UPDATE: A few of you were asking about the Alice and Bob analogy used in this talk so we asked Phil Bill if he'd be happy to explain it in more detail. He was, so here's the follow up - ukposts.info/have/v-deo/bY9ho2idgZ6ltJc.html

Finally someone that explains quantum mechanics to the popular audience without abusing analogies and making vague claims. I love this guy!

Huzzah! Thanks to the generous support of our Patreon supporters, we now have English language subtitles for this video! If you have a spare dollar or pound to support our work, you can head over to Patreon too and see what we're up to: www.patreon.com/TheRoyalInstitution

I watched a young woman give a UKposts lecture 10yrs ago saying the same thing, "The wave function never collapses it becomes entangled with the measuring equipment". There is no collapse and never was.

Quantum physicist walks into a bar. Bartender says, "Weren't you here tomorrow?" Quantum physicist says, "No, but I'll be back yesterday."

The punch line i loved ‘“ nature does it best and we need to adjust our expectation”

I love this theme and I've been studying about quantum physics by myself for 3 years.. I wish I could make an "university" about.. the course would be phenomenal

"Nobody understands the Alice and Bob analogy" (Richard Feynman)

The real question here, at least to me, seems to be the question of whether quantum mechanics is purely epistemological (that is, it is only a theory about what we know) or does it also contain an ontological (that is, this truly is the nature of the Universe and not merely a product of how we're looking at it) component. Another question that I think needs to be asked is what separates a measurement, such as what we do in a laboratory, from an interaction such as what quantum particles will undergo. Does a quantum particle, when interacting with another quantum particle, go through all the same problems of dealing with probabilities of the values of various properties when determining how to respond to those properties as part of the interaction? For example, electrons A and B undergo a spin-spin interaction with each other. Do they also, like physicists measuring spin in a laboratory, have to suffer through the problem that they each have a 50-50 chance of seeing the spin of the other electron as being up or down relative to some intrinsic orientation relative to the reference frame of a given electron, and then, only after making the "measurement" can it determine how it orients its own spin? However, even as I write the question, I realize there is a fundamental error in the question because it accidentally introduces a classical idea that the electron is definitively in one state or the other, and that's precisely the sort of thing that quantum mechanics says is not happening. So then, I'm left to ask the question, what exactly is happening when two particles interact? How do those particles resolve their quantum mechanical nature with each other in obtaining a particular set of responses, with various corresponding probabilities, based on the probabilities of allowed values of the various properties that the two particles have and interact on the basis of those properties? Is this interaction the same as one particle somehow measuring the other, or is performing a measurement fundamentally different from quantum interaction? If measurement is a fundamentally different process, then does that not introduce the possibility that quantum mechanics may not be intrinsic to the nature of the Universe but merely a by-product of how we've been observing it?

Schrodinger arrives at the vets to pick up his cat. The vet says, "Well, Mr. Schrodinger, I've got some good news and some bad news..."

Alice and Bob's relationship..."It's complicated". lol

the last ten mins OMG full on wisdom right there

Thanks Mr Ball for explaining that to me. Thanks for the hard work.

I've been watching videos about Quantum Physics for a few days now, and I think this is the best explanation of what QP is, and how to approach it. Philip Ball is an excellent thinker and teacher.

26:34 "This Box's blackness is in the box, what would it possibly mean to say this box blackness is also kinda partly in this box" Perfect analogy for understanding the misconception of locality!! The Blackness itself is an emergent quality of our measurement of it. It can only be measured when the lights are on. The color is tied up in the very properties of light itself... the very thing used to measure the blackness is PARTICIPATING in its very existence. This is because, in our perceptual experience of certain things, we draw borders where none exist. (blackness is not something that can exist on its own but only as a combination of things) Both boxes have the local hidden variable of a suface that interacts with light, but depending upon the light I shine on them, they will reflect a different color to my sensors (eyes). So we are measuring an aspect of the sensor(eyes) and the intermediary device (light) simultaneously when we say "blackness." (the problem is conception and language) THAT is what it means to say that the blackness is also kinda partly in the other box and this analogy holds with QM as well. Some qualities are combinations not fully contained within an object and are therefore "nonlocal" in a very non mysterious way.

