I'm not a physicist but have studied philosophy (graduate degree in the h umanties) and this reminds me, this argument around the "copies of me", or multiverse, of 18th century metaphysics...rationalism specifically...not much has changed it seems to me regarding this relationship between 'consciousness' and the world, and the issues Kant took on in his "critique of Reason"...
For the sake of reason I would think that every part of the (proposed) mega-universe which is (recursively) either directly or via some intermedia point indirectly connected to us (as to say: within our past or future light cone) can be called part of our universe. Outside of that (a "parallel" universe in the literal sense, having no such connection) would have to be ignored however. So "the universe" in total is a topological connected whole.
Two big problems: 1) Schrodinger's Cat fallacy. The cat is not entangled with the system. The quantum part of the system is isolated to the radioactive part only. If you want a quantum cat it must be made entirely of atoms in the same quantum state. 2) 0:17:12 the illustration with the two parallel world lines of cards, well, each of the two lines would themselves need two world lines, and these, two each also, ad infinitum, so we would never get to our specific world because the infinite amount of time before hand.
+Steve Bergman No, he was right. The cat is not part of the system, as in it's not in a superpositioned state, and yes it is also about entanglement, in that you can know everything about the system and yet know nothing about any of the parts.
What's weird is when you stop talking about the very small and replace it by the very big, like a cat or someone living in another universe. Then QM loses all the beautiful significances. The whole universe is a single probability wave function (infinite Hilbert space) and everything in it has one unitary evolution. The universe is a QC function self-organizing, self-error correcting, algorithm unknown, self-simulating, tackling complexity and decoherence, fine tuned, infinite dimensional and deterministic, creating life with perfection and with probability one. Life is also a QC function.
***** In terms of parallel selves, we have no idea how different or similar they can be. But I hope none of them are serial killing kittens by stuffing them into dangerous boxes, and going by the handle "The Schrodinger Slayer" "The more I learn, the less I know" The greatest scientists have said the same thing, it's just a sign that you are reading :)
John von Neumann ( 1903 - 1957 ) Hungarian-American Physicist, Mathematician, Contributions to Game Theory, Economics, and Pioneering Computer Scientist.
They still want things to exist without them observing or being aware of it's existence... We are a form of AI. They just don't want to get that a non computed universe/reality/simulation IS the paradox, and so can't be.
Physics is the science of measurement, of probability, in which no matter how close to absolute certainty the results of measurement may approach, there will always be some relative proportion of uncertainty, and that is the actual reality, because the quantum principle of a unit vector of probability-position is simultaneously rational and irrational now-forever. So the set of quantified qualities sufficient to satisfy the appropriate degree of certainty, that's what continues to evolve in constant change and is a unique combination of wave characteristics within the whole. To borrow from electronics, every integration of information in the universe operates at a unique "quiescent" value dependant on everything else, so although atoms in a crystal operate "in parallel", none are perfectly identical even at absolute zero and they are equivalent real phased-projections of one probability objective, QFT, not illusory states of separate objects. Ie like eddy currents synchronized with the same matrix of information.
just because qed is the best currently known theory doesn't mean its the reality of our world, be very carefull in your conclusions specially if you have no good clue what you are talking about. Remember qed has the best prediction but also the worst in science history which suggest that it is an aproximation of the reality and not true reality.
OK? It will always be an example of practical physics. Why do "people who know what they're talking about" make the same judgement about the mysteries of "separate" systems in spite of the most obvious phase connection of phenomena? Ie there's no absolute regulations that demarcate the separate boundaries of science and philosophy, or isolate qed from anything else. I don't know what "they" are talking about, if there's a separate logic to that defined naturally by the QM-TIME concept of connection. It's OK to have separate languages for displaced examples of phenomena, but the repeatable experiment by which evidence is accumulated probabalisticly, has to use the same principles.
