What's the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics? - with Jim Baggott

[@GrandMarshalGarithos]

Maybe the real meaning of quantum mechanics is the friends we made along the way.

[@danielganarojas]

XD

[@sebastianelytron8450]

It's all that matters in the end. Nobody really cares how QM works.

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

It’s the taking part which counts.

[@epolanowskirn]

No no, that's "the curse of oak island"...

[@cidfacetious3722]

😳 you guys have friends?

[@davidwalker5054]

What i like about quantum theory is you dont have to be a professor to not understand it

[@Quantum-]

Underrated comment

[@quantumrobin4627]

The concepts are understandable to the average human, you don’t need to understand any crazy math as I once assumed, just keep watching and learning as much as you can, it will become more clear if you’re passionate about understanding, I encourage everyone to look at particle physics, it gets weirder and more fascinating all the time

[@h.m.7218]

@@quantumrobin4627 Naaah... You just get used to it. But you do not understand it. Scientists have haptly described the phenomena. Engineers have learned to use it. But describing and learning to use doesn't mean understanding... Nobody to this day understands what's happening in quantum physics.

[@dougg1075]

I like that it’s a theory

[@genuinedickies99]

That doesn't make perfect sense.

[@thaphuzzful]

It's still incredible that these talks are provided to the public for free. It's almost an honour just to be listening to these great minds speak.

[@pansepot1490]

MomoTheBellyDancer I didn’t know he’s a science communicator rather than a working scientist. Very bad communicator imo, judging by this presentation. I am halfway through and I find it very confusing if aimed at beginners and too simplistic for people who have deeper knowledge of the subject. I don’t know about the many worlds interpretation. Sean Carroll swears by it but by his own admission he’s in a minority position and most of his physicist colleagues think it’s an unlikely conjecture.

[@snekmeseht]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Wow! Somebody doesn't play nice.

[@AFacemarkedbyFea]

10011000110110001010110101110001011001010110011001011000011000000011101010101101010111010110110100100100101101010101011

[@silent00planet]

these are not great minds but they are clever minds unfortunately and to illustrate a great mind Paul Dirac refused to speak at the quantum mechanics 1927 Solvay conference but came straight back to Cambridge and after thinking about how the universe might work devised his equation by trial and error that was the new wonder of the human science world?

[@CarolynFahm]

I agree absolutely.

[@Psnym]

It would be nice if these can be done from the RI lecture hall. Even if it’s empty apart from the speaker, the audio is vastly better and it’s also much more engaging to watch

[@rtkThirteen]

I've thought the same, but perhaps the workers who make it all happen are the covid problem that's in the way.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Yep, it's definitely something we are exploring. With the current lockdown rules and our vastly depleted resources, it's tricky to just keep the lights on, but we are working on a couple of bids and things that will hopefully make this a possibility. Watch this space.

[@Psnym]

The Royal Institution Thank you! You people are doing Newton’s Work in this crazy world

[@tomasinacovell4293]

Whatever they're doing they should have an informational bulletin for it and everyone should try to copy their set up.

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@TheRoyalInstitution Try installing "smart" bulbs or switches? The lights can turn on automatically, only when being observed.

[@243david7]

Not the first of Jim's lectures I've watched recently. When he resists the temptation to go off the beat with personal humour, irony etc, he tells a story really well by concentrating on the obvious questions that Joe public might ask and explaining them in a thoughtful way. Good lecture with good analogies, learned stuff today.

[@aclearlight]

Lovely, clear, illuminating presentation. Thank you!

[@ZeedijkMike]

After an hour of a very well presented lecture I still have no clue. I don't care though - I enjoyed the ride and it didn't cost me a cent. Jim's lectures are always a pleasure to watch.

[@dasanjos]

I'm going for a third watch to see if I finally get it:)

[@ZeedijkMike]

@@dasanjos please tell me if it worked. Then I'll give it an other try or eight (-:

[@anthonyheller9711]

Google some videos about applied theory and probabilities. Quantum computing etc.

[@johnlawrence2757]

Well in this particular aspect there is less to it than meets the eye. Real quantum mechanics is concerned with the development of particles to each other in terms of levels of material reality. Entanglement apparently demonstrates that entangled particles can communicate over distance without any form of material connection at any level - ie through empty space. So quantum theory attempts to discover how relationships between particle entities actually express some form of intentionality. This question doesn’t seem to be being addressed at all in this lecture. He seems to be focused simply on aspects of function without noting their significance. And indeed some things classified as observation aren’t observation at all. Just presumptions ( he calls them assumptions). We do know the answers to all these questions, but as he pointed out physicists are very uncomfortable in metaphysical reality so they just continue rummaging about in material levels fooling themselves that quantum levels go beyond material level, which, in themselves, they don’t.

[@whirledpeas3477]

This message will self destruct when you look at it, Good luck Jim 👍

[@paulhector6305]

Jim, you are a quantum phenomenon. Listening to you feels like an eternity.

