), and you wouldn't say that the classical field is in a weird "superposition of my consciousness and your consciousness". Same with MWI: after a Schroedinger's cat experiment, the observer is not in a weird superposition of seeing a dead cat and a live cat; but the form of the wave function of the universe instantiates two distinct observers, who were the same observer in the past, one seeing a dead cat and one seeing a live cat.
4) The question of whether the (provisionally) ultimate description of reality (such as a correct theory of quantum gravity) will obey the paradigm of "unmodified" QM or not is a somewhat independent problem to the question of whether the MWI of QM is good or not (e.g. of whether it solves the measurement problem of QM or not).
5) As for the "faith" thing, I personally find the MWI way less "religious" and mysterious than the Copenhagen interpretation. The CI assumes the existence of non well specified "observers" and "observations" (it's not clear what they are even if you assume it just means "interaction with macroscopic objects"). In the CI something (the wave function) jumps instantaneously and randomly when a certain type of non well specified event occurs (measurement). In the MWI nothing jumps instantaneously and randomly, but the same perception of "jump" and randomness is nonetheless explained, starting (almost) from the bare unitary dynamics. How's that "religious"?
6) As far as a theory makes correct predictions about observed phenomena (and the MWI makes the same predictions as Copenhagen or hidden variables, or anything that doesn't require modifying the Schroedinger equation) it doesn't matter if it also uses non-observable entities in its formalism. Physical theories do that all the time: have you ever observed a potential? Of course not: you can observe a force, not its potential.
7) By a naïf use of Ockham's razor you may be led to think that MWI isn't a metaphysically viable interpretation because it multiplies entities too much. But that's a simplistic way of understanding what an "entity" is in a theory. For MWI, there's basically one entity: the state vector of the universe (ok, and maybe the Hilbert space it lives in, and a Hamiltonian, and a preferred pointer basis). What about the Copenhagen interpretation? Well, it even postulates the existence of a whole different metaphysical species: the observer .
8) All in all, I think people tend to be baffled by the MWI because, in science popularization, the MWI "splitting" or "branching" of worlds seems introduced artificially by hand, so it sounds fishy. That was also my opinion before I read (or attempted to read part of the 500 pages long) David Wallace's 2012 book The emergent multiverse . Not everything about MWI is clear to me now (especially the role of decoherence), but I've found it generally pretty convincing, and definitely elegant and natural.
[Unfortunately, a troll diverted the conversation towards an off-topic consideration, so I had to re-post the OP. What follows is a question that was asked by the user MD, and my answer to that question]
MD wrote: So with your second point, does the MWI add in/create more worlds or are we all still in the same world we’ve been in since birth. I’ve heard conflicting points about it especially when Sean Carroll has said “its as if there is two worlds” or “it doesn’t add any more worlds” but then also says things that indicate there actually IS more than one world.
My answer @MD:
You were asking about the "splitting". It's difficult to explain what the "splitting" means without assuming you know a bit of the quantum mechanics formalism or some elementary linear algebra. Let's try.
1. For QM, the state of the universe is represented, at any time, by a vector in a Hilbert space (it doesn't matter what a "Hilbert space" is, roughly it's a space made of abstract objects that you can sum, subtract, and rescale).
2. Hilbert space does _not_ represent physical space, it's just an abstract mathematical space that encodes the set of possible states the universe can be in.
3. The state of the universe at a given time is encoded by one such state vector in the Hilbert space.
4. Everything that happens in the universe depends on how the state vector evolves in time, (think of the state vector as a point or an arrow moving inside Hilbert space).
5. The evolution of the state vector of the universe is deterministic and governed by the Schroedinger equation.
6. It can happen that the state vector, at a given time, is the algebraic sum of two (or more) components: that's what in QM is called a _superposition._
7. In that case, by the _linearity_ of the Schroedinger equation, the two (or more) components evolve separately as if they were completely unrelated state vectors.
8. If each component of a superposition happens to be a state vector encoding a state of affairs of the universe that looks like a possible situation of reality (where macroscopic facts, such as life/death of cats, is sharply defined), then we say the components are "worlds".
9. To reiterate, a "world" is a state vector that encodes a (macroscopically sharply-defined) possible situation of reality. For example, there's a state vector representing a world in which the Schroedinger cat experiment has resulted in a dead cat (let's call that state vector D); and there's another (different) state vector (call it L) encoding a world corresponding to the live cat outcome.
