David Finkelstein - Why is the Quantum so Mysterious?

Get free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000 videos: closertotruth.com/
Particles at two places at the same time-superposition. Particles communicating instantly with no respect to distance-entanglement. How to make sense of such weirdness? Quantum mechanics is how the world works at deepest levels. But nobody has any idea why.
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on quantum theory: bit.ly/3Q2vx5c
David Ritz Finkelstein was an Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He obtained his PhD in Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@missh1774]

Very cool. Quantisation of Geometry. Thats some kind of beautiful strange life-work David. Thank you. Robert your video library is a world without end.

[@playpaltalk]

That was interesting good questions and great answers.

[@guaromiami]

It's so nice of them to take a break from washing dishes to have this conversation.

[@TerryBollinger]

What a wonderful selection from your archives! Since David Finkelstein died in early 2016, I'm guessing this interview is about ten years old. But what an interview! Almost uniquely among modern quantum physicists, Finkelstein seems to have realized how deeply issues such as the existence of non-unitary spacetime paths impact _logic itself._ After all, if spacetime itself cannot find a unique “argument” for getting from point A to point B, why should Aristotelian logic presume that such precision is “more” fundamental than what the universe provides? The interview makes me wonder if Finkelstein ever considered flipping physics and math upside to make uncertainty the norm and precision, both of spacetime and of logic, emergent using the same history-creating choice dependence he describes in this interview. I like that this dependence fascinated him so much that he carried the delightful three-polarizer experiment with him at all times. What a fascinating fellow! Again, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, thank you for selecting and presenting this excerpt.

[@juan-fernandogomez-molina645]

thank you also for this insight 🙂

[@marishkagrayson]

Very insightful, thank you!

[@seek4truth]

I saw how a “wise” man looks like today. I had read about wise men a lot, bit didnt know how they look like. Now i can tell i have seen one. The way he talks, reasons, teaches, thinks, and replies. ❤

[@basharatmajeed6230]

Is there any other channel like the "closer to truth"? kindly mention some of them

[@fortynine3225]

I think the smaller things get the more laws of nature's grip on it gets less tight where at some point things start behaving strange within the laws of nature framework.

[@browngreen933]

Good way of putting it. Probably why we don't live at that level of Existence. Too risky.

[@virtual2152]

That's moving toward the answer I've been looking for. My question has been: Why is this confined to matter and states that are much smaller than we are? To put it the other way around (incorporating the comment from browngreen933), a prime reason we evolved to be the size we are is because of the certainty of our laws of nature here.

[@En-of5oh]

Really, that's amazing the world of quantum physics keeps itself mysterious even for scientists who spend whole their life trying to find logic answers to the behavior of quantum particles, for how long this will be as such?

[@vonBottorff]

I'm a sandbox theory guy. With quantum we've come up against the edges of our containing sandbox -- and that's it kid, must stay in the box, kid! What all this math does is create a nice logical container for this edge phenomenon. But at the end of the day the sandbox's edge is the definitive edge; and we can't really logic any further. Which is to be expected, I suppose. But this (at least to me) brings up the issue of what playground is this sandbox in? Invariably another sandbox with an edge reality to it? So is it then "turtles all the way down?" Or does this all do a Moebius strip trick and self-self itself? Still, I like how this DF guy talks.

[@johndoolan9732]

AM sandbox style ok your at the edge of the same box try this forget the box pick up 1 grain of sand ZOOM IN OR OUT THAT 1 GRAIN HAS ITS OWN SANDBOX FULL OF SAND QM FOR ME UNDERSTANDING WHOLE AS ONE AND HOW WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONNECTIONS THE RESULTS DIFFER ZOOM OUT BRINGS STRINGS WHERE PROBABILITIES COMES IN SPACE SPEED TRAVEL TIME CHAOS UNIVERSAL LAWS

[@Slo-ryde]

Our rules of logic don’t apply at the edge of the sand box because it interfaces with another dimension. Within such a higher dimension, you might be able to know both the position and momentum of a particle; but from our dimension, you can only know one but not the other.

[@janklaas6885]

📍5:46

[@CAM-fq8lv]

Would like to hear more from this guest.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I'm a Christian believer and I agree. I'm very open minded to listen and learn about scientific theories that go beyond my understanding. Peace to you from Florida..

[@wmpx34]

I believe he died in 2016, however there may be other CTT interviews of him

[@modelchanger1332]

He’s dead

[@dabberdan3200]

So what he’s saying is that the chances of a quantum physicist actually discovering a new theory in the field is actually pretty low because they have been trained to think too logically! What I believe he is saying is that a regular person who has a good understanding of quantum mechanics, with some degree of outside the box thinking of the subject has a better chance of coming up with a new theory or understanding of quantum mechanics

[@David.C.Velasquez]

I believe you are correct in this assessment. There are likely many of us with "outside the box" hypotheses on the nature of reality, all with varying degrees of merit, myself included. I was never content with Richard Feynman's mantra of "shut up and calculate". Unfortunately, the inability of human language to accurately convey such abstract conceptualizations will always be one of mankind's greatest obstacles to true understanding of base reality... if there even is such a thing. All may be emergent from the eternally infinite, and brute fact is almost never a satisfying answer.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[@simonhibbs887]

He's saying that physicists have had to construct entirely new systems of logic to describe the quantum behaviour they observe, and his life's work has been in that effort. So he's saying physicists have done, and are still dong this right now.

