Something Deeply Hidden | Sean Carroll | Talks at Google

[@hifibrony]

One of my favorite thinkers in the world. Few people of such vast intelligence are able to explain very abstract things so lucidly and understandably.

[@hifibrony]

@Brad Watson Religion, ALL religion is self-deluding nonsense. And you need to go live where the nuts hunt the squirrels.

[@dragonsdraughts8382]

One of physics best speakers these days. So clear and direct. More people need to be exposed to these types of topics and Sean Carroll provides a great place for minds of all intellect to join in and learn more about the world around us.

[@minimead368]

Slipperyfish it’s the fact he knows what to say. There’s no umm’s or pauses while he tries to remember his lines. I like that, it just flows into your memory and stays there.

[@boughtinerror]

@@minimead368 ive never seen him pause to think in any video. Its just a constant stream of info

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@boughtinerror He clearly knows his stuff, ok, plus he talks about this stuff all the time, ok, so a lot of that is pretty much routine, ok?

[@Devilogic]

@@minimead368 53:26

[@minimead368]

Matjaz Drinks Water lol the brain only hears what it wants to hear, I’ll listen harder in future lol

[@T.Dimitrov]

People like Sean Carroll made me interested in Quantun Mechanics. The way he explain everything makes you love all the stuff about physics. His books are great and everytime i re-read them i learn something new.

[@iandoyle5017]

slow learner?

[@ahmedalani3513]

@UCUZMI2O8DllphiwEcqk6Asw I’m guessing your trying to predict how he thinks, well your prediction sucks and you sound dumb

[@Andrew-tu5fm]

Carroll brings to the masses an understanding of QM that allows you, the non-physicist, (but perhaps a philosopher) to better think about reality from the micro- to the macro-realm and that Emergence is the operative term. Emergence addresses the transition from the fundamentals up to and including spacetime. Carroll is a master communicator whether you accept what is rather easily understood from hearing or reading from him or not.

[@MrEiht]

@Via hahaha epic!

[@KrisPucci]

I absolutely love Sean Carroll. He can explain very difficult concepts in laymen's terms which is very difficult.

[@doronron7323]

14 minutes in and my admiration for this guy has increased dramatically. Why haven't I seen this before. It strikes me as the most honest and articulate description of the subject (for the average guy) I've come across. Show this to your physics class.

[@spaceman081447]

Sean Carroll provides the best explanation of quantum mechanics that I have seen to date. He gives a quantum mechanical explanation of curved space-time and vacuum energy. He idea of not attempting to quantize gravity but rather to start with the Schrödinger equation and deriving quantum gravity is unique, as far as I know. I especially like the fact that he's a devotee of Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm a member of a book club that will be reading his book "Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime."

[@sekoivu]

Hugh Everett even visited Copenhagen in order to meet with Niels Bohr, the "father" of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The visit was a disaster! Everett's idea that the universe is describable in objectively existing universal wave function (which does not "collapse") was simply a heresy to Bohr and the others at Copenhagen. The conceptual gulf between their positions was too wide to allow any consensus. Léon Rosenfeld, one of Bohr's devotees, even described Everett as "undescribably [...] stupid [who] could not understand the simplest things in quantum mechanics". Everett later described this experience as "hell...doomed from the beginning."

[@richie1326]

I think Sean Carroll is hands down the *best* speaker on these very interesting and incredibly difficult subjects of modern physics. Some of his presentations that I've seen were just so insightful, and offered such clarity of thought and explanation. All delivered with wit and warmth. Thank you to Sean, and Google for posting this talk.

[@rc5989]

Sean Carroll is my favorite living physicist, ainec. I can not wait to get my copy of his latest book ‘Something Deeply Hidden’! From my view on the sideline as an amateur philosopher of science, I believe Professor Carroll is near the goal line, and will make it into the endzone. What a great day it will be to finally spike that quantum football!

[@letsif]

To hell with emergent gravity. The encased microphone in a foam cube is the most brilliant thing I have seen in a long time.

[@lungflogger9]

reduce that to just the foam cube.....drop the mic!!!!

[@iandoyle5017]

What was your previous encounter with brilliance?

[@Villinos]

Being able to explain the most complex concepts in such a clear and smooth way, so that even a layperson can grasp them, is a gift few scientists posses. No amount of knowledge or training can make someone acquire this talent.

[@A.Santos1]

Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" "No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies. The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!" The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?" "We do now, asshole!" shouts Schrodinger. The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.

