It’s not that people couldn’t explain quantum mecamhanics. Niels Bohr didn’t want people to be bothered with a ”meaning” and people were more or less banned from quantum mechanics for wanting to know. An example is Everett as late as in the 1960s.
17:15 The “micro/macro” problem is different. 0.Misunderstandings come from a methodological oversight. 1. The probabilistic interpretation of physical phenomena by quantum theory implies the symmetry of the results: 50/50. 2. However, such an interpretation by quantum theory is a priori extrapolated to asymmetric phenomena. 3. For example, in the case of Schrodinger's cat, the radiation source is considered as a symmetrical/probabilistic (50/50) element of the experiment, however, it is combined with an asymmetric participant: a cat that, being alive or dead, has asymmetric states. 4. For clarity, you can “slightly” modify the experiment: place a dead cat in a "black box" with a radiation source. It seems that now even the most faithful follower of quantum theory will not claim that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time or will come to life in another universe. {The cunning plan “B” with a sleeping cat is: “Sweeping garbage under the carpet.” (Feynman) and is addressed to inattentive (sleepy) followers of quantum theory.} 5. It is better to put illuminated photo paper in a drawer: it is unlikely that the paper will react to the actions of the 50/50 source in such a way as to become usable again. 6. Events and phenomena themselves exist independently of the frame of reference, but their specific manifestations and quantitative ratios in different frames of reference (attention!) they can be completely different.* 7. So, if in your frame of reference you observe / measure and/ or evaluate / identify the probabilistic nature of a certain physical process in another frame of reference, for example, for a coin: 50/50; then this is your right, since all frames of reference are equal (not to be confused with equivalence). {By the way, entangled particles: each of the particles in its own frame of reference is equal with its spin, for example, up, with another particle with spin down, in a different coordinate system, but is not equivalent to the other.} 8. And in the system associated with the tossed coin, there is no probability: the usual natural physical process takes place here, and there is no need to move to another universe.** 9. It is clear that with all possible interpretations of quantum theory, the "tradition of one-sidedness”, unfortunately, stupidly/intrusively holds: for now. Even in the multi-world and with the “appearance of properties in particles due to measurement", Bell, Wigner… Hence the “observer effect". 10..Finally, the evaluation of the state function of the system under study (the universe) depends on the choice of the reference frame and coordinate system: the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device, a change in the physical /biological state of the observer, a change in the mental / intellectual state of the observer, that is, the detection of the next phase of evolution its own frame of reference; - thanks to which measurement becomes possible. 11. Jokes with time asymmetry are inexcusable even for such a "blindly lucky quantum theory". ---------------- *) - The equations that formulate the laws of physics should be invariant with respect to any coordinate transformations: "Equality" and "the same flow of processes" are not analogous concepts: and the word "relativity" itself contributed to the confusion of the concepts of "relative motion" and "relativism of phenomena". The relativity of motion determines the immutability of laws: the ambiguity of the word "relativity", when the content changes depending on whether it is applied to motion or to the formulation of physical laws, caused many errors." (Tonnela, Updating the concept of relativity in Einstein's physics). **) - When Einstein inadvertently noted: "God does not play dice," Bohr rightly pointed out: "One should not tell God how to rule the world." However, Einstein apparently meant that there is no randomness for bones in a lonely and aging Universe.
I am continually astounded at the ability of purportedly intelligent people to say absolutely nothing of substance whilst conveying an authoritarian insight on whatever topic they choose.
The following proves you are correct. It reveals the 3D+4D geometry of the "Quantum" unit. What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
...but I have questions. Is a photon that is emitted individually travel in all directions at the speed of light around the boundary (perhaps the EM field) until it collides with itself thus creating the particle we measure and an artificial element of time? Do the experiments you discuss account for time in that manner and do the experiments artificially set the probability of finding the particle because we have set up the experiment so that the photon can only either hit the target or not in the reverse direction of time? Does the size of the wave itself (the two humps) experience relativity? That all for now. I look forward to more videos from you and your team.
Well, much of the difficulty in understanding the two-slit experiment is due to imagining a „particle“ that goes out, every time the initial state is prepared. Instead what is prepared is „a quantum with a wave amplitude“. A quantum with a wave amplitude has no trouble in passing through two slits at the same time (Edit: because of the wave nature of the amplitude). Alas, we missed a single example of the amazing things that happen (that, apparently, no body could imagine before)!
No, you are probably right. That is the most parsimonious take, but big brain ego people cannot accept their lack of free will or lack of understanding, so they do all kinds of mental gymnastics like “superposition” to cope.
In a double slit experiment (DSE), a single electron going through the slits only creates single spot on the screen. If a single wavefront of a classical wave goes thru two slits we get peaks and troughs in several places, not one place - at same instant in time. Remember this crucial point. If we collect the spots of many electrons, they DO form a patterns made out of spots that has bands. Sure. But remember this is from a collection of large number of electrons. The electrons may have been sent one at a time with a gap of 1 day between each. It could also be superimposition of spots from many IDENTICAL DSEs through which we send only one electron each and then superimpose the spots. And we get band pattern from the spots. BUT remember this pattern form from many electrons and potentially over extended period of time. So I can by (partly) that a collection of electrons somehow have a wave interference like behavior. Sure. But how does that give a single electron a wave/particle dual nature is illogical. I have never understood why DSE is claimed to show a wave nature of a SINGLE electron. There may be other experiments that show the dual nature of a single electron, but DSE is not it. Thoughts?