[@user-ry2qs7xf9k]

Yes,so let's leave the spiritual World for prophets and saints.

[@bxlawless100]

wittgenstein is correct. Logic is a game we play to understand eachother. The rules of chess don’t apply to checkers just like the rules of everyday life don’t apply to quantum mechanics. It’s a different game.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Physics of QM is all about the quantum fields collapsing into fine tuned particles leading to metaphysics of life, consciousness, soul and faith.

[@rv706]

That's inaccurate. Quantum mechanics doesn't require any modification of the background classical logic we use to reason. Yes, quantum events forms a lattice that is non-Boolean, so it can't be isomorphic to a lattice of propositions. But this doesn't mean classical logic stops working: it's the possibility of seeing quantum events as propositions that stops working. No mysteries. No breakdown of logic.

[@rv706]

Also the phrase "in quantum logic AB is not equal to BA" is inaccurate. The lattice of quantum events is commutative (like any order lattice) - it's the algebra of observables that is non-commutative (AB different from BA). Now, the noncommutativity of the algebra of quantum observables implies the lattice of quantum events (projection operators onto closed subspaces) is non-Boolean, a.k.a. non-distributive.

[@ZahraLowzley]

Theories of lexically based cognition alienated the large portion of the population whom don't think lexically nor axiomatically. If asked how such people think ,it shall be equally "strange" . I don't differentiate axiomatically, but only with harmonic geometry, which is why humans don't need to be trained to recognise musical intervals, so I became a music teacher . The language is already there, but personally iv heard scientists say such things as "sky daddy " too many times, without defining what belief is as a faculty, this type of differentiation is an unsurpassable barrier

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

The "Raisins" contribute to the new space. So much more energy in the matter than in the Space vacuum. Look at the night sky and recognize that the Space unfolds from the matter. CIG is the theory behind Halton Arp's Red Shift anomalies.

[@Rael39]

What we choose to place our attention on creates a particular type of world.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

I think this presentation and the resulting comments show that individuals confirm what they already believe no matter what is actually said.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

Things that are actual that run counter to our intuitions are not illogical. They are merely ultrarational, beyond our normal ability to surmise from case or limited data.

[@bozo5632]

That's what I've always thought! 💪💪💪👍👍👍😜

[@dontuateytu2557]

"Physics advances one funeral at a time" Max Planck.

[@throughliterarylens273]

It may be a News to classical physicist, but social scientists have been well aware of such logic

[@jeanetjensen6474]

Love it 🌍👍🇩🇰

[@joelmichaelson2133]

When you name consciousness intentionality you subconsciously expect to see what you have not looked for yet. How can you say the Double Slit experiment is truly worthy of the name experiment ? Are there any quantum mechanics experiments that do not involve an observer ?

[@halleuz1550]

The mathematics of quantum mechanics is functional analysis, which is part of classical mathematics based on standard set theory and predicate logic. No revision of logic is necessary. Unfortunately, it is never made clear in the interview how 'logic' is to be understood.

[@curiousmind9287]

Statistics in quantum gives a false impression that is so strange only because it entitled itself to no cause and effect. But this is an arbitrary action that can be applied to almost any statistical observation. Statistics will always add up even if the underlying theory is wrong. This is how this unicorn exists.

[@johnswoodgadgets9819]

You cannot have a detailed conversation about quantum theory unless you use the word arbitrary. I love it! But then I am convinced that the origin of this and all universes was an arbitrary thought. It is 'chicken or egg' on steroids, but logically, and through quantum theory the only way the original cause could happen was that it arbitrarily decided to happen. Consciously. Our time space continuum is turning out to be a mere casual observation, not the ultimate truth after all. Makes me all giggly!

[@curiousmind9287]

@@johnswoodgadgets9819 Have you considered inevitability as a cause? I am not being facetious here. I believe that the largest context of everything is some type of inevitability that frustrates not only people but Gods. I have no formal background in mathematics or physics, but I know people, I know the pressure that organizations can create and experimental science is my professional occupation. My impression is that quantum physics enjoys its mystical status and as a group is not interested in finding a solution, because this will end the mystery and lose public interest. As long as it is a mystery, theoreticians are in a position to preside over it. "Normalizations" of theoretical physics would not be accepted in any other field of science, because normal science must follow from the experiments. Otherwise, in any field of science, under a little bit of peer pressure with a little bit of goodwill, it is possible to confirm experimentally any theory and turn any problem into unsolvable.

[@johnswoodgadgets9819]

@@curiousmind9287 I think I do not disagree with that concept and will consider it. I do not know of any way a true origin could occur without a fully conscious cosmos, capable of arbitrary thought. If that was indeed inevitable, I am not sure how that inevitability fits into any theory of origin. I do believe the quantum phenomena indicates at the very least an ongoing connection between the components of the cosmos in general which does also indicate a certain inevitability. It at least flies in the face of classic probability.

