You should totally make another interview with Max Tegmark now that a quantum computer has been supposedly created and tested.

Not only is Max extremely intelligent but he's also very cool.

@Sauromannen

5 жыл бұрын

Nathan Forrest, well he’s a swede.

@MattHanr

3 жыл бұрын

He’s also handsome and like 6’8”

@sdmods619

3 жыл бұрын

Cool name too. I hope one day we will measure something in tegmarks.

@shaunhumphreys6714

2 жыл бұрын

hes also marty mcfly with that swept back haircut, i.e the way marty backcombs his hair in part one in the fifties.

@thesprawl2361

2 жыл бұрын

@@MattHanr He's got goofily good hollywood looks.

can u turn up the audio??

Max Tegmark should have been the new host of Cosmos.

@nonenone845

6 жыл бұрын

diversity... shit

@jambec144

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed. N dG Tyson is an uninspired bore.

@InnerLuminosity

4 жыл бұрын

Neil the EGO Tyson would DISAGREE

@jambec144

4 жыл бұрын

I don't know what "BS uninspired" means, but yes, N dG Tyson is bland. In Sagan's Cosmos, the (spectacular for the time) special effects struggled to compete with Sagan's poetic vision. In Tyson's remake, his bland prose is swamped by standard SFX. The facts that Tyson relates are interesting, of course. But he never gives it any original or insightful spin. Sagan, in contrast, was almost always quotable.

@jambec144

4 жыл бұрын

"I'd rather him than Tegmark." You'd rather what? "I'm not talking about Sagan" And I am. But yes, Tegmark is also much more interesting to listen to than N dG Tyson. At least he has original ideas. "You're full of crap." Are you trying to explain what "BS uninspired?" means?

Can people at CTT make an announcement when DVD set is about to be released. Can't wait to have the whole series 'in one piece'

@CloserToTruthTV

9 жыл бұрын

We will make an announcement on www.closertotruth.com, our Facebook fan page, Twitter account (@closertotruth) and via email newsletter to subscribers once our first DVD set is released. We will also have individual episodes for digital download sales on iTunes Store about the end of October 2014.

@scottvska

9 жыл бұрын

Closer To Truth Thank you for making the episodes available. There are so many that I have missed.

Aren't then we not all already living in a quantum suicide experiment, individually finding ourselves in a path in which we never die?

@thefran901

7 жыл бұрын

Kind of, but we are not aware of the "experiment".

@starfishsystems

6 жыл бұрын

Could be. That leads me to wonder if there might be natural analogues to these thought experiments, in which two outcomes arise which are consistent respectively with two incompatible interpretations. Is there any inherent bound on the number of these natural experiments? If not, wouldn't we be likely to experience a sequence of universes which exhibits a high degree of inconsistency? As that is not the case, it seems that either we are somehow landing on just those steps in the sequence that happen to appear self-consistent, or the multiple worlds model isn't a good match to reality after all.

@GuyI9000

4 жыл бұрын

.... yet.... let a religionist say we are immortal and everyone jumps down their throat

@darioinfini

4 жыл бұрын

@@GuyI9000 There are some interesting parallels between the two. Maybe that's one of them.

@vulkan8093

3 жыл бұрын

Could that mean a love one that died in our reality is still alive in another?

Excellent

I love the quantum machine-gun thought experiment. It's just crazy and outrageous, and kind of ridiculous, and there's no way I'd ever volunteer...but for the life of me I can't see any flaws in its reasoning.

@coolcat23

3 жыл бұрын

The flaw is that subjects would live to tell. There is no need to involve death, BTW. Just have a detector count how many times a quantum event goes one way. In some worlds, we should find detectors that only ever report one outcome. Yet that's not happening, is it?

@altortugas5979

3 жыл бұрын

One flaw is that if anyone ever did it, everyone would be convinced of Everett’s interpretation, because everyone would also be entangled in your result. People in other worlds would see you die, but their pairs in the works where you lived would be able to measure you as alive. Then it also falls down as a proof because it can only be replicated with extremely small probability. Since science requires replication, it doesn’t function as a proof. A further criticism of Everett, though, is the depressing sense that I would live basically forever. I mean, it’s a non-zero probability, right? So wouldn’t some version of the conservation principle dictate that I’m only aware of that world-line where I live the longest? Further, does that also imply solipsism, if other beings are only conscious of their own longest world-lines?

