Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Yakir Aharonov: The Future Propagates Backward in Quantum Theory

Episode Date: October 13, 2025

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Physicist Yakir Aharonov argues that the standard story of quantum mechanics is wrong, proposing a time-symmetric “two-state vector” view in which reality is defined by wavefunctions from both past and future. He explains weak measurements (information without collapse), nonlocal dynamics behind interference, and phenomena like the “quantum Cheshire Cat.” Aharonov recounts the birth of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, why gauge potentials mislead about locality, and how pre and post-selection restore causal insight without determinism. He shares memories of Bohm, Heisenberg, and Feynman, touches on gravitational and non-Abelian AB analogs, and lays out why a clear narrative—not just math—is essential to understanding quantum theory. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Links mentioned: - Yakir’s Papers: https://inspirehep.net/authors/1023512 - Jenann Ismael [TOE]: https://youtu.be/7kvXihDAOi0 - Roger Penrose [TOE]: https://youtu.be/sGm505TFMbU - Shift Of An Electron Interference Pattern By Enclosed Magnetic Flux [Paper]: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.5.3 SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex, Plathom, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best hapice in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca.com. How could we have been so wrong for so long about quantum mechanics? All the things that we are totalized quantum mechanics is wrong. Standard quantum theory describes a wave function that evolves forward from an initial measurement. Professor Yakir Akharanov says this is wrong.

Aharanov, the co-discoverer of the Aharanov-Beh effect and a pioneer of weak measurement theory, has spent 65 years revolutionizing quantum foundations, and this is his first and only time he's given a podcast. To him, quantum reality requires two wave functions, one propagating forward from the past and another propagating backward from the future. This is ABL theory, also known as the two-state vector formalism. It explains weak measurements,

which are observations that are so gentle they extract information without ever collapsing the wave function. And that's why Yakir thinks it's absurd to think that the quantum system ever collapses. Aharanov then discovered phenomena such as quantum sheshire cat, where a neutron spin physically separates from the neutron itself and travels independently. He's one of the most influential living quantum physicists. This conversation was filmed directly in his home in Israel, and he captures the revolutionary thinking process

from the Mann-Heisenberg champion whom Bohm mentored and whose ideas Feynman called Beautiful. The professor has a thick accent and I've meticulously transcribed and verified every word, so please enable subtitles for the optimal viewing experience. So, sir, why don't you tell me a bit about how you view the world? I told you that I am getting close

to really finally understanding phantom mechanics. You know, I have been working for 65 years and struggling all the time to understand better and better quantum mechanics. While I made progress, each time I made some progress in understanding is led through an discovery of new phenomena and new effects, and that shows that I'm in the right direction.

And I think I finally arrived at a complete new interpretation of quantum mechanics. You know that when you have a theory of the world like quantum mechanics, it's not enough to have just a good mathematical formulation. You must have also a story that you are able to tell about it that is free of mathematics. because the mathematics cannot tell you what questions to ask me. It can answer any question you ask, but it cannot tell you what are the interesting questions to us. In order to know what interesting questions to us,

you must have a way to understand what the theory means, not in mathematical terms, but a new kind of inclusion or story, you can tell about it that will be, as much as possible as free of mathematics. That story, if it's correct, can help you to see things in the mathematics that otherwise you wouldn't have been able to see. So that is the importance of good interpretation.

So the first step is to show that the kind of story that anybody is telling about quantum accounting is completely wrong. I will tell you the type of story that people usually tell about quantum mechanics. They say the following thing. First of all, they say that contrary to classical physics, the quantum world is not deterministic. That means that even if we know everything that we should know about a given system, like an atom, for example,

we have a predict when it will dishear an element. amiss a photon. One atom will emit the photo after one second and the other atom which is completely identical and it has exactly the same surrounding will emit the photo after and now for no reason at all. So that is the thing that made Einstein completely angry. It's saying I don't believe that God plays dice. I don't believe that nature is capricious or unres. unreasonable, because we always thought in science that everything that happens must have a reason. And here, for no reason at all, one had some behaves one way and the other another way. So people say about quantum mechanics, we simply had to accept it that the world is non-deterministic

for no reason at all with us as to take it as an axial. And my first point is that it's not true. In fact, we can show that just because nature is not deterministic, it allows the system, the quantum system, to have properties that it could not have if nature was deterministic. So there is a reason for this indeterminism, as I will describe. And once you find a reason for it, then it's not anymore that nature is capricious. It does it for a given reason.