Perhaps it would be more obvious if we were to repeat the same experiment on hundreds of identical DSE setups so that it’s clear the electrons are not interacting at all. Therefore, the only reason they display wave behaviour is because each electron interacts with itself as a wave before spontaneously collapsing into a particle. The confusing thing is not that they display this behaviour separately but that they can display both behaviours at once. Precisely when and why particles decohere is not detailed in our models.
@seanpierce9386 But a single electron creates a single spot. If a single electron was a wave, you would get multiple spots, equivalent to peaks of interference pattern of a single wavefront, i.e.. the places whose distance from the two slits is such that the split wave front peaks reach there, creating multiple peaks and troughs. I just find this talk of single electron interferes with itself as meaningless.
@@SandipChitale This is the wavefunction collapse. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the square norm of the wavefunction determines the probability density indicating where a particle will be found when “observed”. The problem is, it’s unclear what that means. As you point out, treating a wave as a particle suddenly seems wrong. Likely, it has to do with complex interactions with many atoms at once, constraining the position information. We don’t yet have a working model for this given the scale of that interaction. The “measurement” assumption works to incredible accuracy, so we use that.
Very intriguing interview. Confusing, but intriguing. Past + Future = Present. In classical physics, these are deterministic. Not sure how stochastic processes abide here. Weird stuff.
2:25 ... and I would say that there are several major themes several major thematic elements behind what Aharonov has done in the group done. The first one has to do with perhaps one of the basic differences between quantum mechanics and classical physics and this has to do with the issue of dterminism. 2:41 ... 4:10 an example: .... the first profound insight into the nature of quantum theory into quantum mechanics has to do with the role that boundary conditions play, classical physics says if you give me one boundary condition the future is not independent of that neither is the past quantum mechanics says if you know completely one boundary condition this does not tell you the future or the past in fact you can set one boundary condition in some sense independently of a future boundary condition you have these two boundary conditions if you're now asking about the properties of a Quantum system during the time between setting those two boudnary conditions it turns out the properties of a quantum system has tremendously richer kind of reality that shows up when you consider uh this fundamental difference between classical and quantum mechanics that you can set boundary conditions a past boundary condition and a future boundary condition indiependently of each other 5:50 ... 11:00 ... it gets even stranger with two phenomena which are we believe are at the very core the very deepest part of quantum mechanics started off by telling you that the essential difference between quantum theory and classical theory is the nature of the boundary conditions in quantum mechanics you can have many independent boundary conditons in classical physics you cannot and one of the big breakthroughs that occurred was a discovery a little over 20 yeas ago made by Yakir Horona ... and the question they were asking was if we have these two boudary conditions just how do they show up how is it what is the degree that they manifest themselves because even before that original discovery was made in the 60s people knew how to calculate perfectly well all the properties of a quantum system and what they discovered was that these two boundary conditions manifested themselves when you interacted with your particle or you measured your particle 12:23 in a very gentle way these are things called weak measurements and when you do these weak measurements and many of these have been done in the laboratory then something absolutely extraordinary comes out of the woodwork one of hte most profound aspects of quantum mechanics and as it turns out an extremmely useful discovery which has been really many physicists devote their careers to studying so when you do very gentle measurements it turns out what the kinds of properties that menifest themselves are dreamatically different from anything else anybody had ever imagined could be the nature of the quantum reality 13:12 so how can taht enable us to understand both the double slit experiment and the nature of quantum reality 13:18 JT:
A most confusing topic. I am still trying to understand the Heisenberg uncertainty priciple where we cannot know the position and the speed of a particle simultaneously. The more you know the particle's position, the less you will know of its speed and vice-versa Why?
It has to do with wave mechanics. You can view a function directly or use its frequency space instead. However, a helix has constant norm and thus can be anywhere. Similarly, a dirac delta (solitary peak) can have any frequency. You can also use wavelets, which lets you view some frequency and some positional information. But it’s always a tradeoff. Surprisingly, this happens for all waves. The difference is that particles can suddenly become more localized (decoherence) and we don’t know why. The trouble is that we can’t look any closer to see what it’s made of, and have to guess. That’s the real mystery.
yet time has one and only one direction the direction dictated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics how does his work play with this fundamental law? kuhn should’ve asked
rossw1 • Because "time" as a real quantity doesn't exist. There are no other "regions" where the universal dynamic goes in a different way. The natural, causal iterative realm can go naturally and unobstructed in its own natural way. No other realm exists to change this natural and universal dynamic. It is only itself, with itself, by itself, through itself. There's nothing else out there but itself taking the unobstructed direction of the least resistance of its own dynamic through itself. You've read too much SF literature in your life and let your brain confuse it for reality.
catherinem9 • The real and natural dynamic of the Universe is very well understood. The so-called "quantum world" is an abstract mathematical concept created by desperate and untalented indoctrinated minds.
There’s an inconsistency with how the two theories are formulated. This is the next big step and it’s been researched for a while. The term you want to search for is quantum gravity. The best we have is string theory, though it’s famously even more difficult to understand than quantum theory. Also, Stephen Wolfram’s physics project looks promising.
We already have simple explanations of quantum mechanics provided by Schrodinger himself: stop trying to fill in the gaps between interactions. We don't need to _add_ anything to understand quantum mechanics, we only need to _substract_ the metaphysical assumption that particles have absolute states independent of interactions with other systems, and then everything is explained from that premise alone. This would later develop into relational quantum mechanics, which does give us a simple local and philosophically realist interpretation without a measurement problem, which he doesn't explain why that's a bad way to view it.