@thesprawl2361

2 жыл бұрын

@@coolcat23 " There is no need to involve death, BTW." You have misunderstood the experiment. The crux of it hinges on the impossibility of experiencing non-existence. Detector counts don't prove anything. "Just have a detector count how many times a quantum event goes one way. In some worlds, we should find detectors that only ever report one outcome. Yet that's not happening, is it?" This is incorrect - we should not find detectors that only ever report one outcome. That would be an incredibly improbable outcome and it's entirely consonant with the Many Worlds theory that we don't experience it. The reason the quantum machine gun experiment manages to override the _even more improbable_ possibility of a machine gun missing all of its shots is because it places something highly improbable(the gun misfiring many times in a row) versus something that is flat-out impossible(experiencing a branch of the universe in which you are dead). As I said, it relies on the impossibility of experiencing non-existence.

@thesprawl2361

2 жыл бұрын

@@altortugas5979 "One flaw is that if anyone ever did it, everyone would be convinced of Everett’s interpretation, because everyone would also be entangled in your result. People in other worlds would see you die, but their pairs in the works where you lived would be able to measure you as alive. Then it also falls down as a proof because it can only be replicated with extremely small probability. Since science requires replication, it doesn’t function as a proof." That isn't really a flaw. If, in my particular branch of the multiverse, I consistently fired a quantum machine-gun at myself, time after time, and the results were seen by everyone else in that branch, that would be confirmation. The impossibility of replication by another individual is built into the theory; scientists would understand that.

@thesprawl2361

2 жыл бұрын

@@richardromero6193 I didn't say there were.

Quite imaginative- Some of these ideas are Way beyond what is possible outside of the imagination.

My nephew when he was younger, said: ''It is simple, when I look at the moon, it is what I see, that is what I see. When I turn my back on it, I can not see it. when I turn around, I see the moon again, but it is not the same as the first time I saw it. Everything is the same, but it is not the first moon I saw. ''

@joelmichaelson2133

Жыл бұрын

There is no moon.

I don't understand a lot of it, but it is fascinating.

oh, I had the same, well, similar type of experiment in mind for several of years now (@~8:50 ish) since I became convinced that Everet's interpretation might be correct. Nice to know this was the road traveled before, and by no one other than Max. Since then I have upgraded (or maybe downgraded?:) this experiment to one with much lower stakes, but would require much more personal investment. You do the same (or a version of) what Max said, but not with bullets but with a word bang, or anything of the sorts. And you do the experiment - when the version of you who managed to get most "no bang"'s in a row, or a most random sets of bang (head not there), no bang (when the head is there) is convinced he or she convinces his colleague to do the same experiment, when the version of your colleague satisfies his skepticism confirms the finding and suggest his colleague to re-run this experiment. Long story short you will manage to force yourself and your collaborators/colleagues to all live in the same timeline which is convinced that the many worlds interpretation is correct... Or not, I'm not a physicist, I'm a random person on the internet:)

@syphonunfiltered

3 жыл бұрын

The reason this wouldn't work is because the key in Tegmark's experiment is that the firing of the gun would end your ability to perceive anything. So you would only survive in universes where the gun did not fire so you would only experience the gun not firing. If you were to run your experiment, the appearance of the word "bang" would not end your ability to perceive, so you would continue to perceive the universe/s where the gun "fires" while your head is there.

5:30 Lol...Max is doing an excellent job of physically demonstrating how truly "simple" is Everett's interpretation of QM

The best sense I have been able to make of the classic quantum paradoxes is that there are no longer inconsistencies or unresolvable mysteries if we accept strong determinism in the form of time symmetry. The paradoxes of many worlds, quantum entanglement, super position, observer effects, apparent faster than light effects, the inconsistencies of tensed time, etc. are all resolved as no longer problematic. So, I'm looking to find some of these brilliant, knowledgeable minds discussing how notions of a block universe, tenseless time, etc, effect interpretations of quantum mechanics in relation to our relativistic understandings of time space as relative measurement rather than as something actually existent.

