Scientists just don't decide not to do experiments because they "know" what the outcome will be!! That's total BS!! This guy even had Richard Feynman's quote "No one understands quantum mechanics" in the slideshow and yet he automatically assumes he knows what the outcome of his quantum entanglement thought experiment will be so he doesn't have to do it!! What the hell?
THE EXPERIMENT HE IS DESCRIBING VERY POORLY IS A CLASSIC qp EXPERIMENT THAT PRODUCES BAFFELING REULTS THAT SEEM TO FLY IM THE FACE OF REASON WHAT IS INCREDIBLE IS IT SHOULD TAKE NO LONGER THAN 5 MIN TO DESCRIBE IT THOROUGHLY....LOL....HERE IS THE REAL MYSTERY IN THIS VIDEO !!!! HIS MOUTH IS THE RABBIT HOLE...LOL....CHEERS MAN, BULLY, STEADY ON MATE
very interesting that this is a hypothesis that I arrived at when I was 13 years old , LOL and no I have never conquered algebra much less the high math of QM
The alternative interpretations are just the same as the Copenhagen interpretation. They don't tell us how it reality actually is, but rather just provide us a mathematical or "abstract physical description".
asking who hasn't played with polarized film or who hasn't heard of double slit. lol what a bunch of geeks. but to be fair, i'd answer "i have" to both of these.
the circular polarized film found in 3-d glasses are much more fun
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
There is no such thing as photons. Our space is filled all over with the fundamental matrix of the universe. What these physicist coined as photons are simply wave traveling across this matrix. In fact, the word "space" is simply a misnomer. There is no empty space in this universe. Our "space" is simply a basic infrastructure in which "electromagnetic" waves vibrates at different frequencies. What we called "matter" is simply wave in this basic infrastructure.
soounds like he wants to be an official that we will all go to for answers. he sounds like he wants concrete answers to all of this. this souunds like its just a way to make people stop asking questions. if i was smart enough i would leave a more in depth response . soundds about right.
Are you a truth seeker? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" and read what it says. If you are sick and tired of lies and deception, thumb up this comment so others can see it.
John Cramer's "Transactional interpretation" doesn't even get the light of day shone on it. Probably because nobody can quite get their head round it. I live in a universe where phenomena such as precognition & remote viewing are not only possible they are almost certainly real, & the only interpretation that would allow for such things to exist is the Transactional Interpretation. I'm quite certain there is non-linearity in QM somewhere near the high-energy end of the spectrum...
The real philosophical problem here, specifically with us being "simulations" is the one concerning the minds of others. How is another mind an illusion of my own mind? Maybe I just didn´t understand how he got to that conclusion (or, an illusion of Garret´s mind didn´t understand his own point, or Garret, my illusion, made a point I didn´t understand). How does the perspective of QM solve this problem? To me that claim of his is the only really metaphysical one.
@ThePhilosorpheus I don't think he meant that other people were simulations and only he was "real," but that all of us are "simulations" in the sense that we are not physical entities. We are virtual systems, perhaps running on some sort of hardware, but we ourselves are not physical. We are dynamic information (correlations without correlata).
@maplebayou1 Well if so then the problem is even bigger, and double: first the absurd reductionism of his own software programmer perspective applied to a fundamental problem of human existance, second, that this would be the affirmation of a different kind of metaphysics, just a substitution of previous metaphysics and not a non-metaphysical perspective as he claims it to be. By the way it was actually a denial of physics from the beggining, not of metaphysics...
Quantum mechanics's likely intent would be to exemplify any and all potential intelligence' exemplifying what is or can be any intelligence comes within any genre within any construal within any and all physical truths' physical truths might or could be known as anything universal including any and all metaphysical experience which expands any conscious observation' its simply a massive proposition which inhibits many physicists because it links to any theology' Theory-In-Logic
I'm going to go one further and assert that some of the "spooky" phenomenon we see during experimentation is CAUSED by the nature and interpretation of the experiment, it's data and results.
The S cat biz is nonsense as described. There is no reason to believe that the cat is both alive and dead. The fact that you don't know when it dies, or can't see it is irrelevant. It is a false conundrum. It is a mixing of philosophy and physics...hardly scientific. It actually hinges on the same thinking that occurs in very young children. Ever wonder why a baby finds "peek-a-boo" interesting? People are afraid to "pipe up" and sound stupid. What is stupid is not stating the obvious.
Isn't the problem with violating the speed of light really the assumption that there must be a causal connection between the changes that occur in quantum experiments? Could synchronicity, or an acausal principle not yet investigated fully, perhaps initiated by thought or observation, be responsible for the phenomena? Do we really have to solve the problem by theorizing on multiple universes or no universes when the problem and the solution might lie in our own heads?
Very unjustifiably dramatic. Most of the underlying ideas here are actually correct, but he's definitely very confused about a lot of things in between. He's totally kidding himself when he suggests that the Copenhagen interpretation allows for superluminal communication. His "EPRG" experiment logic is completely wrong.
@cloffff In science, we explain how something is wrong, not simply declare it. That way, others can determine if your analysis is correct. I realize that today, some "science" is conducted by "consensus", like MMGW. That used to be called "fraud".
@kenfo0 Im happy to elaborate if its needed, I only mainly didn't bother because there is a huge literature on the subject. The onus should be on the person trying to overturn the scientific consensus (or in this case probably just misinterpreting it).
The fact that QM/QFT do not allow superluminal communication is basic stuff. One error he makes is that you never just "see an interference pattern". This is strictly a vivid way of describing a probability distribution.
@cloffff "The onus should be on the person trying to overturn "....and that was clearly my point. You asserted something w/o backing it up. If one is not going to explain themselves, relying on others to "figure it out" and "read the literature", then there is no point to commenting. I'm just making a point that today, people make statements as if fact w/o backing up the claims, claiming "tha reeserch iz owt their". I understand the problems of the presentation, you likely do as well.
@kenfo0 At the end of the day, I cant tell where he makes the critical error. All I know is that he reaches the wrong conclusion based on strict physical logic. I admit its no help to simply allude to the literature, hence my offer to clear anything up (Perhaps you dont need it but maybe someone else does). The mistake I mentioned in my last comment seems to be the most likely culprit of his confusion though.
@kenfo0 I don't live in an English speaking country :). And I'm surrounded by people who distort the language when try to use it. You tube is also full of crammatically incorrect comments. Believe me I'm very good with English, or at least I was much better than now. But a liar is a liar. Thanks.
@SomeUser9753 use an English spell checker...it will at least help. Now: EXACTLY how is he a 'Liar"? You are accusing him of PURPOSEFULLY saying something untrue?
I'm getting stupid when I'm watching it. So you want to tell me that learning this is equivalent to actually becoming stupid and denying the obvious. So he wants to make people think in a far more stupid way than before watching it.
This guy is a stupid gay, we can put detectors but the phenomenon is gone. Bla bla bla, random my ass. It depends on time and position of the particle when you light it to the slit, so simple just make the experiment with the proper tools. From the data u can easily figure out the way it moves, I think it's a spiral, but notice that it depends on the material of the slit also, so use nanotechnology to do this one and check it out see if there's a difference :). Fucktards. Illuminati fucked them.
I had to chuckle when Garret introduced the "EPRG Paradox". Essentially tacking his own initial at the end of the famous EPR acronym.
Garret seems to be trying to use mathematics to explain his story about how QM and reality works. That's great.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see how the empirical correctness or falsity of his interpretation of the mathematics can be verified or falsified. How do we know that his scenario is more correct than Cramer's without experimental verification?
@thehoneydewkid I actually couldn't graduate from high school in Canada, not being Canadian or of high school age.