This guy is exceedingly frustrating to listen to- and very vague. He kept being like "The most extraordinary properties were observed..." but never once explained what even one of these properties were. And you can't just say "A wave travels from the future toward the present." as if that statement needs no further explanation or setup. I didn't hear him explain anything about what quantum mechanics means- I heard him talk about how odd it is- in a very frustratingly slow, drawn-out way- but that was about it.
Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness.
There’s more than that. Big bang, black holes, and so many things are the assumed extrapolation of mathematical models not meant to deal with the extremes of the function. And even more, generally, people have faith in scientific theories.
@@SciD1 It warms my heart to see people calling BS on superposition. Before I took the time to study up on it, I always had some intuition that someone was doing something fishy, but I doubted that intuition and figured that it must be due to my ignorance.
@@deanodebo when asking physicists to tell us what an atom looks like, or what is the real cause for gravity, they often reply that those are philosophical questions, and it's not their job. But why the hell do they still insist on doing it anyway!!?? They are only reifying mathematical equations into real physical objects, like the black hole, space-time, waves, and so on...
@@jbone13131313 you are one of the very few who happens to agree with me. I thought all hope for humanity was doomed. Humans are highly irrational creatures, no matter the field of study or academic background. I now see that physics is probably the best field for loonies.
There are NOT physic math tool to predict quanta mechanics. Figure out random particles though physic math model it is inconsistency with reality quanta mechanics.
“If you KNOW the boundary conditions”! That is assuming that you can know this. A particle goes through the two slits in the orthodox Bohrian complementarity view! So that is an orthodox interpretation. So nobody understands it, what is clear is that someone didn’t understand it. Weak Measurement, you certainly are not in Kansas / Copenhagen any more. 14:06 So you are opening and closing the opposite slit from which the “real particle” is going through, how does the particle real particle know about this? Seems like you are making an assumption. 15:26 The “real particle” has “observables that simply know” that the other slit is open or closed. A bit “hand-wavy”.
Currently, what I am thinking is the problem is that physicists and mathematicians are the most intelligent people on the planet which means that they should be leading every level of human life where physics and math applies; and in order to do so they need to be given their rightful place in leadership academically, politically and in entertainment. The reason that we have not given them their rightful place is because of the interplay between self-respect and self-hate within each member of the global population. This is about revealing the false beliefs associated with the notion of superiority. This is an old idea that has been revealed by the faculty of Women's Studies, and once we break it, then we just need to respect intelligence without out it. I suspect this will cause a cascading effect where the application of non-essentialism in many areas we commonly believe to be a necessary condition to be a certain object, will allow us to understand how both events and objects can have seemingly contradictory properties. This moves everyone's worldview away from dogma, and dualism towards multi-polarity or non-duality. In summary, physicists and mathematicians will understand how to take their rightful place as the most intelligent people on the planet in absence of being superior, necessarily. This is a matter of making and affirming the distinction and then leading by example for the rest of the global population. This is what we have been waiting for. Ask experts in Women's Studies. Try it for yourself, just as you process this possibility with your critical reason and you begin to experience "superiority" as no longer an absolute, objective property, and now as relative and dynamic, so will this affect be possible for other old objective truths becoming experienced in a modernized way. Relative to what? Exactly. Precisely. You just opened up and you may go down the rabbit hole of the faculty of women's studies... Absolute truth about superiority exists, but like consciousness, it is not knowable in the way it was previously thought to be. What am I talking about? Authority is not an absolute constant and is freed up to shift like a measurable force relative to the variables of the equation.
There are no particles, everything is a perturbation of the ether. This can explain everything. And because it is vibration you get this non deterministic behavior. What he said is wrong because he is stuck in the particle thinking, the standard model is wrong and that is also why quantum mechanics does not make sense…
All QM does is describe what we observe, very accurately. What we have trouble reasoning about is the behaviour we observe. Take the double-slit experiment, or any other experiment demonstrating what we call quantum effects. Pretend the theories and mathematics of QM don't exist. Is it any easier to understand what we observe happening when we do the experiment?
My guess is that particles are transient boundary conditions of the more persistent and fundamental quantum field. The quantum field is modified through the appearance of transient particle like wave packets which immediately pop back out of existence after the boundary conditions of the quantum field alteration is complete.
Have you read about the quantum field theory? It describes pretty closely what you just wrote, particles are indeed seen as excitations or perturbations of quantum fields.
@@simonhibbs887 double split and entaglement experiments show nothing weird and can all be explained by simple wave theories, you dont need QM for that. Double split is just interference (note that you need specific geometry for split and there is NO detector capable to see which slit it goes through which does not interrupt the measurement) entanglement is simply explained by Malus law. about the particles, these are just certain closed loop perturbations that look like things. Note that many particles have NEVER been detected directly, only inferred, like Higgs, Quarks,... and then dont get me started on the dark side which QM has no explanation for. I dont care if it predicts experiments, it is just a theoretical model, which does not EXPLAIN anything and causes a lot of confusion (for which there is no reason to if we did not take the Copenhagen route (like double split and entanglement)
You're the first man here I've ever seen mention this. I follow a very brilliant teacher that mainstream academicians seem to ignore. 'All is consubstantial; all perturbation modalities of the Aether.' He, in Ken Wheeler, cracked the G.U.T - grand unified theory, but he won't be acknowledged because he's not part of the consensus.
