@@TomTom-rh5gk 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 in the real world. You're confusing man made equations for reality. For example - 1+1 under the correct circumstances equals 3. It's called conception.
I'm not a trained scientist, but this guy must be as close as you can get today to the real deal. He worked and hobnobbed with some of the Titans at Los Alamos anda elsewhere and can still reminisci we clearly and succinctly about his experience. He displays humility yet speaks with great clarity. He's passed now but his talks should be a world treasure.
@@schmetterling4477and you should refer back to Dyson’s original (and carefully reasoned) retraction if his earlier ideas on QED. And acknowledge them rather than sniping sarcastically at a genuine question/poster.
@@kronkite1530 Dyson's original ideas? He had those in 1948 to maybe the mid 1970s. There was plenty of time for him to lose his mind since and unfortunately he did. So what? So absolutely nothing. ;-)
That's nothing new. It was known since the late 1920s. The human observer concept seems to have been invented out of thin air by von Neumann, who understood all the math and none of the physics. It's an artificial supernatural bolt-on to a theory that doesn't need it.
Set, game and match to Bohr !!!. Quantum uncertainty and probability distribution is related to Godel's uncertainty stemming from the evaluation of the truth value of the lying paradox, 'I am not a liar'. which involves the opposite of what is to be evaluated, within the proposition. Again, when Turing wanted his computer to halt at the end of a computation, called the halting problem, was ingeniously solved by Turing, by employing 'self reference', in which Turing plugged his computing machine on to itself,enabling him to achieve a computer which 'knows', when to halt the calculation. This concept is like Hegel's 'unity of opposites', from which follows that Good and Evil are indistinguishable. Hegel had no idea of anti-particles, anti-gravity etc., but his powerful 'laws of dialectics', paved the way to the discovery of the modern science of the Standard Model which shows that at the big bang, dark matter and dark energy were produced with opposite properties, followed by the production of particles and anti-particles, followed by production of matter and anti-matter.... and on to hot and cold, male and female, up and down etc. SM also leads to self-organizing property of matter, fine tuning of the parameter space, delivering life and consciousness, by winning a series of lotteries in a row, each with one in a million/billion chance of winning, implying 'intelligent design' and 'divine purpose'.
Naimul Haq Quantum uncertainty is similar to the Gödel truth function, but it is not actually the linked with it nor even the same type of problem. I do not know what you meant by "the computer that knows part", I'm not sure how it came in to play with what you were talking about, I think you were trying to link it with Gödel, but the thing is, even this is not really to do with the truth function. The standard model by the way does not have anything to say about dark matter or energy, and no model says they are opposites. They are likely completely different from each other. Dark matter I believe to be something inherent in gravity itself, while dark energy will likely turn out to be derived from a decayed form of inflation energy. And no, I do not believe it is really a set of coincidences, allot of chance but nothing that requires intelligent design that I have seen. Even though I do believe in God, I don't think I would have arrived at the conclusion that God was needed to make life on at least one planet in an endless expanse of space and time, which is very likely one of countless endless expanses, each with their own laws of physics. But when you think about this vastness and immensity, you can't think of anything but God being behind it all.
@@BuGGyBoBerl Everything within the climate has an effect on the climate. It is literally impossible for it not to. With that said, the extent of the effects have often been greatly overstated for political purposes by people with a vested interest in manipulating the general public for personal gains. Climate alarmism is now a cottage industry.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 evidence for your claim? modells are getting confirmed over and over by reality. in fact as far as we know now its likely its worse than we predicted. regarding political purposes we have a different topic, which mostly is irrelevant for the actual case. but if you really want to get into it, there is far more interest in denying these effects and its already done by lets say exxon mobile etc.
@@BuGGyBoBerl No, the models are consistently showing much greater temperature increases than what are actually observed. There was a down trend in temperatures during the 1970's and scientists were predicting an ice age. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the 1970's than there was during the 1960's, 1950's, and 1940's, etc., yet the temperatures actually went down. That is not possible if it is the CO2 levels that are controlling global temperatures. Then you have the ice core temperature data. Temperature increases and decreases almost always precede the increases and decreases of atmospheric CO2. Temperatures cyclically plummet while atmospheric CO2 content is at its maximum. Again, this is impossible if CO2 is the cause of the temperature increases. The scientific principle of causality requires the cause to precede its effects. A cause cannot occur after its effects. It is temperature that causes increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. As the ocean warms up, it expels CO2, and as the ocean cools down it absorbs more CO2. Open a hot can of Coke and you will be able to observe this process.
true - how can it be a complete theory? First of all GR is complete and will probably be never be overthrown. QM on the other hand is just a tool to calculate probabilities. It doesn't tell you what is happening really in the system, all it does is summarise the results of measurements and predicts probabilities, so if anything, it makes the story of what is really happening even more vague, so of course classical systems obey QM due to the law of averages, nothing too surprising there. GR on the other hand really improves upon the existing picture/explanation and gives you a real concrete way to model systems with increasing accuracy. That is the main criteria a complete theory should fulfil.
@@jimany3965 GR does not, it is just a theory of gravity. And until one can find a completely physical description of what is happening at a microscopic scale, something as concrete as the theory of GR, I'm afraid we have to rename the subject to something other than "physics".
@@KLRJUNE Not quite right. From Wikipedia: "Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority." So Dyson, according to that account anyway, does believe we humans are warming the atmosphere but does not think we can predict the results accurately. And he has a political point of view which speaks for itself.
@@RalphDratman And he is rigth about that. We are not able to predict the changes. And by the way really no one questions that greenhouse gases have an impact on the earth temperatur, but how big is the impact of AGWs? A question no one answerd accurate, so far. On the other hand, Dyson doesn't believe that a warming is really harmful.
@@maxmustermann7030 I think Dyson just likes to take the unpopular point of view to create controversy. It seems obvious that warming is a problem now. This video is 6 years old!
I disagree that his idea of a photodetector outside the box revives the argument. As he states himself, QM does not address an already completed emission and absorption experiment with a single photon. He is focusing his photon to get this result and the focusing mechanism has a limited depth of field, and placing the detector inside that focal depth is engineering in use for semiconductor photolithography along with other methods that are used to overcome the resolution limit of optics which is governed by the uncertainty principle. Once you have removed the photodetector to much further away than the depth of focus, you would again recover the statistical outcomes governed by QM. Heisenberg himself addressed this, saying that it is only after the photon passes the point at which a detector is placed in a prepared experiment of a single photon, that the uncertainty relations hold. He seems aware of this, but I assume he thinks his extra detector took care of the problem.
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 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. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
@@schmetterling4477 Do you mean there is only one way to skin a cat, and that method has not yet revealed what the inside parts of the cat are really made up of? I am betting the twisted DNA molecules are in there somewhere.
@@schmetterling4477 I agree. Matter is made up of stored energy, and that energy is stored as spatial curvature. That spatial curvature can be stored as twist cycles, which are proportional to Planck's Constant. It would be analogous to a twisted rubber band. It only takes one extra spatial dimension to make this idea work. It could be called "Tube Theory", instead of "String Theory".
"The subject of this lecture is a couple of thought experiments that are intended to set limits to the scope of quantum mechanics. Each of the experiments explores a situation where the hypothesis that quantum mechanics can describe everything that happens leads to an absurdity. The conclusion I draw from these examples is that quantum mechanics cannot be a complete description of nature."
Dyson's thought experiments have been done and he doesn't know how they turned out. The man has a very limited mind and quantum theory is too much for him.
