Laura Mersin-Houghton - Physics of the Observer

preview_player
Показать описание

Does the concept of observation have deep relevance in fundamental physics? What about in quantum physics where some kind of observation seems to be needed to transform “wave function” probabilities into actual events? What’s an “observation” anyway? What does it take to be an “observer”? Must it have some kind of sentience?


Laura Mersini-Houghton is an Albanian-American cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one of many. She argues that anomalies in the current structure of the universe are best explained as the gravitational tug exerted by other universes.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

#WomenInSTEM #Physics
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I am astonished to see so few people who are interested in subjects of such relevance as what we are watching now. makes a video talking about any celebrity and millions of people will watch it.

luiscarreiro
Автор

Not that the source I am about to quote is the perfect or ultimate arbiter of this issue, but according to Wiki:

“Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, ....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse.”

In other words, decoherence might be able to explain why objects are separate from each other, but it does not explain why or how they are transformed from waving fields of information into positionally-fixed, three-dimensional phenomena suspended in a spatial dimension.

Hence, the possible need for the existence of consciousness to complete the process of explicating phenomena from “Kantian-like” noumena in a way that is metaphorically similar to how a laser explicates a three-dimensional object from the information held in the photographic plate of a laser hologram.

TheUltimateSeeds
Автор

She is always very easy to listen to and understand. Great interview.

echadmiyodea
Автор

"An observer is a living individual who observes, reflecting on and describing his observations, in accordance with the laws of nature associated with his observation system" (this is from my article "Fundamental physics").
Also we have, "The observation system is the fundamental physical reference system".

kimsahl
Автор

We are ‘observing’ and measuring the origin of the universe now through the James Webb telescope for example?

grosey
Автор

Side stepped is right! You cannot observe without interacting, period. Even the famous double slit. You can’t “see” a photon go by through a slit without having it interact with something. That interaction creates a new wave function entity so to speak. If you take this new wave function entity and send it through another double slit it will interfere with itself again, they have done experiments to show it. So the wave function doesn’t “collapse” it just changes. Wave functions don’t go away, they just change. For some reason physicists just don’t want to clarify this, I’m sure they understand it. Schroedinger’s cat is either alive or dead since it’s wavefunction has continuously interacted with other molecules already a zillion times.

brutusl
Автор

The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment proves that atoms go back to being waves when we're not looking at them and that an observation made now can effect things in the distant past.Therefore a person can look out inTo the universe now and by doing so collapse the wave functions of the atoms made in the big bang.

Sharperthanu
Автор

Kind of supervenience relationship between the long wavelength as an observer and the shorter wavelengths on top of it being observed

Robinson
Автор

She's right, once we go full waves, it's not easy to describe what is a box, what's inside it or where did it came from. It's just another box inside a larger box and so on, like those Russian dolls. Wave looks like ~. Dot is a part of symbol, waving doesn't end after sinusoid complete a frequency cycle. And why is not just flat -? Question mark is there for a purpose, waviness might appear flat from one point of view, while waving from another at the same time. Whatever time is in a wave world.
One problem is, does distinctive object end with here and now state. I can see an object on a table, it's round and complete form, connected, but separated from table and rest of the universe. It's hard to imagine that 3D object can exist back in past and extend into the future. It's all waves dreaming about objects that are just waves. It's waves all the way down! Exclamation mark is there for a purpose . on the bottom means we're in a constant free fall.
Physical time has no direction, there is no end of The Flat Universe, end of dimensionallity doesn't exist. It's all around us, past space and future space are one and the same, things just copy cut paste themselves trough a process called wave function. We can't even imagine how free we are in this all mighty and all powerful, ever present existence.

xspotbox
Автор

Is there an observer in quantum fields / wave function?

jamesruscheinski
Автор

energy observation measures quantum wave function and expands space?

jamesruscheinski
Автор

What might be an infinite observer making infinitesimal measurements?

jamesruscheinski
Автор

Could graviton particles / gravity be observer making measurements on quantum and electromagnetic fiels?

jamesruscheinski
Автор

As soon as I heard assumed I became suspicious as when humans assume we are normally 'filling' and once we fill we make observational errors. So we have to be very cautious to 'truth'. The observer 'problem' in quantum physics could be simply consciousness itself as 'apparently' nothing is faster than the speed of light (until we find one that is) however, in the observer 'problem' that is 'untrue' through probability and the way particles 'appear' to react (using probability) after the observer ceases to observe them .... Confusing? I think they possibly could end up confusing themselves. Things are how they are.

stephennixey
Автор

Requires a different type of mind to contemplate quantum mechanics. Some of these ideas are so non intuative, yet somehow they make sence. I think !

trespire
Автор

If mathematics describes, and maybe observes, nature / physical reality before human consciousness, would that mean that mathematics is independent of human invention?

jamesruscheinski
Автор

Why all are very hard to understand when there is an easiest way to explain what is the beginning of the universe. My explanation is infinity the only question to be discussed is there any other observer rather than our universe, if the question is yes that to be concluded that we are composed of multiverse. So we can conclude that we are not alone.

Sunny_Ray
Автор

How can they assume there is no observer in the early stages of the universe ?

jairofonseca
Автор

So..you are saying..I can and will win lotto???

Aluminata
Автор

Of course, if this is a cloaked simulation, which seems logical, then the "observer" has always been there. This might "not be scientific" as Sabine Hossenfelder might say...but going this deep means being open to possibilities that our current understanding cannot grasp...or measure.

chester-chickfunt