Part 9! What is the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, if there even is one? Is there any way at all to develop a coherent view of nature based on quantum mechanics? What are the ultimate lessons that we can learn from quantum mechanics? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!

This episode is sponsored by Chirp. Join Paul's Audio Book Club. There are no commitments or subscription required. Listen along with Paul, and you can enjoy deeply discounted prices (for a limited time) on each of Paul's Book Club Selections! Just go to https://www.chirpbooks.com/spaceman and follow the club to stay in the loop for future picks and other exclusive content.

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/spaceman and get on your way to being your best self. Visit BetterHelp to get 10% off your first month!

Support the show: http://www.patreon.com/pmsutter
All episodes: http://www.AskASpaceman.com

Follow on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PaulMattSutter
Like on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PaulMattSutter
Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/PaulMSutter

Read a book: http://www.pmsutter/book

Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, physics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE!

Big thanks to my top Patreon supporters this month: Justin G, Chris L, Barbara K, Duncan M, Corey D, Justin Z, Andrew F, Naila, Scott M, Rob H, Justin, Louis M, John W, Alexis, Gilbert M, Joshua, John S, Thomas D, Simon G, Erin J, David B, Frank T, Tim R, Tom Van S, Mark R, Alan B, Craig B, Richard K, Dave L, Stephen M, Maureen R, Stace J, Neil P, COTFM, Stephen S, Ken L, Alberto M, Matt C, Joe R, David P, Ulfert B, Sean M, Edward K, Tracy F, Sarah K, Steven S, Ryan L, Ella F, Richard S, Sam R, Thomas K, James C, Jorg D, R Larche, Syamkumar M, John S, Fred S, Homer V, Mark D, Colin B, Bruce A, Steven M, Brent B, Bill E, Tim Z, Thomas W, Linda C, David W, Aissa F, Marc H, Avery P, Scott M, Thomas H, Farshad A, Matthias S, Kenneth D, Maureen R, Michael W, Scott W, David W, Neuterdude, Cha0sKami, Robert C, Robert B, Gary K, Stephen J, dhr18, Anna V, Johanna M, Matthew G, Paul & Giulia S, Ron D, Steven M, Louis M, Michael C, Alyssa K, Lode D, Roger, Bob C, Patti H, Red B, Benjamin M, BlueDragon, Stephen A, Ian S, James R, Skip M, Robert O, Adam I, Lynn D, Jeffrey C, Allen E, and Paul G!

Thanks to Cathy Rinella for editing.

Hosted by Paul M. Sutter, astrophysicist and the one and only Agent to the Stars (http://www.pmsutter.com).

 

EPISODE TRANSCRIPTION (AUTO-GENERATED)

Before I dig into today's topic, I wanted to mention that this episode is brought to you by my friends. At Chirp. Chirp is an audio book retailer known for awesome deals without any commitments or subscription, and I have an audio book club with them. At the start of every month, I'll announce the pick here, and Chip will deeply discount the audio book for a limited time. We'll listen to it together, and at the end of the month you'll have the chance to share your thoughts and see what other club members thought, too. My next pick is the world According to physics by Jim al Khalili. Physics underlies our everyday world in countless visible and invisible ways, and I believe that physics is a powerful tool for understanding and appreciating our world. It's not just a set of equations and formulas. It's a deeper layer like knowledge of refraction and wavelengths doesn't make sunsets less beautiful. It adds a layer of beauty and mystery and wonder. The world, according to physics, artfully explores that beautiful depth To join, go to chirp books dot com slash spaceman and grab my next pick the world According to physics on sale for $2.99 for a limited time.

I wasn't kidding about the great deals. And be sure to press follow to join my club, to stay in the loop on future picks and other exclusive content from me that's chirp. Books dot com slash spaceman. I told myself that I wouldn't let this series go beyond eight episodes. That eight was the absolute limit. The tippy top. Anything beyond eight would just end up being self indulgent, because if I didn't stop at eight, then I might as well go to 20 or 50 or 1000 episodes on quantum mechanics. Folks. We've barely scratched the thinnest edge of the outermost layer of the topmost surface of quantum mechanics. I hope I've given you enough taste of the various interpretations and enough of the fundamental core of quantum mechanics, the postulates, the history, the implications. But to squeeze it down to just eight episodes, I've had to leave out a lot. I barely talked about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