@@samirrimas every theory is an approximation subject to change and I think most of it is a gross approximation and we know that is a small fraction of whatever is out there...- for example dark matter, which showed that most of the matter is undetermined, and it shows how little of reality we can so far observe. what we may observe is limited also by the speed of light; within those very significant constraints what we may observe or detect is barely been touched, and all going to be completely revised, or tossed out in time [assuming the human race survives and its a good possibility it wont].
The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to chemical bond, and a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. See pp. 88 - 104 Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond. The Pauli exclusion principle - this is the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integral spin) can not simultaneously be in the same quantum state. Wolfgang Pauli, a Swiss theoretical physicist, formulated this principle in 1925 [1]. In chemistry exactly Pauli exclusion principle often considered as a ban on the existence of three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5, but it can be shown that Pauli exclusion principle does not prohibit the existence of three-electron bonds. To do this, analyze the Pauli exclusion principle in more detail. According to Pauli exclusion principle in a system consisting of identical fermions, two (or more) particles can not be in the same states [2]. The corresponding formulas of the wave functions and the determinant are given in the reference (this is a standard consideration of the fermion system), but we will concentrate our attention on the derivation: "... Of course, in this formulation, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to systems of weakly interacting particles, when one can speak (at least approximately on the states of individual particles) "[2]. That is, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to weakly interacting particles, when one can talk about the states of individual particles. But if we recall that any classical chemical bond is formed between two nuclei (this is a fundamental difference from atomic orbitals), which somehow "pull" the electrons one upon another, it is logical to assume that in the formation of a chemical bond, the electrons can no longer be regarded as weakly interacting particles . This assumption is confirmed by the earlier introduced notion of a chemical bond as a separate semi-virtual particle (natural component of the particle "parts" can not be weakly interacting). Representations of the chemical bond given in the chapter "The Principle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Chemical Bond" categorically reject the statements about the chemical bond as a system of weakly interacting electrons. On the contrary, it follows from the above description that in the chemical bond, the electrons "lose" their individuality and "occupy" the entire chemical bond, that is, the electrons in the chemical bond "interact as much as possible", which directly indicates the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to the chemical bond. Moreover, the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in momentum and coordinate, in fact, strictly indicates that in the chemical bond, electrons are a system of "maximally" strongly interacting particles, and the whole chemical bond is a separate particle in which there is no place for the notion of an "individual" electron, its velocity, coordinate, energy, etc., description. This is fundamentally not true. The chemical bond is a separate particle, called us "semi-virtual particle", it is a composite particle that consists of individual electrons (strongly interacting), and spatially located between the nuclei. Thus, the introduction of a three-electron bond with a multiplicity of 1.5 is justified from the chemical point of view (simply explains the structure of the benzene molecule, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic substances, etc.) is confirmed by the Pauli exclusion principle and the logical assumption of a chemical bond as system of strongly interacting particles (actually a separate semi-virtual particle), and as a consequence the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to a chemical bond. 1. Pauli W. Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen in Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, - Z. Phys., 1925, 31, 765-783. 2. A.S. Davydov. Quantum mechanics. Second edition. Publishing house "Science". Moscow, 1973, p. 334. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond. For further analysis of chemical bond, let us consider the Compton wavelength of an electron: λc.е. = h/(me*c)= 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m The Compton wavelength of an electron is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the electron itself (the standard conclusion is given below): λ = h/(m*v), E = h*γ, E = me*c^2, c = γ*λ, γ = c/λ E = h*γ, E = h*(c/λ) = me*c^2, λc.е. = h/(me*c) where λ is the Louis de Broglie wavelength, me is the mass of the electron, c, γ is the speed and frequency of light, and h is the Planck constant. It is more interesting to consider what happens to an electron in a region with linear dimensions smaller than the Compton wavelength of an electron. According to Heisenberg uncertainty in this area, we have a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of at least m*c and a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy of at least me*c^2 : Δp ≥ mе*c and ΔE ≥ me*c^2 which is sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in such a region the electron can no longer be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) spends part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)". As a result of the above, an electron at distances smaller than the Compton length is a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom and its interaction should be described within the framework of quantum field theory. Most importantly, the transition to the intermediate state "electron + pair (positron + electron)" carried per time ~ λc.