[@sharktac]

Alberto Santos 👏

[@brandonhughes645]

schrödinger part got me good hahah

[@hellergang]

the opening part of this joke is in the book. Thanks for sharing the whole thing!

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

In Ohm's defense, the law obliged him to resist.

[@joshfredr7846]

Brian Greene and Sean Carroll are the best physics lecturers I have ever listened to.

[@АлександрБагмутов]

Amazing! This is the best explanation of a concept! He always repeated the same sentences in different talks, but only now I finally got it! Over time he perfected the way to explain it to other people!

[@TeodorAngelov]

He took the time this time.

[@hemalbhatt3989]

Sean is a Real Revolution, an observer with unmatched potential and traits, a teacher beyond ordinary human potential who justifies his teaching traits with exact knowledge or research work original to himself after testing it thoroughly and above all he is open to feedbacks to rectify errors as well as stay humble with appreciations. He just Rocks Physical science. Thank you Sean ! for all your research in scientific domain. Lots of appreciation for your originality. Hemal Bhatt

[@xlr555usa]

This talk explains the anomolies in the double slit experiment in the clearest terms yet. Great talk.

[@terrizittritsch745]

I love listening to this guys lectures. I also love that he pokes at things that we don’t quite understand as well as many scientists seem to imply.

[@mediumaevum]

I really liked this talk. Several times I thought "Of Course!" - the idea of having only the Universal Wavefunction and deriving from that the rest of the world, including gravity, is such a beautifully simple/elegant theory. Thank you!

[@johnfromleeds]

Excellent presentation. I've always thought the "many worlds" interpretation was a cop out but Sean's explanation here has opened my mind to this. Just bought his book. Also, I always felt that Einstein was right when he said that QT's Copenhagen interpretation cannot be a true desription of reality. That whole particle / wave duopoly message and "just accept that's the way it is" always seemed daft to me but I've just assumed that these physicists know what they are talking about so who am I to judge?

[@Chris-Alia]

Try reading The Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark (MIT) on the multiverse

[@gotnoshoes22]

Many worlds is by far the most logical explanation.

[@ThalesF75]

This guy's the best. Loving the videos and loving the book, whose every chapter I have to read at least twicel

[@ElChicleSeMePego]

Blessed to have this opportunity 🙏

[@bl8896]

Sean Carroll's hair is in superposition between clean cut and wild theoretical physicist

[@JoeLeonardo]

I legit laughed out loud from this. Great fucking joke!

[@lancehaley9417]

The lock of hair flipped over his ear is a classic wave function - otherwise known as the Schrodinger hairdoo.

[@geofromnj7377]

I think he is both letting his hair grow and dyeing it. IMO, he should cease doing both.

[@iandoyle5017]

@@JoeLeonardo No, its a very limited example of a joke with an even greater minority of people to appreciate its vague and vacuous application of comedy.

[@acr08807]

If it's vacuous, how can it be vague?

[@The22on]

Wow. Once again, Sean finishes a lecture and all I can say is wow. What a great explainer. He makes the subject so simple that even a being made of quantum fields can understand it! As an engineer, I'm used to thinking of classical mechanics: balls rolling down hills and trains going different speeds. But now, quantum physics says, "Forget classical mechanics. Don't picture balls, trains, particles, bullets, atoms.They went out with Newton (and way back to Aristotle). Think of FIELDS... ripples on a pond. Forget the stone that caused the ripples. Just look at the waves in the water." So now I think of the world like trillions of ripples. You and I give off ripples in space and time. The Earth gives out lots more ripples. The reason I stick to the Earth is not because a force is pulling me down, but because the Earth gives off many ripples (waves) than I do and they distort space. That distortion is what we call gravity (which we can't see happening!). Anyway, I'm picturing the universe differently now. I don't see particles... I see waves aka ripples. Extrapolating, where enough waves meet at a given point, they act like a solid particle. But the wave came before the particle. How am I doing, Sean?

[@elizabethwinsor-strumpetqueen]

Now think of waves as vibrations then resonances....

[@abhishekshah11]

Sean is a great explainer. Loved the entire talk!

[@phoenix4939]

Yesss!

[@dr.satishsharma9794]

'Something deeply hidden'....is excellent attempt towards closer to reality (Truth)... presentation by Dr Sean Carroll is really beautiful.... thanks 🙏

[@koroglurustem1722]

Wow, he is such a communicator ! Respects !

[@BloobleBonker]

The first half was an exceptionally good summary of the eave-particle dilemma. Really enjoyed that.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

As soon as I see a new lecture from Sean , I immediately click.

