Тёмный

Into The Impossible: Episode 25 - Quantum Theory and the book "What Is Real?" by Adam Becker 

Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination
Подписаться 4,2 тыс.
Просмотров 6 тыс.
50% 1

This video discusses the book, "What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics". The conversation was part of the "Into the Impossible" podcast at the UC San Diego Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination, featuring a discussion between Professor Chip Sebens (UCSD Philosophy), Dr. Andrew Friedman (UCSD Physics), and the book's author, Adam Becker.

Опубликовано:

 

1 окт 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 27   
@fractalnomics
@fractalnomics 4 года назад
This is a very important discussion for me and my research and I am currently reading Adam's book.
@joeboxter3635
@joeboxter3635 Месяц назад
Bohm's theory was the best defense according to Einstein, but Einstein did not say Bohm's Theory was complete either. Moreover, there is no relativistic extension (i.e. Dirac Equations) for Bohm's Theory. So while it may reproduce QM, it is a non-relativistic approximation which is less than Dirac Equations. Morover, it leaves us in the same predicament when it comes to GR as QM. So while it may be "philosphically" more appealing, practically Bohm's theory remains incomplete and even more so than QM. And we can crticize Bohr for being less than lucid in his explanations and likewise critize Von Neuman for being mistaken, but we now have Bell's therom that tells us that Bohr was (and Von Neuman) were right in that hidden variables are not the answer to EPR just as they said. Having said that, the way out will come from people like you who are grappling with natural philosphy, i.e., physics as it was meant to be. Not the engineer's answer: "shutup and calculate." Yes, the engineers give us great technology using QM to optimize and manufacutre incredible societal advances. They are not doing physics, however.
@QuicksilverSG
@QuicksilverSG 5 месяцев назад
@54:01 Becker: "The strangest feature of Bohm's theory is that the position of one far-distant particle can affect the pilot wave of another particle instantaneously, faster than the speed of light." This claim is a mischaracterization of Bohmian Mechanics. In BM, pilot waves guide the movements of particles. However, there is no mechanism by which a particle's position can influence the behavior of a pilot wave, instantaneously or otherwise. The pilot wave that guides the motion of entangled particles is not "far distant" (i.e. separated by some physical distance), it is intrinsically associated at all times with the particles it guides. Pilot waves do not propagate across physical space-time, they manifest solely in Configuation Space, the complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the quantum wave-function is defined. Pilot waves are influenced not by particle interactions in physical space-time, but instead by the evolution of the quantum wave-function in accordance with the Schrodinger Equation. As ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree, the evolution of the quantum wave-function is inherently non-local and deterministic, and consequently, so is Bohmian Mechanics. However, the positions where particles are observed in relativistic space-time are probabilistic in nature, rather than deterministic, as predicted by Born's Rule, which in Bohmian Mechanics is derived from its concept of quantum equilibrium.
@MrLalando
@MrLalando 3 года назад
This was wonderful. Thank you. I just finished the book. This was an excellent companion for understanding it.
@myxlplyxart
@myxlplyxart 4 года назад
If you like the talk and haven't read the book then likely reading it will change you.
@SunShine-xc6dh
@SunShine-xc6dh Год назад
If entanglement can only occur through the local interaction of the particles, how can one then claim that the interaction gives them a specific correlation, and then use that to claim locality doesn't exist. What the difference between a measurement being taken immediately after said interaction or taking it with some time delay?
@SandipChitale
@SandipChitale 4 года назад
Was the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics and "shut up and calculate" practice in the Physics community a case of "Politicized" science which held us back from coming up with better theory and understanding of quantum physics? IMO it was. If it was, let us not make that mistake again please.
