Listening to this discussion explains why there is little progress on fundamental questions: Maudlin is the only one who is able to get to the point. It is really painful that experts in their fields are seemingly incapable of using concise and clear language.
44:00: The wave function lives on configuration space not in space time. It is a mathematical description of a system not the system. It is not a beable local or otherwise.
Non-locality is forced only if you assume the particle states have a reality. That they have a reality is argued in a very hand wavy way around 15:00. This is the key difference between Tim’s view and standard QM. Once a particle state is measured sure you can say it has a reality. But that doesn’t prove it has a reality before it is measured. In standard QM a phenomenon isn’t a thing until it’s measured, you can really get into trouble if you start arguing as if things that aren’t measured have a reality. So this business about assigning ups and downs is just moot in standard QM as there’s no underlying hidden variables in standard QM and particle states don’t have a reality until they are measured. It’s only once you try to explain what’s happening using these fictional hidden variables that you get forced to accept the fictional hidden variables must be non-local. In my opinion, the real conclusion isn’t that the world is non-local, it’s that it’s Quantum mechanical, and things don’t have any reality until they are measured. Things are simpler if you just assume there are no hidden variables underneath.
I take the view that this kind of question is the wrong kind of question to ask because reality has too much connotation. There’s only the measured outcomes. And even they aren’t known precisely nor do their values persist generally.
True. But this discussion is typical in the space:; no pun intended. Language, emotion and assumptions...maybe that combination is a blessing and the curse.
Welcome to the Bohmian/Everettian war. Seriously, I think that some of the protagonists in this debate just interact this way, and that they're not intentionally being as rude or hostile as it may come across.
You are just weak. They are debating points. You are actually a dangerous person because you can't read people properly. Assuming rudeness when there isn't.
I'm puzzled by why Maudlin objects to the wave function as a local beable on the grounds that it exists in configuration space, given that the local beable of his preferred Bohmian mechanics is the world particle, which also exists in configuration space, not our usual 3D space. Perhaps he advocates a many-particle form of Bohm's theory? I was under the impression that such an approach does not work, and that the move to a single world-particle is necessary.
Ma! There is a guy here who doesn't understand quantum mechanics who talks about other guys who don't understand quantum mechanics, either. I must be on the internet. :-)
@@randycalifornia In the version of Bohmian mechanics with N particles in 3 dimensions, sure. That version doesn't work for interacting particles, as far as I'm aware (David Albert has argued this pretty cogently, in my opinion), necessitating a move to the version with 1 particle in 3N dimensions.
@@stevenklinden If what you say is correct then local beables would be missing from the theory, sure. I dont know what would be Maudlin's respons to that. In any case the wave function is not a local beable in any theory, which is why "Maudlin objects to the wave function as a local beable". For it to be local it should have some sort of value at each space time point, and it doesnt.
I am interested in the computer simulation of quantum mechanics, and yes, any simulation will need to find a way to shift information at a speed faster than light. This information is in the nature of a one-time pad rather than a true communication. The simulation will need to use a random number generator, which I think is self-evident. If we have a RNG available then we have the Vernam cipher available to tackle spooky action at a distance. We also have the Protean system available, which is a system where pressing any button on the simulation has a side effect of reseeding the RNG by reference to the time of pressing. One such button does a Lorentz boost, and if this is the only way to do one, then the simulation cannot be caught out on questions of causality. I’ll throw it open to the reader to suggest what type of VC to use. As Tim Maudlin says, the RNG can be based on a variety of physical principles. In fact we can have several RNGs running on different principles all XOR-ed together, which I call En-dorisation. Hard to believe that there is some great conspiracy preventing the combined output from being random.
01:03 Entanglement is non-local everyone agree, but Lev said few minutes ago that Many worlds is fully local theory, so he is clearly contradicting himself here.
Here we go, resorting to geometry to explain the math. How convenient, emergence of relativistic geometry from space time. Discrete space time, packages of blocks in a none existent continuity where there is no flow from what came before, nor any feedback into what came before what came after. Flatland.
I am confused at 44:00 Maudlin and Lev should agree on what is beable and what is not, but they don't. Very strange to me. In general psi should work well enough to represent macro objects, but in cases you analyze the system on micro level it may not be good enough, especially when it comes to wave-function collapse. What is so hard to agree here?
But... in Many Worlds a splitting only happens when a _quantum measurement_ occurs: people deciding which experiment to perform does not result into a new branching; likewise, people going to speak with another experimenter doesn't result in branching.
