What's the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics? - with Jim Baggott
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- Jim explores what are the most popular interpretations of quantum mechanics and how we might need to be a little more specific when we talk about ‘reality’.
Jim's book "Quantum Reality" is now available on Amazon: geni.us/OF5X
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: The Real Meaning ...
Jim Baggott is an award-winning science writer. He trained as a scientist, completing a doctorate in chemical physics at the University of Oxford in the early 80s, before embarking on post-doctoral research studies at Oxford and at Stanford University in California.
He gave up a tenured lectureship at the University of Reading after five years in order to gain experience in the commercial world. He worked for Shell International Petroleum for 11 years before leaving to establish his own business consultancy and training practice. He won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Marlow Medal for his contributions to scientific research in 1989.
This talk was streamed live by the Ri on 14 July 2020.
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Justin, Scott Edwardsen, Atin Kothari, Paul Philippov, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Gou Ranon, Christina Baum, Martin Steed, Frances Dunne, jonas.app, Tim Karr, Adam Leos, Andrew Weir, Jan Všetíček, Michelle J. Zamarron, Andrew Downing, Fairleigh McGill, Alan Latteri, David Crowner, Matt Townsend, Anonymous, Kellas Lowery, Andrew McGhee, Roger Shaw, Robert Reinecke, Paul Brown, Lasse T. Stendan, David Schick, Joe Godenzi, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Greg Nagel, and Rebecca Pan.
---
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Maybe the real meaning of quantum mechanics is the friends we made along the way.
XD
It's all that matters in the end. Nobody really cares how QM works.
It’s the taking part which counts.
No no, that's "the curse of oak island"...
😳 you guys have friends?
What i like about quantum theory is you dont have to be a professor to not understand it
Underrated comment
The concepts are understandable to the average human, you don’t need to understand any crazy math as I once assumed, just keep watching and learning as much as you can, it will become more clear if you’re passionate about understanding, I encourage everyone to look at particle physics, it gets weirder and more fascinating all the time
@@quantumrobin4627 Naaah... You just get used to it. But you do not understand it. Scientists have haptly described the phenomena. Engineers have learned to use it. But describing and learning to use doesn't mean understanding... Nobody to this day understands what's happening in quantum physics.
I like that it’s a theory
That doesn't make perfect sense.
These online available lectures do warm my heart, what a spooky action at a distance.
So s,Art ,,dls
Sk
:)
Mine too!
It's still incredible that these talks are provided to the public for free. It's almost an honour just to be listening to these great minds speak.
MomoTheBellyDancer I didn’t know he’s a science communicator rather than a working scientist. Very bad communicator imo, judging by this presentation. I am halfway through and I find it very confusing if aimed at beginners and too simplistic for people who have deeper knowledge of the subject.
I don’t know about the many worlds interpretation. Sean Carroll swears by it but by his own admission he’s in a minority position and most of his physicist colleagues think it’s an unlikely conjecture.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Wow! Somebody doesn't play nice.
10011000110110001010110101110001011001010110011001011000011000000011101010101101010111010110110100100100101101010101011
these are not great minds but they are clever minds unfortunately and to illustrate a great mind Paul Dirac refused to speak at the quantum mechanics 1927 Solvay conference but came straight back to Cambridge and after thinking about how the universe might work devised his equation by trial and error that was the new wonder of the human science world?
I agree absolutely.
It would be nice if these can be done from the RI lecture hall. Even if it’s empty apart from the speaker, the audio is vastly better and it’s also much more engaging to watch
I've thought the same, but perhaps the workers who make it all happen are the covid problem that's in the way.
Yep, it's definitely something we are exploring. With the current lockdown rules and our vastly depleted resources, it's tricky to just keep the lights on, but we are working on a couple of bids and things that will hopefully make this a possibility. Watch this space.
The Royal Institution Thank you! You people are doing Newton’s Work in this crazy world
Whatever they're doing they should have an informational bulletin for it and everyone should try to copy their set up.
