Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality

[@jjoannahp]

also at the moment in 2020, so nice to see nuanced and meaningful debate in which each person carries respect for one another.

[@reachnotpreach]

Just went down a World Science Festival rabbit hole…and I like it here.

[@shiddy.]

welcome, we saved you a seat

[@aprylvanryn5898]

U entered the WSF event horizon. There is no escape now

[@IngeniousDimensions369]

Same

[@timewalker6654]

Me too

[@madmillion91920110]

Same

[@davidroberts1689]

Wow, this is the best Quantum discussion I've heard. Many congratulations to all the Physics Experts they all shined and explained why there is a future in studying physics!

[@ScrotumPole]

can i just congratulate the guys running the screen, their ablilty to display info live in time with the speaker and to run the credits at the perfect time made this production so professional, i do hope continued efforts of this calibre of production can overcome the delusional creationists. keep up the good work.

[@macthekaczmawrecked4627]

I feel like trying to keep up with this was the mental equivalent of participating in an 100 mile run with no training whatsoever.

[@patrickmoloney672]

Why was Heisenberg's wife unhappy? Whenever he had the time he didn't have the energy.

[@jameslewis1605]

Knowing that your human eye can only see me if I allow photons to reflect off of my entity I choose dark matter

[@itsiwhatitsi]

woah

[@jamesmeritt6800]

Patrick Moloney, and whenever he had the energy he wasn’t there...

[@redshield3296]

Patrick Moloney Because she found out her husband, was and running a meth lab!

[@redshield3296]

Lasr8 LOL! I’m so disappointed you beat me to it!

[@TerryPullen]

Tip of the cap to the organizers and producers for putting this together, thanks much.

[@philipgebhardt3453]

A brilliant summation of the different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics- I just love World Science Festival

[@mistypoke6347]

YAAAYY it's nice to see the views starting to go up on these sort of videos.

[@bernieflanders8822]

@@mistypoke6347 agreed. It's important for people to stop falling for internet nonsense and come back to reality and pull together as a species to tackle problems that are embedded in reality and not just a story to make money from the scientific illiterate and the gullible.

[@Equality72521sr]

THANK YOU!!! for not polluting these videos with ads. I suffer from tinnitus and enjoy listening to lectures like this, ad free, while I relax or go to sleep.

[@jameslorman4715]

There are many many smart people in the physics world, but in my humble opinion, Sean can communicate the knowledge to the layman the most efficiently... Sean is the Boss !

[@TNTsundar]

I could listen to Brian Greene all day.

[@ericsalles1424]

I couldn't agree more with your comment

[@aqu9923]

I watched again after a couple of years and am planning to repeat! That everyone showed their side of humour while deepening the understanding of the most fundamental questions is so refreshing!

[@Czeckie]

I've came for Sean, stayed for David. He's thinking about every word he says, he's so succinct, yet so effective and clear.

[@King_Flippy_Nips]

his wearing of birkenstocks and no socks in a situation where he should be wearing formal footwear kinda rubs me the wrong way, makes it look like he holds himself above everyone else, is he perhaps tenured at berkely?

[@fallen0851]

“Succinct” is not the word I would use.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

@@fallen0851 Rigorous. David Albert's speaking style is best characterized as RIGOROUS. Succinctness is often a bonus. Rigor is important when talking about issues this complex. I prefer rigor. Neils Bohr was far more long winded than David Albert ever is.

[@2CSST2]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 I find that sometimes the addition of extra words he does like "univocal" "factual" to a string of other such words really doesn't add much to the rigor of the idea compared to the lost of succinctness. But that's just me

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

@@King_Flippy_Nips Berkley has produced more Nobel Laureates, Fields Medal winners and Pulitzer Prize medals, than any school below the Mason Dixon line. Einstein never wore socks or combed his hair either 😉

[@Sunspot1225.]

Brian Green is phenomenal in the usage of the English language to explain physics and probably many other topics. Probably if it was not for him I would not be listening to this presentation. But what do I know for sure... anymore. This stuff could drive a person insane. Last guy on right might be on his way maybe.

[@mikkel715]

Sean Carroll is good too. Check his "Biggest Ideas in the Universe" Too bad Sean is so much stucked into Many World interpretation.

[@cesarjom]

@@mikkel715 Sean Carroll makes the best argument for the MWI theory as the way to accept QM without conflating it with other ideas and additional assumptions. It's the simplest interpretation which from a theoretical standpoint has value in the same way Einstein understood the simplicity of the fundamental first principles of SR and GR.

[@leeds48]

@@cesarjom It may be simple in the sense that Sean can explain it simply and efficiently, and we get what he's saying. But , it's not a simple theory in the sense of being parsimonious, because it posits the existence of an almost infinite number of other universes. To say that every time your dog lifts his leg to relieve himself, he is creating billions of universes in the process - none of which by the way can be detected or observed in any way - may explain away the measurement problem, but it's pretty enormous violation of Occam's razor. You are positing a practically infinite number of invisible entities, to explain what we observe physically.

