came for quantum mechanics, stayed for the strange river man

@davidcottrell1308

4 жыл бұрын

yeah....his "explanation" feels quite indeterminate.

@willk7184

4 жыл бұрын

It's like he's there but not there at the same time.

@ufodude1000

4 жыл бұрын

LMAO

@jmerlo4119

4 жыл бұрын

Is he naked? Lol

Is it me or is there a caveman in the background that just discovered a river?

@ulfandersson1732

4 жыл бұрын

... and at 5:20 he's taking a leak as well.

@urduib

4 жыл бұрын

The canoe people starts hunting him at 8:15

@NoorElahi1776

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah a naked cave man! Where the fuck were they filming this??

@dgloom

4 жыл бұрын

Very distracting. And he forgot his loin cloth.

@Success4u247

4 жыл бұрын

No he is part of the quantum theory, he is there and not there at the same time 🤪🤪🤪🤪😂😂😂😂

Schroedinger's Streaker making his quantum appearance.

I was very upset when I realized that in my physics degree they had taught me the Copenhagen propaganda as though it was fact. My discomfort with the material brought me to research deeper and then I realized there are so many other interpretations and that the Copenhagen interpretation was only accepted by 30% of the world's physicists (the majority at the time) pilot wave is surpassing Copenhagen currently for the majority of acceptance. But what troubles me the most is that they don't seem to care about finding out what is actually going on, so they have effectively become quantum engineers rather than quantum physicists. We need a little dose of philosophy to slap us back to the process of discovery.

Chilling in the forest, skinny dipping in a river, waxing poetic about theoretical physics. What a life. 😎

Very refreshing to hear his take on Bohr. Exactly what I've always thought but couldn't quite articulate.

Tim Maudlin is so refreshing to listen to. He is such a clear and incisive thinker on these matters, and he has the degree in Physics to back it up. This is one of the two or three places right now where a field of science desperately needs philosophers like this to analyze the conceptual foundations. I mean, seriously, why would anyone say out of one side of their mouth "quantum mechanics is extremely well verified by scientists in laboratories" and then out of the other side of their mouth say "the best interpretation of that data entails that there are no laboratories or people". It's just cognitive dissonance, and John Bell saw that. Tim Maudlin sees it too and I hope people will listen.

"It would be nice if every student who learned Quantum Mechanics at least got a three page accurate description of the situation, right? If you really want to understand the foundations then you have have classes in foundations. ..Physicists have this idea that because they have a physics PhD they must know all these answers. But then you have to ask well, where did you learn it? It wasn't in your textbooks. You never learned foundations. You never took a course in it. You never read a chapter about it. You never read a book about it. Why do you think you know about it?"

What a great background for this interview. Even the bird's chirping added to the overall production value. Also, the interviewer's questions and follow up questions were as good as the answers received from this clearly learned and passionate academic.

I think the key to figuring out an actual quantum theory is achieving a better understanding of what time and gravity really are. What I've been thinking about is time is seemingly regarded as a single thing, yes distorted by gravity, but none the less it is still seen as a single universal thing. What if this isn't the case? What if all matter has it's own separate time. That time isn't a property of space it's a property of matter. On a macro scale gravity unifies time making it seem as though it were a property of space. On the quantum scale where matter has very little or no mass gravity is not unifying this material's time with the macro world. In stead very low mass material mostly runs on it's own time and only occasionally has it's time synced to the macro world when it interacts with it. When we observe these low mass particles our interaction syncs them to our shared time and so to us they appear to behave like, well, particles. If we don't observe them then they're flying on their own clock and to us they can now seem like a wave of possibility because where they are and where they are going and how time is unfolding for them is disconnected from our gravity unified time. Same goes for quantum entanglement. Entangled particles connection is they are sharing the same time that is separate from our time. All the spooky action at a distance is because we perceive the particles as interacting instantly, but the interaction is really occurring in a separate time that is unfolding differently than our time. This explains even weird crap like quantum erasure where is appears entangled particles communicate retroactively to behave like a particle or a wave. When we choose to observe the experiment the interaction syncs the particles to our time, but until that happened from the particles point of view neither had yet impacted a detector. When the observation syncs them to our time from the particles point of view they are hitting the detectors at the same time. ..Or maybe I'm totally wrong :)

Tim, I couldn't agree more. I think that any unified theory will have to be constructed around a proper conceptual model of how nature works.

This interview is amazing. This is the emperor without clothes. Great!

Im sorry, that was me in the background, I was testing the quantum wave theory.

