Lee Smolin Public Lecture Special: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- On April 17, in a special webcast talk based on his latest book, Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution, Perimeter’s Lee Smolin argued that the problems that have bedeviled quantum physics since its inception are unsolved and unsolvable for the simple reason that the theory is incomplete. There is more to quantum physics waiting to be discovered.
Perimeter Institute (charitable registration number 88981 4323 RR0001) is the world’s largest independent research hub devoted to theoretical physics, created to foster breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of our universe, from the smallest particles to the entire cosmos. The Perimeter Institute Public Lecture Series is made possible in part by the support of donors like you. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/inspiri...
Subscribe for updates on future live webcasts, events, free posters, and more: insidetheperimeter.ca/newslet...
pioutreach
perimeter
perimeterinstitute
Donate: perimeterinstitute.ca/give-today - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
Hats Off to Lee Smolin for how he answered the young boys questions @1:04:27 rather than brushing the questions he answers it in a way that both answers the questions (to the extent that he can) and then encourage the boy to progress further. That is the job of a teacher and an elder. . A thousand bows to you Sir !
keep an eye on that kid in the future
@@shiddy. fr
Lee Smolin is a wonderful storyteller. Thank you for a fascinating perspective
Lee Smolin is a truly rare Physicists. Brilliant, humorous, deliberate and humble human being!
Lies again? AO MLS
@@NazriB Sorry. I don’t speak code. Would you please translate to English.
Heisenberg :
"What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
Yes and science very often consist in finding new methods of questioning. History show, that result in many case, in astounding advance in understanding how things work.
Schroedinger's cat knows all about it
Schrödinger's cat is an observer.
Schrödinger's cat is either dead, or alive, or still in a superposition. If it's dead, it has nothing to tell us. If it's alive, it is but a cat, and has nothing to tell us. If it's still in a superposition, it has one of two things to tell us, and we don't know which, but neither is very interesting (see above).
@@miroru1 "I meow therefore I am"
Lee Smolin waves his hands like no other physicist. I say "waves" but it could be particles.
Imagine an orchestra attempting to follow his direction.
Funny chap
Wizardry
Its obviously a superposition of entangled particles, his hands are quantized
@@richard975 Can't understand why their wave function doesn't collapse with all those observers in the audience.
In my top picks for the absolute best talk on qm I've ever watched. Lee is brilliant!
This is a great lecture. Lee Smolin is a treasure.
Starts at 4:06
"Philosophical, which just means difficult" is a fantastic quote
It's catchy, but ultimately it also means "unprovable". Which is a bit poor...
Good One Prof. Lee .....Realism(be-ables) Vs Operational-ism(observables)
Thank you Perimeter Institute! For an educated non-expert in physics like myself, Lee Smolin does one of the best jobs explaining the current state of the field of QM and potential developments. I've been a fan since his book, The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time. This talk was a real pleasure to watch.
Miguel Delagos : a real pleasure or an observable pleasure? :p
You are kind of ignorant. These clowns really nothing
nope
th-cam.com/video/gNAw-xXCcM8/w-d-xo.html
Time is a human construct. Where I think we should put all our efforts now is just HOW this Universe is constructed, not WHAT the outward appearances of it are. Imagine that the Gods could go through time at any speed and any direction. This solves the non-locality right off. Like, how does two hydrogen react with an oxygen to form water? Is there some kind of emanation coming off of the oxygen which, in effect, says "I'm looking to bond now." And the hydrogen says, "I'm looking to bond also, according to my valence shell." And then they somehow get together in some arrangement. If these valence emanations happened in no-time, and only in the realm of human time do we witness a molecule of water, then this could be one possible explanation of why chemistry works. Again, we must see WHAT happens, as CERN has done, it is now our prime directive in physics to model HOW this Universe does it. Pull out all the stops! We are living in a simulation!
@@CandidDate You need to go back to your fantasy video game world and watch the movie the Matrix another hundred times. We don't care what god concept you bring as a bias. It's not about God's travelling over the speed of light to see non-locality. That's not science. You can bring any concept of any religious bias you want, but you need to make some real predictions on how something is flawed and how it could be solved with a formula or math that makes sense and can be verified and tested. This post is akin to saying, we really need to look into the Zodiac for answers, perhaps the God Thor makes lightening with his hammer and we need to add a hammer to the CERN collider. Step up and smell the reality, I don't care what a video game imagined Mars God from fifty five other galaxies smells like. We aren't living in a simulation, you just want it that way.
Smolin really is absolutely brilliant.
I say this just from the things he says on the fly.
Unbelievable. What a masterpiece!
perimeter institute and his collegues must be proud of for working with him. today a complete view of theoretical physicist around his frontier attitude.
During the Q&A, Professor Smolin commented that the "many worlds interpretation" was crazy. How refreshing!
Lol do you know the meaning of the word refreshing? I doubt you do.
@@therestaurant It's the nerd meaning of the word :-)
@@NeilRieck you meant "refreshing" with a strongly accented pile of sarcasm! Is that correct?!!
We know it's crazy, but is it crazy enough to be true?
@@nmarbletoe8210 Not sure. Smolin points out that whenever anything weird goes unexplained for too long then we usually require a new hypothesis. Scientists knew there was something wrong with Newtonian mechanics when the strange orbit of Mercury could not be properly explained (was solved by Einstein and General Relativity). Quantum mechanics was developed by Planck to explain observational problems associated with EM-theory. Some scientists are now saying that dark-matter and dark-energy might not exist (these fictions were hypothesized 20-years ago to explain observational oddities in astronomy but 20-years of looking for either one has come up blank) so just as Einstein's theory modifies Newtonian mechanics for the special cases involving extreme gravity, some scientists think the observational astronomy problems might be better fixed by new special-case modifications to relativity. Now let's get back to your point: Anyone can dream up anything but thoughts are worthless if they cannot be proven experimentally (they have to pass the scientific method). Lots of time was wasted on Super-symmetry but that now appears to be dead because no super-symmetric particles have been detected anywhere at anytime including the last round at the LHC. And what of string theory? I have been told that S-T properly describes approximately 20% of the real world so what's up with the other 80% and how do you choose? While S-T has been successful in providing jobs to people who teach it, lack of experimental verification proves it is only slightly more useful than palm-reading. Now if the "many worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics is supposed to be an improvement over the "Copenhagen interpretation" then I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO when scientists tell the public at large that we might be living in a multiverse, I worry that people without scientific training will turn to the occult.