1:24:39 - I *totally* agree with Maudlin here. The backflips people are willing to go to to try to deny the randomization in this sort of experiment is entirely laughable. It *is* an act of desperation - it shocks me that intelligent men and women would stoop to such tactics.
I suspect it's a kind of post-modern performance art, exploring how far down the rabbit hole you can get while keeping the math rigorous. The justification being, so long as you don't violate any of the postulates behind your logic, it's consistent and scientifically defensible on its own terms.
@@QuicksilverSG That's a good suggestion, actually - it does feel like the kind of thing people would do. Kind of a "how well can I defend this" game. I think that something like that is behind a lot of the flat earth people - it's like they WANT to have an argument over something.
We shouldn't be married to the primitive ontology of particles in space-time. The world isn't made of particles except in the low-energy limit. QFT is more accurate and doesn't have fundamental particles.
i find retro causation a very interesting topic. Not so much because direct causalities ( I hit you, you say auch), but more on the conscious level. In guru words, if you visualize enough change will happen. When i hear this I always ask myself ‘who has the stronger energetic visualization’? Can you measure this? Why it is important, because if information or anything that communicates on the quantum level, it will influence the outcome. Maybe our randomness in our flipping a coin, is not so random at quantum level. We already decided that head gets treatment and tails don’t. If we let a computer decide it, then the knowing grows at the moment the individual is assigned. Even when doing double blind, the knowing or conciousness of the cancer-agent can have an influence that interacts with the placebo strength of the person participating. Because, maybe the placebo strength is the defending force of a conscious whole acting in quantum. Can we do an experiment. Maybe if we use bioelectric paterns combined with brainwaves. With other words, can biological systems produce entangled states of information. That’s a thing I would like to know.
I wonder if anyone watching this video could give me some recommendations to learn the mathematics needed for quantum mechanics on my own. I have background with Calculus and some linear algebra, and I have read histories and conceptual work on quantum mechanics; but I would love to dive into the actual mathematics that are needed for really working with QM. Are there some good books to get up to speed on one's own?
If you start with a good introductory textbook like Griffith's intro to quantum mechanics a lot of the maths will be covered in the text or in an appendix. If you have an idea of complex numbers, differentiation and integration, and vectors and matrices, you should be good to go with an introductory text. It also helps to have experience with manipulating trig functions and complex exponentials, but you can pick that up as you go.
@@frun Yes, Susskind _Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum,_ which has lectures on YT and an accompanying book. If you have no physics background, you may need (and enjoy) the prequel: _Classical Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum._
@@boliussa6051 Sweetie, at the time of my comment the uploader did not enable the option. There are many videos where one can't actually "click CC yourself!!!" you know
Lev is super confused, I mean he said so himself. The wave function takes arguments in configuration space, not physical 3D space. Why is it relevant that the wavefunction for the center of mass doesn´t? The whole wavefunction lives in configuration space still, that's the whole point.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge., Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
Taking the most parsimonious interpretation of Relativity - the Block Universe view - one immediately musk ask: What is the statistics of *spacetime structures* filling the BU? And it's a straightforward exercise to show that QM is that statistical description when said structures are described by (well defined) classical electrodynamics. I'm constantly perplexed by physicists' tendency to complicate simple things...
Superposition v. Entanglement; The LINE hypothesis proposes that a single particle in a state of superposition is a single particle in this space-time entangled to metamatter in the Hilbert-space called the metaverse. In superposition, the particles’ degrees of freedom (DOF) are continuously instantaneously shared or teleported between it and its entangled metamatter. This sharing manifests in this space-time as the particle existing in multiple states simultaneously. The collapse of any superposition state involves the disentanglement of the particle from its entangled metamatter via foreign infiltrations called measurement or observation. This disentanglement from metamatter leaves the particle in this space-time in only one of the possible shared states and the metamatter in some metaverse version of the remaining state.
Like nature's perfect slot machine, collapsed particle states are individualized and utterly unpredictable or random, hence do not collectively scale to produce macroscopic effects such as duplication or to a cat being simultaneously dead and alive. So, although such particles may compose a cat in this space-time, there can be no corresponding metamatter cat in the metaverse. This is because metamatter does not operate by the same or even similar laws of physics as the physics of any verse that it may produce. What particles in any verse are collectively doing is completely distinct from what its entangled metamatter is doing within the metaverse. The shared states involved in superposition are those states that remain uninvolved, unobserved, ergo; coherent, within its universe and so are available for entanglement with similarly available metamatter.
