Tim Maudlin | Bell’s Theorem and Beyond: Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics | The Cartesian Cafe

Tim Maudlin is a philosopher of science specializing in the foundations of physics, metaphysics, and logic. He is a professor at New York University, a member of the Foundational Questions Institute, and the founder and director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics.
#quantum #physics #philosophy #determinism
Patreon (bonus materials + video chat):
/ timothynguyen
In this very in-depth discussion, Tim and I probe the foundations of science through the avenues of locality and determinism as arising from the Einstein-Poldosky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and Bell's Theorem. These issues are so intricate that even the Nobel Prize committee incorrectly described the significance of Bell's work in their press release for the 2022 prize in physics. Viewers motivated enough to think deeply about these ideas will be rewarded with a conceptually proper understanding of the nonlocal nature of physics and its manifestation in quantum theory.
I. Introduction
00:25 : Biography
05:26 : Interdisciplinary work
11:45 : Physicists working on the wrong things
16:47 : Bell's Theorem soft overview
24:14: Common misunderstanding of "God does not play dice."
25:59: Technical outline
II. EPR Paradox / Argument
29:14 : EPR is not a paradox
34:57 : Criterion of reality
43:57 : Mathematical formulation
46:32 : Locality: No spooky action at a distance
49:54 : Bertlmann's socks
53:17 : EPR syllogism summarized
54:52 : Determinism is inferred not assumed
1:02:18 : Clarifying analogy: Coin flips
1:06:39 : Einstein's objection to determinism revisited
III. Bohm Segue
1:11:05 : Introduction
1:13:38: Bell and von Neumann's error
1:20:14: Bell's motivation: Can I remove Bohm's nonlocality?
IV. Bell's Theorem and Related Examples
1:25:13 : Setup
1:27:59 : Decoding Bell's words: Locality is the key!
1:34:16 : Bell's inequality (overview)
1:36:46 : Bell's inequality (math)
1:39:15 : Concrete example of violation of Bell's inequality
1:49:42: GHZ Example
V. Miscellany
2:06:23 : Statistical independence assumption
2:13:18: The 2022 Nobel Prize
2:17:43: Misconceptions and hidden variables
2:22:28: The assumption of local realism? Repeat: Determinism is a conclusion not an assumption.
VI. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
2:28:44: Interpretation is a misnomer
2:29:48: Three requirements. You can only pick two.
2:34:52: Copenhagen interpretation?
Further Reading:
J. Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
T. Maudlin. Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity
Wikipedia: Mermin's device, GHZ experiment
Twitter:
@iamtimnguyen
Webpage:
www.timothynguyen.org
Apple Podcasts:
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify:
open.spotify.com/show/1X5asAB...

[@2013Arcturus]

Tim Maudlin is THE GUY who takes all the pomp and circumstance off modern physics and helps ground us in remembering that despite all the "success" of our theories, literally none of them are actually "right."

[@Thomas-gk42]

But in insisting on the absolute evidence of non locality, he mystifies QM, without any conclusion how to solve the measurement problem. It's still unsolved, since ErwinSchrödinger put a cat into a box about hundred years ago. The 22noble experiments did not rule out locality and hidden variables.

[@_TravelWithLove]

What’s the difference between a hypothesis and a theory again ?!?

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@_TravelWithLove A theory has more evidence? Think it's not clear defined.

[@2013Arcturus]

@@Thomas-gk42 my point is simply that there is an almost ecclesiastic nature about modern science, and Tim succinctly shows the emperor has no clothes and we don't have all the answers. I don't even fully agree with Tim, I'm into all sorts of spooky esoteric shit that he would dismiss as "silly." It's just that he has a way of profoundly reducing the complexity of the disconnect in physics that shows there's waaay more out there to be solved.

[@legrantmoore5264]

​@@Thomas-gk42Odd statement. He actually proposes interpretations that demystify QM and solve the measurement problem. How did you come to that conclusion?

[@bokistotel]

This is the best physics podcast episode I have ever heard!

[@johnrichardson7629]

Maudlin is a personal favorite of mine and I'm always happy to see more stuff from him online.

[@Michal_Wlodarczyk2100]

A really thorough explanation of basic concepts of EPR, Bell's theorem and features of quantum mechanics. Thank you and your guest for this amazing discussion.

[@rickcygnusx1]

Definitely one of the most rewarding and insightful episodes I've seen on KZbin! I think anybody who has any interest in quantum entanglement should watch this!

[@donaldberry4181]

I remember reading somewhere that Feynman said something along the lines of “there are probably less than 100 people worldwide that understand relativity at a intuitive level. And probably less than 10 that understand quantum mechanics at an intuitive level.“ That always stuck with me.

[@schmetterling4477]

Feynman was a joker who liked to pull other people's strings. He clearly managed to pull yours, whether he actually said that or not. ;-)

[@numbersix8919]

Actually he said that if you think you understand quantum behavior, you don't understand it. It's a variation of a beautiful Irish expression: "If you're not confused, you don't really understand what's going on."

[@Alban96]

Thank you Timothy & Prof. Maudlin for such a wonderful episode. I will enjoy re-watching many times over in the coming next weeks!

[@amihart9269]

I disagree when Maudlin says Einstein's issue was just nonlocality. If you read Einstein he was clearly also heavily critical of the nonrealism of the Copenhagen school which inherently falls out of its indeterminism. He gave a precise example using atomic decay pointing out that if you accept it is indeterministic then you cannot admit the decay ever occurs or doesn't occur until it is observed because the wave function does not describe a moment of decay. That's why Einstein asked Abraham Pais "do you really believe the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking at it?" You cannot salvage realism by positing that the wave function is an ontic state itself either (that the atom's ontic state is not decay or not decay but the state described by the wave function) as Eugene Winger showed this still forces you to abandon realism ("Wigner's friend") that is, unless as Bell argued (in his article "Against Measurement") you also accept the collapse is ontic as well (in the sense of Penrose objective collapse). Yet if you accept objective collapse then you need a theory of measurement, i.e. it implies quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, which was Einstein's position in the first place. Einstein's did have criticisms of nonlocality, but he was also critical of the implied nonrealism of the Copenhagen school (at least in the sense that it is commonly formulated) that forces you to abandon the existence of an objective reality independent of the observer. He was quite clear on this in his writings. Even as Maudlin points out the EPR paper never mentions nonlocality but instead a "criterion for reality" where locality is only implicitly assumed. The main point of the paper was incompatibility with realism. While you can argue correctly that the paper in fact, due to its implicit assumptions, only shows an incompatibility with _local_ realism, if you read Einstein's other writings he gives other arguments that don't depend on locality, because his main concern was realism, and ultimately locality was secondary, but still important because he thought locality is needed to make it compstible with General Relativity (he even dabbles into superdeterminism in onr paper he wrote but instead calls it "overdeterminism").