[@curiousmind9287]

@@johnswoodgadgets9819 I think inevitability cannot be a part of any human theory, because by default it creates a limitation, which is always intrinsic (emerging) and contextual. For example, with other things being equal, if you are the only honest guy at the card table, you will lose. Even if you are God and want to create a fair world, this will be your inevitable frustrating contextual inevitability. When you begin to think about it, you will see more and more inevitabilities. As to the conscious cosmos, I think it is and that is also inevitability. There was just impossible for it not to emerge with a certain number of nodes (stars) connected by intergalactic plasma filaments. We may encounter the same emergence with AI as well. it is interesting that inevitabilities are never personal, but always statistical. This, by the way, makes statistics so mysterious. For example, we can predict with a very high degree of accuracy how many people will have a car accident, but we will never be able to predict who will have an accident and what chain of events will lead to it. It gets worse. If for example, an annual estimate is 50, but by December there were only 10, then all remaining 40 will happen in one month! Is this reminiscent of something?

[@kos-mos1127]

The basis for logic is argumentation. The basis for argumentation are claims, reasons, support and warrant. The basis for claims, reasons, support and warrant are facts. The basis for facts are the phenomena of the Cosmos. Quantum Physics has shown to be 100% accurate when describing the behavior of matter. There are two things that can be done either maintain that human logic applies to the Cosmos and ignore all the experimental results. Or Quantum Physics is correct and human logic has evolved to explain our experience of the world. The fact that Quantum Physics can be reduced to four algorithms shows that Quantum Physics is logical.

[@samrowbotham8914]

In maths the order of operations is important. I don't understand the comment about things not being cancelled out in the world I can think of several mundane examples.

[@Christopher_Bachm]

We have the story about blind men and an elephant. Each experienced compelling evidence. Each professed knowledge. All were mistaken.

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

Who was the great American physicist who said “if you say you understand quantum physics, you don’t understand quantum physics. It so true, why should the world behave according to our theories? That’s why scientific theories evolve, progress etc.

[@clmasse]

The correct quote is "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." [Richard Feynman]

[@picksalot1]

According to a 2021 article on SciTechDaily titled "Breaking Heisenberg: Evading the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Physics", a "New technique gets around 100-year-old rule of quantum physics for the first time."

[@davidrandell2224]

QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@davidrandell2224 Except that McCutcheon's ideas are in practice completely useless and don't describe huge swathes of the actual behaviour we see. For example his theory of gravity cannot calculate elliptical orbits, yet the orbits we observe are elliptical and we have known this for hundreds of years.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's a great experiment, but it doesn't actually involve violating the uncertainty principle. Quote from one of the researchers: “Nothing is violating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You’ve just picked a particular set of questions where you’re not asking about things that are forbidden,”

[@davidrandell2224]

@@simonhibbs887 Newton’s Prop.1, theorem 1; equal areas/ centripetal ‘force’ at center of major/ minor axes contradicts Prop. 11, problem 6 gives ‘force’ to focus. Kepler’s 3 ‘laws’ all force free mass free. All orbitals- GOE, NOE, SOE- all energy free, force free, mass free, inverse ‘ law’ free. Inverse square ‘law’ impossible for elliptical orbits. Strength at aphelion too weak to cause return of any satellite/ planet, etc. Double the earth’s size increases mass by 8 yet surface gravity only doubles: gravity based on size not mass.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@davidrandell2224 >"Newton’s Prop.1, theorem 1; equal areas/ centripetal ‘force’ at center of major/ minor axes contradicts Prop. 11, problem 6 gives ‘force’ to focus." I think you're interpreting those terms incorrectly. hard to say, because you're just throwing out a handful of words without context. Yes Keppler's laws do not take into account mass because the concept of mass as realised by Newton hadn't been invented yet. Newton's work was based on Keppler, and corrected some simplifications and generalisations Keppler had made. >"All orbitals- GOE, NOE, SOE- all energy free, force free, mass free, inverse ‘ law’ free. Inverse square ‘law’ impossible for elliptical orbits." Orbits are routinely successfully calculated using Newton's mechanics, or using relativity where necessary. Are you arguing that the calculations NASA, the European Space Agency, China, Russia and many other countries use to accurately predict the orbits of satellites do not work? Don't you think someone would have noticed by now? >"Strength at aphelion too weak to cause return of any satellite/ planet, etc" I know this is not true because I wrote a gravitational simulation on a computer as a student using Newton's laws. It worked fine. When a satellite is at aphelion it's velocity has been reduced through conversion to gravitational energy. As it is slower, the weaker gravity is strong enough to curve it's orbit back into an ellipse. It took me an afternoon to write the program, and you can get modern software that does this with fancy graphics as open source. >"Double the earth’s size increases mass by 8 yet surface gravity only doubles: gravity based on size not mass." Oh, that's hilarious. So density has nothing to do with it? How do you account for planets or moons with the same diameter, but different masses having different surface gravity? Try calculating the surface gravity of the earth and that of Jupiter. Since Jupiter is mostly hydrogen it's much less dense than the Earth, so using Earth as a baseline it's gravity is dramatically lower than a straightforward calculation based only on diameter would suggest. The moon is pretty close to being a sphere, close enough, but one half of it is a lot denser than the other because one side is mostly Aluminium and the other is mostly Iron. The side with more iron is denser and more massive, and so the gravity is stronger on that side. If gravity was due to diameter alone, that would not be possible. This explains why satellite orbits round the moon don't have stable orbits. You still didn't how how McCutcheon calculates elliptical orbits.

