What Is Entanglement Anyway? Chris Fields
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2015
- Entanglement or non-separability is the core idea of quantum theory. It is a simple idea: the universe is not a bunch of independent parts, but is rather one entity that evolves through time as one entity. That's it. The problem is that this means there's no such thing as causation. This is very hard to wrap your head around. Quantum theory is extraordinarily accurate, and our knowing quantum theory is why we have things like cell phones and computers. But what is quantum theory, really? Why is entanglement its primary prediction? This talk will explain what quantum theory is. I will show that quantum theory has nothing to do with tiny particles, wave-function collapse, or Schroedinger's cat. Quantum theory is about how observers obtain information about the world. It is, in particular, about how observers who have memories and use language obtain information about the world. It is, in other words, about how you and I interact with perfectly ordinary things like tables and chairs and each other. You will leave this talk with a new understanding of quantum theory, and a new appreciation for entanglement.
Chris Fields is an interdisciplinary information scientist interested in both the physics and the cognitive neuroscience underlying the human perception of objects as spatially and temporally bounded entities. His current research focuses on deriving quantum theory from classical information theory; he also works on cell-cell communication and cellular information processing, the role of the “unconscious mind” in creative problem solving, and early childhood development, particularly the etiology of autism-spectrum conditions. He and his wife, author and yoga teacher Alison Tinsley, recently published Meditation: If You’re Doing It, You’re Doing It Right, in which they explore the experience of meditation with meditators from many walks of life.
Dr. Fields has also been a volunteer firefighter, a visual artist, and a travel writer. He currently divides his time between Sonoma, CA and Caunes Minervois, a village in southwestern France.
More information and publications are available from chrisfieldsresearch.com
![[UNCUT]"เศรษฐา" โดนบีบให้ลาออก เผยดีลลับ "ทักษิณ" ต้องต่อโปร ไม่งั้นเจอจุดจบ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlH3k81dxmE/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting to think about the fact there is nothing special about observers, when we are so focussed on human observation as being so separate from nature
Have you ever done acid Tibees ? Just wondering, watching your videos for some months and you look like someone that could go very deep with a good trip =D
2/3rd of all brain activity comes from eyes. Grab a piece of vidual data that also happens to carry a quant of information (photon) = a photon observed. Historical terms. Ditch the nonsensical (esp. blah-blah stupid entities such as Jordan Peterson).
@@Bilangumus She has
Did you mean that it's interesting in the sense that we humans tend to see ourselves as somehow "seperate" from nature because we are conducting science _on_ nature? Personally, I find it odd that since special relativity an "observer" has simply referred to _any_ putative particle occupying _any_ possible coordinate in spacetime, and yet (at least as evidenced by the three questioners at the end) people still seem unable to extricate _themselves_ from occupying a central role whenever the term is employed. It's somewhat depressing that following a half hour lecture during which Chris focused on only one point - that designating oneself as a separate, extended, entity within spacetime is a purely arbitrary excercise, an "abstraction", an "imagination", an artifact of viewing the classical world as being somehow "real" as opposed to it being a "model" - that at least someone present didn't get the message. And Chris seemed somewhat deflated, too. Despite what he said, I don't think that he could have made the slides any more basic! Have a great day!
This is not a closed case. Quantum theory has a measurement problem. This is outlined in excellent detail by John Bell in his Physics World article, "Against measurement". There is current research in the foundations of physics that explores the nature of what constitutes a measurement based on the Wigner's friend paradox.
2/3rd's of the way through and already I have learned more from this lecture than any other on the subject-I've listened to dozens and dozens!
Thanks-new subscriber.
"We're all in a hidden camera show, isn't nice to know you're not alone. You're watching someone, someone's watching you. We're all caught in the loop, so give a wave and say hello..."
Such practical,sensible and elementary information here.I am no physicist or mathematician but this interpretation is really important for my basis of understanding and learning Quantum Entanglement.No magic,trickery or subatomic particles misbehaving,etc.We're consequently all just a part of the picture guys,no parentheses please.This video just made my day!!!My sincere appreciation!!!