Additionally, entanglement between multiple particles in this space-time involves entanglement by those same particles with the same, in-common particles of metamatter simultaneously. In so doing, mutually entangled particles in this space-time also share available coherent states simultaneously and instantaneously with each other via a shared superposition state with common metamatter and thereby are also in a superposition of those states. In this universe, when any one of the entangled particles decoherer or are measured, one of the shared DOF states randomly remains with one particle, and the other possible state, by default, remains with the remaining particle. The state of in-common entangled metamatter in any of these scenarios is unknowable to any emergent verse. Consequently, entanglement in this universe may involve each particle being entangled with multiple metamatter particles which are also entangled with each other within the metaverse. Hence, upon the decoherence or measurement of one entangled particle in this universe, the accompanying state held in matamatter is instantaneously teleported to the other participating particle in this universe. Alternatively, both particles may be simultaneously entangled to the same single metamatter particle for the duration of the entangled state. When one entangled particle is collapsed, it instantiates only one of the possible states as it disconnects from its entangled metamatter. The remaining state is instantaneously transmitted to the other participating particle. This disentanglement is known as the quantum flip. It is these interactions that instantiate the individual position of view (POV) in this space-time.
What then is the essential behavior or involvement between metamatter particles within the metaverse? Indeed, is there such a distinction as a single vs multiple particles of metamatter in the metaverse? What manifestations can such unfamiliar particles imbue that could give rise to the pivotal emergent state, that is a temporary but recurring claim on territory, a single point in this space-time, shrouded and protected for a time by any viable host form that can emerge within any viable habitat, the state known as individuality? One clear advantage that we have in making such determinations is, while we live, we are each in possession of one exhibit of evidence of the product of the metaverse. It is ones’ position of view (POV) that defines ones’ individuality. The proper evaluation of this exhibit of evidence is severely clouded by the very prominent host form to which the POV is instantiated in any life, and yet in every moment of life, one is experiencing this product of the metaverse. The key lies in discovering the entanglement cell (EC) and molecule (EM).
Life is one of the strangest, most unforeseeable emergent phenomena we know of. This is because individuality is most fundamentally not a product of this universe but of the metaverse. Like a fragile bubble on the surface of a body of water, the POV is a delicate emergent confluence of different states of information forming a temporary alliance from which we may experience life, for better or for worst. What details can be gleaned from this rarefied perspective in nature? The more we can know the better. The intimately involved aspects and DOF of the metaverse exposed by individuality may become of some practical use. Metamatter satellites and detection of the QEF for example, as well as the deliberate instantiation of individual POV, will be of great interest once accepted. Beyond these only time and intensive research will tell. {LIVE Science; Forums, History and Culture; Culture History & Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}
1:12:30 Also... Einstein imagined spacetime as an empty "stage/field" that Matter exists in and acts upon, whereas it may be that Matter is fundamental and it's Spacetime itself that is emergent! We've been looking at it backwards.
Intriguing, but isn't at all obvious. If this is a serious proposal, it needs more words. Otherwise, seems a bit like nonsense. Certainly doesn't make sense in terms of the Standard Model.
that's how it should be. You shouldn't even be in the room when experst debate something. You can re-enter the room if they come to some conclusions and summarise it for non expertse. But they can't have their argument/debate at your level. They have to have their debate at their level. After that they can bring it down to your level.
@@boliussa6051 These aren't experts, kiddo. These are people who have no clue, but they are relying on you being a total idiot, so you won't notice. ;-)
Why would 3 positions in space time be random angles of view in the start? It's obvious that there is a 3rd physics yet to see. The dark areas that sparkle with unacknowledged energy.
1:48:34 - Well, that's a matter of degree, isn't it? Einstein's argument would have been right if the non-locality that actually does exist in the world (as we now know) was wildly pervasive. If gross results here depending on very subtle differences over there, or in the Andromeda galaxy, then nothing would make any sense at all. Fortunately for us and our desire to do physics, the impact of the non-locality is bounded, and there's plenty of room left for us to make sensible experiments. We can "get away with a little." But I don't think that renders Einstein's argument entirely invalid. Or, more to the point, that's exactly what DOES render his argument invalid - not the fact that it was logically wrong, but the fact that the "flaw" he was trying to rule out is really only a "minor" flaw. Ah, nice - Rovelli just said more or less this very thing.
