Love Sean Carroll and how he explains quantum mechanics. I watch all his lectures on KZread.

I've watched many lectures by Sean Carroll but this is the clearest most complete but succinct, which also gets all the major points across. Looks like he worked hard on this one, very clean and more interesting than ever. Kudos

Ooo… my favorite speaker, Sean Carroll! Someone got a new haircut. Always love listening to Sean

Thank you for sharing! Sean Caroll is the best

The lecture is getting better and better.

Excellent logical exposition that seems perfectly coherent to me as a lay person.

You can skip the questions at the end. What the hell. Carroll is way more patient than I would've been with these people, it's like they didn't actually listen at all.

Once again,,,I've been completely Carrollized . The most convincing physicist alive today. He's an absolute pleasure to listen to.

If there's anything which I can take away from the lecture, it is this: The wave function is not made of 'stuff'. The wave function is actually made of ink. It shares this ink with every other scientific theory. Regarding the reality status of the wave function, I'm reminded of a famous quotation by Wittgenstein, which goes roughly like this: When we have very good reasons to believe that our knowledge is inherently fuzzy, then we cannot treat it as if it were perfect and at the same time expect meaningful results

Thank you for posting this talk. It is very deep and I think I am far more convinced that the Quantum Theory is the starting point. It is always good to look at ideas from different directions and clearly this "direction" of looking at reality makes things a lot more clearer!

Sean Carroll is the best.

Is it possible to get entanglement effects in my body from another world, which make me not function right anymore? And is every kind of quantum affected by entanglement? Photons, as well as Gluons, as well as Magnons and others which exist?

discussing quantum mechanics always goes better with a few Belgian ales

The wave function of the universe is 42.

Awesome theory. What about if you replace the cat by a human. Your therory works, but is it accepted (generally) that the human in the box already made the mesurment ? Or the mesurment is still not performed for someone outside the box ? If we agree the mesurement is already made from the human inside the box, it means we treat ourself differently from a cat. If the mesurement is still not performed for someone outside the box, it means the human inside the box is asleep and awake at the same time. In that case, it support your theory, right ?

@Lance_Lough

Жыл бұрын

It's not a matter of who or what witnesses the event-anything that causes entanglement 'collapses' the superposition to a particle..

First comment on my favorite speaker! If everything is waves, having peaks and troughs, isn't it true that at any instant, there's only one place where the [predicted] peak of 'the detector wave' CAN meet the [predicted] peak of 'the particle wave'? Therefore show up at that specific point in our field of possibilities? When we look, we see THAT point? 🤔

Thanks for an interesting and informative video. Around [59.33](kzread.info/dash/bejne/oIObw86JlMmuqLA.html) it moves beyond interesting and informative and becomes exciting, but I have one doubt. Prior to General Relativity, geometry was the arena where physics was performed: in GR the performance affects the arena. But in Sean Carroll's idea, the wave function is the performance, and it creates the arena. But don't we need some of the geometry to define the wave function, since it is a function of the positions of all the particles? Doesn't this mean that we need a residual geometry, a bare bones arena, to start with?

[Leibniz's contingency argument, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚...

Terrific speaker, as usual

Everyone go listen to the Sean Carroll’s Mindscape Podcast. It’s the best.

I forgot this question: Do you think the many worlds interpretation could somehow fit in with dark energy, dark matter, or both? I'm only just sophisticated enough to doubt dark matter would be workable, but what about dark energy as some kind of evidence of 'inter-Universal' wave function 'interaction' effects'? 🤔

@twzKevin

Жыл бұрын

I think the straightforward response would be that many-worlds obeys the Schrodinger equation, and the Schrodinger equation does not say anything about dark matter or dark energy, at least at the moment. If it did, then we would have predicted it, since the fundamental difference between most other quantum theories and the many-worlds interpretation is that the wavefunction does not collapse, everything else related to the Schrodinger equation stays the same. In the many-worlds interpretation, the 'inter-universal' wavefunction is just the wavefunction of the universe as we know it.

@wulphstein

Жыл бұрын

MWI isn't a theory. It's crazy.

It's funny to think that the many worlds interpretation does not conflict with the Hermetic philosophy, in particular to the idea that the world is mental.

Guess I’ll get the book. I’ve been exploring very similar concepts in my mind.

