Closer To Truth
Free access to Closer to Truth’s library of 5,000 videos: http://bit.ly/376lkKN
Does the concept of observation have deep relevance in fundamental physics? What about in quantum physics where some kind of observation seems to be needed to transform “wave function” probabilities into actual events? What’s an “observation” anyway? What does it take to be an “observer”? Must it have some kind of sentience?
Watch more interviews with Laura Mersin-Houghton: https://bit.ly/2xwwGvl
Laura Mersini-Houghton is an Albanian-American cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one of many. She argues that anomalies in the current structure of the universe are best explained as the gravitational tug exerted by other universes.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: http://bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#WomenInSTEM #Physics
Source
???
The observer of a wave function (probabilities) is the fluctuations ( changes) in that wave function?….
So…what causing those functions to change?…..
Or does this mean wave functions ( ie the universe) is always changing?…..
If the universe (or whatever you call it) is always changing…..Is there then a “Need for God”? (as the first cause).
So basically, if you have a child who doesn’t know what he wants to become…..
….you should shake him very very hard…..
…until a result comes out….
Good discussion.
"An observer is a living individual who observes, reflecting on and describing his observations, in accordance with the laws of nature associated with his observation system" (this is from my article "Fundamental physics").
Also we have, "The observation system is the fundamental physical reference system".
The impossibility of Nothing existing should mean that the universe is indeed infinite, and becomes infinite "at the start" instantly, with no time passed. If we take Penrose's theory of universe losing its own scale – being the start of "a new universe", it makes it possible that universe is always infinite in time and size.
It as well seems to be that the system itself is self-referential, it interacts/observes itself, and that's why anything is possible at all, that any change can happen at all. Without this self-interaction, there is no change, no cosmic evolution. But the possibility of this self-referential system to exist comes from impossibility of pure Nothing and pure Something to exist, both of which require the kind of infinities that reality can't manifest. So you get this fluctuating limbo system that just has to exist because other states can't.
I'd observe her getting physical
As soon as I heard assumed I became suspicious as when humans assume we are normally 'filling' and once we fill we make observational errors. So we have to be very cautious to 'truth'. The observer 'problem' in quantum physics could be simply consciousness itself as 'apparently' nothing is faster than the speed of light (until we find one that is) however, in the observer 'problem' that is 'untrue' through probability and the way particles 'appear' to react (using probability) after the observer ceases to observe them …. Confusing? I think they possibly could end up confusing themselves. Things are how they are.
I am the observer. What are you?
I am astonished to see so few people who are interested in subjects of such relevance as what we are watching now. makes a video talking about any celebrity and millions of people will watch it.
And God SAW that it was good
She is always very easy to listen to and understand. Great interview.
i love her ,
Well sadly this is a typical example of a diversity hire… If you actually want to interview a woman with a deep understanding of the fundamental structure physics, take a look Sabine Hossenfelder, one of the few physicists I can honestly say can actually think!
I find her to be extremely bad at explaining concepts, she is using so many tautological abstractions that in the end she may as well be saying "blah blah blah".
I wonder if a slap with a wet fish, a la Monty Python, would help.
She is just rambling.
Side stepped is right! You cannot observe without interacting, period. Even the famous double slit. You can’t “see” a photon go by through a slit without having it interact with something. That interaction creates a new wave function entity so to speak. If you take this new wave function entity and send it through another double slit it will interfere with itself again, they have done experiments to show it. So the wave function doesn’t “collapse” it just changes. Wave functions don’t go away, they just change. For some reason physicists just don’t want to clarify this, I’m sure they understand it. Schroedinger’s cat is either alive or dead since it’s wavefunction has continuously interacted with other molecules already a zillion times.
He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity. Ecclesiastes 5:10
Why doesn't she just say awareness
2:38 Who else "observed" one of the production guys moving like Big Foot in the background? Lol
She's right, once we go full waves, it's not easy to describe what is a box, what's inside it or where did it came from. It's just another box inside a larger box and so on, like those Russian dolls. Wave looks like ~. Dot is a part of symbol, waving doesn't end after sinusoid complete a frequency cycle. And why is not just flat -? Question mark is there for a purpose, waviness might appear flat from one point of view, while waving from another at the same time. Whatever time is in a wave world.
One problem is, does distinctive object end with here and now state. I can see an object on a table, it's round and complete form, connected, but separated from table and rest of the universe. It's hard to imagine that 3D object can exist back in past and extend into the future. It's all waves dreaming about objects that are just waves. It's waves all the way down! Exclamation mark is there for a purpose . on the bottom means we're in a constant free fall.
Physical time has no direction, there is no end of The Flat Universe, end of dimensionallity doesn't exist. It's all around us, past space and future space are one and the same, things just copy cut paste themselves trough a process called wave function. We can't even imagine how free we are in this all mighty and all powerful, ever present existence.
HMMM 🤔.. PLZZ EXPLANE MORE COS YOU SOUND VERY NERVOUSE… ITS LIKE YOU HEARD THIS SOME WHERE ELSE MAYBE READING IT ON YT.. HMMM 🤔
IT FITS PERFECT WHIT MY THEORY… SO I REALLY LIKE TO HEAR MORE… COS THERE IS MORE… OR MAYBE YOU NEED TO OBSERVE MORE HMMM… 😂
OR MAYBE I SHOULD FINISH YOUR UHUM THEORY👈..
Observer does not mean something with a mind. It just means that the event is stored into the system. Please look further into what I am talking about here. Arvin Ash youtube video title DOES CONSCIOUSNESS CREATE REALITY explains it
Not that the source I am about to quote is the perfect or ultimate arbiter of this issue, but according to Wiki:
“Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem,….Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse.”
In other words, decoherence might be able to explain why objects are separate from each other, but it does not explain why or how they are transformed from waving fields of information into positionally-fixed, three-dimensional phenomena suspended in a spatial dimension.
Hence, the possible need for the existence of consciousness to complete the process of explicating phenomena from “Kantian-like” noumena in a way that is metaphorically similar to how a laser explicates a three-dimensional object from the information held in the photographic plate of a laser hologram.
_____