Pilot Wave theory (Bohmian mechanics), Penrose & Transactional Interpretation explained simply

Get MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/arvinash and get an exclusive offer for our viewers: an extended, month-long trial, FREE. MagellanTV has the largest and best collection of Science content anywhere, including Space, Physics, Technology, Nature, Mind and Body, and a growing collection of 4K. This new streaming service has 3000 great documentaries. Check out our personal recommendation and MagellanTV’s exclusive playlists: www.magellantv.com/genres/sci...
In the Copenhagen interpretation, which is what is typically taught to undergraduate students, particles are in superposition. What is superposition? In quantum mechanics, there is no equation that states exactly what some properties of a particle are. They are expressed in a wave function which is part of the Schrodinger equation. This describes the shape of what looks like a wave.
But this wave-particle duality doesn’t fit with our observations. So Bohr and Heisenberg interpreted the mathematics to mean that particles really are waves until they are measured. This state of multiple properties at once is called superposition.
In this interpretation, the wave is not a physical wave, but a mathematical way to figure out the probability of finding a particle in a certain state. This is in contrast to DeBroglie-Bohm or pilot wave theory, named after Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, also known as Bohmian mechanics. This theory describes the wave function as real physical waves that push real particles around. They are just being guided by the wave function which evolves according to the Schrodinger equation.
This theory is completely deterministic. The wave provides a set of potential trajectories, but the particle takes only one trajectory.
No measurement problem and no collapse occurs because there is no superposition.
How the wave guides the particle is described by a new equation that is introduced to accompany the standard Schrödinger equation - the Guiding Equation. This describes the configuration over time of the particle even when unobserved. This equation has the wave function in it, so it is not completely new.
In this scenario, the trajectory of a particle only appears random because we don’t know its initial starting point. But if we did, we could predict where the particle would be at all times, and where it will end up. So the uncertainty in this scenario is due to our inability to measure the particle’s initial state, not because the particle’s position is unknowable.
Bell’s inequality is not violated because this is a Non-local hidden variable theory because Its position and velocity depends on the configuration given by the wave function, which extends to all of space. The hidden variables are distributed throughout the entire universe, not just at the particle.
This is a problem because it means that the wave function in a distant parts of the universe can simultaneously affect each other. This instant communication violates special relativity, and is not compatible with quantum field theory.
In addition, simultaneity doesn’t really exist in relativity, because it depends on your choice of coordinates.
Another problem is that real waves push real particles, but they don’t push back which violates Newton's third law.
Pilot wave theory explains the double slit experiment by showing that measuring instrument interfere with the pilot waves and ruin their quantum behavior. Results from this theory are the same as with standard QM.
Another theory by 2020 Nobel laureate Roger Penrose, is called induced collapse, where he proposes a relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity. He say that large mass particles cannot sustain superposition in two places because too much energy is required to bend space-time. So one Planck mass and heavier particles revert to one position.
#pilotwavetheory
#quantumsuperposition
One of the craziest theories, imo, is called the transactional interpretation, by John Cramer in 1986. It is non-local and treats waves as being physically real. In it, future events can have a retro-causal link explaining the correlation between the particle properties and the measurements yet to be performed on them. This means that later events can cause earlier events-that causation can operate backwards in time as well as forwards in time.
If you extrapolate this idea to the entire universe, and all of time, you can argue that all backward traveling and forward traveling waves evolve to a single reality that we experience in the present. But this interpretation doesn’t generate any new predictions, so is not testable.

[@Nilicha]

Get well soon my friend. And you look great either way, because your mind is beautiful :)

[@finojose]

I fully agree

[@krzysztofkalinski2616]

@@finojose I disagree but probably deep inside of the pararel universe. In this one I say: right.

[@__momentum__9934]

Awwww, thats soo nice.

[@ParthGChannel]

Arvin this is such a clear explanation - I'm going to be watching and rewatching this video for a long time! :D

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks buddy! Keep up the great work you're doing on your channel.

