What Einstein Actually Thought of Quantum Mechanics - "God Does Not Play Dice" EXPLAINED by Parth G

Did Einstein really say "God Does Not Play Dice" when referring to quantum mechanics? And what did he actually mean by it? Did he hate quantum mechanics, or believe in God?
In this video we will look at Albert Einstein's actual quote about quantum mechanics and understand his discomfort with this area of physics. He apparently did not believe in a personal or religious God, but rather referred to the as yet unknown forces driving the universe as "God".
Let's remember that in quantum mechanics, any system is described by a wave function, which can be used to calculate the probabilities of getting any allowed measurement result when we study a system. This applies to the positions of particles in space, or the energy level they will be found in, or any other possible measurement result. Quantum mechanics, or rather the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, also says that before making a measurement, the system itself is in a superposition or blend of all possible allowed quantum states. And once we make a measurement, it randomly collapses into one of the allowed states (with probabilities given by the wave function squared). This is quite different to the system already being in a particular state, and then us just finding out this information when we make the measurement. In fact, this video shows how the two scenarios are mathematically different, and that experiments can be done to show the latter is not true: • Pure vs. mixed quantum...
So what did Einstein actually say about quantum mechanics? Here's an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Born in 1926: "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of respect. But an inner voice tells me this is not the genuine article after all. The theory delivers much but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secret. In any event, I am convinced that He is not playing dice". This shows that Einstein respected quantum mechanics a lot, but felt it might be incomplete.
He was uncomfortable with the idea of a system randomly collapsing into a state when a measurement was made. This is because this idea breaks the principles of determinism and locality, both of which are extremely important in Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. We see what is meant by determinism (realism) and locality, as well as how the Copenhagen Interpretation breaks both principles. For example, we can see how weather forecasts could be perfect in a deterministic world, if we could gather enough data. Also, we understand locality is related to causality, and how events can only affect each other if we allow enough time for light (or some slower signal) to pass between them.
Quantum mechanics breaks both principles because the random collapse is not deterministic, and a pair of entangled particles separated by large distances could break locality. This is because a measurement on one particle could result in an instantaneous collapse of the other (due to the wave function describing both particles in the system). This is a simplified description of the EPR Paradox.
Einstein proposed hidden variables to resolve the EPR paradox. These variables would not be accessible to observers, but would deterministically and locally drive quantum systems in a way that would appear random to us. However a few years later, John Bell came along and developed Bell's Theorem. This quantified the difference between the Copenhagen Interpretation, and Einstein's Deterministic Local Hidden Variable theory. This allowed us to conduct experiments to see which of the two was likely. And Einstein was proven... WRONG?!
Well, at least partly. Hidden variable theories that were both local and deterministic were ruled out. However hidden variable theories that were deterministic and non-local are still possible. And the Copenhagen Interpretation is still possibly correct.
Please do check out my socials here:
Instagram - @parthvlogs
Patreon - patreon.com/parthg
Music Chanel - Parth G's Shenanigans
Merch - parth-gs-merch-stand.creator-...
Here are some affiliate links for things I use! I make a small commission if you make a purchase through these links.
Quantum Physics Book I Enjoy: amzn.to/3sxLlgL
My Camera: amzn.to/2SjZzWq
ND Filter: amzn.to/3qoGwHk
Microphone (Fifine): amzn.to/2OwyWvt
Gorillapod: amzn.to/3wQ0L2Q
Timestamps:
0:00 - This Quote from Einstein is Famous - WHY?
0:55 - Basic Principles of Quantum Mechanics
4:06 - Einstein's Opinion on Quantum Mechanics
6:07 - Important Principle #1 - Determinism
7:35 - Hidden Variable Theory
8:00 - Important Principle #2 - Locality
9:22 - EPR Paradox
11:32 - Bell's Theorem
Videos Linked in Cards:
1) • Wave Functions in Quan... (Wave Functions)
2) • EPR Paradox: EASY Quan... (EPR Paradox)

[@ParthGChannel]

Hi friends, thanks for watching this video! I had great fun making it. As always, let me know what other topics I should cover in future videos :)

[@vyasprakash5162]

sir , can you do a video on antimatter's origins , and the theoretical explanation of antimatter

[@pratyushbhattacharjee5532]

Hello Parth, As always, a great video, and a most fitting one for the birth anniversary of Herr Einstein. There's been a question that I have been giving some thought for well over a year now. It's just that I cannot understand how scientists were able to accurately measure the atomic size, electronic configurations, and the orbital energies of electrons of multielectron atoms, say carbon or sodium, using quantum mechanics. I know that the math gets too complex very often, sometimes even to such extreme levels that the partial differential equations become practically unsolveable. But then, how were we able to find these quantities in the first place? If you could help me out or even hint toward what these equations are, and how they are solved, I would be really grateful. Thank you. Greetings from India.

[@sitaramar13]

If we toss a coin also , before experiment, we have only a probability. After experiment , we have a definite result. What's difference between this and behaviour of electron ? Why do we call collapse of wave function ?

[@sitaramar13]

Sir How electrons motion is controlled in predictable way using laws of classical electro magnetism in cathode ray tubes of old tvs and oscilloscopes , when they follow laws of probabilistic quantum mechanics?