If your implication is that this is basic common knowledge which Canadians are taught, I'm sure I could ask every one of my Canadian friends whether they understand it and get a "no"--and they're each fairly intelligent people who simply never studied the sciences. In fact, I'd bet there isn't a country in the world that makes quantum physics mandatory in primary school.
Omg, I haven't even started listening yet and I am already thinking this is above my head...I just got a pop up search suggestion saying, "if you like this, you may enjoy nuclear physics!" lol.
People who know this topic, know that this is already outdated information. The people who don't know quantum mechanics, won't learn anything from this video. I can see how this would be frustrating to some.
@JohananRaatz Atheism relies on physicalism, which is sometimes still called materialism even though it encompasses much more than matter. Materialism as in "matter alone" is discredited by modern science, but a broader physicalism is not. The nature of the physical laws, however, may never be entirely understood.
@Megaritz Well true, but if the bottom of reality is something which is conceptual in nature it might allow for science to get into areas that neither atheists nor most religionists would think possible.
@evman5000 : Typical that you wouldn't catch the irony. You aren't the mind to ever be invited to such a talk, & you know it very well. That's where your anger comes from. Nonetheless, your foul-mouthed rant was completely out of place. And you have nothing to say.
@zargone9 Silly person...I knew you were being sarcastic...SO WAS I! But thank you for pretending like you have some moral high ground. And, uh, I have PLENTY to say. As far as anger, oh foolish one, you are obviously nowhere near an advanced enough level of comprehension to understand why insane nonsense should be aggressively ridiculed. Don't worry...you MIGHT get it some day! p.s. - "You aren't the mind..." Proper English would be "You haven't the mind...". You can't BE a mind, FOOL!
Fucking idiot over-intellectuals are so caught up in USELESS FUCKING THEORY, they act like they are doing something special by speculating on how many stupid fucking universes there are! Jesus fucking imaginary being Christ, focus on simple shit to fix the problems of our stupid-ass civilization! People don't even understand what's in their god damn faces! FUCK YOU and your attention to BULLSHIT!!! DIE, ASSHOLES, DIE!!!
@thehoneydewkid Uh I have a degree in physics fool! I have some idea of what Science has done for us...thanks. I vehemently suggest that we APPLY it in meaningful and beneficial ways rather than on ego-centric attempts to pontificate about useless non-applicable theory!!! Get it???
Read the Wikipedia article on "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." We've learned more about QM since Feynman's time. Many Worlds is pretty much mainstream physics these days, and it makes much more sense. The reason the Copenhagen interpretation persists is the same reason that physicists in 1900 still doubted the existence of atoms: Physicists, like all humans, tend to "follow the beaten track".
enomena.Never mind.The main point is "HOW COULD SUCH QUESTIONS NEVER HAVE BEEN ANSWERED????" doesn't it seem childish to question "things" that have possibly resolved years ago (I read this from an article in Wikipedia "Bohr-Einstein debates" All I could make out was that Bohr or another "quantum physicist" always resolved Einstein's problem incuding the "EPRG paradox") Kindly pardon if I am wrong.It seems like being in the age of 1910 & saying "Hey.Newton's laws & Maxwell's equations are not
me?? It seems senseless to me to just come out one day & tell everyone "Hey.did you notice that? Its a conspiracy based on the "Copenhagen interpretation of QM" " WTH?? Do physicists possesss "dumb minds" that they just keep on following the "beaten track" (or the "Copenhagen interpretation of QM)"???? I don't think so.these guys always try to find "holes" in their own theories (what would they do others' theories!!!!) Feynman always insisted that QED doesn't explain gravitation & the nuclear ph
i want to make it very clear that i don't know a DAMN THING about this subject except a sort of "general knowledge".Planck started it or Einstein started it(as you wish) But still i'm sensible enough to know that a group of "human beings" have always been endeavouring to find out the TRUTH.We call them physicists.WTH does "Copenhagen interpretation" mean??? Richard Feynman,Gell-Mann & many more have lived after that.If such "holes" would exist in the theory would it have survived the test of ti
@JamesTR4 Yes, actually Seth Lloyd's book "Programming the Universe" is essentially on the same thing. He proved that there is an isomorphic relation between the Standard Model and quantum computation theory -thereby demonstrating that the world is actually a quantum computer program. (aka -you're in the Matrix) ;)
I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Garret. I too went through a similar 3 year path of research and subsequent shock at the flakey foundation underneath the Copenhagen interpretation. I was so shocked by this discovery that I decided to crystalize my findings in a book ("The gods of science") targeting an audience without the mathematical understanding exposed in this video.
Last time I checked measurement simply disturbed entanglement, without causing quantum states of the non-measured particles, and yet this guy claims measuring one entangled particle changes the state of the other, is this RIGHT?
@avrilinblood He is not suggesting that measurement changes a particle. On the contrary, he is arguing that measurement is simply entanglement between the measurer and the measuree.
@JamesTR4 Nope, it is NOT right, it is complete BS, entangled particles are created in opposition based on the laws of conservation of energy, measuring what one of the entangled particles is simply answers what is the spin/orientation of the other particle, check wave function collapse - any kind of measurement collapses the so called entanglement, and in fact no transfer of information is possible using entangled particles...
@avrilinblood Ur first answer was right. Now u are just saying stuff about information i didn't agree to. I know better than you what entanglement is, without checking sources. The wavefunction collapses for both particles. Now the term entanglement collapse doesn't make sense, so don't use that. Transfer of information can be done. But not faster than light. So if u wanna make a plan, and send both particles, the two fleets will make different plans and work together.
@JamesTR4 Feel free to register to physicsforums or any other legit and recognized physics community to verify that entanglement does not allow any transfer of information, best case scenario it transfers random gibberish. Don't feel obligated to argue with me, go and ask the experts...
@avrilinblood Ur wrong. It does transfer information, just classically. No need to ask experts, u are just confused because i didn't explain clearly. If you have an entangled pair, and send one to andromeda and keep the other one here, then if u tell them to destroy a black hole if they perform measurement A, or wait if B, and u do the opposite, you will always do opposite stuff. It's the same as if u sent socks of different colors. You transfer the information classically, not faster than light
@JamesTR4 You don't even need QM to transfer information in a classical way. You can't transfer any information using entanglement without a classical communication link. Entanglement doesn't transfer any information at any speed period. It is the classical comm link which does all the information transfer, not the entangled particles.
@avrilinblood You are wrong because measurement does cause the quantum states of the non-measured particles to be in opposite to what you just measured. So, although the experiment is random, You know that the other guys wavefunction has collapsed. We cannot get information from that, but it does collapse a wavefunction millions of light years apart. that's why einstein called it spooky action at a distance...
@JamesTR4 You say "millions of light years apart" - but you totally pull this one out your ass, trying to pimp your sorry ass argument with HUGEEEE NUMBEERS, in fact according to latest research the so called collapse is not instantaneous, it is orders of magnitude faster than luminal but not instantaneous. Please stop posting BS, take hold of your ego and go back 120 years and learn Maxwell's original quaternion equations, Maxwell's physics, unlike GR CAN BE QUANTIZED and explains QM perfectly!
@avrilinblood Your so called research hasn't been peer reviewd and is just speculation. I suggest some humanity lessons together with ur formal education, if not only to dissolve the venom...
@JamesTR4 You can either point me to some peer reviewed paper which explains WHY and HOW QM works, or provide an explanation yourself, if you cannot do neither of those you have nothing on me, my views might not be peer reviewed, but peer reviewed or not, they explain QM in an utterly simplistic way, whereas classical physics totally and utterly fails to predict or answer HOW and WHY. So, again, you can either provide something better or shut up :)
Oh Jesus, this is not even nearly as simple as I thought it was supposed to be. Guess I need to take a physics class before I can get what the hell he's talking about.