[@Shomara]

Thanks both Tims! This was an amazing exposition with a lot of historical context. I’m not a physicist but a Statistician and I found the whole discussion very illuminating, especially the tables explaining Bell’s inequality. Wonderful job!

[@naytivlostlastname7632]

Man I can't tell you how much I appreciate the fact that you're willing to lean in to some bold technical confrontation for the better of perspective learning and understanding. Thank you for what you do, hope it keeps growing!

[@torlachrush]

Very cool discussion. A great example of how relatively straightforward math can guide our intuition on very deep questions.

[@TheVincent0268]

Thanks. Finally a thorough walk through instead of the 10 minute explanation one usually finds on youtube. Thirty years ago I joined a class with the simple name "foundations". It was optional and not very popular among fellow students so we could discuss the topics (which EPR was one of) in a small group. I liked it very much and kept the syllabus and lecture notes until this day.

[@austinyoung7466]

I love your deep dives ❤❤❤

[@jimmyt_1988]

I agree. It's the details that separate these interviews from others'. It's wonderful to gain such an oddly close-to-the-metal account of the topic, even if it doesn't click (for me) right away what it is being said; I have often been working on something and thought, oh, I've seen this sort of thing before in Tim's videos. That's the beauty of these technical level overviews. I'm really so grateful for the work that goes into the topics discussed. I feel like I'm on a journey along with Tim. V good.

[@_TravelWithLove]

Thank you both for sharing this beautiful video !! Intelligent and insightful scientific education and conversation !! Outstanding !!

[@Raspberry_aim]

As always, I really appreciate you uploading these- thank you for the great insights/discussion!

[@radical137]

Well done! This was complete and must be convincing for anyone who watches.

[@snowpants2212]

Maudlin is doing a great public service by explaining this stuff

[@fbo6351]

Thanks for this well prepared interview. The agenda / logical "storyline" was very supporting in getting to grips with fundamental issues like determinism, non-locality etc.

[@username-jc2tp]

Love Maudlin, thanks for the great interview, Tim N :)

[@talhendel4693]

Superb interview by Timothy.

[@numbersix8919]

This was great! I'll be watching it again. Bell's theorem is difficult enough without being misled by faulty concepts/terminology -- as happens in so many videos about reality vs locality vs hidden variables. Thank you Tim Maudlin for covering it for us in this venue. Great work Timothy. Feynman went so far as to explain pilot wave theory in his lecture-based book _QED_.

[@jl8217]

This is very good stuff! Thank you.

[@seanthomas5303]

The articulation of the available explanations based on the 3 categories at 2:36:00 was super helpful!!

[@synx6988]

this was great. U did a great job writing down the math so I could follow along with his talking. I remain unconvinced that reality does not obay Bells inequality. The odd/even up/down meassurements failed to show me how it was broken. I have tried to understand this many times, so it's not your fault. Your video was great!

[@grumpytroll6918]

Interesting. What part you did not follow!

[@synx6988]

​@@grumpytroll6918 When he says that the meassurements breaks Bells inequality, they just don't break Bells inequality. It is entirely plausible to get those meassurements without breaking the inequality. So I guess that was the part I didn't follow?

[@grumpytroll6918]

@@synx6988 which measurements are you referring to?

[@synx6988]

@@grumpytroll6918 I mentioned them in the original post u responded to. The odd/even up/down meassurements

[@grumpytroll6918]

just more specifically why do they not break it? Just trying to understand where the misunderstanding might be.

[@unmoored7414]

The evolution of scientific understanding is the evolution of our thinking and I appreciate that he never loses sight of how we think about things and is concerned about it.

[@monkerud2108]

I agree with what Tim is saying, i know very diplomatic and economical, two compliments in one, maybe complimentarity isn't so bad after all. What i would like to hear from him is the difference between locality as in a causal structure woth a finite speed limit, and more general definitions where there is no upper speed limit. The difference matters a lot for the argument when it comes to what experiements have to be done.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Please interview Physics Professor Basil J. Hiley! He was the collaborator of David Bohm and his focus on noncommutative nonlocality is the key truth to reality (it's also the truth of nonwestern philosophy as mind-body transformation as Eddie Oshins realized when he coined "quantum psychology" working at SLAC).

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Interview Professor Jean Bricmont on Bell's Theorem also! Tim has hosted Professor Bricmont at NYU!! Bricmont points out that even Stephen Hawking did not understand Bell's Inequality nonlocality. Very fascinating indeed. Professor Basil J. Hiley, the collaborator of Bohm, also emphasizes how most physicists do not understand nonlocality.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Oh yeah Nick Herbert! I read his book about 20 years ago. I prefer Tim Maudlin's presentation here - he makes it very easy to understand yet it is fascinating.

[@monkerud2108]

Given all that, it is perfectly plausible to imagine superluminal interactions that are never the less local onnthe same footing as other interactions, butbby a superluminal definition of locality, in that case and applying to bell, the action at a distance is only spooky if the effect persist for the truely simultaneous measurments, and so either you measure all the definitions of simultaneous measurements and find the inequality still breaks or you find some deviation with no proper inequality breaking at exactly infinite speed interactions. This means that for superluminal action at a distance you either get a positive result which breaks lorentz symmetry or you don't, and if you don't for one definition of simultaneous events you still have infinite other definitions to test at the same point in space for a given time, so it cannot ever be fully ruled out that these effects vreak lorentz symmetry. Which leads to the conclusion that you cannot ever fully rule out locality.

[@eitanporat9892]

2:26:20 - If we assume the perfect correlations assumptions is true (as can be experimentally verified) EPR just proves that locality implies determinism. What Bell's theorem proves is that if you assume determinism you must have non-locality. From EPR + Bell, we deduce that locality implies non-locality, so our initial assumption is false. Any theory of the world must be non-local.

[@eitanporat9892]

As noted there is always the underlying assumption of science existing... (statistical independence)

[@onesquirrel2713]

@@eitanporat9892 And if statistical independence is not true? If tomorrow someone proves that nature is completely deterministic, would that nullify all the scientific progress that we have made and all the knowledge that we have gathered? Of course not. The insistance that statistical independence must be true in order for science to exist seems not justified and franky based in ideology.

