วีดีโอ

How many pilots in the plane were experienced enough to manage the airspace and perform the flight manoeuvers which evidently took place ??? Occam's Razor .. ..

QUEST'UOMO DICE SOLO FESSERIE.

I would love to have a dinner with Gianni discussing the mob over a dish of pasta vongole

Your saying we were not observing till we realized we were observing? Hmmm….

W...T. ..F is he yapping about?

I think flight 8501 a few months earlier has something to offer , as do all aircraft disasters .

So to get even with the West, Russia hijacks a Malaysian plane? With a bunch of Chinese nationals on it (their ally)? The point is to troll the West but the West isn't even aware they're responsible for it? And this accomplishes what strategic objective for them?

A walking embarrassment of a human being. More full of shit than a Christmas turkey...

Frank Costello was wise man..He was heavy influence for New Orleans Mob Boss Carlos Marcello all the gambling in that territory.

Sometimes very intelligent people just don't have a clue

I think they were both tripping on LsD. WOW very confused people

What’s spooky is that quantum entanglement on his Head!

HE SELLS PRIVATE JETS RT?? 😂😂🎉

Ye, what pilot wave theory adds is trajectories in position space. A particle with a position, and derivatives. The most basic map from wavefunction to trajectories. Not all that mysterious. Same thing with superdeterminism and quantum mechanics, normal quantum mechanics just is a superdeteministic theory in terms lf describing the out comes of experiments. The wavefunction does do this conspiring to pick out the correlation at spacelike separations, that is all what is in the text book, it is kind of funny when people who are big into quantum lingo call it mutual variables or something like that, when its just a built in causation of sorts that is causation free.

Fundamental randomness is just a pattern of observables, that doesn't have any selection mechanism. It's not more mysterious than saying newtons laws of gravity are the end of the line, and there is no further mechanism, it just is. That problem we have with every single theory that bottoms out in unexplained mathematics. So yeah sure, but given a bottiming out in a classical probability distribution, whether the probability is always 1 or not, there is always room for removing uncertainty by mechanisms that can go many ways and be summed over. So i dont think removing randomness is the essential bit or a necessary bit, but it is for sure always a possibility. Every time you land on a theory that predicts a classical probability distribution of the kinds of things you can do, there is always room for further structure and less uncertainty. So idk i think removing all uncertainty is a feature sometimes, but then again Newtonian gravity does that, and has the same issue, its just a pattern by fiat not by mechanism, which is okey, but there is always room for further explanation. But now look, it is much easier to see the room to be filled if the laws are probabilistic, because if you were to derive newtonian gravity from some mechanism, lets use a pollen grain in a glass of water as an example, you could not allow for any mechanism that has multiple mucristates so to speak to sum over, to get the law in the average, it must have some non unity distribution for substructure to be derived from many microstates, or you just get into weird trouble, you go from one form of the theory to another with no difference in observables. That doesn't quite make sense, the only natural way to get determinism is ti sum over almost classical histories, ti get a new theory with uncertainty in it, a better approximation, and then itterating that infinite times to remove all the uncertainty for any particular variable in the 0th order theory you are trying to explain.

Yeah what the wavefunction is, gicen the born rule, is just a generating function for a classical probability distribution over observables, which are just results of experiments. So quantum mechanics really just predicts classical probabilities in an ordinary way. I don't really see what else there is to it in its textbook form. Any other scheme to get the same classical probability distribution of outco es or arbitrary experiments is equivalent. I never understood this bs about quantum probability being different than classical probability, its a bit like saying adding 2+2 and getting 4 is different when done on an abacus vs a digital computer, no its just a different way to generate the same kind of result. People are just way to sucked in by the complex functions, it is just a kind of square root of a normal classical probability distribution, nobody can ever come up with a quantum theory that produces probability distributions that are not just classical probability distributions over experimental results because it is incoherent. That is really the only valuable aspec or insight from bohr on the philosophy side, complimentarity and all This junk is just unnecessary baggage, results of measurements are classical because every possible result imaginable of experiments would be some outcome that has a classical probability of happening between 0 and 1. Thats it, thats the entire value of the Copenhagen picture. But then we should as shelly says, be able to think about that sensibly, whatever generates the distribution could be anything as ling as the statistics come out right. Von Neumann got it wrong, each individual classical history to sum over in a deterministic version doesn't need to share properties with the wavefunction, just the average over histories needs to do that, appart from some properties they share, like not landing where there is no destructive interference.

