98. Tim Maudlin | Physics

Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at New York University, and his work has focused on the foundations of physics and science more generally, metaphysics, and logic.

00:00 - Introduction
01:58 - Quantum mechanics as a theory
08:18 - Shut up and calculate
12:20 - Wave-function realism
20:07 - What the wave-function represents
23:08 - Ontology
28:22 - Fields
33:38 - Probabilities
41:11 - Many-worlds
45:36 - Simplicity
48:18 - Recovering probabilities
52:07 - Preferred approach
56:26 - Pilot wave theory
1:05:41 - Manifest image
1:09:04 - Other ways of talking
1:14:47 - Scientific anti-realism
1:18:00 - Anti-realism and physics
1:21:46 - Modality
1:27:36 - Metaphysical possibility
1:32:48 - Essences
1:34:25 - Fundamentality
1:38:58 - Concepts
1:42:34 - Vagueness
1:51:17 - Making language precise
1:53:38 - Classical logic
1:54:22 - Value of philosophy
1:58:38 - Conclusion

[patrickirwin]

Can't get enough of his clear expositions.

[HeronMarkBlade]

I just want to say Sir Maudlin. The guy is a paladin, in the service of reason.

[jeffwyss]

Maudlin mentions the accidental discovery of the charm quark at SLAC by Richter who performed the fine energy scan with the electron-positron collider. The story is told very well by Crease and Mann in their 1987 book "The Second Creation"

[jeffwyss]

Maudlin is great. The interviewer is annoyingly mediocre; can't even speak.

[johnrichardson]

I have three sets of tiles. One set is made of wood. One is made of ceramic. One is made of metal. Because they are all are cut into the shaoes of Penrose tiles, they all can aperioducally tile the lobby of the Burlington County NJ Animal Shelter. This is alear case of the properties of macroscopic objexts reducing to geometry and NOT reducing to physics.

Biologic systems can sometimes metabolize one version of a complex molecule but can't metabolize molecules made of the same constituent elements in the same basic pattern but of opposite chirality.

The notion that all physical phenomena reduce to quantuk theory is horse hockey.

[Galoxieview]

A monist physical theory would break particles down into a universal continuous substance, the way e=mc2 does.

[techteampxla]

I love the wave function question and discussion. I learn something new every day from Prof. Maudlin, he’s an amazing teacher. Dr. Maudlin thank you for your time ! If time did not exist then nothing would have motion ? Thing would be so still nothing would have functions or momentum in the universe. Isn’t it literally expanding so much human consciousness even after thousands of years of evolution can’t even fathom it’s motions and mechanics? Doesn’t this also mean that some problems can’t be solved today, maybe instead of our outside community being selfish in the now, if we plan for the far future we can get a boost, and make failure into possible progress for future generations. Thanks Friction !

[tenbear]

Yes, it was all derailed after Copenhagen & has stagnated since. The Standard Model is hidious.

[KipIngram]

47:58: I just have one question for those guys who push the kind of EM theory you're talking about here. After the energy leaves the antenna, and before it reaches the receiver, where is it? How about the momentum? Is conservation of those things just *violated* during that interval of time?

[psmoyer]

This talk about what is at the foundation of reality is always interesting, especially as you’ve invoked the Heaviside/FitzGerald belts and pulleys. To me, Maxwell’s description of aether as made of particles, moving in all different directions at the speed of light, never bumping into one another, always seemed ideal.

But knowing what we know now, aether, re-designed as the quantum vacuum, has to be so much more.
Entangled particles need to have an FTL connection
Every Standard Model particle has to behave probabilistically
Photons have to travel at C according to each and every observer
Particles have to pop in and out of existence
Each particle needs to be one size in empty space and a singularity at birth and in a black hole
The list goes on and on.

Wouldn’t it be cool if every quantum particle was just the space it defined…nothing more than a point, that point being a simple mathematical definition, with nearly instantaneous motion. The motion of that point would define its space that macroscopically, looks like a probabilistic quantum particle.

And even empty space itself: corpuscles defined by FTL points. Taken together make fields. That would be fun!

[George]

I use a visualization of the space in which the Schrodinger equation exists.
A vector space of possibilities with magnitude of probability. It provides the gradients down which all things go. Psi a wave within this space influenced by all the other fields. It sorta works for me. Your mileage may vary.

[SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.

String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?

What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957–8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)

The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?

When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.

Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.

Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.

Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?

Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?

Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons

. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.

Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )

The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.

Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.

In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.

1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface

137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.

The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)

How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?

I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.

[johnrichardson]

Some of this reminds me of the distinction in statistics between definitional formulas which clearly represent what a particular statistic fundamentally is vs algebraically equivalent formulas used in calculation to simplify computstion, refuce rounding error, etc.

Which is real? At one level, it makes no sense to say that one of two algebraixally equivalent formulas is mote real than the other. They are the same thing. At the level of statistical explication, howevever, the definitionsl firmula is more explanatory and hooks up easily to probability theiry. On the level of computational approximstion, on the third hand, the algebraically compact formula gives more rapid and more accurate results.

It helps to pay attention to what exactly you are asking when youvare asking which model is more real.

[UnMoored_]

*The key quantum mechanical section begins* at 37:01, with the critical ideas from John Bell begin at 38:31 _“this is a point again that Bell very beautifully insisted on in a paper he called the theory of local Beables …”_

[scenFor]

It's as if space is made of minute deep gravitational wells that evaporate at the surface. If so then movement, of information, is teleportation from one gravitational engine to another.

[TheDudeKicker]

Tim's insights interspersed with a bunch of "uhms"

[bryanbenaway]

I don’t get the ontological, or lack thereof, arguments against QM as a physical theory. It describes the way the physical universe is and its structure has predicted and otherwise lead to an unbelievable amount of physical apparatus and technology that is used in our macroscopic frame. Who says the universe must be constructed in such a way that we should be able to understand it by drawing analogies to phenomenon we witness macroscopically? As it turns out, it’s impossible to describe using those kinds of analogies and only a mathematical framework can possibly ever be used by humans to understand the physical universe at these microscopic scales.

[bishwajitbhattacharjee-xmxp]

A ever green view of Tim video. The question has good philosophy that decide the topic. QM is no doubt a mathematical model which sets an electron cloud a charged function a neutral feeling. This mathematical object made up with infinite probability peaks to makeup the space. Like mathematical physics operation Lagrangian and Lagrangian point onto space many mathematical objects appears /evolved into​ the Hemiltonion space. Being similar to themodynamic flows it carries the value of statistical significance the electron gas .
The many world nicely highlighted as amplifier. Is charge of the function a measurement parameters. Act of collapse is a verbal significance, what happens to charge? Dirac's has the distinction.But no philosophy.

[bygabop]

38:43 Tim, try your arguments forgetting about the Schrodinger wave function and focusing on Heisenberg observables. Suddenly, quantum theory appears as local and realistic.

[KipIngram]

1:00:20: Yes, but let's actually *talk about* the attempts to extend pilot wave theory to a relativistic version. I'm no expert, but what I've *heard* is that this is quite problematic. And if it can't be extended, it can't be right. It's not something you can just hum and look the other way on. Just having the non-relativistic version look happy and nice isn't enough.