10. What happens dynamically is that the state vector of the universe, initially (at time t=0) equal to ψ(0) evolves at time t=T into ψ(T) the latter being the sum of two components L and D: ψ(T)=L+D.
11. We say that between time t=0 and time t=T a splitting has occurred and the world has split into the two worlds L and D.
12. So, in the Schroedinger's cat case, the "splitting" process is nothing but the state vector ψ moving inside Hilbert space and getting close to the vector L+D.
13. Nothing has been "created". Just a position in Hilbert space has been reached.
14. There are of course subtleties related to which state vectors, exactly, count as "worlds" and which don't. But that's more of a philosophical question, similar to "which particle configurations count, exactly, as a chair?". Clearly, this is not a question of fundamental physics: we make a conventional decision about that, that has to do more about what we mean by "a chair" than with physics.
15. There's a physical aspect to "worlds" that's not a mere convention, though. This has to do with the objective fact that certain (macroscopically sharp) "realities-encoding" state vectors are unobservable from each other's point of view: they don't interact (or, more technically, they don't _interfere_ ).
16. So, more properly, we should say a splitting occurs when the state vector of the universe ψ, moving inside Hilbert space, becomes close to a sum of two (or more) realities-encoding macroscopically sharply-defined non-interfering state vectors, and we call the latter "worlds".
17. It's a fact that, after a quantum measurement is performed, the state vector ψ does become close to a superposition (i.e. a sum) of such state vectors each of them encoding one possible outcome of the experiment (example: live cat L, dead cat D) and which are non-interfering.
18. The fact I said in point 17 is (partially or totally, depending on whom you ask) explained by an experimentally verified theory called Decoherence Theory that deals with how the information about a non-isolated quantum system gets lost into the environment. This is empirical stuff, not philosophy.
So where does the mass-energy for all those parallel universes come from?
@@rv706 I am asking a simple question. You claim that a non-relativistic Hamiltonian splits the universe into many parallel versions of itself. There is a very large amount of relativistic mass-energy in every one of these copies. Even if we forgo the problem of how a local split spreads into the rest of these universes at infinite speed, the question still stands: where does all this rest-mass come from suddenly? If you call that question "trolling", then you are really not prepared for a science discussion. Peace!
@@lepidoptera9337: I had already answered your question (which by the way is ill-posed) in the deleted comment thread, multiple times, and you kept diverting it. Now please stop.
@@rv706 Just too bad that you deleted those statements. Now you will have to type them, again, so everybody can see why the didn't answer the question, which is perfectly appropriate.
MWI claims that new parallel universes have to come into existence all the time, but it can't account for their mass-energy.
I think the 'Many Worlds Interpretation' is utterly absurd. It just doesn't seem plausible that the Universe would split an infinite amount of times. Everything we see in nature tends be a recycling closed loop system in some way or another, which in its own way is simple, balanced and elegant; e.g. E=mc2. The 'Many Worlds Interpretation' is far too messy to be the way nature would actually work. The 'Copenhagen Interpretation' may not be correct either, so there must be a better solution that we haven't yet conceptualized. We need to keep working on it. I think the Level 2 Multiverse is most likely closer to the truth. Something like a Möbiverse topology Multiverse that loops back on itself possibly through some form of 'Black Hole Cosmology' creating other universes making up a much larger Multiverse superstructure of extra dimensions in the roiling quantum foam.
Very nice penrose
he finally won the nobel, good for him
Not really, he got it after he lost most of his mind. That's kind of sad.
Sir any role of consciousness in quantam mechanic ? Sir Roger mention consciousness in this video please reply
@@lepidoptera9337you're nothing. Non-entity.
Much respect to Penrose, but I really don’t follow his absurdity argument, his argument for rejecting the many worlds interpretation sounds like he’s arguing from personal incredulity.
Why don't you tell us a good argument for the many worlds interpretation? I want to have a good laugh.
it seems like the probability of all the quantum superposition events is realistic only in imagination!
Different observers perceive slightly different measurements of quantum wave function in time? Each observer perceives different local information from the non-local energy amplitudes and frequencies of quantum wave function?
Each measurement is unique. It can only be done exactly one time. There are no "different observers" of the same quantum event.
@@lepidoptera9337 different quantum events happen
@@jamesruscheinski8602 Of course they do. But they can still only be observed once.
Give me one BIG miracle and I will explain everything else.
Does the "many worlds" theory and the "simulation" theory conflict with each other?