Lee Smolin is such a good COMMUNICATOR! I am struck not just by his utter brilliance but his fantastic ability to convey his knowledge in as few words as possible, in such a way that the layperson can understand it. For the most part he speaks absolutely smoothly and fluently and you can see where he does pause before he speaks, it is not because he does not understand a question or the answer to it, he is stopping to consider what is the best way to convey this information in the shortest amount of time so that anyone listening will get a full grasp not just of the words coming out of his mouth, but the content of what he is trying to say.
I love Dr. Lee Smolin.
The Zen Koan about a tree falling in the forest was generated centuries ago as a means to exhaust the excursions of linear mind. Once a physicist realized that sound was actually energy waves being propagated thru air or any other medium, the question if the falling tree made a sound became absurd. Of course it made a sound, whether there was a detector present (human ear or mechanical or electronic) or not.
Quantum mechanics, as currently propagated, represents an incredibly useful and in many ways a phenomenally accurate understanding of the universe of the very small. Like the question of sound in the absence of a human detector, the current QM model is also obviously INCOMPLETE. Once a physicist of adequate insight is able to add to the QM model, in the same way that Einstein added one additional term to expand Newton's equations, the need to include an observer in the QM model will disappear.
Thank you Lee Smolin and Roger Penrose for standing for the probability that once a more complete model of QM is propagated, the widespread inability to understand QM, will in part disappear.
Outstanding, outstanding presentation!
Smolin makes a *very good* point here: quantum theory was *constructed* to be only about observables and not about beables. The fact that we can't find beables in it does not mean there aren't any. It was deliberately crafted to "operate" at the level of observation. Quantum systems do have quantum states, but these states are just not "like," say, the electric and magnetic fields, which have tangible existence at every point in space. Quantum states live in rather abstract Hilbert spaces, and in order to get a connection to the world you have to do math on them and that math, by design, yields *probabilities*. An unobserved quantum state will evolve in a deterministic way, but the change of state that results from an observation is *not* specified by the starting state at all - essentially it's put in by hand.
None of this is meant as a criticism of quantum theory. It does exactly what it was designed to do, and as far as we can tell it does it *perfectly*. But as Smolin points out here, it just wasn't intended to "describe the world." It was intended to describe our "witnessing" of the world. Totally different thing.
A very useful observation on what is at stake here.
His answer to the question about how quantum theory can be wrong is absolutely adorable.
Not cab be is
Not can be is wrong
One PhD student of Louis De Broglie was a Portuguese scientist named João Luís Andrade e Silva. He only came back to Portugal after Salazar's death and he brought with him De Broglie's ideas about Physics. These have been under development by a small group of «unorthodox-rebel» researchers (who, in turn, were students of Andrade e Silva), the main culprit being Prof. José Croca, who has published extensively on these matters.
You make it sound sinister "unorthodox", "culprit". The test is can new theories solve problems more elegantly.
@@deus_abscondis Maybe you haven't heard but the men who run these institutions of higher learning, who have built their careers on "established theories" are not usually friendly to upstarts seeking to supplant them.
The realist point of view is a lot more logical than any other in this moment in time.
adrian I also think the same way thanks i have found someone with a similar view!
A pleasure listening
44:10 - Oh, I like that way of phrasing what entanglement is. Nice.
LS... For me his number one in the entire world!... ❤️
Damn I haven't sat through anything youtube like this for so long. Thank you PI.
WHAT A WONDERFUL MAN.🙂
GREAT.
Great to hear.
You are great.
The question of why the speed of light is a constant the young person asked is one I've contemplated myself. I believe it to be from a force of resistance that is dark energy, but the strong nuclear force could be the same thing. This lecture was such a breath of fresh air and absolute unflinching honesty. He very clearly defined the early Bohr models with an accurate opinion, and I was happy to see De Broglie put in the proper light he deserves. Now we need someone to reassess the EM model in relation to Gravity and we may find the real quantum laws and that gravity doesn't fit the model because it doesn't exist if there is entanglement and non-locality.
When he spoke of entanglement of A & B, he said B would be affected by what was "measured" at A and this was "mirrored" at a point of origin. Does this point of origin have any description in the theory? The distance between the two particles could vary so would the point of origin have a determinable value?
1:17:00 i think his question might be formulated as , what if E-M force and strong force are in essence the same with difference divergence of a local frame .
Thanks for having him speak - his words echo in many fields besides physics in my consciousness - I deeply regret not having the opportunity to ask some questions that I'm sure he could shed light on.
Thank you
love the channel
Great work .
Great talk!
1:04:52 It was actually Maxwell's (differential) equations that led to the conclusion that electromagnetic phenomena had to propagate at a constant speed according to all observers (in an inertial system).
Yes, but that is actually a very curious way of arriving at that conclusion, because it jumps out much easier from the metric nature of spacetime and relativity without any need for field equations. In principle Galileo could already have predicted the Lorentz transformations, if he had been good at algebra, which he wasn't.
@@schmetterling4477 please elaborate, as without the observation/deduction that light has the same speed according to all observers, (1) why would you step away from Galilean relativity?
(1) Or were there already experiments showing this in Galileo's time?
Excellent lecture! Thank you. Yes, QM is incomplete. Maybe a beautiful mind from the Perimeter Institute will complete it. Someone like that little boy with the speed of light question.
Genius amazing and best lecture in QM
You are a great man Mr. Smolin. Very inspiring.
An excellent and thought-provoking talk Dr Smolin. You raised a lot of big questions about philosophy, logic and keeping things real. My opinion for many years has been that "The Copenhagen Interpretation is not even wrong". I look forward to reading your book. Keep up the good work.
No he didn't. Stop egging stupid nutters like him.
I don´t think Smolin reads youtube comments.
The probabilities given by wavefunctions we can compute, are approximations, sometimes just first-order approximations. In order to explain the "collapse of the wave-function" and eliminate the measurement problem, physicists would need to compute the wave-function for the entire universe. That's not easy.
and that is at the core of the challenge.
I know that there is the saying that the Universe doesn't have to make sense to us, and it may still be proven that the current QM understanding is the correct direction. I am only a lay person with very basic understanding of this subject, but have always felt uncomfortable with the mainstream theory that involves probability functions, and particles that drop into a particular state when observed. As he answered at the end just because a theory has workable results doesn't mean it completely/actually reflects reality. Just look at Einstein's theory of gravity. I'm sure a theory will come along like Relativity that builds elements of our current understanding and expands on QM. Lee's description sums up how I have felt about this subject, and I will certainly give the book a read.
Always enjoyed Lee's talks along with Frank Wilzcek, and Lawrence Krauss.
I did notice that he was slurring his words a bit. Is he ok? Just age?