@@TheRoyalInstitution Try installing "smart" bulbs or switches?
The lights can turn on automatically, only when being observed.
Not much of a drinker but I am working my way through this blunt, kicking back and watching this...
Same
One of the best lectures on quantum mechanics for the lay person like me. Well done Jim, you have a gift in simplifying a complex topic. I really like the way science and philosophy are woven together.
Excellent presentation! Thank you very much. I believe this is the most well-explained presentation that I've ever seen on the topic. Thank you for making it so understandable and for making a point to separate popular hyperbole and metaphor from the actual things being talked about. A lot of times I hear talks on quantum mechanics and there are parts where I'm left thinking "is that meant literally or is it simply a way to put a handle on the concepts and observations they refer to?"
In talks on quantum mechanics, almost nothing is meant literally unless they're talking directly about the equations. Non-mathematical descriptions are attempts to conceptualize in words what the math means. Popular descriptions are usually an attempt to impress people with some of the things the math predicts/describes, that seem unreal.
This is a better talk than most though. :)
Not the first of Jim's lectures I've watched recently. When he resists the temptation to go off the beat with personal humour, irony etc, he tells a story really well by concentrating on the obvious questions that Joe public might ask and explaining them in a thoughtful way. Good lecture with good analogies, learned stuff today.
Very engaging talk which I enjoyed very much. I always like to see how different speakers present the same material (I will refrain from calling it spin) but I learn something new from each one, especially in this talk, which helps me grasp concepts better. This helps me keep up to speed as I also like to follow progress in quantum biology. I appreciated the views summarized at the end. And, may I say, it's okay to mention God and possible Reasons To Believe offered by this fascinating material. Thank you. - Nick Tavani MD, PhD (biophysics & physiology).
Lovely, clear, illuminating presentation. Thank you!
Wonderful presentation, thanks so much!
When you look at it from the perspective of a photon then it becomes clear.
Because the transformation of a Photons spacetime to the spacetime of a viewer, who doesn't move in relative speeds, breaks causality.
This means:
A Photon reaches its destination while it is emitted.
But what happens when an object moves between the emitter and the destination?
If you want to solve this causality problem then you end by a string between the emitter and the destination. Because the Photon is on every place along this string in its own spacetime.
Although it has a certain position in our view.
This creates a wave of possibility that collapses during the measurement.
Interesting perspective
This was fantastic and very well presented. Flavour!
Very good. Thank you. Very well structured and explained. Best TH-cam vid on qm I've seen to date.
The real need for qm was to link the statistical mechanics of thermodynamics with the wave equations of electromagnetism, in a light bulb.
Great talk! Thx Jim! Makes me want to read your books.
What this always suggested to me was that there was something fundamental we still don't understand about the nature of time - statistics being the study of behaviour over time. When looking at individual photons they seem to behave like a particle, but when we factor in time i.e looking at behaviour of multiple photons over time, we see wave-like behaviour. This is as far as I got before my brain turned to mush lol
@Dirk Knight I understand the semantics of it, but at a core level, I'm still baffled. Hahaha.
Thank you very much for the broad yet careful strokes of the picture you paint here. FWIW, my personal favourite is a network of "subspace" wormholes at the Planck scale which connects entangled particles.
Thank you so much for this awesome video!
Excellent - thank you for this
Thanks for a fascinating lecture.
Incredible content, very informative. Thank you so much The Ri.
Very good stuff, I love to see philosophy and science merged in this way
THERE IS ONE RELIGION THAT IS MORE CLOSER TO AND USING SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
Great presentation thanks Jim
Thank you. Excellent talk.
Loved this vid. A nice summery accesable and enjoyable x
This message will self destruct when you look at it, Good luck Jim 👍
After an hour of a very well presented lecture I still have no clue. I don't care though - I enjoyed the ride and it didn't cost me a cent.
Jim's lectures are always a pleasure to watch.