е./c Δt = λc.е./c = 2.4263 * 10^(-12)/(3*10^8) = 8.1*10^(-20) s Now we will try to use all the above-mentioned to describe the chemical bond using Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To do this, let's make one assumption: suppose that the wavelength of an electron on a Bohr orbit (the hydrogen atom) is the same Compton wavelength of an electron, but in another frame of reference, and as a result there is a 137-times greater Compton wavelength (due to the effects of relativity theory): λc.е. = h/(me*c) = 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m λb. = h/(me*v)= 2*π*R = 3.31*10^(-10) m λb./λc.е.= 137 where R= 0.527 Å, the Bohr radius. Since the De Broglie wavelength in a hydrogen atom (according to Bohr) is 137 times larger than the Compton wavelength of an electron, it is quite logical to assume that the energy interactions will be 137 times weaker (the longer the photon wavelength, the lower the frequency, and hence the energy ). We note that 1 / 137.036 is a fine structure constant, the fundamental physical constant characterizing the force of electromagnetic interaction was introduced into science in 1916 year by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld as a measure of relativistic corrections in describing atomic spectra within the framework of the model of the N. Bohr atom. To describe the chemical bond, we use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx * Δp ≥ ћ / 2 Given the weakening of the energy interaction 137 times, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in the form: Δx* Δp ≥ (ћ * 137)/2 According to the last equation, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of an electron in a chemical bond must be at least me * c, and the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy is not less than me * c ^ 2, which should also be sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in the field of chemical bonding, in this case, an electron can not be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) will spend part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)", and therefore its interaction should be described in the framework of quantum field theory. This approach makes it possible to explain how, in the case of many-electron chemical bonds (two-electron, three-electron, etc.), repulsion between electrons is overcome: since the chemical bond is actually a "boiling mass" of electrons and positrons, virtual positrons "help" overcome the repulsion between electrons. This approach assumes that the chemical bond is in fact a closed spatial bag (a potential well in the energy sense), in which "boiling" of real electrons and also virtual positrons and electrons occurs, and the "volume" of this potential bag is actually a "volume" of chemical bond and also the spatial measure of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the position of the electron. Strictly speaking, with such a consideration, the electron no longer has a certain energy, momentum, coordinates, and is no longer a "point particle", but actually takes up the "whole volume" of chemical bonding. It can be argued that in the chemical bond a single electron is depersonalized and loses its individuality, in fact it does not exist, but there is a "boiling mass" of real electrons and virtual positrons and electrons that by fluctuate change each other. That is, the chemical bond is actually a separate particle, as already mentioned, a semi-virtual particle. Moreover, this approach can be extended to the structure of elementary particles such as an electron or a positron: an elementary particle in this consideration is a fluctuating vacuum closed in a certain spatial bag, which is a potential well for these fluctuations. See pp. 88 - 104. Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Classical Musicians achieve their qualification and reputation by the interpretation of existing "studies" in sound. QM interpretation is much the same, there's nothing to say against a performance other than you think the full potential of the exposition was limited, and that could be intentional anyway. In essence, it's attempting to describe sound in principle by performance and the same goes for time, which is included incidentally, by presenting states of timing; relative rates of the principle of change. Or to put ot another way, I'm quite certain of my limitations, sufficient to know it's only possible to report what you see and leave the rest to the persons who have put actual repeatable results of testing together, that are tested, and have a real application. "It's the way you look at it", and that's mostly cultural. Perhaps music critics should (objectively), qualify as Mathematicians before forming judements about the sound, independent of the instrumentalists presentation? Because it's the scientific process.
As a Muslim I get to be half Copenhagenist and half Everretian. Conscious observation does play and important part in the universe but there are many worlds too. The split is the collapse and that's what determines the real world from the not-so-real worlds.