@logical-functionsmodel9364

8 жыл бұрын

+imaginaryphiend What will you do when you find such people?

@imaginaryphiend

8 жыл бұрын

I don't know why I'm getting a notice of your comment months after the fact. Quantum mystery, maybe. Interpretations consistent with a block universe, time symmetry, relationally descriptive s/t, and relational causality are the interpretations that will be accurate in that they will avoid the paradoxes inherent in the orthodoxy that is still being taught. I don't know what it will take for truer understanding to prevail. Huw Price, especially in his Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point is 'the' professional to look to on this. Even so, few seem to have taken his message in. I don't get why. A younger, not so established someone of interest is Thad Roberts. You might check out his TEDX presentation. I'm a reader, but both of these and a few rare others seem to be out there to be found circulating on social media.

0:00 I love that when te video begins, the interviewer adresses "Max" with such an intonation as if he saying he should stop being distracted looking around in the room and focus on the interview at hand

Max should be much more well known than he is. I think he has a wonderful enthusiasm as if he is still a kid in awe of the fact we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Well I guess a lot of us are still in awe of those kind of facts. He certainly has done much to push Everett's Interpretation onto the mainstream and as a theory is up there with Newton and Einstein's.

@JBSCORNERL8

2 жыл бұрын

He’s the most brilliant scientist I’ve ever seen.

Please get Stuart Hameroff on the program! Ask him bout Consiousness & the correlation with Microtubules ?

Why not test for consciousness in supercomputers with the double slit experiment?

What's the difference between an event & an observation?

5:50 I agree with that although not very convinced of MWI (well it is an option just not sure which is the right one). So an example, if we suddenly make a clone of someone, and separate them instantly what would happen to their consciousness? Probably they both of them will feel the same things until their minds eventually diverge because of new different experiences. So it will be another instance of you, and each one of you will think you are unique. But in this scenario you can even meet yourself. There will be two different consciousness with the same past but each one will feel special, most likely.

@thesprawl2361

2 жыл бұрын

You should have a go at Douglas Hofstadter's book, A Strange Loop. He really goes in deep on the idea of consciousness and what it means to be 'I'. It's mindboggling, mind-altering. Some of it is profoundly difficult, not because it's complicated but because it is so abstract. Also, maybe try David Deutsch's book, Beginning of Infinity. Another absolutely mind-expanding book. Like A Strange Loop, it deals with the exact same thought experiment you brought up.

Volume is set too low.

Another great example of macro scale quantum mechanics is the Casimir effect

The quantum world only seems weird to us because we insist on looking at it through the lens of our preconceived notions about what this reality is. Eventually, however, we will have no choice but to start believing what it is actually telling us about our reality.

The slang of Schrodinger's cat, splooting diametrically across the circumference of the CMB - maybe?!

max already has done the gun experiment as it seems ;d

I fail to see how it can be possible to detect one photon/electron. If the sensor has to turn on a Field Effect Transistor then it would take more then one electron to turn the Gate on. Even if it were possible to turn the Gate on, then the propagation delay time of the FET device would not be small enough. You would be looking for a pulse of 0.005 pico seconds, where a typical CMOS propagation time is quoted as

When I was growing up, the kid that lived next door to us in our neighborhood had a middle name Quantum. And that dude was strange so it kind of makes sense!

My opinion... it seems so 'weird' because we just don't understand it! We've made such HUGE strides in science but I can't help feeling that the humans of the future will look back and be amused at our current understanding in the same way we look back at those who thought the earth was flat etc. It's not that they were stupid, it's just a question of contemporary understanding (or non-understanding!)

@1234nateman

7 жыл бұрын

Martin Hockings my personal veiw is that we are incredibly limited in our understanding. there's got to be a limit to what we can know.

@martinhockings2326

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Some things may simply be eternally 'unknowable'. Taken one step further, some things (e.g. the origins of the 'time' before the Big Bang) may just 'be' - there may be nothing to actually know if that makes sense!