Sigh of relief. Thank you for this!

Philip Ball's book Beyond Weird is really good, I'd recommend it to anyone here.

so basically this guy says: 1. Electrons stay as particles the whole time, they do not change their density into wave like matter. 2. The wave function is merely a mathematical field that tells us a probability in exchange for a position guess. 3.Quantum entanglement is when two particles interact and become linked in a way that can only be explained as becoming one system, not transmitting information between them, but actually being affected as if both of them were at the same place under one quantum system. 4.*not sure if i got this one right*- A measurement does not change reality and affect what is being measured, it simply changes our level of knowledge.. the path of an electron is determined already before measuring, its just that before measuring, the position cant be known for sure by equations. but in the double slit experiment we can see that electrons are actually waves because of the spread outcome that cannot be attributed to particles. so 1 is not correct. 2 is not correct. about 3- if thats true (if not then special relativity is wrong) it means that there is a dimension in which these two particles stay together, unaffected by space-time and its laws, maybe a dimension though time in which the past affects the present is ways that make certain past events meaningful, which makes every quantum particle have a memory in a way.. about 4- i have no clue. Help here?

I like how he demonstrated reason, or deduction, as a form of quantum entanglement if the subjects are privy to the information.

Alice, Bob, dog, rabbit and coins - an excellent example of how not to do analogies. Speaking as a huge fan of Dr. Ball.

One reason why Quantum Mechanics is confusing is that explanation often involve the term "particle". This is because we normally think of matter as consisting of objects of some kind. If one (mistakenly) defines a "piece of matter" to be an object that, with sufficient energy, can be broken down into smaller "pieces of matter", e.g. particles, it becomes a recursive never-ending loop that makes no sense intuitively. How could a "piece of matter" be divisible into smaller "pieces of matter" which themselves could be further divisible, and so on, to infinite levels. No. That makes no logical or intuitive sense. Hence, at some level a "piece of matter" can only be divided into something else, something that is not a piece of matter or a particle. In a way, Leucippus and Democritus were right when they said that the atom was indivisible. When smashed, the atom produces not atomic particles but waves. Avoiding the concept of particles in the first place could make Quantum Mechanics much more explainable.

quantum physics - every time you learn something you realize you dont know shit and now need to learn another 10 things

I had never actually heard of that "20 questions" example/experiment before. That drastically increased my understanding. Thank you. Not only is information influenced by it's environment, it is, at least partially, DERIVED by it. Makes me think of a falling & cascading pattern of black and white domino's, which either reads "707" or "LOL" depending on how you "spin it." Yukyukyuk.

Anyone else scratching their heads at the rabbit/dog analogy? I have a feeling there could've been a better example.

Reading the comments, I can see that many don't get that what he is saying is that what has been described as Quantum Mechanics thusfar is really a set of observations about EFFECTS produced by the quantum realm and not the actual MECHANISM by which the effects are produced. He's directing our attention to the basis of these effects in INFORMATION.

Fantastic lecture. Very comforting as well, as it proves a lot to me. Thank you!!

Thanks for the upload. Fantastic lecture by Phil Bill whose eloquence and way of speech reminds me of Cicero from Rome (the TV show). Really enjoyed it and felt enlightened.

I appreciate this talk because scientists are always saying " that's the wrong question to ask". I hear it over and over again. So this is a refreshing look at that phrase. Nice viewpoint and it makes sense.

brilliant. loved this. i found the box exercise too difficult to follow for me but that aside, i learnt a lot. i watched a stack more after this as well.

I am quite in a superposition of liking and disliking this talk :-)

At 39 he talks of particles and waves. He gives the same explanation that I arrived at years ago except that I put it "A photon is a particle or a wave depending on when you measure it." I thoroughly approve of the whole talk where he removes superstition from the quantum project.

