 Welcome to this late talk, a universe infinitely strange and Steini will tell us about it. Steini has been here, estimated forever and has studied math and physics, but is not really a mathematician and physicist, but he can talk about the universe very well. So, and we are happy to have him here. Sit back and open your ears and a very warm welcome for Steini, please. Hello. Hello. Thank you. Lots of people. I'm impressed. I thought it would only be 20 or 30. Okay. So the universe quantum physics. And I want to take you along on a journey first into the past, maybe into the past of science, the history of science of physics. Because if you, if you try, I think if you try to tell lay persons and absolute beginners, talk to them about quantum physics, then we need a bit some foundation and we need to know how science works. And a long time ago as total and physics at the time and science philosophy was mostly the same, the universe contained of fire, water, earth and, and my water, earth and water. And wondered about what is light, light. And we talk about quantum, then we talk about light quantum and light is very elementary in this. The old Greek thought the light came out of the eye. So we talk about light of the eye and so the eyes light up the world and so people can see and so it's infinitely fast. So if you, if you close your eyes and open them again, everything is visible again. So no time is passing. So light is infinitely fast. Okay. And quite a long time this prevailed, this view prevailed, but there were critics, but they couldn't, but they couldn't. Well, there was no really a scientific method for verifiable theories and things like that. And there were, and medieval times it wasn't a lot better. The church tried to prevent things that could have opened the eyes of people. So now we are around 1672, Ole Römer, Ole Danish astronomer tried to, he was Galileo, had a, had a telescope, had built telescopes and had a big, was a dealer in telescopes and Ole Römer tried to, to solve the problem of time. And how can you measure time precisely if you're not, not a clock, not a very, very precise clock. So, and he wasn't the first to do that. And what he did was look at the planets and at a time where people knew or should have known, although some people denied it, that the Earth is a sphere and circles around the, the sun. And there are other planets also circling there. And he looked at Jupiter, looked at Jupiter's moons, how Jupiter's moons look, circled around Jupiter. And it's a very precise clock. And if you could understand exactly how that works, you had very, very precise clocks and you could, you could know where you are on Earth if you have a very precise clocks. And he made a table and wrote down when these moons disappeared behind Jupiter and, and in this table of many moons, for many moons he made these tables. And depending on the season on Earth, those figures differ. And he thought about it and, and found that it was, there was a rhythmic difference. And it was in summer. It was different from winter or spring or summer. But the next summer it was the same as the summer before. So it has to be, has to do something with the Earth circling around the sun. And then found out that it couldn't be possible that light was infinitely fast. And he couldn't explain it differently except by a finite speed of light. And so if we were longer away, farther away from Jupiter, the light takes longer. And when we're closer to Jupiter, the light doesn't take as long. And, and in science, it's very important he made a prediction for a specific date at which time the moon, what disappeared behind Jupiter. And it was, there was a 10 minute difference from his table because he knew the speed of light is infinite. And, and this, this prediction came true. And there was something that was very valuable in science because the theory that he had was not very bad. So he did something very well. He showed that the speed of light is finite. And there's something about light with quantum. And why do I talk about this? Because science works very well if you can observe something. And from this observation, you can make a hypothesis. And if you then make a theory from that, make a mathematical description of that. And from this mathematical description can make a prediction and can come up with an experiment and perform this experiment. And then my prediction comes true. And then in science, in physics, I have really done, have really achieved something. And we jump forward a few hundred years, 1856, 1959 or in the 70s. Max Planck studied physics and people said, oh, no, don't do that. His father said, don't do that. If you study physics, you can't become anything. Nothing will come of you. But he still did. And some things were still strange. And he looked into that and he wasn't the first and he found that strange. And he looked at black body radiation. And how do black bodies radiate? How do they emit light when they get hot? They're black because they don't reflect light and whatever the light comes from them is their own radiation. And it's quite difficult, 1895, to make a black body. It's very hard. He made a box and made a hole in it. And so it's black and looked at the color of the hole if he heated up this box. And he looked how the color of this light agreed with classical physics of the time. And what was called a measuring error wasn't right. And the prediction was very strange because the prediction said, the more energy I put into it, the shorter the wavelength becomes from the light and at some time would need to lead to it becoming yellow and blue and ultraviolet. And the box would disappear then at some time. But the box doesn't disappear. Well, this was called then the ultraviolet catastrophe. And this mathematical theory behind this physics people had thought of wasn't right. And then he looked into it and he researched it and thought it was worthwhile. Shit, it doesn't really work. And he called it the act of ultimate desperation and he