Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Quantum Physics is Different - with Philip Ball

Quantum physics has a reputation as one of the most obscure and impenetrable subjects in science.
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
Philip's book "Beyond Weird" is available now: geni.us/Fdybs5
Philip Ball will talk about what quantum theory really means - and what it doesn’t - and how its counterintuitive principles create the world we experience.
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: Why Everything Yo...
Philip Ball is a freelance science writer. He worked previously at Nature for over 20 years, first as an editor for physical sciences (for which his brief extended from biochemistry to quantum physics and materials science) and then as a Consultant Editor. His writings on science for the popular press have covered topical issues ranging from cosmology to the future of molecular biology.
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Alessandro Mecca, Ashok Bommisetti, Avrahaim Chein, bestape, Elizabeth Greasley, Greg Nagel, Lester Su, Manish Upmanyu, Rebecca Pan, Robert D Finrock and Will Knott.
---
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/ho...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsle...
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

UPDATE: A few of you were asking about the Alice and Bob analogy used in this talk so we asked Phil Bill if he'd be happy to explain it in more detail. He was, so here's the follow up - kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5CToGWcf82nicU

[@natecaine7473]

So the suggestion after watching one sloppy lecture by Phil Ball is to suggest that watch another? No thanks.

[@SilhSe]

When we say that physics looks the same, we mean that two observers (Alice and Bob, say) using two different sets of coordinates (representing two different inertial frames) should agree on the predicted results of all possible experiments. In the case of quantum mechanics, this requires Alice & Bob to agree on the value of the wave function at a particular spacetime point, a point that is called x by Alice and ¯x by Bob. Thus if Alice’s predicted wave function is ψ(x), and Bob’s is ψ¯(¯x), then we should have ψ(x) = ψ¯(¯x).

[@MLB9000]

So is Phil Bill better at explaining things than Phil Ball?

[@JonnyProsser]

@Die Erklärung That depends on who you ask/observe

[@spirit1366]

The Royal Institution SOMETHING HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME TO NO END.IF THE EARTH IS ORBITING THE SUN,AND MOVING AT A SPEED OF AN ASTOUNDING 67,000 MILES PER HOUR.HOW CAN THE SPACE STATION STAY CLOSE IN EARTHS ORBIT,AND HOW COME THESE SPACE WALKERS DON'T FLY AWAY INTO THE VACUUM OF SPACE? HOW DID RETURNING MOON VISITING ASTRONAUTS CATCH UP WITH US AT THAT SPEED? I'LL WAIT.

[@canyadigit6274]

Finally someone that explains quantum mechanics to the popular audience without abusing analogies and making vague claims. I love this guy!

[@bigcountry5520]

Right? We're smart enough.

[@jpkatz1435]

34:46 Explained so well that we THINK we are smart, it's a slight of MIND by the explainer. The only thing missing is HOW the Quantim states are WORKING. @bigcountry5520 37:22

[@vinm300]

I watched a young woman give a KZbin lecture 10yrs ago saying the same thing, "The wave function never collapses it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment". There is no collapse and never was.

[@vvanderer]

She is probabilistically younger now.

[@1joaootavio]

@vinm300 do you have the link? Im interested in watching

[@vvanderer]

That seems to me to be a distintion without a difference. Lets face it Schrödingers cat will eventually die.

[@Resounding888]

Are you sure? 😏

[@nicolez581]

How can it make sense that it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment? That would be suggesting the measuring equipment knew where the particle was in the first place, when you can only measure *the probability* of where the particle may be at any given time. However if her theory is true, that would mean that everything is entangled all of the time, which in theory means we would be able to have an affect on *anything* we choose to from a distance. Do you have a link to look into further?

[@khoulwhip]

The real question here, at least to me, seems to be the question of whether quantum mechanics is purely epistemological (that is, it is only a theory about what we know) or does it also contain an ontological (that is, this truly is the nature of the Universe and not merely a product of how we're looking at it) component. Another question that I think needs to be asked is what separates a measurement, such as what we do in a laboratory, from an interaction such as what quantum particles will undergo. Does a quantum particle, when interacting with another quantum particle, go through all the same problems of dealing with probabilities of the values of various properties when determining how to respond to those properties as part of the interaction? For example, electrons A and B undergo a spin-spin interaction with each other. Do they also, like physicists measuring spin in a laboratory, have to suffer through the problem that they each have a 50-50 chance of seeing the spin of the other electron as being up or down relative to some intrinsic orientation relative to the reference frame of a given electron, and then, only after making the "measurement" can it determine how it orients its own spin? However, even as I write the question, I realize there is a fundamental error in the question because it accidentally introduces a classical idea that the electron is definitively in one state or the other, and that's precisely the sort of thing that quantum mechanics says is not happening. So then, I'm left to ask the question, what exactly is happening when two particles interact? How do those particles resolve their quantum mechanical nature with each other in obtaining a particular set of responses, with various corresponding probabilities, based on the probabilities of allowed values of the various properties that the two particles have and interact on the basis of those properties? Is this interaction the same as one particle somehow measuring the other, or is performing a measurement fundamentally different from quantum interaction? If measurement is a fundamentally different process, then does that not introduce the possibility that quantum mechanics may not be intrinsic to the nature of the Universe but merely a by-product of how we've been observing it?

[@prithviraj627]

😲

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no question here... you didn't pay attention in high school science class. ;-)

[@sgeraaa]

To answer some of your later questions, I did propose them too to one of my teachers at the university quantum lab back when I was studying. He described to me why measurement and entanglement are fundamentally different things. In your case why interaction and measurement are fundamentally different. When you make a measurement as you know the quantum wave function collapses, and that's it you have a definit state. When you entangle a particle to another you can do this by not making a measurement on them, in this case you just add two wave functions together or combine them. You distort the wave function of the first one but you dont make it collapse. The metaphor he used was, Imagine Schrödinger's cat, it is both alive and dead at the same time(50-50%). Now you add a poisoned and also not poisoned sandwich to it, maybe 36% poisoned, 64% poisoned sandwich (another wave function like particle). You open the box, you dont look at the cat if it is alive or not, (you dont make a measurement), and you wait some time. At the end you open up the box and you can find a dead cat or one alive if you look, but with the sandwich you changed the probability of finding a dead cat without looking at it or knowing if it's dead or alive.

[@sgeraaa]

Also to answer your last question, they dont know the answer, that's why there are many interpretations. In the Copenhagen interpretation you simply ignore that you might be right and the Universe is just a by-product of your measurements you accept that there is a mathematical function, a probabilty of finding things in a different state and that's it, you don't think of what it means. In the many worlds interpretation you by measuring it cause decoherence and all the possibilites are present at the same time in another world. So if you measured A in one Universe you also measure B in another. You are also in two different states in these universes. And there are many more explanations to this.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sgeraaa Dude, a measurement is an irreversible energy exchange process and entanglement is not a process, at all. It's a symmetry condition. If your teacher couldn't explain that to you in a couple of sentences, then you didn't have a good teacher (or you were not listening).

[@macroman52]

I have often wondered if "collapse of the wave function" was anything more than thinking, when playing poker, "I wonder if my opponent has the Ace of spades - there is an x% chance that he does, but if I call I will find out if he does or does not".

[@schmetterling4477]

It's less than that. It's the question why there are no monopoly cards on the poker table. ;-)

[@TODOMUNDOTEMUMADANI]

I love this theme and I've been studying about quantum physics by myself for 3 years.. I wish I could make an "university" about.. the course would be phenomenal

[@kevinbaker4164]

One reason why Quantum Mechanics is confusing is that explanation often involve the term "particle". This is because we normally think of matter as consisting of objects of some kind. If one (mistakenly) defines a "piece of matter" to be an object that, with sufficient energy, can be broken down into smaller "pieces of matter", e.g. particles, it becomes a recursive never-ending loop that makes no sense intuitively. How could a "piece of matter" be divisible into smaller "pieces of matter" which themselves could be further divisible, and so on, to infinite levels. No. That makes no logical or intuitive sense. Hence, at some level a "piece of matter" can only be divided into something else, something that is not a piece of matter or a particle. In a way, Leucippus and Democritus were right when they said that the atom was indivisible. When smashed, the atom produces not atomic particles but waves. Avoiding the concept of particles in the first place could make Quantum Mechanics much more explainable.

