Fun to hear an interview with Sean from an academic, philosophical angle. Sean's depth, breadth, and capacity to efficiently explain things is positively unique. Then you see the guitar in the corner of his room and it's like "Yea, of course he can play the guitar too." Great interview!
Sean really does an excellent job explaining the meaning of questions in physics -- Dan Dennett would have been extremely proud of the job Sean does here. There's only one main issue. At about the 1 hour mark, Sean talks about stepping back and examining what been going on in physics to determine the best way forward. When we do that we observe just one thing: while we spend all our time talking about and examining particles, the universe is going about the business of making empty space. That's what all the universe's components are structured to do and that's all it's done for the past 13.8 billion years. That is "THE WHY OF EMPTY SPACE". We don't even have to determine what empty space, or a quantum field, or wavefunction is. Only that without empty space there would be no universe, no particles, and no humans talking about it. Robinson, you need to ask why the universe is structured to make ONLY empty space, while everything else is just "sloshing around".
29:05 when the camera cuts back to Robinson, and he’s just kinda chilling but semms slightly stunned and says, “You have said about 20 things I could ask questions about...” 😆
Always had the sense this discussion was destined for becoming a bit clunky. Quarter way thru...it won't be long now. Halfway thru...it's imminent for sure. Three quarters...it's a shame the train has to derail this close to the end of the track. At conclusion...wow! A tidy effort indeed. Nice! Kudos.
Really cool stuff. Look forward to your next showing. Nice work. And well-done, to be sure. New to your work, and glad to catch on, as Philosophy is my primary interest. Thanks. James.
The concepts of zero and quantum fields, while seemingly disparate, do share some interesting commonalities in the context of physics and mathematics: 1. Fundamental role in their respective domains: - The concept of zero is fundamental in mathematics, serving as the additive identity and playing a crucial role in the definition of various mathematical structures, such as groups, rings, and fields. - Quantum fields are fundamental entities in quantum field theory, which is the theoretical framework that underlies the Standard Model of particle physics. All particles are understood as excitations of their respective quantum fields. 2. Enabling the definition of absence or vacuum: - In mathematics, zero allows us to define the absence of quantity and enables concepts like the empty set and the additive identity in various algebraic structures. - In quantum field theory, the vacuum state is defined as the state with no particle excitations, corresponding to the lowest energy state of the quantum field. The presence of zero-point fluctuations in the vacuum is a key feature of quantum fields. 3. Facilitating the creation and annihilation of entities: - The concept of zero enables the creation and annihilation of numbers in mathematical operations. For example, adding zero to a number leaves it unchanged, while subtracting a number from itself gives zero. - Quantum fields allow for the creation and annihilation of particles through the application of creation and annihilation operators. These operators add or remove particle excitations from the field, enabling the description of particle interactions. 4. Importance in the formulation of physical laws: - The concept of zero is crucial in the formulation of various physical laws, such as the conservation of energy and momentum, where the total energy or momentum of a closed system remains zero. - Quantum fields are the basic building blocks of the physical laws described by quantum field theory, such as the Standard Model of particle physics. The interactions between particles are described by the interactions between their corresponding quantum fields. 5. Abstract mathematical description: - Zero is an abstract mathematical concept that does not necessarily have a direct physical representation but is essential for the logical consistency and structure of mathematical systems. - Quantum fields are abstract mathematical entities that are used to describe physical reality at the fundamental level. They are defined on a background spacetime and are represented by operator-valued functions in the formalism of quantum field theory. While zero and quantum fields are distinct concepts in their own right, they both play crucial roles in the mathematical and physical description of reality. They share some common features, such as their fundamental importance, their role in defining absence or vacuum, their ability to facilitate creation and annihilation, their importance in the formulation of physical laws, and their abstract mathematical nature. Understanding the commonalities and differences between these concepts can provide insights into the deeper structure of reality and the way we describe it through mathematics and physics.
