Does Quantum Mechanics Imply Multiple Universes?

[@danielpaulson8838]

This was way too short. I could listen to these two dialogue all day. Incredible communicators and teachers, both in very similar ways. They make the complex, somewhat approachable.

[@maconcamp472]

Gravity is memory!! 🐘 Gravity reflects our thoughts!!💭 A black hole is a thought!!💭 We’re thoughts of the universe!! Moons are like black holes!! 🕳️ We’re becoming powerful stars!!⭐️ I know I’m dreaming!! 🛌 If you’re dreaming too, then you’re the conductor of your dream. You have to imagine the best you can, what your dream is all about. ✍️ I can help you!! 👼 All the galaxies are meant to gravitate to each other, as we would to each other!! Magnetism!! 🧲 Like a parachute of stars!!🪂 Andromeda galaxy would represent the Milky Way’s twin flame!!🔥 🔥 Galaxy collisions!! Twin flame connections!! Quantum entanglement!! 👻 We’re more like holograms here and ghosts!! Pretending to be human!! We’re playing a very silly game!!🥸 We come here as a moon or seed!! We evolve into the universe itself and explode like a star!!💫 I’ve already exploded at least once. I’m trying to help others now!! 😇

[@LordOfThePancakes]

Both a bit irresistible as well. Sean can run some of his quantum measurement experiments on me any day. 😍😍 You sure know how to make a woman dream Sean. 😘 Mr. Big sexy Science man 😉 Gosh he’s so tall too 🤭

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

These sessions are what I call "KZbin gold"

[@ced3763]

yes, they are both amazing! Sean have such incredible intelect..

[@lonelycubicle]

So nice to hear an expert of a field be interviewed by another expert of the same field who is just trying to get the information out for the audience.

[@tomsmith4542]

yes but the difference is that Brian has also journalist qualities

[@philharmer198]

What do other experts , in the same field think ? From other theories .

[@lonelycubicle]

@@philharmer198 There are many understandings of how quantum mechanics works that gives the result we see in nature using mathematics to describe. I like interviewers who draw out the thinking of their guest instead of debating.

[@philharmer198]

@@lonelycubicle agreed . Then the debate . Is what their saying true ? If so they have to prove it . Physically .

[@lamdao1242]

If you are here and interested in listening to this stuff you are probably an intellectual. You are interested in abstracts stuff. You are interested in finding out more about a few things or many things that you know a little about. Some people are very focused in their curiosity. Others want to know about anything that catches their fancy and many things catches their fancy. But there are people with no interest in stuff that they don’t know much about. They want certainty of knowing what they know, and to admit that they don’t know and what they don’t know can affect their lives? They just jump to a conclusion (back to certainty) and then get angry when you tell them it’s complicated. That behaviour is most evident during Covid. Snatching at the silver bullets of ivermectin or hydroxychloquinne & getting angry when scientists say: the tests and trials are not showing the results you want.

[@Dr10Jeeps]

Two of my favourite physicists having their typically enlightening conversation. How can you not be enthralled by this stuff?

[@Witnessdomaining]

Brian Greene and Sean Carroll... What a meditation!

[@philharmer198]

You come up with nonsense . Upon this meditation , mindset .

[@rod6189]

What a load of nonsense

[@richsw]

Goodness, this conversation and the previous one with Elise, was so enjoyable. It almost restores my faith in humanity that two, or three, people can sit down and talk about such incredibly esoteric things in such a beautiful and companionable way. The presentation was top quality as was Brian's insights as the host. Thank you for providing it for our genuine viewing pleasure.

[@DarthQuantum-ez8qz]

esoteric does not equal correct.

[@r3d0c]

@@DarthQuantum-ez8qz wow, you can look up definitions of words, must be dealing with some kinda intellectual juggernaut here

[@vsubhuti]

Imagine if we had to talk with god delusional people we would be blasphemously killed

[@JB-fz1rv]

I wouldn't call it esoteric😬

[@melvincarter9640]

Exactly this does not prove esoteric, this dude must be a Billy Carson follower.

[@andyflipzz]

My toxic trait is that I get dumb faded and listen to this like I understand anything they are saying.

[@M2161]

😭 me 2

[@chrisonorato9993]

😂

[@phillipdean9830]

Doesn't that make it more fun though?

[@koreycain7263]

When you listen to enough on these subjects you start to understand it 😂👏🏻

[@triktrak_1451]

@@koreycain7263 I hope so... one day!

[@JoyoSnooze]

Two expert communicators of physics sitting down for a chat. Thanks for this.

[@genedussell5528]

i am sooo glad these 2 physicist are finally together talking. love them both!

[@michaelmurphree593]

Sean also has a Mindscape episode where Brian is the guest. Definitely worth a listen.

[@SandipChitale]

At 6:12 Brian talks about "Shut up and calculate" dogma that basically discouraged scientists to look at the problem of measurement in QM. And in fact that problem is glossed over in the Physics text books as Sean later mentioned (at 8:00). I think this should be unacceptable in science. And IMO this has been a serious sociological issue that basically was skipped over by the science community. Sean laments about this at 30:49. We may have missed the next Einstein during that period who could have solved it. The lesson is that scientific community should never again ever allow such dogmas of not asking the "why?" questions to take hold. Luckily many scientists (like Sean) and Philosophers (like Tim Maudlin and David Albert) now reject the "shut up and calculate" dogma and press on to try to solve the measurement problem. They should be extremely lauded. BTW the "Shut up and calculate" dogma took hold because Neils Bohr and Copenhagen Interpretation wing won the PR battle against Einstein and Schrodinger. Read all about it in Adam Baker's book "What is real?" I feel that the same effect is happening in the area of understanding of consciousness research due to the so-called "Hard problem of consciousness" dogma due to David Chalmers. Just like "Shut up and calculate" dogma was rejected, so should reject the "Hard problem of consciousness" dogma be rejected. Luckily many scientists (like Anil Seth and Michael Graziano) and Philosophers (like Daniel Dennett (did :( )) reject the "Hard problem of consciousness" dogma and press on to try to solve the understanding of consciousness. They should be extremely lauded.

