Hello, KZfaqrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its KZfaq translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality to see how the process works: kzfaq.info_video?ref=share&v=GdqC2bVLesQ To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: kzfaq.info_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

Just went down a World Science Festival rabbit hole…and I like it here.

also at the moment in 2020, so nice to see nuanced and meaningful debate in which each person carries respect for one another.

I feel like trying to keep up with this was the mental equivalent of participating in an 100 mile run with no training whatsoever.

I watched again after a couple of years and am planning to repeat! That everyone showed their side of humour while deepening the understanding of the most fundamental questions is so refreshing!

Tip of the cap to the organizers and producers for putting this together, thanks much.

Why was Heisenberg's wife unhappy? Whenever he had the time he didn't have the energy.

A brilliant summation of the different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics- I just love World Science Festival

Brian Green is phenomenal in the usage of the English language to explain physics and probably many other topics. Probably if it was not for him I would not be listening to this presentation. But what do I know for sure... anymore. This stuff could drive a person insane. Last guy on right might be on his way maybe.

can i just congratulate the guys running the screen, their ablilty to display info live in time with the speaker and to run the credits at the perfect time made this production so professional, i do hope continued efforts of this calibre of production can overcome the delusional creationists. keep up the good work.

I didn't know when I got into this, that all I ever wanted was to hear Brian Greene say, "This is quantum bullshit."

I've came for Sean, stayed for David. He's thinking about every word he says, he's so succinct, yet so effective and clear.

There are many many smart people in the physics world, but in my humble opinion, Sean can communicate the knowledge to the layman the most efficiently... Sean is the Boss !

Wow, this is the best Quantum discussion I've heard. Many congratulations to all the Physics Experts they all shined and explained why there is a future in studying physics!

THANK YOU!!! for not polluting these videos with ads. I suffer from tinnitus and enjoy listening to lectures like this, ad free, while I relax or go to sleep.

I could listen to Brian Greene all day.

Science... free of politics and corporate manipulation can be truly breath taking... a thing of intrinsic beauty... that was an excellent discussion, wish I was there to ask a few questions of my own... brilliant, captivating discussion, well done gentlemen

Brilliant discussion! My uneducated thought is, how about it's not the individual particle in the double slit experiment interfering with itself, but all of individually fired particles interfering with each other across all time, because they do not experience and are not subject to time? So in effect it's just like firing them all at the same time, all of the time. We and the monitoring devices only see the particle impact at a particular time, because we DO experience and are subject to time. Therefore, all light exists in all of it's locations all of the time (because it is not subject to time), BUT, the key is that time travels through light, so it only 'activates' the light for us as we experience 'now'.

I never understood the double slit experiment in my college ..he just made me understand this under 10 minutes .....Well internet is really a blessing ...

Thank you Brian Greene and panelists. I now know more to confuse me than ever before.

Some people can talk in complete sentences. Some talk in complete paragraphs. Dave Albert talks in complete book chapters - and they're incredibly well-writen chapters.

Every time I felt like I understood a part of this and had a grasp on something they were saying, they moved on to some totally bewildering new sentance 😭 I had a great time holding crumbs of quantum physics though

What a fantastic host! Props to that guy for doing such a good job.

This is quite a good one!! Brian Greene is always a good host!!!

THANK YOU B GREENE FOR CREATING THIS LECTURE SERIES!

It's 2/6/2015 when I watched this, as of now this is an ENTRY AS THE BEST VIDEO I've seen this year.

I love learning about physics from all the greats that follow different approaches discussing ways to nail down THE approach.

Love to see philosophers sitting besides scientists. Nothing better.

"Snaps into one position" sounds like my children. When I am not watching they are everywhere, as soon as I look at them they snap into one definite location pretending they are good all along...

I'm intrigued. Thank you for my Thursday evening.

in my humble opinion the double slit conundrum is easily explained. particles are simply the areas of a feild we can interact with. our observer (eye, camera etc) is moving. we are moving so our relative motion combined with the (quatum) feild we are measuring determines where we "see" the "particle". (the faster the feild of space spins, the more it is subjected to time dilation and space contraction, resulting in tiny areas that change very very slowly over time). so the feild goes thru both slits but can only be measured where the feilds motion and the observers motion combine to allow that. an easy way to prove this is to measure both slits but in different places. the particulate measurement can be in both places. that is, what we measure as a particle, actually goes thru both slits.

This discussion was conducted in a way, reminiscent of a time when science was lauded as a true and proper philosophy unto itself... something that inspired hope and dignity in the majesty of man's reason... the sense of virtue in truth... these men were speaking their own truths... it was inspiring in a way I haven't experienced in a long time...