Yes I get a lift on science,especially of the quantum kind if it makes sense!
He started off with saying " you better drop some acid if you want to understand this stuff". Well, he didn't say it exactly like that but we all get the idea.
This is essentially describing the classical backdrop we always had always assumed. If it can be used to resolve the paradoxes of entanglement we certainly didn't find out how in the talk.
This professor is a lisp programmer at heart
Clearly NOT... he has thrown away the parenthesis.
I relate it idealism philosophy that says only ideas exist. The way ideas do in fact seem to work, gives lends a perceived stability to our realm.
This is the best thing I ever saw on TH-cam. Thank you!!!
that was very interesting thanks for the lecture.
Are these slides available anywhere?
In the last argument about feynman diagram when he says that electron interacion is instantanious: Would that mean, that gravitational interaction would then also be instantanious? If sun stopped existing, would the Earth loose the gravitational pull instantaniously or over 8 minutes? I know that the answer is 8 minutes, but he says with electrons the interaction is instantanious. Or did I missunderstand this?
Wow! That parenthesis example was brilliant 👌🏼
Sarcasm I hope? Yes 🙂 ?
Anybody familiar with Zeno's paradoxes would have immediately "got" this wonderful talk. The reason that we can't make the archers arrow move through space or time is that there is no way to make sense of space or time _in_ spacetime! Or, to put it another way, spacetime makes no sense. And I say that as one of Einstein's biggest fans!
On another note, I find it odd that since special relativity an "observer" has simply referred to _any_ putative particle occupying _any_ possible coordinate in spacetime, and yet (at least as evidenced by the three questioners at the end) people still seem unable to extricate _themselves_ from occupying the central role whenever the term "observer" is employed.
It's somewhat depressing that following a half hour lecture during which Chris focused on only one point - that designating oneself as a separate, extended, physically individual entity within spacetime is a purely arbitrary excercise, an "abstraction", an "imagination", an artifact of viewing the classical world as being somehow "real" as opposed to it being a "model" - that at least someone present didn't get the message. And Chris seemed somewhat deflated, too. Despite what he said, I don't think that he could have made the slides any more lucid to apprehend!
Confusing, yes. Too vague to be of any use other than fun, definitely. And yet I can see some sincere, authentic, deep effort to understand. Too bad he got carried away by enthusiasm before reaching any solid conclusion.
So I was smoking peyote and grading papers and I had a vision in the smoke full of eyes and suddenly I realized all the parentheses didn't matter so I graded all the papers together and everyone in the class got 11,954 %. But I grade on a curve so it doesn't matter.
when you take your grade though your information transfer structure though local occurs at a particular boundary that is universal.
Your grade may not affect the grade of a student in taiwan but both together are evidence of a fundamental quality.
After all it takes two to entangle.
And one alone cannot observe.
It takes two to entangle.
I like that
No problem. Just observe and your rogue probability wave will collapse back to normal.
You listen like a barstool.
I see a parenthesis there
This lecture could also probably double for marital counseling.
I do so love the presentation. I can sense the passion in his message. As soon as he said remove all the parenthesis in the room (different object 'types'), I quickly found myself looking for the lowest common denominator as to a particle. I didn't settle on one heh- for a SPLIT second I settled on Higgs-Boson PRE MASS - where it merely has the POTENTIAL for mass as the 'smallest' so I could remove all parenthesis. I like the concept of 'alocality' vs 'non locality' where alocality hints of stepping outside any framework of space/time models. Easily put in words ! heh But maybe we need a model that can nullify space time, which would explain entanglement, because you'd be saying 'from THIS perspective- there is no space- therefore no distance between both qbits'
My current impression is that entanglement is a necessary consequence of two principles acting simultaneously: conservation and uncertainty. We have (for example) two particles whose angular momentum totals zero; at the same time, individually, the angular momentum is uncertain.
