How can one not fall in love with math and physics while listening to him...man I wish I had a math / physics professor like him in high school. ... Thank you Sean ! I might not get all you are saying but even so I'm loving the struggle to be able to. You are amazing!

Sean singing at 27:35 is literally the best part of the video

@giveortake6962

3 жыл бұрын

Dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum Dum dum dum dum dum. Dum dum dum dum dum dum dum

Thanks, Dr Carroll for the energy, effort and enthusiasm you put into this series of videos. It's very much appreciated.

@bitdribble

2 жыл бұрын

What is the formula for Sean Carroll's energy?

At 38:22 Sean speaks my favorite Physics idiom, "It turns out that …". I've heard that since high school, and it always makes me think there is something that I will never know--right before "It turns out!"

Thank you for the lectures, you make me feel as if I have my own personal physics professor. I'm sure most of us watching feel that they too have their own personal instructor. And he is freaking great.

I love the math part, please do not shy away from it :) Also, the way you present, you talk about it - these concepts look so easy. Please keep up this great work.

Dr. Carrol, thank you for taking the time to explain things on the discrete/granularity issue. Your explanation helped a great deal.

I have a degree in nuclear and electrical engineering and this is the best explanation of the double split experiment I have seen. Obviously nobody EVER bothered to teach me about how to conceptualize the wave function in graduate school. Thanks for this one Prof.

Strangely enough, as someone who left math back in high school, I really appreciated the math at the end to explain the wave function. The graphs help me put my brain in that way of thinking.

We are so lucky to get to watch these videos ♥

Thanks for the discussion on Planck units. They’re often referred to in popular physics talks in ways that I took to mean discrete, but this clears up that misconception

@barefootalien

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Planck units tend to lead to a lot of misconceptions. I used to be absolutely astonished to almost a level of a "religious experience", feeling genuine awe and like I'd touched something truly fundamental and electrifying about the universe, at the fact that the speed of light is one Planck length per Planck time. I first heard that fact in relation to Simulation Theory, which stated it as something magical, and a gigantic clue about the nature of reality. Then I actually did some research into what Planck units actually are. The answer, that they are units that are defined such that the speed of light is one Planck length per Planck time, made me blush, laugh, and nearly cry all at once. XD In fact, it gets worse! Planck units are not even a _unique_ way of specifying units in terms of the fundamental constants. If you make different kinds of assumptions, you get quite a few different "fundamental" unit systems that all have their own way of simplifying certain aspects of the mathematics of physics, with each prevalent in its own field. So not only is it not mind-blowing, but rather simply tautological than the speed of light is one Planck length per Planck time, it's not even unique. Kinda shaky ground to base a hefty portion of a theory of reality on, eh?

@SrValeriolete

3 жыл бұрын

I'm just an undergraduate, so most of my information come from science divulgation and journalism of some sort. But as far as I'm aware, there was actually one experiment in 2011 that showed that any granularity on space-time (if existent at all) should be at least 13 orders of magnitude smaller than the Plank Length (www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein). There's seem to be a lot of theorists trying to sell their pet theory or interpretation to the press as if it were "the truth", or the scientific consensus, that's (one of the things) that causes many of those misconceptions. Quantum mechanics says nothing about the Plank lenght, some quantum gravity theories suggest that there might be a minimum scale (but don't specify the value, actually, most quantum gravity now-a-days like string theory and some loop quantum gravity don't specify a lot, and you can always save the theory from observation). None of those theories predicted that granularity should be at the Plank level either, it's more like the plank scale seemed to be a nice place to put it, but they already know how to modify their theories. Theories that can predict any number or that you can always change so that they could match with new data are not good theories. I have nothing against people studying them, just like it's important to study pure math, I'm sure some useful things will come out of it, and maybe we even get lucky and it turns out to be right, but people should be more open about what we don't know and the problems in our understating, specially scientists. That's (one of the many reasons) I admire Sean Carroll (and Leonard Susskind and some others), they really draw the line on known, agreed upon, consensus, proved science and personal opinion or interesting and promissing ideas, speculations and interpretations. Sean specially seems to go to trouble of trying to explain other points of view he himself disagrees with.

Love to hear Sean say "well... we have no idea" There's still much to discover!

@bitdribble

2 жыл бұрын

Really neat pedagogical device, to emphasize what we don't know

Thank you, Sean. Your detailed explanation of how the wave function interferes with itself, in a way that a mere probability distribution can't, helped clarify several issues for me.

