Does Quantum Mechanics Imply Multiple Universes?

Dive into the deepest quantum mystery: how do we transition from a haze of possibilities to the concrete reality we experience? Does the answer require a profusion of universes, each shaped by different quantum outcomes?
This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
Participants:
Sean Carroll
Moderator:
Brian Greene
00:00 - Introduction
03:38 - Sean Carroll Introduction
04:09 - The Quantum Measurement Problem
08:33 - The GRW Theory
11:18 - What would be predicted with the Schrödinger equation?
15:10 - Many Worlds Theory
17:42 - What are the implications of the many worlds theory?
22:37 - Quantum Entanglement
29:05 - What does the future of Quantum Mechanics look like?
31:26 - Embracing the Many Worlds Concept
Part 1 | Can Particles be Quantum Entangled Across Time? • Can Particles be Quant...
WSF Landing Page: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
- SUBSCRIBE to our KZbin Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
- VISIT our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com
- LIKE us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- FOLLOW us on Twitter: / worldscifest
#worldsciencefestival #quantummechanics #briangreene #seancarrol #physics

[@danielpaulson8838]

This was way too short. I could listen to these two dialogue all day. Incredible communicators and teachers, both in very similar ways. They make the complex, somewhat approachable.

[@lonelycubicle]

So nice to hear an expert of a field be interviewed by another expert of the same field who is just trying to get the information out for the audience.

[@tomsmith4542]

yes but the difference is that Brian has also journalist qualities

[@philharmer198]

What do other experts , in the same field think .

[@Witnessdomaining]

Brian Greene and Sean Carroll... What a meditation!

[@philharmer198]

You come up with nonsense . Upon this meditation , mindset .

[@JoyoSnooze]

Two expert communicators of physics sitting down for a chat. Thanks for this.

[@Dr10Jeeps]

Two of my favourite physicists having their typically enlightening conversation. How can you not be enthralled by this stuff?

[@richsw]

Goodness, this conversation and the previous one with Elise, was so enjoyable. It almost restores my faith in humanity that two, or three, people can sit down and talk about such incredibly esoteric things in such a beautiful and companionable way. The presentation was top quality as was Brian's insights as the host. Thank you for providing it for our genuine viewing pleasure.

[@shikhauppal6250]

Quantum mechanics was ignored in the 20th century and the same is happening now but it's just so good to hear that people are considering this

[@schmetterling4477]

Did you pull that bs out of your own rear or did it come from somebody else? ;-)

[@josephbunverzagt9535]

I would love to sit down with these 2 guys, have a drink, and talk physics. How cool would that be.🥃

[@robinette64]

My 2 favorite physicists!!!

[@SandipChitale]

At 6:12 Brian talks about "Shut up and calculate" dogma that basically discouraged scientists to look at the problem of measurement in QM. And in fact that problem is glossed over in the Physics text books as Sean later mentioned (at 8:00). I think this should be unacceptable in science. And IMO this has been a serious sociological issue that basically was skipped over by the science community. Sean laments about this at 30:49. We may have missed the next Einstein during that period who could have solved it. The lesson is that scientific community should never again ever allow such dogmas of not asking the "why?" questions to take hold. Luckily many scientists (like Sean) and Philosophers (like Tim Maudlin and David Albert) now reject the "shut up and calculate" dogma and press on to try to solve the measurement problem. They should be extremely lauded. BTW the "Shut up and calculate" dogma took hold because Neils Bohr and Copenhagen Interpretation wing won the PR battle against Einstein and Schrodinger. Read all about it in Adam Baker's book "What is real?" I feel that the same effect is happening in the area of understanding of consciousness research due to the so-called "Hard problem of consciousness" dogma due to David Chalmers. Just like "Shut up and calculate" dogma was rejected, so should the "Hard problem of consciousness" dogma be rejected. Luckily many scientists (like Anil Seth and Michael Graziano) and Philosophers (like Daniel Dennett (did :( )) reject the "Hard problem of consciousness" dogma and press on to try to solve the understanding of consciousness. They should be extremely lauded.

[@Fomites]

Well written. Thank you 😊

[@POTAT-pi7mu]

Well said.

[@davidfiler7439]

Carry on then and I shall look forward to hearing of your discoveries with eager anticipation.

[@SandipChitale]

Thanks.Actually I do not work on discoveries myself, but like you I am looking forward to the discoveries made by scientists eagerly.

[@POTAT-pi7mu]

@@davidfiler7439 his comment is thoughtful and considered - you're being a pathetic jerk

[@genedussell5528]

i am sooo glad these 2 physicist are finally together talking. love them both!

