Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality
Articles,  Blog

Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality

So Quantum Mechanics, is the subject of the discussion here tonight. And look it’s the year 2014 And the first glimmers of the Quantum Mechanics really came on the scene on the early part of the 20th Century. Certainly by 1930 or so the basic framework of Quantum Mechanics was place and yet, today right some 80 years later there are still questions at our right for discussion at the foundations of the subject questions that are still controversial, and we’re going to discuss one of those controversial questions here tonight so you’ll see various perspectives on that. At the same time, quantum mechanics of all the subjects of modern physics has really been embraced by the culture of at least the language of QM has been embraced by the culture I mean, just to give a couple examples right it’s there from hollywood, right we have quantum thrillers right we also have, you know, quantum sporting goods right, golf clubs, quantum bowling balls, quantum baseball we’ve got quantum cartoons right “Oh Alice, you’re the one for me” “But Bob, in a Quantum world how can we be sure” and the we have physicist talking dirty right you fiinsh I’m not going, I, I… It’s a family program here right so we also have quantum healthcare right so this one, Quantum herbal canker sore gel, nothing to do with the previous cartoon, completetely seprarate We have the Quantum Pendant, which protects the body against any harmful rays I like this one, we got the QuantumVet right Use your cellphone to instantly diagnose and medically treat your pet at home and I love this tagline that you see at the bottom, Don’t take me to the Vet, use QuantumVet which makes use of the famous of all adages which is a sure fire way to get words to rhyme, is to use the same word [laughter] now this, this one is absolutely my favourite the Quantum Sleeper protection from bio-chemical terrorist attack, kidnappers, stalkers, bullet-proof and look how… look at the loving couple over there about to enter the sarcophagus over there right so, so QM in this sense is certanly out there in the world but of course, this is just a word quantum is this really quantum bullshit right so, um, we’re gonna talk about here tonight is the real Quantum Mechanics and what I’m going to do here for just about 10-12 minutes is run through the basic ideas of Quantum Mechanics again I think that it’s probably familiar to many of you but just to make sure we’re all on the same page and that’ll actually lead us into the issue for tonight’s discussion which is this quantum measurement problem okay so for the basic premier on Quantum Mechanics the key experiment that really gets the ideas of Quantum Mechanics across is the Double Slit Experiment and I don’t know if any of you go to Spooky Action last year just by any chance. Yeah, so a handful of you so you may recall that we actually did the Double Slit Experiment on the stage last year we’re not going to do it again this year we don’t have enough time rather these animations will give you the essential ideas and if anyone doesn’t believe the animations, just ask someone whose hand was up cause they saw the real experiment done last year OK. So, what is a Double Slit Experiment the idea is this imagine that I have a gun that’s firing ordinary pellets like BBs at a barrier that has two openings now you’d expect that those BBs that’d go thru the left slit will land aligned in a band on the left those pellets that go thru the right opening will land in a band aligned with it on the right and indeed we’re to do this experiment that is the result you’d find now, what we’re going to do is imagine dialling down the size of those pellets, those BBs making them smaller and smaller until they are the size of little tiny particles, let’s just call them, electrons imagine we’re doing this with electrons you would expect that if you ran the same experiment again those electrons that pass through the left opening will land in a band and aligned with the opening on the left and similarly, for those that pass through the right that is what you would expect should happen and the thing is, many of you are familar, this is not what happens when you do this experiment instead if you do this experiment you get results that look rather different they look like this you get a bright band next to a dark region next to a bright region next to a dark region next to a bright region and so forth and that data, that strange data is really what impels us towards now that data is strange because it’s not what we’d think should happen we expect to get two bands and we get more but it turns out that that pattern bright, dark bright, dark is a familiar pattern to most physicist and we’re trained from birth to recognise that pattern right if you’re to go to any physicist, 3’o clock in the moring shake that physicist, wake them up, and tell them “I got this data, bright band, dark band, bright band, dark band ” The very first thing they would say to you is, “What the hell are you doing in my room at 3 o’clock in the morning” [laughter] But after that, they would say, “I know what that is, that’s an interference pattern” that is the hallmark signature that there is some kind of wave phenomenon Some kind of wave phenomenon taking place right to understand that, let me just give you a little visual here, where we are looking at water waves Imagine I throw 2 pebbles The first one over here it makes these circular ripples, and now I throw in a second one… and look what happens when the waves overlap, in some regions they work together, but in other regions, the peak of one wave is crossing the trough of another causing the wave to cancel out, and those are those dark regions that you see on the screen So this is exactly the kind of data that we are encountering, and to make that point a little more clearly. Let me show you an animation, same idea Imagine you got water waves going toward the barrier with the two openings and again regions where the waves work together the water is very agitated regions in between, where the peak of one wave crosses the trough of the other they cancel each other out, and if on the back screen I put bright regions associated with very agitated water, Dark regions with not agitated water Look what I get, Bright Dark Bright Dark Bright Dark and again, just to remember that is the data that we find in this experiment So this suggests, that there is some deep connection between these particles, these electrons and this other idea, a completely separate idea, of waves Now, at first sight, that might not seem all that surprising Right? Because water has water waves, but we all know that water is itself made of little particles, molecules, H2O molecules So certainly we know, if a large collection of molecules, behave in a choreographed manner those particles can yield a wave. So maybe what’s going on in the experiment is just that, you’ve got a lot of electrons and maybe they are behaving in a choreographed manner and in that way, yielding a wave just like H2O molecules yield a water wave. Now how would you test that idea? Well you could run this very experiment But only firing particle by single particle at this barrier with the 2 openings. and by recording dot by single dot where each of those single particles lands on the detector screen So let’s run that version of the experiment and see what happens. So again, Particle by single particle, we’re recording on the back screen the history of all the landing locations. And this