[@sitaramar13]

Do single electrons when sent through single slit exhibits wave behaviour sir ?

[@laurendoe168]

The way I interpreted Einstein's statement is that he felt that there was an as-of-yet undiscovered factor that made the position of the particle definite. It was NOT in super-position, but rather, there was something that (if we could discover it) would explain WHY the measurement was what it was. It didn't "collapse" - it just appears to.

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

Yes Einstein believed that but he was wrong. The undiscovered factor apart from quantum theory is that is always error in the system. The error can't be discovered because it didn't exist when the prediction was made. The error only existed when it happened and it happened for no reason.

[@waldwassermann]

Yes and make no mistake... some of us understand the why.... there was this guy called Jesus and he spoke about love a lot... pretty sure there's a relationship here.

[@laurendoe168]

@@waldwassermann What stuns me to no end is that those who proclaim to love Jesus are the ones here in the USA that are stirring up the most hatred.

[@leofigoboh1611]

Isn't that the thing avout hidden variables, which were proven to be wrong?

[@Emily-fm7pt]

In other words you could say the Einstein was just very determined.

[@jakobr_]

I think it’s possible that hidden variables do exist, but are completely invisible to objects inside the universe they influence aside from their random effects. We can never rule out the idea that the universe is deterministic, but from our perspective it’s indistinguishable from randomness.

[@yoelberhane258]

Thats exactly how i thought of it :)

[@BarryKort]

Bell's Theorem was tested with photons, which can be modeled very nicely with Maxwell's Equations. The main hidden variable there is the phase of E-Field when the photon arrives at the detector.

[@KevinToppenberg]

De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory is one option for a non-local-hidden-variable interpretation that seems more logical to me.

[@KaliFissure]

If one treats space as a fluid and the entire probability sphere is a low pressure bubble propagating at c outwards. When it hits a resonant chamber of correct size it will become trapped inside. Wave collapse. There is s classical model. A physical model

[@KaliFissure]

The implosion of the electron orbital volume creates the shock wave. Every quanta is the same total volume but its distribution over time determines its "energy" what we presently consider in the wave equation is a path through the membrane of this photon bubble. A ray.

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

It is logical but it is wrong. You aren't logical and neither is the world.

[@KevinToppenberg]

@@TomTom-rh5gk How do you know it is wrong?

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

@@KevinToppenberg It is wrong because it puts one's mental construction ahead of the way to world works. It something is unknowable then it cannot be known. If you want to use such an idea as tool to solve problems fine. For example it may be useful to think of Santa Claus when you are buying Christmas presents but once you begin to think he is real you are headed for the funny farm.

[@nishant3284]

Was interested to find some answers related to this topic for a long time. Thankyou!!!!

[@mohammadwasim9639]

Amazing video...would like to see more on these topics.

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Oh man, i almost thought u were my physics teacher

[@vertigojones3216]

This is one of the best videos I've seen about this quote and quantum mechanics in general. Answers many of the questions I had when first learning about quantum mechanics.

[@amihartz]

It's good overall but he misses something pretty important. He gives Einstein's reasoning for believing that there must be a deterministic explanation, does not give Einstein's reasoning for not being willing to accept nonlocal interpretations. The fact determinism would imply nonlocality, while not proven in Eisntein's time, was practically proven as every interpretation reproduced it. Einstein was aware of Bohm's deterministic interpretation, and he also tried to develop his own but retracted the paper on it when he realized it made nonlocal predictions. Einstein did believe in determinism, but he also did not like nonlocality, but he had a good reasoning for it. He pointed out in one paper that the reason he upholds locality because it is a necessary presumption for reductionism. You cannot continue isolating systems forever and getting down to their essential causes if there are nonlocal effects, because then it would be impossible in principle to isolate certain effects and thus they would appear fundamentally uncaused. Einstein therefore did not think a nonlocal but deterministic interpretation could even work as he stated that he had no idea how physics could actually proceed from that point. So far he has been proven right as all nonlocal interpretations have struggled to find any way to actually experimentally isolate and verify the hidden variables they introduce. Einstein was criticized by another physicist Dmitry Blokhintsev who argued that maybe that's just how the real world works: inseparability (due to nonlocality) and irreducible randomness are really just the same way of describing the phenomena, and that's just how the natural world really works. Also, Einstein's "ensemble" interpretation, while he did believe that one day quantum mechanics would be replaced with a local hidden variable theory, it is not necessarily the case that the interpretation actually relies on this assumption to be valid. A lot of physicists dismiss his ensemble interpretation because of Bell's theorem despite it being a non sequitur. Blokhinstev agreed with the ensemble interpretation and tried to develop it despite also agreeing that we'd likely not produce a hidden variable theory. Leslie Ballentine also supported the interpretation and did not take a stance at all on hidden variables and just said they miss the point.

[@santanudatta7070]

I usually get fascinated by the elan with which you explain the most difficult theories of physics so simply.

[@YgorRichard]

Hi Parth, first of all I'd to like to congratulate you for more one interesting content about Physics... Thanks. When I studied quantum mechanics I had heard about Max Born interpretation of the wavefunction, it's said that he got a Nobel Prize due to that explanation. I didn't understand at all what Max Born was trying to say with that explanation, can you talk about that in the next video?

