Why Quantum is Not Quite Right | Roger Penrose | Nobel Prize Winnner 2020

Mathematical Physicist Roger Penrose explains quantum mechanics and what is not quite right about current understandings of quantum theory.

#penrose #reality #quantum #conciousness

Roger Penrose: Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science, and 2020 Nobel Prize winner. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. He is author of The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a comprehensive guide to the Laws of Physics, as well his own theory on the Penrose Interpretation.

For more from Roger Penrose watch:

DELVE DEEPER

[samrowbotham]

His brother Jonathan still holds the record for winning the British Chess Championship the most number of times. With all these narratives they seem to be making them up so the question is does reality in some way correspond with the minds of these people.

[holliswilliams]

This win of the Nobel Prize by Penrose is extremely inspirational for physicists all over the world who are just starting their careers and a reminder that they should spurn fashion and focus on what they think is interesting and what they are passionate about.

[DavidporthouseCoUk]

For the purpose of computer simulation, a simple alternative to quantum mechanics is to replace the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by the Furth Uncertainty Principle for all objects heavier than the Planck mass, which is classical Brownian motion in other words. This alternative model will need to make use of a random number generator, so we can guess at once that it will be an improvement. The pattern that we see emerging in the two slit experiment is just the interaction of the Dirac equation with classical Brownian motion of the screen, and falls within range of our model. The model lacks a Vernam cipher, so it cannot deal with Bell's Theorem, but there is possibly plenty that it can deal with. It would need a much more powerful computer than the one in use at the moment, but it is definitely not beyond the possibility of implementation. The model has some resemblance to ideas about decoherence, but the randomness is considered to be intrinsic to the screen and not merely a product of handwaving arguments about coarse graining.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Quantum entanglement can be explained by a geometrical process if light radiates out in all directions forming spherical geometry. When the wave surface comes in contact with something it will form photons that have spin or polarization that is the same for the whole spherical surface at the same moment in time. This can be based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says, “Every point on a wave front has the potential for a new spherical wave”.

[monaritadash]

Love you always Sir Roger Penrose . You are my inspiration and I too want to be an Astronomer . I have also been learning Astronomy since 2 years and u will be surprised to know that I am only 14 yrs still I understand the entire Quantum Mechanics

[trashvomitarts]

That "chalk" is in 2 places at once, if the measurement of "time" is removed.

Human consciousness is also 2 places at once, in the moment at hand within a Subjective reality/Objective reality.

[kokomanation]

I believe that there is not a particle being in two different places at the same time I think there is an extremely high energy oscillation happening and the particle might appear to exist in multiple positions at the same moment

[davidwilkie]

"It's always now" forever is as "right" as can be stated simply, and we're forever "wrong" as complete final statement of existence because it's an ever-changing probability composition of pure quantified-qualities of motion. (A mathematical algebra-soup of Superspin)

Professor Penrose has been more comprehensive than stating the obvious because how and why the Observable Universe is manifested and manipulated by us is what it is that's important to know. ("Is-ness")

[naimulhaq]

Of course QM is not quite right, because we don't know the algorithm of the unitary evolution of the Schrodinger's wave function, creating the classical objects, like the sun, BH, magnetars, quasars, pulsars, boson stars, galaxies, etc. Probability of a quantum object to be here and there is taken care of by Copenhagen interpretation.

[GlenSwartwout]

With adequate levels of coherence, even an object the size of a human can bilocate. Many Saints have done it...

[wulphstein]

String theory doesn't seem to be a contender for a quantum gravity theory because a quantum gravity theory has to answer the question: what is spacetime made of? Twistor theory is the closest to answering "what is spacetime made of". But it falls short because "twisters" cannot be experimentally detected or isolated. It is the same situation with Loop Quantum Gravity. Those loops cannot be isolated either. But it is worse than that. Neither of those theories are compatible with big bang expansion. You would expect that, whatever spacetime is made of, that such "atoms of spacetime" require an "expansion" parameter because the big bang "expanded" from a point.