introduced a constant just out of thin air, not quite out of thin air. We don't talk about the details, otherwise we wouldn't finish today. He introduced a constant and called it H, the active quantum. And that led to the energy not being transmitted continuously but in packets. And this packet-wise transfer of energy, so not continuously increasing but in different packets in this equation led to the equation making very good predictions. And predicting something that could actually be measured. And many years he worried about that, he was angry about that because he really wanted to save the old physics that he liked. And this was just an emergency in desperation he invented this quantum. And into the 1920s he tried to get rid of it because he who found that it actually made sense was Albert Einstein. And 1904 or 1905 he thought damned, Max Planck is right. And it isn't just, it's really all energy is quantized and only comes around in little packets. There's no half light packet. There's not three quarters or two one seventh light packets. There are only whole light packets, one or two or four, eight or six. And they transport a specific amount of energy depending on their frequency. And he could prove that by the photoelectric effect. But many people don't know it was for that and only for that he won the Nobel Prize and not for E equals MC squared or general relativity or anything like that but for that for the photoelectric effect. And now let's think at what time we were 1905 the existence of the atom was hypothesis. It was the atomic hypothesis and it wasn't quite clear and you have to imagine the leap of faith where the universe was just a single galaxy. Everything you could see was just one galaxy and one people thought there was nothing outside the galaxy and atoms. Well, yeah, was just, well, we can talk about that. But and he only received the Nobel Prize in the 1920s when it became clear that he was damn right. Right, so we have Albert Einstein together with these thoughts of Planck. He discovered quantum physics and developed quantum mechanics. There were other people who added themselves to this roster. Well, Einstein was sitting in a car with a young physicist called Weiner Hasenberg who told him about his uncertainty relationship. And suddenly Einstein became an old classic physicist and said, Well, that's that's completely random. That's that's that's crap. It's obviously everything is clear. It's not one or the other. What does it mean? Certainly possible. Well, Hasenberg had the following thought. Well, I can't given a certain quantum. He developed the maths around it using matrix mechanics which work quite well. But it worked quite well, but everyone thought it was crap. Well, Einstein also didn't think it was that awesome. But it predicted the following. Given a quantum, I can either know exactly the position or I can know exactly what direction and with what speed it moves. And I am not, this is the prediction, not because I can't I'm not able to measure, but there's but this is a it's inherently impossible. And this is where it gets bizarre. It's fundamentally impossible. If you nail the particle down, you cannot say what energy it has. And so long as I know exactly where it is. And this the consequences of there's a lot of weird stuff that happens as a consequence. And I thought it was quite quite annoying. So then came along and shooting and tried to save it. And we thought of the shooting equation. Nice wave representation of this particle based physics. So moving towards the dilemma of the wave, what is light? Well, we know it has a speed, but is it a wave? What is the particle? Is it a quantum, just like quantum physics, the fancy quantum physics, or is it a wave? As is might be obvious. Well, shooting I came up with a wave equation, which worked very well, exceptionally well. So there's there are now two systems that work very well, the matrix mechanics and the wave of shooting is equation. Max Planck's thought the wave equation a lot, a lot more elegant, but it led some very bizarre theories. We have to think that this is all theoretical. So these, these are, so these are all theoretical thoughts. They had very few, they're very little direct experimental research. They just try to. Well, to try to just to do the thought experiments. And you can only do this if you understand it and try and write it down in the mathematical form. The whole, the whole, the science is pointless if you don't have a working mathematical model. So now we have the following phenomenon. Right. We need to find out is it a wave? Is it a particle? Someone, someone suggested you've all, you've all heard this, the two slit experiment. It works as follow. I shoot some light through two slits, which are very close to each other. Hoping that, well, okay, lights a wave, it meets this, the slit and behind the slit it, it propagates like, like a wave. And because I have two slits, and because the two is waves, let's just like imagine putting through stones in and they interfere coherently or incoherently. And then I have a screen so I can see an interference pattern, which is a funny, funny, funny pattern. Just like if you imagine having a wave hitting a, hitting a wall and leaving some color traces. All right, said, as they said, they did it. And all right, there we go. Well, there was still the quantum physics in the room. Well, light is a particle. So you can think of the interesting, interesting experiment which they couldn't actually think of at the time. All right, let's try. Which of these slits did you actually use? I'm going to use a detector, which spots quanta, a real light, it spots quanta, light quanta or electromagnetic particle. You could also use an electron. And as soon as I look, it stops doing it. As soon as I look, which of the slits does the light go through, it no longer behaves as a wave. And that's pretty weird, isn't it? Well, how does the light know that I'm looking? That's even weirder. So I have to, we could talk about this