Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture

No video

Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture

Рет қаралды 140,459

Күн бұрын

Speaker: N. David Mermin
Einstein's real complaint about the quantum theory was not that it required God to play dice, but that it failed to "represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance." I shall use the rhetorical device of a computer-simulated lecture demonstration (a cartoon version of recent experiments in Vienna) to explain both the appeal of Einstein's criticism and the remarkable act that the "reality" he insisted upon is nevertheless unattainable.

Пікірлер: 215

@kennethflorek8532 9 жыл бұрын

I do not see how, once the speaker started, this presentation could be boring. If it seemed boring, then you are not interested in delicate points about how quantum theory differs, by necessity, with the world as people always have thought of it. It could well be that the reasoning presented has lapses or jumps, because when it got to the crux too much was flying by for me to follow.

@agreenjay 7 ай бұрын

Went down a rabbit hole over an afternoon or two looking at layman's explanations of QM. This is very good in showing its weirdness. The payoff is at around 58:10. You can't know both type 2 color and the type 1, either one or the other but not both. The whole thing reminds me of a board game with rules, and the rules may not make sense, but there you have it. And no one knows why its this way.

@tarnopol 10 жыл бұрын

The actual shit starts going down at 9:11.

@othertestchannelbeta 10 жыл бұрын

I think it would be more accurate to say that our understanding of QM is incomplete. In the lab we can entangle particles, which can mean they are combined or created together so they share properties. When you consider that the quantum objects are described as wave functions (without definite locations or momentum) it doesn't surprise me that distance doesn't matter with regards to entanglement. The wave functions are still correlated, so the measurements would be expected to be correlated.

@jvailb 5 жыл бұрын

that we all receive a broadcast from los angeles and view it on tv at the same time is the only entanglement that I can easily grip right now.

@charlietame1892 7 жыл бұрын

Why do most of these lectures begin with some person we are not remotely interested in telling their life story and introducing some other nondescript entity whose life story is similarly uninteresting before the person we are actually interested in gets to say a word. Simply saying "Hello I'm (Whoever), please turn off your phones and let us welcome today's speaker ..."

@CONNELL19511216 Жыл бұрын

Patience...

@D800Lover 4 жыл бұрын

Is the role of physics to describe what is or what is the purpose behind it? The problem of reconciling both is that we may have to look beyond materialism as a philosophy and look at a metaphysical answer. Now that is truly what is spooky to some.

@stephenicus1 8 жыл бұрын

As a layman I found this lecture very interesting. Obviously I do not understand the deeper meaning behind it but it has certainly peaked my interest and I will do some further reading, at least until it becomes far too complex for me.

@delb0y1967 9 жыл бұрын

Fantastic lecture ! Certainly not boring or overcomplicated in my opinion.

@enotdetcelfer 9 жыл бұрын

Lecturer gets to the point at 22:20

@qualifying2359 2 жыл бұрын

imbevile! 21:00 is the most important part

@debyton Жыл бұрын

Stuff left behind could be entangled with thing. Stuff left behind could have different properties than thing. What is stuff left behind anyway?

@maimultovidiu 11 жыл бұрын

”stuff left behind” - very academic and specific terms for physics

@BarryKort 7 жыл бұрын

In Part IV, the logical paradox is quite clear if one tries to posit some static (not time varying) internal state that deterministically governs the outcome of the "color" measurements. One can also posit some time-varying internal state machine that maps onto the epiphenomenon of the "color" measurements, provided one also assumes that all the particles advance their internal state in perfect synchrony governed by a common master clock. Mathematically, this doesn't help us get out of the logical paradox in the gedanken experiment. But what happens if the particles have their own local clocks which, while being nearly synchronized, run at slightly different rates? Then, it occurs to me that the "left behind" particles are slightly desynchronized from the third particle, so that the prediction is subtly compromised. If we are talking about polarization angles or the orientation of the spin axis in space, we now have some time-varying wobble or jitter which compromises any mathematical calculation that relies on perfect phase-locked synchrony relative to some master clock or reference clock.

