Jeff Tollaksen - What Does Quantum Theory Mean?

[@No_OneV]

The fact whatever device you're watching this video on required an understanding of quantum physics because of logic gates is a testament to human ingenuity. The idea we can even tap into it is mind blowing on its own.

[@bonemonkey1]

Why is it because of logic gates? They are pretty much classical physics, arent they? I spontanly can only think of nor flash memory, where a quantum effect is actually used. And where is nor used and not nand in any device we watch videos on? But maybe I am just totally missing your point...

[@No_OneV]

​@@bonemonkey1 yes that was the case, however as technology improved and the chips became dependant on nano scale pretty much every smartphone and computer inherently needs quantum uncertainty taken into account. Various motherboard components which are responsible for keeping information in check built with that in mind.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

Not some generalized human ingenuity. That doesn't exist. The ingenuity of the very very rare human. The genius.

[@PetraKann]

That’s the point, it didn’t require a fundamental understanding of Quantum Mechanics - only how to use the tools, namely the Wave Function equation derived by Schrodinger and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle etc. There isn’t agreement between scientists on the interpretation of QM even today. The Copenhagen interpretation announced in the 1920s is not written in stone and was a compromise in order to move on and start calculating and doing experiments and progressing theories in this realm. Barely 50% of physicists accept the Copenhagen interpretation of QM today

[@jamesnasmith984]

Amazing that such unimaginable notions can be so well articulated for non-physicists. Very intriguing! Thank you

[@jacksoned7650]

Nice comment*

[@gyozakeynsianism]

Very clearly articulated, yes.

[@chriswhitt6618]

Excellent comment

[@SpokoSpoko]

I have quite different opinion. Nothing new was said.

[@WizardSkyth]

Indeed Tollaksen is one of the best minds gracing this condemned planet with his presence.

[@katieleporte7087]

I think that what this guy is basically saying is that our Fundamental existence is all built on some crazy Magic right now and we are like kids on a playground just trying to figure how it all works ✨

[@greyangelpilot]

If I'm correct, one of the aspects being articulated in lay terms, is that the Future, Past & Present make their presence known via an observable state in quantum mechanics via the nature of the boundary conditions. The first conclusion of what does quantum mechanics mean.... "The future, plays a unique role in the present"

[@imstevemcqueen]

Well said

[@l0zerth]

Yes, that's what he's claiming, but there have never been any such experiments to demonstrate it any way, and our current understanding of the laws of physics prevent any such experiments from ever being possible on any level.

[@manuzrp1]

This guy speaks really well. Pleasure to listen to him.

[@fabsouth6984]

I think I'm going to have to listen to this 2 to 3 more times to really absorb what was said thank you very much for the enrichment of thought

[@l0zerth]

Seriously, don't waste your time. Quantum physics actually is weird, confusing, and counter-intuitive, but this is the sort of "theorist" that makes a career out of playing up to those aspects into out right BS.

[@johnyharris]

Truly awe inspiring stuff. Kuhn respectfully listened and gently steered the conversation. Well done to both on a terrific interview.

[@FrancescoCanovi]

In Italy we call it "supercazzola". He didn't understand nothing more on QM of what we already "understood" in the last 100 years. Feynman is still right about saying that people that thinks they understand QM, they really don't.

[@breno2024]