for hours, how you determine this, you have to believe a few things. I want to fascinate you so that you can look into yourself. What you can demonstrate is that if this particle passes through this double slit, then it's not. That if I don't look, it goes through one, and then if you use a different particle, you use the other slit, it somehow also wave and it interacts, but actually it passes through both one and the other at the same time. Well, unfortunately, you have to believe me here. We can't demonstrate this here experimentally. But you can diminish the source of light so much that there's only individual photons are emitted. And you can detect them, you just put a screen somewhere, it just emits a plane if there's a photon answer, you can see that it has been emitted. All right, so I'm going to put this double slit there, so I'm going to shoot a single photon in that direction. And on the other side, it hits the wall, but not as if it had gone through a single slit, but in the same way as if it interfered with itself. And you can demonstrate, it's a complicated proof, but it is possible. In the final form, it's only proved in 1999 that we can prove that this particle passes both through one slit and also at the other at the same time. That it also took every single other possible path that there was. So long as I don't look, right, and it gets worse. It's not just... All right, so we have to go back a bit. So the Schrodinger equation says, predicts. And this is where Einstein and Niels Bohr also... So Niels Bohr is a famous person based on the Bohr atom of the model. If you learn that electrons are orbiting in the core, it's a complete nonsense, that makes absolutely no sense. I got very annoyed by this in the school because the teacher couldn't explain. So the core is positive, the electrons are negative, they're orbiting. There are several electrons that are orbiting, they're negative, so they repel. How could they possibly orbit around the core in several shells? How is that possible? It's not possible. That's only for demonstration purposes. This is the problem with quantum physics. You can't really look at it and not at all. It doesn't mesh with our practical sense of how the world works. As promised, it's going to get more bizarre. So I can do an experiment which is suggested by the Schrodinger equation. It predicts if you can interact with two particles together so that they behave just like a single particle. And the equation says, it doesn't say where the particle is. It says there's only probabilities. It only says there's a certain probability that the particle will be here or there if you look. That's the important point, only if I check, if I observe. If I don't observe, it's everywhere at the same time, but with a higher probability over here. Well, given these two particles, that's a bit weird. So how they behave as a single particle? But these two particles can be measured at two places at the same time, because they're two particles. But they do depend on each other. They are, in some sense, a single particle. They are condividing the information. So, all right, let's go back a bit. If a half, same as a mirror mirror, light passes through it, about half of it. All right, I shoot a photo at it, and there's a certain probability that the photon will pass through, and there's some probability that it won't. And this probability is exactly 50%, because it's semi-transparent, obvious. Well, there's no reason for this. And this is an important, very important fact of quantum mechanics. There is baseless randomness. Which is bizarre. Well, normally you could say, and this is what Albert Einstein said for a very long time, that God does not throw dice. There is no baseless randomness. I just don't know everything. If I throw a floppy coin and I get a random result, well, if I knew everything, the air resistance, speed, et cetera, et cetera, I would be able to predict what side will be up. Given this quantum, I cannot predict. And I can prove, there is a proof that proves that I cannot know whether it's going to go through or not. It's a completely random and baseless randomness. All right, so I have two of these particles, which I generate using a photon. I need to know how to generate it. Okay, all right, so I'm going to create these two interlock particles. All right, it goes into two directions. So in this direction, I observe, as you can, has it gone through the mirror or not? All right, I have done it over here, using over here. If I do that, it will do the exact same thing on the other side, even though it's completely random. How does a particle over there know that the other particle has gone through? And that's one of the key questions of quantum mechanics. Nobody can answer this question to this day. It gets even more bizarre. I can, and you can check this on Google, I can do the delayed quantum eraser experiment, with which I can demonstrate that this property is also applicable reverse in time. It's a very complicated experiment. I'm not going to explain this. I'm just doing the usual trick that people do. I explain this using coins. Normally, I throw up a coin and put it on the desk. It's either head or tails, and do it on the other side as well. They're completely independent. All right, if I have two interlock ones, and if I throw both of them up and grab one, grab both of them, and if I look on one side, I have head, then I have head on the other side as well, guaranteed. All right, now we get to the quantum eraser. We're using it with which you can demonstrate it as reversible in time. All right, I'm going to throw coins up in time. I'm going to take the one and put it down on the table. The one on the table has already decided whether it has a tail. All right, now I'm going to take this quantum for loop. All right, now I'll check the one that's in the air. Is it a number or is it head or tails? All right, you understood. It's their both tails. This is what quantum interference is. This is what Einstein called