Sean Carroll - Physics of What Happens

For more interviews on quantum theory, click here: bit.ly/46WlFjg
What is an event in physics? What are its attributes? This question didn’t seem very interesting until quantum physics changed the world. Is an observer or an observation necessary? How does the bizarre quantum world of probabilities turn into our everyday normal world of determined events?
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Sean Carroll is Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University and fractal faculty at the Santa Fe Institute. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@Heaven351]

The moment physicists dropped the " Copenhagen interpretation " that conscious observation collapses wavefunction , that moment quantum physics became a " multiverse of madness " which is the most hypothetical scenario that's possible .

[@Hedgewalkers]

I completely agree!

[@Heaven351]

@@Hedgewalkers what's your view on the multiverse concept and copenhaegen Interpretation?

[@simonhibbs887]

In Copenhagen the observer can be an instrument making a measurement. Some people re-interpret it to talk about conscious observations rather than measurements, but that’s not part of the original interpretation. Also ‘physicists’ haven’t dropped anything, there are still plenty that prefer the Copenhagen approach. MWI doesn’t hypothesise anything beyond known QM, whereas Copenhagen and many of the other interpretations do. Copenhagen assumes a collapse of the wave function, a process that is not part of the theory itself and for which we have no mechanism or explanation. Some other interpretations introduce hidden variables, or a ‘pilot wave’, none of which have been shown to exist. In QM there is the wave function and it describes quantum systems as being in superpositions of states. We know this is correct because it makes predictions we can verify. The fact that superpositions are real and physically causal is what enabled us to invent a lot of modern technology that relies on this effect. So if quantum systems exist in superpositions of states, and we are quantum systems, then we exist in superpositions of states. Thats all MWI says. It may prove not to be correct, maybe there is some unknown mechanism for collapse, but it’s the other theories that hypothesise additional mechanisms and as yet unobserved effects, not MWI.

[@YoungGandalf2325]

Great. Now I need to update my phone's calendar with wave functions instead of events.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

The Wavefunction is evolving in... time , though ( according to the Schrödinger equation etc...), so better leave it as it is...

[@tenrsounds]

😂

[@longlostkryptonian5797]

Clever!

[@robotaholic]

Hahahahahahahah

[@user-tg5gf6tt6x]

good humour!

[@fourquartets7900]

Great questions from Robert Kuhn, and interesting answers from Sean Carroll. Great final question from Sean Carroll. Lots to think about! The endless splitting sounds feasible, and more than that it is fascinating. Multiple realities that we don't even notice!

[@glenrotchin5523]

Love it when Robert says ‘I see, I see’. Yeah right.😂

[@babydaggers]

the last rhetorical question he asks with 10 seconds left on the video is the clearest explanation of the entire video (if something far away happens, do I branch instantly or does that not happen until it ‘reaches’ me), cool conversation

[@stellarwind1946]

My intuition is that the many-worlds interpretation doesn’t solve the measurement problem, but rather the exact opposite. It compounds it exponentially.

[@DemonstrousEvidence-cq9zn]

Wizard Skyth: "spot on"

[@louisbullard6135]

Sean is pretty fun to listen to but I am not convinced about much he says. I admit I don’t understand much that he says either but I feel that something is wrong and we are missing information with respect to quantum mechanics. I don’t understand why the universe has to split into different realities every single second. I would bet everything I had that 10 to the power of 500 universes or possibilities does not exist. By the way I make this bold statement considering I am broke right now. 😢😅😂

[@David.C.Velasquez]

The splitting and branching metaphor isn't helpful, and probably leads to more misconception, than simplified visualization. From the perspective of an observer with an extra degree of freedom, with respect to dimensionality, our 'multiverse' with every possible configuration, would appear as still, infinitely layered... stacked, (We don't have the words at this level of abstraction) block omniverse. The bulk. *btw... am also broke.

[@kennysaunders7259]

None of many world theory is borne from the result of experimentation, that's my problem with it. Its purely a way to maintain a materialist paradigm. And why I am I in the one where people simp for Elon Musk and that orange skidmark Trump?

[@simonhibbs887]

You can think of it like time. It stretches into the past and future, but we only experience an instantaneous present moment. So the superposition of states of the universe exists as a continuous wave function of possible states, but at any moment we only experience one specific state. Is time divided into discrete countable moments, or is it continuous? We don’t know. Is the wave function ‘split’ into discrete countable universes, or is it continuous? We don’t know.

