The Transactional Interpretation does not make any claims about if the universe is deterministic, since the wave functions travelling backwards in time can be travelling from possible futures, rather than a future that is predetermined.

@arsenymun2028

3 жыл бұрын

Hi, so cool to see you comment on other physics videos

@brianpj5860

3 жыл бұрын

Ahh, another one of my favourite Physics channels!!

@KAMiKAZOW

3 жыл бұрын

🤯

@YounesLayachi

3 жыл бұрын

Nice

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting 🤔 Thanks for the correction!

There's a different universe where Nick is really into the many worlds interpretation. We just didn't end up in that universe.

@Bolpat

3 жыл бұрын

If the the Many Worlds interpretation is true, there's a universe in which the Many Worlds interpretation isn't true. Therefore, the Many Worlds interpretation isn't true.

@Testgeraeusch

3 жыл бұрын

The question remains: If the unentanglement of collaps of wave function happens at the moment of measurement... what is that moment of measurement? Only realistic theories can describe measurement processes without further introduction of collapse. That is a problem that was sadly not adressed in the vid :/

@satyampandey2222

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bolpat that is fundamentally unreal.

@sukhchain9696

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bolpat Many world interpretation doesn't necessary mean completely contradictory universes. Just a little tweak and you get an almost similar universe but *all the universes must obey the basic law of physics* Beside a lot of theories thought of being impossible have been proven correct

@cosmological7773

3 жыл бұрын

It's our fault, we observed his video :-D

Heisenberg was speeding down the highway. A cop pulls him over and says “Do you have any idea how fast you were going back there?” Heisenberg says, “No, but I knew where I was.”

@pikiwiki

3 жыл бұрын

this is so funny

@Sovic91

3 жыл бұрын

Then the cop says "you were going over 70 miles per hour" and Heisenberg replies "Well great! Now we are lost!"

@dakrontu

3 жыл бұрын

Or "yes I know exactly how fast but you can't prove I did it here".

@Sovic91

3 жыл бұрын

@@dakrontu Oh, that's clever. I like it.

@ikilledaman

2 жыл бұрын

I love that

I love how your wife admits that doing science with specific goal in mind isn’t real science and than dismisses interpretations because she don’t like time travel :D But seriously, this format is great as well as your other videos. ❤️

@lolroflmaoization

2 жыл бұрын

But actually science develops by having specific goals in mind, for example lots of scientific discoveries were driven by the desire of the scientists to explain phenomena in a more simple and unified manner, having goals does not diminish the scientific pursuit at all, because at the end of the day once you develop a model motivated by some goals, then it can be pursued, tested, evaluated and so on, and then science continues, dismissing interpretations is actually not a good thing a lot of physicists would say because, all an interpretation means is to have something real to point to behind all the mathematical models created, if we just stick to the mathematical models and their predictions, then all we arrive at are models that drive predictive success without ever striving to find out how the world actually is, because mathematically there is literally an infinite number of models that could say very different things about the universe, and yet they could all give us the same exact predictions..... Its also important to note that if we don't have an interpretation can also drive future discoveries and give us new predictions to test, that could lead to new scientific discoveries, so it's very naive to dismiss them.

@seasidescott

2 жыл бұрын

@@lolroflmaoization Thanks for saying so well what I was thinking. She was conflating science idioms incorrectly, especially around confirmation bias in testing vs goals. Also I almost choked when she said "if you don't get the results you want, just move on, abandon your theory" or something like that. We always loved when we got different results! It was this huge opportunity to find your experimental or data mistake or to look at the problem from different angles previously unseen. All theories are tools, not objectives, and one can hold more than one at once or not even consider them until or unless they become relevant. Old lab books/journals are precious for the data that you can go back over and look at with any theory or new understanding or just to see what you didn't see at the time. And my first lab was in an old building that stored projects from Apollo re-entry research. The damage to the concrete walls showed where many failures had occurred. I'm glad they didn't just say "well, that doesn't work, let's not go to the Moon."

@Slix36

2 жыл бұрын

Same for free will, which makes no sense in any type of universe regardless of in/determinism. Kind of silly, really.

@Predated2

Жыл бұрын

@@seasidescott I think there is a big misinterpretation here though. There is a difference in not getting the results you expected, and not getting the results you want. Getting unexpected results is amazing, not getting the results you wanted is bias. Just as an example for other people who will inevitably read this in the future: Unexpected results is what leads to people trying to recreate those unexpected results to see where it leads them, this is often compared to the discovery of penicilline. Not getting the results you expected is what leads to people trying again and again untill they get the results they wanted, or at least close enough. These are often the kind of scientific papers that tell you that vaccines cause autism. Hence the "if you dont get the results you want, move on, abandon your theory" fits. If you got unexpected results, you dont really want the results you got, you have to move on from those expectation, abandon that theory and follow the trail where the unexpected results lead you.

Now I want to see a series where she explains biology to you.

@chrisbovington9607

3 жыл бұрын

Oh hell yeah! 😃

@joaquinel

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe she already did... Did she contributed to the photosynthesis vid?

@joaquinel

3 жыл бұрын

This would be fun. My favorites Asimov books were biology combined with chemistry and physics.

@guilhermehx7159

3 жыл бұрын

Me too

@cumulus1869

3 жыл бұрын

I don't. She hates time travel.

The Science Asylum is the only channel for which I'll pause a PBS Spacetime video to watch a new upload immediately.

@lordgarion514

3 жыл бұрын

That's love right there.

@thomashenderson3901

3 жыл бұрын

Ahmen!

@themadotaku

3 жыл бұрын

Good taste! Two of the best channels and I'd agree with your ordering

@michaelfrankel8082

3 жыл бұрын

I can accept that.

@luckybarrel7829

3 жыл бұрын

Is it even possible to understand any of the PBS Spacetime videos?

