A Brief History of Quantum Mechanics - with Sean Carroll 

I started a few years ago binge watching Carrol lectures, I take several week breaks and then I rewatch, after awhile I began to accumulate an understanding, so keep listening, the quest for clarity is rewarding❤️

How do know if the cat is actually asleep without looking in the box - did you remote view it somehow?

@@greggrant4614 I looked. The cat is dead of cyanid poisoning. But wait! Maybe he's only pretending. And about what I got out of this lecture as far as knowing who's on first, second or third.

The line (me) is forming behind you

@@dandavis4469 me (1)

7uu m uu u u ullj uu u.un j

u u u uuuuu

7u u uu

Glad you found it lucid. I'm now switching to women's triple jump.

The cat was drowsy

Bob I I

You're good at words

@@Velopter q

You made me laugh ao hard

😂

this is my parallel self who is commenting.

😂 nice! refer to.. : 6:04

Wait, what!?

Is this the first cult you joined?

He is a paid shill

@@yasirpanezai5690 by whom and for what? Is there any validation for your conspiracy? This is science for science sake, I think

@@jwvandegronden he belongs to the scientific mafia that peddle pseudo science and make millions.

Colchis 30000 just keep watching like I do lol

In another universe I remember everything. Too bad I'm stuck in this universe 😣

Gurd MLB at least y’all are entangled. You should be proud of your other self

I go "huh" half the time and also dig it! :D

@@SG-ig2eu theory of numbers

@Dirk Knight Funny. 4/10

Is this physics worldstar?

What exactly makes him a genius ?

@@rayagoldendropofsun397 His innate disposition through which nature gives the rule to art

@alexausberlin The basis here is about Science FACTs, can he be innate on Science FACT'S ?

I now have "wave of modulation" to the tune of Wave of Mutilation in my head.

'Do you want a glass of wine or a glass of beer?' 'Yes'

@@LittrowTaurus or does he want a glass of glass

Why electromagnetism is BS? The theory states that the electromagnetic waves propagate in vacuum space at 3 x 10^8 m/s. The fact is there is no electric and magnetic force carrier that exists in the vacuum space, therefore it is impossible producing any waves. The theory states that the current flows back and forth in the antenna can produce EM waves. The fact is an antenna is a terminal of an electrical circuit, not a closed circuit, it is impossible to have current flows back and forth. The theory states that the conductors carry free electrons. The fact is free electrons will flow to positively charged nuclear first due to the super-strong electrostatic attraction force. If there are free electrons in conductors, they will discharge into nuclear and destroy the atoms.

Comment of the decade !

A: lets go the the superposition bar. B: but i swear, if someone looks at me im leaving!

It seems you did very little physics, indeed. ;-)

I too watched for the second time.

Yep@@schmetterling4477

You're very welcome!

That's exactly how I feel about Sean Caroll. Many worlds is difficult to stomach and also pushes the problem beyond what is almost certainly the limits of ever being tested/falsified. But his attitude and openness about the embarrassing state the field of quantum mechanics finds itself in, is refreshing and desperately needed. Otherwise, theoretical physicist might as well start calling themselves technicians/engineers. And instead of insisting that particles at the quantum mechanical level are "weird" or "odd", just say they're "magic". It's what many of the explanations amount to anyway...

@@chronic_cynic Notwithstanding your misgivings, it is the simplest description that comes out of the Schrodinger equation. Anything else is just adding more of the unexplainable and thus further complicates the problem. Sean Caroll does an adequate job of explaining only what can be observed, as simply as possible, and doesn't make assumptions, which is what other quantum interpretations tend to do (aka magic).

@Hlafordlaes Matter and energy only have to be conserved in each of the unique universes. Thus, no physics laws violated.