Sean Carroll is awesome ...love hearing his thoughts

I've gotta go with the Everett Formulation. It's been my perception that scientists have a tendency to want to nail 'it" down, for whatever value 'it' has. The Many Worlds view incorporates the idea that, just as we cannot perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum, there are facets to reality that are beyond our perception.

Brain Greene is my favorite speaker, regardless of the topic!!!

Is there anyone better at moderating these type of discussions than Brian Greene?

Ahhhh. KZfaq has chosen this to be the video I woke up to for today. Quite the find!

Great vid, big Brian Greene fan and love this type of forum. These guys are the real rock stars

David Albert and Sean Carroll have the most pleasant voices I know.

I swear i wake up to this every other night.

Awesome and humourus stuff!! Very high level and quite amazing how quantum mechanics can explain the behaviour and nature of waves and particles!!

Excellent discussion! One beautiful thing is seeing QM interpretation competently discussed from different perspectives, they are all interesting contributions. In due time I'd like to comment on each of them. For now, I'd say that the question to vote for is not optimally formulated: "is this interpretation worth pursuing?", well, of course they all are (given that all of these are good/interesting candidates)! It is by studying a candidate interpretation that we could hope to find its consequences and requirements, and this might result in it's corroboration or in it's refutation. It contributes to the search for "the right one" if we know what is not tenable, and why. Interestingly, we have Bell's inequalities from the study of hidden variable theories, which is a contribution to the whole of QM! Once this is considered, I'd propose the vote to be "do You deem this interpretation has a good chance to be part of the right one?" Yes, because, where some of these interpretations have merits, these merits might be part of the solution. As a little game, I'll give my "thumbs" to the candidates: Hidden variables: down Spontaneous collapse: down (double, as in both left and right! Or... could I use my bigtoes too?) Everett's many-worlds: up Qbism: up I do intend those two ups as they are both likely to be part of the solution, as mentioned. My preferred one in general? Decoherence.

watching another presentation had to sign in and got to this presentation. I'll be here until i watch every post. nice because I can "listen" while I work. Great forward movement for me. nothing concrete as everything is in motion but for now, brings [me] up to date. thank you all

These are the real heroes of observable universe.

OMG...THE single best content regarding QM interpretations on the Internets (at the time of this typing). :)

also, Brian Greene is a damn national treasure, isnt he?!?

Great stuff! Would like to see an update video from this channel on where the theories have led recently, and if there are any new findings...thanks

Brian Greene does it again. That discussion could have become quite contentious but Brian has the ability to keep it from going there. I also like that the "titles" were left out of these gentlemens descriptions. I don't care whether so-n-so is a professor or a doctor or the doorman - this was a fine collection of men expressing their understanding of the world around us. Good enough for me.

YAAAYY it's nice to see the views starting to go up on these sort of videos.

Einstein. - Relativity: "Time is relative to relative observers" Ruediger. - Cubism: "Probability is relative to relative observers" WOW! That blew my mind away...

My vote is for the bohm/deBroglie interpretation. I am not sure what the real problem is with saying that the particles are guided by an energy wave of some kind. The reality seems to be simply that all the particles are there in a way that actually reflects reality. The prediction only seems to come in when we are trying to decide where they will land. I think there or a number of different problems here which makes the whole issue kind of a moving target.

Loved this! - baffled the last guy's interpretation was so misunderstood and rejected by the others, though thankfully some sense was brought back as the moderator seemed to agree it most of all ideas put forward

This is the best channel on KZfaq!

Agreed on the part of the wave, there must be a frequency be generated by the particles of whatever they are, which different by what they are made of so the kinds of particles could create variation in the patterns left.

Why can't I find civil discussions like this on the subject of anthropomorphic climate change? These are real scientist challenging each other in a civil way, bravo.

Glad to have Vision sharing his genius on this topic

Ruediger's eyes are eery. He's like....super focused.

Thank you for uploading :)

I could sit and watch this kind of stuff for hours on end.

1/ Wave and Particle are macroscopic notions. 2/ Measurement is a process of using an interaction between two systems in order to quantify a variable of one of the two systems. That interaction needs to have negligible effect on the measured variable so that most of the quantity measured would be amputable to the measured system as if it was an isolated one. Example : Measuring system : lampe and camera. Measured system : bellet. Measured variables : position and speed of bullet. Light is shed on the bullet by the lamp. It hits the bullet and reflects to the camera where it interacts with a sensor so an image is recorded from which the position and speed of the bullet are derived. The interaction between light and the bullet has negligible incidence on the energy, speed and position of the bullet for the matter of study. The precision needed in ballistics can accommodate with newtonian physics and neglect energy exchange with light while maintaining sufficient precision for the matter of the study. Now think about this concept of measurement on a subatomic level. Do we have such systems A that let us do measures with negligible effect from the measuring interaction? It's a scale problem. The tools we have can't interact with negligible effect on the studied systems and variables on subatomic level so to give a quantification of a satisfying precision. We absolutely want to project our subjective experience of notions like wave and particle on phenomena that does display some of the periodic behaviour we recognise in our familiar macroscopic waves. Same goes for particle behaviour. There is a periodic behaviour as well as discrete behaviour. No need to say more about it nor to make analogies with macroscopic phenomena.