So that's the first thing that is wrong, what people tell us about quantum mechanics, that for now reason is at all the world is not determinative, there is a reason for it. The next thing we are told about quantum mechanics or quantum domain is that every measurement that we do on a quantum system necessarily disturbing. Disturb is so much that we cannot say that what we saw, what was there before because really most of what you see is because

of the way that it will be disturbing. So that is completely wrong again. I have discovered a new kind of measurement that I call non-disturbing measurements or with measurement measurements. Measurement

that don't disturb the system at all and nevertheless tell us all the information that we need about the system. Provided we can have many examples that we can test. So we will discuss it more carefully, but the idea is that it's not true that there is no reality in the quantum domain. There is a reality, but in order to find this,

you have to do the right measurement that don't disturb this reality. Okay? That's the next thing. The last most important thing about we are told about quantum account, which is wrong, is that a quantum particle like an electron can be either a particle or a wave. They say that the electron, for example, in hydrogen an atom, is like a wave surrounding the proton, not a partly rotating around the portal, but a wave surrounding. So we think about quantum particles as it, there are transitional life waves.

But flattical wave has a poverty that if you look at one point on the intensity of this wave, you don't change the wave at other places. But the wave of the electron has the property that if you look at one point and find the electron there, the whole wave disappeared magically and is left only at the place where you found the electron. Now, that is an illogical behavior because if a moment before, the charge of the electron and the mass of the electron were spread all over the wind and then you finally find it in one place,

then all these charles must have collapsed very quickly to this point that will create a lot of radiation and disturbance that you never see. So that is not a high description. On the other hand, people say, but look, it must be a weird because there is no other way to understand then why we see interference only in the visual electron. For example, you take an electron and send it through a screen that has two open slits.

And if only one of the sleeves is open and later you put a photographic plate and collect one electron after the other, you see the pattern that called diffraction pattern. You see a space of points wave the chain from one tree. If the others' width is open, you see the way that came from the others' league. But if you open both three, each electron that comes, much goes through both of them

in order to explain that you wrote destructive interference, that there are points on the photographic stream that suddenly no electron appeared there if the two trees are open. But if only one street is open, any of them, it will appear there. So people say because of that there is no way to understand that behavior, and it will say that the electron also can be a wave. And I will show them that's exactly so true. By doing the kind of new experiment that I'm talking about,

I can see the interference pattern, and nevertheless, afterwards, I can do a measurement that will tell me through which sleep the particle went. So he must have another explanation for interference, not by weight. And I found that interpretation. In fact, I found that interpretation of this new behavior already in the 60s. In 1964, I came to Munich and I visited Mathsprunk Institute. and I was introduced to Heisenberg, who was alive then.

He had a few more years after that he was alive. And then when I entered to his room, and we were introduced, I asked Professor Heisenberg, do you know how to explain interference in your language? Because the language of Heisenberg was a language that was still used of position and momentum and the dynamics that are new dynamics that correspond to

metter sense instead of your environment. So that was the dynamics that's called non-commuting dynamics. So anyhow I asked me, near dynamics do you know how to explain the interference? He said it doesn't know.

So I showed him a new way to think about it. And you got so excited. And from then on, anyone that came to visit him, I was told by his assistance, Peter Doe, that the first thing he will take him to a blackboard and show him how to understand interference in his pistol. So the way that I think about interference

is by showing that in quantum mechanics, there are the basic equations of motion, or Heiserberg equations of motion, are non-local. The electron, even though it moves at one point, has another variable that will tell the electron later where to appear on the photographic plate, and that variable has non-local equations of motion.