I just kind of breezed by entanglement in explaining how it works. On my way to other topics. Boer's correspondence principle barely got talked about I only mentioned Paul Dura twice in magnetic fields, poor magnetic fields, always playing second fiddle and bells inequalities. I didn't even talk about that. A mathematical proof when combined with some very clever experiments that proved that quantum mechanics cannot have local hidden variables, part particles can't carry around private information that's hidden from us. You can only have global, hidden variable theories where everything is nonlocal like pilot wave theory. I could have spent an entire episode just on that, or a refresher on the double slit experiments or the quantum eraser experiment. Folks, I'm doing you a favor by only keeping it to eight episodes that have now become nine. But here we are. I couldn't do it.

I simply couldn't do it. To explore the meaning of quantum mechanics, we had to just keep going and going, exploring the interpretations and how we got to those interpretations and what those interpretations meant. And I swear from the bottom of my space, ma'am heart that this will be our last discussion on the topic. Unless I pick it up again in the future, feel free to ask about Bell's inequalities or the quantum er research experiment or anything else that strikes your fancy, But seriously, it's the last of this series. So let's take stock and see where we are in a highly simplified way, as as you're tucking in your kid tonight, what do you tell them? Well, how about a quantum? Mechanics tells us how really, really tiny stuff works and B quantum mechanics makes no sense whatsoever. That's that's pretty much it. That's the problem. In a nutshell. I started this series, and we were so young then by saying that nobody likes quantum mechanics. And this is why, from the theory from the mathematics, it's not clear what's real and what's merely a mathematical trick.

The mathematical statements that we developed in response to the experiments and observations of the early 20th century don't make any connection to our natural understanding of the world. We can't tell if what we're seeing in quantum mechanics that the non locality, the entanglement, the nature and evolution of the wave function, the uncertainty, the probabilities, all of it represents something real and fundamental and true about the subatomic universe. Or if it's all just a bunch of mathematical tricks we use to solve problems. Quantum mechanics really does stand out when it comes to this. With other theories of physics, we usually have a pretty easy time deciding which is real and which is a trick. Sometimes there's a debate when a new physical theory comes along, but usually everyone agrees pretty quickly. For example, Uh, Newtonian gravity had this feature called Action at a Distance, where where objects could instantaneously gravitationally influence other objects regardless of the distance. It's there in the mathematics there was. There was a big uproar about it in its early days, but eventually everyone agreed that it's not real.

And it was just a mathematical trick. And now we accept our modern understanding of gravity, which is general relativity. We say in general relativity that space time warps into forms, and that's our experience of gravity. We accept that as real and not a mathematical trick. We accept that the electric current in a wire is real and not a mathematical trick. We accept that the normal force or the force of friction are mathematical tricks and not real. They're actually caused by more fundamental interactions. As an aside, yes, it's possible to argue that all of physics is a series of mathematical tricks, and we are all simply always developing approximations to what nature is, and we develop tools to help us make predictions, and that's it. You can take the logical extension of this and say that the electron doesn't exist. It's just a mathematical trick we use to try to explain what's really going on and what's really going on. We can never truly understand. I personally tend to lean towards this view. But, yeah, that's a different episode.

But in quantum mechanics, this distinction isn't so clear. Obviously, if we had a more fundamental theory that led to quantum mechanics, then we could easily say that quantum mechanics was full of mathematical tricks. And the more fundamental theory is real un, unless the more fundamental theory had even more headaches. These arguments about the reality of quantum mechanics started in the very beginning as the field was being developed, and I talked about in those episodes about the arguments made by Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Boer, Einstein and all those others. All those arguments echo even today. I said that in those episodes, and I wasn't wrong. The debates they had 100 years ago continue to be debates today in this series, I wanted to ground you in the mathematics, the facts of quantum mechanics, and the observation verifies statements that quantum mechanics makes about the world. Entanglement is a thing. Probabilities are a thing.