the spooky long distance effect. These are the two things where Einstein was like, what the fuck? What do you mean complete randomness? That's crazy. That can't be. God doesn't roll dice and the spooky long distance effect. He wouldn't have anything to do with it because this has a consequence, which is that we have to say goodbye to our previous view of the world completely. At the core, the world is set up in the following way. I don't know where a particle is so long as I don't look, which it's not just because I don't know because I don't know, because I don't like looking because it's because it hasn't decided. Well, it sounds banal, but just imagine there's a radiative particle. This radiative particle is going through space and now it's simultaneously in the state, it's already decayed, it's already a different particle. So no longer uranium, but whatever, no idea. I'm not a nuclear physicist, maybe some electron, an alpha particle. Anyway, it's both uranium atom, but at the same time something else. So long as no one's looking, so this particle's coming towards me, so long as I haven't looked at the particle, as I haven't observed it, I can't tell, not just because I'm not able to, because I'm not looking there, which is obvious because I can't see, but it's fundamentally impossible because it has not been decided yet. And due to this, it's not obvious if the moon is there even if someone isn't looking. That's not a joke. Or the question which was posed back then, wouldn't somebody have to look at the moon all the time to make sure it's there? Now we get to the core of the matter, and at the same time change the theme to cosmology, which is closely related. Now we come to the core of the matter. What exactly does it mean to look at something? What is the measurement? When does the collapse of the wave function happen? When does the wave function collapse? And that's the bizarre thing. This happens with super light speed. In one instant, if you watch the particle, and it goes through the mirror at the other end at the same time, you see this information which cannot be exchanged because we know since Einstein that it can't travel faster than light. Somehow these two particles know of each other, and the superposition collapses at the time, at the instant that I look at this. And so if I've seen it here, it goes away over there. And if I didn't, then it does appear there. But before I did that, it was at both places at the same time. As long as nobody is looking, it can be anywhere at all. We don't know. It's not just that we don't know, it is everywhere at the same time. It only appears at one place if I look with a certain probability. The tunnel effect, which you may have heard of, if quant's tunnel through an isolator, there's a certain probability that they arrive at the other side because the wave function sort of smears through the isolator. And that is the basis of quantum physics. I can measure these effects. I can check this. You can check with Google. Take a look at the Bell equation. I can prove that the information isn't there from the beginning. It was already clear when these photons were born. No, it's random. It is decided the moment that I look at the photons. The heart of the matter is, what does it mean to take a measurement? Is it a measurement that takes a... So this is a question we don't really know what the measurement is and how it influences it. And we really don't know, and that's what makes quantum physics so fascinating. It's absolutely not clear if it is necessary that there is awareness to looking at the measurement and nobody really knows without any doubt. So there's a reason to believe that it can be done without awareness, but there is no proof. And there are just guesses and some equations that lead us in that direction, but we don't really know that. Erwin Schrödinger said that the total amount of awareness in the universe is exactly one, and maybe he was talking about himself, because he cannot say anything about anything else. So let's get to the other part of this talk, and that is cosmology. So what does this have to do with cosmology? And it has to do with it that... Well, we have to go back a bit further in the 1920s, 1925, around there, Edwin Hubble had a huge telescope and looking into the world and found out, maybe it was a bit earlier, and he found that, wow, there are more than one galaxy, because he could see others with a good telescope and he could something else, which really destroyed the old image of the world, but there was only one galaxy. He could see more galaxies, but he could see something more. By looking at exploding supernovae, one-A type supernovae, they make a very specific image, very bright in a very typical profile. They have this eruption of brightness. It is as bright as the center of a galaxy. It is as bright as billions of suns, and this is the type one-A supernovae, and one can use that to say how bright is it really and look at how fast is it moving. This is a redshift. It is not Doppler. It is a relativistic effect, but we can look at the supernovae and then see how fast the galaxy is moving away from us, and he found that all of them are moving away from us, and that is strange and it's really strange because it shows that earlier they were closer together and even earlier they were closer together, and you can calculate back and current calculations have found out that a long time ago, I wrote it in the introduction, they were at a single point, it's such a bizarre thing as a point of a size of the quantum length. It is 10 to the power of minus 34, 35. It is the smallest length that we can talk about in physics really. For everything smaller, particles would become black holes that would be smaller at all smaller scales, so we cannot really apply our physics on these small scales. It doesn't really matter, but all the universe was, well, we just can't talk about it, we can't say anything about it, so physicists will just shrug and say, we don't know, we can't say