The Deadly Failure of Quantum Mechanics

¡Hello..!


In the following video, the YouTuber Javier Santaolalla (a Spanish Particle Physicist) exposes the "Friend of Wigner" paradox, pointing out that it is the seed of an infinite regression of paradoxes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39VAgtScua8


Is this really the case, or is it necessary to expand knowledge to solve this problem?


To this end, could not we resort to the concept of the Multiverse?


There is, however, a problem. It is not possible to speak of Multiverses, if their existence has not been proven before. Not even the existence of a parallel universe to solve Schrodinger's Cat problem has been proven.


What do you think?
Mercedes

It's in Spanish with no English subtitles.

I use the term "omniverse" and believe Hitler's swastika meant that the parallel universe theory goes through infinite regressions into... wonder. The macabre theory on the swastika is more or less vengeance in the name of Lord Christ, if you reason with me...

Maybe CFTraveler as fluent Spanish speaker can translate or paraphrase the core points?

I understand reading Spanish well, but spoken fast it's difficult for me.

I didn't like it because it proposed a problem that really doesn't exist. Or rather, it's portrayed as a false crisis- that because no one understands it intuitively it's going to be proven false 'someday' (and he kind you tries to 'scare you' into thinking that it soon will be discarded.
And then goes on to describe the problem with it (that it has been interpreted in various forms that are all different), and that many physicists have alarmingly different ways to look at it.
I think this is clickbait, because he goes on to describe how fundamentally 'random' its findings are (not true, all findings fall into a probability waveform) and how it can be interpreted to mean so many different things (true, but most of the physicists I have talked to discard the 'magickal' interpretation (that the observer creates the whole thing) and look at it as part of its history and development.
Also, most of the 'problems' he described are not 'late discoveries that disprove A or B), but how all those different interpretations sprung up from the getgo.
It was a good video to make you interested in learning about physics in general and QM in particular, but clickbaity.
If you want a literal translation I'll be glad to do it, but because of personal issues coming up in my personal life, I haven't had lots of time to do anything that requires brains or dedication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFTraveler

I think this is clickbait, because he goes on to describe how fundamentally 'random' its findings are (not true, all findings fall into a probability waveform) and how it can be interpreted to mean so many different things (true, but most of the physicists I have talked to discard the 'magickal' interpretation (that the observer creates the whole thing) and look at it as part of its history and development.

---

I am not sure what does 'magickal' mean in this case, but if it is about what A. Einstein told that "God does not play dice with the universe", it may make sense to discard this randomness. I am suspecting that there are 'billions' of forces in play which in the end create the result. Something that ancients told about chaos being ordered on a constant basis (particles, or 'substance', of the universe being basically in chaos, and mind - whatever is meant by the "mind" - creates the ordered universe out of this chaos). I.e. the waveform of 'probability' (btw it was always amusing to me) could be the effect of the 'matrix' existing in the mind. I'm just not sure what 'the mind' (deliberate creating effort) is, but it may be that it is a total sum of all thoughts involved 'globabally', while you have a chance to influence it 'locally'. I.e. matter exist because of a deliberate creation, not because 'it just exists'. In this sense we indeed could be (basically unconscious) co-creators of the universe, not just observers - if you would not count direct physical actions. BTW 'most of the physicists' does not say about anything... most tend actually to be far from truth.

That's my point. It's just alarmism.