Quantum mechanics is not a complete description of nature for two reasons: 1 - there can't be a "complete" description of nature, because a map can't be the territory, rather nature is the "description of itself". 2 - the single quantum event can't be predicted, so it is not "completely" described by quantum mechanics, which is consistent with point 1. Maybe a "complete theory" is a delusionary concept.
@@andsalomoni Right you are. I call the idea of a complete description of reality the "Reality Delusion." The "Reality Delusion." is the same thing as Dawkins' "God Delusion."
@@eleniarapi1828 I have known about Dyson since the 1970s. He worked with Edward Teller on a hydrogen bomb. The guy had a lot of interesting ideas. The one that captured a lot of people's imagination was the Dyson Sphere. He was really and engineer not a scientist.
@@DanielJanzon That's the problem. If you read the old papers by Heisenberg and others, they seemed to have had a moment of clarity around the late 1920s... and then von Neumann wrote his book about the solution theory of the Schroedinger equation and the mathematical lingo seems to have clouded the minds of generations about the ontology of quantum systems. It's a very strange educational/psychological phenomenon that continues to this day. The other possibility is that they never had a moment of clarity and I am just reading my modern understanding into the old papers. That's possible, too. Heisenberg certainly seems to have known better in his twenties and maybe early thirties than he did in his fifties and sixties. My personal experience is the opposite. I was talking total bullshit about QM after I learned about it for the first time. My clarity came with time and experimental experience.
@@schmetterling4477 Thanks for your response. Also check out Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", chapter 9 "Some Observations on Quantum Theory" that is an early clear statement on the statistical uncertainty principle in terms of variance.
@@DanielJanzonI generally tend to discount Popper as a source. He has IMHO no first hand knowledge about physical ontology and he basically just parrots talking points that he has picked up from physicists (like Heisenberg) who also got a lot wrong about the basics. So while his criticism might be interesting from a historical perspective (but now we have to check whether the way he understands is the way Heisenberg actually meant things), it is not enlightening to the modern reader. To give a broad sketch of the problem: Heisenberg correctly tried to interpret measurement as an energy exchange between the system under measurement and the measurement system. That is not completely wrong but it's also not completely correct. Heisenberg was still objectifying the system under measurement as "a particle" and to him the energy exchange was an unavoidable "artifact" of the interaction between the two systems. That is just not so. There simply is no "object" independent of that quantum of energy. Particles or better corpuscles (aka small amounts of matter) have never been observed in any experiments. The only observations we have ever made at the microscopic level are energy exchanges between quantum fields. The idea that these exchanges are happening between somehow not quite classical "particles" is entirely an artifact of the human mind. Heisenberg could not break free from this delusion and Popper is completely embedded in it as well, as far as I can tell from the language in the chapter of his book that you are citing. The more technical discussion of uncertainty would quickly reveal that it is not even a quantum effect. It exists in classical waves as well. You can ask any seismologist, digital signal processing or digital communications system specialist about it... they are all suffering from it and they are all using it daily in their treatment of perfectly classical linear systems. To a mathematician it's a trivial lemma about linear operators of the kind of the Fourier transform. So if the uncertainty principle is not a hallmark of quantum mechanics, then what is? Quantization of angular momentum, charges and the physical action are. The algebraic structure of the Hilbert and Fock spaces are. They have no equivalents in classical mechanics. Popper doesn't pick that up (and neither does Heisenberg in most of his more popular writings, it seems). He is, of course, also wrong about quantum mechanics being "statistical". While there is a formal similarity between statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, that "little" Wick rotation destroys both the math in the solution theory (properly formulated statistics/probability theory is extremely well behaved in its convergence, leading to very nice results like the central limit theorems) while quantum mechanics leads down a path of nearly untamable divergences (many of which are actually physical rather than mathematical) and it makes the statistical interpretation outright wrong. Stochastic forces subject systems to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. No dissipation has ever been observed in quantum systems, nor can it be present because of the unitary structure of the theory (which is by construction). So, yeah... forget Popper. He was stuck in the same mindset that plagued most of the physicists of the time and that still plagues most of the "occasional users" of quantum mechanics.
4:40 "It is massiveness that is the key to decoherence" There's a much easier way to say that: quantum effects are limited to objects with little to no mass. Or put another way, anything big enough to be "conscious" is restricted by space and time. 14:45 "It doesn't prove quantum mechanics wrong" Perhaps a better way to say that is mentioning the size of the electron in theory is larger than the distance between the slits. Therefor the concepts of before, during and after can't be applied. The mere presence of time in the equation prevents equations 1 through 6 from truly describing what's going on. T is sort of like a 0 in a classical equation, anything it touches it destroys. Physics needs a way to describe these events w/out that darn T!
Quantum fields are not objects to begin with and they don't contain objects of any sort, either. In fact, there are no objects in nature. Objects are merely an approximation of what is really happening.
14:21 the programmers can generate energy from the excell to power it and othe items. One of my friends was a genius at this stuff. Beyond reason. Then and i can only imagine that 1 now
"It all comes down to companionship more commonly known as love. It is this the reason why. Now we in the field of science can continue to talk endlessly around this truth and speak half truths, or, we can speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth which is that the meaning of life is love." - Wald Wassermann, Physicist, Center of Theoretical Physics.
1:08 Wheeler’s philosophy sounds like routine ‘postmodernism’ and thus very dubious! (Would suggest that Fuller’s geometrical development of the concept of ‘All Space’ be scrutinised by establishment scientists. By replacing the cubic grid as the means by which to ‘capture’ the space in which all physical events occur (and thereby divorcing temporal consideration as immediately connected with them) with a ‘snub-cube’ replacement for exactly the same amount of particular volume at whatever macro- or micro- resolution to the power of 10 he achieves two important developments: 1 - the three practical dimensions of the cube are replaced by the four practical dimensions of the cube-octahedron (snub-cube). This is the same difference as using square graph paper in the three (90°) directions offered by a cube and using hexagonal graph paper in the four (60°) off-set directions of the cube-octahedron. An immediate consequence of this is that ‘the cosmic interlacing’ of physical events (like the entrancing effect of phosphorescence) takes hexagonal courses and ‘time’/relativity is recorded between event-centre and next event-centre - i.e. is integrated; 2 - and speculatively - the tetrahedral form which is entirely 60° co-ordinated in its geometry and which alone of all polyhedral forms may involute (vertex through opposite ‘hedron’) - and which may possibly identify with both photons and quantum (shape and ‘frappe’) - may perhaps be computable for location within this different ‘space-architecture’ whereas not at all within a cubic grid representation for the same thing. Thus integrating relativity and quantum behaviour within a single spatial cum dynamic conceit.)
@@schmetterling4477 You speak truth! And an ideal cubic grid to represent all-space and provide a locus for calculation of forces at all sizes and relations together with a disjunct temporal dimension wouldn’t as you say enter Nature’s head! Less secure to deny for actual coordination is a replacement of that cubic grid by a cubeoctahedral grid. Two things there: 1 - the sides’ distance from the volumetric centre of a cubeoctahedron remains exactly the same as that of a cube into which it fits; 2 - a significant transformation occurs by stacking with cubeoctahedra in identical place of cubes: instead of two parallel squares for each of the 3 dimensions that a cube provides for gridding and orientation - all coordinated at 90° - you get instead just four hexagons circling the identical centre but their planes oriented in relation to each other at 60° - and just as stacked cubes provide a criss-cross - so do stacked cubeoctahedra provide a four spatial dimension criss cross (those of a tetrahedron = 60°) but of hexagons. One radical consequence of this is that within this arrangement each edge length represents an energy transaction occurring (one + one radius of adjacent spherical energy domains) and the time taken according with Einstein’s relativity prescriptions the huge consequence of which is the integration of time with space in the general new architecture. But to answer your question about Nature’s possible concern with coordinates - under normal circumstances of thermodynamic disequilibrium at scales nano- to macro- this will not be seen tho’ it is implicit. However - I believe that photographs exist of H frozen to the ultimate cryogenic possibility and that the same give visual evidence for this matrix of cubeoctahedra in four directions. (Technically known as the ‘isotropic vector matrix’.) It’s all in Fuller’s ‘Synergetics’.