I haven't finished watching this video yet but I have to say that I'm following and interested in it because my intuitions tell me there is a lot of misunderstanding about the true nature of the quantum world. I think it's been bastardized by a lot of new age gurus out there and quite frankly exploited for profit. Something just doesn't seem right about the interpretation of the roll of the observer and I'm hoping this video will "shed some light" (through a double slit LOL) on that topic.
I haven't finished watching this video yet but I have to say that I'm following and interested in it because my intuitions tell me there is a lot of misunderstanding about the true nature of the quantum world. I think it's been bastardized by a lot of new age gurus out there and quite frankly exploited for profit. Something just doesn't seem right about the interpretation of the roll of the observer and I'm hoping this video will "shed some light" (through a double slit LOL) on that topic.
@Snooznuluz Indeed, I always found the anthropocentrism in the Copenhagen interpretation untenable, but this approach (essentially the relational interpretation) is even more revolutionary in its implications. It seems that philosophical materialism is very much under threat here. It was already looking haggard with non-locality, but here it seems to be disappearing in a puff of information processing. Perhaps he is over-reaching, but if so, where is the magic quantum/classical boundary?
Let me see if I got this. Measurement is collapsing the wavefunction and a collapsed wave is matter? Splitting universes may be real, just like our own universe that in fact doesn't exist at all. How stupid is this question?: How can a universe that doesn't exist split in two?
i probably respect the speaker as a software engineer, but not as an authority on QM. he self-proclaims he is not a physicist so why oh why did he delve into the math?! particularly wave equations. i found his presentation to be disordered. his claim that we dont need to carry out the "experiment" because it is not warranted to be completely against what science stands for. stay in the programming cubicle my friend.
i had to pee, but i didnt want to get up. So then i peed in a bottle and noticed how the light was getting polarized by the pee. I have learned something today my friends and that i shall share with the world!
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity does not *explicitly* forbid faster than light communication - I would argue that the Lorentz Contraction when used as an operator for relativistic motion precludes faster than light communication due to the mathematical result of requiring matter to acquire an infinite energy at velocity C.
The most hilarious part was at the end where he avoids a technical question by saying "you can't understand, you're a Turing machine running on a quantum computer". You can tell he has no idea what the question even was.
@gendou2 That " guy" is making a sincere and rational inquiry. He put a great deal of time and energy to explore this question. Rather than call names, make some attempt at sincere inquiry.... or sincere response. Perhaps you understand better and can explain it to me.
He says there is "no randomness" in the Schrodinger equation. But the whole point of having a wave function is so that you can square it to get the probability of finding your particle! That's where randomness comes into the picture. This is not "a hack" any more than Newton's inverse square law is "a hack".
His thought experiment for superluminal communication is wrong. By turning your which-path detector on, you lose decoherence with any entangled partners. Your partner will observe normal light, and only know it was entangled with yours when comparing data sets of photons measured in a coherent (entangled) state. Duh.
His experiment with polarizing plastic sheets does not invalidate the Copenhagen interpenetration. He seems to misunderstand erasure. Light doesn't need to "lose" any information "as it travels" through the successive sheets. Light selects the most probable path. It does NOT calculate it's own path from start to finish, in that order.
@gendou2 The wave equations have to be re-written from the start when we add new polarizing sheets. That is where the Copenhagen interpretation fails in my view. The whole idea of "collapse," it seems to me, is that it occurs at a specific time. The Orwellian-style erasure of so-called "collapse" events invalidates this notion..
Measurement and entanglement are aspects of sense. Sense is what the cosmos and the psyche have in common, and therefore the deepest underlying reality. Personally, I doubt the existence of photons as independent entities, but are instead examples of what could literally be called physical 'common sense'. A photosemantic sharing of signifying experience as distinct from generic exterior processes which are a-signifying.
At the big bang all particles were in one location and were entangled. Nature has a use for QE..it seems obvious the universe is a quantum computer and QE is how data is sent between the protons or qubits.
I wish techtalk speakers would use a wireless mouse pointerdoohicky rather than a laser pointer so that us outside the room can tell what the hell they are pointing at on the slide while talking.
Seems measurement takes at least two electrons and two photons, at least one of each from each side of the transaction, although it also seems that typically it's described as a photon to electron transaction. I suppose background at least gets involved in a net-neutral sense, beyond equilibriating/setting electron states, including virtual (sub-heisenberg) compensations. Photons seem to be on the heisenberg boundary, coherence taking over by full-cycle phase-jumps, on to resonance capacity. JMO
@brmorrison61 If you see something specific that is in error, by all means point it out. Otherwise requests to "leave physics to physicists" ring pretty hollow in my ears. As far as I can tell the guy understands QM quite well.
I probably should stick to using "observer" and "observed" for thiese. Anyway, if there is a resonance/measurement thing happening and a coherence in a stream of "observeds" seen by a single "observer" it seems conceivable the observer and observed are both consistently complementing each other in sequence and as an XOR-type run this ends up looking like the process classically called "consistency" and that could be a big part in the transition of subspaces, aka "collapse", process, I guess.
One thing quantum measurement seems to emphasize is the balanced mutuality of the ultimate interaction at the boundary of probe and probed. It seems that measuring a spin-up state involves the probee compelling a spin-down probe state appearance. Seems natural to think the probe's causal tip has substantial environmental plasticity and yet substantial internal elasticity, significantly reboundable and, in effect, substantially complementing its own previous state as a consequence of measurement.
As stated, “erasure” of human observations is possible in principle, which violates very fundamental assumptions of the scientific endeavor. This revolutionary implication of QM is completely lost on most people. Popular accounts continue to treat measurement as something that occurs at a very specific time and is irreversible. Unfortunately he seems to have had insufficient time to really make these connections clearly.
The big problem, which he hits on only tangentially, is time. Despite his references to wave functions "before erasure" and "after erasure" the equations have to be configured FOR THE EXPERIMENT AS A WHOLE. As he says, there is nothing discontinuous in the math. There is nothing in the equations that reflects a specific time at which entanglement or measurement occurs. This is exactly why "erasure" is possible.
Schroedinger disagrees - reality is made of waves.
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." (Erwin Schroedinger)
@wolfekeeper It wasn't so much that the wavefunction had collapsed (that part is essentially still true) it was that they said it was ACAUSAL -without cause - ie shutup and don't worry. (Actually very good advice). Einstein was very unhappy about that. Now the vid is saying the photon wave function is still relevant, you have to entangle the particle with the apparatus itself, and that my friend produces the reality we see.
Quantum Mechanics for dummies! Well done. Many worlds is "magical thinking" not physics. The ideas Ron puts forward here are not his own of course, Cerf and Adami presented these ideas a whilst ago. If you haven't already realised it, the really nice thing about this new picture is that entropy is conserved - the positive part follows thermodynamics, the imaginary numbers complete the book-keeping. Moral: Man is not omnipresent and all knowing. He is in the universe and of the universe.
@kaller99 - Many Worlds is a valid interpretation of the math; no less magical than a Zero World simulation. Many Minds seems to resolve them both. I'm not stating one way or the other. I'm just speaking regarding valid interpretations of the math.
@BigMTBrain - Hi BB, you are replicating your entire universe without physical mechanism. Sure it may still be zero sum, but you are doubling all the mass in the form of mass etc. Virtual particles would have to double the universe and then not, depending on the local configurations in each universe. ie Its all baloney. Serious physicists don't entertain Everett's model. Science fiction writers and new age quantists however love this junk.