[@davide.0LG1471]

You obv don't know what a particle is,just stop your rant here

[@texasray5237]

Originally the atom was defined as the smallest particle of matter. It's still true. While atoms can indeed be broken down into smaller sub-atomic particles, these particles are no longer matter, just as nuts and bolts are no longer cars.

[@jeffbguarino]

@@texasray5237 He means the Greek atoms, which would be the quarks and electrons that we know. If an electron and a photon are both point particles , then how could a photon ever actually hit an electron and get absorbed. It would always miss the electron. A photon of light hits a hydrogen atom and kicks an electron out. You need a certain frequency of photon to do this but how does this photon ever actually make contact with the electron ? The reason is that they aren't particles and don't have to be exact but just approach each other in a certain range. Just like a video game where you don't have to be exact with your mouse cursor to hit an object in the game. You just need to be a certain distance away as defined by the game programmer.

[@SirRebrl]

Sounds, to me, like our understanding of our understanding has reached a point of recognition that all we have are measurements, and we can hypothesize about what's beyond them but we still only have what we measure to be certain of. Which, frankly, makes perfect sense if you think about it. We have the data points collected by measurement, and we can describe patterns across them, but of course we don't know what it "is" that drives the patterns - only that the patterns are consistent when we make more measurements in a consistent manner. What happens between our measurements? Who knows - we have zero information to base anything on with certainty, because we haven't measured between our measurements. We just know, with some certainty, what will probably happen when we measure again.

[@Bornous]

But this doesn't mean we cannot try to find an answer to "what is happening between measurements ?". But to find the answer is to comprehend what space-time and matter within are. Not to mention dark matter or energy which are just things that we need to be to the universe to work :P

[@Bornous]

@war monger I think we think about two different things - my point was that we can try to find out what's happening between measurements, but we still don't know about basic stuff like dark matter or energy - I didn't mean to live these two aside. And I'm curious how u could mess with dark energy :P When we even can't measure it directly :D :D :D Not to mention dark matter which only interacts with gravitation field :P

[@zeppy13131]

Well, hey, at least that's something. God knows what else these guys might be out doing if they didn't have all this math to distract them.

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

What is the path of information in the detector? The quantum object hits an atom in the detector. How does that flow through the rest of the equipment to become a reading on a dial?

[@yogisteven8149]

Reading the comments, I can see that many don't get that what he is saying is that what has been described as Quantum Mechanics thusfar is really a set of observations about EFFECTS produced by the quantum realm and not the actual MECHANISM by which the effects are produced. He's directing our attention to the basis of these effects in INFORMATION.

[@WINCHANDLE]

Yogi, you're smarter than the average bear!

[@yogisteven8149]

LOL not really just more determined to get at the Honey inside the tree of Life.

[@cheetah100]

The problem is that he is just wrong. If it were really the case that particles had a real definite state that simply couldn't be measured the whole idea of using QM computers wouldn't work. They critically depend on being able to examine multiple paths at the same time by splitting into separate discrete histories. For F's sake, a idiot layperson like me can get a better understanding on QM simply by reading QED by Richard Feynman. Just look at the mirror example and the sum over histories equation you need to do. How can a single particle interfere with ITSELF? Aka the double slit experiment?

[@kyleserrecchia5300]

arxiv.org/pdf/1012.4843.pdf

[@WINCHANDLE]

Only a really smart person or genius would have the ego confidence to refer to himself as an "idiot." Thats because we know we know and understand a hell of a lot of stuff, but are quite painfully aware of all the stuff we don't know and don't understand. Hats off to you. I still think it's God keeping himself inscrutable by hiding behind all the QM smoke and mirrors. He let us learn all about classical mechanics so we could engineer a nice, relatively toil-free life for ourselves. My acknowledgement of God was an existential choice since that is the best explanation to which this idiot could arrive. It's understandable if people throw baby Jesus out with the bath water (LOL!) but there's a lot of great moral teaching in the New Testament. When we kick, the only thing left will be people's memories of how we treated them. Here's two for you: Each of us is really really infinitely complicated. Trillions of chemical reactions going on each second, and then there's that brain with 200 billion cells ticking away. Embryology is infinitely complicated too. # 2: The chances of anyone of us being here are infinity/zero. So each of us is precious, and we ought to treat each other as such. Giving people attention, and making them laugh with self-deprecating jokes don't cost anything, but makes life more gratifying and enjoyable. Maybe it is selfishness, but spontaneously doing something for someone makes me feel big and good. I wish we could have a party with all the commentators here. Damn wouldn't that be interesting! We could think tank and come up with a New Copenhagen Manifesto!

[@karimshah77]

The punch line i loved ‘“ nature does it best and we need to adjust our expectation”

[@Cita31253]

karim shah yes! not all models are useful. Some are,

[@PazLeBon]

less of the 'we' :)

[@noidph]

I've been watching videos about Quantum Physics for a few days now, and I think this is the best explanation of what QP is, and how to approach it. Philip Ball is an excellent thinker and teacher.

[@gizmogremlin1872]

I've watched likely 100 or so programs/ lectures about quantum physics over many years and to me this could have been the worst explanation I've seen yet. But we all tend to click with different things so I guess if this one made sense to you maybe it's not terrible.

[@mkteku]

@@gizmogremlin1872, which lectures are your favs?

[@gizmogremlin1872]

@@mkteku I don't think I could pick a specific lecture. More that I would have lecturers I like. Sean Carroll, Brian Cox, Jim Al-Kalili, Brian greene and the presentations from PBS spacetime to name a few. Keeping in mind I don't necessarily believe any of them are specifically correct or incorrect just that they seem to do a better job at communicating the information they present in an easy to understand way. Since the video we are commenting on was something I watched 4 months ago specifically explaining why didn't like it might lead me to need a reviewing, I just remember finding his presentation confusing.

[@sashas3362]

@@gizmogremlin1872 Agreed. This guy doesn't understand QP. He says entanglement=decoherence but entanglement=coherence as proven by the fact that the atoms/electrons emitting the *coherent* light/photons in a laser are entangled. Maybe he simply meant a particle/object becomes decohered from whatever it was entangled with previously which I wouldn't be so inclined to argue with but he just says entanglement=decoherence. In addition he says entanglement proves there is no FTL action at a distance rather than proving FTL action at a distance, insisting that nothing including information can travel FTL, without providing a logical explanation of how he came to that conclusion so I have to conclude that he simply doesn't understand QP. This video should be deleted by the royal society. It shames them to have this video on their channel.

[@sashas3362]

@@gizmogremlin1872 Ball also says the most basic elements of a system can represent no more than 1 bit, that a qubit can only represent a single bit, but a particle/qubit can be in a potentially infinite number of states (polarisations) in between spin up and spin down. That means a qubit can represent any number of bits. The limit is determined only by the number of positions we decide to use to represent all the possible sequences of bits and the sensitivity and accuracy of our measurement instruments. For example, 8 different angles from spin up to spin down for an electron or nucleus would allow for each qubit to represent a sequence (or "byte" or "word") of 3 bits as follows: spin angle 1=000 spin angle 2=001 spin angle 3=010 spin angle 4=011 spin angle 5=100 spin angle 6=101 spin angle 7=110 spin angle 8=111

[@SteamPunkPhysics]

26:34 "This Box's blackness is in the box, what would it possibly mean to say this box blackness is also kinda partly in this box" Perfect analogy for understanding the misconception of locality!! The Blackness itself is an emergent quality of our measurement of it. It can only be measured when the lights are on. The color is tied up in the very properties of light itself... the very thing used to measure the blackness is PARTICIPATING in its very existence. This is because, in our perceptual experience of certain things, we draw borders where none exist. (blackness is not something that can exist on its own but only as a combination of things) Both boxes have the local hidden variable of a suface that interacts with light, but depending upon the light I shine on them, they will reflect a different color to my sensors (eyes). So we are measuring an aspect of the sensor(eyes) and the intermediary device (light) simultaneously when we say "blackness." (the problem is conception and language) THAT is what it means to say that the blackness is also kinda partly in the other box and this analogy holds with QM as well. Some qualities are combinations not fully contained within an object and are therefore "nonlocal" in a very non mysterious way.

