There’s No Wave Function? | Jacob Barandes

In today’s episode, Jacob Barandes, a physicist specializing in quantum mechanics, explores groundbreaking ideas on measurement, the role of probabilistic laws, and the foundational principles of quantum theory. With a focus on interdisciplinary approaches, Jacob offers unique insights into the nature of particles, fields, and the evolution of quantum mechanics.

LINKS MENTIONED:

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Introduction
01:26 - Jacob's Background
07:32 - Pursuing Theoretical Physics
10:28 - Is Consciousness Linked to Quantum Mechanics?
16:07 - Why the Wave Function Might Not Be Real
20:12 - The Schrödinger Equation Explained
23:04 - Higher Dimensions in Quantum Physics
30:11 - Heisenberg’s Matrix Mechanics
35:08 - Schrödinger’s Wave Function and Its Implications
39:57 - Dirac and von Neumann's Quantum Axioms
45:09 - The Problem with Hilbert Spaces
50:02 - Wigner's Friend Paradox
55:06 - Challenges in Defining Measurement in Quantum Mechanics
01:00:17 - Trying to Simplify Quantum for Students
01:03:35 - Bridging Quantum Mechanics with Stochastic Processes
01:05:05 - Discovering Indivisible Stochastic Processes
01:12:03 - Interference and Coherence Explained
01:16:06 - Redefining Measurement and Decoherence
01:18:01 - The Future of Quantum Theory
1:24:09 - Foundationalism and Quantum Theory
1:25:04 - Why Use Indivisible Stochastic Laws?
1:26:10 - The Quantum-Classical Transition
1:27:30 - Classical vs Quantum Probabilities
1:28:36 - Hilbert Space and the Convenience of Amplitudes
1:30:01 - No Special Role for Observers
1:33:40 - Emergence of the Wave Function
1:38:27 - Physicists' Reluctance to Change Foundations
1:43:04 - Resolving Quantum Mechanics' Inconsistencies
1:50:46 - Practical Applications of Indivisible Stochastic Processes
1:57:53 - Understanding Particles in the Indivisible Stochastic Model
2:00:48 - Is There a Fundamental Ontology?
2:07:02 - Advice for Students Entering Physics
2:09:32 - Encouragement for Interdisciplinary Research
2:12:22 - Outro

TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Become a YouTube Member Here:

Other Links:

#science #sciencepodcast #physics #quantumphysics #theoreticalphysics

[TheoriesofEverything]

The double-slit experiment: Ultimately, what one actually measures in the double-slit experiment for electrons is a specific pattern of landing sites for the electrons. If only one electron at a time is sent into the double-slit apparatus, then over many repetitions of the experiment, one sees a pattern of pointlike landing sites that collectively resemble the peaks and valleys of a wave, much as a pointillist painting looks like a clear picture when seen from a distance. Curiously, this pattern of landing sites changes starkly if a particle-detector is placed near the slits.

It is true that the textbook Schrödinger-wave formulation, when combined with the collapse postulate, gives an intuitively satisfying narrative for these results. Of course, to make this intuitive narrative work out, one needs to put aside the mysterious nature of the collapse postulate, and one needs to pretend that the Schrödinger wave function lives in three-dimensional physical space, rather than in three-dimensional configuration space.

But the same empirical pattern of landing sites also follows from treating the whole system as an indivisible stochastic process, without wave functions or collapses, as I show in the papers.

Moreover, if two particles at a time are sent into the double-slit apparatus, rather than just one, then the Schrödinger wave function becomes a function on a six-dimensional configuration space, so the Schrödinger-wave formulation loses a lot of its intuitive, easy-to-visualize advantage anyway. It's hard to say that Schrödinger wave functions in six-dimensional configuration space are any more intuitive than an indivisible stochastic process.

To be clear, when going from systems consisting of particles to systems consisting of fields, there is an entirely different notion of waves that shows up. The waves of a field do, in fact, live in three-dimensional physical space. But these are not Schrödinger wave functions, and they do not collapse.

Bell's theorem and other no-go theorems: All theorems begin from starting assumptions, or premises. For a no-go theorem in physics, these premises take physical ideas and phrase them in mathematical language. But then the conclusion of the no-go theorem is only as strong as the theorem's premises.

Bell's theorem, along with the EPR paradox, the GHZ theorem, and related results, like Remote Entanglement Swapping, all take as premises some combination of wave-function collapse, a so-called "interventionist" conception of cause-and-effect based on "agents, " or more nuanced concepts like Reichenbach's principle of common causes. These premises are all defeasible, meaning open to reconsideration and revision. Without these premises, the no-go theorems fall apart.

In an indivisible-stochastic formulation of quantum theory, without collapses, and without a special role for "agents" carrying out special acts called "measurement interventions, " there is no reason to invoke these premises, and the no-go theorems become questionable at their roots.

Then, empirically speaking, all one has are measurements of results at various locations in space, at various times, with various kinds of statistical correlations between them. But without appropriate premises about causation, there is no obvious way to talk about whether those results contain causes that produce effects in a nonlocal way.