and yeah, the question of what the ontological stuff is comes down the the question of a wavefunction of what? before you have some theory of what the wavefunction provides probabilities for in an ontologically richer form than measurement outcomes, the fields and particles are more or less linguistic devices and the wavefunction is the cleanest way to represent what is going on with the evolving statistics, if you want to know what the statistics are representing then there is nothing for it but to have a deeper theory of the stuff, that goes beyond the wavefunction description, before that the particles and fields are just names associated with different kinds of measurement outcomes and experimental results, like the trajectories in a cloud chamber or a detection event on the screen, ghosts awaiting their rest haunting us, at least for now, we just dont have a proper theory of the ontology of those things we have a theory describing their statistical behavior and that is best described by the wavefunction, there is nothing wrong with thinking they are really something like localized particles in some cases and fields in some sense in other cases, but it is not very precise yet, and until better theories emerge they are just fun things to think about.
Would anyone have any recommendations for books/channels that are good introductions to physics? I always struggled with math and science but I find the philosophical aspect of them so interesting! I'd love to have a stronger grasp on the theory before really delving into the philosophy
Some of the highest spiritual personalities I know - liked cats -and cats liked them - so that they used to follow them - into the group meditation and then them felines had to escorted out of the hall - so that humans could mediate. Cats were rated highly - by their own - consciousness as animals. Humans have the best and yet we could use - this better - in most cases. Fare thee well - in life's journey.
1:01:29 “Slowly!” 😂😂😂 P.S.: I stick with Joscha Bach’s “Computationalism”: in reality there are no infinities; Pi is just a function that you can compute as far as you can afford it: There is no perfect circle in reality, as it would depend on knowing the last digit of Pi - even the universe doesn’t know the last digit of Pi (- because there is no such thing as the last digit of Pi). 1:19:20 Thankfully Sean hasn’t changed his stance on that, and is still a constructivist. 1:22:45 common misunderstanding about entanglement: action at a distance (- there is no action)
My view is "Why is QM Mysterious?" It makes sense that we go from an indeterminate world to this determinate world observed by our determinate minds? Minds which are indeterminate only when we dig deeper. Mathematics is created by our determinate minds and becomes probabilistic when we cross into the indeterminacy of QM.
We can't know that it's our minds that brings about the mathematical probabilities of QM. It could be. But it also could be that mathematical objects are what exist foundationally. And it is from that reality that a heaping of indeterminacy is used when "vector fields in Hilbert space" get cooked up. Once those various fields are then perturbed and produce a bunch of quantum particles (better word is wavicles...to denote as something decidedly different than a classical particle), they will go about glomming together into classical objects...say a species of human. That those people will then struggle to properly orient themselves in such a grand scheme...it is of no consequence to the eternal mathematical reality that just keeps chugging along.
So at the end, has there been no progress connecting the wave function to the real world? How do we get from that abstract concept to a chair? Seems like a large chasm to cross.
I dont believe that entanglement is causally connected. Measuring one particle does not effect the other it only gives you high probability of telling you what the other particle is doing. It is communication faster than light but based on my conversation with chat gpt it's just a high chance of success. Imagine spinning 2 identical tops with the same motor at the same time. If you measure the spin of one you know the spin of the other same thing with quantum entanglement and when you stop one from spinning it does not stop the other from spinning nor does it slow down or change direction or anything like that.
Remember that spin is always measured in a direction chosen by the experimenter. If you measure the spin of an entangled particle, you know with 100% certainty what spin will be measured for the other particle IF the two measurements are taken in the same direction. If they aren’t, then the certainty begins to fall with the size of the angle between the measurements.
Heads up...Chat gtp is programmed. It can't do anything other than feed you prioritized information. It's not giving you the best available information. It's giving you the most sponsored information. You can't honestly believe that you can purchase a product that would benefit you more than the company selling it... It's A.I. not G.I. Help us all if they release G.I....
