Quantum Mechanics Makes No Sense Roger Penrose #quantum #physics #shorts

Roger Penrose believes Quantum Mechanics makes no sense. Penrose has quite a bit more perspective than the average starting scientist. To get to the bottom of it all, he insists, physicists must force themselves to grapple with the greatest riddle of them all: the relationship between the rules that govern fundamental particles and the rules that govern the big things—like us—that those particles make up. In his powwow with Discover contributing editor Susan Kruglinksi, Penrose did not flinch from questioning the central tenets of modern physics, including string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.

Related topics: quantum entanglement #physics #quantum #interview #universe #quantummechanics #quantumphysics #darkmatter #darkenergy #bigbang #mathematics #maths

For educational purposes only. No copyrights infringements intended.

[isaackellogg]

“If you aren’t completely confused by quantum mechanics, you don’t understand it.”—Neils Bohr

[pmboston]

This man is brilliant and you can’t expect to fit what he is saying in a YouTube short.

[DriftingMunki]

Need to go work on Wave Collapse Theory, brb

[coder-x]

Collatz conjecture describes the wave function collapse accidentally. It’s a model for decoherence and likely a fundemental cosmological invariant like the wave function itself is. And if applied to the transition from probabilism to determinism, may imply gravitons are emitted during the collapse of the wave function. Which would all but prove string theory as gravitons (unconfirmed) are central to it. It also insinuates that blackholes are misunderstood to some degree but also describable from scales beyond cosmological, in that they can be seen as a massive quantum system that shares or shared a single wave function, as does happen to as few as 2 entangled particles. Hawking radiation is therefore not just any old radiation, it’s a massive emission of gravitons. Which in fact may be our only means of testing the extraordinary weakness of gravity at the ‘quantum’ level. Studying blackholes from a distance to see if the hawking radiation has a gravitational force that can’t otherwise be explained. Existing experiments on hawking radiation may have already confirmed it without our identifying the implication.

[francisxavierderyzunuo]

I don’t think we have the technology to solve Quantum mechanics, it’s something beyond us at the moment and the only way we can work our way up to understanding and solving it, will require a lot of time and at least a century
of scientific and technological advancements.

Cos breaking down every single particle into its individual atoms is something we can’t get to know how at the moment.

While this could all change over time due to the discoveries or inventions of new theories, I still think it’s not going to be anytime before the year 2100.

[JasonWalsh-qz]

NO ONE CONTROLS QUANTUM MECHANICS OR THE HIGGS. OW!!! OUCH!!!❤

[GabrielHR]

Art... The creative expression of thought waves made manifest... They need more artists, but that's rare.

[scottychen]

I agree this would be extremely practical for those of us who only have arguments.

I bet these strings vibrate good.

[innerlocus]

The collapse of the wave function is as if the universe is on a holodeck.

[lonelycubicle]

Would like to know where he places spooky action at a distance

[mysourcessay]

The problem is the more math we solve the more questions are produced. Think.. at one point we didnt have negative numbers or 0. As we add those to the math it changes and a million questions arise. Thus the progression of mathematics...Now were at a point where the mathematics we have are just the equivalent of the numberline without 0 and negative numbers. We are missing 2/3s of the equations for it to make more sense... equations that we have no reason to even think about without some vast philosophical transfomation ..then we will again have the same problem.. we will jump forward into a larger darkness by which nothing makes sense.

[HeavyMetal]

Penrose is 100% correct in saying that quantum mechanics is not the right theory overall in terms of the collapse of the wave function. However, I believe that God’s work really shows it’s footprint at this level and idk if it’s something we’ll ever be able to completely understand.

[CODEDSOUNDS]

im just gonna smoke this blunt then ill start doodling

[angelalongo]

There is a man who explained it perfectly his name is Dr Milo Wolfe and his book is Schrodinger's Universe he deserves two Nobel prizes for his theory and work you would be very happy to read his book and my books Dr Angela Longo as I use his theories and have amazing results with people.

[squamish]

I really did not ever expect Roger Penrose to appear in a YouTube short. Quantum mechanics doesn't really fit into a short :D

[johnlay]

I don't think the QM has ever claimed to be able to explain the reality. It is just a very good tool for handling the micro world which is not behaving the way our logic expects.

[davidrandell]

QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie, Planck, Bohr etc.

[benzianabdelkader]

Collapse or don't collapse, really we live in multiverse? I think that, because I am healthy but I live a weakness, that for the energy conservation I think that I live happy in other world, but the contact between the m
ultiverse is not possible, I think that I can't enjoy with my health

[edwardlewis]

The trouble is about distinguishing the MATH from the REALITY.
USE the MATH to determine what experiments to perform.
You don't need to "UnDeRsTaNd" reality: it's described by MATH.
- USE the MATH to find out the weird phenomenon
- do EXPERIMENTS to confirm the weird results
- APPLY the RESULTS to real world usefullness.
- the next centuries children will just grow up "knowing" this stuff.

[scottychen]

Bro, there are many things that yield internal mathematical contradiction:

If this is about Quantum Mechanics this should be about the world view of quantum mechanics: namely, what is the mechanics involved in e.g. entanglement that is explicitly a Quantum mechanical nature: where is there a blinking on and off of some entity’s ontological status- a measure of whether it is there or not.


You should be critical of Joe Rogan’s DMT experiences: an ontologically infrequent event of awakening should have happened that one could potentially derive from his honest experience of it.


A mathematical constant - as this is most seriously the only exact thing that corresponds to the imprecise term: ‘collapse’ - of something is seriously requiring deep pure mathematical assumptions of smoothness in the land of ‘only contradictions’ : as this indeed could be be the only thing mathematics truly studies - through use of the empirical notion of ‘transformation’, also known as ‘function’: contradictions.


So I’m not sure anything here contradicts a quantum mechanical worldview: where some thing’s ontological vibration of an entity is truly being read and interpreted through the statistical probability density.


A worldview of density could be something in its own right as not a priori distinguishable from ‘lighter matter’. In particular you have no right to be critical whatsoever of a world view involving angelic presences. Your particular concepts of formation

- one is reminded of Godel in that I can’t know exactly the classification of homotopy -

explicitly don’t allow for this, in that out of all the concepts in physics, only the quantum mechanical one of ontological status and hence statistically observed vibration would characterize their reality and especially this kind of consciousness. It’s not just ‘lighter matter’ in the sense of this being a characteristically gravitational phenomena. So no criticizing angels for you

- not someone who observes them.
If a characteristically non-conscious physics is observed that’s greater in length scale than that of an electron, then this could most possibly erase an explicit necessity to limit the canonical assumption of ‘small scale’ from the sought after empirically statistical data, where one can then infer mechanics.

So this truly is something of an inappropriate nature given the opportunity.


You had the opportunity of distilling honesty from something that should seriously be a true ontological vibration:

A DMT awakening.


Instead, one is now obliged to distill what quantum mechanics you actually understand from this stuff that is riddled with insecurity - as paradox is not necessarily anything that is a sincere inconsistency: serious results regarding the type of algebra one can pure logically impose onto a geometry exist that are arbitrarily irrelevant to the reality. They are results with respect to what is geometry and what is algebra over the geometry.

e.g. the proof by contradiction of a reimann surface being necessarily orientable. And what? Does a surface care whether there’s an atlas of homeomorphism as opposed to holomorphism?


I refer you to the result of orientation of a geometry being truly different upon choice of smoothness with respect to complex analysis as opposed to real analysis.



What is ‘dz = dx +i*dy’?

And isn’t the real line itself a paradox itself analytically? Due to Cantor.



Pure mathematical paradox is not sincere inconsistency a priori.