[@germanpenn]

"Nobody understands the Alice and Bob analogy" (Richard Feynman)

[@shannonchuprevich3021]

The explanation, it seemed, tried applying a form of gravity.

[@davidchou1675]

@@shannonchuprevich3021 You mean levity -- har har!!

[@shannonchuprevich3021]

Yar!

[@EliezerGrawe]

Man, even he didn't understand his own example.

[@asdfghyter]

The issue, like most things quantum, lies in information and information theory. In this case, there was crucial information missing from both the slides and the talk. He knew those missing bits, but we in the audience didn't. So, according to the laws of information theory, the analogy becomes completely unintelligible for the audience while it made complete sense in his head, where he had access to the missing information. /s

[@WynneCarluk]

Alice and Bob's relationship..."It's complicated". lol

[@sethflix]

Yes. and Carol and Ted feel the same way.

[@kakistocracyusa]

One of the poorest analogies ever generated. The rest of this talk wasn't much better.

[@jaywarren92]

Anyone else scratching their heads at the rabbit/dog analogy? I have a feeling there could've been a better example.

[@martyn21358]

watched that bit twice. missed it completly

[@WormholeJim]

There's usually some cats in there too. Chasing around and sometimes raining. Don't know about those rabbits, actually. Isn't there a sport with dogs chasing rabbits? Maybe that's what got everyone confused.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

@Tarquin The Rotter WAW that is the superposition state. You did get the point!

[@TehmeenaK]

yeah me

[@arlieferguson3990]

It seemed unnecessary to me

[@analoguejerry9066]

Alice, Bob, dog, rabbit and coins - an excellent example of how not to do analogies. Speaking as a huge fan of Dr. Ball.

[@alxmtncstudio2066]

The analogy isn't bad, it's the presentation, expression of it. Terrible! took me 10min to get my head around it by replaying the part again and again (I'm not a native english speaker), never had a similar problem with another physicist lecturer before. I'm glad I finally got past that part!

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Please help me. Which box belongs to Alice?

[@AngelosPapadopoulos314159]

I am quite in a superposition of liking and disliking this talk :-)

[@aksidjfhg]

There should be a like\dislike superposition button on KZbin

[@mustavogaia2655]

I would like to ask why, but I fear interfering with your opinion.

[@MrBollocks10]

@@mustavogaia2655 HAHA !Funny and CLEVER!

[@WINCHANDLE]

Too funny!

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

'Superposition' is a vast field. Let (1;0) demean 'like' and (0;1) 'dislike', a superposition can be everything of the form (cos(θ);sin(θ)) with some θ for cos²(θ) + sin²(θ).

[@ibrahimhaidar2311]

Great lecture. My very humble opinion (from the point of view of a programmer), Philip is describing a code written specifically with object oriented language. So I guess there is no one formula or unification of formulas. These objects with properties. An object can have children that inherit its properties. A child can stay attached to its parent or become independent object. All these classical formulas only describe how to inherit a property and how this affect the parent properties values. How a child stay attached or become independent. Such view will satisfy all the ifs Philip was mentioning. Which may result in no extra dimensions also. If the brain is physical thing that behaves like a computer code, then why not quantum world also.

[@bigmanlizard7326]

quantum physics - every time you learn something you realize you dont know shit and now need to learn another 10 things

[@allenbrininstool7558]

:-)

[@kendoncaseycurtis4660]

vern cuckular a old Hebrewism States That very concept.

[@Resounding888]

vern cuckular 👍🏾

[@555Trout]

Might have said "slit". 😉

[@aydensonline7706]

I forget who to quote here and I'm probably paraphrasing but someone said "The more you know, the more you know your in the dark about"

[@perennialbeachcomber.7518]

@Yogi Steven): Yogi Steven, here's how I understand the intriguing comment that you made: "What Philip Ball is saying is that what has been described as QM thus far is really a set of statements about OBSERVABLE effects in the quantum realm, and NOT the actual mechanism by which those observable effects are produced." Ball also seems to be saying that QM thus far is a description of what to expect when you MEASURE an object in the quantum realm, and NOT necessarily a description of the quantum object itself. "As it stands, QM does not permit us to say anything with confidence about reality, beyond what we can MEASURE." [1:05, 3:27, 4:12, 8:10, 9:05]

[@AlvaPalin]

I appreciate this talk because scientists are always saying " that's the wrong question to ask". I hear it over and over again. So this is a refreshing look at that phrase. Nice viewpoint and it makes sense.

[@AdamFunnell]

Schrodinger arrives at the vets to pick up his cat. The vet says, "Well, Mr. Schrodinger, I've got some good news and some bad news..."

[@tomstarr845]

Actually, it's: "I've got some good news or some bad news. Let's have a look and find out which one."

[@AL-SH]

@@tomstarr845 It's "and" not "or", because the cat is in a superposition in which the cat is alive and dead at the same time.

[@tomstarr845]

@@AL-SH After they "have a look", it's one or the other.

[@AL-SH]

@@tomstarr845 Yes, but what if they open the box but not look? Or after they observe, what happens to the parts of the cat that died?

[@tomstarr845]

@@AL-SH I concede. The sheer force of your yes-butisms has done me in. BTW, sorry about your investments.

[@da1otta]

I'm quite certain that an eternally inquisitive mind like Richard P. Feynman would not have said "What more do you want?". I've read enough about him and seen enough of his interviews that I'm convinced he wasn't the kind who was merely satisfied with a mathematical answer. I think it's more likely that he admitted his inability to understand QM at a deeper level at the time, which speaks more about his integrity as a scientist and a researcher.

[@jackbean213]

da1otta unless he was just joking around, he does seem to have been a happy go lucky guy🙃

[@da1otta]

Jack Bean Indeed! :)

[@tinkmarshino]

well you are entitled to your opinions I am sure we are are just dumbfounded..

[@leocomerford]

Not really: Feynman didn't cover himself in glory in this area at first. Search arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf for 'Feynman' (arXiv link is arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508180 ).

[@VperVendetta1992]

Scientists have unfortunately given up on the ontological and philosophical problems. I hope others will continue though.

[@aliservan7188]

You can tell this guy has been raging about this privately for decades :D My fav lecture in the series.

[@kerel995]

Nailed it. I raged about quantum privately 10 years now watching this and have some relief.

[@gerbenhoutman9348]

At 39 he talks of particles and waves. He gives the same explanation that I arrived at years ago except that I put it "A photon is a particle or a wave depending on when you measure it." I thoroughly approve of the whole talk where he removes superstition from the quantum project.

[@bsmith577]

Quantum mechanics is simply an electron and its vibration is so small that it is hardly effective by the gravity of space. Gravity of space being the effect of space being contained in matter creating a vibration which then causes space of the universe to vibrate, gravity. Though matter tries to expand, the force of gravity in space is so strong to prevent this.

[@TTOdub]

so basically this guy says: 1. Electrons stay as particles the whole time, they do not change their density into wave like matter. 2. The wave function is merely a mathematical field that tells us a probability in exchange for a position guess. 3.Quantum entanglement is when two particles interact and become linked in a way that can only be explained as becoming one system, not transmitting information between them, but actually being affected as if both of them were at the same place under one quantum system. 4.*not sure if i got this one right*- A measurement does not change reality and affect what is being measured, it simply changes our level of knowledge.. the path of an electron is determined already before measuring, its just that before measuring, the position cant be known for sure by equations. but in the double slit experiment we can see that electrons are actually waves because of the spread outcome that cannot be attributed to particles. so 1 is not correct. 2 is not correct. about 3- if thats true (if not then special relativity is wrong) it means that there is a dimension in which these two particles stay together, unaffected by space-time and its laws, maybe a dimension though time in which the past affects the present is ways that make certain past events meaningful, which makes every quantum particle have a memory in a way.. about 4- i have no clue. Help here?