[@Fomites]

Well written. Thank you 😊

[@POTAT-pi7mu]

Well said.

[@imwelshjesus]

Carry on then and I shall look forward to hearing of your discoveries with eager anticipation.

[@SandipChitale]

Thanks.Actually I do not work on discoveries myself, but like you I am looking forward to the discoveries made by scientists eagerly.

[@POTAT-pi7mu]

@@imwelshjesus his comment is thoughtful and considered - you're being a pathetic jerk

[@robinette64]

My 2 favorite physicists!!!

[@rarabbb]

I would just like to say a massive thank you to everyone involved in this production and freely giving us these interesting discussions.❤

[@Soundman73_Electronics]

Two of my favorite science educators on the same stage! I have always disagreed with Sean on the 'Many World's Theory', but who the hell am I to judge?

[@martinrutley-wk5ds]

You're simply not sufficiently educated to disagree with Carrol on anything.

[@josephbunverzagt9535]

I would love to sit down with these 2 guys, have a drink, and talk physics. How cool would that be.🥃

[@LordOfThePancakes]

I would love for Sean to run some or his quantum measurement experiments on me 😍😍 You sure know how to make a woman dream Sean. 😘 Mr. Big sexy Science man 😉 Gosh he’s so tall too 🤭

[@fatimapereira781]

Ouvir Sean Carroll é sempre um prazer! Um dos meus mais preferido e um "grande" comunicador.

[@MikeMitchellishere]

"... it's important to remind ourselves over and over again if necessary, that our intuitions, our predilections for how we assess reality - they have been shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary history in which the focus was on successfully navigating the everyday world and that formative goal is oblique to the far more recent goal of understanding the true nature of reality. So perhaps, we should expect that when confronted with the true nature of reality, our intuition will not be prepared to easily accept it." 31:49

[@Edgarbopp]

Sean Carroll’s podcast is the best.

[@joshsater4044]

Great closing statement by Mr. Greene. The universe does not have to bend itself to our intuition and understanding! It may be weirder than our brains are capable of imagining.

[@hopperpeace]

Sean Carroll and Joseph M. Gaßner are my favorite physics communicators.

[@dangaynhsblitzkrieg4799]

richard feynman mine

[@nickname3722]

'Consciousness is Every(where)ness, Expressed Locally', in: IPI Letters, Feb. 2024, downloadable

[@nicksotiropoulos1469]

It just is that we as humans can't accept that propability rules our reality. However we accept that for dice, coins and cards without asuming many worlds existence. Like we easily accept and understand imaginary numbers in electrical circuits but not in quantum mechanics. Maybe propability and complex numbers themselfs is what we refuse to accept?

[@heathenhammer2344]

Probability is ultimately deterministic. It just looks otherwise.

[@declandougan7243]

That’s not what they’re discussing in this video at all.

[@allinoneal4540]

Thank you for posting. Excellent to see two smart people talking about this subject!! We need more of these!

[@keppela1]

Brian: "If some outcomes are probabilistically unlikely, why do they ALL happen in many worlds?" What a great question. I wish Sean had given a comprehensible answer.

[@7heHorror]

The glib answer is that's what the math says. 😉Sean said the probabilities are expressed as the likelihood you will find yourself in whichever world, addressing a common criticism of many-worlds, but perhaps not fully answering the question as posed. The rest of the answer, as I've heard him describe elsewhere, is that worlds resulting from outcomes with low probabilities occupy less of Hilbert space than worlds resulting from high probability outcomes.

[@Kwarktaschnir]

If you are interested in the argument: On episode 36 of the Mindscape Podcast and on episode 106 of the Robinson Podcast Sean Carroll discusses the problem of probability in the Everett interpretation with David Albert at length.

[@schmetterling4477]

MWI is trivial bullshit. You don't have to think any further about it. We know exactly where Everett went wrong.

[@keppela1]

@@7heHorror Oh interesting. I wish he'd said that! It's nice to know that the lower probability translates into some type of consequence. Thanks much.

[@keppela1]

@@Kwarktaschnir Thanks, I'll check those out.

[@yaserthe1]

OMG My 2 favourite dudes This is like a Marvel DC crossover!😂

[@coder-x7440]

Spider-Man, ..Batman. Batman, meet Spiderman.

[@stephengee4182]

Carroll was scientific advisor to many of the marvel many universe movies.

[@thingsiplay]

We don't understand Quantum Mechanics. We only know how to calculcate. This is the equivalent to a mathematical equation in school you learned to do the right steps, to get the end result. But you would not understand why and what is actually happening. Still get best rating for.

[@schmetterling4477]

I don't know who "you" are. Since I understand quantum mechanics just fine I have to assume that "you" are a bunch of intellectually lazy people who weren't paying enough attention in school. ;-)

[@marcobiagini1878]

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I want to explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values ​​for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values ​​for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.

