Quantum Mechanics: A Theory in Search of an Interpretation

[@Dan-DJCc]

Finally a good review of this complex subject presented in a straightforward way. Many thanks to you dear fellow.

[@NondescriptMammal]

My sentiments exactly. So much of the prevailing interpretation of quantum mechanics is so counterintuitive that it ends up sounding like unscientific nonsense, and we are expected to just accept it as our reality without questioning the true nature of the seeming contradictions with everything we thought we knew about physics before. I am glad to see it discussed this way.

[@TheShadowlin]

a stupendous video!

[@XXfea]

This is THE FINEST KZbin channel in the WORLD!!! Thank you!

[@nobigbang825]

Another lucid brilliance. One thing I could not fathom why is the assumption built on QMs' claim of ''only works up to a molecule scale'. The late Halton Arp, from his quasars' long term studies, suggested that QM applies to all scales, it's just that we're too slow and insignificant to notice; as is regarding the micro scale. I honestly think the explanation could be very simple, all that needed to be done is to blow away the mathematical fog that has been built upon it.

[@curiousmind9287]

Thanks!

[@Sloppyjoey1]

I LOVE your blunt honesty because I only learned classical physics and I can't ever grasp why Quantum Theory allows for so much Data Hacking. Every other Theory in physics is keen to say "this is the extent of our math". But it seems that Quantum Theory says "do not ask" in regards to inconvenient issues. They regularly fit math to observations, which leads to an enormous range of unscientific assertions (higher dimensions, mutliverse's, traveling backwards in time, decoherence etc). Quantum Theorists seems to believe their math is reality, and I always wonder where & when they forgot that reality is rather expressed in math. They actually believe a "collapse" of the wave function is an event that takes place in nature without being observed... The equation being useful in practice does not mean that the equation is also an event in nature. It is very upsetting that every criticism of Quantum Physics is a "don't ask" problem. Measurement? Don't ask, Show me the collapse? "don't ask". Worst of all it does not even address at which point the undetermined becomes deterministic. How can you assert that something "unknowable" is also "probabilistic" if you admit in that you don't even know lol? As You stated, it's a contradiction. I'm absolutely looking forward to your follow up video on this!

[@shrunkensimon]

This is why I believe Tesla will one day be vindicated. He was the only one actually doing experiments and had a proven track record. Einstein and the rest are mathematical speculators divorced from reality. Tesla said as much himself.

[@duprie37]

How dare you question dogma. Shut up and calculate, little calculator! LoL.

[@ehb403]

I enjoy your comment thoroughly. The system is broken but we’re not part of the club so we’re just not permitted to ask. I believe Durak said that the math was meant as a stopgap until a better approach was found - we’re still just plugging the gaps!

[@Sloppyjoey1]

@@ehb403 Exactly, theorists are forgetting that math is an apparatus! A language of sorts to describe nature. A method to calculate is not the same as an event in nature. But unfortunately, they're starting to believe nature is math. They believe in non-observed functions because it reconciles their mathematical tools. When we tell them to *show* us a wave function collapsing.. or to show us a higher dimension, all they have is math on a paper.. now they're moving the goal post saying 'these aren't proper questions". I suspect we're in a long period of stagnation.

[@Mike-zf4xg]

no. sorry. you don;t really any clue what you are talking about.

[@jedimonk362]

Thank you for consistently informative and awesome videos

[@pepguardiola5951]

Can you please send me $10 too so I can buy groceries

[@garethsamuel587]

Thank you and very glad your enjoying them!

[@ShifuCareaga]

Indeed this is a true statement!

[@gurmeet0108]

Small but important corrections ~2:00 - Planck's "guess" was purely empirical only, theory and experiment did not deviate here. Planck proposed his law for blackbody radiation to fit the both Raleigh's Law (for low frequencies) and Wien's law (high frequencies). He was not happy with it because he couldn't figure out the physical bases BUT empirically it worked perfectly. Planck later introduced energy-frequency relation to provide physical model for his formula only. [Very well covered at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#History with primary and secondary sources.]

[@JoeDeglman]

I think a good source to check out are the books of Norman D. Cook and Edo Kaal. Cubic dense pack models vs the liquid or individual particle models of the atomic nucleus. The face-center-cubic dense pack models answer many of the paradoxes of the other models. According to many sources, the uncertainty principle is used to explain the anomalies of the other models and is the main stumbling block that keep us from discovering better models of the atomic nucleus. The models in the books of Norman D. Cook do have some problems for heavier nuclei, but the Edo Kaal or SAM branch-dense-pack model seems to answer the problem of heavier elements. Mainly why does fission of iron, and heavier, give off more energy during fission, while lighter than iron nuclei require more energy input then output to create fission. Cook also explains how such a dense pack particle model, of an individual proton or neutron, can explain the spins of the breakup chunks of a nucleon vs the discredited quark model.

[@scene2much]

In 1975, Spring Semester, my High School Physics teacher was asked what quantum mechanics meant. His Answer: "Nobody Knows. Its a system of math that gets solutions and that's all that is known." 48 years later.... nothing has changed.

[@mikeolsze6776]

What a physics elecidater ! Awesome podcasts, bravo, many thanks. Finally a person who elucidates the mishmash of needlessly overly convoluted informations embodied & bound in the worlds of physics !

[@michaelclarage144]

These history-of-physics segments are so very useful. 99.9% of lay folk, and MOST scientists are ignorant of the very history of Science.

[@korostensky]

I am glad that you are addressing this problem! These inconsistencies have been bothering me for many years. From reading lots of papers, my currently favorite model is what I would call "neo classical", meaning (in short): both particles and light are waves and only waves. Space is not completely "empty", but behaves like an elastic solid (might call it "fabric of space" or aether, although that is usually a misleading term), you could also view it as a grid like structure. In that model, the Schrödinger and Dirac equations represent actual waves (not just probabilities), so essentially waves in that "elastic solid". The double slit experiment in that model is not more surprising than doing it with water waves :-). Matter and antimatter in this model are simply mirrored waves... There is alot of material from different peple on this (in particular Robert Close, but also Marek Danielewski). I have summarized some thoughts on this topic here (with links to papers and several authhors) : www.askingwhy.org/blog/ and also elastic-universe.org/ (this has more on the topic of "spin 1/2"). The only issue "left" are the EPR experiments... and I have been writing lots of simulations on those and dug into the raw data of those experiments. Currently I still think that there is nothing "magical" at all, but that the results are due to simple measurement effects (including imprefect detection efficiencies etc - but that is a huge topic in of itself :-)).