[@euanlankybombamccombie6015]

That tells me that velikovsky,Talbott and Thornhill are correct,if Electrons are the constant,we do live in an electric universe

[@calvinchastang8582]

I did think it strange that he avoided the double slit experiment. Perhaps it's because it disproves what he is trying to suggest.

[@sankarpatel5911]

I'm not a physicist but this is the same reaction I had. Double slit proves that particles are waves until measured. He never even brings this up, as it seems to completely contradict what he is saying. In fact his statement on the wave collapse is the logical answer, which is what make reality that much more confusing because the obvious answer is wrong. Anyone know what we're missing?

[@Shauniosusify]

@@sankarpatel5911 He explained that with entanglement and superpositioning and the shroedinger equation

[@danpaulisbitski]

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane”- Nicola Tesla

[@runs_through_the_forest]

happy to read a comment like this, insanity rules youtube's autoplay algorithms..

[@wierdalien1]

Nicola? Didnt know she was a famous engineer

[@danielash1704]

Yes sir you are firmly committed in Tesla and you can do much more than he thought about the situation of the world problem with monitoring people who don't understand that density of the world between world's every vibration has moved in the works for expansion and contraction in a state of motion and mindfulness of it.

[@pnwformerlib]

Touché

[@jrdeckard3317]

Quantum physicist walks into a bar. Bartender says, "Weren't you here tomorrow?" Quantum physicist says, "No, but I'll be back yesterday."

[@hichaelhyers]

such a Dad joke, I luv it

[@erikdaigle9212]

@@jrdeckard3317 you can never go backwards on time. How would you move the entire universe backwards. The Earth keeps on trucking you would be in the middle of Earth's orbit but on outer space by then. And that would allow you to send information faster than light. Not possible.

[@motopeter2409]

there is another confusing matter: he speaks about success rate as if he expects sort of outcome to happen. if so he failed to mention his expectation rendering it all meaningless

[@americalost5100]

I'm just a layman in all this but it seems to me that wave simply refers to all the potential or statistically possible outcomes of a quantum particle depending on where, how and when it ends up interacting with another quantum particle (with our measurements within quantum systems being just one of an infinite number of ways such interactions might occur) at which time the wave "collapses" or ceases to exist for the simple reason that what was once just statistical probability is now reality.

[@jorriffhdhtrsegg]

The problem is that those interactions are interactions with itself sometimes, as if a particle could be in two places at once! The double slit uses photons one at a time and observes wave interference as if (much like with water waves, or any waves) the wave has gone through both slits and interfered with itself, even though its only a single particle.

[@arthurmee]

As I see it, this man is suggesting that Richard Feynman's approach and to a large extent Leonard Susskind's also, are preferable as they do not offer metaphors which necessarily have serious limitations and also have a tendency to ultimately mislead.

[@KZ-dt8zh]

I was getting frustrated and disappointed as you started listing things right at the beginning of your talk, but you made me laugh with relief when you crossed it all out. That was fun. Thanks!

[@animetronic6689]

Same, Lol!

[@RobertsMrtn]

I think that some of the confusion about quantum mechanics stems from what we consider a particle to be. Most people tend to think of an extremely small spherical object, like a tiny ball bearing. I would propose that a particle is actually a disturbance in space/time. This can be wide spread like a wave or more localized like a particle, but both are our interpretations of the same thing. Why is it that things can only travel one direction in time? You might say because of the laws of causality. Something has to happen at a later time than the thing which caused it. But what if particles at the quantum level do not recognize the laws of causality because they do not have to? They travel both directions in time and so appear to be in many places at the same time until they interact with something which does obey the laws of causality (this may be our attempt to measure their position) in which case they too have to obey the laws of causality and appear to have definite position. This is only a theory and is not a complete explanation, so feel free to criticize it.

[@brianegendorf2023]

The way around it is to think of entangle objects as not two objects, but one object. They are two things that are connected and locked into position..which basically makes them one thing. The distance between them doesn't matter, because no matter how far apart they are, they are still basically one system of merged objects. They are probably "landlocked" by all five of the forces..

[@AurelienCarnoy]

How is entanglement and superposition different? It looks like everything is already entangled, then we isolat two particle/region of space and time. We make them synchronize. Synchronize to the point that they are identical. This should illustrate that the whole universe is in a state of entanglement. It is the bending of space and time that makes it look so divers. So each point in the universe is the singularity of the big bag in a superposition and spread through space and time. To say it like that is missleading. Let me do that again: The singularity of the big bang is in a superposition state. Some of these states are expressed in our universe as perceived objects. When in fact those objects are just space.

[@stevec7923]

Superposition can be observed in a single particle. Entanglement is found with two or more particles. That is, a single electron's spin can be indeterminate between up and down--that's superposition of the two spin states.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

@@stevec7923 Thank you. So superposition: one or several particle in different states at the same place and time. Entanglement: one or several particle in the same state at the same time but in different places. I say "one particle" because it could be the same particle at different places. And of course when I say particle i mean "the way space and time is bent". Did i understand? Thank you for clarifying.

[@2001StarChild]

Quantum physics - the more you know, the less important knowing becomes.

[@iandoyle5017]

Thats definitely not true

[@Enonymouse_]

The more you know, the less certain you become that you knew anything to begin with.

[@Resounding888]

madeupmedia right on!

[@2001StarChild]

@@iandoyle5017 In the context of Uncertainty Principle.

[@iandoyle5017]

@@2001StarChild sure, sure, like a fantasy of a context your absolutely certain is true.

[@khuti007]

Thanks Mr Ball for explaining that to me. Thanks for the hard work.

[@HeavyK.]

So, this reminds me of looking at a 2D poster that reveals a 3D image, if you relax your focus. However, I'm still not able to relax my eyes, so I have to simply believe I can see it eventually.

[@WirSindDerGEGENWIND]

@ 32:06 1) Information is not an already existing and fixed property of a single component but is created only when two components are interacting with each other. 2) Even the most elementary component has the potential to create every possible information, only depending on the properties of the component or system it is interacting with. 3) Information can be seen as the pattern created by the interfering of the energies (properties) of two components. 4) The created information (pattern) is a shared (interwoven) property of both components. 5) If two components interact they create information as an energy pattern that is a new component in it´s own. I = e2

[@64kernel]

The function never collapses. Since time doesn't apply in the quantum world, the wave_particle is constant, and only appears as a particle in the exact moment we intersect it with our own time frame.

[@Cscottprice]

I think he is exactly right: that our language adds to the obscurity of quantum mechanics and at its heart, that theory is an extremely limited theory about measurements PERIOD--not about particles,objects,photons or anything--only measurements. In other words, we have a theory of measurements on reality bit absolutely NO theory of reality and its components.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

YOUR language, maybe. But not mathematical language, which formalizes these ideas & computes testable results.

[@david203]

You have it ALMOST right: QM at its heart is a theory about how waves behave throughout space and time. It is not about measurements. The extensions that deal with measurements are called interpretations.

[@Snapum]

A novice in QM (Quantum Mechanics) might find some useful thought provoking sentiments in this. But if you've already come to terms with how QM works - it's not really anything new. I did like the part about "Ifness" vs "Isness" - It's far better to explain QM's to others using this. Anything beyond that would be conjecture anyway.

[@multi-mason]

Personally, I think this is mostly a lot of slightly dishonest hand-waving in an attempt to cling to determinism by marginalizing real science. He acts like the wave function is purely an abstract tool for visualization, with no real relationship to measurable behavior. The double slit experiment shows that the actual phenomena behave according to probabilistic wave functions, in ways which are not in line with his attempted marginalization of everything which brings into question materialistic determinism. He starts out by saying that common interpretations of quantum effects are misleading, or untrue, but then virtually every objection he is able to raise against those interpretations depends entirely upon leaving out key pieces of very pertinent information, or through logical acrobatics that ultimately simply appeal to the notion that materialistic determinism must be valid, therefore some convoluted interpretation must be chosen over a more straightforward one. Scientism...