The theory of relativity is not terminating something and quantum probability aren’t determined at all and we have to study either
Hand waving everything
The point where Smolin ends his historical review of quantum theory is precisely where robust alternatives to the anti-realist Copenhagen interpretation emerged. Among the realists listed (but only briefly discussed) in Smolin's last slide were Louis de Brolie and David Bohm. These were the pioneers of the pilot wave interpretation, which explicitly resolves the quantum measurement problem (formulated as Rule 1 and Rule 2 @28:28). In pilot wave theory, Rule 1 is expressed as the quantum wave function, which it shares in common with the Copenhagan interpretaion. Rule 2 is summarised as Born's Law, which pilot wave theory shares with Copenhagen, but with the following difference: In pilot wave theory, there is no discontinuous collapse of the wave function, which evolves according to Schroedinger's equation without interruption.This is what makes the pilot wave interpretation a non-local, realist alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation. It was this theory that inspired Bell's inequalities test of non-local behavior of entangled particles, which was confirmed by the recent Nobel Prize-winning experiments of Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger. Here is the relevant quote from Bell himself:
"When I was a student I had much difficulty with quantum mechanics. It was comforting to find that even Einstein had had such difficulties for a long time. Indeed they had led him to the heretical conclusion that something was missing in the theory: “I am, in fact, rather firmly convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this (theory) operates with an incomplete description of physical systems."
Bell continued: "But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the “observer,” could be eliminated."
In short, the key principle that resolved Bell and Einstein's objections to the Copenhagen interpretation's measurement problem was the elimination of the observer (and with it, wave function collapse) as an essential component of quantum mechanics.
@@anolakes - With respect to Pilot Wave theory's guidance of particle trajectories, the devil's in the details, which lie in Configuration Space where the quantum wave function is defined. There lie the "questions that need answering". I can't provide a direct link on TH-cam, but you can find it by searching for "configuration space wave function springer".
Many questions to Dr Smolin. Caroline Thompson was able to reinterpret the 'Bell inequality' experiments , and showed that one cannot conclude much from these experiments. Do you agree with her? So if we have to create new QM rules that generalises this field of physics, is De Broglie's dual solution the best option? De Broglie returned to his initial idea about wave-mechanics at the end of his career, but nobody seems to notice except for a few physicists like Antonie Valentini (Perimeter institute). For instance, this approach allows for abolishing Born's rule of QM, according to Valentini's theory/papers. But if we accept the reality of De Broglie's pilot waves, what is the electrodynamic nature of these waves? Haven't we forgotten to fix and generalise Classical Electrodynamics first, before we can move on to 'quantum realism'? Is for instance the CED gauge "principle" valid? A new experimental fact about CED is that the Coulomb field propagation speed is much higher than 'c', and this falsifies the gauge principle (which is a principle also required for being able to "renormalise" QED values, but the "super precise" QED predictions have been proven to be a big fraud anyway). Are you aware of the fact that QED theory has more or less be 'debunked' by Oliver Consa? Could this be a sign of pathological theoretical developments based on incorrect physics principles? Are you aware of the fact that Dayton Miller proved experimentally that the speed of light is variable? And that Einstein (together with Shankland) mismanaged Dayton's dataset (it disappeared) and that the so called 'temperature variation artefact' with respect to Dayton's experiments was a big lie by Einstein, because Dayton Miller had done tests if temperature variations had an effect on his measurements, and it didn't. Isn't it time, Dr. Smolin, to choose new role models, in stead of having these role model physicists in mind, that had physics theory locked up in a mental prison? I know it is Dr Smolin's greatest desire to step outside the prison, however, questions, questions, questions. The way Lee Smolin answered the question of the kid was very sympathetic and serieus, and it was a very good answer, kudos Dr Smolin.
I think the key point with entanglement is that it is the effect of a measurement which causes an instantaneous effect to occur at the entangled particle. The entangled system is prepared and we can think of a single system comprising two particles (looped waves) which is extended in space and this single system is completely affected by a measurement. So we still cannot transmit a wave at faster than the speed of light but when we measure an entangled system it collapses at faster than the speed of light. This is a property of spacetime that we have to accept and it does not contradict SR or GR.
Richard
instantaneous is not a valid idea. It would require a divide by zero.
@@rer9287 Hi Robert. Please explain your reasoning on this point. Richard
@@OpenWorldRichard the formula for speed is distance/time. "Instant" would be zero time. It's not a valid idea.
@@rer9287 HI Robert. Thank you for the clarification and I understand your explanation. The problem is that the experimental work on entanglement does show that the effect of a measurement of one entangled particle does affect the other particle in the entangled pair and that this effect is instantaneous and takes effect over the distance of separation of the entangled particles. Richard
Interesting. Take a look at this: th-cam.com/video/q7v5NtV8v6I/w-d-xo.html
It's a different way of looking at the entire theory.
Up against a wall! BAM!
Having just listened to "...Unfinished Revolution", I urge Dr. Smolin to narrate his mext book. As far as the content of the book, it feels like he s making progress. He was right about String Theory in The Trouble with Physics".
The Plane-Time Theory, is an idea that makes suggestion to understanding quantum tunneling, entanglement, give reason to why there are three generations of matter, it gives rise to the wave / particle duality problem. It also suggests that Einstein was right and that things are predetermined and that quantum weirdness is an illusion due to our misunderstanding of reality.
Where can I find Plane-Time Theory online? I tried looking it up with no luck.
Dividing one prime by another gets straight lines. That is the coordinate system of numbers.
Looks like Prof. Lee's renewed perspective on giving emphasis to "Realism" will set a new course to re-write most of quantum mechanics operational theory we developed so far ..but in doing so verifying the new realist theory could be difficult task
Mr. Murugesan, the 'realism' intrinsically inherent in QM is that it is a probabilistic crap shoot,
and no material scientist alive can say otherwise. We cannot impose a theory of 'realism'' on
the quantum level of existence when it is, by definition, probabilistic to say the best, even
when entanglement is a predictable phenomena, along with wave collapse.
'Realism' is a mode of thought intrinsic to humans at the macro level, when it has been incontrovertibly proven that this 'realism' does NOT exist at the quantum level. If anything cannot be more blatantly denied, it is this dual nature of the quantum, which was originally expressed by Bohr in the Copenhagen.
So. . . .for 100 years now, as the GPS satellites roam about the stratosphere, and all the other numerous commodifications of QM are benefitting millions upon millions, the reactionary 'realists' (and that included even Albert Einstein) are still complaining that, they cannot put their fingers on something that will stop wiggling and stand still.
WHAT. . . .will they think of next?????