@dalegriffiths3628 9 жыл бұрын

Can someone please help! With the 3 particles coming out of the source, the twio going towards B and C and passing through the stuff how can this represent the stuff left behind by A when A hasn't gone through the studf left behind, B and C have. Is it that you can think of The 3 emitted particles as equivalents and even though B and C went through the stuff left behind this is equivalent to if A had gone through the stuff left behind but it is just that the detectors B and C give a way of showing what would have happened IF the particle heading fir A had indeed gone through the stuff left behind?

@possumverde 10 жыл бұрын

One question...The speaker mentioned that under QM, thing _B_ (for example) could be considered the same as the "stuff left behind " thing _A_ and thus was an equivalent representation of the original "thing / stuff left behind" test...Unfortunately he neglected to explain whether or not that assertion was backed by aspects of QM currently supported by physical evidence or if it relied on the currently implied yet still theoretical only aspects...That would seem to be important as if it comes solely from theory then it's awful close to a case of using a theory to "prove" itself...Why is (for example) "thing B" (in relation to either thing A or C as mentioned in the lecture) the same as the "stuff left behind" from the first experiment?

@supertuesday600 10 жыл бұрын

All these has been experimented countless times. The outcome of the experiments resulted in the theory.

@LaureanoLuna 11 жыл бұрын

If physicists read Kant, they'd understand physics is only about phenomena, not things in themselves. No physical observable is a property of things but of the way they appear to us. That's why speaking of physical properties unrelated to an experimental setup makes no sense. Phenomena emerge out of a cognitive interaction between observer and things. In measuring one entangled particle, we alter the whole experimental setup and enable the other to first exhibit the corresponding property.

@invrnrv 12 жыл бұрын

@1:13:50 Consider not classical waves, but waves with threshold-events, much like excitation waves of a collection of neurons, combined with back-propagation waves (of the opposite sign) that originate from threshold singularities to spread outward away from the singular source. Back-propagating waves smooth out the field such that future post-threshold-event incoming-waves are likely to trigger more threshold events. Thus "virtual" particles use echos to sustain itself via field resonance.

@tjock-tv5181 2 жыл бұрын

I liked the part about the stuff left behind.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

My initial comment was aimed at philosophers who want to make assertions about the character of nature, but without the rigour of experiment and theory. I have no problem with philosophy as a method of study, and something to be studied.

@MatthewSuffidy 4 жыл бұрын

I don't really understand this totally, but I am feeling like the stuff left behind- 2 color theory, and the 3 detectors geometry has something to do with the problem here. I never really understood the Bell experiment, but thought maybe it had something to do with the statistics of the wave function vs theoretical probability.

@CstriderNNS 9 жыл бұрын

For all the people complaining about, its is to slow,boring,overly complicated,to many diagram,etc.. GO WATCH SPONGE BOB, maybe it is more along the lines of your intellectual prow-less, this man has dedicated his life to unlocking some of the most kept secrets of the Universe, this man ,like many is a hero and deserves a little more respect...

@higgins007 9 жыл бұрын

Agreed. I'd been learning about this (as a layman) for a while now and kind of sort of understood it in a metaphorical "abstracty" kind of way. This lecture just illuminated the practicalities of the idea and experiment. I really feel I have a much more concrete understanding after watching this. Great lecture.

@stijill 9 жыл бұрын

I disagree! Sponge Bob is to high-brow. I would watch the History Channel. :D

@nadmey9099 6 жыл бұрын

Some people cannot help it. As they are pea brain.as you say they got to watch Teletubbies on CBBC,s

@ZeroMass 6 жыл бұрын

"overly complicated" I see more complaints on how its dumbed down... Berkeley being sensitive to its resident dullard sjw's I guess.