[@cesarjom]

@@leeds48 I completely agree that the consequence of the MWI (branching of infinitely many realities) is a big leap to make in the intuitive way we understand the physical universe and a philosophical reality. But then I am reminded of a popular contemporary astrophysics' quote "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." It was probably very unintuitive and even paradoxical to imagine this idea of the constancy of the speed of light for any inertial observer, but Einstein postulated this idea as a required principle to develop the theory of SR. Understandably MWI is different level than Einstein's postulate, as it is not seen today how we can experimentally confirm it.

[@leeds48]

@@cesarjom Yes, I agree that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us, but those who presume to speak for the universe are under such obligation. Multiverse is just a way to try to hold on to the prevailing current worldview/philosophy of reductive materialism, which the empirical results of QM experiments have been flagrantly undermining since the 1920s.

[@brandoloudly9457]

10 years ago.... man. all i can say is i'm very grateful to have this catalog of content. this channel will be one of my background noises for a long time to come

[@Fall7timestandup8]

I never understood the double slit experiment in my college ..he just made me understand this under 10 minutes .....Well internet is really a blessing ...

[@sigma_six]

Science... free of politics and corporate manipulation can be truly breath taking... a thing of intrinsic beauty... that was an excellent discussion, wish I was there to ask a few questions of my own... brilliant, captivating discussion, well done gentlemen

[@RussellCatchpole]

Brilliant discussion! My uneducated thought is, how about it's not the individual particle in the double slit experiment interfering with itself, but all of individually fired particles interfering with each other across all time, because they do not experience and are not subject to time? So in effect it's just like firing them all at the same time, all of the time. We and the monitoring devices only see the particle impact at a particular time, because we DO experience and are subject to time. Therefore, all light exists in all of it's locations all of the time (because it is not subject to time), BUT, the key is that time travels through light, so it only 'activates' the light for us as we experience 'now'.

[@jpdemer5]

Some people can talk in complete sentences. Some talk in complete paragraphs. Dave Albert talks in complete book chapters - and they're incredibly well-writen chapters.

[@user-fo8lz6om7l]

I didn't know when I got into this, that all I ever wanted was to hear Brian Greene say, "This is quantum bullshit."

[@TheManWhoTypes]

You live in Texas?

[@allenkemper8787]

I wanted to learn more and hear opinions less. So ya l agree.

[@deshawnpimps4509]

K

[@deshawnpimps4509]

K0

[@saidalas7763]

zip up your boots

[@Dr.LairdWhitehill.Astronomy]

Thank you Brian Greene and panelists. I now know more to confuse me than ever before.

[@sarrahkramer848]

Every time I felt like I understood a part of this and had a grasp on something they were saying, they moved on to some totally bewildering new sentance 😭 I had a great time holding crumbs of quantum physics though

[@peterkay7458]

THANK YOU B GREENE FOR CREATING THIS LECTURE SERIES!

[@invin7215]

What a fantastic host! Props to that guy for doing such a good job.

[@ant7396]

He's one of the leading experts on this stuff... Fabric of the Cosmos was written by him.

[@marienikolic6019]

"Snaps into one position" sounds like my children. When I am not watching they are everywhere, as soon as I look at them they snap into one definite location pretending they are good all along...

[@rustykoenig3566]

LOL that is actually a damn good analogy to describe syperposition. Have to remember that one.

[@richmilito5417]

Marie Nikolic I think what is happening here are the evolution of energy “packets”.

[@Open-DI_239]

Lol 😂

[@Ghryst]

thats just your imagination, same as these "scientists" inaccurate mathematical description of particle locality

[@Omegamaniac81]

@@Ghryst do you know something the mathematicians / scientists didn’t / don’t know ? What makes you certain that they aren’t scientists? The definition of scientist is one that studies science, so, what makes you so sure that these people, aren’t in fact, studying science and the scientific method? Also, doubt, may be how one knows they are in fact themself. So you can’t use doubt in a way to disprove something about someone else, as that would then just be YOUR imagination...

[@-_Nuke_-]

Einstein. - Relativity: "Time is relative to relative observers" Ruediger. - Cubism: "Probability is relative to relative observers" WOW! That blew my mind away...

[@mrloop1530]

It didn't take too much, huh

[@habibnurmohamed8974]

Actually it is Qbism

[@pelimies1818]

Relative time is quite simple, it is still ONE picture (one reality), that can seem distorted, if compared by observers in different speeds, for instance. Probability with more than one solutions, on the otherhand, leads to different causalities (i.e. different futures), so the saying seems a bit odd comparison.