@@corinnacosentino7002 Thanks for taking time to remark my comments
Are the probabilities real?
1:07:45 - I think the statement here is that the effect on the quantum *state* appears to be instantaneous. That state is shared by both particles, so to what extent you say something has happened *at* the remote particle is debatable - it's not clear where the quantum state *is*. In any case, though, we can't directly observe the quantum state. We can only observe observables. And in order to *recognize* the entanglement influence in observables drawn from particle B, we have to also have observable data from particle A. That data has to be communicated between the two, and that communication is subject to the speed of light limit. This precludes using the influence of entanglement to send information faster than light.
So the shortest way I can see of answering that is that yes, the influence is instantaneous, but we can't "know anything" from it until later. It's as though quantum uncertainty "hides" enough from us to guard against violations of the speed limit.
@anolakesI think there is no distinct "particle B" and "particle A." There's "the wave function," which is the state of "the system." The whole point is that you can't express that state as the state of two independent sub-systems.
When you make a measurement at location A, the state of changes. Full stop.
@anolakes The state of "the system," which is something that depends on A and B. Sure - you can write down a wave function for one or the other, but to do that you have to "trace over" the one not being considered. That's the best approximation you can come up with if you're going to be dealing with only one of the particles, but it's not a single-particle quantum state. Or at least not one that tells the whole story.
Hi Lee, whilst from our perspective, quantum duality is a puzzle, from the point of view of 2 photons it seems to make sense as photons do not experience time. ie the issue of measuring one affects the other (apparently faster than light) does not apply as there is no "before" or "after" when there's no time.
Time is just one of those odd features that we experience, but it's not universal.
Nick Maltzoff I believe I can refute that. Does light travel as a wave? Does that wave “wave”? How far it travels should determine how many “waves” happen. That’s how light would measure time. By how many times it moves before being absorbed.
@@shawnclark732 Sure. Except that travelling through space at the speed of light means that from the point of view of a photon, it leaves eg the sun at the same instant that it hits an object eg 60 billion light years away. It is only from our point of view that this travel takes 60 billion years.
@@nickmaltzoff9958 I don't know much about physics as in I've never taken a class in it. But this statement doesn't make sense. You are claiming the wave and photon in either case arrive there, but we don't see it because we are bound by space time. Who ever said that? It's not there immediately it's measured in discrete packets that act like waves or waves that act like packets or both. It's not instantly seen, if it was then we'd never know when something happened, because all things would be happening and we'd see them at once. The speed of light doesn't just exist in our mind. It exists in the universe. Hence when a thing happens here, 60 million light years away it's effect is not seen nor felt, until the wave or photon hits that location. You can claim that time changes, or time scales of our viewpoint can alter it. That's not the same as saying it's instant. If you define it happens to the entire universe, but our mind slows it down, well that's fantasy land.
Hi @@gregknekleian8445, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says that the faster you travel, the faster you advance through time relative to slower objects (eg what you experience as 1 minute could be several minutes for slower objects). The limit is the speed of light, at which point time for slower objects time effectively stops relative to you and you reach your destination the moment you depart.
@@gregknekleian8445 The thing is, a photon has a different frame of reference from a person observing the photon. The photon cannot experience time as it travels; it cannot change internally. Looking from the outside however, we can see that it takes time to travel, and does so as predicted by a wave pattern formed by all possible photon paths.
Relativity means that both perspectives can be true.
When they talk about properties they fail to make the distinction between intrinsic and contingent properties. Contingent properties are relational, its doesn't makes sense to speak about velocity or momentum of an isolated electron, and measurement, too, its an interaction. These properties are defined between the correlations (particles, apparatus, human watching the results, all are correlations)
17:09 Mr Bohr had said "Nothing exists until you measure it."
Someone should have asked him, "Who was it who measured your mind?".
@Martin Cosentino Interesting. Except the Copenhagen Interpretation is not the most accepted theory of QM. Watch some Sean Carroll. And learn about the Uncertainty Principle. You seem a little too certain.
@Martin Cosentino lol, no one is asking what you have identified as "the quantum world" to change, we're just asking all the fucking retards in the world to wake the fuck up to their egotistical world-views, and realise that the world does not revolve around them, shit does exist in a concrete form without their observation, and crap just aint subjective.
then we can leave this philosophical "standard theory" behind, and get back to science
ps: @Martin Cosentino "The quantum world is composed of TWO entities - a material one, and an NON-MATERIAL one - the nature of light, composed of a wave and a particle ALREADY told us that 100 years ago."
even by Standard Theory this is absolute bullshit. get yr facts straight. The Standard theory tells us that there is only one fundamental component of the universe - "The Quantum Field" - an immaterial, indeterminate, mathematical construct, and "particles" are not solid things that exist, but merely data-points in the purely mathematical Quantum Probability Field.
THATS how fucking wacky the standard theory of quantum mechanics has gotten today, and how such retarded theories such as holographic theory have been able to proliferate with such ease (that, plus the rapidly dropping IQ levels in western nations). damn, with Standard Field Theory, even String Theory looks like it make sense.
What is a measurement? It seems to me that a measurement is fundamentally interaction. Everything in our universe is interacting. If something is in a super position, it hasn't interacted yet so from the point of view of our universe it doesn't exist yet. I don't know though, I'm really stoned right now.
I bought the book thanks to this talk. But I do not watch it to the end yet, not to spoil myself the book 😏
I developed a hypothesis that attempts to describe a field that creates all other fields. I have a testable perdition. The test can be scaled up to an unlimited degree potentially and possibly become the basis for a new source of energy and science. If I am correct and since the hypothesis is so unique and ridiculous that it would never be imagined by anyone else, its existence within me creates an entanglement with my future self so that I can be expected to change properties if my future self does and visa versa.
I would like to know what the "complete version of QM" by De Broglie was? Has it ever been published? Or is this simply an alternate-history fable, as he implies?
Its called de Broglie-Bohm theory, or more popularly Bohmian Mechanics. All of the experimental predictions are equivalent to standard QM, i.e. the two theories are scientifically indistinguishable.
However, from the point of view foundational principles, Bohmian Mechanics is completely opposite to the Copenhagen interpretation of standard QM.
As mathematical constructions, the theory of standard QM seems to be a somewhat superficial sectioning off of the theory of Bohmian Mechanics, where the rest of the mathematical structures present in Bohmian Mechanics are simply ignored as non-existent.
It is in the above 'theory-as-a-mathematical-construction' sense that Bohmian Mechanics is the completion of standard QM, making standard QM simply wrong as a fundamental theory because it is literally incomplete.