You just made predestination and free will much clearer for me...Thanks

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane”- Nicola Tesla

Sounds, to me, like our understanding of our understanding has reached a point of recognition that all we have are measurements, and we can hypothesize about what's beyond them but we still only have what we measure to be certain of. Which, frankly, makes perfect sense if you think about it. We have the data points collected by measurement, and we can describe patterns across them, but of course we don't know what it "is" that drives the patterns - only that the patterns are consistent when we make more measurements in a consistent manner. What happens between our measurements? Who knows - we have zero information to base anything on with certainty, because we haven't measured between our measurements. We just know, with some certainty, what will probably happen when we measure again.

@ 32:06 1) Information is not an already existing and fixed property of a single component but is created only when two components are interacting with each other. 2) Even the most elementary component has the potential to create every possible information, only depending on the properties of the component or system it is interacting with. 3) Information can be seen as the pattern created by the interfering of the energies (properties) of two components. 4) The created information (pattern) is a shared (interwoven) property of both components. 5) If two components interact they create information as an energy pattern that is a new component in it´s own. I = e2

Wow...that was very profound. I will meditate on that last part.

As I see it, this man is suggesting that Richard Feynman's approach and to a large extent Leonard Susskind's also, are preferable as they do not offer metaphors which necessarily have serious limitations and also have a tendency to ultimately mislead.

Great lecture. My very humble opinion (from the point of view of a programmer), Philip is describing a code written specifically with object oriented language. So I guess there is no one formula or unification of formulas. These objects with properties. An object can have children that inherit its properties. A child can stay attached to its parent or become independent object. All these classical formulas only describe how to inherit a property and how this affect the parent properties values. How a child stay attached or become independent. Such view will satisfy all the ifs Philip was mentioning. Which may result in no extra dimensions also. If the brain is physical thing that behaves like a computer code, then why not quantum world also.

The way around it is to think of entangle objects as not two objects, but one object. They are two things that are connected and locked into position..which basically makes them one thing. The distance between them doesn't matter, because no matter how far apart they are, they are still basically one system of merged objects. They are probably "landlocked" by all five of the forces..

These ideas make sense, and to me at least, make the weirdness associated with Quantum Mechanics much less weird. Like so many others, I worked with the equations in graduate school, and listened to the unsatisfying attempts to explain what the results meant in the real world. This short video has motivated me to pull out my dusty textbooks, and go back and re-read them with a completely different perspective. I just moved his book to the top of my reading list and plan to read it immediately after I watch his second video. Just scanning the book shows that while difficult, it is understandable to the non-scientist. You do not need a Kindle to read it, Amazon provides a reader online.

Amazing talk by Philip Ball! I've learned so much!

You can tell this guy has been raging about this privately for decades :D My fav lecture in the series.

@Yogi Steven): Yogi Steven, here's how I understand the intriguing comment that you made: "What Philip Ball is saying is that what has been described as QM thus far is really a set of statements about OBSERVABLE effects in the quantum realm, and NOT the actual mechanism by which those observable effects are produced." Ball also seems to be saying that QM thus far is a description of what to expect when you MEASURE an object in the quantum realm, and NOT necessarily a description of the quantum object itself. "As it stands, QM does not permit us to say anything with confidence about reality, beyond what we can MEASURE." [1:05, 3:27, 4:12, 8:10, 9:05]

12:30 - THANK YOU. You are literally the first person I've heard get that EXACTLY RIGHT. Most people talking to lay audiences just cannot resist saying "the particle can be in two places at once." It's so mysterious and exciting.

I think that some of the confusion about quantum mechanics stems from what we consider a particle to be. Most people tend to think of an extremely small spherical object, like a tiny ball bearing. I would propose that a particle is actually a disturbance in space/time. This can be wide spread like a wave or more localized like a particle, but both are our interpretations of the same thing. Why is it that things can only travel one direction in time? You might say because of the laws of causality. Something has to happen at a later time than the thing which caused it. But what if particles at the quantum level do not recognize the laws of causality because they do not have to? They travel both directions in time and so appear to be in many places at the same time until they interact with something which does obey the laws of causality (this may be our attempt to measure their position) in which case they too have to obey the laws of causality and appear to have definite position. This is only a theory and is not a complete explanation, so feel free to criticize it.