This brings us to the question "Does potato contradict with light saber?"
Penrose damaged his own argument. Just as Schroedinger tried to show the absurdity with the cat - which is now a standard model for discussing quantum outcomes. The absurd became the normal. Many Worlds isn’t wrong simply because it sounds absurd - nothing is. If your only argument is that it sounds absurd, you have lost the argument . *If* Many Worlds is the only idea that follows the math consistently, then it is the most likely explanation so far.
spot on
Not absurd but the general assumption is a real leap.
Roger Penrose is a treasure of the world 🌎
❤❤❤
4:33 - probably "simple" is better term for that idea. :)
I have never seen the following kind of version of the Schrödinger's cat:
Suppose there a two observers just watching the lid of cat box opening. Lets also suppose that they don't see eachother or even know there is another observer (this may be unimportat though).
Why then the cat will be always either dead or alive for both of them without any disacreement about the result when the observers later discuss about the experiment. Put anothet way: If the many words interpretation is right, why then the both observers always end up been in the same branch of reality?
Harmonic carrier wave like the background radiation.
Shared objective reality which only ever really exists as one quantised step or 'still frame' that we call 'now'.
Time is simply a sequence of universally/dimensionally 'synchronised' state changes (Quantum metronome).
Thus if time/present is granular or a pulsed sequence of alternate states....it must transition between on and off....that on/off can also be a 180 degree phase shifted signal.
Anyone that is thinking rather than observing is ignoring 'now' and cant observe it.
They must accept proof that something happened from a 3rd party source.
Anyone observing in the same dimension, must be in an identical phase of a quantum step time period.
You could have a 100 dimensions interlaced between quantum step peak threshold that represent our reality.
Thus one dimension would see a waves peak, another dimension would be out of tune and not see that peak.
@@RuneRelic is there any evidence of the harmony wave, or is it an assumption
@@joshbane7671 Pure assumption. Hypothesis on the requirements of a cohesive system. Prediction if you will. Although the CMB is actually a thing, it does not guarantee it is one and the same thing as a dimensional carrier wave that everything syncs to at the quantum level.
I have been doing some research on ancient thermal physics which implies that absolute 0 should not actually by a simple muiltiplier, but a multiplier with an offset. Which is a rather curious synchronicity with the CMB.
I have no intention of explaining the relationships and meaning of the following values at this point in time.
I am merely demonstrating a mathematical 273.121C vs 272.959C variance from a research path that originates 1000s of years ago.
Hence the statement referring to multiplier vs multiplier + offset for 0K
((273.121 + 7.568) / 273.121)^0.5 = 1.01376
(1 / (1.01376 - 1)) x 7.568 = 550
12500 * 71 / 72 / 49 = 251.55895692 Frozen Saline
12500 * 71 / 72 / 49 / 0.96^2 = 272.95893763 Frozen Water
12500 * 71 / 72 / 49 / 0.96^2 + 7 = 279.95893763 +7C
(279.95893763 - 251.55895692) / 50 = 0.56799961 Degree Unit
0.56799961 * 125 = 70.99995177 Degree Unit vs Celsius
272.95893763 - 251.55895692 = -21.39998071C 0/-1 Degree units
7+ 0.56799961 = 7.56799961C 50/51 Degree Mid 100 scale Units
123264/490 = 251.55918367 Frozen Saline
123264/490 / 0.96^2 = 272.95918367 Frozen Water
123264/490 / 0.96^2 +7 = 279.95918367 +7C
(279.95918367 - 251.55918367) / 50 = 0.568 Degree Unit
0.568 * 125 = 71 Degree Unit vs Celsius
272.95918367 - 251.55918367 = -21.4C 0/-1 Degree units
7+ 0.568 = 7.568C 50/51 Degree Mid 100 scale Units
100 x 0.568 x 72/71 = 57.6 = 360 x 8/25 / 2
Juha Immonen . They only end up in the same reality in that reality. In another reality they do see different states of the cat and get so angry with one another over discussion about whether the cat is dead or alive that one observer murders the other and then is executed for his crime so then there are no observers and the cat can remain in its super position. In other words it’s all gobble de gook.
When the observer is entangled with Schrödinger’s cat, the wave function allows for the following possibilities: 1 the cat is alive and you found it alive. 2 the cat is dead and you found it dead. *Those two* possibilities are in a superposition if you introduce an observer. Therefore, no observer will ever observe a superposition of a dead and an alive cat. Those superpositions can only ever be observed indirectly and statistically.