[@maxbalitskiy9612]

Since you studied it, I'm guessing you already know what it means: a wave function times its conjugate gives you the probability of finding a wave function at that place. However, I'm interested (and am guessing you are too) as to how Born came up with this interpretation; it won him a noble prize after all.

[@YgorRichard]

@@maxbalitskiy9612 Of course, this is what I was trying to ask, thanks.

[@bloodyorphan]

Great video Parth. I have an additional observation, kinetic energy is transferred between the source and destination instantaneously in our observations. Time-Dilation does allow for this, but we have never actually seen this energy transfer as in our colliders even a Gigahertz sample rates we see the destination move away from the source in one frame!

[@aishwaryadevbanerjee6037]

Fantastic video mate!

[@brconverses7468]

Really interesting! Thanks for the video!

[@MSB07]

Nice video and explanation parthasarathy anna

[@ianmathwiz7]

I would like to see a video on some of the lesser-known interpretations of quantum theory.

[@BarryKort]

In particular, Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), in which Schrödinger's Wavefunction merely encodes our best state of knowledge, which can be revised every time we gain a new piece of information.

[@rounakrajshah2259]

Yess!!! Please discuss more interpretations

[@pavangaonkardonigadde]

As always amazing!

[@Dr_LK]

Any video on quantum physics would be welcomed. Thanks.

[@davidsansom2553]

Great video well explained. Can you explain how the geometric product in Geometric Algebra can be used in Physics; classical and quantum mechanics?

[@traveel9409]

Great video!

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I think the most revealing quote from Einstein is, Imagination is more important than knowledge. I think this is because he knew everything is made of imagination including knowledge.

[@Ewr42]

Why is everyone I find on KZbin comments so enlightened? Is it the algorithm?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Ewr42 That was great sarcasm. ;-)

[@Ewr42]

@@schmetterling4477 oh no, it wasn't. I'm genuinely intrigued by how the algorithm knows what comments will catch my attention. Videos is trivial, but comments? That's a relatively high level of ai developing from probably something as simple as "enhance time spent on the website" algorithm. But this comment was just one that I felt like resonated with me because of the specific choice of words. "Enlightened " surely is too abstract to define, but the "algorithm" knows all about my ideas and how I think, so even if they didn't mean them as I interpreted it, the algorithm knows what words to show me, what will trigger me to spend my time writing stuff down all day like I do. It doesn't matter if the OP is enlightened or doesn't yet know that they are, by their name and their words I know they're close to. If they let it happen, it will. Enlightenment is a place where everyone is under the same light and understands each other, but everyone has their own ideas about wtf is going on, and it's impossible to communicate anything truthfully complete and detailed about it, just approximations, and because no approximation could ever contain a whole infinite of data, we must compress and compact it down into abstractions, but they're even more limited than the interpretation we have in our minds. So everyone is wrong but shooting straight. There's a truth that created the mythology of the time we were in Africa, living as one huge family, that mythology evolved and diversified, but when you compare myths such as the yawanawahãu Shuvi and the Ute Myth, you see that they must've been related somehow, either culturally or metaphysically somehow. I think it's both, trivially culturally through mezoamerican pre-history, and "metaphysically" through the use of entheogens, or magic potions, as they were once called. since Uni for the yawanawa is the drink of the gods and it shows anyone that there is a truth behind human faiths, even if it has nothing to do with religions or mysticism which are primitive interpretations of such universal knowledge. I won't tell you the common name for it, but it's not impossible to figure it out. Any atheists like myself that likes Einstein's ideas, specially on determinism and the nature of reality, should give that potion a try for some weeks. Till you win over yourself and enter the Eternal Alexandria of irretrievable knowledge. You see it, feel it in your soul, but words will fail you and the richest of abstractions couldn't possibly contain even an infinitesimal part of it. But it's enough to know it exists and even better to destroy our own biases, if we let it. My view might seem supernatural or absurd, but I prefer the term poetic. There's no faith in the supernatural, just perfectly reasonable scientifically valid hypothesis. Doesn't get to be a theory or a hypothesis in of itself, it's barely my personal interpretation at all. The one verifiable knowledge we can get out of it tho, is about limits. Of human perception and cognition, of science, of technology, literally any kind of limit, infinity, abstract paradoxes and apparent contradictions as well. There's just no translation for that into maths, not current maths anyway. So no, it wasn't sarcasm, I don't like being false in any way, specially not in a mocking way. And you were reading their comment and my reply to it, so tell me, what caused your attention to be drawn to this specific corner of this specific comment section? Was it you, you believe? Don't take simplicity of words for granted, for the simplest thought, such as the concept of the number 1 has an elaborate logical underpinning. The brain has it's own language to dealing with the structure and consistency of the cosmos. Use your imagination to explore the vastness of all the possible states a phrase can mean. Miscommunication occurs more often than you'd imagine. Try paying attention to it, to how people say one thing but others refuse to listen to the same idea as the person is trying to get across and instead interpret it as they wish and then judge it based on their own idea about the intended idea, not judging by its ideal content, but the way one sees it. But really tho, I'm so obviously joking, just trolling around, definitely not talking about stuff that shouldn't be talked about, definitely not embarrassing myself by appearing to be delusional and I'm definitely not aware that everything is a hallucination and that our choice of what to believe isn't based in anything solid besides apparent consistency. Specially not aware of how besides those biases science is and will always be better and more useful than absurd philosophies. I could sit here for days trying to prove my point, that I'm wrong, but based on an underlying invisible truth. Or you could figure out what Uni is and make it easier for it to find you. Or you could even try and take huge doses of mushrooms, lsd25 or peyote, for months, maybe years, to get to 1% of what Uni teaches you in a single session. But laugh away, if you don't discover in life, you'll discover it after, when you're nothing but timeless dissipated energy