@@david203 The "speed of light" is only the speed of light in this universe. Different universes - different speeds of light, so information is traveling in the same way that electricity does -along the path/speed of least resistance/time.
@@matts8249 I've hear this before--it is speculation, not science, since by definition we can never "visit" or observe any Universe other than our own.
Maybe not superluminal exactly. If there is a wormhole between entangled particles then communication could be at light speed over what is a shortened distance.
@@Joe-lb8qn Wormholes are just speculation, not science. There is no evidence of wormholes. Also, it is not likely that wormholes could exist, since they would allow causes to precede results and contradict simultaneity.
Very interesting discussion on non-locality and Bell's Theorem. The point that I would like to make is, that all of them are making a mistake by thinking that there still is a reality out there underlying the theory of ART. There has to be much more out there than the classical way to view the world, given the fact that Anton Zeilinger has proven, that there simply are no hidden variables or "beables" ... something more fundamental and undeterministic is out there...
36:00: This is shocking: Lev Vaidman believes you can represent a system consisting of two particles by their center of mass and hence with a wave function in 3-space. Then entanglement of these particles cannot be represented. But generally the idea that any system of particles is in some way equivalent to the total mass concentrated in its center of mass is hilarious, classically or non classically. A classical analogy: if you compact a car to its center of mass it won't work anymore.
Listening to this discussion explains why there is little progress on fundamental questions: Maudlin is the only one who is able to get to the point. It is really painful that experts in their fields are seemingly incapable of using concise and clear language.
Exactly
44:00: The wave function lives on configuration space not in space time. It is a mathematical description of a system not the system. It is not a beable local or otherwise.
Non-locality is forced only if you assume the particle states have a reality. That they have a reality is argued in a very hand wavy way around 15:00. This is the key difference between Tim’s view and standard QM.
Once a particle state is measured sure you can say it has a reality. But that doesn’t prove it has a reality before it is measured.
In standard QM a phenomenon isn’t a thing until it’s measured, you can really get into trouble if you start arguing as if things that aren’t measured have a reality. So this business about assigning ups and downs is just moot in standard QM as there’s no underlying hidden variables in standard QM and particle states don’t have a reality until they are measured.
It’s only once you try to explain what’s happening using these fictional hidden variables that you get forced to accept the fictional hidden variables must be non-local.
In my opinion, the real conclusion isn’t that the world is non-local, it’s that it’s Quantum mechanical, and things don’t have any reality until they are measured. Things are simpler if you just assume there are no hidden variables underneath.
Define reality!
I define it as a measured outcome. That is clearly not a universally accepted definition as demonstrated in this video.
@@jaddaj5881 So what exists before the measured outcome?
@@jaddaj5881 Define measurement
I take the view that this kind of question is the wrong kind of question to ask because reality has too much connotation. There’s only the measured outcomes. And even they aren’t known precisely nor do their values persist generally.
What the heck is this argument? It seems entirely out of place in a civil discussion, and my impression is that Vaidman is being incredibly rude.
True. But this discussion is typical in the space:; no pun intended. Language, emotion and assumptions...maybe that combination is a blessing and the curse.
Welcome to the Bohmian/Everettian war.
Seriously, I think that some of the protagonists in this debate just interact this way, and that they're not intentionally being as rude or hostile as it may come across.
You are just weak. They are debating points. You are actually a dangerous person because you can't read people properly. Assuming rudeness when there isn't.
I'm puzzled by why Maudlin objects to the wave function as a local beable on the grounds that it exists in configuration space, given that the local beable of his preferred Bohmian mechanics is the world particle, which also exists in configuration space, not our usual 3D space. Perhaps he advocates a many-particle form of Bohm's theory? I was under the impression that such an approach does not work, and that the move to a single world-particle is necessary.
Ma! There is a guy here who doesn't understand quantum mechanics who talks about other guys who don't understand quantum mechanics, either. I must be on the internet. :-)
The local beables in Bohmian mechanics are the position of the particles, not the "world particle".
@@randycalifornia In the version of Bohmian mechanics with N particles in 3 dimensions, sure. That version doesn't work for interacting particles, as far as I'm aware (David Albert has argued this pretty cogently, in my opinion), necessitating a move to the version with 1 particle in 3N dimensions.
