Sean Carroll: Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- This is a clip from a conversation with Sean Carroll from Nov 2019. Check out Sean's new book on quantum mechanics titled Something Deeply Hidden: amzn.to/2C6aCaf New full episodes are released once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video is released on all other days. You can watch the full conversation here: • Sean Carroll: Quantum ...
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Note: I select clips with insights from these much longer conversation with the hope of helping make these ideas more accessible and discoverable. Ultimately, this podcast is a small side hobby for me with the goal of sharing and discussing ideas. I did a poll and 92% of people either liked or loved the posting of daily clips, 2% were indifferent, and 6% hated it, some suggesting that I post them on a separate TH-cam channel. I hear the 6% and partially agree, so am torn about the whole thing. I tried creating a separate clips channel but the TH-cam algorithm makes it very difficult for that channel to grow. So for a little while, I'll keep posting clips on this channel. I ask for your patience and to see these clips as supporting the dissemination of knowledge contained in nuanced discussion. If you enjoy it, consider subscribing, sharing, and commenting.
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Caltech and Santa Fe Institute specializing in quantum mechanics, arrow of time, cosmology, and gravitation. He is the author of several popular books and is a host of a great podcast called Mindscape.
Subscribe to this TH-cam channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
This is a clip from a conversation with Sean Carroll from Nov 2019. Check out Sean's new book on quantum mechanics titled Something Deeply Hidden: amzn.to/2C6aCaf New full episodes are released once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video is released on all other days. If you enjoy it, subscribe, comment, and share. You can watch the full conversation here: th-cam.com/video/iNqqOLscOBY/w-d-xo.html
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
th-cam.com/play/PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4.html
Podcasts clips playlist:
th-cam.com/play/PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41.html
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Great to hear a condensed synopsis of the many-worlds and other contenders in quantum physics. Thank you.
please email me, the schrodinger equation is missing some very important pieces ! xxxeggacion@gmail.com i need to expand on this, maybe this can help someone!
Mk
Its only a wave because that's the way your vison updates. Its only a particle because anything else would cause you to loose grasp of your mental model. Light/photons don't experience time they literally cant have a speed its just the autonomic.
But why such emphasis on seeing with your 2 eyes is much different than seeing it in your mind
I'd like to see the videos from each of the other 3 worlds where Sean supports the other theories.
I'm putting a like to that comment in as many worlds as I can!
I think the collapse theory is super interesting, and makes most sense to me in terms of observing quantum behaviour
Yes - I’d like to see a scavenger hunt for hidden variables
I'd like to see the video from the world where everybody is a furry and can't talk but only purr.
@@ronsnow402 yup
Here comes the turtle gang.
Turtle gang
Turtle gang
turtle gang
turtle gang reporting for duty!
Turtle gang
I am officially addicted to your show just so you know...
Lex asks great questions and his low-key interview style is refreshing. Sean's podcast is great, too.
Lex's questions may sound simple but they really are pedagogic in a way that makes anyone able to follow the conversation, even the complex answers. The utter lack of pretentiousness in this podcast is so refreshing.
There’s a very good argument that the many worlds interpretation of QM doesn’t solve the measurement problem, it simply pushes it downstream.
It's either nothing or everything. It's either that shooting photons (aka light, which is what MUST be done to make the observation) at whatever we are looking at changes it's properties on a sub-atomic level (which it would) or that we are one with all. Not that we are special but literally fractal beings off the same consciousness and everything is one, permeated with that same consciousness. ITT scientists are actually studying right now if the universe is conscous/imbued with consciousness. I believe it is and it's all connected stemming back to the big bang or whatever it was.
Sean Carroll so often uniquely explains the workings of quantum mechanics in ways that are much more logical and intuitive than I hear elsewhere.
I agree but this idea is just so outlandish.
Certifiable crazy people have more believable stories.
@@mattgraves3709 Truth doesn't care about whether you find it outlandish. The theory of relativity is outlandish, but it's as true as anything can be.
yet he never considers that shooting photons (aka light, which is what MUST be done to make the observation) at whatever we are looking would change it's properties on a sub-atomic level. Which, it would. Why is that?