Simon hibbs thinks he's an authority when it concerns science. In simon, a proud person who identifies to materialism. He talks about fMRI's, computations, particles, and the pseudo made up term 'quantum' that has no foundation or basis - it's materialists dogma. No inclination does the guy have in wanting to learn from the giants and gods of field theory in Pythagoras, Plato, Poincare, Maxwell, and Steinmetz. He actually lied about Plato and Tesla, Poincare, etc. to - saying that Plato's conclusions were wrong, and Tesla would have been on the quantum ban wagon had he lived a little longer, except, he critised most harshly Einstein relativity - but he can't see it. In science, man isn't supposed to impose his partialities upon research or expedition; and dispassionate does not mean no emotions, rather not influence by strong emotions. Because he displaced Reason, Logic, and synthesis with his mind and conditioned mental construct, he is most reprehensible and irrational. For he is incapable of giving any kind of demonstration, explication and exposition of what's fundamental, how all this, all of everything works, the different levels and theophanies and epiphanies. Yet he stands pridefully, fully proud of his physicalist dogma portraying it and himself to be rational, therefore, in an passive aggressive-like attempt, both unwittingly and indirectly, he asserts such greek giants and gods of field theory are most obsolete. All he can do and does is copy& paste, juggling around some facts. Because I actually study, metaphysics being most fundamental, it's acknowledged concerning the lower daimons, that preserve the material realm and phenomena, are more pretentious, vain, self centered, and such materialists, who ultimately worship matter, take on the qualities of these lower daimons, as is what they open the door to and allow to come through. This guy, simon, has no substance, cares not to really learn anything, acts like an authority, precludes the Giants - whom are a 100x more brilliant, intelligent and wise than he - lives not by the principles, no mutual connection with such virtues and universals in truth, justice, beauty, harmony, essence, energy, being, life...etc. What else could a man like him, envision as goal, other than that of a.i., augmentation, eugenics.... a further going out, a scattering, greater ignorance, modulation in matter, more division, contention, calamity... a desire not of mutuality with all emanation and nature and all life and spirit and Truth, but rather a sickness in controlling all nature, energy, and life. The guy replies as if he is rational. I see the contrary. The pseudo man in simon is whom the NWO and cabal will recruit for in places of power in executive heads and such authorities. And he'll be very proud to consider himself as such.... a dream of shaking hands with the president of the United States of America as everyone talks pictures, has he. 'Science of the 21 Century', just look at what we have accomplished compared to the mud hut dwellers. Vain.
Interesting comment, indeed many scientists are not actually looking for truth, just repeating same stories within the boundaries they have set . Everything outside is criticized . Perhaps if you did not know already, i recommend the blog of Physics Detective
I really get under your skin, don't I? I considered making fun of this, but the thing is I have an aunt that believes that the world is run by a cabal of 'Luciferian' billionaires. A few years ago she was committed for a while after having a severe breakdown, and when we visited she told us she was an agent in a secret program to infiltrate the psychiatric unit, and would soon be exposing their corruption and closing the whole place down (which never happened of course). She seemed to recover and went back to living at home for a while but now she's on about conspiracies again. So, I have personal experience of how damaging this stuff can be to people.
@@S3RAVA3LM Never stop being you. My dream is you, michaelangelope, Maxwell-mv9rx and evaadam on a desert island. You guys are so much fun. Man, I'd fund that show out of my own pocket. Spend some of that NWO Cabal money. Anyway, at an intellectual level, you I respect. For what that's worth. There's an intelligence behind your comments that unfortunately only shines occasionally. I genuinely wish you'd engage in substantive debate more often, I'm sure I'd learn from it.
Help! I need help! Who is listening! Who understood? Hablo español, necesito ayuda. Parlo italiano, ho bisogno di aiuto. Are you or your loved ones in danger? Are you in need of help? Would you dare to play a psychological game? Who can win this psychological game? The game is played in real time and you have one hour to stop the war and save your life. You are in a role playing game, your character is you in real life with other past and circumstances. You are waiting on death row to be executed in one hour. If for argument's sake you are reading me now at 5 o'clock in the evening you win the game if by 6 o'clock the war stops. To get your execution interrupted the war has to end. To end the war the discovery that God exists has to be news. One by one I don't win the debate. The truth that saves literally your life is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. You win the game if you understand what you and others have to do to abolish the death penalty. What do you do? Next time you roll the dice could be the last. Thank you.
@@anteodedi8937that, too, is what communists do - blame others of what they themselves are guilty of. You're not only most pretentious and on the narcissistic spectrum(a mental illness), but you haven't any demonstrations, explication or exposition to back up your tedious beliefs and bias. Remember, opinions are reflections from a person's inner projections. And your opinion are most irrational.
It’s not that people couldn’t explain quantum mecamhanics. Niels Bohr didn’t want people to be bothered with a ”meaning” and people were more or less banned from quantum mechanics for wanting to know. An example is Everett as late as in the 1960s.
Why does he get exceedingly vague as this goes on?
Yes.
If that is a good explanation of quantum theory, we are really in trouble. What if Robert wasn't there to help him along?
17:15 The “micro/macro” problem is different.
0.Misunderstandings come from a methodological oversight.
1. The probabilistic interpretation of physical phenomena by quantum theory implies the symmetry of the results: 50/50.
2. However, such an interpretation by quantum theory is a priori extrapolated to asymmetric phenomena.
3. For example, in the case of Schrodinger's cat, the radiation source is considered as a symmetrical/probabilistic (50/50) element of the experiment, however, it is combined with an asymmetric participant: a cat that, being alive or dead, has asymmetric states.
4. For clarity, you can “slightly” modify the experiment: place a dead cat in a "black box" with a radiation source. It seems that now even the most faithful follower of quantum theory will not claim that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time or will come to life in another universe.
{The cunning plan “B” with a sleeping cat is: “Sweeping garbage under the carpet.” (Feynman) and is addressed to inattentive (sleepy) followers of quantum theory.}
5. It is better to put illuminated photo paper in a drawer: it is unlikely that the paper will react to the actions of the 50/50 source in such a way as to become usable again.
