Dr. Sean Carroll convinced me that the Copenhagen interpretation of why observation causes the quantum wave function to collapse is not credible. But my brain has a hard time transitioning to the many worlds hypothesis. I doubt our souped-up chimpanzee brains were made to cognitively acknowlege or grasp the possibility of an infinite number of universes. At least mine is not.
Greatest unsolved mysteries in physics
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
How did he convince you that it is not credible that the observation causes the collapse of a wave function?
By saying that no physicist who has expertise in quantum mechanics even believes the Copenhagen hypothesis anymore.
The Copenhagen hypothesis was just a temporary, stop-gap placeholder for something we do not really understand. It does not seem plausible that a particle could be in multiple places at the same time as a waveform, but collapses to one position and momentum when it is observed. That is just too spooky and makes no sense. Although I admit, the many worlds hypothesis might be even more mind-blowing!
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
Yeah.
Of course you know two things that is "spooky".
1. The double-slit experiment.
2. The uncertainty principle.
The third one might be related but spooky anyway - action at a distance.
Einstein hated quantum mechanics!
He really wanted the universe to be deterministic.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
In other words, he hated free will.
The concept of free will was too problematic for some.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I'd throw gravity in there too.
Unless I am mistaken, I think the hope for a quantum interpretation of gravity is part and parcel of a grand unified theory of forces - number 4 on my list. Supposedly, someday we can all of reality down to a single equation.
I will believe it when I see it.
In other words, he hated free will.
The concept of free will was too problematic for some.
Well, I am not going to be the one to bad mouth Einstein!
My current project is to understand the debate over the arrow of time.
There is no fundamental, underlying physical reality which dictates why time exists in the way we percieve it- today is different from yesterday, and tomorrow will be different than today.
Time is apparently just en expression of entropy consistently increasing in the universe. Entropy was smaller yesterday and it will be larger tomorrow.
The mystery is: why was the early universe after the big bang in such a low entropy state to begin with? How does a hot, dense pass of plasma and photons start out in a low entropy state?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Other mysteries which keep physicists awake at night
- Will we ever understand quantum mechanics?
Richard Feynman famously quipped that “I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. The situation has not fundamentally changed since Feynman’s time, but the question has become even more pressing. This is because no other scientific theory presents such an enormous gap between successful prediction and deep understanding as quantum mechanics. Starting in the 1970s, some of the most bizarre implications of quantum theory – most prominently the “spooky” (in Einstein’s words) phenomenon of entanglement – have been verified by precise experiments. Last year’s Nobel Prize was awarded in part for using these strange properties to trap ions and atoms.
And yet we have no clue how any of the fundamental facts of quantum mechanics including wave-particle duality, entanglement, quantum tunneling or the double-slit experiment – that disarmingly simple setup which, in Feynman’s words, contains “the only mystery of quantum mechanics” - actually work. The quantum world continues to be a fairyland that defies common sense and where anything can happen. For decades most physicists have used quantum mechanics, but nobody has convincingly shown us where it comes from. Einstein may have gone against the grain of experiment but he was right in feeling a decided sense of unease regarding the reality which the weird quantum universe encapsulates. Narrate the parable of Schrodinger's cat and you will be met with laughs and smirks, but the laughter cannot obliterate the deep anguish of physicists, a feeling that their most successful theory of nature is, at its deepest level, a hazy ball of mist.
- Will we ever understand emergence?
Eighty years ago Paul Dirac noted that the laws of physics as then understood could explain “most of physics and all of chemistry”. And yet we don’t understand how to make the logical leap from the behavior of a quark to the behavior of a strand of DNA composed of multitudes of quarks. Understanding emergent behavior may be the single most important goal for physicists if they want to understand how physics connects to other sciences and to the human world. Without a grasp of emergence physics will remain a narrowly understood and applied science, of scant use to other practitioners.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...s-that-should-keep-physicists-awake-at-night/
- Will we ever understand quantum mechanics?