What is easier fluctuating a brain or fluctuating a universe(or eternal inflation and many expensive universes Everett interpretation) and galaxies and planets and brains? Boltzmann believes it's easier to just fluctuate a brain with all your experiences, and current experience is still fluctuating. If you are a god why fluctuate a universe from primordial quantum fluctuations, when you can just fluctuate a brain, lazy god argument. I don't believe in god, but I would just fluctuate a brain(lazy god).
athest need understand angst diddling face perplex try find anser to universe riddler. we alredy got the nowledge and do invite to warm embrace cretor wisdem.
clearly, this guy is not a philosopher. His attempt at grasping reality are shockingly weak for a guy with his proffession. Incredible that some fields of academia gets so entirely derailed, that it's possible to have professors like that.
I'm not a physicist but have studied philosophy (graduate degree in the h umanties) and this reminds me, this argument around the "copies of me", or multiverse, of 18th century metaphysics...rationalism specifically...not much has changed it seems to me regarding this relationship between 'consciousness' and the world, and the issues Kant took on in his "critique of Reason"...
who was it that said around kant's time, the universe is an idea inside the mind of god.... something similar to that
Leibnitz, perhaps....but reason, especially understood in this way, has taken some pretty serious hits since the 17th and 18th centuries.
seintzeit yeah you’re not a physicist
I like the "Secret Sauce" - that's equivalent to Bohm's pilot wave interpretation.
Yay! No secret sauce required!
"No secret sauce on my burrito please."
For the sake of reason I would think that every part of the (proposed) mega-universe which is (recursively) either directly or via some intermedia point indirectly connected to us (as to say: within our past or future light cone) can be called part of our universe. Outside of that (a "parallel" universe in the literal sense, having no such connection) would have to be ignored however. So "the universe" in total is a topological connected whole.
Two big problems: 1) Schrodinger's Cat fallacy. The cat is not entangled with the system. The quantum part of the system is isolated to the radioactive part only. If you want a quantum cat it must be made entirely of atoms in the same quantum state. 2) 0:17:12 the illustration with the two parallel world lines of cards, well, each of the two lines would themselves need two world lines, and these, two each also, ad infinitum, so we would never get to our specific world because the infinite amount of time before hand.
+Steve Bergman No, he was right. The cat is not part of the system, as in it's not in a superpositioned state, and yes it is also about entanglement, in that you can know everything about the system and yet know nothing about any of the parts.
What's weird is when you stop talking about the very small and replace it by the very big, like a cat or someone living in another universe. Then QM loses all the beautiful significances. The whole universe is a single probability wave function (infinite Hilbert space) and everything in it has one unitary evolution. The universe is a QC function self-organizing, self-error correcting, algorithm unknown, self-simulating, tackling complexity and decoherence, fine tuned, infinite dimensional and deterministic, creating life with perfection and with probability one. Life is also a QC function.
yeah, you are right it can be simpler if bigger, especially if everything is just a near infinite random walk
Damn, I love this video.
How are you choosing which room each boy goes into? Randomly, of course. Your non-randomness analogy requires randomness.
This is really good stuff.
Lithian Haim Yes, one almost can taste it.
Who is this Simon and where is his lecture?
+Larry Beckham I found it! Search for 9gM-sgmCuik. He is Simon Saunders and Max was there. The last part is J57LJalVz1A.
+Larry Beckham His name seems to be "Simon Tomorrow"! LOL
When the princess kisses the frog, does the frog wave colapse into a prince? That makes as much sense to me as Copenhagen.
I am the Count and I love to count .....
The more I learn, the less I know. I wonder if that is true for all of my superpositions?
***** In terms of parallel selves, we have no idea how different or similar they can be. But I hope none of them are serial killing kittens by stuffing them into dangerous boxes, and going by the handle "The Schrodinger Slayer"
"The more I learn, the less I know" The greatest scientists have said the same thing, it's just a sign that you are reading :)
John von Neumann ( 1903 - 1957 )
Hungarian-American Physicist, Mathematician, Contributions to Game Theory, Economics, and Pioneering Computer Scientist.