6. Events and phenomena themselves exist independently of the frame of reference, but their specific manifestations and quantitative ratios in different frames of reference (attention!) they can be completely different.*
7. So, if in your frame of reference you observe / measure and/ or evaluate / identify the probabilistic nature of a certain physical process in another frame of reference, for example, for a coin: 50/50; then this is your right, since all frames of reference are equal (not to be confused with equivalence).
{By the way, entangled particles: each of the particles in its own frame of reference is equal with its spin, for example, up, with another particle with spin down, in a different coordinate system, but is not equivalent to the other.}
8. And in the system associated with the tossed coin, there is no probability: the usual natural physical process takes place here, and there is no need to move to another universe.**
9. It is clear that with all possible interpretations of quantum theory, the "tradition of one-sidedness”, unfortunately, stupidly/intrusively holds: for now.
Even in the multi-world and with the “appearance of properties in particles due to measurement", Bell, Wigner… Hence the “observer effect".
10..Finally, the evaluation of the state function of the system under study (the universe) depends on the choice of the reference frame and coordinate system: the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device, a change in the physical /biological state of the observer, a change in the mental / intellectual state of the observer, that is, the detection of the next phase of evolution its own frame of reference; - thanks to which measurement becomes possible.
11. Jokes with time asymmetry are inexcusable even for such a "blindly lucky quantum theory".
----------------
*) - The equations that formulate the laws of physics should be invariant with respect to any coordinate transformations: "Equality" and "the same flow of processes" are not analogous concepts: and the word "relativity" itself contributed to the confusion of the concepts of "relative motion" and "relativism of phenomena".
The relativity of motion determines the immutability of laws:
the ambiguity of the word "relativity", when the content changes depending on whether it is applied to motion or to the formulation of physical laws, caused many errors." (Tonnela, Updating the concept of relativity in Einstein's physics).
**) - When Einstein inadvertently noted: "God does not play dice," Bohr rightly pointed out: "One should not tell God how to rule the world."
However, Einstein apparently meant
that there is no randomness for bones in a lonely and aging Universe.
I am continually astounded at the ability of purportedly intelligent people to say absolutely nothing of substance whilst conveying an authoritarian insight on whatever topic they choose.
Quantum mechanics is statistics of cyclic machines.
The following proves you are correct. It reveals the 3D+4D geometry of the "Quantum" unit.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Thank you, Jeff! I think you got it. It's brilliant experimental proof and changes my entire view of the scaling up of quantum time and space.
...but I have questions. Is a photon that is emitted individually travel in all directions at the speed of light around the boundary (perhaps the EM field) until it collides with itself thus creating the particle we measure and an artificial element of time? Do the experiments you discuss account for time in that manner and do the experiments artificially set the probability of finding the particle because we have set up the experiment so that the photon can only either hit the target or not in the reverse direction of time? Does the size of the wave itself (the two humps) experience relativity? That all for now. I look forward to more videos from you and your team.
Well, much of the difficulty in understanding the two-slit experiment is due to imagining a „particle“ that goes out, every time the initial state is prepared. Instead what is prepared is „a quantum with a wave amplitude“. A quantum with a wave amplitude has no trouble in passing through two slits at the same time (Edit: because of the wave nature of the amplitude).
Alas, we missed a single example of the amazing things that happen (that, apparently, no body could imagine before)!
It seems quantum systems don't experience reality in the limited way we do.
It probably has to do with our limited ability to passively observe it.
Doesn't this mean that reality is SUPER deterministic or am I one of those people who pretend to understand the unfathomable?
No, you are probably right. That is the most parsimonious take, but big brain ego people cannot accept their lack of free will or lack of understanding, so they do all kinds of mental gymnastics like “superposition” to cope.
"Gentle measurements". Ok, then.
In a double slit experiment (DSE), a single electron going through the slits only creates single spot on the screen. If a single wavefront of a classical wave goes thru two slits we get peaks and troughs in several places, not one place - at same instant in time. Remember this crucial point. If we collect the spots of many electrons, they DO form a patterns made out of spots that has bands. Sure. But remember this is from a collection of large number of electrons. The electrons may have been sent one at a time with a gap of 1 day between each. It could also be superimposition of spots from many IDENTICAL DSEs through which we send only one electron each and then superimpose the spots. And we get band pattern from the spots. BUT remember this pattern form from many electrons and potentially over extended period of time. So I can by (partly) that a collection of electrons somehow have a wave interference like behavior. Sure. But how does that give a single electron a wave/particle dual nature is illogical. I have never understood why DSE is claimed to show a wave nature of a SINGLE electron. There may be other experiments that show the dual nature of a single electron, but DSE is not it.
Thoughts?
Perhaps it would be more obvious if we were to repeat the same experiment on hundreds of identical DSE setups so that it’s clear the electrons are not interacting at all. Therefore, the only reason they display wave behaviour is because each electron interacts with itself as a wave before spontaneously collapsing into a particle. The confusing thing is not that they display this behaviour separately but that they can display both behaviours at once. Precisely when and why particles decohere is not detailed in our models.
@seanpierce9386 But a single electron creates a single spot. If a single electron was a wave, you would get multiple spots, equivalent to peaks of interference pattern of a single wavefront, i.e.. the places whose distance from the two slits is such that the split wave front peaks reach there, creating multiple peaks and troughs.
I just find this talk of single electron interferes with itself as meaningless.
