วีดีโอ

are there any groups to learn quantum darwinism together? As in a learning group?

It seems to me that every time a (macroscopic) deck of cards is shuffled and dealt, a realization is made and other possible realizations “collapse”. Symmetries allow me to know things about other hands, given that, and all that can collapse, or not, as well. Proof by contradiction has a different, possibly related, and similarly disquieting symmetries among multiple indiscernibly-connected-possible-existence-until-you-look thing going on for the “observer”. What is actually “real” about a probability distribution of events like the dealt hand, seems to me to not be a totally unrelated question to superposition of other physical states at any scale. I am a scientist and am familiar with the formalism, explanatory dogma, and the usual discussion regarding this sort of thing. But there are many examples that often leave me thinking that maybe what the real problem is, is that i just don’t understand what a probability is in terms of “reality”. I know what the phenomenological model of a probability is with respect to a measure over a sigma algebra and counting and so-on. So I know how to play the game but if I pause, then I am just not so sure about what a probability is in any form. My intuition is not very happy, teleologically speaking at least. So just ignoring it works fine on a day to day basis at work etc, but you raise a question here by, as is commonly enough done with certain kinds of decoherence discussions, talking about macroscopic observations. Like dealt hands of shuffled cards without replacement, say.

Perez Jennifer Williams Shirley Thomas Jennifer

???? Explane??? This is not inaf??

So how do the observers or how does the observer exist?

5:55 where does RQM fit into this trichotomy? It does not modify the theory, it is not merely operational as it is explicitly a physical interpretation, but it also does not uphold that "everything is unitary." MWI in fact fits into the first category as it does indeed modify the formalism by trying to give an underlying derivation for the Born rule rather than just accepting it at face value like the RQM does.

RQM is similar to the organisational philosophy of Bogdanov's "Tektology"

CIG Theory offers a reasonable solution to the Measurement Problem. What about CIG Theory?

Channels like this make my favorite hobby to be clicking on DO NOT RECOMMEND CHANNEL

is the century of information. Thanks!

reality is not a point but a segment. not a static event but a transformation, while everything on the most intimate layer is information. Great points. I would love talking to you - I'm a philosopher. Love your work. Love and respect from New Zealand.

MWI is total bullshit. You can check Everett's thesis. The second sentence is wrong, already, and he never recovers from that mistake. :-)

Everett was an idiot and so is everybody who follows him. ;-)

"The Matrix"

Very interesting. Thank you.

And this, dear children, is what a man looks like who has lost his mind. ;-)

Why is the chick talking bullshit? ;-)

17 01

Extremely intriguing post! Thank you! Subscribed.

Hi for the proof of orthogonality of experimental outcomes, isnt this enough: ue ----> ua ve---> vb so <u. u><e,e> = <u,u><a.a> so <e.e> = <a.a> by same reasoning <e, e> = <b,b> then taking <ue,ve> = <u, v> <e,e> = <u.v><a.b> so either <u,v> = 0 or <a. b> = <e,e> which implies a=b using |a-b|^2 along with our previous facts from the first line |e|^2=|a|^2 =|b|^2 etc . I dont understand why Zurek has to look for the real part of a general linear combination of u and v. remember u,v and a,b are all states in a first and second hilbert space respectively and ua etc are tensor products in the tensor product these two hilbert spaces.