[@Bisquick]

In other worlds however, the click is slightly delayed

[@justkoolin]

Yes, and some day we'll figure out what he's talking about.

[@The22on]

When there's a new Sean lecture, my mind says YOU'VE GOT MAIL! Then Meg Ryan comes into my room.

[@sethpigg4468]

What do y'all think will happen if we have an AI observe waves, would they turn into parties?

[@artdonovandesign]

Me, too!

[@canuckcorsa]

The very best video I have seen on this topic. I'm merely a "shade tree" scientist these days (ex-electrical engineer) but this makes(mostly!) a lot of sense. I was fortunate in that I had many great profs but very few were communicators of this caliber.

[@takefivepaullucido]

Sean Carroll is clearly one of the greatest modern day physicist and ambassadors of quantum theory of all time!

[@wmstuckey]

Sean gives a "constructive" account (see below) of quantum mechanics (QM), but this approach has led physicists and philosophers in the foundations of QM (foundations community) into a morass (as he acknowledges). In order to escape this morass, quantum information theorists have recently rendered QM a “principle theory” (see below) just like special relativity (SR). We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024), but I’ll summarize it here. In 1919, Einstein wrote: “We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. Most of them are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes to movements of molecules, i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural processes, we invariably mean that a constructive theory has been found which covers the processes in question.” According to the constructive theory of the kinetic theory of gases, properties such as temperature and pressure of a gas are understood by averaging dynamical and causal facts for the particles of the gas. Temperature is associated with the average kinetic energy of the gas particles and pressure is associated with the average change in momentum of the gas particles in collisions with the container walls. Most of the foundations community is looking for a constructive account of QM, i.e., an account in terms of dynamical laws and/or mechanistic causal processes (“causal mechanisms” for short). Unfortunately, the foundations community has discovered that if you want a constructive explanation for the observed Bell-inequality-violating correlations predicted by QM (resulting from entanglement), you will have to accept that the world works according to “spooky actions at a distance” (violating locality, as in Bohm’s pilot wave) or that causes from the future create effects in the present (violating statistical independence, as in retrocausality) or that there exists “superdeterministic” causal control of experimental procedures to include the selection of measurement settings (violating statistical independence) or that people can correctly disagree on the outcome of one and the same experiment (violating intersubjective agreement, as in QBism) or that a single experimental measurement can produce all possible outcomes (violating the uniqueness of experimental outcomes, as in Many Worlds). Those are pretty serious implications for reality, consequently there is no consensus constructive account of QM in the foundations community after decades of debate (again, as Sean concedes in the video). Luckily, we can turn to history for a way out of this morass. As it turns out, an analogous situation existed in the late 1800’s. At that time, there was no consensus constructive explanation (e.g., the luminiferous aether) for the observer-independence of the speed of light c, i.e., everyone measures the same value for c, regardless of their uniform relative motions (“light postulate” of special relativity (SR), see below). Einstein also worked on a constructive explanation before giving up, writing: “By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.” That is, confronted with the impasse in trying to explain the observer-independence of c via “constructive efforts” (e.g., length contraction due to the aether), Einstein turned to a “principle” approach. Returning to his 1919 paper, we read: “Along with this most important class of theories there exists a second, which I will call ‘principle-theories’. These employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements which form their basis and starting point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which the separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary conditions, which separate events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible.” We see that, per Einstein, a principle theory is one whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact, e.g., thermodynamics from the impossibility of perpetual motion. So, instead of finding a causal mechanism for the observer-independence of c, Einstein said it had to follow from the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. That is, since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says c must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain. So, SR is a principle theory because its kinematics (Lorentz transformations) follows from an empirically discovered fact (the light postulate). And, importantly, the light postulate is justified by the relativity principle. That led Carlo Rovelli to challenge the foundations community in 1996 to derive (rather than merely interpret) the finite-dimensional Hilbert space kinematics of QM from physical principles and postulates, as Einstein did for the Lorentz transformations. Rovelli specifically suggested using principles of information theory and in 2001, Lucien Hardy produced the first so-called reconstruction of QM via information-theoretic principles. The empirically discovered fact that gives us the finite-dimensional Hilbert space formalism of QM is Information Invariance & Continuity (wording from 2009 by Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger). If you couch that physically, it means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Let me call that the “Planck postulate” in analogy with the light postulate. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, just like c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations, and since inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, the relativity principle says the “Planck postulate” must be true just like it says the light postulate must be true. That means quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory, just like SR. And, this principle explanation of the Bell-inequality-violating correlations does not require non-local, superdeterministic or retro causal mechanisms, neither does it require violating intersubjective agreement or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes. This is totally analogous to the fact that SR does not require a causal mechanism to explain the light postulate (e.g., length contraction via the luminiferous aether). Thus, this principle account of QM reveals a deep (and surprising) unity between QM and SR, while escaping the morass of the constructive accounts. What we also see is that, contrary to the title of this talk, the state vector (wave function) of QM is complete, i.e., there is nothing hidden at all. And, finally, one need only understand that the probabilities given by the state vector specify a distribution of events in space *and time* to avoid talk of the “collapse of the wave function.” That means no (near?) infinity of worlds is needed to understand the one world that we experience.