[@arandomguy777]

So whats the measurement of a position? This is a big confusion. I gave up, lol. What is "to be a particle" and to be a "wave". Whats the meaning of "theres only waves". Waves of what?

[@korostensky]

@@Andmeuths The only difference I think is that in this model, there is only one field, and this field is not just mathematical, but exists as a physical thing. That is one reason that I like it, because I think whatever model we come up with must have a connection to physical reality (otherwise it is just... math :-))

[@korostensky]

​@@arandomguy777 Very good question! Have you heard of "Phonons"? (see Wikipedia) These are quasi particles and are sometimes called "particles of sound" (even though they are clearly NOT particles). These are just vibrations in a solid that "look" like particles and "behave" like particles (they behave like bosons, like photons!). How do you measure those? Clearly a wave is not a point, so it is spread out. For phonons, these are vibrations in a solid material (like a chunk of crystal). For photons, it would be vibrations of ... space? The best model I have seen is from Robert Close (see classicalmatter.) So you could imagine that the whole universe is like... well.... a big gigantic wobbling very rigid jello ... :-) (a very, very rigid jello in fact, Hagen Kleinert wrote about it in his "world crystal" paper!). I know it sounds silly, but once you read about phonons and realize that the formula is the SAME for photons, and that phonons ARE just waves, why should photons be any different? There is nothing "magical" about phonons, you can even do double slit experiments with them(!) Is there a "Copenhagen" interpretation for phonons? No, those are just waves, and nobody questions that. So why should it be so magical and so different when it comes to photons :-). PS: I tried to post this yesterday, but somehow the comment never showed up

[@arandomguy777]

@@korostensky whats a particle. I think the problem is that we describe a particle a point with characteristics. But point is an abstraction. Reality is not a point. So what is it? May be thats what we need to know to describe whats happening to the wave funcion. But we dont have chance to understand it.

[@korostensky]

@@arandomguy777 Yes, a point is a mathematical abstraction - in realiy such a thing that is infinitely small does not exist, in my opinion. A particle might just be like a phonon, a quasi particle, that from far away looks like a point,but when zoomed in it has an extension (a soliton wave, for instance)

[@VectorMonz]

It's actually very simple. Scientists have and still rely heavily on photons for observation. It just so happens that photons tamper greatly with atomic systems. For example, whatever position and momentum an electron has, at the exact moment of contact with a photon, gets changed. The uncertainties are simply the result of the way we measure these systems. Atomic systems are deterministic, but we are restricted to using probabilities to describe these systems unless we can find a way to measure them without significantly tampering with them.

[@Nathan-eq3zs]

We can use sound waves to levitate matter, why not use sound waves to rotationally and vibrationally lock atoms in place?

[@shutupimlearning]

@@Nathan-eq3zs Sound waves are movements of atoms, your basically suggesting we use a plethora of atoms to smash into a few atoms. This will definitely over-excite whatever we are probing.

[@grawss]

@@dirtdiggity1714 Energy on a sensor, just like everything else.

[@redshiftdrift]

Well done. It is indeed hard to reconcile the 'linear' Schrödinger equation with the 'nonlinear' measurement process. It's as if there is something behind all this we haven't grasped yet...

[@Nathan-eq3zs]

It's because we have been taught to observe linearity even though nothing is linear. Everything spins. Everything vibrates. But we create a frame of reference as if none of that is happening.

[@redshiftdrift]

@@Nathan-eq3zs By 'linear' I don't mean a straight line, but instead the technical meaning of proportions as in 'twice as many rocks weight twice as much'. The Schrödinger equation is linear but can describe circular motion and oscillations!

[@williambranch4283]

The confusion is the unacknowledged semi-classical assumptions behind it. Classical physics is Platonic ... Objective reality is "out there" beyond the Cave, and specially trained people from Plato's Academy have the "nous" to see the Eternal Forms. This was still assumed in Kant's philosophy. It is the interaction of people, even ordinary people, with an untouchable unseeable ontology who create a normative reality.

[@AdrienLegendre]

Measurement system and a particle waveform follow Schrodinger equation. If you make an error and ignore the measurement system then the waveform appears to collapse and not follow the Schrodinger equation.

[@mian6788]

It's been solved a long time already with decoherence

[@ta1bubba]

For people confused about this "perception causing action" thing -- when you measure small enough material the energy of the photon or electron ray you are using to measure ends up affecting the material. If the wave length is bigger than the particle, then you can see the particle speed but not the location as the wave-length covers more space than the particle, and using a wave length smaller than the particle means the measurement energy is stronger than the particle and will result in the energy actually affecting the speed (momentum) even if you can now pinpoint the location. When you, in general, disturb the 'wave function' with any physical energy -- is when you cause the collapse. i.e. breaking it's symmetry that allowed it to be in a state of this or that at once. This is by no means a good explanation, but hopefully will prevent some people from being dissuaded from the topic by this continual invocation of magic being the cause of the collapse. If you could emit physical energy which probed particles simply by thinking about it -- then yes this would also cause the same collapse, but i presume most people cannot detect 'quantum particle states' and therefore are not capable of collapsing quantum states by mere perception. If we introduce a "4th dimension" to explain how particles exist when in a quantum state, and we can somehow emit 4th dimension energy to probe it, then this would (in this example) be able to probe the particle [waves] without collapsing them.

[@stevenmqcueen7576]

Greaat video. Looking forward to part 2.

[@StirlingLighthouse]

Yet another channel to which I have not subscribed to that I’m now subscribed to. Yt has taken suggestions to another (unwelcome) level.

[@axelcodr]

369th like for me. I'm so glad this video helps me understand failed past school "wisdom" and help me understand this whole mystery of quantum physics and all those super abstract concepts nobody understands anyway.. this is a lifetime quality video - this needs to be shown in schools!!

[@briitch3131]

why does this channel only have 25k subs??? it deserves so much more!!! great work !!

[@theelectricorigins846]

Right the point @SeethePattern Experiment and Observation are Science! Interpretation (either of experimental results, historical texts or myth) is Not. It is subjective.

[@missfriscowin3606]

Now my Christmas 🎄 tree lights are causing me doubts. 😳. Thank you and Happy holidays Gareth. 🤓

[@universalprinciple9033]

Because the time it takes light to occur between two objects is a function of distance (with no regard to their relative velocity to any other bodies), it seems somewhat unintuitive to think of light traveling at "one speed." Also, such an interpretation requires some creative time-bendy confusion. My model has it as an instantaneous process that takes a function of the distance between the objects to complete. No particle exists to have a self-contradictory velocity, just a "line of sight" bonding. Things in the path of that bond may interfere with the final result with quantum regularity (so to speak). No dead living cats or other logical contradictions, and Time dumps the fabric charade and retakes its rightful place as a quantitative measure of motion.