After reading your "ABC" paper I have one more comment. My suggestion is that you cannot use quantum logic gates to "prove" QM is a local theory. A quantum gate is a pretty complex system, macroscopic really. If you build a real physical model of any practical quantum circuit you will find there is non-locally hidden inside somewhere, unless you totally abandon spacetime and start from "entanglement" as nature prime resource. But starting form entanglement is starting with non-locality. The only way around this that I have ever seen that is plausible and _parsimonious,_ is ER=EPR, but you have to take spacetime as fundamental, not the entanglement. Many Worlds is neither plausible nor parsimonious (in my opinion, fwiw). Pure entanglement without a spacetime exists only on an ADS boundary, so it's an asymptotic notion and an idealization, the real physics of interest to humans is finite, on Earth, in the gravity bulk,and there a minimal Planck wormhole is sufficient for non-locality without non-locality (to coin a new Wheelerism). There are many logical systems, like Q-circuits, that simulate quantum logic. But none of them pass the smell test of being fundamental physics. To show the physics is local you have to show the physics is local, not a simulacrum of the physics. What you, or Deutsch and Hayden, have shown is that there are models for quantum logic that are local. This does not prove the real physics of our universe is local, it just says a local realist quantum theory is possible. Of course, given my comments above, I agree with this! But I _can prove it for real_ (whatever that means) with a fundamental physics model, using topological 4-geons for the basic building blocks, and hence I get CTCs and ER=EPR, so I get non-locality when using a Minkowski space framework, but locality when using proper GR with non-trivial topology. In other words, what I would say, is that if I looked at your quantum circuits with a powerful magical microscope (non-disturbing) I'd see the wormhole topology is providing your gates with their local capacity to do quantum logic). [See also Aaronson & Fortnow, for why classical computation with CTC resources is equivalent to quantum computation. Hence GR + CTCs = QM, pretty much.]

@10:00 Schrödinger vs Heisenberg pictures are much more simply explained by noting in one framework (S) one is following the system, so if you need to compute an eigenvalue you act on the system, and in the other picture (H) you are following the observables, so to compute an eigenvalue you act on the observables. This makes is a lot clearer that QM is a theory of measurement, not a theory of physical "stuff," and the two pictures (S) and (H) just differ by choice of what frame you are tracking, the Lab frame (H) or the particle frame (S).

Aren't you missing a bit of logic here? The theorem is that we cannot have locality & HVs _independent of future measurement settings_ & Bell Inequality violation. An implicit assumption in these theories is Minkowski spacetime. If we relax GR topology and permit wormholes, hence CTCs, then locality (considered a "nice" property) can be retained without need for HVs or MW (note MW is just a form of HV, since we cannot observe the variables in the parallel worlds). Put another way: ER=EPR shows you appearances of non-locality are deceptive; non-local correlations are (or can be taken as) actually local effects of measurements performed at the ends of wormhole topologies. The "collapse" is "snipping" of the wormholes. With fundamental particles the ER bridges are minimalist, so do not permit macroscopic time travel and so do not permit grandfather paradoxes. Huw Price writes a lot about retro-causality being another way out, but you can view retro-causality as another chimera caused by ER bridge topology. Or you can point out CTCs really do permit retro-causality in a trivial way, but only for information that can traverse the minimalist ER bridges (non-minimal ER bridges are not stable due to Hawking evaporation). ER bridges also naturally explain why completely entangled states are monogamous, something orthodox QM has to just take on faith that the linear algebra, of Coffman, Kundu, Wootters, is physical. Note: technically QM is still non-local, if one implicitly assumes a Minkowski spacetime. Locality and causality are retrieved only once the non-trivial topology is incorporated into the dynamics.

@46:00 that "Babak" guy missed the whole point of the "thought rotation" gedankenexperiment. If "someone" could easily rotate your consciousness they'd be a god. So it would not only rule out the von-Neumann version of Copenhagen, it would confirm the existence of gods. Now, this is not to say such gods do not exist, but if they did where are they? I'm being facetious, but semi-serious there too. Point is, it is not easy to test MWI, period, at least not this way by comparing macroscopic superposition, and if all we can test is small scale superpositions we are not doing much, because they'd be compatible with almost all versions of QM interpretations, in fact they have to be, up to whatever limits the model says collapse or subjective awareness in no-collapse theories, occurs. For me, there is no collapse, there are only indelible records that tell us limits on what states were once in superposition, so it is a version of limited sum-over-histories: not all Feynman--Hibbs histories have to be actualized, only some very large number. But in the SOH formalism you have to pretend all histories occur because you have no information to say otherwise, like rolling a dice: you only need a few hundred to confirm the die is fair.