[@Alkis05]

Incorrect. Relativity: "Time is relative to relative **frames of reference**" It is a statement about geometry. It has nothing to do with observers. That is a miss conception.

[@karlbarks2219]

Relativicism: "Relativity is relative to relative relativities"

[@inshanbhattarai5127]

This is quite a good one!! Brian Greene is always a good host!!!

[@magnushelliesen]

David Albert and Sean Carroll have the most pleasant voices I know.

[@ThePinkus]

Excellent discussion! One beautiful thing is seeing QM interpretation competently discussed from different perspectives, they are all interesting contributions. In due time I'd like to comment on each of them. For now, I'd say that the question to vote for is not optimally formulated: "is this interpretation worth pursuing?", well, of course they all are (given that all of these are good/interesting candidates)! It is by studying a candidate interpretation that we could hope to find its consequences and requirements, and this might result in it's corroboration or in it's refutation. It contributes to the search for "the right one" if we know what is not tenable, and why. Interestingly, we have Bell's inequalities from the study of hidden variable theories, which is a contribution to the whole of QM! Once this is considered, I'd propose the vote to be "do You deem this interpretation has a good chance to be part of the right one?" Yes, because, where some of these interpretations have merits, these merits might be part of the solution. As a little game, I'll give my "thumbs" to the candidates: Hidden variables: down Spontaneous collapse: down (double, as in both left and right! Or... could I use my bigtoes too?) Everett's many-worlds: up Qbism: up I do intend those two ups as they are both likely to be part of the solution, as mentioned. My preferred one in general? Decoherence.

[@alexanderabrashev1366]

I didn't get qbism at all

[@beauferguson9535]

Brain Greene is my favorite speaker, regardless of the topic!!!

[@rickydyball]

Great vid, big Brian Greene fan and love this type of forum. These guys are the real rock stars

[@Okla_Soft]

Agree

[@realitynowassigned]

Theyre intellectuals, not rock stars

[@gyro5d]

President Donald Trump is THE rock star. See the people at his concerts!!!

[@AppliedMetaphysician]

I've gotta go with the Everett Formulation. It's been my perception that scientists have a tendency to want to nail 'it" down, for whatever value 'it' has. The Many Worlds view incorporates the idea that, just as we cannot perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum, there are facets to reality that are beyond our perception.

[@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297]

...so?

[@2CSST2]

@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 so it makes sense

[@muhaimin244]

And Qubism supports this notion.

[@1shagg420]

I love learning about physics from all the greats that follow different approaches discussing ways to nail down THE approach.

[@MrBGeonzon]

It's 2/6/2015 when I watched this, as of now this is an ENTRY AS THE BEST VIDEO I've seen this year.

[@curiosityxx]

Really

[@sigma_six]

This discussion was conducted in a way, reminiscent of a time when science was lauded as a true and proper philosophy unto itself... something that inspired hope and dignity in the majesty of man's reason... the sense of virtue in truth... these men were speaking their own truths... it was inspiring in a way I haven't experienced in a long time...

[@TerryPullen]

Why can't I find civil discussions like this on the subject of anthropomorphic climate change? These are real scientist challenging each other in a civil way, bravo.

[@avid0g]

Terry Pullen, Have any dissenters of ACC been published in the reputable journals? What happen to their theisis?

[@DinoDudeDillon]

57:25 "You've converted, you've just realized it!" "In which universe!?" Low key a really good joke

[@patking5816]

quantum physics and me.

[@immanny85]

Love to see philosophers sitting besides scientists. Nothing better.

[@King_Flippy_Nips]

one would argue that philosophers are scientists and i think universities agree with that point since it is offered alongside the other science fields as a course.

[@huepix]

in my humble opinion the double slit conundrum is easily explained. particles are simply the areas of a feild we can interact with. our observer (eye, camera etc) is moving. we are moving so our relative motion combined with the (quatum) feild we are measuring determines where we "see" the "particle". (the faster the feild of space spins, the more it is subjected to time dilation and space contraction, resulting in tiny areas that change very very slowly over time). so the feild goes thru both slits but can only be measured where the feilds motion and the observers motion combine to allow that. an easy way to prove this is to measure both slits but in different places. the particulate measurement can be in both places. that is, what we measure as a particle, actually goes thru both slits.

[@drmoroe]

OMG...THE single best content regarding QM interpretations on the Internets (at the time of this typing). :)

[@alexwareham8005]

X

[@iaov]

Sean Carroll is awesome ...love hearing his thoughts

[@ExistenceUniversity]

You poor thing...

