Ive soved Einsteins “Spooky Action” riddle. Space and Time are being pressed up into your face at the speed of Light then returning back instantaneously thus, resulting in the illusion of time. “ Time is but an illusion.”
I like the idea of the Quantum Film, as a small perturbation over what we expect classically. Certainly Bell's Theorem has this quality, comparing the first quadrant of a sine wave with a linear ramp. Really very interesting and useful exposition from Spekkens - as might be expected. You should also talk to Bob Coecke, especially if the mentions of CT for physics aroused your curiosity.
@6:00 heck dude. No one had any clue about Newtonian gravity, it was not even an "operational" theory, just, "Here's my equation chaps. I'm off to make gold out of lead and run the British Mint." QM by contrast is extremely well understood. We've got Feynman diagrams for starters, pretty good first layer of base marble.
You should read the Principia, it is not just throwing an equation over the wall. He establishes fundamental laws of motion; proposes a simple (trivial!) equation for gravity; works everything out, from falling apples, flight of arrows, the Solar System to tides; explains previous incomplete theories (Kepler's Laws); in order to work it out he invents calculus; finally he meticulously documents where he is unsure, or proposes something that goes against his physical intuition (famously unhappy with action at a distance). The only other work that comes close on comprehensiveness, meticulous attention to detail, self-reflection and humility in the face of uncertainty, and a (largely successful) attempt to answer all potential criticisms in advance, is Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (another Brit, of course).
The path from Leibniz to Einstein goes through Mach. The relational idea also influences Everett (originally 'Relative State' not MWI), Rovelli ('Relational QM') and even Barbour (classical Newtonian 'Shape Dynamics').
@17:00 "the ray in Hilbert space" is just a mere representation. A stupid one. The Hilbert space formalism has a massive irremovable gauge redundancy, so cannot be physical. Talk to Jacob Barandes.
Hilbert Space is a bad joke. How can any realistic space change when the number of particles (or degrees of freedom) changes. Oh, and infinite dimensional too, that's not gonna fit in my universe.
@8:30 he missed a giant fourth. "But, by God, someone has to be working on the Standard Model" --- that's a Latham Boyle quote. Could hardly be anything more foundational, since entanglement (and hence superposition and why there has to be a real time path integral) is a particle phenomenon, and entanglement thoroughly foundational to QM.
Lets just say we forgot about quantum mechanics for a second, and we got instead a classical probability distribution complete with dependencies describes. If then statements, like if i measure up innlab A choosing axis 1, then the probability distribution of outcomes in lab B is cos squared of the angle from axis 1 to come up opposite. Fine, and we know from measuring successively single particle states that if i measure in axis 1 and i measure axis 1 again i will get up or down, and then the same result again, and the probability distribution for other angles is again cos squared of the angle from axis 1. Then i can hypothesise something stupidly simple, the particles always have a spin orientation continuously, when i choose to measure in axis one i turn its orientation to eithe up or down in axis 1, when i measure it innsome other axis it turns ether up or down by the cos^2 of the angle to the same orientation. Whe. The pair is entangled, they simply are connected in a way where if i measure one the other one turns its orientation accordingly so the sum of their angular momentum stays constant, for example at 0 for a pair that is anti correlated, but once i do this once the connection breaks. Then if i start out with a pair, i chose some measurment direction 1, and measure one of the particles, they both shift their spin to axis 1, for example in lab A we get up, and in lab B we get down, the particle in lab B is not yet measured, but we know it has a real spin in axis one which is down, then whatever measurment axis i choose for the particle in lab B, it will habe a probability of being down in the chosen axis by the angle between axis 1 and the new axis fed into cos ^2. Aøl you need is a coupling between the spins that falls appart when the first one is measured and after than you can deal woth both as independent separable spins, in a classical way, all we introduced was a classical force between them and a spin direction that exists in some way. And the dependence that produces a violation of bells inequality comes about in a completely classical way. The cos^2 function is a property of a single spin not dependent on anything else and can be easily derived from some rather simple model in some way equivalent to a biased random number generator, requiring absolutely no quantum skrewyness. And this can be done with any other example as well, with no issues what so ever. It is a shame people try to complicate it so much.
@@bryandraughn9830 either you didn’t listen or you’re dishonest. I’m talking about a sort-of, habit, like sort-of too often, like like, for no sort-of like reason.
For interference, its rather simple, sometimes it is literally just interference of waves deterministically that is necessary in each deterministic state summed over for building up the classical probability distributions, sometimes not so, for examples the exclusion principle derived from anti commutation involves interference as well, but the physical interpretation there doesn't really need to involve interference, just an emergent force. So its not trivial to categorise the kind of properties a hidden variable theory must have to sum over classical and independent evolving states, but it is what it is, you have to try and see whether what you come up with is sufficient to civer all phenomena.
It seems this classical interpretation doesn't align well with other classical notions and it does explain all quantum stuff anyway, so the double slit could be genuinely quantum after all.
Also, everyone that talks about quantum mechanics put in some interpretation, just saying we have a superposition where a particle is here and here at the same time is doing metaphysics. Anything other than we habe some functions that solve some equation and we get these probabilities, is interpretation.
Between two 'measurements' there is no particle, it is neither in a place, nor at some time. A particle is just (only) a spacetime event of a 'measurement' (entanglement). The particle-wave conundrum is not a continuous ongoing duality, there are two distinct phases. Existing, conventional QM physics is very clear about this: - fields propagate as linear reversible (time-symmetric) non-local information-preserving complex waves [Schrodinger] - fields interact (entangle) in discrete irreversible (time-asymmetric) local information-destroying 'measurements' of 'particles' at specific points in spacetime (the actual definition of locality, with increasing theoretical justification that entanglement 'measurements' *create* space and time)
So whoever or whatever created this reality set limits..... The deepest levels of reality are off limits to us.....we will never know .....its by design....and that's OK..... We will have to become comfortable with that fact
I have this trash can I put 1 to 1 ratio empty packages into and it makes a great repeatable tool of approximation that all my real waste fits inside but I'd never use its peremeters to try and connect to each packages inertia values in mass or acceleration..topography would be curved & displaced. The volume or distances i could justify a general use starting with my stochastic trash can. Stagnated ancient world 900bc-1500s told us all we needed to know that these approaches are great for studying languages, laws, phylosphy of mind. String theory has to be what goes on in our mind when we put scientific boxes around systems. When we cast systems is math mapped and that has its own value for physiology sychosis lol But we need f=ma to unlock the keys to the cosmos #3 Immediately it all fell out enough one day a richard finneman entangled key #2 measure would be renormalized the same. Spent to much Time infighting to just regurgitate the same ole same.