[@Aim54Delta]

I'm not really sure how this could be controversial. The classic demonstration of bell's inequality is polarized light filters. Each filter removes half of the photons based on their spin.... when there is one filter. When there are two filters, there's a relationship between the angle of the filters and how many photons go through - minimal at a 90 degree (or 270)/perpendicular alignment, maximal at a parallel or 0 degree alignment (or 180, I suppose). This, in itself, chucks relativity right out the window, but things get even more fun. If we add a third filter between the two and set it at a dissimilar angle to the prior - MORE photons get through the system, with an uncountably infinite polarizing filters/angles converging on unity. Barring other losses. The photons have to know what is going on ahead of them in the system so as to know how many get reflected off of the filters. At least... to the limits of what has been experimentally tested (I've yet to review the nobel work discussed). It should be obvious that determinism is not local. One could set up experiments consisting many light-seconds, to allow for locally random behavior to alter a polarizing filter and then try to measure changes to the system to probe at just how nonlocal it is. If the "quantum noise generator" locally is flippng my polarizing filter all over the place, then we would expect one of two absurd things to happen - either the system instantly adapts to change how many photons pass (which could be easily adapted for superluminal communication) - or ... somehow the photons of 3 light seconds ago knew what state the light filter would be in when they hit it, now.... which... can still potentially be utilized for superluminous communication (but there is a catch). Or...... maybe the phenomenon breaks down at a great enough distance... for... reasons. Regardless, relativity does not survive sunglasses.

[@JasonAStillman]

Tim is such a clear thinker! Makes you consider that a physics curriculum should have some mandatory philosophy classes.

[@carlyellison8498]

Nice work, both of you. Yes? 💪

[@snowpants2212]

Maudlin's explanation starting at 1:40:00 is really helpful

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) 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 constant 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. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. 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 did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. 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 some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? 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 Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (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 Charge" 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 Gluons. 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 production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. 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, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. 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. 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 producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton 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. .----------------------

[@lucasrinaldi9909]

String Theory is an unmitigated bs .

[@mitchellhayman381]

Thanks so much Dr Tim and professor Tim Maudlin. So in-depth. Thanks Dr Nguyen, without your explanation, i wouldn't have fully understood the core concepts.

[@monkerud2108]

Take time travel for example, unrelated to bell kind of. If you consider instantaneous travel between points, you have to travel along a surface of simultaneity, meaning what points in the spacetime you can reach instantly is dependent on coordinates, if you ask about what happens for worm holes or instantaneous/superluminal travel from a single point of view aka frame of reference aka coordinate system, it is obvious that no time travel is possible. To get time travel you need to be using different coordinate systems for travel in one direction vs the other, and so you can zig zag backwards in time along the surfaces of simultaneity. The confusion is that when you are talking about different coordinate systems for subluminal travel it is fine to consider parts of the problem from different points of view you will get the same results, but if consider superluminal travel that isn't the case anymore, and so we should stop confusing ourselves with it. To properly consider superluminal travel you need a foliation, then you can only zig zag towards the future, if you take the results from one point of view and consider the return trajectory from a different point of view you simply rotate both previously overlapping instantaneous trajectories in such a way as to male them still overlap but now representing a finite velocity, one way is a space like vector and the other way is the opposite space like vector, by changing perspectives for both you always end up with overlapping trajectories, if you then consider rotating one of them without rotating the other you are nlw changing the local space time events traveled through and arrived as, which is CHANGE in the causal structure! This is not what coordinate transformations are supposed to do, the superluminal grandfather paradox is a consequence of breaking causality by design, not by changing causality with applying laws of physics.

[@snowpants2212]

I appreciate Nguyen's efforts to reconstruct how people got the wrong impression of Bell's work

[@nickidaisydandelion4044]

I appreciate anyone thoroughly examining theorems. Those things in the ether as Helena Petrovna Blavatsky called it become increasingly theoretical and even their proof in physics becomes increasingly subjective. My intuition however guides me towards the multiverse, non determinism, non linearity, non finality and non locality. I also find it logical. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with the Infinite.

[@srikanthiyer4082]

I've seen innumerable explanations but none that makes it as clear as this one.

[@fakename4683]

Thanks for this. Been working through Maudlin’s work and it has been a rough go. This video really helped me understand why Maudlin’s ideas haven’t caught on. It’s harder work for not a lot of effect. All the calculations become harder but I am not seeing the value from making it harder. Feynman’s ideas at least made the calculations easier with integrals, but this seems like a project that would take decades to even touch the reliability of the standard model. He could be right, but I can see why few people want to take up the task of working with it.

[@lepidoptera9337]

No, he is not even right. Neither was Feynman, by the way, but Feynman's initial formalism can be rescued and it is useful as you said. There are, however, hints that it is extremely naive and that there are better (and much shorter) ways to get to the same results. But proving that seems to require some extremely hardcore math and it may take another couple of decades before the actual mathematical picture will fully emerge.

[@fakename4683]

@@lepidoptera9337 I agree he is probably not right. While his project may be useful, it also extremely hard to work with and mine good information from. Agree with Feynman. He was “right” in the way Newtonian dynamics was. A good foothold for further exploration but obviously missing some critical information. Maudlin doesn’t even have that,

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@fakename4683 What would be useful is if we would finally start teaching physics rationally in high school. Any of the things Maudlin talks nonsense about can be explained trivially at the level of high school physics. The reason why people are utterly confused about the microscopic world is entirely psychological. We are spending most of K-12 to instill a 19th century (and thus wrong) mental model about the world into kids by using the 19th century (also wrong) teaching method that uses the threat of withheld parental love as retaliation for bringing home failing grades. That is ridiculous, both on the educational and the science side.

[@fakename4683]

@@lepidoptera9337 Rational is slippery subject to me. I have always been a bit of a proponent of dialetheism so I don’t know how much I think a rational study of physics would accomplish. Do agree that HS infantilizes many subjects. Biology is still stuck on Mendel for some reason.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@fakename4683 The difference between rational and irrational is made pretty obvious in politics, with the irrational side being patently laid bare by folks like Trump and Putin. That is what "irrational" looks like: it eventually starts threatening your life. ;-)

[@odal6770]

@Tim Maudlin. Could you tell me if the EPRB experiment has ever been done without the use of magnets or other devices, only the particles and the screens? And if yes, what the results were? Thank you.

[@schmetterling4477]

I don't know what that means. These experiments are about the consequences of entanglement on measurements that are not in the same place and/or at the same time. Measurement in physics is always done "with devices". That's the definition of "measurement".

[@odal6770]

@@schmetterling4477 a screen is a measuring device.

[@david_porthouse]

There’s more than one way to travel faster than light. We can have an oscillation in one of the ways which leads to destructive interference, and tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way which leads to broken symmetries between detectors. The entity I have described is definitely both a wave and a particle. Whether it is the same as the typical entity found in quantum mechanics remains to be seen, but the claim that nobody understands quantum mechanics could actually be wrong. The catch is that any computer simulation of the collapse of the wave function based upon this idea may need to model many dimensions of configuration space, or in other words may need to run in exponential time.