[@williamgoode9114]

It was a loop

[@woodsmn8047]

There is so much to know out there that we simply cannot say what is real...yet ...perhaps we never will find the bottom..or we will find out that we were mistaken about some basic things that we didn't know that we didn't know...I believe that knowledge is infinite...everything we learn uncovers many more we need to know in order to fully understand...and so it goes forever

[@nicholastidemann9384]

You might scoff at the many-worlds hypothesis, but it must be admitted that it's the interpretation which makes the least number of assumptions while still explaining everything we observe. Opponents usually use the fact that the infinitude of "alternate realities" can't be observed to argue against it, but that is after all exactly what the hypothesis predicts.

[@Dragrath1]

Yeah every other class of interpretation requires additional assumptions and worse they tend to treat the observer as somehow divorced from quantum mechanics even though they are composed of I think there is one potential nuance in the typical view of many worlds namely the assumption that the "many worlds" are independent rather than a reference frame bias. There is a hidden assumption that the past is always definite but there are experiments which question this assumption namely the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment which seems to suggest that if there are "many worlds" they aren't as independent as they appear. These "worlds" thus can recombine. Even if many worlds doesn't turn out to be the final answer it definitely seems the closest to matching observations. Personally I have gotten interested in Stephen Wolfram's (thus far incomplete) computational formalism or rather the possible set of testable predictions and small number of assumptions thus far. The way the Feynman path integral of quantum mechanics naturally emerges as dimensions in a possibility space which like conventional space obeys the Einstein field equations is very intriguing definitely something to watch and naturally defines a number of long held vague concepts which lack specific definitions like Energy, angular momentum and the amplitude and phase of the wave function which if I am understanding correctly acts sort of like the space like and time like components of the Einstein field equation metric. I'm not fully convinced but it certainly looks more promising than typical quantum mechanics interpretations since it isn't assumed and rather emerges on its own. The less assumptions needed to accurately explain reality the more likely something is to be more correct as science asymptotically approaches the truth.

[@nicholastidemann9384]

@Dirk Knight: yes, the many-worlds hypothesis simply assumes the existence of the wave function and adds no further complications of collapse or hidden variables; in contrast, the other interpretations all assume the existence of the wave function in addition to a variety of other assumptions. As I pointed out however, our experience of reality is exactly what one would expect under the many-worlds hypothesis, since we would be entangled with our specific branch at any given point; thus it really is the most parsimonious interpretation. Also, your notion of the model is incorrect; no universes are ever created in it, the wave function in its entirety is assumed to exist from the beginning. The result is essentially a Parmenidian fractal block universe where every self-consistent experience is possible.

[@Dragrath1]

@Dirk Knight except there are no "new universes" only one universe from different reference frames unless you want to argue that every perspective is its own universe they are fundamentally different assertions. Paths can split but as a ball thrown into the air must come back down they must rejoin eventually. Each "branch in a many worlds type split isn't a separate universe but a reference frame we are embedded within. Just as different sides of a sphere can look quite different every perspective is different but they are all viewing the same object in principal. We are just embedded within this "sphere" and thus blind to all other frames of reference

[@Franciscasieri]

Hugh...

[@johnt.inscrutable1545]

A very enjoyable talk. And I now better understand how Bell’s Inequality is related to Einstein’s challenge. This is not my field by any means, but I enjoy thinking about the implications of these theories. I found this today after doing some web look ups spawned by damages caused by Hurricane Harvey, but like Alice I fell into a rabbit hole that lead from my original lookup to this video through a refrigeration patent among other things. Thank you.

[@shreeshchhabbi]

I love the quantum mechanics. It's the magic that we need to find the trick behind. It is similar to our ancestors wondering about basic physical phenomena.

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Question concerning entangled particles: How could we possibly pinpoint the location of both partners in an entangled pair? If - by virtue of knowing a particle's spin we automatically know the spin direction of its entangled partner (and considering the idea that they may be an arbitrary distance apart) - how could we verify that when we could never really know where the "other" particle is? It seems like there would be an unfathomably large number of possible partners in the universe and we'd never be able to say "these are the two that are an entangled with each other). Or is it that particles are entangled only under certain experimental conditions? This has always puzzled me.

[@mmitja]

They are entangled under special conditions and then observed.

[@earlspencer7863]

Once you make the measurement you determine it's position and spin. Until then they are in superposition state.

[@einewelle]

Thank you so much for this awesome video!

[@robertflynn6686]

Periodically we all need to do these reviews of our science and philosophy to sail ⛵ 😀 the ship of consciousness. Good presentation. Seriously, my choice is simulation from the bottoms up.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

This is excellent, thanks, even soothing. Of course I'm still trying to come up with an answer and I think there is plenty of evidence that we will some day, as we develop more and more technology, like using it against itself to unravel it. I'd love to know did we come up with such dilemmas in the past maybe even about how the earth moved around the sun. There are mysteries everywhere in the cosmos, e.g. dark matter. As we gather them all in we'll find more things. But most importantly I hope our quest never ends. Now I'm closing my mind down for repairs. ....from Ireland.