[@vicfitz82]

Working through the book. I find it understandable but maybe I’m biting off too-large chunks too infrequently. This lecture helped me refresh and reprocess. And for the love of cats, don’t read the comments on this video.

[@djschultz1970]

Sean is a true genius of our day and a very good communicator. You have to listen, even if you disagree. I find it very hard to disagree with Sean.

[@plato2030]

This is million time better than sci fi movie. Nobody can write a wired intresting and spooky story line like this

[@alinab.4568]

This is so mindblowing that it's crazy but also crazy reality!

[@AThagoras]

As far as I'm concerned, Everett was right. Universes are made of particles, reality consists of multiple universes and the wave equation tells you how universes are related to each other over time. When you make a measurement, you get some information about which universe you are in. In other universes, other copies of you will make different measurements and learn something about which universe they are in. Did I misunderstand anything?

[@secularmonk5176]

Spot on! The true mystery is "what is consciousness?" The thing that allows us to observe our observations?

[@TeodorAngelov]

@@secularmonk5176 Ahh, the hard problem

[@DanielFoland]

Amazing talk. Again. How is this man so consistently mind-blowingly well-articulated? _...what am I doing with my life?_

[@charlesbrowne9590]

At night I’m half awake and at day I’m half asleep. Superposition!

[@lousimms4766]

this is literally my life - HELP

[@iandoyle5017]

Naa you just don't sleep well.

[@salvatoremarino8293]

60% of the population lives like that....and is not a joke !

[@estellescholtz5619]

Hilarious!

[@Radnally]

Gary shandling knows a lot about physics!

[@miraculixxs]

Thanks for this talk. It's great you show the speaker 99% of the time because we would totally not know what he looks like otherwise. On the oth we can always get access to his slides easily and there is nothing special about one slide from the other. I just love watching a speaker speak.

[@jonathonjubb6626]

I like this. I remember watching Krause years ago and being impressed and I got the same feeling now. Might get the book (from the library)....

[@WitzyZed]

Jonathon Jubb having fun isn’t hard, if you’ve got a library card

[@DrPommels]

buy it! you will not be sorry and it will still be a good read the 10th time....

[@Andrew-tu5fm]

I had to add an additional thought about Carroll's lucid explanations. As Carroll readily states, his story about QM (a version of Everett's "many worlds" or multiverse) is not shared by the majority of physicists. What is so refreshing is that you can consider the different POVs and draw your own conclusions about the nature of reality. No fake facts here, just insightful discussion. How refreshing.

[@edoblaauw4561]

There are fake facts here. Like Popper being one of the biggest fan of mwi. That’s BS. In his book he explicately denounces mwi.

[@BUILDINGINSP]

Quantum physics has hit a fracking brick wall.

[@mediawolf1]

1. Entities in a superposition are in a superposition of well-defined states. (Spin up / down, cat awake / asleep, electron located here / there.) 2. Entities in a superposition don't experience that they're in a superposition. (They experience that they're in a well-defined state. Because they *are*. Just more than one of them.) 3. The states that are superimposed never interact. (The awake cat and the asleep cat are separate worlds.) 4. Entangled entities experience each other as well-defined. (They're in one collective superposition. Measurement / observation is just entanglement.) 5. Decoherence is when an entity is entangled with the environment. (Where everything experiences everything as well-defined.) The worlds of the Many Worlds concept are the individual states of the superposition. The apparent collapse of the wave function upon measurement is the entity becoming well-defined to us when we become entangled with it (#4). What really happened was its superposition still exists but now includes us.

[@gotnoshoes22]

mediawolf well written 👍

[@krishmav]

"What's in the box?" - Brad Pitt, 1995.

[@heilioEcentric]

It's a head....and it's not alive.