[@monkerud2108]

Point being, if you allow for faster than light interactions you can infact still have a local and deterministic theory. Without being conspiratorial, and without contradicting experimental results. The thing is that quantum mechanics would predict that even for all definitions of simultaneous measurements you would see the same violation, that however has not been tested, and cannot be tested in such a way to confirm the quantum mechanical prediction fully, you can only contradict quantum mechanics for a finite experiment, that means that if you wanted to rule out the violation of quantum mechanics, you would need to do an impossible experiment, only the lorentz symmetry violating result can be attained in a viable experimental setup. The null result for the violation of quantum mechanical predictions, or more generally the same violation of bell for all definitions of simultaneous measurements, is sort of a passive result that you cannot ever fully test, because there is an infinite number of simultaneous measurements you would have to do, to rule out the lorentz symmetry breaking result fully.

[@jimgraham6722]

It seems to me QED is fairly easily understood if we consider photons to be solitons in the EM field. The situation with QCD is much more complex but it wouldn't surprise me if solitons were also lurking in there somewhere.

[@markmartens]

"What Bell saw was that from their premises EPR provide a perfectly good argument...if you accept the locality assumption that's implicit in EPR you have to accept their conclusion; which is that quantum mechanics is incomplete."

[@monkerud2108]

Only relevant if there is an interaction, if there is no interaction ofc you cannot creating a non contextual map of the outcomes. The way to have determinism and locality, is to have this dependence on choices of measurements, and the only good way to do that is to have what happens in one lab effect what happens in the other lab, and then if the separation is space like, then superluminal interactions it is.

[@ihalanyuk]

I’m wandering, in experiments with entangled particles, how do they make sure “exactness” of the direction they measure spin along. And how to define exactness of directions of spatially separated aparata, or exactness of an angle between them

[@monkerud2108]

also, just to make it a bit simple, the only requirement where neumann is right about what you mentioned, is about nodes with respect to amplitudes, any addition variable state described statistically by wave function must also never admit an outcome where the probability density is 0. that is is, the rest can be mucked around with by producing many different "micro quantum states" with specific outcomes, as long as the resulting distribution comes out right. and if you think about it, this is obvious, it is a property of all statistical physics, such as restrictions on energy for example, take a double pendulum in a superposition of classical initial conditions, none of them will evolve into a state where the energy has magically increased permanently, so with respect to the micro state phase space and the statistical description we have some node in phase space, where the probability density is 0, the dynamics are completely different but the principle is the same, none of the individual states of the pendulums involved in the evolving distribution can ever attain a larger energy than the initial value, that is a prerequisite, these kinds of constraints are all the constraints that is on producing a consistent statistical theory in general, apart from questions of special locality and so on.

[@wulphstein]

Why are we not focusing on the ontology of what spacetime is made of?😢

[@monkerud2108]

If you look carefully the two situations are not the same, different experiments apply, to test the same inequality, because of what i said, for superluminal action at a distance you don't have the luxury of just considering any old timing that is outside the lightcones, you have to check individual surfaces of simultaneity.

[@Joshua-by4qv]

Tim this is a great episode. I've replayed parts of it. I still am not clear on the equality. Could you explain the cos formula (disagreement rate). Is this a quantum mechanical formula? Or observed experimentally? Or is it just non-quantum math? Thanks if you get a chance to explain.

[@TimothyNguyen]

QM implies the spin-correlation between Alice and Bob is -cos alpha (see Bell's original paper). If the disagreement rate (p_disagreement) is r, then the spin correlation is 1 * p_agreement + (-1) * p_disagreement = 1 * (1 - r) + (-1) * r = 1 - 2r. Hence -cos alpha = 1 - 2r. The next step in the insert at 1:44:17 is trigonometry. I realize now the whiteboard uses alpha but the insert uses alpha/2. Oh well, the lowest insert indicated that we messed up factors of 2 during the live presentation so the reader is meant to know that they need to be inserted appropriately.

[@Joshua-by4qv]

Ah. Got it. Thanks. @@TimothyNguyen

[@neilhopwoodsjugband]

A huge point that gets glossed over often is...isn't it true that since the two entangled wave/particles are separated in spacetime they have no set causal order, thus no causal relationship? Correlations that aren't causal, so fundamentally neither outcome causes the other. Also, if the outcome is set when they are entangled, you can argue that's local since they are local to each other at that moment of entanglement.

[@rfyl]

I think your last sentence is correct, with a slight modification -- IF the outcomes were set when they are entangled, that would indeed be a locally created correlation. And I think that what Bell's Theorem shows is that nature is NOT local in the sense that the outcomes CANNOT be set when they are entangled.

[@neilhopwoodsjugband]

What I would say is that it APPEARS that's what Bell's theorem says. But I think there is a nuance that's not part of the considerations. And that is that neither wave/particle has a set outcome until they are entangled, so they share a probability that resolves together at the point of entanglement, but that's done by quantum walking all possible outcomes and both identifying the exact circumstances by which each will resolve. So that information allows them to immediately decide how they will resolve in what we call the future. This is from the birdseye a non-evolving quantum system, almost like a frozen unit of time. It's deterministic but fully derived from probability, so it doesn't function like a hidden variable. It's local but has non-local elements, because the context for the joint resolutions must be characterized as future-looking. But if all systems are behaving identically, that determined context is explained, because all systems are doing the same deterministic walks. And with that one stroke, you suddenly have a quantum block similar to the block relativity suggests. From inside each system, they are perceived to transition from unresolved to resolved, with outside systems always having already resolved so there's always a firm background against which to resolve. But the viewpoint inside a system is just skewed, as all systems timelessly resolve at the point of entanglement. @@rfyl​

[@georgegale6084]

Thanks.

[@timlange2842]

at 1:26:46 does the spooky action happen before or after R3

[@seabud6408]

Part of my job involved running a 6 session anxiety management course. At the last session (consolidation and feedback) I asked if there were any last questions. A man who had attended every session said .. “See that anxiety .. what do you do about that?” Now I know how he felt. 😊 He eventually overcame it BTW. Being serious .. I was tired and fell asleep 💤 with Bertlmann’s disembodied socks 🧦 meandering through my consciousness. Will watch again. 😀

[@nickidaisydandelion4044]

That's what's so interesting in all of this. Here on Earth we have in the realm of normal sizes (dog, human) Isaac Newton and the other physicists from the past, we have a lot of determinism, linearity, finality, time and measurement. But when we zoom out into the orbital fields and farther and farther out looking at things in their macro cosmos then our measurements, time and determinism fade away. Same happens when we zoom into the micro cosmos. Non locality, infinity, time warps happen in those beyond human realms of micro and macro. Then it's not such a discrepancy anymore. It only appears to us as mysterious and strange from our brain perspective. Socalled contradictions or opposites are illusions in the beyond (outside of the Earth normal sizes human perspective).