I'm just a layman in all this but it seems to me that wave simply refers to all the potential or statistically possible outcomes of a quantum particle depending on where, how and when it ends up interacting with another quantum particle (with our measurements within quantum systems being just one of an infinite number of ways such interactions might occur) at which time the wave "collapses" or ceases to exist for the simple reason that what was once just statistical probability is now reality.

What a brilliant lecture. Love it.

Life teaches us stuff and if we can catch those moments, we are truly blessed. For example, years ago I was passing through El Paso and happened upon a barbershop that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Hair Returned*". Upon seeing the asterisk, I read the fine print down below, which said, "If you can't read ask the bootmaker next door." In the same spirit of integrity, I think certain videos really ought to come with a notarized promise stating, "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Time Refunded". And this video clip by Mr. Ball should be one of them. Furthermore, after the whole Lance Armstrong doping fiasco, my takeaway was don't trust anyone who only has one ball, even if they openly declare it in their name.

I was getting frustrated and disappointed as you started listing things right at the beginning of your talk, but you made me laugh with relief when you crossed it all out. That was fun. Thanks!

This was very much needed!! I really have been having issues talking about quantum. To people that understand quantum because of ant man and the wasp.

About entanglement and the sharing of information: Information is not actually traveling but it is local at the site of measurement. Basically, the observer already has the possible outcomes onsite at the time of measurement, and the state of the entangled object at a distance is not actually shared, and it never changes based on measurements, and information doesn't travel when measuring but each object contains information about the other object and the state is determined LOCALLY by the entanglement rules that were set prior experimentation. When you measure one object, you automatically know the state of the other with the info and rules you have on hand, without sending any info to the other object. The objects are in fact completely detached from each other.

Philip Ball says he's talking about QM itself, rather than any interpretation of it. But then he discusses the Born probability theory and wave function collapse, two features of the Copenhagen Interpretation that are not needed in David Bohm's 1952 interpretation of QM. He says that QM tells us what can be known and what cannot be known, but that is actually true of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In Bohmian mechanics, the only "weird" behavior left is the wave function itself. The paths of particles are completely deterministic, and indeed have been measured in recent "weak measurement" experiments.

So, this reminds me of looking at a 2D poster that reveals a 3D image, if you relax your focus. However, I'm still not able to relax my eyes, so I have to simply believe I can see it eventually.

Great lecture, very much appreciated

I love your channel. It makes me a better person each time I watch your video

Question: Within entanglement, if the superposition of the first is particle, can it's entangled twin be in the superposition of a wave at the same time or must it be a particle as well as its entangled twin?

We struggle with the concept of entanglement because we have the wrong idea about time. Time is an illusion created by our experience, which is very unreliable. Our imagination and our memory play tricks on us, like a mirage in a desert. Time does not exist as an independant entitity. The future does not exist, nor does the past. Even the present is not to be expressed as time related. What we experience as time is the illusion created by the perpetual change of things happening (events). Gravity, which comes along with matter, slows down all events. In the presence of a very heavy mass events slow down until they eventually may come to a full stand still. This is what is going on in the gravity of a black hole. Even photons, who travel at the speed of light, 'freeze' and can no longer move once they have been caught by a black hole. Photons can not escape the black hole because they simply can not move. In the black hole it looks like time has come to a full stop. Though, that is just an illusion. It is gravity that prevents anything from happening. In the realm of quantum physics, time has no meaning. The concept of entanglement and simultaneous action at a distance is not an issue once the concept of time is set aside.

I'm quite certain that an eternally inquisitive mind like Richard P. Feynman would not have said "What more do you want?". I've read enough about him and seen enough of his interviews that I'm convinced he wasn't the kind who was merely satisfied with a mathematical answer. I think it's more likely that he admitted his inability to understand QM at a deeper level at the time, which speaks more about his integrity as a scientist and a researcher.