Great addition to the last video. Thanks! Can't wait for the follow-ups.

Thank You for calling us that stayed til the end hardcore:D Perfect video, Something Deeply Hidden just arrived on my shelf for a week now cant wait to start it, hope it has some math as well?

This is amazing! Thank you Dr. Carroll!

Edifying, particularly regarding Planck discreetness and the role or rather the lack of a role of consciousness in the double slit experiment. The Dirac stuff at the end I sense is fundamental but very hard to grasp. Thank you so much for doing these. Can't wait for the next one.

This challenges me so much! Thank you! It is good to explore areas of study that are very different from ours

best explanation of Hilbert space/wavefunction for a non- physics major I have ever come across. thank you so much . ( sad i'm late to the party as it would have been great to have had the opportunity to ask questions, what a privilege )

DAMN I love this series, Dr. Carroll. I'm a mechanical engineer and when I was in school (at ULL), my friend's grandfather offered a quantum mechanics elective for non-physics majors over a single fall semester. I unfortunately was not able to take it because it would have overlapped with my Machine Design lab. It's something I have always regretted; not only for the fact that those 3 credits would have given me enough for a physics minor. What you are doing with this and Mindscape is so hugely appreciated.

I appreciated the math at the end. Reminded me of Brian Greene's daily equation videos.

Best explanation of the double slit experiment I've run across. Others seem to suggest that the particle "somehow" goes through both slits and interferes with itself. The wave function explanation makes perfect sense.

Thank you for this series, it is very enjoyable and much appreciated. Have bought 'Something Deeply Hidden' to continue the fun!

Thank you! what you and Brian Greene are doing is historic

5:00 - 15:00 is really good. Sean touches on how we think of probability as a tool for understanding and predicting physics, like the position of a gas molecule in a room, but we still believe that actually the molecules have a definite position, momentum etc, and statistics is more about our ignorance than the workings of universe. And so that touches on the issues I have with understanding physics - is it supposed to help us predicts or interact with physics at all, or is it just describing the laws of the universe that only the universe can follow. I’m still having trouble articulating that notion. Also, Sean says that with QM, statistics are not about our ignorance, not tools, but maybe something more fundamental. He then goes on to talk about the Double Split experiment, and tries to do so in a way that clears up the popsci misconceptions, and help us see what’s really going on there, necessarily biased towards what Sean thinks is relevant to talk about, in physics and in the context of this YT video, etc etc. Continuing on the notion I find hard to express; Sean also points out that it was useful to talk about the DSE and Schrödinger’s cat not just because they’re illuminating, but also to ‘correct’ (subject to all types of relevance realization) the readers previous misconceptions they’ve picked up from popsci, in a way that’s consistent with the implications the Author has made in their writings so far. I think this important to my idea of the pedagogy of physics, and how it is often presented with enthymemes about what you do and don’t know. Still having a hard time expressing that

Thank you Dr. Carrol for your double slit explanation. I had heard most of it in bits and pieces before. All of it at one time is much better.

@davidcampos1463

4 жыл бұрын

Also, I believe the first piece of Quantum Mechanics should be pi not psi. Pi belongs here.

"The wave function of the electron goes through both slits" - aha moment. I've never heard anyone say that exact language before.

@PrzemyslawSliwinski

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed. Probably because it immediately raises the next question: why it doesn't entangle with a barier but does with a screen/observer? I think the similar experiment but with the Mach-Zehnder interferometer is also illustrative when one wants to show these quantum conundrum s.

@gbye007

4 жыл бұрын

@@PrzemyslawSliwinski i guess because the barrier doesn't interact with the EM field, whereas a detector does?

@benjaminkennedy6260

4 жыл бұрын

How does quantum mechanics reconcile the fact that electrons have a measured mass yet seem to produce an interference in the double slit experiment?? Is it due to mass/energy equivalency?

@barefootalien

4 жыл бұрын

It is extraordinarily tempting for people "in the know" about quantum mechanics to state it in the most confusing and mind-boggling language they can think of, because it is (unfortunately genuinely) quite fun to watch people's brains melt. Over the last few years, Sean Carroll has helped greatly with ending that tradition and instead explaining it in the most comprehensible language possible. I've had many of those "aha" moments thanks to him! :D

@PrzemyslawSliwinski

4 жыл бұрын

@@barefootalien Well, I think this is also because there is YT. The Leonard Susskind's Lectures are also enlightening. So are the Brian Greene's "festivals". BTW: This old quote is attributed to Bernard Shaw: "You have nothing to do but mention the quantum theory, and people will take your voice for the voice of science, and believe anything." ;)

Thank you! So glad you are doing these videos.