[@michaelmurphree593]

Sean also has a Mindscape episode where Brian is the guest. Definitely worth a listen.

[@fatimapereira781]

Ouvir Sean Carroll é sempre um prazer! Um dos meus mais preferido e um "grande" comunicador.

[@ulysissira9808]

Wow thank you so much great proud of you sir..

[@yaserthe1]

OMG My 2 favourite dudes This is like a Marvel DC crossover!😂

[@coder-x7440]

Spider-Man, ..Batman. Batman, meet Spiderman.

[@stephengee4182]

Carroll was scientific advisor to many of the marvel many universe movies.

[@arthurcamargo8416]

Another fantastic session! Thank you!

[@williamstearns4581]

Great salon thank you very much I enjoyed it.

[@alpachino2shae]

Gotta love Sean’s shirts 👌

[@irisalajem3318]

So entanglement only applies on particles being observed by humans? What does it mean without an observer? Thank you for an amazing and inspiring conversation 🙏🏻

[@jamesdunham1072]

Sean seems to always ask the right questions in a very appropriate fashion....

[@rarabbb]

I would just like to say a massive thank you to everyone involved in this production and freely giving us these interesting discussions.❤

[@HarryNicNicholas]

one of the best interviews for a long time, penrose and carroll are both very special science fellas. thanks.

[@stashmark7105]

Yes i love when two genius ladies as these can come together to tell the truth about the true nature of reality.

[@hopperpeace]

Sean Carroll and Joseph M. Gaßner are my favorite physics communicators.

[@dangaynhsblitzkrieg4799]

richard feynman mine

[@jayanderson66]

I believe that all the work on decoherence and work on quantum computing will lead to getting everyone on better footing in quantam mechanics.

[@jotarokujo5132]

no, one has nothing to do with the other.

[@m0rph3u5.]

Very interesting interview .. This channel is priceless and Brian's presentation and hosting are Phenomenal. P.S. Brian's smile was in a superposition until Sean measured it @ 12:44 :D

[@neutrino7892]

Brilliant talk. thx

[@El_Diablo_12]

19:30 spacetime from a many world’s perspective - early days 21:20 gravity isn’t a force propagating through spacetime. It’s a feature of spacetime itself

[@Edgarbopp]

Sean Carroll’s podcast is the best.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

28:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties. P.S. 0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough. Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). 1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock. 2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt

[@coder-x7440]

I LOVE THIIIIS!!!! Sean Carol and Brian Greene shootin the breeze 😎🍹🌴🏖️

[@JohnDarwin7]

Thank you Sean.🖖

[@dinarwali386]

Quantum Mechanics is the probably the ultimate sophistication in Physics or perhaps in reality. Great conversation.

[@lonelycubicle]

I didn’t follow Sean’s answer about probability. Need to look that up.

[@MrMinorKeys]

As always such a pleasure to listen to stimulating insights ideas. So, when we say that energy is conserved, what does that mean in the many worlds were we keep on splitting ourselves exponentially?

[@schmetterling4477]

Nothing. The world does not split endlessly. Everett simply didn't understand quantum mechanics.

[@nicksotiropoulos1469]

It just is that we as humans can't accept that propability rules our reality. However we accept that for dice, coins and cards without asuming many worlds existence. Like we easily accept and understand imaginary numbers in electrical circuits but not in quantum mechanics. Maybe propability and complex numbers themselfs is what we refuse to accept?

[@heathenhammer2344]

Probability is ultimately deterministic. It just looks otherwise.

[@declandougan7243]

That’s not what they’re discussing in this video at all.

[@exilibrius]

The probability thing feels like we miss a dimension to fully predict and observ

[@afifakimih8823]

Two of My favourite physics communicator/ physicist...💜❤️

[@leolopez6341]

We will never get tired of you 2

[@keppela1]

Brian: "If some outcomes are probabilistically unlikely, why do they ALL happen in many worlds?" What a great question. I wish Sean had given a comprehensible answer.

[@7heHorror]

The glib answer is that's what the math says. 😉Sean said the probabilities are expressed as the likelihood you will find yourself in whichever world, addressing a common criticism of many-worlds, but perhaps not fully answering the question as posed. The rest of the answer, as I've heard him describe elsewhere, is that worlds resulting from outcomes with low probabilities occupy less of Hilbert space than worlds resulting from high probability outcomes.

[@Kwarktaschnir]

If you are interested in the argument: On episode 36 of the Mindscape Podcast and on episode 106 of the Robinson Podcast Sean Carroll discusses the problem of probability in the Everett interpretation with David Albert at length.