@@charlespancamo9771 There's no concept of an observer in the MWI so I'm not sure what you mean.
@@gerhitchman I wasn't talking about in the context of the MWI. Just the observer effect in general. It usually (or always) occurs when photons are shot at something from a lensed device such as a microscope, no?
Sean Carroll is one of my favorite theoretical physicists and Lex is definitely my favorite science-based interviewers. Thanks to you both for this interview (and the long one)! : )
Not think as a job its a bit over hyped? I think since theoretical physics began less than 1% of the derived theories have came to fruition, meaning they have worse stats than someone trying to randomly guess what number you are thinking between 1-10 . Do you think we should be funding research etc for what seems to just be trust fund kids guessing how all this works?
@DevilsAvocado69 Absolutely, because usually when they do you it revolutionizes the entire human species. If I had to give someone a thousand dollars to guess whatever number they were thinking but I get as many guesses as I want and if I guessed correct it would literally alter the course of human history, then yeah ofc I would do it everytime. I wouldn't be goofy and assume that I'd get it relatively quickly
What we call physics was once called Natural Philosophy. This clip personifies the essence of that older nomenclature. Thank you both.
Sean is such a good explainer. Really demonstrates his understanding
At the core of all this CRAZY talk is the fact that we still don’t have a clear notion of the ultimate underlying physics at play. There are still layers of fundamental physics that are beyond our current knowledge. The fact, for example, that we haven’t been able to fully consolidate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics means that most likely there is a more fundamental and coherent mechanism at play which we don’t as yet have access to.
Plasma
The funny part is the Physics community know it but aren't in a position to acknowledge it that parts of their theories could be wrong or misinterpreted, that their math actually means something other than what it is interpreted. It is psychologically easier to say that "We r right" when deep down one knows "we r wrong".
Perhaps consciousness is fundamental
Actually the Shrodinger equation leaves no doubt about the physics at play
@@pERKDIZZLEactually this is predicted because our brains are entangled in the quantum system and our consciousness is very likely created by quantum entanglement, so yes without doubt consciousness is fundamental
A turtle brought me here.
Ah yes, depression turtle.
Turtle Head more like it
What if I told you, that there is no turtle, no here, and no you. That we are all just fractal versions of the superconsciousness of all things, we perceive in our mental faculties. How does "God" see all, know all, heal all? Through our perceptions, or perhaps ""God" is projecting this reality into our minds.
Hello world is what brought me
@@erebus3059 tortoise
the turtle teaches all about hidden gems like this
Existential Turtle sent me here. Where be Nia and Soren?
You just missed them. They're one video over to the left.
I've been a big fan of the Mindscape podcast. Glad I just stumbled across this one. Looking forward to taking a deep dive
Sean Carroll: Thank You for your awesome videos and teachings !
Gad damn this was a great interview. Two of my favourite podcast hosts talking to one another about the deeper nature of reality.
his theory is that the wave function is like god. If that wave function were to change you would never know it. It would change the past and the future, and you would not realize any of it.
I like how Lex keeps asking him "how he feels" and Sean keeps saying, "my feelings don't mean shit"
I love Sean's Mindscape podcast. Love yours too.
Great talk with Sean, lex, keep up the good work and thanks for linking that measure for measure vid, looks really interesting.
The question around the 10 minute mark and the roughly 2 minute answer is why this is such an exciting topic.
I, Sir, do not have a wave function in my role as an observer because I am much much heavier than the Planck mass. Instead I am a Hamiltonian system with an additional Uncertainty Principle derived from classical Brownian motion on the Planck scale. When I interact with an electron which is in tachyonic Brownian motion alongside its wavelike behaviour, I effect a non-unitary change to the electron which collapses its wave function. There is a lot of entropy production inside me thanks to the classical Brownian motion interacting with chaotic dynamics, but I am able to rearrange entropy in local areas inside me in a radical way in order to reproduce myself, and reserve the right to use quantum mechanical tricks in order to do this.
