Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) – Sixty Symbols
Posted on January 25th, 2013 by in Quantum Mechanics
Even the professional understanding of quantum mechanics is “embarrassing”, says cosmologist Sean Carroll. Read Sean’s blog on this subject at bit.ly and the full paper at arxiv.org We filmed with Sean during his visit to the University of Nottingham and will have more videos with him coming soon. Check out Sean’s website (and his excellent books) at: preposterousuniverse.com Visit the SIxty Symbols website at www.sixtysymbols.com We’re on Facebook at www.facebook.com And Twitter at twitter.com This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham www.nottingham.ac.uk Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran A run-down of Brady’s channels: periodicvideos.blogspot.co.uk
blindwatch1 on January 24, 2013
05:07 even the equation looks like from another dimension.
Sapiensiate on January 24, 2013
I think this just pushes the question back a step. In this case now every possible universe would need to have formed at the beginning with all future possibilities known from that initial start point to ensure that all circumstances had a universe to account for it.
How did the multiverse at its formation ‘know’ all future possibilities?
MrWarMage on January 24, 2013
Why would the sum of all initial states need to know anything about the sum of all future states? There’s a further interpretation that suggests all states exist simultaneously, non-quantized and non time-oriented until the observer (nebulous weasel-word that it is) carves a worldline through the states. In other words, we could be back at Rutherford’s “Plum Pudding” in some ways.
TiagoTiagoT on January 24, 2013
Think of it the other way around: what makes those possibilities possible is the multiverse having formed the way it did.
.
Your question is a bit like asking how a bottle maker know where each water molecule would go when the bottle is filled with water; obviously the bottle is simply made in whatever shape, and the water inside just occupies any space it can when you fill it up.
mariJUANAMOvies on January 24, 2013
I think mostly, as he stated, we have to accept the fact (or somehow learn to be comfortable knowing) that we can only perceive a very tiny slice of reality. Then of course, you would need a definition of “reality.” There’s a lot more going on that we don’t know (or are even aware of) than we understand. Most of the Universe is hidden from us.
nicolajgnh on January 24, 2013
I was actually thinking about that after i wrote it. That it might be too abstract when you have no clue as to what possibilities might be or not be.
But was just curious about their imagination.
ASTROTZUR on January 24, 2013
You make an observation, a wave function collapses, you see it but me on the moon, have a whole second before the light that shows the collapse reaches me, nevertheless the universe has already split for me, because me seeing the same result as you’ve seen is inevitable and only a matter of time. You (and the whole universe) had an uncertainty before your observation, but afterwards you know exactly what I will observe (looking at your experiment) being on the moon, one second into the future.
abraham2057 on January 24, 2013
To a high school student this seems like bogus to me *not trying to offend anyone just sharing my…. ignorance, if you will*
It seems to me that quantum mechanics takes the fact there is an infinite amount of POSSIBILITIES and makes them true.. then the fact that you discover the truth of a possibility the rest stop existing just because you “observed”
Bobx007 on January 24, 2013
Pretty heavy stuff here! Actually, if ANY interaction causes the ENTIRE Universe to split, this would happen like.. all the time. Reality would then consist of a single path existing in an infinity of alternate possibilities. Maybe this infinite splitting is actually the essence of time? I wouldn’t know pal!
James Klett on January 24, 2013
God got lost and cant find his way back
MrSchnieke on January 24, 2013
Well I guess there is no answer then.^^
But I have to thank for trying so hard to answer my questions! It’s rarely the case that someone actually does that!
Litheran on January 24, 2013
This is why most people don’t understand that time travel would have a profound impact on the series of events. The farther back you were to travel; the more changes you would observe when you returned to your own time. Unless of course you were to maintain the “portal” you traveled through throughout your journey. Then you would simply return to your own present; while still creating a divergent reality where your interference caused another split. That’s what I call heavy stuff Doc.
Sapiensiate on January 25, 2013
Well the thing I’m struggling to understand is if all future states have their own universe then what drives the creation of the right number of universes? If the number of universes necessary is defined as the sum of all subsequent states from the initial position then there must be something in the system that predicts the number of universes necessary. So in the 2 car example what defines the need for 2 cars rather than 2 billion cars for all subsequent car splits?
Sapiensiate on January 25, 2013
That’s fair enough if you can explain to me how the multiverse formed. Otherwise you’re just saying “because it is” which is no sort of answer at all in my mind.
A bottle maker doesn’t need to deal with his bottle multiplying, so your analogy doesn’t really seem to fit here. I’m not arguing that all possibilities are not possible (i.e the multiverse fills the potential) but the mechanism of how this split occurs.
MrWarMage on January 25, 2013
It is pointed up that the number is probably infinite (it’s a strong suggestion in the maths), and as such there is no “right number.” It’s a process, not an invoice. There is no need for a given involving the number of possible universes. It needs to be understood that the original 2-car example is an extremely simplified static case; there *are* two billion cars, but only two paths at that point in the car’s worldtrack at that specific Now. (BUT, the car could drive off the road, etc.)
Sapiensiate on January 25, 2013
Ok, well let me extrapolate. Let’s assume we are in the future and the galaxies are receding faster than light. I observe a collapse in one galaxy and you, in another galaxy, will never see the light and it is no longer an inevitability. Yet the multiverse interpretation suggests that the whole universe has already split (certainly the equation wouldn’t change).
I don’t think inevitability of the information reaching you necessitates the split does it?
TiagoTiagoT on January 25, 2013
In my analogy the bottle isn’t a universe, it is the Multiverse, and the different universes are the water molecules.
.
There is no split, the bottle is already full.
Sertex47 on January 25, 2013
Doesn’t the quantum suicide thought experiment prove to be true if the many worlds interpretation is true?
darkpheonix77 on January 25, 2013
to be fair it was worded as “what is you favorite…” and not how do you see it or what ever
Jonathan Sutton on January 25, 2013
Congratz on 200th vid, keep up the great work!
Pyry Kontio on January 25, 2013
Well, they _are_ really good questions. Maybe he is?
Misteryman94 on January 25, 2013
07:48
Everything I was confused about
Raymantisify on January 25, 2013
He has no eyebrows
ASTROTZUR on January 25, 2013
Imagine galaxy A (us), galaxy B (in our visible universe) and galaxy C (outside of our visible universe receding faster than light). But B and C do see each other. The B galaxy we see is in a subset of universes that doesn’t contain C, thus the B we see doesn’t experiences splits caused by C, but the B seen from C exists in a different subset of universes that has no intersection with the previously described subset (B seen from A), but still it’s not the whole picture, damn the 500 char limit:(
37bowtrain on January 25, 2013
Where would the energy for infinite new universes per picosecond come from? Clearly, I’m no physisist, but there’s a s–t ton of energy in this universe that I just watched this video in. There’s a f–k load of wave fuctions that caused spontaneous universes to form in which I did not make this comment. E still equals mc^2, where’s the energy for all the mass of these new universes coming from?