[@Corteum]

It's only mysterious to physicalists who are still stuck in the old way of thinking and havent learned to evolve out of it.

[@clmasse]

Quantum mechanics is a century old, there is no longer people with the old way of thinking.

[@Corteum]

@@clmasse It's a century old - meaning, rather recent, don't you think? And even though it is very recent, it is still our most reliable, most robust, and most capable physics model yet - even though our understanding of it is still rudimentary. You're still stuck in the old way of thinking by sound of it.

[@clmasse]

@@CorteumNo, not recent. What was the state of physics in 1825? Geocentrism is the most robust theory, bodies fall well vertically, it works.

[@Corteum]

@@clmasse Compared to other physics models, quantum physics is still relatively new. While the history of qm dates back to the early 20th century, other physics models have been developed over a longer period. For example, classical mechanics, which describes the motion of macroscopic objects, was developed by scientists such as Isaac Newton in the 17th century. lol. Similarly, electromagnetism, which describes the behavior of electrically charged particles, was developed by James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century. So yeah, i'd say qm is pretty new. :P It's also our most reliable physics model to date. That is undisputed. It's not to say that it is without its challenges or flaws... But it is only 120 or so years old, and we've only tapped a fraction of its potential. Yet, we've been able to do a lot with it. Think integrated circuits, lasers, atomic clocks, fMRI, transistors, classical computers, quantum computers, satellites, mobile technologies, the internet, cryptography, fibre optics, smart phones, and so on. Sooooo young, yet so much potential... and outshining other models by a longshot :)

[@wagfinpis]

Very interesting mind to interview.

[@joelmichaelson2133]

What is the reason to want to know a photon’s position/location when the speed of light is already known ?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"What is the reason to want to know a photon’s position/location when the speed of light is already known ?"* ... If it's data that can be known, then someone wants to know it.

[@javiej]

Because the Heisenberg indetermination is not about the position and the speed, it is about the position and the momentum. The momentum does not only give us information about the speed, it is telling us about its energy, frequency, and direction. If we could measure exactly the position and momentum of photons then we could build a telescope capable to see exoplanets in all their glory, and many other practical applications. Unfortunately it is physically impossible.

[@joelmichaelson2133]

From my understanding momentum is a product of MASS and velocity. Since a photon has no mass in what sense can a photon have momentum ? Is light really even moving ?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@joelmichaelson2133 *"Is light really even moving ?"* ... It takes eight minutes for sunlight to reach planet Earth, so based on observation, it must be "moving."

[@javiej]

@@joelmichaelson2133According to Einstein, E2 = p2c2 + m2c4. When a particle is at rest, it has no momentum and the equation simplifies to the more familiar E = mc2. But if a particle has no mass, the equation becomes E = pc.

[@throughliterarylens273]

Therefore, we should not commit the fallacy of physics for explaining every thing, particularly the fallacy of classical physics

[@markpmar0356]

5:04 Wrong. Ever heard of PEMDAS?

[@vatirhea]

It's only mysterious if you think it's real. Your question is like asking why are unicorns so mysterious.

[@simonhibbs887]

QM describes real behaviour we observe happening. Physicists were forced to come up with these new theories because they observed light, particles, atoms, etc behaving in these ways and needed mathematical descriptions of these behaviours. These descriptions have proved to be so accurate and useful, they have enabled us to build the technology of the modern world. You depend on technology engineered using quantum mechanics every day, including the transistors in your computer.

[@vatirhea]

@@simonhibbs887 blah, blah, blah. QM has too many free parameters which defies Akum's Razor; models should simplify things, not make them confusingly mysterious. The theories are unfalsifiable, and it is built on a pantheon of imaginary particles that have never been directly observed. QM is just a math puzzle with no correlation in reality. When you realize force is an action not a thing, and it will never be a partial, gravity and magnetism are pressure mediations in the aether, time is a subjective construct of the observer, and consciousness is primordial and matter is emergent, then science will stop wasting money chasing particle fairies.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@vatirhea >QM is just a math puzzle with no correlation in reality. If that is true, how is it that predictions from QM were successfully used to invent and engineer technologies that use quantum effects. These include transistors, lasers, atomic clocks, medical PET scanners, plus to many chemicals and biotechnologies. Modern chemistry is entirely founded on quantum mechanics. That's about as much correlation to reality as you can possibly get. Models should accurately predict the thing they are modelling. They should do so as simply as possible, yes, but accuracy is what actually matters.

[@vatirhea]

@@simonhibbs887 rhetorical questions are not an argument. They are a deflection designed to avoid having to address my previous statement.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@vatirhea I don't think it's rhetorical, it's an actual question. You said these theories have no correlation in reality. in which case how is it that these technologies are real? These theories are falsifiable through experimentation. QM experiments are conducted in physics labs all over the world constantly, I repeated such experiments as a student. Engineers used QM to invent and engineer all the technologies I described in my previous post, which were only possible because QM accurately describes how these things actually function. My direct, non rhetorical question is how can all this be a fact if QM is false?