The "problem with quantum mechanics" has bothered me since my undergraduate days at Berkeley. While taking the fourth course in the undergraduate physics series there, around 1970, I was disappointed to discover that the physics professors and grad students, for whom I otherwise had enormous admiration, did not seem to understand quantum mechanics. I began to suppose that Berkeley was simply not up to speed in this particular subject. Then I spoke with a friend who had been at Cal Tech and had heard Feynman's point of view -- that nobody understands quantum mechanics. I said, "Well, someone must!" and he reiterated the Feynman line. I did not go on with physics as a career, but I have never stopped trying to understand the meaning of QM as a physical theory.

@benwincelberg9684

4 жыл бұрын

Ralph Dratman Good luck

@GJ-dj4jx

4 жыл бұрын

Quantum mechanic would not be so perplexing if we took consciesness as a fundamental property of nature. But that goes against our Materialist world view which states that consciesness derives from matter, rather then the other way around.

@richardfeynman7491

4 жыл бұрын

When Feynman said "nobody understands quantum mechanics", what he really meant was "nobody has a fully intuitive classical like picture of what is going on in quantum systems". There is merit to the possibility that there may really be no classically intuitive physical picture of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still devote resources to studying the foundations of quantum mechanics,.

@Kram668

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing, did spent time on it too. End up brushing up my maths as a hobby, hoping to shed light on it.

@TheGamingg33k

4 жыл бұрын

I am currently a physics undergrad and will eventually do a Ph.D. and I agree with you that QM is quite complex and a bit hard to grasp only because it does not go with what we think is "normal". Till now I have an issue with the quantum interpretation of spin. I have seen many definitions and asked many great professors. I never found their answer satisfactory. Yet, these definitions work in the realms of our real world. So you can either go with the flow or decide to solve the missing puzzle yourself. In my case, I will go with the flow until I have enough knowledge to tackle things by myself. After that, I vowed that I will solve the missing puzzle in the logic of QM (at least for my understanding)

Well said - Philosophers, physicists and mathematicians need to talk to each other. This is how we get people who are experts in all 3 fields. This is how we get progress and understanding.

A very refreshing attitude. As a layperson I have an intense interest in the boundry area between physics and philosophy so I end up looking for informative lectures and videos on KZread. I haven't found very many that don't exploit "quantum wierdness" as if that's what people want to hear.

This is the single best explanation of quantum mechanics I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen a lot.

Well, there is no denying it . This is the most maudlin explanation of Quantum Theory out there today.

@HighestRank

4 жыл бұрын

kagney13 well that does it, I’m officially devoid of all emotion.

@kevinmollenhauer9046

4 жыл бұрын

An unfortunate last name to have.. Bahaha

This argument resonates a bit with me. What I have read of Quantum Mechanics strikes me as sort of incomplete; it's all about the *limits* of things, what we *can* know and *can't* know, working backwards from there. I feel like it's like overlaying a picture and tracing its contours, then simply labelling the various blobs as "person", "tree", "car" etc - without bothering to fill in the colors or the shadows. The image is "correct", yes, but there are certain dimensions of it that are missing.

Someone had to tell it at last. This is the real problem with QM in general. To put it in terms of a philological analogy: QM has a lot of syntax but very little semantics.

Very interesting. I would love to hear Tim in discussion with Sean Carroll on this topic.

Excellent Tim Maudlin!

“Once you start doubting, just like you’re supposed to doubt, you ask me if the science is true. You say no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out and everything is possibly wrong.” ― Richard P. Feynman

Great interview. Efforts to silence debate seems to be the norm now, not just in physics but other sciences too and in social topics as well. When someone questions the established thought it feels empowering.

@HighestRank

4 жыл бұрын

Lambda that’s covered in John’s second letter, ‘2nd John’- where we see report of a loose canon in the church, but despite the bad example set by him there is a hint that they should neither eject nor exorcise him. Mormons would do both, tho.

@urduib

4 жыл бұрын

This turned out to be worth my time 👍

@richardfeynman7491

4 жыл бұрын

This 'silencing' hasn't occurred in my experience, but our university actually has a quantum foundations department, so we may be the exception.

@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012

4 жыл бұрын

except when it's about tesla, flat earth or electric universe.

Tim looks like a member of the velvet underground.

@donatiensmoker5249

4 жыл бұрын

Not one of the velvet but close. He looks like Andy Warhol

@huepix

4 жыл бұрын

Yup. Mo Tucker?

