Ron Garret's Google Tech Talk argues that quantum mechanics is no harder to understand than relativity and that popular accounts wrongly rely on the Copenhagen interpretation. He presents measurement as entanglement and explains phenomena like the quantum eraser.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN commenters repeatedly recommend it as the talk that finally made quantum mechanics click, especially for programmers.
“This is the video that finally made it click for me[1].”HN comment, 2022
“if you want to really understand QM, there's this”
Video to really understand QM
Full comment
Before you invest three hours to watch these lectures you should know that the title is terribly misleading. These lectures are not about QM at all, they are about the history of QM, albeit told by someone who was actually part of it. But the coolness of hearing the history of QM firsthand is undermined by the fact that Bethe is clearly well past his prime, and he's not particularly good at telling stories. If you want a video that is true to this title I'd recommend this: link EDIT: And if you want to really understand QM, there's this: this video :-)
Strongly recommendscromwellianApr 2014
“Even if you don't know any QM, just basic algebra and calculus, it's really approachable.”
Clear, approachable explanation of spooky quantum phenomena via entanglement
Full comment
This Google Talk this video uses entanglement and quantum information theory in a clear and understandable way to explain 'spooky' quantum phenomena, like the quantum eraser, de-coherence, the aspect experiment, and the measurement problem. Even if you don't know any QM, just basic algebra and calculus, it's really approachable. I used to be a fan of the Many Worlds interpretation, but after seeing this, I'm now a big fan of the Quantum Information Theory explanation. Starting about 43 minutes in, he goes into the QM Information Theory explanation, but I'd recommend watching the entire prezo. Link to my original post on the subject: link
Strongly recommendsoceanghostNov 2019
“It really clarified some things for me.”
Clarified quantum concepts for the commenter
Full comment
If I may recommend a lecture given at Google Tech Talks-- "The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know", It really clarified some things for me. this video
Strongly recommendsraphlinusMar 2022
“This is the video that finally made it click for me[1].”
Explains what is and isn't a measurement in detail
Full comment
This is the video that finally made it click for me[1]. Despite the somewhat click-baity title ("What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know") it actually goes into quite a bit of detail of what is and isn't a measurement, in the sense of interactions in a quantum mechanical system that strongly resemble classical behavior (it can be said that the quantum mechanical world is a simulator that can run classical mechanics). [1]: this video
RecommendsreplaxFeb 2012
“watch his google talk about it”
Ron Garret's talk arguing against the Copenhagen interpretation
Full comment
In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation has been proven wrong by fellow lisper Ron Garret. You can read his paper here: www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf and watch his google talk about it this video . The problem is, that most people (not scientists, mind you) do not really care anyway, and the Copenhagen interpretation gives you a nice story to tell, which is fairly "strange", yet somewhat understandable. I hate the fact that even science magazines still 100% subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, just to attract a greater readership and to be able to use catchier headlines.
RecommendsmtrimpeOct 2012
“This Google Talk from last year provides an argument and interpretation of this that's fairly understandable with a programmer's mindset”
Understandable argument for programmers
Full comment
This Google Talk from last year provides an argument and interpretation of this that's fairly understandable with a programmer's mindset: this video
RecommendsdoolsApr 2015
“Anyone interested in this can find an excellent lecture here”
Excellent lecture on the topic
Full comment
Anyone interested in this can find an excellent lecture here this video and of course by looking up leonard susskind's stuff on the black hole wars and universe as a hologram
RecommendslisperAug 2016
“Or the movie version”
Measurement as mutual entanglement of degrees of freedom
Full comment
> (whatever that means) That (implied) question has an answer: measurement is the mutual entanglement of a number of degrees of freedom. See: link Or the movie version: this video
RecommendslisperOct 2016
“Or this video”
Explains how classical behavior emerges from the wave function
Full comment
> Isn't the entire universe one quantum system? Yes. > If so, how can we talk about discrete systems. That is an excellent question! And the answer is that when you do the math, the result of taking a subset of the wave function (the mathematical operation is called a "trace") is something that looks like a classical system. If you want the details, see this paper: link Or this video this video which covers the same material.