I would like to produce a computer simulation which shows what happens when one of the detectors in the Clauser or Aspect experiment is made of antimatter. I am guessing Bell’s over-correlation will be suppressed. No simulation of a big pile of differential equations can ever be a simulation of quantum mechanics. We need in addition to make use of a random number generator. Some will say the simulation I am aiming for is impossible in principle. Well we can still distribute simulations which teach physicists a few tricks such as animated graphics and object-oriented programming. We won’t be left empty-handed. So yes, quantum mechanics is unfinished business. I have various ideas but would be interested in hearing of other proposals.
In pre QM time, when some peculiar observations were taken beyond our expectation, that means we are under qualified to address the peculiarities. Rather than to admit it and to rewrite everything we have built this far (in General Relativity), QM becomes a political castle use by misplaced scientists to defend their status quote, respective authority. In this castle they develop even more peculiar explanation to explain what they don’t know as if they know it good to hide their ignorance one lay upon another grow like a cancer colony. I don’t have problem with that, but I do when our next generation young scientists take that as real science and plan to build their careers in it. The only benefit false science can bring is succeed of a covert - class discrimination intellectually to maintain covert world domination.
@@philoso377 Philosophy has been bullshit since 500BC. All of your favorite ancient philosophers thought that slavery was justified, for instance. Plato denied outright that one could learn anything important by observation. You clearly don't know anything about philosophy, either. ;-)
Freeman Dyson is only stating a truism. There is no complete description of reality nor can there be. Kurt Godel's work indicates that a complete description of objective reality leads to a contradiction in terms.
@@JustinDiamondMusic No the proof is complicate. The statement "This statement cannot be found in a finite number of steps." was proven to be true within the logical system.
Why? I did a bs in physics 40 years ago and went into business so trying to catch up. Struggled through quantum if i recall. Particle physics seemed just math to me.
@@jmf5246 To me particle physics were the giant experiment halls at CERN and other labs. It was machines designed by thousands of people to measure the innermost properties of the physical vacuum. It all depends where you stand in life... in front of the cathedral or at the top building it.
@@schmetterling4477 no such thing as a particle in reality, hence why QM is a better approach than particle physics. Qm is still wrong tho. It doesn't take everything into account.
@@Nathan-eq3zs Dude, particle physics is quantum mechanics. Of course there are no particles. That's why it's called QUANTUM MECHANICS and not particle mechanics. Do I need to draw everybody a diagram or something? ;-) What does QM not take into account, exactly? Please be precise now. I want to have a physics discussion. I am totally not interested in the depths of your ignorance about physics. ;-)
None of the questions were answered. He rather just talked his way around them and answered some unrelated, social questions he invented. The same arrogance as from Wheeler.
Freeman Dyson posits "QM cannot be a complete description of nature." He is right but he doesn't understand why. He doesn't understand that QM cannot be a complete description of nature because no complete description of nature is remotely possible.
@fiendin281 The claim that that we will not understand everything and the claim that the world in not always mechanical but sometimes probabilistic are a bit different. Local reality and local time do not always prevail. The point is when things get very small they can overlap and in that case what you find can become probabilistic. If Dyson denies this then he is either wrong or lying.
@@TomTom-rh5gk What do you mean by "probabilistic"? Do you belive in real "chance"? How do we know chance is not mechanical, on another level, that we can't observe?
@@TomTom-rh5gk Makes no sense to me. What *we* can predict is something entirely different from what is (theoretically) possible tp predict, i.e. what is "mechanical". What we know about quantum physics is most probably pretty shallow, compared to what is actual reality.
@@herrbonk3635 You say, "What we know about quantum physics is most probably pretty shallow, compared to what is actual reality." Your idea of actual reality is just a fantasy. It is an opinion. If you knew what actual reality was you wouldn't need science or Quantum Theory. If you had direct knowledge of actually reality you would be omniscient like God.
he only reads. why? the previous video - he also reads. sorry... was this scientist just a reader? to add: the way he reads suggests he DONT understand what he reads about (or knows is very well and do not bother himself to exlpain) yes, 'reads about', not 'reads' or just a very bad presenter. or just as a real SCIENTIST, when recites, again he doubts his thoughts. That may be very well be true..
What are you on about? He only read a little bit at the beginning, the rest of the video he was just talking and explaining. Of course he understands what he's talking about, he put the presentation together.
What does delivery have to do with content? Do you also think Einstein's theories are correct because the messy looking hair made him look like a genius? Should we doubt your competence or intelligence because your English grammar is bad?
@7:10 In his thought experiment, doesn't he just measure the *average* speed of the electron between t1 and t2, and not the actual speed of the electron at time t2 ?
@@andsalomoni "the difference between past and future is a stubbornly persistent illusion" Einstein. Time just measures change. No change no time. Instantaneous. No EPR paradox.
@@andsalomoni Interesting. What about Bells inequality: either QM is wrong/incomplete (Mr Dyson agrees) OR reality is none local - instantaneous action at a distance. The experimental evidence by Alain Aspect seems to validate instantaneous none locality. If instantaneous, then no time. I have tried to understand this since the 1980's. But then I am an Engineer not a Physicist.
@ 00:44 OBSERVERS are irrelevant, DETECTORS are. (my own opinion) @ 03:20 DECOHERENCE, the enemy of quantum-computer builders. @ 14:43 Conclusion after the first thought-experiment. @ 20:52 Conclusion after the second thought-experiment. @ 22:16 Summary of conclusions. @ 24:11 Questions from the audience. My conclusion: Feynman was right. Nobody understands QM ... in the same way (my edit).
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get the uncertainty principle claim. You can know the position and momentum, you just can't know them both at the same time. That seems obvious for all things in motion (all things that exist). If I walk down the street, you can pinpoint my location, but you give up all information about my momentum. If you pinpoint my momentum, you give up all information about my precise location. Maybe I don't get it, but it seems, to me, absurdly obvious that this is the case.
I think you will find that in classical mechanics you CAN know both momentum and location at the same time as making a measurement is not assumed to affect macro objects. However, for sub-atomic particles the process of measuring one variable may change the other
Obviously we are the audience who don’t understand or aware of any details behind a process the magician play, can easily be convince we were witnessing reality, also puzzled. What if we were not told or aware that isn’t a process conduct by a magician but by a renowned scientist who we are worshiping? When we are hungry for food, food that is absolutely necessary for us to continue tomorrow, either for living or social status, we inherit know how more than we can think, digest or question. That is a process to turn lie into reality and make people continue living as mislead slaves in a society wearing hat labeled with “Elite”.
The only slave here is you to your own retarded ideology. Dyson is encouraging refutation of his arguments, yet you're here babbling about some elite/slave dichotomy that isn't representative of reality.
Whenever you're shooting electrons or photons across some distance, you're going to have some amount of uncertainty due to the 'Mexican hat-shaped' Higgs field, aren't you?
The president of the United States reads from a script, what's your point? That's literally what they teach you to do in school when doing a long form talk.