[@ritamsadhukhan772]

That's basically how physics function and I know you are not a physicist if you are then you are a religious one because smart physicist know they can't disprove quantum mechanics it exists and it workers. The device you are using is thanks to quantum mechanics, the next generation computers will also be quantum mechanics gift to us. Non dualism there is no difference between the observer and the observerd. Non duality is not a new concept existed for thousands of years in Hindu philosophy this idea of non dualism is not meant for half minded idiots it's made for top level genius scholars. Non dualism in short means your the universe itself not a seperate entity. The dream concept you just mentioned is also a common reference to the universe is Hindu scriptures we all are in the dream of mahavishnu and this whole creation is a dream. Satan Dharma called for a reason because it's not a religion it was for greater open minded minds to explore there thoughts meta physics to be exact and now the same debate is back quantum mechanics and brahman very much similar isn't it. Go read the Upanishads perhaps you'll have a clarity. You know what the very first hym in rig veda the first veda is the hym of creation in this hym the last verse says who knows how this creation began the one who sits above it or may not know the truth. (May not know the truth even god) Ever heard a religious book saying that. U see it liter

[@stephengee4182]

The engine which powers free will in biology is the delivery of momentum observables along mesoscopic microtuble pathways through proto- conscious focus. This engine powers the delivery of the male's DNA to the female's egg, and powers cell division to create new life from single cells of coalesing strands of DNA which can create and sustain whole bodies with arms, legs, organs and fully aware brains. In the brain, microtubles are fixed in place in neuronal, ion channel enabled pathways, to recreate harmonies in orchestrated playback of quantum symphonies of past and future visionary compositions. God is consciousness, consciousness is the quantum ocean, and we are waves on the quantum see from which the universe, momentum and free will emerges.

[@Iamthepossum]

Wow; many many thanks to you Marco for taking the time to explain your position and your insights so throughly and so lucidly. A fact which is even more impressive given the possibility that English may not be your first language. I am very appreciative of your thoughtfulness and kindness in sharing these insights with the rest of us. May I ask if you are a professor or academic, and if so, where do you teach or do research? Kind regards to you from Los Angeles ❤

[@EinSofQuester]

You are contradicting yourself when you say the universe existed before humans (I think you mean consciousness in general) existed. To say this implies you believe in realism. But you already said that QM is not compatible with realism. What do you mean when you say the universe "existed" before consciousness?

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@EinSofQuester I meant that, from a realistic perspective, the universe should have existed before humans.

[@derek1049]

Many wolds exists but they all collapse once you make a decision. In infinite worlds, I could have decided to cancel creating this post but once I decided to click "comment" - all the other worlds are erased. It could be we all live in one shared reality or, each of us have our own reality.

[@jayanderson66]

I believe that all the work on decoherence and work on quantum computing will lead to getting everyone on better footing in quantam mechanics.

[@jotarokujo5132]

no, one has nothing to do with the other.

[@LordOfThePancakes]

Shut up and calculate

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

On the contrary, the development of quantum computers is the working proof of Many Worlds and the incorrectness of the indeterminist 'quantum uncertainty' nonsense. Quantum computers are here now doing calculations possible only because they interact with the multiverse.

[@peterpalumbo1963]

I really enjoyed listening to these two greats talk about their topic. I particularly liked the idea that space and time may be entangled states as mentioned in part 1.

[@No_OneV]

Why is this only 30 mins? I feel like these 2 could talk for at least 3 hours.

[@JamesPCastor]

"This video dives into the mind-bending concept of quantum mechanics and its implications for the existence of multiple universes. The exploration of parallel realities and the theoretical frameworks behind them is both fascinating and thought-provoking. It's a captivating journey into the frontiers of science and philosophy, challenging us to rethink our understanding of reality. Mind blown!"

[@ulysissira9808]

Wow thank you so much great proud of you sir..

[@alpachino2shae]

Gotta love Sean’s shirts 👌

[@LordOfThePancakes]

I would love for Sean to run some or his quantum measurement experiments on me 😍😍 You sure know how to make a woman dream Sean. 😘 Mr. Big sexy Science man 😉 Gosh he’s so tall too 🤭

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

In another universe Sean has taste !

[@dlorde]

Wow! An excellent interview - the interviewer was surprisingly well-informed, asking the crucial questions. Carroll had a good stab at answering them, but a discussion of this length doesn't give time for more than a superficial explanation.

[@jvmbmc]

I know its off topic but as a non scientist I was thinking about entanglement and doesn't that break the speed of light is the fastest since it could if I understand happen instantly across the universe at distances farther than a light year away? Also since could it happen across time then also? Weird stuff, "spooky".

[@iridium1911]

Entanglement cannot be used to actually transmit any information, therefore causality is not violated. Neither is relativity.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Easy: in the "real world" the planet Jupiter may be a whole lot of "distance" away -- probably a couple of light-days. But that's the mere real world. The imaginary planet Jupiter is right here. I've brought it before your eyes *SHAZAM* almost instantly. No limitation by and 300,000,000 metres/second for me! My imagination can travel light-years in seconds -- and so can yours. It just did. To Jupiter and back.

[@peterbabu936]

Trivial question, with non trivial answer.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@peterbabu936 The answer is a trivial "no". ;-)

[@declandougan7243]

@jvmbmc. Think of it this way. We run a similar experiment with human beings. First, you’ll meet up with a friend of yours, and designate by a coin flip who will tell a truth and who will tell a lie. Second, two people agree on a question to ask each of you. Even if you travel to the opposite sides of the world before being questioned, you will still answer the way you agreed to, no instant communication required. This is not an exact analogy to entanglement but goes to show that non local behavior doesn’t require faster than light communication.