@@TehPhysicalist Forgive me for being a bit skeptical, but isn't this a "distinction without a difference"? If it makes no predictions which can be tested experimentally versus the Copenhagen interpretation, it may be in some sense more "satisfying" mathematically, but it doesn't seem to move us forward to a more useful understanding?
Late 50's Sternglass-Einstein work found a named meson by their dynamic property equations in the lab composed of two counter-rotating electron-positron pairs.
To create pairs my assertion a charge entity exists as a hyper-viscous fluid as first condensates after a BigBang that hit by a neutrino spins off such exact, quantum pairs. Conservation says the energy lost by the neutrino should equal the energy_of_annihilation of a decayed pair.
Pretty slick idea, I'm stuck there until it's modelled ...
Cheers 🍺
Light is not both a wave and a particles. Light is a wave but is emittet and absorbet in quanta and therefore give the impression it may be a particle.
There are no particles. There are no waves, either, though. :-)
The rule for predicting an outcome of measurement is based on the propagation of wave that determines probable outcomes. That is simple enough! QM affords us an equation that describes the propagation of a wave. The wave is a means of determining various outcomes. Do you want to know how likely a certain outcome is? Just solve the equation for the wave. Select the outcome of interest. Use the wave-solution of the equation that is appropriate to the situation. Do the calculation using that solution (Born's rule).
Don't let people who write books for lay persons confuse you! What realism is does not come from philosophy. It comes from physics, from observation of the world - which is what physics is. When physics tells us that to know this and that at the same time is not possible, the impossibility lies in the nature of things. That is how things are. When we do physics, we learn how things are. We don't get that from philosophy. Remember, too, that how things seem to be when we examine them in the macroscopic world, which averages out much complexity, is not how they may be when examined more minutely. Prof. Smolin's assertion that QM is wrong is wrong. It is correct in the domain of our examination. When we look in other domains, we ought not expect to find an extension of it; only that at the boundary of the domains of observation one theory should be compatible with the other.
33:54 - I wouldn't use the word "wrong" to characterize that. The fact that all of our experimental measurements are matched to near perfection really says it's *right*. What you're really trying to say here is that in spite of that, it's not the theory that we "really want." I'd agree with that 100%. But the damn thing works, and it works extremely well, so far as it goes.
1st Law of Plane-Time
For a 2d wave to exist in 3d space the same wave must exist separately in three equivalent 2d planes.
2nd Law of Plane-Time
Only two of three, 2d planes, are required to resolve a position in 3d space. In other words, only two plane are required to force a wave to become a particle in 3d space.
3rd Law of Plane-Time
Each of the three 2d plane has a charge, either, positive, neutral or negative.
On topic, the entangled question-answers to any potential possibilities of revolution is the state ment Nomenclatures Observational Accuracy of QM-TIME e-Pi-i Reciproction-recirculation infinitesimal vertex @.dt zero-infinity instantaneous trancendental i-reflection containment.., aka Holographic Principle Imagery of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry presented in Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection Techniques applied to Polar-Cartesian self-defining Spinfoam pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates in axial-tangential orthogonality and sync-duration AM-FM bubble-modes communicating Actuality.
Quantum mechanics is the realm of physics where the nature of the interval between present instances does no allow empirical penetration.
+1:05:20 Ask Julian Barbour - his 3-space modification to GR predicts all massless fields travel at c, respecting Lorentz Invariance without a 4D-space time assumption.
Smolin is familiar with Barbour, he even has a quote on the dust jacket of Barbour's book, "The Janus Point".
''Why dont we just say it's wrong'' I love this guy.
It ?
I came out of curiosity and stayed due to fascination. Wonderful.👏👏👏👏
Your IQ is less than an average cynobacteria about the same as a fart molecule.
@@therestaurant poopy poop
Lee would you kindly address the importance of doing art in the development of a critical mind? So important to our young people to take themselves seriously when AI comes to town…
ГЛОБАЛЬНАЯ ВОЛНА 2021 КАНАЛ, I ONE BIG LOVE
" МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКАЯ РАСШИФРОВКА RUS"
Perimeter Institute, we want to see Penrose from a few weeks ago
Yes, "we" do. Where is that lecture?
Brilliantly simplified!
nope
th-cam.com/video/gNAw-xXCcM8/w-d-xo.html
1:08:37 To answer the question about Lee Smolin saying QM is wrong: Think about previous "laws" of Physics like Newton's Law of Gravitation. If you want to calculate the trajectory and force between 2 planets, in most cases it will be correct. You can use Newton's Law of Gravitation for many cases, and it will give you accurate results. However, Newton's Law of Gravitation will break down when you have a strong gravitational field. It can't predict the precession of Mercury, and you won't be able to get accurate GPS. General Relativity is much more accurate, it will give you all the results of Newton's Law of Gravitation in nominal cases, and it will give you accurate results in more extreme cases. Thus, Newton's Law of Gravitation is technically "wrong," and it's also why a lot of physicists will use the term incomplete, because it is right generally, but it isn't the accurate description of reality.
In the same way, Lee Smolin uses the term incomplete/wrong, because while QM will give accurate results for a large number of particles, it has fundamental problems that signify that there's something deeper.
What are the fundamental problems of quantum mechanics? Please elaborate. Thank you.
@@schmetterling4477 Illustrated in Schrodinger's Cat, QM cannot give you a physical description that is grounded in reality to describe macroscopic objects. There is no such thing as a cat that is both dead or alive, yet that is the conclusion you must draw if you say that quantum mechanics describes reality accurately. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
What Lee Smolin then says is that there must be, as Einstein also advocates for, a deeper theory, that there are hidden variables that will accurately describe both position and momentum of a quantum state simultaneously, such as pilot wave theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory
@@Exl6243 These are not problems with quantum mechanics. These are problems with your faulty knowledge of quantum mechanics. The purely philosophical assumption that a wave function represents an actual physical object is at the core of the Schroedinger's cat nonsense. The only physical reality that exists in quantum mechanics is that the atom or nucleus that drives the experiment is either still in its excited state or that it is decayed. There are no other PHYSICAL states in that system. The experiment is entirely binary, just like the classical "dead/alive" cat state.
The philosophical problems that Schroedinger tried to introduce only existed in his own mind, they never existed in nature.
Einstein was always at the core of the confusion. He already made a giant ontological blunder in 1905 when he made the unsupported assumption that quanta have location properties. Everything that seems strange about quantum mechanics snowballs from that mistake. If you let go of it, then QM becomes the most natural theory possible.