Skin theory - Quantum Entanglement Teleportation / Replication There are two types of entanglement. 1. The entanglement for Qubits is information based, which means they are using simple Newtonian energies, like velocity, polarity and spin, and encoding those into one photon and then transmitting it or a primed version of it into two photons and transmitting them, this entanglement is information theory entanglement, and only encodes information at the transmission point, changing any one particles properties by "reading" it, breaks entanglement to all the other photons. (i.e. no spooky action at a distance) The second type of entanglement is a particle skin theory, that postulates all particles are just compressed space skin apertures down to the SR plasma space, the visible aperture is a miniature black hole, and you can create a "Dark" particle like this using temperature dynamics (i.e. two interfered 50Watt lasers makes an electron). Any information that is transferred through this construct is relying on the plasma time dilation/compression being so high that you only have newtons cradle type energy transfer available, but the aperture skin information is in our visible space hence no time dilation for us the observer at the skin, so too transfer information you have to transfer whatever harmonic energy in the Photonium high temperature space that is creating the aperture in the first place, and being Newtonian if you aren't adding energy it will teleport the aperture to another observable space coordinate (i.e. teleportation), or if you add the equivalent energy into the transmitted harmonic the Newtons cradle effect can carry a duplicate of the aperture information to a new physical observable space coordinate (i.e Replication). (C) M.B.Eringa Dec 2021

I've watched a few of this series now and you all are up against Particle Skin versus Particle Static Structure physics, or in my words "Skin Theory". The Static Structure is the Heat Density packet of the particle. i.e. heavily time-dilated/compressed because of temperature, measured by QCD temperature frequency and inverse square law e=1/(R2/R1)^2 The "Entropic/Information/Kinetic/Entanglement/Any interaction event" are all remembered in the 0C^3+ side of the 1C^3 particle.(which is a density harmonic of the core 10^4.5 degree Celsius photonium particle (which is not visible because x,y,z compression has gone less than plank (i.e. C^3 scale is a temperature-distance x,y,z compression scale in the metric system))) I've only just started to write the skin pages for Relativity as I know it, and I thank you all for helping me with the question. If you followed the above, here's the problem the theory throws at me/us ... - Particles with temps of 10^18°C have a time-dilation of 4.e+34 seconds to one. This means that no matter how much energy we throw at the electron the core energy that makes it persist will not show any movement for 1.271e+24 Years! (These particles are less than Planck and only reflect back into our space because of x,y,z space spacial entanglement i.e. Gravity WISC or WIMP) - The only way for any kind of interaction that we call matter in space (i.e. move an atom in any direction or induce electric current) is for the skin to zero°C aperture to "snap" across the golf ball of preexisting SR space particle weights" (this does give us Inertial resistance to any movement which is a yay! event for me but also demands superposition of all the stacked particle weight skins back to zero°C which have time-dilations of 16 and 4 seconds which could also be problematic, my answer is currently they all "snap" and an invisible SR particle weight has two skins, the outside skin can distort and become "visible" and "disappears" once the atom/particle has moved past ;)) So lets say we apply this "Field of holes" theory to laser beam quantum entanglement. - The laser emits particles that are an aperture in our space that exhibits a temperature of x°C - On the C^3 scale the photon itself is x+1C^3 and x+1°C weight scales. - The QCD temperature frequency of both lasers is consuming space which contains "potential" apertures. - The aperture space inside the box can only replenish itself at C. - The potential for a "Sympathetic" photon to appear is anywhere in the distance between the two lasers spacial phase causes an aperture to grow, an aperture with a primed harmonic of both laser temperatures. - All photons in the equation are balanced through the flow of space towards the apertures causing temperature frequency phase equivalence. - If you change the ambient temperature inside the box you should be able to moderate the entanglement effect by removing all particle weights "lighter" and exposing the desired SR particle weight where you want entanglement to occur. Cheers, Thankyou again, I appreciate your time(s) I'm gonna throw this out to the QGR as well. M.B.Eringa (2022)