Someone needs to come up with a quantum gravity theory that answers the question: what is spacetime made of/what are the atoms of spacetime. I would suggest calling it, the Expanding Graviton. The Expanding Graviton has three primary characteristics. 1) Expanding Gravitons are the carriers of the physics constants. 2) Expanding Gravitons are equivalent to wave functions; thus wave functions and their operators are real things; and now they are a manifestation of gravitons. 3) Expanding gravitons expand spherically, at the speed of light, with radius r = ct. Where in physics have we seen something that looks like an expanding sphere? Two places. First, the derivation of time dilation. Second, two slit interference pattern.

A proper quantum gravity theory should have an experiment associated with it. I would suggest that quantum entanglements between photons, are (Captured) Gravitons; it's not really an Expanding Graviton if it is captured between two photons whose positions can be controlled with optical fiber, lenses, mirrors, etc. I would also comment that it takes a tiny amount of energy to capture a graviton; if you add up all of the gravitons in the universe, then that number of gravitons multiplied by the capture energy of a graviton should equal DARK ENERGY. More importantly, if a quantum entanglement IS a graviton, then we can do experiments on it.

Someone needs to create a quantum gravity theory that looks like the outline above.

[realzeelink]

I think QM is some thing to explain all the possibilities that may exist is given mathematical understanding of nature. It not something 100 percent exact but just to make things work as they may fit in any unknown scenario. If a point is made to lie on a line anywhere and why and when it should exist with in given bounds is the logic of existence and relation, other wise a disorderly relation will not describe entity and actions must precede causes which obviously is not a dimensional aspect of things as we know it. If another mathematics can explain action at a distance then it's origin maybe at the scale of perceptual dimension :. Humans understand the dimension they are in better than they are not in unless they can communicate and respond to the actions of other entities interdimensionaly... what happens in future must have a present from the observers view for other its a spontaneous action at a distance and it's explanation lies in prior knowledge or future communication. Other wise information is lost only for the outsider not the observer. If science reaches the limit of totality then it will be a creators aspect to make it work at his own will. If not then all the laws of universe are evolving and not being observed or used and mostly useless.. I guess.

[archanashah]

we all humans with all our emotions, ego (indifferent to animals ) have capacity to be in superposition or singularity by not creating an event (not being an observer).

to create an event or to be an observer you need to have senses ( five or any one) and need to have choice( ego, emotions and evolve cognition with individual experience)

dog has senses but lack choice(bounded by rule instinct) hence cant be an observer

when we are blinded by ego we collapse the superposition and hence there is one result we may like it dont like it

when we are free of ego there is no collapse we are in singularity there is no event no result.

dog has no ability of this higher complexity it has one rule and one result.

[nosnibor]

I think at the limits of matter its not too absurd to have a cloud of existence (but local) - like an electron cloud around a nucleus. It comes in and out of existence as a probability when an attempt is made to measure its state. What I do find absurd is that reality can be non local. Bell said "IF Quantum Mechanics is correct, then reality is non local" - SO if we do not accept non locality, then QM is wrong. There is something wrong with it. Another way of putting it: if QM is correct, then time is not quantised - can be zero - hence we can have instantaneous action at a distance. The whole Universe is connected - and don't say entangled - that is just a cop out. But there such daft ideas to get around the problem - the daftest is Everett's "many worlds" idea - another cop out.

[nigelpalmer]

To quiet dont usually have this problem usually to loud

[dominicellis]

My question is if microtubles are just the fibers that push the chromosomes apart in a cell division what makes the brains microtubles special why doesn’t every cell have a consciousness wouldn’t that mean every microorganism has an inner dialogue much like we do just because they have a mechanism for cell division?

[stoneeh]

... as is the volume level on this video's audio.

[artillery]

If quantum particles aren’t all over the place how would they interact? it’s necessary to be Disordered only way for things to work. This is one of the reasons there hasn’t been any new discoveries there trying to understand something that doesn’t want to be understood.

[clmasse]

Quantum is not quite right because the piece of chalk has to be broken in two… Indeed the video answers the question of the title…

[CJ_]

The age of enlightened debate is long dead. Improvements now will only come when people do new things in spite of the old ideas.