PLEASE HAVE MORE VIDEOS WITH HER! she asks great questions, acts as a great foil that the audience can relate with more

Totally love this format. You two are greater than the sum of your parts. Many thanks for clear and concise explanations.

I can feel this deep effort to explain or clear things, Thank you both of you for this energy consuming exercise.

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Explaining quantum ideas is _so_ hard!

@Lucky10279

3 жыл бұрын

@@ScienceAsylum You did a really good job of it! Your wife also did a great job asking the right questions. You should have her own again if she's willing.

@jskratnyarlathotep8411

3 жыл бұрын

@@ScienceAsylum another interesting theme might be explaining the difference between forces that obey inverse square law and forces that don't (like strong and weak, afair). and how it is connected to a three-dimension world we live in

@Tinkerbell0320

3 жыл бұрын

All exercise is energy consuming..................................

@ronsnow402

2 жыл бұрын

The first step in science is to formulate a hypothesis, "Shut up & calculate, don't try to understand" limits Scientific exploration.

To me, Occam's razor would lead me to either pilot wave theory, or loss of causality. And in fact, retrocausality, as wild as it sounds, only sounds wild because we're used to thinking that the future can't cause the past. But all that might mean is that we don't perceive the universe as it is, but are forced to experience it in a sequence, due to some limitation of our perception.

@Leonarco333

Жыл бұрын

As if time were just a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey… stuff?

This is a great format. I learned a lot. I am a physics hobbyist whose knowledge falls on the spectrum between the two of you. I’d like to commend your wife (sorry missed her name) but she is clearly very bright and asks really good questions. Also, my initial impression, based on this video, I think you guys make a great couple and are well suited for one another. Congrats on finding each other.

Excellent format Nick. I love the idea of having you lovely wife involved. She's smart, adds valuable POVs and ....keeps you solemn and direct. Her questions are smart and her comments and/or clarifications are cogent. Excellent program and you both have created a great program. Really well done!

This is one of the most important videos you've made to help expand my understanding of physics as a body of science. Thanks!

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Happy to help 🤓

@archanachoure2836

3 жыл бұрын

It sure has

I like the Many Worlds interpretation because it makes sense: you have an observer O and a particle in a superposition P1+P2. They interact. Now you have a superposition of O1+P1/O2+P2; in each part of the superposition, the observer "sees" a non-superpositioned particle P. So there aren't really "many worlds", just one giant superposition with bits that are constantly re-superpositioning.

Great video! Thanks so much for making it! Personally, I tend to shy away from introducing the concept of free will into discussions about QM interpretations. The way I see it, the smallest physical trace of thought or consciousness that we can verify experimentally is the size of a neuron. Since each neuron exists on a highly deterministic scale, the idea that there's any deeper sense in which our consciousness would be indeterministic seems like an effort to shoehorn an abstraction of our internal experience in where it doesn't belong. Even if we accept that QM is ultimately indeterministic, those tiny fluctuations would generally have little to no impact on the behavior of neurons, the apparent quanta of thought/consciousness/experience. Even if quantum fluctuations do influence the behavior of neurons, it still seems that those effects would be random in nature and uninfluenced by us and so the term "free will" seems inappropriate to me. It's really only about unpredictability rather than the human mind being somehow independent of physical law or being able to influence the probabilities of specific outcomes from quantum interactions in a way that contradicts the underlying indeterminism that we assumed. Suffice it to say that I don't see QM having the ability to save the comforting notion of free will in any interpretation, deterministic or not. Free will is dead, and man has killed it. That's just my two cents.

@ikilledaman

2 жыл бұрын

As someone who is also fascinated by quantum mechanics, this is exactly how I feel about it and i agree completely.

@spamblrmars

2 жыл бұрын

I also agree that free will is dead. My criticism was that there's obvious bias as the discussion goes on and there isn't an opportunity for the viewer to have their own reaction. We're talking about interpretations, so we're talking about philosophy. Just come out at the beginning and disclaim you are both free will proponents. That's fine. To talk about the other interpretations with sarcasm and disregard seems somewhat underhanded. I thought it was supposed to be OK to be a little bit crazy.

You're such a good teacher. You discuss very difficult topics with ease.

Copenhagen's: Universe is random and every event is the way it is just because that's how 'god rolled the dice' Many worlds: The universe is not random, it's just a superposition of states that evolves over time. Events seem random only because the individual eigenstates get more and more correlated with each interaction. Both interpretations make exactly the same outrageous level of assumptions. They just make it in different places. Occam's razor can't distinguish between them, unless you approach it with a bias for which assumption you subjectively "dislike less".

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

True.

@APaleDot

3 жыл бұрын

I'm sorry, but no. The Copenhagen Interpretation only assumes that the randomness seen in experiments is an actual property of the particle in question, and posits the existence of no additional entities to explain the wave-function collapse. The Many Worlds interpretation, on the other hand, assumes the randomness is merely apparent and posits the existence of a near infinite number of entangled universe to explain the apparent randomness. In no way is taking the randomness demonstrated by experiment at face value and using nearly infinite entities to explain how it's not _actually_ random at all equivalent under Occam's Razor. Positing 0 new entities is preferable to positing near infinite new entities. Taking experimental facts at face value is preferable to explaining them through other means.

@dannywest8843

3 жыл бұрын

​@@APaleDot Existence is a physics lab; you don't get to turn off how the science is interpreted because some of it happens while someone is wearing a lab coat in an academic setting. Nobody is positing any "new entities" in MWI; it's simply the most simple explanation for the formalism that already works. It just takes the equation that enables it literally. "Positing near infinite entities" is an intuition you have for the model that makes it seem as if it is more complex than it is. Occam's Razor applies easily to MWI if it happens to be the most eloquent scientific explanation for the data, its formalism, and the outcomes we can experience/apply. There's no reason the universe/multiverse and its physics has to conform to human eyes or human intuition. MWI can be refuted, ignored, etc., but I think doing so at this point is akin to trying to find holes in the fossil record. Sometimes it's helpful to let go of the intuition and see what kind of models you can make/think about when you take human preference out of it (to the extent you can), regardless of what you have historically found most intuitive.