Holy cow, what an amazing 45 minutes 👏🏽

Good morning Sean. Thanks for the vid. :-) Time for my mental exercise. This helps my understanding of this quite a lot. (but I have a long way to go).

Love the explanation Sean. Thank you

I stayed to the end even if my brain didn’t. What’s waving again?

Finally...Thanks Doc What it IS, is a wave, what it LOOKS like is a particle. I have been looking at this for over a year. Now I understand that bit. Not much else, but that bit is clear now.

Thanks Sean! Great stuff.

Your explanation is the best!! Thank you. Kisses from Brazil.

27:35 best part of the whole video

This video series, plus your podcast, made me order ALL of your books on Amazon. I have always wanted to understand GR on a graduate level, so I hope your book is comprehensible for someone with a BS in engineering.

I liked the Monad comment. Reminded me of Moleeds (old school funny stuff). Thanks for the refresh.

Thank you so much Sean! I guess some kind of a confusion when people ask "What is waving in psi?" is regarded to the observables, like energy _values_, spins, momentum, position (distance?) As you mentioned, the next video will be about measure and connection between QM and Measure theory (with Banach-Tarski paradox I hope?) but foreshadowing the answer to what's waving in psi and how outcomes of measuring things become positions and momentums. Thanks again!

The Dirac math made my brain a little wavy.

@donjuan6118

4 жыл бұрын

Dustin, I took Modern Physics at the university this last semester. I love quantum mechanics, and so I've been trying to read up on Dirac notation (bra-ket notation) and Hilbert spaces. I've been looking into this stuff for roughly four months and it still makes my head explode.

@tobiasthrien1

4 жыл бұрын

@@donjuan6118 I'm also listening to a lecture in quantum mechanics right now and i can assure you that this really is just a matter of time and good teaching. But this is stuff from the third or fourth semester, therefore it's no wonder that it doesn't make much sense if you squizze it into 15 minutes or so. I honestly believe that everybody with motivation, enough time and a good teacher can understand this. This is not just for seldom geniuses.

@Bill_Garthright

4 жыл бұрын

34:08 "You might say, well, that's a little bit confusing..." No, _really?_ :) I love it, but this stuff is a whole _lot_ confusing to me! Luckily, I can just enjoy it, because I'm simply an old fart taking time out from playing computer games by watching this as I eat lunch. Heh, heh. Edit: 40:17 "This is why infinite vector dimensional spaces are hard." Oh, _that's_ why. Got it. :)

@dustinking2965

4 жыл бұрын

Glad it's not just me :)

@sdu28

4 жыл бұрын

You can try Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Ramamurti Shankar along with Quantum Mechanics Demystified by David McMahon, both are great for beginners for basic QM math and notation.

Thank you once again Sean.

Between this and Brian Greene's daily equation, my evenings are full of mathematical wonder (and confusion)!

I have one particular way to see/explain wave function and would like to validate it here. It is the function that describes the path a particle take, from one interaction up to the next, and it is function of the particle's properties at start. The function is pretty much classical and deterministic from one interaction to the other. The problem is that we cannot access any sort of information during this interval in between interactions without creating a new interaction that would reset the wavefunction with new particle properties. That's what the slid barrier represents in the double slid experiment, a reset of the properties influenced by the shape and position of the slids, this reset configures the wavefunction to express the wave interference pattern. When added after the slids, the detectors interact with the particle, reseting the wavefunction with new properties, and this time without a doublle slid to re-interfere in the wavefunction, generating the "particle" pattern expected from two independent sources (each previous slid). Since we cannot set propper initial properties, is hard to see in experiments this deterministic aspect of the wave function, leading us to treat quantum mechanics as statistical. I would also consider this gap in between two interactions of a particle as the whole life of it, treating what it was past the first interaction and what it will be in after the second, as being other particles. The "story" told by this two-interaction-life-particle and its properties trough the wavefunction, generate the spacetime dimensions that connect all particle interactions in the Universe, no matter which set of dimensions they use to happen. And if we're talking about particles moving at the speed of light, that means the two interactions happen at the same moment and without a distance travelled in spacetime, indicating that spacetime is emergent from them and their interactions, and giving a hint that those particles have a special time dimension, the one that defines the order of interactions, and I have a strong feeling that this dimension is quantized and computable, since it's formed by a sequence of events.