[@Marketspoons]

When assumption becomes the crutch of research fantasy becomes the reality of conclusion.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@halcyon2864 agree with you....

[@S3RAVA3LM]

So, instead of sharing your knowledge, you make a trite comment with no substance.

[@louisbullard6135]

Exactly!!!!

[@Marketspoons]

Many worlds, multiverse is all assumption it has no experimental proof. The question of time is the underlying principal of the conversation, I do not understand why people like Sean at the top of his field do not look at time with logic, at C time is considered to stand still or is zero, if logic is used time no longer exists at C. The equation for speed is S=d/t at C time no longer exists the equation collapses and the only thing left is distance or the path, this is proven in the quantum eraser experiment, which shows changing perspective changes the result. I do not want to go to deeply into this here but time can not be a function of space with this result, an attribute of what is taken for granted, position, is also erased with the collapse of the equation. If you apply logic you will see what time is a function of, and how it is the crutch of the conclusions of this conversation. @@halcyon2864

[@tomjackson7755]

@@S3RAVA3LM That is hilarious. All you do is substitute assumption and wishful thinking for research and fantasy is your entire conclusion. SMH

[@user-gj7vp6wk3e]

GOOD JOB, SEAN CAROL. PEACE.

[@sakismpalatsias4106]

Well it probably propagates, but it's also about energy states effect on other energy states. Hypothetically, energy states matter (not simply human decision) and it's affect on adjacent energy states, through locality. In other words, every thing in universe resonates. If you change the energy level of one area other energy states in it's locality would counter the resonance of other energy states; if one is more dominant. Thus, there may be a threshold at which point the energy state must reach before decoherence. An example would be several pendulum clicks on a board. The board is space time and each clock is the energy state. If all clocks are decoherent they all start to act a certain way eventually and become coherent. If one clock is acting different and others are same, then the one clock becomes coherent again. If several pendulums become the same way, at a threshold. Then it propagates outward.

[@quantumkath]

Does the collapse travel at the speed of light, or does it happen instantaneously? It doesn't matter. In the quantum realm, things happen in indefinite space and time locations. It doesn't happen in any one location. The question remains: when the measurement happens, does the split have a specific location, or can we wait for the signal?

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

is a wave not two events one low one high and sometimes more ??

[@brianlebreton7011]

One of the topics I believe gets missed in these conjectures is the implications of a quanta, a line that gets crossed that defines the boundary between infinite concepts of a wave and discrete concepts such as particles. Are there an infinite number of possible decisions or collapses of a wave or are there a finite number of possible decisions or collapses. Are there countably infinite numbers of universes or uncountable in the many worlds interpretation?

[@johndiss]

The first thing is to determine if countable infinity is possible.

[@brothermine2292]

Sean Carroll cited the number 10 to the 10¹⁰ power. That's a finite number, not a countable infinity.

[@johndiss]

@@brothermine2292 I think countable infinity is impossible and that renders the practically impossible an eventuality.

[@brothermine2292]

@@johndiss : Whether infinity is countable is a question for mathematicians, and they've clearly said that some kinds of infinity are countable. For example, the set of natural numbers. They define a counting procedure. If you want to substitute your own procedure for counting, you should let us know what it is. If you think infinities such as the set of natural numbers are irrelevant in the context you want to talk about, you should let us know your context.

[@johndiss]

@@brothermine2292 I'm not sure how to go about quantifying non-spacetime but the theory that it's not infinite seems apparent. Assuming there is such a thing as non-spacetime. The measurable universe suggests there's such a thing as something other than the universe. So, it appears to be that neither are infinite and therefore nothing can in reality be infinite.

[@infinitygame18]

wave function is directly proportional to Emerging Awareness , If you can in future Measure Awareness than its can be possible to Locate the Wave Function movements , now its only possible through the meditation , Start Learning new Science of FundamentaL Reality & experience within The Wave Function Emerging And Collapsing in Existence

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might quantum fields propagate as waves vertically; while decohered universe(s) expand horizontally?