@LuisAldamiz

3 жыл бұрын

Many Worlds is theistic in a Calvinist sense of the term, it's just obsolete ideas from the past trying to survive quantum (and chaos science) devastation of certainty. I say: get over it, God does play dice and probably even gamble.

@KohuGaly

3 жыл бұрын

​@@APaleDot Assuming that waveform collapse is a random choice means assuming that, as a brute force fact, one collapse happened, despite all the alternatives. That is metaphysically on the same level as positing an entity. Assuming that all waveform collapses are random choices is not one assumption. It's a near infinite list of assumptions. Random choice is a distinct concept from "randomness" as mere "unpredictability". Random choice is a metaphysical claim. Both Copenhagen and MWI predict that wavefunction collapse should be random in a sense of unpredictable. But only Copenhagen assumes it is due to random choice.

It’s interesting to me that you bring up Occam’s Razor as reasoning ‘against’ the Many World’s interpretation, as many of the proponents of that interpretation seem to feel like Occam’s Razor is in *their* favor! I’m not sure if they’ve referenced Occam’s Razor specifically but I do know that the main reason why Sean Carroll is such a strong supporter of the Many Worlds interpretation is because it doesn’t introduce weasel-wordy verbiage like “observer”/“observation” in regards to the “collapse” of the wave function, and instead takes the “least assumptions” approach by following the Schrödinger equation to its logical conclusion. I’m just a nobody layperson , so I don’t really have a meaningful leaning in either direction, but still thought that was interesting.

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

*"Many of the proponents of that interpretation seem to feel like Occam’s Razor is in their favor! "* Yes, I know. I had a conversation with Looking Glass Universe about this once and she's _adamantly_ disagrees with me.

@dannywest8843

3 жыл бұрын

Your description of "the general" Everettian point of view seems correct here in relation to Occam's Razor. MWI proponents advocate (correctly, I think) that the multiverse is exactly what is most obeying the principle of Occam here. It comes out of the math in a pretty literal way. The many worlds aren't "added," they're just *there*. Human intuitions, etc. are what's being added in other interps.

@WorthlessWinner

3 жыл бұрын

@@dannywest8843 - i guess it depend son how "real" you take the mathematical objects to be; are you adding an actual universe to your model to account for a few numbers, or are you just accepting that the numbers are actual universes?

@adarshmohapatra5058

2 жыл бұрын

I think Occam's razor is in favor of the strong Copenhagen interpretation. At face value, the science is telling that electrons are inherently random. So why not just take it that electrons are particles and waves, and forget about determinism. You can never find both the position and momentum of each particle anyway, so the universe can never truly be deterministic anyway. The MWI seems to be just a weird work-around for people who want to be pedantic about determinism. Like "the universe is deterministic! We're just not in the universe where it happens".

@Smitology

2 жыл бұрын

@@adarshmohapatra5058 But at the same time, the strong Copenhagen "artificially" creates the idea that a state randomly jumps to another without any explanation for the mechanism. MWI is just that but without such a jump. I think MWI gets misinterpreted by people who are only given a non-mathematical, verbal explanation. Mathematically, it makes the least assumptions. Forget about the "other worlds" or whatever, all you assume is that the state of the entire universe always follows the Schrodinger equation, and MWI is what you get.

you guys are a) adorable, and b) super smart! having Em asking her pleasantly straight-to-the-point cutting-through-the-bullshit questions really adds a lot to these videos; she should visit the asylum more often!

A science asylum video is literally the best Christmas present ever. Yes, I’m that guy.

I have to admit I'm kind drawn to the Pilot Waves Interpretation. From a super-layman's perspective (I literally have learned everything about QM from KZread) it makes a sort of sense. I've always felt that there was something fundamental that we were missing. And if you think about it, that's been true for all of history. At one point we had no clue about sub-atomic particles, we had no clue about atoms, or molecules, or cells, ... and every time we discovered them we exclaimed "oh! Now X makes sense." I don't see why this would be any different. It's turtles, all the way down! But again, I'm not a scientist, just a random schmuck. Thanks for the great video!!

@ThatCrazyKid0007

3 жыл бұрын

The problem with pilot waves unlike the other interpretations is that it adds additional math that is incredibly hard to marry with Special Relativity and no one has done it so far, which is really problematic for something that promises to violate speed of light communication. It's basically how Quantum Mechanics gave rise to Quantum Field Theory, which is what the standard model of particle physics stands on top of, when you apply the Lorentz transformation to Quantum Mechanics and the math becomes invariant to it (what gives Special Relativity its 'there is no preferential frame of reference') and no one has found a way to apply it to pilot waves yet to produce this result. It's what gives scientists poor confidence in it despite its promise of making QM entirely 'classical', though it doesn't mean it's wrong, we don't know that yet, but the odds are not in its favor at the moment. At least it gives room for some actual theoretical work to be done.

@dannywest8843

3 жыл бұрын

I'd be wary of accepting as firm truth any model you find overly intuitive, especially when it comes to QM.

@mrnix1001

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThatCrazyKid0007 Yeah, see, this is where II point out the "super-layman" comment above :) I am absolutely sure there are issues with the interpretation but, honestly, the math, and issues of it, are WAY beyond me.

@mrnix1001

3 жыл бұрын

@@dannywest8843 If I have learned anything it's that nothing involving QM should be interpreted as "firm truth". In fact, doesn't that fly in the face of some of its basic tenets? :)

@ThatCrazyKid0007

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrnix1001 Yeah I know, just wanted to point out as another enthusiastic layman (studying in a STEM field helps understand the material a bit easier, but only up to a certain point) so you aren't confused why such an intuitive thing is not the most favored one, or barely favored at all. Cheers.

