Is Quantum Reality in the Eye of the Beholder? 

This. We don't need to cater to the short attention-span of tiktokers. Nothing of substance can really be unearthed in 30 minutes.

Agreed 100%

As a fan of Lex Fridman, I agree.

I thought I wanted to watch this, now I don't know if I even exist, however I thought therefore, I am, or something.

No more parts is also a crime.

Agree!

AGREE!!!

What would be great now is a 1.5 hour session with all three, Integrating theory, humanity and compatriot personalities.

Brian Greene's talks used to have multiple participants in one session, which often resulted in one participant not to have equal time or attention... I think three separate session is a good solution, but half an hour each is clearly not sufficient...

mathematics is an invention of mankind... but we've used it as a tool to discover actual truths about the universe...

In the universe, sans creatures capable of receiving sensory inputs that inform them of their surroundings, events did happen. The so-called big bang was such an event. Also the Sisyphus-like tangle of gluons and quarks and the resulting protons along with the formation of atoms and so on and so forth. Electromagnetism was always a thing and it must have an objective reality. Before we knew of its existence we processed it to create a visualization of the world that we could relate to. The unseen informs us of what we see. So too of what we smell, taste and touch. Our sensations are induced at the quantum level. Color doesn’t exist per se. It is produced by the cone cells in our eyes which process all the different wavelengths to create, or imagine, all the different colors. Color then is an illusion based on a reality that we were not at all aware of until 1873. We were labelling phenomena we did not know existed. We labelled invisible lightwaves with respect to our perceptions of color. So, we can say that electromagnetism is an objective reality while color is an illusion provided for by that reality in correspondence with the cone cells in our eyes. But we can also say that color is itself an objective reality in its connection with the objective reality that is electromagnetism. But since there is no color without an observer it is also a subjective reality.

You wrote:”In the universe, sans creatures capable of receiving sensory inputs that inform them of their surroundings, events did happen. The so-called big bang was such an event.” You are wrong. According to quantum mechanics, the big bang is only a possibility. For the big band to become an event the wave funtion must collapse. You wrote:”Electromagnetism was always a thing and it must have an objective reality. “ According to quantum mechanics this is not true. You should read more carefully my initial comment. Best regards.

Yes, that was complete bullshit. ;-)

@@marcobiagini1878 I think you are more priest than physicist. So we have no common ground for a meaningful discussion.

You are correct. These people do not know. There are, however, plenty of people who do... they are just not making RU-vid videos because they have more important things to take care off. ;-)

Do you think socks with sandals is okay? 😂

And it has... since roughly 1930. ;-)

Essential

There is no mystery here. There are only lots and lots of people who weren't paying attention in their special relativity course. :-)

I’m thinking I’m terms of a particles frequency being a determinant of the expansion of space and its energy, where what we measure in a double slit experiment is an expansion of space or the particles energized by its boundaries. The second measurement before the slit could possibly be “absorbing” or accounting for some of that expansion of space into our forethought.

The interferometer Aether experiment was performed to answer the question about space changing light

It doesn't. You also need to reduce your alcohol and drug intake.

There won't be any fundamentally new discoveries in quantum mechanics. The theory itself is complete and has been since the 1920s. One can probably find any number of complicated statements about unitary transformations, though... but that has nothing to do with QM proper.

Why would a real physicist talk to Brian Greene? :-)

Yes, but there are people who know exactly how your laptop works, you are just not one of them. ;-)

lol! And I’m eternally grateful.

@@longlostkryptonian5797 Most people can't even get the most trivial logical conclusions right. You are one of them. ;-)

There was a debate about particle wave which one is it. The double slit experiment showed that particles act like waves and waves like particles. Then Feynman asked a critical question What if you have three slots. He was a student in class.