@kaller99 - You're sounding a bit religious as no interpretation has been declared true. From Wikipedia:Many Worlds: "Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved." Read more in the "Common objections and misconceptions" section. "Serious physicists don't..." Hmm. Sure about that?
@BigMTBrain Really? Read the title again - Its exactly about what popular notions and popularisers say - is baloney. A lot of the so called explanations in wikis are just plain wrong too. For example you can find it "explained" in wikis that QM is just for small things.Go buy a real textbook on theoretical physics. See how many chapters Everett gets.
@kaller99 and incidentally - FWIW - if you look at that gobbledegook about weighting the energy across universes you will see its baloney. 30% of the energy in universe A and 70% in universe B, sure its conserved. But that is a far cry from "In 30% of the universes" or "in 70% of the universes". Sure you can interpret quantum theory to give you an infinite instantaneous energy supply to make this math, but I prefer not to.
@kaller99 - "Its exactly about [...] baloney" - Did you not hear Garret at the end? MW is as plausible as 0W... that 0W is his preference? Re percentages: "...infinite instantaneous energy supply..." Your conception is off: A "split" is a split. Energy of particles is relative only to other particles within a given universe. If you start with an Energy of 1, what is the limit of division if each universe drops to an energy level which conserves the cumulative total energy at 1?
This talk is in good alignment with Brian Whitworth's virtual reality hypothesis, you should look it up if you are interested in this subject. It is more complete than this talk as it also explains relativity and to some extent cosmology. Look it up! :)
I think this guy is confusing "measurement" with "calculation." Calculation gives us some understanding of the results of the measurement -- they are not the same thing.
I mentioned "one has to wait for an adequately-redundant sequence to occur in a string of random events produced by streams of photons." Speculative, but I guess it could be a balanced sequence (and its complement) that is agreed upon beforehand, or long strings of all ones (and its complement), the key parameter apparently being the sequence length and how much noise/loss is tolerable for a match, i.e. how reliable should the resulting classical-rate information be.
I wrote: "Using only one pair of photons means there is signal loss, which limits information rate." Clearer would be to say "using only one pair of photons means inevitable signal loss is critical and it critcally limits the information rate of detection."
Seems one has to wait for an adequately-redundant sequence to occur in a string of random events produced by streams of photons in order to be sure of the decision, t
24:19 just cause its faster than light doesnt mean that you can go back in time
Typho0n86 3 days ago
Wait... What!? Man, I'm gonna need to smoke a couple more joints before I can finish watching this.
ole9421 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w w w . amazon . co m / Flesh-Inside-Dennis-Edward-Strausser / dp / 1456310976 / ref=pd_rhf_ee_p_t_1
w w w . createspace . co m / 3495304
9/11 book. Part 1 By, Author Ryan Jackson.
Pulling Off The Hoax.
Includes Israel's involvement.
666. The Real Meaning.
The Revelation And You.
Author2ShedsJackson 4 days ago
The audio on this sucks and is extremely annoying.
equsnarnd 6 days ago
Scientists just don't decide not to do experiments because they "know" what the outcome will be!! That's total BS!! This guy even had Richard Feynman's quote "No one understands quantum mechanics" in the slideshow and yet he automatically assumes he knows what the outcome of his quantum entanglement thought experiment will be so he doesn't have to do it!! What the hell?
andybpiano 1 week ago
THE EXPERIMENT HE IS DESCRIBING VERY POORLY IS A CLASSIC qp EXPERIMENT THAT PRODUCES BAFFELING REULTS THAT SEEM TO FLY IM THE FACE OF REASON WHAT IS INCREDIBLE IS IT SHOULD TAKE NO LONGER THAN 5 MIN TO DESCRIBE IT THOROUGHLY....LOL....HERE IS THE REAL MYSTERY IN THIS VIDEO !!!! HIS MOUTH IS THE RABBIT HOLE...LOL....CHEERS MAN, BULLY, STEADY ON MATE
ozzfest6669 1 week ago in playlist Watch Later
Cross pattern photons vid.
rmtglass1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice Video That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You The Quantum Conspiracy What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
fitnesus 2 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video From Your The Quantum Conspiracy What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
lupabuatchannel 2 weeks ago
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing The Quantum Conspiracy What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
willamricard 2 weeks ago
i typed in qm and im happy i did.nice video.
motormaxis206 2 weeks ago
very interesting that this is a hypothesis that I arrived at when I was 13 years old , LOL and no I have never conquered algebra much less the high math of QM
wizardman42 2 weeks ago
Hmm so can anyone sum this up is death real?
r0meyrome 1 month ago
i was going to comment but reading all the others ive realized i know nothing :-).
crsbt 1 month ago
The alternative interpretations are just the same as the Copenhagen interpretation. They don't tell us how it reality actually is, but rather just provide us a mathematical or "abstract physical description".
FinixPoltergeist 1 month ago 2
asking who hasn't played with polarized film or who hasn't heard of double slit. lol what a bunch of geeks. but to be fair, i'd answer "i have" to both of these.
the circular polarized film found in 3-d glasses are much more fun
emwaver 1 month ago
"electrons and photons are everything *unless you get into nuclear physics*"
the same nucleus and quarks which make up 99.999% of the mass of ordinary matter?
emwaver 1 month ago
the tripple repeat of everything he says is pissing me off.
TeslaKuhn33 2 months ago 4
So if measurement and entanglement are the same...which means that this supports chaos theory?
tradingjourney 2 months ago
So am I a part of YOUR dream,..or are you a part of mine?
PROJECTTROJANWARRIOR 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 2 months ago
This guy just killed my quantum buzz....well, I guess the truth hurts! Thanks a bunch, I was getting ready to create my own universe!......bugger!
00000Me1 2 months ago
@00000Me1
I feel like you must not have watched the entire talk... If I'm not mistaken his view was basically that we're all Boltzman Brains of some sort.
Th3oryOf3v3ryThing 2 months ago
This guy has no vision what so ever
leahdavinci 3 months ago
Comment removed
Th3oryOf3v3ryThing 2 months ago
There is no such thing as photons. Our space is filled all over with the fundamental matrix of the universe. What these physicist coined as photons are simply wave traveling across this matrix. In fact, the word "space" is simply a misnomer. There is no empty space in this universe. Our "space" is simply a basic infrastructure in which "electromagnetic" waves vibrates at different frequencies. What we called "matter" is simply wave in this basic infrastructure.
stephentsang2000 3 months ago
soounds like he wants to be an official that we will all go to for answers. he sounds like he wants concrete answers to all of this. this souunds like its just a way to make people stop asking questions. if i was smart enough i would leave a more in depth response . soundds about right.
TheAmelu19 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you a truth seeker? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" and read what it says. If you are sick and tired of lies and deception, thumb up this comment so others can see it.
SeekTruthN0w 3 months ago
Quarks are photon mass
bcvirus20101 3 months ago
John Cramer's "Transactional interpretation" doesn't even get the light of day shone on it. Probably because nobody can quite get their head round it. I live in a universe where phenomena such as precognition & remote viewing are not only possible they are almost certainly real, & the only interpretation that would allow for such things to exist is the Transactional Interpretation. I'm quite certain there is non-linearity in QM somewhere near the high-energy end of the spectrum...
Galv140577 4 months ago
The real philosophical problem here, specifically with us being "simulations" is the one concerning the minds of others. How is another mind an illusion of my own mind? Maybe I just didn´t understand how he got to that conclusion (or, an illusion of Garret´s mind didn´t understand his own point, or Garret, my illusion, made a point I didn´t understand). How does the perspective of QM solve this problem? To me that claim of his is the only really metaphysical one.
