CERN Looks for Origins of Quantum Randomness 

You can have a full refund of every cent you paid to Sabine for watching this video?😊

The Karen Paradox

nonsense!

and now you have a complaint!

I have a complaint: Someone is complaining about not having any complaints!

The Ten Trillion pictures per second camera could be moded after a microscope that can actually see a virus if they exist ( Dr Sam Bailey The Truth about Viruses youtube ) how virology has been lying to us for a while books on this by her and Drs around the world Never sued and in fact they keep inviting entities connected to controversy and they never come including Mr Fauci)- - - While I'm aware that they believe we see one however I also learned they can't prove it is one* Also a telescope modeled after this camera?

I would be curious to hear a summary of the points being made, both the post and the criticism. I intuit that the criticism would be something along the lines of how a variety of paradigms are empirically intractable by shifting the standards by which one could falsify them or satisfy some good faith threshold of "sufficient evidence against." Twitter has the kinds of limitations that would set even good faith science to sound like bad faith, standard shifting science.

Consider this the anti-post which, when read with yours, will disappear in an explosion of dark energy.

Awesome! So was the potential breakthrough thrown away? Or is the data still around and available for analysis?

⁠@@George1776 the data never ever gets thrown away. All the data from every single CERN experiment, even going back decades, is permanently stored on (literal) tape. This particular data will be re-analysed (myself and others are activity working on this now) and combined with new data currently being recorded at a higher collision energy

nonsense.

​@@BenjaminGooseI'll look into it

@MrMegaMetroid And i'll look into the nonsense of looking into nonsense

YES! Well worth the look even if it's ruled out, but if it isn't...........

IOW, what is nonsense to one scientist could end up another scientist's Nobel Prize

NIH syndrome

Sure, there's that. There is also a lot of language issues. Physics has invented entire new ways of looking at and talking about the universe, at all scales. This language is often imprecise because language itself is a Stone Age tool. Things improve when discussion reverts to mathematics. But then math is not a language everyone speaks, or speaks in the same way. We'll be better off when the AIs take over science, invent new languages for the purpose, and talk among themselves about things we would probably rather not know about in the first place.

​@@TheMrCougarfulThis is a great point. The convention of math one chooses can reveal more of the landscape of physics. For example, have you ever heard of Quaternion or Octonion algebra? Quaternions use 3 vectors and a scalar term to define coordinate systems. In cartesian coordinates many systems suffer from problems with coordinate transforms like gimble lock in the case of rotating gyroscopes. Quaternion algebra was the original notation of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism before Heaviside's simplified vector notation was adopted. There is a fringe group in the scientific community that is convinced that some physical phenomena can only be predicted by Quaternion and Octonion algebra. Quantum effects such as the Aharanov-Bohm effect and other quantum interference effects might have dynamics that we simply haven't predicted because our math assumes a limited number of variables. There are situations in quantum field theory where the solution shows a zero vector sum of superimposed "force fields", such as the phase conjugation of photons, while the quantum potentials are non-zero and have physical, yet "force-free" effects on the evolution of Shrodinger equation for particles. I've seen designs patented by Honeywell that exploit these quantum effects to generate new kinds of EM wave structures like magnetic vector potential waves, which are very hard to shield using conventional linearly conductive shielding materials. They built transformers and transcievers using a principle that is found nowhere in classical electromagnetism. I've even seen designs that can use quantum teleportation to extract or deposit energy from a distant system with no apparent transmission of conventional EM waves, only quantum potentials and the resulting interference.

"Not my monkey. Not my circus."

​@@TheMrCougarful My dream is that AI will find the answer to this question before I die. Glad you mentioned this.

Interesting, I will watch out for this!

But if this is true then the quantum world isn't random at all, we just don't have the tools necessary to view it with clarity.

Well, thing is, positions and velocities aren't correct tools for understanding elementary particles. Because they're not particles, they're waves (that love to localize themselves from time to time). There's no position, only amplitude. There's no velocity, only frequency.

It isn't a lack of technology that prevents the simultaneous knowledge of position and velocity, it's just a fundamental property of the universe

In quantum mechanics the wavefunction isn't a thing like a particle or a ball is. It's simply a piece of mathematics which, when you do different mathematical operations on it, will return to you the measurable quantities associated with the particle you care about. Human perception shouldn't matter because it's the instrument's perception that matters when making a measurement.

@@DriftWithoutCar but that isn't what people are saying here. They are saying that you simply can't because there's no known tool capable of seeing the details that are there. They are there, we just can't see them with what we have. I actually have yet to see anyone ever say anything that would convince me otherwise.