Uncertainty is the thing. Non locality is a thing. Some of the arguments of the past were about these aspects of quantum mechanics. Were the probabilities real? Was entanglement real? Was uncertainty real? Those aspects of quantum mechanics are now seen as real. Nobody debates them essentially, and everyone agrees, essentially, that these are facts of our universe. That probability at the subatomic level is unavoidable. That entanglement at a subatomic level is unavoidable. That uncertainty at a subatomic level is unavoidable pretty much. Everyone who talks about quantum mechanics agrees that these aspects of reality are are reality. They're real. But that still leaves so much room for interpretation. And so far we've met three different interpretations, and those interpretations differ in discussions about the rest of quantum mechanics. They differ in what they regard various parts of quantum theory as real and what they regard as mere mathematical tricks.

For example, the Copenhagen interpretation takes the wave particle duality of nature and says that particles are real, but the waves are just mere mathematical tricks. They're a system of accounting, of probabilities that tell us where we'll find the particle the next time we look. The many worlds interpretation says that the waves are real, and what we call particles are just expressions of those ways of various experiments. In other words, they're just mere mathematical tricks. The pilot wave interpretation says that the particles and the waves are real and that nothing is a mere mathematical trick. We're just falling short of a real theory of physics. The past three interpretations that we have focused on have themselves centered on this debate on what is the nature of the wave particle duality? What are we really talking about when we say that particles have a wavelike nature? They've differed. There are other interpretations available on the table that dig into different aspects of the puzzles of quantum mechanics. Remember, nobody really seriously debates things like non locality and entanglement and probabilities, but they do debate things like the wave nature of reality and what those waves really mean.

Here's another one. The measurement problem. You know the thing that got Schroedinger so upset he started putting cats in boxes and mailing them to Heisenberg and Boer. That's that's not true. The measurement problem is that quantum mechanics seems to behave in two different modes when nobody's looking. When no one's taking a measurement, quantum systems obey the Schrodinger equation. They just evolve naturally. And then as soon as a measurement happens, the Schrodinger equation goes away and it just quote collapses to some result. Is this collapse of the wave function a real thing, or is it a mere mathematical trick? This is a separate question from the existence of the wave function. Remember things like many worlds interpretation and Copenhagen interpretation and pilot wave theory? Uh, the debate about the nature of the wave itself. Now you can ask a more fine grained question. What it what does it mean for a wave function to collapse? There are some interpretations, for example, the objective collapse interpretation that says that not only does the wave function really exist the same way it does in, say, many worlds or pilot wave, but that the wave function collapse is a physical process.

It happens that when we engage in a measurement there is a real wave function that evolves in a way that we can capture with our mathematical equations. It's a subtle, subtle difference, but it's real. It's a valid point. The struggle that objective collapse theories have is that they can't really describe that process. What does it mean? It's one thing to say. Oh, the wave function collapses. OK, how does it collapse? And why doesn't it collapse when two particles interact in the middle of nowhere? But then it doesn't collapse? When we're doing a measurement, it's hard to actually figure that out. Here's another one focusing on the nature of collapse, the collapse of the wave function, that altering state when a measurement happens. Essentially asking these, these interpretations are asking what is actually happening during a measurement. Here's one. Consciousness causes collapse. Hear me out on this one. You you ask where or when the collapse actually occurs. If if measurement is so important in quantum mechanics, then what exactly constitutes a measurement?

You know, if two particles interact in a random gas cloud, we don't call that a measurement. But if they interact in my laboratory and I'm staring at them, that becomes a measurement. But at the end of the day, it's all atoms interacting with other atoms interacting with other atoms. We've been down this road before. This is how you get universal wave functions in in many worlds. Interpretation. In the pilot wave theory, I put two atoms in the middle of a gas cloud. They interact, they entangle. I put two atoms in the middle of my laboratory and let them interact. They entangle, uh, but but at some point, I call it a measurement because I'm staring at it. But but the particles interact. They interact with my measuring device. They interact with the light coming out of the display. They interact with my eyeballs, they interact with my brain. Where does the buck stop when it comes to measurement? Maybe it stops with patreon. That's a good place to stop your box. Patreon dot com slash PM So that's P MS U TT ER. It's how you can keep this show going if you love this show, and I know you do.