[@dubhsith5993]

I've received telepathic downloads communicating that this is correct.

[@TabooRealities]

"My" model? Many know. I hope it's attributed to nobody.

[@dubhsith5993]

@@TabooRealities Truth righ there brother!

[@universalprinciple9033]

@@TabooRealities Sorry, a manner of speaking. My infinate support 🧜‍♂

[@grawss]

Seems true. I compare it to a computer displaying video, where if there is more data, it'll take longer to load. All interactions must be calculated prior to display, and the result is the frame rate, aka the speed of light.

[@jamesweninger3679]

Can’t wait for the next video on this topic!

[@JamesHolben]

Me and you both.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Krafft made a valid argument that absorption of waves by a dimer vortex would be quantized and the effect of release would depend on a fluid velocity of the vortex rings. Indeed, even half an electron could be released as neutrinos which could capture another neutrino and appear to be an electron or proton, depending on whether the single vortex coupled on the sink or source side of a free neutrino. Investigations have never been performed from the Krafft model vantage point, so it hasn't been confirmed or refuted. However, Science Digest reported on proton targets behaving like vortices in experiments at Lawrence Livermore in the 70s or 80s

[@WalterSamuels]

This is the answer.

[@alanlittlemoon8194]

thanks for covering this. I often wonder how many of the notoriously bizarre qualities of QM are due to assuming Relativity must also be true in all it's aspects. How much quantum weirdness vanishes if we assume a higher speed limit for action at a distance. For example.

[@billlets5460]

I wish I didn't have to exist in such an ignorant space or time.

[@evansmith9586]

Measurements add energy into the system. Creating peaks in the waveforms. Thus it appears to "collapse" into matter but we are just witnessing energy concentrated in the same spot. Quantum field theory explains that most of space is comprised of a Quantum foam. In this representation is the best explanation so far of the particle wave duality. That in the sub-kinetic boundary the peaks of these wave functions appear as sub-atomic particles. This also explains the high decay rate of these observed particles and the inaccuracies in there locations.

[@JoeDeglman]

Ron Hatch has a pretty good equation for gravity in an article "Ron Hatch: Searching for a Better Way - John Deere.' Another article of Ron Hatch that applies to energy level and frequency is 'Gravitational energy and the flatness problem.' I accordance with the Ron Hatch model, or Ether Gauge Theory, energy level "E" is dictated by ether medium density, magnetic flux density or dielectric density (all 3 of which are one and the same fluid medium.) E in the equation is directly related to the ether medium density, which dictates the energy level and frequency of an atom or energy wave in the medium. So basically, the more dense the ether medium that pervades an atom, the more blueshifted the frequency, and the energy level is dictated by the ether medium density. So, J 0:50 is a variable dependent upon ether medium density the pervades the atoms. The problem with the Einstein model is that it assumes that c is a constant in a vacuum, but c actually varies, decreasing with dielectric or flux density increase. Planck's Constant is the only true constant in the Universe, according to Ron Hatch.

[@skynet4496]

The channel "itsbs" did some interesting tests on dielectric theories that throw the common science beliefs on their heads

[@JoeDeglman]

@@skynet4496 I have watched a few of those videos on the Einstein model of relativity. Actually, there are several experiments on lenses and liquid lensing films that confirm that dielectric density and magnetic flux density changes refractive index as well. When you go with a variable density medium it explains gravity, redshift/blueshift, variable speed of light, back EMF, clock speed, refractive index, etc. My theory on the Hubble telescope was that when they first sent it up into orbit, the flux density decrease in orbit changed the refractive index vs on the ground. This was fixed by sending up corrective lenses to change to focal length back.

[@revcrussell]

If c is not a constant (I don't think it is), it is unlikely h is constant either. The uncertainty principle arises due to light's inability to perform a measurement. It means h is a function of c.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@revcrussell quantum originally meant that energies involved in particle manipulation occur in discrete amounts of Energy. The uncertainty principle comes from the fact that when we observe these things, with an outside energy source, they are altered by the fact that we put energy into observing them and they did not behave in a predicted manner. Norman Cook states that trying to explain the problems with quantum with the uncertainty principle and accepting that paradoxes are the answer is what is holding back advancements in understanding the structure of the atomic nucleus. If you read Hatch's article 'gravitational energy and the flatness problem,' he explains observational reasons why he believes that Planck's constant is in fact a constant. That leads to the fact that energy, light speed, and frequency are a function of density. Just like density with sound in air affects frequency, speed, energy wave, and refractive index, so too does density affect light speed, frequency, energy wave and refractive index. When there are more particles to divide the momentum of the energy wave the speed of the energy wave slows down.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@revcrussell actually if you look back into the original Planck derivations he derives Planck's constant with natural time or cycles. He did not originally incorporate the man made second into his derivation. It was the modern attempt to make Planck's constant fit the Einstein model based upon the second as a measurement of time that makes us have to manipulate the current interpretation of Planck model when we change the speed of light as a variable.

[@domenicmonteleone2320]

Excellent follow up to your previous video. The foundations seem to wobble more and more for the old paradigm

[@Marcusstratus]

Looking forward to seeing what you have to share next!

[@Tim-Kaa]

Excellent video

[@AAABTonto]

This is at the edge of my comprehension ... which, is why I try to pay attention ;-] Love the channel, hope all is well with you n yours 🪐🌠🧲

[@xxxYYZxxx]

No theory can be comprehended unless it accompanied by a valid model, something never mentioned in any of these QM/Physics videos. In lieu of valid models, we get self-promoting politicians instead, as per the last dark age.

[@AAABTonto]

@@xxxYYZxxx I agree ... Dark Matter, like "Climate Change" is a GRANT MONEY GRAVY TRAIN ... You never have to to complete the answer, which enables one to continue to receive the grant money ... The Gravity Centric Model of our universe is flawed and we aren't going to get any closer to solving the mystery by funding politically purposed snipe hunts ... THAT MATH I CAN FOLLOW !