[@ajwright8710]

Just a thought. Maby quantum mechanics could be perceived as two sides of the same coin. One side the scientific side (left brain) mathematical. The other side spiritual (right brain). Einstein had a pretty good understanding of the scientific side where as Helena Blavatski could sense the spiritual side. As a note I believe Einstein in his later years was known to have read books by Helena Blavatski. 😮

[@browngreen933]

Interesting if Einstein followed Madame Blavatsky! How much did he "borrow" from her?

[@Dobrojuto.yt-7]

Quantum theory is just a theory, and always will be. And some day in future people will laugh when they hear about that in history class.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

And... they will be operating under the basis of another, presumably more accurately predictive theory, until someday in the future... ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

[@brendawilliams8062]

There are many things yet to be. Everything serves out it time and lets another beautiful dazzle.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@davidrandell2224 I should have lived a past life as a Swiss watch maker. No place for that now.

[@davidrandell2224]

@@brendawilliams8062 And yet if it is Final, then what? Very little,if anything beyond. Why long for the past or future: only now exists. The Cause of gravity known since 2002; details in said reference/ book.

[@It__From__Bit]

QM is not weird. It demonstrates quite robustly what this reality is. We just have to be willing to let go of our erroneous old notions and accept what QM is telling us.

[@misterhill5598]

Science Fiction + hallucination Mushroom = Quantum Mechanic Theory. Very simple.

[@SpotterVideo]

String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

[@bozo5632]

IDK about the details, but I can't help thinking n-dimensionality of some kind is the key. Ever since I read Flatland. Mysterious illogical manifestations can be 4d thingies that we just see ~wrong because we're flatlanders. Not necessarily (FWIW I'd prefer not) string theory.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@bozo5632 I believe you are on the right track. How much can we explain with one extra spatial dimension? The original String Theory requires too many extra dimensions.

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

So we suspend logic? That would open Pandora's box to an unending number of absurdities. How about we question underlying assumptions we make about reality that cause Quantum Mechanics to appear illogical. Maybe that's what QM is telling us.

[@denizkacan8007]

I think that is what they are saying. We have been building these assumptions about reality based on experiences in our evolution and our evolutionary path has not come across with QM world up to now. We just need to be more open minded now and find ways to connect some valid parts of our already existing logic with new reality we discover.

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

My prediction is that it will require a questioning of assumptions that many scientific materialists won't feel comfortable with.@@denizkacan8007

[@BartvanderHorst]

It is a model that describes phenomana better then previous models... but ithe model is not what actually happens.

[@En-of5oh]

6:12 - 6:15, is one more amazing comment.

[@prakashvakil3322]

Aatmiya DIVINITY HARE KRSNA Renowned Coach was asked, How to play TENNIS? Coach replied, First learning HOW NOT TO PLAY TENNIS.😊😊😊 Quantum application in areas of 😊😂❤😊😂❤😊😂❤😊😂❤ be ultimately 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I Am OK NO Matter What.😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@stephenzhao5809]

Thanks a lot. ❤2:28 ... take meon the journey. ... yes I think Darwin said if something doesn't seem surprising it's because it was helpful in our evolution millions of years ago anything that comes along that's new has to seem surprising or it's probably wrong 3:25 ... because 6:25 what can we infer from that what does it mean to say that the normal ways of thinking about our logic doesn't apply what. DF: well first of all thenearly drove Heisenbergy crazy what does it mean to say ab doesn't equal ba, 2x3 equals 3x2 (right) why should it be different for physical variables and finally he realized it means that if you know one of them you can't know other if they were both numbers of course they'd commute so they can't both be numbers if you know one you must be a little bit ignorant about the other so the Heisenberg uncertainty principle flowed out of this order of independence (okay) and helps us to understand it but it's the order dependence which is the fundamental thing the uncertainty principle that's the way of explaining it to people now (taht uncertainty principles that can't know the position and the momentum of a microscopic object at the same time and the more you know one the less you know the other so if you can be absolutely precise about the position you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the momentum and vice versa) 7:26 as you can imagine this changed physically drastically physicas before this was called classical physics today and physicas afterwards called quantum physics and in mathematical circle somethimes it's just called non-commutative physics (commutative means that the order doesn't matter right) exactly (and non-communitive means that the order does matter how you ask the question affects the answer right) right now when I came across this revised logic back in college at teh as a result of the writings of the mathematician John for Neumann uh I realized immediately of course we all know that geometry is an exercise in logic you're changed (chained) to logic that means you're changing geometry and uh it hadn't been done it seemed like a good life's work and I've been working on that ever since the quantization of geometry.

[@christianheidt5733]

I guess to evolve from animals we have to accept that reality is not what how evolution has forced us how to process information. Crazy but I guess it kinda makes sense, we can't use outdated equipment to progress any further 🤯.

[@the_druid0066]

We didn't evolve from animals

[@christianheidt5733]

@@the_druid0066 I meant from having to live like animals, & using our senses to guide us.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@the_druid0066 We are animals. Seriously, we're even made out of meat and bone.

[@bobcabot]

Quantum Reality just means our reality is but a dream within a dream and Poe is of causa a genius...