@@stevenklinden If what you say is correct then local beables would be missing from the theory, sure. I dont know what would be Maudlin's respons to that. In any case the wave function is not a local beable in any theory, which is why "Maudlin objects to the wave function as a local beable". For it to be local it should have some sort of value at each space time point, and it doesnt.
Every physicist should be schooled by Tim Maudlin - it could save them a lot of time and work.
I am interested in the computer simulation of quantum mechanics, and yes, any simulation will need to find a way to shift information at a speed faster than light. This information is in the nature of a one-time pad rather than a true communication. The simulation will need to use a random number generator, which I think is self-evident. If we have a RNG available then we have the Vernam cipher available to tackle spooky action at a distance. We also have the Protean system available, which is a system where pressing any button on the simulation has a side effect of reseeding the RNG by reference to the time of pressing. One such button does a Lorentz boost, and if this is the only way to do one, then the simulation cannot be caught out on questions of causality. I’ll throw it open to the reader to suggest what type of VC to use.
As Tim Maudlin says, the RNG can be based on a variety of physical principles. In fact we can have several RNGs running on different principles all XOR-ed together, which I call En-dorisation. Hard to believe that there is some great conspiracy preventing the combined output from being random.
01:03 Entanglement is non-local everyone agree, but Lev said few minutes ago that Many worlds is fully local theory, so he is clearly contradicting himself here.
Universe is not local. Even David deutsch also hates this non locality. Even popper Siad non locality means end of rationality of physics
Here we go, resorting to geometry to explain the math. How convenient, emergence of relativistic geometry from space time. Discrete space time, packages of blocks in a none existent continuity where there is no flow from what came before, nor any feedback into what came before what came after. Flatland.
I am confused at 44:00 Maudlin and Lev should agree on what is beable and what is not, but they don't. Very strange to me. In general psi should work well enough to represent macro objects, but in cases you analyze the system on micro level it may not be good enough, especially when it comes to wave-function collapse. What is so hard to agree here?
But... in Many Worlds a splitting only happens when a _quantum measurement_ occurs: people deciding which experiment to perform does not result into a new branching; likewise, people going to speak with another experimenter doesn't result in branching.
1:24:39 - I *totally* agree with Maudlin here. The backflips people are willing to go to to try to deny the randomization in this sort of experiment is entirely laughable. It *is* an act of desperation - it shocks me that intelligent men and women would stoop to such tactics.
Yeah, superdeterminism seems to me to be exactly equivalent to saying, "It's all a big coincidence".
I suspect it's a kind of post-modern performance art, exploring how far down the rabbit hole you can get while keeping the math rigorous. The justification being, so long as you don't violate any of the postulates behind your logic, it's consistent and scientifically defensible on its own terms.
@@QuicksilverSG That's a good suggestion, actually - it does feel like the kind of thing people would do. Kind of a "how well can I defend this" game. I think that something like that is behind a lot of the flat earth people - it's like they WANT to have an argument over something.
We shouldn't be married to the primitive ontology of particles in space-time. The world isn't made of particles except in the low-energy limit. QFT is more accurate and doesn't have fundamental particles.
i find retro causation a very interesting topic. Not so much because direct causalities ( I hit you, you say auch), but more on the conscious level. In guru words, if you visualize enough change will happen. When i hear this I always ask myself ‘who has the stronger energetic visualization’? Can you measure this? Why it is important, because if information or anything that communicates on the quantum level, it will influence the outcome. Maybe our randomness in our flipping a coin, is not so random at quantum level. We already decided that head gets treatment and tails don’t. If we let a computer decide it, then the knowing grows at the moment the individual is assigned. Even when doing double blind, the knowing or conciousness of the cancer-agent can have an influence that interacts with the placebo strength of the person participating. Because, maybe the placebo strength is the defending force of a conscious whole acting in quantum. Can we do an experiment. Maybe if we use bioelectric paterns combined with brainwaves. With other words, can biological systems produce entangled states of information. That’s a thing I would like to know.
Glad you were there, Lev.
I wonder if anyone watching this video could give me some recommendations to learn the mathematics needed for quantum mechanics on my own. I have background with Calculus and some linear algebra, and I have read histories and conceptual work on quantum mechanics; but I would love to dive into the actual mathematics that are needed for really working with QM. Are there some good books to get up to speed on one's own?
