Tim Maudlin: Ontological Clarity, Electromagnetism and the Aharanov-Bohm Effect (EmQM17)

Tim Maudlin (New York University, USA) about "Ontological Clarity, Electromagnetism and the Aharanov-Bohm Effect" at the Emergent Quantum Mechanics 2017 (EmQM17) Symposium sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund at the University of London (UK).

EmQM17 was the 4th International Symposium about Quantum Mechanics based on a "Deeper Level Theory".

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

OTHER PLAYLISTS/EVENTS/PRESENTATIONS:

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

© Fetzer Franklin Fund

FETZER FRANKLIN FUND:

[Mentat]

I think Maudlin is one of the most brilliant men alive, and the clearest thinker on problems of Physics since John Bell.

[Belgium_citizen]

I studied physics. This is a very important lecture, that is not yet fully appreciated by mainstream physics community, but it will. One cannot deny the choice of gauge, being the nonlocal one as physical. It is high time to rewrite text books. Aharanov and bohm indeed deserve applause. Maudlin for seeing the big picture. Very grateful for the insights he brings.

[mylittleelectron]

I initially clicked the thumbnail to find out why Tim maudlin was giving a physics talk in a cornfield. Even though it turned out not to be so, I enjoyed the talk immensely.

[maahhkusful]

I can't tell if this guy is a genius or really committed to hating math. Either way, I'm on board

[billbyrd]

30:27 "There are obviously two-dimensional objects. But I won't get into that." Isn't this a symptom of the very ontological ambiguity he is trying to expunge? "Object" is a term of ontology, and "two dimensional" is a term of mathematical structure, e.g., a Euclidean geometry. No one has ever handed me a two-dimensional object. Hand me a square, and you are actually handing me a piece of e.g., cardboard in the shape of a square that has some thickness, even if only a millimeter thick. Even when I slip on ice, I am slipping on a layer of water molecules at least a few nanometers thick (i.e., I am interacting with a three-dimensional object). A two-dimensional object is NOT a beable, its a mathematical abstraction. All beables are three dimensional.

[EzraAChen]

Who is this guy a hoax ? A lot of artifact he contrives to show how smart he is ??!!

[KipIngram]

This is an outstanding video. I watched it once before some years ago, but didn't really "get the point." I think I got it this time, and it's very well done. I would really be interested in seeing more about what can be done with this "foliation" Dr. Maudlin refers to near the end - particular with respect to how it could assist us in developing a relativistic version of pilot wave theory.

[gxfprtorius]

This problem with ill-defined concepts represented by mathematical symbols was there from the beginning i physics. Newton knew that. He knew, that the concepts of force and mass told us nothing about what the world is. (edit, spelling)

[indio]

Go read revolutions of the heavenly bodies. He is wrong about Copernicus not having simply a mathematical theory. It pretty much explicitly says it.

"For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the
celestial motions through careful and expert study. Then he must conceive and
devise the causes of these motions or hypotheses about them. Since he cannot in
any way attain to the true causes, he will adopt whatever suppositions enable the
motions to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry for the future as
well as for the past. The present author has performed both these duties
excellently. For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable. "

[KipIngram]

41:00: That's bothersome to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't choosing a gauge much like choosing a right handed or left handed cross product convention? What would cause the gauge to just suddenly change in practice? Physically, I mean? Are we to look at the gauge freedome as an un-driven physical thing that can just randomly drift around?

[tehnik]

Tbh I kinda wish he kind of addressed what the electric field really *is*. I mean, he’s on the right path by questioning whether “it’s some vector field” is really a good answer, but then he doesn’t really go farther with it.

[CarlosElio]

In a convoluted way, Tim seems to be talking about the Kantian trinity. His canonical Commentary is the Semiotics required for communication.
Physik: Things with attributes
Logik: Relationships among things
Ethik: Consequences of the relationships
"All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts."
John Locke

[johnnygate]

He makes much too much fuss about Curl, as if it is something mysterious. And too much fuss about the right hand rule. The right hand rule is just a convention, that is all. You could do physics with a left hand rule if you wanted.

[danielackles]

I watched this video the other day and I literally can not stop thinking about it. Maudlin is breath taking in his logic and his words are like poetry. 🤣It is like a comedy that he was rushed at all speaking on such profound 🤯 subject matter.

[dhnguyen]

Mathematics is just another language like French or English. Maths is just more rigorous and less ambiguous than the verbal spoken language. If you can’t express the physics theory in Maths, it is either impossible in any spoken language.

[CrichtonChristian-lj]

Lopez Barbara Lee Jessica Rodriguez Cynthia

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

The potential for your mathematics equations is formed by the geometry of a process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking. The Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The two dimensional surface of the sphere forms a manifold for positive and negative charge. This process forms the potential for evermore abstract maths, and this is the problem! Therefore, the electron is squared e² and the speed of light c² the speed of the process, causality, for the same geometrical reason.

[jamesbolivardigriz]

you're gonna love clifford algebra. and you're gonna really love iterants :)

[calebmorgan]

great talk. Watching close-up screen as he paces like a caged tiger makes me sea-sick. no stable point as the shrubbery flies by.

[samiloom]

من تنطع الوهابية يريدون ان يحرموا قراءة القرآن اكثر من مرة اعوذ بالله ان اكون من الجاهلين