The heading of the video involves quantum entanglement. Is it me, or was that topic not covered very much? Are any of the subjects supposedly entangled?
The irony of "This is why physics is possible." being in parentheses makes me want to entangle my fist with the projector screen whilst Dr. Fields observes.
Best explanation/description I’ve seen. I mean, I actually managed to gain some sort of understanding of quantum entanglement. Might help if you understand his reference to philosophy/ solipsism.
Can I say that the mind is the boundary as the bridge between relative within and without, me and something else?
I really enjoyed this explanation. I have a mind for thought experiments but lack the formal mathematical education. However, I believe that allows me not to be limited by the structure. My personal speculation has been we are unable to find a unified theory because our math is based on outside third party observation. It's not until we create a form of looking from within will we possibly achieve a universal theory. I believe this lecture has confirmed my thought process. Thank you.
Thank you Chris-t FIELD , amazing synchronicity:-)😊
Interesting way of getting to the basics - finally I have a veil lifted on what physicists mean when they say 'information'. I am flabbergasted that no one has ever mentioned The No Signaling Theorem before. If it's right then that explains why there is information and entanglement. So why is it just a theorem? Also this is somewhat understandable when we are just talking about vision of the spatially separated. But not so easy with our other senses especially in close proximity. What if I get close to an observer and pick it (you) up. Do quantum mechanics then dissolve and classical physics take over?
Nice explanation!
It was very clear explanation. And yes on the fundamental level nothing happens I agree. Hierarchy and filtering are the keys of material world self processing. About memory - a state could be reptoducing with some aberration looply in others observers.
Chris did a good job. Thx for posting!
This is pure systems theory applied to observers, and so in itself is just a Systems interpretation or model of observers.
I like the idea of the boundary being the surface where the interactions are visible; a canvas in effect to be written on to.
It dovetails with the ideas of Katya Walter in her Theory Of Everything utilising the i-ching, and also the computation possible at this boundary which I am investigating.
Thanks. Interesting exposition.
I liked the concept of parentheses to explain observation. This is an interesting way to express a known idea: You could model an isolated physical system and its observer together as another isolated physical system, that is, "move the parenthesys" and then there is no observation or colapse of the wave function. But I don´t understand why he says that entanglement is not in contradiction with locality.
Definitely coincides with Carl young's concept that Ego consciousness is e·phem·er·al. Helps with connecting the dots
Thank you so much
In each subshell there are probablity patterns that can have only 2 e- in each orbital, spin up and spin down. Isn't this entanglement spin up then spin down? So, entanglement is in the orbitals of a scalable Universe
What about alain aspects experiment that supposedly proved spooky action?
@ Jacob: Did the photons have serial numbers on them?
Didn't think so...
So the existence is a model, and the reality that we experiment (or measure) is a rendering. Or the existence is a class (like in object oriented programming, a definition), and the reality is an instance of it at runtime?
Chris, if i am understanding parentheses correctly in your lecture, panpsychism could not be possible with parentheses? I am certain I am simplifying your argument. Parentheses equal boundaries? In other words, the prefrontal lobe has been highjacked sometime in the not too distant past, maybe about 16,500 years ago and parentheses were created simultaneously of acquiring the pathology of hoarding possessions and therefore boundries? In other words, 2 million years of the nomadic evolutionary model forging the non-parenthetical template was corrupted when we shifted into the sedentary year-around settlement paradigm 16,500 years ago where hoarding possessions began among other behaviors that created the parentheses? I know that I am expressing my understanding of your lecture in anthropological terms. But in terms of panpsychism how could we access our Universe with parentheses?