Mathematics and ethics are considerably different. In ethics there isn’t much to be said on the validity of moral judgements like “theft is wrong” or any normative sentence, certainly not the kind of field as math anyway which can develop proofs. But good points.

"If your theory is incomplete you have more work to do" - exactly. Physicist and YTer Sabine Hossenfelder tries to find funding for exactly that since many years. Mainstream QM refuses and brings her under a kind of scientific inquisition. Her superdeterministic approach is worth more research and the experiments she suggests.

NOT VEN BONG

Thanks! I really enjoyed hearing a defense of pilot wave theory. Physicists hated his spiritual turn as well. The “secret government” seemed to think he was on the right track. I think he was involved in a lot more top secret work than we will ever know.

Great interview. Wish you went more in depth on pilot wave theory itself and asked more follow-ups. But overall a great convo

Not everything can be approximated by polynomial based algebraic approach..

A

Correction: the picture used in the video at 40:27 is wrong, the actual trajectories professor Goldstein was referring to can be found here: www.researchgate.net/figure/Trajectories-for-the-two-slit-experiment_fig2_366809896 Sorry!🥲

Note: the picture used in the video is wrong, the actual trajectories professor Goldstein was referring to can be found here: www.researchgate.net/figure/Trajectories-for-the-two-slit-experiment_fig2_366809896 Sorry!🥲

Interaction instead of measurement

Yes, shut up and calculate is nice when you are talking about making predictions based on mathematical assumptions in the context of a theory. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the world, or even the set of observables, the exact same aet of observables can be gained from theories formulated in all sorts of ways, including ways where the embarrassing questions are answered, whether they are answered in a satisfactory way is something else, but still, it has no business being applied to nature, it just exists as a mantra to look at observables and what they turn out to be in a theory, but that isn't really a way to do physics, its a way to see what a theory or formulation predicts. When it is used to stop questions that are hard, and about what is really going on, or what the observables mean, then its just useless, you can say if from the context of any theory, it just doesn't habe anything to do with the questions its usually used to point at being bad or something like that. Its just oure nonsense, that kind of attitude has its place only in deriving observables once you define a theory.

CIG Theory explains the reality behind the wavefunction Psi

Thanks for the excellent interview.

Mathematics may be as beautiful as the flower garden. Are you the flower garden. Only if you in like spirit share the it Know the poetry of the human heart

What if the root cause is empiricism itself, as a guiding principle for scientific enquiry? Bell and Bohm himself were concerned mostly with the ontological implications of the empirical datum, which is partly why they are still sidelined. 'Shut up and calculate' is a war cry of the empiricist against metaphysics.

If Physicists now describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the particle's mass? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Has the concept of the "Aether" been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the "Higgs Field"? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The current Standard Model claims quarks are held together by the constant exchange of gluons, even though this is more like a concept from Classical Physics. Could the Bosons of the Electro-Weak interactions actually be processes which break or rearrange the 3D<-->4D twisted tubes of the model above?

Pee-tar, not Bee-tar

Imagine separated!

Pop keep thy sincere conversations came with thy shared "i" Am. Let Noone take away from thee!

Remembering who said, if ye Love me! Love you too!

Pop Sheldon, thank you for attending unto our own!

What do you think about the videos showing orbs abducting the plane? I’m just genuinely curious to hear others opinions on this. Also, I couldn’t click on the links you’ve put in the comments, just letting you know

Keep watch!

A little child born "i" Am holding a basket of bread and a fish!

Nor for Whom?

Evil one even know? Where time came from?

I'll wait right here!

Yes,

Yes, bring who exalted self the evil one to come forth in front!

Gods of men come here in front and remind! Lord nought in front of thee! Why Gods of men?

Many playing Gods in front of HIM!

Offsprings preserve will say, what is a rebellious house unto our LORD?

Offsprings preserve will say, HOW'S HIS VINEYARDS?

Hosts Meeks will say unto all the RENOWNED in front of our LORD!