Saturday, May 4, 2024
Latest:
Consciousness Videos

Sean Carroll: The many worlds of quantum mechanics

New Scientist



New Scientist

Quantum mechanics is mind-blowing at the best of times. Sean Carroll explores perhaps its most jaw-dropping idea: that the world is constantly splitting in two.

Source

Similar Posts

39 thoughts on “Sean Carroll: The many worlds of quantum mechanics”

  1. I don't think people don't like the many-worlds interpretation, I think people love this idea. The Hollywood productions reflect that in last two decades. I think Copenhagen interpretation is closer to our experience and more faithful to Occams razor.

  2. Mr.Sean Carroll is in the last layer of knowledge, once he pierces this layer's membrane, he will realize instantly that he does not need to know anything more and anymore, what we call the perfection of this universe in every aspect, perfect love, perfect anger, perfect knowledge, where is there pure and infinite happiness.
    This is how I feel, I hope I'm still in reality:)

  3. The Mool Mantar gives us the solution …no gods required..just THE TOTALITY

    Ik- There is ONE(Ik) reality, the origin and the source of everything. The creation did not come out of nothing. When there was nothing, there was ONE, Ik.

    Onkaar- When Ik becomes the creative principal it becomes Onkaar. Onkaar manifests as visible and invisible phenomenon. The creative principle is not separated from the created, it is present throughout the creation in an unbroken form, 'kaar'.

    Satnaam- The sustaining principle of Ik is Satnaam, the True Name, True Name.EXSISTENCE

    Kartaa Purakh- Ik Onkaar is Creator and Doer (Kartaa) of everything, all the seen and unseen phenomenon. It is not just a law or a system, it is a Purakh, a Person.

    Nirbhau- That Ik Onkaar is devoid of any fear, because there is nothing but itself.

    Nirvair- That Ik Onkaar is devoid of any enmity because there is nothing but itself.

    Akaal Moorat- That Ik Onkaar is beyond Time (Akaal) and yet it is existing. Its a Form(Moorat) which does not exist in Time.

    Ajooni- That Ik Onkaar does not condense and come into any birth. All the phenomenon of birth and death of forms are within it.

    Saibhang- That Ik Onkaar exists on its own, by its own. It is not caused by anything before it or beyond it.

    Gurprasaad- That Ik Onkaar is expresses itself through a channel known as Guru and it is only its own Grace and Mercy (Prasaad) that this happens.

    Ik­oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa­o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.

    One Universal Creator. The Name Is Exsistence.Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace

  6. All time is happening all the time. Space and time are intertwined. Which means all space is present all the time. There is no such thing as distance because if you ever have been or ever will go there then you are there.

    The passage of time and/or distance is only the awareness of self at various simultaneous points because everything and every time coexist in spacetime all the time and since they are intertwined…all the space. This is evident in evolution and entropy coexisting.

    Movement of space or time is only a sensation of various awarenesses of self. We are quantum and are superstate.

    Gravity is nothing more than inertia of awareness as everything that seems to "be" happening already has and will happen depending on awareness of location in spacetime.

    A brick is solid and still quantum as it is composed of fields yet can be measured in every macro sense. Space time is like that brick. Awareness of location determines the solid glass shattering or the shattered glass solidifying; both have, are, and will happen. We are arrogant to individualize self as independent from all that is. What is…is, ina perpetual state of now depending on self location in spacetime awareness. It's just that spacetime extends far beyond the section of the brick that is you. In the section that is you, you are omnipresent in every area of the brick that defines you both in space and time.

    The idea of randomness being implied, not said but definitely implied, is the problem. The universe as stated is not infinite. Everything is finite. Random does not exist. Therefore individual choice does not exist. I didn't say choices, I said independent choice. Free will and predestination both coexist.

  7. SERIOUS opinions only, please: I'm not smart. So, I have to ask: Must each of these "splits" create its own "big bang" somewhere else with the creation of a new universe? Or does the parallel world just sort of divide off within this universe? (Insults to my person will be ignored.)

  8. I see many people praising this lecture, and for the most part I found it quite informative. However, there is one thing Sean says that doesn't quite sit with me. I don't understand why our thoughts/decisions wouldn't make separate worlds / put our brains in superpositions. Surely, our thoughts exist, are causal, and have a physical presence? We don't have mind reading abilities, but surely we can observe our own thoughts? Even if we can't observe our own thoughts, I think it's reasonable to say someone or something COULD observe our thoughts, with proper tools or technology? Regardless, certainly our thoughts exist, and when we decide things in our mind, it affects the future before we have even acted.