His wish for a deeper “interpretation” (understanding), which he termed as a realist view (contrasting how he termed an emperical view) is really just wanting an intuitive understanding of the theory. But there is a lot of phenomena that doesn’t have an intuitive model, the classic one being gravity - which stifled Newton almost causing him to drop the theory. Ever since Newton science has dropped the idea of requiring human intuition as increasing phenomena just happens (fitting the formal theory) but doesn’t make sense at all intuitively. Quantum mechanics is not different to gravity (in that we accept it as naming no sense - all objects acting on each other at nearly infinite distance without any means of interacting/communication between) in that regards.
What quantum mechanics is, is just a framework for producing classical probability distributions over observables. You can always have a simple classical interpretation of ignorance resulting in uncertainty. Aka a normal statistical mechanical interpretation. Anyone that denies that doesn't understand the mathematics and physics. We always always always end up with a prediction that some experiment in space and time will have some outcome, how the different possibilities for outcomes can depend on each other is a question of causation by virtue of nature.
What we should first do, is recognise quantum mechanics as just another classical theory. Since the way it is set up, only ever gives classical predictions in spacetime for observables. If you disagree perhaps try to find a counterexample. Everything captured by a quantum theory can always be captured by a classical phase space, the confusion i think comes from the way we do quantisation of classical theories, that somehow a quantized theory is larger and more complicated than classical theories, but that just isn't true, any Hilbert space for a quantum theory can be swamped by a larger classical phase space with the same observables associated with it. Whether the classical theory is stochastic or deterministic. But the map is different from the one employed in first or 2nd quantisation. That relationship between classical and quantum theories is irrelevant to the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics over all.
I like the guests take. I think the uncertainty in quantum mechanics is just an ordinary statistical mechanical problem to be solved. I just think we have yet to get good at statistical mechanics. In This view btw there is no collapse postulate, just removal of ignorance. The ontology in this view is a deterministic state evolving forever with no branches at all. The alternatives are just summed over because of ignorance, just like figuring out the lenght of a walk of a pollen grain in a cup of water. Figuring out what the path was is akin to figuring out what branch you are on in many worlds, a statistical completion is just recognising only one branch as real, one set of quantum results and filling in details that describe how those outcomes came about.
Only indeterministic collapse theories are indeterministic, there are deterministic collapse theories where identities of collapses are brought in a initial consultations, or things like pilot wave theory where the collapse is replaced with a continuous variable as an initial condition. The only limitation is that the initial conditions and independent evolution summed over to yield the resulting classical probability distribution over observables, ends up in the space between the exact predictions of quantum field theory and what has been seen in experiments. The state space that yields the classical probability distributions only needs to account for experiments that have been done, not the predictions of qtf or GR. For example we do not have a set of completed experiments that rule out violations of lorentz symmetry, or tests like bell tests that nail down spooky action at a distance as actually instantaneous, even if almost everyone who talks about those seem to take that for granted, but that derives from an assumption that the principle of relativity is absolute for spacelike causation, which is just metaphysical mumbo jumbo, i have reviewed the literature, and the experiments actually carried out, and it is absolutely not enough to do one spacelike test of correlations of entangled spins or polerizations and call it a day, producing a conclusion of being sure locality is out the window from that is psuedoscience. The fact remains that it is quite plausible if it is trye about the world that these spacelike correlations are causal, and propagated as some finite speed related to the state of rest of a medium in the vacuum, much faster than light, that we would not have seen the effects of it, given the experiments that has been done. But if that is true there are ways to seek it out that are straight forward and depends only on experiments we already trust to confirm bells inequality is violated by nature, just with some slightly different experimental protocol, this is straight forward to test, and nobody has done it so far, bot rigorously, if someone tried to do bell tests and then failed to get the appropriate correlations they would run the rig again and find it to be working now, then confirm and yes yes its all right now must have been some issue or whatever. It would ve a tiny window or no windows at all the pick up the effect given the earths motion, unless you intentionally pick weird configurations for the experiment. Which people won't do, they usually try to measure at spacelike separations equally spaced from the future and past lightcone to make sure to make the experiment easier to do without "loopholes", this means given the motion of the earth, that you most likely won't see these effects of finite instead of infinite propagation speeds.
Too many words, too philosophical. What’s the conclusion? I love QM, not disputing it. Just being fed up with all the physicists, scientists, engineers, talking non stop and not resolving anything! For the last 120 years, little progress has been made. We still have the initial philosophical issues, and all experiments prove that QM works always! Until you have a clear explanation, be quiet and just publish a paper to prove your point without any doubt to the rest of the community.
And this is straight forward to measure out, it is not easy without a bunch if theory telling you how to set up the experiment, but the neat thing is tgat if you succeed, you get a positive signal that qft is wrong, and that special relativity is wrong.
The thin film is as thin as a wall of nothing. It is all variable dependence, and variable dependence can be explained classically, easily. Make sure than next time you purge the idea that you have to assume any variables be independent and you will find that the no gi theorems simply vansish.
In a different domain, there's s saying: "follow the money and you'll find exactly what happened". In this case of real universal dynamic, follow STRICTLY the true, real and natural CAUSAL chain, WITHOUT SKIPPING any REAL LINK, and you'll understand correctly how everything happens in reality, the correct understanding of the UNIVERSAL dynamic of the Universe. ( Two additional hints: Quantum Mechanics is BS. The classic theory must be massively overhauled. )
I think i wrote this 5 times by now, but the moment you admit to yourself that any probability distribution over observables in space and time is a classical object. Then the prospect of finding something non classically derivable from quantum mechanics falls appart. Now we are just concerned with that variable dependence exists in the classical probability distributions, and when you convince yourself that really no other tyoe of predictions are possible to connect with experiments, you should recognize that all the mystery of quantum mechanics simply comes out of an ignorant metaphysics, nit out of logic or mathematics.