2:42 With regards to knowing the state of a system ‘precisely’ at one time, I strongly suspect that one can only know a system this way if the system is quite small or limited in scope. I think Einstein was right when he said, “God doesn’t play dice.”. Randomness only appears to quantum physicists because they cannot perceive or measure the whole system. 4:20 No two atoms can exist in an exactly identical state, because deterministic forces are eternally complex and eternally in flux. Again, only if a system is artificially constrained, boundary conditions can be artificially constrained. 5:14 In a deterministic Universe, there is no such thing as a boundary condition that is, truly independent of any other boundary condition. 8:15 Point to your body, go ahead indulge me for a moment and point to your body. Ok, now, specifically where is your finger pointing? If it is pointing in the director of your leg, that is your leg, not your body. If it is pointing to your chest, that is your chest and not your body. In other words, it is part of your body, but your body has many other parts that you are not point to, so precisely speaking, you are not pointing at your body. Ultimately speaking, profoundly important to distinguish between ultimate speaking and relative speaking, ultimately speaking, there is no such thing as your body. Your body is a compounded phenomena. Relatively speaking, you classify this phenomena, as you classify all phenomena, and you give this classification a designation. You do this for obvious reasons, which I will omit here to keep this comment light:) I am not a theoretical physicist. I have only listened to a few of them describe quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics underpins our existence, then it seems quite possible that the Truth of compounded phenomena, mentioned above, is revealing itself on this fundamental level. Actually, it seems it is not only revealing itself, but a showing itself to be an inescapable revelation. One should keep in mind the nature of mind in this conversation. Ordinary mind (it must be distinguished) is capable of focusing on one thing at a time. Like the body example above, the mind will group together the focus points, the parts of the body, and classify the result. For example, think of a closeup of your mother’s face, imagine it as clearly as you can. If you can closely observe the workings of your mind, you will find yourself thinking about her eyes, then maybe her nose, then her mouth, etc. Try this with any compounded phenomena and it will be the same process. 14:26 In a deterministic Universe, all phenomena are inextricably connected, and that obviously includes the past, present, and future. So, why would you assume that the wave and particle are mutually exclusive, especially when the particle is recognized to also exhibit wave behaviour. I believe scientists struggle with this because they are schooled to establish ‘limited’ conditions for experimentation and measurement. Clearly, there are unknown boundary conditions operating in quantum reality, which connect and influence particles in imperceptible ways. I would like to know what exactly is a weak measurement because I do not believe the future affects the present, quantum or otherwise. I have a feeling that scientists are creating an effect that appears to be future-driven, and writing equations to make it work.

[@quantumpotential7639]

Are you basically saying that the summation of all individual quanti make up the whole? Thanks

[@pwabd2784]

This is the dumbest comment I've ever seen.

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm? Quantum? Just imagine “You” are in A/ an Eleven Dimensional bubble. And B/ What You are viewing (anywhere) is also in an eleven dimension bubble. The C/ data you have just received in the video is broken down into a Two dimension bubble!? So 20 cumulative dimensions disappear!? And all you view in all of the Media’s is 2 Dimensional and your Brain converts it into the illusion of Eleven dimensions in your bubble!? I reckon We are All Living in a Sophisticated Quantum Computer Bubble!

[@godbernaz]

@@1SpudderR Same ideia, for me universe is just a product from a quantum computer, these last videos about fined tuned universe made me think about it

[@8OO8132]

Best description of quantum physics for a civilian I have ever come across

[@chriswhitt6618]

I didn’t want that to end. To say it’s fascinating doesn’t really get close.

[@LynnColorado]

I wanted to know what this 'extraordinary' result was when the two waves met.

[@l0zerth]

There isn't any, because our current understanding of physics prevent such an experiment of being possible, full stop.

[@lisac.9393]

This channel is terrific! Thank you for the content!

[@Seekthetruth3000]

I totally understand QT!

[@gyozakeynsianism]

This is a very nice explanation about the fundamental weirdness of quantum mechanics. But I wonder how Tollaksen would counter arguments by people like Sabine Hossenfelder that the world is super-determined and that the results of the time-bending quantum eraser experiment are an illusion? I'd love to hear a (non-technical!) explanation at this level of clarity.

[@NAMVETSTARLITE]

"EVERYTHING I SEE CONVINCES ME THERE IS A GOD I CANNOT SEE".

[@stephenlawrence4821]

There are 3 types of determinism. The two relevant ones here are causal determinism and predictive determinism. Causal determinism is that there is one physically possible future. Predictive determinism adds that it can be known in principle. So the determinism being referred to in this conversation is predictive determinism. But that says nothing about whether there is one physically possible future or not.

[@ingenuity168]

So blessed to have such geniuses in our midst. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤❤❤

[@david_porthouse]

We should thank Jeff Tollaksen for making one point explicit. If we have two identical systems then they can still have different outcomes. Any computer simulation of this state of affairs needs to make use of a random number generator, and the question is how to do it? I have a couple of ideas which are described in other KZbin channels, but the question is very much an open one.