[@schmetterling4477]

MWI is trivial bullshit. You don't have to think any further about it. We know exactly where Everett went wrong.

[@keppela1]

@@7heHorror Oh interesting. I wish he'd said that! It's nice to know that the lower probability translates into some type of consequence. Thanks much.

[@keppela1]

@@Kwarktaschnir Thanks, I'll check those out.

[@M0U53B41T]

Are there any plans to include Niel Turok in these discussions by any chance?

[@yuriimarshalofficial]

Exactly, we never fool ourselves like in the case of experiments where we use "observations", because essentially we stress the waves to the compact corpuscle to measure speed, distance, size, inner properties, which means coercion rather than distant sightsee. In fact we tear out fermionic entities from another state of essences and call it some kind of Standard Model of particle physics, but fundamentally miss the nature of categorised phenomenons, e.g. comparing bosons with fermions while they exist in different states of essences (informational or probability continuum vs time-energy continuum of states).

[@Pandaemoni]

That was a nice explanation of Everett's idea. I had always imagined it as saying that each measurement was "generating" (in some sense) new universes, but I find it a lot more comprehensible to me, humble researcher, that I am simply being drawn into a superposition with the particle I am trying to measure, preserving the outcomes I was expecting to see. That gives me metaphysical agita, making me wonder what I mean by "me" as it maybe I am just a mathematical object (and then add the holographic principle to that), but my philosophical discomfort isn't evidence against it.

[@schmetterling4477]

A better explanation of Everett's idea would be the fact that his thesis was already wrong in the second sentence. ;-)

[@SG-kj2uy]

Sean is the best!!

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU...!!!

[@comtearnau00]

Good final music

[@thomasdequincey5811]

I loved the story about Bohm, Einstein and Bell. I hadn't heard it before.

[@marcobiagini1878]

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I want to explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values ​​for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values ​​for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.

[@ritamsadhukhan772]

That's basically how physics function and I know you are not a physicist if you are then you are a religious one because smart physicist know they can't disprove quantum mechanics it exists and it workers. The device you are using is thanks to quantum mechanics, the next generation computers will also be quantum mechanics gift to us. Non dualism there is no difference between the observer and the observerd. Non duality is not a new concept existed for thousands of years in Hindu philosophy this idea of non dualism is not meant for half minded idiots it's made for top level genius scholars. Non dualism in short means your the universe itself not a seperate entity. The dream concept you just mentioned is also a common reference to the universe is Hindu scriptures we all are in the dream of mahavishnu and this whole creation is a dream. Satan Dharma called for a reason because it's not a religion it was for greater open minded minds to explore there thoughts meta physics to be exact and now the same debate is back quantum mechanics and brahman very much similar isn't it. Go read the Upanishads perhaps you'll have a clarity. You know what the very first hym in rig veda the first veda is the hym of creation in this hym the last verse says who knows how this creation began the one who sits above it or may not know the truth. (May not know the truth even god) Ever heard a religious book saying that. U see it liter

[@stephengee4182]

The engine which powers free will in biology is the delivery of momentum observables along mesoscopic microtuble pathways through proto- conscious focus. This engine powers the delivery of the male's DNA to the female's egg, and powers cell division to create new life from single cells of coalesing strands of DNA which can create and sustain whole bodies with arms, legs, organs and fully aware brains. In the brain, microtubles are fixed in place in neuronal, ion channel enabled pathways, to recreate harmonies in orchestrated playback of quantum symphonies of past and future visionary compositions. God is consciousness, consciousness is the quantum ocean, and we are waves on the quantum see from which the universe, momentum and free will emerges.

[@Iamthepossum]

Wow; many many thanks to you Marco for taking the time to explain your position and your insights so throughly and so lucidly. A fact which is even more impressive given the possibility that English may not be your first language. I am very appreciative of your thoughtfulness and kindness in sharing these insights with the rest of us. May I ask if you are a professor or academic, and if so, where do you teach or do research? Kind regards to you from Los Angeles ❤

[@EinSofQuester]

You are contradicting yourself when you say the universe existed before humans (I think you mean consciousness in general) existed. To say this implies you believe in realism. But you already said that QM is not compatible with realism. What do you mean when you say the universe "existed" before consciousness?

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@EinSofQuester I meant that, from a realistic perspective, the universe should have existed before humans.