@frrascon

4 жыл бұрын

Just like Velvet Underground. Only 100 people havd read his books. But every single one of them became an influential physicist

@marklawson2871

4 жыл бұрын

One of the best / funniest KZread comments I've ever read..

@cosmic-christsuperstar8287

4 жыл бұрын

I thought he was the guy from the Goo Goo Dolls

The aspirin analogy is awesome and a great way to explain what's missing from current quantum theory. Another would be gravity. Newton's law of gravity told us how to calculate, but it didn't explain what was going on. Einstein's ToGR tells us what the physical underpinnings of the calculable phenomenon are. And, as a bonus, it made for more accurate predictions, especially in more extreme cases. Hopefully a true theory of Quantum Mechanics (as opposed to the mathematical recipes) will provide similar improvements to Quantum calculations. Great video - thanks!

@RodelIturalde

4 жыл бұрын

@Plasma Matter natural fusion happens aswell.

@RodelIturalde

4 жыл бұрын

Without the involvement of humans.

I think Philosophy is more important than ever in Physics, to help keep it on track, given the difficult and unintuitive nature of the high hung fruit.

He’s onto something very critical. Great interview!

This is all very well but how exactly does he explain the the double split experiment?

Well done. I’ve always wanted to hear more about understanding physics not the application of.

really good interview!

Very nice interview, thank-you very much. I always appreciate the philosophical approach of Maudlin as opposed to the technical approach of physical science. Maudlin shows very well how philosophy remains very confused about the nature of physical reality even after 100 years of the very successful predictions of quantum science. Philosophy is really a discipline that asks questions without answers, then answers them, and then argues endlessly with other philosophers about the nature of physical reality. I like philosophy but I do not ever expect any answers to questions that have no answers. Why are we here? Why are we here right now? Why is it us and not someone else that is right here right now? What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of quantum mechanics? Why is the universe the way that it is? These are all questions that have no answers, but are nevertheless useful to ask and discuss because that is what consciousness does. Consciousness is asking questions without answers and then continuing to find meaning in the endless discourse that follows. This is basically because we cannot always know the limits of what we can know even though we know there are limits to what we can know. We do need to keep asking and answering unanswerable questions in order to find the horizon of answers that we did not expect.

@ooijinwoon6798

4 жыл бұрын

Topi up politics in England in a few days and I have 9913&

I would never let a physicist near my cats.

@chronosschiron

4 жыл бұрын

nor a philiospher near a nuclear reactor

@jasonwhiteside5517

4 жыл бұрын

Your too late. They're already thinking about your cats, and know they're hypotheticaly dead and alive. Just don't let any Russian physiologist around dogs🐶. They don't preform thought experiments on them.

@behrad9712

4 жыл бұрын

It was very funny 😃

Sounds like the continuity of Gaston Bachelard warnings on QM teaching : This is one of the rarest and one of the most accurate talks I ever heard on QM, despite the fact I'm physicist. The only other author I know up to now who developed similar arguments was Richard Feynman. And obviously, most of the tools he developed were greedly used by his community, but all of the similar points he developed were quickly forgotten...

This video clip is 19:50 long but when you can see it's true nature which is a video file where do you put that time in? time is illusion for what we do or can not fully understand and what is not?

As a physicist, I can say that what the philosopher says at 16:00 is exactly correct. Very reasonable person especially his view on "power". We could not get a job about the foundation of QM simply because it looked hopeless as a question leading to no job.

I would recommend to Tim Maudlin and his audience to look up the Buddhist teachings on emptiness. Particularly Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Riponche's teachings on the phenomena. I think Tim is on to something here. Something that Buddhist Scholars/Masters have resolved through a practice of training the mind to obtain (for lack of a better word) a direct realization of all phenomena.

What he's talking about is the field of "ontology" which is the study of reality. The other two major branches of philosophy are epistemology (how we know what we know) and ethics (i.e. morality).

a serendipitous poetic moment. we are all essentially paddling blissfully in a river! regardless! isn't that what Tim is saying?

Hunting for big game he is. Great interview. I need to know more about what he thinks is behind the "curtain".

Thumb nail had me like , Wtf does bon jovi know ?

Very interesting and he's absolutely right. Thanks for sharing.

the info "Professor of Philosopher at NYU" :P

16:52 -> so true! My application for PhD funding in the foundations of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) recently got rejected. Now I am turning to Solid State to get funding. I am really looking forward to meeting Tim at Saig this July :)

@pspicer777

4 жыл бұрын

Sascha Lill SL, why not try kickstarter? Put together some of your ideas and create some visualizations etc. This is so,ethimg I certainly would suppoert.