[@roselightinstorms727]

I agree he's horrible

[@halnineooo136]

1/ Wave and Particle are macroscopic notions. 2/ Measurement is a process of using an interaction between two systems in order to quantify a variable of one of the two systems. That interaction needs to have negligible effect on the measured variable so that most of the quantity measured would be amputable to the measured system as if it was an isolated one. Example : Measuring system : lampe and camera. Measured system : bellet. Measured variables : position and speed of bullet. Light is shed on the bullet by the lamp. It hits the bullet and reflects to the camera where it interacts with a sensor so an image is recorded from which the position and speed of the bullet are derived. The interaction between light and the bullet has negligible incidence on the energy, speed and position of the bullet for the matter of study. The precision needed in ballistics can accommodate with newtonian physics and neglect energy exchange with light while maintaining sufficient precision for the matter of the study. Now think about this concept of measurement on a subatomic level. Do we have such systems A that let us do measures with negligible effect from the measuring interaction? It's a scale problem. The tools we have can't interact with negligible effect on the studied systems and variables on subatomic level so to give a quantification of a satisfying precision. We absolutely want to project our subjective experience of notions like wave and particle on phenomena that does display some of the periodic behaviour we recognise in our familiar macroscopic waves. Same goes for particle behaviour. There is a periodic behaviour as well as discrete behaviour. No need to say more about it nor to make analogies with macroscopic phenomena.

[@afrog2666]

"It`s a probabilistic scoreboard and it`s a HIIIIGH probability" 😂

[@PrivateAccountXSG]

also, Brian Greene is a damn national treasure, isnt he?!?

[@dongraham4760]

he does his homework !!

[@adamsasso1]

Is there anyone better at moderating these type of discussions than Brian Greene?

[@mrloop1530]

"When no one is looking, a particle has near limitless potential: it can be nearly anywhere. But measure it, and the particle snaps to one position." Just like me.

[@TP-kq9ul]

Just like my children

[@DefensorPrime]

Awesome and humourus stuff!! Very high level and quite amazing how quantum mechanics can explain the behaviour and nature of waves and particles!!

[@KipIngram]

You know, I have to post this bit from David Albert's Wikipedia page. Apparently he and Lawrence Krause (whom I hate with a passion) have a feud. Krause wrote his "Something From Nothing" book, which Albert proceeded to review very negatively. Albert's point, which I agree totally with, is that ultimately science just has nothing to say on the subject of religion - he wrote this: "The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story." That seems very on point to me. Krause's response to this, in an Atlantic Monthly interview? To call Albert "moronic." How classy and mature. But it fits right in with the kind of character I see in Krause. He and Dawkins don't really "do science" anymore - they've become mere "anti-evangelists." But at least Richard Dawkins has made amazing contributions in the past - I don't really know of anything very meaningful Krause has done. Now, don't get me wrong - I think science has plenty to say about some specific claims religion has made over the years. Clearly the world is not 6000 years old. Etc. And it's entirely valid if you want to form your own beliefs on the basis that if all those specific claims are wrong, then the whole idea is probably wrong. I would tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think any existing major world religion really "has the right answers." When I look back on the history of religion, what I mainly see is a system by which some people sought to wield control over other people (and succeeded). A system of control. And I think many vile things have been done in the name of religion over the ages. But, that doesn't change the fact that on the truly ultimate questions such as "Does God exist?" science just has nothing rigorous to say. Such questions are simply inaccessible to human rigor. All we can do is have opinions and beliefs - not certainty. Krause pointed out a plausible scenario that conforms with modern quantum theory - he "proved" nothing.

[@penelopesnopes6852]

This is the best channel on KZbin!

[@TheXitone]

This talk is a work of art tho .Sean Carrol is another genius.

[@78tag]

Brian Greene does it again. That discussion could have become quite contentious but Brian has the ability to keep it from going there. I also like that the "titles" were left out of these gentlemens descriptions. I don't care whether so-n-so is a professor or a doctor or the doorman - this was a fine collection of men expressing their understanding of the world around us. Good enough for me.

[@HBFTimmahh]

Quantum Mechanics is not just a premise of the last 150 yrs.. It goes much, much farther back in our History. in 1637, Rene Descartes said “I Think Therefore I Am”. The famous French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes, also known as the Father of Modern Philosophy, said the words "I think therefore I am”. Much of his work attempted to defy skepticism, a prominent ideology for the French intellectuals of the day. In addition, much of his philosophical thinking lead him to speculate about the connection between the mind and the body, which is what this quote focuses upon. This is a simple, yet definite description of pondering the actions of the Quantum.

[@HBFTimmahh]

? Huh ? Dont like Facts?

[@HBFTimmahh]

I don't think you understand the Idea of what consists of Quantum Physics, or the Philosophy behind Quantum Theory. You're young, so we can dismiss it as having no basis for comparison. But the Fact is, the Comment, "I think, therefore I am." is a fundamental Principle of what constitutes Quantum Reasoning..... That is just a Historical Fact of Science....

[@HBFTimmahh]

yes, Einsteins "Spooky Action" at a distance, today better identified by the phrase "Quantum Entanglement".