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

I like your presentation and the question you pose on way to go. This tempts me to ask you to look at two presentations I have on KZbin on: 1) unmasking reality in the universe 2) A joint rigorous, scientific and philosophical view of the universe As Prof. Of Analytical/Theoretical Chemistry, I was tempted to come up with these thoughts. As a great physicist, what is your take?

[@nothing9220]

I absolutely believe in weirdness of QM because without it the universe can not be so diverse and complex . The world would have been so simple like rock to living organism.

[@johnpark9039]

What an excellent speaker

[@viewer3091]

If I could go through the Two Slits on the Screen at the same time, then I would. So I guess the reason that particles go through the two slits as a wave is, that they can ! ! ! Its a more interesting result = perhaps more interesting / fun. I saw a Physicist doing this ( the two slit experiment ) with a big card board box out on the streets = a sort of diy / Heath Robinson effort ! The different bands / Stripes seemed to have different colour wavelengths in this method which just made it more interesting / beautiful

[@Ma_X64]

1) There are experiments that shows that usual macroscopic objects actually can give you the same image like a diffraction of light or electrons just statistically. They used floating silicon gel blobs on top of another liquid in the flat cuvete with the wall with two gaps. 2) Why EM field described as a matter? Actually "field" appeared first as a process. Like a wind. 3) If you do not know something then you just do not know. Superposition story is not needed. You just have no rights to describe things you do not know. Only one type of really quantum object I know. It's socks. When you take both of them then it's in superposition of left/right, but when you just decide that THIS one must be left one then another one immiditely goes to be right and vise versa.

[@AnexoRialto]

Thanks for a fascinating lecture.

[@KurtDonkers]

I dont understand all the fuzz about the collapsing wave function. If its just a probabilty function describing the path of electrons then each follows that function and gives an outcome. No one talks about collapsing a probability function, when you throw a die and it rolls three.

[@kierenmoore3236]

William White - The outcome of the dice roll is determined, I’d suggest; but not readily or reliably predictable at all - at least, not by mere mortals like us (ie us non-Laplace Demon types ...) ... ... ... if we can’t readily do this with a dice, what makes us think we can accurately perceive/measure/interpret much the same/these experiments with photons and/or electrons ... ?!?!!! 🧐

[@kierenmoore3236]

William White ... There is no such thing as “random”; only ‘not readily predictable’. I agree that the dice roll is not random; what made you think I don’t ... ?!!

[@kierenmoore3236]

William White ... Stochastic (or seemingly random) is not random ... just not readily predictable.

[@freakazoid115]

Even "observing" costs energy...

[@iangriffiths9840]

Someone asked me what is my faith, I replied science. They were confused because as they said "that changes". My reply was yes but we get a better understanding as time continues. I have an engineering background, although switched to IT, for me the "Boat of Engineering" parallels the "Ship of Science", we continually move from things that appear to work to new ideas which might work. A classic for me is Fluid Mechanics, a set of equations which nearly predict behaviour but can be modified with "adjustment" factors to give a close enough approximation to be useful. Will we ever fully understand, does it matter?

[@LuckyPig]

You could elaborate: the scientific conclusions may change as our understanding of the world deepens, not the principles of science and your trust in it.

[@Hoscitt]

Nice sentiment, but it is not a faith! By definition! 😁

[@KerbalSpacey]

For them to be confused would imply that they feel faith doesn't evolve or change and is absolute. I don't know anyone that thinks that way, not even religious folk.

[@Luftbubblan]

27:09 Acoustic radiation

[@mikkel715]

Greatly admire this speech. Can you make a speech about Quantum Weak measurements? (Thank you)

[@George4943]

The quanta of photons are due to the distinct energy levels an electron may take on. A photon is nature's way of taking a quantum of energy from one atom to another. That photon takes all paths it could take to get from origin to destination weighted by probability. (We love all people weighted by consanguinity and distance.) Massless motion of energy all wrapped up by QED. Masses and electromagnetism and decay all complicate the possible paths. In the cat situation there is always just one cat because of all the decoherence interactions happening continuously at the quantum level. All the masses, charges and decay, not only the experimental decay. And all that energy moving from here to there as heat photons. The cat is bathed in observing photons long before the box is opened.

[@troylatterell]

Yes totally agree the "observer" is not intellectual. Ive thought that was always the case.... don't see it is having to be intelligent. The Observer in Schroedingers cat is the "rest of the world"... the atoms of the box where the cat decays, the oxygen atoms the cat is breathing, even the electrons that make up the oxygen atoms the cat is breathing. I do think there's a misunderstanding because the word "observer" can easily be erroneously thought to be a person and I don't believe that's what's meant at all.