If QM cannot be a complete description of nature then what else could provide a complete picture? Efforts until now to unify GR with QM have failed and if both together cannot provide a unified picture then do the scientists need to start from scratch or will efforts at unification a fool's errand?
we have to accept that if we want a completely physical theory, we have to stop our resolution at the level where our limits of physicality can probe. Any deeper than that is all talk and no proof.
we have to accept that if we want a completely physical theory, we have to stop our resolution at the level where our limits of physicality can probe. Any deeper than that is all talk and no proof.
Having expressed doubt on Q. M. Einstein lost his stature in science for the rest of his life. I wonder what arguments are being presented by Prof. Dyson!
Einstein made the last truly formative argument about QM in his EPR paper, so he didn't lose anything. If he ever made a mistake of consequence about QM, then it was in his 1905 paper about the photoelectric effect, which you obviously didn't read.
@@kamaldas1558 A Nobel Prize doesn't tell you anything about physics, kid. It tells you something about the Nobel Prize Committee. You need to grow up. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 your support of EPR paper by Einstein shows your depth of ignorance! Fortunately, the Nobel committee is composed of people less wise than you!
@@kamaldas1558 Dude, physics is not soccer. I am not a fan who supports a sports team. You really need to grow up. You haven't even reached kindergarten level, yet. ;-)
Because it isn't wrong. It's actually spot on with a laser sharp focus on what is important in QM. The real problem is that most people don't know why it is spot on. I have found one more person just now who obviously doesn't know, either. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 I was supposed to reply to the comment by @markmd9. Anyway ... At least one of the assumptions behind the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is wrong. Namely, the unjustified belief that there is a wave function associated with every single quantum object. The statistical interpretation of QM got it right: wave function is associated with a set (ensamble) of identically prepared quantum objects rather than with a single quantum object. For example, the "single electron wave function" is not a wave function associated with a single electron. It is a description of an ensamble of single electrons prepared in the same fashion. That unjustified belief has its origin in a circular argument derived from double slit experiment. Perhaps, we will fund a prize for a challenge to provide a valid argument of the association ...
@@instytutfotonowy2637 The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't say that the wave function is a description of the individual system. It gives it a similar ontological meaning as that of the probability distribution for stochastic systems. Wave functions are the behavior of idealized ensembles of quantum systems. Just because a lot of people are talking a lot of bullshit about Copenhagen doesn't make Copenhagen wrong. It simply creates a lot of bullshitters.
Quantum mechanics was when invented expressing the technical numbers in nuclear and chemical reactions and producing exact solutions to forces and vectors needed in weapons production. Thinking you must have a particle for a force works to only a limited degree. The Higgs boson which may or not be the reason for inertia and mass. It does not describe gravity in any state. It does not assign mass or energy to any particle but perfectly describes the change of that particle when meeting another particle and or interacting with that particle to an extremely high degree. In fact the numbers are so exact physicists try to add attributes it doesn't possess. It is a side chute of reality and predicts almost nothing not already found. It is not a law of nature but a mathematical description. That's it.
QM is the most beautiful of all physical laws and Feynman's QFT and the SINGLE probability wave function, describes everything and every process in the universe. How photosynthesis produce food for all plant, how the migrating robin navigates with the help of entanglement, how the tadpole grow limbs from its tail due to tunneling etc. Our senses, our brain and all our cells employ quantum computing capability so we can survive and evolve. Just like phase transition transforms non-life matter into life and consciousness, similarly the QF can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter) creating life with perfection and with probability ONE, eliminating randomness and chance. Rather than describing experiments, physicists should contemplate if we can find the algorithm for unitary evolution of everything in the universe, from Schrodinger's wave function. I think we cannot, so Dyson is correct, QM will remain incomplete. I also believe this belongs to the domain of divine design.
I had no idea Dyson vacuum cleaners where THIS complicated.
"The purpose of giving such a talk on a controversial subject is not to compel agreement, but to provoke argument."
The method of Socrates. Thesis - Antithesis - new Thesis - Antithesis ...
When denies that 2+2=4, he doesn't provoke argument but derision.
Beautiful
Coward.
@@TomTom-rh5gk 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 in the real world. You're confusing man made equations for reality. For example - 1+1 under the correct circumstances equals 3. It's called conception.
RIP Prof.
Freeman Dyson is a great man! Brilliant-Common Sense and Humble! Wow!
Was a... RIP
I'm not a trained scientist, but this guy must be as close as you can get today to the real deal. He worked and hobnobbed with some of the Titans at Los Alamos anda elsewhere and can still reminisci we clearly and succinctly about his experience. He displays humility yet speaks with great clarity. He's passed now but his talks should be a world treasure.
You are correct, you are not a scientist. ;-)
You seem fairly certain of this, which violates the uncertainty principle.
Absolutely and I fear that they may all be erased because he has pointed out huge flaws in climate models and political CO2 hysteria
@@schmetterling4477and you should refer back to Dyson’s original (and carefully reasoned) retraction if his earlier ideas on QED. And acknowledge them rather than sniping sarcastically at a genuine question/poster.
@@kronkite1530 Dyson's original ideas? He had those in 1948 to maybe the mid 1970s. There was plenty of time for him to lose his mind since and unfortunately he did. So what? So absolutely nothing. ;-)
clarity, humility, vintage Dyson!
I like how he teaches Robert Laughlin how to do quantum mechanics.
Robert attacked it like a hounddog. Not too classy, like a sixyearold
I told him all that.
You told him, but most physicists disagree with the main point: "QM cannot be a complete description of nature"
@@frun no they don't.
So many people don't understand in the comments. If only Dyson had used powerpoint slides..
"We don't need a human observer for quantum mechanics to work" said Dr. Freeman Dyson.
That's nothing new. It was known since the late 1920s. The human observer concept seems to have been invented out of thin air by von Neumann, who understood all the math and none of the physics. It's an artificial supernatural bolt-on to a theory that doesn't need it.
We didn't create quantum mechanics, we found out a mathematical way to describe what already existed.
This is an incredibly insightful lecture, very good
Set, game and match to Bohr !!!. Quantum uncertainty and probability distribution is related to Godel's uncertainty stemming from the evaluation of the truth value of the lying paradox, 'I am not a liar'. which involves the opposite of what is to be evaluated, within the proposition. Again, when Turing wanted his computer to halt at the end of a computation, called the halting problem, was ingeniously solved by Turing, by employing 'self reference', in which Turing plugged his computing machine on to itself,enabling him to achieve a computer which 'knows', when to halt the calculation.
This concept is like Hegel's 'unity of opposites', from which follows that Good and Evil are indistinguishable.
Hegel had no idea of anti-particles, anti-gravity etc., but his powerful 'laws of dialectics', paved the way to the discovery of the modern science of the Standard Model which shows that at the big bang, dark matter and dark energy were produced with opposite properties, followed by the production of particles and anti-particles, followed by production of matter and anti-matter.... and on to hot and cold, male and female, up and down etc.
SM also leads to self-organizing property of matter, fine tuning of the parameter space, delivering life and consciousness, by winning a series of lotteries in a row, each with one in a million/billion chance of winning, implying 'intelligent design' and 'divine purpose'.
Naimul Haq Quantum uncertainty is similar to the Gödel truth function, but it is not actually the linked with it nor even the same type of problem. I do not know what you meant by "the computer that knows part", I'm not sure how it came in to play with what you were talking about, I think you were trying to link it with Gödel, but the thing is, even this is not really to do with the truth function. The standard model by the way does not have anything to say about dark matter or energy, and no model says they are opposites. They are likely completely different from each other. Dark matter I believe to be something inherent in gravity itself, while dark energy will likely turn out to be derived from a decayed form of inflation energy. And no, I do not believe it is really a set of coincidences, allot of chance but nothing that requires intelligent design that I have seen. Even though I do believe in God, I don't think I would have arrived at the conclusion that God was needed to make life on at least one planet in an endless expanse of space and time, which is very likely one of countless endless expanses, each with their own laws of physics. But when you think about this vastness and immensity, you can't think of anything but God being behind it all.