@canyegane2406

6 жыл бұрын

I don't think so, there was no scientific research when people thought the earth was flat, now we actually do have a working methodology to explain things, yes there will be advances but it might not be as radical as you think

@ryanfranks9441

5 жыл бұрын

I mean, who else? Who can operationalize wave mechanics in complex resonance patterns, and the force exchanges within different energy states, relative to multiple fields of interaction, in a way that is complete and full? Good luck building your galactic sized super computer. haha Better to focus of the emergent laws in these systems.

So Penrose suggests that the universe presents as Eons - big bang to big crunch, process repeats for indeterminate number of times for unknown ends - so if time is only significant in terms of that process, could that imply that from our perspective all these 'instances' of the universe are happening in parallel? When we die, as far as 'we' are concerned the universe ceases to exist - there is nothing. Surely this has significance when considering that the substance of the universe (the particle) is only manifest when observed?

its really very simple when you think about it ...

When we figure out quantum gravity and learn to manipulate it's field, there may be no end of possibilities...

Quantum Suicide! Those guys rocked!

Actually, surprisingly, the classical world confirms the quantum reality. We have light which has a wave behavior and waves have various energies classically. But we know matter behave similarly to light and shows wave properties like for example electrons used in electron scanning microscopes. But the energy quanta reveals in classical objects. A piece of steel although made of these particles with wave behavior, when we measure its weight or mass we always find it the same and that's particularly because of precise quanta of energy for the atoms in the lattice. So from the classical field physics we can get to rigid body classical physics because of the quantum nature.

You can see his mind, and the acting

The strangeness is not about a dead cat or live cat, it is just a way to express what is known as 'entanglement'. However strange multiverse and quantum world are based on sound mathematics, that has no strangeness. QM is the result of fine tuning by ID enabling creation to deliver life, consciousness, awareness, intelligence, intuition etc., with probability ONE.

Regarding the Quantum suicide analogy: what about what about a natural death? Is there a universe where the guns just keeps clicking and I live to be 10000000000000 and its still clicking?

@syphonunfiltered

3 жыл бұрын

I would say no, because of what David Deutsch's "momentous dichotomy": either something is possible given the right knowledge, or it is prohibited by the laws of nature. Because our biology is such that we have an expiration date, we would die in all possible universes, although the precise age may vary. You might live to be 79 whole running this experiment and die of a heart attack, or you may live to be 101, 105, etc, and die from some other cause

@dr.jamesolack8504

3 жыл бұрын

pmac After nearly 70 years, I have come to the conclusion that in this universe, nothing is 100% impossible.....can you dig it?

@JBSCORNERL8

2 жыл бұрын

No. I think each life has and end state but you’ll keep respawning till u reach it. Sort of like a video game, it’ll allow to comeback over and over again until you’ve reach a check point. After that, I suppose you’ll reincarnate or your awareness will exist somewhere within the system.

Another great interview. It makes me realize that all the kids who SEEMED smarter than I was in school, were just better or more determined students. There is a quantum leap, if you will, between a really good student and a really bright student.

The Everett interpretation could explain why people are seeing Macro Quantum effects otherwise known as the Mandela effect!!

My theory or maybe not mine, maybe its out there is that the probability of quantum tunneling is scale dependent, meaning that a large ball could pass through a barrier but for that to hapen you'd have to throw it a trillion or maybe a gogol ammount of times, so basically what I'm saying is the likelihood of that hapening proportionaly decreases with size. Thoughts?

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

Maybe quantum measures into many worlds so can be many observations and observers?

If a person were to record their quantum suicide experiment on video, then shouldn't there be at least one universe where they have the video proof of the many worlds hypothesis if it is true?

@MCLastUsername

7 жыл бұрын

Sure, but participating in the experiment is the only way to get to that world.

@bizzee1

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think so, but the discovery might be worth the risk even if that is the case, and the purpose of recording a quantum suicide is just to produce evidence in some world to benefit somebody even if it is not our world. That said, I don't see how one necessarily has to personally participate in the experiment by being the one who commits suicide if video recording works. It may be that video recording happens to fail in the a portion of the universes and the one universe that proves the many worlds hypothesis happens to be one of the universes in which video fails. However, one can just do the experiment in a place where assisted suicide is legal where people, who were already going to end their life because of a terminal illness, are willing to volunteer. You should be able to find multiple volunteers that way ethically to reduce the chance of failed video.

