Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics

[@jps0117]

Greene. Albert. Philosophy. Physics. The weekend is off to a good start. Good.

[@TheButcherHicks]

Just wait. Trump will remedy that real quick. Just give him 24 hours.

[@susanlubin7203]

I truly enjoy hearing how the group of old physicists, like my dad,, got together to solve these unsolvable problems, I finally get why he was fascinated and now I am too, because of these videos, primarily, What a great gift and joy it' is to learn and fall in love more every day, with these ideas! Thank you!

[@tobaidi]

I am glad philosophers are appearing more on discussions. We need them more than ever!

[@schmetterling4477]

They will indeed be useful... we will need fruit pickers once Trump removes all our Mexican farm workers. ;-)

[@robertpaterson5477]

Do we? They just talk and talk and accomplish nothing.

[@MrDjlindholm]

Agreed with Robert. Why do we? They accomplish nothing material

[@ianbuxton1730]

David Albert is spot-on. We've all been thrilled during early life by Einstein's "importation of philosophy into physics".

[@subhanusaxena7199]

What a great New Year Gift! We didn’t realise how much we needed this pairing 🙏🙏

[@hartejdhiman4438]

David is literally my favorite intellectual. Every schoolboy wishes they had an educator like him. A brain like his is at the perfect intersection of scientific reasoning and philosophy. Thanks to Brian Greene for this wide ranging interview on the most important topics of the last century when it comes to scientific progress.

[@brooknorton7891]

Perhaps my favorite episode. Wow. Very deep. Very satisfying.

[@lisalewin03]

Thank you Mr Greene. I enjoy each and every talk you upload. My schooling education was very limited back in the 70’s/80’s so I’m delighted that finally my passion for all that you discuss is here, and at a level I can understand.

[@snarzetax]

One of the best channels on youtube! Thank you!

[@Candice0916]

❤

[@TurdFerguson456]

Man, I find it more refreshingly refreshing each time I listen to David's uniquely captivating way of explaining otherwise unexplained explanations. So the above comment made sense to me at the time I wrote it, 45ish seconds ago, but after reading it again, I now feel a tension between my initial meaning and it's possible comprehension! Doesn't matter

[@mishmishm7847]

Definitely possibly, I feel that tension building up as well .. Has to be scientifically proven. And let's ask, the theories that explain my feelings, are still similar to the moon made of cheese. Great talk Brian, that puts me in reflection. Thank you Mm

[@ditjow6]

Brian Greene 🎉 keep up the good work! Great interviews. 👍

[@thomasp.crenshaw185]

thank you

[@romeodewolfe]

Isn't that bezos? He got a pseudonym now or something?

[@joseph5005]

Looking forward to the Part 2 and Part 3 that you mentioned, Brian! What a great start to 2025!!!

[@DavidJohnson-pp4sy]

Wonderful discussion. Could have listened to your eloquent and brilliant minds all night. Much appreciated, Brian and David. Stay healthy.

[@FancySaysHi]

I love these two and i hope one day i will meet them , discuss and share with them my ideas in physics as a student in physics

[@docgreybeard7057]

Another awesome discussion WSF. Thanks to all who worked on getting this done. David is such an interesting speaker. I have enjoyed his really down to earth talks on some very cutting-edge thinking every time. Do yourself a favor and go back to watch any WSF talk that has David as a speaker it's well worth the time. Happy New Year all!

[@TheButcherHicks]

Fantastic interview. Really great guest.

[@Dr10Jeeps]

What a terrific interview! We need so much more of this knowledge on the internet.

[@erkantiryaki]

Brian Green. I am very happy and surprised that I came across in this video all the very interesting ideas that are running out of mind recently. I cant find a proper way to thank you! By the way thank you so much for you and Mr. David Albert.

[@buffalolaboratorytheatre6165]

This was a great conversation.