I'm going for a third watch to see if I finally get it:)
@@dasanjos please tell me if it worked. Then I'll give it an other try or eight (-:
Google some videos about applied theory and probabilities. Quantum computing etc.
Well in this particular aspect there is less to it than meets the eye.
Real quantum mechanics is concerned with the development of particles to each other in terms of levels of material reality. Entanglement apparently demonstrates that entangled particles can communicate over distance without any form of material connection at any level - ie through empty space. So quantum theory attempts to discover how relationships between particle entities actually express some form of intentionality.
This question doesn’t seem to be being addressed at all in this lecture. He seems to be focused simply on aspects of function without noting their significance. And indeed some things classified as observation aren’t observation at all. Just presumptions ( he calls them assumptions).
We do know the answers to all these questions, but as he pointed out physicists are very uncomfortable in metaphysical reality so they just continue rummaging about in material levels fooling themselves that quantum levels go beyond material level, which, in themselves, they don’t.
No, I wasn't relieved to reach the end. I've enjoyed this very much. And I'm so happy you agree with me about the many worlds theory! Yay!!!
Bravo....rapt for the entire hour. Thx so much.
Me too! Book is now on order.
Jim Baggott, a very likeable, honest guy. Maybe painfully honest. He sorts out woo woo physics from stone cold reality. Unexplained phenomena and unanswered questions are not a just cause to go metaphysical. Thank you, Sir.
We will have to go metaphysical, if one day we decide to go further on understanding this reality. What Jim says honestly here is that we even dont know what matter really is ( colapse of the wave fuction).
On the other end the essence of our reality is immaterial ( information) from our mind to the DNA code. So you cant measure or grasp immaterial things with material measurement systems.
See the point?
@@InfinityBlue4321 What JB explained is reasonable, what you say is not. Back it up with some real science and get back to us.
@@emasolie4135 😂 Real science?!? I'm still laughing loudly ... it happens that I'm a real scientist knowing the limits of the fundamental sciences... your answer shows what is going on around on sciences: make believe. Its not the case for Jim Baggott, as he honestly usually states which theories have or not empirical evidence or put in another way: are only a belief. Or better put: are only hipothesys not theories. Like many others theories that are sold as validated real science. So Ema its you who have to burn the midnight oil before even trying to understand what I wrote... for which in this particular case its seems you dont have a clue... so a litle of humility will not do you arm. When you dont know, you can allways ask first...
@@InfinityBlue4321 Jim Baggot presented a discussion which made sense and which I appreciated. If you want to add to or interpret his comments you need to make your own TH-cam presentation and publish it. Who are you anyway? (rhetorical).
Bravo! Much enjoyed.
Nick Bone's. Connecting to the Tail's Bone's. I had watch your lecture
of Quantum in Nature, as well as the Gravitational Wave and Quantum Mechanics. It was wonderful.-Thank you Jim Baggott
Another superb talk, thank you so much ☺️
Thanks for the video
I think your metaphor for scientific theorising is terrific.
Jim, you are a quantum phenomenon. Listening to you feels like an eternity.
It was a loop
Best overview of quantum mechanics I have ever seen. Brilliant.
Why are you telling us that you haven't seen much about quantum mechanics? :-)
Once we develop either a thorough pilot wave theory or a fluid dynamic model we can teach it in elementary school.
A big thing is reframing c as Planck/t. And that gravity is density of space. Thus gravitational lensing is simple refraction and refraction in materials directly linked to material being compacted space.
Thank you! Best Lessons! Dr. Alcir Vogel, Ms.C
There is so much to know out there that we simply cannot say what is real...yet ...perhaps we never will find the bottom..or we will find out that we were mistaken about some basic things that we didn't know that we didn't know...I believe that knowledge is infinite...everything we learn uncovers many more we need to know in order to fully understand...and so it goes forever
What an excellent speaker
A very enjoyable talk. And I now better understand how Bell’s Inequality is related to Einstein’s challenge. This is not my field by any means, but I enjoy thinking about the implications of these theories. I found this today after doing some web look ups spawned by damages caused by Hurricane Harvey, but like Alice I fell into a rabbit hole that lead from my original lookup to this video through a refrigeration patent among other things. Thank you.