[@JaradDeLorenzo]

I'm not a a physisist,m but it seems obvious to me that the only way any of this can be explained is that is DOES NOT "choose" a slit - it goes through both - but we only observe a single outcome because there are multuple universes and obviously we are only experiencing a single instance at a time. The real question is how is it decided which universe-branch I experience, even though I am "me" in each of these universes.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

Some respected scientists share your view about the double-slit experiment.

[@dorfmanjones]

How to you calculate a wave traveling from the future to the present? Or does 'future boundary' refer to math on a blackboard?

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

So the future is non local in quantum mechanics. This is the reason gravitons or the Higgs boson contradicts each other so perfectly. In Einstinian space/time gravitons are unneeded and the Higgs field is Einsteins greatest thought, that is that inertia and gravity in an elevator or box the field cannot be distinguished one from the other. He called it his greatest joy. Feynman took this to mean the Higgs field was represented by a particle and Einstein saw it as a spacetime attribute. The wave duality being non-causative in that it is non local shows the future does not represent the past in both action and performance. So reality is non local and will describe quantum reality as a shroedinger non local wave with reality present.

[@markpmar0356]

Sounds amazing although I'd like to know what amount of time viz the past and the future is Tollaksen referring to. Just short amounts of time, say, a few seconds or longer periods of time?

[@williamjeffreys2980]

With regards to the weak measurement, who are the three physicists he mentions (11:36 mark)? I am familiar somewhat with David Albert, but not the other two.

[@cb777-t1l]

Quantum mechanics relate to the physics of eternity---past, present, and future all in one.

[@profroe]

this is true

[@profroe]

also.....quantum physics is apt for understanding eternity.....infinity.....because eternity is not a matter of time.....it's a matter of intensity-energy

[@Self-Duality]

Metaphysically, quantum theory suggests a very definite bridge from the (mathematical) map to the (physical) territory 😎👌💭

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does setting boundary condition in the future and past for quantum mechanics say something about quantum mechanics? Is the boundary condition for classic mechanics about future or past, or something else in the present?

[@markbickerton2717]

How can a wave function collapse when measured or observed i am with Everett

[@longcastle4863]

Maybe the wave function collapses because all the other probabilities -- all the other possible interactions -- that we're laid out before the particle -- no longer exist once an interaction out of all the possible interactions occurs.

[@surendrakverma555]

Good 🙏🙏🙏🙏. Thanks 🙏🙏

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does a measurement of quantum field cause future information to become present matter in space?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is time non-local? Could non-locality in quantum mechanics be explained by wave function in the future and past?

[@Slarti]

I think you need to explain what a "boundary condition" is - because I don't know and cannot extrapolate what it is from this discussion.

[@peterwilliams211]

Can you advise? If light waves can be observed as a particle. Can sound waves also? And what would they be called?

[@gerardvila4685]

Sound particles are a thing. Called phonons. It was in my physics course a long time ago. Better you look them up youself than for me to try to remember the details and get things wrong.

[@peterwilliams211]

Thanks

[@petercheney8316]

I'm so glad they started off by saying nobody understands this, because I totally didn't understand this.

[@TheTroofSayer]

Jeff Tollaksen is a credible and compelling speaker. I enjoyed this interview immensely. But references along the lines of the future coming into the present make me uncomfortable. I don't know what it means, and I see the Einsteinian "time as a dimension of space-time" as problematic. I wonder what insights are being curtailed by inferring a time dimension where there is none. Much like "because God" curtails further analysis because, well, God did it so what's there to discuss? Defaulting to assumptions that do not have an established basis can stunt progress.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

I think other scientists share your discomfort. Sabine Hossenfelder appears to disagree with Tollaksen here, so you are in good company. Watch her video on "debunking" the quantum eraser experiment! (Personally I have no idea what's going on but I love learning more about this stuff.)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does particle measured in present have a quantum wave function into the future?

[@curlykipper]

I'm mesmerised. To me it's as if I am before an abstract painting and I'm totally absorbed and the great thing about the beauty of it all is that I don't have to understand it.