[@xxxYYZxxx]

@@AAABTonto The CTMU virtually solves the cosmology debate, yet like Faraday's force-fields, the CTMU and its models are a bit ahead of their time, with no money-making experiments required of them. By the irreducible quantum-scale nature of its derivation, the CTMU "conspansive manifold" is the most basic possible mapping of space time, and the "parallel processing" of the matrix is the most basic possible description of physics and science in general, a model which unifies all scientific disciplines under the most rudimentary possible model of "attribution" of physical states.

[@AAABTonto]

@@xxxYYZxxx I'm in the middle of sumtinz here ... hold that thought, I'll BB--if not later, tomorrow ... I have a response ...

[@aidanharrison3888]

Been watching your stuff for years . Initially I could just about keep up . No more . Dont forget us dummies .

[@quantumcat7673]

Very interesting! The correct way to pronounce DeBroglie is not 'De-bro-glie' but it is '' De-Breuil '' voilà merci!

[@lowersaxon]

Broy for the Inn glish speekink peeple.

[@XXfea]

My FAVORITE channel EVER!!!

[@daemonnice]

"A measurement of a part of a system at one location can instantaneously change the physical situation of far-distant parts of that system" What is a part of a system? What is a system? Can a part of a system be isolated from another part of the same system? Can a system exist within an isolated instant? Is it even possible to isolate an instant? I just finished reading Alfred N. Whitehead's Science and Modern Society(1925) and what an eye opening adventure that was. In it he discusses his concept of organism and the unity of things. He states there is no such thing as an isolated point in space nor is there such a thing as an isolated instant in time. Very profound. A system speaks of a unified whole and not of disparate isolated parts. Whether it is a far distant part of that system, it is still that system and that system must be considered a unified whole that exists beyond just an instant in time and a single point in space. Whitehead in another book rejects the notion of a materialistic ether, and instead proposes an ether of events. Very interesting. This idea of organism explains the unity of these events. For an organism is essentially a unity of many events(microorganisms) occurring simultaneously and working cooperatively to keep the host organism in existence. This speaks to me in that I have come to conclude within my own researches that earth is a superorganism as proposed by Hutton in 1795(Royal Society of Edinburgh). When one considers that we are organisms playing host to microorganisms, why shouldn't we as organisms be hosted by a superorganism. Such a continuity is in my mind an expression of natural logic. And if we accept this continuum of organisms then we must also conclude at some level the universe itself is the ultimate organism, which as you rightly pointed out in the end, is beyond our perception or as Whitehead says is undefinable. This makes far more sense to me than life, a highly structured order of things is born of random events in a dead universe. Cheers

[@SeethePattern]

Yes looking at the whole we are more connected than disconnected. We see these connections at every scale and yet somehow ignore them? Every system is built from many parts functioning together. Each part ignorant of the greater whole.

[@DeathValleyDazed]

See The Pattern is foundational wisdom. Glad I subscribed!

[@petrolekh]

Excellent presentation of the subject and a challenge that even I layperson can understand.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Planck's hypothesis (E = hf) was motivated from his analysis of the entropy of blackbody radiation, both from a thermodynamic and statistical mechanical approach. It wasn't a wild guess.

[@oremazz3754]

Well done! thank you. I'll be looking forward to your next video with the latest approaches. By the way, there is a new interpretation that solves the collapse evidence vs the previous probabilistic existence. This hypothesis is based on the concept that the universe is composed of "stuff in a media", where stuff is all the elementary particles (standard model) and the media is the wavy quantum system space. So, particles will exist in 3D space meanwhile, its space is present; the combination of these two entities (one compact and the other oscillating) solves the wave-particle duality, not one entity with two antagonistic roles. On each new fluctuation, when the particles return to the 3D space, they will assume aleatorily one of their valid states. Due to the ultra-high frequency (depending on its energetic content), in just a short moment, the particles will have been present with all their eigenstates; but one by one with an ephemeral existence. You can read more of this new theory in a short amazon book named: Space, main actor of quantum and relativistic theories, hope it will open new doors, thanks again and regards.

[@wulphstein]

At 0:20, you show the hydrogen atom wave function. It seems obvious that the best interpretation of the quantum mechanics wave function is that it alters the properties of space, locally, around the atom. Wave functions have to do with properties of space and time.

[@bernardsmith4464]

I'm very interested in Frisch & Smith's experiment supposedly verifying time dilation and hope you can address this in an episode. I have MANY reservations about this experiment and would like to consider other explanations, assuming there are any. In particular, does the half-life of the muon change with speed, pressure, interaction with other particles. I don't see where anyone has addressed "fully" that the cosmic rays/muons are intertwined in a plasma and its attendant possible interference to alter the half-life or even the muon exceeding c. The foregoing thoughts are not limited to my whirlpool of related ideas., but enough said. P.S. Love the channel. My notebook is filled with notes.

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. . .

[@adamgibbons4262]

Thanks for a great video! I hope there’s some discussion of quantum computers in the next one

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

9:55 It seems that there are no problems in QM already within the framework of GR (in the case of Schrodinger/Carroll cat). A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to GR according to the formula: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is the frequency of its breathing. It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (non-probabilistic) constant measurement and without opening the "black box" with the cat, since gravity is not shielded [w=w(mn)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state.* P.S. Of course, the sleeping cat of Carroll breathes, but differently (can be measured) than when awake. Good dreams to you: QM. --------------------- *) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (thanks to which measurement becomes possible). It is clear that this will also cause the emission of gravitational waves.

[@EnergyTRE]

to be blunt the object used to detect the experiment is absorbing the wave and or the function of the total energy of the atom. not just a sensor specific radiation type. they didnt take there equipment into consideration as you state this. "very nice work sir."

[@KittyBoom360]

I would love to hear your take on how the Uncertainty Principle might actually just be a special case of a more general principle in classical mechanics, such as found in the Fourier transform, which shows that even sound waves have an inherent uncertainty between time and frequency, exactly like space and momentum in QM. For primer references see: "The Uncertainty Principle and Waves" on Sixty Symbols channel. "The more general uncertainty principle, regarding Fourier transforms" on 3Blue1Brown channel. "Uncertainty Principles and the Fourier Transform" on Steve Brunton channel. Personally, I kinda think this destroys much of quantum mechanics in terms of ideology.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@JoeDeglman I don't think you understood my comment or actually watched my referenced videos. The uncertainty principle is not an anomaly or paradox at all, not in terms of classical mechanics, which is what the Fourier transform demonstrates. The uncertainty principle is just a poorly named feature of all waves, including sound waves.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@JoeDeglman Uh, no, the Fourier transform doesn't actually make the guitar's location mysterious, nor the source of the sound. It only applies to the sound wave itself. And it's still not mysterious or based on subjective observation. It's just about the nature of waves, which don't have the properties of ideal particles. Waves are necessarily spread out in time and space. Trying to force a wave into a precise location or point in time is a fool's quest, like trying to fit a color to a taste. I seriously don't understand how you missed all of this if you did actually watch the videos I referenced. Stop talking nonsense about how sound waves make instruments disappear and instead learn about what the Fourier transform actually means. After that, you'll be able to apply this knowledge to quantum mechanics (QM). You'll then realize that the uncertainty principle in QM just means that we're dealing with waves and that there's really nothing mysterious about QM.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@JoeDeglman I don't understand a word you just said.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@JoeDeglman Then how do you explain the Fourier transform and the uncertainty between time and frequency of a sound wave?