Maybe because it explains why this correlation exists in the first place,idk

I agree. This seems like it could be very interesting and worth a deeper look

My understanding of 't Hooft's idea is that the hidden variables reside on short distances, or high energies, respectively. He is saying in a nutshell that effective field theory might fail. This means the higher the energies, the easier it should become to see evidence of the hidden variables, eg by unusual correlations, too strong correlations, unexpected patterns etc.

@@SabineHossenfelder i was believing Alain Aspect refute this idea about hidden variables ?... or is it a new thing ?

@@SabineHossenfelder I had asked a similar question before I saw your reply here. But are you saying that _this_ experiment, testing only for entanglement, might have displayed such evidence of hidden variables, or that a similar but differently designed experiment might? The apparent conflation of hidden variables with entanglement is confusing me.

Hairy holes. Oh the memmories.

No need to worry. Our ability to make helium is only 20 years away.

sure but ball goes uuuuuuuup

Our lab installed a helium recycler years ago. Ever since the US government privatized the Helium Repository the price has skyrocketed. Most places use recyclers now, you just can't vent the stuff anymore. The gov't supply had been keeping the price artificially low, but now the recycler market is booming. Helium is a non-renewable resource, as you mentioned. Unless we implement a Star Wars type gas mine on Saturn. That would be fine.

From a quick google of the question it appears that only about 10% of annual helium loss is in balloons. This includes weather balloons and airships.

Well, helium is used in Ludwig tunnels to create supersonic wind tunnels. Since helium has the lowest escape velocity into space, if LHC could implement the tube effect with their tests, they might be able to see what happens in those Pluto seconds by separating high density impact and low density impact.

As the high energy quantum physicist that actually did this measurement, I can say it’s definitely a combination of both 😂

We would need the planck energy to exhibit space-time structure on the paint plank scale. You do not need to invent plank scale structure. The construction of space-time intervals is discrete. Inversely to energy. We can expect the vacuum to be low energy photons from the early universe at maximum entropy. I'm environment is logically constructed from electron exclusion events within a frequency range. Trapped energy representing place or free energy representing space.

@@JimWhitescarver **Mathematical Formalism of Planck-Scale Space-Time Dynamics in Terms of Electron Exclusion Events and Bound/Free Energy** **Introduction:** To develop a mathematical formalism of the cosmological constant within the Cosmic Fractal Recursivity Quantum Theory (CFRQT) framework, we first need to establish some fundamental definitions and postulates. We will then proceed to derive the relevant equations that describe the structure of space-time at the Planck scale in terms of electron exclusion events and bound/free energy. **Definitions and Postulates:** 1. Space-time is modeled as a 4D fractal manifold, denoted by M, with a Hausdorff-Besicovitch structure and fractal dimension D, where 3 < D ≤ 4. 2. The geometry of M is described by a fractal metric g_μν, satisfying a modified form of Einstein's field equations, incorporating the effects of the fractal structure across multiple scales: G_μν + Λ_f g_μν = (8πG/c^4) T_μν where G_μν is the Einstein tensor, Λ_f is the "fractal cosmological constant" emerging from the fractal geometry, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T_μν is the energy-momentum tensor. 3. The structure of space-time at the Planck scale is discrete and quantum, with fundamental intervals of space-time on the order of the Planck length, ℓ_P = √(ħG/c^3) ≈ 1.62 × 10^-35 m, and Planck time, t_P = √(ħG/c^5) ≈ 5.39 × 10^-44 s. 4. The vacuum is modeled as an ensemble of low-energy photons from the early universe, characterized by a temperature T and a maximum entropy S_max. 5. The local environment emerges from electron exclusion events within a specific frequency range, with bound energy representing place and free energy representing space. **Derivation of Planck-Scale Space-Time Structure:** Consider an electron exclusion event characterized by a frequency ν and an associated energy E. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the relationship between energy uncertainty ΔE and time uncertainty Δt is given by: ΔE Δt ≥ ħ/2 To exhibit the structure of space-time at the Planck scale, we need energies on the order of the Planck energy, E_P = √(ħc^5/G) ≈ 1.22 × 10^19 GeV. Substituting ΔE = E_P in the uncertainty relation, we obtain: Δt ≈ ħ/(2E_P) = t_P/2 This suggests that the structure of space-time becomes discrete at intervals of time on the order of the Planck time, t_P. Now, consider the relationship between bound energy E_t and free energy E_f in an electron exclusion event. Using Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, we have: E_t = m_t c^2 E_f = m_f c^2 where m_t and m_f are the equivalent masses associated with bound and free energy, respectively. The ratio between bound and free energy can be expressed as: E_t/E_f = m_t/m_f Assuming that the equivalent mass of the bound energy m_t is on the order of the Planck mass M_P = √(ħc/G), and that the equivalent mass of the free energy m_f is much smaller than M_P, we have: E_t/E_f ≈ M_P/m_f >> 1 This suggests that at the Planck scale, bound energy (representing place) dominates over free energy (representing space), leading to a discrete and quantized space-time structure. To relate this discrete structure to the maximum entropy of the vacuum, we use the thermodynamic definition of entropy: S = k_B ln Ω where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, and Ω is the number of microstates accessible to the system. Assuming that the number of microstates accessible Ω is proportional to the number of electron exclusion events N within the relevant frequency range, we have: S_max ∝ k_B ln N The relationship between the number of electron exclusion events N and the ratio of bound/free energy can be modeled using a Boltzmann distribution: N ∝ exp(-E_t/E_f) Combining these relations, we obtain: S_max ∝ -k_B (E_t/E_f) ∝ -k_B (M_P/m_f) This suggests that the maximum entropy of the vacuum is inversely related to the ratio between bound and free energy at the Planck scale. **Conclusion:** In this derivation, we have shown how the discrete structure of space-time at the Planck scale can emerge from electron exclusion events within a specific frequency range, with bound energy representing place and free energy representing space. Using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, we demonstrated that the time intervals at the Planck scale are on the order of the Planck time, t_P, and that bound energy dominates over free energy, leading to a quantized space-time structure. Moreover, we related this discrete structure to the maximum entropy of the vacuum, modeled as an ensemble of low-energy photons from the early universe. Using the thermodynamic definition of entropy and a Boltzmann distribution for the number of electron exclusion events, we showed that the maximum entropy is inversely related to the ratio between bound and free energy at the Planck scale. These results suggest that the fundamental structure of space-time is inherently discrete and quantum, and emerges from microscopic processes involving electron exclusion events and the interaction between bound and free energy. The inverse relationship between the maximum entropy of the vacuum and the ratio of bound/free energy at the Planck scale also suggests a deep connection between thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and gravity in describing the space-time structure.