@heyassmanx 11 жыл бұрын

Since your asking for one I'll give you one but it is just my interpretation based on the material I've read -- It's not so much that these particles have some obscure means of communication faster then the speed of light as much as the space between them is an illusion of space and time which are relative. More so we are making these observations from within the space-time continuum and this reminds me of Godel's incompleteness theorem as we may never know things as they actually are

@MrKorrazonCold 11 жыл бұрын

Everything is two opposing electrical fibonacci vorticies Only difference between solids, liquids, gases and plasma is Volume! All direction is spherically curved. Fimilab discovered quanta switching 3 trillion time per second from matter to antimatter. Experiments show how conversion of matter into energy through its antimatter brings about gamma rays with exact opposite momentum and every action has an equal and opposite reaction thus gravitational systems are ashs of prior electrical systems

@softcellelectrical 11 жыл бұрын

Is there one damn post on KZfaq that actually addresses the mechanics of spooky action at a distance instead of quoting other peoples quotes from other people that are quoting from other people? Seems to me that no one knows s... about the subject.

@giorus 3 жыл бұрын

This is it. There's no spooky action at a distance and this video provides the demonstration.

@ChiDraconis 11 жыл бұрын

it can be that we are an effect-or-field of a Δ which is non-localized as the wave-function - that which is pre-cursor to the wave may exist only as potential

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

Sure, but we are primarily using mathematics to describe the behaviour of the natural world. Physicists don't treat infinities with the same sort of rigour that mathematicians do. Perhaps you could argue that they should ;-)

@tulliusagrippa5752 4 жыл бұрын

Did Bohr mean that physics is a model of what we experience and does not necessarily reflect what underlies the experience.

@softcellelectrical 11 жыл бұрын

I never thought of it in those terms but it reinforces the postulation of a holographic universe. This would explain (if you believe in such things) why thoughts travel instantaneously. Thoughts are not bound by the illusion of observation and thus transcend any perception of distance. Thanks for the insight, it was helpful.

@seditt5146 2 жыл бұрын

Picture it like this... First off, you know what moire patterns formed from interference of waves are correct? What you get on a 2D plane is peaks and troughs resulting in banding and this banding is also capable of containing 3D information if the "observing" wavelength equals that of, or is some integer multiple of the original screening material which created the banding, in the case of Holograms this screen is the frequency and phase of the light which created the pattern. This process demonstrates the encoding of 3D information on a 2D plane and this same phenomenon exist on a 3D "plane" with the observing dimension being the observer AKA You... or any single particle which interacts with the 3D plane its "observing". Now with that in mind consider a 3D sphere which contains this 2D hologram on its surface in which you the observer is inside at some point. If we extrapolate this 2D wave front information into the center of the sphere it will also cause interference in such a way that if we shrink the frequency and amplitude such that it scales with the radius of the points distance from the center of the sphere what one gets is full on 4 dimensional spacetime which is theoretically capable of encoding all the information, from the start to the end of the universe on nothing more than the 2 dimensional surface of the sphere. My hypothesis above is also Testable in that due to the nature of the encoding what should result is a cyclic rhythm in the behavior of all particles such that what we really are witnessing is cycles upon cycles upon cycles. We should be capable of taking a timeline for instance and properly coiling it onto itself and seeing history line up when the proper coiling coefficients are used. Despite this needing infinite accuracy for such coils down to the Planck's scale we should be able to cheat with relative accuracy and take two highly similar events on a timeline and coil the ENTIRE timeline with coils in time equaling t*0.5. Once you see a rather nice correlation between two events, all sharing many many different vectors the proceed in coiling the coil again in harmonics of the base frequency. You will quickly see events start to line up in straight lines on the outer radius of the coil which share so many similarities it defies logic and probability unless the above hypothesis about the nature of spacetime being a projection of a 2D plane on a 4D sphere. Method 2 of testing... with this being a grander scale in which we can not influence results is that we should be capable of taking the Microwave Background Radiation we observer and projecting this data in a fashion described above and we should be able to observe rough structures which mirror the Galactic web of our universe. Finer and finer detailed maps of the MBR will allow us to result higher and higher detail. The MBR is simply just the surface of the Event horizon for the blackhole our universe is in Red shifted are it gets projected onto this higher dimensional hypersurface. OR.... This is all bullshit and I am delusional, ALWAYS and option however given the nature of wave fronts and how interference behave coupled with the fact that formulation has shown our observable universe is right in size and mass density for consideration of it being a blackhole it becomes extremely hard to ignore this all. It basically means the Big bang, the Singularity that started our universe from a single Plancks sized point is really a 2D sphere in a higher universe with all the information coming into that EH being our MBR and our Universe being the MBR of the universes inside Blackholes in our universe. Each Universe would simply be visualizing the hologram from a different angle similar to what happens if you smash a real hologram you dont get pieces of the original, you get the entire image however what it loses is the ability view it from some angles. It makes every Universe ALMOST the same... however very different as they break off at that specific time. Also, for better visualization of all this make sure you understand that at the Event horizon of a Blackhole Time and Space are flipped... This means to an observer outside the Blackhole they see matter going towards a singularity while an observer inside would see the trip towards the inside of the singularity as instead moving forward in time, not space. The inside observer would see the spheres surface as being a single point and the center singularity as being a point infinitely far in the future as time slows the close one gets to the center. For fuck sake I meant this to be a quick and simple post and my stupid ass wrote a mini thesis and even then there is so much I cant get into and this is by far surface level but I hope this makes it a bit easier to visualize the possibility we are a holographic universe as I personally believe there is no real other way as physics currently dictates this all to be true.