The mistake there, that Einstein makes, is that he assumes there is no destinguishability between rest and motion in some frame relative to an ether, or not difference between free fall and empty space on the basis of assuming it is so, or treating it as if maxwell was the final word, when this sort of assumption is a metaphysical one that can never be exhausted experimentally, therefore such conclusions based on relational principles, where non destinguishable entities should be considered non physical is always premature, that they do not matter is a guess, not a derived conclusion, and therefore Einstein's conclusion does not stand independently of what turns out to be true down the line, there is no reason to imbue it with accreditation, its a guess, a guess that works out perhaps for a while, simplifying the prospects of doibg the mathematics, but nonetheless just an unqualified assumption, that might very well turn out wrong, and claiming it as more than that does harm to clarity of reasoning, and has resulted in naive ideas of what physics should be like today, whether he made a lot of great contributions under their rubric or not. Sorry i just dont have heroes and i refuse to take metaphysical arguments as derived when it is clearly visible that they leave out considerations that are obvious and clearly perceived if you just allow yourself to critique the arguments in a reasonable way. Hindsight is blinding, because an assumption leads to a theory that makes progress does not mean it is right, or even reasonable, this is perhaps the most annoying and harmful fallacy subscribed to in modern science, one never establishes a Principle, one establishes the predictions that turned out to be right of their backs, any schema that provides identical or >equally accurate predictions is just as entitled to the same credit, in this house we should refuse to paint out musings in gold my son, lets not shape idols out of murmurings with no basis in logic. One cannot show the applicability of a principle to natures workings by logic, onoy experiment can do the job, and onoy partially, it cannot ever decide between schemes producing the same predictions.
Nah everything makes sense from a classical view, every single prediction from a quantum theory, comes out as a prediction in the form of a classical probability distribution over observables. Nothing else can ever be spit out and checked against experiment. Since instanteous action is perfectly easy to describe in classical terms, any variable dependence at the level of classical probabilies as predictions can be described by interactions. And all of a sudden quantum mechanics is a branch of classical physics ty. Any theorem thay says classical physics cannot do exactly the same thing, relies on denying dependent random variables at the classical probability distribution end of things. Anything else is just confusing language. It really is true that classical models of probabilities and consequently also deterministic models can account for every possible prediction any possible quantum theory could ever spit out. Sorry i'm increasingly annoyed that certain people just won't admit they didn't understand it properly for a century or so. It is ridiculous at this point.
It is not correct that entanglement as we have seen it experimentally cannot be explained by a local classical theory. Because there is no established lower bound on the speed of the causal interpretation of the correlations in say a bell test. There is only experimental confirmation that if they are causal they must be dependent because of faster than light causation, there is absolutely no experimental reason to think it has to be instantaneous, and even if it is instantaneous in nature, that is no more mysterious than an instantaneous interaction in Newtonian gravity.
There are no featurer of the predictions of quantum field theory that cannot be explained in a Newtonian theory. The forms of forces must be very much more complicated than any such theory we have ever studied, but still, it is true non the less, even assuming instantaneous action, and as i have stated, that is not necessary given the experiments we have done so far. So no, i would go further and say there is nothing about quantum mechanics that cannot be explained classically, but the spacelike random variables that are dependent are trickier to account for, but they are by no means immovable, you just have to give up on superluminal causation being disallowed and you can do anything any quantum theory can do classically, the results of quantum field theory tested or untested can also be accounted for deterministically and without conflict with relatively in the limit of instantaneous action, but that is not required by experiment, and the bound cannot ever be pushed all the way to infinite speeds, meaning it is incoherent to suggest local laws of evolution can ever be fully discredited, not only is it unnecessary to assert such things, but it is always a misconception to think you have proven such things based on experiment, only by sneakily assuming it at the outset can you derive such conclusions.
No, there is no quantumness that doesn't derive from a very basic assumption of dependence being eliminated in certain places on the classical side. The argument fails, drop the assumption and it all goes away, not thin film anymore.
All nongo theorems at the level or classical probability distributions over observables as predictions can be summed up as, if you assume no variable dependence at spacelike separations, then classical models cannot reproduce quantum mechanical results. That includes all of them, the moment you allow for causally induced variable dependence from classical models, none of the no go theorems apply anymore. Please do well to learn this, because it is important that we stop talking nonsense about these no go theorems, the only thing that takes currently conducted experiments to a statement that only instantaneous action or even worse no action but dependence in the firm of oure correlations by fiat, is metaphysical assumptions that one spacelike orientation is equivalent to another by imposing relativity on a domain where it can't be tested exhaustively.
"It works, but we don't understand it". That's illogical and irrational, just like the "theory" itself. The trouble with physics is that they reify mathematical equations. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"... The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition, which is irrational.
Take two dice, impose a correlation on them such that the state space of eigen states you can use observe them as landing in, is only (1,1) (2,2) (3,3) (4,4) (5,5) (6,6), imply no causal link between the dices but only allow these states to be measured outcomes predicted by your theory of dice, what do we get? Simple we get a similar thing to entangled spins in quantum mechanics, we only allow ourselves to use dependent States from the perspective of viewing each dice as an independent random variable, and we just forget that we defined the state space we can find as measured outcome like this. Then we ask, is there a causal link between the two dice making them only have dependent eigen states? If we are stupid idiots that forgot that we defined our theory this way we say no. If we treat each dice as independent, we say yes, based on the dependent distribution. Instead of the full 16 possible outcomes we would get by treating the dice as independent we only get 6 possible outcomes for the pair. Imposing this state space as fundamental seems offensive to our intuitions when it comes to dice, if we went to a magic show and some guy showed us this pair of dice that always had this property when thrown together, we would assume something funny is going on, we would assume the dice cannot be independent, there must be some trick, some causation explaining the correlation in outcomes. The troubling thing is that this is exactly the same situation as in quantum mechanics, we found the world playing a certain trick on us, we developed a theory of states evolving with time and it contained these correlations that act like they are causally induced, just like the dice, the onoy difference is that we formulated the silly analysis that the commutation of 1,1 with itself means there is no causation, but forgeting that we defined away 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 and 1,6 at the outset, so the dependence between 1 and 1 isn't really ever evaluated. Kochen spekker is irrelevant, because what is not dependent by definition at the level of quantum mechanical states is in terms of classical random variables as observables, and that dependence classically can be reproduced by something as simple as a force ensuring the dice always land the same way up when thrown, by say a magnetic instrument under the magicians table. Forget about no gi theorems they are not no go theorems at all, they are "when causation" theorems.