@lepidoptera9337
@lepidoptera9337 2 года назад
You are wrong. :-)
@danieljones741
@danieljones741 2 года назад
...he was heard when someone was listening, no-one listened to his crazy ideas, this is so full of Ron's ire.
@hasanabduqayumov
@hasanabduqayumov Год назад
That which is irreplaceable
@sekoivu
@sekoivu 4 года назад
That was really interesting talk, thanks, and I must add that I agree wholeheartedly with your cocnclusion.
@mykobe981
@mykobe981 5 лет назад
Very interesting talk. Thank you.
@arthurc.clarkecenterforhum6745
What did you find most compelling?
@mykobe981
@mykobe981 5 лет назад
@@arthurc.clarkecenterforhum6745 The attempt to address underlying principles most simply ignore. If we can't be bothered to ask the hard questions, meaningful progress may elude us. I also enjoyed all speakers presentation styles. Inquisitive, yet clear and concise. The conversation was easy to follow, but mentally challenging and intellectually stimulating. I watch a LOT of physics lectures. Everything from World Science Festival style pop-physics talks, to Leonard Susskind's advanced Stanford physics classes. After awhile, you hear it all. This presentation was fresh and fascinating, even to a jaded enthusiast like me. I was pleasently surprised by your question. It shows you care about your channel and the quality of it's content. You have my respect and appreciation. Thank you.
@haimbenavraham1502
@haimbenavraham1502 4 года назад
My mother in law is real.
@MikeGleason
@MikeGleason 5 лет назад
I wish they’d discussed Bohmian mechanics in a bit more detail, specifically the supposed ad Hoc pilot wave that guides particles. I mean, as far as I know, there’s no evidence for a separate pilot wave whatsoever, it requires no energy, its strength doesn’t diminish with distance, doesn’t feel the effect of other known forces, etc. Other than that, it’s great. ;)
@davidwright8432
@davidwright8432 5 лет назад
The book has a wider discussion. But Bohm's version doesn't play well with quantum field theory. This in the end is fatal to Bohm.
@RickyForITZY
@RickyForITZY 4 года назад
The Wave function does carries energy and momentum just as usual orthodox textbook Quantum Mechanics. The objection about the action-reaction principle isn't a good one because we aren't in a Newtonian world and in any case some take the wave function as Nomic, arxiv.org/abs/1712.01666. As for Relativity and QFT see Travis Norsen, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics ;)
@lepidoptera9337
@lepidoptera9337 2 года назад
@@RickyForITZY But what do you need an unobservable, unphysical guardian angel for? This ain't religion. Stick to what can be observed and you will be fine. Don't make things up just because.
@RickyForITZY
@RickyForITZY 2 года назад
@@lepidoptera9337 Not sure what you mean by stick with what we can observe, that seems to just be question begging in some form of Verificationism or Operationalism which itself is not science but a Philosophy about Science. In any case BM is at least empirically equivalent to other forms of QM (though it can actually solve the measurement problem). Also Science often has used the best explanation it has using things that cannot be directly observed and are theoretical (Black Holes, Neutrinos, Quarks, etc).
@lepidoptera9337
@lepidoptera9337 2 года назад
@@RickyForITZY Nobody has ever observed a pilot wave. Bohmian mechanics makes exactly the same prediction as Copenhagen but needs additional unscientific woo. Black holes can and have been observed. So have neutrinos. Quarks can be observed in pairs just fine. They are quanta, anyway, i.e. they don't have "objective existence" to begin with and you can "see" them clearly in certain types of scattering plots as a three-fold symmetry of protons, if you want. There is very little difference between that and seeing scattering of light on small objects under the microscope, you just need a much bigger microscope. What has never been observed is the BM guardian angel pilot wave. It is magically simply not there.
Далее
What is Real? | Adam Becker | Talks at Google
1:18:09
Просмотров 36 тыс.
Maa Kaali Session 1
1:59:42
Просмотров 7
Quantum Reality: Space, Time, and Entanglement
1:32:49
Wolfram Physics Project Launch
3:50:19
Просмотров 1,8 млн
Roger Penrose: Time, Black Holes, and the Cosmos
1:09:22
Просмотров 221 тыс.
What is a white hole? - with Carlo Rovelli
1:00:15
Просмотров 461 тыс.