So although the electron goes through one slit, that variable knows that the other street is open or not because there are non-local equations of motion. And at first, you think there are non-local equations of motion, something terrible can happen because it will destroy causality. The party goes for one slit, you open the other streets instantaneously. That's why I know that the other street is opened. So that way that quantum mechanics gets out of this problem

is by having their circumstances. that if you know from the past through which field of particle goes, that variable that has the non-of-air equation of motion is completely uncertain. But if you use pre- and post-election, you can prepare initially the particle that you don't know through which field it goes.

You then check the interference pattern by looking on it with big measurements. and do this on Ensemble so you don't disturb any of the particles and then after you see that interferes by with measurement, you can check through which field the particle went. And that will set you from causality

and you can see that the new thing about quantum mechanics is the normal quality that is allowed only before you have uncertainties. That's a very subtle point. Okay, so to summarize, all the things that we are told them as quantum mechanics is wrong. I'm writing now an article that I say, I call it, how could we have been so home for so long about quantum mechanics? All the things that we have been telling about quantum mechanics to many the streets,

look, quantum mechanics is such a mysterious theory. the problem can be at the same time at two different occasions. Right. There is no reality there. There is no reason there because two atoms from law and behave differently. So the world, according to this story, is so in order that people, philosophers and writers now say that the whole, we have to look at the world as something completely uncertain because that is what quantum mechanics tell us about. And that story is wrong.

Okay? So this is my main mission to show that the way that we have thought about quantum mechanics is really wrong and we have to think about it a new way. Now, once you're thinking about it in this new way and you learn to look at quantum system without disturbing them, you find a beautiful new reality that can be checked only by this kind of width measurement. And I found a host of new phenomena that is related to this reality. The most entertaining phenomena is that I call the quantum Cheshire, etc.

You know the story about Alice in Wonderland that was written by Luke Hill, right? And this Alice comes to this beautiful world. She can talk to animals. and she met a hat, she talked to the hat, and after a while the hat gets angry and disappears. But it disappears in a very strange way. First, the Tane disappears, then the body disappears, then the face disappears, and only a smile is let.

And Alice, since 12 said, many times since, a hat is out a smile. But what could be a smile without a smile? the head. Doesn't make sense. So everybody that treats this, including me, when I read it in high school, and so that the Lewis Carroll was crazy to talk about a smile without the head. But it turns out that one of the mechanics tells us that that can really happen.

What I've shown is there is a very interesting effect. You take a particle like a neutron that has a property that's called the spin. the neutron can rotate around itself and produce a magnetic moment. That rotation is called the spin. And it turns out that it's possible to do an experiment where you send the electron in one side and the spin leads the electron and moves by itself on the other side and then they'll join again. So the spin is like the smile of the head that can leave the neutron or not. everybody thought the neutron can never be exist without the spin

and the spin halos exist without the neutron. This is one of that kind of new phenomena that I found once I started to sing correctly by using pre- and post selection. And there are many, many other effects that are something before super oscillations and quantum work that are new directions in mathematical, mathematics you came out of this world, and there are many other beautiful results, especially that when you have an electron, when you do pre- and post-election, you find that the electron can have, together with it, a pair of another electron and a counter-electrum that has a

negative mass and the opposite charge, and if you only do with it, measurement, you see those new kinds of entities that I call quantum particles. So there are beautiful new phenomena that you discover once you seem probably at quantum mechanics. So the first idea is when you have two atoms that are exactly the same, but they behave later differently. You say that this later experiment tells you that in fact from the beginning the two atoms were different, but you couldn't find it in the past,

you can only find it in the future. And I re-formulated quantum mechanics by saying that in order to describe the present, in classical physics to describe fully the present, it's enough to know the initial conditions that were past. And one of the mechanics, in order to describe fully the pattern and the present, you must do two experiments, one before, that give you a one boundary condition, the past,

the wave functions that you found before propagates to the present, and later you do another experiment that gets different results for one estimate and other, that different results give you another boundary. condition and that new thing that is called away is propagated back from the future to the present. And both information from the past and from the future, which has happened only quantum mechanically, because radically, once you know the past, there is no new information in the future. But in quantum mechanics, you have new information in the future and both information are relevant in the present. provided you do only with measurement to tell them.