@PatchyE

4 жыл бұрын

I hate Solid State so much. In my university, 90% of the physics department is doing Solid State and they made it a required course for all students.

The problem with people is that they try to compare behaviour of an elementary particle to behaviour of large objects. It’s as if you try to compare the life of a single person, to a lifestyle of a large family. Single person has more freedom and can do things independently of others. In a family , every member has impact, people co- depend and they behave in regard to each other. Not the best analogy but this is how I understand it. When I was single, I could go out any time, come back any time. Stay all day in bed if I wanted, change my job , suddenly move to a different area, I didn’t depend on anyone . When I got a family, I couldn’t go out without planing, bcz kids depending on me, I couldn’t change my job, I had to think about how it’s going to affect my income bcz I pay for school and in general have more experience, I can’t just change my location I think of areas where good schools are and so on. So as every member of my family, we interact and that restricts what we can and cannot do. This is the simple way of putting it

Key points: - We know HOW but we don't know WHY. This goes for most of physics and its constants. - There might be some non-locality but again, we do not know why. - There are, as a matter of fact, many higher dimensions, that we will never ever get to see, measure or be part of because we cannot. - Time is not an illusion, its just something we live in and cannot avoid. - THERE ARE NO parallel universes, there most likely are multiverses - two very different concepts. My philosophical interpretation is: we know how quantum mechanics work, and we will harness it to our advantage in terms of using it to create objects that improve our daily lives. We do not know why it works and my prediction is that it links to a higher dimension which we will never get access to, thus giving it the illusion that its random, and thus we think life is non-deterministic. However since we will never ever get to contact or measure higher dimensions, this means that we will never know what causes this randomness which could be a non-random phenomenon, so it could be deterministic, but we will never know so in fact it is non-deterministic to us. I personally think that life is deterministic, there is no randomness at our level of dimensions at least, and a being living in a higher dimensions will laugh at us thinking that we have a choice in what happens. To quote a movie phrase: “I think a man cannot know his destiny. He can only do what he can, until his destiny is revealed.” This means that the world gives us the illusion it is non-deterministic, but since we have no clue why there is randomness it actually becomes deterministic at our level of dimensions.

@surfinmuso37

4 жыл бұрын

Yes i agree for the most part but i also know that we can...and do contact what u call higher dimensions. Just because some have not, they believe this is true for all. The problem science has is this-to realize any higher dimension, the "material" dimension that we currently occupy is transcended. We move from a material orientation to an energetic one. But science etc. wants to take things from this material level (measurement, statistical prediction, physics etc, etc....even our sense of self) and apply them on the higher one (energy) which is absolutely impossible. Our sense of "time" does not exist in the quantum so neither does our sense of "self"-they are inextricably linked. Trying to understand or use a higher dimension will always fail when using the tools of a lower/different one. This is the same as "A problem cannot be solved by the same type of thinking that created it". True quantum behavior is non-linear, non-personal, non-human centered.... whereas our current understanding is linear and totally human oriented.

Refreshing interview on the subject. This horse has been beat to death over and over and this guy shares some refreshing perspective and critique of conventional stance on the subject. I really enjoyed this one.

Scientific Theories have well defined attributes and limitations, requirements. You can announce a theory on anything at all. The theory or laws of Thermodynamics is a completely different animal to the subjective theory of say painting. Quantum Mechanics is peculiar however in the sense that it is a stochastic based theory - non-deterministic in nature. It spews out probabilities and invariably involves counter intuitive concepts - but nevertheless, it has no known counter examples in observation or experimentation that refute its main contentions etc. This does not mean that a deterministic theory will not eventuate in the future that will be able to describe the same "quantum effects" defined today.

@michaelxz1305

4 жыл бұрын

I bet string theory turns out to be just something that everyone works on because that way they can funding

@richardfeynman7491

4 жыл бұрын

The work of Bell showed that any deterministic model must be both nonlocal. More recent work however has managed to separate nonlocality from no ftl signalling, and so in a strange way it can be argued that it doesn't violate relativity. However that then begs the question, if it is possible for causal influences to propagate faster than light, why does nature seem to conspire in such a way as to prevent these causal influences from allowing us to send signals.

Spooky action at a distance in the background at 2:40.

@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668

4 жыл бұрын

All of the problems found on phisics today may be solved with the aseptense that light multiplies by 10 in such a way light gets back fast. there must to be comunication but fast - They assume a particle may be in one place but wherever too - the solution is clear if light goes by 10 near to infinity fast imagen a band that goes fast and comes fast and that particle is moved forward and contrary now see it when it stops on one side and when stops on the other: no more spookie thing

Very good! A worthy endeavor.