This is excellent, thanks, even soothing. Of course I'm still trying to come up with an answer and I think there is plenty of evidence that we will some day, as we develop more and more technology, like using it against itself to unravel it. I'd love to know did we come up with such dilemmas in the past maybe even about how the earth moved around the sun. There are mysteries everywhere in the cosmos, e.g. dark matter. As we gather them all in we'll find more things. But most importantly I hope our quest never ends. Now I'm closing my mind down for repairs. ....from Ireland.
Incredible lecture
I thought it was credible.
As an interested bystander watching Quantum Mechanics; what would be the path of the math's I would need to gain a better understanding? Starting from the first year university level.
Thanks!
Great explanations in plain English!
Question concerning entangled particles: How could we possibly pinpoint the location of both partners in an entangled pair? If - by virtue of knowing a particle's spin we automatically know the spin direction of its entangled partner (and considering the idea that they may be an arbitrary distance apart) - how could we verify that when we could never really know where the "other" particle is?
It seems like there would be an unfathomably large number of possible partners in the universe and we'd never be able to say "these are the two that are an entangled with each other). Or is it that particles are entangled only under certain experimental conditions? This has always puzzled me.
They are entangled under special conditions and then observed.
Once you make the measurement you determine it's position and spin. Until then they are in superposition state.
Excellent.
Can time speed up so that the electron actually behaves like a wave? (small scales).
The electron is everywhere until messured?
Periodically we all need to do these reviews of our science and philosophy to sail ⛵ 😀 the ship of consciousness. Good presentation.
Seriously, my choice is simulation from the bottoms up.
Very interesting and uncanny. Thank you very much
Excellent
he really is confident in knowing what other people may have thought^^
clever people like Jim would be the first to admit that they lack what people such as Einstein Dirac schroedinger planck heisenberg ......
Coffee because I like my physics videos first thing in the morning. =)
What is the name of the script font you used for quoting the physicists?
I love the quantum mechanics. It's the magic that we need to find the trick behind.
It is similar to our ancestors wondering about basic physical phenomena.
You might scoff at the many-worlds hypothesis, but it must be admitted that it's the interpretation which makes the least number of assumptions while still explaining everything we observe. Opponents usually use the fact that the infinitude of "alternate realities" can't be observed to argue against it, but that is after all exactly what the hypothesis predicts.
Yeah every other class of interpretation requires additional assumptions and worse they tend to treat the observer as somehow divorced from quantum mechanics even though they are composed of I think there is one potential nuance in the typical view of many worlds namely the assumption that the "many worlds" are independent rather than a reference frame bias.
There is a hidden assumption that the past is always definite but there are experiments which question this assumption namely the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment which seems to suggest that if there are "many worlds" they aren't as independent as they appear. These "worlds" thus can recombine. Even if many worlds doesn't turn out to be the final answer it definitely seems the closest to matching observations.
Personally I have gotten interested in Stephen Wolfram's (thus far incomplete) computational formalism or rather the possible set of testable predictions and small number of assumptions thus far. The way the Feynman path integral of quantum mechanics naturally emerges as dimensions in a possibility space which like conventional space obeys the Einstein field equations is very intriguing definitely something to watch and naturally defines a number of long held vague concepts which lack specific definitions like Energy, angular momentum and the amplitude and phase of the wave function which if I am understanding correctly acts sort of like the space like and time like components of the Einstein field equation metric. I'm not fully convinced but it certainly looks more promising than typical quantum mechanics interpretations since it isn't assumed and rather emerges on its own. The less assumptions needed to accurately explain reality the more likely something is to be more correct as science asymptotically approaches the truth.