Okay, that is, in an actual, the ideas that I want to discuss in this interview. That's perfect. I've been using Claude to prep for theories of everything episodes, and it's fundamentally changed how I approach topics. When I'm exploring, say, gauge theory or consciousness prior to interviewing someone like Roger Penrose, I demand of an LLM that it can actually actually. engage with the mathematics and philosophy and physics, et cetera, at the technical level that

these conversations require. I also like how extremely fast it is to answer. I like Claude's personality. I like its intelligence. I also use Claude code on a daily basis and have been for the past few months. It's a game changer for developers. It works directly in your terminal and understands your entire code base and handles complex engineering tasks. I also used Claude, the web version, live, during this podcast with Eva Miranda here. Oh my God. This is fantastic. That's actually a feature named artifacts, and none of the other LLM providers have something that even comes close to it. And no coding is required. I just describe what I want, and it spits

out what I'm looking for. It's the interactive version of, hey, you put words to what I was thinking. Instead, this one's more like you put implementation into what I was thinking. That's extremely powerful. Use promo code. theories of everything, all one word capitalized, ready to tackle bigger problems, sign up for Claude today and get 50% off Claude Pro, which includes access to Claudecode when you use my link clod.aI slash theories of everything. So I want to see if I'm understanding correctly. Are you specifying right now the two-state vector formalism?

Yes. And quantum mechanics, a part, is described by a vector in Hilbert space. That is the vector in the shortening representation is described by a wave. And the high-hazer representation is described by some observable that tell you what this vector is. But anyway, you're the vector that comes from the measurement in the past. It propagates according to the shredding low, Heisman expression of motion.

to the present. Then, later, you do another experiment that distinguished between the two particles that started in the same initial condition, one of them moves to the right and the other moves to the left. If you take only those that move to the right, it gives another boundary condition,

another vector this will have sent it back from the future to the present. And both vectors, And if we're terms tells you the full information about the present. That is for the two-vector formulation that I did discover in the early 60s. Yes. What I'm wondering, sir, and I would like to get to some historical stories with Bohem and with Heisenberg and so forth. But what I'm wondering right now is when we were speaking off-air, you were referencing that you have...

Let me tell you on the history, the history of how I met Bone Church and how we did work together. I studied a detection in Haifa in the science faculty, and I got a course. I was taught one of the mechanics by the famous Nathan Rosary. You know the famous artisan-en-producery, Rosary, one of the most famous art of your history. Rosen is death Rosen, and he taught me quantum mechanics, beautiful horse. At the end of the horse, each one of the students were supposed to write a final short thesis on any subject as you want to choose in order to get the grade for the horse. And we were supposed to come to Professor Rosen and tell him what we decided through work home.

for this great. So I came to his office and said, Professor Rosen, I would like to work on the quantum theory of measurement. He said, no, no, no. That sadness is only for very old people like me. You should do some proper physics' work like something in Surrey State

or something that is real down-to-house physics and not this philosophy about measurement theory. You thought people waste, all people with their time. Nobody will understand it any of. And I told him, Professor Holden, look, the only reason I decided to study

physics is because I was interested in foundational problems. And that's why I want to wear from it. He said, no, no, you will waste your time. So we had this impasse. And I went out to the corridor

with long face. And I met a last instant by the name of Jemnon Harmi, they told me when he heard what happened, look, there is a new professor that just arrived in the Technion by the name of David Baum.

Go to his office, maybe he will help you. So I came to his office, I entered through the office and introduced myself, turns he told him about my problem with Rosen. And he asked me,

what do you want to, what are you saying about? So I told him the kind of problem and it interests me. Said, okay, it interests me too. You will work with me. I will tell Rosal that you will be now my students.