Richard Feynman famously quipped that “I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. The situation has not fundamentally changed since Feynman’s time, but the question has become even more pressing. This is because no other scientific theory presents such an enormous gap between successful prediction and deep understanding as quantum mechanics. Starting in the 1970s, some of the most bizarre implications of quantum theory – most prominently the “spooky” (in Einstein’s words) phenomenon of entanglement – have been verified by precise experiments. Last year’s Nobel Prize was awarded in part for using these strange properties to trap ions and atoms.
And yet we have no clue how any of the fundamental facts of quantum mechanics including wave-particle duality, entanglement, quantum tunneling or the double-slit experiment – that disarmingly simple setup which, in Feynman’s words, contains “the only mystery of quantum mechanics” - actually work. The quantum world continues to be a fairyland that defies common sense and where anything can happen. For decades most physicists have used quantum mechanics, but nobody has convincingly shown us where it comes from. Einstein may have gone against the grain of experiment but he was right in feeling a decided sense of unease regarding the reality which the weird quantum universe encapsulates. Narrate the parable of Schrodinger's cat and you will be met with laughs and smirks, but the laughter cannot obliterate the deep anguish of physicists, a feeling that their most successful theory of nature is, at its deepest level, a hazy ball of mist.
- Will we ever understand emergence?
Eighty years ago Paul Dirac noted that the laws of physics as then understood could explain “most of physics and all of chemistry”. And yet we don’t understand how to make the logical leap from the behavior of a quark to the behavior of a strand of DNA composed of multitudes of quarks. Understanding emergent behavior may be the single most important goal for physicists if they want to understand how physics connects to other sciences and to the human world. Without a grasp of emergence physics will remain a narrowly understood and applied science, of scant use to other practitioners.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...s-that-should-keep-physicists-awake-at-night/
Can we see the cosmic neutrino background?
One of the holy grails of modern Big Bang cosmology would be to directly detect this background of cosmic neutrinos and antineutrinos, but that’s an enormous experimental challenge.
If we could detect the cosmic neutrino background, it would provide us with a fifth cornerstone for Big Bang cosmology, which would be another tremendous triumph for our understanding of the cosmos.
One of the holy grails of modern Big Bang cosmology would be to directly detect this background of cosmic neutrinos and antineutrinos, but that’s an enormous experimental challenge.
If we could detect the cosmic neutrino background, it would provide us with a fifth cornerstone for Big Bang cosmology, which would be another tremendous triumph for our understanding of the cosmos.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
In other words, he hated free will.
The concept of free will was too problematic for some.
Free will isn't really related to quantum indeterminancy, IMHO. Free will is the (possible illusion) that a conscious being can select their responses to stimuli (some research using fMRI shows this may be an illusion, that indeed there's evidence that some of our "decisions" are actually made before conscious thought about the decision...it's weird).
Quantum indeterminancy is more related to our ability to know a quantum state before measurement of said state. This shifts it over to a stochastic or statistical feature...not necessarily a "free will" related topic.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
And yet we know we are not robots.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
That's your problem. Einstein was a brilliant man but not perfect. He wasn't a "god" of any sort. It is even debatable that he was less of a mathematician than his first wife who may very well have done much of the heavy lifting in the mathematics he used in his Annus Mirabilis papers.
It is a healthy person who can look for the feet of clay on any given golden god.
Good luck.
Second Law of Thermo as you noted. Sure there's still a question of why but it's not that hard to understand when you take a hot cup of water out of the microwave. There's literally no reason for the hot item to absorb MORE heat from the cooler surroundings.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Not really. The fMRI studies seem to make us look more "robotic" than would be comfortable.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
And yet we are unable to simulate that behavior in AI.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
How can you be sure? I'm not even certain what that would look like or how we we would determine it. AI is very much like regular intelligence. It learns in nearly the EXACT SAME WAY you and I learn (from taking in information and creating mental models to act on that information). And even the scientists who work with AI are uncertain how it does it's "magic" or arrives at a given conclusion. Just like another human being. I have no idea how you arrive at conclusions in your mind...you are a "black box" to me, and vice versa.
As for "self-awareness", how would you even know if the AI was self-aware? I don't even know for certain that you are self-aware except that you have a physical brain like me and I know how mine works so I ASSUME you are like me. "Theory of Mind" and all that. But it's just a guess.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Interesting this troll changes his name constantly. Saint Guinefort is a punk.