is what happens in this experiment. Dot by single dot, we build up the same pattern, the same interference pattern, the same data. That suggests to us That there must be some kind of wave like phenomenon involved to yield this interference pattern. So this is where things get really strange. Particles, electrons little tiny dot. That is the image that we always have in mind. Waves are these spread out entities. How could a dot particle and a spread out wave somehow be connected And this was the puzzle that physicist faced In the early decades of the 20th century And many tried to figure out what could the connection between a particle and a wave be. The natural suggestion that you might throw out as you know maybe particles somehow are kind of …kind of smeared out in some way there are kind of spread out the way we didn’t realize that deal out it doesn’t really work. Because whenever you measure an electron you find all of it if it was truly smeared out. You find a piece of it here and a piece of it there And the idea ultimately was settled out the part came from the mind of the physicist–Max Born. without the way they think about the wave associated with the particle is this . This is a new idea. The wave is a wave of probability. The wave is telling us the likelihood of the probability that the particles at one location or another. They show you a little visual of that. Imagine this is the wave associated with a particle like an electron. Where the wave is big, that is a likely location to find the particle. Where the wave is small, an unlikely location. Where the wave is absolutely zero, that is the place where you simply will not find electron at all. That’s the picture that comes forward. Now how would you test this idea to see if it’s actually describing reality how the world works. For the first thing is you need some kind of mathematics equation that allows you to understand how this wave evolved how it changes over time. And that equation came to us from over Schrodinger. Whether you understand the mathematics symbol or not, it doesn’t matter.But it is good to see that there is a bona fide rigorous mathematical equation behind all of the imagery that you will be see here tonight. That is the equation that describes how this wave this probability wave evolves over time. That’s step one. So now you understand how things change in time. But the test is while you said yourself this look.Yep. At a given moment in time, I’ve got this probability profile for where a particle should be located. where I tested it, I run experiments of searching for the particles over and over again in identically prepared situations. And I count the number of the times that I found it in one of the location or another. And if the theory is correct, you should find the particles more often where the wave is big, and the less often where the wave is small. Qubism. So we’ve heard this word a few times mentioned. Ruger tell us what this approach is about. OK. I brought a Quantum System to experiment on So I just flip this Quantum System Ok, what is the probability of “heads”? 100 % by the “many worlds” approach. Sorry. I will play along. 50%. Stick with a 100% So, I have 0 %. My point being the probability, you have a different one from me. So this is actually about you, it is not about me. So the probability actually is your belief or my belief about what you will see if I show it to you. I can show it to you, you see. He’s right. So, probability in this is used in ??? ??? probability theory which actually is a model on full account probability which is used in widely in Statistic Economics in some parts of physics So, this is a respected and very useful and I believe is the only really fully consistent approach of probability. Probability is a believe of what you will experience of what you will see. Now Qubism says that, you do not need to modify the probability of Quantum Mechanics. So, even Quantum Mechanics Probabilites are personal degrees of belief So the probability ??? a measurement outcome is my expectation of what I will experience from the experiment The point is the Probability is not a property of the coin in my hand, the Probability is actually my belief. Now, Quantum States, are equivalent to probabilites. Quantum States determine probabilities of outcomes Quantum States are fully mathematical equivalant to probability distributions. So in that sense, Probabilities are an experiment on agent’s expectations Quantum States encode an experiment on Agent’s expectations for experimental outcome. Now, what this says about the measurement problem is it just dissolves. Exactly, I experience an outcome and I update my own expectations for the future. This forth approach is the dart is going and the idea is if we are not looking if we are not actually yet doing the observation there is nothing really we can say until the observer looks, so if we bring our observer and then you look, you take in the observation, you update your understanding of the world based on your observation. In science, what are we doing? We are making predictions and we test this predictions in experiments So this is really what Qubism talks about Quantum Mechanics, this must be the reason that most physicists are not interested in the potential of Quantum Mechanics. because Quantum Mechanics is a tool they can use for predictions, to design experiments to build machines, Quantum Mechanics has transformed the world in a way that is unprecedented In all these experiments, experimental designs, predictions, including cosmological predictions You never actually need to talk about hidden variables or spontaneous collapse You just apply Quantum Mechanics as a tool to make predictions And that works, and this must be one of the reasons physicists are not interested in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. When you look at Cosmology, what do you base Cosmology on You base it on what you observe or experience now What are the Cosmological predictions or your conclusions you draw, well they are about your future experience You will never stop at just saying “Oh well, I have explained all things I know because So, even Cosmology is about taking your present and the few past experiences and Using the Theory, using Quantum Mechanics as you know it to make predictions about future experiences. In your approach the spookiness evaporates if I understand it, can you describe to us where it goes. In the Qubist approach these correlations,, this situation is very much like ???’s socks. He used to wear different color socks and when his colleague so him coming in, when he saw one foot, one sock, he knew immediately what the color of the other sock would be, namely different. Nobody would call that Spooky action at a distance What Qubism says here is, if I have a belief about this is a belief about what I will see experience when I am making the experiment on that particle here. What happens is, if I make a measurement on this particle her I see it spins down and then I update my expectation on the other particle here. No, it is always about me and the world because Qubism emphatically says that it is not all about the subject nor is it all about the world. Any measurement is an action, subject and observer, physicist, system take on the world. So measurements are active processes they are actions Any measurement is an action on the world and it needs subject and the object, it needs… is where the experience and the world meet. But that experience is something that the individual ,the observer has,that’s the point ?Yeah good ! So,what do you think ? David ?