[@EdGeorge-s4s]

the bottle explanation and the entanglement is great and explains why we see tangible things when the particles are unrelated and not directly entangled.

[@jinstinky501]

34 mins? Is this 'shrinkflation'? Boohoo. I want more. More free stuff!!!

[@NakedSageAstrology]

No-thing is free in this Youniverse. 🙏 Every-thing comes at the cost of the Soul. Think deeply about this, this intangible Light that Illuminates This Dream. Each act of Observation, each time You look into this MirroR of mind; the ancients called this Maya. -Illusion of the senses. Rorri Maesu says useaMirroR Say You in reverse and hear 'We', understand this Youniverse is not the 'Me'-niverse BE-Cause that would be too tiny to be Self sustainable. Instead this ever expanding Youniverse is akin to looking into the MirroR of the event horizon, forever frozen betwixt Waking, Dreaming & Deep Sleep. All from within You the 4th. Say Maya aloud to reveal the Source of The "I AM." One verse, many songs. Row row row your boat old friend. ⛵ 💤 🌈🙏 Tat Tvam Asi

[@rahul19free]

Quantum Entanglement could be the reason a particle looses its wave like behaviour. Let me explain, In a double split experiment the particle behaves as a wave until it is observed, the observer(Human or a detector) is also made of particles which has a Quantum state. When a particle in the double split experiment is observed, the wave like behaviour is lost because of the quantum state of the observer. This means in the classic world all the particles doesn't have their wave like behaviour because of Entanglement of observer. Which means Entanglement is not one of the property but it is the property how Quantum Physics works.

[@ritamsadhukhan772]

In short yeh sab Maya hai bache , not real. Sirf atman real hai. That's what Edward Schrodinger believed.

[@bazookajoe6133]

Sean Carrol is the premier physics communicator, argue me, 😎

[@RatzerLeaf]

Only a bot would say such a thing

[@Jay-7154]

And Michelle Thaller

[@matthewweflen]

Sean Carroll AND Brian Greene, that is

[@jayanderson66]

I love Brian and Sean but Sean's ability to get out there with many different platforms and topics has me following practically everything he does. There are both top shelf communicators. Sean does not suffer fools and Brian never seems to be with them

[@justinava1675]

Brian Green is my fav. I like the topics he covers

[@m0rph3u5.]

Very interesting interview .. This channel is priceless and Brian's presentation and hosting are Phenomenal. P.S. Brian's smile was in a superposition until Sean measured it @ 12:44 :D

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

Now that was funny !

[@NondescriptMammal]

If a physics video has a question for its title, the answer is almost always, "Nobody knows."

[@ToXllCMuSllC]

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit(c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future

[@eefiasfira]

Its not that simple. You can use GR (no QM needed) to predict the future of *macroscopic* objects. For example, where the moon will be 15 days from now, when & where the next total solar eclipse will happen or how long will the sun keep burning (5 billion yrs). But in the sub-atomic realm the notion of certainty doesn't exist & is replaced by the probabilistic wave function that tells you that a particle you saw at some location might *not* be there when u try to see it again, even though *nothing's* changed the last time u looked.

[@vladimirrogozhin7797]

Conclusion: it is necessary to build a new (expanded) ontological basis of knowledge - Primordial (Absolute) generating structure: the ontological frame, carcass, foundations of the Universe and Knowledge. This requires a new understanding of matter as an eternal integral process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures. A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*

[@STORMDAME]

Supposing the many worlds theory is correct is it inevitable that at least one of those worlds is one where the many worlds theory is incorrect?

[@jwranich5249]

No

[@pscyking]

To add on to @jwranich, no: A painter may paint a picture of anything, but it will always be made of paint.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

all the worlds have the same physics. you may be thinking of multiverse, instead of many worlds.

[@jamesdunham1072]

Sean seems to always ask the right questions in a very appropriate fashion....

[@mcglashenmann2181]

Not sure anyone will get this reference, but Sean Carrol REALLY reminds me of Brennan Lee Mulligan from Critical Role.

[@BrandonFuller-kw3gv]

I thought it was him at first glance!! 😂

[@CliffSedge-nu5fv]

Damnit, now I can't unsee it.

[@michaelogden5958]

The dynamic between Dr. Greene and Dr. Carroll is fascinating.

[@duggydo]

28:00 is the most important moment in this video. Brian doesn’t let the flippant response go. Non local hidden variables may very well be a viable theory. There are many things that get prematurely dismissed when respected physicists like Sean make such statements. Physics has stalled out too long because of attitudes like this.

[@schmetterling4477]

There are no hidden variables. You simply weren't paying enough attention in school. All of this follows in a near trivial fashion from relativity.

[@duggydo]

@@schmetterling4477 you missed the point entirely.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@duggydo No, kid, you just don't understand the causal structure of a relativistic universe. ;-)

[@duggydo]

@@schmetterling4477 you need to brush up on reading comprehension

[@schmetterling4477]

@@duggydo My reading comprehension tells me that you are clueless about physics but very, very lonely. ;-)

[@jimmydeocadez237]

I don't know why even I don't understand anything but I find this kind of physics very fascinating in fact I spend most of my leisure time watching videos like this.

[@Dr.scottcase88]

I feel exactly the same way and spend hours listening to Edward Witten’s physics lectures and myriad of other things and often I use them to help me fall asleep not to say that I’m bored with it I find some serenity in my misunderstanding or inability to understand while I keep trying to grasp that understanding. Peace.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is nothing to understand here. This was two guys who don't understand physics talking about physics. ;-)

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

Jimmy - try reading David Deutsch - 'The beginning of infinity'. No maths, just clear explanation of why there is no quantum uncertainty, just that different universes inter react, each one containing a different version of you and (God help us) me. His credentials ? Google 'quantum computing' - Deutsch invented the notion. These boxes do calculations at near infinite speed by using the interaction of an infinity of universes to do the computations. The proof that Hugh Everett, Sean Carroll, David Deutsch, Schrodinger etc were correct.