[@HBFTimmahh]

New Age woo woo has nothing to do with it. Spooky Action at a Distance, or what we today call Quantum Entanglement, has Nothing to do with New Agey bullshit. Though, in its own Discipline, has been taken well beyond Testable and like Astronomy, is running amuck, thus the reason so much of todays science is based not upon Observations, but on Theories and Hypothesis that Deny what does not support the Theory, and only venerates that data which does. And when they do this, and later that data is proven to be mis understood, or outright wrong, which is pretty much all of the time any more. Velikovskys Worlds in Collision, is just one case that is now being proven far more correct than the current cosmological clusterfuck we find ourselves confronted with. Did you even look at the Info I posted on the work of Robitaille?

[@HBFTimmahh]

Andres Kiani "I wish I was smart enough to brag about how wrong you guys are.. but I'm not. Though I know one thing is for certain youtube is full of trolls who know nothing about a lot of things lol." Here, you are correct with your assertions. Y/T is full of idiots. Most only regurgitating that which they were told is Truth, and have no clue they have been lied to... Sadly, Modern Science is also full of these types. When you ask why has physics become subject to Philosophy, you show you do not understand the 1st Principle of Science, Question why, and follow the evidence. This is Philosophical at its core... Without asking why, there is no need for Science to be used to answer a non asked question, now is there? You See, Philosophy is the Thinking (Asking) part, and Science is the (Asnwering) Finding out part. Sadly, just around 100 yrs ago, there was a deceptive split, putting Philosophy and Lab Testing, into 2 different disciplines, which has separated the Original Question, from the Answers, thus allowing the Answers to form the Questions. That is not Science, that is Deceit because it does not allow the Actual Lab Test Data to be fully explored for what it shows, which again, is used to stop anyone from asking the questions that are not wanted.... Because they are as Richard Feynman states so Clearly, "Are Uncomfortable... and if you don't like it, too bad. Go somewhere else where the laws are more accommodating. Thats how Nature Works. If one can not even ask the question, how can one form a logical, therefore provable answer?

[@Biddybalboa]

YAAAYY it's nice to see the views starting to go up on these sort of videos.

[@King_Flippy_Nips]

its all whenever youtubes extremely broken algorithim decides to place it in peoples recommended results

[@mistahtom]

A prominent display of decoherence of the mind. This panel is amazingly brilliant 💡

[@donaldminor6461]

Agreed on the part of the wave, there must be a frequency be generated by the particles of whatever they are, which different by what they are made of so the kinds of particles could create variation in the patterns left.

[@Karriemisskylie]

Ahhhh. KZbin has chosen this to be the video I woke up to for today. Quite the find!

[@michaelsmusic3532]

me too ! But then again in other realities ,,,,,

[@nathanielmathews2617]

I swear i wake up to this every other night.

[@rodrigoappendino]

Quantum Sleeper. Makes you rest in peace, but being alive at the same time.

[@masterhuhwhat]

+Rodrigo Appendino try quantum pooping

[@studiooftheblacklion]

+Rodrigo Appendino Quantum Sex. Yep. you are thinking now, huh?

[@buteobuteo9461]

“In the theory where everything happens.. we’re not saying anything about the world we’re in.” That blew my mind.

[@patrickcallahan6396]

I'm intrigued. Thank you for my Thursday evening.

[@ag-bf3ty]

"Will we reach consensus on this by 2100?" Sean missed a golden opportunity to say "Well in many worlds we will reach a consensus but in other worlds we won't."

[@Gribbo9999]

That seems probable or doesn't.

[@Caliban314]

That is a damn good comment!

[@anywallsocket]

Clearly the spontaneous collapse theory is just the inverse of the many worlds theory: MW says we roll the die and every side comes up, SC says we roll the die and one randomly comes up - one says which universe we’re in is random, the other which side of the die is random.

[@elck3]

"Probability wave" -- first time i've heard this and it just blew my mind

[@jasonlay9492]

Iv thought about that while taking a dump

[@dannysmith785]

Phd qualified panelists, pot qualified comments...

[@radumirceabunica7492]

and what's your comment about?

[@edwardaguilar6322]

Danny Smith this is why academia has lots of B.S.

[@ruthruthie2931]

Do enlighten us..

[@sonnycorbi1970]

So what you are saying is because they smoked a bowl or a joint this nullifies their PHD and all they have ever learned? A WORD OF ADVICE DILLDONESS YOU ARE NOT THE BODY - (where do all these idiots come from and why are there so many of them)

[@mattlangstraaat3508]

Yours included

[@alexanderhirst1171]

Loved this! - baffled the last guy's interpretation was so misunderstood and rejected by the others, though thankfully some sense was brought back as the moderator seemed to agree it most of all ideas put forward

[@MrTJGALLOWAY]

Ruediger's eyes are eery. He's like....super focused.