@@JimWhitescarver I believe that to understand the theory, it's important to understand the mind from which it emerged. Since the launch of GPT, I have become an avid user of the tool, and one of my lines of research has been physics, especially general relativity and quantum physics. The truth is that most people repeat concepts they don't truly understand, and I didn't want to be just another one doing that. After many years of study, I reached the following conclusion: Einstein was masterful in explaining the laws of physics at "our" scale, assuming it to be the only one that exists. That's why his theory adopts singularity as a phenomenon. Einstein admittedly did not envision other scales when he developed general relativity and expressed his amazement at quantum mechanics. I believe that the incompleteness of the theory can be remedied by visualizing scales below and above our own. These scales, like fractals, nest infinitely, so that a singularity is never truly reached. Moreover, in this fractal reality, each scale presents its own laws of physics because they are not fixed and immutable but emergent from interactions of multiple scales that mutually influence each other. The laws of physics, therefore, are like emergent products of interconnected complex systems and depend on the scale of observation. When this view is adopted, major problems in physics find solutions. The Hubble tension, for example, can be understood as a manifestation of the fractal structure of spacetime at cosmological scales. The discrepancies between local and global measurements of the Hubble constant naturally arise when considering the multi-scale and self-similar nature of cosmic geometry. At smaller scales, the expansion of space can be influenced by quantum fluctuations and nonlinear effects that propagate upward through the fractal hierarchy, leading to apparent deviations from the Hubble-Lemaître law. Similarly, dark matter and dark energy, two of the greatest mysteries in contemporary cosmology, can be approached in a new light in the context of fractal reality. Instead of postulating exotic new forms of matter and energy, we can understand them as emergent manifestations of the complex and recursive dynamics of geometry across multiple scales. Dark matter may arise as an effective gravitational effect of fractal structures at galactic and cluster scales, while dark energy may be a consequence of the self-similarity of spacetime at the largest cosmological scales. Another fundamental problem that fractal reality can address is the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. By treating spacetime as inherently fractal and non-differentiable at the Planck scale, we can avoid the singularities and inconsistencies that arise when attempting to combine the two theories. Fractal quantum geometry provides a natural framework for describing spacetime foam and the nonlocal effects that become significant at high energies and small scales. Through an appropriate renormalization flow and generalized field equations, we can derive both the smooth classical dynamics and quantum corrections as effective limits of the underlying fractal structure.