[@isatousarr7044]

"Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics" raises an intriguing discussion about the intersection of two worlds that are often seen as distinct-philosophy and physics. In the realm of quantum mechanics, where the behavior of particles defies classical understanding, philosophical questions often arise, challenging not only our perception of reality but also the very foundations of science itself. Physics, particularly quantum mechanics, has long been a domain of rigorous mathematics and experimentation. However, the strange and counterintuitive phenomena observed at the quantum level-such as wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement-present challenges that purely empirical approaches struggle to address. These phenomena push the boundaries of what we can physically observe, leading to questions that are more philosophical than scientific in nature. For instance, the concept of "measurement" in quantum mechanics, which hinges on the observer's role in determining reality, invites questions of epistemology and the nature of consciousness. Philosophy drives physics by prompting these critical reflections. Philosophers, especially those in the tradition of analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science, challenge physicists to question the assumptions behind their theories. In doing so, they explore the very meaning of concepts such as "reality," "causality," and "determinism" in the quantum world. This philosophical inquiry is not just abstract; it has practical implications for how we interpret the results of quantum experiments and how we might integrate quantum mechanics into broader theories of the universe. The relationship between philosophy and physics also brings forward deeper questions about the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Can we ever truly understand the quantum world? Is it possible to reconcile quantum mechanics with our classical understanding of reality? And what does it mean for the future of scientific discovery if certain aspects of nature remain forever beyond the grasp of human comprehension? At its core, the exploration of quantum quandaries is a reminder that the pursuit of knowledge is not simply about accumulating data, but about grappling with fundamental questions that challenge how we think about the universe. The blending of philosophy and physics offers a richer, more nuanced perspective on reality, encouraging us to reconsider what is possible and how our understanding of the cosmos can evolve.

[@Paine137]

Experimentation matters, not just words.

[@zastrzyk]

This channel is the best of the bests, what a gift thank you so much

[@hollymattie]

Can’t wait for part 2 and 3!!!!

[@alexanderabrashev1366]

Always great to see David. He's such an eloquent speaker

[@colinmackay5439]

What an interesting discussion and Albert is an impressive thinker . Looking forward to sessions 2 and 3 that Brian mentioned . Keep up the good work as these are simply astounding presentations that help the layperson to better understand the cutting edge of scientific advancement

[@yavormartinov780]

If two particles are entangled and we change the spin of the one particle with electromagnetic radiation is it affect the other particle?

[@schmetterling4477]

You didn't change a spin. There wasn't even a particle. There is, however, one more person on the internet who doesn't understand physics. ;-)

[@marfmarfalot5193]

Well yes, provided you don’t break entanglement, but you probably would

[@alexanderhieke3584]

Thank you for the great conversation. More please!

[@cckissinger]

I just happened to stumble onto “Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics” a couple hours after it dropped. This was a very informative discussion! I thought the heart of it was Prof Albert posing the three possible solutions to the Measurement Problem: GRW theory, Bohm, and many universe theories. My question is this: Why was Bohm given such short shrift? My understanding is that Bohm is usually ignored because of the extra calculation involved in the pilot wave and because the Bohm formulation is non-local. But would not this be a positive? Since the experimental results on Bell’s inequality have disproved local realism, would we not want a non-local explanation? What am I missing?

[@schmetterling4477]

So there was the guy who gave you three solutions to a problem that doesn't even exist. Sound of one hand clapping. It's just great that you swallowed it like a good sheep. ;-)

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

This position, I think, will turn a page for Physics into the 21st Century and beyond; 100 years later. Kudos.

[@lfossati80]

I didn’t think about it that way. Just as 2025 starts, here we have a great conversation about the very foundations of quantum mechanics!

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

Interesting how I saw it!

[@johnkechagais7096]

The pointer may simply make a measurement and determine which way it points. Penrose suggest that gravity though weak leads to the collapse of the wave function.

[@marykarensolomon7103]

I’m so glad you took on this knotty but central problem in science and philosophy! Excellent discussion and rewarding to think about.