Lets do a thought experiment. We assume a classical world, we assume turning complete computers can be built in this classical world. We assume our world is really a simulation on one of these computers. As long as the functions of the quantum theories of this simulated world we inhabit are nice and continuous and well defined, the observables are classical probability distributions pucked out by a random number generator, then no quantum like substrate is necessary to reproduce the predictions of any possible quantum theory. Think this example through and you will hopefully realise that what you are saying about the thin film has to derive from an unnecessary assumption, not from logic. Whats the point of trying to engage with a community that is hopelessly lost in analogy and principle with no firm understanding of what they are doing, i'm this close to giving up on the physics community 👌. I only have a few voices that seem to listen to reason at all, hope you are one of them. It is obvious that quantum theories do not differentiate themselves from classical descriptions, and a nature or nature that can very well ve both local and real, nothing i have ever seen an experiment do, can convince me there is any there there to these explanations of the difference between classicality and quantum mechanics, it is just a bunch of functions describing a classical probability distribution. Whether entities manifest in observables is a matter of in principle depedence not discernment.
Bells theorem, kochen spekker, the 2022 nobel price experiments, all they show is that a classical theory behind them would beed a causal explanation for dependence between the observables. There is nothing else to it, sorry.
The Leibnizian argument is irrelevant, i don't see why ypu should include it, because in principle the exact same observables can be derived from another classical theory there the destinctions can be accessed by other means, because the observables you have so far cannot prove their own uniqueness, any such assertion is just premature, and so every non classical theory by that criteria could in principle be made classical again by a larger theory, either exactly or approximately, both gold enough to accommodate what experiments have so far shown. I don't think Leibniz's principle is usefull other than as a reminder of what parts of a theory can be reasoned with in terms of experience. I think it is always premature to assume some aspect of a theory is fundamental, asserting some artificial divide between classical and non classical is not useful, the divide between observable and non observable is for the prospects of testing a theory for flaws, but not for the metaphysics associated with it.
Physics is all about variable dependence, it has always exclusively been about that on the mathematical side, newton is only about that, Einsteins theories were always only about that, even though a bunch of mumbo jumbo metaphysical drivle got into the way to conceptualise the theories, and quantum mechanics is as well. All the talk about this or that formulation, or this ir that interpretation is nonsense, all that matters is the specific variable dependence that leads to observable predictions coming out they way they do, the specific formulation is about a metaphysical project of an ansatz of with might lay beyond and inform progress, that guessing is fine, it is necessary for us to do to exploit our imagination, but it is not a logical process at all it is a process of guessing at what might be next, the only induction we can do revolves around observables and giveb a set of them that are conforming with experiments, there is no apriory way ti destinguish between them, other than as a guide to imagination for the purposes of progress or delight in the art of the imaginary. Throw out everything anyone has ever said they know about physics and keep to that, and nothing is mysterious except to unknown amd the unexplored, the historical development is transparent, the formalism we use does not seem mysterious at all, and the mathematics we use less mysterious still.
Please don't do that, its not true or useful that classical means that no entities that are not observable are physical. All of classical physics can be described as relational or in terms lf absolute space and time, the map is one to one and is not about observables. Any quantum theory - > classical probability distribution over observables, a deterministic relational model can always in all cases be produced to reproduce the observables, thats the end of the argument. No go theorems never say anything except without assuming dependence, the dependence cannot be reproduced. No go theorems are only applicable inside of a theory, not to nature for that reason, the project is still flawed, let go of the need to orove things innterms of classical vs non classical, everything is classical innthe sense that it permits a Newtonian explanation, and this is by definition always true by virtue of the classical probability distribution that arises in any type of experiment possible.
Please, stop, it is not correct. It is wrong, everything in quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of F=ma, forget about even more sophisticated schemes. Give me a classical probability distribution and i shall give you the laws to make it manifest, every single time without exception. Is it easy to produce a compelling one, no not necessarily, but there mere fact that in the limit of infinite processing, a simulation of quantum theories is identical to the predictions of the quantum theories themselves should tell you that there is no difference between what classical systems can compute and what quantum systems can compute. It is pure nonsense, you were so close, but then throw it all away because of some misinterpreted argument from Leibniz that he himself didn't even get right. The thing is, that two states are not indestinguishable does not need to be manifest in a simple way, it is possible to show that anything can be described in a way where in the description the difference between moving and not moving relative ti the vacuum for example has subtle observable effects, or any other such example, it doesn't need to be a theory where that is manifest in an obvious way, it just needs to be true in principle, and i can assure you that you have proven no such thing, the space of classical theories swallows quantum mechanics whole, the evolving functions are deterministic in any quantum theory, just pick a fucking random number generator and you have your monte carlo theory in a deterministic way, that is to me a classical theory, maybe you have some strange criteria for what counts as classical, to me it is simply a representation of the world that tries to be faithful to ontology in some way, just a guess at ontology that is specific, i don't particularly care about some metaphysical Leibnizian criteria that can be interpreted into something quite different. No go theorems when you boil down what they say about predictions only, only ever say dependencies are this or that, and if you assume independence they are not possible. Sorry but thats it and its not reasonable.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Rob Spekkens is a very good choice! Thanks for this.
He is fantastic. Thanks for listening :).
Ive soved Einsteins “Spooky Action” riddle. Space and Time are being pressed up into your face at the speed of Light then returning back instantaneously thus, resulting in the illusion of time. “ Time is but an illusion.”
Nonsense. Thats just equivalent to instantaneous action, it just happens isn't physics, its poetry.
I like the idea of the Quantum Film, as a small perturbation over what we expect classically.
Certainly Bell's Theorem has this quality, comparing the first quadrant of a sine wave with a linear ramp.
Really very interesting and useful exposition from Spekkens - as might be expected.
You should also talk to Bob Coecke, especially if the mentions of CT for physics aroused your curiosity.