Which bestseller did you last read?
Freeman Dyson has always been an independent thinker.
He understood right away that "man-made" is the cuckoo part of talking about climate change.
@@KibyNykraft whatever you mean with cuckoo. i agree with him that we know too few things about it, but its quite obvious that we have an impact
@@BuGGyBoBerl Everything within the climate has an effect on the climate. It is literally impossible for it not to. With that said, the extent of the effects have often been greatly overstated for political purposes by people with a vested interest in manipulating the general public for personal gains. Climate alarmism is now a cottage industry.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 evidence for your claim? modells are getting confirmed over and over by reality. in fact as far as we know now its likely its worse than we predicted.
regarding political purposes we have a different topic, which mostly is irrelevant for the actual case. but if you really want to get into it, there is far more interest in denying these effects and its already done by lets say exxon mobile etc.
@@BuGGyBoBerl No, the models are consistently showing much greater temperature increases than what are actually observed. There was a down trend in temperatures during the 1970's and scientists were predicting an ice age. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the 1970's than there was during the 1960's, 1950's, and 1940's, etc., yet the temperatures actually went down. That is not possible if it is the CO2 levels that are controlling global temperatures. Then you have the ice core temperature data. Temperature increases and decreases almost always precede the increases and decreases of atmospheric CO2. Temperatures cyclically plummet while atmospheric CO2 content is at its maximum. Again, this is impossible if CO2 is the cause of the temperature increases. The scientific principle of causality requires the cause to precede its effects. A cause cannot occur after its effects. It is temperature that causes increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. As the ocean warms up, it expels CO2, and as the ocean cools down it absorbs more CO2. Open a hot can of Coke and you will be able to observe this process.
prof Freeman Dyson is a member of Feynman Circle as I call that school of science
32:10 Lee Smolin
true - how can it be a complete theory? First of all GR is complete and will probably be never be overthrown. QM on the other hand is just a tool to calculate probabilities. It doesn't tell you what is happening really in the system, all it does is summarise the results of measurements and predicts probabilities, so if anything, it makes the story of what is really happening even more vague, so of course classical systems obey QM due to the law of averages, nothing too surprising there. GR on the other hand really improves upon the existing picture/explanation and gives you a real concrete way to model systems with increasing accuracy. That is the main criteria a complete theory should fulfil.
But GR does not give you anything on what is happening on the QM level such as strong interaction or weak or even the EM inside of atoms?
@@jimany3965 GR does not, it is just a theory of gravity. And until one can find a completely physical description of what is happening at a microscopic scale, something as concrete as the theory of GR, I'm afraid we have to rename the subject to something other than "physics".
Is there anywhere a writeup of these thought experiments?
RIP.
The greatest mind of our present generation
Confirming the point.
@@KLRJUNE Not quite right. From Wikipedia:
"Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
So Dyson, according to that account anyway, does believe we humans are warming the atmosphere but does not think we can predict the results accurately. And he has a political point of view which speaks for itself.
@@RalphDratman And he is rigth about that. We are not able to predict the changes. And by the way really no one questions that greenhouse gases have an impact on the earth temperatur, but how big is the impact of AGWs? A question no one answerd accurate, so far. On the other hand, Dyson doesn't believe that a warming is really harmful.
@@maxmustermann7030 I think Dyson just likes to take the unpopular point of view to create controversy. It seems obvious that warming is a problem now. This video is 6 years old!
@@RalphDratman How is that obvious? To me it isn't. I Don't know I see even more benefits. of course there will be negative aspects too.
I disagree that his idea of a photodetector outside the box revives the argument. As he states himself, QM does not address an already completed emission and absorption experiment with a single photon. He is focusing his photon to get this result and the focusing mechanism has a limited depth of field, and placing the detector inside that focal depth is engineering in use for semiconductor photolithography along with other methods that are used to overcome the resolution limit of optics which is governed by the uncertainty principle. Once you have removed the photodetector to much further away than the depth of focus, you would again recover the statistical outcomes governed by QM. Heisenberg himself addressed this, saying that it is only after the photon passes the point at which a detector is placed in a prepared experiment of a single photon, that the uncertainty relations hold. He seems aware of this, but I assume he thinks his extra detector took care of the problem.
QM is not complete because mathematics is not complete. Both derive from the human brain which is subject to the uncertainty principle?
We miss the old man who simply left physics when they started the oh so intricate BS machine.
Who? Dyson? Dyson has been spewing nonsense since the 1970s, I believe. ;-)
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 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.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
Nope. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Do you mean there is only one way to skin a cat, and that method has not yet revealed what the inside parts of the cat are really made up of? I am betting the twisted DNA molecules are in there somewhere.
@@SpotterVideo Quarks are small amounts of energy, just like protons. You are a larger amount of energy, but it's mostly wasted. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I agree. Matter is made up of stored energy, and that energy is stored as spatial curvature. That spatial curvature can be stored as twist cycles, which are proportional to Planck's Constant. It would be analogous to a twisted rubber band. It only takes one extra spatial dimension to make this idea work. It could be called "Tube Theory", instead of "String Theory".
@@SpotterVideo You sound rather flat to me. :-)
An Architechs drawings must hold up to the mathmatical scrutinies of an orchestrated piece for a symphony
Lengths n measures
DYSON, the best medicine against preachermen like CARROLL and the like.
Could a quantum potential build without producing particles?
Is our mass restricted to this spacetime?
"The subject of this lecture is a couple of thought experiments that are intended to set limits to the scope of quantum mechanics. Each of the experiments explores a situation where the hypothesis that quantum mechanics can describe everything that happens leads to an absurdity. The conclusion I draw from these examples is that quantum mechanics cannot be a complete description of nature."
Dyson's thought experiments have been done and he doesn't know how they turned out. The man has a very limited mind and quantum theory is too much for him.
Quantum mechanics is not a complete description of nature for two reasons:
1 - there can't be a "complete" description of nature, because a map can't be the territory, rather nature is the "description of itself".
2 - the single quantum event can't be predicted, so it is not "completely" described by quantum mechanics, which is consistent with point 1.
Maybe a "complete theory" is a delusionary concept.
@@andsalomoni Right you are. I call the idea of a complete description of reality the "Reality Delusion." The "Reality Delusion." is the same thing as Dawkins' "God Delusion."
@@TomTom-rh5gk do u have any clue who the man is before colling him limited mind?
@@eleniarapi1828 I have known about Dyson since the 1970s. He worked with Edward Teller on a hydrogen bomb. The guy had a lot of interesting ideas. The one that captured a lot of people's imagination was the Dyson Sphere. He was really and engineer not a scientist.
I think the guy at 30:18 has a good point. The uncertainty principle applies to repeated experiments of identical setups.
Yes, that's QM 101... approx. 10 minutes into the first lecture. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Well, not even Freeman Dyson thought clearly about it. But the statistical interpretation is much clearer today.
@@DanielJanzon That's the problem. If you read the old papers by Heisenberg and others, they seemed to have had a moment of clarity around the late 1920s... and then von Neumann wrote his book about the solution theory of the Schroedinger equation and the mathematical lingo seems to have clouded the minds of generations about the ontology of quantum systems. It's a very strange educational/psychological phenomenon that continues to this day.