[@KittyBoom360]

@@JoeDeglman Yeah, that all tells me that you really have no idea what the Fourier transform is, nor did you watch my referenced videos.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

In the general case, the observer is an evolving (- when measuring, his state changes), researcher of the spontaneous evolution of the Universe. After two stages of cognition of reality: the monologue of the observer without a physical experiment (natural philosophy) and the observer/nature dialogue - a physical experiment (science); the third stage begins - a physical experiment in the "reception" mode, which changes the state of the observer (a monologue of nature). Since self-action is the main (primary) interaction, "GR was QG" leads to a new order of the observation method: measuring the physical parameters of an object generated in the process of the object's self-action: interaction with a vacuum (source-resource of vibrations). This is the cleanest measurement procedure: to get an answer (information about the object) without asking a question (without affecting the object). In this case, the object, of course, affects the observer (changing his state), and it is thanks to this that measurement becomes possible: and this is not an ordinary astronomical method, and this is not "peeping".

[@jomanout5866]

I thought it was bologna too, observing an electron changes it's state. Surely they considered their observation sensor may be inputting some sort of interference, right? I hope it's not as simple as they hadn't considered that. Perhaps by everything calculated and how it was designed they deduced there'd be no interference, but as most of us know, we don't know everything, every mechanism of action that exists. Just what we can observe and are aware of. I also like deducing patterns like you so that's pretty cool

[@davidwilkie9551]

"There's only probability". Correct, absolute, quality of perceptions statement. Axis of 1-0-infinite reciprocation-recirculation = Perspective regression, is NOW.

[@dotology]

Thank you!

[@HueBFuture]

Looking forward to the next video.

[@florincoter1988]

Why an "interpretation" is needed? Is there an interpretation for Group Theory? Is there an interpretation for Newtonian Mechanics?

[@pinkfloydhomer]

You didn't mention Bell's inequality, the Nobel prize winning Alain Aspect et al experiments, Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation.

[@barrydysert2974]

i've been hoping for this!! !:-)

[@biswajitbhattacharjee5553]

You nicely put the observations on black body energy as wave frequency and temperature put in atomic model as quantum property of wave & particle. The outcome is measurement problem. But energy as function of mass and velocity not consider as particle nature. Rather a packet of energy. Is universe too hold these mystery? Good review of spin and entanglement.

[@cosminvisan]

QM is about the rules of knowledge acquisition by consciousness. For more details see my papers about consciousness, like "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".

[@brothermine2292]

At 2:54 is a false dichotomy: that because light is not a ”simple wave” it must therefore be a particle. There's a third alternative: that light is a non-simple wave, which has the nonclassical (”spooky action at a distance”) property that when any part of a quantum of the light's energy is absorbed (by an electron) the entire quantum of energy is absorbed, regardless of how far away from the absorption point was the rest of the quantum a moment before the absorption event. In other words, light is a wave that interacts nonlocally in its entirety when & where it interacts. This is a plausible alternative, because a physical wave explains many other experimental observations, such as the 2-slit interference pattern, better than a particle does.

[@oneman7039]

Hey, you have some interesting videos that present a new way of looking at well studied physics to possibly address the issues with currently used approaches! However as I am sure you know there are many physicists out there which have reasons as to why some of these new views are actually even more problematic. Have you ever considered making videos where you discuss some of the ideas, that you are more convinced of, with physicists who might want to argue why they are not?

[@davidwilkie9551]

Try e-Pi-i relative-timing holographic resonance bonding proportioning probabilities quantization, QM-TIME Completeness.

[@murb2586]

Any recommendations on modern day experiments that correlate with these principles. I always hear the statement it's the most predictive model in existence but there's never any real world examples of what they mean there's always these thought experiments created graphically. The only one I can say that deals with any of them is the double slit that allegedly explains wave particle duality but they never explain how they measure particles on a detector plate so accurately. as well seems really anthropocentric that 'someone' measuring something would 'change' the progression of the universe writ larrge in consideration of the "universal" wave function. I wonder if two people were observing something from two different perspectives if one perspective would win out. Though I'd wager there to be a correlation on which of the two has access to the larger Grant. Thanks

[@shutupimlearning]

Quantum Cryptography is a real world example and being developed atm, it is based on Quantum entanglement. No credible working physicist actually believes in an "anthropocentric" human observer. To put it bluntly, an observer is anything that can interact with a system, even a robot or a photon, as long as it can collapse the wavefunction to a specific value, it is an observer. However you are very much correct that money drives science more than it should, i've been warned quite a bit about the "publish or perish" landscape we live in (which i may join eventually). Additionally, there is less incentive to completely explore ideas as you will not get funding for being completely right or finding nothing, only funding for finding results or being right.

[@MegaBanne]

The only good interpretation is to assume that we do not understand it. We can understand the math, but not the underlying physics.

[@Nathan-eq3zs]

We understand the physics, all of our modern technologies rely on quantum mechanics and general relativity to work. We ain't using newton's classical work anymore.

[@asmithgames5926]

So I have a theory called Quantum Relativity, that states that the decoherence is relative to the observer, and it occurs when the observer becomes entangled with the entangled state - this observing it.

[@asmithgames5926]

That was a damn good video.

[@throwabrick]

How about a mashup of Mach's Principle and Bell's Theorem? Or a Devil's Advocate challenge of the Equivalence Principle?

[@FleuveAlphee]

QM is plagued with 'interpretations' (I know what I'm talking about, as I have been directly involved, sometimes in the frontline, in those endless debates) . What's required is a re-evaluation. Who's doing it, or even thinking about it?

[@ytbasketball101]

One thing we know for sure is that quantum mechanics is true because of the predictions they make although we may not know how to interpret it.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I guess you go with what you got.