[@seth4766]

the last ten mins OMG full on wisdom right there

[@martin36369]

Not true, Einstein's theory has it that nothing can accelerate in a vacuum faster than light, it doesn't prohibit already faster than light systems, it also does include the whole universe.

[@FrancisMaxino]

Entanglement being described as spooky action at a distance is no more spooky than magnetic or electromagnetic forces. These are invisible forces acting at a distance also, yet know one calls them 'spooky', sure they are limited to light speed in their transmission of force or information but this makes them no less 'spooky'.

[@rylian21]

God, I love this channel.

[@bernardedwards8461]

What has religion got to do with it?

[@Science_Podcast]

Me too !

[@jy7383]

@@bernardedwards8461 Everything. We've lost our moral compass - so we don't know WHAT we are - and we don't know WHERE we're going - can't find the sailor's star - and we don't agree with those who think that HEAVEN 's in the sky ! We don't know WHERE we came from - so we can't imagine WHY ! We don't believe in anything we cannot see or touch - so to our own opinions - we - in desperation - clutch - to prove that it is only ME-me - who holds some claim to FAME ---- It matters not no two of us will ever think the same ---- so long as we can always find - there's SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME I LOVE THIS CHANNEL TOO

[@bernardedwards8461]

@@jy7383 I dont think Einstein would agree that religion has everytihng to do with quantum mechanics, neither would Stephen Hawking. But what do they know, maybe you know better. I certainly agree that the Anglosphere is decadent and corrupt.

[@jy7383]

@@bernardedwards8461 You and Einstein might call Him Mother Nature --- we call Him (English does not have a proper pronoun) Father ---- our crazy 'pope' calls Him Pachemama --- my Carers call Him Allah ---- i am not sure if Jews are even allowed to use His name ----- What's in a name ?

[@1959Berre]

We struggle with the concept of entanglement because we have the wrong idea about time. Time is an illusion created by our experience, which is very unreliable. Our imagination and our memory play tricks on us, like a mirage in a desert. Time does not exist as an independant entitity. The future does not exist, nor does the past. Even the present is not to be expressed as time related. What we experience as time is the illusion created by the perpetual change of things happening (events). Gravity, which comes along with matter, slows down all events. In the presence of a very heavy mass events slow down until they eventually may come to a full stand still. This is what is going on in the gravity of a black hole. Even photons, who travel at the speed of light, 'freeze' and can no longer move once they have been caught by a black hole. Photons can not escape the black hole because they simply can not move. In the black hole it looks like time has come to a full stop. Though, that is just an illusion. It is gravity that prevents anything from happening. In the realm of quantum physics, time has no meaning. The concept of entanglement and simultaneous action at a distance is not an issue once the concept of time is set aside.

[@meghanfinn1166]

Time might not be an illusion but we calculate with it as we perceive it so our perceptual bias of time offers mathematics a challenge of interpretation

[@1959Berre]

@@meghanfinn1166 Time is a widely misunderstood concept. In 'spacetime' we can move freely in three 'spacial' dimensions; we can go left and right, up and down, forward and backward at any speed we like, but in time we are 'stuck'. We can not go to the past nor to the future. Time escapes our will and control. By moving at relativistic speeds we can 'compress time'; so it looks like time is slowing down. That is but an illusion. The faster an object moves and/or the stronger the gravitional field in which it resides, the slower all processes inherent to such object become. Time is just a 'yardstick', a mathematical tool, to measure the rate of change of ongoing processes, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Time is not 'a river' floating (independantly) by, as some philosophers used to say; simply said: time is the illusion created by changing stuff.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

The 20 questions metaphor is brilliant! Pedagogically at least. And to make a joke about the ifness versus the isness. The answer just went from 42 to "if 42". And we are all the wiser.

[@tommorris49]

This is by far the most clarifying lecture on quantum mechanics I’ve ever watched. Thank you Dr Ball.

[@echongkan01]

About entanglement and the sharing of information: Information is not actually traveling but it is local at the site of measurement. Basically, the observer already has the possible outcomes onsite at the time of measurement, and the state of the entangled object at a distance is not actually shared, and it never changes based on measurements, and information doesn't travel when measuring but each object contains information about the other object and the state is determined LOCALLY by the entanglement rules that were set prior experimentation. When you measure one object, you automatically know the state of the other with the info and rules you have on hand, without sending any info to the other object. The objects are in fact completely detached from each other.

[@fesimco4339]

The Alice/Bob, rabbit/dog thing was really confusing.

[@dananskidolf]

The Bell Inequality is not easy to understand or accept without the full maths, which I recall took three one-hour lectures to get through. I'd be interested to hear a better condensation of the material, but my recommendation is to do it properly as it's quite a revelation.

[@MrBollocks10]

Lucky you! He has put an explanation, link in the description.

[@CameronBrtnik]

Mindboggling lecture..this guy's ahead of his time. Quote that I took (and updated) from this: "The very notion of there being an answer only makes sense when you play the game. _So start playing.”_

[@MrPlaiedes]

This guy is describing asynchronous functional programming. Observing is like awaiting the asych function.

[@david203]

I think you are right. Under classical mechanics, his analogy has no proper "await" operation, so there is ambiguity. Under QM, there is enough nonlocal information to do the "await" better.

[@davidwales2082]

asynchronicity is irrelevant in the analogy - both if the functions are deterministic and if the functions are random.

[@MrPlaiedes]

@@davidwales2082 How so? They'd still be differential equations with a second derivative of time.

[@davidwales2082]

@@MrPlaiedes A Pure Functional program is deterministic. The same inputs will produce the same outputs. Asynchrosity - sending a bit of the computation off to a separate processor perhaps - does not change how the program behaves overall. Maybe I have misunderstood your analogy: are you only saying that observation is just like waiting for a complex program to complete?- if so, how is async or FP relevant?

[@LaurentLaborde]

3:48 : “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.” ― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

[@KipIngram]

12:30 - THANK YOU. You are literally the first person I've heard get that EXACTLY RIGHT. Most people talking to lay audiences just cannot resist saying "the particle can be in two places at once." It's so mysterious and exciting.

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

Ok - so how does it interfere with itself in the two slit experiment?

[@david203]

@@cybergornstartrooper2157 The WAVE is in many places at once. But a WAVE may represent just one particle located at a single place. The way nature works in tiny scale is very different from how it works at our scale. Physics at our scale is like the summation of billions of individual quantum operations at the atomic scale.

[@Sholtzeee]

brilliant. loved this. i found the box exercise too difficult to follow for me but that aside, i learnt a lot. i watched a stack more after this as well.

[@pluto9000]

rabbits and dogs and coins and boxes 🤔

[@specialrelativity8222]

very irritating example

[@billramsey6000]

I realize that I'm totally in the dark about these things but it sounded to me that this ignores the whole double-slit experiment stuff. If the wave collapse is simply illustrating the collapse of uncertainty, how does that create changes in interference patterns? Maybe I should stay awake when I listen.

[@angusyim7395]

Its not ignoring double slit at the very end he talks about the ifs and the is's of quantum mechanics. Double slit is an observation of a phenomenon a "measurement" of the property of light quantum mechanics tells us that IF we run the double slit experiment we get interference patterns. It doesnt tell us that light IS a wave that IS is an interpretation. At the same time experiments involving photoelectron creation and photon absorption shows us that IF we run this experiement then we get this result. The IS (light IS a stream of particles) is an interpretation but NOT what quantum mechanics in and of itself states

[@stefanknezovic88]

@@angusyim7395 how do we explain the patterns and the "collapse" when we measure then? Surely everything he said would negate results like that being possible. I believe that the interference caused by the equipment theory was debunked if I'm not mistaken?

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

Angus Yim -then explain how a single photon interferes with itself?