The other possibility is that they never had a moment of clarity and I am just reading my modern understanding into the old papers. That's possible, too. Heisenberg certainly seems to have known better in his twenties and maybe early thirties than he did in his fifties and sixties. My personal experience is the opposite. I was talking total bullshit about QM after I learned about it for the first time. My clarity came with time and experimental experience.
@@schmetterling4477 Thanks for your response. Also check out Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", chapter 9 "Some Observations on Quantum Theory" that is an early clear statement on the statistical uncertainty principle in terms of variance.
@@DanielJanzonI generally tend to discount Popper as a source. He has IMHO no first hand knowledge about physical ontology and he basically just parrots talking points that he has picked up from physicists (like Heisenberg) who also got a lot wrong about the basics. So while his criticism might be interesting from a historical perspective (but now we have to check whether the way he understands is the way Heisenberg actually meant things), it is not enlightening to the modern reader.
To give a broad sketch of the problem: Heisenberg correctly tried to interpret measurement as an energy exchange between the system under measurement and the measurement system. That is not completely wrong but it's also not completely correct. Heisenberg was still objectifying the system under measurement as "a particle" and to him the energy exchange was an unavoidable "artifact" of the interaction between the two systems. That is just not so. There simply is no "object" independent of that quantum of energy. Particles or better corpuscles (aka small amounts of matter) have never been observed in any experiments. The only observations we have ever made at the microscopic level are energy exchanges between quantum fields. The idea that these exchanges are happening between somehow not quite classical "particles" is entirely an artifact of the human mind. Heisenberg could not break free from this delusion and Popper is completely embedded in it as well, as far as I can tell from the language in the chapter of his book that you are citing.
The more technical discussion of uncertainty would quickly reveal that it is not even a quantum effect. It exists in classical waves as well. You can ask any seismologist, digital signal processing or digital communications system specialist about it... they are all suffering from it and they are all using it daily in their treatment of perfectly classical linear systems. To a mathematician it's a trivial lemma about linear operators of the kind of the Fourier transform.
So if the uncertainty principle is not a hallmark of quantum mechanics, then what is? Quantization of angular momentum, charges and the physical action are. The algebraic structure of the Hilbert and Fock spaces are. They have no equivalents in classical mechanics.
Popper doesn't pick that up (and neither does Heisenberg in most of his more popular writings, it seems). He is, of course, also wrong about quantum mechanics being "statistical". While there is a formal similarity between statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, that "little" Wick rotation destroys both the math in the solution theory (properly formulated statistics/probability theory is extremely well behaved in its convergence, leading to very nice results like the central limit theorems) while quantum mechanics leads down a path of nearly untamable divergences (many of which are actually physical rather than mathematical) and it makes the statistical interpretation outright wrong. Stochastic forces subject systems to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. No dissipation has ever been observed in quantum systems, nor can it be present because of the unitary structure of the theory (which is by construction).
So, yeah... forget Popper. He was stuck in the same mindset that plagued most of the physicists of the time and that still plagues most of the "occasional users" of quantum mechanics.
4:40 "It is massiveness that is the key to decoherence" There's a much easier way to say that: quantum effects are limited to objects with little to no mass. Or put another way, anything big enough to be "conscious" is restricted by space and time.
14:45 "It doesn't prove quantum mechanics wrong" Perhaps a better way to say that is mentioning the size of the electron in theory is larger than the distance between the slits. Therefor the concepts of before, during and after can't be applied. The mere presence of time in the equation prevents equations 1 through 6 from truly describing what's going on. T is sort of like a 0 in a classical equation, anything it touches it destroys. Physics needs a way to describe these events w/out that darn T!
Quantum fields are not objects to begin with and they don't contain objects of any sort, either. In fact, there are no objects in nature. Objects are merely an approximation of what is really happening.
@@schmetterling4477 all things experienced as "physical material"should be considered in essence more in the nature of events rather than objects.
👆
@@xenphoton5833 They are. That's high school level physics.
is that the vacuum cleaner designer?
No, that is Miles Bennett Dyson. He also designed a defence supercomputer that became self-aware at 2:14 Eastern Time, August 29th.
14:21 the programmers can generate energy from the excell to power it and othe items. One of my friends was a genius at this stuff. Beyond reason. Then and i can only imagine that 1 now
27:28 ... leads to a Sodding Brilliant Response .. I wish I could think that fast :-) !
"It all comes down to companionship more commonly known as love. It is this the reason why. Now we in the field of science can continue to talk endlessly around this truth and speak half truths, or, we can speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth which is that the meaning of life is love." - Wald Wassermann, Physicist, Center of Theoretical Physics.
Disneys apprenctice mickey show was an attempt at depiction of the topic
The grand father of the thought
5:16 the user sets the period for reletivity making speculations difficult to maintain but viable in theory
But several musical pieces are already hailed because they hold to the scrutiny of a musical supportive piece
1:08 Wheeler’s philosophy sounds like routine ‘postmodernism’ and thus very dubious!
(Would suggest that Fuller’s geometrical development of the concept of ‘All Space’ be scrutinised by establishment scientists. By replacing the cubic grid as the means by which to ‘capture’ the space in which all physical events occur (and thereby divorcing temporal consideration as immediately connected with them) with a ‘snub-cube’ replacement for exactly the same amount of particular volume at whatever macro- or micro- resolution to the power of 10 he achieves two important developments: 1 - the three practical dimensions of the cube are replaced by the four practical dimensions of the cube-octahedron (snub-cube). This is the same difference as using square graph paper in the three (90°) directions offered by a cube and using hexagonal graph paper in the four (60°) off-set directions of the cube-octahedron. An immediate consequence of this is that ‘the cosmic interlacing’ of physical events (like the entrancing effect of phosphorescence) takes hexagonal courses and ‘time’/relativity is recorded between event-centre and next event-centre - i.e. is integrated; 2 - and speculatively - the tetrahedral form which is entirely 60° co-ordinated in its geometry and which alone of all polyhedral forms may involute (vertex through opposite ‘hedron’) - and which may possibly identify with both photons and quantum (shape and ‘frappe’) - may perhaps be computable for location within this different ‘space-architecture’ whereas not at all within a cubic grid representation for the same thing. Thus integrating relativity and quantum behaviour within a single spatial cum dynamic conceit.)
You are 200 years late to that party. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477
at least I found the door to where it was at - boozed as I was!
@@markhughes7927 The door leads to nowhere. Nature doesn't give a sh*t about coordinates. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477
You speak truth! And an ideal cubic grid to represent all-space and provide a locus for calculation of forces at all sizes and relations together with a disjunct temporal dimension wouldn’t as you say enter Nature’s head! Less secure to deny for actual coordination is a replacement of that cubic grid by a cubeoctahedral grid. Two things there: 1 - the sides’ distance from the volumetric centre of a cubeoctahedron remains exactly the same as that of a cube into which it fits; 2 - a significant transformation occurs by stacking with cubeoctahedra in identical place of cubes: instead of two parallel squares for each of the 3 dimensions that a cube provides for gridding and orientation - all coordinated at 90° - you get instead just four hexagons circling the identical centre but their planes oriented in relation to each other at 60° - and just as stacked cubes provide a criss-cross - so do stacked cubeoctahedra provide a four spatial dimension criss cross (those of a tetrahedron = 60°) but of hexagons. One radical consequence of this is that within this arrangement each edge length represents an energy transaction occurring (one + one radius of adjacent spherical energy domains) and the time taken according with Einstein’s relativity prescriptions the huge consequence of which is the integration of time with space in the general new architecture. But to answer your question about Nature’s possible concern with coordinates - under normal circumstances of thermodynamic disequilibrium at scales nano- to macro- this will not be seen tho’ it is implicit. However - I believe that photographs exist of H frozen to the ultimate cryogenic possibility and that the same give visual evidence for this matrix of cubeoctahedra in four directions. (Technically known as the ‘isotropic vector matrix’.) It’s all in Fuller’s ‘Synergetics’.