I love it, too. The number one thing you can do to support the show is go to patreon. I sincerely, truly appreciate there is no debate about the reality of my appreciation of your monthly contributions. Thank you. Patreon dot com slash PM center. Where does the buck stop when it comes to measurement? Maybe there's something special about consciousness. After all, it's the only place in the chain of observations where something different happens. If two molecules interact in a gas cloud and nobody's watching, we call that a quantum interaction, extraordinary equation entanglement. But now, if I'm staring at them as a conscious observer, something special happens. I call that a measurement. So maybe measurement is real. It's a real thing in our universe. But the apparatus doing the measurement that is our minds are not well, at least not physically. Real Y. Yes. For this to work, you have to accept that the mind is different than everything else in the universe.

That the mind is something non-physical that the mind is something special. But a whole heck of a lot of people believe in souls which are not physically connected to this universe. So it's not like the idea of sitting in a vacuum. Also, the concept of mind body separation of dualism goes back centuries, if not millennia. The idea that the mind, our conscious minds are truly something special and slightly or all the way nonphysical. And that is what is triggering. The collapse of wave functions isn't as crazy as it sounds it it doesn't exactly sound super physical, but it's not like the super physical interpretations of quantum mechanics have made a lot of headway in 100 years. Or what about this information collapse there? You know what? Let's just say that nothing is real. Wave functions, particles, measurement, all of it. It's all lies, lies, I tell you, I in in this view collapse happens in the mind, but only because we're the ones observing nature.

There is no objective reality except the one we create within ourselves. We are just processing information, and what we call a wave function collapse or a measurement is just certain bits of information clicking into place in our brains, not representing anything physical at all. But that kind of thinking goes against the general trend of science, which is to say that there is an objective reality that we all share and discover together. And I know what you're starting to think like Paul Paul, Paul Paul, Paul all this is starting to sound like wrong and weird and out there. And you know what? You're not wrong, but sometimes you gotta think outside the box. I don't personally subscribe to any of these interpretations, but more on that later and my personal take on all this. But we shouldn't automatically discount them because they're pretty out there because the in their ideas all have their dramatic shortcomings. And there does seem to be something very especially weird about quantum mechanics. There are even more published interpretations of quantum mechanics dozens, if not hundreds of them.

But I think we've had enough. They all follow the same theme, what is real and what's not. What does quantum mechanics actually teach us about the universe and what's just a tool for getting answers? Which interpretation is correct? They all have strengths, and yet they all have major weaknesses. They all explain some of the subatomic world and bring some sense of order and intuition to it, but they all come up short in other ways. To me, every interpretation has some flavor of shut up and calculate. You know, this is the the famous like summary of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is don't mind the details. Don't think about what's actually going on. Just shut up and do the math and get results. And so people try to come up with other interpretations, like the many worlds interpretation or the pilot way of our consciousness causes collapse or whatever. But all of them, all of them every single one includes some feature that doesn't make sense and that we can't explain and just sort of happens.

No matter what every single interpretation you run into a wall called to shut up and calculate. This show is sponsored by better help. One of the most awesome things about physics is that it's like a user manual for the universe. You can literally use it to predict the future Now. Now, humans are a little bit more complicated. Believe it or not, people are more complicated than quantum physics. I am not joking, and and life and dealing with people does not come with a user manual, and the next best thing is therapy. I have been using therapy for years. It's such a powerful tool for me to to answer life's questions when those questions don't come in the form of of of physics problems, and I think you will benefit a lot from it, too. And that's why I'm proud to have better help as a sponsor. Better help is the world's largest therapy service. Better Help has matched 3 million people with professionally licensed and vetted therapists available 100% online.

Plus it's affordable. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to match with the therapist. If things aren't clicking, you can easily switch to a new therapist any time. It couldn't be simpler. No waiting rooms, no traffic, no endless searching for the right therapist to learn more and save 10% off your first month at better. Help dot com slash spaceman. That's better help! HE LP dot com slash spaceman So where do we go from here? Well, what if we just why go? What if we just relaxed a little? If all these interpretations make us a little bit uncomfortable, why force ourselves into an interpretation now? Maybe one of the interpretations that I've discussed really resonates with you and really connects with you, and you think that's a really cool way to view the universe more power to you? I will tell you though, that none of the interpretations sit well with me.