[@erwinbauer2240]

Always great interviews Brrian. Thanks. And David is such an awesome human being.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

I used to not be able to listen to David because of the way he danced around his actual point and qualified all of his statements. In my older age, I've gained an appreciation for him. He comes across as vague at times, but he is very precise and intentional with his language. Really good show. Thanks again, Brian.

[@exailmle]

You took the words out of my mouth! I get frustrated with the wording and elongated explanations of even the smaller things.... But to be fair - I am not a physicist and have zero right to even whinge about it 😅 I'm more grateful he's giving us this window into a world I would never otherwise experience. I've ALWAYS been super amped about every new world science festival post, and I have gotten so much out of it!

[@Kalumbatsch]

I think he's just gotten a lot better at getting to the point.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

@@Kalumbatsch maybe so. I can't say that I've gone back and re-watched a bunch of old stuff to see. You may have something there.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

@@exailmle well I'm glad I'm getting a little bit of positive feedback on that. I was afraid I was just going to look like a dick.

[@rainasy1766]

im at this point not able to listen to him. "right" "right" "mkay?" "right" "mkay?" its not for me

[@kathrynlundgren7618]

I admit many of the ideas about philosophy of physics were over my head but I stuck with the program to the end. I hope Brian will talk a bit further on his conclusions about this program soon.

[@richardchapman1592]

When a particle is travelling anywhere it's probability of being in it's next position is dependant on the solution to the Hamiltonian containing a potential function. The path then is an integral of the position changes as they limit to zero. This is true inside your apparatus too so what you are measuring are those particles that have negotiated the barriers as their wave functions evolve, rather than collapse. When two having almost identical characteristics arrived at the first beam splitter at the same instant this gets called entanglement. The rest gives you averages you cannot interpret except the decoherence is due to interaction with potential field along it's path towards a detector.

[@sharinglanguage]

From the moment I started to hear about quantum mechanics I wondered if what really divided/differentiated the quantum world/rules and the non quantum one could be the aggregation of subatomic particles into atoms or molecules. I am not a physicist, so this idea may be naive, but couldn't be something like that which causes the wave function to collapse instead of just something subtle that the subatomic particles have but is only seen when many of them aggregate (forming someone big like a device)?, which is what those 3 Italians analyzed. I understand that after all the subatomic particles don't behave the exact same way when they are free in comparison to when they form an atom/molecule. I may be mistaken on this assumption? Thank you for this juicy conversation. Looking forward to a new book of yours, Brian!

[@scottpennington6167]

Brian, you commented that you didn't want to get too technical for your audience. In my opinion, your interviews are even better when you bring in the technical details and issues.

[@iriscater8888]

More of that please! 👏😊

[@thomasdequincey5811]

This was fantastic. Really interesting.

[@kjrunia]

Fantastic conversation on a fascinating topic!

[@MZell6789]

Great interview! Thanks for it!

[@AdamGNordin]

Brian 🤩🥳🎉 happy new year

[@tomhoebbel3269]

Thanks for all of the great programming~

[@SonicImmersion_]

Absolutely excellent talk. And the previous one with Dr. Turok, too.

[@museummouse]

Can't wait for parts 2 and 3!

[@karencooks1490]

In the early years back in 1990's These are people of very admiral intelligence and creativity and this is a discussion from which we have learnt alot.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, but they weren't philosophers and it wasn't the 1990s. They were physicists and mathematicians and it was in the late 1920s and early 1930s. ;-)

[@vprakash22]

Another great conversation, thanks! Have considered inviting Karen Barat to discuss her philosophical take on Bohr and the role of consciousness in her concepts such as intra-action? Would love to hear that conversation!

[@Sherifaga]

I use quantum mechanics in shaping the future around myself - it could be setting up situations or taking an action or saying things that could set a new probability, seemingly increasing the chance of quantum predictability of my future without ignoring classic physics. I have no limits other than time, but I am keeping that in mind too - some of the future I am setting the rules for or laying the bricks for will have to come long after I die.