[@troylatterell]

And I've always considered the heart of uncertainty principle lives in that fact. That uncertainty is true, until it interacts with something. It stands to reason you cannot know almost anything... and its truly nothing can be known. Nothing can be known about an electron/wave/particle, Until you have an interaction with something else. And that "something else" - is anything.... any Observer - any other quanta of energy that interacts, any photon that's given off for an instrument to detect, any particle/wave touches it , or any quantum field even it might interact with. Then once "anything occurs", can reveal a velocity, spin, field strength or any fact we can measure. But is it REALLY true then, that we don't think its "REAL" until its measured? Or is it - it doesn't matter that its matter/real until we measure it? I actually think those two ideas are different. Just because we don't know how to measure it or see it , doesn't mean it isn't real and its a nebulous Wave Function... does it??.... And I acknowledge there could be an experiment or a mathematical theorem/explanation that I've missed that says otherwise. If there is something please let me know.. Doesn't it feel like back in the day of Atoms are the smallest thing?? (.... because we can't measure any lesser thing)??

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

I see you do the "I give up" Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) jab at Sean Carroll. I think the Evererettian view is merely an objectively simple interpretation of the Schrödinger equation, and as such makes no assumption about what happens to the wave and it's "supposed collapse".

[@Mark-lv1ub]

Concerning Schrodinger's cat, or any cat placed in a box: one may at all times know if it is alive or dead. If the cat is alive you will hear a continual screaming whine, and observe the box tumbling one side to the next, traveling across the room. I have empirical and first hand knowledge of this.

[@schmetterling4477]

Schroedinger's cat is a good proof that cats are the better people. ;-)

[@NoLuv4Hoz]

I enjoyed this talk except for the dismissive stance toward the many worlds interpretation towards the end. While its perfectly fine to disagree with many worlds, I was expecting a rational basis for the disagreement, aside from simply not liking it. Otherwise, the stance comes across like an irrational disbelief, which is too similar to an irrational belief for my liking.

[@diwitdharpatitripathi7427]

Quantum mechanics. Theory, meaning, workings and the future applications.

[@williamberkley9581]

Quantum physics, to me, proves we are living a simulation that is not modelling individual specific particles until it needs to, due to optimisation issues.

[@williamberkley9581]

In addition Planke identifies the resolution of the simulation, and C the clock speed of the simulation.

[@constpegasus]

Thank you for this video sir.

[@aleksandarignjatovic3130]

What is the name of the script font you used for quoting the physicists?

[@rockyfjord3753]

If an electron spinning created a vortex, then it would be spinning counterclockwise when viewed from above, and counterclockwise when viewed from below, though the vortex is spinning the same.

[@oremazz3754]

Maybe the wave-particle duality is not the two roles of one entity, but two entities that coexist together as said in this book at amazon: Space, main actor of quantum and relativistic theories... I'll appreciate any comment can you give.... your video is a very good historic review with lots of philosophical implications, thanks Jim

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no such thing as wave-particle duality. That's just another nonsensical remnant from science history like the aether and the phlogiston.

[@benkusworl4934]

he really is confident in knowing what other people may have thought^^

[@silent00planet]

clever people like Jim would be the first to admit that they lack what people such as Einstein Dirac schroedinger planck heisenberg ......

[@perennialbeachcomber.7518]

Great explanations in plain English!

[@mattmcclure6352]

there is a second hypothesis that is much harder without physical diagrams "Oscillating charge boson wave-particle effect" one boson that looks like two that flip "up" and "down" rotation depending on which side of the waveform it has passes "through" before it ends up riding on one side to settle in one reality. it appears to be TWO "paired" particles with opposite charges to each other but is actually one particle oscillating from one side of a wave to the other changing its up/down rotation until the wave energy starts to collapse and it no longer can pass through the looping due to distortion of the shape of the holes it exploited. a flat field's holes change shape as the field is distorted or is in waveform (creating an opportunity to pass through the middle of the waveform in a straight line until the waveform collapses) trapping the particle on one or the other side (toss a coin) also required that space is a "physical" form and quantum.

[@mattmcclure6352]

Tachyon (it is not inhibited by the speed of the wave) but rather passes through the waves, when the wave is a very specific high frequency because the looping is nearly aligned at 180 degrees up and down like folded paper (like a pin poked through tightly folded paper or compressed "physical" time)

[@mattmcclure6352]

one particle that looks like two particles - because it is observed in "two states" at very "similar" times - but not the exact "Same" time. the one particle changes its spin and polarity which depends on what side of the folded wavelength (boson field) it is passing to gaining protons on one side and ejecting them to enter the other side (casting protons outward) each time it renters the other side of the boson field (and changes charge and polarity again) like and motor casting off electricity each time it changes polarity (protons)

[@mattmcclure6352]

if you take a piece of paper (one side white and the other colored black) positive and negatively charged and you fold a piece of paper 8 times inter ribs (what we used to make as a fan in class as children) and then you compress the folds tightly together and push a pin all the way through it - what side of the page is the pin on? if a particle can pass through a waveform could it not also oscillate its polarity on each side if the field has opposite charges on each of its sides? One "oscillating particle" appearing at microscopic variations in time to be two particles. with different polarity AND slightly different weight as a Higg's Boson can even collect mass on one side of the field but maybe not the other as its body also ejects these protons before passing to the other side.

