David Albert: Einstein Was Right About SPOOKY Quantum Mechanics! [Ep. 433]

Is there "spooky action at a distance" or not?

What a wonderful guest! First, he's a clear presenter. But second, he comes across as a kind and humble soul. Thank you for bringing him on.

See the name, always listen. I'll admit, at first I wasn't a fan of David, because I was uneducated and thought he was always saying a whole bunch of nothing! But As you, and I, figured out, he's an incredible explainer of the broad picture of a certain unsolved thing, subject, or theory, as it relates to logic and reason in physics. I relate him to Sean Carroll even though they explain a bit differently, they explain equally well and better than anyone. The longer the video the better when it's with David. It's enjoyable to see him milk every last ounce of thought out of an issue.

Hey Brian, Thank you for the great channel you've been running on YouTube. Big fan here. Suggestion: Would it be possible to maybe add a pic of the physicist/philosopher/equation superimposed on the video as they are being mentioned? It helps with creating some sort of a connection with whatever is being quoted/referred to once we can see what it is or who it is that's being talked about. Thank you.

David makes an important point when he says philosophical thinking contributed to the development of special relativity (SR). As Einstein pointed out, SR is a “principle theory” as opposed to a “constructive theory.” This philosophical distinction was key to its success, leading physicists out of the morass caused by constructive attempts (via causal mechanisms) to understand the observer-independence of the speed of light c, e.g., via the luminiferous aether. Einstein himself worked on a causal account, but gave up saying: “By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.” Per Einstein, a principle theory is one whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. SR is a principle theory because its kinematics (Lorentz transformations) follows from an empirically discovered fact called the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for c, regardless of their relative motions (the observer-independence of c). Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames -- says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR. This same philosophical move was recently used to escape the morass in the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) caused by trying to understand it constructively. Specifically, quantum information theorists have shown that the kinematics of QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) follows from an empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity. In layman’s terms that simply means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the “Planck postulate”). Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, and inertial reference frames are related by different spatial orientations (rotations), that empirically discovered fact can also be justified with the relativity principle. Using this philosophical maneuver, we can understand QM as a principle theory just like SR. Consequently, QM need not violate locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024).

Thank you for inviting Dr. Albert. Perhaps it was your format and style (or simply being in Southern California, the weather not withstanding) that allowed Dr. Albert to appear more comfortable, relaxed, approachable and human. There wasn’t a hint of defensiveness, arrogance or stuffiness. You allowed Dr. Albert to respond without being interrupted. It was a pleasure to listen! Thank you.

the noise gate has the attack too fast, specially on the voice off the intro. Try giving it a bit more of release.

I did a happy dance seeing this to watch this evening. I've been dealing with fire alarm panel faults in a grade 1 listed building all day. ❤

Where's the audio version of his book?

"A Guess at the Riddle" . What a great title , shows his mind his humility .