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

More importantly this does not explain how leaving the detector in place but discarding the results still creates an interference pattern.

[@mikhailvoropaev3357]

He screwed up with the boxes. If I didn't know about Bell's theorem, I would never understand what he means. Very confusing. The 20 question game, on the other side, was a great example I never heard of before. Does anybody know where to read about it more?

[@Littleprinceleon]

That game reminds me how we arrive at "correct" answers regarding our life. Imagine for example: you are in a sect... others share the same axioms You as a sect member are likely to believe in, or at least you really deeply want to believe in them. In most of the cases these axioms support such human qualities, that most of us would agree upon the need of them). Those who are around You will answer your questions according to a more or less developed ideology based on these suppositions. Even the stupidest religious "system" can fulfill your needs to be guided in situations which are beyond your capabilities of problem solving. Most of the solutions will aim at preserving the integrity of the sect. So in many cases You will have to sacrifice leisure-time/spare-money/hobby... something. BUT isn`t it so with every society? The basic and most conspicuous difference between a modern, relatively young sect and a primitive tribe (with naive worldview) is that while the rules of the tribe allows Your deep integration not only with the tribe but also with the surroundings (mostly nature). Sects, on the other hand emphasises group coherence at the expense of Your natural roots... the less roots You have outside the sect, the more dependent You are on it...

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

Google knows EVERYTHING.

[@david203]

It is surprisingly difficult to design an analogy that works as well as Philip's black boxes do, with their 75% and 85% predictions. Yes, it can be confusing. There is an excellent long answer here that clarifies it wonderfully.

[@jamesli5823]

Thanks for the upload. Fantastic lecture by Phil Bill whose eloquence and way of speech reminds me of Cicero from Rome (the TV show). Really enjoyed it and felt enlightened.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.

[@quantumcorrelations6575]

What I learned: pounding Alice's box produces a rabbit. 15:43

[@jefferylubinski528]

This was very much needed!! I really have been having issues talking about quantum. To people that understand quantum because of ant man and the wasp.

[@newton2013]

RESPECT THE WOOD. Look at that metal pitcher condensating all over the nice wood table.... Ugh.

[@RsZ789]

Do you respect wood?

[@davidchou1675]

It's historic wood at that if it is indeed the very same exact desk Michael Farraday had been using for his historic lectures!

[@robertnodding4643]

Actually it's the superposition of the cold water in the metal pitcher that is causing the water vapor in the air to condense. That desk has lived through two World Wars and several other things. I do not fear for it.

[@iandoyle5017]

Wow, and I thought the lecture was baffling.

[@JohnAlexanderrealestate]

Not to worry, there is another table just like it made of anti matter without the water stain. Since you personally will never see either table, it simply doesn’t,matter that one has a stain since one will not. Your welcome.

[@david203]

Philip Ball says he's talking about QM itself, rather than any interpretation of it. But then he discusses the Born probability theory and wave function collapse, two features of the Copenhagen Interpretation that are not needed in David Bohm's 1952 interpretation of QM. He says that QM tells us what can be known and what cannot be known, but that is actually true of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In Bohmian mechanics, the only "weird" behavior left is the wave function itself. The paths of particles are completely deterministic, and indeed have been measured in recent "weak measurement" experiments.

[@david203]

@Dirk Knight Nonsense. There is no such thing as "physical sense" because our commonsense understanding of physics was learned in our scale, not in the atomic scale. All the QM interpretations are accepted for the good reason that they all make mathematical sense in one way or another. Given that we (hopefully) have hundreds of years of development of physics still ahead of us, I think we are in a pretty good place.

[@virvisquevir3320]

"What is" vs. "What we can expect and prepare for if we want achieve certain results like staying alive and perpetuating the species". Focus on process rather than thing. Focus on effects - function - rather than thing - substance. "By their fruits, ye shall know them." "By their effects, ye shall know them." That's all we know about anything, their effects on us. And from these effects, we create an interpretation, a model, always on some level of abstraction. We never get to "what is". We have to do the best we can with "what is most likely". And the beat goes on...

[@SunnyApples]

Amazing talk by Philip Ball! I've learned so much!

[@KimKim565]

Fantastic lecture. Very comforting as well, as it proves a lot to me. Thank you!!

[@jennegrant]

Sigh of relief. Thank you for this!

[@bobbyboygaming2157]

Finally some honest explanation from an expert. Was getting tired of all those Coffee-table-book explanations from like popular science documentaries

[@dalethorn2]

A simple calculus is understanding that there is no solid anything. All material in the universe came from something unimaginably tiny. When you break down an atom that's virtually empty to the subatomic particles that are also virtually empty to the quarks that are undoubtedly just as empty to ........ , you realize we're in a running program of essentially virtual stuff.

[@havenlyshamblin9033]

Watch stanford quantum machanics classes on line this is moving fast.

[@Anjelkiss]

I understood it perfectly, which makes me love quantum physics even more !

[@chemchampa]

If only had this lecture existed in the times when I've been studying optoelectronics! I can see how some of the tough concepts would've been easier to comprehend. This guy is an absolute wonder in terms of how such a difficult topic is explained and how he keeps you engaged throughout the presentation. Perhaps there's no easier way to summarise what's quantum mechanics is all about.

[@bhangrafan4480]

But it's not just 'what more do you want from a theory?', it's 'there is nothing more you can get from a theory'. The ultimate reason for accepting a theory is that it makes accurate predictions, this is determined by carrying out experiments. Therefore the methods of science can only result in theories on an instrumentalist basis. Picking established theories over is a question of adding interpretations with equivalent outcomes. To go beyond to the next theory is where intuition and imagination come in exploring a world of abstract concepts different to everyday common sense. This why something like physics is a truly creative process.

[@qbarnes1893]

We’ve got no better answers but we’ve got better questions? That says it all Ultimately we have no answer Ultimately the question is how And we have absolutely no definite reply, it’s all conjecture and theories. Those who believe, those who conceive are ultimately no more intelligent than the rest of us.....

[@schmetterling4477]

The answer is "Relativity". If you don't know why and how then you just didn't study hard enough. :-)

[@prashantsingh2218]

Best lecture I have heard on quantum mechanics.. Infact beyond best.. ❤️❤️❤️

[@geekcrossing7862]

His Alice and Bob example is wrong. There are two solutions that satisfy all three rules: letting AXBY - RD denote the situation where Alice puts in X and Bob puts in Y, and the output is a Rabbit and a Dog, the two solutions are: A1B1 - RR A1B2 - RR A2B1 - RR or DD A2B2 - RD

[@bxtrm2242]

Exactly. But what should the rules have been to illustrate entanglement? I have written to Ball and asked.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

The Bob and Alice analogy was a dumpster fire because it was not explained that one box must always produce the same output for a given input. Also, it wasn't clear how the analogy relates to entanglement and hidden variables. But I'll leave a like for trying :)

[@BryonLape]

Perhaps it is my state of inebriation, but I believe he has said a universe of a deterministic state machine leads to the classical interpretation of physics, while a non-deterministic state leads to a quantum one.

[@jeffmotsinger8203]

He says that before and after a measurement the only thing that has changed is one's knowledge of the system being observed. Wrong, another thing has changed; time. When he says 'before' substitute 'the future' and you'll have a better understanding. The future is all waves, the present is all particles.