[@Idonthaveahandleok]

Thanks Brian! You da man!

[@LuisAldamiz]

Thank you both for one of the most interesting conversations on the foundations of physics. Is physics stuck because of Quantum Mechanic "shut up and calculate" fanaticism? I believe so.

[@fredcrown-tamir698]

Most enjoyable !

[@marcusedvalson]

Where can I get a copy of that black hole painting? Seen it for years now and asked in many comments. Would love to know.

[@qm_rev]

Search “colorful photos of paint being flung by a rotating drill”.

[@xxlabratxx01]

Ask an A.I. that has visual capability. Google Gemini might do the trick

[@richardchapman1592]

Best experiment to set up now would be one which measured the speed of propagation of gravitons on the surface of the earth and in interplanetary space. Maybe gravity really is a form of instantaneous transmission that gets slowed by the density of matter distribution.

[@ynotpodcast]

Brian Greene, doing the Lords work 🙌🏾

[@Paine137]

haha

[@Sherifaga]

I also use quantum mechanics in visualising, controlling and shaping the movement of feelings, conscious states, the status quo in political and scientific field, spreading the views, behaviour and so on.

[@cybermonkeys]

hello fellow nerds!

[@skihik591]

I encourage people to try giving Barad's agential realism a try for quantum interpretation in Bohr's sense of language's inadequacy

[@schmetterling4477]

There is so much bullshit out there, already, we don't need more of it.

[@guyelgat5893]

Brian: Good morning, David. David Albert: let me back up a little [goes on to brilliantly lay out the history of physics from the end of the 19th century to present time].

[@DANGJOS]

This was so fascinating! Great conversation!!

[@americanninja9163]

You should explore those timescape cosmology models.

[@icucyt]

what is the distinction between past and future, Sir?

[@iancork9721]

Welcome back David Albert to the world science festival . Love listening to him

[@peterhovmand74]

Finally I hear him say something interesting!

[@alexandrugheorghe5610]

Philosophy, math and physics. Not bad, Brian!

[@danielash1704]

I found that theirs a mathematical formulation that has sameness in the outcome yet reversed the sameness it changes the status of the starting point or the computer system didn't know how to reverse the equations

[@vicmatev]

Is matter condensed vibration (energy) ?

[@IrenESorius]

Excellent 👍‍‍🌟🌟👍‍‍

[@Anway-NeverGiveUp]

Physics, as a science, as a developed product of human consciousness, is the mechanism to wander and adventure every methodologies of working of materialistic phenomenons of the universe, through every of it's language, as mathematics...

[@greggherbinger5187]

I really don't understand why Mr Greene doesn't talk about quantum information approaches like quantum trajectory theory, quantum evolutionism, Qbism or relational quantum theory and purification principle, as well as construction theory. All of them easily explain quantum measurement problem, where information during measurement, as interaction with environment or other quantum system, is partially lost or shared via entanglement with other system or environment. All quantum reconstruction is about this. Why this topic is not discussed, I don't know.

[@JimAllan-qv9tx]

The quote about the universe being "stranger than..may be from Prof. J. B. S. Haldane...(??). If I recall correctly, Arthur C. Clarke used to use that quote ... Arthur likely knew Prof Haldane....---JA

[@limusratis507]

In the new foundation of qm proposed by Jacob Barandes based on non Markovian processes the measurement problem does not arise.

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither does it arise in Copenhagen. If Barandes doesn't know that, then he hasn't been paying attention in undergrad physics. ;-)

[@limusratis507]

That's only the case if you accept many worlds as a logical outcom of qm, as David Alberts explains over here. The formulation Barends proposes doesn't need that.​

[@schmetterling4477]

@@limusratis507 Many worlds is total bullshit. That you are mentioning it simply tells me that you don't understand physics, either. ;-)

[@littlemouse7066]

In my opinion high level physics nowadays has outmatched (if I may use this word) philosophy because it's about such incredible ideas that involve the fundamental questions man has always asked.