@AlbertGenzen 9 жыл бұрын

Anyone know how it is that in a 222 run all outcomes are equally likely and in a 111 run they aren't?

@invrnrv 12 жыл бұрын

I think the reason for the contention is that people are thinking in terms of "particles", but the very notion of a "particle" implies that it is independent of its environment. There are no "particles" in isolation of the environment -- it's all self-sustaining resonance.

@1pointt21gW Жыл бұрын

One of the greats.

@eltodesukane 11 жыл бұрын

What you are saying seems to make sense. In the following article Cool horizons for entangled black holes (2013 jul) by Juan Maldacena & Leonard Susskind they suggest that ER=EPR meaning that EPR-type entanglements are actually Einstein-Rosen bridges. As I understand it, it would means that entangled particles are directly connected by a quantum-size wormhole, explaining spooky action at distance.

@LaureanoLuna 11 жыл бұрын

0:35:40 I don't think in EPR's view the existence of a testing device able to test simulatneously for 1- and 2-color is sufficient to assert the reality of both properties: rather, there should be a device able to test any of the properties without physically interfering with the observed system. That's what would ensure they are elements of reality (in the EPR paper) and that's what EPR thought they'd found in entangled systems.

@pyrrho314 11 жыл бұрын

thoughts do not travel instantaneously... they are very slow in fact... that they appear to some to be instantaneous is really just us not taking the passage of time into account, ignoring the errors due to the mistake. Thoughts are actually slow, take time to form and time to unform, and nerve signals are slower than airplanes.

@MrKorrazonCold 11 жыл бұрын

"Everything is two opposing fibonacci vorticies! Only difference between solids, liquids, gases and plasma is Volume! Everything is forming out of the locational spherical inward logarithmic absorption density (contraction) and outward exponential emission density now (expansion) or acceleration of electromagnetic waves inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of the input+0/1-output electric charge forming the EM-fields or resonance and interference as time unfolds."

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

What discoveries in physics will be useless if ZFC is inconsistent?

@MrKorrazonCold 11 жыл бұрын

Yes and all information can be found on the Net! Everything with mass is contracting E and eXpanding c2, and even the wave-medium itself is breathing!!! Everything is two opposing vorticies and only difference between solids, liquids, gases and plasma is Volume! Time dilating wave-center's are opposed motion simulating rest and balance now through violent motion forming out of the locational spherical inward absorption density and outward emission density now accelerating electromagnetic waves!

@wulphstein 5 жыл бұрын

I don't understand why spooky action at a distance is a problem for Einstein?

@ChiDraconis 11 жыл бұрын

i have been trying to grasp what the 2-portal shows other that the duality thing as-taught though novel and effective for undergrad or intro - my position on time is that the effector-field of density is essentially the tensor of baryonic ( observable ) - to scope the discussion beyond such effector-field is an area where time does not exist or does not yield to phase-relative tensors a/k/a does not exist ▬ consider to-wit isomorphic-resonance as a P-P' delta | 0.0 1.0 ) where the zero-point .?