As a fan of science with some understanding of the concepts of quantum mechanics and relativity (but not at all, the math), I just wish I could find a a rigorous, scientific and mathematical analysis of the ideas of Nassim Haramein as conceptually those ideas seem to be rather compelling . But they are also, certainly, mind-blowing which may be why most of the searches I've undertaken to see if his ideas have been seriously considered turn-up either ad hominem attacks or simple dismissal with little if any reasoning as to the basis for the dismissal notwithstanding the detailed science and math which Haramein offers to support his theories.

@ernstraedecker6174

4 жыл бұрын

I didn't know garbage could be mind blowing.

We perceive 4 dimensions, 3 in space 1 in time, but what if we were blind to many others that are necessary for the standard model to work? What about more time coordinates?

A problem is that physicists start to believe that the mathematics is more real than reality itself and extrapolate backwards to come up with nonsensical ideas about time.

@bradmodd7856

4 жыл бұрын

Well yes...everything is an assumption built upon assumptions...I like to think about whether numbers actually aren't a mistake, will they still be around 10000 years from now or will we have more advanced ways of thinking about the universe? It seems likely that they will be around, because they probably have been here for 100,000 years or more but...it isn't a given.

@bumpty9830

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, like that goofy fuck Albert Something who said that time is inseparably bound up with space, and that a pair of black holes might, in principle, make the kind of signal first measured almost a hundred years later by the LIGO experiment. It's a good thing there aren't more physicists like that guy.

@richardfeynman7491

4 жыл бұрын

Can you elaborate? What example are you considering?

@RodelIturalde

4 жыл бұрын

Mathematics is a set of theories. Those theories can be used to explain probability, statistics, how numbers relate, geometry and so on. Then physicists can use these theories in their tries to predict how nature works. The mathematics is just a tool

We need a physical theory in quantum mechanics that predicts how reality works because mathematics won't tell you what caused that prediction though it predicts something very accurate. Mathematics shows you the effect but not the cause. That's why we need a physical theory.

Finally someone is telling what I was thinking for years.... And I was always said that I don't understand it because I see quantum mechanics too clearly. Pilot wave team here!

I like what this guy is saying. Mathematics can tell what will happen but not why. Perhaps we lack the cognitive ability to grasp the foundations. We naturally try to relate everything we understand about the quantum realm back to the macro world we are familiar with. But maybe there is a point where foundational realities are completely unrelatable.

...So how would we approach this theory? If ? there is a relationship between the observer and the observed?

Congratulations excellent questions, marvelous answers. At last a professor of philosophy who sounds more like physicist than most Quantum specialists. Epictetus the philosopher said: it is very difficult to learn something you think you already know. This is a huge problem to the Quantum theory physicists and academics.

He asks some very apparent questions that came to my mind almost immediatly after I learned about this almost shamanistic mysticism of quantum mechanics for the first time. I wonder why this isn't a topic all the time.

Tim goes wrong at @4:25. He dives into this mistake at @7:00. Bell's inequality falsifies local-realism. In lay terms, this means that (particularly defined) "locality" and (particularly defined) "reality" cannot co-exist. By saying "There has to be some non-locality.", Tim accepts "realism" uncritically. He confirms this when discussing the manifest image. But with critical examination, we cannot (yet) disregard either of those mutually exclusive options. In my understanding of the field, "locality" actually has the more compelling scientific credentials. However, Tim is right about the character of Einstein. Albert was not at ease with considering "realism" falsifiable. And neither is Tim, apparently. General relativity provides the most compelling model incorporating "locality", to date. This must have been poignant for Albert. During his life, Bell inequalities were not yet experimentally tested. They are now. Therefore, while praising the poetic philosophy of Einstein, Tim rejects the crowning work that General relativity is.

@pokerandphilosophy8328

4 жыл бұрын

That struck me as odd also. His comments on the "manifest image" suggest that he is committed to what Putnam used to criticize under the label "metaphysical realism". Maudlin also seems to speak of time, being either real or illusory, as if Kant never existed. His appeal to the primacy of the manifest image (although correct in a sense) is thus quite unfair even to Sellars who himself had a finer appreciation of Kant.

Good sort of thinking there, I really liked it.

What moment results from matter translating in every direction at once due to the expansion of space. The same question regarding translation through time.