[@jaddaj5881]

Firstly great job to both Tim and the host for clearly articulating the key ideas. I do however disagree with Tim’s dismissal 2:29:40 that “there is nothing that would count in a proper sense with a theory that you call QM.” To understand Quantum Mechanics the key conceptual paradigm shift that one needs (and Tim refuses to accept) is that particle properties don’t have any reality until they are measured. The host tries to raise this point from 2:22:40 to which Tim essentially dismisses the question on the grounds that EPR proved that the local theory must be Determined. Whether intentionally or unintentionally Tim conflates“reality” with Determinism, and unfortunately out of politeness or more likely out of being unable to follow Tim’s train of thoughts, the host doesn’t confront him on it. Let’s break some things down. EPR don’t prove anything. They certainly don’t claim to prove that locality plus spooky action at a distance implies determinism. And in my opinion they don’t even prove their actual claim that the wavefunction is incomplete. EPR define reality as being able to predict the outcome of a property with 100% accuracy without disturbing it. They then show that it’s possible via entangled pairs of particles to either determine the momentum of an entangled partner without disturbing it or the position of an entangled partner without disturbing it and so they conclude both realities must exist. They then claim that because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (a consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics) cannot simultaneously give definite values for both the position and momentum of a particle quantum mechanics must be incomplete. The problem is the EPR argument deals with counterfactuals. There is only one entangled pair so P and Q cannot be known simultaneously. If one knows the position with 100% accuracy the fact that one “could” have measured the momentum doesn’t make it 100% predictable (for the same experimental run) and therefore, using EPRs own definition of reality, the correct conclusion is that P isn’t real. Indeed, QM/Heisenberg ensures the momentum isn’t known with 100% certainty. So the EPR conclusion (that the wave function is incomplete) is derived from a logical fallacy. EPR themselves seem aware of this and by their own admission state “indeed we would not arrive at this conclusion if we had insisted that two or more physical quantities can be regarded as simultaneous elements of reality only when they can be measured simultaneously.” This is stated in spite of the fact that their own definition of reality doesn’t strictly cover this edge case. If however we enlarge their definition so that all things that hypothetically could be known with 100% certainty about a system without disturbing it must be real then it leads to some weird conclusions about “reality” - for example we can ask the question via POVM is the particle at position x1 or not. So the partner has a reality of being here at x1. But we could equally have asked if the particle was at x2. So by this definition the partner also has a “reality” of being at x2, indeed it has a reality of being everywhere. It is well known that arguing about counterfactuals leads to apparent paradox’s in QM even within QM setups that don’t involve Einstein’s “reality” feature (see Hardy’s paradox). However QM is clear, only what you measure can be a fact. You cannot speak of any reality of things that haven’t been measured. Or as Peres’ put it “unperformed experiments have no results.” What has always surprised me about the EPR paper is that Einstein uses the QM formalism namely the EPR state as a tool to make claims about reality, and at the same time uses the formalism via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to argue that the formalism is incomplete. But if it were true he would not only have proven a fact about reality and QM( namely that QM doesn’t describe reality completely), he would also have proven that QM itself was inconsistent with itself. This is clearly silly and why Einstein didn’t realise it I cannot fathom. EPR never made any claims about determinism. So surprised was I to hear this claim that I went back to the paper and reread it again to confirm I hadn’t missed anything. Bell has taken quite a liberty it seems to attribute this to EPR. While Tim explains this is a natural inference of EPR, all he really shows is that knowing the state of one particle in an entangled pair “determines” the state of another if it is measured in the same basis. There’s really no link to the EPR paper, except the use of entangled pairs and even that predates EPR going back to Schrödinger. I personally think Determinism is a confusing word to use because it suggests that everything is deterministic when really the only thing that is meant is that the correlations are 100%, and therefore they must be mutually determined by something. Well call it Determinism if you like but Bell is definitely assuming that there is at least one variable that is real, in the sense that it always has a value and follows some deterministic causal dynamics (essentially a classical particle property) and what he shows is that such an additional variable cannot explain quantum correlations. Now you can either take this as very strong evidence to give up on an underlying reality, and accept QM as it is (the particles were determined to be 100% correlated upon being measured because they were in a state that was quantum correlated), or you can dig your heels in and say “No! there must be these real determining variables but they move around instantaneously finding their partners and telling them what to do and btw they do so without signalling faster than light.” Not only is the theory of non-local hidden variables more uglier and complicated than QM but after nearly 100 years of trying (yes de Broglie wrote the first pilot wave theory in his thesis in 1924), nobody has been able to make it work. While Bohm could explain single particle spatial interference problems like the double split experiment they still can’t explain well spin or even entangled particles (the very subject of this video) and let’s not even mention quantum field theory. Quantum mechanics explains all these things easily. You just have to get over your hang up on underlying reality. The wave function isn’t real (there’s no non-local physical collapse). The wave function encodes the probability of possible outcomes. When you make a measurement you learn something about the world, but the possibilities are highly constrained such that once you learn this, many other parts of the jigsaw are automatically then forced on you. QM is simple, elegant, and profound but you need to shift out of the classical paradigm to make sense of it.

[@prestonbacchus4204]

It's the "sound of one hand clapping".^

[@sombh1971]

53:48 There is spooky action at a distance only if you think of the states of the two particles to be to be independent of each other, whereas in reality they are really described by a single state which entangles the two particles, so that when a measurement is made on any one of them, it collapses the entire entangled state to one of its components, or if you are uncomfortable about collapses then you can always assume that in different universes the outcome is different, as in the many worlds interpretation. Or if you are uncomfortable about many worlds, you can assume the quantum block universe where the wave function of the universe is a unique wave function which has been existing forever and all outcomes of all experiments are all predetermined. At any rate when the particles start off there is no way of knowing what momentum the particles carry because this lies at the heart of quantum mechanics. It's always the case that there is a certain probability amplitude associated with each particular momentum. So it's not a case of Bertleman's socks. 56:53 Any residual indeterminism destroys the perfect correlation? No it doesn't, the states at the beginning are a linear superposition of all possible zero momentum two particle states and in this sense the momenta are perfectly undetermined and yet perfectly correlated since each component of the entangled state is a zero momentum state in which the two particles have opposite momenta. 58:17 There is indeed a unique state in both cases and that's it is a linear superposition of all possible zero momentum two particle states. At this point I believe I have to stop listening to the lecture anymore.

[@TimothyNguyen]

Your first point formulates entanglement in a way that overlooks what the spooky action at a distance issue is in the first place. For instance, you use the phrase "collapses the entire entangled state" without taking into consideration that this collapse, naively formulated, leaves unanswered how such a mechanism can be accomplished across arbitrary (spacelike separated) distances in the first place. In other words, you smuggled spooky action at a distance into the collapse. Your second point misunderstands the use of indeterminism in this context. All that is being said here is that if there is indeterminism to Alice's measurement after Bob does a measurement, then there can't be a perfect correlation, because a perfect correlation requires a uniquely specified outcome (the opposite of Bob's measurement). There is no controversy here. Your third point also misunderstands the discussion about determinism. I would encourage you to revisit these topics (and/or the video) with a greater appreciation of the complexities and subtleties of the issues involved.