  • World Science Festival

    Hello, YouTubers. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its YouTube translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.

    Check out Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality to see how the process works:

    To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
    Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here:

    The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

  • Sukhbir Sekhon

    Why does electron gun show electrons coming out as a fanning out spray ? Surely they would come out as a straight line and hit the barrier between the 2 slits and get bounced backed? I'm not arguing about the conclusions of the panel but the way the experiments set up and equipment used.

  • Anonymous Anonymous

    He can't get his hands out of his pants.. I wonder if he's performing another type of "experiment" there.. & you can see he's succeeding every time he bends his legs.. 🙂

  • keefebaby

    So straight away instead of bringing on stage the people who do the measurements, the engineers or undergraduates, we have on stage people separated from the actual measurements by one or two steps, I would like to hear from the people actually doing the measurements and see what their thoughts are, instead of these theory guys

  • dirt man

    if a single electron acts like a wave… then wouldn't that mean it is not being observed by anything? Shouldn't we never be able to see the wave of probability but rather the exact location the gun is aiming at? Is the gun not firing precisely and accurately? The slit should just deflect the wave function collapsed particle to the same place each time. Why doesn't the wave function collapse and cause the electron to hit the same spot each time? is there not observation of the electron occurring? Why is it still hitting all the probable locations? The electron being fired is observed and it should not act like a wave since the wave should collapse to the particle location. i think the way we describe the experiment is flawed and why quantum mechanics is such a mystery. We need to come up with better than a hybrid particle-wave concept. It's just we try to relate everything to stuff we know. If a succession of electrons are hitting different locations it is because each electron is unique and had it's own probability wave that collapsed to different locations. It just is not logical which leads me to believe the explanation is wrong. It is neither a wave or a particle. It is something entirely different. Regardless that it creates interference. Obviously more than just waves can create interference since we see a single electron doing it. Yes waves make interference but we need to recognize the same thing is not happening with electrons.

  • David King

    When physicists are qualifying the double slit experiment do they calculate the variables of the machine that originates the particles,
    If I am the machine and I throw a dart, no matter how many times I do so not withstanding the dart I will rarely hit the same spot.
    As a particle moves through the medium of air does it create a wave of air molecules which could be a source of the interference pattern that which is emphasised by the introduction of a second slit which causes an interference wave pattern to manifest

  • pspicer777

    It seems to me these guys are confused between where the math says a particle can be (the probabilities of where it might be) and the physical reality that it is located in a single place with a particular probability. The interpretation that the particle is in all places simultaneously and then magic happens (collapse of PDF or wave, or many worlds, etc), is just plain wrong, or rather the mathematical model is being used to interpret physical reality (hence all the confusion).

  • Nathan EverLast

    The reason predicted positions change is because the cones
    In our eyes put out fields not receive them.
    Light frequency shines on a object ,
    Our eyes cones ( pyramids ) put out a frequency
    That meets the lights frequency at a object you choose to
    observe, Connecting you to that object and light at the point of object
    Thats why the predicted position of a quantum object changes
    when you observe it.
    Just light Earths ground field shooting up and meeting Earth outer field
    at roughly half point..
    Lightning fields, Earth Negetive and Positive Fields.. ?