This was or is refreshingly honest and humble. Especially the discussion around celebrity science high jacking the more serious work underpinning the latest theories hypothesis. Very enjoyable. Thank you.

@HighestRank

4 жыл бұрын

*has been

The objective collapse theory is in fact at odds with the notion of... who am I kidding, go to the medium shot so I can see what the forest man is doing.

Never knew Bon Jovi was a professor

_ How does time differ from an other measurement concept: such as inches, mm, km, grams, etc.? _ Time appears to be in the same conceptual category as all other measurement concepts. It relates to our psychological INTERPRETATION of the memory of events that happened in what we call "the past", and the ideas, hopes and desires that we project into the future, which does not factually exist. _ Thus we invent mathematical systems and conceptual procedures/theories to make us feel that we have some sort of comfort with understanding the world we experience - which in the final analysis is subjective. Even the so-called objective is in the end analyzed and interpreted subjectively. _ Thus Einstein may have actually come to realize towards the end of his life that time actually IS an illusion.

@dennisdejong6540

4 жыл бұрын

There is an big difference in time/space and time how we experience it in our minds. They often get mixed up.

Regarding how Bohr pushed the Copenhagen Interpretation...Exactly!

so is this super simatry or multiverse approach?

what's with the naked man wandering around in the background I wonder 🤔 0:29

J.S. Bell posits a hidden variable, λ(t). The problem is that timekeeping, t, varies from location to location. There is no universal cosmic clock, t, that keeps the same time everywhere and everywhen in the cosmos. In the step where Bell cancels out the hidden variable, λ(t), he commits an error. Because twin particles separated in space age at distinct rates, they do not remain in perfect phase-lock synchrony. Instead of perfectly canceling to zero, there should be some kind of residual "beat frequency" that survives to the bottom line in Bell's Inequality. Indeed, in quantum computers, qubits are found to decohere in a matter of nanoseconds.

The new book by Lee Smolin "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" is about the very same problem.

Significance of Certainty Coordination of Connectivity > Connected Coordination > Actualization To become removed from Chronological time and then to be able to visualize time as non linear so as to bridge connections between specific points of demarcation that create new stable loops without triggering collapses while also understanding the greater cycle of renewal that enables: Α+Ω | Α=Ω | 1=0 | 1+0 | 2020 = Κ:Κ The greatest fear of the usurpers of power is the loss of that power. If persons are limited to the calculations of the finite of what is conceivable/obtainable; their ability to conceive of and then to obtain infinity (that which is infinite, limitless) is directly prevented by their calculated precision.

Very interresting! Thanks!

I am missing something didn't Einstein say that it is "Space-Time" . I also seem to be typing on this machine that seem be using some level of quantum mechanics to operate. Most Philosophy professors who dabble to the extent that Tim seems to in quantum mechanics are pretty good at physics and may even have a degree in it. I don't nor do I understand it. Fun to talk about . I think perhaps he is saying there is something more to theories than a thought experiment and calculations. He says would it be nice if some understood it. What the world really "Is". Interesting interview ....

Breath of fresh air. At this point, having tools to think about our world is so much more valuable to me than having a more efficient phone.

@HighestRank

4 жыл бұрын

theotormon you can also overpay for technology to access free content.

@keplergelotte7207

4 жыл бұрын

Haha, yes it was rather maudlin 😆

Very engaging interviewee and interviewer ... am subscribing.

I couldn’t agree more, interpretation of the maths is just as important as the predictive accuracy of the maths. At the heart of fundamental physics is the quest to understand exactly what fundamental reality is, and such an explanation requires a physical explanation and not merely a mathematical model. (I also buy into the pilot-wave interpretation, it never seemed plausible to me that every single quantum interaction splits the universe in two) This is heady stuff, but I think that the nihilism that often results from buying into nonsensical interpretations of maths that trickle down into the public consciousness needs to be properly addressed. Physical interpretations of mathematical models eventually have moral consequences; many young people today (like fans of rick and morty) think that moral nihilism is the only justifiable position. The problem is that this belief is built on a misinterpretation that has never been verified. Your actions matter. And science can prove it!!

There’s a naked guy wading behind him 😳 Maybe he’s got his feet entangled...

"is it like this?" is just about reconciling it with the model your brain makes of the universe based on sensory input. The predictive part is the theory. Reconciliations with the brain's model are exactly what "interpretation" is supposed to mean.

Well thank you, I hear this stuff about time not being real, and it's always confused me, because I get older, and eventually I'll die, so to me it's always seemed that time is a stream that goes in a forward direction. Heavens, it's much easier to see this without the mystery, and to know there's probably a far more logical reason than we like to think. I feel much more free to think about it now, I'd stopped trying to, because I found it too mind boggling.