[@sombh1971]

@@TimothyNguyen It can be accomplished across arbitrary space like separated distances because the real space in which all this plays out is a multi particle Fock space in which the wave-function appears as \int d^3p (psi(p,-p)+psi(-p,p))(phi(p)phi(-p))|0> where the psi's are wave-functions while the phi's are creation operators of the scalar field. For fermionic fields there would be a change of the superposing sign. When a collapse takes place, either of the two components get chosen, when psi(p,-p) gets chosen, the first particle gets assigned momentum p and the second one -p, and similarly for the second component. Since the position space label doesn't even make an appearance, it follows that that this would happen irrespective of where the particles are, or how far they are separated. Your rebuttal of the second point makes no sense. What do you mean by the statement, if there is indeterminism to Alice's measurement after Bob does his measurement, by the standard understanding, there can never be any indeterminism to Alice's measurement when Bob does his measurement, they are always perfectly correlated. What I am trying to say is the results of the measurements are completely undetermined beforehand since the particles are in a linear superposition of all possible momentum outcomes besides being in the linear superposition shown above, and the latter allows them to be perfectly correlated to each other as well. Regarding the third point I believe what I have said is absolutely clear. Trouble with Maudlin is the standard trouble with philosophers, they don't appreciate the physics well enough to make sufficiently well-informed statements.

[@sombh1971]

Sorry for having been this harsh, I really shouldn't have said some of the things that I did. Please don't take any offence if you can.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@TimothyNguyen There is no such thing as collapse in quantum mechanics. That meme has to disappear from the discussion. It causes nothing but consistently wrong mental models of reality. The entire idea that one measurement takes place before the other is also just intellectual nonsense. That order of events only exists for a limited class of observers. It is preferred by the observer in the center of mass system, of course. A relativistic outside observer, however, can correctly claim that it's not A before B but B before A. That claim can, of course, not change the outcome, hence there can be no causal link between the two measurements, unless we are willing to throw relativity out at once.

[@ChewyBacAaaah]

Channel owner Tim: I can advise that Sabine Hossenfelder has moved in a significant direction and says that speed of light in a vacuum is a BARRIER not a LIM IT. Considerable time was spent on this issue so it's well worth further exploration. Thanks.

[@schmetterling4477]

The speed of light has nothing to do with light. It's the speed at which causality can take place. One can derive the existence of such a limit in a few lines of algebra from the relativity principle. Relativity, however, is caused simply by the absence of a background. In other words: the speed of light is an inescapable reality in an empty, metric universe. It can not be overcome by any means because there can be no less than nothing. You could, of course, give up on geometry, but what does "speed" even mean without distance?

[@jceepf]

Relativity, as the Schemeterling guy said above, implies a limit of the speed of causality or it is infinite, ie, Galilean relativity. So there is "no barrier", ie, some mushy thing you can break with a little effort irrespective of Hossenfelder's language. Light happens to go at the speed of causality in a vacuum. For a high school level or undergraduate derivation, Google a recent paper : Getting the Lorentz transformations without requiring an invariant speed Andrea Pelissetto ∗ and Massimo Testa (2015) The above paper derives the Lorentz and the Galilean transformations purely by imposing principles of relativity. Newton could have derived it but he would have set c=infinity on physical and religious grounds. The initial paper is harder to understand and in German: W. von Ignatowsky, “Das Relativitäsprinzip,” Archiv der Mathematik und Physik 17, 1-24 (1911). 3

[@schmetterling4477]

@@jceepf It's better than that still. Galileo could have derived all of special relativity and even general relativity on paper if he had known the right math. I would not be surprised if we will, eventually, come to the conclusion that we had the correct theory of everything since 1630, we just didn't know how to derive all of its conclusions. I appreciate the citation of the Ignatowsky paper. The earliest derivations without using the idea of an invariant velocity that I knew about were from the 1950s, I believe.

[@jceepf]

@@schmetterling4477 I agree on Galileo. I wanted to be a little conservative. I suppose that the Galilean transformation was so self-evident to a genius like Galileo or Newton that it did not warrant a "derivation". If you look at that "high school derivation", you will see that Galileo comes out twice: a special case and also by letting c go to infinity. But in 1630, no electromagnetism, so what is the motivation for c=finite? Also, I think that having the speed of causality finite would have caused serious issues with the Church and Galileo would have ended up like Giordano Bruno: in flames. lol.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@jceepf That's how I see it as well. Galileo did not have the mathematical tools, of course. I believe we were a century short of what we call "high school algebra" at that time, so it's not surprising that they didn't think about it. Even Newton didn't really think about physics the way we do. I find his Principia almost unreadable from a modern perspective. Maybe I am just too lazy to really give it a serious try. Still... to think that Galileo had the foresight to understand the relativity principle when the world around him was clearly not relative... it's just absolutely amazing. To me that is the most brilliant insight of all of science. It certainly keeps giving, even 400 years later.

[@monkerud2108]

I always thought all of this was obvious to people, but i learned over time that people are very very confused even if they know perfectly well how to calculate in mikowsky space. Even when i was in high school the teacher who had a degree didn't understand that you could start in any reference frame and talk about all the effects as coming from velocity with respect to the background you chose, and the answer would turn out the same. Took me about 5 minutes to spot that the first time i ever looked at relativity, then when someone tries to tell you that your intuition is wrong it is kind of distressing that they are wrong and have a degree. Just take the twin paradox, the proper time always works out in the same ratio no matter what background you start with in euclidean space, where time dilation is "objective". And the same kind of thing applies just the same to length contraction, the only problem with this kind of view is when you change points of view along the way without accounting for the accelerated reference frame. I have had quite enough of people believing in principles they don't understand, especially when the principles are right, the problem is that in mamy cases the principles are stated in a form where it just reifies a certain representation and then people say "everything is relative" and they happily forget they don't understand what that means in all the resperentations of the theory they believe in. Or maybe some even say "there is no universal clock" or something silly like that, which os absolutely not true at all, everyone always agrees about every one elses light cones, and everyone elses definitions of time, there isn't just one universal time, but as long as lorentz symmetry is there and the causal structure is a light cone structure then there are "infinite universal clocks" using any one of them is perfectly fine.

[@jyjjy7]

Yeah, I frequently see the claim that QM is some ineffable mindfuck while relativity is relatively (see what I did there) simple and easy to understand but at least the interpretational difficulties inherent to quantum theory are acknowledged, analyzed and delimited by those who care about such things, while highly questionable claims about what relativity really means, that stem from confusing observation with reality, are accepted by the scientific establishment as proven dogma, like what you point out about time. If you search for "light compass" on here you'll find a guy trying to dispell the widespread misconceptions about what relativity means which I think you'll like, though it is sad that is where you have to go for such a thing.

[@bazzaar1869]

I didn't get how 30 degrees equates to 25% disagreement(or 60 degrees or whatever it was supposed to be) That would imply 100% was 120 degrees(or 240), it doesn't seem to fit with the reality of the spin test.