[@Barbreck1]

Here's a thought I'd like to throw into the quantum tangle that is quantum entanglement; What if it is true that the particles do not actually have a fixed spin direction at all but instead are changing their spin direction instantly, millions or billions of times per second at a fixed Cosmological rythm? This might explain that at the instant you measure one you'd only get a fixed view at only one instant in time that indicates spin in only one direction. This also would be true of the other presumed "entangled" particle. The upshot would be that there may be no entanglement at all, but that rotational direction is changing constantly and can only be observed at one particular instant in time of both particles (the instant of observation). If all quantum particles, either throughout the Cosmos or perhaps only in our local region of space, changed their spin at a fixed cosmological rythm (perhaps a rythm that is so fast that it is undiscernable by our technological methods), then the two particles would *appear* to be entangled and moving predictably regardless of distance. Therefore, it is only our assumption that there is entanglement. Analogy: Imagine we have a Zootrope (one of these old-fashioned cylindrical animation drums) that animates a man running to the left. When the zootrope is spun, our eyes are fooled into believing the there is a moving image of a man running to the left because our brains cannot discern the still images quickly enough. We would require a camera with a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the moving image at one instant in time to establish that the object does not move, and that it is merely a series of still images each slightly differeent than the last (the illusion of quantum particle spin). Now imagine we change every second image of a left running figure to a right running figure and spin the zootrope (to represent a quantum particle that changes spin direction rythmically). Now our brains struggle to discern anything of sense from the scrambled image, the man is neither running left or right, he changes direction too fast for our eyes to discern direction. Now, if we use our camera to freeze-frame the action, we might see a still image of a man running to the left or a still image of a man running to the right, it all depends upon when we take the picture what image we are presented with! Now imagine we have two zootropes; one in London, the other in Sydney. Both are spinning and presenting the direction-alternative running man at an identical rate (a Cosmological rythm) and we have cameras set up to take a photograph at exactly the same instant at both locales. What the cameras would present to us is the false impression that the two zootropes are changing the direction of the running man in some entangled manner, as if they are syncronising their changes, when in fact they are merely objects operating under a unified rythm and it is thus predictable that we would capture what appears to be changes taking place simultaneously and seemingly in unison across a vast distance. In truth, we would be failing to appreciate a deeper property of the two zootropes that is not immediately evident: A unified rythm of alternation, not a zootrope entanglement! This would mean that there is a cosmological rythm that we can test for. If true, this surely also would account for the statistical failure of 85%. Thoughts?e

[@viswasubramanian4738]

The bells expt will prove your viewpoint wrong. Check that out

[@Barbreck1]

@@viswasubramanian4738 will or has?

[@alan2here]

I like the "exactly 20 questions" variant :)

[@ruben307]

it doesn't have to be exactly 20 questions.

[@R.Instro]

"Do I get exactly 20 questions?" [Y/N] =D

[@ironcap2050]

One of the best presentations on a misunderstood topic. Awesome discussion, really helped clear up my misconceptions.

[@hamidmazuji]

not

[@mycommentpwnz]

I had never actually heard of that "20 questions" example/experiment before. That drastically increased my understanding. Thank you. Not only is information influenced by it's environment, it is, at least partially, DERIVED by it. Makes me think of a falling & cascading pattern of black and white domino's, which either reads "707" or "LOL" depending on how you "spin it." Yukyukyuk.

[@Lightnin991]

We play "Who am I" every Xmas. Somebody makes out a post it note with a name written on it and sticks it on the "victim's" forehead where he can't see it. The victim then goes round all the participants asking 20 questions with a yes or no answer, with each answer building to a logical conclusion. By a process of elimination, I identified my name as EINSTEIN!

[@markfennell1167]

I believe that all Particles have real properties, independent of any observation. It is only when we measure them, that we get different results....depending on the equipment. 1. Particle travels in predictable pattern. But to us we only can guess location, with statistics. Does not mean the particle is everywhere at the same time, it is only our best guess of likely locations. Then we measure, and we find it. 2. Uncertainty is only related to equipment, not to the actual object itself. Electron has location, spin, momentum. But to test we have to hit it. Which moves it out of its location, and adds energy to the electron. Then we have to think backwards to see where the electron was, and what the energy was, prior to hitting it. 3. Gloves in the box is the correct answer. The particle exists as it is with or without us. If the particles are a matched set, we know the properties of the other by looking at ours. 4. However...sometimes...our personal energies can influence things. We emit electrical energies. These electrical energies are also inside electrons. Using powerful thought (emitted electrical energy) on a very small scale (a few electrons), it is possible to direct those electrons. (I have read the scientific studies in detail). But this is rare, and works only with certain types of people. (Those who give off more electrical energy than most). In general: particles exist without us. Their properties exist without us. The math and graphs just gives us possibilities, not that the particle exists everywhere or has all properties at the same time. Then our equipment must add energy to the particle we want to detect, which alters what we actually see, but that is what we must do. We work with the limitations of the experiment, and deduce the details as if we weren't there.

[@too5955]

Still wondering if Alice has found her rabbit, or if it was eaten by Bob's Dog.

[@surajtiwari2614]

It looks like he is learning it first time himself!

[@cj2378]

The wave function tells us that the quantum realm is friendly.

[@zerris1]

he isn't learning himself but he has so much going on in his head that he needs to be constantly refocused in his teachings of it

[@RamoLasiaf]

suraj tiwari. Greetings, Same concept. He is explaining it rightfuly but without the nodes. You need Jesus to explain quantum mechanics. He is the crazy guy with the knowledge 😅. Thanks

[@ShabazzTBL]

I imagine this is extremely hard to explain. Especially when skipping over all the math and observations that lead to the explanation.

[@david203]

@threedoubleyou dotcom I think he did an amazing job. You try it.

[@chopin65]

Ha, got yah. I was never wrong. I never think about it. Checkmate!

[@david203]

Yes, this shows exactly the benefit of ignorance. It is great for the individual, not so great for the society that needs to find its way.

[@cj2378]

Life teaches us stuff and if we can catch those moments, we are truly blessed. For example, years ago I was passing through El Paso and happened upon a barbershop that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Hair Returned*". Upon seeing the asterisk, I read the fine print down below, which said, "If you can't read ask the bootmaker next door." In the same spirit of integrity, I think certain videos really ought to come with a notarized promise stating, "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Time Refunded". And this video clip by Mr. Ball should be one of them. Furthermore, after the whole Lance Armstrong doping fiasco, my takeaway was don't trust anyone who only has one ball, even if they openly declare it in their name.

[@greggrobinson5116]

A large art of the difficulty in understanding quantum is what we humans mean by "understand." Very often in the hard sciences what we mean by "understand" is that we're able to model a phenomenon in familiar macro terms. Thus atoms are little billiard balls, and waves are like what we see on the surface of water. But quantum objects can't be modeled by macro objects, so we can't relate them to anything sensually familiar, and people go crazy trying to figure out how something can "be both" a particle and a wave when no such thing exists in our macro world.

[@cheetah100]

Only reinforces to me how wrong the Copenhagen Interpretation is. Quantum computing depends on there being actual multiple histories for a system which are not determined/measured in the interim. If it is like this lecture suggests the wave function is simply uncertainty about an actual position rather than a superposition of many real histories. Makes me want to pull out my notes on non deterministic CAs to show how systems that have multiple possible future states develop.

[@QuicksilverSG]

The outcome of any single measurement can produce only one real-valued eigenstate (yes, I know that's a tautology). All other pre-measurement superposited states remain unREALized within 4D physical spacetime. (They "exist" in complex-valued configuration space, humming along with all those Quantum Computers.)

[@cheetah100]

So if you are inside such a system where the superposited states exist they will seem pretty real to you won't they? You can't tell from within the system whether you are the 'real' part or in the 'unrealized' superpositional part. You can only ever observe from the state you are in, but that does not mean there are no alternate states which are exist in parallel. The idea that we are somehow in a special place in spacetime, a privileged domain of the 'real' - whatever that means - while the hidden superpositional universe is where? If the superpositional states exist at all, in any context, it is possible to experience those states from within the system.

[@cheetah100]

Also, pull out your copy of QED and look at the examples of partial reflection. I'm pretty sure Feynman addresses this crazy idea that we are simply ignorant of the true position until measured. And what even counts as measurement?

[@QuicksilverSG]

If you were "inside such a system where the superposited states exist" you would no longer be dwelling in physical 4D spacetime. You would be a non-local entity manifested in complex-valued Configuration Space, along with the quantum wave function and all its superposited states. When I refer to "real-valued eigenstates", I am speaking LITERALLY of physical properties that are measured with REAL (i.e. non-imaginary) numerical values. THAT is what you are calling the "privileged domain of the 'real'". The quantum wave function is itself defined as a complex-valued function in Configuration Space. In order for any one of its superposited states to manifest in 4D physical spacetime, an exclusively real-valued solution (i.e. an eigenstate) of that wave function must emerge. At the 4D spacetime point where such a real-valued solution emerges, a physical particle is detected. All other superposited states remain in Configuration Space, as complex-valued solutions of the entangled wave function of the particle AND the measurement apparatus that detected it.

