วีดีโอ

In slide 17/43, Marco Giovanelli shows a letter from Einstein to Sommerfeld dated 14-01-1908 with this quote (missing sentence for ellipsis has been reinstated): “The theory of relativity is not more conclusively and absolutely satisfactory than, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted entropy as probability. [If the Michelson-Morley experiment had not put us in the worst predicament, no one would have perceived the relativity theory as a (half) salvation.] Besides, I believe that we are still far from satisfactory elementary foundations for electrical and mechanical processes. I have come to this pessimistic view mainly as a result of endless, vain efforts to interpret the second universal constant in Planck's radiation law in an intuitive way.” I reinstated the missing sentence because there is a strong analogy between Einstein’s motivation for producing the principle theory of special relativity (SR) with its kinematics of the Lorentz transformations, and the current situation in quantum mechanics (QM) with its kinematics of finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Just as physics suffered from a “chaos of possibilities” in an attempt to address the Michelson-Morley experiment constructively, physics today suffers from a “hopeless manifold of possibilities” in an attempt to address quantum entanglement constructively. As we argue in our book, “Einstein’s Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit” (Oxford UP, 2024), Einstein could have used the Stern-Gerlach experiment in analogy with the Michelson-Morley experiment to establish the observer-independence of Planck’s constant h under spatial rotations (also in the Lorentz group) in analogy with the observer-independence of the speed of light c under boosts. The latter empirically discovered fact (with linearity) leads to the Lorentz transformations of SR, while the former empirically discovered fact (with subspace locality) leads to the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM. This solves the mystery of quantum entanglement in principle fashion, so it doesn’t violate locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). All this renders the last sentence in the quote quite ironic. This principle approach to QM is made possible by the axiomatic reconstruction of QM via information-theoretic principles (see my Comment in: Natasha Oughton "Why Quantum Theory? Understanding and Explanation via Reconstruction," Oxford Philosophy of Physics).