[@ashrafhossain4324]

sir...i am your and Arvin Sir's great fan! Take love and my honor❤...

[@DanyalShabirr]

hey becoming friends now... parth g and arvin ash😊😚

[@MrBollocks10]

@@DanyalShabirr They will be swapping subscriptions for Penthouse (girlie mag) before you know it.

[@avadhutd1403]

@@ArvinAsh Hello @ArvinAah Thanks for this amazing video Could you please explain role of negative probability in quantum mechanics? What negative probability imply in physics Good wishes and lot of love from india❤️❤️

[@itwasntidio4623]

Finally, Arwin Ash's Video. My dinner will be legendary.

[@NonDelusional74611]

Right? Get high first

[@blackopsfan00]

Bruh I legit did the exact same shit while destroying some ice cream

[@blackopsfan00]

Oh ya, I’m high as well lol

[@localtitans4166]

My sleep will be legendary

[@afajalaka]

Mom’s spaghetti

The hardest part of quantum mechanics is that every interpretation is compelling in its own way.

[@hrsmp]

Not really. Many worlds is obviously garbage, copenhagen isn't really an interpretation at all; i think transactional is the best we have right know.

[@KevD_]

It is remarkable that so many wildly different philosophical interpretations are possible that are consistent with the theory.

[@ZebidiahChaos]

@@hrsmp I'm curious; what makes the many worlds interpretation garbage? My understanding is that it is a natural extrapolation of the underlying mathematics. That is not to say that it is correct; but how did you determine that?

[@DarkProtector92]

​@@ZebidiahChaos I can´t answer for that guy but I always thought that the many worlds interpretation would require enormous ( almost impractical ) amounts of energy. Almost Everything in this universe seems to not use more energy then needed.

[@ZebidiahChaos]

@@DarkProtector92 That's interesting. I was under the impression that what you've just said was not the case, but there is a good chance that I misheard, misunderstood or misremembered what was said. This impression was taken from a Sean Caroll video (from his Biggest Ideas in the Universe series, I think) and 'many worlds' is his favourite interpretation.

[@shaungovender7805]

Arvin, one might say your head was in a state of superposition( With and without the bandage). Until you removed your cap

[@SoulDelSol]

Not really, he was wearing the bandage the whole time. Superposition seems kind of egocentric - object permanence is mastered by many toddler aged children. I think what happens is things change. To use your analogy he may take bandage off and next time you look you'll find there is none. Doesn't mean it's existing in 2 states but rather that it can change states in between measurements

[@shaungovender7805]

@@SoulDelSol we didn't know he was wearing the bandage, so from our perspective he was both wearing the bandage and not wearing the bandage. In my opinion it's no different to Shrodinger's Cat experiment, the cat is both alive and dead. But we only know for certain when we open the box

[@SoulDelSol]

@@shaungovender7805 ya you didn't know he was wearing the bandage- but he was and he confirmed that he was. I'm familiar with that thought experiment and i know what you're getting at. But reality isn't your perspective. There are many optical illusions that show your perspective does not always form accurate representation of reality. You may not know the answer (if he's wearing bandage or not) but that doesn't change the answer or fact that he is wearing it the whole time. Not knowing an answer doesnt mean everything is the right answer - that's silly

[@shaungovender7805]

@@SoulDelSol I hear what you getting at. It was the same argument that was raised against Schrodinger's thought experiment. If the cat is alive, it surely knows it is alive, and that itself collapses the wavefunction and destroyes the superposition.

[@phoule76]

I thought Shrodinger himself posited the cat in the box "experiment" as an absurdity in itself, that it's not at all both alive and dead at the same until observed. In other words, it can't be a subjective outcome. Just because we don't know? Okay, then just because I wake up in the middle of the night and don't know what time it is, and don't know if the sun is up yet or not, that means it's all times at once, until I open my eyes and look at the clock?

[@veronicats100]

Everyone loves Arvin, cap or no cap. Oh, I enjoyed the physics too.