I'm looking forward to your video about measurement/observation, and any explanation on how or why that collapses the wave function. Thanks

"In one of Aesop's fables, a fox sees a juicy bunch of grapes and leaps to reach it, but can't quite jump high enough. In frustration, he declares that the grapes were probably sour, and he never really wanted them. The fox represents "physicists" and the grapes are "understanding quantum mechanics" - source Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll; It's very hard to come and prove something new, we could ask Galileo, Giordano Bruno ... even Einstein how it was hard. You will succeed, you are the new Galileo's. Thank you Dr. Carroll for sharing your know-how, your intelligence, time ... I am very grateful for learning from you.

Top of the morning Sean

Cheers, Sean!

Listening to this whilst looking at the 'trending' videos on KZread. Having said that - - and I get the irony - - I'd love a Craig vs Carroll round 2. And thank you for offering this, your expertise, for free. J

@rage9715

4 жыл бұрын

You mean the Craig the creationist?

@josha3891

4 жыл бұрын

@@rage9715 Yep.

Started listening: "...hoping that this video will be short and sweet". Looking at the length: 46.05. Great, let's continue listening! ;)

I think I will watch this regularly now :)

Newton and other pre quantum physicists continue to dislike this video. Science can not be stopped!

HMMMMM! Another Wonderful video! If sound waves travel linearly they are expressed as a wavy line with frequency and amplitude. But we know that the birds song is heard no mater where you are relative to the bird. Left, right, above, below or some combination. The sound propagates in concentric spheres and not in linear vectors. Using X, Y coordinates or even X, Y, Z coordinates is confusing because reality happens in concentric spheres and not concentric circles except when a human looks at them and only "sees" the 2 or 3 dimensional cross section of wave reality. Reality is in concentric sphere waves because all of human observable reality occurs due to electrons revolving around a nucleus that is traveling through space. We do not see the entire "sphere" of reality but only a cross section of the surface of it. Similar to the sine wave "signal" of an electric motor; but, more dynamic, because an electric motor actually comprises a linear reality as the armature has a definite length. I think.

Sean "the wave situation" Carroll

@rage9715

4 жыл бұрын

Sean 'my hair is wavy' carroll

Excellent video Sean as always. Question: In "what is waving" - I kept thinking if this is a 'new' way of looking at the concept of "Ether" ? (which was long discredited)

That's what I was wondering about today.

Great video. I have been wondering wether measurements have anything to do with the asymmetry of time. I mean a classical observer is a system that can distinguish past and future that has a memory.

Thanks Sean. How to interpret a statement like "The wave function of the electron passes through both the splits" given that a wave function is a function in Hilbert space? In particular, given that the wave function has ordinary spacetime as its domain, does that constrain the Hilbert space in some interesting way?

@Verlamian

2 жыл бұрын

Somewhat ironically, one of the reasons to reject Sean's preferred interpretation of QM is that the domain of the "wave function" is configuration space (and time) - *not* ordinary spacetime.

At 3:15 - "The elctron wavefunction wants to be smooth and spread-out". Why does the electron prefer a spread-out wave function? (We can only know that by solving the Schrodinger equation)

I begin to suspect that the fields we should consider are not electron fields, proton fields, etc. but rather electric charge fields, strong color fields, etc... the character of particles. "Particles" are then the points where these fields interact to conserve and to exchange physical quantities. In this picture an "electron/positron" is a specific stable interaction among these fields and a "top/anti-top" is another specific stable interaction among these fields.

The Dirac delta function figures prominently in circuit analysis in electrical engineering. I think a similar technique is used in mechanical engineering, as well.

The lectures are excellent--thanks for them. A phrase such as "The wave function is real" invites confusion. The wave function is, of course, a mathematical artifact, in this case, a core part of a model intended to describe quantum reality. In short, the wave function is a human construct. As such, it is 'real' but not in the sense intended. Your claim, I take it, is that this function describes an ontological reality--quite independent of a mathematical function designed to model this reality--that is wave-like in behavior.

This is awesome

In short, we can say that the iconic name Quantum Mechanics doesn't refer to a theory of quanta, but to one of smooth functions. So what's the point? The point is that the theory measurements do help going forward. So we really have to care about reality and not to overstate the fancy part of measurements.