If he had named a single publication where any physicist said, “We must follow the theory,” it would have made Penrose credible in this interview. Instead, it sounds as though he is building straw men
He _is_ building straw men. As far as I understand, the proponents of MWI don't necessarily think that a deeper theory of reality (e.g. quantum gravity) will have to stick to the paradigm of quantum mechanics: they just highlight how it's possible to make QM a complete theory (e.g. solving the measurement problem) almost without modifying its central core (i.e. Hilbert space formalism and Schroedinger's equation).
@@rv706 I don’t think there’s any straw man here if you really listen to what MWI proponents are saying. Their position is that MWI is correct because it’s the only realist interpretation that does not require modifications to the math. That’s despite the fact that it leads to a fantastical conclusion that is fundamentally untestable. Penrose is just pointing out that logically troubling conclusions that can’t be backed up by observation should drive physicists to question the completeness of the theory rather than favoring mathematical simplicity.
@@mattgrover953: reality to be fundamentally quantum is a _hope_ or a _subjective belief_ that some of the MWI proponents hold. But it's not a logical consequence nor a requirement of the theory. In fact, a requirement that there are no more fundamental theories would make no sense. For one, I'm a fan of MWI (I've read all of Wallace's 500+ pages book on the subject, though I don't claim to have understood or absorbed all of it) _and_ I don't have any reason to think quantum gravity will turn out to be quantum.
Also, MW predictions are not "logically troubling". There are no logical problems with MWI. It has an empirical sector that coincides with that of any other interpretation of QM and, like basically every other theory, has also a non-empirical sector. What's the problem?
When talking about cosmology people don't worry about what's beyond the observable horizon!
@@rv706 MWI predicts a 100% probability for each outcome of a quantum event, which is not consistent with observation. The only resolution reintroduces the measurement problem, which makes MWI equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation. I’m with Sabine Hossenfelder on this one. The most obvious approach to dealing with the measurement problem is to just admit that there’s something going on that we don’t understand yet. That could go in any number of directions, but we shouldn’t put a lot of stock in any theory or interpretation that makes untestable claims.
@@mattgrover953: Look, after having read D.Wallace's book (Wallace is one of the most prominent living philosophers of physics, he has also been an academic physicist) and watched (months ago) Sabine Hossenfelder's video about MWI, I definitely got the impression that she didn't understand MWI. Her criticism didn't seem to make any sense to me.
Of course, the "100% probability for each outcome" depends on what you count as "event", and what you mean by "probability". There are indeed philosophical problems about the foundations of the concept of probability (cf. Wallace's book), but they are _completely orthogonal_ to the MWI. MWI inherits the philosophical problems about the foundations of probability, it doesn't add new problems; if anything (as explained, again, in Wallace's book) MWI creates a conceptual environment in which the philosophical aspects of the foundations of probability are easier to tackle.
Lastly, I have to repeat myself about the claim about an "interpretation that makes untestable claims". This seems to be a point that bothers a lot of people. The response, briefly, is: it doesn't matter if a theory predicts empirically unobservable objects; *a theory is a tool to make empirical predictions about THIS empirical reality, and the empirical predictions of MWI about **_our_** "world" are identical to those of QM.*
And, by the way, _basically every theory_ predicts the existence of unobservable objects one way or another.
How does time affect the quantum wave function?
Symmetrically.
Schrödinger’s equation is time-reversible and linear, so it has no serious problem. But Born’s rule is not, which is the exact reason MW is so popular.
If there are multiple realities, then why am I in the one where I make the shittiest decisions with crappiest outcomes.
EmeraldView . Take heart, there’s another you that has a life of great health, great wealth and many lovers.
@@mitseraffej5812 , 😂 Oh I feel MUCH better now.
Friggen lucky bastard over in that better reality. 🙃
Learn law of attraction to shift into better universes!
Because you suffer from depression, it sounds like. Not an insult, most people do in some way.
@@mitseraffej5812 It also follows that as a child, there was a universe where he electrocuted himself in a home accident or took drugs and got arrested and abused in prison. In fact, there are so many versions, that his transunivese birthday party would be so big that he would only have time to meet a small fraction of his other selves.
camera movement is cool! But for a interview, maybe not necessary with every shot :) well done
Nitrogen trifluoride is stable, but nitrogen tri-iodide can explode at the slightest touch, and can even be detonated by a source of alpha particles according to Wikipedia. I am interested in producing computer simulations of the interaction between (1) an alpha particle and two molecules of trifluoride, and (2) an alpha particle and two molecules of tri-iodide, and comparing them.