[@dabberdan3200]

I’ve theorized that quantum mechanics cannot be explained by regular human language or mathematical concepts Our understanding is based upon the mathematical principles of the universe there are other explanations that will be explained by someone else who can Bring forth the theory of a new universal languages and mathematics that are mathematically equivalent to the language. So if you explain it you should be able to do the math on your own language and find the answers to quantum theories❤ More or less it’s considered an exotic matter and language that are mathematically tied together. This is the only way I can explain my theory…. We need the right person to be born with the right beautiful brain

[@markantrobus8782]

Space, time, and mass no longer make sense because such concepts no longer apply.

[@kipponi]

Quantization of geometry GQ is this man work okay. It's mathematics goes over my head😮. I let it be...😂.

[@davidrandell2224]

QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc.

[@edwardpotereiko]

Quantum behaviors make more sense to me than classical in many cases. I had to be convinced not to trust my intuition that moving one end of a stick immediately moves the other end, having to make myself accept ideas like particle physics and a universal speed limit for causality. And, just conceptually, I thought it was obvious why an object’s momentum and position can’t both be known completely. Something that has an exact position is still, not moving, and therefore has no momentum. Something that has momentum is moving and therefore is covering more than just a single location at any one time, like capturing a moving object on a frame of film and still getting a little blur even with a very short exposure.

[@andyjones1899]

One thing I don't understand..everybody is trying to unite Einstein's Relativity with the Quantum but in nature they're already combined?

[@simonhibbs887]

Physics theories are really descriptions of what we observe. So we see particles and light behaving in certain ways, and we describe that behaviour mathematically. Relativity describes gravity, motion and time at large scales very accurately. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of particles, photons and such at very small scales. However these two mathematical descriptions disagree in certain cases, such as extreme conditions such as inside a black hole. Quantum Mechanics gives one set of predictions but relativity gives different predictions. So far we have not been able to come up with a single mathematical set of descriptions that work in every case.

[@andyjones1899]

@@simonhibbs887 so to find the answer to this then we must look to nature right?? Because in nature it's already united, would this be correct?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@andyjones1899 That’s right, the scientific method is all about observing nature, often in the form of experiments, and describing what we find very precisely. So far we don’t have clear observations that help us understand the nature of quantum wave function collapse, for example.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

If it is Logical, then it is not Mysterious.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

0D...the Unseen Realm.

[@Universe476]

I met many things that hard to happen same in many things but they happened.I believing there're multiverse

[@nuqwestr]

Conscious reality for humans emerges after wave function collapse. Our reality is not "uncertain".

[@enriquea.fonolla4495]

reality emerges from decoherence. No need for consciousness to experience it.

[@esorse]

May be, maybe not, or neither, dichotomy absent non-Aristotelian probability space * , resolving Russell's set theory contradiction ** , may, may not, or neither be probability function indefinitely regressive and consequently, require, not require, or neither faith to accept ^. * Conventionally probability space, ( X , Σ , f : Σ --> [0, 1] ) , is a set, X, with a sigma algebra, Σ, where any complement, finite intersection, or union of X subsets also belongs to Σ and a function, f : Σ --> [0,1], mapping any Σ subset to a number in the unit interval of uncountably infinite real numbers between zero and one inclusive. ** The set of all sets are not elements of themselves, is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself. ^ Apparently Hooke discovered the cell in sixteen sixty five, it is composed mostly of water and results from cellular division, which aesthetically has the same form as Young's eighteen hundred and one double slit electron experiment wave node and cancelled antinode when a node and antinode intersect interference pattern findings, however all within the same real material space and therefore, without an opportunity for modelling with the imaginary number (mathsisfun.com/algebra/complex-plane.html), equal to the square root of negative one, implying geometrically it is the length of the straight line segment side of a square with area equal to negative one.

[@joelmichaelson2133]

Then light has no information. Maybe we are alone in the universe.

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation, you need his spritual video

[@user-sr5sn8bl3n]

Jul 17, /\ Jul 30, i503

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@Mentaculus42]

Clear as mud ¿¡?! BAU!!

[@browngreen933]

Heck, the non-human biologics technology in government custody will explain EVERYTHING!😮

[@sandc411]

live life in the quantum's terms not in yours...