[@williamstearns4581]

Gravity is not a force It's a side effect.

[@OBGynKenobi]

I'm with you.

[@karlkarlsson9126]

Always great to see these two together

[@Ireniicus]

Not a fan of the many worlds theory but Sean is awesome.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, he really knows how to sell bullshit, doesn't he? ;-)

[@Ireniicus]

@@schmetterling4477 He is a great communicator espousing a wrong idea.

[@clivejenkins4033]

Really? Who knows? Nobody knows for sure

[@kubexiu]

They are not scientist anymore. They just selling what they have. I mean both off them say same shit all the time. Even Einstein theory suppose to be a Holly grail but it doesn't explain anything.

[@Corvaire]

Agree. We also like Sabine, but remember that MoND thing? lol This is kinda like that.

[@FigmentHF]

I love Brian and Sean, both very smart, often humble, and able to communicate complex science with not an ounce of pretence or condescension. I’m purely interested in the deep, epistemological questions of reality, and so the fact that both of these guys delve into “pot head” questions with vigour, is refreshing. They are both clearly creative and curious, as well as being academically gifted

[@geraldbutler5484]

Einstein said if you can’t explain your theories to a 9 year old they are not good theories.

[@Mentaculus42]

So it becomes a "pot head" question if one questions “orthodoxy”. An orthodoxy that in someways is extremely “effective” and in other ways is clearly incomplete and incompatible between the two “pillars” of this orthodoxy. So it is solely the domain of the "pot heads" to question “reality” & the underlying mechanisms‽ That case Elon should have all the answers.

[@havenbastion]

The idea of even one other universe begins with an ineffable boundary condition itself more complicated than whatever it's trying to explain and is therefore intellectually regressive.

[@whateverwhenever2246]

Postulating the existence of myriads of undetectable extra universes seems to violate the principles of Occam's razor

[@nmarbletoe8210]

They are detectible

[@objective_psychology]

Yes.

[@IntuitiveIQ]

No 😀

[@ferrellms]

Brian Greene is the guy to do this - just great.

[@richardhunt809]

Many Worlds is an interpretation of QM. Instead of saying that one of the superposed states wins and the others disappear, it’s saying that the others continue to exist in some other universes. But if we can’t see or interact with these other universes then in what sense do they exist? Purely in our minds, I say. This explains nothing at all.

[@EVARERICHOVA-ko7du]

Does Quantum Mechanics Imply Multiple Universes? Whenever there is one Big Universe = flat space-time in which float Small Universes like ours?

[@themediaboxtv]

conciseness

[@factsfinder4359]

I always wished to see these both intellectuals on one table. Very glade to see them talking.

[@YuTv1408]

I remeber Sean from Caltech

[@dinarwali386]

Quantum Mechanics is the probably the ultimate sophistication in Physics or perhaps in reality. Great conversation.

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

the gist of the conversation was that quantum mechanics is, fundamentally, a nonsense as it excludes the possibilty (Hugh Everett) of 'many worlds' in which there is no quantum uncertainty.

[@kricketflyd111]

I would like the explanation for the two slit experiment before this theory. 😢

[@schmetterling4477]

Read Young's paper from 1801. It's on the internet. :-)

[@M0U53B41T]

Are there any plans to include Niel Turok in these discussions by any chance?

[@theuniversewithin74]

💦💦🐬🌐🌍🌐🐬💦💦 The multiverse is more or less a given. There is more logical evidence for than against, but also empirically - with QM, Double Slit, Virtual Particles, Spontaneous Quark Doubling, etc etc. There are close to an infinite number of universes within this universe and holographic principles alone should be sufficient enough. But regardless - try to entertain this thought: Given an infinite amount of parallel and/or asymmetrical universes, there must be a universe where entropy is reversed. It is a 100% mirrored replica of our universe, but with “time” going backwards. The inhabitants of this universe perceive everything just like us - it is a total carbon copy of our universe. But observed from the outside, that entire universe would flow backwards. Who can say that WE don’t live in such a universe? The only way to even begin to understand that our own entropy is reversed, is to observe it from another universe. From the outside a flashlight would catch the light and the waterfall would flow upwards. How can such dimensionality be understood within the confines of our own entropy? 💦💦🐬🌐🌐🌍🌐🌐🐬💦💦

[@Qeduhh365]

As a Tim Maudlin fan, I’m happy to hear Brian Greene agree that it was non-locality or “spooky action at a distance” that bothered Einstein and not what is often claimed, that he rejected the non-determinism or the idea that “god doesn’t roll dice.”

[@schmetterling4477]

The problem is that Einstein shouldn't have been bothered by any of this. That the universe has to be local follows directly from relativity. One can give a trivial one or two sentence argument that resolves Einstein's problems with quantum mechanics. The only strange thing about this is that he didn't think of it himself. That I will never understand.