I have to ask - what is so nonsensical about many worlds? I’m not saying it’s right - but it perfectly explains the most accurate predictions and data we have without making up things hidden in wierd places and new terms - and sure the idea of everything existing simultaneously sounds crazy - but I mean… a quantum computer works because in some sense the bits have many more possibilities occurring than just yes or no. That’s just real. 2 bits vs 2 classical bits is vastly more information. Not to mention, the idea of 3 somewhat real but constantly dipping in and out of existence switching “colors” things called quarks and a super tiny short range force binding together something that is unimaginably small and 99.999… empty space clumping together in specific chains with charge and accumulating gravity to attract others etc etc… surely was nonsensical at some point. The only things that will ever seem sensible are the things we have discovered, experienced, proven, or are a small step forward from our current mindset. No big discovery in physics was intuitive or sensible. “Rawr space and time are one object which bends where things are thinging and then those things roll in this timeygrid thing like marbles and --” …. ‘Fuck Albert’s lost it again’ Also - out of curiosity, do you find the simulation idea equally as nonsensical? You might. But if not - remember it’s one step to make that a quantum simulation which essentially equates to many worlds again. The only way to have all possibilities available to that bit is to have simulated to that point - making every quantum slice of info on that bit a reality that’s happening in that simulation
@@alexbranton426 In the early days of humankind, we didn't have advanced technology. Some people looked up into the night sky and thought the Milky Way was the breast milk from a goddess of the universe and that the universe was created by gods having sex. In a sense, they thought the universe was created by biology. You see, pagans could only compare the universe to bodily functions because there wasn't any machines. This was a common idea amongst early religions. As we developed so did our ideas. The universe has been famously likened to a watch or a clock by William Paley in the eighteenth century. An intricate design created by a supreme being. The universe was often likened to a mechanism or a machine with gears during the Industrial Revolution. Now, in the modern age, you're mistakenly comparing the universe to a computer. You're simply using the latest human technological advancement to make sense of something you can't explain. You're making the same grave error people have always made. Maybe, take a break from computer games and actually open your eyes to reality. It's most definitely not a computer. It's not a result of pagan gods having sex, it's not a watch or a clock or a machine or a mechanism. It's nothing to do with human bodily functions and its nothing to do with human made technology. What a silly idea.
The books are a great idea, but in the first volume it starts with some hand-holding in basic calculus, then he's flying through Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, and tensors for relativity. I'm afraid the level is totally inconsistent, no one without a strong background is following by the later parts of the book.
Wait I thought Freddy mercury was dead… now you’re telling me he’s got a podcast, found a dentist, and became interested in physics? Sean: is there a set of infinities between the set of infinite integers and the set of real numbers? Robinson: it goes OOOONNN and OONNNNN and ONNNNNN
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.....
@@GeezerBoy65 “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
Can objects exist without subjects? Who is deeming things to be objects if there's no subjects? This is a profound philosophical question that touches on the nature of reality and the role of consciousness in defining and perceiving objects. From a subjective idealist perspective, the existence of objects is dependent on the presence of a perceiving subject. In other words, objects can only be said to exist insofar as they are perceived or experienced by a conscious subject. Without a subject to observe and categorize things as objects, the very concept of an object loses its meaning. This view suggests that the subject-object dichotomy is not fundamental, but rather arises from the inherent nature of consciousness itself. The act of a subject perceiving and deeming something to be an object is what gives rise to the appearance of an independent, external reality. In this sense, the existence of objects is contingent upon the existence of subjects, and not the other way around. From this perspective, it would be contradictory to suggest that objects could exist independently of subjects, as the very concept of an object is dependent on the presence of a perceiving consciousness. The idea that objects could cause or precede the existence of subjects would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
About living in a simulation ? i don't know , but do scientists currently understand how to go from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics ? if yes THEN, the "simulation" question becomes basically irrelevant for all intends and purposes, but if not, then.... maybe the simulation proposal is the answer to that problem ? Why basically "refuse" to look at it ? The smaller we go the more we see "information" and "math" and "projections" : string "theory" , quantum entanglement an wave-function collapse ? Somehow these things are not compatible with the reality we see around us. But they do magically "generate" our reality somehow ? And conveniently, only the parts of our reality that are "observed" get generated ? How would you be able to NOT define that as an optimization ?