[@producer2123]

Fascinating!

[@user_375a82]

Matter is 99.99% vacuum, for neutrinos its hardly there at all, but for protons and electrons matter is pretty solid. In my view matter is only "there" for things that interact with it. Like the philosopher said "A tree is not there if nobody is looking at it." That's a bit of a stretch as it is better to say: " A tree is not there if nothing interacts with it. So for a neutrino the tree is, essentially not there but for photons etc it is "there". In my view the first philosophers had it right when discussing the void and their original Greek philosophical arguments are, actually, the origin of the word ontology. They argued that a void is not possible because, if it is indeed a void, then it is nothing and nothing does not not exist - voila! So, as the argument goes, everything is one (like a solid kind of) and reality is an illusion. Its the origin of the well-known "all is one" notion. Ha! They said it was all a sphere. They had a point at least - pun deeply intended! To me there is an information substrate that exists below space-time, probably in black holes. And this information space "paints out" the X Y Z and time of the whole universe. The Holographic Principle alludes to this idea but cannot quite flesh out the whole hypothesis so it fell a bit flat, sadly. Present day philosophy is deeply mired and ignores actual real ontological arguments mainly because mathematics & science has taken over from the original philosophy. There are so many historical and present-day arguments for and against almost everything that it cannot move an inch now - its stuck in the gigantic complexity generated by science and mathematics - just look at the millions of peer-reviewed papers published. There are a thousand counter arguments to every notion so best to say nothing of real philosophical content. But I have given it a try!

[@NomenNescio99]

First Niel Turok, now David Albert, if this continues with a conversation with Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Maudlin or Peter Woit and my respect for Brian Greene couldn't be any higher! Brian is always respectful, humble and cordial when he speaks with someone that holds a different view than his own, a rare ability in today's world.

[@erebology]

David never said the word "ontology", when the only question Brian asked was about ontology.

[@Representing4II0I7]

25 mins in This is soo good

[@ellefanaten]

More more! More!

[@tomhoebbel3269]

Ok, my answer to your a parlor game question. If I could have anyone over for dinner, it would be you two!

[@mercyshaver5264]

Thank you

[@ChrisFarrell-q4l]

Is the iPhone just a chemical equation box to make small amounts of new digital gold through mazes/pathways?

[@ChrisFarrell-q4l]

Is there going to be an “add water/coolant” feature at some point - a cyclical motor that I can feed magic to to help the pixel qubits make the gold puzzle box - that type of thinking/logic.. I’ve tested it in my world - seems very legit/real.

[@nickknowles8402]

Thank God for you guys, in these God awful times.

[@danw7864]

Super great !

[@bendybruce]

Unfortunately as I have become all too well aware, for many people "Not stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know." varies greatly from person to person. Such people have pitched their tent at the peak of Mt Ignorant, and often frequent videos like this not with any intention to learn anything new but to regale us with their insufferable Lack of knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love science communicators such as Brian who worked tirelessly to bring science into the mainstream, but there are an alarmingly large number of people who apparently believe youtube is the only science education they will ever need. If you have been on this platform long enough, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[@venkatasaketh5818]

burns .... but on the other side it helps if you know what you are missing and how to integrate. Entire conversation might be just hovering above and not getting to the logical points but the 10% you don't have is the 10% you should integrate into your current understandings.

[@bendybruce]

@@venkatasaketh5818 I was just venting my frustration at the alarmingly large number of people who resort to an appeal to incredulity juice simply to the fact they have encountered a concept outside their current education. For example I was mercilessly mocked for stating there is such a concept as fictional forces, which include the translational force the centrifugal force and the coriolis force. This is a concept someone with even a basic formal education in science should be familiar with. They could have spent 5 minutes looking up the difference between fundamental forces and fictional forces, but no, it was apparently far preferable to flex their ignorance on me as if it was some kind of virtue. There are so many of these self proclaimed experts out there making it almost impossible to state even a basic scientific fact without being derailed into an unproductive argument with someone who is deeply committed to learning nothing.