He can probably set an audio level properly too.

max is my favorite scientist.

I loved the idea of this suicide-thought experiment, when I first read about it several years back::) Really great minds they are :P !

@Scorch428

2 жыл бұрын

What it implies is horrifying if you think it through fully.

@cgtoche

2 жыл бұрын

@@Scorch428 the possibility of immortality is horrifying, i agree

Because it is a more detailed look of the cosmos at minute scales that collectively result in 4D space which is somewhat different. Imagine that a tv screen is 4D which one is very familiar with but the pixels and all the mechanics of how tv works is the quantum realm. The quantum realm would appear different the 4D realm.

There may be a problem with this theory. He's basically saying we always live in a universe where we are aware, and our awareness forces the reality we experience. But we all die sooner or later. So before we're 150 years old, we must experience a reality where we do die. Therefore our observation no longer forces 1 of 2 outcomes on earth. We branch off out of this reality when we die, or the universe ceases to exist entirely. So maybe we could experience the gun firing?

The problem with the suicide experiment is not that you hear click click click, but YOU only hear it IF you are alive So if someone were to do this, it would be pretty unremarkable. In whichever universe they are in, either they would be alive to hear the click, or found dead by others

Huh..., Russian Roulette at the quantum level.... Never would have thought of that.

4:52 ok google turns on when max says googleplex. Weird....

Can't hear!

It's interesting that the big bang theory contradicts the black hole theory. Something isn't quite right.

Fantastic! Tegmark is a great ambassador for Everettianism. I'm so sure it can't be right, but who am I? I'm just an arrogant nobody who thinks the universe should work my way. Well, maybe it doesn't. Maybe MWI is correct. Two places at once? Superposition? Spooky action at a distance? Why not have a googolplex universes every second too? Humbling.

If Everett was right, maybe we'll get quantum immortality, in some universe things will always work out so that we live second longer.

@xxGLhrMxx

7 жыл бұрын

Eventually you'll run out of universes where it's physically possible for you to live. Perhaps there's always an universe where you go over 100, but unless there's a version of you where you discover immortality, eventually you'll run out of "you's". However, that doesn't matter that much as this interpretation allows for a deterministic "block universe" where past and future are equally always there, so in a sense, you'd always be around

Consciousness is your personality and your personality is your spirit.

What's the question?

@rjd53

3 жыл бұрын

Doesn't matter. There is really a question field anyway. The answer is the question collapse. The one who gets the answer will know then what the qustion will have been.

Brilliant Scientist

The many worlds model needs a split into way more than two worlds (some say infinitely many) to get attested probabilities right. If the probability of resukt A is 2/3 and the probability of result B is 1/3, then you'll need a three way split, 2 in which A happens and 1 in which B happens, to assure that in MOST worlds, the correct probability will arise over multiple trials. Even then, there will be a smattering of weird worlds in which the numbers come out all sorts of wrong. I suspect that the future will be bleak for the many worlds theory. In regular probability theory, there are many real possibilities but only one actuality when the dice are thrown. Actual experiments in QM end up looking suspiciously like regular probability theory in this respect. The divergence is in the way that the specific set up of an experiment alters the range and amplitudes of the possibilities. What we need is not gigagodzillions of universes but a more nuanced quantum probability theory. Quantum dice: If you throw one die, it can come up any number 1 thru 6. But is you throw 2 dice, the sum of the numbers must must be even. If you observe one die, you know the parity of the other without looking at it. HOW such pairs of dice do what they do would be mysterious but the requisite probability theory is perfectly straightforward without conjuring up multiple realities.

SI LA CUANTICA ES ESTRAÑA TODOS HABITABIMOS UN ESTRAÑO ENCUENTRO,SALUDOS

This may be a very simplistic view but we as humans are made up of atoms a collection of star dust formed in a super nova and we are using computers made up of the same atoms to try and calculate and work out the meaning of the very same thing that we are made of! So surely at some level atoms are conscious I meen for energy which atoms are to then converge together into biology to create human intelligence and conscious to look back on itself as a kind of mirror! Its truly mind blowing!