@davecurry8305 4 ай бұрын

St. Patrick was the pabtron saint of quantum entanglement.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

Saying that, I have no problem with philosophy as it pertains to ethics, political theory, and so forth. The field has many uses.

@softcellelectrical 11 жыл бұрын

I think you are partially correct. There is the element of formation of the thought, feeling or emotion, but once that packet is assembled it seems to be perceived instantaneously. It would be very difficult to prove this from an academic point of view...until mental telepathy is proven beyond a doubt. Till then it is all speculation. Good observation though.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

I agree, you could plant the scientific method within epistemology, but science is more than just its methods of inquiry. I wouldn't call the interpretations of QM philosophies, or if they are then only in the most banal fashion. Nor is it true to say that "When a philosopher formulates a pet logic, it's a new theory of mathematics". That is a nonsensical statement.

@SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands 3 жыл бұрын

oh dear, we got a walker....

@RemarMaxim 11 жыл бұрын

Waterboarding would be less torturous than this lecture.

@surendarvijay2520 6 жыл бұрын

The idea of hidden variables is how sudoku puzzles work. Wonder how "quantum" sudoku puzzles would look like?

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

I understand that. Physicists borrow from mathematicians all the time. For instance Hamilton's quaternions were ignored by physicists for years before a mathematically less powerful part of was nicked to form vector analysis, when it was needed. The converse is also true I suppose.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

No, you asked "what is philosophy". I told you that no one agrees on a precise definition. If you had asked what /I/ think philosophy is, I would have told you it is the systematic study of fundamental problems. But it has little if any application in advanced physics.

@ChiDraconis 11 жыл бұрын

actually since your reply sounds legit i am now to the status that i can work those probabilities independent of wakefullness of corpus-humanus ▬ trying now for flipping that to a conscious-state (self-aware) though that can really go nuke when P-P' are brought to 0-phase

@nicolo2428 3 жыл бұрын

as physicist i can say that any lecture that tries to explain entanglement by using colors or any other simple examples is more confusing than actually using mathematics

@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 3 жыл бұрын

_it's directed at non-physicists, bro_

@LaureanoLuna 11 жыл бұрын

Physicists need philosophers (or, rather, philosophy) to know what they are talking about: whether they are talking about phenomena (i.e.the way things appear to us) or about things in themselves. This is why Bohr and Heisenberg were inspired by Kant and by Neo-positivism. This is also why Mach, Poincare and Einstein produced the theory of Relativity based on Leibniz' and Kant's conception of space.

@merrittolsen 14 жыл бұрын

he doesn't really explain why you can't use the 2-2-2 position...

@robkim55 13 жыл бұрын

very good lecture and good explanation

@marklaney9252 4 жыл бұрын

IMHO Mermin thinks he's simplified things by using 1/2/red/blue instead of the actual properties. But instead it's way more confusing! It's abstracted away any hope of following the logic! As a bad analogy, it's like trying to explain a rocket flying through the air... but instead of showing the rocket you show red/ blue dots that represent the height and label1/label2 to represent near and far.... except you don't even tell the audience what red/blue,/label1/label2 even mean! I guess I'll decipher this talk by going back and cracking open his Boojum book.... (oh, bother)

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

That was my point, even if the foundations of pure mathematics are axiomatically shaky, physicists won't lose much sleep over it.

@johnboyd2564 11 жыл бұрын

Another great lecture

@thefranciswatts 11 жыл бұрын

I agree with Einstein and for the same reasons. quantum theory is bunk.

@invrnrv 12 жыл бұрын

You can't get that with classical waves, but if you study the waves in the brain, I bet you'll find virtual particles and in fact a whole virtual universe that is the person's subjective reality. The universe probably works in a similar way.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

Yes, because the sorts of methods philosophers employ are not useful or relevant to how we do physics, or science in general. As I said, no scientist ever needs to consult a philosopher to guide them in their work.

@quasipseudo1319 11 жыл бұрын

So we create our own reality by experincing it and get a or b because of our detector the brain ?