@TEBrain, you commented: "...I find a gap in Professor Rovelli's theory in that it doesn't address the observations found in the double-slit experiment. How would a particle create a wave pattern unless it was a wave?" Well, relating to your wave pattern question, the way I see it (and please, bear with me), is, that the photon does NOT stop being a distinct particle WHILE it moves-around-all-over-at-lightspeed, thereby indeed creating an, as you say, "wave pattern", which, in my view, is a presentation that shows up as a kind of dense three-dimensional spherical wave pattern. Now, to begin responding to your remark about Carlo Rovelli not dealing with the double-slit experiment, the following is how I would answer you if you and I were there with him and Brian Greene... which is of course extremely unlikely, but then, hey... we can dream. My response would be, "Let's do a thought experiment starting off in the world of classical physics, then transitioning to the quantum physical world where we may very well be able to find out how those two realities mix..." Let's begin by visualising the following: Without anybody around seeing you doing it, tie a string to a tennisball and begin rotating it as fast as you can in a circular fashion above your head... so fast that eventually it twirls so incredibly quick that it, to a later onlooker, would look like a closed circle - like a fuzzy disk hovering above your head. Now, say, someone comes by, and that person watches you twirling that fuzzy disk above your head, and you ask him or her what it is that you are twirling. Of course that person would not know what it is... it is simply moving too fast to make it out. Then you ask that onlooker (that observer) to interrupt your twirling with their hand so as to be able to identify what it is that is going around so extremely fast. After some prodding, your onlooker hesitantly sticks their hand into that swirly dynamic and exclaims "Ouch!" after which s/he surprisedly says that you were twirling is a tennisball. Okay, simple enough... Now imagine that you, one way or another, can rotate that ball REALLY FAST IN ALL DIRECTIONS: simultaneously up-down, left-right, back-forth, close-by, farther-away, diagonally this way and any other way - any which way! Of course, you have to get yourself out of the way, but let's just for the sake of this thought experiment imagine that you can do that. What an onlooker (an observer) would see, would be a dense sphere with a lot of movement inside...: a rather busy hovering ball... You yourself of course would know that the object you are twirling so incredibly fast in all those directions, that it, in a sense, is "all over the place" in a spherical configuration. Now imagine that Werner Heisenberg is passing by (we, including Brian and Carlo would be delighted of course), and imagine that Werner watches you performing your remarkable, nigh impossible stunt. If you would ask him what and where that object that is being twirled about, is at a given time, at a given location, and with what momentum, he would very likely quote his own uncertainty principle. But then-you are brave-you also ask him to interrupt your incredible, all directional twirling act. And you also ask him to identify the object that is being twirled around. He, like your previous onlooker, would also say that it is a tennisball. This thought experiment, your remarkable stunt, is of course taking place in the macroscopic world of classical physics, meaning Heisenberg could use his watch to establish the time of interruption. You could even take a fast-frame film of the event, and you and Werner would know where the ball was when he interrupted the twirling and when he physically felt the impact. He could even find out the force of the impact and give you some rough estimate of it... After all, this is the day-to-day classical world of reality... NOW, let's transition into the world of quantum-physical reality... With the above stunt in mind, let's replace that twirling tennis ball with a similarly moving photon...: it gyrates-in this case with lightspeed-simultaneously up and down, left and right, back and forth, close in and farther away, diagonally this way and any other way-any which way! It is forming a similar spherical configuration that, interestingly, looks like the wave presentation of a photon, but remember, I started this comment with: "The photon does NOT stop being a distinct particle WHILE it moves-around-all-over-at-light-speed, thereby indeed creating an, as you say, "wave pattern", which in my view is a presentation that shows up as a kind of dense three-dimensional spherical wave pattern." In this case, there is no need for you to move that photon around, of course not, from our viewpoint photons move at lightspeed. We have to realize though, and this is important, a photon itself has no inkling of time and space, not even of any movement. This is hard to grasp for us who live in a macroscopic, classical relativistic physical world in which, after all, space and time are the protagonists. Thus, so to speak, FROM THE PHOTON'S POINT OF VIEW, we can say that, that this single photon is selfsuperposingly * omnipresent within an edgeless sphere, while it, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, is simultaneously moving "around-all-over" at the speed of light. Now, relating to your remark about Carlo Rovelli not addressing it, how does the above play out in the double-slit experiment? At the same time, as seen FROM THE VIEWPOINTS OF THE EDGES of the two classical-reality physical slits, the photon-although unbeknownst to the edges of the slits that that photon is selfsuperposed-is going at lightspeed through the two slits simultaneously, while FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE PHOTON ITSELF, each selfsuperposed photon presentation with spin angular momentum interacts with the two individual slits, reaching the wall at two separate distinct spots. When shooting and aiming a long stream of photons, that is, photon after after photon-again each one selfsuperposed with spin angular momentum-through the two slits, each subsequent photon, after having dealt with the slits, arrives at the screen at two separate distinct spots. When a long stream of photons is thus aimed and projected through the two slits, they arrive at the screen statistically, leaving the imprints in the configuration of the so well-known double-slit experiment fringe pattern. * The idea behind the words "selfsuperposed" and "selfsuperposition", and those words themselves, are of my own making. I came to them decades ago after reading about the telephone conversation between Wheeler and Feynman about there being only one electron, meaning "one electron only". I applied that "crazy" idea to the photon, there only being one, but it omnipresently being in superposition... hence "selfsuperposition". an idea that could possibly come in handy explaining entanglement...

There is no such thing as a measurement problem. There are only people who weren't paying any attention in undergrad physics. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 Of course there is. It is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics. Watch the short *The 5 Biggest Physics Mysteries* by Sabine.

The wave function was never defined at the level of a single system. It was always a description of an ensemble.

Paraphrasing Carlo Rovelli in conversation with Brain Greene in this video (from 9:42 to 10:19): "What is a measurement? That, I think is the right question. It is useful to see quantum mechanics as relational quantum mechanics... Everything is a measurement, every time any two systems interact, they are measuring one another. By definition interaction [...] is a measurement. So the screen and the particle touching it, that is a measurement, but also an atom here and the photon bonding it, that is a measurement.

No, that is not correct.

It would be a paradigm shift as big as Newton

@@mitchellhayman381 So anybody who solves the Measurement Problem would be household names like Einstein and win a Nobel Prize and be super famous and influential ??

It doesn't matter on what level of physics you are. The only relevant quantities are always energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. We are simply not teaching this well enough in high school, where we are basically over-training students on 19th century "canon ball physics".

Yes, both Locke and Hume were idiots. Why are you wasting your time on them? ;-)

Why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in high school? :-)

We had quantum mechanics that made sense since 1927. Malcadena's version is, in comparison, total bullshit. ;-)

Yes, there are no particles, but you don't know that because you weren't paying attention in science class. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 True. I don’t know that there are no particles.

@@wizzdem-tjmclaughlin8165 Well, now you do. :-)

@@schmetterling4477 Yes, I know that I don’t know that there are no particles.

They present it incorrectly. Nothing goes between the particles so nothing went faster than light so no problem. They present it as magically violating Einstein but it doesn’t.

But you do interact only with one part of the system.

@@GRUMIAM You always interact w/only one part. Even if you interact w/a table.

Yeah, good observation. I was thinking the same thing!😂 Quite disrespectful to Brian Greene and the WSF IMO!

You mean, should there be a dress code, ties and all? Notice that Brian pretty always shows his white T shirt, no tie, I like that...

@@WimBorsboomSir No dress code is needed, but shoes is a must, right??