And that's how we started to interact together. After one year, he had to leave Israel. They went to England to Bristol. And I came along with him. That's where I did my PhD. That's where I discovered the thing that's called our old Bombersect. and that was a beautiful thing that happened due to Mecharty. I think the only good thing that happened from McCarthy

was the fact that Bomb had to leave the United States because, Princeton, that was very concerned thing, that bomb is called to pacify in front of the Mecharty Committee, immediately decided to fire him, not to continue. And then he had to leave the United States he went to Brazil and then when he was in Brazil it was called by the committee

to come back and testify about the trial of Oppenheimer and Bomberts used to do it so they took his passport and they removed the citizenship so he couldn't come back

to the United States and that's why he decided to come to Texas and Haifa so that's the only good thing that happened from accounting. Okay, that's how I met Bowen, so that was the initial trip. Let me see if I got this timeline correct. You collaborated with Bohem to come up with the Aharnov-Bome effect.

Yes. Okay, that was toward the end of the 1950s. And then in the 60s, you articulated your two-state vector formalism. Yeah, that was, after I finished my PhD with Bone, at Bristol, I went for one year to Brandeis University as a sales associate. And then I came as an assistant professor to University in New York. And when I was almost there, at that time it was a very good physical department that was labeled with their latest at the time and people.

Peter Bergman, who was the assistant of Einstein, was a Ditchie professor there. And while I was there, I started to think about the idea that the future vector was also relevant. I turned it through

Bergman and Everwind, and they got excited, and that's how we hold this article that's called out the ABL for Magidon. That was in 1961 or 62. What was Bohm like personally? Oh, we're like a beautiful person.

It was extremely intelligent, but he was affected very badly by what happened to him at Princeton, and that is what caused him later to devote most of his time to work that was not really proper fist. I mean, it became more and more philosophical well. But when I interacted with him, he was still really extremely brilliant.

In fact, he was Einstein told that he looked at Baum as he's a real follower of his. And at Feynman, when we wrote the article of the AB, Feynman sent us back a cable saying how beautiful, how come I had not thought about it myself. Feynman said also about Boom that he was the only one that he knows that was smarter than him.

So Bob was really small, but a very kind person and it was lovely beautiful experience to work with him. That's rare of Feynman to admit. Phelan told it to someone, I don't know with whom. That the only person that he met that was smarter than him was boom. Tell me about what line of thinking led to the Aronov-Bome effect.

What led us to the idea? What led us to the idea? Yes, yes. You can shift the electrons quantum phase, and so you can have global gauge features, not just local forces, those local gauge features must be taken as physically real. I can tell you how I came to think about this idea

that led to the whole of momentum. I was excited when I was a student where I learned about bluffs that showed that if you have the periodic potential in space, like in crystal, Then you have a something that is very interesting that you develop a gap in energy because the particle, the periodic potential makes a particle

with positive momentum, jumps from the negative momentum and the superposition give you a gaping energy. So when I thought about it, I thought, why don't I try to do the same thing, not in space but in time? I will take a periodic potential in time, and maybe then I will get a gap in momentum, because if I change position to time,

I have to change energy from momentum. And luckily, I didn't know anything about gas transformation. I was ignorant. If I knew about gender transformation, I would know that periodic potential in time cannot do anything, but I did not know about it, so I started to formulate. when I saw to my dismay

that the only thing that happened when you put a periodic function of time is that you change the phase of the wave fountain that does not lead to any observable and there. But then it took care to me that if I will put one potential in one place and a different potential time-dependent potential in another place,

then I will get a different phase. And that different phrase can be observed. So I talk about an idea that I have two Faraday cages, and the Alexa can be either in one of them or in the other. When it's inside the Faraday Sage, it's completely protected against any electricity fields outside because it cannot penetrate the Faradayshade Shage. Now you see the satellite can penetrate is time-dependent potential.

So I have different time-dependent potential in one Faraday shades and another in the other Faraday Shades that will produce a different phase and then I shall open the Faraday Shages after I remove the electric field outside. The next one will go out and interfere and that interference will show that the most electric film between the two Faraday Shades and the electron did not touch that I actually feel, but it's still felt. So that was the beginning. I came to bone and told him about this idea, and he said that's very interesting.