@@markhughes7927 I don't read bullshit, either. ;-)
QM is the last theory of universe.
This guy's name sounds like Free Mason, doesn't it?
What is Natural within Today's Nature?!
Everything
Wilson Sharon Robinson Carol Gonzalez Ronald
Lewis Linda Wilson Melissa Johnson Cynthia
I would like to produce a computer simulation which shows what happens when one of the detectors in the Clauser or Aspect experiment is made of antimatter. I am guessing Bell’s over-correlation will be suppressed.
No simulation of a big pile of differential equations can ever be a simulation of quantum mechanics. We need in addition to make use of a random number generator.
Some will say the simulation I am aiming for is impossible in principle. Well we can still distribute simulations which teach physicists a few tricks such as animated graphics and object-oriented programming. We won’t be left empty-handed.
So yes, quantum mechanics is unfinished business. I have various ideas but would be interested in hearing of other proposals.
In pre QM time, when some peculiar observations were taken beyond our expectation, that means we are under qualified to address the peculiarities. Rather than to admit it and to rewrite everything we have built this far (in General Relativity), QM becomes a political castle use by misplaced scientists to defend their status quote, respective authority. In this castle they develop even more peculiar explanation to explain what they don’t know as if they know it good to hide their ignorance one lay upon another grow like a cancer colony. I don’t have problem with that, but I do when our next generation young scientists take that as real science and plan to build their careers in it.
The only benefit false science can bring is succeed of a covert - class discrimination intellectually to maintain covert world domination.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's how you describe it 😉
Eamon Reidy
Well put. :)
And this is why philosophy has been bullshit since 500BC. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477
Please, philosophy, observation and modeling are equally important so we don’t get lost.
@@philoso377 Philosophy has been bullshit since 500BC. All of your favorite ancient philosophers thought that slavery was justified, for instance. Plato denied outright that one could learn anything important by observation. You clearly don't know anything about philosophy, either. ;-)
137
Those who liked this , I suggest Birds and Frogs by Dyson.
24:10 Dyson was not impressed
Everything is a wave until an observer interacts with it, time is but a stubborn illusion.
No. ;-)
Freeman Dyson is only stating a truism. There is no complete description of reality nor can there be. Kurt Godel's work indicates that a complete description of objective reality leads to a contradiction in terms.
Godel was an over-miseducated moron. A statement about a statement cannot create a real paradox; just as academic bs is still bs
@@johnsmith7171 Godel didn't create a paradox. He proved that any logical description of reality is incomplete not paradoxical.
@rf4life Your message lacks information.
@@TomTom-rh5gk is the logical description incomplete, or is the proof, deductive process, incomplete?
@@JustinDiamondMusic No the proof is complicate. The statement "This statement cannot be found in a finite number of steps." was proven to be true within the logical system.
@
Dyson was a smart man, but his intuition fails him completely on this one.
Why? I did a bs in physics 40 years ago and went into business so trying to catch up. Struggled through quantum if i recall. Particle physics seemed just math to me.
@@jmf5246 To me particle physics were the giant experiment halls at CERN and other labs. It was machines designed by thousands of people to measure the innermost properties of the physical vacuum. It all depends where you stand in life... in front of the cathedral or at the top building it.
@@schmetterling4477 no such thing as a particle in reality, hence why QM is a better approach than particle physics. Qm is still wrong tho. It doesn't take everything into account.
@@Nathan-eq3zs Dude, particle physics is quantum mechanics. Of course there are no particles. That's why it's called QUANTUM MECHANICS and not particle mechanics. Do I need to draw everybody a diagram or something? ;-)
What does QM not take into account, exactly? Please be precise now. I want to have a physics discussion. I am totally not interested in the depths of your ignorance about physics. ;-)
Mircosoft was Great once. The excell spreadsheet is Quantum mechanics in use
Any programmer knows the power of the spreadsheet
None of the questions were answered. He rather just talked his way around them and answered some unrelated, social questions he invented. The same arrogance as from Wheeler.
It's because we don't have an answer. Quantum mechanics is incomplete. We don't have anything better to replace it with by that doesn't make QM right.
@@Nathan-eq3zs What about QM looks incomplete to you? Please be precise now. ;-)
Dyson used to be considered a great thinker but here was completely wrong in what he said.
How would you possibly know? Science hasn't proven anything right or wrong yet, just approximations. The atomic theory of reality is incorrect.
@@Nathan-eq3zs Dyson said that certain situations can’t be described by the quantum mechanics which it actually can describe.
Freeman Dyson posits "QM cannot be a complete description of nature." He is right but he doesn't understand why. He doesn't understand that QM cannot be a complete description of nature because no complete description of nature is remotely possible.
@fiendin281 The claim that that we will not understand everything and the claim that the world in not always mechanical but sometimes probabilistic are a bit different. Local reality and local time do not always prevail. The point is when things get very small they can overlap and in that case what you find can become probabilistic. If Dyson denies this then he is either wrong or lying.
@@TomTom-rh5gk What do you mean by "probabilistic"? Do you belive in real "chance"? How do we know chance is not mechanical, on another level, that we can't observe?
@@herrbonk3635 I mean we got odds not exact results.We know that it isn't mechanical because mechanical causes only can have one result.
@@TomTom-rh5gk Makes no sense to me. What *we* can predict is something entirely different from what is (theoretically) possible tp predict, i.e. what is "mechanical". What we know about quantum physics is most probably pretty shallow, compared to what is actual reality.
@@herrbonk3635 You say, "What we know about quantum physics is most probably pretty shallow, compared to what is actual reality." Your idea of actual reality is just a fantasy. It is an opinion. If you knew what actual reality was you wouldn't need science or Quantum Theory. If you had direct knowledge of actually reality you would be omniscient like God.
he only reads. why? the previous video - he also reads.
sorry... was this scientist just a reader?
to add: the way he reads suggests he DONT understand what he reads about (or knows is very well and do not bother himself to exlpain)
yes, 'reads about', not 'reads'
or just a very bad presenter.
or just as a real SCIENTIST, when recites, again he doubts his thoughts. That may be very well be true..
What are you on about? He only read a little bit at the beginning, the rest of the video he was just talking and explaining. Of course he understands what he's talking about, he put the presentation together.
Careful, Vadim, that's Freeman Dyson your talking about there. If you think you're smarter than he is, you are just wrong.
What does delivery have to do with content? Do you also think Einstein's theories are correct because the messy looking hair made him look like a genius? Should we doubt your competence or intelligence because your English grammar is bad?
You are very smart,Vlad.
A Great Man in science.
@7:10 In his thought experiment, doesn't he just measure the *average* speed of the electron between t1 and t2, and not the actual speed of the electron at time t2 ?
Is there any reason (force) for speed to change between the slits?
Thank you for sharing this very interesting conversation.
Why didn't I think of that? Everything in the future is a wave. Everything in the past is a particle.
,one day a chick waves at you; next, a particle of joy arrives
Because the future doesn't actually exist yet, it is a potentiality. And the past is what have existed, and is fixed.
@@andsalomoni "the difference between past and future is a stubbornly persistent illusion" Einstein. Time just measures change. No change no time. Instantaneous. No EPR paradox.