Wonderful lecture actually
In the book, "The Prophet" by Khalil Gibran, he illustrates the relationship you call Entanglement by placing a hand bet the couple that comes up from the earth (space) to show their difference and their connection or oneness. A very good read, by the way
Please if anyone with the knowledge could be so kind, I hope to get a response to this: If the axis of the spin of the first entangled particle is measured/ detected, forcing the opposite spin for the second entangled particle, what if a 0 or a 1 (binary code) is assigned, by the measuring device/ detector of the second particle, to a computer? And for every change in the spin measured of the first particle, the opposite 0 or 1 binary is then respectively assigned to by the detector of the second. Shouldn't we be capable, then, of building a computer with the technology to send information instantaneously and faster-than-light at any fathomable distance? Shouldn't this mean that information, coded in binary, could instantaneously travel across the world? The end of internet buffering? Couldn't this mean communication could instantaneously travel between astronauts in orbit and ground control on Earth? Couldn't data scanned by deep space probes onto computers then robotically alter the spin of these coded entangled particles aboard, providing faster-than-light data back to the Earth? Solar System and Space exploration statistics could reach us without delay, I would assume, should such a computer exist. Or is this already the basis for quantum computing?
This is very interesting talk - connecting quantum mechanics and information theory in this way.
I was wondering what if any conclusions could be made in a statistical sense by say averaging over all possible subsystems communicating with every other one? Would this give - I don't know - an average temperature of the universe? Could the total age of the universe impose some constraints on the maximum number of sub-components?
This cannot be done, unfortunately, with Feynmann Dyson Integrals. They can only compute what a regular computer (turing machine) would compute. And computers don't have any hunches or imagination.
+Carter Monroe In the case of Feynmann's brilliant work, all the hunches and imaginations came out of his incredible brain, which I dare say was the best brain ever designed by God.
Brings out the Heisenberg Principle "Whatever we observe we change".
Thanks for the play by play. What part of the game was that 4:20?
I had always thought that entanglement was a known predictive behavior between two quantum particles that had interacted with each other. The predictive behavior of the paired particle only occurs if and when an individual particle of the pair is measured.
"... when searching for harmony in life one must never forget that in the drama of existence we are ourselves both actors and spectators."
-Niels Bohr
this is the lecture I was looking for, scientifically skeptics at play, I like this
So, as i understand it
There exist an interaction between the observer and the observed (which are both physical systems) and that interaction is purely physical, thus cannot communicate classical information without making imaginary boundaries (set of parenthesis)..
Those boundaries exist only for an individual observer,therefore anything happening with the interaction of the other observer changes nothing with your interaction with your world (through the imaginary boundary)..
The only thing I dont understand is what he really means by "imaginary boundaries"
Are those some kind of system-specific ways of interacting with the world? and if they are, how do two boundaries interact? better way to put it..how do two observers share their world?
This is the most obscure and unintelligible delivery I've witnessed in a while. When it comes out with the consequence that interaction between a clock and an observer is impossible, that should be a red light. He's gone wrong.
I didn't even bother to watch, I got as far as half the audience apparently understand Quantum Mechanics, that was my red light we were in for 38:59 of BS.
@@kirkhamandy I noticed that but though maybe I didn't understand.
@ Holy: I adjusted a clock today while I was looking at it, so I'm right there with you...
In the derivation of Bell's Inequality, he posits a presumptive hidden variable, λ(x,t). One member of the twin particles has a position +x at time t, while the twin has a position -x at time t. But note that Bell blithely adopts a common master clock, t, so that λ(x,t) can be algebraically canceled out by λ(-x,t), regardless of the function λ(•).
If you appreciate that a gravitational gradient perturbs timekeeping so that the particles speeding off in opposite directions age at their own idiosyncratic rates, then one can no longer algebraically cancel out λ. The derivation of Bell's Inequality breaks down; the presumptive hidden variable λ(x,t) remains present. Indeed one can say the hidden variable is time itself. That is, in reality, each particle ages according to its own local clock, rather than being governed by a common master clock.