In the case of the trifluoride the received theory of quantum mechanics, implemented as the numerical solution of a big system of differential equations, should be able to do the job. All transformations of the system are unitary transformations, and a decent time-reversible numerical algorithm can deal with this.
In the case of the tri-iodide it is a different matter. There can be a massive jump in specific entropy, or a breakdown of unitarity, and we need some new ideas on how to model this. In other contributions I have proposed tachyonic Brownian motion, but I am interested in hearing about other ideas, and perhaps Professor Penrose has something to say.
Many worlds might look like a silly idea, but cannot just be rejected out of hand. One of these silly ideas is going to turn out to be the way forward on what I want to do. Built in to TBM is the notion that every entity proceeding at speed u has a doppelganger proceeding at speed c squared /u in the same direction, and the entity and its doppelganger together make up the two components of the wave function in that direction. This is proposed for the purpose of computer simulation, and for no other purpose. Ideas about trying to explain quantum mechanics are naive, but we can still aspire to duplicate quantum mechanical behaviour by computer simulation. An analogy is that I cannot explain the mechanism of vortex shedding, but I can still produce a computer simulation of the Von Karman vortex street. I would use Alexandre Chorin's model of vorticity in Brownian motion.
I love penroses conservative approach to QM
Superposition of cat and observer(s) happen over time?
Modification of the Schroedinger equation is forbidden. What we can do in a computer simulation is to make a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration, which is synonymous with tachyonic Brownian motion. For objects heavier than the Planck mass, such as a potential well, the tachyonic Brownian motion obliterates wavelike behaviour and residual classical Brownian motion needs to be added to the well to reflect this. This modifies the boundary conditions, but not the Schroedinger equation itself. If you want to interpret this in terms of Many Worlds, then tachyonic Brownian motion splits the Universe in half and classical Brownian motion glues it back together again, which restores how we humans experience the Universe.
You are aware that the Schroedinger equation is not even a physically valid equation, right?
@@lepidoptera9337 When I say Schroedinger equation in this context I may actually mean the Dirac equation. What's not physically valid, and why?
@@DavidporthouseCoUk So when you say red you mean blue? I think we are done here. :-)
If every electron was in a superposition, wouldn’t there still be randomness and you wouldn’t just cleanly get an entire person / observer branching into multiple realities? People are made up of a huge amount of particles and electrons, so seems impossible that all the quantum particles would branch perfectly to create two identical copies of an observer, as in the cat analogy
first he says that the problem is in the observer, in the way we are aware of things, so maybe the problem is in the mind, this completely cancels any physical theory.
The problem with MWI is that nobody has ever seen a parallel universe. It basically has to invent a super-natural explanation for one (of several) inconsistencies in the Copenhagen interpretation of non-relativistic single particle quantum mechanics which do not exist, at all, in quantum field theory.
we see effects of parallel worlds anytime we observe an effect of interference (Deutsch, 85).
@@lcaires7351 If Deutsch wrote that, then Deutsch is a fool. Next! :-)
As the interviewee said, not every version of MW assumes parallel universes.
Some of them simply describe the universe as a big system, that is in a superposition of observable states, just as he said.
@@fullfungo But every version of MWI is based on a basic mistake in Everett's thesis. His second sentence is already completely wrong. You should actually read it. The universe can not be in superposition to begin with. It doesn't have a wave function. You need to think more about that before repeating such horrible nonsense. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 what’s the problem with the universe being in a superposition?
It seems like a reasonable solution. You would just have a single wave function describing the state of the whole universe; no problems here.
Do you have any sources that say it’s impossible?
Schrodinger cat box, if one side wall transparent and an observer is at that side and other observer at other non transparent wall side, cat at the same time dead and alive or probability of dead or alive exist for observer at non transparent side until box is open but what he will see after opening box is already known by the observer at transparent side. How do you explain this. Is it delayed choice quantum erasure or violation of many world interpretation or objective reality is subjective to observer's observation or what. Because result is always same for both the observer.