[@bushfingers]

krish a 🐈

[@Scorch428]

As long as he doesnt open the box, his wife can still be alive? :)

[@baldrbraa]

Electrono9 Pain. Pain is in the box.

[@thomchristensen990]

A great talk and much more accessible than one would think when approaching such heady topics. Regarding the many-worlds interpretation, I do believe it to be yet another way to hide the fact that there are things we just don't know. Effectively, we are saying that we don't know what the state of the universe will be at time T+1. But why don't we? If each state is a function of the previous state, then the universe is deterministic. If our calculations do not correctly predict the next state, then it must be because the calculations are incorrect. Or more likely, lacking the vast number of variables that we would need to observe from the previous state. The issue is that we don't know the entire state of the universe at any moment and so therefore cannot predict the next. We introduce probability to add the fuzz factor that gets us to something can almost approximate the chaos quantum mechanics.

[@DasKrabbe]

Promoting an iPhone app at Talks at Google. Ballsy.

[@jamesstevenson7725]

I heard about that app. Whats it called?

[@hellergang]

@@jamesstevenson7725 Universe Splitter $1.99

[@steveseeger]

For a reason I haven't yet pinpointed watching this really made high level quantum computer understanding click and make sense!

[@RJYounglingTricking]

Sean is always a legend but here he was in motherfucking GOD MODE! damn.. such a legit talk

[@masonherlihy717]

I agree. Saw one of the best threads On light speed, gravity etc etc. the best in a long time. I’d love to Get Sean’s opinion; check it out...

[@bytefu]

God mode? Is that the one where you are not making any difference because you don't exist? I would argue that Sean is in way more powerful mode in this talk.

[@MrMichaelFire]

He’s crazy smart, but has gone off the rails on this idea.....

[@guitaristxcore]

@@MrMichaelFire better let him know that...

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

​@@bytefu Gods represent the creative force of the universe. Whether they exist literally or not is beside the point. We can call whatever caused our universe God, without having to subscribe to religious nonsense too.

[@johnk4437]

Great lecture by Sean Carroll ! 10 hyper giant blue variable stars ********** Nice explanation of Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of QM...as well as a clear discussion of the inherent fallacy of Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. Thank you.

[@JohnICGomes]

‘That’s just too many universes! Sorry I don’t like it!‘ 😀 Like this.... love his talk show, Mindscape, also.

[@odiesback]

John Gomes haha that objection made think of “... too many notes.., just cut a few and it would be perfect” from the Emperor in Amadeus!

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

I DO.

[@danstar455]

Having studied pure mathematics I have a firm belief that Nature is beautiful. Dr. Carroll's approach of showing how gravity could emerge from many worlds quantum mechanics is where I place my bet.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

what if light jumps when reaching 300000km/s times 10 as fast lets say10 to the 22 or more each time would we see it? i think we did and is what happens whene they see the atoms in two places at a time, the thing that it is is that: imagine a marblel in a band that comes and goes, you will see that the marble moves to one side then to another, and it will look to you that the atom is in 2 places at atime but what realy is is that the energy flows so fast that tou wiil see matter when it stops in one side and when it stops in the other. its not to imposible to BELIAVE OF HOW FAST ENERGY IS.

[@EFChartley]

I LOVE QUANTUM PHYSICS! Jake 7 from UK

[@Scorch428]

Quantum Physics both loves you and hates you at the same time, Jake.

[@EFChartley]

@@Scorch428 haha, brilliant!

[@philippemartin6081]

Hello Jake I am Philippe Martin quantum Physics theory. Thank you so mutch. You are my first positive comment. I Will remember. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Well put. Easy to follow (for me) and I am a social scientist…. I am looking forward to 1) if it changes our view on the universe we see. 2) If there will be any way to prove it. I do love the emergent gravity that comes out of it. Susskind is on the same path, I saw in one of his videos.

[@dougg1075]

Love what he’s preaching man. Let’s get to the bottom of this, not just calculate. Rock on

[@vMaxHeadroom]

What a brilliant mind...so open and accessible...

[@treyquattro]

happy to see that Ferris Bueller turned out OK

[@digitalderek77]

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller....Bueller

[@jb_]

9 times

[@ritcha02]

Cameron

[@squamish4244]

I was worried about him, he was so sick that day.

[@alanpatten468]

That made me laugh.

[@gotnoshoes22]

It is interesting to see determinism and chance at a cross roads in many worlds. The possible paths are all set but your journey through life take turns you may influence.