I love Rovelli's writing and his ideas, but he can be quite imprecise sometimes from the physics point of view. Heisenberg's QM DOES include the concept of quantum state in it. It is a central concept in fact. A quantum state is mathematically a vector called ket in a vector space called Hilbert space. It represents the information we can obtain on a given quantum system through a particular measurement performed on it. The wave function is then the expression of the quantum state, or ket, describing the system in a particular complete basis of quantum states. Examples of complete bases are the position operator basis { | x > } (from which you obtain what one usually calls the wave function psi(x,t) = < x | psi(t) >) and the momentum operator basis { | p > } (from which you obtain the less known momentum space wave function phi(p,t) = < p | phi(t) >). All of this is valid for a one-dimensional system, but the extension is rather straightforward. This makes it clear that the concept of quantum state is more important and pivotal in Heisenberg's QM than in Schroedinger's, since in the last one states are always expressed in a given basis and lose their independence. Maybe Rovelli's audience does not contain very many physicists, but saying that Heisenberg's QM does not include the concept of quantum state is a big mistake that confuses people. When you talk about science with a big audience of non-officionados and you're trying to make it more accessible, you have to remember that easier is different than mistaken. Mistakes are a further cause of confusion. Having said that, I think that RQM is way better than Many Worlds, there is no contest.

Gravity is Newtonian in extent and compression level especially at the quantum, not infinite. It's the visible C^3 weight expressed through the atomic aperture and moderated through compression skin. I like your approach Chiara, a language of quantum and physical operators and the entanglement functions, nice B-) Information field entanglement is all about ambient temperature and source particle weight.

I know everyone keeps talking about Einsteins' curved space , but it is compressed space not curved space, the curvature is apparent only in our distanced observational window not the particles "GR'd" perspective. So a q-number derivative would modify the Time by its' time-dilation ratio based on the compressed space itself, i.e The x,y,z length compression factors' effect on the observed time. Which impacts velocity and physical spin with red shift and temperature frequency with blue shift as the compression factor increases. This may shock you but my description of GR ... General Relativity / Time Dilation If a photon takes 10 seconds to cross a space. It will still take 10 seconds if the space is compressed. (i.e. Electrical resistance) There are three things that can compress space we have observed so far ... 1. Gravity 2. Velocity 3. Temperatures above 2000°C If you stick to "Compressed Space" and forget the "curved" interpretation you will finally understand General Relativity. The terms "Compressed Space" and "Time-Dilation" are synonymous and must be interchangeable in any expression you use conversationally or using algebra. The most obvious example of length compression is in your eyes' Distance Perspective compression of space. This alone implies the Observer be it a camera lens or a Human eyeball has a unique view of uncompressed space that is compressed by a factor of 2 for twice the distance to the object which is specific to the Observer and only the Observer. I know this hasn't been accepted into the Standard Model as yet, but I assure you it has to be true based on observational experiments of the last 72 years. +1ºC = +1C^3 (Temperature is a depth in the Big Bang hyper space AKA The Gravity weight space). It has to be an exactly linear relationship based on observations worthy of the Metric system itself. M.B.Eringa

This channel is such a hidden gem on youtube. I understand it is mainly for the purpose of sharing research and ideas within your academic circles, but irregardless I really enjoy listening to the in-depth discussions. Why I'm so fascinated with Everett's interpretation of our reality is a mystery. Growing up in rural America and attending one of the poorest school districts; my science interests were always met with, let's just say, an apathetic response. All I ever wanted was someone of whom I could just talk and discuss ideas such as this. To this day, I'm still all alone in that regard..... To have such excitement and interest in something and have no one to share it with is a shame. After reading Sean Carroll's latest book, I was left with more questions than answers. I'm still trying to understand why some of the conversations that I know are being had in private are treated so esoterically. I read all of Dr. Everette's biographical sketches and obviously he thought deeply about some of the implications the theory had on our perceived reality. I'm sure colleges on the other side of the argument must try and attribute such things to metaphysics or religion, but how can this be? Is it not the opposite? I guess my understanding was that as philosophers, you would be encouraged to think deeply and openly about any and all real world applied outcomes. Is that not something that is needed in order to come up with experiments to try and falsify the gray areas of the theory? I now realize there is so much yet to be nailed down. It's probably my own ignorance, but based on the argument Dr. Deutsch gave in the conversation section of Dr. Saunders video on proposed method for branch counting, I was amazed that even a consensus on the probabilities of what is 'likely' to be perceived had not been reached; if that is a question that can even be asked at all. Is there really no anthropic reasoning that can be applied from an ontological perspective when assessing our experience as a subjective measurement? I realize under classic probability theory the idea would fall under something like the gambler's fallacy, but from a QM perspective this has to point to some deeper truth about where we are, how we arrived here, and where we are going. Is our current experience not the most likely outcome? As an observer, would our continued subjective experience in the future, based on probabilities, exist on the branch with the highest amplitude of all the ones where we could exist? I'm truly humbled by it all. I really look up to all the physicists, philosophers, and cosmologists for the work they are all doing. Being so deeply involved in such an amazing profession has to be the most fulfilling experience one could have as a human. If anyone knows where I could find some accessible information about my curiosities I would forever be grateful.