ThePhilosorpheus 4 months ago
@ThePhilosorpheus I don't think he meant that other people were simulations and only he was "real," but that all of us are "simulations" in the sense that we are not physical entities. We are virtual systems, perhaps running on some sort of hardware, but we ourselves are not physical. We are dynamic information (correlations without correlata).
maplebayou1 4 months ago
@maplebayou1 Well if so then the problem is even bigger, and double: first the absurd reductionism of his own software programmer perspective applied to a fundamental problem of human existance, second, that this would be the affirmation of a different kind of metaphysics, just a substitution of previous metaphysics and not a non-metaphysical perspective as he claims it to be. By the way it was actually a denial of physics from the beggining, not of metaphysics...
ThePhilosorpheus 4 months ago
@ThePhilosorpheus Exactly.
KTK401 3 months ago
Quantum mechanics's likely intent would be to exemplify any and all potential intelligence' exemplifying what is or can be any intelligence comes within any genre within any construal within any and all physical truths' physical truths might or could be known as anything universal including any and all metaphysical experience which expands any conscious observation' its simply a massive proposition which inhibits many physicists because it links to any theology' Theory-In-Logic
DrFruedienslip 4 months ago
Feynman explained the duel split thing with photons as particles.
that was like the 70s
mitchTwitch 5 months ago
Check out my videos, specifically the one titled "Two Physicists Walk Into A Bar"
HeliumXenonKrypton 5 months ago
Comment removed
KaylinJH 5 months ago
I'm going to go one further and assert that some of the "spooky" phenomenon we see during experimentation is CAUSED by the nature and interpretation of the experiment, it's data and results.
kenfo0 5 months ago
The S cat biz is nonsense as described. There is no reason to believe that the cat is both alive and dead. The fact that you don't know when it dies, or can't see it is irrelevant. It is a false conundrum. It is a mixing of philosophy and physics...hardly scientific. It actually hinges on the same thinking that occurs in very young children. Ever wonder why a baby finds "peek-a-boo" interesting? People are afraid to "pipe up" and sound stupid. What is stupid is not stating the obvious.
kenfo0 5 months ago
Isn't the problem with violating the speed of light really the assumption that there must be a causal connection between the changes that occur in quantum experiments? Could synchronicity, or an acausal principle not yet investigated fully, perhaps initiated by thought or observation, be responsible for the phenomena? Do we really have to solve the problem by theorizing on multiple universes or no universes when the problem and the solution might lie in our own heads?
metapunker 5 months ago
Very unjustifiably dramatic. Most of the underlying ideas here are actually correct, but he's definitely very confused about a lot of things in between. He's totally kidding himself when he suggests that the Copenhagen interpretation allows for superluminal communication. His "EPRG" experiment logic is completely wrong.
cloffff 5 months ago
@cloffff In science, we explain how something is wrong, not simply declare it. That way, others can determine if your analysis is correct. I realize that today, some "science" is conducted by "consensus", like MMGW. That used to be called "fraud".
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 Im happy to elaborate if its needed, I only mainly didn't bother because there is a huge literature on the subject. The onus should be on the person trying to overturn the scientific consensus (or in this case probably just misinterpreting it).
The fact that QM/QFT do not allow superluminal communication is basic stuff. One error he makes is that you never just "see an interference pattern". This is strictly a vivid way of describing a probability distribution.
cloffff 5 months ago
@cloffff "The onus should be on the person trying to overturn "....and that was clearly my point. You asserted something w/o backing it up. If one is not going to explain themselves, relying on others to "figure it out" and "read the literature", then there is no point to commenting. I'm just making a point that today, people make statements as if fact w/o backing up the claims, claiming "tha reeserch iz owt their". I understand the problems of the presentation, you likely do as well.
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 At the end of the day, I cant tell where he makes the critical error. All I know is that he reaches the wrong conclusion based on strict physical logic. I admit its no help to simply allude to the literature, hence my offer to clear anything up (Perhaps you dont need it but maybe someone else does). The mistake I mentioned in my last comment seems to be the most likely culprit of his confusion though.
cloffff 5 months ago
Best lier I've ever seen, the thing is that the guy believes himself.
SomeUser9753 5 months ago
@SomeUser9753 I like the way you can't spell "liar" correctly, but pretend to understand advanced physics...
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 I don't live in an English speaking country :). And I'm surrounded by people who distort the language when try to use it. You tube is also full of crammatically incorrect comments. Believe me I'm very good with English, or at least I was much better than now. But a liar is a liar. Thanks.
SomeUser9753 5 months ago
@SomeUser9753 use an English spell checker...it will at least help. Now: EXACTLY how is he a 'Liar"? You are accusing him of PURPOSEFULLY saying something untrue?
kenfo0 5 months ago
I'm getting stupid when I'm watching it. So you want to tell me that learning this is equivalent to actually becoming stupid and denying the obvious. So he wants to make people think in a far more stupid way than before watching it.
SomeUser9753 5 months ago
@SomeUser9753 You probably already know this, but you're an idiot.
MyChemicalBromance 5 months ago
@MyChemicalBromance You probably already know this, but idiots like me pushed civilization in the right direction and made man moral and responsible.
SomeUser9753 5 months ago
This guy is a stupid gay, we can put detectors but the phenomenon is gone. Bla bla bla, random my ass. It depends on time and position of the particle when you light it to the slit, so simple just make the experiment with the proper tools. From the data u can easily figure out the way it moves, I think it's a spiral, but notice that it depends on the material of the slit also, so use nanotechnology to do this one and check it out see if there's a difference :). Fucktards. Illuminati fucked them.
SomeUser9753 5 months ago
@SomeUser9753
Illuminati? Oh, so you're stupid? You should have started with that.
dudejohnny 5 months ago
I had to chuckle when Garret introduced the "EPRG Paradox". Essentially tacking his own initial at the end of the famous EPR acronym.
Garret seems to be trying to use mathematics to explain his story about how QM and reality works. That's great.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot see how the empirical correctness or falsity of his interpretation of the mathematics can be verified or falsified. How do we know that his scenario is more correct than Cramer's without experimental verification?
NimbleWitz 6 months ago 5
Did your amazon order get canceled? Mine did
RejuvenateWorldwide 6 months ago
@thehoneydewkid I actually couldn't graduate from high school in Canada, not being Canadian or of high school age.
If your implication is that this is basic common knowledge which Canadians are taught, I'm sure I could ask every one of my Canadian friends whether they understand it and get a "no"--and they're each fairly intelligent people who simply never studied the sciences. In fact, I'd bet there isn't a country in the world that makes quantum physics mandatory in primary school.
addemfrench 6 months ago
ok, I didn't actually think that was difficult to understand but I have been following quantum physics for quite a while.
MsHolmar 6 months ago
Omg, I haven't even started listening yet and I am already thinking this is above my head...I just got a pop up search suggestion saying, "if you like this, you may enjoy nuclear physics!" lol.
MsHolmar 6 months ago
People who know this topic, know that this is already outdated information. The people who don't know quantum mechanics, won't learn anything from this video. I can see how this would be frustrating to some.
saburius 6 months ago
It looks like 19 smug new atheist know-it-alls didn't like the materialist rug being pulled out from underneath them.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz Atheism relies on physicalism, which is sometimes still called materialism even though it encompasses much more than matter. Materialism as in "matter alone" is discredited by modern science, but a broader physicalism is not. The nature of the physical laws, however, may never be entirely understood.