[@mRzTTeel]

lol

[@druvik2052]

If the guy could speak with numbers, he would be one of the best communicators of science....

[@glutinousmaximus]

***** There was a young lady called Bright, She could travel faster than light - She went out one day, In a Relative way; And returned the previous night...

[@caldude106]

He’s microdosing

[@hoptoads]

Just as a map is not the territory, a theory is not the reality. Both maps and theories are useful, but only as much as they help us navigate through the territory of reality.

[@iamtherealrenedescartes]

Your point is? What actual reality is is irrelevant. What matters is the practical application as well as the ability to proceed in our quest for knowledge. The fact that a theory is not the reality does not mean we cannot have an accurate understanding of reality. Likewise, just because the map is not the territory, it doesn't mean we cannot have an accurate understanding of the territory. This is the very reason it is called a "theory" and not a "truth" or "absolute knowledge". But you can't expect anything better from us. We are fallible beings. We cannot do any better than have a substantiated explanation of some phenomena supported by facts and experiment.

[@Tyler-bp4md]

Did you just say that actual reality is irrelevent?

[@erictko85]

Descartes you may believe everyone has your advanced grasp of science and epistemology. They don’t. Statements like his comment can be useful to them along their learning.

[@pagogo84]

I see what you did there....sharrrrp!

[@2CSST2]

Physics is not in the business of making maps but in actually understanding reality. Now you may think that whether they want it or not, all they're doing is making maps. I'd wholeheartedly disagree with that, equations that predict so well how nature acts (to the precision of the width of a hair compared to the whole solar system's width for the Standard Model) are more than just "guides", they actually reveal something profound about the nature of reality. In fact, anything you think you need to add to those "maps" to get reality is what's unjustified here. If those equations are *are all* that you need to describe and explain the world, what justifies you in postulating that there's something more, when that extra something adds nothing measurable or testable in any way. Violates Occam's Razor big time.

[@kenantahir]

When performing _the double slit experiment_ have we fired *protons* and *neutrons* instead of *electrons?* What about elementary particles? Or for that matter have we tried shooting the whole complete *atom* thru those slits? what kinds of particles have been used in this experiment? Do all particles behave as the electron does when measured?

[@Amberfernology]

Google it

[@Zac6230]

Why does the particle assume position when observed? what is the purpose of that to take position, how can that happen? it's not conscious

[@anngeorge43]

God has set us at the center of the universe and we have dominion therefore our visualizing a thing makes it the thing it is....Our interaction to everything even at the smallest point effects it in this whole universe...its a God thing !

[@mirabella2006]

ann george No thanks!

[@seanfinkelfuck9935]

Upon observation, the photons bouncing around, fixate the apparent location. The act of those photons bouncing around is also the reason one can only know either velocity or direction, not both simultaneously. The photons bouncing off either change direction of speed/slow velocity. ann george, SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!!!!

[@seanfinkelfuck9935]

ann george Obviously you don't know a fucking thing, stupid fuck !!!

[@Zac6230]

***** Why do we think it's a simulation? how come I can't control this simulation or at least my own? if it is a simulation what does that mean?

[@alephprime3770]

"A sure enough way to get words to rhyme. is to use the same words!" LOL

[@alephprime3770]

Diane Héroux Si t'as le temp moman. Ecoute ca. toujours interessant de se tenir a jour ^_^

[@MrVikingsandra]

Another wonderful panel. I'm so glad Sean Carroll is on this one, I just finished another one of his books, From Eternity to Here, 10/10 👏

[@ABC-cr9mi]

We just had five people on stage for 1 and a half hour and none of them talked over each other . We need to have a scientist in the white house ASAP

[@archangel7052]

Except he moderator talked too much.

[@Steve_1999]

36:25 I love Sean's facial expression.. lol

[@arshakmmm4752]

what a great show this was!! it was so obvious that philosophical insight of 4 physicists on the left was, as expected, so much deeper, more responsible and wise compared to the math guy. God bless all of us!!

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π represent the uncertainty of everyday life at the smallest scale with the Planck constant ħ=h/2π being a constant of action in the dynamic geometrical process that we see and feel as the period of time. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding relative to the atoms of the periodic table therefore unfolding relative to our own actions

[@ctakitimu]

No, because there is such a thing as a Heisenberg compensator...apparently

[@GregorKropotkin-qu2hp]

Yes.

[@kaarlimakela3413]

But there is also such a thing as a flux capacitor ... allegedly! ... ;)

[@michselholiday6542]

I think plank constant s should always apply.

[@crazieeez]

Yes. The future is uncertain. Every future measurement of position of an electron there is an uncertainty, just like every step you take is different than the previous step, there is an uncertainty exactly your next step. Uncertainty arises from the interaction of light and matter. If light does not interact with matter, all matter are wave superimpose on each other with a specified energy, known as the time independent wavefunction. If light interact with matter wavefunction, it becomes a time dependent wavefunction with a definite position in spacetime.