Observer on transparent side would collapse the wave function from the moment he looked at the box and your example is flawed
@@88_TROUBLE_88 But still probability exist for other observer until he open and know it.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Aha. So its only our perception which prevent us to see all outcomes as equally real. Ok. Noted
There seems something wrong with the whole idea of quantum superposition. It seems to me that in the hypothetical Schrodinger's cat example the idea that the atom is in a superposed state of decayed and not decayed is not correct. An atom is always in one particular state and at a certain time may move to a different state. So the whole idea of quantum superposition has to be discarded. Systems are only ever in one state at a time.
As regards the Schrodinger equation, this is just an equation describing the evolution of a real physical wave and once the wave is absorbed the equation ceases to apply. Take for example the dual slit experiment with light. The wave quantum passes through both slits and interference takes place resulting in a real physical wave arriving at the screen with a dispersion corresponding to the ultimate pattern on the screen. An electron associated with a particular atom on the detector screen absorbs this spread out wave. Only one atom can absorb the wave quantum (photon) and the choice is determined in a probabilistic way from the amplitude and phase of the incoming wave.
The Schrodinger equation describing this physical wave applies only during the trajectory just in the same way that the equation describing the motion of a projectile describes the path until such time as it lands. No need for Many Worlds to explain what is happening.
www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics
www.academia.edu/5927513/The_Spacetime_Wave_Theory
Richard
You said alot of interesting things Friend. To set the record straight, superposition is not only a REAL effect, (as predicted ) it has been verified and VISUALLY observed in the lab..
@@billnorris1264 Hi Bill. I agree some experiments might be explained using superposition but you can also explain it as a single system which separate out into one of several possible states when you observe or measure the system. Superpositions in space seem to work either way but superpositions in time (atoms decayed and not decayed) make no sense at all. Richard
@@OpenWorldRichard Right friend... The superpositions we're familiar with ARE separations in space but ALSO in time.. First, there's no doubt that both superposition and entanglement are genuine phenomena.. I would humbly point out that ANY two points in space are necessarily and literally also separated in time.. There is no simultaneity of "Nows" in relativity or QM.. Am I mistaken?
@@billnorris1264 Hi Bill. We probably need to start talking about specific cases of quantum superposition and discuss how to interpret them correctly. We should start talking about events which have three space coordinates and one time coordinate. In this case we can have simultaneous events but we would have to specify the frame of reference in which they are simultaneous. This is a bit of a side track to the main point about superposition which has been a useful technique to get experimental results but if taken too far (e.g. Schrodinger's cat) leads to nonsensical results. On balance I think it is better to drop the idea of superposition and work out results in a different way. Richard
Shame that hard experiments prove you are talking 100% bullshit. A scientist never ignores hard real data! 🤯
I don't see any problem in the concept of superpositions of alternatives as Penrose acknowledges and cal them alternative worlds. In fact, the idea of M construe such superpositions to grow and individuate through decoherence. And yes, these are the worlds of MW, so they belong to a single universe. MW postulates a single universe with many superposed worlds (in a modal sense) that interfere and proliferate.
When, exactly, did you see a quantum system in a superposition? (This is a trick question, think before you answer).
@@lepidoptera9337 why are you concerned about what I (personally) see ? What does that matter in this discussion ? Or you are posing a general question abut how one detects a superposition in a quantum system?
@@lcaires7351 Never mind. You obviously can't answer the question.
@@lepidoptera9337 Yes I can answer all questions, except silly ones, from people with funny nick names. Still, I will condescend, and tell you you that last time I saw a quantum system in superposition was a hong-ou-mandel experiment in the physics department.
@@lcaires7351 So you don't want to answer the question. How did that work out in school for you? Did the teacher give you an A+ for that kind of behavior? :-)
Not sure what they were showing in the physics department, but it was, for sure, not one quantum system in superposition. :-)
Penrose is still left with the 'observer' problem, which is not an issue in Many Worlds. Scientists follow Schrodinger's equation because it works, it always works. There's no 'religious' devotion involved. As soon as Penrose comes up with better math, all scientists will switch to the more effective equation.
You're definitely smarter than Roger... No.
Where are the many worlds of Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation? The Many Words Theory is one of the most popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, but for many people it seems wrong that we need an infinite number of extra dimensions or parallel universes just to explain our three dimensional Universe. In the mathematics of Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation the parallel universes are all at right-angles to each other. In this theory this represents the electric and magnetic fields always being at right-angles to each other. The light photon of quantum mechanics is the carrier of electromagnetic fields and it is time variations within magnetic fields that act as a source for electric fields and time varying electric fields is the source of magnetic fields. When one field is changing in time, then a field of the other is induced. This is an emergent process relative to the position and momentum of the objects creating the time variations the atoms themselves. The reason why this theory only needs three dimensions and one variable in the form of time is because it uses the holographic principle. This is formed by positive and negative charge forming a dynamic two dimensional boundary condition or Riemann surface.