[@MrFoolingyu]

What, precisely, is a "causally local thereom"?

[@nxtlightdesign7440]

So how do particles actually get entangled and how do we know that their not "partially entangled"?

[@p0indexter624]

uncertainty principle as metaphor. perhaps one could be certain and uncertain at the same time.

[@ratharos]

I really don't see why there's a problem with giving up statistical independence, we are dealing with elementary particles not people. The results depend on what you measure and yeah perhaps the conclusion is that we may not be able to apply the scientific method at that scale anymore because the system cannot be measured without disturbing it. We could try a few experiments before giving up on that though.

[@Nellus-dy6rv]

After reading Karl Hess’ paper (SYMMETRY 2022 ) “Critical review of works ….” , I am forced to think that there is something extremely wrong with the idea of non-locality and instantaneous action at a distance.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Even a cursory look into an actual textbook would have told you that quantum theory is completely local and that there is no action at a distance. So what, though? So nothing. This is KZbin. On KZbin every nonsense goes. :-)

[@johnsolo123456]

I love that he calls out Black Hole Entropy. Never understood all the hype with Hawking’s supposed deep discoveries.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The "hype" is that we made an enormous amount of progress in understanding the solution theory of Einstein's equations and the consequences they have at the thermodynamic level. It's an enormous amount of non-trivial mathematical work (and not just by Hawking but by a cast of hundreds, if not thousands).

[@cwcarson]

I don't understand how the group of 3 rows is always even. Certainly it will be even in the Z direction but it will also be odd in the X direction.

[@TimothyNguyen]

The point is that it's impossible to do this under the assumption of locality, as validated by trying to fill in the entries in slide 9 (i.e. determining the outcomes in advance). Quantum mechanics predicts the number of even/odd outcomes, but quantum mechanics is not local!

[@ericreiter1]

I do not get it. What is wrong with the correlation being preset from the origin, like Bertelman's socks? It seems that QM just says nothing is predetermined until it happens. So why then do people think QM says that, and Bertelman rules?

[@joshuarubin3684]

I think there are two separate questions here but for correlations being always present there is a theory that holds that, it is called superdeterminism

[@MadeOfMush]

A wavefunction says all its composite states are possible, but if they're not via correlation, then there's information the wavefunction is leaving out. The wavefunction alone cannot account for correlations, and the context is if there's more to the reality that quantum mechanics needs to address to be "complete".

[@david_porthouse]

Measurements on spin are over-correlated at in-between angles.

[@Anytus2007]

Your statement sounds contradictory. Usually when people say "the correlation exists from the origin" they mean precisely that all the outcomes are predetermined. That is, there is something about the state of the system that tells you exactly what all the outcomes would be such that the required correlations are satisfied. It turns out that this is mathematically impossible for correlations as strong as those predicted by QM. In what sense do you think the correlations could "exist" before the measurement if the outcome is not predetermined? That is how are the correlations encoded in a physical system without determining the outcome?

[@david_porthouse]

@@Anytus2007 When a measurement is made, some sort of communication needs to pass between the two entities at the spatially separated detectors. This communication has the nature of a one-time pad rather than a real message. I suggest that there is a natural Vernam cipher at work. I can think of two different types of VC.

[@borispetrovchich3141]

Very interesting but in the end I was not sure about the findings. Elin Musk’s Grok AI very nicely summarized Bell theorem in my opinion.

[@nerdcoke4574]

Excellent work!

[@FunkyDexter]

Dr. Bell used scalar algebra. Scalar algebra isn’t closed over 3D rotation. Algebras that aren’t closed have singularities. Non-closed algebras having singularities are isomorphic to partial functions. Partial functions yield logical inconsistency via the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. So you cannot use a non-closed algebra in a proof, which Dr. Bell unfortunately did. … This is a sufficient disproof of Bell’s theorem. Other than that, already in the 80s Fine proved that the only MATHEMATICAL conclusion we can draw from Bell's work is that in EPR correlations a joint probability distribution does not exist. All that hocus pocus about local realism are physical assumptions which rely on a complete description of the physical system to hold (spin = rotation). Quantum mechanics DOES give a complete description: the wavefunction does not represent a "real" state of the particle, but a state which describes how the particle reacts to a measurement (the application of an operator). This is a fundamental point. The notion of reality being incompatible with the completeness of quantum mechanics in this sense is preposterous, because it would imply your quantum state does not account for all possible measurement outcomes.

[@jonsmith7718]

now i know why my socks keep loosing their pair

[@monkerud2108]

So to be perfectly clear, we have not tested quantum mechanics or violations of locality sufficiently, to rule out locality of the superluminal sort. But we absolutely have done so for interactions that are subluminal in nature. That there is no interaction is already obviously false given bells theorem. None of this has anything to do with denying the result, or the experiments, but the difference between experiemntal protocols for testing one kind of locality vs a different kind of locality. The statement that locality of any sort is ruled out, is not strictly seeking true, that is only true for interactions slower than light, or no interactions, both of which has been ruled out, everyone that understands this agrees upon this statement. But for locality mediated by superluminal interactions, not onoy have we not ruled it out, but if you carefully try to design an experiment to test it you will find that it is infact not possible to fully rule it out, only to constrain ot somewhat.

[@markmartens]

After so much nonsense from academic science, Maudlin's disciplined but scientific skepticism about that is a relief for me to listen to. Good tone and posture. Far from being too harsh, I say he is too generous to both mathematics AND physics. It's drivel.

[@orthoplex64]

I wonder why he thinks probability doesn't make sense in many-worlds. I'm not a huge fan of many-worlds, but it seems clear to me how the result of a measurement can just have the correct probability distribution across all the new worlds.

[@JustNow42]

What does it mean: nobody understand? Does it mean that its different from daily experience or you do not know how to use it?

[@mp9810]

Anyone else find the ego quite visible ever since the blow-up with Kastrupp on TOE? Didn't really notice it before, now it seems quite obvious in hindsight.

[@monkerud2108]

Because people don't understand this kind of thing very well, they make mistakes and think superluminal physics is somehow going to break something. But it is just analogous to looking at physics in an accelerated referce frame without knowing you are, which is also problematic for subluminal physics, but there the consequences are milder, like calculating the wrong proper times for the twin paradox and so on. This kind of thing is what happens when you gloss over the details of the fundamentals. A course in relativity at some university doesn't teach you this stuff clearly, it just teaches you a formalism where it is hard to make these kinds of mistakes. While i think it is basically a mistake to give people an illusion of understanding, mikowsky space being considered fundamental is just such a conseptual mistake where you end up plastering over why any of it makes any sense and people run away with a degree thinking that mikowsky space is different from euclidean space and so on and so forth because when you apply a coordinate transformation to physics in euclidean space you suddenly are not in Kansas anymore. When you put it like that it seems silly but i really think it just obfuscates what is really going on by pretend a representation is infact something ontologically significant.