anything. Physicists never say why, but he says how and works, and the philosophers then say why it works, and the physicists just say, well, just calculate it, and Einstein said it has to be real and that's really the problem. We have to go back to quantum physics. And we need to use one of both concepts. Do things have one definite position? In that case, we have to accept that they don't have impulse, or do they not have position? So somehow this concept of time and space is strange, it doesn't work. This concept seems relusion, it isn't... It's not really in these dimensions, it's then somehow not really real, and we're going back to cosmology and we look back to the beginning of the universe and all the universe, and we get a better understanding of this that particles consist of protons, neutrons and electrons and protons and neutrons consist of quarks and as far as we know, quarks have no size. Shit. And then there's the string theorist, well, yeah, but they have, but very, very small, it's just a string that isn't really interesting according to what I call the classical quantum mechanics. After what we know today, they're not string theory, quarks do not have any size, they're simply energy and so... Whatever, everything you consist of is pure energy, they're standing waves and wobbling around, but really don't have any size, they're vibrating energy, but no size, a proton has mass and you can measure that, it's quite complicated, but you can read about it how that is done and you can find that three quarks have an energy and somehow some sort of mass and a resting mass and it doesn't equate to the mass of the proton. The three quarks, they only make up 3% of the mass of the proton and the rest of the mass comes from the energy of wobbling back and forth and the quantum fluctuations. What is quantum fluctuation? It's a very bizarre construct of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If only it goes fast enough below the Planck time, is the time that light needs to pass a Planck length, 10 to the minus 34th, it's very, very short, but below this time the physics doesn't work and you can violate the physics and you can violate the law of conservation of energy and everything that is wholly in physics below Planck time, everything can happen spontaneous, as much energy can be created, always two, always two and it's anti-part, they just have to disappear fast enough and then the physics isn't violated and everything is zero in some total so the theoretical physicist is happy Everything hankidori, everything clean. Now, if this happens all the time though and it does happen all the time, then energy comes from nothing and it goes back to nothing and this energy, this virtual energy actually increases the mass or contributes to the mass of the proton and let's imagine, you know, all matter that you know consists of small parts of nothing really or maybe strings, if you believe in string theory so now it's clear that all of matter isn't actually matter it's really, like Einstein said, E equals m squared is really energy so all this is condensed in a very, very small room that you can't even imagine it's like a billions of a billion of a meter all this energy fits in there because it consists of, like, nothing and the idea, which hasn't been proven but the idea of the origin of the universe is that all this energy the entire universe could be spawned from a quantum fluctuation It's a bit hard to imagine that this room expanded like an explosion so quickly and this actually doesn't fit with relativity theory it expanded faster than light it's really the space between particles that grew so quickly that they got distant, but quicker than light that's the cosmic inflation which you may have heard of so just recently somebody said we found cosmic inflation looking at the background radiation you can go look back in time the universe is 13.8 billions of years old and we can look back in time up until the point where it was about 300,000 years old that was the point in time when the universe became transparent before that everything was a big plasma and really opaque whether it's 100,000 or 300,000 years nobody knows quite for sure but that's when it became transparent and we now see the background radiation these are areas of variations and temperature of the background these variations of brightness that we see is the reason for planets, stars, galaxies forming, otherwise everything would have been the same and homogeneous everywhere but if today's physics is right then the quantum fluctuation of space at the very beginning of the universe is what makes stars and planets today and then stars explode and the laws of physics are built so the origin of the universe may have its origins in quantum mechanics and the BSEP2 experiment has tried to prove the following they showed that this cosmic inflation which so far has only a theory that something should have happened which is gravitational waves so-called gravitational waves let's imagine sun disappears from one day to the other so sun just went away room space is warped because of the gravitation and this warp then travels like a wave it would sort of make the space become larger and smaller around us you could see that you can measure that by looking at the polarization of the background radiation they tried it they didn't succeed they didn't put the correction factor in that is needed that is in the universe they took that down from a powerpoint presentation about the Planck satellite instead of copying directly and it didn't quite take the exact value and so there's an 8% chance that they are actually wrong in one of the most important of our time that's just not precise enough and we can't just say 8% because it would prove inflation but it hasn't 8% that is too much so we continue to research this you can look forward to if we can prove the cosmic inflation with such an experiment then that also means that the Big Bang has happened or has been caused by a quantum fluctuation so it