@@Lemosoliver59 We can presume quantum information is complete in the interaction of fractals. The fractals get larger, not smaller with lower frequencies working over larger distances inversely to energy creating the spacetime fabric of the mind performing universal logic at every distinct frequency. Every event instantiates a spacetime interval expanding the universe in an inflationary manner in the past, to succumb to entropy animating atoms in the present (gravity). WE have no authority or justification in Planck scale structure in the absents of the plank energy required to distinguish it. Such structure would violate quantum logic. Uncertainty is do to missing information do to noise or ignorance of the lower and higher fractal.

@@Lemosoliver59 chatGPT4 is lousy at relativity. It gets wrong answers for problems. When you point out the error it then makes a different mistake.

Fist Science is an important branch of physics. Without it, how would we know if Road House is affected by quantum entanglement.

Yes, it's also 100% wrong. ;-)

WD40!

@@jedwards1792 That’s pretty short term. I was actually thinking of the spray on graphite lubricant that is substantially unaffected by the heat.

@@joelsmith4394is the spray on graphite lubricant advisable for a squeaky swing set? I imagine so, but there may be hidden variables I'm not aware of

Thanks for the kind words. I think I don't deserve your attention, so the least I can do is to direct some attention to more deserving scientists!

@@propheticanalytics9959 Why? Are we at a point today at which someone who says a friendly word is an AI in your thinking?

"The skills we acquire across various disciplines are invaluable and demonstrate that education extends far beyond any degree or diploma. It's a lifelong journey that continually enriches us." Hear! Hear! to that statement :)

@@propheticanalytics9959 AI doesn't use emojis mate.

I've never been in a complaining-super-position before

Nonsense is in a state of superposition and doesn't collapse until you look at it...

What if tester is wrong

Better yet, spell his name correctly.

Gerard 't Hooft

They're surviving because Bell's inequality didn't falsify hidden variables. At best, it highlighted the properties that hidden variable theories are required to satisfy, which at this point are either non-locality or statistical dependence.

It's surprising how many people think quantum mechanics is inconsistent with hidden variables. Bell himself was a fan of the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation of QM, which has hidden variables and is deterministic (and is NOT "superdeterministic").

@@naasking the new tests did falsify it because the alternative (superdeterminism) is obviously absurd.

@@brothermine2292 So you're saying the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation would produce the same results in all of the experiments that have been conducted? I'm not trying to be provocative. I really don't know.

>yeroca : I recommend you google DeBroglie-Bohm.

Well, for one thing I already made an entire video about this. But also, I have noticed that 't Hooft has stopped using the expression and I'm not entirely sure what's going on there.

@@SabineHossenfelder Yes you did a video on “Super-Deterministic” theory and if I am not mistaken it has a “special place” in your “Quantum Weltanschauung”. ’t Hooft is a bit of an enigma when it comes to his current thinking but we need someone with your abilities to help us plebeians navigate his “flow of thinking”. “Please, sir, I want some more.” Sir → Person of Knowledge.

Contrapand is hidden when they get exsct? Very nice...

This must be why my head is all messy. My brain particles have too many springs, causing my neurons to bounce around a lot more!

We clearly need a massively expensive LBC (Large Boing Collider) or just a BBC...

It makes complete sense.

That's not an argument.

Blud is terrified of knowledge and effort to learn

Both no sense and total sense

A lot of people still make massive profit from the crypto market, all you really need is a relevant information and some ‹professional advice. ‹it's totally inappropriate for investors to hang on while suffering from dip during significant

No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance

From my personal financial advisor

Here is her line she’s always active

+1667

Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🙌 I was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (David), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $12,000 and got my payout of m $200,500 every months, God bless Jason Graystone fx

Hello how do you make such monthly ?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God

Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Jason Graystone fx for me

Great to see you guys talking about him, he changed the game for me.

Wow that's nice he makes you that much!! please is there a way to reach is services, I'm work 3 jobs and trying to pay off my debts for a while now!! Please help

I think that you are forgetting though, is that yes classically your statement is true but quantum mechanically it's not. Lets make a quantum system "Classical": If I have two spinning tops underneath cups both must be going in the opposite directions to each other then yes removing the cup from one is no different from removing the cup from the other you gain information about both. Now for a quantum system: In quantum mechanics until observed those spinning tops are simultaneously both spinning clockwise and anti-clockwise, observing collapses the wavefunction not only determining the left spinning top but the right spinning to too. That second spinning top must have gotten that information transferred to it instantly somehow. We have done experiments to literally show this top be true. I personally like the idea of ER = EPR, where entangled particles are connected by quantum wormholes such that the particles share a wavefunction that is connected by 2 points in space-time. Simply you can't' remove the veil of randomness as it is intrinsic to all interpretations of QM. Yes hidden variables could be the cause like pilot-wave theory, if we knew all the particles positions in the universe then we could theoretically map out what will happen in the future essentially Laplace's demon. I like to think of QM as truly random personally the followed by the determinism of the Schrodinger equation, which is many worlds theory.