[@zarahm43]

LOL Same here! Non of us could get what was said but we watched till the end :)

[@etzenhammer]

One thing I never understood: the observer effect is commonly explained by the fact that every measurement means interacting with the particle and so the wave function collapses. After all you have a photon interacting with the particle to see the effect. But if the experiment is done in a non-dark environment (which is usually the case), photons are automatically interacting with everything, including the non-measured particle. Why is this interaction not the same as the observation?

[@MrBajaJunky]

The kind of interaction still matters. In order to count as an observation, the interaction must lead to entanglement between the system of interest and the "measuring photon". It even must be the kind of entanglement, which gets enhanced up to the macroscopic scale. Obviously this notion is quite hand wavy. It gets better by using mathematical formulations but is still the main reason why the solution of the measurement problem reaches no consensus among physicists.

[@etzenhammer]

@@MrBajaJunky so it boils down to the question: at which point is entanglement happening and what is needed, right?

[@MrBajaJunky]

@@etzenhammer Not quite sure what you mean by "what is needed"

[@etzenhammer]

@@MrBajaJunky yes sorry, badly worded. I mean what does it take to induce the entanglement in terms of how many photons or electrons or any type of matter ..

[@MrBajaJunky]

@@etzenhammer I think there isn't really a certain number of particles that must be involved in this entanglement process. It is more a property of the process itself. If the interaction is set up in such a way, that the entanglement gets enhanced, then the wave function effectively collapses. However, I am speaking in terms of many worlds. So to be very explicit in the answer to your question, the involved particles really are all particles of the universe (or within the light cone).

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Particles form from faster than light speed non-local quantum information when slow down to speed of light in case of photon / massless particles, and even slower than speed of light in case of particles with mass?

[@KpxUrz5745]

In this talk, each time Tollaksen got to the most important point, the realizations after the given experiments, he said little else besides some platitude like "this interaction manifests itself in the most INTERESTING ways imaginable". This does not seem to advance the conversation. He should try to convey a description of these behaviors.

[@ronvelderman3998]

The pixel doesn t contain the foto The particle doesn t contain the context the Brain makes in the macroscopic world

[@Jarppispecial]

Does this mean that the future is already decided in our universe, and you can kinda proove it with quantum particles?

[@l0zerth]

No, because what he is trying to claim is impossible to create on an experiment, period, and according to quantum randomness, would mean that there is nothing predetermined.

[@SpotterVideo]

Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford 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. (More spatial curvature). 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 actually a part of the quarks. 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" make sense based on this concept. 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting 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?

[@Dion_Mustard]

Quantum goes WAY over my head.

[@l0zerth]

Probably not, BS artists like this just intentionally just make ridiculous "theories" like this sound like they're just out of your reach, when it's actually ridiculous nonsense. Quantum physics is very real and very weird, what this guy is spouting is, to steal a quote, "not even wrong."

[@fractalnomics]

If you found something, an object, that independently behaves as quantum mechanics is described, would that be useful? I have. It does all of it. I understood my object had the same problems as QM before I knew much at all about QM. I soon found I was talking/thinking about the same thing. My biggest challenge is writing up what I have with no help.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When a measurement of quantum field made, is a third dimension added to information to form a particle / matter?

[@esorse]

If an existential guarantee is required for attribution, like when a chart of actual outcomes is presumed for estimating something now, then faith instead of either perception, or reason, is the creditable faculty.

[@grievouserror]

I always find myself watching these sorts of videos and wishing Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder were a part of them. She's a lot sharper than I am, has far more subject matter expertise than my undergrad perspective allows and asks really good questions. Not to take anything away from Dr. Tollaksen, but she has a way of clarifying issues for me.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

Yes! I totally agree. In fact Hossenfelder is particularly interesting because she disagrees with Tollaksen. She thinks this idea that quantum phenomenon have a different experience of time than the classical physical world is wrong; she believes in something called "super determinism." They are both very gifted science explainers so it would be a lot of fun to see them debate! (I will still likely be very confused afterwards though ...)