Thank you Tim for shining a light so courageously and clearly on the Elephant in the room. (I had similar response from my lecturers during my Physics degree...so its exciting to see you raise these issues now) So, can you please recommend a resource that will give an overview of the current thinking (Quantum Theories/ models/ foundations) under consideration? Thanks a lot.

@FlamingFretboard

4 жыл бұрын

A good start is the wiki page for different interpretations of QM: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

8:14 - It bothers me when experts discount fringe ideas like the simulation hypotheses (he refers to it as the Matrix) because “there’s no way to get to that”. What if it is in fact true, even though there’s no way to ever prove it? Are we doomed to continue following convoluted mathematical abstractions like string theory? It may help us arrive at correct predictions, but this doesn’t prove that it’s an accurate model of reality itself. For example, the early geocentric model of the universe had convoluted ways of predicting the motions of planets and stars - it worked to an extent, but it didn’t portray actual reality. We can’t just rule out ideas because the evidence lies beyond our reach

I want to say thank you to Tim Maudlin for presenting rather complex thoughts and ideas in a very clear and concise form. His approach is totally rational and I wish it gains attention and recognition from a much wider audience.

I really enjoyed this professor's thoughtfulness and his comments about how physicists don't ask certain hard questions about quantum mechanics. But while discussing Einstein, he seemed to say that time, in reality, goes from past to present to future. But that's not how time is represented in Einstein's Block Universe. So I didn't understand the foundation for embracing a primitive, experiential concept of the flow of time.

FINALLY !!!!!! FINALLY !!!!!! FINALLY !!!!!! FINALLY !!!!!! FINALLY !!!!!! BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO A thousand million thank yous, Tim !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very crisp explanation.

Great interview. He says we must start with the manifest world. The datum we are most certain of is our awareness. I wonder if he treats consciousness as seriously as he does time...?

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

Time can be measured, it can be precisely defined and operationalized. "Consciousness" is vague, is it a thing or an activity? Is it a synonym for awareness? Or perception? Or is it experience? Or is it the experiencer?

Not just you, every normal person in the world wants to know. Only those who want to shut us up so they can have us just admire their mathematical prowess don't want to find out. They'd hate if we knew physically what is happening, then they'd have no more authority. We all want to know, but we'll live with the mathematical explanation if we have to, still hoping it will expose a deeper layer of meaning.

@RodelIturalde

4 жыл бұрын

Everyone wants to know, but maybe knowing is not as simple as you or the professor wants it to be. Maybe knowing includes statistical knowledge, probability knowledge. Thinking that nature can be reduced to some easy to get for any human explanation is most likely wrong and can most likely never happen. Trying to simplify also often means certain parts of the thing getting simplified gets lost.

Physical: N/Kg = m/s^2, Electrical: W/N = Ohmm/Wb = m/FV = m/AOhmF = m/s, Magnetic: H/(Nm^2/C^2) = m/FH = m/s^2, Gravitational: H/(Nm^2/Kg^2) = Kg^2/(Nm^2/H) = Kg^2/A^2m.

I really loved this interview, I have been asking physicts 'what is the QM theory, what does it state', I never get an answer, this is why. Evolution is complex but it can be reduced to a simple statement or how it works. It's the first principles. For me it's like a huge computer running a complex simulation, you can try to work out what is going on by looking at the output, or you can try to work out how the computer works, you find the computer is a simple switch, switches wired in different configurations gives an instruction set (fundamental or foundational rules), that instruction set can be used to make 'programs' or applications, the output of those programs in our universe and nature. Work out what the fundamental switches are, and work out the instruction set, then the rest will become clear, once you understand the instructions you can decompile nature and derive the subroutines.. But you have to understand how a switch works to begin with..

@richardfeynman7491

4 жыл бұрын

Probably the most fundamental postulates for quantum theory are: *Systems are described by wave functions, which prescribes total information about the current state of the system. *The probability of finding the system in a particular state is given by the square of the amplitude of the wavefunction. *The state of a system evolves according to some unitary transformation (that is, if you know the state of a system at one moment in time, you can predict the probability of what the state will be at some point in the future by applying a unitary transformation). *The possible states a system can be found in exist in a complex vector space (known as a Hilbert space). *Measurements correspond to Hermitian operators.

@RodelIturalde

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe because the QM theory is not fully developed or even near completion. Maybe because such an answer is impossible to give due to how nature works. The search for easy to get and short answers is problematic. The search for answers that can be manifested in reality can be problematic.