@trombone7 15 жыл бұрын

Einstein had a chuckle when a student at his lecture suggested 2 twins would be different ages if one spent a period of time travelling near the speed of light. Conversely, Einstein didn't chuckle when his own mathematics were extended to QntPhys and suggested that changing the spin of one electron would change another electron's spin instantly NO MATTER HOW FAR APART THEY ARE and faster than light. He also didn't like the 'statistical' nature of QPhysics. Read uncertain.

@YoutubSUCKZ 11 жыл бұрын

so at the end all detectors detected green and yellow?

@SaveTheFuture 11 жыл бұрын

Quantum mechanics does not require "God to play dice". That is an INTERPRETATION of quantum theory, and there are interpretations which allow for hidden variables, and scientists often make the terrible assumption that only non-deterministic interpretations are valid. I think that quantum entanglement is the result of the fabric of spacetime itself moving in a higher dimension, thus it does not technically exceed the speed of light. Although that could conflict with gravity traveling the spe

@pennyl.8799 11 жыл бұрын

Really? The computer you used to type your post relies on the princples of quantum mechanics.

@TheVincent0268 4 жыл бұрын

starts at 9:00

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

So being able to form a coherent argument is a philosophy now? Am I doing philosophy when I explain why I'm late for work? Is that subversively epistemological?The process itself is not problematic,the jargon is.Hence why formal philosophy is worthless to scientists, and science in general. Theoreticians are largely using mathematics in their work. That their work needs to be consistent is a banal truism, which is certainly a synonym for the kind of philosophy you're describing.

@gpcrawford8353 11 жыл бұрын

I have to agree with some of the comments this was not a goo d lecture. I am still none the wiser on this issue .

@wScott905 11 жыл бұрын

The people who already understand the EPR thought experiment used to counter Bohr's interpretation can't understand this lecture.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

Even philosophers don't agree on what philosophy actually is.

@ChiDraconis 11 жыл бұрын

working the Sheldrake thing i would crack a joke for forward-feed but this is a legit sponsor so will speculate - we see geologic as well as linguistic epicenters on what is known in traditional-accepted as Hellenic Studies - there is a collective-mind as well as a phasor-relation binding individual-entity with collective mind so what of the generation of course-of-civilization via collective-mind as tensor phased on nation and alliance.?

@jamesdolan4042 2 жыл бұрын

I am not there yet.

@LaureanoLuna 11 жыл бұрын

Why not?

@adam3141 10 жыл бұрын

This seminar would have been interesting had it not been boring - I know, right, they're opposites but in all seriousness it was hard to follow. I think there was just too much waffle interspersed with actual material. This seminar did however remind me of the lectures given by MIT. 8.04 which delves into quantum mechanics quite nicely - it uses "colour" and 'hardness" properties of electrons to describe the same principles.

@thrunsalmighty 10 жыл бұрын

The greatest ........... of the twentieth century? QM I agree with. But the novels of Thomas Mann? Never, The works of Captain WE Johnns must surely be accorded THAT honour. And Stravinsky? Hmmm! For me, the jury is still out.

@eefaaf 10 жыл бұрын

Biggles?

@MrKmanthie 10 жыл бұрын

The novelists, musicians/composers, etc. and their so-called "rankings" (dumb idea, anyway) is completely a matter of opinion. (Thomas Mann was no "greater" a writer than oodles of writers I could name; same w/Stravinsky, etc).

@jonetyson 9 ай бұрын

This lecture needs more polishing. The facts are right, but the presentation is a bit unpolished

@KazimirQ7G 10 жыл бұрын

Thanks a lot.

@RichardAlsenz 8 жыл бұрын

Just watched this. I guess he was there. Not sure, been tricked many times before. I think it is only statistically relevant, nonetheless.

@onurkara1380 8 жыл бұрын

What?

@woundedwomb 16 жыл бұрын

Einstein never did this!

@MrJdsenior 8 жыл бұрын

Got tired of the rambling and gave up about 26 minutes in. He had voiced about 3 minutes worth of material in that time. Reminds me why I NEVER want to go back to college.

@ZeroMass 6 жыл бұрын

He had to dumb it down, this is Berkeley post SJW influx after all..