So why do we have to make ourselves believe in an interpretation? If you were to ask the average physicist what they think about quantum mechanics and which interpretation is correct, they would probably just shrug. The vast majority of working physicists, including ones who specialize in using or developing quantum theory, don't really think about it all that much. Honestly, they might mumble something about coping an interpretation because that's the default interpretation in graduate classes. Or if they've given it some thought and reading, they might be a fan of many worlds or one of the other minority viewpoints. Physicists don't really talk about interpretations much. It goes even beyond shut up and calculate. They're they're just doing the math. They're just trying to get work done. At the end of the day, where you see a lot of debate about interpretations about quantum mechanics is among philosophers. Even if the interpretations are started by physicists, they're usually writing and thinking more philosophically when they write about these interpretations. The fact that the interpretations of quantum mechanics dig into philosophy more it it it isn't surprising because philosophy is great at creating large meetings from small nuggets of information.

And it's also really awesome because I believe that these kinds of discussions are worth having because it elevates physics from a mere precursor to engineering and embeds physics in the larger human quest to understand the universe we find ourselves in. Honestly, if a physicist espouses a certain view on an interpretation, the vast majority of them follow the shot up and calculate school of thought anyway. Sure, a physicist might say they prefer one interpretation over the other. But in the day to day work, the interpretation doesn't come into play. They follow the postulate they outlined in earlier episodes. They're equipped with the mathematical tools of Heisenberg, Schrodinger von Neumann and the others, and they and they just get to work. Yes, there's that itch you can't scratch in the back of your mind, but it doesn't stop you from doing your job as a scientist, which is to explain nature. And there's no doubt by anybody that quantum mechanics explains nature. It's just that we can't explain quantum mechanics, but maybe we don't have to. Let's talk about intuition.

We've tried in our exploration of these interpretations two approaches. One approach is to try to take our intuition from the classical world and attempt to build a better quantum theory that hasn't exactly worked out because we always end up with statements that don't make sense. Like the measurement problem. Like the nature of the wave particle duality, we end up with statements that that just don't don't fit like entanglement and non locality. We've also tried to use the rules of quantum mechanics to develop a new intuition of nature. And and and that hasn't worked out either. Like if we just take the reality of the experiments and try to go from there and say, OK, experiments tell me that a wave function is real. Let's probe the reality of the wave function and explore what it means. Well, you end up with statements that don't make sense. But when you work in quantum mechanics long enough, the stuff that initially doesn't make sense well, I won't go as far to say that it ends up making sense, but at least you get used to it, and then after that, you get comfortable with it, and then after that, you develop an intuition based on that, when you just stop worrying about the words and the interpretations and just focus on the math, the reality, the experimental reality that we observe, you develop a certain kind of intuition that's separate from your classical intuition of the world.

So here's a question I have for you. If you were to get comfortable enough with the bare statements of quantum mechanics, the postulates, the math, the thing, the things I started the series with. And now you know why I started the series with how physicists approach quantum mechanics, wouldn't that entail its own sort of meaning? I'm not telling you to shut up and calculate. I'm suggesting that maybe we should calculate and listen. I'm not saying to ignore the interpretations of quantum mechanics and just focus on the math. I'm saying Let yourself breathe a little and allow the lessons of quantum mechanics to alter the way you see the world. When we listen to quantum mechanics, we have the opportunity to think in ways we've never thought before. We have the chance to reach conclusions that we simply couldn't if we got stuck in classical thinking. What is one of the ultimate lessons of quantum mechanics that classical thinking doesn't work. The subatomic world truly lives by a different set of rules that do not align with our lived experience.

And what's one of the hallmarks of classical thinking, forcing ourselves into binary choices? Think of the classical world. This is the way the world is. This is the beginning. The middle. The end here is my state. Here are my laws of physics. Here is a prediction for the future done deterministic local. As soon as we discovered quantum mechanics, we realized that we couldn't use classical thinking, classical intuition or classical anything anymore. The subatomic world doesn't play by the normal rules. It plays by its own rules. Quantum mechanics teaches us that binary choices don't work. You don't get to know exactly where an electron will appear the next time you go looking for it, you don't get to say that this system that you're studying is perfectly isolated from the rest of the universe. You don't get to say that you can have perfect knowledge of everything. The intuition that the mathematics of quantum mechanics teaches us is that we shouldn't be sitting here trying to force a narrative on it.

