yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Quantum Mechanics, Onions, and a Theory of Everything | Astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss| Big Think


3m read
·Nov 3, 2024

Well, common sense is useful for certain things. And of course, from an evolutionary perspective, common sense arose to stop us from being eaten by lions on the Savannah, but not to understand quantum mechanics. There's no sense in which our brains, the early evolution of our brains, needed to know anything about quantum mechanics or relativity.

And what's amazing is that nevertheless, those brains that arose to solve human problems on everyday scales have allowed us to explore the universe on scales that are quite different. And scales where everything that we think is sensible goes away, on quantum mechanical scales where particles can be doing many things at the same time, or when you're moving very fast and your perception of time can change compared to mine.

And what we've learned, of course, using those principles going beyond common sense, is that the universe, our myopic views of the universe are just that: they’re myopic. The universe at its fundamental scales looks quite different. And in fact, I begin my new book with one of my favorite allegories: Plato's allegory of the cave, where he likens our existence to people trapped in a cave, being forced to look at the shadows of reality from the light cast behind them on a wall.

And he said the job of a scientist, essentially, is to interpret those shadows to understand the reality underneath. And when we look at the universe around us, we're seeing the shadows of reality. And what we've been able to do is peer underneath to discover the real world, which is really quite different.

And just as for those individuals, their common sense would tell them that the world is two-dimensional because all they see is the projection of reality, we, for us, our common sense tells us that the world is three-dimensional, but we've learned, in fact, that the universe isn’t; it's at least four-dimensional: the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time that are tied together, yielding a reality at its basis, which is really quite different from that which we experience.

That's just one example of the many ways we've been able to dive down underneath this fabric that's shielding the real world underneath. And the fabric is what perhaps our common sense is based to understand, and what's underneath—it’s not too surprising that it doesn't seem sensible because it describes realms of the universe that we literally did not evolve to originally understand.

And as I say, it's an amazingly fortuitous accident that our brains evolved so we could understand those regions as well. The question arises, naturally, once we understand at a fundamental level that the universe looks quite different than we perceive it to be: whether what we're now discovering is truly fundamental or whether we dive down deeper and the universe will look different still?

Richard Feynman argued that way. He basically said, “Will we have a theory of everything, or is the universe like an onion and you peel back one layer and there's another layer, and it's an infinite number of layers of onions (or turtles all the way down depending upon how you want to describe it)?”

The answer is: we don't know. We don't know if there is an ultimate theory of everything. But it really doesn't matter in many ways. What we want to understand the universe better today than we did yesterday. We want to expand our understanding, and that's what we try and do.

And science often works by baby steps. One of the things I describe in my book is the long series of baby steps that took us to where we are now, from our understanding of the universe on the scales that we see in this room to the fundamental scales. There were many steps that took us there.

And the process is exciting, and every new step of discovery is exciting, and every time we make a new discovery there are more questions than there are answers. And so there's guaranteed job security, it seems to me, for scientists, and I don't have any great expectations that there is a theory of everything or a need to know that theory. To me, the questioning and the search is as exciting in some sense as the answer.

More Articles

View All
Isotopes | Atoms, isotopes, and ions | High school chemistry | Khan Academy
Every element is defined by the number of protons in its atoms, which is called its atomic number. So, for example, every atom of potassium has 19 protons, and every atom of cobalt has 27 protons. But what about neutrons? Well, an element doesn’t always …
The BEST Cryptocurrency To Buy In 2022 #shorts
So I’m sure you’re soon about to see a multitude of creators all share their thoughts on the top 10 cryptocurrencies to buy in 2022. So that got me thinking: there has to be data that exists to find out the best cryptocurrencies to invest in based on the…
How One Brilliant Woman Mapped the Secrets of the Ocean Floor | Short Film Showcase
19:12. A German meteorologist named Alfred Wegener proposed the theory about how the Earth’s landmasses formed. He suggested that the great continents of the Earth had once formed a single landmass called Pangaea, which had broken up and drifted apart ove…
Surviving an Alligator Attack | Something Bit Me!
Back in a Florida river, an alligator has Fred Langdale dead in its sights and is approaching quickly. So in that moment, I’m thinking, what can I do? What can I do? Some of this stuff I’ve already thought about ahead of time because I’m in the water all …
Multiplying and dividing by powers of 10
In another video, we introduce ourselves to the idea of powers of 10. We saw that if I were to just say 10 to the first power, that means that we’re just really just going to take 1. If we have 10 to the second power, that means that we’re going to take …
Lagrange multiplier example, part 2
So where we left off, we have these two different equations that we want to solve. Um, and there’s three unknowns: there’s S, the tons of steel that you’re using; H, the hours of labor; and then Lambda, this Lagrange multiplier we introduced that’s basica…