@Dirk Knight: yes, the many-worlds hypothesis simply assumes the existence of the wave function and adds no further complications of collapse or hidden variables; in contrast, the other interpretations all assume the existence of the wave function in addition to a variety of other assumptions. As I pointed out however, our experience of reality is exactly what one would expect under the many-worlds hypothesis, since we would be entangled with our specific branch at any given point; thus it really is the most parsimonious interpretation.
Also, your notion of the model is incorrect; no universes are ever created in it, the wave function in its entirety is assumed to exist from the beginning. The result is essentially a Parmenidian fractal block universe where every self-consistent experience is possible.
@Dirk Knight except there are no "new universes" only one universe from different reference frames unless you want to argue that every perspective is its own universe they are fundamentally different assertions. Paths can split but as a ball thrown into the air must come back down they must rejoin eventually. Each "branch in a many worlds type split isn't a separate universe but a reference frame we are embedded within. Just as different sides of a sphere can look quite different every perspective is different but they are all viewing the same object in principal. We are just embedded within this "sphere" and thus blind to all other frames of reference
Hugh...
I enjoyed watching Jim live via the free registration, and I enjoyed it again just now. Great stuff!
I like your presentation and the question you pose on way to go.
This tempts me to ask you to look at two presentations I have on TH-cam on:
1) unmasking reality in the universe
2) A joint rigorous, scientific and philosophical view of the universe
As Prof. Of Analytical/Theoretical Chemistry, I was tempted to come up with these thoughts. As a great physicist, what is your take?
The Royal Institution, and the brilliant academic contributors offer something truly valuable with these lectures.
Thank you.
This is an excellent presentation of the subject and history quantum mechanics. Well done.
I don't understand why it is so hard to imagine a tiney particle, or any moving object, moving in random, probableistic motions, but returns to its original trajectory and final target, like a curve ball? And of course, if I put out the catchers mitt, it stops the motion of the ball and there is no more curve trajectory. Also how much energy of the wave is lost when it squeezes thru the slits, Yes I see the wave again, in a semicircle of the wave, but does that have the same energy as the wave before the slit?
😲Wow, many thanks
I think it passes through the slit one part of it is enough to remember it's part. It remembers where it would be and touches those parts .. iam not quite there.. but its intresting very ..
Me and TIQM and the wine are feeling mellow.
If I could go through the Two Slits on the Screen at the same time, then I would. So I guess the reason that particles go through the two slits as a wave is, that they can ! ! ! Its a more interesting result = perhaps more interesting / fun. I saw a Physicist doing this ( the two slit experiment ) with a big card board box out on the streets = a sort of diy / Heath Robinson effort ! The different bands / Stripes seemed to have different colour wavelengths in this method which just made it more interesting / beautiful
Greatly admire this speech. Can you make a speech about Quantum Weak measurements? (Thank you)
Great lecture!
Can someone explain the derivation of the probabilities for experiment 1, 2 and 3 if hidden variables are at work using those detector orientations.
The best I can offer, a year after you asked the question, is that according to the realist view, the Hunt is never satisfied.
Why are quantum's experiment results (P1-3) the %'s given? Where did they come from?
I believe that a wave collapses when there is an interaction that causes it to transfer its momentum. So, the cat lived or died just happened as is. Whenever one opens the box, one will learn of the outcome.Before that one doesn’t know but it has already happened/determined.
Even "observing" costs energy...
Thank you for this video sir.
Indeed I did watch with a glass of wine to hand :-)
There is something confusing about the Bell experiment interpretation : it is described as if there is a unique classical description of reality in which both results of the measurement coexist, hence the non locality. But this is not the only way to describe it : within the quantum formalism, experimenter A can see the experimenter B as an extension of the entangled quantum system, getting B's measurement is equivalent to measuring the system directly.
There is no breach in locality if you see things this way , you have an observer relative description of reality instead : from the point of view of A/B, B/A does not have a definite result before contact is made. It does not solve the underlying question of the nature of classical information within a quantum world, but for me this way of looking at things seems to be a bit nicer.
if electrons flow and pool then why may they not eddy? Maybe as the electron approaches the partial barrier it tends to move towards one or the other slit but the interference doesn't completely block the path and the electron flows fluidly through, not directly. If we could trace the path of the electron, I believe, we would see the electron swirl and eddy before it hits it's destination.