WHO WAS THAT COLLEAGUE

I almost got it but... I don't know.

Geometry of space- entanglement- energy...... Hey that's...... Nice cat 🐱

QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. Now what? If you don’t know what gravity is don’t call yourself a physicist, astronomer or cosmologist. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for answers.

All is True, 3 little powerful words, in the Universe.

I allways thought, that the wave function is something a hand can do, LOL. That a lot for this very interesting upload.

The Many Worlds Everett interpretation is NOT an interpretation - it's a different theory. -( As Sean points out! at about 38 mins)

😀

Cardinality problem! Position and momentum are continuous variables. "Worlds" on the other hand, are just countable. We cannot match the set of the worlds one to one, with the set of positions that are superposed in the construction of the wave function. Even if we have infinite worlds (countable), it covers a subset of measure zero. Solution: Just ignore the problem. No-one will care about it.

"The moon", as such, is not there when you don't notice it. What we call "the moon" is still there, but not "the moon" as a conceptualization of what we see. "Information" is processed sensory input. Information does not exist “out there” as a sort of “given”. Information is always an interpretation. Interpretations are not independent of cultural influences.

I thought gravity was just the overlap between the many worlds. The more extension in the many worlds reality, the more gravity.

48:00 - Perhaps I missed it, but you skipped right over the point that in observable physics, finite energy encodes only finite information. You can, of course, assume that this extremely solid observational rule has no relevance for a multiverse in which energy abruptly acquired the ability to encode infinite information on top of infinitely weak signals. But at that point, isn't the casual invocation of infinite information capacity to explain reality more commonly called theology? When invoking math as the basis for infinite information densities, you are also invoking the infinite continuity theorem. That's a problem, because there is no way you can prevent infinite information "noise" -- and that's all it is -- from arising if you _assume_ the universe is a single wave function. Observationally, the "universal wave" assumption doesn't quite make sense. No one has ever seen a wave function that has existed for infinite time, which is only the first requirement for producing a universal wave function. Using a sort of faith-first reliance on math over mundane observation is even more perplexing given that all versions of math are transformations programs that invoke situation-dependent iterative processes with convergent limits, even actions as simple as mentioning the symbol pi. I will readily grant that our primate brains are literally wired to seek, find, and accept as "realities" the limits of the many convergent processes that our universe kindly and fortunately provides. However, isn't it a bit mathematically sloppy _not_ to factor that very ability to use built-in, survival-focused neurological biases as a basis for explaining reality? Shouldn't we be instead be taking actual test results about information and energy seriously, like all of those fantastically effective physicists and engineers who helped create our modern technological world? The only way those physicists could do that was my fully acknowledging the severe limits on information. Without that kind of self-discipline, the dangers of thoughtlessly accept our built-in brain biases too easily ends up creating infinitely powerful information entities, quite literally out of nothing.

@TerryBollinger

Жыл бұрын

Sean Carroll, here's the blunter version: Since no form of energy as defined in textbooks encodes infinite information, please stop calling this substance you are invoking "energy." It is not, and calling it that is neither scientific nor helpful to minds eager to learn. You are a brilliant person, and you can do better than this.

Quantum should explain the creation of Life in the universe, one of many.

Where is all the extra energy in the many worlds theory? Sure sounds like dark energy to me. Has anyone calculated the amount of energy needed in the many worlds theory to see if it’s close to what we see as the missing dark matter/energy problem??

I am deeply concerned that the many worlds interpretation of QM has become far too popular among scientists to the point where pop culture is now propping it up as something that is not with movies and other media. It is just one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (the wrong one), and this frenzy is excluding other more hopeful interpretations. Hint* A modification of Bohmian Mechanics is the correct interpretation.

@radical137

Жыл бұрын

To me, the many worlds interpretation makes for great science fiction but that is it. It can never be falsified.

Sean, (sorry, non sequitur coming up) why don't physicists realise that we're all living inside a holodeck scenario.with the walls, floors and ceilings of the holodecks being hidden from us in the other six dimensions of our overall 9D reality? It's so obvious to me and I'm just an interested layman. I know it causes Truman show comparisons but the bottom line is that it's ultimately good news because holodeck scenarios are potentially eternal unlike true big bang universes which are not. We don't live in a doomed scenario after all..