Has physics ever really known what’s going on with any theory? I’m not sure this is a new problem that’s specific to QM. When Newton described gravity, he admitted that he had no idea how the forces are actually exerted across empty space. Between 1687 and the early 1900s, did physicists spend any time trying to explain that and did anybody care? Doesn’t seem like it.
All this reminds me of my autism. I have trouble making eye contact with people when I talk to them. Talk about having to figure out [X] without being able to look at [X] directly! 😅🙄
1:28:17 let me guess how Professor Sean carrol is going to explain Einstein’s famous twin paradox. His solution would be that the twin that stayed views the other twin as one universe. And the twin that’s flew away views the twin that stayed as a second universe. so according to Professor Sean every time there is an observed motion the universe splits in two. so that both observers can claim to be stationary.
it is true that the wavefunction is not defined over spacetime as one or multiple fields, but the resulting probabilities is a composite field over spacetime in terms of apparatuses and spacetime structures doing different things and ending up with different outcomes, so it is sort of a field defined over spacetime at the end of the day, just in a more convoluted way than say newtonian mechanics, at the end of the day we will get soem probability for the spin to be up at detector one and detector one is this thing somewhere in spacetime, or some momentum measured at some location by some process not entierly defined by the wavefunction in practice, even though it could be in principle if you concern yourself only with a standard quantum description of the measuring system and dont worry about additional variables that determine the outcomes. either way the resulting predictions are always somewhat defined over spacetime, with additional stuff like color, or spin or charge being hidden behind the outcomes we see in our machines.
One things very clearl we can not leave our foundational ordering skills where they are and syntax looking good on paper but open to arguing any all slight variations as eqaully legitimate won't work. Our access to computation is going to be dependent upon how much society can handle even if nature limits exotic materials far more than we think. Objectivism with strong arbitrary examples to plagerize and correlate to better hold experts accountable puts new found emphasis of logic and semantics. Judgments will not be cut n dry under 1900s structuralism But America is lucky to have been originally founded and designed with all this in mind. Where our grand unified theory can't predict all the arguments against it has been a cash cow of discovery one after the other. It's rather amazing how Newton goes in under the mri machine line of thought reorientates on reality generator and out pops a more pretentious clocklike mechanics. When you do what he says and pretends to be a deterministic bot out pops hiesenbergs physical mystification or 3 body problem that Is poorly popularized and educated upside down. Same with plato good try just a bit twisted or inside out as outside the cave we are measuring shadows on the wall 😆
The interviewer has the habit of asking a question, then as he states it, suddenly adding another question. (..often adding more than one) This piling on of several questions must make things awkward for the guest-and how Carroll was able to remember these multiples and reply to them in order is nothing less than amazing..
If its not at least 3D, it doesn't exist. So when considering the concept of elementary particle, i haven't heard much of explanations for the seemingly contra dictionary concept, as it has to have functionality i.e. absorb & emit information, but it isn't constructed of anything by definition, so what's the density, shape, surface of that 3D-particle? No magical answers like something came to be from nothing etc. the universe begun. Thanks!
You would make a very good evil genius with the cat on your lap, but: don't talk - it ruins the whole image, you just seems like a very nice and likable person. Loved this talk, though.
Long time fan, super impressed by the guests, the conversations, don’t change a thing - except: I do agree that a split screen would give us more of both guest and interviewer, both of whom add to the experience of the conversation!
The more I ponder this discussion the more ridiculous Sean's stances seem. He rejects or at least doubts the reality of mathematical objects but then also rejects fundamental particles and fields as the basic ontology of the quantum universe and instead posits the WAVE FUNCTION and HILBERT SPACE as the basic ontology? Is this a joke?