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he master of consciousness field and he know the Universe truth, He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(0:20) *RLK: **_"Well, to have something in two separate places at the same time is illogical."_* ... Thank you for vindicating me, Robert! The moment you sacrifice logic in order to explain something, then you have no formal framework of thinking left to fall back on. Logic establishes constraints to arbitrary notions, so without it, _existence is just a free-for-all!_ If you want to claim that there's a corresponding universe for every possible state of a particle, then who's to say otherwise? ... _Go for it!_ ... We can say it's all part of the "strangeness" of the quantum world, pop open a few beers, and call it a day. And since we've all agreed to sacrifice formal logic in favor of the arbitrary realm of the quantum, then every theist watching this video should start arguing that God represents the quantum world. ... At that point, no other explanation is required.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@saigopala *"Or. . . it may imply that our understanding of Logic, as on date, is incomplete? And the Quantum world is just a window into the meadows we're yet to graze?"* ... Logic is a formalized method for processing information. Whenever something is proposed, you can test it in the crucible of logic for validity. Logic states that something cannot be in two places at the same time. Logic also states that if something is spinning in one direction, then it cannot be simultaneously spinning in the opposite. Logic also states that if something is a sphere, then it cannot simultaneously be a cube. If there are four of something, then it cannot equally be that there are seven of something ... These are all byproducts of "logical thinking." So, propositions that negate these logic-based reasonings are not demonstrating the "incompleteness of logic;" ...they are literally *VIOLATlNG* logic. So please tell me, when we start accepting things that violate logic as equally being _logical,_ then what "formal framework of thinking" do we use to verify what we are thinking is correct? Thank you, as well.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Is known as 'aporia' and too there's antinomy. A grave mistake to say God represents the quantum world; or the quantum world represents GOD. You are implying a duality. Why would GOD need to represent anything - you just made that notion up. Is God a salesmen? Why would GOD need to represent anything when ALL is GOD. This however is to delimit and reify GOD yet again. It's not that there's no longer an explanation needed, the condition of mind that is insufficient. You only know of things by its attributes, and able to define things by contrasting - 'other thans'. What makes you think such a poor condition of mind is even qualified for logic. What is logic. Really it's the fact that your kin are the religion of bumping particles, and they believe, that explanation is rooted in particles. Where is all this in the atom. Too, you indirectly state that theists sacrifice logic and live in a fairytale land ; and think of them as bandwagon jumpers.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@S3RAVA3LM *"A grave mistake to say God represents the quantum world; or the quantum world represents GOD. You are implying a duality."* ... Why not? Who's to say otherwise? A particle can simultaneously spin in opposite directions, so why can't God enjoy some of the quantum craziness? *"you just made that notion up."* ... No, I'm calling it an "extension of logic" like everyone else has agreed to do. Who's to say otherwise? *"You only know of things by its attributes, and able to define things by contrasting - 'other thans'"* ... Not anymore! "other-thans" are the new "identicals" thanks to the quantum's new form of logic. *"Too, you indirectly state that theists sacrifice logic and live in a fairytale land ; and think of them as bandwagon jumpers."* ... Not anymore! The framework for discerning reality that I grew up with (logic) is now just an amorphic cloud of arbitrary notions that we must simply accept. Thanks to "breakthroughs in Quantum Mechanics" your God is just as logical as anything else, my friend. Who's to say otherwise? And even if someone did say otherwise, what reliable method for processing data are they using to justify their claim?

[@browngreen933]

Speculative science becoming religion-like fantastic mythology has always been a red flag to me. 😢

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@browngreen933 *"Speculative science becoming religion-like fantastic mythology has always been a red flag to me"* ... I see it as the eventual downfall of our species. You see this same "opposites can be the same" quantum version of logic being manifested in human society with the gender debate. When logic gets tossed out the window, the ones doing the tossing are soon to follow.

[@jffryh]

I think "logic" is being wrongly conflated with "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" here.

[@sunilprinja9913]

We live in the classical world...and, we want particles/ atoms to behave like marbles....😅

[@alanbooth9217]

why did evolution select for the capacity to think this abstractly - why all the extra horsepower and why should it be trusted having discarded primary sensibility on macroscopics

[@glencorreya7657]

I almost got an impression that Quantum Theory is an ever so small insight towards a feeble understanding of the 'why' of things (as Einstein put it)!

[@davidrandell2224]

Expansion Theory replaced Standard Theory/Model in 2002. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.

[@simonhibbs887]

Show me how to use McCutcheon's theory of gravity to do something very simple. Give the formula for calculating an elliptical orbit.

[@Burbituate]

There's still the propagation of untruths regarding QM, I suspect to keep some on the philosophy/physics/ "I've a new book out" lecture circuit...

[@johnswoodgadgets9819]

He doesn't know. Not only does he not know, but he also doesn't have the slightest clue of where to begin. He desperately searches the dusty old archives of scientific thought experiments to find something to give us a toehold on understanding. I have at times wondered what you would see if you could observe a closed system that was purely and completely arbitrary. Not random, arbitrary. In all respects. Would it be a system at all? What would the transition point from classic cause and effect to purely arbitrary look like? What would vice versa look like? I think the later would look like the universe as we know it, and the former would look like the universe as our ancient ancestors knew it. Give it up. The scientific method which has permeated our thought until it has become our thought cannot guide us down this rabbit hole. And we have forgotten, been conditioned, against thinking any other way.

[@simonhibbs887]

As he pointed out, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory we have, because it is an incredibly accurate description of how things actually work, and how we observe physical systems actually behaving. This understanding has enabled us to build the technology of the modern world that you rely on every day, using the equations of quantum mechanics so design it all. The transistors in your computer, the lasers in the fibre optic networks that link up the world, the atomic clocks essential to the GPS system we use to navigate, the PET scanners in hospitals that save lives, all these things and more are quantum technologies.