@Hlafordlaes There is a different solution which is simply that the different branches of the universal wavefunction don't have an equal "weight" or "width". Say that there's an electron which we predict will have a 50/50 chance of either being measured as spin up or spin down if we run an experiment on it. According to the many worlds interpretation, if we do the measurement there will be a branch of the universal wavefunction where the electron is spin up and we observed it to be spin up and a branch of the universal wavefunction where the electron is spin down and we observed it to be spin down. However, each of those branches will only have 50% of the "width" or "weight" (or however you want to conceptualize it) of the original branch which the two new "worlds" branched from. In fact, it is exactly this width of the resulting branches predicted by the Schrödinger equation which (in the Many Worlds interpretation) creates the appearance that quantum mechanics is intrinsically stochastic. If in a different experiment we predict that the chances of measuring a particle as spin up are 80% and spin down only 20% that just means that the corresponding branches of the universal wavefunction will have a width of 80% and 20% of the branch which they themselves branched from. This works out mathematically and it doesn't violate any conservation laws. If it did then this whole idea would have already been dismissed long ago. Edit: I want to add something to reply to the claim or "misgiving" that Many Worlds is untestable or unscientific. It is strictly speaking true that there's no way to directly empirically demonstrate that there are other branches of the universal wavefunction which are just as real as the one that we happen to find ourselves on. Well, seems like this is just a philosophical matter which science doesn't have much to say about, right? Wrong. If we have a description of physics which has held up to all attempts of falsification as well as Schrödinger's equation has then we have very firm reason to take any predictions made by that description seriously, whether we can directly verify those predictions or not. The point is that Schrödinger's equation actually *predicts* Many Worlds and, as Everett showed, it can also account for the fact that we never directly observe anything in a superposition *entirely on its own,* without any collapse of the wavefunction when you make a quantum measurement. What all the other interpretations of quantum mechanics do is simply *adding stuff* to our fundamental description of reality *in order to get rid* of the Many Worlds predicted by the Schrödinger equation. This becomes especially problematic when we add vaguely defined concepts such as "observer" into our fundamental description of reality as is the case in the Copenhagen interpretation. Ultimately, the Many Worlds interpretation is just what you get when you apply Occam's razor to quantum mechanics. It may superficially seem like you're adding a lot to your picture of reality by allowing for all these different worlds, but actually you're making *much fewer* assumptions while still accounting for all the observable phenomena AND also providing an explanation for the (apparent) stochastic nature of quantum mechanics.

This could be your advertisement! Thanks

I agree. Is there a name for this theory? I get plenty of articles when I search for entanglement determined spacetime, but is there a name? Who came up with it?

@@Wander4P A friend majored in physics once told me that the theory related to something called 'holographic entropy'. But I don't know anything more about it, you can search for this topic.

yes, and I would love to hear my most beloved god-walking-in-the-skin-of-a-man Roger Penrose think on that ....and comment in real time ! .....(Perhaps he has already ). But It has been very fun to hear Sean Carroll talk with so much enthusiam for the whole history of this stuff. Great fun !

Maybe they can define a distance metric based on entanglement and link it to Minkowski or other metrics needed to derive the curvature of space-time.

This is actually the first presentation I've seen on it but thats cause I'm just now getting into the field today and im only a 14 year old high school freshman.

Yea! I 'liked' the video without watching.

@@sarahlee9979 Oh right. Thanks for reminding me.

@@sarahlee9979 A pavlovian brainwashed person would do that. Have you watched it yet?

Sean Carroll is a charlatan.

@@ZeroOskul what makes you say that?

Most quantum physicists do not endorse the multiple/infinite universes theory...

@@smartcatcollarproject5699 veg god df

One problem I always struggle with in the multiverse theory is the sheer number of universes that would need to exist. There are uncountable quantum interactions every moment and to think that every time the number of universes would double. It’s beyond comprehension for me.

Professors wish they had better students

@@petergianakopoulos4926 I'd be willing to be a student of Carroll's I really care for this field I'm a beginner and newbie to this field. Watching these lectures is a helpful to understanding it I really want to be a scientist and professor on this field some day

Get a life

I have learnt two things are true: Quantum Mechanics is not Mechanics, Software Engineering is not Engineering.

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity.

I must admit, I was hoping for a Rocky Horror-based joke after he did a hop to the left.

Always welcomed,thanks for jumping in.

No Name it just virtually happened to us too!