It would be for great entertainment if someone ask politicians and all news media "What is reality made of? "
@6:00 heck dude. No one had any clue about Newtonian gravity, it was not even an "operational" theory, just, "Here's my equation chaps. I'm off to make gold out of lead and run the British Mint." QM by contrast is extremely well understood. We've got Feynman diagrams for starters, pretty good first layer of base marble.
Genuine British humour we love.
Funny as fuck. Wheetie's on the floor. Thank you, Sir!
You should read the Principia, it is not just throwing an equation over the wall. He establishes fundamental laws of motion; proposes a simple (trivial!) equation for gravity; works everything out, from falling apples, flight of arrows, the Solar System to tides; explains previous incomplete theories (Kepler's Laws); in order to work it out he invents calculus; finally he meticulously documents where he is unsure, or proposes something that goes against his physical intuition (famously unhappy with action at a distance).
The only other work that comes close on comprehensiveness, meticulous attention to detail, self-reflection and humility in the face of uncertainty, and a (largely successful) attempt to answer all potential criticisms in advance, is Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (another Brit, of course).
This is enormously helpful.
The path from Leibniz to Einstein goes through Mach.
The relational idea also influences Everett (originally 'Relative State' not MWI),
Rovelli ('Relational QM') and even Barbour (classical Newtonian 'Shape Dynamics').
@17:00 "the ray in Hilbert space" is just a mere representation. A stupid one. The Hilbert space formalism has a massive irremovable gauge redundancy, so cannot be physical. Talk to Jacob Barandes.
I'll look into Jacob Barandes. Cheers - thanks for listening.
Hilbert Space is a bad joke. How can any realistic space change when the number of particles (or degrees of freedom) changes. Oh, and infinite dimensional too, that's not gonna fit in my universe.
@8:30 he missed a giant fourth. "But, by God, someone has to be working on the Standard Model" --- that's a Latham Boyle quote. Could hardly be anything more foundational, since entanglement (and hence superposition and why there has to be a real time path integral) is a particle phenomenon, and entanglement thoroughly foundational to QM.
I'm getting so many reminders that I need to get Latham on the podcast...
Lets just say we forgot about quantum mechanics for a second, and we got instead a classical probability distribution complete with dependencies describes. If then statements, like if i measure up innlab A choosing axis 1, then the probability distribution of outcomes in lab B is cos squared of the angle from axis 1 to come up opposite. Fine, and we know from measuring successively single particle states that if i measure in axis 1 and i measure axis 1 again i will get up or down, and then the same result again, and the probability distribution for other angles is again cos squared of the angle from axis 1. Then i can hypothesise something stupidly simple, the particles always have a spin orientation continuously, when i choose to measure in axis one i turn its orientation to eithe up or down in axis 1, when i measure it innsome other axis it turns ether up or down by the cos^2 of the angle to the same orientation. Whe. The pair is entangled, they simply are connected in a way where if i measure one the other one turns its orientation accordingly so the sum of their angular momentum stays constant, for example at 0 for a pair that is anti correlated, but once i do this once the connection breaks. Then if i start out with a pair, i chose some measurment direction 1, and measure one of the particles, they both shift their spin to axis 1, for example in lab A we get up, and in lab B we get down, the particle in lab B is not yet measured, but we know it has a real spin in axis one which is down, then whatever measurment axis i choose for the particle in lab B, it will habe a probability of being down in the chosen axis by the angle between axis 1 and the new axis fed into cos ^2. Aøl you need is a coupling between the spins that falls appart when the first one is measured and after than you can deal woth both as independent separable spins, in a classical way, all we introduced was a classical force between them and a spin direction that exists in some way. And the dependence that produces a violation of bells inequality comes about in a completely classical way. The cos^2 function is a property of a single spin not dependent on anything else and can be easily derived from some rather simple model in some way equivalent to a biased random number generator, requiring absolutely no quantum skrewyness. And this can be done with any other example as well, with no issues what so ever. It is a shame people try to complicate it so much.
I dare you to take a shot of tequila every time he says “sort of”.
But it’s maybe better that “like”, maybe
and he has the same inflections and quirks as Sean Carroll, felt a little unsettling.
I dare you to try and explain quantum theory to a mathematically illiterate audience without approximating linguistically.
@@bryandraughn9830 either you didn’t listen or you’re dishonest. I’m talking about a sort-of, habit, like sort-of too often, like like, for no sort-of like reason.
@@bryandraughn9830 ok, dare accepted. where we doing the talk?
For interference, its rather simple, sometimes it is literally just interference of waves deterministically that is necessary in each deterministic state summed over for building up the classical probability distributions, sometimes not so, for examples the exclusion principle derived from anti commutation involves interference as well, but the physical interpretation there doesn't really need to involve interference, just an emergent force. So its not trivial to categorise the kind of properties a hidden variable theory must have to sum over classical and independent evolving states, but it is what it is, you have to try and see whether what you come up with is sufficient to civer all phenomena.
It seems this classical interpretation doesn't align well with other classical notions and it does explain all quantum stuff anyway, so the double slit could be genuinely quantum after all.
Also, everyone that talks about quantum mechanics put in some interpretation, just saying we have a superposition where a particle is here and here at the same time is doing metaphysics. Anything other than we habe some functions that solve some equation and we get these probabilities, is interpretation.
Between two 'measurements' there is no particle, it is neither in a place, nor at some time.
A particle is just (only) a spacetime event of a 'measurement' (entanglement).
The particle-wave conundrum is not a continuous ongoing duality, there are two distinct phases.
Existing, conventional QM physics is very clear about this:
- fields propagate as linear reversible (time-symmetric) non-local information-preserving complex waves [Schrodinger]
- fields interact (entangle) in discrete irreversible (time-asymmetric) local information-destroying 'measurements' of 'particles' at specific points in spacetime (the actual definition of locality, with increasing theoretical justification that entanglement 'measurements' *create* space and time)
So whoever or whatever created this reality set limits..... The deepest levels of reality are off limits to us.....we will never know .....its by design....and that's OK..... We will have to become comfortable with that fact
I have this trash can I put 1 to 1 ratio empty packages into and it makes a great repeatable tool of approximation that all my real waste fits inside but I'd never use its peremeters to try and connect to each packages inertia values in mass or acceleration..topography would be curved & displaced. The volume or distances i could justify a general use starting with my stochastic trash can.