Quantum Sleeper. Makes you rest in peace, but being alive at the same time.

This talk is a work of art tho .Sean Carrol is another genius.

This guy really knows how to give a presentation. A+

Beautiful presentation!

"Probability wave" -- first time i've heard this and it just blew my mind

"When no one is looking, a particle has near limitless potential: it can be nearly anywhere. But measure it, and the particle snaps to one position." Just like me.

Another wonderful panel. I'm so glad Sean Carroll is on this one, I just finished another one of his books, From Eternity to Here, 10/10 👏

That was a very great preview of these interesting interpretations...

36:25 I love Sean's facial expression.. lol

Could Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π represent the uncertainty of everyday life at the smallest scale with the Planck constant ħ=h/2π being a constant of action in the dynamic geometrical process that we see and feel as the period of time. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding relative to the atoms of the periodic table therefore unfolding relative to our own actions

Heisenberg and Schrödinger get pulled over for speeding. The cop asks Heisenberg "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies, "No, but we know exactly where we are!" The officer looks at him confused and says "you were going 108 miles per hour!" Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now we're lost!" The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the two men have anything in the trunk. "A cat," Schrödinger replies. The cop opens the trunk and yells "Hey! This cat is dead." Schrödinger angrily replies, "Well he is now."

It's so brilliant the double slit so simple and it takes a hundred years to figure out. And what they have to invent to make it stick.

"Will we reach consensus on this by 2100?" Sean missed a golden opportunity to say "Well in many worlds we will reach a consensus but in other worlds we won't."

57:25 "You've converted, you've just realized it!" "In which universe!?" Low key a really good joke

“In the theory where everything happens.. we’re not saying anything about the world we’re in.” That blew my mind.

Just as a map is not the territory, a theory is not the reality. Both maps and theories are useful, but only as much as they help us navigate through the territory of reality.

"It`s a probabilistic scoreboard and it`s a HIIIIGH probability" 😂

When performing _the double slit experiment_ have we fired *protons* and *neutrons* instead of *electrons?* What about elementary particles? Or for that matter have we tried shooting the whole complete *atom* thru those slits? what kinds of particles have been used in this experiment? Do all particles behave as the electron does when measured?

I could watch these types of discussions all night.......oh wait, I do!

Why does the particle assume position when observed? what is the purpose of that to take position, how can that happen? it's not conscious

We just had five people on stage for 1 and a half hour and none of them talked over each other . We need to have a scientist in the white house ASAP

All of this makes so much sence

I really wish they would talk about the implications of the quantum eraser with discussing observation.

Good stuff, too bad these videos never make it to the 100k viewing mark, but cat videos or music videos where half naked people singing in auto-tune get millions upon millions.

Phd qualified panelists, pot qualified comments...

Thank you❤ David

I downloaded this Thank you.....

I feel bad to say this but I'm glad that the host is not Alan Alda or another actor

When electrons move in a straight line do they not produce an electromagnetic field? Why is that not a part of the considerations for the electron action?

Thank you for this video, this info was amazing!

Love these videos!

I tried the two slit experiment...........the wife was not impressed.

Shack is right, "Problems exist only in the language" , L.Wittgenstein.

Do you vet the same results with circles instead of slits?.is the material being shot through reflective? Organizes ricochets perhaps. Have you shot them through slits of material that absorbs electrons if they hit it? Just asking.

Thanks for sharing!!!

I'm sure Ruediger is a brilliant physicist but for public presentation to english speaking audiences, I recommend only english speaking physicists. Without math, it's extremely difficult to convey these ideas and I missed a lot of what he said not only because I couldn't understand the words he was trying to say, but because he himself had trouble finding the words to say. "Cubism" now seems simple and stupid to me when I'm certain the cubist ideas Ruediger has in his head are much more intelligent than the sum total of quantum ideas I have in my head.

Why did I think it was a good idea to read the comments.....

Is the spin of the electron being determined (observed) in any double slit experiments. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link in reply.

Yea, the "other equation" needed is the maths explaining the undiscovered energy field. Scientists limit themselves when they believe they have all the variables understood, or known. There are still fields of energy they have not yet discovered, and are key to understanding those which they have discovered.

Brian Greene has a high iq. He explains the two slit experiment in a decent enough way Alex Filipenko did not use correct graphics on Universe series Brian always explains better than Alex what a probabilistic wavefuntion is Richart Feynman was REALLY GREAT and didn't mix interpretations with data, he seperated that Brian Greene is also great! thanks for uploading =]