[@Burevestnik9M730]

The total number of combinations in the spaceworld is 10 power 500. The total number of particles is 10 power 80, and if we count photons, it is 10 power 89. Secondly, there is a trend, and whenever there is a trend, it is a law. This trend is about unexpectedness. Like limes, you are approaching but you never get there. In 10 power 124 years from now, there will be only photons. There will be no time (or better put it, a notion of time), if it ever was. Certainly, there will be no distance as a concept. And here we have the measurement problem as well: how do you measure something if there is no matter around? This state is the state of infinite singularity, "singularum infinitum", which also resolves the problem of CBR and entropy at Big Bang point. More importantly, by incorporating the concept of existence as more fundamental than essence (lat. esse), we lay down the substrate for the many world theory as well. Yes, many worlds, but not in some abstract spatial sense. Rather, these worlds do exist in the infinite sequence of Penrose's eons. One has to grasp the concept of now-forever. Flow of entropy via potentials instead of time - Maxwell equations have been rewritten in this new notation. Sartre said, "existence precedes essence" and Friedrich Nietzsche was also a proponent of the existential approach and never-ending cycle of re-birth. Schrödinger equation is about the state change. It is applied across the entire eon space, we just need to remove time from equations. What the equation tell us is that, yes, every single of those 10 power 500 combinations is bound to occur, and occurs infinitely many times. And in principle, a monkey (from the Monkey Typewriter algorithm) is able to write Encyclopedia Britannica in a single attempt - this is now in the realm of logical possibility.

[@andrewblack1575]

Nature always goes for the lowest energy state. Many worlds doesn't fit this.

[@thomamador]

Entropy. Nature wants to minimize energy but maximize entropy as well.

[@shikhauppal6250]

Many worlds interpretation doesn't contradict this notion because the law of conservation of energy holds in the multiple universes too . And nature will go for lower energy states in those worlds too

[@El_Diablo_12]

19:30 spacetime from a many world’s perspective - early days 21:20 gravity isn’t a force propagating through spacetime. It’s a feature of spacetime itself

[@glennmiller9759]

I'm only a few minutes into this but as a numbskull who struggles with the cerebral aspects of it, I'm really enjoying watching and listening to the two of you kindred spirits, so to speak, bantering about the esoterica that I would so love to understand.

[@aminam9201]

someone said: I am naturalist but I believe in multiple universes where the hidden gods work miraculously from behind the scenes (poetic)! Planet of the apes is planet of endless wonders!

[@TheRedMiners]

Wouldn't this many worlds theory basically duplicate the universe an infinite amount of time every nanosecond? There are so many particles in the universe that are in superpositions and if each alternate position is actually an additional world then every next moment multiplies the amount of worlds by a number nearing infinity? Am I understanding the theory wrong or is that actually what it suggests?

[@schmetterling4477]

You are understanding it correctly. That infinity is just a re-interpretation of the infinity that is already present in standard quantum mechanics. The difference is simply that in standard quantum mechanics we are talking about an ensemble, i.e. a HYPOTHETICAL infinite repetition of the same experiment, whereas MWI assigns actual physical meaning to these ensemble members. The latter is complete nonsense, of course. A single dice throw leaves us with exactly one outcome. In the same way a quantum experiment also has exactly one outcome. We can repeat quantum experiments in the same way we repeat dice throws and then we can count the outcomes in a histogram. If we then use the law of large numbers TO IMAGINE that we could do this experiment an infinite number of times, then we get to an abstract MATHEMATICAL quantity called probability distribution/wave function. Nature knows nothing about it. It's only in our imagination and on the pages of our textbooks. MWI is the fairytale that pretends that imaginary princesses in imaginary castles can be real. :-)

[@tobycortes]

im impressed how they paraphrase all their technical stuff

[@Pandaemoni]

That was a nice explanation of Everett's idea. I had always imagined it as saying that each measurement was "generating" (in some sense) new universes, but I find it a lot more comprehensible to me, humble researcher, that I am simply being drawn into a superposition with the particle I am trying to measure, preserving the outcomes I was expecting to see. That gives me metaphysical agita, making me wonder what I mean by "me" as it maybe I am just a mathematical object (and then add the holographic principle to that), but my philosophical discomfort isn't evidence against it.

[@schmetterling4477]

A better explanation of Everett's idea would be the fact that his thesis was already wrong in the second sentence. ;-)

[@yuriimarshalofficial]

Exactly, we never fool ourselves like in the case of experiments where we use "observations", because essentially we stress the waves to the compact corpuscle to measure speed, distance, size, inner properties, which means coercion rather than distant sightsee. In fact we tear out fermionic entities from another state of essences and call it some kind of Standard Model of particle physics, but fundamentally miss the nature of categorised phenomenons, e.g. comparing bosons with fermions while they exist in different states of essences (informational or probability continuum vs time-energy continuum of states).

[@vtambellini]

Why couldn’t the electron have been spin up before you looked at it and when you looked at it was still spin up? Just because you may have influenced it by looking at it, doesn’t necessarily mean that it didn’t have a spin up position before you looked at it. Right? So why infer that there’s manyworlds when instead you could simply say there’s a probability of it being in a certain position and leave it at that?? There’s a probability associated with a drop of rain hitting the leaf and a probability of the drop not hitting the leaf. Why do we assume that 2 separate worlds exist based on the number of potential outcomes?

[@schmetterling4477]

Quite the contrary. We can infer from the phenomenology that the individual system didn't have any set value before a measurement was made. MWI has nothing to do with any of that, though. It was a trivial counting mistake by Everett, who didn't understand how quantum mechanics works.