still it still makes sense to become quantum physicists or cosmologists because there's still the question what's outside either or what's inside the Planck length stories and themes that we can't even touch because it would take too long but if this experiment would succeed that would mean A, the universe came about from a quantum fluctuation B, it is very probable that there are that there's more than one universe there's many universes with many different types of physics I mean what could be more bizarre than the fact that it's just us that is here there could be two possibilities either you know there's a god like entity somewhere you know a Joe God or or just by pure randomness maybe maybe all of the time permanently new universes are spawned yeah so there were so many universes only in the one in which we are we are here otherwise we wouldn't be seeing it if it in a universe where we are not there so now we could we could talk about the Higgs boson now we can't do that within one hour but if you like we could talk about this again tomorrow perhaps see if you can find me and then we can talk about it some more but this really isn't just hypothetical it is very close as far as we know the universe somehow nobody knows why there are new theories super strings and super symmetry and theory and it's really fun to read and to look it up it's really complicated the universe somehow was very very very very very very small smaller than anything you can imagine all energy all matter everything was in there and then it expanded very fast we still forgot about dark energy and dark matter because we can measure that it's not just we don't know let's just call it dark but it's really there and spiral galaxy are turning much faster than they should if all the matter that we can see was all the matter that there is and you can measure very exactly that there must be more matter there that we cannot see and we can measure very precisely that galaxies far away move away from us much faster than they should when the universe was expanding constantly or even decelerating but in fact it is accelerating so there must be some other energy driving the universe apart and nobody really knows what it is but dark matter and dark energy so dark means we don't know but we just see it's there we can see its effects this dark matter and this dark energy make about 95 or 98% of the total energy of the universe so what we see all the energy of the stars the planets all of us only make really nothing we're totally irrelevant in this energy structure of the entire universe but we can see that it is there and just all of these energies if we add all of these energies and the universe that the universe is totally flat so that there is no curvature in the universe outside or inside but it is totally flat and if we add up all these energies the positive and those expanding driving universe part and collapsing the universe and all and there's some total of that completely zero is exactly zero and there is no there's an indication here that the universe as we see it here with all the physical properties could really have come from nothing because as far as we know there is the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg Heisenberg and so there is there was the possibility that all of this all this reality one of this possible reality was there in which it could happen and so at this point in time there was no time so there was no time limit for testing it so back looking backwards you could say it was this entire universe came from a gigantic superposition because it could just just out of nothing from absolute nothing and there is no cause for that and so I want to get to the end and allow some questions and it was a lot in a short time I asked for three hours but that's super you talked so fast I brought you some water any questions please move up to the microphones and the people who now go very quietly through the front door oh yes, let's get over there that is now in our right side one, please thank you very much for the talk you spoke about quantum fluctuations and it seems a bit random like any old quantum fluctuations could happen or anything could be probable so I'd be interested in how far is it the actual measurement of the quantum fluctuation which may have happened whether the measurement determines the quantum fluctuations the problem is with measuring the quantum fluctuation it's not easy to measure the quantum fluctuation it's not a certain effect known inflicted by a certain plasma which is why it's known as the plasma effect where we assume if you put two metallic planes next to each other and bring them close to each other then the quantum physics says that particles can only be created so between the particle plates could only such particles can be generated that are completely or duplicate or three times or fit multiple times but not once that fit half or two thirds of the time which means that between these plates different particles can be generated which is why therefore the two plates should be pressured towards each other because there should be an interference between the outside and the inside and you can measure this force I'm not 100% sure if nowadays it's accepted generally that this force really has to do with the postulated quantum fluctuations the plasma fluctuations but what you can do is you can predict them mathematically and mathematically it is possible to predict as far as I know I'm not a quantum physicist or cosmologist but as far as I know arbitrary particles could be generated or destroyed this is also a cause of one of these Hawkins radiation so if one of these particles generated the limit of the event horizon goes into the event horizon which leads to the fact that there is a particle inside the black hole and the particle outside which leads to the fact that all black holes will disappear eventually if they don't get new food well to answer your question so long as you don't look these particles are both in the state of having