Informational. It's just tracking what we know about the system. Take Sebastian Thrun's intro to AI course at Stanford and you'll see what's going on.
YES.
They still want things to exist without them observing or being aware of it's existence... We are a form of AI. They just don't want to get that a non computed universe/reality/simulation IS the paradox, and so can't be.
You don't here the emense amount of problems from max. Check out Paul steinhart.
59:32 If you don't like many worlds go to another universe where there are no parallel universes 😂
haha
Good video!
Physics is the science of measurement, of probability, in which no matter how close to absolute certainty the results of measurement may approach, there will always be some relative proportion of uncertainty, and that is the actual reality, because the quantum principle of a unit vector of probability-position is simultaneously rational and irrational now-forever. So the set of quantified qualities sufficient to satisfy the appropriate degree of certainty, that's what continues to evolve in constant change and is a unique combination of wave characteristics within the whole.
To borrow from electronics, every integration of information in the universe operates at a unique "quiescent" value dependant on everything else, so although atoms in a crystal operate "in parallel", none are perfectly identical even at absolute zero and they are equivalent real phased-projections of one probability objective, QFT, not illusory states of separate objects. Ie like eddy currents synchronized with the same matrix of information.
just because qed is the best currently known theory doesn't mean its the reality of our world, be very carefull in your conclusions specially if you have no good clue what you are talking about. Remember qed has the best prediction but also the worst in science history which suggest that it is an aproximation of the reality and not true reality.
OK? It will always be an example of practical physics. Why do "people who know what they're talking about" make the same judgement about the mysteries of "separate" systems in spite of the most obvious phase connection of phenomena? Ie there's no absolute regulations that demarcate the separate boundaries of science and philosophy, or isolate qed from anything else. I don't know what "they" are talking about, if there's a separate logic to that defined naturally by the QM-TIME concept of connection. It's OK to have separate languages for displaced examples of phenomena, but the repeatable experiment by which evidence is accumulated probabalisticly, has to use the same principles.
@@samirrimas every theory is an approximation subject to change and I think most of it is a gross approximation and we know that is a small fraction of whatever is out there...- for example dark matter, which showed that most of the matter is undetermined, and it shows how little of reality we can so far observe. what we may observe is limited also by the speed of light; within those very significant constraints what we may observe or detect is barely been touched, and all going to be completely revised, or tossed out in time [assuming the human race survives and its a good possibility it wont].
The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to chemical bond, and a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
See pp. 88 - 104 Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf
The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond.
The Pauli exclusion principle - this is the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integral spin) can not simultaneously be in the same quantum state.
Wolfgang Pauli, a Swiss theoretical physicist, formulated this principle in 1925 [1]. In chemistry exactly Pauli exclusion principle often considered as a ban on the existence of three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5, but it can be shown that Pauli exclusion principle does not prohibit the existence of three-electron bonds. To do this, analyze the Pauli exclusion principle in more detail.
According to Pauli exclusion principle in a system consisting of identical fermions, two (or more) particles can not be in the same states [2]. The corresponding formulas of the wave functions and the determinant are given in the reference (this is a standard consideration of the fermion system), but we will concentrate our attention on the derivation: "... Of course, in this formulation, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to systems of weakly interacting particles, when one can speak (at least approximately on the states of individual particles) "[2]. That is, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to weakly interacting particles, when one can talk about the states of individual particles.
But if we recall that any classical chemical bond is formed between two nuclei (this is a fundamental difference from atomic orbitals), which somehow "pull" the electrons one upon another, it is logical to assume that in the formation of a chemical bond, the electrons can no longer be regarded as weakly interacting particles . This assumption is confirmed by the earlier introduced notion of a chemical bond as a separate semi-virtual particle (natural component of the particle "parts" can not be weakly interacting).