@@SandipChitale This is the wavefunction collapse. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the square norm of the wavefunction determines the probability density indicating where a particle will be found when “observed”. The problem is, it’s unclear what that means. As you point out, treating a wave as a particle suddenly seems wrong. Likely, it has to do with complex interactions with many atoms at once, constraining the position information. We don’t yet have a working model for this given the scale of that interaction. The “measurement” assumption works to incredible accuracy, so we use that.
Well, then it's not an interference pattern. It's an interference distribution.
Very intriguing interview. Confusing, but intriguing. Past + Future = Present. In classical physics, these are deterministic. Not sure how stochastic processes abide here. Weird stuff.
How do you experimentally take a particle from the past and the future to view the interaction?
2:25 ... and I would say that there are several major themes several major thematic elements behind what Aharonov has done in the group done. The first one has to do with perhaps one of the basic differences between quantum mechanics and classical physics and this has to do with the issue of dterminism. 2:41 ... 4:10 an example: .... the first profound insight into the nature of quantum theory into quantum mechanics has to do with the role that boundary conditions play, classical physics says if you give me one boundary condition the future is not independent of that neither is the past quantum mechanics says if you know completely one boundary condition this does not tell you the future or the past in fact you can set one boundary condition in some sense independently of a future boundary condition you have these two boundary conditions if you're now asking about the properties of a Quantum system during the time between setting those two boudnary conditions it turns out the properties of a quantum system has tremendously richer kind of reality that shows up when you consider uh this fundamental difference between classical and quantum mechanics that you can set boundary conditions a past boundary condition and a future boundary condition indiependently of each other 5:50 ... 11:00 ... it gets even stranger with two phenomena which are we believe are at the very core the very deepest part of quantum mechanics started off by telling you that the essential difference between quantum theory and classical theory is the nature of the boundary conditions in quantum mechanics you can have many independent boundary conditons in classical physics you cannot and one of the big breakthroughs that occurred was a discovery a little over 20 yeas ago made by Yakir Horona ... and the question they were asking was if we have these two boudary conditions just how do they show up how is it what is the degree that they manifest themselves because even before that original discovery was made in the 60s people knew how to calculate perfectly well all the properties of a quantum system and what they discovered was that these two boundary conditions manifested themselves when you interacted with your particle or you measured your particle 12:23 in a very gentle way these are things called weak measurements and when you do these weak measurements and many of these have been done in the laboratory then something absolutely extraordinary comes out of the woodwork one of hte most profound aspects of quantum mechanics and as it turns out an extremmely useful discovery which has been really many physicists devote their careers to studying so when you do very gentle measurements it turns out what the kinds of properties that menifest themselves are dreamatically different from anything else anybody had ever imagined could be the nature of the quantum reality 13:12 so how can taht enable us to understand both the double slit experiment and the nature of quantum reality 13:18 JT:
A most confusing topic. I am still trying to understand the Heisenberg uncertainty priciple where we cannot know the position and the speed of a particle simultaneously. The more you know the particle's position, the less you will know of its speed and vice-versa Why?
It has to do with wave mechanics. You can view a function directly or use its frequency space instead. However, a helix has constant norm and thus can be anywhere. Similarly, a dirac delta (solitary peak) can have any frequency. You can also use wavelets, which lets you view some frequency and some positional information. But it’s always a tradeoff.
Surprisingly, this happens for all waves. The difference is that particles can suddenly become more localized (decoherence) and we don’t know why. The trouble is that we can’t look any closer to see what it’s made of, and have to guess. That’s the real mystery.
yet
time has one and only one direction
the direction dictated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics
how does his work play with this fundamental law?
kuhn should’ve asked
if the equations of physics are time invariant
why aren’t there entire regions of the universe where time is going the other direction?
One must assume that the “arrow of time” isn’t real. Kinda a “big ask”. Gotta love the video’s chutzpah.
The connection between the quantum world and ours is not understood. You have to accept that.
rossw1 • Because "time" as a real quantity doesn't exist.
There are no other "regions" where the universal dynamic goes in a different way. The natural, causal iterative realm can go naturally and unobstructed in its own natural way.
No other realm exists to change this natural and universal dynamic.
It is only itself, with itself, by itself, through itself.
There's nothing else out there but itself taking the unobstructed direction of the least resistance of its own dynamic through itself.
You've read too much SF literature in your life and let your brain confuse it for reality.
catherinem9 • The real and natural dynamic of the Universe is very well understood.
The so-called "quantum world" is an abstract mathematical concept created by desperate and untalented indoctrinated minds.
are the probabilities of quantum wave influenced by space - time gravity?
There’s an inconsistency with how the two theories are formulated. This is the next big step and it’s been researched for a while. The term you want to search for is quantum gravity.
The best we have is string theory, though it’s famously even more difficult to understand than quantum theory. Also, Stephen Wolfram’s physics project looks promising.
We already have simple explanations of quantum mechanics provided by Schrodinger himself: stop trying to fill in the gaps between interactions. We don't need to _add_ anything to understand quantum mechanics, we only need to _substract_ the metaphysical assumption that particles have absolute states independent of interactions with other systems, and then everything is explained from that premise alone. This would later develop into relational quantum mechanics, which does give us a simple local and philosophically realist interpretation without a measurement problem, which he doesn't explain why that's a bad way to view it.
maybe quantum mechanics provides infrastructure by which present can move into future?
Maybe the particle is in different universes at the same. Maybe all particles are multidimensional.
might be quantum wave except where space - time gravity measure a particle?
You know this guy pleasures himself listening to the audio of his own recorded lectures.