[@izzyplusplusplus1004]

When electrons move in a straight line do they not produce an electromagnetic field? Why is that not a part of the considerations for the electron action?

[@mojo5093]

wow good point

[@d.b.cooper1721]

Because 'under acceleration' is the main game.@@mojo5093

[@LeytonSchiebel]

Do they really move in a "straight line" though?

[@LeytonSchiebel]

Precision in one (position) constructs the uncertainty in another (position)

[@ryccoh]

Not at constant speed only under acceleration. Going in a circle an object is always accelerating

[@Mollycoddled968]

Brian Green is to physics what David Attenborough is to the natural world. Hands down the best presenter of physics by several astronomical units

[@damian.gamlath]

I feel bad to say this but I'm glad that the host is not Alan Alda or another actor

[@sinbreaker2885]

Good stuff, too bad these videos never make it to the 100k viewing mark, but cat videos or music videos where half naked people singing in auto-tune get millions upon millions.

[@russellrummage]

This is the reason I like the Many Worlds Interpretation, in some other "worlds" those numbers will be reversed. Just too bad it isn't this world...

[@sinbreaker2885]

russellrummage Haha, nice one.

[@fapalisok97]

I go to an over seas hs, and this campus doesn't even offer an AP physics class (only an online course). The studies in various scientific phenomena isn't as favored at this campus.

[@sinbreaker2885]

I watched a movie last night called Coherence, which was based on this very same concept. Was a pretty good and worth a watch if you enjoy suspense-type films.

[@LucisFerre1]

That's not sad, that's reality. If your desires don't fit reality, it's your desires that must be put in perspective and amended. I enjoyed this video, but I enjoyed watching Nicki Minaj's phat ass in Anaconda just as much.

[@AlvinRaditya]

Glad to have Vision sharing his genius on this topic

[@DickJohnson3434]

I'm sure Ruediger is a brilliant physicist but for public presentation to english speaking audiences, I recommend only english speaking physicists. Without math, it's extremely difficult to convey these ideas and I missed a lot of what he said not only because I couldn't understand the words he was trying to say, but because he himself had trouble finding the words to say. "Cubism" now seems simple and stupid to me when I'm certain the cubist ideas Ruediger has in his head are much more intelligent than the sum total of quantum ideas I have in my head.

+DickJohnson3434 Are you mixing Qbism with Cubism intentionally?

[@DickJohnson3434]

Piotr Szarański No, just showing my ignorance.

[@jordannyc2769]

I have more difficulties to follow the philosopher that wears sandals. His condescending tone, never ending sentences and chosen vocabulary makes him hard to get to me ( I'm not English native speaker) . I'm glad Brian translates him with simple phrases each time he finishes his long monologues

[@charlesdarwin430]

completely agree with you

[@S4R1N]

Why did I think it was a good idea to read the comments.....

[@jimmime]

The need for human interaction/ exchange.

[@andrewchen9097]

Because in one of the worlds you chose to read the comments it was a good idea.

[@onesandzeroes]

I always have the same problem.

[@78tag]

S4R1N - I read the comments to see if anyone had the same view relative to mine.

[@nathanclark9568]

I could sit and watch this kind of stuff for hours on end.

[@kihondosa4]

Shack is right, "Problems exist only in the language" , L.Wittgenstein.

[@christopherrichardwadedett4100]

A:? B:? C: Therefore problems exist only in the language. Nothing in the world is eternal, says Joseph Stalin, everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs change, conceptions of justice change, truth itself changes ... our conceptions, our "self," exist only in so far as external conditions exist that give rise to impressions in our "self."

[@kihondosa4]

+Christopher Richard Wade Dettling Awesome! Thank you. Applications matter :) www.e-ostadelahi.com/eoe-en/mirror-reflection/ In regards of "change" I like Bashar's virsion of Universal rules: 1. You exist.2. The One is All and the All are One . 3. What you put out is what you get back. 4. Change is the only constant...

[@christopherrichardwadedett4100]

QED

[@christopherrichardwadedett4100]

Language/pseudo-language Everything is language?

[@kihondosa4]

ОWhy do I think? I shake, therefore, I am.

[@frankney8284]

A quantum mechanic's vacation Left his colleagues in dire consternation For while it was shown His speed was well known His position was pure speculation

[@acetate909]

These uncertainty principle jokes are probable(y) hilarious to a probable degree.

