about account add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up back-arrow register-arrow book-mobile book categories chat-bubble-mobile chat-bubble close college contact-us credit-card drag email-square facebook-mobile facebook-square facebook faq film history home load modal-error person pinterest-square play-mobile play queue remove resume search share show star tick trailer trash twitter-mobile twitter-square twitter university warning warning youtube-square open-eye close-eye promo-tag tag check info info active
23

Untangling What Quantum Mechanics Means

Lecture no. 23 from the course: Understanding the Misconceptions of Science

Untangling What Quantum Mechanics Means

Taught by Professor Don Lincoln | 31 min | Categories: The Great Courses Plus Online Science Course

Dig deeper into misconceptions about quantum mechanics, with a focus on the complicated, the contradictory, and the downright sketchy. What happens to an electron when you’re not looking at it? Can a cat be both alive and dead at the same time? Should we connect quantum mechanics with Buddhism and Taoism?

Reviews

t********m
July 28, 2019
Yikes. As an engineer I tend to agree with the professor's biases against the supremacy and spookiness of consciousness, the philosophical conceit humans lack free will, and seemingly perfect absurdity the many worlds boltzmann brain hypothesis. But these are my own biases! For example I believe there have been (unsuccessful) attempts to try to use experimental cosmology to support many world theories. I personally would have like to have seen more of a conversation about feynman's all possible paths calculations, eg is that still relevant? To me that was the math that pancaked a lot of squish. My understanding from that Feynman is if something can be calculated and no observable phenomena disproves the calculations then it's legitimate, even useful, to leverage intuition from the model to make further predictions. Scientifically speaking untestable predictions are inherently neither true nor false. They are merely useful or not. Strictly speaking their utility is judged by the ability to attract further research, presumedly some of which will eventually become testable. Granted the professor is an expert and I am certainly not, but non experimental "progress" revolves around the idea of attracting further research with an eye to generating future testable hypothesis. When something is labeled garbage we might benefit from the objection - the interpretation is not attracting research, it's a drain on "better" research, or the subject field may be inherently untestable. Yes I agree with every practical bias here, but this proves nothing! Labeling a research bunk wo careful clarification of the objection sounds like fiefdom building, or even worse, religion. I know the professor has more specifics to offer and precisely bc we are on the exact same page I want to hear more.

Reply

Delete

l********m
July 9, 2019

Reply

Delete