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Ewr42 Okilly dokilly.... :-)

[@vickryper6936]

​@@Ewr42wow alot of words

[@Lilliana1]

I used to think as theory of everything as something of curiosity or something. Now that I am studying quantum mech. I now exactly know how much we need a theory of everything.

[@vyasprakash5162]

very nice video sir ! i am a huge fan of you and your videos 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳

[@ParthGChannel]

Thank you!

[@anneanne6077]

LOVE the video 📹 thanks man

[@jlpsinde]

Great as always

[@alsadab7151]

Hey Parth how can I contact you personally ? Got a very confusing thing about De Broglie matter wave equation !

[@aetheldan]

Any comments on superdeterminism? A local hidden variable theory might not be ruled out as yet due to the loophole in Bell's theorem. Would love to hear your thoughts

[@ParthGChannel]

I've heard this, but don't understand it well enough yet to have an opinion either way! I will look into it more :)

[@sjdpfisvrj]

The specific German wording for "the Old one", "der Alte", is actually somewhat dismissive and if anything shows a clear disrespect to the idea of a deity. This is in line with other statements by Einstein where he has repeatedly dismissed religion as a collection of old stories.

[@philiprose5895]

quatsch! man würdigt seine Ältern, oder? Einstein fragt ob der Alter in der Schöpfung eine Wahl hatte (nicht "hätte). So he was a believer, but questioned his omnipotence; like he would feel sorry for him if he did not accept general relativity.

[@alens8265]

Wonderful dedication to The Genius on His Birthday 😅 Happy B'Day E (instein) = mc^2😜

[@frogandspanner]

Intuition is a major factor in formulating scientific ideas, especially at the creative/inductive phase, but is not to be relied upon. Einstein had a classical deterministic/causal intuition, which is unsurprising considering the era from which he comes. Quantum mechanics has _interpretations_ , which are tools to help create alternative intuitions more suited to the quantum world. The Classical God is based on causality, so perhaps Einstein's tangential reference to _He_ not playing dice was the realisation that the quantum model removed that fundamental need for a Creator. Now please forgive me - I must be off to a meeting of the strike committee of _the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Professional Thinking Persons_ .

[@Emily-fm7pt]

The answer is 42.

[@jwangosho]

I usually like your video before watching it.

[@parthasarathyvenkatadri]

Can you please make a video about non local determinism...

[@jeroensoenen4054]

Would you know what would preclude to assume that the entangled particles are in fact spatially linked? That would explain the entanglement and would not violate locality.

[@Ewr42]

In an Einstein-rosen bridge yeah, Leonard susskind says smth like thaf

[@jeroensoenen4054]

@@Ewr42 And why is it never mentionned in discussions of violation of locality? Are there scientific articles that have examined and preclude these spatially linked entangled particles? I know that there are scientific articles that seem to preclude Einstein-Rosen bridges without the existence of negative energy.

[@amihartz]

Relational interpretation already explains entanglement without violating nonlocality.

[@mintakan003]

I just realized, I don't understand the term "hidden variables". Granted that it's not like a pair of matching socks, but we just don't know about it ahead of time (i.e., discrete, concrete variable describing the outcome). As for "nonlocal" hidden variables, isn't the "wave function" (for the entangled system), one big fat "variable" (actually "function")? That's the hidden reality. So what exactly is the meaning of the term "variable"? The other possible future topic is de-coherence theory. PBS Spacetime had an episode on "objective collapse theories". What parts are local? What nonlocal? Like to hear more about this. Also, Sabine Hossenfelder thinks there maybe quantum mechanics probabilistic theory still represents a proximal theory, and not the ultimate one. She leans more towards a (still to be discovered) deterministic theory.

[@Ewr42]

Sabine? Damn! Wouldn't take her for a deterministic physicist with such accurate knowledge about QM being a probabilistic theory to explain the results from our experiments instead of trying to translate reality itself.

[@mintakan003]

@@Ewr42 Here's the link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6Xcm5p_rsqaeqs

[@amihartz]

It is actually wrong to state that a hidden variable theory is the same as determinism and means you can predict the outcome. What it means is that there is a definite state of the system independent of any frame of reference. You can imagine, for example, that every time the particle interacted with another particle, its state randomly changed. From an observer's perspective, that would make its final state fundamentally unpredictable, yet at no point did the particle actually exist in many states at once. That would still technically be a hidden variable theory. A lot of hidden variable models in the literature don't actually put forward a specific parameter like particle position (as does pilot wave theory) that would allow you to predict the outcome with certainty. They still use a randomization function. What is different, however, is that every time particles interact, they are stated to _really have a real state_ at that moment from any point of reference, even if that state would be unpredictable.