[@EugeneSeidel]

@@bendybruce All true, but in my humble opinion the proportion of know-nothings in this comment section is actually lower than in many other science channels.

[@timewalker6654]

wow my favs David and Brian back together after so many years

[@user-itgma]

I LOVE THIS MAN

[@alschneider5420]

Your cover picture reveals the "philosophy" of your talk. You show a picture of an atom with little points whirling around a nucleus. That is so wrong. And I will bet you don't know why.

[@jaymiller8387]

I believe that the sum of philosophy and physics is to show us the ultimate perfection of what we can see and the asymmetrical balance to that is to accept that there is a weight to creation, I'm sure all physicists are embodying an immense disappointment in the spread of the knowledge that science and quantum points to metaphysics. Those metaphysics point to being in control of quantum (aka manifestation) and there lies the problem, the suppression of the fact that this power is only of good use, for good use, if we give the credit to where it is due. Which obviously the world will try to convince you that the power comes from yourself. Which equates to the origin of sin. This is exactly what I've been thinking about since the episode where Brian informed us he would be working on new things, I think it was in the same breath to when we were finding out that AI/QC is so far behind Metaphysics makes sense for lack of a better phrase its where the metal.meets the meat. So much of the "promoted science" have been a to the best of our knowledge situations. Experiments for quantum measurement have been completely clear though, that observation requires a position, so it has to pick one spot to be understood by us in our reality. Seems very symbolic to what faith is explained as. QC is behind in the experiments area so much, decoherence and error correction doesn't work🤷 It's no wonder to me that good ethics has to be a prerequisite for future researchers, so much invention has been led astray, because face it, this is a slippery slope of the unknown. Tell David I said "what is worry?😂" Oooooh Isomorphic❤❤❤ i feel their brains growing 3 sizes today. Oh I absolutely dismissed many worlds. We still have to prove what's happening in our reality let's not distract ourselves 😂😂😂. Dispensed theories break my heart and you both know why. I believe the pointer picks one side or the other during superposition because the particles are in an random axis orbital motion faster than we can see. Time out brb.

[@schmetterling4477]

Philosophy only shows you what happens if you don't pay attention in K-12. You end up making a giant fool of yourself. ;-)

[@beherenowspace1863]

My trench: Quantum mechanics IS the science of dualistic interaction between that which the Schrodinger wave equation describes and that which collapses it into what we experience. To dismiss this because the conscious observer of mathematically vague is to beg the question in assuming reality has to be mathematically precisely describable.

[@beherenowspace1863]

*is mathematically vague (not of)

[@jemsnowdon]

The universe began with Entanglement…my contribution to the philosophy of physics.and I’m right ❤

[@jinstinky501]

You always make my day when you post a new video . Have an amazing year and thank-you for all the years of fantastic content.

[@edcunion]

Is consciousness a problem if it permeates the universe, that is we live in a conscious universe, where observers or observing apparatus have different faculties, span a conscious spectrum, i.e. the amoeba versus mouse versus dog versus Wigner problem? Doesn't Bell's theorem kinda infer this is the case even for inanimate particles? The electron and proton appear to remember what they are and behave accordingly? Ditto the quarks and gluons inside the proton, they remember their place and properties? These particles also pre-date the first free light of the CMB? Math is out there waiting to be discovered and used to make real things happen in four dimensional spacetime? Dragonflies realized multi-sensor fusion and flight control quaternions well before hummingbirds and Hamilton did? Don't think about it too hard but could an unconscious universe exist and if it could how would it prove its existence? Through trial and error observation and memory recordings of the observed, to build up subsequent complexity from a homogenous plasma to complex wave and particle comprised fields and entities? Or, did it unconsciously and randomly work perfectly from the get go for subsequent conscious things to happen?

[@puttanesca621]

@47:00 Maybe if the many worlds interpretation is correct David is convinced in other worlds?