[@mattmcclure6352]

the distance doesn't matter because it is by which side of the field it is on that matters and no two similar particles can exist on the same field (as the field detects it and ejects it to the other side of the field to reverse its charge) there are not 4 ...there are two that can not occupy the same side with the same charge at the same time. when the particle passes to the opposite charge the looping domino effects until ejecting the particle to the opposite side and then the reverse ...back and forth like an engine or motor piston into matter or anti-matter the field can not maintain both at the same time because the interlocked looping shifts it's charge/polarity BECAUSE mass came in contact with it starting a chain reaction toward the second particle ejecting IT from this side of the field and the same happens to the two particles on the negative side that can't be the same charge, so what is happening is these two particles are occupying four space at nearly the same time but not quite simultaneously - they move back and forth so fast it is virtually undetectable. We can only get ONE measurement of its superposition at the singular time we measure it. a fraction of a moment later it is the opposite and in a different reality.

[@mattmcclure6352]

faster than light actually. tachyon as it is not inhibited y the "physical" restraints of space as well causing a double image

[@soultrap8554]

The glass of wine was a good idea however my head melted not long after the 2 slit experiment, which while seeming random at the start was very much not so at the experiment's end. How can this be so and what forces determine this outcome? It's like a glimpse out of a periscope on the yellow submarine. All is truly not as it seems:)

[@pinchmesh8642]

We have always assumed that our world is rational. Tis a good assumption, and has allowed mankind to control our world. It's the other assumptions that get us into trouble, lost, and without answers that work. Sometimes , assumptions are emotions, which have nothing to do with rationality. The results aren't what we expect, or want, or need. Albert was my kinda guy. No dice, especially at a casino. If research results aren't what you'd consistently expect, then all you need to do is change your expectations until they fit. Simple. It works. NOW, oh sports fans, all you need to do is figure out WHY. What assumptions are wrong. Personally, I think Mendel and his peas started this method, for which he never got credit.. He got credit for the genetic discoveries only, when he came up with a new method to determine cause. The closest we've ever come to saying this, is to say which results an experiment gives does not matter.

[@JackAdrianZappa]

17:56 I think you mean *Neo* first being exposed to a computer simulation (in which he's aware of).

[@alcirvogel8672]

Thank you! Best Lessons! Dr. Alcir Vogel, Ms.C

[@billymania11]

Me and TIQM and the wine are feeling mellow.

[@Zorlof]

Apparently it is possible for the universe to exist with one electron only and that it can go backwards in time as a positron. We need to collide a positron with an electron to find out for sure. :) ..but that might break the universe… hmm on second thought..

[@kurtcarbine9678]

The inteferance pattern show there is something there we can not detect ? Example dark energy dark matter magnatite magnesium

[@nathanielblair6466]

from my computational understanding of reality, I know that waveforms do not affect reality directly - just like a lazr cannot make the cat chase it always, or a light beam can cast physical images into being by 'etching' out a figment from silver powdr....

[@schmetterling4477]

Except that reality is not a computation. Computations have a predetermined outcome, reality does not. ;-)

[@snekmeseht]

That was very very good. Next time we meet in a bar, I want to buy you a beer. To me, it does seem that these days theoretical physics is dancing precariously closely to Charybdis.

[@adamgoodwin8116]

As an interested bystander watching Quantum Mechanics; what would be the path of the math's I would need to gain a better understanding? Starting from the first year university level. Thanks!

[@DaKoopaKing]

The Q&A link is to the wrong video

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Grbleghblurgh. Fixed!

[@aedanmckee8698]

Thanks for the video

[@davidcowins3467]

If the initial arc of the electron happens to allow by chance to get through the slot. but has anybody measured how many electrons hit the wall outside the slots. MAYBE all PARTICLES TRAVEL IN A WAVE BUT WHEN STOPPED THEY BEcOME.

[@danielash1704]

When A.I.learning watching the pattern with a human watching as well it says it refractive when it watch's without a human it says opposite mirrored pattern. But A.I.learning also had watched and said alinementals patterned .so it truely is a strange tests.

[@danielmanahan692]

Learning about quantum mecatics and Schrodinger's Cat Litter Box as the cat poop is both buried and not buried at the same time.

[@Atmanyatri]

Very interesting and uncanny. Thank you very much

[@rc5989]

I enjoyed watching Jim live via the free registration, and I enjoyed it again just now. Great stuff!