[@esecallum]

WHY DONT HE HIRE A BUSTY BLOND TO DO THE VIDEO?

[@finojose]

Me too

[@rc5989]

Every Saturday is “Arvin Ash video day”! Amazing how good the content is every week!

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@mastervolotaaofvoltaria4360]

:)

[@Sharperthanu1]

About Pilot wave interpretation: Since this interpretation says there's no wave function to begin with it must be wrong.When the wave function hits the photographic film at the back of the double slit experiment it leaves physical markings on the photographic film therefor proving that the wave function is an actual physical thing.

[@aviralverma7524]

Why this channel is so underated .......it deserves to have millions of subscribers let’s share this video.

[@SoulDelSol]

Bc physics is a niche interest and youtube is saturated with tons of physics channels for relatively small amount of people who are interested in it. I agree that he's good though - share his videos with your friends

[@konstantinop]

because it is not easy to understand it even if he explains it well

[@Kj16V]

TBH he's already at nearly 500k subscribers, which is awesome for such a niche, big brain subject.

[@prozmystery]

I watched you 7 years ago at General Theory of Relativity videos. Now your channel makes me feel heaven.

[@ArvinAsh]

You did? That must be Doppelgänger.

[@itwasntidio4623]

But...... His oldest video is 2 years old

[@itwasntidio4623]

@@ArvinAsh Or he is experiencing Deja vu

[@miguelelgueta5830]

a Quantum traveler!

[@prozmystery]

@@ArvinAsh Not in this channel, but in some other videos🙂

[@muhammadhamza4494]

Speaking after seeing a lot of short physics explainer videos. Videos by Arvin Ash are the most detailed ones with great animation. I wish I had discovered his channel earlier.

[@yashvardhan549]

Idk Why Your Channel Is So Underrated

[@redmeat4vegans62]

Most people do not want to be challenged to think? OR most people have not had the benefit of the right teachers to instill an insatiable curiosity for science, or maybe, not an insatiable curiosity for physics? IF ONLY everyone could have had Richard Feynman or Arvin Ash as a Science Teacher!! I think the world would be a better place. Most certainly a better place with much less ignorance and many less Flat Earthers :D

[@MrBollocks10]

You do? Why?

[@MrMizahell]

Simply amazing. What an privilege is to be experiencing in high definition, an truly amazing educator explaining the best and the most complex of current modern information, gathered and analysed during hundred of thousands of years of evolution of our species. Thank you

[@johnnyregs2378]

I've always loved quantum wave as an idea. Bohm was truly a genius in many ways. Wishing you a speedy recovery Arvin!

[@Gibsiownie]

M31p067

[@hyperduality2838]

The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Mind (intangible, syntropy) is dual to matter (tangible, entropy) -- Descartes. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Emitters are dual to absorbers. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- Schrodinger's cat. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic -- Hegel's cat. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- physics. Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass - Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@timhaldane7588]

I independently came up with Transactional Theory a few years ago on philosophical grounds because I love the symmetry of it. It's easily my favorite because it is 100% compatible with the block universe model of time required by GR, it explains why our best theories of physics all appear to be time-symmetric, and I believe it answers the mystery of the arrow of time as a macroscopic, emergent phenomenon. That is, the vast majority of particles in the universe have a kind of temporal momentum in the same temporal direction, individual particles can "go against the flow" only if they don't interact with any forward-moving particles, "measurement" is simply the point of information exchange, and "superposition" is merely the time interval during which forward-moving and backward-moving information overlap.

[@justinberdell7517]

I hope you heal quickly and comfortably! Great videos!

[@bftamrat]

Happy I discovered your channel. The learning never stops. Thank you and keep it up professor!

[@MrElvis1971]

Fantastic video. By far the best explanation on the internet so far. Balanced, professional and respectful. It is wonderful to see this back in the world of physics.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you for the nice comment. Glad you found it helpful!

[@MrElvis1971]

@@ArvinAsh your welcome

[@stefaniasmanio5857]

As always... He is fantastic

[@cliffhregis]

Thank you Arvin, once again for the brilliant video. Much love to you.