  • Joo King

    We just had five people on stage for 1 and a half hour and none of them talked over each other . We need to have a scientist in the white house ASAP

  • Russell Catchpole

    Brilliant discussion! My uneducated thought is, how about it's not the individual particle in the double slit experiment interfering with itself, but all of individually fired particles interfering with each other across all time, because they do not experience and are not subject to time? So in effect it's just like firing them all at the same time, all of the time. We and the monitoring devices only see the particle impact at a particular time, because we DO experience and are subject to time. Therefore, all light exists in all of it's locations all of the time (because it is not subject to time), BUT, the key is that time travels through light, so it only 'activates' the light for us as we experience 'now'.

  • Arlie Ferguson

    My vote is for the bohm/deBroglie interpretation. I am not sure what the real problem is with saying that the particles are guided by an energy wave of some kind. The reality seems to be simply that all the particles are there in a way that actually reflects reality. The prediction only seems to come in when we are trying to decide where they will land. I think there or a number of different problems here which makes the whole issue kind of a moving target.

  • S[t]even Day

    Vortex math, at the least very interesting. When you have a system that everything of the natural world collapses into then you have found the source of everything. Vortex math seemingly does that.

  • Michael Scrocca

    pnp npn collector emitter gates. Billy the monkey axel munthe knock over the candelabra at fathers funeral monkey monkey keeps coming up hanuman burning monkey and putana witch/which. Dr carl monkey-god satyr baboon isquare least square canis major canis minor sirius Schwarzschild radius. pnp npn critical mass ground zero . billy gates banana rama satanic verses 9/11

  • Peli Mies

    So, in many worlds approach, the dart that takes all the routes and solutions, means that the momentum and the energy has to multiple also to cover all events and solutions? Not very easy to swallow. Other serious problems is with consciousness; is it or is not spread to these infinite worlds; how could it pick one line of universums out of infinite possibilities? Shouldn’t there be also new worlds for events that do not happen, otherwise the possibility would be always 1. Count me out from mailing list, for now at least

  • Yours Truely

    It's so brilliant the double slit so simple and it takes a hundred years to figure out. And what they have to invent to make it stick.

  • Yours Truely

    A measuring device is always a receiver. It needs to receive a physical something to translate it into a current. Which indicates a measurement

  • Dennis Mason

    This guy is no master of communication. This is painful. See what happens, kids, when you forgot to bring passion?

  • Justin Thinkerbit

    Many world seem to solve all, with infinite universe many worlds exist ,,,worlds might be like a DVDs movie waiting to be watched, brought into reality by consciousness as you bring past or future into existence by focoussing concentration , consciousness is only in one world at a time,,2 slit must have wave and particale , in quantum world particles being some of smallest biulding materials can belong anywhere in classical reality , eg: tiny bit of steel can fit anywhere on car but once it's part of car door then can only be car door, until then uncertainty principle applys, consciousness can activate any world focussed on, many worlds does away with grand father paradox, offers free will ,solves entanglement , and best of all helps string theory which I like .bigger things in classical reality like car door or earth have very little uncertainties where small particales remain blurry , full of probabilities , but I'm only going by my gut feelings

  • kok fah chong

    Double-slit experiment with electrons where those lines with jagged edges which are constructs of pixels of electrons that landed there. If electrons were waves, then those lines would have perfectly straight edges. Interference experiment with ripple tank experiment where all waves have similar troughs and crests (suggesting that those jagged lines should have similar brightness) which is different from the outcome of real double-slit experiment with electrons where the brightest jagged line at zero-order, brighter jagged lines of first-orders on both sides of zero–order, and dimmer jagged lines besides the dimmer jagged lines and so forth. Precisely, outcome of ripple tank experiment fails to prove electrons and light are waves. Physics is not all about equations, because there are NOT many functions around, except mx+c=y. Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2 is wrong otherwise garbage also can be used to make nuclear bombs as long as it is matter or it has mass. Energy and matter can't interchange one another according to Einstein's famous equation. One must  have photons before one can emit out photons. Photons are particles and they have mass. Einstein's famous equation is one of the foundation of quantum physics. Since Einstein's famous equation is wrong, then the entire quantum physics will collapse in no time. There is only one world, that is our world. In between equation and reality, reality rules. In other words, when equation and reality conflicting one another, reality always prevails. Nowadays, physicists turn physics into something like magic like the the concept of existence of many worlds. Since electrons and the rest of everything around us are not waves, then why bother about wave functions? Most of the time, equations may or may not succeed in predicting the outcome of an experiment. There is no short cut, predictions of an experiment are not important, we have to carry out the actual experiment to ascertain that we understand its outcome before we come up with an appropriate theory to explain such phenomenon. For the same reason why the entire quantum physics can get so wrong because of cooked out mind experiments rather than carrying out the real experiments. Our capability and ability have limitations and drawbacks when comes to understand microscopic atomic world, we can't always able to measure what we are interested at in microscopic world of atomic in an experiment. Time is the narration of the dynamic of the universe. Past, present and future are in fixed "dynamic" orders that can't be changed or altered. If you are interested in real discoveries, I would recommend you to read my book, The Unification Theory – Volume One and you will be amazed with lots of new, interesting discoveries. In God I trust.