Whatever the wave-function 'IS' and/or whatever reality it represents, is a mystery that, as you say, may be beyond our ability to perceive. But, one thing that emerges for me from your presentation is that it interacts (as a wavy, undefined thing) with the 'real' edges of the double slit and allows us to experience its behaviour. For me , this offers a little window into its true 'nature'... (Not that I am trying to avoid getting to know Hilbert space entirely :)

Dr Carroll, the 4th system you discribed in double slit experiment i.e with monitoring, is this experiment performed in lab?? Or it is just a thought experiment.

Thanks again.

hi i am really grateful that you have put your time and energy into this series of videos. my questions are 2. if the wave function is a function of space and time, where does it sit in theories where space and time emerge rather than being presupposed? second, re the measurement problem in QM i see that some experiments comment on an ability to 'measure' without collapsing the wave function. can you comment onn that? again my great thanks for you doing all this.

I know you favor the many worlds interpretation, but have you looked into superdeterminism?

Thanks so much for this amazing series, @Sean Carroll! Wish I'd found this back when we were in lockdown... May I ask for clarity on one small matter that's raised in this video? At approximately 28:30 you say that, when the electron is observed at the slits, the observer "...will see it either as a particle going through one slit or as a particle going through the other slit. Therefore, when it eventually hits the screen, it will have behaved like a particle." Perhaps my understanding of QM is wrong, but I thought that observation at the slits would result in the particle behaving not strictly as a particle per se, but rather as a wave, albeit one that passes through a single slit only. That is, I would expect the pattern formed by a stream of individual particles that are observed at the slits to form a diffraction pattern typical of a wave passing through each of the single slits, as opposed to the pair of blobs that would be expected were the particles to not exhibit any wave-like behaviour at all. Am I actually completely mistaken about this?!

Measuring things involves interacting with the "field" in some way. I don't think we can assume it is purely passive. We are measuring "wave functions" with tools that are orders of magnitude larger than the size of the effect. This is akin to measuring a red blood cell with a yard stick. We don't know what is going on on the scale of what is going on. I don't think it is fair to say that there is nothing "more fundamental" than a "wave function" when we don't really know what is going on here yet.

Good intro, enjoyed. But where does cohomology come in? And is qm an axiomatic theory?

Oh time went fast, now I have to face reality.

What is the wave function made out of? Chalk, if you're writing it on a chalk board, and ink if you're writing it on paper.

OH THANK YOU double slit!!!!! I appreciate you talking about it so much!! - Does the detector by the slits affect the outcome in the sense that it exerts some force on passing particles (like an induction coil or something)? - if we assume the slit detectors are powered (so have a power input), and a data output, does the interference pattern persist if the detectors are powered, but the data output is un-monitored (or maybe not plugged in)? if the data output is somehow recorded to a table that no-one can read (heavily encrypted, maybe) does that count as an observation, and affect the interference pattern? - if someone entirely un-related to the above experiment later manages to decrypt the above data table, does the initial data taken from the interference pattern suddenly change retroactively to non-interference somehow?, OR! does the initial experimenter NOT get an interference pattern, and can thereby determine/conclude that the encryption will some-day become breakable (or maybe "hey, someone must secretly be monitoring the slit detector data outputs!"). These are very round-about ways of me asking about the measurement problem, and my way of asking the (admittedly poorly phrased) question "how does the wave function/electron/photon KNOW that the data output of the slit detectors is actually monitored?" Thank you again so much!

@lennarthedlund9783

4 жыл бұрын

He doesn´t answer questions in the comment section. Next Q&A is for lesson 8 and the questions asked in the comments to that video.

@pizzacrusher4632

4 жыл бұрын

@@lennarthedlund9783 ok thanks. Dang it!

What does the math say if you consider the electron as entangling with both slits and the wall (to whatever extent) before going on to interact with the screen? So long as there isn't a detector there to entangle with it, perhaps it entangles with the whole system and it comes off like waves do in "regular" waves.

Hi Sean. Great job from you. I am a great admirer and seen many documentaries from you. I have an idea about nature of light a vacuum. So please how can i contact you to discuss it. It very interesting and if you consider it powerful enough it can be published why not. I have something to tell...

How often was this experiment of monitoring Quantum Electrons been done? Does the electrons accumulated in that same pattern every time? What is your explanation for it?

Surely when the electron is approaching the barrier if the barrier is bumped the electron stops and if the barrier is not bumbed it does not stop. In that sense the electron is going to entangle with the barrier. I understood that part of the reason to say "no entanglements" would be that any "eye" that strongly correlates with which slit was used will trigger the particle-like outcome. But if you have a "detector" which beeps if both or one of the slits were used that would be in the same state regardless of which slit was used and would thus result in the wave-like outcome?