Ah. And you communicated to this universe how?

@@ZeroOskul Magic

please tell him to stop this "doing" of universes at each lecture... where do we get then? :)

I'm not a scientist either but this field is one of a good ride And I am new to the field i'm only a 14 year old highschool freshman but my inspiration and desire of science has made me consider being a scientist and being a professor on this field.

I would have enjoyed more, the truth. Ken Wheeler!

Too bad it's all just theory

I found it a good read as a beginner and newbie to this field.

The book's good too :)

This was my first lecture of his aswell and also my first quantum mechanics lecture i've seen It's one of my favorite fields I'm considering being a scientist I'm only 14 (Highschool freshman) what i like is that it was broken down so my tiny brain can better understand

@@robfenwitch7403 Whats the name of the book and where can i get it

@@Broomful It's called "Something Deeply Hidden:" I have it on Audible audiobook (read by theauthor". It's available on Amazon (paper and Kindle) and I'm sure in many other good retailers :)

@@Broomful I tried to reply but now I can't see it... The book is called "Something Deeply Hidden:" It's certainly on Amazon and Audible in paper, kindle and audio format. I'm sure it's available generally.

Well the point of quantum mechanic's theory is that no one does. It's like his fox story. No one trying to find out anymore so just left that and teaching fairytale to students. He actualy trying to understand what is happening that's why you think you understand something. He dosent understand it either but trying to do so and feels like is closer than anyone else. For me listening to him i start bealive that real physicists actually still exist.

Wwewwewwwwwwwwwwww5wewwwewwwwweewwwwwwwwww5ewewwweew

@@lurker668 there is no point, quantum mechanics is just not intuitive because we evolved to understand the macro world not the micro, but that doesn't mean you can't understand it, it just doesn't feel right, but that is irrelevant.

Really? I thought he used unnessecary jargon and bad explanations. Idk if Feynman would like him at all

@@SuperMaDBrothers he needed to use jargon otherwise this would be a 4 hour video, but of course feynman would have explained it much clearer

You have been taken on a tour of La Puta.

I'm so jealous of his students!!! This topic is so good

There's "understanding" and there's "understanding". When they say "no one understands it", they really mean the fundamental foundations of it. The day to day stuff can be understood by side stepping the pop-science retelling of it (i.e. the "spookiness", quantum "weirdness" etc).

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Feynman Feynman won his 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum electrodynamics,

Well, I'm about to make it less understandable - even to Sean, with his "many-worlds", should he read this, by posing a stumper. Many-worlds, Bohm, Copenhagen: those are all accounts of "Measurement Theory". In quantum theory, by von Neumann's account, there are two postulates: Evolution, which says that a quantum state evolves in time, as given by the Schroedinger Equation; and Projection, which says that a "projection" occurs at specific points in space and time - those points corresponding to measurements. (Whether the place of measurement has to be staffed by anyone, or can be done without anyone at the switch is a separate issue, but not important for *my* question). The purpose of Measurement Theory is to try and provide some account of and formulation for the Projection Postulate. There are two separate accounts of quantum theory, called "Pictures"; the above postulates and just about everything (and everyone else) are all in the Schroedinger Picture. In it, a state evolves in time, and the variables describing a system are timeless operators that applied to the state to get (generally time-dependent) values. It is in the Schroedinger Picture that the many-worlds "splits" are framed in terms of. In the Schroedinger Picture, moreover, time is cast as an arena of "happenings" - an "historical" time. The other picture is the Heisenberg Picture. It, too, has its own version of the Evolution Postulate - taking the form of the Heisenberg Equation. In it, states are *timeless* and the variables describing a system have time-dependence. The time-dependence, in contrast to the Schroedinger Picture, however, is on the same footing as spatial-dependence, so that time in the Heisenberg Picture is on the same footing as space; and the Heisenberg Picture's view of time is as something that is "all there" -- which is the same way that Relativity sees time. Here's the stumper: the "well-known" equivalence between the Schroedinger and Heisenberg Pictures pertains *only* to the Evolution Postulate! There's no equivalence for the Projection Postulate, because ... there's no Projection Postulate in the Heisenberg Picture! None that is well-known and has received consensus acceptance. In fact, there's no Measurement Theory in the Heisenberg Picture at all! There have been few attempts to formulate one; but (again) nothing that's received wide acceptance. So ... if "many worlds" is all true and correct, then what's the Heisenberg Picture version of it? States don't split in the Heisenberg Picture, because they're timeless. There's no historical time in that picture at all. So, what's splitting? So, clearly, Sean (and quite a few others) are not getting the whole picture right; and their accounts of quantum theory are incomplete. There's a huge gap: the No-Measurement-Theory-In-The-Heisenberg-Picture Gap.