  • weshareto

    Shame to see all the scientists can't figure out that the particles that they're firing is ricocheting off of the inner slit of the two holes thus making them go in opposite directions and that's exactly what's happening and the reason why it became a four liner is because the particles became smaller therefore they were able to double ricocheted off of the thickness of the slit of the two holes that they're firing the particles through what a joke it's unbelievable how stupid people can be.. and it has nothing to do with water waves…

  • david wyn-jones

    to simplify all this babbling….when a particle is still,,,its a particle,,,when it moves it becomes a wave because it cant be accurately measured in 4 dimensions…see,,,its easy…now im going home to alpha proxima,only came for a burger

  • Boris Nahalka

    what if the measurement problem is actually a time problem? give particle time and you have a wave. take time away and you have a specific location.

  • Boris Nahalka

    man with the beard basically saying that the particles are surfing on a wave. the problem is the wave is made of particles. my vote is: time is an illusion even though very persistent, therefore the wave function. the measurement takes time away, therefore definitive reality prevails.

  • Boris Nahalka

    many worlds picture: it might be right, but for very different reasons. until it is verifiable, it is not a scientific question at all. i like the answer of the guy with the spectacles in this context because what he is saying is: your interpretation is a lazy one.

  • Boris Nahalka

    basically, what i am saying is: the wave function is an illusion because you need the time for it to work. and i say time itself is an illusion, so every equation you derive using time is bound to be wrong. the wave function never collapses, because it was never there, it only appears to be there, just as the sun appears to be rotating around the earth. you are messing up actuality with the reality

  • Boris Nahalka

    this debate shows how the physicist, once they are invested in some theory, can be just as rigid and dogmatic as any religious people and why? because they believe. they believe that their beloved theory is the correct one. there is no difference between science and religious belief both are false. always..

  • Boris Nahalka

    let us take this debate to a macrocosmic level, shall we? your own future as a macrocosmic entity. or a future of a cosmos for that matter, waves of probability, many different possible outcomes, right? but at a given moment, there is always only one specific outcome, only one definite reality. and if i say moment i don't mean a point in time. i mean moment in reality. i know that it smells very deterministic and only way i see around it is that the future is influencing the past just as much as the past is influencing the future and the present moment influencing both without any time in between. because there is no time in between.

  • Boris Nahalka

    spooky action at the distance: again the same thing. take time away (measurement) and you have a definitive outcome. i wonder how long it will take the physics to throw away time out of their equations.

  • Boris Nahalka

    Picasso has a few valid arguments there, but he is so cot up at the edges, so is difficult to understand what he is actually saying. ps: cosmos is not a cube, but as a simplification, it might be helpful.

  • Xylok

    there's a dif twixt things being probable, and things being probable for all you know…unless there isn't, or so, as far as you can tell…

  • Matlab Tutor

    Bring some apes and monkeys and lizards in this show … so that we can see the old and young generation altogether>

  • James Lorman

    There are many many smart people in the physics world, but in my humble opinion, Sean can communicate the knowledge to the layman the most efficiently… Sean is the Boss !

  • Rick Quest

    It's because our concept of space-time is 2 dimensional. How can you use gravity to explain gravity? (What pushes marbles down upon the space fabric) Spacetime needs to be a force that is pushing in every direction to the center of every piece of mass like under water or in an Aether.

  • Magnus Larsson

    Knowledge goes in a lope. Firts You laugh at the cavemen praying to god. God is just a imagination like the Santa, right? Then You learn about universe and realice its so complex that humans can not replicate even the smallest part, like DNA. Or gravity, or atoms, or Create life. Further down the road learning about Biology, You realise that all Knowlege, exist outside the Brain and DNA. How a plant know there is carbonoxide and how to create oxygen. How DNA evolves and evelotion works etc. When You realise That Something a miljon Times' smarter than a Human, must have created all this, and Your back to the cavemen. Realise that they must be right. Than You laugh at the Theoty that it's a computer simulation. Till You Discover quantum mechanics An realise that elektrons act different depending on the Observer, just like a computer game online render whats on the screen and Observed, and the rest is happening in tha background. In a computer program everything is built on math, codes an Numbers. And guess what, that exacly what the universe is aswell.

  • Nathan Hintz

    If we flip the spin of a few million or so entangled electrons at a time with an alternating magnetic field, we could flip their entangled pairs remotely to transfer power without wires through entanglement if this entanglement stuff is legit.
    Power lines are vulnerable to EMPs, solar storms, lightning, hurricanes, earthquakes, wind, ice, land slides, floods, fires, car accidents, plane crashes, terrorists, squirrels, balloons, tennis shoes, butterknives, even greedy power companies shutting it off promptly for simple banking computer glitches, yet our entire civilisation depends upon the availability of electricity, and we'll basically die without it now.
    Perhaps its time to put new science to work replacing our extremely vulnerable old, ugly, and dangerous power line collection that has been proven to cause cancer & fires.