[@sangeet9100]

About the EM theory having been seamlessly embedded in QM, right away while gravity is still outlier - scale of QM is in the realm of particle physics, and atomic particles prominently display electric charge and/or magnetic moment, making it an "automatic" fit, whereas gravity has been on a much larger scale (I don't know much about quantum gravity concepts). Maybe while trying to quantize gravity, one could also approach the task from the possibility of EM as some sort of space-time distortion

[@jimmydeocadez237]

I don't know why even I don't understand anything but I find this kind of physics very fascinating in fact I spend most of my leisure time watching videos like this.

[@Dr.scottcase88]

I feel exactly the same way and spend hours listening to Edward Witten’s physics lectures and myriad of other things and often I use them to help me fall asleep not to say that I’m bored with it I find some serenity in my misunderstanding or inability to understand while I keep trying to grasp that understanding. Peace.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is nothing to understand here. This was two guys who don't understand physics talking about physics. ;-)

[@niranjansaikia9379]

Quantum Reality is Magic Reality..happy to see both of you on this mind boggling topic..I love both of you..Thanks a lot..❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊

[@yeti9127]

I can listen to these guys for hours..

[@stashmark7105]

Sean Carrol is throwing down the gauntlet for whomever would prove the truth of non local hidden variables over the theorems viability

[@petetap4255]

Given that multiple particles occupy a space, each with individual waveforms then ,what happens to particles when you include constructive and destructive supposition within the system?

[@WideCuriosity]

The thing about many worlds that puzzles me is where all the energy to continually split the universe into two, comes from. Surely a better view must be that all versions already exist at once, there are versions of us in some, and while they can imagine a time line joining points, in reality each only experiences their part of a present moment, has a memory of possible others that seem a rational path to where they are, and can envisage possible paths leading away from where they are. No sudden split, it's all there. Time and space merely emerge in minds rather than is/are fundamental.

[@Sound_man73_Electronics]

Two of my favorite science educators on the same stage! I have always disagreed with Sean on the 'Many World's Theory', but who the hell am I to judge?

[@jinstinky501]

34 mins? Is this 'shrinkflation'? Boohoo. I want more. More free stuff!!!

[@NakedSageAstrology]

No-thing is free in this Youniverse. 🙏 Every-thing comes at the cost of the Soul. Think deeply about this, this intangible Light that Illuminates This Dream. Each act of Observation, each time You look into this MirroR of mind; the ancients called this Maya. -Illusion of the senses. Rorri Maesu says useaMirroR Say You in reverse and hear 'We', understand this Youniverse is not the 'Me'-niverse BE-Cause that would be too tiny to be Self sustainable. Instead this ever expanding Youniverse is akin to looking into the MirroR of the event horizon, forever frozen betwixt Waking, Dreaming & Deep Sleep. All from within You the 4th. Say Maya aloud to reveal the Source of The "I AM." One verse, many songs. Row row row your boat old friend. ⛵ 💤 🌈🙏 Tat Tvam Asi

[@bazookajoe6133]

Sean Carrol is the premier physics communicator, argue me, 😎

[@RatzerLeaf]

Only a bot would say such a thing

[@Jay-7154]

And Michelle Thaller

[@matthewweflen]

Sean Carroll AND Brian Greene, that is

[@jayanderson66]

I love Brian and Sean but Sean's ability to get out there with many different platforms and topics has me following practically everything he does. There are both top shelf communicators. Sean does not suffer fools and Brian never seems to be with them

[@justinava1675]

Brian Green is my fav. I like the topics he covers

[@Robinson8491]

When will the next one with Carlo Rovelli be on?

[@paultvshow]

I have been interested in quantum and studied mechanics since high school and university. Even though I have casually learned quantum mechanics via KZbin and on other platforms, I was not quite able to make sense of it until recently when I started delving deep into quantum computing.

[@schmetterling4477]

So tell me, oh sage, what's a quantum? ;-)

[@FigmentHF]

I love Brian and Sean, both very smart, often humble, and able to communicate complex science with not an ounce of pretence or condescension. I’m purely interested in the deep, epistemological questions of reality, and so the fact that both of these guys delve into “pot head” questions with vigour, is refreshing. They are both clearly creative and curious, as well as being academically gifted

[@geraldbutler5484]

Einstein said if you can’t explain your theories to a 9 year old they are not good theories.

[@Mentaculus42]

So it becomes a "pot head" question if one questions “orthodoxy”. An orthodoxy that in someways is extremely “effective” and in other ways is clearly incomplete and incompatible between the two “pillars” of this orthodoxy. So it is solely the domain of the "pot heads" to question “reality” & the underlying mechanisms‽ That case Elon should have all the answers.

[@BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv]

Humm they have made science significant. You have a synergy. Looking forward for superposition to super universe. Thank you BOTH OF YOU, video.