[@vtambellini]

But isn’t that the point of this though? That there’s a probability distribution associated with it at any given moment? And when viewed, it just happens to be at the (moment it was at) + (the change you made by observing)?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@vtambellini What is the probability distribution of a single dice throw supposed to be? I give you a "5". Can you tell me how many sides these dice had? Are they fair? No, of course you can't. A probability distribution is the law of large numbers limit of outcome frequencies. It is a property of a statistical ensemble (i.e. an infinite repetition of the same experiment). In the exact same way a wave function is a property of a quantum mechanical ensemble. It was never the property of a single system. There is not even a way to derive it from the physics of a single system. We can, however, derive the quantum mechanical wave function just as easily from Kolmogorov's axioms for independent experiments as we can derive probability theory (the latter is widely unknown and people mistake their lack of knowledge for a fact, which is an educational problem that starts in kindergarten and ideally should end there, but not one of physics theory). The physically relevant question is, of course, why nature is uncertain. That question can not be answered within quantum mechanics because it does not originate within quantum mechanics. It originates in relativity. Everett didn't understand that corner of physics any more than he understood quantum mechanics. What is much more amazing, though, is that it seems that it never occurred to Einstein, either, that his theory was responsible for the fact that "god seems to be playing dice". That I can not understand at all. It's a trivial one or two sentence argument why it can't be any other way.

[@lonelycubicle]

I didn’t follow Sean’s answer about probability. Need to look that up.

[@MichaelDoran-gh6pv]

There are (say) 10 different universes containing lonely cubicle. These universes are all a little different. But the 10 different versions of you are identical, except each of you is in a different universe (=quantum wave).There is no 'quantum uncertainty or probability'. What happens to each of the 10 versions of you is already predetermined within each of these 10 universes. But from your perspective, you don't know at this point which universe the particular version of the 10 you are, is in. All nonsense ? Check out quantum computers. They do calculations massively quicker that conventional computers because they 'borrow' (i.e interact) with parallel universes to do the calculations. And quantum computing (before it became a reality) was predicted by the great champion of the multiverse, Daniel Dennett.

[@lonelycubicle]

@@MichaelDoran-gh6pv Thanks for your reply.

[@42Goatee]

...have been very impressed over the last decade or so by the ability of public exposure to turn even the most nobaly serious and scholarly scientists into shameless media tarts....keep up the good work boys, you have a fan...

[@afifakimih8823]

Two of My favourite physics communicator/ physicist...💜❤️

[@1ifemare]

Wow. My 2 favorite science lecturers together debating Foundations of Physics and it's not even my birthday. Get Neil Turok in the same room i'd be in Physics heaven.

[@timothy8426]

Maybe an infinite number of galaxies throughout space. Physists are putting borders on space, calling it a universe. That would make it finite like a neighborhood. But the frequencies vibrate on. More galaxies and more space. Multiple Physists have divided into speculation without proof of a single universe. We move through space. What is bigger? Space or a universe? Definition of universe and borders.

[@iridium1911]

Universe does not imply a border or boundary

[@declandougan7243]

@timothy8426 Sounds like you don’t know anything about cosmology.

[@e-t-y237]

"There are extra rules and they all involve the measurement problem" (Carroll). One solution for that is many worlds, and one is no physical worlds and it's just a perception game created by consciousness. And what we are perceiving at those micro levels of observation is actually consciousness, waves of consciousness, the virtual building blocks of consciousness.

[@WideCuriosity]

The thing about many worlds that puzzles me is where all the energy to continually split the universe into two, comes from. Surely a better view must be that all versions already exist at once, there are versions of us in some, and while they can imagine a time line joining points, in reality each only experiences their part of a present moment, has a memory of possible others that seem a rational path to where they are, and can envisage possible paths leading away from where they are. No sudden split, it's all there. Time and space merely emerge in minds rather than is/are fundamental.

[@williamstearns4581]

Great salon thank you very much I enjoyed it.

[@troylatterell]

Do we think we know and should continue to use the word "wave" in describing quantum mechanics? Could it be Wave is eliciting and directing our own thoughts that maybe isn't exactly right? One of the puzzles and struggles that I have is that my own picture of "wave" maybe incorrectly elicits a picture of "wave on top of wave crashing into each other trying to mix with all the other waves in the quantum ocean"..if all these things are happening, the wave function of particles, tables, chairs, planets, people, everything in our universe is tied together in a massive wave function, how do changes in the wave function get communicated to every other part of the universe to affect the "total" universal wave function... and not backup on each other, not cancel each other?... Does one side of the universe ever get "communicated-to" that something changed on the other end? Seemingly entanglement can do that but is everything in our universe entangled and thus instantaneously change our "Hilbert space" wave function?? But does that cause problems in our own universal wave-function and how does that balance in the quantum ocean? ... again maybe wave is not the perfect way to say it or think of it?

[@schmetterling4477]

It's waves in the sense that they are being described by a linear wave equation. They are, however, not physical waves.

[@wmstuckey]

Sean is mistaken when he says we never observe the electron in a superposition of up and down. A vertical spin "up" state is the 50-50 superposition of horizontal spin left and spin right ("up" and "down" with respect to horizontally oriented Stern-Gerlach magnets). So, when your vertical spin measurement gives an outcome of "up", you are in fact observing a horizontal superposition of "up" and "down".