The basic ingredients of an indivisible stochastic process are directed conditional probabilities, which turn out to provide alternative ingredients for defining a basic notion of causation. This alternative notion of causation leads to changes in the premises. Under the new premises, the old no-go theorems don't obviously apply anymore, and there is an opening for defining a new notion of local causality satisfied by quantum systems, as explored in my papers."

[palfers]

As a 75 year old retiree with a physics degree who has spent his career in engineering, I feel so lucky to have reached 2024 and to have the opportunity to experience talks such as this one. Thanks Curt for all you do! And thanks to Jacob for opening this new doorway.

[famistudio]

This is my new favorite episode.

I never heard of Jacob, but he's an amazing communicator. He explain things clearly and takes the time to give historical context to everything, even sometimes slowing down Curt to do so :).

He's also pretty humble about his work, not pretending everyone should adopt his framework immediately.

[Gastropodix]

Jacob Barandes is so clear, eloquent and precise when he talks. As other commenters have said, an absolutely excellent communicator. This is one of the best physics talks I've ever heard.

[wTfuuuuuCk]

I love that Curt lets the person answer and doesn't interrupt! So many interviewers interrupt their guests constantly. Great interview so far!

[keithjones]

He is a good teacher. He's building his student up by encouraging him to ask what he doesn't understand. He breaks down the information and thinks of ways to make what he is saying relatable. He doesn't belittle his student. There's no superior attitude or trying to use jargon to shut down the conversation. He is excited about the subject and encourages the student to be excited, as well. I know its an interview...but he is teaching and the interviewer is learning. This is awesome!

[johnnyespinoza]

This is absolutely fascinating! Curt is rising up the ante of what a scientific podcast needs to be: the necessary level of details and complexity as to attract field experts and non-knowledgeable people -as me- minus all the presumptuous talk. Jacob Barandes’ way of explaining ideas is marvelous. If the subject is controversial or not is out of question. The way he talks, the clarity of his ideas is nothing sure of entertaining. Kudos to both of you gentlemen!

[catherinegrimes]

This is a remarkable interview by a gifted scientist who is a very polite and talented communicator.
As someone who has never been happy with the current theories of QM, this gave me hope that form of QM could be developed without the philosophy and voodoo.

[joshuadonahue]

I know the lengthy background explanation might have been tedious for the more advanced watchers, but for a novice like myself the history was new and extremely interesting. Even though research may be his true passion, Dr. Barandes seems to be an excellent teacher

[illogicmath]

Wow, I'm only at minute 42, and the interviewee has already told Curt three times that his question was excellent. This podcast is definitely the best in this TOE niche.

[timetravellingtoad]

If Curt asks a question from inside a proofed box while Jacob is outside it, can Jacob assume that the question was excellent? That is the question.
Without overusing the word, Jacob is clearly an excellent speaker, teacher and thinker!

[oncedidactic]

This episode really shows your best side as an interviewer and a channel. Well done! And thank you to Professor Barandes, wonderful speaker! Hope to see him again soon, with the blackboard 🙂

[Sally.A.C]

How many times did I hear ‘that’s a great question ’, “that’s an excellent question” and even a “that’s an interesting question”. Love Kurt's interviews

[PathfinderPhysics]

"Indivisible non-markovian stochastic law? Wtf are you talking about?"
"That's an EXCELLENT question."

[TerryNails]

I don't understand anything about physics but I came away from this with a much more expanded view and greater understanding of the field. This guy must be an incredibly fantastic teacher to have. 👍

[JasonAStillman]

Curt, you are a fantastic interviewer, so sharp. Just love listening. Your podcast is such a gift. Thanks.

[aswichublaichusi]

Never loved the romanticism of wave functions, mystical measurements, funky cats nor many worlds. I recently found about Relational Quantum Mechanics and this approach by Jacob Barandes is the next logical step in really understanding Quantum Mechanics. Feels like Einstein, Feynman and others were right, it's taking us a little over a hundred years to understand QM. But it does feel like Rovelli and Barandes are bringing us closer. Fantastic video, Curt and Jacob. Thank you!

[mg]

One of the best things I've seen in forever. Very, very well done. Great guest, great interviewer!

[Scalettadom]

Haha, I used to help out with the Science Honors Program when I was at Columbia. I studied physics and math, and Prof. Blaer was my prof for Mechanics and he was our undergrad adviser. He was genuinely one of the best professors I've ever had, and was also one of the most kind and caring profs I've ever had. He took every question very seriously as an adviser and as a teacher, and I truly feel grateful having had the opportunity to learn from him.

I also got to take a course in the philosophy department there by David Albert on the measurement problem. Amazing course!

[kirchdubl]

1:13:11 this is profound "Nice Schrödinger equation, where the evolution is divisible, it's nice differential equations, in going to that picture that looks divisible you have to give something up. That indivisibility doesn't disappear. It becomes those weird phases, interference, coherence" . What a enlightening presentation !!!