[@MrSigmaSharp]

The remote world is a fun world to see. A world where real state means nothing. We all can enjoy RI lectures equally wherever we are

[@KipIngram]

54:31 - Thank you; I completely agree re: Many Worlds. I think most people who advocate it haven't actually thought its ramifications through completely.

[@ajosin]

Many Worlds is my favorite. Have you seen Sean Carroll's talks on it? Pretty convincing arguments to supporting the Many Worlds interpretation.

[@nHans]

Ironically, dice rolls, coin tosses, and roulette spins are deterministic physical events. And yet they're used by everyone-including physicists who should know better-as metaphors for probabilistic and stochastic phenomena. No wonder people are confused and hate the smug experts!

[@TheAlison1456]

What do you mean they're deterministic? That the coin you toss will necessarily be, for example, heads next time you toss it? Or that the conditions that caused so are simulatable?

[@tbirch55]

Final theories, with principles that cannot be explained by other principles, is fundamental to a contemporary Aristotlean conception of science. For Aristotle, each science has its unquestionable foundations. Aristotlean physics, for example, assumes that what he called mobile (i.e., changeable)l matter exists. So Wienberg's idea of what a final theory would look like seems correct in this sense. We are not at the end of quantum physics, and it may even be that some other science will be foundational to the explanation of what we now call physics.

[@aikhengchng9320]

I just realized I'm the 1000th like!

[@justadam1917]

I wonder if a particle could Flicker between up and down States

[@justadam1917]

Just something I saw recently about biology and jeans flickering between states to influence characteristics like blue eyes brown hair etc etc etc and the incidence of these changes is influenced buy the gene pool that can be drawn upon I suppose if everything started with a 50/50 chance success and failure would influence the gene pool and that might carry forward a blueprint for success I wonder but then I have a lot of time on my hands to do just that

[@Commander_ZiN]

Why do you have to be anti-realist or realist, can the answer lie somewhere in between. Can't the wave function not be real but be describing something that is real that we don't yet understand?

[@samuelj.rivard]

cant wait to see all conspirationist freaking out when they see Wheeler's 'Great Smoky Dragon' " its the body of he devil!' to our pitchfork! xD

[@jimjenke3661]

I think Phillip K. got it "spot on"!

[@asswhole4195]

His book is really good, you should check it out.

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Great review!

[@Apollyon-sz9sn]

I believe Donald Hoffmans interpretation.

[@Sagittarius-A-Star]

I have to admit that I stopped watching at 13:03 because the double slit part lacked the information that the outcome of the experiment depends on whether or not you are measuring through which slit an object passes. No measurement: Interference. Otherwise: Just two lines. *headache*

[@openyoureyesandseethefutur5802]

this guy Jim Baggott, wow, describes the quantum mumble jumble world about as well as you possibly can, super job, should get a noble prize just for attempting to make it , understandable......

[@hackerhesays731]

Geoff burbridge, fowler and hoyle

[@jonathanjollimore4794]

Need a new word quantum selection and we help select if I am right life in not just humans that's profound

[@nonoDIY]

Thank you it is very interesting.

[@tuberyou1149]

Reality. Because real things.

[@utki17]

in another world they already know the answers

[@0.618-0]

Funny that, how electromagnetic waves brought this theory to collapse on my screen and entangle my neurons in a quantum dance of ponder wonder.

[@hlr3932]

Well, what Einstein said about reality “merely an illusion but a persistent one” is but a reframing of the same concept propounded millenenia ago by Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism as it is called by others) as Maya!!

[@hackerhesays731]

Planetx, 411Rx,teleflora

[@KerbalSpacey]

Whenever I see anything about the double slit experiment I always ask myself why they jumped to such a strange conclusion purely based on the fact it created a *similar* pattern a wave would if sent through slits. If I shoot electrons at a target one at a time and don't hit the same spot then it's most likely just an inaccurate gun, no? If I then introduce a wall with some slits notched in it between the gun and target then shoot a large number of electrons inaccurately then it makes sense they would create a similar pattern as a wave would because the instrument wasn't accurate to begin with plus the slits would create dead zones on the target where it would be almost impossible for the electrons to strike, basically what the demonstration showed around 8:00. That's what I would expect to see if I shot electrons through slits at a target inaccurately.

[@ralfsteiner7751]

Take your gun and shoot at two slits. Do you see an interference pattern? No? Do you know how interference looks like? No? Then watch the video once again or go to sleep!

[@KerbalSpacey]

@@ralfsteiner7751 I understand everything about it Ralf, and if I shot enough times then an interference pattern would show due to my inaccuracy and the slits creating deadzones on the target. Edit: unless of course I achieved 100% accuracy on each shot and the plate/device measuring it was also 100% accurate.

