Видео

Dude ur actually doin great i like your videos

yes they are

Good video

good video

Natural consolation…meaning…like particles react in kind…so..with proper vacuum..and proper temperature…wave forms easily.

For me, plane waves as free particles are the 'elementary particles' of quantum mechanics. From them one can build more localized particles like wave packets and delta functions. The energy (E = h . f) of a free particle is well-defined because it only has 1 frequency. The price we pay for that is that it is completely delocalized.

Particles are just goofy.

Thank you Julia Childs for the tachyon lesson -- I'll add it to my atomic cake recipe 🎉🎉❤❤

Good video

why the voice?

I thought he was memeing with the voice but no he's dead serious and he actually explained tachyons really well

Good

😊

Relax. Devil@its morons in Academia run the universe: the so-called Schrodinger's cats(alive or not)@an "ageing" Twin in Relativity while "travelling", etc.; here, they don't comprehend the difference between the measuring device and the operator of such device, a human- a proof of such Idiocy!

good

thank you for this wonderful relativity course

I hope you solve the challenge, because I never understood why D"tau is invariant but D'T is not.

Nice video

Bro you absolutely COOKED on this video but some recommendations are: cooler transitions better mic quality more catchy phrases overall you did incredible but these are my recommendations these can be satisfied by using an editing software like Clipchamp which is free on windows again you did really well and applying some of the things i listed can help make you EVEN BETTER ❤❤🔥🔥🎉🎉

I feel like having a historical understanding lets you understanding the topic better.

If a large number of systems interact with one another, is decoherence inevitable? Can we estimate how close the systems should be/how long they should interact until the cross terms/coherences in the density matrix go to zero?

Hmm how can the decoherence damping factor γ be determined? empirically?

Lets go

very helpful. thank you.

very clear and concise

Just discovered this channel and super excited to see what it offers. It looks really interesting and reminds me of Micheal Van Biezen.

tanks

Thank you

This must have taken a long time to make because it's very detailed and elaborate. One thing that I would suggest is to try to avoid having too many boxed things in your slides, like in some cases where you had multiple equations in red boxes etc. When there are too many "important" things on a slide - analysis paralysis kicks in - I find myself losing track of what's important and that can mess up the flow of your talk. I understand that you want to communicate as much knowledge as possible to your audience, but since I came to your presentation willingly I am of course interested in what you have to say. And so it's better to keep the bright red boxes for the "really important" remarks that you want to communicate to your audience. This is just some feedback that I wanted to share with you because I found your presentation fascinating. Thank you for your video and also for making it available on RUclips for everyone to watch!

@ 7:13 I would say that strictly speaking it does not generate an amplitude, but a displacement from some equilibrium value. In the book the authors use the word amplitude most of the time in the sense of a probability amplitude.

@ 4:30 I guess String Theory WAS very popular ;-)

Mickey is that you?

Good tech content, thanks for uploading!

A real human speaking and not an AI, yay!

Good material. Pedagogically well crafted lecture. I have an engineering background and am trying to learn QM, found this to be very good. Thanks!

Bro ur voice sounds so 😢 I can’t sorry homie u need more umph

Noice

I'd like to imagine the tensor product as having the options/eigenvalues: - Large cup of tea - Large cup of coffee - Small cup of tea - Small cup of coffee and the direct sum as : - A large cup - A small cup - (A puddle of) coffee - (A puddle of) tea what do you think?

Got to be one of the most intuitive/straightforward explanation of direct sum and tensor product I've seen so far. The resources I've read require so much.... "mathematical baggage"

Many experiments have observed that nearfield electromagnetic fields propagate instantaneously. This can be intuitively explained using the following well known relation for electromagnetic fields: wavelength * frequency = c The frequency is absolutely known. But in the nearfield, the wavelength is not as clearly defined. And right next to the source the wavelength is not known at all, which means that the wavelength is infinite. So an infinite wavelength corresponds to an infinite speed for the field. In the far field at about one wavelength from the source the speed of the field starts to look like speed c. And according to Fourier Theory only infinitely far away from the source does the wavelength converge to one value. So the waves never converge exactly to speed c, even in the farfield. This argument shows that nearfield electromagnetic fields are instantaneous, and become approximately speed c in the farfield, after one wavelength from the source. But never achieves the exact value of speed c, even very far away from the source. Nearfield electromagnetic fields can also be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. Nearfield light is instantaneous and the effects of this will change all of modern physics. Experiments have now shown that nearfield light is instantaneous, and it only becomes approximately a constant in the farfield, starting about 1 wavelength from the source. This is supported by Maxwell electrodynamic theory. This has been verified by many researchers. In addition, a resent experiment showed that the front (ie information) of a nearfield electromagnetic pulse propagated instantaneously across space. This is incompatible with Relativity theory, which only based on farfield speed c light. A derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light, yields Galilean Relativity, where time is the same in all inertial frames and no Relativistic effects are observed. This can be easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform. So, Relativistic effects will observed if a moving body is observed using farfield light, but no Relativistic effects will be observed if instantaneous nearfield light is used. How can the effects of Relativity be real if they can be switched off by simply changing the frequency of the light used to observe them. The only possible conclusion is that Relativistic effects are just an optical illusion, and that Galilean Relativity is the correct theory of Relativity, where time is absolute, only the present exists, the past is gone, and the future is yet to be. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html <ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html> *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

I’ll pay for tutoring if you’re good

Keep going!

Amaying lectures thank you so much