Stagnated ancient world 900bc-1500s told us all we needed to know that these approaches are great for studying languages, laws, phylosphy of mind.
String theory has to be what goes on in our mind when we put scientific boxes around systems. When we cast systems is math mapped and that has its own value for physiology sychosis lol
But we need f=ma to unlock the keys to the cosmos #3
Immediately it all fell out enough one day a richard finneman entangled key #2 measure would be renormalized the same.
Spent to much Time infighting to just regurgitate the same ole same.
His wish for a deeper “interpretation” (understanding), which he termed as a realist view (contrasting how he termed an emperical view) is really just wanting an intuitive understanding of the theory. But there is a lot of phenomena that doesn’t have an intuitive model, the classic one being gravity - which stifled Newton almost causing him to drop the theory. Ever since Newton science has dropped the idea of requiring human intuition as increasing phenomena just happens (fitting the formal theory) but doesn’t make sense at all intuitively. Quantum mechanics is not different to gravity (in that we accept it as naming no sense - all objects acting on each other at nearly infinite distance without any means of interacting/communication between) in that regards.
What quantum mechanics is, is just a framework for producing classical probability distributions over observables. You can always have a simple classical interpretation of ignorance resulting in uncertainty. Aka a normal statistical mechanical interpretation. Anyone that denies that doesn't understand the mathematics and physics. We always always always end up with a prediction that some experiment in space and time will have some outcome, how the different possibilities for outcomes can depend on each other is a question of causation by virtue of nature.
What we should first do, is recognise quantum mechanics as just another classical theory. Since the way it is set up, only ever gives classical predictions in spacetime for observables. If you disagree perhaps try to find a counterexample. Everything captured by a quantum theory can always be captured by a classical phase space, the confusion i think comes from the way we do quantisation of classical theories, that somehow a quantized theory is larger and more complicated than classical theories, but that just isn't true, any Hilbert space for a quantum theory can be swamped by a larger classical phase space with the same observables associated with it. Whether the classical theory is stochastic or deterministic. But the map is different from the one employed in first or 2nd quantisation. That relationship between classical and quantum theories is irrelevant to the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics over all.
I like the guests take. I think the uncertainty in quantum mechanics is just an ordinary statistical mechanical problem to be solved. I just think we have yet to get good at statistical mechanics.
In This view btw there is no collapse postulate, just removal of ignorance.
The ontology in this view is a deterministic state evolving forever with no branches at all. The alternatives are just summed over because of ignorance, just like figuring out the lenght of a walk of a pollen grain in a cup of water. Figuring out what the path was is akin to figuring out what branch you are on in many worlds, a statistical completion is just recognising only one branch as real, one set of quantum results and filling in details that describe how those outcomes came about.
Only indeterministic collapse theories are indeterministic, there are deterministic collapse theories where identities of collapses are brought in a initial consultations, or things like pilot wave theory where the collapse is replaced with a continuous variable as an initial condition. The only limitation is that the initial conditions and independent evolution summed over to yield the resulting classical probability distribution over observables, ends up in the space between the exact predictions of quantum field theory and what has been seen in experiments. The state space that yields the classical probability distributions only needs to account for experiments that have been done, not the predictions of qtf or GR. For example we do not have a set of completed experiments that rule out violations of lorentz symmetry, or tests like bell tests that nail down spooky action at a distance as actually instantaneous, even if almost everyone who talks about those seem to take that for granted, but that derives from an assumption that the principle of relativity is absolute for spacelike causation, which is just metaphysical mumbo jumbo, i have reviewed the literature, and the experiments actually carried out, and it is absolutely not enough to do one spacelike test of correlations of entangled spins or polerizations and call it a day, producing a conclusion of being sure locality is out the window from that is psuedoscience. The fact remains that it is quite plausible if it is trye about the world that these spacelike correlations are causal, and propagated as some finite speed related to the state of rest of a medium in the vacuum, much faster than light, that we would not have seen the effects of it, given the experiments that has been done. But if that is true there are ways to seek it out that are straight forward and depends only on experiments we already trust to confirm bells inequality is violated by nature, just with some slightly different experimental protocol, this is straight forward to test, and nobody has done it so far, bot rigorously, if someone tried to do bell tests and then failed to get the appropriate correlations they would run the rig again and find it to be working now, then confirm and yes yes its all right now must have been some issue or whatever. It would ve a tiny window or no windows at all the pick up the effect given the earths motion, unless you intentionally pick weird configurations for the experiment. Which people won't do, they usually try to measure at spacelike separations equally spaced from the future and past lightcone to make sure to make the experiment easier to do without "loopholes", this means given the motion of the earth, that you most likely won't see these effects of finite instead of infinite propagation speeds.
Too many words, too philosophical. What’s the conclusion? I love QM, not disputing it. Just being fed up with all the physicists, scientists, engineers, talking non stop and not resolving anything! For the last 120 years, little progress has been made. We still have the initial philosophical issues, and all experiments prove that QM works always! Until you have a clear explanation, be quiet and just publish a paper to prove your point without any doubt to the rest of the community.
And this is straight forward to measure out, it is not easy without a bunch if theory telling you how to set up the experiment, but the neat thing is tgat if you succeed, you get a positive signal that qft is wrong, and that special relativity is wrong.
Who saying there is a problem that need to be solved...it's not us-⚫️⚫️⚫️⚫️⚫️⚫️?
th-cam.com/video/tF-1dF0eBts/w-d-xo.htmlsi=m3CDsRiwsKLdig3J
(Basic state of the cosmos)
The thin film is as thin as a wall of nothing. It is all variable dependence, and variable dependence can be explained classically, easily. Make sure than next time you purge the idea that you have to assume any variables be independent and you will find that the no gi theorems simply vansish.
In a different domain, there's s saying: "follow the money and you'll find exactly what happened".
In this case of real universal dynamic, follow STRICTLY the true, real and natural CAUSAL chain, WITHOUT SKIPPING any REAL LINK, and you'll understand correctly how everything happens in reality, the correct understanding of the UNIVERSAL dynamic of the Universe.