[@Gordesm]

After all your imagination is in the quantum realm.

[@pillettadoinswartsh4974]

While Philip's analogies could use some refinement, his overall view of this problem is new and stunning. And actually takes our understanding of it much further.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

Yes, he really helped me to view the subject with some hope of making sense of it.

[@DB1956]

Tommy Cooper's place in the history of quantum theory needs to be acknowledged! Are you available for children's parties? Seriously - brilliant lecture. Thanks

[@goedelite]

I think some people look for mysteries for purposes of conversation or for making u-tube videos. For example, that a particle can be simultaneously in more than one quantum state; not really true. The maths of QM, at the outset, tells us that quantum states may be superimposed; that the sum of states, finite or infinite is also a quantum state. It further tells us that an observation made on the state of the particle will find it in one of the states in the superposition with a determinable probability. I don't see anything subjective about that. So long as the theory tells how to calculate that probability, and the experiments reveal that the probability is correct, no problem! Similar thinking should be applied to other such "paradoxes". Only if one insists on nature's being as conceived classically in a realm of experience to which classical physics does not apply is there a difficulty. The difficulty is in that sort of thinking; not in the maths or the physics of QM - with due respect to Richard Feynman.

[@kickinbackinOC]

Let's pretend we can have an imaginary interview with Science! When I ask "What makes the electron want to orbit the nucleus?", Science answers "Opposite charges", and follows up with mathematical models. When I ask "What is the force of magnetism itself made of, that it can bridge the gap between two objects?", Science answers "Like poles repel, opposite poles attract". Inevitable proofs are referenced with iron fillings, magnet, and paper, as if this explains the root of the phenomenon. When I ask "What makes the earth revolve around the sun?", science answers "Centrifugal force created by earth's velocity, countering the gravitational pull of the sun". References are trotted out regarding relative mass of celestial bodies, and mathematical codifications of the phenomena of gravity and velocity, as if those formulas somehow explained the mechanics of the force itself that bridges the gap between two objects. The answer is never to the point of the question, namely, what is the force of gravity "made of"? What gave the earth it's velocity in the first place? Even a child's spinning top requires an initiating force, and despite the sophistication of our mathematical models of this and that, the initiating force of all things escapes our understanding. At this point, many give up and fall back on "Who knows, it just is", and there ends their scientific inquisitiveness, like a dog that ceases to find a new toy robot of any interest because the dog's limit of comprehension has been exceeded, and therefore the dog's interest wanes. Like how in the book "Atlas Shrugged", so many would flatly retort to unanswerable questions with "Who is John Galt?". Mathematics only codifies known effects, and does not explain the root machinations of the phenomena. Mathematics puts "values" on observable and repeatable phenomena, but does NOT explain the essence of it. Just because we can cover the black board with mathematical proofs, does "not" mean that all aspects of any particular issue has been understood thoroughly at its deepest level. Math is only a tool, a language, a reference for our discoveries and understanding, just as we have words to codify thoughts. Extrapolating all matter and energy backwards to the Big Bang brings us no closer to understanding just why and how matter and energy exist at all, nor their origins. While useful for some purposes, the Big Bang theory only "kicks the can down the road", towards understanding the phenomenon of existence itself. We learn to make use of various phenomena in constructive ways, regardless that we don't fully understand the root essence of gravity, electricity, magnetism, and quantum entanglement. Yes, we know many things "about" these phenomena, but if all learning was finished, we could just close the books, shut down the labs, and close the universities! To an intellectually honest person, we have to admit that we don't understand all aspects of each phenomena, even though we may be making practical use of it already. This lulls some less questioning types into the false notion that everything about common phenomena is already fully understood, and we happily bounce along with the misconception that there is no deeper level of understanding to be discovered. This is human "scientific" myopia! Science itself is not actually a comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon of existence, it is not necessarily a thorough understanding of the source of energy nor of matter. Rather, science is best viewed only as a collection of what things are known, what things can be known and codified, in whatever capacity our limited minds can comprehend. Many people misunderstand the process of science as if it was in itself embodied into some kind of Holy Oracle that has already figured out all life's questions, and they rely on the intellect of others and repeat half-baked explanations like a parrot, never considering the issues for themselves nor seeking more complete understanding. To them, science functions more as a religion, where they follow blindly and never question for fear of being reprimanded or embarrassed. So false notions of science are repeated in text books for generations, with no one being bold enough to admit that the emperor of science has no clothes. For example, the current model of the formation of our moon is that a cosmic impact separated material from the earth, and that material eventually coalesced into the moon. There are very many fatal problems with that failed theory, yet many still accept it as scientific truth without studying the issue in any depth, or even feeling the least bit inquisitive about it. There is a tendency for some (even intellectuals) to say "So what, the moon has always been there, so who cares how it formed?". So it is with many accepted explanations of science. Either we dont really care, like animals that are only concerned with meat, sex, and the base things of life, or we accept failed theories without question. I don't think of science as a destination, so much as it is a journey. Too many people imagine that all mysteries have already been figured out, as they stare at the black board like deer in the headlights. For example, one scholar in the 19th century supposing that man's intellect had matured sufficiently, declared that there was nothing more to be learned! So it goes with vain humanity, imagining that our intellect has reached a wonderful milestone of accomplishment, not recognizing that we have only scratched the surface of what can be known. The ineffable perception of the source of energy and matter, and the extent of space and time, remain as an overwhelming mystery to which we are obligated to apply our deductive logic unto. We must keep an open mind, and keep digging deeper into all phenomona! Disclaimer- I'm a mechanic for a living, and have no physics or scientific training. My thoughts are just my own.

[@pigmilkmusicfarm]

Adderrall alert!

[@outsidethepyramid]

TLDR

[@madogsioux5636]

Thoughts are only as good as the tools that express them: semantics and mathematics - their limits set the limits of our thoughts. Unfortunately they are the only tools we have. Now, in a blip of evolutionary timescale, quantum theory is pushing the limits of this human capacity towards the frontier of the universe, or towards the cliff. Or, is it an intimation of something beyond the realm of human thoughts. Or toward something that is altogether beyond the rather fixed and stable idea of what is human? Herein-above are the three distinct propositions or potentials regarding the present phase of evolution happening on this planet. It seems it is the moral question that needs to be addressed now, a question which the quantum theory has exposed and demonstrated in no uncertain terms. It is the question of (human) agency which is implicit in all time and space.

[@dy6682]

ShipBuilding y

[@david203]

Nice essay. It's good to think critically about science, religion, and everything else that is offered to guide us to progress.

[@sidguernsey1393]

Great lecture, very much appreciated

[@Neocaridina]

What if you know nothing? I was looking for Beavis and Butthead clips and came upon this 😆

[@joelee5875]

If one knows nothing, one must also know something.

[@ErynIstar]

truth...

[@espositogregory]

Depends on if you know you know nothing, or if you are unaware of your "knowledgelessness". Difference typically being that the former pragmatically poise themselves somewhere on the discretionary side of Socrates, while he latter can usually be heard before seen.

[@joelee5875]

@@espositogregory Irony at it's best.

[@wayneyadams]

These ideas make sense, and to me at least, make the weirdness associated with Quantum Mechanics much less weird. Like so many others, I worked with the equations in graduate school, and listened to the unsatisfying attempts to explain what the results meant in the real world. This short video has motivated me to pull out my dusty textbooks, and go back and re-read them with a completely different perspective. I just moved his book to the top of my reading list and plan to read it immediately after I watch his second video. Just scanning the book shows that while difficult, it is understandable to the non-scientist. You do not need a Kindle to read it, Amazon provides a reader online.