I am very regular with my Brownian motions in the morning.
yup depression turtle led me here how bout you?
same
SAME
Same here bruh. It was good to watch though. Understood some of the fancy jargon. After watching Veritasium's "Parallel Worlds Probably Exist" on the same topic (spoiler alert: Prof. Sean Carroll makes a cameo there too :) ), this video makes a lot of sense.
Just in case someone reads this and is confused, check out exurb1a on TH-cam.
Nope
Schrodinger's cat walks into many bars.
Probably the best podcast out there. period
Yep
I love Sean Carroll!
Me too. He is without a doubt my fav. theoretical physicist. Very good communicator.
Brian Green as well...LEARN SOMETHING!!
I’m really glad you said that about how we’re not special to the system. It’s not the fact we are observing it that collapsed the state it that we only get entangled with one state.
No, it's that the experiments we perform are so coarse respect to what we are trying to measure, we destroy the subject of our measurement. The experiment is non reversible and we collapse the wave function
existential crisis at 3AM because of a damn turtle
I like this guy, explains things clearly. I dont absorb the information but I like it.
incoming turtle gang apocalypse
I love how he explained why observation theory ties into the many worlds interpretation I was wondering how he could explain that
yet he never considers that shooting photons (aka light, which is what MUST be done to make the observation) at whatever we are looking would change it's properties on a sub-atomic level. Which, it would. Why is that?
@@charlespancamo9771 that’s not necessary for a measurement.
@@cbo9090 so no lenses are used, no microscope, telescope, any lensed device?
@@charlespancamo9771 photons would be interacting with a subject whether or not those photons were reflected off of a being, device, or existing thing, that was "observing" it. the photons are different and it interacts differently, but a human looking at a cardboard box and a piece of cheese sitting next to a cardboard box don't have some deep, definitional difference between one or the other. photons are photons, they can be reflected onto the cardboard box from people or cheese, and those photons are what affect the system.
"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.”
-Bill Hicks
3:33 there is a guy in the hallway going into another universe....
I wonder if all universes are connected through a hallway too.
Please call Grant Sanderson from 3blue1brown. It would really be interesting to hear both of you talking about maths, technology, deep learning etc.
thank god he finally explained the whole wave particle thing ive been tryna tell my psuedo intellectual friends for YEARS that they were misinterpreting the reason for waves seeming as if they are both wave and particle, its the observer.
Ok but doesn't shooting photons at the observed change it's properties? The mere act of looking at anything with a telescope or lense reflects light at it, it's a necessity for the observation to take place.
@@charlespancamo9771"observation" in quantum mechanics just means any interaction between two particles, it doesn't mean it has to be particles coming from eyes, lol
Love this channel
Where is that other video on TH-cam of the debate referred to near the end of this video?
After watching Veritasium's "Parallel Worlds Probably Exist" on the same topic (spoiler alert: Prof. Sean Carroll makes a cameo there too :) ), this video makes a lot of sense.
He has already started by not explaining that an observer doesn’t mean something that is conscious or sentient or anything like that. An observer can be a chair or just a particle. That’s really important to a start off with so that you don’t go off into an incorrect tangent.
I dont quite understand many-worlds interpretation. Prerequisite for 'branching' is superposition of particle? Would superposition require observer to collapse into 'branches', or would just superposition in itself cause branching? Does superpositions happen in nature or does it have to be artificial (schrodingers cat)? This is very interesting.
It seems there is still a role for the conscious observer because he describes a distinction between what you “keep track of” and what you don’t in other words that which you observe vs that which you don’t.
the distinction is one that we make, not one that the universe makes.
The more I learn the more I crave.
dats a gud 1
same.
Did Schrodinger's equation entangle every possible outcome just by being created?
Without it, are all possibilities free to exist?
Could the cognitivety of consciousness be the accelerating vector of the universe from splitting?
Did you find a link to the world fair ontic vs epistemic debate?
Here it is:
th-cam.com/video/GdqC2bVLesQ/w-d-xo.html
Whats up with the dotted lines in the thumbnail?