Strength theory will say, who is that HUMILITY stood up from HIS SEAT and took the lowest seat LASTS? Beloved is like a punching bag sitteth! To absorbed! Till...get tired hitting! Till strength drained from hitting! Now is my TURN! SHOULD I TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THY TIREDNESS! TO FINISH THEE! Or HUMILITY rather to carry thee! Remember i have loved thee! 1 footprint! For all eyes to see! Without shame but with boldness!
Hawking also wrote God Created The Integers and models definite article the universe as a Hausdorff paracompact topological space, implicitly rejecting Rusell's set theory critique, that the set of all sets is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself, maybe on the grounds that { } := 0 and {the set of all sets} := infinity, because zero an infinity behave like substitutes when multiplied by a finite number - set theory order type - , but complements under addition and the axiom of the unorderd pair in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory permits non-definite article contradiction Y = {X , not-X} ; the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, doesn't rule out interpretation or perspective, unlike something non-sensical like entangled opposites * ; why doesn't the opposite of one multiplied by the opposite of one equal the opposite of one instead of one, given that one squared equals one ? * By contrast a finite body could be entangled with a non-opposite finite soul, however may be not finite and eternal souls, at least scientifically.
i have been saying that if god wants us to act sincerely so we can be judged without bias, that we ought not know anything about gods, never mind be given a list of rules. we do not however know anything about what a simulation might be for.... just running it up the flag pole :)
Fields are trajectories of particles; if you could stop the motion you would see a particle, and that particle is composed of yet smaller particles ad infinitum.. Any particle is composed of momentary periodic cycle of innumerable smaller particles --this is how nature works.
Yikes. Of course mathematical objects aren't physical. That is universally recognized. That doesn't make them unreal. Maybe Sean should go back to avoiding the question.
Beloved obviously new revealed. Can bring forth overwhelming! Beloved obviously! Sickness unto some sweet as honey but made stomach bitter! Beloved carry as WHO carries? Overwhelming nor Sickness will pass! Remember is necessary! How else can ye, now ABLE to walking with WHO? Yes walking with thee! If it takes to carry thee! 1 footprint.
Will quantum theory be able to give meaning - in humour. Hearts and minds are human and so vital to telling and receiving jokes. Fare thee well - on life's journey.
Many multitudes hungers! Following! My beloved saying, who will feed the multitudes, Lord? Here's a little Lad a Child with a basket of bread and a Fish! Distributed freely and truly received unto all belongs. Remember without Thy shared feet. Currency nor money comes to nought in front! To bring to remembrance
Beloved what is SUSTAINED? Remember it's ok to correct one another nor to bring to remembrance. Without being offended in front! Together! For thee my Friends! Why? How else can ye know? What is Aim? Look at all these who am I sitting in high places Aiming? Aims as far to lead astray my little Minds to a place of no return nor extinction! Even as far to provoke and tempt WHO? Milestone with a rope come here in front! Yes LORD! Remind! Becareful NOT TO OFFEND 1 of these little ones! There will be the greatest shaking and trembling! None unlike any other! Repent! Nevertheless will be carried away by the Flood unseen yet to come. Some will say who is that little child born "i" flooding the SEA OF GLASS? Why?
Love remains as the Method - of claiming - merging - with the Beloved's heart. Love alone reaches - beyond manifestation - transcending name and form - and everything is transformed into Itself. Fare thee well - in life's journey.
Hawking also wrote God Created The Integers and models definite article the universe as a Hausdorff paracompact topological space, implicitly rejecting Rusell's set theory critique, that the set of all sets is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself, maybe on the grounds that { } := 0 and {the set of all sets} := infinity, because zero an infinity behave like substitutes when multiplied by a finite number - set theory order type - , but complements under addition and the axion of the unorderd pair in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory permits non-definite article contradiction Y = {X , not-X} ; the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, doesn't rule out interpretation or perspective, unlike something non-sensical like entangled opposites * ; why doesn't the opposite of one multiplied by the opposite of one equal the opposite of one instead of one, given that one squared equals one ? * By contrast a finite body could be entangled with a non-opposite finite soul, however may be not finite and eternal souls, at least scientifically.