[@mossambica]

Very interesting interview.. and quite annoying the clicking in the background

[@J.M_Sterken]

This is gonna be fun.😬

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Why many boundary conditions in quantum mechanics and not classic mechanics?

[@Clancydaenlightened]

If nobody understands quantum mechanics, then who teaches it?

[@Clancydaenlightened]

Relatively speaking

[@andreasplosky8516]

The only thing I know about quantum is that it is very quantumy.

[@anitalinke6659]

Lovely.

[@r2c3]

somhow many functions in our body operate with quantum precision while we are baffled by a simple experiment :)

[@phenomenon8]

One of the great phenomenon's of theory's like this is that it open us up to the whole new world of philosophical physics and time travel using the Quontum aspects of the soul. It is one of the amazing subjects debated in the 'Phenomenon' (Amazon) by Neil Fulcher sub title The Greatest Adventure Ever Experienced 🌈🎱

[@davidgrim9853]

Am I summing up right? Physics generally consisting with "Non-local, weak measurement that consults the future" What I'm hearing is physics imbued with the texture of: 'universal proto-consciousness'.

[@allenanderson4911]

I don't understand this: If QM is not deterministic... Why, how, does it make such accurate predictions? Where's the uncertainty?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Do quantum fields have two dimensions of information?

[@timm6175]

I never want to hear the words boundary conditions ever again

[@williamjeffreys2980]

Matter is not primary, but an effect, a result.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is space composed of energy, information in quantum fields, and particles formed from measurement?

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Spoken with Max Planck it means: "Towards God!"

[@TheCarlbass]

The particle could travel from the future back from the detector to the emitter when time is reversed .we could possibly be going in time reverse now and don't realise it.

[@grosey11]

I love how physicists stumble over their explanation of quantum mechanics, dancing around the role of conscious observer and many worlds theory.

[@JaradDeLorenzo]

I have no proof, but many worlds is literally the only explanation that even kinda makes sense. It just feels right

[@gyozakeynsianism]

There is no role of the conscious observer. The "observation" requires a physical disturbance of the particle being studied. It can happen with or without a human "observing." The physical disturbance is what's doing the work of "observing."

[@grosey11]

@@gyozakeynsianism it follows that consciousness somehow exploits quantum effects to operate. Namely the wave function collapse. As per Roger Penrose’s Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) or similar.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

@@grosey11 No, it does not "follow." It has nothing to do with human consciousness. If I throw a rock into a pond all the fish scatter. If a rock gets blown in by the wind or rolls down a hill into the water by accident, all the fish scatter. No human consciousness needed. Tollaksen discusses lots of interesting ideas regarding consciousness in physics in another Closer video, but consciousness directly affecting quantum states is not part of the picture.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does quantum theory have to do with information? and how information is processed into classic reality?

[@tomusic8887]

I understand that the The quantum eraser is debunked in the video of sabine, according to her traveling back in time did not happen in that experiment....i found her explanation very convincing.

[@markgrissom]

Made no sense to me, but I appreciate the effort.

[@kylebowles9820]

I could listen to that guy talk about quantum measurement for as long as he could talk

[@MrSanford65]

The problem is that both science and human experience operate on the idea that perception is a legitimate way of experiencing the universe. It is not. Perception gives the illusion of putting things off in a distance separate from the perceiver which is false . The fact is in all these quantum physics experiments what you have basically are particles as the target being observed by other particles which are the observer. There actually is no barrier between the observer and the observed especially on the level of particles

[@longcastle4863]

Perception is a legitimate enough way of experiencing environments to help us survive in them. Even if distance is just a phenomenon of perception it nevertheless assissts us in planning for the hunt.

[@MrSanford65]

@@longcastle4863 Perhaps perception actually displaces everything we’re looking for. At some level, I doubt very seriously that you can ever perceive anything different from yourself, especially at the common level where things are at the foundation of forms rather than at the apex of them

[@abelincoln8885]

The Theory of Universal Functions is the science behind Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker analogy(Observation). The Universe is a Machine(Function) composed entirely of machines(Functions). Matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics are machines(Functions). All machines ... process inputs into outputs ... to exist & to function. All machines have 1 or more Functions and an overall prime Function. Clearly certain particles are waves normally, ... but when they receive specific input from other functions(eg a measuring device) they will default by "design" to a particle only. The Universe & Life ... are machines ... composed entirely of machines. This why there is zero evidence that the Universe & Life has a NATURAL origin 14 & 4 billions years ago. All machines are unnaturally made by an intelligence who must provide the matter, energy, space, time and laws of physics to exist and to .... FUNCITON. Science is all about .... everything being Functions.