  • Robert Clark

    If the equation describes the act of measuring the probability then probability is nonsense after the measurement as the equation describes the act of measuring multiple results. Do we get bothered if a boy had height 122cm after measuring however the average probability describes 116 cm for an average, but we later find out he was a girl. the particle may still be a wave however once measured it also resembles a particle. It can be both in reality. It is just our concept of imagination that needs to get a grip.

  • Robert Clark

    Glorify the incomplete quantum science if you must, however until it is complete I go with Mr Albert Einstein, Dice may give good results however the entangled mess that still exists in uniting gravity in the model. The sad part is sometimes the truth comes along however all the scientist have entangled so much effort into dice that they do not want a result that is simple and elegant. May be light has dual states, one linear wave and one standing wave, and one equation derived from light itself having the fundamental force mechanisms built in, just use conservation of relativistic dualism and symmetry of a particle state, that when the right conditions are met light does it matter dance giving itself realism. All fundamental forces are attributes of light and matter is one state of light. The Universe exists if we measure her or not. Cosmic Vibration, what equation embraces Strong, Electromagnetic, Gravitational all as one whilst creating the energy of of long lived stable energy fields that have our known mass equivalence, also charge. Does the Coupling constant the reciprocal of the sqrt 2 and light not give rise to relativity. So the Energy Momentum density of Strong force interacting with charge density give rise to the attraction of quantum propagator via differentiation at light speed. Does Unity exist in a light inflationary model? Does dark energy disappear in a model where by gravity can induce a strong force back into its relative neighbours. Hmm

  • Ethan Walker

    7:10 the graphic video here doesn' t accurately describe the slit experiment because the graphic shows waves of equal magnitude and energy in all the crests. In reality the waves that are cancelled out on the further right and left would be moving much slower and some would not hit the wall hence less data points. This experiment is not really a foundational observation but rather evidence that space time is resonant and ordered mathematically like strings in tune on a guitar.

  • Wu Li

    The US government has classified a few fuzzy logic jokes as "Vital to the National Defense" and hinted that congress is investigating and, of course, they have no comment. Meanwhile, the Chinese government has banned the use of time travel as a plot device in their mass media. Relativity has turned out to share the same mathematics as thermodynamics, and watching the night sky can be compared to watching a pot of water boil. The Game theorist, Donald Hoffman, spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, only to reluctantly conclude that if the human mind and brain had ever remotely resembled anything like reality, we would already be extinct as a species. After decades of failures, when physicists succeeded in simulating a phase transition from quantum mechanical to classical they were surprised by the results. Contrary to all their theories and calculations, their experiment indicated the Big Bang was neither too hot nor too cold. Soberly, one physicists admitted it could be years or longer before anyone could comprehend how a Goldilocks universe works, as if he had never heard the story in his life.

    These fools on stage have no clue what is coming.

  • Robert W

    Notice that Ruediger (the Qubit guy) is insisting on taking non-locality into account in his interpretation of QM and the others simply avoid it. The others seemingly find it too spooky to consider even being real like Einstein did even though it's been empirically observed in countless ways and now solves mysteries on how the world really works – like animal navigation and photosynthesis.

    And they don't talk about the more advanced experiments of the double slit that all suggest the observer is indeed fundamental to the 3D reality in which we inhabit. Non-locality and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment suggest this, QM is just the tool, or machine code at the heart of the universal processor, in which the physical manifests. Once the manifestation of the physical occurs, a complete history is THEN created retrospectively. That's right, the past is literally created at the point the wave function collapses which creates the physical reality we perceive at the present, that's why forces like gravity and quantum entanglement appear to happen instantaneously instead of behaving by the apparent speed limit of the universe. These phenomenon aren't taking place faster than the speed of light, they are taking place retroactively in time as they manifest and thus appear instantaneous.

    Imagine you are an avatar in a virtual world that behaves on the exact same laws of Newtonian physics that our world does and you are not aware you're in a simulation. Now imagine a door in this virtual realm, that when you open it, a door on the opposite side of the world instantly closes and vice versa. To the avatar in this virtual realm, that thinks their world is built upon Newtonian physics, this would seem like an absolute impossibility – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet here they are observing a direct violation of that belief. How can this happen from the avatar's perspective? Well what is really going on is that their world is only behaving according to Newtonian physics but it is not built upon those rules, the real rendering of that reality is taking place on a completely different plane of reality that is only observe by proxy from its manifestation of that virtual reality.