feynman himself said ;" if someone says they understand QM, their a liar, and if someone says i dont understand QM at all, that means they understand a little bit"

@Dirk Knight please elaborate and if possible direct me to sources that say something else

@Dirk Knight yea but in context of understanding what quantum is all about this is great. Again though you haven't told me what he is saying that is wrong or any other opposing opinions, feel free to post another link or just a source i can look into

@Meloveulongtime really? what kind of person has bad rep on youtube lol

In other words, he is selling horse manure and you bought it. ;-)

Couldn't of worded better myself

@@4toppingpizzayacaant72 A combination with xtra cheese please 😋

@@whirledpeas3477 lol.

And then a step to the righ-igh-ight.

time warp anyone?

Let's do it again.

And on a different universe this comment says: "It's just a jump to the right."

@@samcarter8828 and where is the universe in that he says it's the "other left"? :)

I always suspected that the chemistry teacher was making that sht up!

Are engineers lay people?

Except for gravity

@@philipmelton7182 Functionally, yes. I'm industrial and I can tell you I could not digest the mathematical descriptions of most of QM any better than most people.

That's what I hate from Engineers. They wasted 14 years of time & brain to just have a job in a factory, I'm not against engineering as they shaped the world we enjoy and take for granted, but like Sr Nikola Tesla, he was a keen learner of mathematics & physics. I believe, Engineers are the practical side of a physicist but too much engaged with COMMERCE. BTW I'm 17yrs old and took Science Stream at XI for Aerospace Engineering but I always want to go for research line but since they're paid less where they shouldn't be like that, need to have a capital to start my own with a renowned institute research on many parts of Physics, Chemistry, Information Tech. (of course) & Mathematics.

@@shubhankardasgupta4777 Indeed engineers learn to solve problems with an empirical process. While research scientists are or should be thinking about the cutting edge. You could be an engineer who continues to take an interest in the cutting edge and when you have gained experience contribute to ground breaking work. Do you follow Thunderfoot? He is a scientist, his RU-vid often explore areas overlooked by other researchers, he also is skilled in glasswork and general problem solving. I get the impression he is often called upon by various researchers to solve some technical issue in their cutting edge machines. Sounds like he has the best of both worlds.

S

Kindly send me : The Copenhagen Interpretations , as had been description as being most easy to understand previously Thanks

Me too and I am half deaf.

Not Carroll? Interesting.

Which inconsistencies are you talking about?

Him and brian greene ❤️

His podcasts are a bit more common.

@@esaedvik Yes, I know:)!

Such a great science communicator.

But you don't want to buy his book?

@@yrebrac Wait, what book?

From what little I gathered, and from what fraction of that I could comprehend in some sort of mabey sorta correct or not way, it's like 3 dimensional space is a "simulation." When playing a 3D game, objects aren't "litterally" seperated but their seperation, or virtual space itself, is a result of mathematical equations. Only OUR space is defined by vibrations which translate and interact in such a way as to "simulate" space from a sentient perspective. For the record I have barely any idea what i've just said.

@@ASLUHLUHCE he wrote books buy it and become more confused

There are loads of lectures on quantum field theory out there on the internet ...

Zenocrat einstein was a fool...and he has been thoroughly debunked

einstein is a counterfeit, a fraud.

Luca Bernardini Haha, very funny.

@@thattwodimensionalant4626 it's not a joke

Luca Bernardini Nice sarcasm, haha.