Wow what an original statement I haven’t heard 1000 times presented like it means something profound. Aren’t we trying to understand reality? People seem to have changed the definition of science where it’s about building a predictive model and nothing more. It’s not.
can somebody give reference to the stuff disproving Bell’s experiments
any undergraduate textbook
I'm disappointed that nobody took this chance to ask Smolin about physical collapse theories like GRWP. I'm sure he had something interesting to talk about regarding that.
It’s like he’s the conductor and the ideas are the orchestra
As far as I understand, when prof. Smolin says "QM is wrong" he means "QM is incompatible with realism". So he does not mean that it fails to explain experimental data, but that it seems inconsistent when you look at it from a certain point of view! So why not claim that this point of view (I mean "realism") is wrong? For example: if you consider the Schroedinger cat paradox from the realist's point of view it doesn't make sense. If you consider it from the "anti-realist" point view it makes sense. The same with the entanglement. I see NO justification for "realism" in the context of QM. We should consider conjecture: "QM is correct, realism is incorrect."
Scientific realism is a foundation stone of physics that Dr. Albert Einstein and Erwin Schroedinger and many other physicists fought very hard to keep. It's the philosophical heart of the entire physics enterprise. See, for example, the writing of David Hestenes on scientific realism in his book "New Foundations for Classical Mechanics, Ch: 9 Foundations of Mechanics.
I consider this Dr. Smolin's "coming out" by announcing in no uncertain terms that he is not sitting on the fence anymore about the claim that Quantum Mechanics is complete. He might be playing devil's advocate for his book on Einstein's unfinished revolution, but even if he and Einstein are wrong, "ruins may still be good for something". Stating that QM is incomplete just after the release of the M87 black hole photo is actually excellent timing! The point isn't that entanglement doesn't exist, but that if it does, and this seems to be the case, QM and the Copenhagen interpretation refuses to say anything about, and forbids further inquiry into, a nonlocal physical effect that seemingly takes place at a speed much greater than light. It's like proving the existence of atoms at low energies from the Brownian motion of pollen. If you can find a physical mechanism such as a Kerr-Newman electron or Einstein-Rosen bridge that explains entanglement, the Copenhagen interpretation is shown to be wrong and Quantum Mechanics is proven incomplete. E..T. Jaynes has 3 unpublished papers in which he made similar remarks about Quantum Mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation ("Clearing Up Mysteries: The original goal", "Scattering of Light by Free Electrons", and "Quantum Theory and Probability").
@@BlueGiant69202 Thank you for your reply. I think that what people call "realism" (but it may have different meanings) is a point of view that is not a defensible standpoint not only in QM, but in other areas of physics, science etc. It usually requires additional assumptions, just for the sake of having "nicer" picture. Dirac (anti-realist) wrote in his QM textbook, that Physics is not to provide pictures, but to predict outcomes of experiments. If you start thinking like a realist, you immediately find yourself in trouble, trying to understand e.g. that "particle can go through two slits at the same time and interfere with itself". If you are an anti-relist you would say: "term such as position or trajectory does not have any meaning until we come up with an experimental procedure to define them (=measure them)". Here Heisenberg would say that Physics should deal only with observable (measurable) quantities, because only for observable quantities we can find a correspondence between the terms we are using (e.g. position) and things that we observe. It is simple as that. I do not mean that radical metaphysical "anti-realists" are correct. They say "reality does not exist" and I do not think this is a true statement (whatever that means). But I think (so called) scientific instrumentalists (which as far as I understand prof. Smolin calls "anti-realists") are perfectly correct by saying that our concepts (like velocity, trajectory, position, particle, field etc.) are just terms that we use to describe observable phenomena, and assuming that there must (!) be something out there in reality corresponding to these terms (because our theory work) is an unjustified extrapolation in my opinion.
I completely disagree with your statements: "Scientific realism is a foundation stone of physics (..)" and " It's the philosophical heart of the entire physics enterprise." It is not! I would say that this is the most harmful point of view in the context of QM, because it pushes many people onto a path of finding some classical pictures for QM. And the only result is more and more confusion and statements like "cat is dead and alive at the same time" which are completely wrong. They are made even by people who would call themselves supporters of Copenhagen Interpretation, but who are not really able to abandon this classical, "realistic" way of looking at physics. Realism should be cut off as a dead wood from Physics once and for all. And it will not stop the progress of science, but boost it. Founders of QM (especially Heisenberg) where really much wiser than you'd expect.
Just a little remark at the end. I am probably wrong...
@@RupecPupec This is not really a response to sebastian dawid. This is just a quick comment and thought which I should have probably posted elsewhere. I watched this once and thought I knew what Smolin was saying. Not I'm not quite as sure. It seems he hates the idea of entanglement as being real. He doesn't like the fact that "wave like" properties cannot be deterministically measured. So he feels all FATE of the universe should be predicted from a fixed timeset of our reality. He defines realism it seems to me as being a kind of Newtonian understanding of what is going on even in QM and if we can't measure it that way, we must be wrong and not realistic. He seems to me to be saying entanglement must be wrong but it's out there, we need to look at this again and do away with it. Because it validates our finite state understanding. At least this is what I thought he said. From an earlier watching of what he seemed to say. Now I'm not even sure of that. I'm wondering if he's claiming entanglement facts of entangled particles didn't even work and were not even proved. Or if he's stating we have to observe to entangled pairs from two locations to understand all their properties, because of the nature of what we can measure. And he's hurt because that is the current state, but it works, ironically. It just doesn't work enough to please his wish for "keeping it real" - my term of what it seems he feels the argument would be. So if I could define all things without waves which seem to randomly move about and make them particles with newtonian precision, that would finally make him happy? If I could measure all states from any point for a particle and get rid of duality that would make him happy? Is this what he's referring to. I actually thought I knew what he was saying the first time I watched it, and perhaps I made false assumptions. Now I'm even more confused after watching it again. He wants cats to be alive or dead before the box is open? He doesn't like quantum entanglement which has been measured? Or he fails to agree the measurement even works? He thinks it's all lost in statistics. This just does not make sense. It seems he argues that locality from two spots to determine both aspects of a particle property is a bad thing and it means we cannot know all about the particle so it shows we can never be considered using a real technique. He's wishing for a different technique, but none exist? How would we find that?
Wow. I've got to see more videos to see if this fits into a pattern of if this is just some kind of Calvinistic kind of deterministic wish or something where he says, I'm not going to be able to see an know everything about the universe with this theory, so it's gotta be bad. It's very confusing but I don't have the time to figure it out tonight. I have other things to do.