[@waynefarley87]

watching another presentation had to sign in and got to this presentation. I'll be here until i watch every post. nice because I can "listen" while I work. Great forward movement for me. nothing concrete as everything is in motion but for now, brings [me] up to date. thank you all

[@VeilerDark]

Brian Greene has a high iq. He explains the two slit experiment in a decent enough way Alex Filipenko did not use correct graphics on Universe series Brian always explains better than Alex what a probabilistic wavefuntion is Richart Feynman was REALLY GREAT and didn't mix interpretations with data, he seperated that Brian Greene is also great! thanks for uploading =]

[@mushkamusic]

Ruediger seemed to be talking nonsense. I couldn't really tell what he was trying to say unfortunately.

[@MrAbeAllen]

I agree. I feel like this joke summarizes what I understood of him describing Qbism. "I write jokes for a living, I sit at my hotel at night, I think of something that's funny, then I go get a pen and I write it down. Or if the pen is too far away, I have to convince myself that what I thought of ain't funny." Mitch Hedberg Something like, I have some preconceptions, then I look at the data, which is somewhat different than predicted, then I adjust my concept to fit. To me that sounds like "learning". :-/. Could have been more clearly explained. Course I'm sure I summarized it wrong ;-) since I found his description incomprehensible.

[@LeytonSchiebel]

Had to read more on QBism to discern how his theory differed from relativism if the agent or observer was the contingency.. still getting there

[@SoulArtSound]

We create reality, with our own expectations and beliefs, our expectation+observation collapses wave function, with result we expected......so be careful what u wish!

[@jfc8997]

Could it be possible to have the script of this conference ? (For a better comprehension of non english speaker )

[@Kholdaimon]

I don't understand the idea of Qbism, it doesn't sound like it has predictive power... You just observe the result of an experiment and adjust your knowledge, but do you ever make predictions of the outcome of an experiment?? His explanation is extremely vague...

[@pensiring7112]

He is really bad at explaining. From what I understand, Qbism takes the position that all the weirdness in Quantum Physics comes about because we have certain expectations what we should observe; that the wave function for example is merely a mathematical tool to describe what we see, and not a reflection of reality. Imagine a videogame, where your units have hitpoints; those represent something, but are not reality itself, merely a description of reality.

[@patinho5589]

Yes you make predictions. You use quantum mechanics to make predictions. Your expectations are enshrined in the quantum mechanics equations.

[@patinho5589]

@@pensiring7112 yes. He’s just talking about what probability MEANS. Which you need to discuss, to interrupt what a PROBABILITY wave MEANS!

[@msjoeyjo]

Geniuses and their funny quirks and mannerisms 😂🤣

[@remnantwarrior4982]

Yea, the "other equation" needed is the maths explaining the undiscovered energy field. Scientists limit themselves when they believe they have all the variables understood, or known. There are still fields of energy they have not yet discovered, and are key to understanding those which they have discovered.

[@GiveMeFive-GMF]

Sean Carroll: The spontaneous collapse hypothesis "comes along with all sorts of weird and unnecessary things" Also Sean Carroll: There are multiple Universes!

[@Skankhunt420.]

I think he means that they need to change a lot of the equations in order for it to fit the data. Whereas many worlds already fits the data

[@arjenbij]

This is actually a misunderstanding. There aren't many universes. There is one universe that has branches of reality. Besides, the branches are already there in the data, what the other interpretations try to do is to get rid of these by adding more equations. The many worlds interpretation is the simplest interpretation. It's just a question of whether the simplest is a good measure of what is correct, which it has been historically in science.

[@chronicawareness9986]

the wave is caused by the movment of the earth and even the sun through space. how does the earth travel through space?

[@VeronicaGorositoMusic]

That's a good one, I think the same...they're missing something important here, the movement...but...who knows?

[@tristanbackup2536]

Interesting. The best way to do the split experiment is do it in space & away from gravity & radations. I want to see the results as they're might be different. If they're the same no matter what, that tells me the theory of multi-dimension/probability reality has more ground.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

You are just wrong

[@MyStarPeopleExperiences]

14:47 Not enough height of slits and background marker. We are missing spread information above and below.

[@reality3995]

quantum physics and me.

[@darksector1389]

This comment is from 2051: The Many Worlds Theory was correct!

[@chaseosburn3012]

Was?

[@muhaimin244]

It's always fun to see physicists struggle with philosophy, specifically ontological. I now have a new found respect for Brian Greene for being the only one that sees qubism as the best approach to understanding quantum mechanics. It's a shame Sean didn't see how it absolutely supports the Many World.

[@pb4520]

maybe probabilities are just a human idea. the actual real world maybe isnt at all based on statistics etc i dont know

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Or maybe probability is an attribute of identity

[@natewestern4925]

Haha, all of the physicists and mathematicians are observably uncomfortable every time the "philosopher" talks. David Albert clearly likes to hear himself talk.

[@valmarsiglia]

He's a physicist as well as a philosopher. All the sciences started out as branches of philosophy, and at their most theoretical end are very much still philosophical as well as scientific pursuits.