Thank you for this presentation. Im just a cook and ive been making these connections and using this logic and asking these questions. Nice to see a certified thinker doing the same. If you want to put physics to it, you are catching waves because its 3d movement of particles. The wave is the effect of the matter....moving so fast its just a blur. The wave and the blur are perceptions, not properties. The ups and downs are the expansions of matter. The spins are implicit to the order of the universe. All this matter moving, and crossing, and expanding out, and in, will reach stasis...if it did not spin itself into units. The spin, and the spheres they create, stop the expansion from conglomerating, which it's 'trying' to do. The amassed conglomerations of matter are smaller versions of the whole, amd they need more spin to seperate, making an engine of our universe...the expansion, coming back together, and then seperating itself by spinning into spheres, so it can keep moving/expanding. the electric force of movement, in all directions equal and opposite at once, this bi polar force, and the spin to seperate it from itself, while expanding still within the sphere, is gravity. Gravity is the polar force of electricity spinning in a sphere, of which matter is expanding into, as well as out of. Light (energy) is the effect of the electric force of movement amassing its matter in smaller volumes and higher density. It's can be a particle (straight line polar force) coming from rotating spheres (waves), which are like light speed rainbows of illunination to sensors like eyes. Waves are just parts of spheres, perceptibly. The waves are spheres, coming in photon straight line bursts, from 3d locales of origin and received 3 dimensionally, and picked up in illumination by sensors like eyes, adjusted to certain wavelengths. We dont do a visual 'flip' in our eyes. Its not an up and down refraction, its a rotation refraction, with the damn other side always behind its 'horizon'. It would be like watching the earth go from night to day in a time lapse so fast that you assume its just flipping up and down, not rotating. Not the best example of what vision is detecting maybe, but a good example of how the perception is wrong. Remember, illumination os an aspect of light, not lights energy source. The waves are perceptions of the spgeres below. It's all very lighthouse-like. Anyway. Nice vid. Sets my mind on fire.

I like the 20-questions analogy. It's a very intuitive way to look at QM's behaviour. What I did not get is what's the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation. It has no hidden variables and according to Bell's theorem is a valid interpretation of QM. Also, IMO it gives a deeper insight into QM than MWT or superdeterminism by introducing a subject observing the object.

omg that box analogy was a huge mess. first of all he interpreted his rules wrong. A1? = R? A2B2 = RD or DR anything else = RR or DD so the combinations are A1B1 = R? A1B2 = R? A2B1 = RR or DD A2B2 = RD or DR nothing else was specified. So now the question is how do you solve for A1, A2, B1, B2 A1 is already known to be R so we have that knocked out. A2 is not known as it was not specified whether A or B returned the R. Same with B2, not known since we don't know whether A or B returned the R. IF in A2B2, A2 returned the R, then A2=R, then no matter what, A returns R. Thus: A1B1 = R? A1B2 = R? A2B1 = RR A2B2 = RD this means that B1 = R and B2 = D A1B1 = RR A1B2 = RD A2B1 = RR A2B2 = RD A1B2 satisfies the rule since the rule does not say that ONLY A2B2 returns RD. It says A2B2 returns RD but it does not claim that no other combination returns RD. IF in A2B2, A2 returned D, then A2 = D, Thus: A1B1 = R? A2B2 = R? A2B1 = DD A2B2 = DR This means that B1 = D and B2 = R. A1B1 = RD A2B2 = RR A2B1 = DD A2B2 = DR Again, A1B2 satisfies the rule, as does A1B1. TLDR he could have looked for some other analogy. This one was badly constructed and made my head hurt.

Quantum physics - the more you know, the less important knowing becomes.

And I was so much looking forward to a Great Disentanglement Theory at the end...

Thank you for this lecture, I am warming up to the concept of quantum non-locality. Entanglement is not easy to explain and Ball has done a fantastic job making it interesting to listen to for almost an hour. I hope to find more lectures on quantum biology.

Fantastic, clear and structured without messy mysticism!

I understood it perfectly, which makes me love quantum physics even more !