[@duggydo]

Great video Arvin. I always look forward to them.

[@charliem5254]

I love how the kitty is animated. I also love the Hat. I love anything Arvin puts out, sometimes he be making me cry with the beauty of his teachings.

[@samrowbotham8914]

Arvin these are all great elucidations you come out with I spent most of the day watching many of your videos. I would like to see you interview people involved in quantum physics, philosophy, neuroscience and consciousness research. I also think you would make an excellent moderator in polemics. Please interview Max Tegmark, Leonard Susskind, Bernardo Kastrup, Tom Campbell, Anthony Peake, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, et al

[@ArvinAsh]

Great suggestion!

[@portobellomushroom5764]

The penrose interpretation seems like it would be the best candidate for a satisfying description of quantum reality, can't wait for more to be studied in the future!

[@wildbob8650]

Penrose may the the smartest man ever alive to include Einstein.

[@hyperduality2838]

Mind (intangible, syntropy) is dual to matter (tangible, entropy) -- Descartes. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Emitters are dual to absorbers. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- Schrodinger's cat. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic -- Hegel's cat. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- physics. Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass - Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@sunitapalissery258]

Thank you Arvin for making my Sunday morning so enlightening.

[@patrickchin8820]

Brilliant video! Explained complex topics truthfully and in a way easy to begin to comprehend!

[@zachjohnson6672]

Arvin, yet another amazing video! Thank you so much for doing what you. Watching your videos is such a pleasure!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you. Glad you enjoy it!

[@Wolf462]

Thanks for your work big dawg! Love how you break down complicated stuff so idiots like me can understand it! Hope your head heals well! Be safe

[@zertilus]

Everything you say and do is so thorough an well explained

[@Earwaxfire909]

I really enjoyed that. All of the theories that separate the particle from the wave are intuitively compelling. I'd like to hear more about that. Good work!

[@Yuhugg]

Thank you, Arvin. If another person said the exact same thing as you....I'd prefer you.

[@ericreiter1]

Arvin: There is an interpretation you left out. In the early days there was the accumulation hypothesis, also called the loading theory. It was worked on by Planck, Sommerfeld, Debye, and discussed by Lenard, Millikan, Kuhn, Whittaker, others. Planck explained in his second theory of 1911 that it was continuous absorption and explosive emission. Tests were performed on the idea, most famously by Lawrence and Beams to find the Element of Time in the Photoelectric Effect (title). Its results were misrepresented in many famous textbooks like Halladay and Resnick to make us think that the accumulation hypothesis was wrong. The hypothesis was not represented fairly because those textbooks (and other) treatments did not consider a pre-loaded state and an extended antennae size of the atom, and that would explain the discrepancy between measured time and calculated time. This and other tests misrepresented the accumulation hypothesis. I outline all that history on my unquantum website. The way it worked according to Planck is that h was a maximum value and that action can be sub-h, but experiments would not see it. I figured out how to see it in the beam-split coincidence experiment. That experiment is a famous test of quantum mechanics. It is really a physical version of an Einstein thought experiment, his definition of the photon. According to Einstein, as stated by Bohr in his book, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, a photon would go one way, and only one way, or another at a beam splitter but if you reconverge the beam you would build up an interference pattern. This is the real wave-particle duality. The first part of the thought experiment, the beam-split experiment, was performed by Clauser and later by Aspect. Aspect and team did both parts. They did it with visible light and tried to assure us that quantum mechanics was correct. However, they made major mistakes, mostly due to not understanding what would be a reasonable alternative to QM. The conceptual breakthrough I discovered was to do what Planck did to h, also upon e and m, of the electron. If you think the electron is a particle with mass m and charge e, the photon is inescapable in the photoelectric effect experiment. Consider that the charge constant e is also a threshold. Its quantized nature was deciphered in experiments with zillions of charges that rallied an ensemble effect. There are other details of my theory of course, but the important part is that I did the experiment that demonstrates the distinction between QM and what I call the threshold model. We compare coincidence rates in the beam-split test to the chance rate. QM predicts chance. I am the only one to do the test with gamma-rays. Surprise! Coincidence rates exceed chance rates big-time, like 10 to 100 times, depending on how it is done. It is not a special case, it is repeatable, many sources of artifact were eliminated, and it varies as a function of physical variables in ways that make sense. Then I did the same thing with alpha-rays. The atom does not always act like a particle either, and we expect that because rest-mass also shows wave-particle duality. These tests and my theory reveal the flaw of QM and resolve the wave-particle problem. It is all on my websites. You will need to type my URL. It is one word: threshold model dot com or you can also use: unquantum but it is not dot com. Thank you. ER 6, 4, 2021.