[@1ifemare]

Wow. My 2 favorite science lecturers together debating Foundations of Physics and it's not even my birthday. Get Neil Turok in the same room i'd be in Physics heaven.

[@joshsater4044]

Great closing statement by Mr. Greene. The universe does not have to bend itself to our intuition and understanding! It may be weirder than our brains are capable of imagining.

[@jvmbmc]

I know its off topic but as a non scientist I was thinking about entanglement and doesn't that break the speed of light is the fastest since it could if I understand happen instantly across the universe at distances farther than a light year away? Also since could it happen across time then also? Weird stuff, "spooky".

[@iridium1911]

Entanglement cannot be used to actually transmit any information, therefore causality is not violated. Neither is relativity.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Easy: in the "real world" the planet Jupiter may be a whole lot of "distance" away -- probably a couple of light-days. But that's the mere real world. The imaginary planet Jupiter is right here. I've brought it before your eyes *SHAZAM* almost instantly. No limitation by and 300,000,000 metres/second for me! My imagination can travel light-years in seconds -- and so can yours. It just did. To Jupiter and back.

[@peterbabu936]

Trivial question, with non trivial answer.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@peterbabu936 The answer is a trivial "no". ;-)

[@declandougan7243]

@jvmbmc. Think of it this way. We run a similar experiment with human beings. First, you’ll meet up with a friend of yours, and designate by a coin flip who will tell a truth and who will tell a lie. Second, two people agree on a question to ask each of you. Even if you travel to the opposite sides of the world before being questioned, you will still answer the way you agreed to, no instant communication required. This is not an exact analogy to entanglement but goes to show that non local behavior doesn’t require faster than light communication.

[@richardhunt809]

Many Worlds is an interpretation of QM. Instead of saying that one of the superposed states wins and the others disappear, it’s saying that the others continue to exist in some other universes. But if we can’t see or interact with these other universes then in what sense do they exist? Purely in our minds, I say. This explains nothing at all.

[@Xcalator35]

Far too short...these two gentlemen are absolutely briliant communicators of science. After Carl Sagan, these two follow next 'ex aequo'

[@groovycoolies2517]

Quantum Theory Explained. " In every realm of possibility there is an infinite outcome. but in the end there is only one". Neural Pathway Analysis vol.1. Perceptions Of Reality, Individuality , Destiny, And The Evolution Of Meaning.

[@rahul19free]

Quantum Entanglement could be the reason a particle looses its wave like behaviour. Let me explain, In a double split experiment the particle behaves as a wave until it is observed, the observer(Human or a detector) is also made of particles which has a Quantum state. When a particle in the double split experiment is observed, the wave like behaviour is lost because of the quantum state of the observer. This means in the classic world all the particles doesn't have their wave like behaviour because of Entanglement of observer. Which means Entanglement is not one of the property but it is the property how Quantum Physics works.

[@ritamsadhukhan772]

In short yeh sab Maya hai bache , not real. Sirf atman real hai. That's what Edward Schrodinger believed.

[@ddtt1398]

Gosh. Two such bright guys, so addicted to a crazy theory from before their times, and dismissed times and again.

[@siamakmis]

With do all respect to both legends professor Nassim haramein eloquently explained about these ambiguities in quantum mechanics,,

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no ambiguity in quantum mechanics. There are a lot of people who are just not smart enough to learn enough about it. ;-)

[@vibehighest]

Brian was super giggly this recording

[@user-zf9dv8kg7q]

conciseness

[@42Goatee]

...have been very impressed over the last decade or so by the ability of public exposure to turn even the most nobaly serious and scholarly scientists into shameless media tarts....keep up the good work boys, you have a fan...

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Many worlds seems "too many worlds" for an electron going to a double slit. It's not said here but I think even Sean Carroll thinks it's more that that the complete local causal situation splits up. Further away the universe is not disturbed by what happens there at that double slit. But I wonder if any point in space is not all the time in superposition and so surrounded by a cloud of alternatives all the time? However, where are they then? Yes, so is there a kind of hyperspace, where all these possibilities surrounding any point, reside?? Even harder problem: why is only one option (in my own model) realised ? I think because the clouds of the other particles force all particles to choose the result where the possibilities of the neighbours are least or perhaps "less" affected. It could be like a competition is taking place but less change overall is favored.

[@YuTv1408]

I remeber Sean from Caltech

[@wmstuckey]

Sean is mistaken when he says we never observe the electron in a superposition of up and down. A vertical spin "up" state is the 50-50 superposition of horizontal spin left and spin right ("up" and "down" with respect to horizontally oriented Stern-Gerlach magnets). So, when your vertical spin measurement gives an outcome of "up", you are in fact observing a horizontal superposition of "up" and "down".