@@nosnibor800 Perfect. The past is what has changed into what is now, and the future is potential change.
@@andsalomoni Interesting. What about Bells inequality: either QM is wrong/incomplete (Mr Dyson agrees) OR reality is none local - instantaneous action at a distance. The experimental evidence by Alain Aspect seems to validate instantaneous none locality. If instantaneous, then no time. I have tried to understand this since the 1980's. But then I am an Engineer not a Physicist.
@ 00:44 OBSERVERS are irrelevant, DETECTORS are. (my own opinion)
@ 03:20 DECOHERENCE, the enemy of quantum-computer builders.
@ 14:43 Conclusion after the first thought-experiment.
@ 20:52 Conclusion after the second thought-experiment.
@ 22:16 Summary of conclusions.
@ 24:11 Questions from the audience.
My conclusion: Feynman was right. Nobody understands QM ... in the same way (my edit).
I love this man
"A mad man is the one that dreams awake" Sigmund Freud. Isn't that the definition of a thought experiment. I hope Freud is wrong.
A Gedankenexperiment is a teaching tool. You clearly didn't learn anything. ;-)
White Linda Taylor Robert Robinson Frank
Wheelerian (read: valyrian) pictures 😂😂
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get the uncertainty principle claim. You can know the position and momentum, you just can't know them both at the same time. That seems obvious for all things in motion (all things that exist). If I walk down the street, you can pinpoint my location, but you give up all information about my momentum. If you pinpoint my momentum, you give up all information about my precise location. Maybe I don't get it, but it seems, to me, absurdly obvious that this is the case.
I think you will find that in classical mechanics you CAN know both momentum and location at the same time as making a measurement is not assumed to affect macro objects. However, for sub-atomic particles the process of measuring one variable may change the other
0:40, is this a sarcasm 😅
Nice one
Obviously we are the audience who don’t understand or aware of any details behind a process the magician play, can easily be convince we were witnessing reality, also puzzled. What if we were not told or aware that isn’t a process conduct by a magician but by a renowned scientist who we are worshiping?
When we are hungry for food, food that is absolutely necessary for us to continue tomorrow, either for living or social status, we inherit know how more than we can think, digest or question. That is a process to turn lie into reality and make people continue living as mislead slaves in a society wearing hat labeled with “Elite”.
The only slave here is you to your own retarded ideology. Dyson is encouraging refutation of his arguments, yet you're here babbling about some elite/slave dichotomy that isn't representative of reality.
@@terryscott524 , may I say you felt insulted? If so, this is my apology.
Whenever you're shooting electrons or photons across some distance, you're going to have some amount of uncertainty due to the 'Mexican hat-shaped' Higgs field, aren't you?
No. :-)
Incredible that someone clearly so talented as Dr Dyson, reads his talk from a script - not good, regardless of the content.
The president of the United States reads from a script, what's your point? That's literally what they teach you to do in school when doing a long form talk.
If QM cannot be a complete description of nature then what else could provide a complete picture? Efforts until now to unify GR with QM have failed and if both together cannot provide a unified picture then do the scientists need to start from scratch or will efforts at unification a fool's errand?
Raj M he argued in an interview that he doesn’t believe in the necessity of a unified theory of quantum gravity.
we have to accept that if we want a completely physical theory, we have to stop our resolution at the level where our limits of physicality can probe. Any deeper than that is all talk and no proof.
Einstein,Feynman,Dyson
All trivially wrong about quantum mechanics, just in different ways. ;-)
Quantum Mechanics is only an aproximation to reality. 50.000 years from now we will understand why.
More likely whatever is around in 50k years will marvel how we could be so dumb as to their obvious
Or we are at our peak now, and it goes downhill from now on and into the future.
we have to accept that if we want a completely physical theory, we have to stop our resolution at the level where our limits of physicality can probe. Any deeper than that is all talk and no proof.
The laws of nature haven't changed in approx. 14 billion years... so... no. ;-)
Having expressed doubt on Q. M. Einstein lost his stature in science for the rest of his life. I wonder what arguments are being presented by Prof. Dyson!
Einstein made the last truly formative argument about QM in his EPR paper, so he didn't lose anything. If he ever made a mistake of consequence about QM, then it was in his 1905 paper about the photoelectric effect, which you obviously didn't read.
@@schmetterling4477 that is a failed attempt as proven by the Nobel laureates in Physics this year.
@@kamaldas1558 A Nobel Prize doesn't tell you anything about physics, kid. It tells you something about the Nobel Prize Committee. You need to grow up. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 your support of EPR paper by Einstein shows your depth of ignorance! Fortunately, the Nobel committee is composed of people less wise than you!
@@kamaldas1558 Dude, physics is not soccer. I am not a fan who supports a sports team. You really need to grow up. You haven't even reached kindergarten level, yet. ;-)
Everybody feels Copenhagen interpretation is wrong but nobody can prove that :)
Because it isn't wrong. It's actually spot on with a laser sharp focus on what is important in QM. The real problem is that most people don't know why it is spot on. I have found one more person just now who obviously doesn't know, either. :-)
I can.
@@instytutfotonowy2637 Now is the time, troll. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I was supposed to reply to the comment by @markmd9. Anyway ...
At least one of the assumptions behind the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is wrong. Namely, the unjustified belief that there is a wave function associated with every single quantum object. The statistical interpretation of QM got it right: wave function is associated with a set (ensamble) of identically prepared quantum objects rather than with a single quantum object.
For example, the "single electron wave function" is not a wave function associated with a single electron. It is a description of an ensamble of single electrons prepared in the same fashion.
That unjustified belief has its origin in a circular argument derived from double slit experiment.
Perhaps, we will fund a prize for a challenge to provide a valid argument of the association ...
@@instytutfotonowy2637 The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't say that the wave function is a description of the individual system. It gives it a similar ontological meaning as that of the probability distribution for stochastic systems. Wave functions are the behavior of idealized ensembles of quantum systems. Just because a lot of people are talking a lot of bullshit about Copenhagen doesn't make Copenhagen wrong. It simply creates a lot of bullshitters.
Quantum mechanics was when invented expressing the technical numbers in nuclear and chemical reactions and producing exact solutions to forces and vectors needed in weapons production. Thinking you must have a particle for a force works to only a limited degree. The Higgs boson which may or not be the reason for inertia and mass. It does not describe gravity in any state. It does not assign mass or energy to any particle but perfectly describes the change of that particle when meeting another particle and or interacting with that particle to an extremely high degree. In fact the numbers are so exact physicists try to add attributes it doesn't possess. It is a side chute of reality and predicts almost nothing not already found. It is not a law of nature but a mathematical description. That's it.
I would agree, but nobody can do better?
Scale, the 6 string guitar scale is as catholics teach and as metrics or tenths would scale to respectively
QM is the most beautiful of all physical laws and Feynman's QFT and the SINGLE probability wave function, describes everything and every process in the universe. How photosynthesis produce food for all plant, how the migrating robin navigates with the help of entanglement, how the tadpole grow limbs from its tail due to tunneling etc. Our senses, our brain and all our cells employ quantum computing capability so we can survive and evolve.
Just like phase transition transforms non-life matter into life and consciousness, similarly the QF can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter) creating life with perfection and with probability ONE, eliminating randomness and chance.
Rather than describing experiments, physicists should contemplate if we can find the algorithm for unitary evolution of everything in the universe, from Schrodinger's wave function. I think we cannot, so Dyson is correct, QM will remain incomplete. I also believe this belongs to the domain of divine design.
Idiot...