Excellent! Merry Christmas both!

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas to you too!

This whole discussion was amazing, thank you!

I really appreciate how your wife is able to jump to concepts outside of her field of expertise because she is able to keep her scientific mind together - a bit like trying to stabilise a plasma field. 😂 It might be difficult, but not impossible with a lot of quick calculations.

remember: is ok to be a little crazy, but not when your wife is next to you.

@BenjaminCronce

3 жыл бұрын

Just wait until one of his clones shows up.

@YounesLayachi

3 жыл бұрын

😂😂

@govamurali2309

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@MubinIcyer

3 жыл бұрын

Now Nick is serious.

@govamurali2309

3 жыл бұрын

@Emmet Ray lol

You guys should do a podcast. No lie. I could listen to you guys talk about this kinda stuff for hours.

@KAMiKAZOW

3 жыл бұрын

Existed already: scienceasylum.com/projects.php#podcast

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

@@KAMiKAZOW Yes, but I didn't have the time to edit it, so we quit. I don't think I'd start a new podcast until I have a team of people to help with things.

@DunderOnion

3 жыл бұрын

@@KAMiKAZOW was unaware- thanks for the link.

@DunderOnion

3 жыл бұрын

@@ScienceAsylum Absolutely! You two have such interesting discussion and banter. I would honestly edit for free if it meant more of you two talking. I hope one day it will see the light of day once more.

The many worlds interpretation works with the Occam's razor because the many worlds aren't an assumption, or even an ih=nherent part of the interpretation, but a way for us to understand what happens if you treat the measurement as any other process. What you end up with is that if the measured object was in a superposition, then after the measurement the entire system (the object being measured and the object measuring) are in a superposition. Then both components of the superposition evolve separately and don't affect each other, and thus can be interpreted as separate universes. The only assumption in this interpretation is that "the act of measurement does not require special treatment and functions as any other interaction". Occam's razor isn't in conflict with this interpretation then, and actually supports it over other interpretations which add new mechanisms and rules on top of the formalism that already works.

@515nathaniel

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I feel like there's a lot of confusion about Occam's razor. It states that you should choose the explanation with the fewest assumptions going in, which is not necessarily the explanation that produces the "simplest" result.

@user-ln6fz4dk6j

6 ай бұрын

Right, (unfortunately, in my opinion), Occam's razor leads to the many worlds interpretation. In the other interpretations, you have to add an assumption to the theory: what happens to the superpositions? You have to add a pilot wave, or a wavefunction collapse, or something to the theory. But in many worlds, you don't add anything.

If we're in a deterministic world, that means that we have no free will according to the Asylum But if we're in a non-deterministic world, doesn't that mean that you're a slave to whatever the quantum particles randomize to?

@tomatensalat7420

2 жыл бұрын

Yes I don't understand why some people think that basically a dice roll counts as free will..

@adarshmohapatra5058

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm fine with the strong Copenhagen interpretation. Not cause of free will, I never even thought about that, and I still don't think it gives free will. I like it because it gives the simplest explanation that makes the most sense. According to de Broglie, everything is a particle and a wave. So by definition everything is inherently random. No matter which interpretation you use, you have to agree you will never be able to completely know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe. So the universe can never truly be deterministic. God does play dice, and he plays hard..

@SergTTL

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! Neither of the interpretations allows for any free will.

6:14 Its like having water. We can drink it even if we don't understand what its made of.

Loved the video, I like how you can have a complicated conversation with your wife and she gets it! I have a feeling you guys have hashed out a lot of science.

Thank you for such wonderful content. A Christmas treat. Now I’m going to watch again!

Excellent stuff, Nick! I thoroughly enjoyed experiencing my mind going on a journey whilst entangled with the mind of your wife, during these two episodes. Thank you for taking us all 'a step back' and helping us to better oversee the quantum landscape in which science is endeavouring to (ultimately) successfully navigate a path to the goal of Actual Understanding.

0:29 "We like to view physics as though we're finding some deeper understanding about the universe, but that's not really what physics is about. It's about making predictions." That right there hit me right into my deepest concerns about physics, because I know he's right, although I still want to believe it isn't true. I began studying physics as a way of grasping the hidden nature of the Cosmos, but I learned that's something you, personally and subjectively, make along the way, as you gain knowledge and understanding. Thanks for your videos, though! 😙

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly! QM crushes the entire reason we're interested in physics in the first place. That's what makes us the most uncomfortable with it, I think.

@Lucky10279

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Yes, physics is about _modeling_ the physical world to make predictions and those models always end up being approximations of reality. But that doesn't mean we aren't learning about about the physical world. It's just that we're never getting the _full_ story. And besides, making accurate predictions in itself tells us something about the physical world -- how it behaves. In math, we sometimes say that "numbers _are_ what they _do._ " That is, mathematical objects are defined by their properties. The same is often true in physics and even with language in general. e.g. I'm Newtonian mechanics, we define a "force" as being anything that satifies Newton's second law. So we use that term to generalize a lot of different phenomena.

@ThatCrazyKid0007

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lucky10279 It's both until you hit that wall, there is only so much we can figure out through experiment (and any theoretical work without experiments to back it up eventually is worthless and as good as any science fiction screenplay) until you concede to the universe, which is why it is mutually exclusive ultimately. We are and will be too limited to figure out everything, but the fun is finding all that we realistically can and seeing where that wall truly lies, what can we ultimately predict and what we concede to the unknown.

@Lucky10279

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThatCrazyKid0007 Well yeah, like I said, we never get the _full_ story, but that doesn't mean we aren't getting part of it. And just because we haven't yet come up with a way to verify any of the interpretations doesn't mean we won't do so in the future. QM is still a relatively branch of physics. I wish I could jump ahead a few hundred years and see what progress has been made on solving the measurement problem (since that's the problem that each interpretation is trying to solve). Alas, I cannot.