Natasha Oughton voices some concerns about the quantum reconstruction program (QRP) that we address in our book, “Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit” Oxford UP (2024). She says we need the axiomatic reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) to give more than the kinematics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space), we also need the dynamics (measurement update and Schrödinger’s equation). In Chapter 6, we point out that the dynamics are included in the reconstruction of Masanes & Müller (“A derivation of quantum theory from physical requirements,” New Journal of Physics 13, 063001 (2011)). Here are the “five simple physical requirements” giving the kinematics: 1. In systems that carry one bit of information, each state is characterized by a finite set of outcome probabilities. 2. The state of a composite system is characterized by the statistics of measurements on the individual components. 3. All systems that effectively carry the same amount of information have equivalent state spaces. 4. Any pure state of a system can be reversibly transformed into any other. 5. In systems that carry one bit of information, all mathematically well-defined measurements are allowed by the theory. These establish classical probability theory and quantum probability theory uniquely among all generalized probabilistic theories. If you change Requirement 4 to read, “Any pure state of a system can be *continuously* reversibly transformed into any other,” then you select quantum probability theory alone. Many quantum information theorists have pointed to the continuity of reversible transformations for the qubit (responsible for superposition), as opposed to the discrete reversible transformations for the classical bit, as the distinguishing factor between quantum probability theory and classical probability theory. Brukner & Zeilinger capture it nicely in their principle of Information Invariance & Continuity (mirrored in first two axioms of the Dakic & Brukner reconstruction of 2009). Anyway, Masanes & Müller add two more requirements to get the dynamics: 1. If a system is measured twice “in rapid succession” with the same measurement, the same outcome is obtained both times. 2. Closed systems evolve reversibly and continuously in time. According to Müller (personal communication), this reconstruction is essentially Hardy's reconstruction (“Quantum Theory from Five Reasonable Axioms” arXiv 2001) minus his (unnecessary) Simplicity axiom. While QRP has successfully rendered QM a principle theory, there are (at least) three reasons this accomplishment has not made QM less mysterious (Oughton notes all three). First, the information theoretic principles like Information Invariance & Continuity are not nearly as physically intuitive as the principles for special relativity (relativity principle and light postulate). Second, the information-theoretic principles in QRP are already in QM, which means the reconstructions offer no compelling fundamental principle external to QM to justify its empirically discovered fact, e.g., Information Invariance & Continuity, like the relativity principle (beyond the Lorentz transformations) does for the light postulate. Third, because the information-theoretic principles are internal to QM there are many different starting points and “no obvious means of deciding between them.” We solve these problems (and others) in our book by showing how Information Invariance & Continuity entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Let me call that the “Planck postulate” in analogy with the light postulate. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, just like c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations, and since inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate just like it justifies the light postulate. In Chapters 6 and 7, we explain how Bell state entanglement (responsible for the Tsirelson bound) results in conservation due to “no preferred reference frame” (NPRF), i.e., the relativity principle. Accordingly, when Alice and Bob make measurements on a Bell spin state in different reference frames (different Stern-Gerlach orientations), they disagree on whose data must be averaged to conserve spin angular momentum. Alice partitions the Bell state data per her +/- 1 equivalence relation to show that Bob’s data only satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on average. But, Bob’s partition of that same data per his +/- 1 equivalence relation shows that Alice’s data only satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on average. There is no nonlocal or superdeterministic or retro causal mechanism responsible for this ‘average-only’ conservation; it is not a dynamical effect, it is a kinematic fact resulting from the constraint NPRF + h. This is totally analogous to when Alice and Bob make length measurements in different reference frames (in motion with respect to each other) and disagree on whose meter sticks are short. In that case, Alice partitions spacetime events per her equivalence relation (surfaces of simultaneity) to show that Bob’s meter sticks are short, while Bob can partition those same spacetime events per his surfaces of simultaneity to show that it’s Alice’s meter sticks that are short. There is no causal mechanism a la the luminiferous aether shortening meter sticks; it is not a dynamical effect, it is a kinematic fact resulting from the constraint NPRF + c. In Chapter 8, we show how the joint probabilities of the PR-box violate this ‘average-only’ conservation in maximal fashion, so that the PR-box is the QM counterpart to a perpetual motion machine for thermodynamics. Basing QM on the relativity principle (NPRF + h) in exact analogy to special relativity (NPRF + c) serves to unify their kinematics via a common principle, which answers Oughton’s question concerning unification per Van Camp (2011). And, invoking NPRF to justify the empirically discovered fact (whence the explanatory formalism) serves to distinguish structural explanation per Felline from what we call “principle explanation” (Chapters 1, 3, and 5). That is, QRP without NPRF gives structural explanation while NPRF + h gives principle explanation (empirically discovered fact whence the formalism is justified by another principle). Finally, in Chapter 9, we provide an “all-at-once” ontology whereby NPRF + c constrains the worldtubes of classical objects in spacetime and NPRF + h constrains the distribution of quantum events in that classical 4D context. Other forms of all-at-once explanation are used by Evans, Liu, Price, and Wharton for retrocausality, Esfeld and Gisin for Bell flash ontology, Hance, Hossenfelder and Palmer for superdeterminism, and Adlam and Rovelli for relational quantum mechanics, so the “all-at-once” view of physics is gaining advocates in the foundations community.

your TH-cam will not allow me to connect my papers in the comments. BAD FORM OXFORD. BAD FORM.

try using Entangelment as the manifold, and then place your "spacetime" on it. this should cover both of what you need for a lorentz, and DPD set.

also why is discreteness so nessecary? just because EM comes discreet does not mean gravity does.

if GR is appx, then how does 2. make sense? I will put our paper on another comment as TH-cam is being prejudice against my account and not letting me comment.

I'm more on Maudlin's side of this discussion, but it's hard to remain silent about Timpson's vendetta against the name "superdeterminism". I can think of no better way to relegate your nascent theories to obscurity than to bannish Bell's memorable catch-phrase in favor of an unpronounceable technical term like "λ-dependence". I really don't understand Timpson's rejection of the Superdeterminism label. After all, you're questioning the otherwise universal assumption of statistical independence, the bedrock of scientific experimentalism. If that's not determinism taken to the extreme, then what is?

Can those 2 d.o.f. be physically interpreted as angles? 17:00 R - G = 0, vacuum EFE

Lecture begins at 4:45

Whenever the host made jokes all I could think of is that professor from The Simpsons, "Out vith ze old, in vith ze nucleus"

The baffling question is why a highly intelligent scientist like Jim Al -Khalili believes in the sacred texts of his religion, which lack scientific basis, when scientists typically rely on reason, logic, experience, and the scientific method.

First

Video ends when the discussion with the audience starts. What a pity!

Interesting lecture. Thank you.

I would have liked to be included in this discussion; previous discussions were often discontinued, while still the issues seemed to be not totally clearly exposed. They often have a religious overtone, which I would prefer to avoid. To me, quantum mechanics is a marvellous mathematical scheme to handle fast moving ingredients in nature’s dynamical degrees of freedom, by using Hilbert space, not as a new theory but as an instrument. The system we then describe is totally classical, and, in that sense, you could call it deterministic, or ‘superdeterministic’, as you wish. But no conspiracy, no free will. Exactly like planets moving in ellipses. Are they conspiring? Do they have free will? You tell me ...