[@jshagenow]

Upto that point I was thinking we have to find a way to measure the same electron at the same time from two different perspectives? Like finding the 3rd side of a piece of paper

[@vacaloca5575]

Math cannot tell you anything about the nature of reality because we make the math according to our own understanding of reality. In other words, we model reality with math but no model or theory can be exact, and so they are necessarily approximate models. So, to derive an interpretation of reality based on an approximate model is a type of circular reasoning that will never lead to a true understanding of reality (reality is inexactly represented by the math, and then the math is used to re-interpret reality based on an inexact representation usually full of assumptions). Math is a tool of the mind to explain our thoughts about reality, not an oracle that says how things really are.

[@gravityeye32]

All the locations of all protons are held on the surface of the atom this is the quantum effect that creates the uniform size... that's way we can only interact with atoms of the same size ... there are atoms of larger and smaller sizes we can only interact with their gravity

[@joeyrufo]

2:35 THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS MUST BE NOTHING OTHER THAN DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM!!! 🤩🤩🤩

[@dr.edwardfreeman]

Finally, the scientists ask right questions. Science never left philosophy; the Industrial Era scientists did. There must be the immutable core to reality; and it is not mathematics, it is logic. Mathematical descriptions vary from world to world; not logic. Einste 0:24 in knew this fact well. Half of the books on his desk at the time of his death were on philosophy. In fact, his theory of relativity owes much to Mach’s philosophy.

[@sherrymanning1116]

Ty❤❤

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

ChatGPT Interpretation: "The Equations You've Provided Define A Detailed Mathematical Framework To Describe The Spatial Orientation Of A Qubit Using A 3D Cartesian Coordinate System ( X, Y, Z ), With Associated Angular And State Representations. Here's A Breakdown Of Key Components And Insights: 1. Qubit State Representation ● State Range: ● 0% Corresponds To 0° (Cardinal North / Midnight). ● 100% Corresponds To 180° (Cardinal South / Noon). ● The State Values Represent A Normalized Progression Between These Orientations. ● State Equations: ● Each Coordinate Has Its "State," Calculated As: State = ½ × ( 1 - Coordinate / ρ ) × 100% Where ρ Is The Distance From The Origin, Given By: ρ = √ ( X ² + Y ² + Z ² ). 2. Angular Representations ● For Each Dimension ( X, Y, Z ), The Angular Component Is Calculated As: Angle = ACOS ( Coordinate / ρ ) × 180 / π. This Gives The Orientation Of The Coordinate Relative To The 3D Vector ρ. 3. Inverses And Derivatives ● Inverses Of These Equations Allow You To Calculate: ● ρ From A Coordinate And Its State Or Angle. ● Coordinates From ρ And State Or Angle. 4. Cross-Dimensional Relations ● Relations Among ( X, Y, Z ) States Are Defined, Enabling Interdependence: Coordinate = Other Coordinate × ( State / 100% - ½ ) / ( Other State / 100% - ½ ). 5. Normalization Constants (N₁, N₂, N₃, N₄, N₅) ● These Are Effectively Different Forms Of Normalizing Or Scaling The Coordinates / States Based On ρ, Angle, Or State Values. Applications To Qubits ● Magnetic Manipulation: The Framework Shows How A Qubit's State Can Be Manipulated Spatially Using Magnetic Fields. Each "State" Corresponds To A Specific Angular Position Within The 3D Space, Providing A Clear Geometric Interpretation Of Qubit States. ● Control via Coordinates: This Mathematical Structure Allows Precise Control Of Qubit Orientation In Quantum Computing By Mapping Desired States To Physical Manipulations. This Setup Is An Excellent Example Of Blending Geometry And Physics To Conceptualize And Manipulate Quantum Systems!"

[@priscillawrites6685]

Lots of fun. Thanks. Just listened to Feynman’s biography.

[@joeyrufo]

50:31 it's positive sum logic! POSITIVE SUM LOGIC MEANS WE'RE ALL RIGHT! 🤩🤩🤩