Megaritz 6 months ago
@Megaritz Well true, but if the bottom of reality is something which is conceptual in nature it might allow for science to get into areas that neither atheists nor most religionists would think possible.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
the means science use to explain the universe always rely on geometrical patterns to explain their non geometrical model.
coldarc 6 months ago
Google Tech Talk, you are a FUCKING IDIOT! I will happily embarrass you any day of the week in a battle of wits! FUCK YOU!!!
evman5000 6 months ago
@evman5000 You are using too many technical terms for most of us....
zargone9 6 months ago
@zargone9 Get a dictionary!
evman5000 6 months ago
@evman5000 : Typical that you wouldn't catch the irony. You aren't the mind to ever be invited to such a talk, & you know it very well. That's where your anger comes from. Nonetheless, your foul-mouthed rant was completely out of place. And you have nothing to say.
zargone9 6 months ago
@zargone9 Silly person...I knew you were being sarcastic...SO WAS I! But thank you for pretending like you have some moral high ground. And, uh, I have PLENTY to say. As far as anger, oh foolish one, you are obviously nowhere near an advanced enough level of comprehension to understand why insane nonsense should be aggressively ridiculed. Don't worry...you MIGHT get it some day! p.s. - "You aren't the mind..." Proper English would be "You haven't the mind...". You can't BE a mind, FOOL!
evman5000 6 months ago
Fucking idiot over-intellectuals are so caught up in USELESS FUCKING THEORY, they act like they are doing something special by speculating on how many stupid fucking universes there are! Jesus fucking imaginary being Christ, focus on simple shit to fix the problems of our stupid-ass civilization! People don't even understand what's in their god damn faces! FUCK YOU and your attention to BULLSHIT!!! DIE, ASSHOLES, DIE!!!
evman5000 6 months ago
@evman5000 without science, our world would not exist the way it does today................... go to school
thehoneydewkid 6 months ago
@thehoneydewkid Uh I have a degree in physics fool! I have some idea of what Science has done for us...thanks. I vehemently suggest that we APPLY it in meaningful and beneficial ways rather than on ego-centric attempts to pontificate about useless non-applicable theory!!! Get it???
evman5000 5 months ago
I just wanted to say to anyone who cares to read my "long rant" that they read it from bottom to top(its no "quantum conspiracy")
prasoonpandey2000 6 months ago
It wouldn't be a google tech talk without some interruption arising from people on the BC with unmuted mics.
humanhiveanomaly 7 months ago
concilable"
prasoonpandey2000 7 months ago
@prasoonpandey2000
Wow, long rant.
Read the Wikipedia article on "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." We've learned more about QM since Feynman's time. Many Worlds is pretty much mainstream physics these days, and it makes much more sense. The reason the Copenhagen interpretation persists is the same reason that physicists in 1900 still doubted the existence of atoms: Physicists, like all humans, tend to "follow the beaten track".
anubhavchattoraj 6 months ago
@anubhavchattoraj So atleast someone got it
prasoonpandey2000 6 months ago
enomena.Never mind.The main point is "HOW COULD SUCH QUESTIONS NEVER HAVE BEEN ANSWERED????" doesn't it seem childish to question "things" that have possibly resolved years ago (I read this from an article in Wikipedia "Bohr-Einstein debates" All I could make out was that Bohr or another "quantum physicist" always resolved Einstein's problem incuding the "EPRG paradox") Kindly pardon if I am wrong.It seems like being in the age of 1910 & saying "Hey.Newton's laws & Maxwell's equations are not
prasoonpandey2000 7 months ago
me?? It seems senseless to me to just come out one day & tell everyone "Hey.did you notice that? Its a conspiracy based on the "Copenhagen interpretation of QM" " WTH?? Do physicists possesss "dumb minds" that they just keep on following the "beaten track" (or the "Copenhagen interpretation of QM)"???? I don't think so.these guys always try to find "holes" in their own theories (what would they do others' theories!!!!) Feynman always insisted that QED doesn't explain gravitation & the nuclear ph
prasoonpandey2000 7 months ago
i want to make it very clear that i don't know a DAMN THING about this subject except a sort of "general knowledge".Planck started it or Einstein started it(as you wish) But still i'm sensible enough to know that a group of "human beings" have always been endeavouring to find out the TRUTH.We call them physicists.WTH does "Copenhagen interpretation" mean??? Richard Feynman,Gell-Mann & many more have lived after that.If such "holes" would exist in the theory would it have survived the test of ti
prasoonpandey2000 7 months ago
Comment removed
prasoonpandey2000 7 months ago
Comment removed
prasoonpandey2000 7 months ago
there seems to be an echo when he talks lol he is trying to trip people out lol
Superfresh602 7 months ago
Excuse me,19:30 is EPIC!!!!!!!
scott56gps 7 months ago
16:40 is EPIC!!!!!!!! AHHH!!!
scott56gps 7 months ago
i was hoping to learn to impress ppl at bbq's but now i realised i am too stupid for this
nahsirah 7 months ago
any good books on quantum information theory as the "zero worlds" interpretation?
nactan 7 months ago
quantum mechanics - is the math of God.
we now understand this is all an illusion -what we call reality-
its all energy E=MC2 ... and now ... is the only time ... NOW is the
only time you can change. when you think of the past or the future
you are wasting you time. because it is all in the NOW.
that just one of the weird things in QM - energy - its all energy or
a halogram - your living a program - and the rabbit hole is as deep as you want to go.
BornPatriot 7 months ago
has this been peer reviewed?
JamesTR4 7 months ago
@JamesTR4 Yes, actually Seth Lloyd's book "Programming the Universe" is essentially on the same thing. He proved that there is an isomorphic relation between the Standard Model and quantum computation theory -thereby demonstrating that the world is actually a quantum computer program. (aka -you're in the Matrix) ;)
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Garret. I too went through a similar 3 year path of research and subsequent shock at the flakey foundation underneath the Copenhagen interpretation. I was so shocked by this discovery that I decided to crystalize my findings in a book ("The gods of science") targeting an audience without the mathematical understanding exposed in this video.
abrahamkiggundu 8 months ago
Last time I checked measurement simply disturbed entanglement, without causing quantum states of the non-measured particles, and yet this guy claims measuring one entangled particle changes the state of the other, is this RIGHT?
avrilinblood 8 months ago
@avrilinblood He is not suggesting that measurement changes a particle. On the contrary, he is arguing that measurement is simply entanglement between the measurer and the measuree.
maplebayou1 8 months ago
@avrilinblood this is right! check wikipedia on entanglement!
JamesTR4 7 months ago
@JamesTR4 Nope, it is NOT right, it is complete BS, entangled particles are created in opposition based on the laws of conservation of energy, measuring what one of the entangled particles is simply answers what is the spin/orientation of the other particle, check wave function collapse - any kind of measurement collapses the so called entanglement, and in fact no transfer of information is possible using entangled particles...
avrilinblood 7 months ago
@avrilinblood Ur first answer was right. Now u are just saying stuff about information i didn't agree to. I know better than you what entanglement is, without checking sources. The wavefunction collapses for both particles. Now the term entanglement collapse doesn't make sense, so don't use that. Transfer of information can be done. But not faster than light. So if u wanna make a plan, and send both particles, the two fleets will make different plans and work together.