@orbsandtea 13 жыл бұрын

There's steam pouring through my ears! Ugh... *leaves quantum physics and goes back to good old biology*

@arcitejack 5 жыл бұрын

A terrific presentation on how NOT to give presentations.

@fornax333 8 жыл бұрын

After listening from 39:20 Now I'm feeling left behind. ;)

@swinginonthefrontporcheliz4510 6 жыл бұрын

I've been patient over a decade please

@janklaas6885 Жыл бұрын

📍52:31

@taikoman 9 жыл бұрын

Terrible presentation. In trying to avoid using more technical (and specific) terminology, he ended up confusing the lay viewer more. It quickly became an endless stream of words repeated but seemingly without meaning: "1-color, 2-color, 1-color, detector, testing device, 2-color, 1-color, the thing, 1-color, detector, the thing, the stuff left behind, the thing, the stuff left behind, 2-color, test the stuff left behind, the thing..."

@ZoeTheCat 9 жыл бұрын

+John Ko Yeah I agree. It doesn't take all that much effort to simply use the word "Spin" without explaining what spin is in detail (as if we really KNEW). It is possible to dumb a thing down to the point where there is no longer information being provided.

@BRAIDERMAN 8 жыл бұрын

+John Ko - Well I got to 30 minutes into the presentation with not a single idea yet presented. Yes too many words and too much dumbing down for the audience.

@brunophilipsen2564 6 жыл бұрын

@ZeroMass 6 жыл бұрын

@@BRAIDERMAN its Berkeley after all..

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

No, physicists need mathematics to know what they are talking about. Sure, a little philosophy is perhaps required, but not the formalism used by philosophers, the endless categories and 'isms' and meaningless chewing around. Einstein developed the theory of relativity based on empirical and theoretical findings from other physicists, not philosophers. You may note that it is entirely incidental that some philosophers may have been on the right track, but many more haven't. Be consistent.

@edtronic 13 жыл бұрын

tap that arsh!

@RalphDratman 10 жыл бұрын

This presentation has too many diagrams and words. All these complicated thought experiments are not making anything easier to understand. At the core of these discussions about "spooky" effects is your feeling that what happens just isn't logical, it isn't right, it is not the way things ought to be. But the finding that is bothering you demonstrates very clearly that this IS the way things are. So you have learned that your expectations are not in accord with reality as we find it.

@kosterix123 8 жыл бұрын

lost me at 31:31

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

No, I'm attacking philosophers who think that their field has anything relevant to add to our body of knowledge from physics, or to any science. The character of natural law is not axiomatic. We actually have to go out and see how the world works for ourselves.

@JonFrumTheFirst 5 жыл бұрын

People who are competent to critique a lecture on a subject like this one do not spend their time on KZfaq - their time is too valuable. Me? I'm a hacker.

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

The 'pet logic' of your philosopher is irrelevant to mathematics. Mathematics works just as well regardless of the position you take on its ontology. More importantly, I wasn't talking about mathematics, but physics, and science more generally. Once more, we do not need philosophers muddying the waters with jargon and linguistic formalism.

@twstdelf 13 жыл бұрын

@dedalus have a youtube link for another one?

@adamwatson7669 11 жыл бұрын

I'm guessing your field of study is in foundational mathematics ;-)

@seditt5146 2 жыл бұрын

8:00 The reason that really smart guy had an issue with Quantum theory is because its bullshit :D . I mean, seriously, God does NOT play dice... No matter how much you all want to delude yourselves into believing you have free will you are simply looking at your inadequacies for measurement and ensuring freewill exist just below that. At the end of the day that is all it boils down to, a bunch of people searching for a way to introduce some sort of control of the universe where they mathematically could not see one before. They searched, and searched, and searched, all the way down, until they got to the smallest values they could possibly measure and JUST below those values is where free will and consciousness lay. Quantum theory is just a rehash of the God of the Gaps fallacy and people have ignored glaring errors in the standard model and QED in order to keep this delusion alive. All the real geniuses from back in the day knew and admitted renormalization was absolute absurdity and yet without it our entire house of cards collapses faster than a modern day Chinese sky scrapper.