    It makes zero sense to me, that our thoughts must be committed to action in order to "branch in two." It would make more sense if in fact, the universe DOES branch whenever we have different thoughts. It makes no sense to refer to thoughts as classical processes as a reason for not causing the universe to branch. . . The cat, the box, and the sleeping gas are all classical objects, yet that scenario still causes entanglement with the universe, superpositions, and a branching universe. So why wouldn't our thoughts? I completely disagree here.

    @New Scientist

  12. I completely agree with Sean about the nature of reality and the possibilities out there. I like his style, in that, he doesn't try to force one particular
    viewpoint over another, he's just interested in getting at the truth. I get the idea from his mannerisms that he sees all these differing opinions
    as a dance rather than a battle.

  13. So does that mean with black holes there's a quantum particle there and that's actually where it is? Or is it that that's a place of significant entanglement which might be the same thing a point where the many worlds converge and the particle of all the worlds overlapping on each other is actually in that spot. So the degree of entanglement of the many worlds is proportional to the mass and energy of that spot until you get a single concentration and convergence and the "big bang" happens again. So the "probalistic" overlapping position of the other worlds is actually the mass in which I see and interact given I don't know which world I'm actually in. It's like probablistic mass that actually makes up the mass and material of the world I can actually live and breath in and interact with

  14. A DOUBLE RED SHIFT A DOUBLE DISTANCE, THE CONSTANT OF HUBBLE? We take the light from a system with 10% redshift, that light enters the telescope here at the speed of light and has 90% of the 100% waves that were emitted per unit of time, if we let that partly continue to a galaxy that also has 10% redshift, then that light arrives at 19% redshift, if we shine light to that galaxy too, it arrives at 10% redshift, and since those galaxies are equally far away from us, there is no double redshift at double distance. To make that clear: if we receive that light with 10% redshift here at the speed of light, there are still 90 waves left of the 100 waves, if we let that continue to a system with also 10% redshift, there remain of those 90 waves there are still 81 left, if we also emit light to that galaxy with 10% redshift, 90 of the 100 waves will remain. Then those 81 waves will show as 19% redshift and the 90 waves will show as 10% redshift. Then there is no double redshift and double distance to be seen.

  16. Are there a cult of professional morons that seek us science videos to show the world how stupid they are? I take religion as read, obviously.

  17. Just imagine…Sean Carroll + Juan Maldacena + Michio Kaku + Brian Greene + Max Tegmark + All Others …all working together for breakthroughs together under one roof….MAGIC WOULD UNFOLD…

    Just a thought…WHAT IF GRAVITY IS QUANTUMLY ENTANGLED…WITH CLASSICAL PHYSICS ??…giving a show of variety??

  18. Well-presented description of why things made of clay can never perceive the course of events taking place in the Planck time. This is perhaps not so mysterious. Otherwise, we might think ourselves to be lost in a sort of fog.

  19. IMO, the reason why Western civilization is going off the rails is really the fault of scientists not practicing science, physicists not practicing physics. In science, you're supposed to start with a hypothesis and then perform a test to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. But physicists start with the premise that superstrings exist because the math is so beautiful; but they don't have a test. That's the first problem.

    Second, the physics community presumes to tell the rest of us what reality is. So the physics community has decided that there is no God (in spite of the indirect evidence of creation). UFO's/UAP's don't exist (because they're too blurry). And ghosts and spirits don't exist because… 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    The result of all of these 😄 emojies is that you have sent hundreds of thousands of science students into the forest, looking for truth. But there is no truth there. So physicists are lost. Students are lost. Anyone who puts their faith in science and reason is lost. Now you have college and university students freaking out. 1/3 of college students don't know what gender they are because everyone is confused. Professors and administrators are afraid they are going to be the subject of violence, even as BLM hangs signs all around the school.

    BLM is a hate organization that doesn't give a damn about the lives of black people. You can tell this by the fact that they burn down (black) businesses, destroy (black)(everyone's) property in all the major cities. BLM/ANTIFA rioters (mostly white college aged kids) attack people they don't like (including a white kid named Rittenhouse); they paid for that.

    There is nobody left to put the fear of God into these rioters/BLM/ANTIFA kids because the physics community told everyone that there is no God.

    There are atheist scientists who don't believe in God; not because the universe is just a high probability creation that could have happened by accident. NO. The universe is more fine tuned and engineered than a computer, a rocket, an LHC, a car. Atheists won't admit there is an Intelligent Designer because they don't want to admit that a disembodied/spirit intelligence can exist. So they have turned off their ability to recognize intelligence when they see it.