I believe that all Particles have real properties, independent of any observation. It is only when we measure them, that we get different results....depending on the equipment. 1. Particle travels in predictable pattern. But to us we only can guess location, with statistics. Does not mean the particle is everywhere at the same time, it is only our best guess of likely locations. Then we measure, and we find it. 2. Uncertainty is only related to equipment, not to the actual object itself. Electron has location, spin, momentum. But to test we have to hit it. Which moves it out of its location, and adds energy to the electron. Then we have to think backwards to see where the electron was, and what the energy was, prior to hitting it. 3. Gloves in the box is the correct answer. The particle exists as it is with or without us. If the particles are a matched set, we know the properties of the other by looking at ours. 4. However...sometimes...our personal energies can influence things. We emit electrical energies. These electrical energies are also inside electrons. Using powerful thought (emitted electrical energy) on a very small scale (a few electrons), it is possible to direct those electrons. (I have read the scientific studies in detail). But this is rare, and works only with certain types of people. (Those who give off more electrical energy than most). In general: particles exist without us. Their properties exist without us. The math and graphs just gives us possibilities, not that the particle exists everywhere or has all properties at the same time. Then our equipment must add energy to the particle we want to detect, which alters what we actually see, but that is what we must do. We work with the limitations of the experiment, and deduce the details as if we weren't there.

QM-TIMESPACE wave-package is a composite of resonant tuning, the multi-phase state. Everyone understands QM when it's correctly identified in a rational and reasonable terminology.

What I learned: pounding Alice's box produces a rabbit. 15:43

Mindboggling lecture..this guy's ahead of his time. Quote that I took (and updated) from this: "The very notion of there being an answer only makes sense when you play the game. _So start playing.”_

I've had a kind of wondering recently.What if we will have found by a explore quantum mechanics deeper and more precisely a mistake/bug in the code of the universe.Would it have opened a window to our knowledge or have created an unbreakable wall for more studies?

3:48 : “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.” ― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

Best lecture I have heard on quantum mechanics.. Infact beyond best.. ❤️❤️❤️

OUTSTANDING! ( I hated all the interruptions by commercials but) this was one of the best lectures on quantum theory I have heard in awhile... I must get his book! I followed what he was saying very well and he simplified things to a point that I think we needed in this field and have needed for awhile.. I see that a lot of people here did not appreciate this much.. One person said it made them doubt all the QM people he knew and that he was looking for something new... I found that it reinforced what I have learned and cleared away some of the complicated fog that surrounds the quantum world... This was not a lecture about quantum theory but on the perspectives of interpretations of quantum theory.. and as such I enjoyed it... thank you Dr. Ball.

17:15 They can already switch output depending on what's put in without any commuication. This was stipulated in rule 2.

Imagining the property of entanglement between two particles as being established in a non-spacetime dimension avoids the need for faster-than-light communication. Until a measurement is taken, the particles' properties change synchronously. It's this property of connectedness shared by the two particles in the other dimension that causes the concreteness of state of one to occur as the concreteness of state of the other one is forced.

If only had this lecture existed in the times when I've been studying optoelectronics! I can see how some of the tough concepts would've been easier to comprehend. This guy is an absolute wonder in terms of how such a difficult topic is explained and how he keeps you engaged throughout the presentation. Perhaps there's no easier way to summarise what's quantum mechanics is all about.

He screwed up with the boxes. If I didn't know about Bell's theorem, I would never understand what he means. Very confusing. The 20 question game, on the other side, was a great example I never heard of before. Does anybody know where to read about it more?

1. I often experience being in 2 places at the same time :-) 2. Why can something not move faster than light? 3. We could not prove if 2. has a positive answer. 4. If one particle is in USA. how do you ever know that his twin is in the Philippines?