[@jigsnep]

This is the version of Sean Carroll convincing us to believe the many world interpretation. I would rather watch the version of him explaining how the Copenhagen interpretation was correct, i.e. in another world.

[@TactileTherapy]

but you should. Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong

[@bobthedemon1975]

You're in the wrong universe. The rest of us watched stephen hawking giving this talk.

[@kanguruster]

@@bobthedemon1975 In another world line Donald Trump is the world's greatest quantum physicist. Does that disprove the many worlds interpretation?

[@e-t-y237]

If we don't use the term "worlds" the theory feels much less bizarre. As in there is an infinite quantum soup and each measurement or perception just plucks one out for that moment of experience. If perception is "figmentary" like this ... the dilemma and bizarreness disappears, does it not? As in there are NO worlds ... just a quantum soup from which infinity things can be perceived.

[@Baleur]

One thing that always bugged me about the shröedingers cat thing is.... Isnt the CAT itself an observer? Isnt the microscopic bacteria on the glass vial, observers? Isnt the quantum fluxing virtual particles popping in and out of existance, occasionally colliding with the transistors in the sensor that triggers the hammer, also collapsing the wave function as they interact, however minutely, with the system? The universe itself doesnt require a human or robot to observe a state, the universe observes itself, continually, constantly. You already touch on the fact that its not wishy-woshy conciousness that collapses the wave function. So then, why dont we consider the CAT in the equation? It itself surely knows what "state" it is in, if its dead or not. Thus, the outside measurement is irrelevant, because the wave function collapses as soon as ANY "event" takes place, as soon as the cat dies, or doesnt die, the wave function collapses. It cannot exist in two states, beacuse the cat itself is observing which of the two events occur. (As a more simple example, you'll stop hearing it meow, or you'll start smelling its rotting flesh) Also the box isnt an isolated universe, it's connected with everything outside no matter what you do, but thats the same mistake of theoretical fallacy that the thermodynamics conservation of energy makes, imagining that the universe is an isolated CLOSED system, when all observations point to the contrary (is there ANYTHING more OPEN than the universe? lol). I'm not saying equal and opposite reactions isnt true, im just saying we cannot say for certain that mass / energy cant be created nor destroyed in the universe, before we know if the universe IS a closed or open system. Especially when everything points to it being OPEN (even if you take the big bang theory as the universe as a "bubble" of spacetime, you still have theories of membranes interacting or wormholes forming between universes, ANY of those are breaking the "closed system" that thermodynamics assumes as fact). Sorry lol i went on a tangent there..

[@lifewithAysha]

interesting, but i think consciousness has different levels .

[@BeelZeDemon]

Interesting point here, but it is fundamentally wrong, and this is provable through the double slit experiment. You're actually confusing observing with measuring and you're mistaken thinking that the wave function somehow collapses every time we happen to observe it. As proven during the double slit experiment, the wave function only collapses at the act of exact measurement (when photons pass through detectors,) and not during the act of observation. So no, the cat itself is not capable to collapse the wave function in this specific experiment, furthermore so because Schrödinger's cat involves the use of a quantum device that has an exact 50/50 chance to either kill the cat or not kill the cat. The cat itself does not know what is going to happen or what is going on inside the device, and the wavefunction only collapses when the device triggers and an outcome is chosen.

[@matthijshebly]

What 3Blue1Brown is for mathematics, Sean Carroll is for physics: the very best teacher in their field.

[@Rufeo0]

if we where in a simulation it would make sense to save processing power that each object inside the simulation would sit idle unprocessed until an interaction happened and forced the algorithm to calculate the state of the object.

[@buckaroo3589]

The simulation hypothesis is so obviously correct. Just doesn't make for a book or a career, except for theologians. Let's face it, 100 years of trying, you aren't going to unlock level 2 unless you worship the simulator, because that's what he wants. So be it. Fine then. It's not as difficult as trying to get my head around the twisted logic I'm seeing here.

[@bpansky]

that's different. You would never discover that. Thus/And that doesn't predict the specific way that the observed states are generated. Think of video games that don't show quantum behavior to us, only classical behavior. It's thus of no value in this debate, and acquires no credibility from quantum mechanics.

[@io3213]

I like the question about running out of branches. I would like to speculate that as times passes, and the total amount of possible states increases, detail gets discarded because total information is finite. That's the materialist view of the entire universe. I even think most of the confusion comes from the fact that looking from our personal perspective (we are conscious parts of of this quanta), we also feel that information is finite but this time the total amount of possible states keeps decreasing while detail gets filled in. In other words our mind seems to merge repeatedly towards a more and more detailed picture, contrary to the universe which keeps branching and discarding. Then from a human, collective perspective, you hit a nice middle between the two. There seems to be a stable, renewing flow of possibilities if we don't fill our consciences with useless information.