[@FunkyDexter]

Well, to me it's extremely surprising that a theory claiming to model the microscopic world and its behaviour completely lacks a fundamental model of the electron or the photon. It seems Bohr & Co came up with a mathematical "fit" for observations without any onthological foundation, which is rather contrary to any science that was done until then. I suggest reading "is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" By van der Mark and Williamson.

[@Orion15-b9j]

There is one more interesting book, which they are hiding because there is an answer to all these questions - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

Hello ' See The Pattern ', very well narrated and researched. This video shows just how little physicists actually know about the sub-atomic world. The whole of quantum mechanics is just pure conjecture, and is held up by the physics community with the excuse that " Quantum mechanics is just weired ". The biggest enermy of sub-atomic pysics is the wave function, which is just an excuse for the fact that physicists havn't got a clue what is going on in the atom. I do not mean these comment in a derogatory manner, it is just that I believe the present generation of physicists and students, have been brainwashed into believing that things that are impossible, can be justified by complicated and manipulated mathematical equations. Proven laws of physics and logic seam to have been abandonded, in favour of mathermatics. The problem is, no matter how fancy the equations are, if the fundamental parameters of what is being calculated are wrong, a logical answer will never be found. This is why, QM still does not work. I belive that if a model does not fit with logic, it is wrong. As you mentioned, ' Niels Bohr ' stated that the electron could only occupy certain levels within the atom, with no explanation why, but this idea is just accepted as given. I have two radical hypotheses, one for quantum mechanics, the other for cosmology, which are simple and can be described logically without mathematics in the first instant. The main points are as follows. a). There are only two incredibly small fundamental monopole particles that make up everything that exists in the universe. All of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model, are all composites of these two particles, and are just pieces of atomic matter broken off of the atom following collider collisions. b). The electron as depicted in the SM, is not a fundamental solid particle, but a cluster of minute negatively charged monopole particles, and represent just a small proportion of the negative charge that equals the positive charge of the nucleus. These negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons ' alone, fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom, and also every available empty space throughout the universe. They are the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of repulsion they produce is the ' Dark Energy ' and also one of the two forces of gravity, which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion. c). In my model, I see no logic in the existance of a descrete neuton. d). In my hypotheses, I explain how antimatter is the embryonic form of hydrogen. e). I believe that all electromagnetic radiation travels in quanta, at frequency, not amplitude. f). I believe that the big bang did not happen, the universe is not expanding, but has always existed much as it is today, and extends to infinity, the CMB is not evidence of the big bang, but is due to electromagnetic radiation saturation, and red shift is not evidence of space expanding, but is due to electromagnetic radiation losing energy and speed over billions of years and miles. g). Gravity is not as a result of the curvature of space, but is simply due to electromagnetism. I would be happy to let you have a copy of my hypotheses, if you are interested, and there is a way of getting it to you. I can attach to an email, but I do not have access to other forms of social media. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

Let’s see if I got this right. A photon is self-perpetuating electromagnetic field which may or may not be emanating from a particle which may or may not exist unless measured; all of which seems to be in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics? What if the electromagnetic field is a consequence of energy input from another plain and there is intelligent life on that plain. Assuming the laws of physics and timeframe are the same what carrier might they use to communicate? Do not know the validity of this research but the resonance of the Earth is 7.83 Hz and our minds are supposedly tuned to that frequency. Maybe we should be listening for coherent signal on that carrier.

[@kadourimdou43]

Everettian QM says it’s simpler to have no collapse, and therefore all outcomes exist. But needing Many Worlds to explain this one doesn’t seem simpler. We also have areas where Quantum Theory doesn’t work, yet we told to believe some physicists have the right answer already.

[@manipulativer]

My understanding is that those experiments alone are flawed from logic. For example, there is not one single experiment where you would switch on or off a detector and it would change states. What is happening is that they meassure light from slits that cant interfere and wonder how the same light going through in delayed choice can interfere, since it hits the other slit. Or... how making 1 arm longer while doing "1 photon at a time" and suddenly photons go back in time... Its THE SAME thing as electrons boiling off on detectors, there is always waving present its just when enough energy for a quanta appears, a photon is detected. Its never a particle. For electrons they literally produce x rays and call it "electron wave". Electrons are spinning ether dipols or something like that and there is a difference between electron and electric current, again playing tricks. electron as its thought is dielectricity, but in catode tubes, those are imo not electrons but "plasmoids" or energetic aether which acts as a paricle. Would love to be corrected on the last part though

[@PaulMarostica]

For a unique, and the only logical explanation of the surprising results of many particle 2 slit experiments, which completely contradicts all the illogical quantum theory explanations, you can view my video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica". Here’s a condensed version of my explanation: All particles have wavelike fields. Whatever part of an emitted particle's wavelike field happens to be directed toward an open slit, diffracts through that open slit, and can interfere with the other part of that particle's wavelike field that happens to be directed toward and diffracts through the other slit if it is open. Those 2 parts of the particle's wavelike field, 1 diffracting through each open slit, and then colliding with the screen while interfering, are undetected. Only a particle's central maximum magnitude wavelike field, if it happens to be in a part directed through an open slit, is detected colliding with the screen. A particle detector at a slit detects only a particle’s central maximum magnitude wavelike field passing through that slit, and does not detect any of the rest of a particle’s wavelike field passing through any slit. Any particle detector at a slit has a previously unassumed effect of passing only any particle's central maximum magnitude wavelike field and its surrounding large magnitude field part, while blocking all of any particle’s smaller magnitude wavelike field from passing through both slits, causing what would otherwise be a 2 slit wavelike diffraction pattern, to be instead, the sum of 2 1 slit wavelike diffraction patterns.

[@rogerscottcathey]

@@PaulMarostica : Fun experiment: fire smoke vortex rings at a grill or slit plate and see what comes out the other side. Adjust slits proportionally to ring size as if electrons or neutrinos writ large

[@manipulativer]

@@PaulMarostica as i see it, albeit photons being made from particles its like water molecules in water... single photon leveles or even sub single photon levels of emmision factually prove that "boiling off" of the detectors minimum quanta to appear. But its ALWAYS a wave composed of infentesimals particles/non active electrons.

[@djayjp]

On the other hand, it is a very scientifically responsible position. We can't say anything meaningful about that which we lack evidence/knowledge. On another hand it assumes fundamental probability, which is not justified by the evidence.