In Aspect's experiment, λ(x,t) could be Maxwell's Equation for the photon, or (equivalently) Feynman's rotating vectors. But recall that photons traversing a gravitational gradient gain or lose energy and thus change their wavelength (or color) accordingly. The two photons are thus represented by sinusoids which are not perfect mirrors of each other and thus cannot be algebraically canceled out. They will have a residual nonzero "beat frequency" which remains present, thus spoiling Bell's convenient cancellation of λ(x,t) midway through his derivation.
That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in the real cosmos where there is no universal master clock that keeps identical time everywhere and everywhen.
The not-so-hidden variable is time, itself.
An explanation into what Chris Fields was saying: For there to be an explanation of what an observer says he sees he must first say he sees it relative to what he doesn’t see but only if that which is observed is only visible to others who are not looking at it at the precise time it disappears and can then not be observed again without taking acid.
Last year I couldn’t even spell fissacist and this year I are one.
Very nice
Seemed like a rather LONG round about way of trying to avoid saying he doesn't know.
Or just stating the obvious.
Quantum
Either way, (it was) very (entangled)
He is just bullshitting religion.
thanks. i won't waste my time.
Brilliant. Entanglement is the removal of parenthesis around observation. I'm pretty sure the profundity of this idea will escape most.
You know what's meaningless about that statement? Neither you nor the speaker bother to define any of the terms you're juggling.
Reminds me of George Spencer Brown: Laws of Form. Anyone else?
Wow. That's a fantastic observation.
How'd you come to know about Brown's LoF? Quite esoteric knowledge 👌
The mind is a multidimensional mapping of some form of probability space where the information is stored in the relationships and the meaning is generated in time as a fluctuating exchange of relationships that follows a power scaling law in which very small scale fluctuations are far more common than large scale fluctuations. The best model to describe this would look like the internet, in which some aspect of spacetime is scale dependent, although some form of synchronization is necessary (entanglement) and the dimensions extend into the probability space as a computational geometry that can only be described approximately rather than discretely, in other words the idea of a three dimensional coordinate system is insufficient in describing the relationships. The mind uses these maps to represent the reality it is perceiving. There is no comprehensive description of the fields involved at present. One of these fields could be described as an intentional field in which the information about the emotional state is far more nuanced and energetic than the information about the logical structure contained in the field. The material expressions we encounter are generated by the fields and the brain is some form of antenna reading the fields.
Why am I thinking about Leibniz and the total perspective vortex?
Very interesting and probably closest to the truth! The concept of memory to be aware of clocks in the first place is really an eyeopener.
I just had a strange thought.. how many people am I entangled with? Are there people in this world that take action at distance from us and cause certain outcome to occur in our lives? That would be ... SPOOKY!!
This dude just told us that we don't exist. Well, we do exist and so does entanglement. He may disagree with the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics but it makes a lot more sense than he does
[Correct Meaning of Entanglement in Quantum Mechanics, and Consciousness and Telepathy]
In quantum mechanics, the exact notion of entanglement does not mean that a physical signal is transmitted at an infinite speed, but always the truth (or reason, or absolutely right logic) is always present everywhere, regardless of the space and time of the physical world.
There is no way that the consciousness of an individual can be transmitted at infinite speed to another physical entity, but it is possible that the same (or relatively complementary or correlated) logic is being physically carried out simultaneously in different places.
If we know that the same (or correlated) logic is on processing at the same time in another places, it can be understood that consciousness is delivered at infinite speed. Imagine the actions of identical twins (or exactly oppositely operating coupled systems) that are temporally far away, taking into account of their different surroundings. And, if two people who are far apart are in the same desire, they may be thinking the same thing.
There should never be any confusion between physical and logical things.
If you know that the most bottom of the physical world is the immaterial reason world, and on the above of it, the physical worlds of continuous-but-finite energy exist, and again on top of it, the worlds of quantum material exist, you have no doubt and understand all things of the whole world together into one.
OnCharm Lee (Author of the book “Humans & Truth - human life is the awakening process”)
Your feedback is appreciated since it doesn't happen that often Bamberrydude.Nice channel pic!