[@schmetterling4477]

So when my dice throw gives me a 1, in reality it was a superposition of 2, 3, 4 and 5? How much did you have to drink just now? ;-)

[@wmstuckey]

@@schmetterling4477 You have the wrong classical counterpart, you want a classical bit, which has only two possible outcomes. Let's run through an example. Suppose your classical bit is a box that may or may not contain a ball when you open it, and your state is 50% "yes" it contains a ball and 50% "no" it does not contain a ball. That is a mixed state not a pure state. A mixed state is a distribution of outcomes over the pure states (actual measurement outcomes) for the measurement in question (in this case that measurement is "open the box"). There is no measurement you can do on that classical bit with an outcome state (pure state) equal to 50% "yes" + 50% "no". The difference between a classical bit and a quantum bit (qubit) is quantum superposition, which means that there is a measurement you can do whose outcome is that 50-50 outcome. That is, every pure state transforms continuously to any other pure state, i.e., all states in the probability space between any two pure states are pure states themselves for a qubit. People often confuse mixed states for classical bits with pure states for the quantum superposition of qubits. A good example of that is Schrodinger's Cat. You often see people claim Schrodinger's Cat is in a quantum superposition of Live Cat + Dead Cat and when you open the box the state collapses to either Live Cat with 50% probability or Dead Cat with 50% probability. But, if Schrodinger's Cat is *really* a qubit and not merely a classical bit in a mixed state of 50-50 Live Cat-Dead Cat, then there has to be a measurement (the complementary measurement in this case) whose outcome is Live Cat + Dead Cat with 100% probability. That is, (|LC> + |DC>)/root(2) has to be a pure state, not merely a mixed state, if Schrodinger's Cat is in a quantum superposition (is a qubit) as claimed.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@wmstuckey How much energy comes out of a quantum system is MY choice as an experimentalist. It's determined by the spectral operator that I stick into the Born rule. It's NOT determined by the system alone. I can keep an excited atomic state "alive forever" by putting it into a resonator that suppresses the emission of the spectral line through which the atom would decay in the physical vacuum. It is this energy that determines the final state aka measurement. I don't think you understand how quantum mechanics actually works. All this collapse language is complete bullshit, just like Schroedinger's cat. :-)

[@wmstuckey]

@@schmetterling4477 My response is textbook quantum mechanics used everyday in quantum experiments. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean no one uses it.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@wmstuckey You simply didn't read the textbooks carefully enough, Mate, and then there are things about nature at this level which you will NOT learn from the usually textbooks, to begin with. They can only be found in the primary literature and the lab. :-)

[@thingsiplay]

We don't understand Quantum Mechanics. We only know how to calculcate. This is the equivalent to a mathematical equation in school you learned to do the right steps, to get the end result. But you would not understand why and what is actually happening. Still get best rating for.

[@schmetterling4477]

I don't know who "you" are. Since I understand quantum mechanics just fine I have to assume that "you" are a bunch of intellectually lazy people who weren't paying enough attention in school. ;-)

[@glennmiller9759]

I'm only a few minutes into this but as a numbskull who struggles with the cerebral aspects of it, I'm really enjoying watching and listening to the two of you kindred spirits, so to speak, bantering about the esoterica that I would so love to understand.

[@stephenzhao5809]

17:42 ... now in the conversation with theists toward the end we began to think about quantum mechanics and its implications for the babric the nature of spacetime itself this is an issue that you spend some time thinking about as well so what illumination does quantum mechanics or many worlds give to your picture of what spacetime is 18:05 SC: I mean that's a great question because it's a little misleading to even think about many worlds as many worlds right like Everett didn't put in a bunch of Wordls it's the theory of the wave function just obeying the Shrōdinger's equation and it's one possible theory there's other options and in physics we have puzzles like gravity right like quantum gravity with string theory is purportedly a theory of as well as other theories the other parts of nature that we know from expeiments uh the matter particles electronmagnetism the nuclear forces we've done a very good job in what we call quantizing them that's to say we start with a classical theory and then we have a cookbook for turning this clasical theory into a quantum theory but there's no guarantee that that works there's there's no unique way of constructing every possible quantum mechanical theory from a pre-exist clasical theory nature doesn't do that nature jsut starts quantum from the start 19:03 ... 22:31 can we spend just a few minutes talking a little bit about entanglement as that was something that we spoke about with the lease and was certainly a key feature of quantum mechanics because as I think many people know the Nobel Prize in Physics you know not long ago 2022 awarded to three folks whose real impact was in the arena of entanglement and you pointed out to me and I hadn't even noticed it myslef that the Nobel Prize citation (yeah) was actually a little bit misleading and it relates to this question of the measurement problem we sort of have it here so the citation says that the Nobel Prize was for work whose impact was to show that quantum mechanics cannot be replaced by a theory that uses hidden variables and as this is an idea which is one other apporach to solving the measurement problem what what are hidden variables and why is that wrong 23:34 SC: there's there's a very juicy story that I can't resist telling here