I actually thought this was kind of brilliant the first time I watched it. It really got me thinking. Unfortunately when I revisited it the second time, I'm thinking this is nothing more than a definition of wanting Rule 1 to only exist and do away with Rule 2 altogether. I thought he was complaining about RULE 1 and wanting to kill it or constrain it with RULE 2, but now it looks the other way around. To me "realism" at this point of time must accept both. If you break one of the two you're breaking physics. I may be thinking of a different video so I'll have to watch more when I think about the "problem of physics" I kind of feel physics is broke, but not in the way this is being told now. I used to think it's a good reason and starting point, but now I'm going to have to revisit my own little "short pet theory" and happy thought, because I see physics as being broken a different way. And I don't think this is the way it is.
And since I'm a real novice actually my little "pet thoughts" mean nothing until much smarter people than I can show a way to prove or disprove them. With a large body of evidence proving the two rules the burden of proof is on the doubters, not the current approach.
I could put my understanding differently than this guy, but I'm not willing to post it out here yet. I just know that to me this is a very weak argument now to me and I don't think I can use this as any kind of "proof" or "doubt" reason to say I may have a better way to do things. He at times even says things that seem like he's jumping the fence back and forth. What does he want and expect and how could we get there. I'm left with a feeling that he's just feeling troubled. I hope I can find the error in my thoughts on this. I hoped this would give me some flaw that would perhaps help my own pet theory, this apparently does not.
Reality doesn't care what you think.
I'd rather be the fly in the ointment than the cat in the box.
So it's probably not possible 2 change the laws of physics or manipulate them.
It might appear like the laws have been changed slightly but that can never be proven because of all the other factors. I guess you can say it's a paradox or something like that.
I wish that Dr Mendel Sachs would be alive today to share his research and theory of matter and how it builds the theoretical foundations for a unified field and a way to approximate QM under low energy conditions. He was as great a communicator of the problems in quantum theory as he was an innovative theoretical physicist.
Yes, I would agree that Dr. Mendel Sachs and the views he expressed in his many writings such as "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity" should be represented at a discussion table regarding Einstein's unfinished revolution and the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It would be nice if Scientonomy could catalog the relevant material.
Here is one article:
"Elementary particle physics from general relativity" by Mendel Sachs
Foundations of Physics 11 (3-4):329-354 (1981)
philpapers.org/rec/SACEPP
Dr. Sachs did write quite a lot on the incompatibilities of QM and GTR. His reinterpretation of field theory and effort to derive QM from GTR would seem as noteworthy as pilot waves. I like the mountaintop view of Dr. Sachs in seeking to derive linear QM from nonlinear GTR using quaternions as a common language. I was disappointed to see no mention in either the speech or book of Dr. Sachs, Hermann Weyl (gauge theory), Dr. David Hestenes (Real Quantum Mechanics and Modeling - see pg. 227 Einstein's Unfinished Revolution), Edwin T. Jaynes (information theory, statistics, etc.), or even Timothy Boyer and classical analogues of QM. I don't see a thorough bidirectional search being done in terms of research programs. I consider the top down view of Dr. Sachs to the bottom up view of Timothy Boyer. One could start with Edwin T. Jaynes' statement that Quantum Mechanics is not a physical theory because no physical principles went into it's development. Dr. Smolin almost gets into this in ch. 14 First, Principles, 225-252 e.g. pg. 227 of his book.
Possibly the best explanation of the situation I've ever heard. In part because he was frank about the human element involved in the development of the theories. This is ironic, however, because as he admits (with refreshing clarity) at the beginning of the talk, he wants to describe the universe AS IF no human beings (including himself) were in it to interfere with its workings. But the universe---even if for only a blip in the totality of existence---does include us. We are part of it, and our interference is a part of it. Granted that there is something very wrong with reducing objective truths down to our petty human foibles and political causes, I also feel there is something just as wrong with pretending that those humans, as petty as we sometimes are, yet don't matter in the scheme of objective reality.
No es verdad. No se trata de que el universo nos incluya, sino de que somos el propio universo preguntándose a si mismo, toda vez que somos parte integrante de aquel.
Yes, you are correct, there is something very wrong with people who think that they are the big Kahuna.
Here's the problem.
Objectivity IS science. As soon as we include ourselves, it becomes something closer to theology.
This is an empirical discipline. IF we play a role in reality, that it is say "interefere", there needs to be SOME mechanism to measure that such that the idea is falsifiable (or, conversely, verified - even though science can only falsify never "prove").
As Einstein once said: "Do you believe the moon isn't there when you're not looking at it?"
Are you following me?
Audience: ...yes
🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥
No. Ondas, porque las partículas no tendrían posibilidad de salir de los agujeros negros para incidir en los detectores. El espacio no es un "lugar" más o menos vacío, sino un medio.
Mr. Smolin,
I have a question, and I'm hoping you can answer it with the simplicity it deserves. It seems complicated when, at the fundamental laws of physics level, it should be simple, but it's not. I'm not sure about what is happening in the following described scenario. I'm sure you do. -- Thank you in advance!
The [elongated] question (sorry):
White light has all of the visible light frequencies in it, and when we look at white light we see white light. We can change the frequency using several methods, but changing the frequency of light (the color of light) using speed isn't one of those methods.
Moving toward or away from an object shouldn't change the frequency of that light based on motion to arrive to any particular frequency. No matter the speed of motion, the speed of light is always constant. Therefore, a galaxy moving away should still be the inherent color of whatever majority it's overall light spectrum is; a blue galaxy, a red galaxy, a yellow galaxy, etc... Whether it is moving toward us or away from us (the direction of its motion) should be irrelevant as to what color it is since the speed of light, no matter the frequency, is constant.
Therefore, how does motion have an impact on [the speed of light's frequency, then], when the speed of light is the speed of light no matter what? Motion should not have an impact on the frequency of light based on motion [speed].
If I am still wrong, why am I wrong? If I am correct, then what is going on with the speed of light C when it comes to the motion of a galaxy?
Do galaxies moving toward us (Andromeda) also have a change in color to blue shift rather than red shift?
If so, how? How is the frequency of light different from the speed of light? A red star is a red star because that is the frequency of a red star. A blue star is a blue star because that is the frequency of a blue star. But when it comes to the inherent color of a galaxy, it should remain its inherent color regardless of its motion.
A blue star doesn't shift to red because it's moving away from us. Or, do they? If they do, how is this possible when the speed of light is unaffected regardless of the direction and speed of motion?
relative speed does change color! Color is not about speed but frequency :)
@@nmarbletoe8210
Thank you. Your word "relative" is telling me, then, that no matter the medium light is traveling through, the speed of light is relative through any medium, and the frequency of the wavelengths in light remain the same no matter what. So, it's about frequency and not speed. I think I understand, but barely.