[@Staylecrate]

Has he done a video about this? The whole quantized absorption being a trick of the light (bad pun) is interesting.. I haven't really seen anyone doing loading theory videos that are of good quality like these and RI.

[@ericreiter1]

Correction: Millikan, not Whittikar.

[@ericreiter1]

Ryan Nichols , who is RI?

[@ericreiter1]

@@Staylecrate Many videos and papers. This one is of the experiment: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fX2ueZVpgJlrqa8

[@Staylecrate]

@@ericreiter1 The Royal Institute. Really amazing content. Some of the best minds in science appearing lecturing and giving talking on an amazing array of topics. The speaker is usually doing it from Richard Feynman's desk, front-and-center in almost almost every video.

[@israfaeldari5532]

You are an awesome great teacher Arvin. Thank you so much!

[@Victor76661]

I'm gonna be honest, I fell asleep the first go at the lesson (dense topic for a non physicist), but a nap and a chocolate later I managed to kinda undesrtand! Congratulations on the amazing work you've been doing! Cheers

[@SiLEnTKiLLeR-xj9yl]

so excited yeh!

[@davidenglish5587]

I have focusing issues so I appreciate you weari... Oh look! A BUTTERFLY!

[@patrickkuby4887]

Of all the science videos on YT, these are hands down the best. They say if you can't explain something as if explaining it to a 5 year old, then you don't really understand it. You seem to understand it.

[@TNTsundar]

Great video Arvin. Thanks again!

[@shauryaverma2705]

You are great sir 👍

[@aryanjadav7074]

Can't wait more....

[@MM6_Bruh]

Same🤪

[@gilbertengler9064]

Get better soon! Thanks for your excellent explanations!

[@code4chaosmobile]

Thank you for all your hard work, your channel is a must watch imo.

[@James42_]

Bruh, I just discovered the quantum brain where you understand and don’t at the same time while watching this vid

[@redmeat4vegans62]

Dude!! You just won the quote of the day!

[@HimalBudhathoki92]

Same man😂

[@miguelelgueta5830]

It gets worse,I understand everything but I forget everything when I try to measure what I understood

[@homunculus3646]

I've always wondered if that's actually his house or just a green screen.

[@GordLamb]

Dude, you're awesome and one of the best science educators on KZbin today. :) Heal well!

[@CurtisWatt]

I think the removal of the patch on your head retroactively created it . Thanks so much for breaking those down so smoothly 😎

[@RonGau]

never really noticed until you mentioned it, anyway you look cool with the cap :-) cheers from Montreal 🙋‍♂️👌🍁✌😊

[@mn-ru4li]

Thank you for this video. Pilot wave theory is actually my favourite, so I was looking forward to your analysis. I wasn't aware of the Kramer theory or Penrose; yours is the first video I've come across that mentions them. THANK YOU again, and I hope your surgery heals up well

[@MoRiley9]

Fascinating! So many of the questions about QM that I never knew I had have been answered in this video.

[@solshine41]

Great stuff as always Arvin. Shukran

[@RickClark58]

Crazy train! Haha. Hope you have a speedy recovery my friend.