I love the way he just ignores the observer because he doesn't yet have an equation for it. Doh.

This is fascinating. It even shocked Einstein who symbolically said: "god does not play dice with the universe". Anyway, quantum mechanics exists in the same way as the curvature of space-time by gravitational masses. These are concepts difficult to grasp because they don't comply with formal logic. Maybe they could be interpreted by dialectical logic. Who knows. Let's wait for quantum computers and how about Artificial intelligent robots observing "quantum mechanics" experiments.

Max's experiment may convince the subject, if it turns out to be true, but the audience, who isn't confined to those worlds in which max's head remains intact, will almost certainly be convinced the other way, when (in their worlds) Max ends up scattered over a lab in Princeton.

This doesn't work because you don't die INSTANTLY as the particle does its thing, or as the "bang" goes. You still live and are aware of it some fractions of a second after that. So you're "there" to be aware of the bang happening.

@gru8212

8 жыл бұрын

I think he said machine gun just for example, what he really meant to say is that that suicide machine will kill you instantly the same moment particle goes in one place or other.

@Raptorel

8 жыл бұрын

+G Ru Yeah he explained it correctly in his book, "Our mathematical universe", finished reading it a few days ago

@xxGLhrMxx

7 жыл бұрын

Your brain cannot process the sound of a gun before the bullet hits you in the head.

When we will have quantum TV`s to actually hear something?

If all the matter in the universe came together, a super massive black hole would form. As we all know, nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light. At the beginning of the universe, all the matter was compressed into a singularity. Therefore it was, by definition, a black hole and the big bang is impossible.

He has been waiting for years for someone to finally just give him a handkerchief. Come on! That's only why he's hanging around in those talks.

welp never thought I could be mind fucked again by QM.. I wish I could do math and physics at that level so I could make my own interpretations rather than having to listen to all this philosophical implications of physics

@ankitaaarya

5 жыл бұрын

Dude i share exactly this idea of yours.... But i am trying to be able to do maths and physics, i am studying physics and maths. I dont know how long it would take me, but even if i can get there , i will still enjoy the process. I wont say i dont care about result, i do care abput it, if i am working hard for it i want to get a decent accomplishment, its just natural to any human being. But i try prepare myself for nothing, a nothingness which could discourage me for not being successful. Thanks for commenting.

Particles are not in two positions at the same time. That would mean that we could find them in two places at once which is definitely forbidden.

@rockparkoure

8 жыл бұрын

+Vector Shift We can

@logical-functionsmodel9364

8 жыл бұрын

+jake rheingold We can only find probabilities of where particles are, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We cannot find particles in 2 places; however, we can reason that they are in 2 places at once.

@vectorshift401

8 жыл бұрын

+Logical-Functions Model 93 Thanks for pointing out the difference between probabilities of being somewhere and being detected as being somewhere. I would be careful on what 'reasoning that they are in two places at once' means however. For me something being in two places at once requires that it be detectable at both locations simultaneously. I think that the best way to think of it is not that "the particle" is in many places at once but rather that it just doesn't have _any_ position inbetween interactions that indicate a position. This way of thinking is consistent with what has come out of Bell's inequalities , Aspect's experiments and the various follow ups. These things don't behave like 'particles' in that regard. Particles have to be at one location at a time for them to be proper particles. This is where wave/particle duality come in, these things don't act like proper waves or particles.

@vectorshift401

8 жыл бұрын

+jake rheingold I don't know what you mean by saying that particles can be found in two places at once. I would need to know what experiments you were referring to to reach this conclusion. Something like the two slit experiment says that the "particle" couldn't have just gone through one slit but that's not the same as saying that "it" went through both slits. The wave function is required to go through both slits but that is different from saying that the "particle" went through both slits. There is a major conceptual difference between a "particle" and a wave function.

VERY LOW, VOLUME

Everett's interpretation can explain why there are some fucking lucky people out there

It all started wth a big bang, BANG!

For the same reason as quantum suicide, we are all destined to become Taro Urashima.