Interesting! Will the mentioned Sabine Hossenfelder talk be available online?

the name 'superdeterminism' was intended by bell as a mockery, but it has come to be respected. now that it's respected, you want it gone. too bad!

Good talk on hidden variables modeling constraints and guidrails. Though quantum eraser delayed choices is another one besides bell. The particle holds a waveform on it. Like Fredric Schuller put it in a lecture. The Schrodinger equation should be seen as a partial or incomplete solution set. It gives probability distribution from a waveform, but no full path. It would be nice to have people look into hidden variables modeling again. Thank you for sharing the video.

Great presentation. I loved the book, Tim. Around minute 57 the assertion that v-independence can be expect to hold via coarse-graining misses the mark for me. It may hold over a desired period of time, but the underlying point of chaos and the sensitivity of initial conditions *sometimes* means that the assumption is somewhat dubious. The assumption requires a teleological goal for the coarse-graining, but the fundamental truth in determinism is such that only the full and exact details of any measurement entail the outcome. As that ability to measure lay beyond human ability, we must coarse-grain; nature has no such limitation. I appreciated the point about probability being problematic in a necessaritarian world-view. Things either happen or they don't. Our ability to predict the future is contingent upon coarse-graining, not caring about the fine details for the sake of the bigger picture, but that only works over a certain amount of time, depending on the particular prediction and subject. Thanks for this. I enjoyed it.

Wonderful lecture!

Imagine a successful computer software that created a conscious being. Then that conscious being wants to figure what it is that creates its consciousness. As it moves closer and closer to figuring it all out, it at the same time is catching up with the very program that is responsible for it consciousness in the first place. In turn, the distance between the two grows smaller and smaller, and thus the conscious mind itself also grows smaller and smaller. This is the side effect of catching up with the truth, catching up with reality itself. So, if your mind is quite large and thus you managed to obtain one or more PhD's, that is because your mind is extremely detached from reality in big big way.

David Wallace from dunder mifliin 😅😂

I'm curious about Julian's idea about complexity. My view is that complexity is always increasing in the universe and gives rise to evolution and the arrow of time, it will be interesting to compare that to Julian's view. A general definition of complexity is tricky, but I believe that it involves strong emergence.

Hi 👋. I am currently a Philosophy MA student and I am interested in doing a PhD in the philosophy of science - especially in either the ‘philosophy of physics’ or in the ‘history of philosophy and science’. I am in the beginning stages of thinking about what I should do exactly for my PhD and I was therefore wondering (and hoping for some advice) are there any unique areas of research in these areas of philosophy that could be interesting to do my future PhD in? Thank you.

Interpreting atom in a plural sense to mean some configuration of, or relation between, an electron, proton and neutron respectively with negative, positive and no charge, resolves the contradiction from using it singularly by leaving the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, redundant - for any thing there is an opposite - and consequently, every proposition conventional since it is concommitantly true, whenever false.

It seems to me that consciousness is a combination of this B field *and* an ordered mass of matter, and not the B field in isolation. In other words, it's only in organisms that this collapse-inducing field underlies an awareness and governance of motion. Outside of living things, it will be a mere aspect of inanimate matter.

Thank you for this.

You don’t get the ontology as an answer to “how can we measure it” question. Count the amount of mentions of “Measure” word in this video and you’ll see how the guy just hits the wall by actually trying to get the answer to “What” question, but looking for an answer to “How” question. For how long are we going to hold on to this stupidity?

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

Nice.

Why does Carlo Rovelli say that "quantum biology is shit" - he must feel threatened by the topic. haha.

is there a video of the post-talk Q&A available?

pr໐๓໐Ş๓ 😔

Discussing a world devoid of spacetime at least achieves an acute awareness of our use of language: that most of it implicitly assumes an embedding in spacetime! For example, the discussion of quantum nonlocality in a world devoid of spacetime is simply a category error - akin to discussing horses in a world devoid of animals.

Thank you Julian. I was concerned about my misplaced my spectacles and this will help a great deal.

As I finished reading Life on the Edge, I thought about Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Kemmerer. I wonder what she would think and I wonder what she might want to say to Johnjoe and Jim.

So nice to see that Sean Carroll is going to be a part of this!