[@rk99688]

I strongly believe physics is a dead end unless we understand quantum mechanics completely. Physicist working on quantum gravity are at for years with no sign of progress of any experimental predictions. Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become a philosophical question and we are told to shut up and calculate which is depressing.

[@Ewr42]

Quantum mechanics is as real as using statistical mechanics instead of actually knowing every variable in the system at every second. It's a probabilistic model and it doesn't really explains reality, rather how we came to the results we measure. Reality must be acting in a way that produce those results, that's for sure, but we can't measure, directly observe or fully simulate a system literally. We can't ever know what reality really is, but we can surely get an actual physical model instead of a probabilistic guess. Quantum mechanics isn't a translation from reality, but an interpretation of the data we get from reality. Quantum mechanics is definitely physics, or a physical tool, reliable to predict, measure and control quantum systems, but it doesn't even aspire to literally describe reality itself, just our results from experiments.

[@RichArchilles]

I hope one day we disprove the Copenhagen Interpretation. It genuinely fears me that one day we'll hit a ceiling in our capacity to understand how the universe works, and we'll just have to accept we don't know what we don't. I'm no physicist by any stretch, but it makes sense anyways that there's a outside acting variable yet undiscovered, considering we don't know things like how particles get entangled in the first place :p

[@mustafaidais8182]

blend of state:superposition is just an adhoc the can not be experimentally verfied

[@mustafaidais8182]

superposition is just contradiction

[@rk99688]

Agreed. The very thought that naturally our reality is fundamentally probabilistic is complete bs. We have no idea what is going on in the middle before the measurement is made. I think we kinda hit that ceiling of our capacity because physicist refuse to talk about quantum mechanics interpretations. It has become a philosophical question which is very depressing.

[@jaganathanjonathon8102]

Can’t understand why if the particles started off with a shared relationship at the source why determining the spin of one particle doesn’t mean information has to be transmitted faster than light. The relationship seems to exist before the measurement was made.

[@jaganathanjonathon8102]

Does mean, information has to be transmitted faster than light, Sorry

[@schmetterling4477]

Your first problem is that there are no particles. There are only quanta. Quanta are energy values. They don't behave like "things".

[@jaganathanjonathon8102]

@@schmetterling4477 How does that explain whether there is a shared relationship or not ‘pseudo particle’ or otherwise?

[@skyking9835]

Could you please cover the relational interpretations of QM? Seems to be no love for Ithaca.

[@amihartz]

Nah, the relational interpretation is too simple. Actual academics don't like simple interpretations of QM. They like cats being alive or dead, or in parallel universes, or whatever, but anything simple is a no-no.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

Apparently Bohr's response at the time was "Stop telling God what to do"

[@discussionwithunathi]

Brilliant

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

"God does not merely play dice, He throws them where you can't see the total." I dunno, was that Feynman?

[@ianmathwiz7]

Hawking, I think.

[@baruchben-david4196]

Einstein simply didn't think that reality was fundamentally nondeterministic. He always felt that there must be some hidden determinism hiding below the apparent nondeterminism of the quantum world. He sometimes referred to "God" or the "Old One" but did not believe in God. During his younger days he had a period of what he referred to as "religiosity," but did not retain any notion of a personal God.

[@BarryKort]

In the 1920s, the mathematics of Chaos Theory was not yet at hand. In the second half of the 20th Century, we learned that deterministic systems can be mathematically chaotic, where the tiniest perturbation in the initial conditions can eventually produce wildly different histories. In other words, determinism alone does not guarantee we can predict the indefinite future. And Heisenberg reminds us that we cannot know the initial conditions to arbitrary precision. Moreover, if you admit that the (otherwise unknown) hidden variable includes a time-varying term, then GR throws a monkey wrench into Bell's derivation, as the twin particles cannot be expected to age in phase-locked synchrony as they go their separate ways. Gravitational gradients introduce gravitational time dilation, meaning the relative phase of the time-varying term in the hidden variable ineluctably decohere. That means that Bell's hidden variable does not vanish but results in a non-vanishing "beat frequency" term due to gravitational time dilation.

[@brucewright5061]

My favourite respsonse to this quote is how do you know it is not the dice who play at being God?

[@drover7476]

I am uncertain of what is on the other side of the dice...

[@harish6787]

Ye pls do that vdo sir

[@david_porthouse]

No computer simulation which merely does a numerical integration of a big heap of differential equations can ever be a simulation of quantum mechanics. Instead we need to introduce a random number generator as part of a process so that successive runs of the simulation have different outcomes. With a RNG in action we have the Vernam cipher available to tackle spooky action at a distance. Furthermore, we can arrange that a side effect of doing a Lorentz transformation is to reseed the RNG, which allows the framework of a computer simulation to be temporarily a privileged framework. Now we can explore computer simulations of quantum mechanics without any issues. It is just a matter of finding the specific use for the RNG that we need.

[@onderozenc4470]

Until Max Born, physicists were not even aware of the fact that continuous wave functions represent a probability between certain limits, not the probability at a certain point..

[@schmetterling4477]

A wave function doesn't represent probabilities. You have to multiply the wave function with a projection operator that represents the details of the measurement, first, before you can get to probabilities. Rookie mistake.