[@Robinson8491]

This is the guy from backtracking particles in time. I wondered if you can make an experiment where a particle superposition splits/collapses, but then moves back in time like a virtual particle, and then comes back in current time: how is this backwards time travel possible after this new universe was created in the multiverse (and supposedly with that the beginning of time in this universe)? You can guess I'm trying to falsify Everettian multiverse thinking. Or at the least it should show that space must be considered fundamental in that universe but not time

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When a particle of matter develops the third dimension of space, the quantum field information in two dimensions appears to collapse because of the extra dimension?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is quantum mechanics more to be experienced than understood?

[@SuperOlivegrove]

I think this question about reality is the way forward. Quantum mechanics breaks down

[@vitr1916]

There will be no connecting things, when things are decay. When things are connecting, decaying is nonetheless and that may be what the nature is.

[@PaulHoward108]

To learn what quantum theory means, read _Quantum Meaning_, by Ashish Dalela, which explains the Semantic Interpretation of quantum theory.

[@Ekam-Sat]

What if truth is simple?

[@ravisravindran3413]

If matter contains inconceivable potencies as in QM what is difficult to allow inconceivable potencies in God

[@quantumbuddhism9993]

The idea that Quantum Theory is 'intuitively bizarre' is itself bizarre. Only people who have an inbuilt preference of belief for some type of materialism would have such a view. For all schools of Buddhist metaphysics the notion of materialist metaphysics is 'intuitively bizarre' and all forms of Buddhist metaphysics are consistent with the metaphysical implications of quantum theory - kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIu8hptrgpiAacU

[@nyworker]

The common sense notion that everything is quantum and the earth, the biosphere and ultimately we are the end users.

[@Flipson456]

What did Einstein said about "Quantum Theory" ?

[@fortynine3225]

''Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics."

[@longcastle4863]

A lot : )

[@aminkanji8501]

I like to eat tempura today

[@Robinson8491]

Is that a tempurary affliction?

[@Mr_Rob_otto]

To a certain extent, that sounded like the ravings of a mad man.

[@realcygnus]

So what exactly are these extraordinary behaviors that arises during so called weak measurements ? 🤔

[@Sunspot1225.]

So, "I think therefore I am."

[@ripleyfilms8561]

adding i aj the king fry only to say it high in the notion it supplies the slit

[@B.S...]

The future indeterminately causes the present. By changing the future probability wave the 'present' measurement is affected. "Life is a box of chocolates..."

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I'm not inclined in this area and ask what is the goal of this type of work, regarding quantum theory & quantum mechanics? Philosophy: Spiritual engagement so getting to the core, only digressing a little bit as if a tree branching out, while furthering itself to the light. Metaphysics: engaging into the profound things so understanding them, so having a genuine relation thus genuine acknowledgement therefor a reverence and respect, ultimately with ourselves, who we are, what we're part of. Ultimately both seeking the Divine and Union. Thus from philosophy, metaphysics, with the use of science we have sacred texts & scriptures. What is quantum mechanics goal? Where do you go with it? Is scientific methedology the best captain to set course for an ultimate destination for this ship?

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Matthew 20:16 KJV

[@l0zerth]

If you think you're ever going to understand what this guy is saying by simply watching again, and again, don't waste your time. There is a huge issue in academic communities in recent decades of people intentionally obscuring and confounding actual theory to make it seem more wonderous, and them to seem that much more intelligent to be able to understand and "explain" it. This has also led to a very pernicious feedback loop of examining those theories in the most fanciful ways, instead of proper scientific method limiting strictly to empirical observation and reporting. This has also allowed some "researchers" to create rather profitable careers built entirely on essentially being pseudo-scientific mystics, particularly in theoretical physics.