( Two additional hints: Quantum Mechanics is BS.
The classic theory must be massively overhauled. )
I think i wrote this 5 times by now, but the moment you admit to yourself that any probability distribution over observables in space and time is a classical object. Then the prospect of finding something non classically derivable from quantum mechanics falls appart. Now we are just concerned with that variable dependence exists in the classical probability distributions, and when you convince yourself that really no other tyoe of predictions are possible to connect with experiments, you should recognize that all the mystery of quantum mechanics simply comes out of an ignorant metaphysics, nit out of logic or mathematics.
The mistake there, that Einstein makes, is that he assumes there is no destinguishability between rest and motion in some frame relative to an ether, or not difference between free fall and empty space on the basis of assuming it is so, or treating it as if maxwell was the final word, when this sort of assumption is a metaphysical one that can never be exhausted experimentally, therefore such conclusions based on relational principles, where non destinguishable entities should be considered non physical is always premature, that they do not matter is a guess, not a derived conclusion, and therefore Einstein's conclusion does not stand independently of what turns out to be true down the line, there is no reason to imbue it with accreditation, its a guess, a guess that works out perhaps for a while, simplifying the prospects of doibg the mathematics, but nonetheless just an unqualified assumption, that might very well turn out wrong, and claiming it as more than that does harm to clarity of reasoning, and has resulted in naive ideas of what physics should be like today, whether he made a lot of great contributions under their rubric or not. Sorry i just dont have heroes and i refuse to take metaphysical arguments as derived when it is clearly visible that they leave out considerations that are obvious and clearly perceived if you just allow yourself to critique the arguments in a reasonable way. Hindsight is blinding, because an assumption leads to a theory that makes progress does not mean it is right, or even reasonable, this is perhaps the most annoying and harmful fallacy subscribed to in modern science, one never establishes a Principle, one establishes the predictions that turned out to be right of their backs, any schema that provides identical or >equally accurate predictions is just as entitled to the same credit, in this house we should refuse to paint out musings in gold my son, lets not shape idols out of murmurings with no basis in logic. One cannot show the applicability of a principle to natures workings by logic, onoy experiment can do the job, and onoy partially, it cannot ever decide between schemes producing the same predictions.
Nah everything makes sense from a classical view, every single prediction from a quantum theory, comes out as a prediction in the form of a classical probability distribution over observables. Nothing else can ever be spit out and checked against experiment. Since instanteous action is perfectly easy to describe in classical terms, any variable dependence at the level of classical probabilies as predictions can be described by interactions. And all of a sudden quantum mechanics is a branch of classical physics ty. Any theorem thay says classical physics cannot do exactly the same thing, relies on denying dependent random variables at the classical probability distribution end of things. Anything else is just confusing language. It really is true that classical models of probabilities and consequently also deterministic models can account for every possible prediction any possible quantum theory could ever spit out. Sorry i'm increasingly annoyed that certain people just won't admit they didn't understand it properly for a century or so. It is ridiculous at this point.
The slit experiments and "spooky action at a distance" say orherwise. And consciousness cannot be explained with classical physics.
It is not correct that entanglement as we have seen it experimentally cannot be explained by a local classical theory. Because there is no established lower bound on the speed of the causal interpretation of the correlations in say a bell test. There is only experimental confirmation that if they are causal they must be dependent because of faster than light causation, there is absolutely no experimental reason to think it has to be instantaneous, and even if it is instantaneous in nature, that is no more mysterious than an instantaneous interaction in Newtonian gravity.
There are no featurer of the predictions of quantum field theory that cannot be explained in a Newtonian theory. The forms of forces must be very much more complicated than any such theory we have ever studied, but still, it is true non the less, even assuming instantaneous action, and as i have stated, that is not necessary given the experiments we have done so far. So no, i would go further and say there is nothing about quantum mechanics that cannot be explained classically, but the spacelike random variables that are dependent are trickier to account for, but they are by no means immovable, you just have to give up on superluminal causation being disallowed and you can do anything any quantum theory can do classically, the results of quantum field theory tested or untested can also be accounted for deterministically and without conflict with relatively in the limit of instantaneous action, but that is not required by experiment, and the bound cannot ever be pushed all the way to infinite speeds, meaning it is incoherent to suggest local laws of evolution can ever be fully discredited, not only is it unnecessary to assert such things, but it is always a misconception to think you have proven such things based on experiment, only by sneakily assuming it at the outset can you derive such conclusions.
Wot about Daleks Exterminate!
No, there is no quantumness that doesn't derive from a very basic assumption of dependence being eliminated in certain places on the classical side. The argument fails, drop the assumption and it all goes away, not thin film anymore.
All nongo theorems at the level or classical probability distributions over observables as predictions can be summed up as, if you assume no variable dependence at spacelike separations, then classical models cannot reproduce quantum mechanical results. That includes all of them, the moment you allow for causally induced variable dependence from classical models, none of the no go theorems apply anymore. Please do well to learn this, because it is important that we stop talking nonsense about these no go theorems, the only thing that takes currently conducted experiments to a statement that only instantaneous action or even worse no action but dependence in the firm of oure correlations by fiat, is metaphysical assumptions that one spacelike orientation is equivalent to another by imposing relativity on a domain where it can't be tested exhaustively.
"It works, but we don't understand it".
That's illogical and irrational, just like the "theory" itself. The trouble with physics is that they reify mathematical equations. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"... The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition, which is irrational.