If it's so popular, then why don't I know a single physicist personally who uses it or even borderline believes in it? Am I a physicist in a special universe where all the physicists whom I happen to know personally use Copenhagen? That's quite an unlikely universe based on your characterization of popularity, isn't it? It's a mystery!
I love Roger Penrose’s iconoclastic views on some of the most revered ideas in modern Physics, like Inflation, String Theory, M-Theory, the Multiverse and now it seems the Many Worlds Interpretation. MWI is an attractive idea, but how can you calculate the probability of ending up in ‘this’ universe, versus the infinity of others? And are those other ‘me’s’ really me, or just carbon copies claiming to be me? Are we all really One consciousness, or many?
Such questions of infinities and consciousness = “Quantum Theology”!
"how can you calculate the probability of ending up in ‘this’ universe, versus the infinity of others?" - Exactly as you would compute probabilities of outcomes in conventional quantum mechanics: via Borne's rule.
"Are we all really One consciousness, or many?" - Before the 'splitting' you were one consciousness; after the splitting you are many, who share a common past.
@@rv706 I don’t think you’ve got the problem. Using the Born Rule the probability at t0 of a particle at position x,y,z is: p(x,y,z)= |Psi (x,y,z,t0)^2| Yes?
However, if each locus x,y,z splits to give a different world and different version of me... how many loci are there in total? 1,1,1 will be different from 1.1,1,1 and 1.01,1,1 etc. It’s the fractal problem of measuring the shoreline... it depends on the length of your ruler! In effect there are infinite possible loci, even out where the probability is infinitesimal. So with a denominator of infinity, how could you have calculated the probability of this me ending up in this particular world, of the infinite possible me’s in infinite worlds? You can’t!
So, after the splitting, I’m still only one consciousness - this one... the others are not ‘me’. I don’t even care very much what happens to them!
If it's simply perception, then one could argue that the half full - half empty glass is a derivative of quantum mechanics!
Everything is a derivative of quantum mechanics. That's the whole point of quantum mechanics.
I don't know...I'm in two minds about that.
By understanding of time, space, and new understanding of electron just like the root mean square of electricity then we can change the timers then we can actually see different reality and stealth technology tried this where air plane appear out no where so the same space but different time is possible and because of the mean square root then no one can occupy space 100% unless we are death but by then space is not except permanent dead body is 100% occupied space because it is not vibrate not alive
this one word is fractal
Quantum mechanics is strange? Of course it is, the fact that it totally diminishes true science is the reason why.
Many worlds theory almost makes Copenhagen look reasonable.
I wish I had studied physics but I had a very strong strong aversion to the theory of relativity. It was an ugly theory to me and despite understanding the basic math and the concepts that followed I never could accept it. It's what drove me away. Quantum Field Theory is bringing me back in as a layman and like a physicist told me not too long ago in a hospital over a casual chat, the theory of relativity is just something you have to swallow and move on from...
The gentleman being interviewed speaks of the absurdity of a dead and alive cat. To me it is equally or more absurd that all particles are relative to each other in decay just based on speed, very simply put. But to each their own faith, I guess.
Boris would you mind elaborating? I'm curious
Apply a scepticism of physical common sense to surreal conclusions drawn just from maths, in any theory. Maths only applies to physical reality for as far as it decribes physically reasoned things, it is not grounds to assert that absurd surrealities are physically real.
@@das_it_mane I don't think I can anymore. I used to know it better before. But to voice an other objection more clearly. According to the theory of relativity if you were able to find tachyon particles then you would find something that can travel back in time as it would be faster than light. To me that's such an absurdity as time is nothing but an invention of the human mind to explain motion. Which many philosophers and physicists openly admit and discuss. Yet they still cling to this notion of a fourth dimension of time as something real.
At best you would travel before the reflection of light, you'd be able to see the past but never actually be in it.
I'm seeing more and more articles that suggest resolutions that do not take into account the theory of relativity or that manage to make predictions better without it nowdays.
I hope this lie dies one day, even if I won't be the one to expose it.
And the reason, I speculate, why we have the lie is simple. Academia is a corrupt world where your clout is based on how many references you have and the more published you are the better. The more you publish someone the more they publish you. The more your theories fit with those of someone else the safer you are. It's sadly a haven for conformity...