[@cosmicparticles9658]

Relative statement I saw from ViperTV on this subject.... *It is neither the point in space nor the instant in time at which something happens that has physical reality but only the event itself, there is no absolute relation in space and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute relation in space and time.*

[@LiLi-or2gm]

Yes, "event ontology." That Viper video is pretty neat (as are Arvin's videos)!

[@markkaidy8741]

Get well soon!!! Thanks for the video!

[@pauljameswatt]

Much love from the UK 🇬🇧 I watch alot of your vids you teach me alot, thanks to you and many other channels, that have helped me build more of an understanding in life and bigger issues, broaden your horizons. 👌✌️💪

[@omargaber3122]

Whoever loves you will love you forever, whatever your condition, and we love you so much, Arvin Thank you very much❤

[@Drcarter808]

I know Pilot Wave has its problems, but it's the one that I want to be true.

[@mecha-sheep7674]

Nah, I don't like deterministic stuff. Copenhagen all the way ! In the glorious uncertainty lies our free will !

[@pabrodi]

@@mecha-sheep7674 you can still have free will in a deterministic universe but then you have to agree to the many worlds interpretation, as stated on PBS

[@dirremoire]

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that scientist don’t have a clue what’s going on at atomic and subatomic levels. We may never know, and that’s ok.

[@catherinegrimes2308]

I understand where you are coming from but remember, just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. However, I do have hope for you. People are researching hydrodynamic analogues to quantum mechanics where particles of oil that bounce on a vibrating dish of oil have some of the properties of pilot-wave theory. The trajectory of the oil particles is governed by a pilot-wave but the mathematics is different from the de Broglie-Bohm formulation. If you would like to see a KZbin video that shows a seminar by one of the worlds most foremost researchers in this field, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZ3NkK2hiNenhsU One of the goals of this research is to extend the mathematical formulation so that it approaches the Schrodinger Wave equation. I didn't realise how far this research has progressed. Instead of jumping into the seminar you might find it helpful to initially look at this video by Veritasium at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXrchY16fdqUqLM It will be interesting to see how this research develops. Like you, I do not like some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics - especially the one named after a Danish city.

[@chrisstargazer5866]

The best teacher out there. Your the best!! Always look forward to your videos . Please do more on Quantum mechanics and the standard model . 👍

[@Elwin3918]

I hope it heals fast 👍🏾 thanks for the awesome videos 👌🏾

[@mjames7674]

1:38 "And why am I wearing this cap?" Because you're Tim Pool in a disguise! Hah! Can't fool me!!

[@draconyxRPG]

The most asked question, are the video room background real?

[@JosePineda-cy6om]

Morpheo and Neo would immediately counter that if you consider what your mind sees, your nose smells, your taste buds taste, as "real" then that background in very much real...

[@herotv9179]

Great video as always. And wishing you a quick recovery!

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@godinhos7797]

Penrose awesome geniusssss

[@johnnyknight6447]

I'm literally making a game about pilot waves right now.

[@gabrielcecatto6992]

Interesting!!! Would you share some more about that?

[@zebaansari]

Wow this was the best video I've ever watched. I'm genuinely so happy like I feel amazing after watching this video. Can't wait for more 😄

[@DarkLunaPath]

Very good video and I am impressed and proud of you for your positive outlook on your headbandage/surgery keep up the amazing work my friend

[@beyondtheuniverse]

Arvin, At the time when the science was little much newer to us a scientist called John Dalton discovered the atom and he thought it would be the smallest particle of the matter.So after decades and decades the other subatomic particles were discovered and still the scientists are looking new things in atom.So as the universe has infinite range , does the atom also has infinite range of fragmentation ?

[@ArvinAsh]

Funny that you mention that. That is a fantastic question, that I will be addressing directly two videos from now. Stay tuned. The title of that video will be "The End of Reductionism."

[@beyondtheuniverse]

@@ArvinAsh OK,I'm waiting for the answer.(Actually I don't know whether you could understand my question or not.However thanks for your reply...Hmm...I'm still googling the Re..duc...tionism. :) )

[@Dilophi]

I have always oppose the idea of "inherent randomness", because this means science can never reveal its true nature. What else than science do we have then?