We keep trying to craft interpretations, but ultimately those interpretations, even the wildest ones, are rooted in classical thinking because we are still using our classical brains with classical rules. So when faced with this choice of interpretations, don't think either, or think both and allow yourself to operate in a new way of thinking instead of trying to choose one interpretation over the other. Maybe we should simply accept the quantum reality for what it is. Class complex, nonclassical and potentially unknowable and not understandable. Maybe we should stop trying to interpret quantum mechanics, and instead let it teach us something more fundamental. Sure, pick your favorite interpretation if you want to, but maybe allow yourself to float between them. Maybe on Tuesdays you'll follow the Copenhagen. And on Wednesdays you'll be in the mood for many world Saturdays, maybe both.

Why not? It's a mistake of classical thinking to believe that the interpretations are independent of each other and mutually exclude each other. Think of all the wonderful and strange aspects of quantum mechanics. The entanglement, the randomness, the uncertainty, the non locality. Isn't that enough? Isn't the mystery and wonder part of the journey of living in this universe. We have failed for 100 years to come up with a coherent interpretation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to our classical brains. So maybe we should stop listening to our classical brains and start listening to the subatomic particles in our laboratories at a fundamental subatomic level. Nature operates by different rules. Maybe it's a mistake to try to force an interpretation on that again. I'm not saying shut up and calculate. I'm saying Use the mathematics, use what we know what we have observation verified the rules that we know the subatomic world plays by and use those to build new lenses through which we can look at the world.

And instead of trying to force a classical narrative on the subatomic world, which has not gone well, what if we took the story of the quantum world and brought that up into our macroscopic experience? What if you lived your life like an electron? Thinking about quantum behavior seems absurd, absurd, but that's only because we live and breathe in a classical world. What if we tried to live in a fully quantum world? What if we took those fundamental lessons of quantum mechanics, probabilities, uncertainties, non locality entanglements and applied those to everyday life. What if you lived truly accepting the uncertainty of the future setting goals and visions, but without the burdens of concrete expectations? What if you acknowledge that your actions had nonlocal influence across the globe with even small gestures of kindness or charity making an impact? What if you accepted that you can't know everything as well as you wish you could? What have you stopped yourself from falling into binary classical, either? Or choices allowing situations, choices and even people to be more complex and more rich and more interesting and more beautiful than that?

What if we listened to Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bor and all the rest? Not as physicists but like therapists? I'm not saying that we need quantum mechanics to teach us how to be better people. But isn't it comforting that nature at its most fundamental level teaches us powerful lessons that make us better people? What if, instead of trying to find meaning in quantum mechanics, we used quantum mechanics to find meaning in ourselves. Thank you for joining me on this journey through the interpretations of quantum mechanics. I have so many people to thank for all the questions about quantum mechanics that led to this series, which has been a joy, a true joy to dig into and explore and explain. And I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. But thank you to Mihail Ian email at Sharman on Twitter Massimiliano S on Facebook Isaac P on email at On Twitter Chris F on Facebook akana be on email at SMTR on Twitter Albert R on email Julius M on email.

Martin E on email. John on Facebook RC on email. Nick on email at Jordie R Uh, Twitter at pizza Larger on Twitter on email. HB a and email Scott M on email. Graeme Dion email Martin An on email at Sample SAPIENs on Twitter. Peter W on email at Mark Group on Twitter Shanel on email. Susan on email. Daniel G email Campbell Dion email Timothy Be on YouTube, Fernando G on email and James W on email and, of course, thank you to all my patreon contributors. It is your contributions that keep this show going. My top top contributors this month. Justin G, Chris L, Barbeque Duncan and Corey D, Justin Z Andrew F, NAIA Scott M Rob H Justin Lewis, M John W Alexis Aaron J Gilbert M Joshua Josh S, Thomas D, Michael R, Simon G It is everyone that I have to thank. It is amazing. The amount of support I get. This is my job. This is my life.

This is my passion. Patreon dot com slash PM Sutter Keep sending me questions hashtag Ask the spaceman. Ask us spaceman at gmail dot com. Any of the lingering topics that we we didn't quite touch on in this series in quantum mechanics feel free to ask. It might be a while, but we'll get to it. Don't worry, and I'll see you next time for more complete knowledge of time and space.

3 Comments