    Now Western civilization is dying because atheist's can't resolve the moral questions that have to be raided by an Old Testament God as related to an Intelligent Designer. This is not easy stuff to figure out. But we shouldn't abandon Western civilization because blood (created by GOD) was shed.

  20. Just random nitpicking: If what Newtonian physics tells us was intuitive, why would it have been a revolution? The idea that we have a "clockwork universe" seemed revolutionary precisely because it wasn't intuitive for the people of that age and time. Even to Newton himself, actually. Newton thought the universe didn't always act on its own, and that God had to intervene from time to time to make it right. Which, according to my infallible Wikipedia knowledge, prompted a response from Leibniz:
    "Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."
    So what exactly is "intuitive" here? The clockwork universe? Or a universe that mostly works on its own but needs occasional winding up from God? And intuitive for whom? Is it universally intuitive, like an innate feature of being human? Or are we culturally programmed to find it intuitive? If it's the latter, than learning about quantum mechanics would change our intuition, just like learning about Newtonian mechanics in high school changed our intuition from whatever it was to a more "clockwork" understanding of the universe.

  22. He is good at explaining, but I do not "buy" the multiverse, and it got more decisive after the first stunt (button-jump). But anyway the point of view is very well explained.
    I really listened to the end, and I love it, but I do not see the necessity of many-universes because I think that ultimately the quantum fields (good view) is created not by a big bang but by consciousness, by life's forces, which are not Newtonian Forces of course. So I liked it when Carroll said that the origin, the Big Bang, actually was a mystery, something physicists and even theologists work on. So in my view consciousness decides that the particle (double-slit experiment) is here, not there …

    [except if I change my mind haha and then it is not here]

  24. You don't violate conservation of energy if you assume that both universes exist as a wave function, but only one of those universes receives the mass-energy content of the universe.

  26. “Many worlds” makes so much more sense than the Copenhagen interpretation. The latter requires a lot of hand waving, whereas the former does not.

  28. This is the time to go Biden on malarky – if there ever is such a time. Why must the real world replicate the quantum world? and they use the words "world and universe" rather than the more limited and ambiguous 'domain". Apparently, the laws of physics – even Einstein's, don't even hold for the entire universe. And why a left right axis? : the universe is a traffic cop? This endless, alternate universe idea can get pretty damn nonsensical -and very quickly: like, give a monkey a typewriter and endless supply of bananas and paper and it will eventually write Shakespeare's Hamlet: more bananas, typewriter ribbon and paper and it will write it backwards – in every known language, also every second word of the play, third, sixteenth, etc., and also backward, and in every known code – sideways upside down, and mirror image. And this holds for all 39 plays, not to mention everything else ever thought or written about. What a dreadful, prodigious waste of space, time, matter, energy, effort – theoretically. There is a limit to what physics can postulate, even in theory, and maybe especially in theory, and still be taken half-way seriously. Mull it over some more – with a red pencil.

  29. I'm just saying maybe I don't understand something. But I think Marletto believes in this which would technically break the very laws of thermodynamics she considers impossible to break? I don't see how you could believe in that and give up on a perpetual motion machine. Every time you look or measure or make a decision the universe branches off, breaking one of the laws that makes perpetual motion impossible. Wouldn't our universe taken as a complete system be a perpetual motion machine?

  31. Despite relentless absurdly-constant lamestream media political reinforcement, vacuum lightspeed is actually NOT constant in non-constant gravity. Without the fast-light entanglement-merging of decision thresholds, you have no chance at a free will, you are stuck in bent space-time lockstep, your brain can never be a self-determining quantum computer.

  32. When a nucleon cools it starts looking octahedral as triangular dimples begin to form and retro-reflect gravity, it's like pulling volume from an elastic-covered set of three intersecting quark discs. These retroreflections concentrate gravity flows, speeding them, carrying light faster, drawing out wavefunctions, creating entanglement links. Exposed protons of flexible organic molecules are ideal warmer-temperature progenitors of flexibility in entanglement networks. Gravity quantizes complementarily to light. Each bound proton may carry a distinctly different freedom of entangling network flow, each may carry multiple distinctly-re-ordered perceptions of nonlocal space. Flow freedom in entangled networks means decision thresholds are joined and easily influenced with profound consequence chains possible, decisions simply present practically no truly-localizing connections. It's practically as if gravity energy bound up in cold nucleons naturally follows neuromorphic (Hebbian, counter-entropic retro-reflective "firing-together initiates wiring-together") network learning rules. Consciousness can be adept at parallel multiverse-type reasoning A brain is a highly quantum-leveraged computer.