Representations of the chemical bond given in the chapter "The Principle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Chemical Bond" categorically reject the statements about the chemical bond as a system of weakly interacting electrons. On the contrary, it follows from the above description that in the chemical bond, the electrons "lose" their individuality and "occupy" the entire chemical bond, that is, the electrons in the chemical bond "interact as much as possible", which directly indicates the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to the chemical bond. Moreover, the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in momentum and coordinate, in fact, strictly indicates that in the chemical bond, electrons are a system of "maximally" strongly interacting particles, and the whole chemical bond is a separate particle in which there is no place for the notion of an "individual" electron, its velocity, coordinate, energy, etc., description. This is fundamentally not true. The chemical bond is a separate particle, called us "semi-virtual particle", it is a composite particle that consists of individual electrons (strongly interacting), and spatially located between the nuclei.
Thus, the introduction of a three-electron bond with a multiplicity of 1.5 is justified from the chemical point of view (simply explains the structure of the benzene molecule, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic substances, etc.) is confirmed by the Pauli exclusion principle and the logical assumption of a chemical bond as system of strongly interacting particles (actually a separate semi-virtual particle), and as a consequence the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to a chemical bond.
1. Pauli W. Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen in Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, - Z. Phys., 1925, 31, 765-783.
2. A.S. Davydov. Quantum mechanics. Second edition. Publishing house "Science". Moscow, 1973, p. 334.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond.
For further analysis of chemical bond, let us consider the Compton wavelength of an electron:
λc.е. = h/(me*c)= 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m
The Compton wavelength of an electron is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the electron itself (the standard conclusion is given below):
λ = h/(m*v), E = h*γ, E = me*c^2, c = γ*λ, γ = c/λ
E = h*γ, E = h*(c/λ) = me*c^2, λc.е. = h/(me*c)
where λ is the Louis de Broglie wavelength, me is the mass of the electron, c, γ is the speed and frequency of light, and h is the Planck constant.
It is more interesting to consider what happens to an electron in a region with linear dimensions smaller than the Compton wavelength of an electron. According to Heisenberg uncertainty in this area, we have a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of at least m*c and a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy of at least me*c^2 :
Δp ≥ mе*c and ΔE ≥ me*c^2
which is sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in such a region the electron can no longer be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) spends part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)". As a result of the above, an electron at distances smaller than the Compton length is a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom and its interaction should be described within the framework of quantum field theory. Most importantly, the transition to the intermediate state "electron + pair (positron + electron)" carried per time ~ λc.е./c
Δt = λc.е./c = 2.4263 * 10^(-12)/(3*10^8) = 8.1*10^(-20) s
Now we will try to use all the above-mentioned to describe the chemical bond using Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To do this, let's make one assumption: suppose that the wavelength of an electron on a Bohr orbit (the hydrogen atom) is the same Compton wavelength of an electron, but in another frame of reference, and as a result there is a 137-times greater Compton wavelength (due to the effects of relativity theory):
λc.е. = h/(me*c) = 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m
λb. = h/(me*v)= 2*π*R = 3.31*10^(-10) m
λb./λc.е.= 137
where R= 0.527 Å, the Bohr radius.
Since the De Broglie wavelength in a hydrogen atom (according to Bohr) is 137 times larger than the Compton wavelength of an electron, it is quite logical to assume that the energy interactions will be 137 times weaker (the longer the photon wavelength, the lower the frequency, and hence the energy ). We note that 1 / 137.036 is a fine structure constant, the fundamental physical constant characterizing the force of electromagnetic interaction was introduced into science in 1916 year by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld as a measure of relativistic corrections in describing atomic spectra within the framework of the model of the N. Bohr atom.
To describe the chemical bond, we use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
Δx * Δp ≥ ћ / 2
Given the weakening of the energy interaction 137 times, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in the form:
Δx* Δp ≥ (ћ * 137)/2
According to the last equation, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of an electron in a chemical bond must be at least me * c, and the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy is not less than me * c ^ 2, which should also be sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs.