This guy is exceedingly frustrating to listen to- and very vague. He kept being like "The most extraordinary properties were observed..." but never once explained what even one of these properties were. And you can't just say "A wave travels from the future toward the present." as if that statement needs no further explanation or setup. I didn't hear him explain anything about what quantum mechanics means- I heard him talk about how odd it is- in a very frustratingly slow, drawn-out way- but that was about it.
A very vague, hand-wavy explanation at best.
quantum mechanics not about understanding, more about future predictions?
2 mins and 19 seconds in before he actually tries to answer a direct question.
Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness.
There’s more than that. Big bang, black holes, and so many things are the assumed extrapolation of mathematical models not meant to deal with the extremes of the function.
And even more, generally, people have faith in scientific theories.
I absolutely agree with both of you!
@@SciD1 It warms my heart to see people calling BS on superposition. Before I took the time to study up on it, I always had some intuition that someone was doing something fishy, but I doubted that intuition and figured that it must be due to my ignorance.
@@deanodebo when asking physicists to tell us what an atom looks like, or what is the real cause for gravity, they often reply that those are philosophical questions, and it's not their job. But why the hell do they still insist on doing it anyway!!?? They are only reifying mathematical equations into real physical objects, like the black hole, space-time, waves, and so on...
@@jbone13131313 you are one of the very few who happens to agree with me. I thought all hope for humanity was doomed. Humans are highly irrational creatures, no matter the field of study or academic background. I now see that physics is probably the best field for loonies.
Very frustrating interview, he talks a lot but never really says anything.
I’m not even going to watch the rest, I’m out.
There are NOT physic math tool to predict quanta mechanics. Figure out random particles though physic math model it is inconsistency with reality quanta mechanics.
Prove it
you lost me at boundary conditions
“If you KNOW the boundary conditions”! That is assuming that you can know this.
A particle goes through the two slits in the orthodox Bohrian complementarity view! So that is an orthodox interpretation.
So nobody understands it, what is clear is that someone didn’t understand it.
Weak Measurement, you certainly are not in Kansas / Copenhagen any more.
14:06 So you are opening and closing the opposite slit from which the “real particle” is going through, how does the particle real particle know about this? Seems like you are making an assumption.
15:26 The “real particle” has “observables that simply know” that the other slit is open or closed. A bit “hand-wavy”.
🧐whew I enjoyed conversation , absorption for me, a little , Just trying To coalesce science/ religion 🤭👍
Its Quantum Consciousness.
Good one.
One of the not so great interviews
Currently, what I am thinking is the problem is that physicists and mathematicians are the most intelligent people on the planet which means that they should be leading every level of human life where physics and math applies; and in order to do so they need to be given their rightful place in leadership academically, politically and in entertainment. The reason that we have not given them their rightful place is because of the interplay between self-respect and self-hate within each member of the global population. This is about revealing the false beliefs associated with the notion of superiority. This is an old idea that has been revealed by the faculty of Women's Studies, and once we break it, then we just need to respect intelligence without out it. I suspect this will cause a cascading effect where the application of non-essentialism in many areas we commonly believe to be a necessary condition to be a certain object, will allow us to understand how both events and objects can have seemingly contradictory properties. This moves everyone's worldview away from dogma, and dualism towards multi-polarity or non-duality. In summary, physicists and mathematicians will understand how to take their rightful place as the most intelligent people on the planet in absence of being superior, necessarily. This is a matter of making and affirming the distinction and then leading by example for the rest of the global population. This is what we have been waiting for. Ask experts in Women's Studies. Try it for yourself, just as you process this possibility with your critical reason and you begin to experience "superiority" as no longer an absolute, objective property, and now as relative and dynamic, so will this affect be possible for other old objective truths becoming experienced in a modernized way. Relative to what? Exactly. Precisely. You just opened up and you may go down the rabbit hole of the faculty of women's studies... Absolute truth about superiority exists, but like consciousness, it is not knowable in the way it was previously thought to be. What am I talking about? Authority is not an absolute constant and is freed up to shift like a measurable force relative to the variables of the equation.
You're the epitome of the result of being a beta to the consensus. Congrats. You said nothing. Know nothing.
Lot of concepts here. Nonduality is about breaking free of all conceptual thought.
@@jbone13131313 Yes, that is why I placed non-duality on the end of a continuum with these gradations in between and dogma on the other pole.
There are no particles, everything is a perturbation of the ether. This can explain everything. And because it is vibration you get this non deterministic behavior. What he said is wrong because he is stuck in the particle thinking, the standard model is wrong and that is also why quantum mechanics does not make sense…
All QM does is describe what we observe, very accurately. What we have trouble reasoning about is the behaviour we observe. Take the double-slit experiment, or any other experiment demonstrating what we call quantum effects. Pretend the theories and mathematics of QM don't exist. Is it any easier to understand what we observe happening when we do the experiment?
My guess is that particles are transient boundary conditions of the more persistent and fundamental quantum field. The quantum field is modified through the appearance of transient particle like wave packets which immediately pop back out of existence after the boundary conditions of the quantum field alteration is complete.
Have you read about the quantum field theory? It describes pretty closely what you just wrote, particles are indeed seen as excitations or perturbations of quantum fields.
@@simonhibbs887 double split and entaglement experiments show nothing weird and can all be explained by simple wave theories, you dont need QM for that. Double split is just interference (note that you need specific geometry for split and there is NO detector capable to see which slit it goes through which does not interrupt the measurement) entanglement is simply explained by Malus law. about the particles, these are just certain closed loop perturbations that look like things. Note that many particles have NEVER been detected directly, only inferred, like Higgs, Quarks,... and then dont get me started on the dark side which QM has no explanation for. I dont care if it predicts experiments, it is just a theoretical model, which does not EXPLAIN anything and causes a lot of confusion (for which there is no reason to if we did not take the Copenhagen route (like double split and entanglement)
You're the first man here I've ever seen mention this. I follow a very brilliant teacher that mainstream academicians seem to ignore. 'All is consubstantial; all perturbation modalities of the Aether.' He, in Ken Wheeler, cracked the G.U.T - grand unified theory, but he won't be acknowledged because he's not part of the consensus.