[@fattyz1]

Bell said determinism fixes it but that is as unpopular as what Einstein said .

[@Thedandelionbender23]

I have solved. This problem as a poet.But I don't know how to present it properly.I am using AI to help me with my mathematical formulation.To explain the particle wave function and what it really is

[@user-vg7zv5us5r]

7:34 Divergence numbers.

[@reshadazrof9195]

Just thought about it today.

[@ahmetmutlu348]

Actually einstein there talks about natire/cosmos/mother earth which ia a common term derived from slavic/european culture even european chrisytians or some other religions accept nature as similar thing to definition in paganism. As aresult einstein said mother nature /god as universe doesnt play dice.... And i think he is right because we are talking about extreemely small and fast quantic part of universe which means mostlike;y that randomness appears because of that extreeme fast dynamics mostlikely sensors missing some details.

[@shaizanbhat7826]

that's why people later on said "Shut up and calculate"😃. coz philosophical discussion of QM is a deeper part of our reality

[@schmetterling4477]

Everybody who tells you to shut up and calculate is simply hiding the fact that they don't understand QM. ;-)

[@bipanjitkaur9158]

Love Einstein views

[@douglasstrother6584]

Interestingly, Planck never really "liked" his assertion of a quantum (E = hf), but Einstein ran with it to explain the Photoelectric Effect, which Robert Millikan measured with high accuracy. Geniuses all!

[@kennethwilliams4169]

What is your job? Are you a professor at a university, if yes, which one?

[@ken4437]

What goes around comes around That's the meaning of 'God does not play dice with the world '

[@michaeledwardharris]

This Bell guy sounds interesting...

[@davidsweeney111]

If you have to rely on probability then you are not quite there yet…

[@LheaJLove-zn4fz]

Einstein relativity was written before the holocaust... and EPR after. I think physicists should mention the holocaust when discussing Einstein vs. Bohr. Also, are super string theory the only equations that don't overite the 108?

[@schmetterling4477]

EPR is from 1935. How is that "after the holocaust"???? Dude, get a grip.

[@sash4all]

He plays the thread game with a rubber band ♾️ No I'm not talking about strings 👿🎸 that's just a part of the whole band

[@greatoak7661]

Einstein "He" is referring to Old One. So, "The Old One does not play dice."?

[@williamwalker39]

Pilot Wave theory is completely compatible with Galilean Relativity, which is proved below to be the correct theory of Relativity. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the same time for the same observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source and been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation if quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler explainatiin explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with the particle and all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. So due to the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics *KZbin presentation of above argument: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

[@archenema6792]

Probability does NOT imply chance. In the real world, the massive compilation of probable quantumly indeterminate events that make up any macro-event make all such occurrences virtually Deterministic.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

QM is a statistical theory and not about the behavior of a (single) "particle"; the (statistical/probability) equations are always deterministic! He is repeating just a classical interpretation mess on the subject. I wonder why such "experts" do not know about the literature that underlines the unity of a quantum system, a field-wave, and not as if there were "two or more" particles of the system. The outcomes of experiments just confirm such a model (of field-wave) as the only one to explain it.

[@archenema6792]

@@krzysztofciuba271 You're reading comprehension fails you. I was criticizing neither Parth nor Einstein. I was pointing out the perspective of the Logical Modality of Contingency, rather than that of the Logical Modality of Necessity, in which the language used to express these ideas is usually couched. Do not go assuming that you know what someone means without first confirming that it is so. This is a fundamental error in your thought process.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

"probable quantumly indeterminate events that make up any macro-event"?? You only prove that you don't understand for sure what you wrote! Educate yourself on the precise (divine) post-Frege logic or write the equation on the superposition state of Schrodinger's Cat wave function and cry like R.Feynman that "nobody understands QM"!

[@archenema6792]

@@krzysztofciuba271 Divine logic? Post-Frege? I have a degree in logic from Pitt, the world's top ranked program. I'm an expert on Frege. Your descriptor is unknown to formal schools of logic. It's ambiguity in vernacular could be taken as Carnapian, Wittgensteinian, or Quinean. All of which are mutually hostile in determination of the scope of representation. Feynman is irrelevant, and Schrodinger's superpositions are silent in the face of collapsed state observation of probabilities. Which is the meaning of Contingent in this context, as opposed to Necessary. I can't tell if you are confused about this, or merely have a screw loose. So let's start with basics. By "precise (divine) post-Frege logic", to what are you referring? How is logic divine in nature? To be more specific, what is your interpretation of the startling conclusion of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus? Without answers to these questions, nothing you have said makes any sense in the discourse of formal logic.

[@ollieoniel]

Can entanglement exist without statistics.

[@ronycb7168]

I would like these videos to be a little more rigorous

[@lkw6640]

Actually he did believe in God. He was Jewish and they are not allowed to write Gods true name so that may be why he didn't write it down. I don't know. What I do know is that I read a book by Einstein many years ago in which he said that one of the driving forces of the development of relativity was finding a way within the laws of physics that allowed God to know the future. He's also known for saying something like he briefly glimpsed the mind of God or something to that effect. I'm not saying he was devout, but there are enough references by the man himself to suggest that he did believe in a higher power. It's funny how many people these days believe that having faith in a higher power and studying science is incompatible when history has proven that to be false. Not saying you Parth so please don't misunderstand me. Love your videos by the way.