The theory of relativity was a nice mathematical model that worked for our needs in the early 20th century. So sadly it became our foundational understanding of the universe.
You cant seperate Shrodinger equation from matter and antimatter construction.
For matter to exist, anti matter must exist. There can be no matter universe without an equal and opposite antimatter universe.
It is like +1 -1 = 0. It is the only way to covert 0 into +1 and -1 (which should be thought of as net neutrality and equilibrium rather than nothing being present)
Yet we also know that anti matter and matter can not co exist (without a special field environment) as they instantly annihilate each other in the same dimension.
So the only way that anti matter can exist, which must exist for matter to exist, is to compartmentalise and seperate the two from each other.
That can only be echieved through the isolation of two unique dimensions (incidentally strangely reminiscent of special field containment of entanglement).
The inevitable consequence of which, is that we can not measure the true quantity of anti-energy and anti-matter, as we can not observe and measure it in our dimension (except special case).
So we have gravity saying that we have unobservable missing mass and energy, and the matter / anti-matter conundrum validating that.
So if this missing mass and energy is spread throughout space, exists alongside matter and energy but cant be measured/observed;
The logical conclusion is that there must be non energy and non matter ...ie holes in our dimension.
Now we have those holes that suck up energy in both micro electronics (semi conductors) and the black holes of space.
Thus we have energy circuits and conservation of energy between two parallel universes.
However, the missing mass accounts for 5/6th or 6/7th of the observable amount, which actually implies 3 dualistic universes....5 or 6 of which are holes.
So does that argue for a square or hexagonal 3D mesh/grid that locally contracts and expands to mimic heat/pressure/gravitational lensing?
It depends on who sees. Just like your cat sees things you don’t being in the same room.
Sorry, I can't watch Kuhn doing interviews. He takes up too much space and comes off as wanting to show off his own brilliance instead of focusing on the subject of the interview.
Love , Light , Awareness , IAM is reality and energy is all the forms and emptiness on virtual reality .... 😍💖🕊️🎶
Where is electricity before lightning strike? Nowhere, everywhere, potential is spread in different layers inside the clouds and on the ground, also in the magnetic field around the planet. After lightning strike ground, what happens with space from where potential was discharged? Nothing actually, i think, charge was balanced out by lightning and EM field became neutral. Another motion and various interactions of mass must occur before charge can build up again in some area. So we have many things at play here, one is energy potential dynamics, others are physical phenomena with observable, material and well defined outcomes.
Thing is, Schrodinger's device could be operated only by some kind of an electrical switch, if I'm not mistaken. So electrical field is where magic happens, not with a mechanical box, only electromagnetic potential is alive and dead at the same time, of course.
The problem with reality is its own gravitation towards our collective perception of Universe and life in Universe itself. This makes multiverse theory quite useless if we would like to "escape" to different universe using one's individual perception. It is possible, that we are constantly switching universes but within many limitations. For example if you don't have leg it would be quite hard to switch your universe to the world where your leg is regrown.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb
🌏👀😸
very strange things💯
Fashion.
Faith.
Fantasy.
It's a fad.
Good to know cause the very machine that allows you to type bs like that is powered by quantum mechanics :)
I was talking about the many-worlds interpretation. I don't know, if it's true or not, but it's definitely a fad now to a point of almost being a TV-trope. It probably strikes some very deep hord within us, how in some other universe things could've turn out differently or we could've made other choices...
@@dAvrilthebear Reality doesn't care about what's popular. The fact that MWI has gained so much steam isn't because of virtually anything Penrose is saying; it's actually in spite of that. The issue is that MWI is derived from a very literal place; in many ways it's the "simplest" version of QM. It's not arbitrary. It's not a faith or a fantasy when the predictive power is there for absolutely everything except our experience of second-to-second reality. But science doesn't exist to serve human intuition. What we experience moment to moment is the end of an anatomical process. By the time you consciously register an event, it's already "happened." To discredit MWI because it's not humanly intuitive is bad science, and worse, to present it as along the lines of "faith" in an effort to lazily discredit it is beneath Penrose, I'd have thought. You want to conjecture something, show some math and do some logic and reasoning proofs; don't just say "well I don't see anything so this is religion" and then shut your brain off. That's some sorry conjecture for a thinker of his magnitude.
ruclips.net/video/fmOudLM29qo/видео.html