[@ralfsteiner7751]

@@KerbalSpacey Sorry, you didn't understand even the basics if you talk about "accuracy" and "deadzones". You can see an interference pattern created with a gun only if you have vision problems.

[@KerbalSpacey]

@@ralfsteiner7751 i see one at 8:00 made with a gun

[@Rattus-Norvegicus]

@@KerbalSpacey While I won't be as rude as Ralf, I will say they are correct. You are misunderstanding the information being presented. I would suggest searching for more videos that explain the double-slit experiment and its conclusions in more detail. I will also say that as a target shooter myself, if you shot through a target with 2 openings you would end up with 2 groupings on the wall behind. The double-slit experiment produces multiple groupings, some directly behind the blocked off portions of wall, which couldn't happen unless you were curving bullets.

[@ragevsraid7703]

perfect

[@charlestaylor3195]

In the future there's no need to have your face in the corner of the screen. The audio is about 2 seconds ahead of your picture. Having the audio and visual off just makes it an annoying distraction, but please don't take offense you look fine, it's just harder to pay attention. Thank you for expressing this as your opinion because most don't, and we are left to assume their beliefs are facts. Again, we shouldn't assume. Thank you.

[@imgn8r715]

A man is searching for his keys under a street light and a good samaritan stops to help him. After a while, the distraught samaritan asks the man, "Are you sure you dropped your keys here?" The man replies, "No, I dropped them in that dark corner over there but I am searching here because it is well lit here with the streetlight." When the concept of living in a simulation is discarded upfront, simply because the 'naive realism' realm is more pragmatic to explore, aren't we being like the man in the fable above searching for answers in the wrong place?

[@PatiparnPojanart]

I luv this vid

[@michaelelbert5798]

It's amazing how even the experts don't understand how many ways can cause a collapse.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no such thing as collapse. There are only people who don't understand physics. ;-)

[@michaelelbert5798]

@@schmetterling4477 yeah actually light remains a wave until all it's energy is turned into information by every possible interaction with the rest of the universe. Or that's what I have come to believe as of now. Lol

[@michaelelbert5798]

@@schmetterling4477 also thank you very much for your time.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@michaelelbert5798 Light is a quantum field excitation. I don't know what "all its energy turned into information" is supposed to mean, except that you didn't pay attention in high school science. ;-)

[@michaelelbert5798]

@@schmetterling4477 in highschool?

[@fractalnomics]

Thank you for this. What would you do, who would you talk to, if you found something that may help solve the problem? Something that independently does what quantum does - through testing/experiment. I found this something before I studied QM. That's the problem I have. Anyway, I have soon finished my writing. I hope I find that person.

[@hackerhesays731]

ARROW_DROP

[@richard_d_bird]

i guess i sort of went with the "anti realists," at least to the extent that i understand anything at all about quantum mechanics. which isn't much at all. but anyway i always figured it wasn't a matter of the theory being "all there was," so much as it was all there was, that human beings could ever have empirical access to. sure there may well be some underlying reality, but i don't think there's necessarily any possible way for us to observe it, in order to understand it. which doesn't mean these guys who actually do know this stuff are likely to stop looking for that way.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

I didn't think there would ever be a way to prove bell's inequality violated without loopholes either, but here we are.

[@eaglevisionxxx]

What if both propositions were correct..... Now, to get entangled particles, one needs to put in energy so one could presume that the wave function both does and doesn't collapse and that it is BOTH real and not (kudos to Schrodinger). What if, the "collapse" Einstein is talking about is merely a dimensional jump to a higher dimension. If, for example, a 3D sphere suddenly gained an extra dimension, to us, it would look like it is non existent as we can no longer perceive it to be there. We would only perceive its 3D shadow if one was to shine a "high intensity light source" out of higher dimension. However, the object is still there and hasn't moved from that location so for us, it is both there and not there. Still existing but we are no longer able to have any interaction with it so fur us, its not "real". Taking this analogy, it seems to suggest that a "collapse" of a wave function is merely a "line" of entanglement is at such high frequencies that it jumps up in dimension, creating a bridge between two 3D particles through 4th dimension. This is why Bohr is also correct in saying that nature is doing this process in some way that we cannot explain. And he is right. We do not have yet a powerful enough quantum computer to dabble in the 4th dimension so there is no real way of "proving" or "measuring" the entanglement "line". Oh and in 4D space, distance (or size) does not matter just like time does not matter in 5D space and so on. So, in short how I see quantum entanglement is, Two 3 dimensional balls linked by a 4 dimensional cable and since there is a 4D element in there, distance between the balls make no difference to the rate of action-reaction of the entangled particles as 4D space ignores distance\size if the measurement is taken inside 3D space. Helllllllloooo interstellar "Jump Gates". Hmmm, But that would mean that every time you enter a jump gate from 1 side facing UP, technically you would gate out upside down........ but then with 6DOF in 3D space it wouldn't even matter since up & down would have to be relative to a fixed point. The only difference would probably be entering on one side with a planet being in the bottom right corner when viewed from a bridge, and when gating out, having another planet be in the top left corner. But then for that to happen, both planets one would travel from and to, have to be in precise alignment relative to the jump vector.