[@myothersoul1953]

It depends on what is meant by "God". Einstein thought of "God" as a logical simplicity and not as person or being that cares about anyone or anything.

[@lkw6640]

@@myothersoul1953 So what do you base this conclusion on? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious and this topic fascinates me.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@lkw6640 On his letter to Marvin Magalaner in which he wrote “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem - the most important of all human problems.” I think he was right, values and moral obligations are the most important things and our biggest problem. The problem isn't that we have values but that we have inconsistent and competing values, not harmony and simplicity.

[@lkw6640]

@@myothersoul1953 Thank you for your response. As far as a "personal God" goes, that is probably a reference to Christianity and not religion as a whole. However the rest is fascinating. If we look at the purpose of the Hebrew bible and take the spiritual aspects out of the equation, we would be left with not only a history of a group of people as seen from their eyes (and what they understood of the world at the time) but also a set of values, a list of specific moral obligations, a guide to healthy living (both physical and mental), and a guide for harmonious living within a family as well as a group such as a village or town. It is three to four thousand years of wisdom that science is just catching up to in some ways. It is a guide, that is its purpose. I am speaking specifically about the Hebrew bible because that's what Einstein would have read as a Jewish man, however I think that other religions probably have the same purpose. I agree with your conclusion and I really appreciate the time you took to show me the information.

[@lkw6640]

@@myothersoul1953 I can't seem to find this letter. Can you direct me to the source please.

[@blacked2987]

*do you sympathize with superdeterminism*

[@oisnowy5368]

Of course he does not play dice. The house always wins.

[@RudiMwongozi-gy5lp]

"God does not play dice". If Einstein didn't believe there is a God he had options of other words he could have used. Some scientists twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny God.

[@sri-krsna-caitanya]

So true! Dumb atheistic fellows interpret the Absolute Truth in a way pleasing to their dull materialistic sense gratification. "Man was created in the spiritual image of God. Physics is a reflection on the divine ideas of creation, therefore physics is divine service." ~ Werner Heisenberg, Tradition in Science, 1973 There are tons of QM scientists, physicists who propagate God consciousness, the origin of everything.

[@mayankmohit1261]

First view, first like, first comment😎

[@m.c.4674]

First to reply to the first comment , and first to dislike the first comment . 😎

[@allan710]

You cannot have all three of the below at the same time: 1. The existence of an omniscient being 2. The omniscient being having free will 3. The universe being deterministic If 1. is false, omniscience isn't attainable. God isn't ruled out, but he wouldn't be omniscient and there would be things he doesn't know and can't know. If 2. is false, God is ominisicent, but don't have free will. His actions are already determined by his initial conditions. If he has a conscience in this version, he cannot choose his actions and can only watch reality unfolding. If 3. is false, God is indeed omniscient, and has free will, but he doesn't know the one true future because there isn't one until it happens. Omniscience is about knowing everything that can be known and in this scenario, the future is an unknownable. He still knows all possible futures but which one will be chosen is unknown. Notice that I'm assuming that there is only one universe. If there are multiple realities or worlds or time lines, it's still a single universe. If something is found outside of the universe, actually it is part of the universe, it's just that we haven't found it yet before.

[@sri-krsna-caitanya]

A tiny living entity: 1) allowed to live only for a flash of time in the whole timeline of eternity, 2) with a 2 kg brain and limited senses, 3) on a small rocky planet, in an insignificant part of the limitless universe, 4) speculating theories based on his limited personal material experiences of temporary mind and senses About whom? The Infinite, all encompassing, origin of everything, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Supreme Absolute Truth, God. C'mon. You gotta do way more than that. If you actually want to know about someone, what do you do? Such foolish speculations? If you want to gain education in a certain subject matter. Do you visit college, study there in the guidance of seniors and teachers or do you sit on the streets and speculate nonsense with your homies? Gaining knowledge requires inquisitiveness and a bonafide source of education. Such atheistic dumb rascals roam here in this world who do nothing but nonsense envious concoctions on the Supreme Being 😂 "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." ~ Werner Heisenberg As Heisenberg stated, ao if you actually want to know about God. Become humble, inquisitive about Him and learn from a bonafide source, rather than concocting baseless claims. Another one: "Man was created in the spiritual image of God. Physics is reflection on the divine ideas of creation, therefore, physics is divine service." ~ Werner Heisenberg, Tradition in Science, 1973

[@UnoAluminio]

This Einstein's quote wasn't controversial,it was simply not true.

[@mahamkamal6190]

😇😇😇

[@hectordanielazcona5689]

Criticas respecto de las desigualdades tipo Bell: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIfFm2xpo9Z_ars

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

This is double talk. You say no system is ever random and then you say that some systems are random. What is comes down to is we know what is going to happen in general but we never know exactly what is going to happen or exactly why. This lack of exact knowledge isn't only because because our mind's are not prefect but because the world is not perfect. Even if we know everything down to the smallest detail our predictions will not be perfect because the world isn't perfect. This world has error build into to it and that error creates mystery and beauty.