Nearly finished reading Life on the Edge. Nearly finished reading the chapter How Life Began. Just finished reading two books by Nick Lane. Nick approaches the emergence of life from an energy perspective. I imagine that these folks paths will cross if they haven’t already. Not remembering all the details of Nick’s books, but I think I heard something about quantum tunneling. Also read Sean Carroll and Brian Greene lately, so I could be confusing ideas. Regardless, fascinating work being done across the globe!

Caspar: thank you again for a great talk. Just to put the record straight in one place, at around 27mins30 you say that some guy Pooley says that "the theoretical treatment of spacetime, read literally, strongly supports haecceitism." I believe that what he actually said was that, although "one might believe" such a thing, the reasons for believing it do not stand up to scrutiny. The main task of page 103 of the paper you cite is to say why they do not.

Perhaps everything is much simpler. Einstein built ST because he noticed something in common between classical mechanics (optics) and EM: the magnitude of *c". In the current situation, there is also something in common between GR and QM - this is a constant in Einstein's equations: c^4/G=F(pl)=E(pl)/r(pl). "Einstein showed, and this is his great merit, that for this purpose it is enough to accept only the following electrodynamic position: the speed of light does not depend on the motion of the source. We will, as is customary, briefly call this provision the provision on the "constancy of the speed of light", although such a name may give rise to misunderstandings. The universal constancy of the speed of light in the void is out of the question already because the speed of light is constant only in Galilean reference frames. The independence of the speed of light from the motion of the source is preserved in the general theory of relativity." (Pauli, RT, paragraph 3). From this (generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), and without the need to involve the concept of curvature of space-time), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w) = -[h/4πm(pl)]w. "The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin). Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, Einstein's theory of gravitation "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized. Final formula: ф(G)=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2, where ф(G) is Newtonian gravitational potential, w - quantal frequency of the gravitational field (space-time)- can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k*(=πr/L, L- the length of the phase trajectory) to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k*; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k*, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk*, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-е^2). GR / QG predicts a new physical effect: w/wpl=k*; expression for gravinertial radiation from a test body: where r(G) - the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) - is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass; vacuuming string. r(G)/r(pl)=m(0)/m(pl)=n, where n- number of quanta. r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl) -the corresponding orbital radius, L(n')=(n+n')λ - the corresponding length of the phase trajectory, wavelength: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) , n' - orbital number. Entropy (variety): S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (evolves): n=const for all orbits of the system.

"The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin). Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, Einstein's theory of gravitation "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized. Final formula: ф(G)=-(½)(w/wpl)c^2, where ф(G) is Newtonian gravitational potential, w - quantal frequency of the gravitational-inertial field (space-time)- can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment ( see P.S. ).

This is a whole jungle of neat ideas to brachiate upon with a firm ontological grip. Navigating from an accurate map has never felt less predictable. Thanks for a great lecture!

I see many correlations to Brouwer's Choice Sequences for unwitnessed realized proofs. I think modern physics would benefit tremendously from checking carefully whether the tools or reasoning they're routinely using are proved in an Intuitionist logic, because the ontologies proceeding thence are conceptually clearer. I learned a lot from this talk. My sincere thanks for giving and posting the lecture.

Thanks, love Julian's work

Excellent series - would be nice if the upload of such videos continued after the end of pandemic restrictions

Thank you for posting this!!

Will the Everett Interpretation make my printer work.

This way of applying quantum mechanics might be interesting but not likely to be as productive as perhaps treating humanities as a societal spacetime of various disciplines and their interactions governed by quantum mechanical phenomena of many worlds. By so doing, we can explore the outcomes in a new field of Quantum Sociology

Great presentation! I may be a bit cynical, but I imagine the best way to stay a Christian is to just burrow one’s head in the sand about these kinds of issues.

Christianity is like a Quark : it comes in 3 colours :- a) The original one, which became the foundation of Western Civilization. It spread moral values and learning. Best exemplified through the influence of Eleanor of Aquitaine (1154Queen to Henry II ) Compare Beowulf (~600), the Anglo Saxon hero described with the same adjectives as the monster -power, strength, etc with Robin Hood ~12thC, who embodies the courtly virtues of courtesy, honour, chivalry. That is essentially the Christian influence over the barbarians. b) The second colour is corruption : Christianity glutted itself on persecution and power. c) The third colour is chaos : having found its epistemological rug pulled from under it, Christianity stumbled along desperately trying to accommodate science and modernity, and mostly making a fool of itself. Finally finding a folksy niche and becoming all things to all people.