[@shiroshiro8170]

These online available lectures do warm my heart, what a spooky action at a distance.

[@AFacemarkedbyFea]

So s,Art ,,dls

[@AFacemarkedbyFea]

Sk

[@AFacemarkedbyFea]

:)

[@CarolynFahm]

Mine too!

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Excellent presentation! Thank you very much. I believe this is the most well-explained presentation that I've ever seen on the topic. Thank you for making it so understandable and for making a point to separate popular hyperbole and metaphor from the actual things being talked about. A lot of times I hear talks on quantum mechanics and there are parts where I'm left thinking "is that meant literally or is it simply a way to put a handle on the concepts and observations they refer to?"

[@dennisestenson7820]

In talks on quantum mechanics, almost nothing is meant literally unless they're talking directly about the equations. Non-mathematical descriptions are attempts to conceptualize in words what the math means. Popular descriptions are usually an attempt to impress people with some of the things the math predicts/describes, that seem unreal. This is a better talk than most though. :)

[@Arsenik17]

Not much of a drinker but I am working my way through this blunt, kicking back and watching this...

[@chiphill4856]

Same

[@drt8620]

Very engaging talk which I enjoyed very much. I always like to see how different speakers present the same material (I will refrain from calling it spin) but I learn something new from each one, especially in this talk, which helps me grasp concepts better. This helps me keep up to speed as I also like to follow progress in quantum biology. I appreciated the views summarized at the end. And, may I say, it's okay to mention God and possible Reasons To Believe offered by this fascinating material. Thank you. - Nick Tavani MD, PhD (biophysics & physiology).

[@T4GTR43UM3R]

When you look at it from the perspective of a photon then it becomes clear. Because the transformation of a Photons spacetime to the spacetime of a viewer, who doesn't move in relative speeds, breaks causality. This means: A Photon reaches its destination while it is emitted. But what happens when an object moves between the emitter and the destination? If you want to solve this causality problem then you end by a string between the emitter and the destination. Because the Photon is on every place along this string in its own spacetime. Although it has a certain position in our view. This creates a wave of possibility that collapses during the measurement.

[@88_TROUBLE_88]

Interesting perspective

[@TimLeahy2]

One of the best lectures on quantum mechanics for the lay person like me. Well done Jim, you have a gift in simplifying a complex topic. I really like the way science and philosophy are woven together.

[@Mop890]

Very good stuff, I love to see philosophy and science merged in this way

[@vsubhuti]

THERE IS ONE RELIGION THAT IS MORE CLOSER TO AND USING SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS

[@tuberyou1149]

Imagine our world without eyes and ears, touch smell and taste. The environment would remain the same. That is, the signals that our brains interpret as reality would still be there. But our senses are only able to detect what we need to navigate our world. That is, an objective reality exists but it's impossible to know its true nature because it would require an observer that could interpret all of the information that is presented to it. We are not that observer.

[@homamthewise6941]

We are only mere imperfect impressionists at most

[@linkin543210]

The video and voice are no longer entangled towards the end 😒

[@istvanszennai5209]

time dilation in action 😁

[@emasolie4135]

Jim Baggott, a very likeable, honest guy. Maybe painfully honest. He sorts out woo woo physics from stone cold reality. Unexplained phenomena and unanswered questions are not a just cause to go metaphysical. Thank you, Sir.

[@InfinityBlue4321]

We will have to go metaphysical, if one day we decide to go further on understanding this reality. What Jim says honestly here is that we even dont know what matter really is ( colapse of the wave fuction). On the other end the essence of our reality is immaterial ( information) from our mind to the DNA code. So you cant measure or grasp immaterial things with material measurement systems. See the point?

[@emasolie4135]

@@InfinityBlue4321 What JB explained is reasonable, what you say is not. Back it up with some real science and get back to us.

[@InfinityBlue4321]

@@emasolie4135 😂 Real science?!? I'm still laughing loudly ... it happens that I'm a real scientist knowing the limits of the fundamental sciences... your answer shows what is going on around on sciences: make believe. Its not the case for Jim Baggott, as he honestly usually states which theories have or not empirical evidence or put in another way: are only a belief. Or better put: are only hipothesys not theories. Like many others theories that are sold as validated real science. So Ema its you who have to burn the midnight oil before even trying to understand what I wrote... for which in this particular case its seems you dont have a clue... so a litle of humility will not do you arm. When you dont know, you can allways ask first...

[@emasolie4135]

@@InfinityBlue4321 Jim Baggot presented a discussion which made sense and which I appreciated. If you want to add to or interpret his comments you need to make your own KZbin presentation and publish it. Who are you anyway? (rhetorical).