And he came out with the modification and so the farther cage, the thing that appears in our article is too long, sealing deals, conducting serious dealt. but let's say for a while we haven't published it yet and then I went to a summer school at Oswald

where they talked a lot about at that time the thing of the threshold of civilian physics was a terrible time

when you had the infinities of the azaxumagic still people did not know what to do it so Eisenberg So they said that instead we have to talk only about scattering or asymmetries.

And then there was a whole mathematics around it from dispersal relation. And the whole physics of that time was horrible, just not of mathematics. But anyhow, I wanted to find out what it's all about. And when I was there at Oxford, they discussed also the effects not only of cellar potential, but also a vector potential. And then it's to hear to me that maybe we can generalize the thing that I talked about the 2000 cases for the case where I have a magnetic field in the middle and different vector potential on both sides. I came and told that to bomb and then he really wrote excited.

And he said, okay, if you are able to solve the problem of infinite line of flux, and see what happened directly in that case when published the article. And that was the way that you turn about. And I remember that at that time, in England there was the fashion to have tea as far off the afternoon were graded students and professors at Bristol were sitting together. And I told everybody about this idea. And I said, nobody could do their experience. because the electron has such a small wavelength

that it has to go around a sonoid, a macroscopic solenoid, there would be no stable way to see the interclearance. And there was a professor there by the name of Sir Fran. He said, wait, wait, I know what you can do. If you have a single phone magnetic wheelchair, that's like a small, thin magnetic flag that goes inside the third.

you can look at the experiment around this magnetic ratio. And Timber was a professor, experimental professor that said in this meeting, said, I am going to do this experiment. And that was the beginning of the experiment that were from the Ronald Boom. Now, it's very interesting that when we published the article and the prize was the chairman of the text, Department of Bristol went to visit

Max Plan Nees-Bow Institute and he said that Nees-Ber doesn't believe that the effects is for real. In fact, many people couldn't believe that the effect is right, but later the son of Nees-Bow

finally convinced that the effect is for her. And of course, even today there are still some people that think that something is wrong with the effect, because it looks very strange that the particle can see the potential and not the force, but that's certainly a true quantum effect. That was the first occasion where I realized that the basic equations in quantum mechanics

must be non-lawful. There has no equation because the force affects non-lawfully the particle that is at the distance of weight. So that was the beginning of my thinking about non-nophrality and quantum mechanics. Can you explain how you see what gauge theory is to people who aren't physicists, but also just keep in mind that many physicists watch this program, professors of physics, researchers, postdocs, and so forth. So you can also explain to them how you see gauge theory. First of all, all the interactions that we know in nature,

The electromagnetic interaction, the storm interaction, and the wind interaction, and the gravitation, all of them are described by potentials. But that potential is because the local, they are most observed, they must have some freedom that you can change in them without changing the physics. Now, why do you need potentials? It tells our tissue in fascist and physics. It was known that you can formulate it in two ways. Other you use the neutron equations of motion,

which just uses forces, then can Hamilton ensure that you can also write from the exercise of physics by using Hamiltonians and using the Hamiltonians and using the Hamiltonian equation of motion. and for that you need potential. So in order to be able to describe forces in the canonical language by using Hamiltonian, you must have potential.

But the potentials have the property that they have a freedom. You can change the potential without changing the forces. That freedom is called grace transformation. But the potentials are necessary if you want to formulate, even facetely, using expression of motion by using North Lagrangian, but I'm a Estonian, you must use potential.

Why is it that you're saying that the Aronov-Bomb effect indicates that reality or nature is non-local? Because I believe that... The fact that you write a lot of local equation by using potential, that is misleading because suppose I say the outcome moves only on one side, and there is a vector potential deal. And it's affected by this vector potential. But I can use gas transformation that will completely make this vector potential on one side,

zero. And nevertheless, the electron still affects the force. So the fact that we can use it like a local equation is this misleading. Because we can always move by general transformation, remove the potential from the reason where the party is moving and the party is still feels the effect of the force. Finally, so there is no way to describe.

really the effects of the force locally. It's a mathematical formulation that uses waves, but both the waves are not real, and the potentials are not real. The only thing that you can really observe are the forces. And the idea that you describe the elephant by wave, as I've shown, is misleading.