@ThatCrazyKid0007

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lucky10279 We are talking about probing reality to the fundamental level, finding out all the why's, all the causes, but in reality physics is a study of effects and can we predict them. Finding out why is only sufficient up to the point we explain the effect, we need not dig further in physics, that's why Nick is ultimately right. You can of course try to explain the why's as the effects of some deeper why, but when do you say well that's as deep as it goes? At some point, it just turns into speculation based on arbitrary assumptions, which can't hold ground in physics if we can't verify it with experiments. I'd bet that even in a few hundred years, assuming we are still there and only keep increasing our ability to probe nature deeper, we'd either be stuck on the same problem or be stuck on a deeper problem without solving the fundamental why. At some point, it just crosses into metaphysics and without experimental data, you go from learning about reality to just guessing, hoping future generations will come up with the answer, but they never will. That's why it ultimately isn't about probing down to the fundamental level, it's just predicting effects.

I’m sure many people have already mentioned this. But this is such a great format for an educational video. Your wife represents all of us who are not experts in QM. And she represents us well!!

This is so great! This channel is the only place to get this kind on content on these topics.Please keep this series going!!!

That was a very interesting discussion. I think you should do more videos like this. I like your regular videos as well, but this is also good.

I'm one who's taken by the implications of chaos theory for ostensibly deterministic, classical systems - namely that their behaviour cannot in practice be predicted, no matter how refined our measurements can realistically be expected to become over time. What I have never heard in these kinds of discussions is a generalization of chaos theory to the quantum world in which some interpretations are based on attributing classical properties to quantum objects in the hopes of achieving some sort of certainty. (I can only assume that lots of physics geeks have had such discussions amongst themselves, so perhaps I have just never come across any...) What I get from discussions like those in this video is that questions of determinism vs randomness and predestination vs free will (which I take as being closely related dyads) are essentially ideological/"faith"- based beliefs that may never in practice (and perhaps not even in principle) be resolvable through empirical testing of hypotheses. So... is taking a seemingly firm stance on such things (as both parties to the conversation do here) even consistent with "science"?

@Gunshinzero

2 жыл бұрын

I'd say no. The problem is that although science is a tool people are using the idea or image of science (instead of real science) as a replacement for God. Therefore they have to make in fit into every corner of existence even if it's outside of the area of functional use. I think it really comes down to a desire for power. If the tool of science has no limit and the they (specific people in the establishment and not individual scientist) are the ones who wield it then they become godlike figures. If that's not the case then what would be the purpose of stepping out into the realm of philosophy while making such a concerted effort to deny that it's philosophy and calling it science instead?

I go with Heisenberg. It's all comes from the math that makes excellent prediction, but we don't have any bloody clue.

I found this to be a really great format, especially since I'd already watched a video on the topic earlier. So the back and forth definitely helped solidify things in my mind.

My God! I love when you two collaborate. She has got patience and intelligence to process what you explain! And it feels like she's representing the audience when asking simple but important questions. Please do more!

These conversations are excellent. A great way to describe complex ideas. More please!!

You two together are adorable to watch. Don’t know what the chemistry exactly is between the two of you. Love it! And am learning something at the same time!

@DuncanPaniagua33

Жыл бұрын

Well when you have physics and biology, the only thing left is chemistry! 😜

I really enjoy the series and the questions your wife are asking. Keep it up.

This is a fun format! Really enjoyed! Going back to watch part 1 :)

These are fantastic videos. I’d love to see you on Star Talk or another podcast with a bunch more physics nerds just talkin science. Then again you guys have great chemistry and are very entertaining and interesting to listen to. 👍👍

"locality" always seemed to me to be based on a deeper assumption that the only suitable mathematical frameworks upon which to model quantum fields are ones that involves smooth topologies, which sort of means that you build a type of locality into the model from the start, doesn't it?

@judgeomega

3 жыл бұрын

also with locality, for all interactions we create a particle to mediate them. it becomes a cleverly disguised tautology that could hide parasitic self reinforcing circular reasoning.

@rv706

3 жыл бұрын

Well, whatever the formulation/interpretation of QM you choose, it will always have to be compatible with General Relativity

@Lantalia

3 жыл бұрын

At least in some formulations, it looks like locality could be emergent, rather than axiomatic. This is one of the side branches coming out of the holographic principle. Nima Arkani-Hamed, Larry Susskind, and Sean Carroll have all touched on it in their lectures. Sean, in particular, is doing some interesting work in this area

@timhaldane7588

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lantalia whatever interpretation you take, nature seems to be telling us that *something* we previously thought was axiomatic is actually emergent. Personally, my intuition tells me that it's time's arrow; if we take seriously the time-symmetric nature of our equations (and Feynman diagrams), I don't see why retrocausality shouldn't be a regular occurrence on quantum scales, particularly in isolated systems. Something like the transactional model, with information from every interaction being carried forward and backward in time, would certainly explain the "conspiratorial" nature of entanglement. I think the emergence of time's arrow can be explained simply by the idea that the overwhelming majority of particles simply have "momentum", as it were, in one particular temporal direction (away from the big bang), and in becoming entangled with each other they acquire this same property. As much as I adore the holographic principle, myself, I think it opens up a huge can of worms if we interpret it to mean we can sacrifice locality, namely, what exactly is this metaphysical substrate upon which the code of the universe runs, and what exactly creates this illusion of additional spatial dimension(s)?

@jefflewis9117

2 жыл бұрын

There was an article in Scientific American a few years ago that discussed the idea that entangled particles were connected via space-time wormholes. What appears as a non-local interaction to us could actually be local through the wormhole. I'm not advocating that idea (I'm more of a Pilot Wave fan) and throwing wormholes into the QM interpretation game opens a whole new can of worms.