JamesTR4 7 months ago
@JamesTR4 Feel free to register to physicsforums or any other legit and recognized physics community to verify that entanglement does not allow any transfer of information, best case scenario it transfers random gibberish. Don't feel obligated to argue with me, go and ask the experts...
avrilinblood 7 months ago
@avrilinblood Ur wrong. It does transfer information, just classically. No need to ask experts, u are just confused because i didn't explain clearly. If you have an entangled pair, and send one to andromeda and keep the other one here, then if u tell them to destroy a black hole if they perform measurement A, or wait if B, and u do the opposite, you will always do opposite stuff. It's the same as if u sent socks of different colors. You transfer the information classically, not faster than light
JamesTR4 7 months ago
@JamesTR4 You don't even need QM to transfer information in a classical way. You can't transfer any information using entanglement without a classical communication link. Entanglement doesn't transfer any information at any speed period. It is the classical comm link which does all the information transfer, not the entangled particles.
avrilinblood 7 months ago
@avrilinblood You are wrong because measurement does cause the quantum states of the non-measured particles to be in opposite to what you just measured. So, although the experiment is random, You know that the other guys wavefunction has collapsed. We cannot get information from that, but it does collapse a wavefunction millions of light years apart. that's why einstein called it spooky action at a distance...
JamesTR4 7 months ago
@JamesTR4 You say "millions of light years apart" - but you totally pull this one out your ass, trying to pimp your sorry ass argument with HUGEEEE NUMBEERS, in fact according to latest research the so called collapse is not instantaneous, it is orders of magnitude faster than luminal but not instantaneous. Please stop posting BS, take hold of your ego and go back 120 years and learn Maxwell's original quaternion equations, Maxwell's physics, unlike GR CAN BE QUANTIZED and explains QM perfectly!
avrilinblood 7 months ago
@avrilinblood Your so called research hasn't been peer reviewd and is just speculation. I suggest some humanity lessons together with ur formal education, if not only to dissolve the venom...
JamesTR4 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesTR4 You can either point me to some peer reviewed paper which explains WHY and HOW QM works, or provide an explanation yourself, if you cannot do neither of those you have nothing on me, my views might not be peer reviewed, but peer reviewed or not, they explain QM in an utterly simplistic way, whereas classical physics totally and utterly fails to predict or answer HOW and WHY. So, again, you can either provide something better or shut up :)
avrilinblood 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avrilinblood you don't know what you are talking about
ricomajestic 7 months ago
Oh Jesus, this is not even nearly as simple as I thought it was supposed to be. Guess I need to take a physics class before I can get what the hell he's talking about.
addemfrench 8 months ago 2
@addemfrench @addemfrench or you could graduate from high school...................... Well...... in Canada atleast.
thehoneydewkid 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I haven't finished watching this video yet but I have to say that I'm following and interested in it because my intuitions tell me there is a lot of misunderstanding about the true nature of the quantum world. I think it's been bastardized by a lot of new age gurus out there and quite frankly exploited for profit. Something just doesn't seem right about the interpretation of the roll of the observer and I'm hoping this video will "shed some light" (through a double slit LOL) on that topic.
Snooznuluz 8 months ago
I haven't finished watching this video yet but I have to say that I'm following and interested in it because my intuitions tell me there is a lot of misunderstanding about the true nature of the quantum world. I think it's been bastardized by a lot of new age gurus out there and quite frankly exploited for profit. Something just doesn't seem right about the interpretation of the roll of the observer and I'm hoping this video will "shed some light" (through a double slit LOL) on that topic.
Snooznuluz 8 months ago
@Snooznuluz Indeed, I always found the anthropocentrism in the Copenhagen interpretation untenable, but this approach (essentially the relational interpretation) is even more revolutionary in its implications. It seems that philosophical materialism is very much under threat here. It was already looking haggard with non-locality, but here it seems to be disappearing in a puff of information processing. Perhaps he is over-reaching, but if so, where is the magic quantum/classical boundary?
maplebayou1 8 months ago
Interesting video! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time
This theory is based on just two simple postulates
1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time itself
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
nickharvey7 8 months ago
Let me see if I got this. Measurement is collapsing the wavefunction and a collapsed wave is matter? Splitting universes may be real, just like our own universe that in fact doesn't exist at all. How stupid is this question?: How can a universe that doesn't exist split in two?
gitaarman1956 8 months ago
very early days ? or years ? cuz 2000 is a year and march fifth is a day
L4R3T4 8 months ago
All the might of Google ... and still shite sound - COME ON!!
ProsperosCloset 8 months ago 5
who the hell really watched this
danakaDENt 8 months ago
My honest question is, what made this guy think he could successfully pull off this talk?
tallestbeauty 9 months ago
mmm Mr Garrison askin about the polarization at 28:55 mmmmmkkkkk
jt101010 9 months ago
i probably respect the speaker as a software engineer, but not as an authority on QM. he self-proclaims he is not a physicist so why oh why did he delve into the math?! particularly wave equations. i found his presentation to be disordered. his claim that we dont need to carry out the "experiment" because it is not warranted to be completely against what science stands for. stay in the programming cubicle my friend.
beugnen 9 months ago
i had to pee, but i didnt want to get up. So then i peed in a bottle and noticed how the light was getting polarized by the pee. I have learned something today my friends and that i shall share with the world!
G0aFreak 9 months ago
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity does not *explicitly* forbid faster than light communication - I would argue that the Lorentz Contraction when used as an operator for relativistic motion precludes faster than light communication due to the mathematical result of requiring matter to acquire an infinite energy at velocity C.
Helkenberg 9 months ago
The most hilarious part was at the end where he avoids a technical question by saying "you can't understand, you're a Turing machine running on a quantum computer". You can tell he has no idea what the question even was.
gendou2 9 months ago
This guy was hoping to win a Nobel Prize? Wow, talk about delusional.
gendou2 9 months ago
@gendou2 Wow you're dense. It was a joke.
FavogTheDeathKnight 9 months ago
@gendou2 That " guy" is making a sincere and rational inquiry. He put a great deal of time and energy to explore this question. Rather than call names, make some attempt at sincere inquiry.... or sincere response. Perhaps you understand better and can explain it to me.
merylste 9 months ago
@merylste My response did address the philosophical and technical mistakes in this talk, it was my sincere attempt at "inquiry".
I don't question his intentions are sincere, but I do question the rational of his approach.
He seems to be strongly anti-establishment, which is a bias that reduces the strength of his argument.
Plus, he made several technical mistakes!
Oh, and I did NOT call names. I said his joke was delusional.
I recognize he was making a joke, but a strange and sad one.
gendou2 8 months ago
He says there is "no randomness" in the Schrodinger equation. But the whole point of having a wave function is so that you can square it to get the probability of finding your particle! That's where randomness comes into the picture. This is not "a hack" any more than Newton's inverse square law is "a hack".
gendou2 9 months ago
His thought experiment for superluminal communication is wrong. By turning your which-path detector on, you lose decoherence with any entangled partners. Your partner will observe normal light, and only know it was entangled with yours when comparing data sets of photons measured in a coherent (entangled) state. Duh.
gendou2 9 months ago
His experiment with polarizing plastic sheets does not invalidate the Copenhagen interpenetration. He seems to misunderstand erasure. Light doesn't need to "lose" any information "as it travels" through the successive sheets. Light selects the most probable path. It does NOT calculate it's own path from start to finish, in that order.
gendou2 9 months ago
@gendou2 The wave equations have to be re-written from the start when we add new polarizing sheets. That is where the Copenhagen interpretation fails in my view. The whole idea of "collapse," it seems to me, is that it occurs at a specific time. The Orwellian-style erasure of so-called "collapse" events invalidates this notion..
maplebayou1 9 months ago
Measurement and entanglement are aspects of sense. Sense is what the cosmos and the psyche have in common, and therefore the deepest underlying reality. Personally, I doubt the existence of photons as independent entities, but are instead examples of what could literally be called physical 'common sense'. A photosemantic sharing of signifying experience as distinct from generic exterior processes which are a-signifying.
s33light 10 months ago
At the big bang all particles were in one location and were entangled. Nature has a use for QE..it seems obvious the universe is a quantum computer and QE is how data is sent between the protons or qubits.