So if I have a smart phone with a quantum computer in it , it would be giving me answers to questions I didn't ask even before I have one?!
Such a great simple explanation (well, comparing... :) ).
This makes so much sense with what we find during the exploration of consciousness through meditation or the use of psychedelics (as he mentioned in the beginning, this is why physicists take acid).
I'd like to get his slides if that's possible somehow.
So that's your take away from this ? Drugs
well, i am sure that the most of people agree with this model, but this guy has made a very good explanation of it. Excelent work!
and by good I assume you mean "not good"
"Everything is about PRESENTATION, PERSPECTIVE, ATTITUDE and INTENT" -- The Pot Gods
The only thing I picked up from this presentation was the idea that objects, things, you and me are all just collections of fundamental particles which are optionally classified into objects, things, you and me. The classification amounts to placing brackets around collections of fundamental particles. I don't know if this is actually what professor Chris Fields was saying, but that was my understanding of it.....
I saw it the same way and I've been thinking this forever.
A great example of how the observer collapses the wave function.
Amazingly simple explanation of a weird weird concept. Super talk.
I've always thought about observation this way, but I was sure this was at odds with QFT and QM. Any time I criticize the specialness of the Copenhagen observer, physicists roll their eyes and defend the idea. It's always seemed inconsistent to me that an electron hitting a screen should be fuzzy and indeterminate, the photons bouncing around in the atom permit electrons to be cloudy, but add a human to the system and somehow the position and momentum have to take a definite value at a definite moment. My observation of that system takes place through countless intermediate steps that all resemble the system without my presence - it's all electrons, baryons, and photons bouncing off of each other, all the way down.
It also seems like information is being created on the spot when the "waveform collapses". I don't perfectly understand quantum degrees of freedom, sure, but I know that position and momentum are degrees of freedom. The need for a random number to be generated is quite clearly an addition of information. QM quite clearly demands the random number by insisting that the exact values of these variables are incalculable at previous moments. What bits are lost to make up this difference for the total, which is supposed to be conserved?
I’ve been learning about QM for the first time, and talking to an AI about it, and this kind of interpretation was my intuitive reaction, it’s so odd that it’s relegated to “alternative”. It’s just an honest description of reality in the face of old school dogma. This has really woken me up, classical science is fine grained 4D spacetime engineering. This is scientific understanding
Great interpretación
Little did he know that in 2022 we would all become very well acquainted with "entanglements"
Thank you for the wonderfully clear explanation. Inspired by the analogies of parentheses and the imaginary boundary. My main problem is that so many comments were from classically closed minds with concrete parentheses and imaginary bullet proof boundaries (egos!!) that really are imaginary. One day quantum mechanics will really bring us out of the stone age by showing us how problems CAN be solved and to continue because problems are inevitable.
he's awesome ♥
What about historicity?
At 4:20 he also talks about the "U with the eye". Not too sure what's going on here.
I am not a physics expert. My only question is to understand physics is to understand the relationship of particles to the empty nothing that separates it. I had this thought that what if you apply texture to that empty nothingness. We often think of gravity on this enormous scale but wouldn't every atom and every particle exhibit some sort of gravitational force? In that context think of that empty nothing as a fluid. The more particle occupying a given space will basically displace the empty nothing just like a piece of metal sinking in a lake. As the hunk of something sinks it creates turbulence in the water. Particles would do the same thing. This is where i think people get confused with wave particle duality. granted im out of depth here but that particle traveling through the empty nothing creates gravitational turbulence. Stretching it a bit that empty nothing is what defines the consciousness to even contemplate this. We never understand memories because time is not linear it is merely organized linearly for efficiency of resources. what ever just a thought. My only advice is to not ride the line of what is and what isn't because things start to forgot which side is which :)
He certainly puts high stakes in the Associative Property of math , having mentioned it in some way 47 times in 38 minutes. Unfortunately he did not take account of the other properties, Distributive and Communicative.