LOVE these videos so much. I like how she can break it down even further from your explanation!

2 thumbs-up for an amazing effort to help make these murky waters a bit more clear. Can't help but love the way the two of you interact

This was one of my favorite videos.

Wonderful, love this conversation. A lot.

This is my favorite video you've made - hits the sweet spot of entertainment and learning

Just brilliant. I love these back and forth discussions. You can really see Nick giving his brain a workout while compiling a response. Sometimes the best way to fathom out an understanding is to try and explain it to someone else. The speed with which you both respond is breathtaking, I have to keep hitting pause or rewind a bit. Also this is not my first viewing (by a long way!).

Thank you both fulfilling our wish and making another video together. This is great stuff and should become a constant thing on the channel in the future.

This video was one of the best experiences that I ever had on KZread. Congratulations, I loved it

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! This video under-performed (probably because it was twice as long as my normal videos).

So, I enjoy your channel anyway because they're fun, but these one's with your wife are the most fun. I think that's because even if you understand various interpretations well, the immediate reactions from those who are less familiar are totally understandable and are reservations even those with deep understanding of them share. It's a rare instance where the educator and the student are in the same boat and so share the journey together

Nick, Your wife is awesome! I really enjoyed this video and I think it helps me understand this topic a little better. Maybe if I watch it a few more times it'll really sink in. ;)

This was one of the shortest half hours I've ever experienced. Wow I have to admit I jumped right in because the short 1st part guaranteed this episode would be great to watch So kudos for the content and for the execution! Will Mrs Lucid co-host classic Asylum videos from time to time? It's nice to watch you 2 working together! Merry Christmas!

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

I'm sure she'll be open to doing this again. It won't be a consistent thing though. I need to focus on my normal videos most of the time. P.S. Merry Christmas!

Nick, I commend you on your new format. Your wife, very pretty BTW and I love her hair, adds a great flair and compliments what you’re trying to achieve: teach and elucidate complex and engaging topics. You take on a more commanding and sober appearance in her presence and your wife adds value to the conversation by acting as a sounding board, clarifying and challenging. I love your new format - you made a great decision. I think your wife’s participation will broaden your sphere of audience. Well done!!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

Great explanations and an excellent way to discuss the complexities and general weirdness. A lot of questions and uncertainty around this topic were answered for me and I've been contemplating this for years.

Best video from you ever. Spurring me to do more research. Well, done.

Early on, she totally had the look that said, "what kind of box of crazy have I gotten myself into?!?" Lol Thanks for the fun and the explanations!

“Update yourselves!” Is going to be my cyberpunk saying. 💁🏻

@timhaldane7588

3 жыл бұрын

Wake up, Samurai. We have a theory to learn.

you need to make more videos with your wife! i love the way you guys interact and she gives voice to a lot of the questions i was asking.

You two are delightfully nerdy and I f**king LOVE IT! Thanks for all the fun and informative content. Keep up the good work.

"It's all science fiction until it's experimentally validated." Ok, she's awesome. Great to see my tribe well represented (biologists). Though... Free will and determinism isn't what y'all think it is. Free will at a practical level and determinism go together perfectly fine.

@Reepecheep

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps they do, but I don't think most people have a problem with "practical" free will. They are concerned with the philosophical free will.

@theflamethrower867

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reepecheep I’m fairly sure that’s what he meant

@Reepecheep

2 жыл бұрын

@@theflamethrower867 What do you mean by "that?" Are you saying that despite saying "practical free will" they really mean something else?

@danman2125

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps we somehow have the ability to choose which universe to “observe” every time the wave function of the multiverse that contains our brain becomes unentangled from the one you were observing. Basically the ultimate choose-your-own-adventure book.

I'll confess that I'm a proponent of the Transactional Interpretation, mostly because I think it's cool. It does provide an interpretation to Dirac's bracket notation, as consists of |i>, the forward-moving initial state, and . As far as time travel goes, the Transactional Interpretation can't be used to communicate backwards in time any more than collapsing an entangled state enables faster-than-light communication. On a somewhat-related note, are you going to do a video on the Arrow of Time?

@angeldude101

2 жыл бұрын

I think the transactional interpretation has a nice symmetry in how it utilizes both components of the state, and interfering waves (even if one is coming from the future) is definitely more appealing to me than an arbitrary and spontaneous collapse. Personally I think I prefer many worlds because it maintains causality, but I can see merits to the transactional interpretation as well.

Excellent video. I love this format of your talks. It slows the pace down, which allows the viewer to digest the material. You should do more videos like this one, if Awkward M doesn’t mind 😅

This video is so wholesome for me, hope you keep up with this series!

EXCELLENT Overview or the amazing reality we in which we find ourselves... Thankyou 👍

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

You're welcome! 🤓

I'd say causality is the most important tenant. If causality wasn't a thing, that would impair the ability of reasonable people to give a damn about anything. Screw realism, though, that's definitely just human pattern seeking biases. Causality>localism>determinism>realism.

@MarkWadsworthYPP

3 жыл бұрын

"tenet" not "tenant"

@vanderkarl3927

3 жыл бұрын

@@MarkWadsworthYPP lmfao imagine the high level abstract physics concepts all living in an apartment complex, locality and realism were living together until they were shown to be mutually exclusive

I love the videos with your wife! You tend to explain even more, and that's great for the rest of us!

23:20 I love his look almost of "defeat" at the end like "welp, we should've seen that one coming 🤷‍♂️".

"Isolated systems don't exist, unless you are talking about The Universe!" So great! 🤣🤣

1st! Thumbs up Now watch All 3 in superposition

I appreciate how you mapped this by emphasizing the principles.