[@joshkeeling82]

How does our ordinary macroscopic world, with all its complexity and normality, emerge from the fundamental microscopic, with all its simplicity, and strangeness? That's something I've pondered past three decades. If you think about it, it's absolutely mind-wrenching and leaves my mind completely wrecked. The microscopic realm is probabilistic, yet the macroscopic somehow emerges from from that probablistic microscopic realm. It's freaking unbelievable! Something order emerges from randomness of particles.

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

Complexity seems to take less energy to evolve, than the amount of energy that complexity emits. It's a way to distribute energy faster...

[@evaadam3635]

What human's limited senses can not reach, that is responsible for making things or events happen, is also beyond the reach of Physics... ...this is because knowledge of the Spiritual World is a forbidden fruit. Your lost soul was sent here NOT TO KNOW but TO BELIEVE for your salvation, because it was losing faith in God that you fell from Heaven, so, only by regaining this faith that you can return Home... ..but if you fail to override your prior bad choice by regaining this faith, your soul will return to a cold dark emptiness (hell) - the state your soul ended when you fell from Heaven...

[@estebandemosandmusicconcep4407]

Just basic statistics

[@Resmith18SR]

It all works, so why worry about it?

[@longcastle4863]

The classical biological world is probabilistic.

[@Appleblade]

What's the talk of splitting as if its an event happening in time (old school)... and 'waiting' for the result to arrive from Andromeda. Isn't all the talk of splitting and waiting temporal in the Newtonian sense?

[@simonhibbs887]

Yes, Sean says from 4:10 onwards that all of that is just useful vocabulary to talk about it in simplified terms. To really understand MWI you need your think about it in terms of the wave function, and the idea that we are part of it.

[@guaromiami]

If it doesn't matter, does it exist?

[@lambda4931]

Sounds like the wave function is doing a lot of creating. I thought science was at odds with the creation hypothesis. Apparently creating a universe is pretty easy.

[@teleamor]

Carroll is a snake oil salesman

[@brothermine2292]

The theory of Eternal Inflation creates a huge number of (bubble) universes too. The real question about creation is about how it all began, not about branching or squeezing off bubbles.

[@gregoryhead382]

1 (Pascal) atomic unit = ((α^5 m_e^4 c^5)/ℏ^3) ≈ (1/842 ) × pressure at the center of the sun (2.477×10^11 bar) or, 29.421016 TPa 🌄 atom

[@TheTroofSayer]

Discussion that incorporates Many Worlds always makes me feel queasy. Something doesn't add up. Observers are mind-bodies, and the perception of the time that passes depends on the metabolisms/sizes of different mind-bodies. For a great example, google "Hand-feeding Birds in Slow Mo - Mourning Dove, Downy Woodpecker" (Jocelyn Anderson Photography, 2021), to witness birds in "bullet time". Time is indeed relative, but not, imho, in terms of relativity theory. It is relative to the contexts of the mind-bodies intercepting it. The Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of QM is sharply at odds with Quantum Contextuality (QC). Key references relating to QC include Kochen & Specker (1967) & John Bell's theorem. The notion of mind-bodies as observers (the mind-body problem) should be as relevant to CI as it is to QC. CI doesn't even ask the question. CI and QC need to duke it out. Only one of them can be right, and I'm putting my money on QC.

[@willnzsurf]

🌴😎💯

[@kallianpublico7517]

Is the "wave function" math? If it is then it is part of the myth of causation. Is science possible without causation? Is consciousness possible without concensus?

[@tourdeforce2881]

3:53 😂

[@peweegangloku6428]

Wavefunction happening all the time and in every place? I think we should call it "undefined" in mathematics. It's like 1 divided by 0. And that is the true value of infinity which has no limit or boundaries, no restraining elements, the mathematical equivalence of empty, endless space or infinitely dense, boundless stuff - the exact representation of "happening all the time and in every place." There is no delineating element or factor. In that case, there is no individuality. Under such condition how is it even possible to have distinct universes, albeit infinite copies of one? This view of universal wavefunction is too fuzzy to be taken seriously.

[@simonhibbs887]

It’s just taking the wave function seriously. If we believe that quantum systems exist in superpositions of states, and we think that we are quantum systems, then we exist in superpositions of states.