[@GropOfSplotch]

Sean is the man!

[@jacyong]

All in all, enjoy life as it is. You'll never know what will happen in the future as you are never going to know which path split of life you'll take. Just embrace yourself as the quantum observer of the specific quantum state where your life is pathing on, and let go regretting deeply on past mistakes because you're just experiencing one of the multiple quantum states of your life.

[@-Gorbi-]

If you want someone to read a difficult book you like, say “I always get something new out of it” instead of “I’ve been working on it for years and still haven’t fully grasped it”. Quantum physicists are being self aggrandizing by stressing the difficulty

[@DrPommels]

but it is difficult, and pretending it isn't does not advance anything....

[@trapkat8213]

Easily one of the best science communicators on the plant.

[@liferacer5836]

I hope there is a universe where i understand quantum mechanics...

[@akronymus]

@ Life Racers ... not with lecturers like him

[@anteconfig5391]

I hope there's another me in one of those universes that decides to come here and teach me..

[@shaunhumphreys6714]

it isn't hard to understand. you may not understand the maths of the equations, but you can understand the principle concepts. anyone with a modest degree of intellect can do so. this is a very simplified talk on quantum mechanics, but i agree with sean carrol's position. but it is dumbed down as it's a pubic talk. but you can find even simpler explanations on youtube. one good channel is the science asylum.

[@TheIllerX]

Very clear and interesting speech. The ideas he talks about seems very natural and at the same time very mind blowing.

[@rkpetry]

*_...but, everything, is measuring everything else,-so observation must be a collective, operation... even when you're not looking for yourself right-then... try catnip in your box so it's either going nuts or it's not, which is very subjective to your point-of-observation of cats..._*

[@johnnafunkhouser5999]

Raises her hand from deep in the Heart of Texas! Love you, Sean.

[@Kreadus005]

Huh. Gravity brings things together but may drive expansion. A quantum theory almost seems like it would be recursive / fractal. Like.. if you're far away then its uncertain if you're affecting anything and over time you become less and less relevant as the cumulative irrelevance builds up. But if you are close, you ARE relevant and it cumulatively builds up.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

entanglement is the form matter is united

[@lenandov]

I enjoy listening to Chef John and this guy

[@AreFarmen]

Nice to listen to Steve Buscemi talk about Quantum mechanics.

[@josephblumenthal1228]

Thank you so much for getting into what is measurement.

[@HotelPapa100]

That cat being awake or asleep model does not work for one reason: A cat has such a high probability of being asleep regardless of the mechanism being triggered, the whole model breaks down...

[@ritcha02]

Ha!

[@user-jt5ot4hy9q]

Yeah, it's hardly 50/50...more like 90/10. Unless you include hidden variables, such a string or laser pointer or, of course, if it's dinner time.

[@user-jt5ot4hy9q]

@Nick Knight Beats--I bet you do.

[@wolstencroftster]

The flee on its back was observing

[@Scorch428]

What if the cat gave birth, then died to the poison? You could end up finding 1 alive cat and 1 dead!

[@IsaacAsimov1992]

This is a brilliant talk. In my quest to learn as much as I can about Quantum Physics I've read numerous articles and watched many KZbin videos. Now, at last, I feel like I have some knowledge and a modicum of understanding of what's going on down there at the quantum level.

[@iandoyle5017]

What is the goal of your quest? And what understandings did you acquire?

[@llamawizard]

I like quantum field theory. i can appreciate and understand quantum field theory as a basis for reality. what I can't wrap my head around is how shrodinger/Everett fits into the quantum field theory. I guess they are dependent on other dimensions/many worlds, etc... but I can't understand how many worlds can be a basis for reality. I think we are missing something.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

everything is conected to everything

[@40551385]

Without the many worlds element, you have perfect order at the beginning of the Big Bang and Hence you have an anti materialistic answer which doesn’t sit well with an atheist. So the only way out is to create without no direct evidence just assumptions an infinite multiverse with infinite amounts of chances at life, hence a materialistic world is still slightly possible.