Hi, realy dont get the, Clik , Clik suicide think. It's very bizarre right. Or is someting New that I not Aware of. anyway we need all kind of différents approche. Very bizarre, I will Do a search about this. Thank for the show. En Philippe

My world is tough enough. My math experience tells me there isn't a googleplex number of dimensions possible, but o.k.

Giraffe Tegmark is good

The trouble with the 'Quantum Suicide' thought experiment (and MWI) is that we would seem to be immortal. As at the moment of physical demise we would continually duplicate yet another copy of 'ourselves' who survives (and dies) eternally.

@Benjamin93swe1

9 жыл бұрын

Can´t see the trouble here? if it is true, it just is. But you would still continue to age in the worlds you get duplicated into. Unless time works different depending on which universe you enter.

@31428571J

9 жыл бұрын

Benjamin Andersson Just slightly edited my post ('(and dies)') as an attempt to be a little clearer. Let's say I was the oldest man who died at 120. In another universe I would be still alive. How can I die when at every moment of demise (in each universe) another copy of me survives?

@Benjamin93swe1

9 жыл бұрын

Well, this is just a thought experiment so I think we should be slow do draw conclusions, but it sure is mind boggling. If we are able to create functioning quantum computers, that would sure put some of our golden cows up for questioning, our stone tablets of reductionism and scientism would fall off, and we would have to find new theories that were able to incorporate the essence of our new discoveries. Look, I´m rambling again.... we sure do live in thrilling times, don´t we?

@MrBasisGuy

9 жыл бұрын

It does not have to be done by a living thing, it's like schrodinger's cat, it's an analogy. The word "observation" by a living thing can be exchanged with the word "measure" by a contraption. In the case of a quantum computer, he is proposing you can create a mechanism where only certain types of outcomes will be the "output" and that's how you "pull" a result from a computer doing parallel computation in multiverses. For example, you make a q-computer programmed to calculate Pi with a certain precision. If Hugh Everett was right, that means you can program it a certain way that it will "hang" or "error out" if the answer was not Pi at a certain precision and doing so will give you the result of Pi at that precision every time.

@31428571J

9 жыл бұрын

Allen Albright " ... though is that other person if the parallel universe really you?" True. How would we ever know? I don't really believe that we would be the same person. Putting two (potentially) identical objects in two differing locations of spacetime, demands/proves they are not TRULY identical anyway. Similar to the evolution (in time) vs the identical design (DNA) of cloned pairs, evolving to be truly independent and differing of course.

If you only experience the reality where youre conscious, couldnt you then do a experiment similar to the gun max talked about but instead something that would make you unconscious and then find out without having to risk to die if the many worlds interpretation is right?

As you repeatedly run the quantum suicide experiment, the probability will approach 100% that you end up horribly maimed rather than unscathed. So this experiment isn't for the faint of heart, even if you're totally convinced of the Everett many-worlds hypothesis.

@JBSCORNERL8

2 жыл бұрын

Your awareness will not disappear. Maybe the life will

Our perception and therefore our consciousness is split into super positions? This seems amazing lazy and easily undefinable. Why would a person's fixed position in time/space be the place were reality splits? As the observers this can't be possible because we define the outcome not the other way around. When do we call in the Green Lantern to fix all the problems of strange quantum with his 30 ft long fist/hammer? Would be more plausible.

I'm not sure that my life or the life of our children has improved with computers. Having used them very early on, I know how much time I wasted with them, how it's taken me away from a spectacular universe I could have been conscious in.

Tegmark looks like a Tarantino mobster character

A device measures the quantum into many worlds; the detector observes many worlds into one reality?