[@GH-li3wj]

Interesting video, just a point 10:46 Quantum mechanics is definitely a local theory, so it's wrong that a measurement made somewhere instantaneously affects another made somewhere else, unfortunately that's a misinterpretation of the EPR experiment that is commonly done now.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Yes, it is local in the sense that it doesn't violate relativistic causality/ locality. Perhaps this sounds trivial to those who have some basic knowledge about QM , but as you said, this "instantaneous influence" misconception is very common nowadays ( and we're in 2022...). For spacelike separated measurement events ( as in EPR) there's no way to define an absolute temporal order between them. Basic special relativity. What surprises me most is that even some professional physicists are not always clear about that.

[@yziib3578]

Quantum mechanics is not local. John Bell came up with Bells inequality, based on EPR, this is an experimental test of locality. The experiments have been done and the result is that on the QM level, reality is not local. This is how science works.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

@@yziib3578 These experiments: a) Falsified "local hidden variable theories" b) Confirmed the predictions of standard QM (about the correlations). The " non locality" that you're referring to ( sometimes called "non separability" ) does not violate Relativistic causality/ locality. In QM there's no "simultaneous influence" from one measurement event to the other.

[@yziib3578]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 a) this is not correct. When John Bell derived his inequality, hidden variables was not an assumption he made. The assumption were, that reality is local, when the entangled particles are created they do not know the state of the detectors, and for each measurement there is only one result. Hidden variable have nothing to do with the math and are not falsified or confirmed by the experiments. Given the experiments there is only three positions, non-locality, super-determinism (which is a local hidden variable theory) and many worlds. They all suck. b) Einstein argument with EPR is that standard QM is non-local and must be wrong, so confirmation of QM still means it is still non-local.

[@Nathan-eq3zs]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 they're not clear on it because they're scared of learning how far off we still are to understanding

[@david_porthouse]

Can we just imagine an entity which is both a wave and a particle, quite apart from quantum mechanics? I will make two suggestions. In two dimensional fluid mechanics, we can have a point vortex in Brownian motion, or perhaps I should say executing a Wiener process. The vortex is quantised so its strength can only assume discrete values. The Brownian motion is equivalent to kinematic viscosity (I am thinking of an Alexandre Chorin type of model). If the parameter which governs quantisation is the same as the kinematic viscosity, then our vortex is both a wave and a particle. There is more than one way to travel faster than light, superluminal behaviour being different from supersonic behaviour. We can have an oscillation in one of the ways, and orthogonal tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way. The oscillation results in destructive interference, while if the entity interacts with two or more detectors, the TBM results in a broken symmetry where only one of the detectors gets the prize. So is there a third type of entity which is both a wave and a particle? I will leave it to the reader.

[@shutupimlearning]

yes an excitation in a field is both a wave and a particle. This is very common and used extensively in QFT's

[@david_porthouse]

@@shutupimlearning Be careful not to confuse a Gaussian wave packet with a particle. If it passes through something resembling a half-silvered mirror, then it is arguably merely a wave of probability and not the particle itself.

[@wulphstein]

The problem with the many world interpretation is that it creates new universes too quickly. If a universe was a quantity of data in the memory of a computer, the mwi would quickly fill up the total memory storage, and reality would freeze.

[@PaulMarostica]

Copenhagen Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics: Assumption 1: Quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic. What they really mean: Dismiss any logical assumptions about what must be physically occurring, while endlessly assuming as many unobservables as possible to keep logical people from proving that physics is, and always has been, logical.

[@qwadratix]

We seem to be moving towards an answer now, with recent advances in our understanding of entanglement and it's connection to event horizons.

[@DanielL143]

Best review ever !!! IMHO - Postulates 1 and 4 are the most problematic. Intrinsic probability denotes an ontology and epistemology that is neither satisfying or justifiable. Furthermore, the whole notion of the collapse of a mathematical function is simply absurd. Ultimately the solution isn't to find a proper interpretation of QM at all, rather QM must be replaced with a physical theory rather than an information theory. That will only help when we shut down CERN for a weekend, send the mathematicians on holiday in Antarctica and develop a new metalanguage and set of metaphysical constructs. Philosophers alone will solve this problem. Of course it will just lead to the next set of problems, but that's ok. PS - I figured this out 50 years ago and a million students and scientists have been misled by charlatans and science magazine publishers that sell mystery novels rather than serious inquiry. I hereby grant myself the Noble (not Nobel) prize in theoretical physics for debunking Bohr 50 years ago as a teenager. OMG. The truth is out there and available to us but you see even among scientists we suffer from primate behavior - who was going to challenge the mighty Bohr - only a brave few, including our hero Albert.

[@StridentSloth]

We're in a simulation or something analogous and what we experience as quantum uncertainty is an algorithm to simplify the computational load.

[@Nathan-eq3zs]

We are multi dimensional organisms made up of multi dimensional organisms on smaller scales.

[@oUncEblUnt420]

I thought I came here for this video, but I'm actually here for part 2...

[@Mikey-mike]

"Shut up and calculate" is the only interpretation. Quantum has no classical corollary, so stop trying to find one. Also, Gravity is not a Force, so stop trying to make Quantum Gravity. This is a good talk, thank you.

[@DrJens-pn5qk]

QM is a mathematical formalism that allows us to predict results of certain experiments, just like other formalisms do in other situations. No further interpretation needed. Everything else is philosophy or even religion.

[@waynemorellini2110]

It's interaction, rather than observation, and the universe is interacting, even by photon or vacuum energy. So, (sorry, sound of commercial break caused me to lose the solution. But was something to do with the quantum energy must therefore be behind, or part of, the wave function mechanism, it is base to the observable variance in the wave function, meaning, like in many random number generator, it is not on itself truely random, but a complex function which appears random, pseudo random. Not to say that a version of randomness is not base in the universal structure in another way. Meaning, in an area with no quantum energy, a constant state of unit function must be reached. It's not quite that simple, and I have identified a candidate which suites a while back. But, there is still a source of randomness in my hypothesis, but testing would be required to define the limit and functionality of randomness. As the universe has not ceased to exist from some simple basic quantum reaction in the history of the universe cascading out of control with some large deviation of randomness over writing it, there must be a randomness rate/quantitiy limiting factor. Therefore what controls the quantum energy fluctuation, and randomness? Why make such a serious error on thought in the first place to obscure the reality of what is happening to a primary school yard level, stopping people looking further? Therefore, even given my brian damage and ill health, it seems something these people should have seen past, and therefore deliberate. I don't need to go around talking in the divine tone to appear right, so to speak.