Listening to these two gentlemen somehow makes me feel smarter and dumber at the same time. That usually means I'm learning something. Thanks!
Is the following entailed the Everett interpretation? There is a metaverse that contains every possible configuration that this universe could be in. The possible configurations of the universe constantly increases, so this metaverse could be viewed as constantly enlarging.
If this is what Everett entails: 1. Communicating it this way would be easier for most ppl to understand. 2. This makes the full extent of the prima facie absurdity of the position even clearer.
Yes. The state space of the universe [I think you really mean _state space_ rather than configuration space, the latter having a different technical meaning]. According to quantum mechanics, _every_ quantum system (including the whole universe) has a state space which, geometrically, is what mathematicians call a projective Hilbert space.
Yes, the state space of the universe encodes all possible "configurations" of the universe, which includes all possible "worlds" (i.e. components of the wave function that are relevant for macroscopic reality).
I don't see why this would be prima facie absurd.
If the schrodinger equation gives a smooth distribution of probabilities then won’t its branching involve an infinite number of alternatives?
It depends if things like space and time are quantized or not. If they are quantized, then the “smooth”distribution of probabilities is not really smooth, but is quantized at the level that space and time are quantized.
he goes over this, even if it could be infinite with enough time, the heat death of the universe means at some point interactions will stop entirely.
Please have John Hagelin on about the Unified Field Theory
I had an amazing idea strike me, what if the precise set of entanglements is represented by a single (currently unobserved) frequency associated with a particle? When two particles become entangled their frequencies would simply add. Due to the vast number of possible frequencies only the exact same set of frequencies would match (most of the time). In other words, it's kinda like we (really, each particle) are on a cosmic cable TV with a *huge* number of channels. This is my new interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'll call it the Cable TV interpretation.
Just awarded you the Nobel Prize. Congrats
Do you consider that shooting photons (aka light, which is what MUST be done to make the observation) at whatever we are looking would change it's properties on a sub-atomic level? Because it would.
is Sergei from Devs based on Lex Fridman? asking for a friend
Quantum mechanical interactions have been going on in the universe long before there were people around to jump to the conclusion that it has something to do with their observations. :-)
Yes they have.
Sean states in the beginning that nothing implies that quantum physics would need an observer, although it would be "infinitely cool" if it did.
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."
- Heisenberg
@@Risuaita5886 Quite true. Thanks for pointing this out :-)
I once seen a guy playing golf and thought he looked very relaxed and like he was having fun. My buddy then says to me "gees he's really taking it out on the balls huh".... I was confused and didn't see the frustration or tension my friend was eluding too. FF a couple of days and back at the range, same guy absolutely crushing balls this time. I acknowledged ot with my friend and never thought much of it. Again ff a couple days and back at the range, same guy is there this time just pitching balls upto a little practice flag. So I go over and ask if he works at the range we seen him there alot. He says nah, this actually my first time.... We thought he was joking because we had seen him a few times in a week so we laughed. The guy just stares at us laughing sort of shrugs and sighs all at once then sits on the bench and begins to explain how he has not been out the house in such a long time and it was strange to have strangers trying to "mock" him at the range. We explained we seen him a couple times already and he starts laughing his ass off like hysterically. Turns out they are triplets.... So yeah sometimes reality seems strange until you get the facts.
Okay . But if my wave function is entangled yet why these wave becomes partical/atom ?
This many worlds interpretation reminds me a bit of the Huygens’s Principle?A boundless princible?
I'd like to ask...
Do two distinct branches connect again?
It would be so fun if it's happening.
That would require every detail of the two distinct universes to "just so happen" to realign directly on top of each other, which is essentially impossible.
@@jeffbass1165 but still nonzero
Could it be particle's that interact in methods defined by wave functions.
That's the hidden-variables approach, most commonly encountered as pilot waves.
That's just qm, wave functions composing a system are what define the time evolution.
Real Donald Trump shut up dude
he's charismatic. i give u that
What about bohmian mechanics?