Tegmark really grinds my gears. Julian Barbour and his collaborators have constructed a model known as conformal 3-space, in which the world is 3-d manifold evolving in 'time' containing all the matter and gauge fields of the standard model. They then show that such a model can be transformed 'almost' into GR, in ways which resolve some issues of 'frozen time' in GR, and will be experimentally indistinguishable from GR. Model has the remarkable property that massless fields all propagate at c, respecting Special Relativity for all local observers. At the very least, this shows that the 4-d formulation of GR, cannot be used (if it ever could) be used to argue like Tegmark, that the world is really 4-d and 'time' as we feel it is an illusion. At the very least it is bad philosophy. Physicists like Tegmark have this psychological need to feel they have special knowledge over mere mortals, and impress the public by telling them that their everyday sense experience is not just limited, but completely wrong. Our subjective notion of time as change, that the past is gone, and the future does not exist, is dismissed, because Tegmark can use differential geometry to incorporate dynamics in a clever way. Newton's theory of Gravity can be written as a different 4-d curved space-time model, but no-one uses that to argue that time does not exist. The rule must be, that unless our sense experience contradicts observations, like in quantum mechanics, simply dismissing it as subjective, is just wrong. This is why deluded String Theorists come up with fantasies of 10 dimensions and multiverses, and in an effort to keep funding for a failed theory, they go on a PR campaign to tell the public that the world is not 3-d, it is not even remotely unique, because the theory must be right. Well, given that model's similar to Barbour's, are used as the basis of Loop Quantum Gravity, it too appears to suggest that the world is 3-d, that it evolves according to quantum laws, and the 4-d block universe was just a useful too to work with Classical GR.

@thesprawl2361

2 жыл бұрын

"Our subjective notion of time as change, that the past is gone, and the future does not exist, is dismissed" But Julian Barbour is one of the most famous proponents of the idea that time(or the flow of time) is an illusion. There doesn't seem to be a contradiction between them on that issue.

I sometimes have a feeling, something less than a memory, that I was electrocuted as a child. And then I wonder why I'm here.

Would it make more since if replaced the "observation" with time? If I lived on another planet and I had the ability to travel to earth in a time window of 1,000 years. Then relative to me you would be both alive and dead. at the moment I arrive on earth 50 years after your death I set in stone that you and I could never meet.

This is a new one: he says that if we succeed in building quantum computers, that proves the Multiverse. Come on, Max. You have to do better than that.

@alexandermegalos130

4 жыл бұрын

The Multiverse is completely from the Many-worlds theory. The first is a cosmological theory. The second is the one he’s talking, describing how the wave function branches/splits into different worlds that can never interact with each other.

INTENTNT

This is superstition, simply. A free partticles simply wiggles from place to place very swiftly or has blown itself up somehow, or might even be at several places simultaneously with a certain weight on each place. But this does not imply a splitting world, but a world with some added geometrical continuity. A particle collapses into a certain space when something inetracts with it strongly enough. In the dobleslitexperiment the particle is simply cached by forces at a screen, holding it in one narrow environment. This is the collapse in that experiment. Then you can observe where it is. I have the feeling that this Tegmark is doing a sort of desinformation mission to lead people from understand the reality.

Quantum computers do work now as of 2018-19

@dr.jamesolack8504

3 жыл бұрын

wick But....they do now! Amazing!

I fucking love this guy

The trouble with this is time

The quantum only seems strange because we're looking at it through our materialist worldview. When interpreted with a more modern worldview, it makes perfect sense.

"observation" is B.S.

@kasparov937

6 жыл бұрын

Woooahhh that's deep..

i think i know the answer

The Qauntum is not strange, we just do not understand it well enough yet.

@majmage

3 жыл бұрын

That's what strangeness is. A lack of familiarity.

Quantum field theory defines reality. But then one would think, well What is a theory? We are great observers, the problem with definitions is that ... Yes we have time, but what about 13.4 billion years ago. Is dark energy infinite???

john stamos can play him in a movie

My God we live in a simulation where the computer is 3rd Grade and the programmer dyslectic

Max, Quantum is indeed so strange to anyone who don't understand Quantum Mechanics. But for those who fully understand it and enjoy learning, exploring and actually using quantum aspects and technology of Quantum Mechanics, it is not strange at all. The only problem to date is that Quantum Mechanics and Gravity is not compatible with each other. No one fully understand nor comprehend the True Nature of Gravity. So far, we have no empirical theory of quantum gravity until now. Fortunately, we now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that paves the way for the Theory of Everything in Physics, that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical laws and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise, quantum computational and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement in Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on Quantum Gravity. Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year.