His hand movements...Does it indicate some kind of neurological illness? I urge that he do a checking asap. Deeply interesting book btw.
@~47:00 uh.. so that's whats the real translation of EPR paper. I always thought it was a very Einstein way to say "Neils, damnit, if you are right, then the world is basically made of magic".... And having Einstein's luck - he managed to be right even when he tried to be fancy and ironical ;) wonderful talk. thank you.
@@RockBrentwood I don't know enough to eloquently question the part about this being impossible from realist position - I think Everett's interpretation can square that circle - but, again - not smart enough to have a full blown discussion on this topic;) - but on the whole - yes, this (Copenhagen interpretation) opens the doors to all sorts of woo - starting with the whole so-called Frankfurt school of thought, that Lee mentioned:). And correct me if I'm wrong - but it is still technically a possibility, as it is not ruled out _per_ _se_ as a valid qm interpretation. Which means that our world indeed can still be made of magic ;)
The measurement problem is not a problem when you realise that at the sub atomic level, any 'measurement' is by direct 'action' on the wave/particle. So while Rule 1 is just giving you all the 'possibilities', Rule 2 is saying that as soon as something ACTS on that, 1 of those possibilities becomes reality. This action is not only human or biological action, it also includes chemical action as well. So we can consider all current states as 'reality' however this does not limit or predetermine the future. So you cannot 'predict' the future because of the uncertainty principle, however the good news is that this means that the future is NOT 'reality' (it is not fixed)! I other words, we 'make' the future a reality based on our thoughts and actions! Note that even our thoughts use molecular reactions and subsequently quantum physics. From what I can determine, what hasn't been discovered yet is HOW we can effect the future reality in the way we want it to go... Pure Newtonian physics implies that the future is predetermined by the current positions and momentums and forces acting even though at a very complex level is still FIXED. Quantum physics allows for Free Will and us NOT being under the control of the matter we are made up of..
It is important I think to acknowledge that the basic assumptions you are making are assumptions you can not explain at the moment, not say that they are laws of nature that are given out of nothing and that no further explanation is necessary. In fact Newton acknowledged that he could not explain gravity, but that an explanation of gravity would not be hopeless perhaps in the future. Newton formulated calculus, proposed gravity and could explain the planets movements by it. In fact I think that an acceptance that you cannot explain everything helps the investigative mind explain very much.
While in all actuality Newton noticed himself that he could NOT explain the motions of the planets with this theory. The n-body problem was way beyond his analytical and numerical capabilities. It would take well until the second half of the 19th century to solve that part of the problem, at which point people began noticing that Mercury didn't move the way Newtonian mechanics suggested.
51:24 "Physics is LOCO!" ;D
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Things should be as simple as possible but not simpler. If you can’t explain them simply, then you don’t understand them well enough. And if you don’t understand them well enough, then they are not as simple as they should be. Hence, the theory is incomplete.
25:48 Laminar flow Turbulent flow is kinda in there
The following argument based on recent experiments shows that the Pilot Wave deterministic interpretation of quantum Mechanics is the correct interpretation. Experiments and electrodynamic theory have proven that nearfield electromagnetic fields (Light) are instantaneous and this has consequences for all of modern physics including quantum mechanics. See links below for details. And the reality of instantaneous nearfield electromagnetic fields (group speed and front speed) can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. See the video and papers below for details and for more information about how the reality of instantaneous nearfield light affects other areas of modern physics.
Dr. William Walker - PhD ETH Zurich, 1997
*TH-cam presentation of above arguments:
th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments:
William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023:
vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Nearfield electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
That was an incredible talk.
I would like to stand up and say, as far as I'm concerbed:. Lee's QLG Theory is correct.
I am afraid of who will defend the ideas in science if people like him is lost from us...
Science will become religion like. Questioning historical and established doctrine will become taboo, and progress will stagnate. Conformity will be rewarded, rebellious "fringe" theories will be dismissed (go unfunded). The development of more powerful theories will take a back-seat to human nature. Great revolutionary thinkers like Einstein could not succeed in today's academic environment.
Of course,those are their agendas all to destroy our scientific enquiries and our very understanding of nature. We realists shall join together to protect Scientism for a better tomorrow..
The more we know, the more we know how much we don’t know.
What do you expect from a system where a logical dilemma is intrinsic to it?
paradox and oscillations
49:55 I like this lecture a lot, but Smolin is not sufficiently careful here. The position of B is a part of physical reality _contingent on having made a position measurement on particle A._
"The position of B is a part of physical reality contingent on having made a position measurement on particle A."... That doesn't seem to make any sense, unless you assume some sort of faster-than-light (non-local) interaction between the particles,... and even with that, it's an odd way of phrasing it.
What happens to B when A is not being measured? Is the energy destroyed? You can see where I'm going with this...
To put it unscientifically, there appears to be a whole lot of bullshit going on in some of these QM ideas. I'm sure that's due to my own ignorance, but that's what it seems like.
There are many ways for things to turn out and the probability is that of the universe you will find yourself in.
Prove it.
@@jessstuart7495 th-cam.com/video/iXRLDatmbgA/w-d-xo.html We have top people working on it. It is the most economical hypothesis as it requires just 1 equation.
Great lecture. I'm an economist and work with or on the geometry of the fractal. I am watching this because the fractal seems to have (by experiment) the same problems discussed here and I think I can, with it, finish Einstein's revolution. So far I have modelled the accelerating expansion of the cosmos - and with that plants, they too accelerate with age - with Hubble expansion and predictions of increasing acceleration rate. I have no insight into gravity. I am now working on the 'quantum' problem - the first problem I came up against with the fractal many years ago. The fractal does it all, including wave /particle (30:30) and entanglement. I will conclude 'light'/ the EMS is fractal. If you think I am parasitic on the current knowledge, no, I came to physics because they are the only group of thinkers that had the problems I had when I first thought about the isolated fractal. It behaved strange, all things at all times. Check out my youtube site for my clips. My biggest discovery I have made I think is that knowledge and economy (by which I mean all economies, human and other) play by the fractal also - they describe and defend realism. It's all about fractal geometry; current interpretations of reality are mere epicycles. As an economist, I think 'science' has become very protective and uncompetitive - a monopoly. The likes of me are disruptive; no one has reviewed my work. Physicists should be on the lookout for the likes of me, like Planck was to Einstein - it may be where the solution lies, and they will gain from it themselves.
sorry but you need to watch this
th-cam.com/video/gNAw-xXCcM8/w-d-xo.html
this person understand QM. You don't. Smolin doesn't. The perimeter Institute fouled up. Of course many scientists understand it...