[@schmetterling4477]

Even if all systems are determined, uncertainty prevents you from even testing that hypothesis. Strong determinism is dead. Strictly speaking it was never alive, except in the human mind.

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

@@schmetterling4477 Thank you. You said what I meant to say a lot better than I did.

[@EricPham-ui6bt]

if gamble then God is the house and if god is god then then he would not play quantum mechanic and so the difference is the free choice. like girls had a choice to chose even men want more of pie

[@EricKolotyluk]

Thanks, I enjoyed this, but it does bring up some of my neophyte complaints about how Quantum Mechanics is explained. For example, I really enjoyed kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbMoYmvi7SgY7s Quantum Superposition, Explained Without Woo Woo, and while I enjoy your explanations for things, sometimes they feel too "Woo Woo." Also, Sabine Hossenfelder said something once to the effect 'you cannot have quantum measurement without decoherence.' For me at least, this statement reduces the "Woo Woo" as well. I do not like the term "superposition of state" because it is a Woo Woo term. To me, there are coherent and decoherent states, and I don't know why science explainers need to keep using the Woo Woo term "superposition." Also, I do not like the term "collapse the wave function" because it is also Woo Woo. Why can't quantum scientists search for better language? For example, let's say I throw a basketball in the air with so much spin I cannot predict its angular position; it has a certain state. When I catch it, I now know it's angular position, but now I have lost it's spinning state. Is quantum mechanics really so woo woo you cannot use analogies like that? Yes, I do agree with Richard Feynman that quantum mechanics is hard to understand and often counter-intuitive, but can we at least try to reduce the woo woo? What if the quantum world is not actually random? What if we simply cannot measure them otherwise? And if we cannot measure them otherwise, how can we be so sure they are truly random? I am not Einstein, but I sense there is more insight into "God does not play dice" than people have thought about.

[@strident6192]

let's be honest. Einstein hates Quantum Mechanics because it denied his popular idea of general relativity

[@charlesgantz5865]

Except, Einstein didn't hate QM. He just didn't agree with its philosophy. He actually did a lot of work using QM, such as the theory of Stimulated Emission, used in lasers, and Bose-Einstein statistics, which is one of the hottest fields in current physics.

[@amihartz]

Einstein largely invented QM... lol

[@myothersoul1953]

The fact that the probabilities of the various outcomes can be so precisely determined is evidence against true randomness. If outcomes were truly random then there would be no reason for the outcomes to have one distribution instead of another. A normal distribution or any regular distribution isn't evidence for randomness, it's evidence for regularity.

[@nissimhadar]

Isn't a fair coin truly random?

[@myothersoul1953]

@@nissimhadar Fair sounds like a value judgement ;-) I know it means that 50% will be heads and 50% tails. In real life most coins will show a bias one way or the other because of variations in weight or shape or some other property. A well balanced coin might produce 50:50 but all that is evidence for how various factors determine the outcome and not for a truly undetermined outcome. If it were random it could just as easily be 23:87 or any other distribution of outcomes because there would be no reason to prefer 50:50 above any other distribution. True randomness isn't fair or balanced or even or predictable.

[@nissimhadar]

@@myothersoul1953 and it WILL be 23:87 or whatever. A fair coin (a technical term) will produce a string of results with specific properties; one of those properties being that the more tosses their are the closer the ratio will be to 50:50. Random does not mean that the ratio is indeterminate.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@nissimhadar That is true, and "specific properties" are not randoms modus operandi

[@schmetterling4477]

The outcomes aren't "random". They are uncertain. Nature doesn't know what will happen next. She simply can't tell you what she doesn't know.

[@ChildofGod98765]

Thank you. I needed to hear this. My faith in God is all I have left. He is a Good God! He had provided for me this far. Faith! I’m keeping faith even though it is difficult at this time. I’m so ashamed and embarrassed over my situation. But I know God will make a way for me and my children. I lost my job as a social worker because I declined the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and heart disease. I’m on a bunch of medications including blood thinners. I feel like every month I’m facing homelessness if I can’t come up with the rent. Every month is a struggle. I can’t be on the streets with two young children. I’m so depressed. My husband passed away three years ago in a car accident. I miss him dearly. I’m still coping with his death. I’m a single mother with two sons both are autistic, and non verbal. I am so overwhelmed at this point in time, it’s so hard on me. I am all alone no family nor friends to help me durning my time of need. But it’s my faith in God that will carry me through. I’m sharing my story because we should have freedom to choose. Please keep me and my children in your prayers thank you. God bless.

[@KevinToppenberg]

May God bless you during your difficult trials. I am so sorry to hear of your losses.

[@OneAboveALL-ud3un]

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem-the most important of all human problems

[@KevinToppenberg]

@@OneAboveALL-ud3un The existence of God, or the non-existence is fundamentally "non-scientific". I.e. it can't be determined through the scientific process. Once we are outside that, one has to decide what process one will use to figure such things out.

[@Pujisaputra_]

They saintis are wrong.. god not same with all created,,so all of in this univers are created,,brain is created soo. To know abaout quantum,we must go from brain,go from univers. And than quantum are created. Leave everyting,you become zero,until absence. Just one frekuansi to know.