I think some people look for mysteries for purposes of conversation or for making u-tube videos. For example, that a particle can be simultaneously in more than one quantum state; not really true. The maths of QM, at the outset, tells us that quantum states may be superimposed; that the sum of states, finite or infinite is also a quantum state. It further tells us that an observation made on the state of the particle will find it in one of the states in the superposition with a determinable probability. I don't see anything subjective about that. So long as the theory tells how to calculate that probability, and the experiments reveal that the probability is correct, no problem! Similar thinking should be applied to other such "paradoxes". Only if one insists on nature's being as conceived classically in a realm of experience to which classical physics does not apply is there a difficulty. The difficulty is in that sort of thinking; not in the maths or the physics of QM - with due respect to Richard Feynman.

God, I love this channel.

How is entanglement and superposition different? It looks like everything is already entangled, then we isolat two particle/region of space and time. We make them synchronize. Synchronize to the point that they are identical. This should illustrate that the whole universe is in a state of entanglement. It is the bending of space and time that makes it look so divers. So each point in the universe is the singularity of the big bag in a superposition and spread through space and time. To say it like that is missleading. Let me do that again: The singularity of the big bang is in a superposition state. Some of these states are expressed in our universe as perceived objects. When in fact those objects are just space.

The function never collapses. Since time doesn't apply in the quantum world, the wave_particle is constant, and only appears as a particle in the exact moment we intersect it with our own time frame.

Perhaps it is my state of inebriation, but I believe he has said a universe of a deterministic state machine leads to the classical interpretation of physics, while a non-deterministic state leads to a quantum one.

Watch stanford quantum machanics classes on line this is moving fast.

Here's a thought I'd like to throw into the quantum tangle that is quantum entanglement; What if it is true that the particles do not actually have a fixed spin direction at all but instead are changing their spin direction instantly, millions or billions of times per second at a fixed Cosmological rythm? This might explain that at the instant you measure one you'd only get a fixed view at only one instant in time that indicates spin in only one direction. This also would be true of the other presumed "entangled" particle. The upshot would be that there may be no entanglement at all, but that rotational direction is changing constantly and can only be observed at one particular instant in time of both particles (the instant of observation). If all quantum particles, either throughout the Cosmos or perhaps only in our local region of space, changed their spin at a fixed cosmological rythm (perhaps a rythm that is so fast that it is undiscernable by our technological methods), then the two particles would *appear* to be entangled and moving predictably regardless of distance. Therefore, it is only our assumption that there is entanglement. Analogy: Imagine we have a Zootrope (one of these old-fashioned cylindrical animation drums) that animates a man running to the left. When the zootrope is spun, our eyes are fooled into believing the there is a moving image of a man running to the left because our brains cannot discern the still images quickly enough. We would require a camera with a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the moving image at one instant in time to establish that the object does not move, and that it is merely a series of still images each slightly differeent than the last (the illusion of quantum particle spin). Now imagine we change every second image of a left running figure to a right running figure and spin the zootrope (to represent a quantum particle that changes spin direction rythmically). Now our brains struggle to discern anything of sense from the scrambled image, the man is neither running left or right, he changes direction too fast for our eyes to discern direction. Now, if we use our camera to freeze-frame the action, we might see a still image of a man running to the left or a still image of a man running to the right, it all depends upon when we take the picture what image we are presented with! Now imagine we have two zootropes; one in London, the other in Sydney. Both are spinning and presenting the direction-alternative running man at an identical rate (a Cosmological rythm) and we have cameras set up to take a photograph at exactly the same instant at both locales. What the cameras would present to us is the false impression that the two zootropes are changing the direction of the running man in some entangled manner, as if they are syncronising their changes, when in fact they are merely objects operating under a unified rythm and it is thus predictable that we would capture what appears to be changes taking place simultaneously and seemingly in unison across a vast distance. In truth, we would be failing to appreciate a deeper property of the two zootropes that is not immediately evident: A unified rythm of alternation, not a zootrope entanglement! This would mean that there is a cosmological rythm that we can test for. If true, this surely also would account for the statistical failure of 85%. Thoughts?e

One of the magnitudes that comes in mind to me is the observation of two points at same time. It's a "size" I call it, that allows to be faster than light able to watch it travel from A to B. Same is to observe what's going on at A and instantly transfer it to B. Wether it's matter or dark energy the magnitude that allows that, should be thought about, same as, "why waves act orderly, is there a force that shapes a wave? do waves also act chaotic?