PAUL7575000 10 months ago
I wish techtalk speakers would use a wireless mouse pointerdoohicky rather than a laser pointer so that us outside the room can tell what the hell they are pointing at on the slide while talking.
MultiParsley 11 months ago 20
Comment removed
michaeltrinque 11 months ago
This stuff always makes me feel dumb.
lormendi 11 months ago
I wish I was smart enough to understand all this. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
PavrikZettersyuk 11 months ago
The universe is both infinite and an illusion.
heretikae 1 year ago
Seems measurement takes at least two electrons and two photons, at least one of each from each side of the transaction, although it also seems that typically it's described as a photon to electron transaction. I suppose background at least gets involved in a net-neutral sense, beyond equilibriating/setting electron states, including virtual (sub-heisenberg) compensations. Photons seem to be on the heisenberg boundary, coherence taking over by full-cycle phase-jumps, on to resonance capacity. JMO
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Comment removed
madrazel 1 year ago
why can't we leave physics to physicists? this guys smugness on the topic is nauseating. no one understands it...let us explore until we do.
brmorrison61 1 year ago
@brmorrison61 If you see something specific that is in error, by all means point it out. Otherwise requests to "leave physics to physicists" ring pretty hollow in my ears. As far as I can tell the guy understands QM quite well.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
I probably should stick to using "observer" and "observed" for thiese. Anyway, if there is a resonance/measurement thing happening and a coherence in a stream of "observeds" seen by a single "observer" it seems conceivable the observer and observed are both consistently complementing each other in sequence and as an XOR-type run this ends up looking like the process classically called "consistency" and that could be a big part in the transition of subspaces, aka "collapse", process, I guess.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
One thing quantum measurement seems to emphasize is the balanced mutuality of the ultimate interaction at the boundary of probe and probed. It seems that measuring a spin-up state involves the probee compelling a spin-down probe state appearance. Seems natural to think the probe's causal tip has substantial environmental plasticity and yet substantial internal elasticity, significantly reboundable and, in effect, substantially complementing its own previous state as a consequence of measurement.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
As stated, “erasure” of human observations is possible in principle, which violates very fundamental assumptions of the scientific endeavor. This revolutionary implication of QM is completely lost on most people. Popular accounts continue to treat measurement as something that occurs at a very specific time and is irreversible. Unfortunately he seems to have had insufficient time to really make these connections clearly.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
The big problem, which he hits on only tangentially, is time. Despite his references to wave functions "before erasure" and "after erasure" the equations have to be configured FOR THE EXPERIMENT AS A WHOLE. As he says, there is nothing discontinuous in the math. There is nothing in the equations that reflects a specific time at which entanglement or measurement occurs. This is exactly why "erasure" is possible.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
So, is the Hubble telescope collapsing wave functions?
foremski 1 year ago
@foremski - Using the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, yes; it is a measuring/detecting device.
BigMTBrain 1 year ago
Schroedinger disagrees - reality is made of waves.
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." (Erwin Schroedinger)
physics1philosophy 1 year ago
Comment removed
physics1philosophy 1 year ago
Most people get the wrong idea about what is going on.
In order to detect/observe you must collapse the wave function.
The only way the photon detectors can work is to catch the photons as they go through the slits, which then destroys the experiment.
MrHurricaneFloyd 1 year ago
@MrHurricaneFloyd As he said, the wavefunction doesn't collapse- that's the Copenhagen model and it has been discredited
wolfekeeper 1 year ago
Comment removed
kaller99 1 year ago
@wolfekeeper It wasn't so much that the wavefunction had collapsed (that part is essentially still true) it was that they said it was ACAUSAL -without cause - ie shutup and don't worry. (Actually very good advice). Einstein was very unhappy about that. Now the vid is saying the photon wave function is still relevant, you have to entangle the particle with the apparatus itself, and that my friend produces the reality we see.
kaller99 1 year ago
Quantum Mechanics for dummies! Well done. Many worlds is "magical thinking" not physics. The ideas Ron puts forward here are not his own of course, Cerf and Adami presented these ideas a whilst ago. If you haven't already realised it, the really nice thing about this new picture is that entropy is conserved - the positive part follows thermodynamics, the imaginary numbers complete the book-keeping. Moral: Man is not omnipresent and all knowing. He is in the universe and of the universe.
kaller99 1 year ago
@kaller99 - Many Worlds is a valid interpretation of the math; no less magical than a Zero World simulation. Many Minds seems to resolve them both. I'm not stating one way or the other. I'm just speaking regarding valid interpretations of the math.
BigMTBrain 1 year ago
@BigMTBrain - Hi BB, you are replicating your entire universe without physical mechanism. Sure it may still be zero sum, but you are doubling all the mass in the form of mass etc. Virtual particles would have to double the universe and then not, depending on the local configurations in each universe. ie Its all baloney. Serious physicists don't entertain Everett's model. Science fiction writers and new age quantists however love this junk.
kaller99 1 year ago
@kaller99 - You're sounding a bit religious as no interpretation has been declared true. From Wikipedia:Many Worlds: "Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved." Read more in the "Common objections and misconceptions" section. "Serious physicists don't..." Hmm. Sure about that?
BigMTBrain 1 year ago
@BigMTBrain Really? Read the title again - Its exactly about what popular notions and popularisers say - is baloney. A lot of the so called explanations in wikis are just plain wrong too. For example you can find it "explained" in wikis that QM is just for small things.Go buy a real textbook on theoretical physics. See how many chapters Everett gets.
kaller99 1 year ago
@kaller99 and incidentally - FWIW - if you look at that gobbledegook about weighting the energy across universes you will see its baloney. 30% of the energy in universe A and 70% in universe B, sure its conserved. But that is a far cry from "In 30% of the universes" or "in 70% of the universes". Sure you can interpret quantum theory to give you an infinite instantaneous energy supply to make this math, but I prefer not to.
kaller99 1 year ago
@kaller99 So Everett's cat is dead and alive in two universes, one cat plus one cat is two cats. LOL
kaller99 1 year ago
@kaller99 - "Its exactly about [...] baloney" - Did you not hear Garret at the end? MW is as plausible as 0W... that 0W is his preference? Re percentages: "...infinite instantaneous energy supply..." Your conception is off: A "split" is a split. Energy of particles is relative only to other particles within a given universe. If you start with an Energy of 1, what is the limit of division if each universe drops to an energy level which conserves the cumulative total energy at 1?
BigMTBrain 1 year ago
This talk is in good alignment with Brian Whitworth's virtual reality hypothesis, you should look it up if you are interested in this subject. It is more complete than this talk as it also explains relativity and to some extent cosmology. Look it up! :)
BFDK 1 year ago
I think this guy is confusing "measurement" with "calculation." Calculation gives us some understanding of the results of the measurement -- they are not the same thing.
goodsnservices 1 year ago
Quantum suck ass explanation. You need to already have familiarity with quantum mechanics to understand him.
Squippel2 1 year ago
I think I would have preferred hearing this from a physicist.
rynox77 1 year ago
I mentioned "one has to wait for an adequately-redundant sequence to occur in a string of random events produced by streams of photons." Speculative, but I guess it could be a balanced sequence (and its complement) that is agreed upon beforehand, or long strings of all ones (and its complement), the key parameter apparently being the sequence length and how much noise/loss is tolerable for a match, i.e. how reliable should the resulting classical-rate information be.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
I wrote: "Using only one pair of photons means there is signal loss, which limits information rate." Clearer would be to say "using only one pair of photons means inevitable signal loss is critical and it critcally limits the information rate of detection."
Seems one has to wait for an adequately-redundant sequence to occur in a string of random events produced by streams of photons in order to be sure of the decision, t