    E=mc^2 doesn't require c to be a vacuum constant everywhere, it ignores gravity. Maxwell's equations don't require c to be a vacuum constant everywhere, they ignore gravity. Permittivity and permeability don't require c to be a vacuum constant everywhere, they ignore gravity. Special Relativity would like c to be a vacuum constant everywhere, but it ignores gravity. Magnets, atoms and electrons will not implode if c is not a vacuum constant everywhere. Nuclear power will still work if c is not a vacuum constant everywhere. What requires c to be vacuum constant everywhere is Einstein and his privileged over-weighted do-nothing prize-winning bent-space buddies who show no sign of understanding how GPS actually works.

    Nothing else in space bends under gravity anywhere near the way light bends under gravity, nothing, zip – the minimum possible path difference there is off by a factor of two. Still, no one wants to say there should be one space-time for light and another for matter. Inverse-square law for gravity still perfectly fits the simplest cases, is still flow-based and so still calls for a quantized basis of exchanged flows. Newton was lazy about flows, or over his head at that point, or told to keep quiet. Nobody knew the faintest thing about the dihedral angle in H2O molecules or even heard of H2O or proton ions, atoms were purely plausible philosophical concepts in Newton's time.

    Spacetime curving is supposed to be gradual over gradual gravitational change, so gravitational frequency-shifts should be gradual over gradual gravitational change, yet textbooks suggest this shift happens at the source and, like pure projection, is preserved on the way to observation. Opposite to every creepy standard textbook demanding space and time are red-stretched in closeness to mass instead of blue-compressed, in the gradual approach blue-shift observation starts with a redder signal in weaker gravity gradually blue-shifting as it approaches an observer in stronger gravity. But, how can that possibly make sense?

    Two simple notions are all it takes to replace curved space-time with gravity-controlled light-speed:

    1.) Light waves act much like moving rumble-strips that appear to oscillate faster when detected in increased gravity.

    2.) Gravity fields fundamentally flow, and will naturally produce a reversed riptide sort of pull gradient near a mass.

    These two simple notions support gravitational lensing in flat space and as a bonus they allow falling-rate variations and gravity clock variations to move in the same direction as shifted frequency variations with light-based time variations (not to mention lightspeed) instead of goofily following opposing directions. Sorry if that bothers anyone. It becomes relevant instead of a minor effect when entanglement gets involved, not to mention the dark sector.

    I'm not going to say Einstein and his followers enjoy big lies, thick hides, or looking like intoxicated monkey short-bussed derelicts blindly worshipping gravity-independent light-speed as an accident of birth, but it is what it is. I know nothing ever bothers fob's chosen people anyway. The blind-spot there disappears in considering the pivotal difference between curved space-time and gravitationally-moderated light-speed. It has to be suppressed by designated idiots. Can you imagine the political/academic/religious chaos that would surely ensue if this became suddenly well-known?

    Simple secret to beginning to quantize gravity correctly: Quantize gravity complementarily to light. The smaller you suppose gravity quanta to be, the less energy they must have – opposite to light. Gravity is negative energy, at least in contrast to zero-point vacuum, so quantizing it is key to appreciating how profoundly it can hold entropy at bay and support the evolution of consciousness and growth, however a demystification of such things is bound to be seen as profoundly anti-religious. So arises a massive authoritarian social control problem.

    In possibly the latest example of slimy Einsteinian god-is-my-constant-light evangelism, researchers claim simulations show roughly-diamond-shaped rubble-pile asteroids lack a new gravity physics basis. No doubt they started their sims with convenient uniformly-sized diamond-shaped grains emerging miraculously out of pseudo-intelligent cosmic design, but of course the press release lacked enough useful details to hold promise of anything but GIGO from the polishers of their dog's ancient pyramids.

  33. Unlike little miss Einstein and his overprivileged Marxist religious bible buddies who never met a pale atheist they didn't despise, I figured a lot of my ideas out on my own, while I was a patent examiner for a few decades wrestling with attorneys over things like superconductive logic and measurements, optical computing, neural nets, A.I., error correction coding for practically every known communication medium, network and storage device, etc.

  38. "Why do we see things in location?" Maybe it's the same reason we can watch multiple things at the same time. The U.S. Open TV coverage will split screen and show 2 tennis games at once. Hard as I try, I can't watch both games at the exact same time. Maybe our ability to comprehend what we see is limited to seeing one world at a time.

  39. Really enjoyed this presentation. I'm already a big fan of Mind Scape. One question: where does the energy come from to create the new branches of the entire universe?

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com