[@publiusrunesteffensen5276]

Carroll about GRW : "It will be ruled out soon...". Would love to see his bottle suddenly disintegrate at that moment!

[@mediamonster4936]

Great discussion on many levels lol

[@eenkjet]

If the UWF encodes a mind into the future on a worldline within a causal patch, the UWF by universality must be equal to or greater than that mind.

[@objective_psychology]

Yes.

[@IntuitiveIQ]

No 😀

[@carsonderthick3794]

You maybe factor from any mass to calculate anything from saying we know what nothing equal to a whole is

[@ksgaur]

This program looks more interesting than your(brain green) books. Congratulations dear Green.

[@joelmichaelson2133]

A particle can exist in two places at once what is the point of measurement ?

[@thechurchofdave]

I'm not saying this is possible or impossible but where does the energy an matter for the multiple universes come from? Is the thrown dart possibility creating a new universe? If not then are there trillions of worlds just ready to accept the various choices we make and stear them through yet another universe every time we make a decision? If so. . . How is this decision being communicated across multiple universes? The universe that we are aware of is pretty large. If there are countless others "out there" . . . how is the information inside our universe crossing over into others that are at least one universe deapth away from us? How is that happening? How fast is it happening? How many times can it happen at once? Where is the energy to move that information from one place to another even coming from? Or are this multiple universes somehow in dimensions that are not distant from us but right here with us but in ways that we cannot see or experience them? I love this stuff but the more they talk, the more complex my questions get inside my head.

[@schmetterling4477]

It doesn't have to come from anywhere. MWI is a trivial mistake.

[@thechurchofdave]

@@schmetterling4477 Well it's just sn unptoveh idea that may or may not be wrong. The opinions of weather it's right or wrong are certainly trivial. If an idea is presented at real or a possibility then the questions that arise from it are worthy of discussion. So if this idea is being presented as a possible reality then the questions arise and the answers are due. This person is saying he thinks this idea is likely to be real. At that point then it does "have to come" from somewhere. If people want to believe this idea then they should have answers or possible answers for the questions it brings up. Just saying something is right or wrong without any ideas or proof to explain how that assumption is adopted, is a major mistake.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@thechurchofdave You can find the mistake in the second sentence of Everett's thesis.

[@skylark8828]

@@thechurchofdave It is a hypothesis and there are no experiments that can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the 'many worlds' view of reality is correct. It's just work in progress like many things, one day someone will come up with a better explanation ...

[@thechurchofdave]

@@skylark8828 I understand that. However, a hypothsis is better when it presents more potential answers than questions. So I understand that this is rather hypothetical and there is no way to prove it with actual evidence yet BUT it seems to me that in order to present a reasonable hypothisis, you should at least discuss these types of problems that the idea presents us with. And in my opinion, the biggest question here is where does all this "stuff" potentially come from? It seems to me that presenting ideas of things being there or popping into existance, it's reasonable to ask questions like "So is it already there? Is it being created by the decisions? What forms of communication could there be that would comunicate the changes in reality that then split into different universes. I don't think it's reasonable to say "None of this can possibly be true unless you have every shred of proof right now." However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask "If you are going to present an idea where a million bowlingballs are going to drop out of the sk, then you should at least be able to throw out some ideas of where and how the things were coming from and or created. " In other words there is the difference between a good hypothisis and a bad one. A bad one is going to full of holes that aren't even being discussed even though they are potentialy the biggest problems with it. A good one is going to show how it would likely form, how the conditions became possible, and so on. So once again. I'm not trying to critique the base idea. I am saying here a rather large conversation about something potentially existing and yet there are no speculations offered on how it could exist, what it could be made of, where those materials would come from, how the information is moved around and so forth. Those are not the kinds of questions that are usually not even asked.

[@christianvulpescu1398]

I think, it's more understandable to talk about " interfering of paritcals or quantum systems " rather the "masking mesurements" on them. This, I think, led Einstein to ask, if the moon would be still there if he wouldn't look at it.