Does the Planck length (or the Planck length x another constant) give the minimum gamma ray wavelength

@Sean Carroll I think that you could change the way mathematics is presented in schools, reorganizing it and making it easier to understand. This way more of us would understand it and our civilization would progress much faster. What is your opinion about the way mathematics is presented in schools? Would you try to do something at a great scale regarding that? Thanks for sharing your passion with us. KZread is becoming a smarter and more enjoyable platform through the presence of people like you!

Hardcore..hahahaha thank.you..I blame you though! Keep on teaching us..thank you!

At what size particle do we start to see a more classical pattern of impacts on the detector?

Two years later relistening I think I’m slowly starting to get the gist.

What if movement is an illusion? Particles are just a wave in the matter field and just appear and disappear as the wave passes. Every spot in the universe has the intrinsic quality to create matter if the surrounding area promotes it. Time dilation is just a change in how fast or slow this appearances and disappearances occur. It makes sense that if your moving fast it is harder to these changes occur. Also if you have a lot of mass that tries to keep bodies together it would be harder to make those changes from spot to spot

Why do we pose that the observables such as electrons or photons are acting like a wave but then a particle with the collapse of a wave function instead of posing that the electrons or photons act/are like particles interacting in a 'wavey' like background medium or some extra dimension(s) or 'partial dimension' that force corpuscles into appearing to have interference? Alternately asked, is there a reason to believe that space-time could not be causing the interference patterns observed in the double slit experiment?

After I watched video 7, I had the question. What is between 2 plank points and 2 plank moments? And the three answers I could think of were 1 nothing 2 another universe 3 we don’t know. Thank you for answering my question . I also realize that the question “between 2 points” may be meaningless.

thanks a lot!

What happens at the Minimum and maximum of the wave function? Why does the wave function is waveving--more specifically . What tells the wave function not to wave anymore after it has reach the min/max, and just change back and forth from min to max then max and min ? Why does it have to wave?

How far can one go relating this to computer science ? Could we say a function takes vectors as inputs and does operations on them ?

Professor, what do you mean with "particle"

Not waving but drowning...(but enjoying trying to keep up!)

10:00 - There was an observation (www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein) that showed if there's some granularity in spacetime it can't be bigger than 10^-13 times the Plank length. So I don't think the Plank length is such a big deal.

If there is electrical field which influences magnetic field ten why there is no gravitational field which influences time field, then those could be influenced by other fields which manifest themselves to us as particles. I guess hence quantum fields theory. Also when measurement is done some energy should be used to trigger that but if one action gets opposite reaction then some energy goes also to the opposite side. I guess even smallest amount can collapse a particle function to make it appear at the coordinates where energy was excreted. Right? :)

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Albert Einstein, 1954). Does this statement still hold true? What did he mean?

If the Universe is a wave function, with what "environment" does it entangle/interact/decoherence ???

As much as we are exploring the quantum world it is also exploring us. It is not like we have a box of toys or a sandbox to play with where we are the masters in control of it -- quite the converse. We are being monitored and measured, things are done on our behalf to see how we react. We have our formulas and measurements, but the quantum world has its own too -- measurement sizing up measurement. You think you are sizing up a bug in a sandbox but it is sizing you up too. How do I know this? It is logical that if the quantum world reacts to the observers then it observes as well. The bigger experiment includes our attempts at experimentation, we are part of the its bigger experiment. If you think aliens are out in space at the macro level... think again.

After talking about the "which slit" experiment I wish he had talked about the quantum eraser experiment.

@Ni999

4 жыл бұрын

_The Notorious Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser | Sean Carroll_ www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/

@PazLeBon

4 жыл бұрын

i always go for the front one.. one can get deceived nowadays

Good morning and happy mothers day.

Has the double slit experiment with "monitoring" ever been done or is it only a thought experiment?

@Ni999

4 жыл бұрын

Done often as advances in measuring and test control have evolved, and sometimes repeated in advanced physics courses. Definitely not only a thought experiment. _Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia_ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Quantum mechanics requires a cheat. That’s like a hint at something deep. That in some way we will never get the GUT. But we will inch forward closer and closer to the perfect answer and before we know it. Our quest to answer a Question that’s unanswerable has caused us to make amazing things exist that didn’t before. Like our curiosity was used to trick us into making a more interesting world.