If you start with a good introductory textbook like Griffith's intro to quantum mechanics a lot of the maths will be covered in the text or in an appendix. If you have an idea of complex numbers, differentiation and integration, and vectors and matrices, you should be good to go with an introductory text. It also helps to have experience with manipulating trig functions and complex exponentials, but you can pick that up as you go.
@@twalker166
Thanks!
I suggest you to watch Susskind's lectures here on YT
Chris Ishams Quantum theory structural and mathematical foundations
@@frun Yes, Susskind _Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum,_ which has lectures on YT and an accompanying book. If you have no physics background, you may need (and enjoy) the prequel: _Classical Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum._
You need to start with consciousness is fundamental
Then why aren't you showing any? ;-)
Could you turn the CC (subtitle) option on so YT can perform automatic speech recognition?
are you kidding? you click CC yourself!!!
@@boliussa6051 Sweetie, at the time of my comment the uploader did not enable the option. There are many videos where one can't actually "click CC yourself!!!" you know
Lev is super confused, I mean he said so himself. The wave function takes arguments in configuration space, not physical 3D space. Why is it relevant that the wavefunction for the center of mass doesn´t? The whole wavefunction lives in configuration space still, that's the whole point.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge.,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
Taking the most parsimonious interpretation of Relativity - the Block Universe view - one immediately musk ask: What is the statistics of *spacetime structures* filling the BU? And it's a straightforward exercise to show that QM is that statistical description when said structures are described by (well defined) classical electrodynamics.
I'm constantly perplexed by physicists' tendency to complicate simple things...
Would you care to show the straightforward exercise
Superposition v. Entanglement;
The LINE hypothesis proposes that a single particle in a state of superposition is a single particle in this space-time entangled to metamatter in the Hilbert-space called the metaverse. In superposition, the particles’ degrees of freedom (DOF) are continuously instantaneously shared or teleported between it and its entangled metamatter. This sharing manifests in this space-time as the particle existing in multiple states simultaneously. The collapse of any superposition state involves the disentanglement of the particle from its entangled metamatter via foreign infiltrations called measurement or observation. This disentanglement from metamatter leaves the particle in this space-time in only one of the possible shared states and the metamatter in some metaverse version of the remaining state.
Like nature's perfect slot machine, collapsed particle states are individualized and utterly unpredictable or random, hence do not collectively scale to produce macroscopic effects such as duplication or to a cat being simultaneously dead and alive. So, although such particles may compose a cat in this space-time, there can be no corresponding metamatter cat in the metaverse. This is because metamatter does not operate by the same or even similar laws of physics as the physics of any verse that it may produce. What particles in any verse are collectively doing is completely distinct from what its entangled metamatter is doing within the metaverse. The shared states involved in superposition are those states that remain uninvolved, unobserved, ergo; coherent, within its universe and so are available for entanglement with similarly available metamatter.
Additionally, entanglement between multiple particles in this space-time involves entanglement by those same particles with the same, in-common particles of metamatter simultaneously. In so doing, mutually entangled particles in this space-time also share available coherent states simultaneously and instantaneously with each other via a shared superposition state with common metamatter and thereby are also in a superposition of those states. In this universe, when any one of the entangled particles decoherer or are measured, one of the shared DOF states randomly remains with one particle, and the other possible state, by default, remains with the remaining particle. The state of in-common entangled metamatter in any of these scenarios is unknowable to any emergent verse.
Consequently, entanglement in this universe may involve each particle being entangled with multiple metamatter particles which are also entangled with each other within the metaverse. Hence, upon the decoherence or measurement of one entangled particle in this universe, the accompanying state held in matamatter is instantaneously teleported to the other participating particle in this universe. Alternatively, both particles may be simultaneously entangled to the same single metamatter particle for the duration of the entangled state. When one entangled particle is collapsed, it instantiates only one of the possible states as it disconnects from its entangled metamatter. The remaining state is instantaneously transmitted to the other participating particle. This disentanglement is known as the quantum flip. It is these interactions that instantiate the individual position of view (POV) in this space-time.
What then is the essential behavior or involvement between metamatter particles within the metaverse? Indeed, is there such a distinction as a single vs multiple particles of metamatter in the metaverse? What manifestations can such unfamiliar particles imbue that could give rise to the pivotal emergent state, that is a temporary but recurring claim on territory, a single point in this space-time, shrouded and protected for a time by any viable host form that can emerge within any viable habitat, the state known as individuality? One clear advantage that we have in making such determinations is, while we live, we are each in possession of one exhibit of evidence of the product of the metaverse. It is ones’ position of view (POV) that defines ones’ individuality. The proper evaluation of this exhibit of evidence is severely clouded by the very prominent host form to which the POV is instantiated in any life, and yet in every moment of life, one is experiencing this product of the metaverse. The key lies in discovering the entanglement cell (EC) and molecule (EM).