been created which you call it something like the zero point energy which all these physicists try to use very faithfully try to use which they keep using but it doesn't really work with some falls or aluminum no it doesn't really work well I think this factoration can take any possible state that is possible so long as you're not observing my question is I've heard once that you can either determine the position or you can determine the speed and that the other one is uncharmed so in theory you could tell the police that you wouldn't know I've been here because if you measure my speed so quickly then how do you know I'm there well in principle that is correct if you were a photon that would be exactly correct but that's why this is an unresolved question so the bigger you are the more energy would be needed to measure it at some point trying to measure it which is also a bit of the problem that the LHC has so you can't separate two quarks because this costs so much energy so the larger the energy the whole thing together becomes at some point you have to employ so much energy so you can't separate them which is kind of the same thing with that thought you said the macroscopic object also has this object but it's so tiny that it's not measurable oh that's a pretty and then a question from the internet it's a question from the internet yes the net had a lot of fun the tail end of this other question what do we do? so the state it supervises us all so we now have to turn into quants so they can't observe us well that's nonsense in some sense we're only here because they're observing us but that's a real question well it's completely legitimate on holographic universe and simulation thereof how can we tell whether we're in a simulation or not that's a tough question you could talk about this for another hour there is quantum information there is who believe that they can prove that this is the case which is Dalalam also has a struggling with this random well indeed can be proven that the random but they have to change the doctrine well the quantum information theory is a very open handed religion in quotation marks and the idea to change his doctrine based on research is pretty open I think by the way well there is a part of quantum information theory which says actually no it's different well you yourself are also quantum mechanical states so the quantum that arrive are somehow interfere with the electrons in our eye which once again is an infinite change of interference up into our brain and in reality nothing is being decided so the so-called collapse the so-called decoherence it never actually happens both happens actually so why does someone decide to see one decide to see one thing but not the other thing which means the quintessential part of this piece of quantum information theory everything is an illusion but what is elucidated as a vast what is the public who is watching this who is the spectator of this virtual reality it cannot be answered right now the whole question there are theories as to how to answer it they exist but I think they are all nonsense George says that an experiment has been made and the result is we are not living in a simulation this is about hologram well the holographic universe is a different thing one thing is simulation the other thing is the holographic universe is quite slightly different it got slightly confused well I think I don't quite understand so I don't quite dare talk about it but people do claim to prove that we are not living in the holographic universe thank you very much for the talk as you said some of these things are hard to understand they don't seem logic at all like the quantum mechanics the problem I have with the standard model of physics is it gets difficult when you look in general if you look at redshift as a Doppler effect the redshift is a linear effect linear in the variation but you can show that it's actually not a linear effect at all but there is a periodicity of 34 kilometers and you can show that the point of constant has been coded in there there are other things like globular clusters I'll show you afterwards and the paper people who published this you have to look at the details and the details don't fit they don't match I can there's theoretical things that have been measured they've been referenced can I just take have you derived a certain equation so I haven't actually personally if you don't understand what people understand without I think it's a shame that a lot of people spend a lot of time to talk about things theories that are so random without wasting without spending time to look at and understand what has currently been done it's not that physics suddenly knew people always say that everything can be different it's not the same they're always just refinements of the existing problems they solve problems with the existing the redshift is not a Doppler effect Doppler effect but it's the galaxies thank you thank you you can discuss this afterwards what do you think about the theory of supersymmetry? supersymmetry is a very interesting topic I don't quite got along with the string theory it's a very random method I do see his attraction there are some pretty cool there are some pretty cool there are some pretty cool there are some weird mathematical hacks which I don't quite like amongst other things just to mention a few random ones string theory works because in a certain type of mathematics the sum of all natural numbers between 1 and 1 to infinity is minus a 12 you can derive it it's just a bit fishy as far as I think everything is very well but to this date there is not a single piece of evidence if it would work more elegantly mathematically if every particle had a symmetrical particle so for every fermion and a gluon so if there was a mirror symmetry between everything would work a lot better I have to stop here we're running out of time and of course we talk about this for hours please meet tomorrow and give a round of applause for Steini thank you very much