Take two dice, impose a correlation on them such that the state space of eigen states you can use observe them as landing in, is only (1,1) (2,2) (3,3) (4,4) (5,5) (6,6), imply no causal link between the dices but only allow these states to be measured outcomes predicted by your theory of dice, what do we get? Simple we get a similar thing to entangled spins in quantum mechanics, we only allow ourselves to use dependent States from the perspective of viewing each dice as an independent random variable, and we just forget that we defined the state space we can find as measured outcome like this. Then we ask, is there a causal link between the two dice making them only have dependent eigen states? If we are stupid idiots that forgot that we defined our theory this way we say no. If we treat each dice as independent, we say yes, based on the dependent distribution. Instead of the full 16 possible outcomes we would get by treating the dice as independent we only get 6 possible outcomes for the pair. Imposing this state space as fundamental seems offensive to our intuitions when it comes to dice, if we went to a magic show and some guy showed us this pair of dice that always had this property when thrown together, we would assume something funny is going on, we would assume the dice cannot be independent, there must be some trick, some causation explaining the correlation in outcomes. The troubling thing is that this is exactly the same situation as in quantum mechanics, we found the world playing a certain trick on us, we developed a theory of states evolving with time and it contained these correlations that act like they are causally induced, just like the dice, the onoy difference is that we formulated the silly analysis that the commutation of 1,1 with itself means there is no causation, but forgeting that we defined away 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 and 1,6 at the outset, so the dependence between 1 and 1 isn't really ever evaluated. Kochen spekker is irrelevant, because what is not dependent by definition at the level of quantum mechanical states is in terms of classical random variables as observables, and that dependence classically can be reproduced by something as simple as a force ensuring the dice always land the same way up when thrown, by say a magnetic instrument under the magicians table. Forget about no gi theorems they are not no go theorems at all, they are "when causation" theorems.
Lets do a thought experiment. We assume a classical world, we assume turning complete computers can be built in this classical world. We assume our world is really a simulation on one of these computers. As long as the functions of the quantum theories of this simulated world we inhabit are nice and continuous and well defined, the observables are classical probability distributions pucked out by a random number generator, then no quantum like substrate is necessary to reproduce the predictions of any possible quantum theory. Think this example through and you will hopefully realise that what you are saying about the thin film has to derive from an unnecessary assumption, not from logic. Whats the point of trying to engage with a community that is hopelessly lost in analogy and principle with no firm understanding of what they are doing, i'm this close to giving up on the physics community 👌. I only have a few voices that seem to listen to reason at all, hope you are one of them. It is obvious that quantum theories do not differentiate themselves from classical descriptions, and a nature or nature that can very well ve both local and real, nothing i have ever seen an experiment do, can convince me there is any there there to these explanations of the difference between classicality and quantum mechanics, it is just a bunch of functions describing a classical probability distribution. Whether entities manifest in observables is a matter of in principle depedence not discernment.
Bells theorem, kochen spekker, the 2022 nobel price experiments, all they show is that a classical theory behind them would beed a causal explanation for dependence between the observables. There is nothing else to it, sorry.
The Leibnizian argument is irrelevant, i don't see why ypu should include it, because in principle the exact same observables can be derived from another classical theory there the destinctions can be accessed by other means, because the observables you have so far cannot prove their own uniqueness, any such assertion is just premature, and so every non classical theory by that criteria could in principle be made classical again by a larger theory, either exactly or approximately, both gold enough to accommodate what experiments have so far shown. I don't think Leibniz's principle is usefull other than as a reminder of what parts of a theory can be reasoned with in terms of experience. I think it is always premature to assume some aspect of a theory is fundamental, asserting some artificial divide between classical and non classical is not useful, the divide between observable and non observable is for the prospects of testing a theory for flaws, but not for the metaphysics associated with it.
Physics is all about variable dependence, it has always exclusively been about that on the mathematical side, newton is only about that, Einsteins theories were always only about that, even though a bunch of mumbo jumbo metaphysical drivle got into the way to conceptualise the theories, and quantum mechanics is as well. All the talk about this or that formulation, or this ir that interpretation is nonsense, all that matters is the specific variable dependence that leads to observable predictions coming out they way they do, the specific formulation is about a metaphysical project of an ansatz of with might lay beyond and inform progress, that guessing is fine, it is necessary for us to do to exploit our imagination, but it is not a logical process at all it is a process of guessing at what might be next, the only induction we can do revolves around observables and giveb a set of them that are conforming with experiments, there is no apriory way ti destinguish between them, other than as a guide to imagination for the purposes of progress or delight in the art of the imaginary. Throw out everything anyone has ever said they know about physics and keep to that, and nothing is mysterious except to unknown amd the unexplored, the historical development is transparent, the formalism we use does not seem mysterious at all, and the mathematics we use less mysterious still.
Please don't do that, its not true or useful that classical means that no entities that are not observable are physical. All of classical physics can be described as relational or in terms lf absolute space and time, the map is one to one and is not about observables. Any quantum theory - > classical probability distribution over observables, a deterministic relational model can always in all cases be produced to reproduce the observables, thats the end of the argument. No go theorems never say anything except without assuming dependence, the dependence cannot be reproduced. No go theorems are only applicable inside of a theory, not to nature for that reason, the project is still flawed, let go of the need to orove things innterms of classical vs non classical, everything is classical innthe sense that it permits a Newtonian explanation, and this is by definition always true by virtue of the classical probability distribution that arises in any type of experiment possible.
Truely quantum is jibberish, thats the problem.
Please, stop, it is not correct. It is wrong, everything in quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of F=ma, forget about even more sophisticated schemes. Give me a classical probability distribution and i shall give you the laws to make it manifest, every single time without exception. Is it easy to produce a compelling one, no not necessarily, but there mere fact that in the limit of infinite processing, a simulation of quantum theories is identical to the predictions of the quantum theories themselves should tell you that there is no difference between what classical systems can compute and what quantum systems can compute. It is pure nonsense, you were so close, but then throw it all away because of some misinterpreted argument from Leibniz that he himself didn't even get right. The thing is, that two states are not indestinguishable does not need to be manifest in a simple way, it is possible to show that anything can be described in a way where in the description the difference between moving and not moving relative ti the vacuum for example has subtle observable effects, or any other such example, it doesn't need to be a theory where that is manifest in an obvious way, it just needs to be true in principle, and i can assure you that you have proven no such thing, the space of classical theories swallows quantum mechanics whole, the evolving functions are deterministic in any quantum theory, just pick a fucking random number generator and you have your monte carlo theory in a deterministic way, that is to me a classical theory, maybe you have some strange criteria for what counts as classical, to me it is simply a representation of the world that tries to be faithful to ontology in some way, just a guess at ontology that is specific, i don't particularly care about some metaphysical Leibnizian criteria that can be interpreted into something quite different. No go theorems when you boil down what they say about predictions only, only ever say dependencies are this or that, and if you assume independence they are not possible. Sorry but thats it and its not reasonable.