Around 11 minutes in, I started thinking about why the wave pattern accumulates even when sending individual particles. Could it be that electrons do not experience time? It reminds me of a diff eq whose direction fields on a t-y axis all the same for all t given a y value. Either that, or I am completely off the mark and the phenomenon is purely statistical. Any comments are welcome!
Very clear and enlightening!
Could it be - that the many worlds option could be added to the consciousness collapsing the probability option crating worlds that can only fall within the possibilities available at each 'split' point of Many Worlds - but where the only one that exists is the one which has observers in it. This would keep the multiplicity of worlds but reduce the numbers radically.
I see you do the "I give up" Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) jab at Sean Carroll.
I think the Evererettian view is merely an objectively simple interpretation of the Schrödinger equation, and as such makes no assumption about what happens to the wave and it's "supposed collapse".
Greatly admire the discreet way Simulation Theory got in. It is still a no-go for a physicist to add sim to QM interpretations.
Can you make a speak about Quantum Weak measurements. (Thank you)
The video and voice are no longer entangled towards the end 😒
time dilation in action 😁
Discovering how fast quarks/subatomic particles spin/vibrate/pulsate is saying that everything everywhere is constantly being created billions of times a second. That is so fast that we don't even realize it, but it has to be true. That is why we ARE magical and so is the rest of existence.
27:09 Acoustic radiation
Regarding getting to grips with quantum mechanics,......every now and then the penny drops. Today was a good day.....
So If particles don't have time.Maybe they are affected by things in it past and future but all we only detect what happening in are time.If there in all times maybe they affect each other making them act like a wave.Yet all we see is the particles.Something like a 4th dimension where you see all the past and future,and the only moving part you can see clear would be are now.The Fuzzy parts spread out to make the wave.What we see is the particles in are now.That we think of as time. Just a thought a had daydream of you talk.I like any thoughts you have on this.
I dont understand all the fuzz about the collapsing wave function. If its just a probabilty function describing the path of electrons then each follows that function and gives an outcome. No one talks about collapsing a probability function, when you throw a die and it rolls three.
William White - The outcome of the dice roll is determined, I’d suggest; but not readily or reliably predictable at all - at least, not by mere mortals like us (ie us non-Laplace Demon types ...) ... ... ... if we can’t readily do this with a dice, what makes us think we can accurately perceive/measure/interpret much the same/these experiments with photons and/or electrons ... ?!?!!! 🧐
William White ... There is no such thing as “random”; only ‘not readily predictable’. I agree that the dice roll is not random; what made you think I don’t ... ?!!
William White ... Stochastic (or seemingly random) is not random ... just not readily predictable.
I absolutely believe in weirdness of QM because without it the universe can not be so diverse and complex . The world would have been so simple like rock to living organism.
Great review!
19 mins, no Jim, philosophers like uncertainty, engineers like propositions, and artists like propositions, philosophers like, are at home in Charybdis, you Jim, like Scylla. 😊
Quantum mechanics. Theory, meaning, workings and the future applications.
This is great.
I always thought Jim Baggott was American for some reason :). Good lecture!
Is a mirage or what its called fata morgana an appearance that appear?
I luv this vid
perfect
57:08 how did you know I was finishing my wine?
Spooky action at at distance!
I just realized I'm the 1000th like!
Hello. I am having trouble getting my head around the double-slit experiment. Here is my confusion. Electrons act as both particle and wave, and an interference pattern is produced. Within the pattern, why are the dots not constantly going on or off, seemingly changing position, but ramaining within the defined probability? In other words, if you were to look close enough, you should see a world teaming with movement.
You think that's confusing. Try Schrodinger's Cat, that will rely brain your damage.
@@philipmcdonagh1094 Not really. Schroedinger's cat was a nonsensical way to argue against nonsense.