[@hyperduality2838]

Mind (intangible, syntropy) is dual to matter (tangible, entropy) -- Descartes. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Emitters are dual to absorbers. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- Schrodinger's cat. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic -- Hegel's cat. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- physics. Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass - Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@mathjugglery9460]

Arvin, the only youtuber for whom I deactivate my Adblocker to give my little contribution by watching all the adds, he deserves it!

[@ahmdkalef2252]

Hope you get well soon. Thanks again for another informative super video.

[@gio.k291]

My favourite is the "shut up and calculate" interpretation 😆

[@signalrunner]

That's not an interpretation tho. That's sweeping the problem under the rug.

[@gio.k291]

@@signalrunner i think that QM is not well understood therefore there's not a right interpretation yet 😀

[@skyking9835]

That was David Mermin who also came up with the Ithica interpretation which is an early relational interpretation for which Carlo Rovelli is perhaps more well known

[@FranziskavonKarma]

*Me when you used the title I voted for: :O*

[@H0t.5tuff]

You’re brilliant on so many levels, my friend

[@paulc96]

Thanks Arvin, for another great video. You always explain QM really well, and I have read many books and watched lots of Talks, Lectures & videos on the subject. Your QM videos are clear, concise and easy to understand. Thanks again, and Get Well soon. All the Best, Paul C.

[@samuelbruyneel]

Question: Is the cat dead or alive? Schrödinger: Yes.

[@artemisiapollox4668]

Get well soon! Great video as always.

[@alphablitz1024]

What a helpful channel. Easy sub.

[@gbdane]

This helped me understand what has bothered me for a long time, that being the lack of super position at the macro scale. Good job explaining the many different theories.

[@prabhakarpadma5109]

Get well soon my dear friend. God bless you. You are the best teacher

[@derghiarrinde]

Lovely! I am looking forward to your new look Mr. Ash!

[@Bei-Abedan]

Thank you for explaining the Penrose and Cramer positions.🙂

[@Titus873]

Arvin, you are the best short scientisc video producer

[@atmikes1]

Get well soon Arvin, thanks again for the great content.

[@andrewrobertson444]

I’ve seen several explanations of pilot wave theory but this is undoubtedly the best. Thanks!

[@Prxwler]

Top quality content, as always. I really admire you, Sir.

[@dougpeng3093]

Up until seeing your video here, I never understood how the pilot wave theory justifies the measurement effect (i.e. wave collapse) in the dual slit experiment. Thanks so much Arvin for clearly explaining it here.

[@fredturk6447]

A nice explanation of pilot wave theory and its problems. Thanks also for the mention of John Cramer and his transactional explanation of QM.

[@mathias4851]

Thanks Arvin and the crew 😘

[@ernestanderson4522]

Thanks again for another great video!

[@dr.bombay1180]

Great presentation!

[@Tim-Kaa]

Fantastic video as usual!

[@kw8757]

Hi Arvin, wishing you a speedy recovery, never really noticed the patch of hair but have noticed your excellent taste in watches. Thanks for another great lesson.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you kindly.

[@clevertaco328]

God bless and heal quickly. Another great video with so much relevant info.

[@ankitnautiyal2568]

Great Video Arvin Ash. Loved the new look.

[@garros]

Another great video. Thanks and good luck with your recovery!

[@arekkazmierowski9657]

Great video as always 👍

[@enlilannunaki9064]

Arvin...you rock! 👍

[@En_theo]

Get well man, nice video as always !

[@KippiExplainsStuff]

Great stuff, Arvin!

[@jesuscostantino2925]

Dude, you rock. And long may you do so.

[@stabilini]

Thanks Arvin !

[@tuqann]

My money is on Penrose's hunch, but the retro-wave measurement phenomenon is so elegantly simple and straightforward that I could hear Occam gleefully sharpening his razor.