[@michaelgolfetto9619]

I think the elephant in the room no one in modern physicists even dare adress; is planks constant valid (hint...its not).

[@alka9scottus]

Appearances make scientists feel harder than intelligibility ever could

[@maximvsdread1610]

I got my vehicle stuck in the mud once. No matter if I tried to go forward or tried to backward the tires just spun and the vehicle sunk deeper into the quagmire.

[@shutupimlearning]

"it has been taught (The Cophenhagen interpretation) .... as the only correct way to think of quantum theory". I can assure you in today's teachings the Cophenhagen interpretation is taught as the "most experimentally used" interpretation of QT. Many, many professors tell their students that other interpretations are needed for deeper insights to be found.

[@2tehnik]

I’m not a Copenhagen fanboy but I don’t think the talk of probabilities prior to measurement is problematic. The probabilities are probabilities of measurement outcome. And they pre-exist only in the sense that they are encoded in the quantum state that evolves according to Schrodinger’s equation. Personally, a part that was always kind of fishy to me is how or why the Schrodinger equation works in the first place. He tried to derive a relativistic equation, which didn’t give the right results, and then he used a non-relativistic variant which worked, for some reason. Not to mention deriving it from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, with the assumption of the ultimate referent being matter waves, only for that assumption to be shattered in experiments and the wave function left as essentially unreal.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

How about CIG Theory as an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics???

[@tombouie]

Thks & it was least over my head

[@snake4eva]

@SeethePattern I just discovered your channel and instantly love it. QED is rotten at its core is such a good video that highlights the lies that QED is the most accurate theory by ignoring the truth that it is mainly scientists fixing the results to the theory and mathematical "heresy" for lack of a better word. However, there is one false claim in your video. The Copenhagen interpretation is not taught as the only correct way to think about quantum theory. It is the premiere theory taught because it is the original interpretation and the alternatives interpretation do not provide more intuitive insight on how to resolve the philosophy surrounding probabilities and the uncertainty principle. Even if Copenhagen is wrong it is the most intuitive in the sense that a wave function collapse sounds plausible even if no one has a mechanism to explain it. The Many worlds interpretation by comparison sounds absurd and produces infinitely many more philosophical riddles than it solves. Also, the measurement problem that you mentioned at the end plagues all interpretation of quantum physics and so is not a defect of the Copenhagen. Most other interpretation either assert infinitely many states exist like many worlds or more complicated observer dependent theories which worsens the measurement problem. So Copenhagen remains the premiere interpretation because none of the alternatives provide less assumptions or resolves the problem. Occam's Razor is why Copenhagen reigns supreme even though it is still highly flawed as you pointed out.

[@philoso377]

The moment I hear wave is matter with no mass or Vic’s versa a voice from back of my head says look further.

[@antoniolewis1016]

THIS IS WHY WE NEED QUANTUM BAYESIANISM!!!

[@philoso377]

Page 5:19 Electron = charged + particle? Yes Spinning electron = spinning charge. Irrelevant. Spinning charge = B field? No Charge displacement = B field? Yes What cause electron spin? Unknown Electron beam taken divergent paths = electron spin up/down? Unknown, only quantum physicists think they know.

[@TheShadowlin]

by far one of the best comment sections proving intelligence exists; that means you've curated a great channel Gareth! -Ramon

[@timjackson3954]

Well, at least it proves that observers exist.

[@stefanlicanin9485]

you did not include the Pearson magneton toroid ring model of electron as an alternative to quantum mechanics. Compton who received a Nobel prize and his student Winston Bostic extended the Pearson magneton model to explain quantum effects using pure electrodynamics.

[@dcrespin]

The Schrödinger self adjoint energy operator H is the mathematical ingredient of Quantum Wave Mechanics that actually works. The Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE) is postulated as the quantum law of movement for wave functions. But the STDE is completely wrong. The STDE is so useless in predicting the actual behavior of physical electrons that special “quantum axioms” had to be postulated, namely: 1.- preference for eigenstates; and 2.- sudden, causeless jumps of an intrinsically random nature; followed by 2.- the uncertainty principle; topped by 4.- the probabilistic interpretation of wave functions. These four axioms become unnecessary if and when the correct law of movement is used. Thus, dismiss the STDE and use instead an appropriate Hamiltonian non-linear quadratic deterministic time dependent equation (DTDE). The DTDE simultaneously establishes the law of movement for both the bound electron and the bound photon. To encompass photon absorption and emission adequately enlarge the non-linear system to account for deterministic interactions with free photons. Daniel Crespin

[@StuMas]

Many problems arise when we make assumptions - especially, if we're not even aware that we're making one. My guess would be that, one or many, unintentional assumptions were made during the conversion of the mathematical / experimental data to regular language. Unless we're very precise with the definitions of the words used to describe the results, such mysterious and illogical conclusions would be unavoidable. For example, the definitions of terms like observer, measurement, information, probability, prediction, etc. are nowhere near the clearity and precision that would be required to fully understand such fundamental and precise phenomenona. After all, reality works pretty well whether we understand it or not - and it does it all instantaneously and simultaneously without any calculations or philosophising. I think that's the clue, right there.

[@hansvetter8653]

It was David Hume who made it clear that there is no such thing as "causality". That's why Immanuel Kant once stated that David Hume had awaken him from his dogmatic slumber and from that on Kant spoke only about the 'conditions of the possibility of insights' ... ! ...

[@ΛάζαροςΚοσμίδης-σ2ζ]

Wow! amazing comment section. As the video post is the introductory lecture and the comments are the rest of semester!!!!

[@timothy8426]

Propulsion is from repulsion. Force of pressure as heat. Heat is all force contained in mass. The frequency of releasing pressure determines how it's interpreted as a type of force. The amount of decay depends on the pressure exerted on mass to force the release. Stars decay as loss of heat. Mass decays as loss of heat. Cold space neutralizes heat in mass as repulsion to it. Hence pressure. Force of pressure is repulsion to thermaldynamics. Mass is forced fields contained in magnetic fields of forced pressure cycling circulation patterns holding pressure in. Resistance is repulsion equalization to inward pressure as outward pressure of force known as weight of mass. Space itself passes through mass as mass moves through space In occupational space as neutralized cold resistance. Magnets show the bonding power and repulsion of force as magnetic fields. Quantum magnetic fields are redirected trajectories of thermaldynamics into cycling circulation patterns of mass. Equalization of pressure in mass is disrupted by heat gain or loss.