Life is one of the strangest, most unforeseeable emergent phenomena we know of. This is because individuality is most fundamentally not a product of this universe but of the metaverse. Like a fragile bubble on the surface of a body of water, the POV is a delicate emergent confluence of different states of information forming a temporary alliance from which we may experience life, for better or for worst. What details can be gleaned from this rarefied perspective in nature? The more we can know the better. The intimately involved aspects and DOF of the metaverse exposed by individuality may become of some practical use. Metamatter satellites and detection of the QEF for example, as well as the deliberate instantiation of individual POV, will be of great interest once accepted. Beyond these only time and intensive research will tell. {LIVE Science; Forums, History and Culture; Culture History & Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}
Tim Maudlin is a G
55:20 many worlds with local vehicles :)
1:12:30 Also... Einstein imagined spacetime as an empty "stage/field" that Matter exists in and acts upon, whereas it may be that Matter is fundamental and it's Spacetime itself that is emergent! We've been looking at it backwards.
Intriguing, but isn't at all obvious. If this is a serious proposal, it needs more words. Otherwise, seems a bit like nonsense. Certainly doesn't make sense in terms of the Standard Model.
I could follow Maudlin’s very clear presentation. Then the argument part lost me.
that's how it should be. You shouldn't even be in the room when experst debate something. You can re-enter the room if they come to some conclusions and summarise it for non expertse. But they can't have their argument/debate at your level. They have to have their debate at their level. After that they can bring it down to your level.
@@boliussa6051 These aren't experts, kiddo. These are people who have no clue, but they are relying on you being a total idiot, so you won't notice. ;-)
Why would 3 positions in space time be random angles of view in the start? It's obvious that there is a 3rd physics yet to see. The dark areas that sparkle with unacknowledged energy.
1:48:34 - Well, that's a matter of degree, isn't it? Einstein's argument would have been right if the non-locality that actually does exist in the world (as we now know) was wildly pervasive. If gross results here depending on very subtle differences over there, or in the Andromeda galaxy, then nothing would make any sense at all. Fortunately for us and our desire to do physics, the impact of the non-locality is bounded, and there's plenty of room left for us to make sensible experiments. We can "get away with a little." But I don't think that renders Einstein's argument entirely invalid. Or, more to the point, that's exactly what DOES render his argument invalid - not the fact that it was logically wrong, but the fact that the "flaw" he was trying to rule out is really only a "minor" flaw.
Ah, nice - Rovelli just said more or less this very thing.
7:40 "A thing that does the lottery" : a tombola.
1:50:31 Life found a way to do that
Flatland comes to mind.
If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - The answer is obvious: Superluminous communication.
What is this an answer to, and how can an impossibility be the answer to any sensible question?
@@david203 The "speed of light" is only the speed of light in this universe. Different universes - different speeds of light, so information is traveling in the same way that electricity does -along the path/speed of least resistance/time.
@@matts8249 I've hear this before--it is speculation, not science, since by definition we can never "visit" or observe any Universe other than our own.
Maybe not superluminal exactly. If there is a wormhole between entangled particles then communication could be at light speed over what is a shortened distance.
@@Joe-lb8qn Wormholes are just speculation, not science. There is no evidence of wormholes. Also, it is not likely that wormholes could exist, since they would allow causes to precede results and contradict simultaneity.
Very interesting discussion on non-locality and Bell's Theorem. The point that I would like to make is, that all of them are making a mistake by thinking that there still is a reality out there underlying the theory of ART. There has to be much more out there than the classical way to view the world, given the fact that Anton Zeilinger has proven, that there simply are no hidden variables or "beables" ... something more fundamental and undeterministic is out there...
36:00: This is shocking: Lev Vaidman believes you can represent a system consisting of two particles by their center of mass and hence with a wave function in 3-space. Then entanglement of these particles cannot be represented. But generally the idea that any system of particles is in some way equivalent to the total mass concentrated in its center of mass is hilarious, classically or non classically. A classical analogy: if you compact a car to its center of mass it won't work anymore.