    The talk about imagining a world without observers or "agents" is thus sophistry and misses the point completely. In the present with observers, the entire past history of the universe is created with it in a way necessary for the present to occur as it does. Like for the avatars in our virtual world, they think they know a complete past history of the universe must have had happened because there they are at the present and can work backwards in time to reconstruct the past, but that's only an illusion. The past was instantly created when the virtual world was booted up. That's why when we work out the history or our universe we run into the paradox of the Big Bang, a singularity that instantly expands faster than the speed of light, stops to cool and coalesce with gravity, and then expands from that point at an accelerating rate. We know that this violates our understanding of classical physics but many scientists believe that's what literally happened, though what really happened was it was instantaneously (from our perspective) created at the point with observers already present and all "time" before that was retroactively created with it.

    The important takeaway is that the present rendering of reality and the backhistory created with it (like observing on Earth whether a photon from a distant galaxy went above or below an intervening planet on its way to Earth – the photon actually did neither until it was observed on Earth and its history was then created) must comply with the laws of physics and present reality back to the point of bootstrapping. In other words, the moon is there even if no one is looking, even long ago before life on the planet, because the present is contingent on that history of the moon being there and being there now even if no one is looking – our current physical manifestation would be completely different without it. The past must agree with the present and vice versa.

    Well that's my opinion anyways, and I think Many Worlds could actually fit into this interpretation as well.

  • Sammy Joe

    When you send the particles in "one at a time" YOU see the particles "one at a time". The question is "what do the particles see?". It's quite possible that at speeds close to the speed of light TIME no longer has any meaning. As far as the particles are concerned they all went at once. The "one at a TIME" concept is only from our sub-speed-of light perspective. So, yes the particles could be interfering with each other, even when sent "one at a TIME" because the particles are not aware of "time". As far as the particles are concerned they are always at every location for all time. This implies that the electron is definitely a particle, but a particle which exists outside of our concept of TIME. So the first electron sent is very much aware of the last electron which was sent as much as the last electron is aware of the first electron which was sent, so they DO interfere with each other. The question quantum mechanics should be thinking of is not whether something acts as a particle or a wave, but how the concept of TIME should be interpreted at speeds close to the speed of light. If this is true, then a photon which travels billions of years through space will not lose any energy because, from the photons point of view, it just now left the star and it just now arrived- all at the same TIME

  • Bmchaney Bmchaney

    lol what a greedy fame hungry fool. you leave behind all the other Doctors by your impatience with te Problem. You HAVE BECOME THE PROBLEM and Jung Feynman will channel all the Doctors to pants you and LennyWhoIsSussss like a pervert on the net! see you guys at the finish line #(1/9 correct is incomplete have fun in the dust!)…borrrrring lies–next time skip the laugh signs and work like a Feynman and be authentic . peace ! if you change your tune join us! we're finishing it up quick

  • dusty dex

    Sean Carroll with glasses would be a convincing Bill Gates. Even sounds like him.

    The philosopher was more coherent than the physicists.

  • There is no Spoon

    Have they tried using different material for the recording screen in the double slit experiments? And different gases in the atmosphere? Including a vacuum?

  • Jigger Jones

    I coldn't possibly comprehend all this spooky quantum gunk, but thanks to Ruediger Schack I am now EFFIN clueless!

  • mrloop

    "When no one is looking, a particle has near limitless potential: it can be nearly anywhere. But measure it, and the particle snaps to one position."
    Just like me.

  • Under Water

    The qbism guy doesn't understand Bell inequalities (the socks of different colors analogy fails to represent the weirdness of entangled particles with opposing spin when the second particle's spin goes through a detector off-axis from the first detector). Everyone on that panel is a smarty-pants but nobody called him out. Why?

  • CPA marketingacademy

    So pretentious and confused at the same time, poor guys. If we all are going to die, life has no meaning at all. Think about it nothing make sense on this planet.

  • Blanketed Trust

    Must you wait to see if you genes allow you to slump into a deposed sloth like professor of words to be assumed boring, or does that process depend solely on personal motivation, devoid of generic influence?

  • Klaus Bolvig

    Some times jokes should have a quantum position. I think these jokes tells me why I’m struggling to understand quantum mechanics in general and jokes like these especially.

  • Klaus Bolvig

    What a shame Bertrand Russell is dead , he could have solved this problem. People who don’t know about him should study him.

  • Frank Albarran

    Learn to pronounce
    a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.
    a required or allowed amount, especially an amount of money legally payable in damages.

  • parko79

    Look at these gronks, they all talk shit, they have nothing physical tested. Come on guys. Again these people are just talking shit until they run experiments. Again Sean carrol should shut the fuck up and not be there. he is the CNN/NBC Science guy. Piss off Sean you have done nothing for physics other than confuse people and make it seem harder than what it is. 5 years later and nothing you gronks have said is even in the market .
    wow wasted time and energy

  • parko79

    according to the body lanuage of the panelists none gives a fuck about what each other is saying because physics is so fucked up you can say whatever jibberish you want and people just nod and say yeah your right.