You have to describe it by a particle that moves only on one side, but it still is longed often with the force. You just mentioned that the waves are not real and the potential is not real. So in your mind, what is real? What is ontologically there in physical reality? I think that if you think about the way

that's the phasing, that's what the mechanic started, that was first the Heiserbell approach. before Shreddinger and Heiserberg described physically by using position and momentum as the fundamental

concepts, but he said that instead of using the position of momentum as numbers, I have to use them as metices and he wrote the equations of motion for these metices.

But it turns out that it was very complicated to solve the Heisenberg equations of motion. People could do it for a monocoscillator and for a hind of the electron, but the minimum way they tried to solve the Heisenberg equation of motion for something more complicated,

like an electron with two electrons or any other non-of-celotene, they could not do it. Then can shredding them following the body idea that electrons could also be waves and wrote a very simple weight equation described with the electron and that wave equation it called the shredding equation

was extremely simple to solve and then there you could very quickly solve much more complicated problems and then people all people left Heisenberg and went to shred your equations and said that is

the right physics and poor Heisenberg was flaming all the time that could not be true. That is not what problem in science is about, but nobody listens to him. People say that, you know, an echo must be weighed,

we see interference, we have the shreddinger picture that's so nice, and I think now that the shredding of a picture is only a mathematical way to solve the Heisenberg's reflexes of motion. You've solved what happened

to the phantom vector for the Schrozener presentation, but for me, the wave is like potential. It's like a mathematical aid to solve the problem, but it does not show what is really there. And what is really there are observables that are functional position momentum, and you can follow what happened to those observables. It will know how to show the higher equations of motion. So the parallel, even quite the mechanically, the particle still had to be described by a point. You don't know where it is, but then you can even time it moves very disorderly,

but you can find a way to see the property of what happened when you were pre-imposed. Then you can see indirectly what is called the way, which you can see. you have many, many particles that are described by the same state, then you can actually observe on the evidence of these particles, the weight. But the weight is only an average property of many particles, not which seems a dangerous one. Did you ever try to make a gravitational version of the Aronov-Bomb effect? Yes, definitely.

With my first PhD students, we wrote analog of the ABFAC, both for Youngmeat, COE, non-a-billion gauges, and for gravitational and seal. But later people made a lot of other modifications. By the way, there is a very interesting historical story, apart from the one I told you, that Yang, the one that wrote the Nobel Prize, together with Lee and Yang. He did work on the Aronov Bomatherst and he continued, he showed, explained by using the ABSF to explain why flux inside superconductor must be quantized.

But it's time we said to Aronovomethev, he called it the Brom Aronovethel. So one time I met in Japan, I came to a conference there, asked him, why do you call it, the Burma Rulombe said. He said, oh, of course, because he was your thesis advisor, must have been his idea. I said, no, it was my idea. So he said, look, if you want me to refer to it differently, asked David Brown to write me a letter in which he will state

that it was actually your idea. Interesting. So I said to David Bohm, told him what happened, and you wrote a letter to Yang, and then Yang sent me a letter saying, okay, from now on, I will start to call it the owner of Baum, I say, because that's what Baum testified in this letter. I have this letter from Yang. Yeah, you wrote a letter to C and Yang stating that in fact, the first idea of the idea of the effect was mine.

and he only helped me later to perform it is better. And then from then on, Young started to call it the Burma Aronovicet. You mean he then started to call it the Aronov-Bome effect? Yeah, Aronov-Bom effect. Right, right. And he sent me a letter saying that indeed Baum confirmed that it was my idea. At this point, we were having so many Internet connection issues that we decided it was better to stop here,

especially since Yakir wants to hear from you, answer your questions. So this is part one. Part two will be coming out in a few weeks. Leave any questions in the comment section below. And of course, subscribe to get notified.