[@peweegangloku6428]

​@@simonhibbs887If you claim to exist in superposition and yet you only account for your existence in this Milky Way galaxy and none other, not even an inkling of anything beyond this universe, what proof do you have of your superposition?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@peweegangloku6428 I don’t see how MWI has anything to do with existing in different galaxies or beyond this universe. You’ll have to explain that to me, those ideas seem completely unrelated. We know that superposition is a real phenomenon because it has verifiable physical effects. You’re using several technologies that rely on it, and were invented using our understanding of it right now. So given that physical systems exist in superpositions of states, it doesn’t seem outrageous to claim that we, as physical systems, exist in superpositions of states. Thats not provable experimentally, but it seems like a reasonable inference. As it happens I have some technical reasons to prefer other interpretations of QM than MWI, but most of the criticisms of MWI here are either poorly thought out, or flat out don’t have any idea what MWI even says or why. It’s a perfectly credible interpretation.

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@simonhibbs887 Please watch the video again and pay special attention to the section 2:50 -3:08 then you will understand why I talked about you existing in two or even more universes at the same time. The claim of the Many World Interpretation (MWI) is that one thing can have many copies existing in different universes at the same time. For example. Robert and Sean could be having this discussion in many other universes at the same very time. So I think it may be necessary for you to cross check your understanding of what you call MWI with how others present it.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@peweegangloku6428 Sean then clarifies from 4:10 onwards that this way of talking about it is just some useful vocabulary for human beings to use when discussing these things. In other words it’s a simplified view, what actually matters in QM is the wave function, and in MWI there is only one of those. He did explain that in the interview. One way to think about this is to compare with time. We think of time as a continuous progression from the past and into the future, but there’s a special instant, like a slice through time that we call ‘now’ which is what we actually experience. Similarly in QM the universe exists in a continuous superposition of possible states and our experienced realty is one slice through that continuum of possibilities. Is time a countable series of discrete moments, or a continuous progression? Are the possible states described by the wave function a countable range of universes, or a continuous progression? We don’t know.

[@boonraypipatchol7295]

Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.

[@jonathancunningham4159]

If decoherence happens at the speed of light, then Imagine if every galaxy we see is just a version of our own milky way in it's many different forms.

[@Crackle1983]

8 billion Universes inside Earth's atmosphere alone.

[@longcastle4863]

1:19… All science will always only be “useful approximations”, including whatever new science you got that overthrows the old “only useful approximation”. Imo, though, nothing “only” about them. Approximations may be all we ever get, but approximations are nevertheless showing themselves to be quite useful.

[@brothermine2292]

The word "only" does NOT imply "merely."

[@michelangelope830]

A new loving poem is a new hope. If there is life there is hope. I know at least one person is reading this loving poem because what I write is considered "spam" to be destroyed and ignored that only a crazy ignorant could ideate. How are you?, did you sleep restfully in peace while I was in the can?. "Can" is slang for isolation cell. I just came out of the can to say a few words before I could be sent to the can again. For one brief moment that was shattered to pieces I had hope that you would have abandoned the can as a method of punishment. I was wrong. I am innocent and doing everything I can with what I got to save lives. Please listen and try to understand. The greatest knowledge, that grants the greatest power, is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Reality is sad and humanity are deceived believing God is what atheists call "sky daddy". God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing? Is it possible to be a victim of a deception while preaching the deception is freedom?. Your ticket to freedom is understanding the atheist logical fallacy. You choose to understand or not. You choose your eternal existence. You choose your life. You choose your destiny and if you are wise you would know what to do to. I hope for God's sake to be understood. Emergency, time is running out and lives are lost while I am talking. I need to establish a communication. I need a miracle, I need God, I need you.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(1:20) *SC: **_"I would say at the deepest-deepest level, events are not a useful concept"_* ... And yet the history of the universe is documented by event after event after event.