[@dnielgajdos9]

Let's not forget that Feynman didn't add 'yet' to "...nobody understands quantum mechanics" because he thought there might be other possibilities he couldn't think of. So I think it's imperative that his words don't discourage anyone from the idea of understanding things. Richard Feynman was always a great advocate and firm believer in exploring the unknown and questioning, restructuring the knowledge that we currently possess. Sean Carroll and him are very much on the same platform but divergent either in definitions or in the proportion of changes to be introduced to the systems of thought they use.

[@pauldacus4590]

I feel like he's the narrator for a show *The Quantum Wonder Years*

[@curtcoller3632]

yep - or "the Best of God Particles"

[@harrykersey9086]

Hey Paul ! Looking good bro ! Is that your new girlfriend ? She's a dog ...

[@usama57926]

*Can you link the show?*

[@oscar3490]

@@harrykersey9086 its a bear in his profile picture, fix your googles mate.

[@munu9470]

Sean Carroll is my favourite public speaker

[@kirillazarov6865]

His hair is starting to resemble Feynman's.

[@lacyhart2043]

I like young Feynman he's so cool.

[@thekhansha]

Perhaps their genius is Entangled. Hopefully it is - for our sake.

[@marcsmith8716]

Brilliant brilliant brilliant. So well done. Thank you.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, he brilliantly tells you total bullshit and you are eating all of it. For starters: there are no particles. That's why we call it "quantum mechanics" and not "particle mechanics". ;-)

[@mindofmayhem.]

A Higgs Boson walks into a church and the priest runs up and says "Thank God you're here, We just couldn't have mass without you".

[@curtcoller3632]

I like that!!!!

[@mindofmayhem.]

@@cjh0751 The Higgs boson is the visible manifestation of the Higgs field. : )

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

Beautiful!!!!!!

[@catcat1080]

That's why it's called the God's particle 😂

[@kalebbeley4687]

Beautiful

[@quantumdiscoverynetwork9257]

I LOVE Quantum Mechanics. Solving the Quantum Theory is a joint effort. Scientists then have entangled work to do!

[@coastwalker101]

Good talk, he explains it well.

[@philippemartin6081]

Sean thank you so mutch to talk positive about my theory. IT make heat to my hart serious. Sincères amitiés sean... sincères amitiés Philippe Martin quantum Physics 😎

[@lopezb]

What's the difference between Many Worlds and one world, where the others aren't actually "there". And since we only experience one...

[@ivandan1174]

... It is true: if you lock yourself into your house that you live in and live only there you wouldn't care if there are other houses... not even of acknowledging the possibility of them existing... at least just for the sake of seeking for the "real truth" and understanding that we are far smaller than we thought we are. Then you probably would ask yourself what in the world wanted those men, strange figures, who say any other things like E=mc2 or similar... your rhetorical question sounds very anti-progressive.

[@timo4258]

I like to think that if there was only one world then I wouldn't be here. Because it seems highly unlikely that I would exist at all.

[@HidekazuOki]

Absolutely fascinating talk! Thanks for sharing!

[@DarrenTAnims]

I liked this guy in Contact. I thought he was a bit unfair to Jodie Foster though.

[@medexamtoolscom]

Jake Busey knew how to treat her the way she deserved to be treated in that movie.

[@sent4dc]

It's some crazy multi-threaded world, Sean Carroll.

[@ishkibable]

For all Google’s faults, I don’t think I would be watching lectures by physicists as a favorite past time if it wasn’t for KZbin

[@poobum9857]

a little like Gary Shandling !!

[@dustin9480]

I now see it :)

[@Skynet_the_AI]

YES

[@tranquilitybase1909]

yes but no F bombs lol

[@notsogreatsword1607]

The thumbnail made me think this was a skit of some kind starring Gary Shandling.

[@abidnaqvi8485]

Sean, Neil and Michio make science easy to understand.

[@williamwilson3154]

You should see Dr. Don Lincoln of Fermi lab he is among these great men you mention.

[@FighterFred]

If Sean is correct about entanglement, I guess everything in the universe is coupled regardless of spacetime. The obvious question then is why the universe exists at all.

[@remcob8892]

Entanglement IS spacetime

[@solitary200]

Dumb af

[@Hephaestus512]

This video was fascinating! I really like this guy!

[@williamregister7720]

I just figured out that the cat in the box is an observer and measures itself as awake of asleep.

[@anitatromp6295]

I choose to believe he knew that and he never risked an innocent kietsie cat's life.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

wouldn't the cat have to imagine an observer?

[@trevorb7645]

@Lavalambtron is that to say the cat doesnt exist until you see it?

[@miashay2524]

Sean is our National Treasure