Simon hibbs thinks he's an authority when it concerns science. In simon, a proud person who identifies to materialism. He talks about fMRI's, computations, particles, and the pseudo made up term 'quantum' that has no foundation or basis - it's materialists dogma. No inclination does the guy have in wanting to learn from the giants and gods of field theory in Pythagoras, Plato, Poincare, Maxwell, and Steinmetz. He actually lied about Plato and Tesla, Poincare, etc. to - saying that Plato's conclusions were wrong, and Tesla would have been on the quantum ban wagon had he lived a little longer, except, he critised most harshly Einstein relativity - but he can't see it. In science, man isn't supposed to impose his partialities upon research or expedition; and dispassionate does not mean no emotions, rather not influence by strong emotions. Because he displaced Reason, Logic, and synthesis with his mind and conditioned mental construct, he is most reprehensible and irrational. For he is incapable of giving any kind of demonstration, explication and exposition of what's fundamental, how all this, all of everything works, the different levels and theophanies and epiphanies. Yet he stands pridefully, fully proud of his physicalist dogma portraying it and himself to be rational, therefore, in an passive aggressive-like attempt, both unwittingly and indirectly, he asserts such greek giants and gods of field theory are most obsolete. All he can do and does is copy& paste, juggling around some facts. Because I actually study, metaphysics being most fundamental, it's acknowledged concerning the lower daimons, that preserve the material realm and phenomena, are more pretentious, vain, self centered, and such materialists, who ultimately worship matter, take on the qualities of these lower daimons, as is what they open the door to and allow to come through.
This guy, simon, has no substance, cares not to really learn anything, acts like an authority, precludes the Giants - whom are a 100x more brilliant, intelligent and wise than he - lives not by the principles, no mutual connection with such virtues and universals in truth, justice, beauty, harmony, essence, energy, being, life...etc. What else could a man like him, envision as goal, other than that of a.i., augmentation, eugenics.... a further going out, a scattering, greater ignorance, modulation in matter, more division, contention, calamity... a desire not of mutuality with all emanation and nature and all life and spirit and Truth, but rather a sickness in controlling all nature, energy, and life. The guy replies as if he is rational. I see the contrary. The pseudo man in simon is whom the NWO and cabal will recruit for in places of power in executive heads and such authorities. And he'll be very proud to consider himself as such.... a dream of shaking hands with the president of the United States of America as everyone talks pictures, has he. 'Science of the 21 Century', just look at what we have accomplished compared to the mud hut dwellers. Vain.
Interesting comment, indeed many scientists are not actually looking for truth, just repeating same stories within the boundaries they have set . Everything outside is criticized . Perhaps if you did not know already, i recommend the blog of Physics Detective
I really get under your skin, don't I? I considered making fun of this, but the thing is I have an aunt that believes that the world is run by a cabal of 'Luciferian' billionaires. A few years ago she was committed for a while after having a severe breakdown, and when we visited she told us she was an agent in a secret program to infiltrate the psychiatric unit, and would soon be exposing their corruption and closing the whole place down (which never happened of course). She seemed to recover and went back to living at home for a while but now she's on about conspiracies again. So, I have personal experience of how damaging this stuff can be to people.
@@simonhibbs887 working on my polemics - you're a worthy person to scorn. You as a human being I do respect, but as a man, you're no man at all.
@@S3RAVA3LM Never stop being you. My dream is you, michaelangelope, Maxwell-mv9rx and evaadam on a desert island. You guys are so much fun. Man, I'd fund that show out of my own pocket. Spend some of that NWO Cabal money. Anyway, at an intellectual level, you I respect. For what that's worth. There's an intelligence behind your comments that unfortunately only shines occasionally. I genuinely wish you'd engage in substantive debate more often, I'm sure I'd learn from it.
@Thought-Police-101 Oh believe me, I can be an arse on a bad day. 😈
Help! I need help! Who is listening! Who understood? Hablo español, necesito ayuda. Parlo italiano, ho bisogno di aiuto. Are you or your loved ones in danger? Are you in need of help? Would you dare to play a psychological game? Who can win this psychological game? The game is played in real time and you have one hour to stop the war and save your life. You are in a role playing game, your character is you in real life with other past and circumstances. You are waiting on death row to be executed in one hour. If for argument's sake you are reading me now at 5 o'clock in the evening you win the game if by 6 o'clock the war stops. To get your execution interrupted the war has to end. To end the war the discovery that God exists has to be news. One by one I don't win the debate. The truth that saves literally your life is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. You win the game if you understand what you and others have to do to abolish the death penalty. What do you do? Next time you roll the dice could be the last. Thank you.
For a moment, I thought that s3rava3lm was the only one with mental health issues around here. It seems like I was mistaken!
@@anteodedi8937that, too, is what communists do - blame others of what they themselves are guilty of. You're not only most pretentious and on the narcissistic spectrum(a mental illness), but you haven't any demonstrations, explication or exposition to back up your tedious beliefs and bias.
Remember, opinions are reflections from a person's inner projections. And your opinion are most irrational.
@@anteodedi8937 there is someone else around here that can't make sense? Greaaaaaat.
513th viewer :P