So if I'm following you. Field effect compromises information integrity within the localised field. You need to access two SR fields simultaneously. So Photon is 1C^3 and Electron is 5C^3 Electron weights will entangle and affect the photon weights and frequencies easily. Photon weights will not affect the electron weights and beam entanglement effect will be slowed by the electron field frequency. Giving two layers of entanglement inside one box. You can also possibly moderate the separation by raising the ambient temperature, +1 degree Celsius is photon weight, and +5 degrees Celsius is Electron weight. (I.E. +5 Degrees Celsius of the laser temperature inside the box would decrease the separation of the Electron weight field and increase electron/photon entanglement and +1 degree Celsius will increase photon/electron feedback entanglement.) In theory ;-)

I see shades of LHC string theory and I agree that probability does not affect outcome one jot. As for the interference dual slot problem, you have to understand how uniform is the virtual photon quantum or EM space distribution within the box. In my opinion it is extremely uniform and explains the 0+- to 90+- degree offset photon impact boundaries at the slot implied by the observation. Add the fact that a photon is actually a high dilation compressed skin down to the C^3 weight in the BB space you can account for all the Vector and Velocity energies of the interaction very easily. (i.e. the source photon can literally stop in place after the interaction if the collision was exactly 0 or 90 degrees offset resulting in one photon being transmitted straight through or two photons at half speed traveling at 45 degrees. Currently my thinking on Skin theory requires a SR space for every particle weight including the photon weight space, it's actually the skin apertures that move, my reasoning is the time dilation required for the visible skin persistence using (C^3/5)^2 also means the particle at the temperature high enough to form said skin will not be "moveable" in our space as velocity red shifts as temperature or weight increases, so the only way a particle can move is if the aperture down to the weight space snaps along a uniform sub structure of BB particles in it's given C^3 weight, as the aperture skin back to zero degrees C, is the only structure of the particle that can have a time dilation approaching our own. (i.e. energy transfers instantaneously when particles kiss) Great Talk, thanks :-)

Does this interpretation need a separate definition of what constutes an “interaction”?

Excellent presentation. I'm really looking forward to your future work Chiara!

Why would new universes be created every time a quantum event requires it?

Great chat

Great talk

you dont need quantum phenomena to get an exponential optimisation, its all maths.

applicable quantum doesnt apply here.

need infinite computer!!!!!

Do you guys believe Superdeterminism could be the answer to QM?

Charles' beard looking small

Boltzmann brains? Sentient observations? Awareness operators?! Good heavens. What a load of hooey.

It’s unfortunate that Copenhagen has become dogma.

Great talk. 👍

Nope

But there is something else. A computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator, while respecting the principle that modification of the Schroedinger equation is prohibited. These apparently contradictory requirements can be met in the superluminal world, quite apart from any knowledge of Bell's Theorem. There is more than one way to travel faster than light. In the way which exchanges spacelike and timelike intervals we can have an oscillation which is capable of destructive interference with itself. In the way that exchanges energy and momentum we can have tachyonic Brownian motion which is orthogonal to the first way. TBM is often imperceptible, but it goes into action during the interaction between matter and the electromagnetic field with results which are classically random. Other ideas for making use of a RNG in a computer simulation should be explored, so if the reader has anything to suggest then please tell us. If no RNG is in use then we will be struggling to make any sense of quantum mechanics.

Hello. Ok!