In order to "regroup" an observer out of the World set he subtracted an observer from the World set and added it to the environment, which is identical to adding a negative one. Then he claimed that simply regrouping things was OK.
The fallacy is no such thing as a negative observer. In effect he was subtracting a positive one. Changing the Association of a subtraction violates the Commutative property. You are not allowed to swap the arguments when subtracting.
10-5 is NOT equal to 5-10.
Indeed, this is a lesson that was taught in elementary school. but you have to obey all of the rules, not just your favorite ones. A bit more care with arithmetic is warranted.
According to systems theory, a "System" is a set of entities that work together to product specified effects on their environment." Things that don't participate are not in the set because they are not needed.
In this case the Observers were moved into and out of the World System set willy nilly. If the Observer was in the World in the first place it was participating in the World to produce some effect. It could no longer perform that function when removed. For example, if you take your speedometer out of the car it can no longer report speed to the driver, an internal observer who needs it to control the speed. You can't remove your speedometer without changing the essence of the car.
---- Let's cut the confusion and get to the title of the talk ----
The quandary about Quantum Entanglement is that it happens so quickly -- at any great distance -- that it violates the speed of light limit. Zero time is still zero no matter what is between the entities. This only takes two observers and we can ignore what the "World" is between them. Conclusion: something unexplained is happening here.
I think there is the conflation of distinct terms that problematize our conceptions of the world at the quantum level: 1. parentheses being arbitrary is not the same thing as parentheses being unimportant. I think that is partly the problem. 2. There is another idea to be considered: just because something is of too small a scale for us to measure accurately does not necessarily mean it is not classical. Statistical probabilities are utilised to approximate measurements of a world too small for us to accurately measure. This does not mean this world is necessarily probabilistic either. 3. Numerical quantification is not equivalent to meaningful aggregation (species; principles).
Also an important property of "the world" is missing: consistency of each interaction of observations (much as in category theory). The "interfaces" are subjective, but they are not arbitrary.
He needs to explain the metaphor of parentheses. Nobody intuitively thinks about using parentheses throughout the day
+Will Dudley Exactly, he lost me when he went from using real parentheses in the equation to when he started using parentheses as a broader more inclusive (symbolic?) term--but he didn't explain the transition.
lmao
+Will Dudley "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together"
+thebigpurplemonkey Best comment listed! Yeah!
Maybe im missing some deeper cryptic meaning but i assumed it was a long winded way of saying everything is the same, ie eyeballs, measuring equip, tables......
The same interface screen can be applied to observe time. It means that you see 1 moment out of all still available moments. All time , past and future exist as a static state. You just move through these states and think that time is moving, but it is not. Only the interface screen is moving. Just like playing a movie forth and back. So this means there is no actual time. So in theory you should be able to go back in time. But everything in the universe is in motion from a high energy state to a low energy state. So you have to put energy in the system. You can slow time by putting energy in a moving object. But it only slows time for the interface screen. Not time itself. ( dejavu?)
I observed the speaker in his world observing me through an interface that did not exist because I changed the parentheses to exclude the interface and include him in my world to the exclusion of all other observers allowing me to observe his empty world through mirrors as I timed it with a clock in his world as time advanced in my world, none of which I remember because it is not possible to have any memory of the event which I recorded with an observer sensor in my world, all of which has been totally forgotten because I forgot where I put the parentheses. I think I got it!
This presentation by Dr. Fields made sense to me, and made a few things fall into place. But you had better have some experience with quantum mechanics...so watch some introductory stuff first, before you watch this. But Dr. Fields does a real good job of laying this out. I benefitted from investing 30 minutes.
Listen to everything by Feynman and everything by Carlo Rovelli, and then watch this.
Dirac had a chalk in his hand, he said: "one system". He broke the chalk in two halves, put one in one side of the board and the other one on the opposite, Dirac said: "one system"
Great
I don't know how to Name #SHOEtheory have anybody any idea?