"That remains to be seen" I agree. Could it be that the Quantum field knows what we are thinking, what we want, desire? That it knows our actions even before we become conscious of them ourselves as being planned in our awareness? How would we define such a Quantum Field?

A novice in QM (Quantum Mechanics) might find some useful thought provoking sentiments in this. But if you've already come to terms with how QM works - it's not really anything new. I did like the part about "Ifness" vs "Isness" - It's far better to explain QM's to others using this. Anything beyond that would be conjecture anyway.

Thank you for your talks, they are awesome. Greetings from Argentina.

I get out of this the same thing I get out of several other talks (and books) that try to explain how to interpret quantum mechanics: QM is trying to tell us something about the nature of reality that our brains are not wired to be able to process. Or at least not easily or reliably process. Luckily we can deal with it indirectly via mathematical formalism.

I find this talk absolutely fascinating!

This is the most intelligible talk I've heard on Quantum Physics. It starts to make sense. We need more of this perspective.

The 20 questions metaphor is brilliant! Pedagogically at least. And to make a joke about the ifness versus the isness. The answer just went from 42 to "if 42". And we are all the wiser.

Superposition is actually the atoms and constiuent parts affecting the fields it is in, in a different space and the 1, 0 being possible to be both in a Qbit is two energies in affecting the fields in basically the same place.

Great stuff. Taking it back to the studs. Love it.

While Philip's analogies could use some refinement, his overall view of this problem is new and stunning. And actually takes our understanding of it much further.

I realize that I'm totally in the dark about these things but it sounded to me that this ignores the whole double-slit experiment stuff. If the wave collapse is simply illustrating the collapse of uncertainty, how does that create changes in interference patterns? Maybe I should stay awake when I listen.

Beautifully presented.

Theory: the sensitivity idea at the end is valuable, in my opinion. It may be that we imagine 0, 1, (up and down) but these are not actually repeated. What I am saying is that 0, 1 and 0, 1 may occupy different energy "niches". They are not repetitive, but subject to extreme sensitivities that make them unique as they manifest. 0,1 is fundamentally different from 0,1. An endless supply of unique energy niches that occupy 0, 1 states may be what is transpiring. These energy states may be sustained by a certain amount of energy, so that 100 energy niches of 1, for example, occupy a particular locality (in advance). What I am talking about is possibilities. If possibilities are sustained by energy in different configurations, then 1000 niches will have a different structure than 100 niches. In fact, as a group, 1000 niches may be more stable on the quantum level and less subject to decoherence. As one approaches the source of energy itself, graduating up the scale of energy, more and more connections are revealed. Then phenomenon that are purely quantum may manifest. Classical Physics is primarily concerned with low energy reality. Moving up the ladder of energy, more niches are revealed and more quantum behavior is exhibited. Once one enters the realm of pure energy manifestation, the quantum interconnection and potentials will manifest. Interconnected energy niches may be what quantum physics is all about, and the more niches one connects the closer to the base quantum reality one finds oneself. Quantum physics may be regarded as the area where all energy niches are interlinked, leading to an expression of all possibilities, more is intrinsically better than less. An energy thought form that moves into closer proximity with the source of quantum energy might utilize a conduit where information is transferred at faster than light speed, or instantaneously. However, the energy niches that account for the information would have to be interlinked in such a fashion that they link up with the plane of quantum energy. It all boils down to energy, getting down to the source of energy and exploiting it. In the classical world, we are not creating enough energy for transfer, it takes time to communicate. There is a gap between the classical world and the quantum world and that gap is the pure energy of linked possibilities. Once our reality shifts closer to manifesting energy, the quantum realm is closer to our understanding. This would be energy manifesting itself and in motion, not in stasis. Matter is too much in stasis in general to exhibit quantum behaviors. Once this tendency is loosened, and energy is passed through matter and it begins to throb with energy the quantum potentials are opened. Average matter has the potential to create quantum behaviors, but it must be adjusted energetically in order for this to occur.