Therefore, in the field of chemical bonding, in this case, an electron can not be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) will spend part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)", and therefore its interaction should be described in the framework of quantum field theory.
This approach makes it possible to explain how, in the case of many-electron chemical bonds (two-electron, three-electron, etc.), repulsion between electrons is overcome: since the chemical bond is actually a "boiling mass" of electrons and positrons, virtual positrons "help" overcome the repulsion between electrons. This approach assumes that the chemical bond is in fact a closed spatial bag (a potential well in the energy sense), in which "boiling" of real electrons and also virtual positrons and electrons occurs, and the "volume" of this potential bag is actually a "volume" of chemical bond and also the spatial measure of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the position of the electron.
Strictly speaking, with such a consideration, the electron no longer has a certain energy, momentum, coordinates, and is no longer a "point particle", but actually takes up the "whole volume" of chemical bonding. It can be argued that in the chemical bond a single electron is depersonalized and loses its individuality, in fact it does not exist, but there is a "boiling mass" of real electrons and virtual positrons and electrons that by fluctuate change each other. That is, the chemical bond is actually a separate particle, as already mentioned, a semi-virtual particle. Moreover, this approach can be extended to the structure of elementary particles such as an electron or a positron: an elementary particle in this consideration is a fluctuating vacuum closed in a certain spatial bag, which is a potential well for these fluctuations.
See pp. 88 - 104. Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Max Tegmark looks like a gov't clone of Feynman.
Classical Musicians achieve their qualification and reputation by the interpretation of existing "studies" in sound. QM interpretation is much the same, there's nothing to say against a performance other than you think the full potential of the exposition was limited, and that could be intentional anyway. In essence, it's attempting to describe sound in principle by performance and the same goes for time, which is included incidentally, by presenting states of timing; relative rates of the principle of change.
Or to put ot another way, I'm quite certain of my limitations, sufficient to know it's only possible to report what you see and leave the rest to the persons who have put actual repeatable results of testing together, that are tested, and have a real application. "It's the way you look at it", and that's mostly cultural.
Perhaps music critics should (objectively), qualify as Mathematicians before forming judements about the sound, independent of the instrumentalists presentation? Because it's the scientific process.
The multiverse of the gaps...
What do you mean?
As a Muslim I get to be half Copenhagenist and half Everretian. Conscious observation does play and important part in the universe but there are many worlds too. The split is the collapse and that's what determines the real world from the not-so-real worlds.
Max is so cute. :)
+SkrootNissu Yoctomind Yes, he is!
Yes.
Isn't he just. I can't concentrate on what he's saying
Sometimes i wonder if physicists like the multi-verse theory, because it means that somewhere at sometime, they got laid.
^^^ True story.
what an ignorant comment
I'd just be raising my hand not knowing what he is even asking 🤭
this is one of his worst lectures and I still loves it - just too far over my head gives me lots of new terms and ideas to wiki
What is easier fluctuating a brain or fluctuating a universe(or eternal inflation and many expensive universes Everett interpretation) and galaxies and planets and brains? Boltzmann believes it's easier to just fluctuate a brain with all your experiences, and current experience is still fluctuating. If you are a god why fluctuate a universe from primordial quantum fluctuations, when you can just fluctuate a brain, lazy god argument. I don't believe in god, but I would just fluctuate a brain(lazy god).
Lmao many worlds #15 = disconnect with reality.
There is no proof of a multiverse
athest need understand angst diddling face perplex try find anser to universe riddler. we alredy got the nowledge and do invite to warm embrace cretor wisdem.
onlyonetoserve How exceptional !
he doesn't believe half this crap himself. 1 is less then -1/12
clearly, this guy is not a philosopher. His attempt at grasping reality are shockingly weak for a guy with his proffession. Incredible that some fields of academia gets so entirely derailed, that it's possible to have professors like that.
his Forte is more mathematical than philosophical but in other universes I'm sure his talk would be different lol
quick to judge there Max is a genius