I believe the quantum entanglement effect is working in a dimension that ignores distances but I also believe that the quantum vacuum is also working on that same principle.One physicist estimated the Casimer force i.e. the Quantum Vacuum added up on just one neutron and it went up so much it would require an entire star so it was it was refuted because it went to such extreme.I argue he was right and it means that the star over there is compressing on the neutron in my cup of office here.Its working where distances don't exist that I also believe is what caused the big bang and is actually the cause of space and why its expanding now.Look for my crude posting on You Tube as Ill be posting more on all this too as it involves too much stuff for here.
I still don't understand fully. Does he mean to say there is no mystery of understanding quantum mechanics anymore? Does this for example explains the spooky action at a distance (entanglement)? I still don't see how.
Because why are there parentheses for big (non-quantum) objects and apparently no parentheses for small (quantum) objects ?!??? (They behave differently that's for sure!)
If by "boundary" you mean instrument then I see what you're talking about. I can only see the voltage of a battery if I measure the voltage with a voltmeter. Likewise, to measure the position or momentum of an electron, I must see where it is only through the use of an instrument. Even our eyes are instruments which detect a certain spectrum of electromagnetism. If I had a coil and capacitor in my brain, I could pick up radio stations. Tune in, turn on, and drop out!
Already blowing my mind at 12:53. No parentheses.
Point A and Point B are the same identical appearance and it doesn't matter in how far they are apart.
classical information does not seem to be equal to physical interaction . you labeled it interaction but physical interaction seems to be different from observed interaction. another words i can observe something and nothing changes but if i touch it there is definitely a change.
28:40 There is nothing going on, until the imaginary boundary is drawn, on which classical information appears that must be objectively real, but it's not. Brilliant.
There is only ONE particle. All particles we observe are just projections of this "master particle". Because the master particle itself is not bound to spacetime and its projections in 3d space undergo individual transmutations due to differing spacetime entries, paths, collisions, etc, it appears to us as different particles with different properties. Similar to a 4 dimensional mirror cabinet. This view resolves all abnormalities of the quantum realm and can be applied to consciousness as well. There's just one "I", but with different perspective, history, spacetime coordinates, etc.
In that sense we're identical and different at the same time. Another duality pair that seem incompatible but can coexist simultaneously. Subjective/objective, Particle/wave, space/time, energy/matter, religion/science.
A majority of the comments show how far we have to go as a people and how everything he said is as true as we can make it or comprehend,and the failure of the...observers to understand and their consequent comments.
Thanks, Chris, but it wasn't too clear to me. It's hard stuff to explain. Can't tell you exactly what to fix, 'cuz I only get it myself part way, I think. Reality Check's comment here is close to my understanding - the universe does revolve around him. His subjective universe inside his head, that is. We all have our subjective universes in our heads, which added together constitute what would seem to be the objective universe for all observers, special to nobody in particular. But I'm still working on it.
It is use full to know, the boundaries this gentlemen professes is arbitrary for the sake of the point he is making. Lets not get carried away and presuppose he speaks for all views.
I understand!!! .... kinda .... i think
I really wish this guy would do a video debunking the mysticism that's grown around the layperson's grasp of the Double Slit experiment.
Those idiots seem to think that there's something supernatural going on re: observing. It really seems like no one has ever bothered to explain to them the mechanics behind what 'observation' actually entails. This dude explains the hell out of it here. He should take the next step and de-mystify the Double Slit experiment.
What did he say?
Is C. Fields a quantum physist? Where was he degreed? I do like his 'eyeball with a U' pic - the observer's focus can't be seperated from the universe. He failed to meet his presentation goals - Finally, are all the ( ) meant to be a metaphor? If I were a student who signed up for his class. I would apply for a withdrawal.
what about the cats eye ?
this guy is awesome
+Tasos Pesiridis lmao
How?