The mechanic in Quantum Physics is not really a mechanical but merely an existential function of creating energetic vibrational fields of diverse frequencies, with both positive and negative extensions that we perceive as matter and antimatter as well as also as a remaining dark energy. The quantum itself is the initial leap, simultaneously defined and undefined only within a delta time (d t), never fix but extremely fluid in its nature of appearance, not particular-, nor wave-bound, simultaneously being and non existant, until revealed. I see this and more.

There’s a big difference between the “manifest world” being an Illusion, versus it being Emergent. And I may be wrong, but I don’t think many modern theoretical quantum physicists still accept the former (if they even ever really did?).

Thank you so very much!

It is always with a bit of irony that I read about those who deny scientific principles in favor of some hypothesis that just so happens to sit within their own realm of understanding. Theists are often adamant about rejecting Evolution or the Big Bang, and forget (or never realize) that it was a priest who originally developed the hypothesis that the Universe might have arisen like an egg, from some beginning, and that when people learned of this, the whole idea was dubbed the "Big Bang" as a joke! When the hypothesis turned out to have merit, even the Pope was quite happy to think that our Universe most likely had a beginning event, and when people continued to doubt this as an absurdity, he even queried the priest about mandating that people now believe this "Big Bang" as church doctrine! And yet today, most fundamentalists and many theists fight the idea of this "Big Bang Theory" as scientific intrusion into their religious dogma. The same holds true for Quantum Mechanics: I see philosophers who debate that something they cannot comprehend should not be taught and learned as science, when the tools such as the computers being used to document their thoughts and allow an audience to consume their stories contain billions of transistors, none of which would work if it were not for the phenomena of Quantum Mechanics and the electron-tunneling that takes place at every P-N junction within every transistor. Yes, there is a lot that science does not know. In fact, the Mechanism of Action for numerous widely-used drugs is still unknown even today, in this twenty-first century! And yes, up until the early 1970s, this even included aspirin, and today it still includes many drugs. But just because some portion of why or how something works is still unknown, it does not mean that it cannot be quantified to indeed have certain behaviors and properties, just as the theory which attempts to understand the beginning of our Universe, or the equations that accurately describe current flow through chips of silicon. - j q t -

@theuniques1199

4 жыл бұрын

And now you sound like a scientific theist, why do you believe in anything beyond existence, why would you need anything more then the belief that you can observe yourself so that you can recreate the experience that created you. Without perception and belief of existence you couldn't exist, duality is our energy, without finite time you wouldn't be infinite. If something has a beginning it must have an end, time is radial, we could only be real for ourselves if time never changes, the universe will always recreate itself by believing it's observing itself, energy can be no less or no more then its infinite self, you can't add 1 to infinity, the universe can never change but it created itself by the belief in time but time can only exist if time is set as finite radial. I have written this message right now infinitely or it wouldn't be real for me and I wouldn't have my thoughts, the universe is just like a movie that replays itself infinitely.

The theory of everything will not be formulated without this key: Quantum waves are not physical and only hold the information for the object they represent. The quantum/classical divide can be crossed in two ways: The wave has a certain amount of information/complexity/size that it is always anchored to spacetime. The other is temporary with observation/measurement.

@servenet299

4 жыл бұрын

conjecture...so...ok.

@richardfeynman7491

4 жыл бұрын

The copenhagen interpretation treats the wavefunction this way, as being a mathematical construct that doesn't physically exist. It just represents total information about the system. Pilot wave theory on the other hand (and many worlds) treats the wavefunction as physically existing.

@surfinmuso37

4 жыл бұрын

there is no duality

Outstanding!!

The naked guy swimming in the background is a great touch.

So what's the deal with the naked man in the river at the start of the video?

If time is so real and not a derivative , why is it that the length of time is always measured along oscillations of either a pendulum or the precise number of oscillations of some specific crystal?

The natural first (Occam’s) assumption to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle and also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from gluons to solar systems are in orbit with something pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space in our expanding universe, is that they (all particles) might be orbiting something, no? And since we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, it seems this would be the first assumption by the physics community at some point, no? If it’s the case, it would explain the double slit, uncertainty, and wave particle duality in general and the amplitude of waves would be the orbit diameter of the particle and the wavelength would be its orbit rotation speed relative to travel speed. Surely this idea has been considered and proven not possible, right? Could someone please point me to the specific experiments, calculations, theories, etc that have disproved this possibility? Thx