[@johnswoodgadgets9819]

@@simonhibbs887 I understand that, although the quantum effect is still more of an obstacle than an advantage in transistor and multiphase fiber optic network design, it is an obstacle with benefits. I used to work on Cesium beam time standards, and even then, back in the day, we were doing a lot more compensating for the quantum effect than incorporation. Lot of head scratching. Observational understanding, like in the early days of electrical design will take us so far into the quantum world. We are engaging a phenomenon we only have the most rudimentary understanding of, and that is OK. We have always done that in technical development. I just find this particular video presentation a bit cognitively amusing. If he had said he did not have a clue how it works, but he observed that it did work and therefore could both compensate for it and use it to practical advantage, it would have struck me as more genuine and candid. I have been 'professored' before.

[@user-ry2qs7xf9k]

God works in mysterious ways.

[@marcosbatista1029]

Answer : because everything is consciousness! Next question !

[@dp5475]

These wannabes over complicate things so much. We're in such a drought for real geniuses like we had 100+ years ago.

[@user-ry2qs7xf9k]

because in the 19th century a mysterious thing happened.

[@dp5475]

@@user-ry2qs7xf9k Indeed. I'd say 15th to 18th centuries as well.

[@patientson]

An impatient being can't handle the truth.

[@ronjohnson4566]

"you can change the order of anything and get the answer you want". okay, I am not a christian because all i hear from christians is wordplay. By changing the meaning and usage of words you can get potato people to believe anything. Isn't that straight out of some Brave New World, 1984, Animal Farm theology? If you can believe you can do anything. Every time! Or maybe there is a magic man in the sky! And, after an eternity that supreme being decided that he would speak to his children and tell them about quantum. The word that solves every problem. There is no need to think anymore. there is no use for education, religion, government or a sunday afternoon ice cream. Just believe in quantum you are saved. But just to make sure sprinkle some water on your head. Reagan couldn't say the word sprinkle so he decided on trickle. Jesus said, I thirst. And a roman soldier offered him vinegar water on a sponge stick. If you have read any history of romans and toilets and sponge sticks you know why that story was in the bible. many years later we get our just rewards. Now that is spooky action at a distance.

[@simonhibbs887]

He's just talking about the fact that with quantum systems performing a measurement changes the system, so the order you do measurements in will give different results because the system will end up in a different state. That's all.

[@syedaleemuddin6804]

This video is too old. Because I read somewhere this scientist died in 2016

[@richardsylvanus2717]

In an alternate universe he's alive and 94 years old

[@browngreen933]

Yep, he's quantum tripping now!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"This video is too old. Because I read somewhere this scientist died in 2016"* ... What "new revelations" is Quantum Mechanics over the past seven years has rendered this video obsolete?

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I think this video is relevant for me because I'm not educated in Quantum Physics. Anyhow... I'm the one who's getting old. I need to speed up the education process. Peace

[@kos-mos1127]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC An Artificial Intelligence can track quantum systems in real time.

[@anandkishore4344]

His eyes look like snake eyes.

[@michaeltrower741]

Too much background noise.

[@maxwelldillon4805]

the quantum is not correct

[@kos-mos1127]

The quantum has been experimentally verified.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Guys figure our quantum are nill. He show up quanta true are probability nill too because he keep out fundamental law of phich .

[@cynthiao.543]

I wish you would do a better job of identifying your guests….it’s often vague, maybe not to those in the know, but to an amateur like myself. Is this the David Finkelstein who passed away in 2016?

[@xPaulie]

It makes me cringe that this interview was not with me. I have the new theories and new principles. Cringe I tell you! 😒

[@Baba-fy1jc]

The Quantum System works easy with his own Logic and that is the Foundation from the Logic . The Informationen is a Part from the Order and the Order is a Part from the Informationen. That or a System that works ever with his own Limit or Information Level and that makes many Around US Visible. That System works on his own Way and not on way ,that we can make with the Creativity from us. The Creativity is here on many Places in many Times a Big Problem and the Consciousness from us . The Human has Visible a Super Big Critisim,and the Topic Thermodynamycs ,makes there often ,with that Problem ,with a Mass Psychologic Disorders at the People Visible. His own Products makes the Human to esay to a Normal thing and his moves or many Situation,,that makes the Human Safe ,with to easy ,to a Normal Situation or Move. The Human works Visible to Bad with the Nature or in the Nature ,and that the Human a Psychopath and a Normopath is that makes the Nature ,with the Time better and better Visible. The Informationen and ist here with a Problem ,then that the most People many Problems have ,with the Informations ,that is more as Super good Visible. The Quantum makes more Visible from the Moves and how that all so works in the Space . That makes it on many different ways Visible that the Space a very Crazy Place is,and that makes it on good and on Bad Ways Visible. I think that that makes it from Time to Time then Mysterious ,or with this Words or with so a Message can we then make a Link to the Word Mysteriöse.

[@thesilvervigilante]

Richard Feynman said, Nature uses only the longest Threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry. #X #THREADS #ZUCC @ZUCK @ELONMUSK #LOGO #ART

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he master of consciousness field and he know the Universe truth, He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation, you need his spritual video

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he master of consciousness field and he know the Universe truth, He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation, you need his spritual video

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation, you need his spritual video"* ... You just demonstrated a "superposition of comments" under a KZbin video.

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation He Have Sandeep maheshwari spirituality channel

[@bahauddin8383]

Sir you need meet Sandeep maheshwari he genius of self realisation, you need his spritual video