[@1stPrinciples455]

A theory can seem very true. But it could also be reverse engineered from an imagined reality. So many theories found to be flawed or false despite the impressive formulas. You can not know Reality to still come up impressive theories and formulas. See, humans do not know what water is and know the properties of water and still can land on mars. This tells us a lot

[@sonnycorbi1970]

AND ?

[@Dismythed]

In the quest for the quantum computer, it has recently been shown that EPR were right, that spooky action at a distance is not real and it is indeed the glove in a box. Quantum computers rely upon the glove in a box to operate properly. If it were spooky action at a distance, they would get far more functionality out of them along the lines of what was predicted than what they really do. That limitation is what proved EPR right.

[@pikiwiki]

we can forget Bell's inequality theorem

[@Dismythed]

@@pikiwiki Correct. It has been disproven many times lately. Sabine Hossenfelder has an excellent video on the subject. She also explains the failures of the double-slit experiment and others. Yet she is a diehard proponent of QM. (I'm not against it either, but am only against making it out to be something it's not, and what it's not is mystical. It's just probabilities.)

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Quantum theory not show up means because particles are unpredicted. Quantun theory question is no sense.

[@casuallearning5020]

The universe is superdeterministic, which explains all this quantum weirdness.

[@longcastle4863]

I'm thinking we may one day find out cause and effect determinism is actually an illusion... My thinking in this informed by my reading of Nietzsche who seemed to view both determinism and free will as human ideas too clunky to describe what's really going on.

[@casuallearning5020]

@@longcastle4863 Read this proof that the universe is superdeterministic. Research the 2020 article entitled “Bell’s theorem and its tests:Proof that nature is superdeterministic- not random.” The article is by Johan Hansson and appears in Physics Essays.

[@longcastle4863]

@@casuallearning5020 Just watched Sabine Hossenfelder's video on Superdeterminism -- which I imagine you would like quite a bit. Frankly, I'm going to have to watch it a couple more times and maybe check out some other sources, including the one you mention. Some of Sabine's argument I followed, some I'm not so sure about. I want to state that overall I really like Sabine's videos (I'm a big fan), although I totally disagree with her rejection of free will -- as I find her basic premise that if everything is determined there can't be free will too simplistic.

[@casuallearning5020]

@@longcastle4863 Sabine is great, but you really need to read Dr. Hansson’s proof. That’s where the money is. As for free will, you can still get a reformulated version of it but only through God. There is no free will under superdeterminism without a God.

[@abelincoln8885]

ie. God made it.

[@BigNewGames]

The problem with the measurement problem is the assumption that a particle can be defined as a wave. A particle is not an energy wave and a wave of energy is not a particle. The wave is potential information that may or may not contain a particle in our space and time. The particle doesn't exist in our space and time until the wave is measured or observed. Because the wave is potential information traveling outside our space and time it is not physical. The elementary particle doesn't become physical until trying to measure an aspect of the wave. Particles are the results when the potential information is observed or measured. And get this, the same particle that emerges from the wave doesn't really exist because as soon as it is measured or observed it is recorded as information, thus the same information cannot be measured again because the wave changed when it was measured. Hence uncertainty principal where they are unable to measure the particle more than once. They are unable to measure the velocity, trajectory or other information pertaining to the elementary particle, electron, etc., because the wave containing the potential information is different every time. This basically implies the universe is a giant hologram and that the potential matter in it did not become real until the wave was measured or observed.

[@manuzrp1]

Nice

[@longcastle4863]

Not bad. Not a hundred percent sure about it, but it does beer some further thinking about. Edit: A Corona with lime usually helps.

[@ahmedbassair3517]

I ddn understand a thing

[@nyworker]

QM may turn out to be much ado about nothing. In the end it may prove they may not have known what a particle and what a wave really were.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

God can tell the difference. He's the one to give discernment, a telling apart. He gives dispensation, a telling to light, a telling to dark, but the dark comprehends it not. Dividing of sheep and goats. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Hebrews 4:12‭-‬13 KJV

[@kaellum4260]

Now apply this to octonion level of reality with gravity. #3767

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1‭-‬5 KJV