[@claudiumionescu]

Why does it have to be odd at min 1:55:30?

[@dottedrhino]

"Perfect correlations" assumes there are criteria for the measurement settings.

[@markmartens]

"It's easy to get out of it if you don't like action at a distance, you just have to deny the completeness of quantum mechanics. " Tim Maudlin, Bell's Theorem and Beyond:'

[@mylittleelectron6606]

It seems a bit strange to me that the experimental setup used to test Bell's inequality relies upon what I have come to call 'Local Non-locality'. In order to produce these non-local effects, the test particles must first be made to interact at a local point in space. Seems almost contradictory. Could it be a lack of understanding concerning continuous objects, which perhaps best describes space itself? If space has no granularity, then every point in space is indistinct from any other, and distance itself loses meaning,

[@Julian.u7]

The example with momentum is not a good example because the results of all experiments can be explained with a classical superposition of states of opposite momenta. With the 0 spin case that is not the case and that is what causes the Bell inequalities to be violated by QM. I wish people could explain this point more clearly. Otherwise people will not understand why QM is not just a fancy pair of socks theory.

[@schmetterling4477]

Momentum can be just as entangles as angular momentum. There is no structural difference.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

22:50 Light doesn't even travel dude! Its already everywhere.

[@Markoul11]

The question now is, if nonlocal means superluminal action?

[@lepidoptera9337]

There is neither non-locality nor superluminal action. There are only people who don't understand physics. ;-)

[@Markoul11]

@@lepidoptera9337 Nonlocality actually means no light interaction responsible for the effect. Superluminal for me means some other force different than light and faster than light is interacting and responsible for the effect. The answer to this question is if you ask another question, what is the propagation speed of the vacuum? (not to be confused with propagation speed of the light inside the vacuum) or in other words, does spacetime has a maximum reaction speed or propagation speed? As soon you understand that ligh and spacetime have different speeds of propagation then nonlocallity can be easily understood.

[@kimwelch4652]

What more do you want from Bohm's theory -- Falsifiability. It doesn't matter how nicely crafted the theory is, if you can't prove it gives a provably different answer from any other theory then it is worthless. Bohm needs to make a prediction that it succeeds at that other theories cannot reproduce. This was the failure of String Theory.

[@oremazz3754]

Great interview! Tim really nailed the non-locality issue and the hidden value misunderstanding. But since 2021 it has a reasonable explanation considering that the quantum system oscillates between 3D and its other dimensions. None of the actual interpretations of QM considers this possibility of being in an instance out of 3D. Something novel that Einstein had in his domains.... space! Its fluctuation explains Quantum mechanics' weirdness. Going into detail, when the quantum space is out of 3D, there are no longitudinal limitations; entangled particles are "together" at the 4th dimension and the conservation laws can be accomplished even at that experimental 3D distance. This new interpretation can be read in an Amazon book titled: Can Relativity and Quantum Mechanics go together? Hope you like it, regards.

[@MikkelGrumBovin]

Maudlin got huge youtubular ball's 😅 RESPECT 💪😎👌Bohm and his " Folded Order of the Universe" is my favorite book of all times , and that warcriminal Oppenheimer , stabbed him in the back !

[@jimmyt_1988]

😊 ❤

[@januslast2003]

29:15 Have we moved on from "shut up and calculate"?

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, in 1927. ;-)

[@nyworker]

Everything may be qm but our human minds are made to perceive and naturally understand classical physics. This whole debate is a bottoming out of our minds.

[@jainalabdin4923]

I'm listening to this and my intuition is telling me that 'spooky action at a distance' is the same particle - it is vibrating in 4 dimensions (3 Space and 1 Time). It's the vibration in Time (both +/- or forward/ back) that makes the observation not obvious. When we observe 'two' entangled particles, we are seeing one end of the particle with different 3D Space coordinates to the other end of this vibrating particle, but both ends are observed at the same 1D Time coordinate. The whole 'action at a distance' makes sense with 4D vibrations. Which means the Wave Function is incomplete. When we measure the above entangled particle, the Arrow of Time becomes significant in one Time direction with the collapse of the Wave Function. When one end of the particle provides a particular observation, the other end cannot be observed with the same property - like a pivoting mechanism on a 'see-saw'; up and down, positive and negative, north and south, spin up and spin down and on on. Information doesn't need to travel distance faster than sped of light because this isn't happening when we observe the same particle with the same Time coordinate but different Space coordinates. The Wave Function being incomplete needs to be modified to account for the above. It's like our observations and explanations are missing 1 dimension...

[@mylittleelectron6606]

Not saying this is you, but it's amazing how many people spontaneously solve the contradictions in quantum mechanics after watching a few KZbin videos on the subject. I couldn't help but wonder what you mean by the "other end" of a particle?

[@jainalabdin4923]

@@mylittleelectron6606 - Well, you never know who is leaving these comments. Personally, I studied Quantum Mechanics as an undergraduate over 30 years ago - so this isn't some first KZbin video for me. To answer your question: The 'other end' of the single vibrating particle in 4D is the 'second' entangled particle being observed. Hope that makes sense.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Basil J. Hiley points out that the Bohmian quantum potential is completely IN the Schrodinger wavefunction but the equation has to be in polar form with the complex number split into imaginary and real components. Also h-bar squared has to be take into account.

[@monkerud2108]

It is also important to stress that the implications of bells theorem os the same for subliminal locality and superluminal locality, but the protocol for testing it is not the same for tve two different types of locality, because to test it for subluminal locality you only have to have space like separation, while for superluminal locality you only have exact simultaneity to show that no interaction could take place. To show that no subluminal interaction is responsible involves the two measurements being conducted at space like separation, but to show that the effect persist for simultaneous events involves checking all the possible definitions of simultaneity given that you don't already have a way to differentiate between them. So locality and determinism is on the table only in cases where spacelike separated events can effect each other. Aka you need faster than light interaction.

[@tuk7raz]

We can save the big 💰s for big science. Gravitational wave detectors are being built in China and India. It is planned to launch heavy space rockets with interplanetary satellites, such as LISA and so on. That's over $4 billion, not counting other resources. For this we need; assemble a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experience 1881-2015). Use a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope and measure; 20, 25, 30 m/sec., car speed in a straight line. As a result of 100% direct experience we will receive the basis for: Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The gravitational field controls the frequency and speed of light in a vacuum.

[@monkerud2108]

Sorry for typos, smol phone big thumb.

[@monkerud2108]

But it is important to remember that even of what happens in one lab affects what happens in another lab, that is still something that can happen through a local interaction, the interaction just has to be long range and superluminal to explain this and othe experiments. It is also important that it has nothing to do with preparing a state to fit the measurement choices, the measurment choices would have the same effects on any generic state you started with.