[@schmetterling4477]

So when my dice throw gives me a 1, in reality it was a superposition of 2, 3, 4 and 5? How much did you have to drink just now? ;-)

[@wmstuckey]

@@schmetterling4477 You have the wrong classical counterpart, you want a classical bit, which has only two possible outcomes. Let's run through an example. Suppose your classical bit is a box that may or may not contain a ball when you open it, and your state is 50% "yes" it contains a ball and 50% "no" it does not contain a ball. That is a mixed state not a pure state. A mixed state is a distribution of outcomes over the pure states (actual measurement outcomes) for the measurement in question (in this case that measurement is "open the box"). There is no measurement you can do on that classical bit with an outcome state (pure state) equal to 50% "yes" + 50% "no". The difference between a classical bit and a quantum bit (qubit) is quantum superposition, which means that there is a measurement you can do whose outcome is that 50-50 outcome. That is, every pure state transforms continuously to any other pure state, i.e., all states in the probability space between any two pure states are pure states themselves for a qubit. People often confuse mixed states for classical bits with pure states for the quantum superposition of qubits. A good example of that is Schrodinger's Cat. You often see people claim Schrodinger's Cat is in a quantum superposition of Live Cat + Dead Cat and when you open the box the state collapses to either Live Cat with 50% probability or Dead Cat with 50% probability. But, if Schrodinger's Cat is *really* a qubit and not merely a classical bit in a mixed state of 50-50 Live Cat-Dead Cat, then there has to be a measurement (the complementary measurement in this case) whose outcome is Live Cat + Dead Cat with 100% probability. That is, (|LC> + |DC>)/root(2) has to be a pure state, not merely a mixed state, if Schrodinger's Cat is in a quantum superposition (is a qubit) as claimed.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@wmstuckey How much energy comes out of a quantum system is MY choice as an experimentalist. It's determined by the spectral operator that I stick into the Born rule. It's NOT determined by the system alone. I can keep an excited atomic state "alive forever" by putting it into a resonator that suppresses the emission of the spectral line through which the atom would decay in the physical vacuum. It is this energy that determines the final state aka measurement. I don't think you understand how quantum mechanics actually works. All this collapse language is complete bullshit, just like Schroedinger's cat. :-)

[@wmstuckey]

@@schmetterling4477 My response is textbook quantum mechanics used everyday in quantum experiments. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean no one uses it.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@wmstuckey You simply didn't read the textbooks carefully enough, Mate, and then there are things about nature at this level which you will NOT learn from the usually textbooks, to begin with. They can only be found in the primary literature and the lab. :-)

[@paultvshow]

I have been interested in quantum and studied mechanics since high school and university. Even though I have casually learned quantum mechanics via KZbin and on other platforms, I was not quite able to make sense of it until recently when I started delving deep into quantum computing.

[@schmetterling4477]

So tell me, oh sage, what's a quantum? ;-)

[@leolopez6341]

We will never get tired of you 2

[@triktrak_1451]

Thanks to you two gentlemen for laying this plain, and with good humor. My deepest apologies that, up until just now, I thought you were the same guy.

[@sangeet9100]

About the EM theory having been seamlessly embedded in QM, right away while gravity is still outlier - scale of QM is in the realm of particle physics, and atomic particles prominently display electric charge and/or magnetic moment, making it an "automatic" fit, whereas gravity has been on a much larger scale (I don't know much about quantum gravity concepts). Maybe while trying to quantize gravity, one could also approach the task from the possibility of EM as some sort of space-time distortion

[@yeti9127]

I can listen to these guys for hours..

[@joependleton6293]

The basis of quantum entanglement will lead to its design signatures? We need to make the connection to follow its flow?

[@justopinion1000]

Wow. First verse of Surah Fatiha in the Quran says about "Lord of the worlds" in plural term which means there exist more than one world. This has been told more than fourteen hundred years ago.

[@justopinion1000]

The Quran has more than one thousand verses which talk about science. Many of them are already proven as true and some are yet to be proven. My honest suggestion is scientists can read about these verses, work on them and prove them as true. I had goosebumps when I heard in this video about many worlds.

[@bnjm8868]

Quantum mechanics imply multiple extra dimensions within the one universe. Assuming it indicates entire multiple universes is a huge stretch and leap. I enjoy Brian Greene, by Sean Carroll is pretty good.

[@irisalajem3318]

So entanglement only applies on particles being observed by humans? What does it mean without an observer? Thank you for an amazing and inspiring conversation 🙏🏻

[@ben_spiller]

Nothing to do with humans. A human isn't required to do a measurement. When an entangled particle interacts with its surrounding environment, that's a measurement and it destroys the entangled superposition.

[@irisalajem3318]

@@ben_spiller But the cat is dead and alive until the observer joins in , right?

[@LibtardLunacy]

The first response is sort of right, if there were no humans, there wouldn't be anyone to measure or identify quantum entanglement, but it would STILL be a fundamental fact of this universe, but this is true of all facets of our universe including math

[@niranjansaikia9379]

Quantum Reality is Magic Reality..happy to see both of you on this mind boggling topic..I love both of you..Thanks a lot..❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊

[@coder-x7440]

I LOVE THIIIIS!!!! Sean Carol and Brian Greene shootin the breeze 😎🍹🌴🏖️

[@eduro4000]

How he explains the conservation of the Energy? Where the Energy for these alternative universes come from?

[@zippythinginvention]

The concept of "observer" has removed common sense from the equation. Every particle interaction is an "observation." Nothing magical going on. That said, I very much like the idea that everything that can happen does. I also like the idea that "parallel" realities which are (within reason) "indistinguishable" merge, which would eventually preserve equilibrium. What if the presence of multiple realities actually IS "Dark energy/matter?" What if LIFE itself is the primary cause of unresolvable alternate realities? I think that's an exciting idea.

[@Xcalator35]

Far too short...these two gentlemen are absolutely briliant communicators of science. After Carl Sagan, these two follow next 'ex aequo'

[@HarryNicNicholas]

one of the best interviews for a long time, penrose and carroll are both very special science fellas. thanks.

[@stashmark7105]

Yes i love when two genius ladies as these can come together to tell the truth about the true nature of reality.