[@simonhibbs887]

The history of the universe is not the deepest, deepest level. As he said we talk about atmospheric temperature and pressure, and weather and hurricanes. At the bottom of it all, it’s just air molecules bouncing around. Macroscopic descriptions can be of a very different nature to micro-state causes. We talk about politics and economics, but it’s really just individual people living their lives. Even if we discard many worlds, the fact is quantum mechanics describes the interactions of waves in fields, which are continuous. Discrete events are just an approximation.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"The history of the universe is not the deepest, deepest level."* ... Who gets to decide what represents the deepest-deepest level? *"As he said we talk about atmospheric temperature and pressure, and weather and hurricanes. At the bottom of it all, it’s just air molecules bouncing around."* ... And someone else might see that as the weakest possible depiction of the powerful effects of a hurricane. Is sexual intercourse really just "particle interactions" at its deepest-deepest level (no pun intended)? *"We talk about politics and economics, but it’s really just individual people living their lives."* ... The fact that a "bunch of individuals" are in play means that "politics" can only _emerge_ through multiple-human interaction. In other words, "politics" would be nonexistent unless you had a group of people to facilitate the politics. So, you can either view it from the side of the individual or the side of the group, but if only a "group" can manifest politics, then why should individuals be deemed the "deepest-deepest level?" *Summary:* My argument is that once a new level of emergence is achieved, it transcends the "level of deepness" attached to its individual components. In other words, the individual components are no longer as relevant as the emergent property. Likewise, the emergence of the individual components transcends the relevancy of whatever "smaller components" facilitated their emergence. True, you can reach a point where you cannot get any "lesser" in substance, but that doesn't automatically deem that point as the "deepest-deepest level." Sure, you can reduce everything down to particles, but that doesn't mean the particles are "all that matters" or that they hold any special significance over whatever emerges due to their orchestration. At the deepest-deepest level, you can either view Michelangelo's "Pieta" as a collection of particles or one of the most significant works of art ever created in human history. It's all a matter of one's perspective. ... And if it's "perspective" that's the determining factor, then why can't our "perspective" serve as the _deepest-deepest level_ of reality?

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Even if events are not " fundamental", they're still very useful in physics ( and not only...) though...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The deeper levels can exist independently of higher levels. Air molecules can exist independently of hurricanes. Hurricanes can’t exist independently of air molecules. You can have some phenomena that can exist as an expression of more than one substrate. So you can have a vortex in any fluid. Nevertheless the fluid particles can always exist in a non-vortex state, or even independently of the fluid state.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 Oh absolutely, he’s not saying events aren’t a useful way of thinking about things. Just not when it comes to low level field interactions. I’m not arguing hurricanes don’t exist or aren’t a useful abstraction. They are. It’s just that they are only useful abstractions above a certain level of analysis.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

If Mathematics is so fundamental in universe....so it should also be very fundamental part in multiverse. My hunch feeling is that multiverse may be in similar to some structure similar to hexagram or such structure, very limited numbers in each units definitely interacting with other units. This way individual consciousness gets a better space to play its part.

[@anaximander1135]

First

[@snappycattimesten]

How is any of this testable, repeatable and falsifiable?

[@simonhibbs887]

Quantum Mechanics is very thoroughly tested and verified. You’re using a handful of different technologies invented based on quantum mechanics predictions right now, so we know QM is an accurate description of reality. QM says physical systems exist in superpositions of possible states. Again, this is known and tested and is the basis of some of those technologies. Since humans are physical systems, it seems like they should exist in superpositions of possible states. Thats all the MWI says.

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Hahahahaha

[@longcastle4863]

Doesn’t the Many Worlds Hypothesis by Everett smuggle purpose into the Universe?

[@simonhibbs887]

Er, no?

[@brothermine2292]

Why do you think it does?

[@josephhruby3225]

Whoops , sorry . . . What ? . . . More quantum crap .

[@S3RAVA3LM]

All is Brahman.

[@DrDeuteron]

Many worlds need to go to 🛌

[@James-ll3jb]

This guy's a monological dud😅

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Are guys know Quantum mechanics. He doesnt know nothing absolutetly. He doesnt know what is diferent Quantum mechanic and phich determinist though phich proceendings. Rambling gibberich.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

They could almost acknowledge Metaphysics but just can't let go of the tool that is science. Does it bother these guys that they can't create a universe and have it work the way they want it to in the lab, so gathering relative information, therefore enable belief in? Personally, i see it as a sign of weakness and unworthiness.

[@tomjackson7755]

We all know, anyone that doesn't believe in the obvious fantasies that you made up is a "sign of weakness and unworthiness". Even though you have admitted mental health issues, you still cannot figure out that you have lost touch with reality.

[@matthew944]

Everything everywhere all at once 🔂