I have been waiting for this ❤️❤️❤️

I absolutely love this channel! Great discussion (both halves). I wish he could reconsider free will as not a given as I don’t believe it is, which would greatly influence his decision on the models.

@SamChaneyProductions

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, a lot of people (unfortunately some of them scientists) cling to the assumption of free will just because it makes them uncomfortable, even though it's a totally unscientific and illogical assumption.

@Gunshinzero

2 жыл бұрын

@@SamChaneyProductions I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the universe is science instead of science being a human tool we use to understand the universe better. Did you miss that this whole video was about interpretations? Your whole comment is unscientific.

@SamChaneyProductions

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gunshinzero No, I do not make that mistake. I know that science is just a set of models we create to approximately model the universe. I still fail to see why that would imply that free will is real. There is no evidence for it so doesn't make sense to incorporate belief in it into a scientific model

@Gunshinzero

2 жыл бұрын

@@SamChaneyProductions That's the point. Making the model itself is not scientific so arguing that they shouldn't have free will in the model is pointless from a scientific perspective. Arguing that there is no free will is also not scientific so if you choose to engage in the conversation you should just come to grips with the fact that you have entered philosophy. People feel science is a safe zone of comfort so they try to squeeze everything they hold dear into it. No human lives scientifically or depend on it for life. People have been eating food before they knew what it did in the body. Yet people keep trying to hide their beliefs behind science. You believe improvable or unproven things just like everyone else. Those things may be correct but that isn't the point. The OP in this thread worded it properly by saying he doesn't believe it is instead of talking about it being illogical because it doesn't fit his philosophy.

"Whatever interpretation I get behind, it better be non-deterministic !" - Nick Lucid ... yeah but you didn't have a choice but to believe that...

A lot of science videos featuring a 'layman' asking questions tends to devolve into the 'layman' being comic relief and asking very shallow or basic questions that a quick Google could answer. I like that M 1) is able to grasp things quite well and 2) hence ask relevant and thought worthy questions. As I've commented on other asylum videos, Nick's breakdown of topics are unlike anything I've seen or heard before. They are perfect for the physics 'enthusiast' who has watched a lot of space stuff and maybe read some basic books but doesn't understand equations without being spoken to like a toddler. Absolutely fabulous.

Thank you so much for helping us understand the deep subjects of physics👍 Hope 2021 will be good all over the world.

Thanks for the hard work. Love from Denmark.

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Hope you enjoyed it!

I'm a programmer and the more I learn about Quantum Mechanics the more it sounds like we're in a simulation, because this whole uncertainity mess sounds like just effects of the IT concept of lazy evaluation. Don't calculate a precise value (position, charge, speed, whatever) until you actually really need it for other calculations.

@plcflame

2 жыл бұрын

As a programmer, seems that the speed of light is just the maximum speed that different "computers" can calculate what is going on. So, the sun explodes, the information has a delay (like a lag) to tell the others computers that this happened, and while the information doesn't reach "earth", everybody continues to calculate as the information hasn't changed.

I love this series. You clear many definitions that puzzled me when reading physics articles 👏👏👏👏👏👍👍

best moment in the video came at 9:29 where she says -"WONDERFULL"!!!

Any conversation with my wife about my work never goes this smooth.

@SamGarcia

3 жыл бұрын

You can see some cuts in the editing, so it definitely it wasn't as smooth as presented.

@samanmudannayaka9604

3 жыл бұрын

@@SamGarcia 😂😂

I think retrocausality has the same "untestability" issue as many worlds. We can't experience multiple universes. We can't observe time outside of time. I just can't imagine there's any way to "detect" if the past has been altered. For all I know, a meteor might have destroyed Earth this morning, and I experienced the destruction, and then something in the future reversed that action, so it didn't happen. All I know is that last part. From where I'm sitting now, a meteor did not distroy Earth this morning. I'm almost tempted to think that there could be an experimental "Faraday cage" that would protect things from having their past altered. Like, you could write some notes about the starting conditions of an experiment, put them in the cage, alter the past outside of the cage, and then compare the protected notes. But that seems impossible. Changing the past _has_ to change the notes that were written about the past. Best case: it _is_ possible to build the cage, but anything protected by it will inherently limit the parts of the past you can change. If I write, "the house is red", then I go back and paint it green, but I protect my "red" note, then it should be impossible for the greenness to find its way back to the point in time when I wrote the note. Otherwise it almost feels like we're trying to have our superposition and eat our measurement too.

@kellyjackson7889

3 жыл бұрын

I wanted to observe time outside of time but I couldn't make any time for it.

@NeonGreenT

3 жыл бұрын

Particle physicists are the Devil they dont believe in fields and therefore either Infinite universa or Time travel as an fundamental mechanic have to exist in Order to keep their billiard balls rolling. All this has to be spiced with some nonexisting dark Matter and some nonexisting Energy Drink to not Completely lose the concepts we have Made so far regarding Matter. You couldnt even explain how a particle accelerator creates new Matter without the Basis of a damn field. All Most sciencists and teachers do today is to Point at some hundred year old formula and yell eureka.

@tom_something

3 жыл бұрын

@@NeonGreenT I tend to think of the relationship between fields and particles sort of like Conway's Game of Life. The game's grid is the field. The color of a single space in the grid is not a physical thing, but just a value at that particular point in the field. Experimentally, we can't see the values of these individual cells. Based on the rules of propagation in Conway's Game of Life, there are certain patterns that have cohesion across time. For example, the space ship thing that sort of moves in one direction across the playing area. Since this space ship is made of a combination of values on the grid, and we've already decided that the "dots" on the grid are just values and not "stuff", that means even the space ship isn't a physical thing. The fundamental rules of the game don't mention spaceships. It's just a pattern that we can observe that is interesting to our human brains. In a way, the space ship is like a photon. While the cells are always propagating their information outward at every moment of the game, the space ship does not dissolve outward and break into pieces. Instead, it moves in a straight line at a constant speed, but like a photon. There are other combinations of dots that are large enough to be observed from the outside, but they don't have the right configuration to persist across time. The game's propagation rules cause them to bend, break, and disappear very quickly. I think this is a similar behavior to what are called "virtual particles". Of course, "Life" consists of just a single field, a simple two-dimensional orthogonal axis system, and the possible values of a cell are just zero and one. It's a very, very simple model. While it seems likely that the very fundamental rules to our universe should be few and simple, I don't think they'll be quite as few and simple as the rules of "Life".