When in a block of uranium one atom decays, can we say then that all the other atoms decay too but in a different universe?? I ask because it gives an answer to the question why exactly that atom decays and not another. And I also wonder if time can't be seen as you yourself moving "spatially" through parallel universes that are all already there. The question than becomes why a system moves in a certain direction (with more entropy?) Of course it will almost never revert to a state before the branching. The beginning and the end of a universe could be already there all along waiting but there the number of possibilities is so reduced (to 1 at the Big Bang or a frozen infinity) that a living thing can never go there so "far". The MWI suggest too that the brain is not local, part of only universe.
Did the splitting of worlds occur at the moment the big bang?
Or is it possible before the big bang.
No, it occurs every time a quantum system gets entangled with (roughly, interacts with) the surrounding environment. Which is basically _very_ often.
Are there other wave theories that aren't the many worlds theory. Can partials not be solid like an atom, solar system, or galaxy.
Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely the many world
ok you got me now i can confidently say i have no understanding of quantum physics and i like it yet i have graphed to the extent of my ability space time
I like it and don't understand it either. I think that's a thing.
I have a question im struggling to find words for 😂
When a new world comes into being do the people in that world have memory of existing prior to that? Even tho they just came into being? Like maybe ive only been alive for an hour but i have 36 years worth of conscious memory?
How about the creation of the universe in these worlds? Did they all have a big bang and a definite beginning?
I know im late here but hope someone can help. I am sure there is something i dont understand...
If a world “splits”, there is no original world. They would share a past up until the moment of splitting.
How does Carroll reply to Penrose's criticism of the MWI to the effect that, macroscopic objects are not in fact quantum systems, because of gravity?
Entanglement is a pair of objects interacting. Observation is a third object interacting with an entangled object becoming a new pair of entangled objects.
How do you shift from one timeline to another?
You don't, they are all derivative. Just like time, you can't go back and you can't go laterally.
6/22/20 @ 7:30cst I had the craziest dejavu. The stock market opened at 8:30cst. At 8:56 I placed a bet. 6/24 SPY Put. After that I watched the SPY one day chart live on my phone. The SPY went to 310.63 and started to turn down. That made sense because I looked at the high of the breakdown candle on the one week chart and it was 310.65. So far so good I thought. Put my phone down and went along w my day. 2 hours later I looked at the one day chart to see how it was doing. The chart was different from what I saw happen live. This was the second time in 3 weeks this happened. On 6/4 the 3 month high on the silver chart was $18.58. A few days later I looked at the silver chart and the 3 month high on the chart was $18.41, which is what it is if you look at it today. Oh yea, I had the craziest dejavu then too. Thx for explaining what I witnessed. Your theory has to be true!
Or maybe your broker messed with the data! I had witnessed data discrepancy between brokers couple of times myself
The dimension of the universe’s Hilbert space is almost 10^10^(3*42)
Classical Vendata question: "what is observed and what is real".
@Real Donald Trump
What is experienced is not real.
What is real can never be experienced.
Real Donald Trump What the hell are you even talking about?
N Rao You too, wtf is this shit
I thought hidden variable theory was ruled out by a recent experiment? Is that not true?
There are the Bell Inequalities which rule out local hidden variable theories, which has been verified experimentally. But there are also global (non-local) hidden variable theories like the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation which are still popular
@@Overclocked3770K it's a wonder why they aren't more popular and what the whole hiccup with super determinism is. The philosophical distinction seems irrelevant.
You have one wave function as a human or many? Don’t all atoms that make us up have their own wave functions and is it cumulative? How do atoms, molecules, humans and galaxies express their wave functions? Do all functions interact and influence others around it? I’m lost.
I don't know why he did not push these important questions. Instead he went for an easy interview.
A movie doesn't 'exist' untill you watch it but it always exists as potential
So it’s like a game of musical chairs and observation occurs when the music stops.
just finished roger penroses book and while the math was a chore for this old physics major it outs forth a complelling case against this interpretation of qm
What’s the book?