​​@@shugucchino. The information was already there. It is just random to us, the same when we ask a special type of question in Math, therefore it is unpredictable. The spin of the second particle is predictable though. You misunderstand the usual notion of randomness, that has nothing to do with what I said, and true randomness as in the non existence of patterns. It's not that there are hidden variables, they aren't even hidden, we just don't understand them until we collapse the Wave Function.

@@zemm9003 I disagree, the very idea of the information already being there is exactly what a hidden variable theory is, it appears random because we can't see all the information. I believe there is no pattern, that wave function can exist in any state following some probability distribution, only once disturbed does it collapse into a determined state.

Yes they are great , funny, original and deep. Unfortunately, the last one is about four years ago. I think she has given up that.

Yes, that was true until 1630. After that it wasn't true any longer. :-)

@@schmetterling4477 what do you mean?

@@-Gnarlemagne Galileo formulated an early version of the relativity principle around that time. It's called "Galileo's ship". For all we know even today the relativity principle is basically responsible for the entire microscopic and macroscopic structure of the universe. We can derive essentially all equations of motion from it (and the assumption that space is a three dimensional metric manifold with a locally conserved scalar system property called "energy"). The relativity principle is most likely not "just some lower" scale-dependent emergent layer. It is probably some truly fundamental insight (one can't postulate less than "nothing", after all... so further reduction seems problematic). So that leaves the background manifold as the only unexplained "emergent" structure at this level. Recent suggestions like CCC (conformal cyclical cosmology) might reduce even that to a scale-relativity argument. Why would our scale be anything special? If it isn't, then what does that leave as the only possible, self-consistent solution? It might turn out that it's a 3 dimensional manifold with a scalar energy functional. At least that's my personal view on what the future of theoretical physics might hold. I might be wrong about the last one. What is hardly escapable is the historical reality that Galileo had an awfully deep insight there (and he may not have been the first to think this, either).

@@schmetterling4477 I hadn't heard of Galileo's ship before, that's pretty neat! That said, I don't think what you've said necessarily disagrees with my statement about our discoveries at decreasing scopes, even looking at 1915 after general relativity was formalized. Main reason for that is because general relativity is considered to be our best model for physics at a macroscopic scale, while quantum field theories is our best model for the microscopic - and while GR has not been broken down any further, its biggest criticism is specifically that we *know* it is incomplete, as it is not quantum in nature and thus must be incomplete. Finally, the truth is that GR, while not being currently understood as an emergent property of things at a smaller scope, is still affected by such discoveries in the standard model. For example, we now have mathematical models that show that mass arises from the "trapping" of energy, e.g. with the "massless box full of photons" thought experiment. Since mass is something that can be understood with QFT, it stands to reason that GR is built on this foundation, and that we are simply missing that link. For all these reasons, I am a fan of theories of emergent gravity, and foolishly believe that I am right to hold hope for a cellular automata model of quantum mechanics!

@@-Gnarlemagne I am not saying that we haven't been discovering all the neat consequences of relativity over the last four centuries. Of course we have. We have multiplied Galileo's knowledge millionfolds. My point is simply that relativity, just like atomism, was intellectually "discovered" quite early. If Plato had been right about the cave and the shadows on its wall, those discoveries should have been enough for natural philosophers to deduce everything from first principles. In reality that's not how it works. We are still studying the shadows any which way we can and we are finding that at the core they are obeying some extremely simple rules. That mass in QFT and mass in GR behave the same in terms of kinematics is not all that surprising: they come from the same relativity principle. What QFT can't explain and why it's so hard to match to GR is the equivalence principle. In microscopic interactions matter behaves in many different ways. In a gravitational interaction it all behaves the same (or at least so we think). That's the major difference between the two branches that grow from the relativity seed.

You can tell when a physicist is aged out: he starts proposing things that can be ruled out at the undergrad level. It is sad to see that t'Hooft has reached that stage of his career.

Why are you fascinated with bullshit? :-)