@dutubsucks

3 жыл бұрын

Doesn't the quantum eraser experiment open itself to a retro causal interpretation?

@tom_something

3 жыл бұрын

@@dutubsucks it could, but it's my understanding that it doesn't rule out other interpretations.

Great video! The dialog was a great approach for a someone outside of theoretical physist.

That was very interesting and gives one much to ponder. The give and take between Nick and his wife is a joy to watch. They are so intelligent and charming. I hope they film more of these exchanges. It could be interesting if Nick would explain to his wife a couple of the simpler experiments that reveal the “strange” unintuitive behavior of quantum particles. Experiments such as polarized light passing through two filters, the double slit experiment, a computer simulation of entanglement, come to mind. Predicting the results of such experiments is of course the reason Quantum Mechanics was developed and revisiting these experiments is a vivid reminder that this is the non-classical nature of the physical universe; classical being, to borrow Nick’s list: local, causal, deterministic, and real.

A very happy Christmas to you both.

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Same to you!

For my part, I had to redefine "free will" so that even in a deterministic universe I still have it. I had to do this because even in a non-deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, it won't save free will, like at all. So what if random quantum wiggles mean you might choose different things if you rerun a moment over and over again? You're just entirely at the mercy of dice rolls instead of the course of a river. Dice being in control of your actions isn't really any more "freeing". How do we escape it? Well for me, I just had to distance myself from the notion that free will means that at any point I can make a choice entirely contradictory to my past experiences. That's not really satisfying either really. That's just... randomness no matter what physics you are into. Rather, I simply interpret it to mean that the group of interactions, the "process" that is my mind, is how the universe figures out how to proceed from moment to moment, at least local to my head area. As a result, it may be deterministic or random, but I am a PART of that process. My decision making apparatus, however predetermined or dice rolled it may be, is important in that it determines the flow of future events. Inputs go into my brain, the brain does things with those inputs, and it spits out decisions. That, to me, is "free will" enough and I am satisfied by that.

@WorthlessWinner

3 жыл бұрын

Many philosophers have done the same, the compatibalists. On the other hand, I don't think free will in a meaningful sense is possible weather the world is deterministic or not.

@jskratnyarlathotep8411

3 жыл бұрын

but really, why do we need to be free from inputs and dice rolls exactly?

@jorgepeterbarton

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, randomness is not "willing something" at all. Have you ever read 'dice man'? I reached for the cup of tea but my captor has flipped a coin saying i must have coffee. It probably resolves less free will to be random.. I call it being at the mercy of some cosmic roulette wheel, not autonomy. There is a more complex question. Unless consciousness is understood we have no hope. We can assume its emergent, we can assume nothing is greater than the sum of its parts.....although things may be greater than sum of parts, we see that an elementary particle is random but a collection of molecules is deterministic, so is it beyond the question to speculate how such properties like "will" can emerge.

@jorgepeterbarton

3 жыл бұрын

@@jskratnyarlathotep8411 things is, we probably are even if its true. Quantum coherence is an unstable, isolated state. Its unlikely to exist in our big wet brains. Penrose i think theorise it might, but in form of qubits, quantum computing via microtubules, however this is entirely a speculation. It does pose that our "algorhythms" are more complex, more analogue than a mathematical algorhythm, so if our decisions are just determined information processing at least its a higher, complex, incomprehensible form that doesnt exist elsewhere in the universe.

@sk-sm9sh

3 жыл бұрын

Free will doesn't exist. What exists though is intelligence. Intelligence is the opposing force to entropy.

amazing!! keep these podcasts coming ❤️❤️

I arrived at the same conclusions about quantum mechanics after studying the interpretations for months. You summed it up quite nicely. We'll probably get some answers if they ever manage to communicate data faster than light. (I don't think that they ever will)

Excellent synergy between her accurate questions and his explanations

Merry Christmas 🎅 🎄 ❤ ♥ 💕

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas!

@dru4670

3 жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas 🤗🤗

This format, you guys talking, works SO WELL. THanks!!

@ScienceAsylum

Жыл бұрын

Glad you liked it 🙂. It has become a format we do once or twice per year. The topic has to be right for it to work, but those topics do come up.

Too funny, this is the calmest video I have ever seen you in... Great job guys 😉

I like the many worlds interpretation. If the universe is already infinite by its size, why would it be crazy to think it can be just an infinitely big wave function where we only experience one of them (I mean, an infinite amount of them until we pass the point where they branch out)? I like determinism and have no issue with abandoning the idea of real free will... The illusion of free will is enough for me. Even if we can still argue that in the many worlds interpretation, as I understand it here, you actually have free will, it's just that you also made your other choices in other universes, but don't experience it.

You two have such a good relationship. It's like you're best friends!

@ScienceAsylum

3 жыл бұрын

Because we _are_ best friends! 😊

You never fail to amaze me. Thank you so much for your amazing videos. Merry Christmas to both of you, from one of crazies from India.

My understanding of Many Worlds is that there is only one entity - the "multiverse" (universal wave function) - and the "worlds" just come from the ways different observers are able to interact with different parts of it. Sort of like how a distant galaxy could recede beyond our cosmological horizon and effectively become a separate universe since our futures can never interact, but we still consider it to really exist and Occam's Razor doesn't fault us for this.