I obviously understand what the schrödinger equation is completely. I just wish he would’ve explained what it was to you guys so that you guys could understand it. But not for my sake as it would be a waste of time because as I said I totally understand it and definitely know what it is and am totally aware of the fact that dude had a cat of some kind.
If he had explained it many people would be able to read through the bs
Lmaoooo
What happened to Bohmian interpretation of QM?
The same as to the other interpretations that break locality.
@@xXJulensolo2Xx Entanglement already breaks locality, so whats the problem?
@@niloymondal you are confusing it with the classical notion of locality which can't be aplied to qm as an entangled system is not composed of two separate objects but one object that extends between the two locations, this way, is is respected that any object can only be influenced by its imediate surroundings.
And of course that non-locality which the pilot-wave interpretation implies, totally conflicts with what physicists understand about GR. Not saying that there is no way around, but GR's predictions are so precise that compatible interpretations are obviously preferred by the community.
Bohmian mechanics is one of the "hidden variables" interpretations that Carroll discussed.
The number of possible worlds HAS to be larger than TREE 3 right?
How do you write exactly that ‘schuerling’ equation?
Schroedinger
The irony of this is that there are so many underlying assumptions being used to explain this 'fundamental' view.
@@Corteum Haha sure. 95% is unknown motion, action and interaction, but hold on everyone, no need to worry, we (coincidentally enough) found the right 5% of the exclusively physical aspects of the entirety of existence. that allow us to make perfect conclusions about the nature of infinity in terms that we can understand - even though what we do understand in terms of Quantum, doesn't even make sense to us. Basically, we found a way to calculate probabilities with very long and complicated system of mathematics that doesn't even accurately describe experience. So...there you go. That's the best you can hope for people, and we did it. Can I have some money and a trophy now?
Underlying assumptions, such as? The serious underlying assumptions, apart from the Schroedinger equation, of the many world interpretation I can think of are:
1) Decoherence lead to the usual pointer bases.
2) Branch weighing obeys the Borne rule.
But, in fact, each of them has some justification from the formalism itself, or at least in the form of quantum mechanics over a given physical space (so that position observables make sense).
there are actually less assumptions underlying the everett interpretation than most other interpretations, lol
@@april5054not true
The truth is very simple. People make things complicated.
Carroll says observers shouldn't play a role in the laws of physics, which seems reasonable. But I am puzzled. In trying to include the Born Rule as part of the Many Worlds approach, Carroll leans heavily on what he calls "Self-Locating Observers" when making his arguments in his papers and books. Perhaps he only uses these as a device within a thought experiment and not directly in his physics. But, still, it strikes me as odd that Self-Locating Observers are used to displace observers.
Everyone knows about the waves and particle anomaly story.
What else do you have?
We are bored.
No one knows what's going on.
Accept it and move on.
This is VR. More than likely.
Treat others well and be grateful when you learn something about what you like.
That's what we are here for.
Experience.
Interpretation are fun but it's all a practice.
Just like medicine.
Probabilities stem from the multiverse. Quantum “particles”like electrons in their shells are best described as clouds of probabilities. These clouds/shells are the/their multiverse. That’s about all you well be able to visualize the multiverse. Without the abilities to see more than the dimensions we are familiar with we only see what we call a collapse state as our one universe. Our one universe is a sampling of the multiverse which is why ever event falls in a normal density distribution curve. 18:45
Is it me or is many worlds the most egregious example of mistaking math (the wave function) for reality - or just being so devoted to this tool that functions extremely well in one super-specific context (a quantum system) that you’re willing to go to absurd lengths to defend it against updating by rewriting all reality around it? I mean, Schroedinger wasn’t even this attached to the wave function’s ontological status, right?
Schroedinger created the cat in the box thing to show how absurd it is, not so that we could take it seriously for generations.
This guy goes wrong because he supposes that the experiments we perform in QM today are "good observations" and that is not to be taken for granted. I actually believe that it is much more probable that we DO NOT have good observations.
Actually I would say that the wave function is a reality. The fact is that we are not able to observe it without destroying it. So we get only partial information.