RecommendsphkahlerJan 2017
“But you don't need to listen to me, check this out”
Explains why measuring one entangled particle does not affect the other
Full comment
Nothing changes at the time of "wave function collapse". When you measure one particle of an entangled pair, nothing actually happens to the other one. But you don't need to listen to me, check this out: this video
RecommendslisperJan 2018
“Or if you prefer, this video”
Video alternative to the paper
Full comment
No, it's a little more subtle than that. If you really want to know, the answer is in this paper: link Or if you prefer, this video: this video
Recommendsneel8986Jan 2018
“You can look at a better explanation here”
Better explanation of observation as entanglement
Full comment
One explanation[1] i heard is observation is a actually equivalent to entanglement. Now we know that two elements entangled will have to maintain the state corresponding to its entangled peer. Now if you observing (or taking measurement) the whole system gets entangled to the particle. you are observing and hence the wave function collapses. You can look at a better explanation here [1] this video
RecommendscromwellianMar 2019
“Ron Garrett gave a presentation at Google years ago on Quantum Information Theory that kind of demystified a lot of spooky stuff”
Demystifies spooky quantum effects like the quantum eraser
Full comment
Ron Garrett gave a presentation at Google years ago on Quantum Information Theory that kind of demystified a lot of spooky stuff (like quantum eraser), and I'm wondering how much of this is merely an artifact of the way we're interpreting the math. this video
RecommendsnewpavlovMay 2022
“the talk itself is quite good even if you only vaguely remember QM.”
Good talk introducing superdeterminism
Full comment
Personally, I am firmly in the "superdeterminism" camp. To me it's the most elegant interpretation of QM without any mystical measurements magically dependent on "consciousness" and whole universes created on each interaction. If you want to learn basics about it, I recommend watching this video: this video Do not mind the (joking) clickbait title, the talk itself is quite good even if you only vaguely remember QM.
RecommendsnewpavlovAug 2024
“This video can be a good introduction to this topic”
Good introduction to superdeterminism
Full comment
There is a very important and often forgotten caveat to the Bell's inequalities: it covers local hidden states. If we are to assume that measurement and particle creation apparatuses are entangled with each other (after all, they had plenty of opportunities since the big bang), then we have a global hidden state and the quantum measurment randomness becomes a simple artifact of removing global state from the picture. This interpretation of QM is usually called "superdeterminism" and, personally, I like it much more than the black vodoo measurement magic with collapsing wave functions or creation of whole new worlds on each tiny measurement. This video can be a good introduction to this topic: this video (don't mind the clickbaity title, the video itself is good)
Recommendsdavid927Apr 2025
“He makes a tremendous case that, yes, we're in a simulation”
Ron Garret's talk making a case for living in a simulation
Full comment
Ages ago I talked about this with Ron Garret here on HN and he pointed me to his Google Talk: this video He makes a tremendous case that, yes, we're in a simulation, and the more I learn the more that conviction grows.
Cites itthemgtSep 2015
“as Ron Garret coined, the "zero-worlds interpretation"[1]”
Source for Garret's zero-worlds interpretation
Full comment
Mermin put it perhaps most succinctly, that reality is "correlations without correlata", or as Ron Garret coined, the "zero-worlds interpretation"[1] It also makes sense to me on a sociological level, that the way in which this interpretation seems to undermine the very foundation of western, scientific thought is the reason it has been so desperately avoided for so long, with many preferring to believe in an infinite forking (but somehow still "real) multiverse, than the idea that reality itself is intersubjective. [1] this video
Cites itlisperDec 2016
“You can make a quantum eraser out of a few sheets of polarizing film.”
Demo of a quantum eraser from polarizing film
Full comment
Quantum erasers are a lot less impressive than they sound. They don't really "erase" anything. You can make a quantum eraser out of a few sheets of polarizing film. See: this video around the 15 minute mark for a demo.
Cites itlisperSep 2018
“Same content in a video”
Video with same content as a related argument
Full comment
I'm working on it (definitely room for improvement there), but the original paper is long and it will probably take me the better part of the day to work through it (and I also have to get some work done). In the meantime, the same conclusion can be reached by a completely different argument: link Same content in a video: this video UPDATE: Just found this: link By way of: link
Cites itlisperDec 2020
“Or the movie version”
Commenter's own take on QM interpretation
Full comment
Just about any modern book on QM interpretation will tell you this, though not in so many words. (They won't necessarily endorse this point of view, but they will tell you about it.) Here is my take on it: link (Or the movie version: this video ) (These are now a wee bit dated, but still defensible.) For something written by an actual physicist I recommend anything by Tim Maudlin (he's a Bohmian, but his pedagogy is without peer) or David Z. Alberts, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience." UPDATE: There's also link