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither. ;-)

[@wulphstein]

We are told QM means multiverse, but it's not an empirical fact.

[@satanicmicrochipv5656]

I had a dream wherw my dog was explaining quantum mechanics over coffee and a cigarette. When I woke up I told him that if he was going to smoke he'd have to do it in the garage.

[@TitusVI]

is it only humans wo change outcomes? Or can a cat oes the same? Or does a riverfall cause the same reactions

[@jun27ful]

If multiple universes is correct Sean Carroll is the host and Brian Greene is the physicist guest speaker 😀

[@ValidatingUsername]

Day n+1 trying to correct modern interpretation of Penrose diagrams, black holes[,] and relativity 😊

[@Ireniicus]

Not a fan of the many worlds theory but Sean is awesome.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, he really knows how to sell bullshit, doesn't he? ;-)

[@Ireniicus]

@@schmetterling4477 He is a great communicator espousing a wrong idea.

[@clivejenkins4033]

Really? Who knows? Nobody knows for sure

[@kubexiu]

They are not scientist anymore. They just selling what they have. I mean both off them say same shit all the time. Even Einstein theory suppose to be a Holly grail but it doesn't explain anything.

[@Corvaire]

Agree. We also like Sabine, but remember that MoND thing? lol This is kinda like that.

[@timothy8426]

Maybe an infinite number of galaxies throughout space. Physists are putting borders on space, calling it a universe. That would make it finite like a neighborhood. But the frequencies vibrate on. More galaxies and more space. Multiple Physists have divided into speculation without proof of a single universe. We move through space. What is bigger? Space or a universe? Definition of universe and borders.

[@iridium1911]

Universe does not imply a border or boundary

[@declandougan7243]

@timothy8426 Sounds like you don’t know anything about cosmology.

[@CharlesSagan1]

To expand on the beginning topic, particle physics is absolutely incredible for understanding, but The Universe can only be fully understood when appreciating and accommodating thought processes that go beyond just the lens of genius physicists. If the entire workings of the Universe could only be answered, discovered or explained by Einstein-types then any Great Understanding would be entirely meaningless. Creation, Existence and Observance reach beyond sterile labs and blackboards. It would be hubris to limit the answers to All within just those methods. We all know what Love is. We don’t need labs or equations to know it exists. And yet not a single one of us could even truly define it. There is no equation or experiment that could explain what the ancestor to the ancestor of thought was. Yet we know it existed and exists. I think…

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

Why is Gravity different? Perhaps Because Gravity is a feature of Spacetime “itself” responding to something other than itself. All the other “things” that makeup our Universe exist “within”Spacetime and their actions and reactions play-out on the stage which is Spacetime. When you get down to the Quantum Level there is no Spacetime and hence there is no Gravity to talk about or indeed worry about. If you want to think in terms of the “Spectrum” of our Universe it would stretch from the Probabilistic Quantum Realm continuously to the Singularity state of the blackhole Realm and If Spacetime were simply a Void unto itself,devoid of anything else, across this spectrum there would also be no Gravity to talk about.

[@Chris-Alia]

So, we're all riding the waves of probabilities between deterministic worlds (?) I wish H.E. would have staying around longer to figure this all out.

[@markoszouganelis5755]

Thank god there is KZbin! So I will never miss any Videos from my Beloved "World Science Festival". If you make every day 24/24 Live Videos, I will follow continually watching, so my hardware will dissolve in the spacetime continuum, and I will "teleport" in your University Class...😊 Thank you so much ALL of YOU!☀ (Please note that I am a Boomer trying to be not a boomer) 😊😊

[@pmuean]

‘This is a suspiciously good question.’

[@EinSofQuester]

I don"t understand Carrol's answer to this question at 14:37

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither does he. He is simply deflecting from the fact that MWI is deficient in dozens of different ways. I once saw a list of at least 60 serious objections against it. Not that it's necessary to collect that many. MWI is trivial bullshit and we know where it came from: Everett simply didn't understand quantum mechanics and neither does Sean Carrol.

[@EinSofQuester]

@@schmetterling4477 An alternate answer to the question Brian Greene posed at 14:37 is that if a particle has a 1 in 9 chance of being in a certain place when measured then in the multi-worlds explanation there will be nine worlds and only one of them will have the particle at that location.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@EinSofQuester The first problem is that there are no particles to begin with. There are only quanta of energy. A quantum of energy can only be detected once. It can not "be in multiple places" by definition and it isn't in any experiment that we have ever done. The main problem here is educational: most people simply do not understand the phenomenology.