@@dp2404 👍 Would be interested to hear more about what in your view makes it likely that current observations are questionable.
@@jakecarlo9950 I think that the double slit experiment shows us that the system behaves in different ways when observed vs not observed. Where observed doesn't mean a person is looking at it (like Carroll seems to imply), but it means that we have the system interact with the instrument we use to measure.
Secondly we have the Bell equation. To me it seems that the inequality means that the sets are changing between before and after the interaction with the instrument.
At last, intuitively this makes sense to me because (for example) to "see" particles we throw other particles at them that have similar mass and energy. It would be like trying to measure a table by setting it on fire. Of course you can deduct the mass by the intensity of the flame, however you are loosing much of the information.
Hope this makes sense 😅
I'm just an Engineer with a passion for Physics, got a long way to go 😁
@@dp2404 Right on, that makes sense 👍👍 And I’m a social worker in training, so to me you basically are Wolfgang Pauli 🙂
if an electron is in a superposition of a trillion locations, when the electron is measured are there now a trillion universes?
Can I think of these other created worlds as parallel universes?
More like _orthogonal_ universes ;-)
So Many Worlds exist within a "bulk"
Here's my thought.
Each world is, by definition, simply the expression of a set of rules which science seeks to reveal.
The number of worlds equals the number of sets of distinct rules.
Any world understood by
Still needs some physics to understand which path our particular world follows through the set of all possible paths.
What if the worlds are not "created" but computed?
A lot of these theories are scientifically probable, Experiments in a vacuum relative to temp / gas/vapor/liquid/pressure also Vortex theories could also be measured along with wave theory. It just takes time and money.
The idea could be simple like a computer. I mean, think in Virtual Reality and computer's limited capacity. A VR program has to show just nearest place of the virtual world and keeps the rest in memory doing math. A VR program doesn't waste time rendering the entire world, just the closest place to the character where is interacting for. Maybe.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food".
- Ralph Wiggum
If you asked me how many worlds are there, I would say it depends on when you measured and where. also how, You could collapse the whole dam thing and knock us back to 1 or not
Conservation of Energy... is Universe, Split-Universe -> Multiverse a close system?
As for the terminology, you can call it:
1) many worlds inside a universe
2) many universes inside a multiverse
3) many realities inside a ...
I will stick with 1.
There's only one universe, which is a closed system, with a unique wave function describing it. The wave function moves in time inside a big abstract geometric entity called _state space_ , and it getting closer to certain points is interpreted as the macroscopic "world" (or "macroscopic reality") splitting into various components.
The energy of the big thing is always preserved (it's a consequence of the Schroedinger equation).
@@rv706 Thank you for taking time and for writing an explanation. I wish I had teachers back in school that could explain things in simplest, but not 'more' simpler fashion. In other words - nature loves simplicity, and scientists do not.
If you please have one more moment...another thing that is bugging me for a long time is this. An electron has a mass, and yet it is orbiting every atom with the speed close to that of the light, for billions of years. If something with a mass is closing to the light speed barrier, it's energy is following tangential function - will tend to go to infinity. But where is the energy coming from? In a close system, as you said, every equation has to be balanced. Sp my question is this: is the energy coming from the vacuum? If not what gave those electrons initial momentum and velocity.
I believe in many worlds, but not in the "sliders" alternate version of our reality sense. I don't believe there are alternate realities that are based off of events or our decisions. I think that each reality is just an analogous randomized carbon copy of ours. Think of a second of time as a screen shot on a monitor. That picture is made of many pixels that accurately represent our colors. Now imagine you remade 2000 (roughly) copies of that screen with each pixel shifted to a different random color. Each copy would represent a different dimension in which that "world" existed. And you'd probably be lucky on most of the copies to even be able to tell what the picture is. Even if you compared it to the original shot.
10^10^182... Wtf? I mean it makes sense and seems fair of all possible interactions between primary particles in the universe. But holy crap is that a big number. While also being so miniscule compared to infinity or anything also miniscule to infinity. So large and hard to wrap you're head around but also also so tiny it basically isn't even worth mentioning.