  • Naomi Cano

    How about a wave of possibilities instead of probability as the trajectory unfolds eliminates possibilities of its destination

  • Naomi Cano

    The starting point being fixed limits the possible paths and destinations. More variations end in the center less possible ways of getting to the ends. But the total is a fixed number. Eventually you hit all possible paths and arrivals giving the spectrum result showing all possibilities collectively expressing probibity per individual draw. As one particles path unfolds possible results are simultaneously eliminated untill right before it lands its left with only one. And that what it is. Predicting which reality will occur out of all possibilities as it happens by updating the lastest factor eliminating possibilities untill only one possibility becomes the reality observed recorded measured. You gett the point

  • WRQ Nine

    The question is so interesting, what is happening when something happens? Once it has happened, it is fact. Before it happens it exists as a relationship to our presumptions, beliefs or lack of them. The two colored sock guy has opened a door like Darwin did. Upon knowing, we can no longer be ignorant, therefore the unbiased situation can no longer exist. If the nature of the observer is at all relevant, a can of worms must be implied. After all, if the observer lies, in the absence of other evidence, the bias is the most profound effective and defining act of the occurrence. There is a can of worms here, but is it relevant?
    If we continue to perceive time as inflexible, we will be confined to the rules of that system. If we abandon that notion, what lies ahead will forever be corrupted. Such is the power of consciousness, and the condition of our existence.

  • JustBeingWhoIAm

    My partners father was a smoker and we recently painted his bedroom, the ceiling was yellow from years of smoking in that room, but it was a pattern of dark and bright yellow going right across the ceiling just like the results of the split experiment. I thought it was very interesting as I never seen anything like it before. It's like he had the split above his head where the smoke travelled through to reach the ceiling

  • Mr Nobody

    What no one seems to articulate well is that the reason people dislike David Albert's advocated approach of adding inelegant modifications to the equations to adjust for circumstance is that it has parallels to the Geocentric Solar System model. Sure, it worked if you added modifications, but experience has taught us that the more simple the equation is, the better it's predictability is.

  • Dadson worldwide

    So man not earth is at the center of this universe since only our observation dictates the state of a particle or wave.Or our concousness not visual observation is..
    the double split test has been done with only people trying to use meditation veiw the slit and over a decade the result show
    5 sigma influence odf mond over matter.
    now 5 sigma has been enough result to win noble prizes i hear so this is really something deep puttimg makinds mind in connection to qauntom entaglement . really cool stuff .worth looking into.
    Thiers thousands of number generator expierments which similar but has mixed reveiws despite there results.

  • Dirk Knight

    While it's very amusing to see these folks entertain themselves with a now 90+ year old non-problem, this ain't physics. It also has a huge philosophical flaw, even if we take it seriously as philosophy. Why? Because it wouldn't deal, at all, with the real world question. The measurement problem/collapse of the wave function, whatever you want to call it, is only a reasonable thing to propose in the case of non-relativistic single quantum problems. One might discuss it in entanglement situation with a fixed number of quanta, however, these are artificial systems. The world is not single quantum and it's not non-relativistic. Quite the opposite. Light is an exclusively relativistic wave phenomenon and all matter is made of constituents with relativistic binding energies of 1GeV per nucleon. Inside every atom there are electrons that, classically, would be running around at a fair speed of light and the quarks inside the nucleons are doing the same. Ever bit of actually interesting quantum mechanics today is being done on relativistic particle collision problems, with the advanced theory actually almost exclusively being focused on what might be happening towards the Planck limit where gravitons are being thrown into the mix. THAT is the real physics. Pedestrian kinematics of single quanta on macroscopic double slits is not what keeps the physicist awake at night. It's solved. Nobody cares.

    Now, the problem with the above is that there is no measurement problem in the relativistic case. At the level of actual quantum field interaction energies there is no little physicist standing by with a classical measurement apparatus. One can't go down to the size of the nucleus and hold a tiny little Photon counter with a well defined slit here and then there and then plot an angular of spatial distribution. Even if one could, one wouldn't get the results about what is going down in the nucleus, but one would basically destroy the nucleus with the now much higher energy scale of the measurement apparatus. Instead of seeing the system under test, one would basically see a nuclear explosion. At the far end of the resolution spectrum one would make a microscopic black hole and no physics would come out, at all.

    Relativistic theory simply does not allow for the kinds of mind games that one can play in the low energy case. It's all plane waves in, plane waves out and then there is some sort of a scattering matrix. That is the one and only "experiment" that one can do. Nature, at the level of relativistic theory, is always a black box with very complicated insides. To make mechanistic toy models of black boxes, however, would be a waste of time – IF quantum philosophers would even try. Curiously, they didn't even try. Why? Because it's too hard. They haven't even been able to make it past the most trivial example without any of the field theoretical complications. The situation is exactly the same as with all philosophy: physics makes rapid progress on the real problems because nature gives all the answers, philosophy gets stuck for thousands of years on the trivialities because nature doesn't have answers for the wrong questions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *