I can see from the comments that I did not do a good enough job explaining why uncertainty exists. So I will try to explain it in words here. WHY UNCERTAINTY: First, you have to accept that quantum "particles" such as electrons are not like little balls. They are waves. There is no distinct position or momentum. These have to be measured. The wave system is characterized by a function called Psi. The square of the absolute value of psi gives you a probability. Psi incorporates everything about the system - energy, position, momentum, quantum states, etc. When you solve for position, the value is never 1. It is always between zero and one, because a probability of one would make the momentum value for the particle infinite. This is one way to interpret the uncertainty principle. It basically means that particles do not behave classically - you can never know EXACTLY where a particle is. This is true even for macro particles, but the wave function varies so little, billionths of billionths of millimeters, that you never notice it. ARGUMENT FOR DETERMINISM: Some argue that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics makes things deterministic. This is really not true. While the probabilities of all the worlds add up to one, the world that you find yourself in is random. This is the same case with the Copenhagen interpretation. The Schrodinger equation can "predict" the probability for various outcomes, but the outcome that will occur for you when you make a measurement is random. NOTE HOWEVER, that this statement applies to quantum events, and does NOT necessarily extrapolate to determinism in terms of human decision-making or free will. WHY NOT LOGICAL: My comment about it not being logical refers to behavior at quantum scales that does not fit with our macro scale logic - for example, things like entanglement - two particles far apart linked instantaneously, measurement changing the outcome of events, or particles not having a precisely defined position.
I hope someone will help me get the result of the lagerangian solution that Micho Kaku got in this video, I want to learn the mathematical solution for it ruclips.net/video/4Y6OT0QXIAw/видео.html
The observer can’t make an “accurate” determination being in the middle of 0 1 because a Observer must LEAVE observation perspective entirely by leaving material field and become Astral. Astral is MIND. It vibrates at pure 1 if in alignment with God Mind. Only one mind, but some think otherwise. The Gap in between is where we are now. Little bit of Heaven = 1. Little bit of Hell = 0 Everything flows into material Existence from God Mind which is THE TORUS And back out to the Astral as decay removes the possibilities. All determination outcome is GRANTED by the Prime Force. The observer is subjective in all earthly experiments. It will never be solved. Until after death or in Out of Body EXPERIENCE. Where one is MERGED with 01 and there is no GAP. AKA Time Space. Nothing happens any other way in this realm. God is in Total Control of outcome. Our perceptions have no bearing. Only our Relationship with Source God and OUR alignment with Him. This is heart and soul of Quantum Physics. A lot of “ physicists “ don’t like it. But can’t prove it wrong. Just wasting humanities time. Life is not meaningless. We don’t control life. FOR A REASON. It would be utter chaos it couldn’t exist. All we can control is our reactions and our willingness to align WITH it. God Mind is limitless. We’re on a Big Ride.
Maybe I just still don't have a good enough understanding of how uncertainty works, but I'm still inclined to believe that what we observe as uncertainty could be the result of a deterministic system/mechanic that we just don't understand yet. Not saying that I firmly believe that, just that I think its still a possibility that should be explored.
@@kiradelarochefoucauld7499 Calm down buddy. This is a science channel, take your ideology preaching to a cult near you, i am sure they like to listen to that crap.
I think the title does not give the viewer an accurate glimpse of our current (lack of) understanding.. it propones a certain class of quantum mechanics interpretation that is far from being unanimous among scientists.. Block universe descriptions and eternalism views can perfectly coexist with quantum uncertainty observations. From our own limited perspective, as beings perceiving space-time from within, randomness appear fundamental indeed and Laplace's demon is unattainable. That does not prove randomness and discards determinism in fundamental terms.
Plz tell me the meaning of wave function and what it it mean when you say wave function collapsed. (assuming that I just started discovering Schrödinger equation)
@@ritik4215 It's a reference to the 'double slit experiment' (look it up) where photons/light traveling through double slits appear as banded patterns when measured and as smooth tapered intensity when not measured. Light behaves as a wave until you measure it, then it collapses into a particle (photon).
If I could trace back to the moment where I got started, it would definitely be 2020. I'm not just interpolatin' here. That is _unquestionably_ when I got started. (sorry, that phrase is just inexorably linked with this sequence in my brain XD)
@@pablosartor6715 Apologies, but you have to show why this is not true. I've already pointed out to Arvin as well, that Determinism has not been disproven in his video as he alluded to, and he replied with, "See my pinned comment. Determinism in terms of quantum mechanics is what I was aiming at. This does not necessarily extrapolate to human decision-making." Nor does it extrapolate to the macro universe, for that matter. The problem is that we do not have the physics yet, to join these 2 sets of theories by Einstein and Bohr together. Maybe Determinism doesn't exist at the Quantum level, but we just don't know that to be true yet. Of course it would be a logical fallacy to come to the conclusion that it's been outright disproven, therefore I would highly suggest a less misleading title to this video. In fact, if you look at the Neuroscience being done today, Determinism is pretty much all there is when reviewing the testing done of the human brain, as freewill is impossible to account for, leaving many Scientists surmising that it has already been disproven too. Having said that, there is no way to test freewill in the quantum universe yet either, as far as Im aware of -> ruclips.net/video/_FanhvXO9Pk/видео.html Forgive me for saying this, but the issue I take personally as an educator, is that when I speak with religious people (anti-science minded folks in general), Im 100% positive that they would latch onto "Determinism has be disproven, so says the Scientist named Arvin Ash on RUclips", in order to validate their faith, then Im the one left to explain why this is simply not true. Truth being, like so many other things in Science, it remains to be discovered.
you have truly inspired me a lot, i know this video is for basic understanding, but in my 3 years in an engineering degree, i can count in one hand the times ive felt like i have rediscovered the world around me, like i did in this video, thank you for having the passion to educate yourself enough to be able to pass this kind of understanding of nature
My dude, I can’t say it enough: We’re all super glad you’re getting this traction and payoff for the quality work you’ve been putting up since day *bleeping* one! Keep ‘em comin’, sir!
For anyone that has a hard time comprehending so much knowledge at once, I highly recommend making the video .75x speed. It helps me a lot with videos like this.
Thank you for stressing that even though quantum effects are imperceptible to the human eye at macro scales, they still exist and we can calculate them. I think for a lot of people there is a disconnect between quantum mechanics and our reality, as if QM is for particles and Classical mechanics is for everyday life. But in reality QM is for everything and Classical mechanics just happens to be a good approximation at large scales.
3 hours ago, I left a hateful comment on this video, because I didn't think that I could understand your math-heavy method of explaining uncertainty. I genuinely cried, I was so upset with myself. But then I tried again. And in addition to finding your method more useful, elegant, and substantive than the abstract explanations which I usually prefer, you made me realize that the uncertainty principle is, in essence, a version of Planck's constant (!), and how the dual-slit experiment relates directly to the "orbit" of "electrons" around an "atom." Thank you, Mr. Ash - I'm glad I stepped out of my comfort zone. Speaking of which, I probably love you.
I love this channel so much to learn about quantum physics, are there any others that do this but for chemistry? I’d like to major in chemistry but sometimes the topics are just one-sided, here you explain the topics, the math behind it that tells us why it is, and then actually show us real world applications of it and even debunk previous generations’ interpretation of it. I wish there was a channel like this but for chemistry and can do something like explain molecule bonding, then show us some math behind it with visuals, and then debunk previous interpretations of it like say alchemy and why it wouldn’t work, and then just show us a more common example. I love chemistry and physics so much, but I wish it was made more fun and concise like this. You have the perfect chemistry for your videos Arvin, please keep it up!
Hey Arvin Sir. Just saw this video and i am glad you still jump with excitement while explaining awesome facts which we otherwise just feel regular stuffs. Your body language and your variations in loudness and pitch is what helps me to explain physics for intermediate course students. Waiting for the next time when you say.... 'All those things are coming up right now!' ❤️
To be honest, I wasn't expecting such (a precise) excellent demonstration of the point-positioning concept to plug into the superposition spin-spiral probability wave-package Singularity via the infinitesimal apature/instant @.dt.., ie this idea such as the accurate in description but uncertain in stability, Universal Atom connection, Eternity-now Interval Conception, Superposition-point Singularity, Geometrical Perspective localization vortices and vertice nodes, here-now-forever. Thank you.
"Measurement" doesn't necessarily require *someone* (as in a person) interacting with the particle. Measurement in the context here merely requires there be photons involved.
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle "observer" as in "speed of light constant for all observers" is not always a *human* "observer". As in relativistic interactions for muons entering upper atmosphere. So too are "observers" for "interactions" doesn't *require* human involvement at all. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/muonatm.html#:~:text=Most%20muons%20observed%20at%20the,per%20square%20centimeter%20per%20minute.&text=The%20energy%20loss%20for%20muons,MeV%20per%20g%2Fcm2.
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle and yet, *think about it* I, nor anyone else, has "observed" every single muon interaction. And, yet they all have the aforementioned relativistic interactions. Problem for your "it always requires people" interpretation?
Excellent. Loved the explanation. I took physics in university over 45 years ago and this video in just a few minutes did a better job than a 2 hour lecture.
Still anything new invented in the last 75 years or so has been through refinements in engineering of KNOWN physics. Physics hasn't given us anything new in almost 100 years. Sabine Hossenfelder did a video on this subject not to long ago.
@@stuglenn1112 Wrong. Smartphones, TV's, the internet. It revolutionionized our way of living. The invention is was hugely driven by liquid crystal displays (LCDs) which has been invented in the last 30 years. On top of that, many new, groundbreaking inventions are about to become reality: Quantum computers, which hold an unimaginable potential for humanity Entanglement and its usage for information transmission Fusion energy, aka the cleanest and safest and also most sustainable energy source by far ....
I assure you that this is the best video I have ever seen. Relating every concepts and clearing the doubts one above the other.. Literally awesome..💥💥💥
I like to watch these kinds of videos so I can pretend like I know what they’re talking about for a few minutes and then act like I’m the smartest person on earth for the rest of the day. Don’t lie, you know you’ve memorized parts of this video and went to work the next day and impressed your co workers with your new knowledge 😂
Isn't it how the whole education works? We memorise what great scientists has figured out by doing hard work their whole life. Very few people contribute to that collective knowledge but majority of us get respect for memorizing well established facts. If you agree than you should not feel ashamed of memorizing and boasting about this knowledge to your coworkers.
Best video I've seen on uncertainty; this channel rocks; gladly subscribed. Wish I could support also, but can't. Yes, what most people can't accept, even physics degree people I've met, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty is not just a limitation of measurement but an intrinsic uncertainty in reality itself. At the risk of being called an "anthropic fan" or some such (I hate the New Age as much as the next guy), my personal view is that the essence of "free will" in the world is the combined macroscopic result of atomic scale non-determinism.
Me trying to relax and get some sleep by listening Arvn Ash's calming voice. My brain not wanting to sleep: "D" is the width of the slits, edge and uncertainty of the P, if Lamda stays constant, than as D, the width of the slit gets smaller, bore's radius is surrounded by a cloud of probabilities.
Wonderfull explanation of uncertainity principle! And Arvin is the only one who doesnt underestimate and dumb down its audience! Equations and derivations are highly welcomed! Congratulations. P.S.for anyone who still didnt understands,there are another beautiful video on this same topic on Eugene Khutoryansky channel on YT.
the wave function does not collapse when observed, but we can observe only when the wave function collapses. it's an uncertainty on the part of the observer not on the part of the particle. the particle exists and functions with or without an observation, but for the observer to interact, the particle has to be in a specific state. / due to the particle wave duality observable in the quarks because of its small size, we can only detect a particle in space when its wave function's momentum is zero. when the wave function resumes, the particle is shaken up and cannot be pinpointed at a specific location. / it's like looking at a guitar string. when it is strung, we can see the string at the endpoints of the width of the pulse because the momentum is zero at that point.
Adi No neutron stars have a different mechanism for orbital collaps. At high enough pressure the electrons are push on top of each other. But electrons are fermions so they are not allowed to be on top of each other. This means that at a certain pressure the "Electron Degeneracy Pressure" electrons are not allowed to exist. This is why they combine with protons and form neutrons. Neutrons have higher degeneracy pressure so they can exist. But there is also a point that pressure is high enough that even neutrons are not allowed to exist. This again use a different mechanism. Finally when pressure is high enough matter is not allowed to exist. The mass forms a singularity using the mechanism of general relativity.
He would need to understand the true nature of the Universe to be able to answer that one correctly. He would need to know about the electric universe.
Strong force is stronger between up and down quarks compared to up-up or down-down quarks. So deutron (proton-neutron) is very *stable* with 3 up-down quark-pairs linked together. On the contrary there is no significant strong force between proton-proton or neutron-neutron (due to unequal up-down quarks in those combinations) and such a nucleus is neither stable nor observed in most experiments. As the nucleus gets heavier, some additional neutrons can be tolerated as a small percentage of the total proton-neutron pairs. In 3D space, alpha particles (2 such pairs with 6 up-down quarks symmetrically along XYZ axis) are even more stable so most heavy nuclei are made of alpha-particles (there is a hierarchy of binding within a heavy nucleus). If there is now an ever-growing and extreme curvature in space-time (for any reason including extreme gravity in the core of a massive star), motion of electron will be towards the nucleus, creating more neutrons from proton-collisions. Neutrons decay into proton-electron pairs with a half-life of 10 min in less curved space-time creating sufficient "Electron Degeneracy Pressure", but that is now overcome under neutron-star-level gravity. Heisenberg uncertainty principle in its classical form breaks down under such extreme curvature of space-time but if momentum and position vectors are appropriately transformed in this new extremely curved space-time, the principle nearly holds with minor curvature-specific modification to the constant h/4π. Theories of Quantum Gravity are trying to come close but the mathematics is not there yet, hence the somewhat over-simplified description here.
"...the way the real world works is counter-intuitive...illogical..." Alternatively...the world is perfectly intuitive and logical, but we are...not. I particularly enjoyed your explanation that the uncertainty is a product of reality, *not* an observer effect. And also that it still applies to the macro world, but in too small of magnitudes for us to notice. More than a bit mind-blowing.
Heisenberg, Einstein, Born, and Schrödinger get pulled over for speeding. The cop asks Heisenberg "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies, "No, but we know exactly where we are!" The officer looks at him confused and says, "You were going 173 kilometers per hour!" Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now we're lost!" The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the men have anything in the trunk. "A cat," Schrödinger replies. Einstein, sitting in the backseat, groans, "Die Katze aufgefasst werden können ist mir wurst." The cop opens the trunk, shoots the cat, and yells, "Hey! This cat is dead." Schrödinger angrily replies, "Well, he is now." Born, still reading their navigational map, breaks into a cackle. "I told you it wouldn't matter by the time we got there! We'll get you another cat." Heisenberg cries, "That speeding wasn't my fault, officer, I swear!" The cop replies, "Shooting the cat was! I wouldn't have if he wasn't in the trunk!" Einstein throws his arms up, "Erklären Sie das einfacher!" Schrödinger continues, "Then he was dead all along, I suppose." Born whips around to Schrödinger, "This is all because we left late." Einstein lays back, "Nur relativ spät." Heisenberg, shocked, turns to Schrödinger as well, "Why did you bring a dead cat on vacation?!" Schrödinger shrugs and finally replies, "Well, I guess that's the question, isn't it?!"
@@TOOMtheRaccoon That's something Einstein said in regards to (nonlocality). edit: excuse me I just tried to adapt his quote into that context. Here is the real quote: "Ob die psi b, und psi b_ als Eigenfunktionen von Observabeln B, B_ aufgefasst werden konnen ist mir wurst." doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9 my german is no good so my adaptation was bad :( It's only listed in one very obscure paper. It's apparently a figure of speech, I'll go find the reference. Also, it's Max Born, lesser known. Another instrumental founder of QM
7:30 - and that is why the smaller the aperture of the camera, sharper and more of the image is in focus, than with a wider aperture that allows more light.
Would be great if you could do a video on Bohmian mechanics Arvin, it's yet another explanation that isn't complete but it would be another option in how to keep things "deterministic" in the quantum world.
@@robertcarr6040 In what sense? Only think "indeterminate" about QM is that we can't understand the probabilities. It all adds back up to 1, so that's pretty determined.
@@discogodfather22 How was it determined that the surface of the Earth became more ordered with much more information over the last 3 billion years? Living things are responsible for this order and information. If physicists do not account for this increase in information, they do not fully account for the system. Evolution by Natural Selection is the means by which Life organizes the living community and is how Biology emerges from Chemistry. Evolution involves selection for individual organisms, nothing to do with the underlying atomic or subatomic particles. This selection and all of sexual reproduction is indeterminate in a real sense. Much randomness involved.
Your voice is so-o-o-o soothing as you explain that macroscale reality is only an illusion, things can both exist and not exist, and we can't know anything with accuracy or certainty. 😂
I do not have the training / education in the advanced maths required to perform the calculations described, so can not argue to the validity of the assertions in this video. I do have however, very strong reasoning skills, and a strong intuitive sense for how our reality seems to work. Given, all of the different theory that is in discussion on the topic, Arvin does a superior job of describing systems which just "FEEL" logically correct. His descriptions of physics just feel right to me. Thank you Sir! @arvinash
Well done again Arvin! This time I have especially appreciated the effort to derive numbers and hence give a size and actual feel for the parameters and not just "bigger", "extremely small" etc.. Hopefully this will encourage more and more people around the world to embrace scientific and quantitative thinking (I know, this last statement sounds too optimistic :-) ). May the (quantized) force be with you!
Events occur at a frequency of trillions of trillions of times per second at the small scale where electrons spin around the proton. There's uncertainty at this level. The tennis ball ⚽ has stable existence.
I think it makes it even more magical by showing us that magic is a real and a never-ending mystery to be investigated. Science fiction lacks the imagination to hold a candle to what reality writes.
It seems that mathematics takes away the wonder upon which it was created. In real life the stranger things are always explainable by maths. It's as if the universe covers it's tracks like you say, and takes away the wonder
No, science never explains the true "why" of how things are, only the "what." The magic lies at a much deeper level involving things like meaning, purpose, beauty, and good.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I agree but mathematics finds it's way in somewhere along the line. If you have a backlog of coincidences for example, the it can always be explained away by the maths but I agree
Firstly this is by far the best channel I've come across for learning scientific concepts. In regards to the video... Ok, how is this not "woo"? This honestly sounds like it coincides exactly with the concept of what I understand as "faith", at least as exemplified in the Bible. The wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrates that everything is in superposition. There are numerous amounts of states, positions, probabilities, etc for any given entity. What appears to collapses the wave and bring an entity into "our reality" is our measurement but in fact if you analyze it further it seems as though the greatest correlation and common denominator to our "reality" or what is manifested is whether or not we know about it. What if that is the causation behind our "reality", as it is then the "elimination" of being able to use faith. In fact numerous principles of physics alludes to this as well when you look into the speed of light and causality. Moreover, consciousness doesn't cause the quantum entity to exist like once theorized but we now believe it is already in existence in the universe and this coincides within Christianity's interpretation of faith as oppose to something like Islam. God provides everything (by grace) and can man bring them about (with "faith") or our own knowledge. This is an important distinction to make because I know no other mainstream religion teaches faith in this way. Every other religion basically teaches that faith makes stuff real from nothing rather than procuring what already exists. We know now with the latest experiments that stuff is not brought into existence with our part eg measurement, knowledge, faith, etc. Would love to be able to talk with a knowledgeable person about this. @Arvin Ash you should do something where you speak with subscribers and guests, akin to a podcast.
Because all measurements affect the thing being measured. Could be photons bounced off of it, or radiated particles, either way the thing was accelerated by the thing used to measure its position, speed, etc.
It's mindblowing to see there are so many intelligent people in the world capable of solving such complex equations and making so many great discoveries, and then there people who think Covid is a hoax. As someone who knows nothing of what this guy is talking about, I still pray I'm closer to his end of the spectrum.
By logical, I mean quantum level behavior that does not fit with our macro scale logic - for example, things like entanglement - two particles far apart linked instantaneously, measurement changing the outcome of events, or particles not having a precisely defined position.
@@ArvinAsh that's not being illogical, that's being against common sense. And particles only do "spooky action at a distance" if you assume the copenhagen interpretation. Also, things being uncertain is logical, logic is about consistency not about what the classical world is about. It would be illogical if one day particles obeyed heisenberg uncertainty and the next day day they started following different laws of physics
Dude, this is mind breaking explanations for complex math equations. This is no where near simple. But thanks for showing me how complex reality really is.
"The way that the real world works is counterintuitive, invisible and even ilogical, but it is THE TRUTH" This sounds like a religious person explaining you about the spiritual world and its effects on the visible world, but since it has equations and precise measurements then the science minded don't freakout and it sounds ok to the modern atheist types.
You're so kind... Of corse you know that the truth is way way way too much for mere mortals to comprehend... but you're very kind and that's commendable..
Very nice how you explain QM principles using classical Physics. Keep it up! Being someone who teaches classical physics, bit researches quantum physics, I see many fundamental bridges in addition to these...
Thank you once again Arvin for breaking down this ultra-cmplex concept of reality to the level of ordinary people like myself ! It would have really been wonderful if you could have been my college Physics instructor. !!!
Awesome video! Just one question: would that make determinism in our makro world wrong? Because if the effect on makroscopic things like a Tennis Ball is so, so small, it wouldn't really effect where it goes, and so that wouldn't make it undeterministic? So our makroscopic world is deterministic while the "true" universe isn't?
Yes, determinism in the way you have laid it out would still hold in the macro world. But the jury is still out on global determinism, in terms of whether events and actions are determined.
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Freewill (choice) is dual to tyranny (determinism, no choice). Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (predictability, syntropy) Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Ethico theology is dual to physico theology -- Immanuel Kant. Freewill or the lack of determinism implies ethics, morals and choices, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas. Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. Mind duality is dual to matter duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleology = the categorical imperative! Transcendental logic is dual to the transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. A completely deterministic universe implies that I am not responsible for my actions hence the need for a moral and ethical code -- freewill, randomness and entropy --> syntropy!
@@Paladin1873 Duality within duality! Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out -- space duality. All lengths, distances, spaces are defined by two dual points -- space duality. Space duality is dual to time duality. The word 'duel' implies a stress or tension between two opposame opponents. Tension, stress according to Einstein is energy! -- the stress, energy tensor of General relativity. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy. Electro is dual to magnetic -- electro-magnetic energy is dual, Maxwell's equations. Negative curvature is dual to positive curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. The infinite negative curvature singularity (white hole, big bang) is dual to the infinite positive curvature singularity (infinite mass black hole). Non duality is dual to non duality! Energy is measured in Joules (jewels, duals). Dirac equation:- particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down or duality within duality.
My primary argument against this is that this idea in general assumes consciousness as existing solely within the body or minds of humans. This is a common assumption people tend to make as it is the most relatable experience of consciousness. However, as I am sure you are aware, standard science and observation as we know it today has failed to come up with a conclusive understanding of where consciousness actually as is and in general consciousness has remained largely a mystery. With that said, if we went the other route and assumed that consciousness could exist as an out of body construct, there is really no way to know for sure what it is and is not effecting. In other words, what we observe as probabilistic wave functions from the perspective of our own awareness, may in fact be deterministic according to an unforeseen interfering conscious observer. In other words, if there was a greater awareness existing in the space between bodies, it would alter the seemingly probabilistic wave functions to obtain particular results as an effect of that observer. Experiments that have been done that show this sort of phenomena are ones that study conscious projection in the form of meditation and consciousnesses ability to altar things that were supposed to be more random. "Exploratory study: The random number generator and group meditation". Basically, this hypothesis does not act as proof of determinism, but merely shows one still possible condition that would result in determinism being a truth. I personally believe this world to be relatively deterministic and, given my personal understanding and experiences, I don't see any solid proof that it isn't.
Thank you so much for these videos, between your channel and SpaceTime ( and a lot of re watching!), things start to make much more sense (well as much as QM can haha), however till today it was hard for me to realize why the macro world did not have the uncertainties, you said something among the line of due to the fields being localized in the macro world, and actually showing the math of the tennis ball, finally made it "click" ; hence once again thank you good sir!
Well, it kinda depends. If you are talking about mathematics, then yes, it is created by us to understand the world better. But that doesn't mean that we made up logic. Logic itself is kust a fancy word to imply some sort of pattern. And patterns can be created by anything. That's why i think our understanding of logic still misses some parts.
I am a new student, and require multiple sources of information on the same subject. Every professor has a different view in there presentations on the same subject which is very nice because I get a better understanding of the same said subject. Arvin is great but there are some that I find difficult to understand. I need, because of my hearing a louder person to relay the information. Plus it is fun to explore the different perspectives in doing so.
By logical I mean things behave at the quantum level that does not fit with our macro scale logic - for example, things like entanglement, measurement changing the outcome of events, or particles not having a precisely defined position.
@@ArvinAsh Logical is poor choice of words. Its not intuitive, its not reasonable from a human scale. Its logical based on experimental evidence and the math we use to predict the results of future experiments. It is VERY logical, but logic is not reasonable to the unprepared minds. Which is why we get crankery on physics discussions. Logic based on false premises results in false conclusions.
While calling the IRS today waiting to get a number, I thought about the uncertainty principal. The caller (me) was just like a photon. Until the moment I was able to talk to someone, there's no telling I would get the number or not or what number I could get. This to me also implied that we are living in a matrix because only when I was registered in the system, then I could be certain of something as the matrix governs the final registration.
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Freewill (choice) is dual to tyranny (determinism, no choice). Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (predictability, syntropy) Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Ethico theology is dual to physico theology -- Immanuel Kant. Freewill or the lack of determinism implies ethics, morals and choices, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas. Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. Mind duality is dual to matter duality. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleology = the categorical imperative! Transcendental logic is dual to the transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. A completely deterministic universe implies that I am not responsible for my actions hence the need for a moral and ethical code -- freewill, randomness and entropy --> syntropy!
Determinism in QM is knowing the position of a submicroscopic particle at any time, regardless of whether it is being measured or not. If you want determinism in QM, you must learn about the Bohm interpretation, because the standard or Copenhagen interpretation is both mystical and nondeterministic, because that's the way it looked like to Bohr and his friends in the 1920s. Bohn didn't come along until 1952, and validation didn't come along until Bell in the 1960s. Of course, determinism has nothing to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is that in a single measurement there is a reciprocal relationship between the precision of measuring position and that of measuring velocity. The reason is the same as between time and frequency in Fourier analysis: it is a limitation of measurement, not of anything in quantum mechanics.
As always, impressive explanation. Could we argue that because the uncertainty is so small, the world could be 99.999...% deterministic, as long as quantum phenomena are not resulting in strong consequences? Such as in the Schrödinger’s cat or possibly conciseness
Determinism in the context of the video is about uncertainty at quantum scales. It does not necessarily follow that this can be extrapolated to determinism in our lives for making decisions or actions.
Another great video. Thanks. As a test engineer, my impression of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that the uncertainty exists due to our current level of technology. Currently, we are not able to accurately measure position and velocity(at the same time) of things like electrons. If our civilization survives long enough, I think we will be able to do this someday. I'm guessing that it will be a method that does not use light.
Well, if you can show that, a Nobel prize is waiting for you because it would turn physics upside down. All current theory indicates that it is not a measurement issue, it is the way reality works.
I would like to believe you, as many people in the microprocessor business would then be able to make smaller transistors. But according to the math, it's something we can't avoid. When you get to the scale where the uncertainty principle is given you issues then you observe quantum tunneling. If the uncertainty principle wasn't real, tunneling wouldn't be real either :) From at more theoretical point of you, you would destroy most of particle physics if the uncertainty principle is not real.
Free will is like holding cards in your hand and you're trying to win. Whatever winning is to you. Maybe it's pleasure, maybe it's fortune, maybe it's survival.
Unbelievably good content. High quality Good pacing Complex and very interesting topics presented simply Engaging Not afraid to show and dive into the math I feel wrong to be watching these for free lol
Philosphyically, I have been inclined towards determinism in a naive sense. That is to say, I believe that all is predetermined (including “free will” of course), but have accepted that observations themselves very much affect predictability. I never appreciated, however, how the quantum world so affected the macro (the world of a non-zero chance of walking through a wall) world. Truly, this really gives me a newfound appreciation for mathematics.
For people who're fans of hidden variable when thinking about the double slit experiement, think about the 3 polarized 45 degreese lense experiment. The hidden variable doesn't really work there, or at least it's much harder to map it to that experiment than the double slit one.
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
I can see from the comments that I did not do a good enough job explaining why uncertainty exists. So I will try to explain it in words here.
WHY UNCERTAINTY: First, you have to accept that quantum "particles" such as electrons are not like little balls. They are waves. There is no distinct position or momentum. These have to be measured. The wave system is characterized by a function called Psi. The square of the absolute value of psi gives you a probability. Psi incorporates everything about the system - energy, position, momentum, quantum states, etc. When you solve for position, the value is never 1. It is always between zero and one, because a probability of one would make the momentum value for the particle infinite. This is one way to interpret the uncertainty principle. It basically means that particles do not behave classically - you can never know EXACTLY where a particle is. This is true even for macro particles, but the wave function varies so little, billionths of billionths of millimeters, that you never notice it.
ARGUMENT FOR DETERMINISM: Some argue that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics makes things deterministic. This is really not true. While the probabilities of all the worlds add up to one, the world that you find yourself in is random. This is the same case with the Copenhagen interpretation. The Schrodinger equation can "predict" the probability for various outcomes, but the outcome that will occur for you when you make a measurement is random. NOTE HOWEVER, that this statement applies to quantum events, and does NOT necessarily extrapolate to determinism in terms of human decision-making or free will.
WHY NOT LOGICAL: My comment about it not being logical refers to behavior at quantum scales that does not fit with our macro scale logic - for example, things like entanglement - two particles far apart linked instantaneously, measurement changing the outcome of events, or particles not having a precisely defined position.
I hope someone will help me get the result of the lagerangian solution that Micho Kaku got in this video, I want to learn the mathematical solution for it
ruclips.net/video/4Y6OT0QXIAw/видео.html
The observer can’t make an “accurate” determination being in the middle of 0 1 because a Observer must LEAVE observation perspective entirely by leaving material field and become Astral. Astral is MIND. It vibrates at pure 1 if in alignment with God Mind. Only one mind, but some think otherwise. The Gap in between is where we are now. Little bit of Heaven = 1.
Little bit of Hell = 0
Everything flows into material Existence from God Mind which is THE TORUS
And back out to the Astral as decay removes the possibilities.
All determination outcome
is GRANTED by the Prime Force. The observer is subjective in all earthly experiments. It will never be solved. Until after death or in Out of Body EXPERIENCE. Where one is MERGED with 01 and there is no GAP. AKA Time Space.
Nothing happens any other way in this realm.
God is in Total Control of outcome. Our perceptions have no bearing. Only our Relationship with Source God and OUR alignment with Him.
This is heart and soul of Quantum Physics.
A lot of “ physicists “ don’t like it. But can’t prove it wrong. Just wasting humanities time. Life is not meaningless. We don’t control life. FOR A REASON. It would be utter chaos it couldn’t exist. All we can control is our reactions and our willingness to align WITH it. God Mind is limitless. We’re on a Big Ride.
Maybe I just still don't have a good enough understanding of how uncertainty works, but I'm still inclined to believe that what we observe as uncertainty could be the result of a deterministic system/mechanic that we just don't understand yet.
Not saying that I firmly believe that, just that I think its still a possibility that should be explored.
@@kiradelarochefoucauld7499 Calm down buddy. This is a science channel, take your ideology preaching to a cult near you, i am sure they like to listen to that crap.
I think the title does not give the viewer an accurate glimpse of our current (lack of) understanding.. it propones a certain class of quantum mechanics interpretation that is far from being unanimous among scientists.. Block universe descriptions and eternalism views can perfectly coexist with quantum uncertainty observations. From our own limited perspective, as beings perceiving space-time from within, randomness appear fundamental indeed and Laplace's demon is unattainable. That does not prove randomness and discards determinism in fundamental terms.
"In the coming future people will quote me with things I never said" - Sir Issac Newton
Did he actually say that? LOL
Like wise you quoted which he probably never said
@@ElusiveTruthS "Yes I said that" - Sir Issac Newton
Isaac Newton also said we likely have until the year 2060.
@@ElusiveTruthS I think he was actually paraphrasing Confucius.
The quantum weather today: Localized electron cloudiness with a probability of precipitation (wave function collapse) when measured :-)
I so pale
Would you mind measuring the probability, for better understanding. As in sharing the equation. No, I can't do it myself.
l'uomo romano di Vitruvio
bellissimo
Plz tell me the meaning of wave function and what it it mean when you say wave function collapsed. (assuming that I just started discovering Schrödinger equation)
@@ritik4215 It's a reference to the 'double slit experiment' (look it up) where photons/light traveling through double slits appear as banded patterns when measured and as smooth tapered intensity when not measured. Light behaves as a wave until you measure it, then it collapses into a particle (photon).
"Reality is not even logical..."
yep sounds about right, sums up my 2020 so far
Don't get me started on 2020. Trying to forget this year ever existed. lol.
@@ArvinAsh One day at a time. Thanks for the videos.
still a whole month to go my friend 🌚
If I could trace back to the moment where I got started, it would definitely be 2020.
I'm not just interpolatin' here. That is _unquestionably_ when I got started.
(sorry, that phrase is just inexorably linked with this sequence in my brain XD)
@@ArvinAsh Entropy is weird like that.
The end of Determinism, well you can never be certain about these things.
They've determined that determinism can't be determined.
The video does not end determinism. We will not know this until we are able to find a common ground between General Relativity and Quantum Physics.
@@nevadataylor This is simply not true.
Ha Ha, you sure about that?
@@pablosartor6715 Apologies, but you have to show why this is not true.
I've already pointed out to Arvin as well, that Determinism has not been disproven in his video as he alluded to, and he replied with, "See my pinned comment. Determinism in terms of quantum mechanics is what I was aiming at. This does not necessarily extrapolate to human decision-making."
Nor does it extrapolate to the macro universe, for that matter.
The problem is that we do not have the physics yet, to join these 2 sets of theories by Einstein and Bohr together. Maybe Determinism doesn't exist at the Quantum level, but we just don't know that to be true yet. Of course it would be a logical fallacy to come to the conclusion that it's been outright disproven, therefore I would highly suggest a less misleading title to this video.
In fact, if you look at the Neuroscience being done today, Determinism is pretty much all there is when reviewing the testing done of the human brain, as freewill is impossible to account for, leaving many Scientists surmising that it has already been disproven too. Having said that, there is no way to test freewill in the quantum universe yet either, as far as Im aware of ->
ruclips.net/video/_FanhvXO9Pk/видео.html
Forgive me for saying this, but the issue I take personally as an educator, is that when I speak with religious people (anti-science minded folks in general), Im 100% positive that they would latch onto "Determinism has be disproven, so says the Scientist named Arvin Ash on RUclips", in order to validate their faith, then Im the one left to explain why this is simply not true. Truth being, like so many other things in Science, it remains to be discovered.
you have truly inspired me a lot, i know this video is for basic understanding, but in my 3 years in an engineering degree, i can count in one hand the times ive felt like i have rediscovered the world around me, like i did in this video, thank you for having the passion to educate yourself enough to be able to pass this kind of understanding of nature
My dude, I can’t say it enough: We’re all super glad you’re getting this traction and payoff for the quality work you’ve been putting up since day *bleeping* one! Keep ‘em comin’, sir!
Much appreciated!
@@ArvinAsh thank you.. Love all your videos and how you explain. keep up the great work. bless you
For anyone that has a hard time comprehending so much knowledge at once, I highly recommend making the video .75x speed. It helps me a lot with videos like this.
yes, thanks for the tip!
Thank you for stressing that even though quantum effects are imperceptible to the human eye at macro scales, they still exist and we can calculate them. I think for a lot of people there is a disconnect between quantum mechanics and our reality, as if QM is for particles and Classical mechanics is for everyday life. But in reality QM is for everything and Classical mechanics just happens to be a good approximation at large scales.
Yep, this is hard not only to understand, but also to accept!
Exactly! It is sort of the difference between conscious and subconscious... both are there, whether we sense it or not.
dammit. I am responsible for my own actions then.
3 hours ago, I left a hateful comment on this video, because I didn't think that I could understand your math-heavy method of explaining uncertainty.
I genuinely cried, I was so upset with myself.
But then I tried again.
And in addition to finding your method more useful, elegant, and substantive than the abstract explanations which I usually prefer, you made me realize that the uncertainty principle is, in essence, a version of Planck's constant (!), and how the dual-slit experiment relates directly to the "orbit" of "electrons" around an "atom."
Thank you, Mr. Ash - I'm glad I stepped out of my comfort zone.
Speaking of which, I probably love you.
I love this channel so much to learn about quantum physics, are there any others that do this but for chemistry? I’d like to major in chemistry but sometimes the topics are just one-sided, here you explain the topics, the math behind it that tells us why it is, and then actually show us real world applications of it and even debunk previous generations’ interpretation of it. I wish there was a channel like this but for chemistry and can do something like explain molecule bonding, then show us some math behind it with visuals, and then debunk previous interpretations of it like say alchemy and why it wouldn’t work, and then just show us a more common example. I love chemistry and physics so much, but I wish it was made more fun and concise like this. You have the perfect chemistry for your videos Arvin, please keep it up!
This is the first time I've ever wanted to learn trigonometry.
Hey Arvin Sir.
Just saw this video and i am glad you still jump with excitement while explaining awesome facts which we otherwise just feel regular stuffs. Your body language and your variations in loudness and pitch is what helps me to explain physics for intermediate course students.
Waiting for the next time when you say.... 'All those things are coming up right now!'
❤️
To be honest, I wasn't expecting such (a precise) excellent demonstration of the point-positioning concept to plug into the superposition spin-spiral probability wave-package Singularity via the infinitesimal apature/instant @.dt.., ie this idea such as the accurate in description but uncertain in stability, Universal Atom connection, Eternity-now Interval Conception, Superposition-point Singularity, Geometrical Perspective localization vortices and vertice nodes, here-now-forever.
Thank you.
After watching this video, my perspective is change about uncertainty principal. I really have no words on arvine to thank him. Great work.👐🙌🙏🤝👍🤘👌
You are a great teacher Arvin , nothing to say about you keep on giving us knowledge about physics . ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Legend has it Heisenberg was a bad lover. As soon as he found the right position, he couldn't find the momentum
LOL
Broooooo lol
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
💀
Nahhhh😭😭😭
I have no words for you since You cleared my childhood doubt about Quantam and real world esp about uncertainity principles. Thanks again sir
"Measurement" doesn't necessarily require *someone* (as in a person) interacting with the particle. Measurement in the context here merely requires there be photons involved.
It means information transfer and storage
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle interactions, yes. People, not necessarily. That's what the involved I said means
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle "observer" as in "speed of light constant for all observers" is not always a *human* "observer". As in relativistic interactions for muons entering upper atmosphere. So too are "observers" for "interactions" doesn't *require* human involvement at all.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/muonatm.html#:~:text=Most%20muons%20observed%20at%20the,per%20square%20centimeter%20per%20minute.&text=The%20energy%20loss%20for%20muons,MeV%20per%20g%2Fcm2.
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle and yet, *think about it* I, nor anyone else, has "observed" every single muon interaction. And, yet they all have the aforementioned relativistic interactions. Problem for your "it always requires people" interpretation?
@@rafaelmaia8829 can you please elaborate? That intrigues me
Your handling of the maths - super impressive. And the science - fascinating. Keep on telling us these inconvenient truths!
Love your explanation..... Love from India...
🤩
Excellent. Loved the explanation. I took physics in university over 45 years ago and this video in just a few minutes did a better job than a 2 hour lecture.
Glad you liked it!
I have just watched a MagellanTV documentary and glad I signed up, visually brilliant and importantly factual.
Yep, I agree with you. Some of their newest additions are particularly impressive.
Another Arvin Ash's subject that will lead me to hours of reading!
Thank you so much for the great content of your videos.
Salam bro :)
Salam my friend.
Exactly, like I just read that John Isner has the fastest serve in tennis.
Charles Duell: "everything that can be invented has been invented"
The future: im about to end this man's whole career
More like: I'm about to start this other man's whole career.
Why would he even say that?
The future: "Hold my beer cozy... US, patent number us4293015a."
Still anything new invented in the last 75 years or so has been through refinements in engineering of KNOWN physics. Physics hasn't given us anything new in almost 100 years. Sabine Hossenfelder did a video on this subject not to long ago.
@@stuglenn1112 Wrong.
Smartphones, TV's, the internet. It revolutionionized our way of living.
The invention is was hugely driven by liquid crystal displays (LCDs) which has been invented in the last 30 years.
On top of that, many new, groundbreaking inventions are about to become reality:
Quantum computers, which hold an unimaginable potential for humanity
Entanglement and its usage for information transmission
Fusion energy, aka the cleanest and safest and also most sustainable energy source by far
....
@ArvinAsh thank you.. Love all your videos and how you explain. keep up the great work. bless you
Great video Arvin! Very much appreciate the fact that you put the equations in.
I assure you that this is the best video I have ever seen. Relating every concepts and clearing the doubts one above the other..
Literally awesome..💥💥💥
Glad you enjoyed it!
I like to watch these kinds of videos so I can pretend like I know what they’re talking about for a few minutes and then act like I’m the smartest person on earth for the rest of the day. Don’t lie, you know you’ve memorized parts of this video and went to work the next day and impressed your co workers with your new knowledge 😂
😂😂😂😂😂
Isn't it how the whole education works? We memorise what great scientists has figured out by doing hard work their whole life. Very few people contribute to that collective knowledge but majority of us get respect for memorizing well established facts. If you agree than you should not feel ashamed of memorizing and boasting about this knowledge to your coworkers.
😂😂😂😂
Your channel is so awesome! I can't believe I only found it just recently. Keep up the great work putting out high quality educational content!
"Are you certain blue killed red"
Heisenberg: Well, yes but actually no
Understandable, have a great day
As of today, yes, I am certain. Here is why > ruclips.net/video/v-nblE8ps2M/видео.html
Why your name is serena
@@preetivaish7180 Why your name is Preeti?
@@itwasntidio4623 why do you have so many subs for having no videos or any sort of content
Best video I've seen on uncertainty; this channel rocks; gladly subscribed. Wish I could support also, but can't.
Yes, what most people can't accept, even physics degree people I've met, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty is not just a limitation of measurement but an intrinsic uncertainty in reality itself. At the risk of being called an "anthropic fan" or some such (I hate the New Age as much as the next guy), my personal view is that the essence of "free will" in the world is the combined macroscopic result of atomic scale non-determinism.
I don't know much , but I know that: Never ask a woman her age, a man his salary, and Werner Heisenberg about the Velocity and position of a particle!
And student his grades
@@darkinstinct572 lol
A girl about her ex
Me trying to relax and get some sleep by listening Arvn Ash's calming voice.
My brain not wanting to sleep:
"D" is the width of the slits, edge and uncertainty of the P, if Lamda stays constant, than as D, the width of the slit gets smaller, bore's radius is surrounded by a cloud of probabilities.
Wow, your videos are amazing and so easy to understand. I wish you were my physics teacher at school.
same
I wish there was more paid adverts in videos made to pass knowledge.
Wonderfull explanation of uncertainity principle! And Arvin is the only one who doesnt underestimate and dumb down its audience!
Equations and derivations are highly welcomed! Congratulations.
P.S.for anyone who still didnt understands,there are another beautiful video on this same topic on Eugene Khutoryansky channel on YT.
Stuff like this makes me appreciate just how little we actually know about reality and how much more there is to know, makes me excited to be human!
the wave function does not collapse when observed, but we can observe only when the wave function collapses. it's an uncertainty on the part of the observer not on the part of the particle. the particle exists and functions with or without an observation, but for the observer to interact, the particle has to be in a specific state. / due to the particle wave duality observable in the quarks because of its small size, we can only detect a particle in space when its wave function's momentum is zero. when the wave function resumes, the particle is shaken up and cannot be pinpointed at a specific location.
/ it's like looking at a guitar string. when it is strung, we can see the string at the endpoints of the width of the pulse because the momentum is zero at that point.
@Arvin: What about Neutron stars? Does Heisenberg uncertainty principle break down since electrons fall into nucleus?
Adi No neutron stars have a different mechanism for orbital collaps. At high enough pressure the electrons are push on top of each other. But electrons are fermions so they are not allowed to be on top of each other. This means that at a certain pressure the "Electron Degeneracy Pressure" electrons are not allowed to exist. This is why they combine with protons and form neutrons. Neutrons have higher degeneracy pressure so they can exist. But there is also a point that pressure is high enough that even neutrons are not allowed to exist. This again use a different mechanism. Finally when pressure is high enough matter is not allowed to exist. The mass forms a singularity using the mechanism of general relativity.
@@kazedcat Thank you!
He would need to understand the true nature of the Universe to be able to answer that one correctly. He would need to know about the electric universe.
Strong force is stronger between up and down quarks compared to up-up or down-down quarks. So deutron (proton-neutron) is very *stable* with 3 up-down quark-pairs linked together. On the contrary there is no significant strong force between proton-proton or neutron-neutron (due to unequal up-down quarks in those combinations) and such a nucleus is neither stable nor observed in most experiments. As the nucleus gets heavier, some additional neutrons can be tolerated as a small percentage of the total proton-neutron pairs. In 3D space, alpha particles (2 such pairs with 6 up-down quarks symmetrically along XYZ axis) are even more stable so most heavy nuclei are made of alpha-particles (there is a hierarchy of binding within a heavy nucleus). If there is now an ever-growing and extreme curvature in space-time (for any reason including extreme gravity in the core of a massive star), motion of electron will be towards the nucleus, creating more neutrons from proton-collisions. Neutrons decay into proton-electron pairs with a half-life of 10 min in less curved space-time creating sufficient "Electron Degeneracy Pressure", but that is now overcome under neutron-star-level gravity. Heisenberg uncertainty principle in its classical form breaks down under such extreme curvature of space-time but if momentum and position vectors are appropriately transformed in this new extremely curved space-time, the principle nearly holds with minor curvature-specific modification to the constant h/4π. Theories of Quantum Gravity are trying to come close but the mathematics is not there yet, hence the somewhat over-simplified description here.
@@vishalmishra3046 Thank you!
"...the way the real world works is counter-intuitive...illogical..." Alternatively...the world is perfectly intuitive and logical, but we are...not.
I particularly enjoyed your explanation that the uncertainty is a product of reality, *not* an observer effect. And also that it still applies to the macro world, but in too small of magnitudes for us to notice. More than a bit mind-blowing.
Heisenberg, Einstein, Born, and Schrödinger get pulled over for speeding.
The cop asks Heisenberg "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies, "No, but we know exactly where we are!"
The officer looks at him confused and says, "You were going 173 kilometers per hour!"
Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now we're lost!"
The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the men have anything in the trunk.
"A cat," Schrödinger replies.
Einstein, sitting in the backseat, groans, "Die Katze aufgefasst werden können ist mir wurst."
The cop opens the trunk, shoots the cat, and yells, "Hey! This cat is dead."
Schrödinger angrily replies, "Well, he is now."
Born, still reading their navigational map, breaks into a cackle. "I told you it wouldn't matter by the time we got there! We'll get you another cat."
Heisenberg cries, "That speeding wasn't my fault, officer, I swear!"
The cop replies, "Shooting the cat was! I wouldn't have if he wasn't in the trunk!"
Einstein throws his arms up, "Erklären Sie das einfacher!"
Schrödinger continues, "Then he was dead all along, I suppose."
Born whips around to Schrödinger, "This is all because we left late."
Einstein lays back, "Nur relativ spät."
Heisenberg, shocked, turns to Schrödinger as well, "Why did you bring a dead cat on vacation?!"
Schrödinger shrugs and finally replies, "Well, I guess that's the question, isn't it?!"
Einstein, sitting in the backseat, groans, "Die Katze aufgefasst werden können ist mir wurst."
This makes no sense and who is "Born"?
@@TOOMtheRaccoon Yeah, thats not a real german sentence
Why only Einstein speaks a language different from English here? )
@@TOOMtheRaccoon Niels Bohr I guess
@@TOOMtheRaccoon That's something Einstein said in regards to (nonlocality).
edit: excuse me I just tried to adapt his quote into that context. Here is the real quote:
"Ob die psi b, und psi b_ als Eigenfunktionen von Observabeln B, B_ aufgefasst werden konnen ist mir wurst."
doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9
my german is no good so my adaptation was bad :(
It's only listed in one very obscure paper.
It's apparently a figure of speech, I'll go find the reference. Also, it's Max Born, lesser known. Another instrumental founder of QM
7:30 - and that is why the smaller the aperture of the camera, sharper and more of the image is in focus, than with a wider aperture that allows more light.
Would be great if you could do a video on Bohmian mechanics Arvin, it's yet another explanation that isn't complete but it would be another option in how to keep things "deterministic" in the quantum world.
Yes, it's on my list. Stay tuned.
Why would one want things to be deterministic? Accept indeterminism.
@@robertcarr6040 In what sense? Only think "indeterminate" about QM is that we can't understand the probabilities. It all adds back up to 1, so that's pretty determined.
@@discogodfather22 How was it determined that the surface of the Earth became more ordered with much more information over the last 3 billion years? Living things are responsible for this order and information. If physicists do not account for this increase in information, they do not fully account for the system. Evolution by Natural Selection is the means by which Life organizes the living community and is how Biology emerges from Chemistry. Evolution involves selection for individual organisms, nothing to do with the underlying atomic or subatomic particles. This selection and all of sexual reproduction is indeterminate in a real sense. Much randomness involved.
Your voice is so-o-o-o soothing as you explain that macroscale reality is only an illusion, things can both exist and not exist, and we can't know anything with accuracy or certainty. 😂
I do not have the training / education in the advanced maths required to perform the calculations described, so can not argue to the validity of the assertions in this video. I do have however, very strong reasoning skills, and a strong intuitive sense for how our reality seems to work. Given, all of the different theory that is in discussion on the topic, Arvin does a superior job of describing systems which just "FEEL" logically correct. His descriptions of physics just feel right to me. Thank you Sir! @arvinash
Man, that title really just rolls off the tounge
Well done again Arvin! This time I have especially appreciated the effort to derive numbers and hence give a size and actual feel for the parameters and not just "bigger", "extremely small" etc.. Hopefully this will encourage more and more people around the world to embrace scientific and quantitative thinking (I know, this last statement sounds too optimistic :-) ).
May the (quantized) force be with you!
Thanks again!
This channel deserve millions 😍
What a video man! Thanks for the knowledge.
The video is so good that I understand that I didn't understand this topic
Doesn't the wave function collapse when the things are as large as an tennis ball? How would then the tennis ball even show uncertainty?
There is always some uncertainty, even if the wave function collapses.
Events occur at a frequency of trillions of trillions of times per second at the small scale where electrons spin around the proton. There's uncertainty at this level. The tennis ball ⚽ has stable existence.
“....It is even illogical but the truth”! 👍 to that. Superb presentation. Many thanks.
I both love and hate science for taking the magic out of everything.
I think it makes it even more magical by showing us that magic is a real and a never-ending mystery to be investigated. Science fiction lacks the imagination to hold a candle to what reality writes.
@@StarWarsTherapy couldn’t have said it better myself. Quantum mechanics especially is as magical as it gets
It seems that mathematics takes away the wonder upon which it was created. In real life the stranger things are always explainable by maths. It's as if the universe covers it's tracks like you say, and takes away the wonder
No, science never explains the true "why" of how things are, only the "what." The magic lies at a much deeper level involving things like meaning, purpose, beauty, and good.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I agree but mathematics finds it's way in somewhere along the line. If you have a backlog of coincidences for example, the it can always be explained away by the maths but I agree
Love this stuff thanks wonderful interesting point views 💯
@arvinash So what exactly is an electron is it some kind of wave in form of energy and somehow converts itself into matter??
It's a wavefunction :)
See my pinned comment.
Firstly this is by far the best channel I've come across for learning scientific concepts.
In regards to the video...
Ok, how is this not "woo"?
This honestly sounds like it coincides exactly with the concept of what I understand as "faith", at least as exemplified in the Bible. The wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrates that everything is in superposition. There are numerous amounts of states, positions, probabilities, etc for any given entity. What appears to collapses the wave and bring an entity into "our reality" is our measurement but in fact if you analyze it further it seems as though the greatest correlation and common denominator to our "reality" or what is manifested is whether or not we know about it. What if that is the causation behind our "reality", as it is then the "elimination" of being able to use faith. In fact numerous principles of physics alludes to this as well when you look into the speed of light and causality.
Moreover, consciousness doesn't cause the quantum entity to exist like once theorized but we now believe it is already in existence in the universe and this coincides within Christianity's interpretation of faith as oppose to something like Islam. God provides everything (by grace) and can man bring them about (with "faith") or our own knowledge. This is an important distinction to make because I know no other mainstream religion teaches faith in this way. Every other religion basically teaches that faith makes stuff real from nothing rather than procuring what already exists. We know now with the latest experiments that stuff is not brought into existence with our part eg measurement, knowledge, faith, etc.
Would love to be able to talk with a knowledgeable person about this. @Arvin Ash you should do something where you speak with subscribers and guests, akin to a podcast.
Can you tell me why the uncertainty in position of a ball at rest be not infinite?
Because all measurements affect the thing being measured. Could be photons bounced off of it, or radiated particles, either way the thing was accelerated by the thing used to measure its position, speed, etc.
@@joekoelker7523 Ok that makes sense but still wouldn't the uncertainty in momentum be low low that uncertainty in position becomes large?
It's mindblowing to see there are so many intelligent people in the world capable of solving such complex equations and making so many great discoveries, and then there people who think Covid is a hoax.
As someone who knows nothing of what this guy is talking about, I still pray I'm closer to his end of the spectrum.
I woupdn't say QM is not logical. It goes against common sense but it's absolutely logical
😂
By logical, I mean quantum level behavior that does not fit with our macro scale logic - for example, things like entanglement - two particles far apart linked instantaneously, measurement changing the outcome of events, or particles not having a precisely defined position.
@@ArvinAsh that's not being illogical, that's being against common sense. And particles only do "spooky action at a distance" if you assume the copenhagen interpretation.
Also, things being uncertain is logical, logic is about consistency not about what the classical world is about. It would be illogical if one day particles obeyed heisenberg uncertainty and the next day day they started following different laws of physics
I loved the way you explained this. Thank you so much for posting your videos. I enjoy all of them and I appreciate them.
Absolutely love his excitement.
Dude, this is mind breaking explanations for complex math equations. This is no where near simple. But thanks for showing me how complex reality really is.
"The way that the real world works is counterintuitive, invisible and even ilogical, but it is THE TRUTH"
This sounds like a religious person explaining you about the spiritual world and its effects on the visible world, but since it has equations and precise measurements then the science minded don't freakout and it sounds ok to the modern atheist types.
You're so kind...
Of corse you know that the truth is way way way too much for mere mortals to comprehend... but you're very kind and that's commendable..
Very nice how you explain QM principles using classical Physics. Keep it up!
Being someone who teaches classical physics, bit researches quantum physics, I see many fundamental bridges in addition to these...
I am going to become Quantum Physicist in future 😋
Say best of luck to me 😉
Solving the equationd with real numbers was tremendously helpful, thank you!!
never fails to amaze me to be honest.
Thank you once again Arvin for breaking down this ultra-cmplex concept of reality to the level of ordinary people like myself !
It would have really been wonderful if you could have been my college Physics instructor. !!!
Awesome video!
Just one question: would that make determinism in our makro world wrong? Because if the effect on makroscopic things like a Tennis Ball is so, so small, it wouldn't really effect where it goes, and so that wouldn't make it undeterministic? So our makroscopic world is deterministic while the "true" universe isn't?
Yes, determinism in the way you have laid it out would still hold in the macro world. But the jury is still out on global determinism, in terms of whether events and actions are determined.
@@ArvinAsh Nice! Thx for the quick answer :)
One of the best science channel out there in youtube
The uncertainty principle says nothing about determinism, just what is measurable
That has yet to be determined. ;-)
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Freewill (choice) is dual to tyranny (determinism, no choice).
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (predictability, syntropy)
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Ethico theology is dual to physico theology -- Immanuel Kant.
Freewill or the lack of determinism implies ethics, morals and choices, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas.
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
Mind duality is dual to matter duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Teleology = the categorical imperative!
Transcendental logic is dual to the transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant.
A completely deterministic universe implies that I am not responsible for my actions hence the need for a moral and ethical code -- freewill, randomness and entropy --> syntropy!
@@hyperduality2838 So it's a duel of the duals.
@@Paladin1873 Duality within duality!
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The future is dual to the past -- time duality.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out -- space duality.
All lengths, distances, spaces are defined by two dual points -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality.
The word 'duel' implies a stress or tension between two opposame opponents.
Tension, stress according to Einstein is energy! -- the stress, energy tensor of General relativity.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- electro-magnetic energy is dual, Maxwell's equations.
Negative curvature is dual to positive curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
The infinite negative curvature singularity (white hole, big bang) is dual to the infinite positive curvature singularity (infinite mass black hole).
Non duality is dual to non duality!
Energy is measured in Joules (jewels, duals).
Dirac equation:- particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down or duality within duality.
@@hyperduality2838 I'm glad I didn't say "up the yin yang".
My primary argument against this is that this idea in general assumes consciousness as existing solely within the body or minds of humans. This is a common assumption people tend to make as it is the most relatable experience of consciousness. However, as I am sure you are aware, standard science and observation as we know it today has failed to come up with a conclusive understanding of where consciousness actually as is and in general consciousness has remained largely a mystery. With that said, if we went the other route and assumed that consciousness could exist as an out of body construct, there is really no way to know for sure what it is and is not effecting. In other words, what we observe as probabilistic wave functions from the perspective of our own awareness, may in fact be deterministic according to an unforeseen interfering conscious observer. In other words, if there was a greater awareness existing in the space between bodies, it would alter the seemingly probabilistic wave functions to obtain particular results as an effect of that observer.
Experiments that have been done that show this sort of phenomena are ones that study conscious projection in the form of meditation and consciousnesses ability to altar things that were supposed to be more random. "Exploratory study: The random number generator and group meditation". Basically, this hypothesis does not act as proof of determinism, but merely shows one still possible condition that would result in determinism being a truth. I personally believe this world to be relatively deterministic and, given my personal understanding and experiences, I don't see any solid proof that it isn't.
Background music is disturbing
Thank you so much for these videos, between your channel and SpaceTime ( and a lot of re watching!), things start to make much more sense (well as much as QM can haha), however till today it was hard for me to realize why the macro world did not have the uncertainties, you said something among the line of due to the fields being localized in the macro world, and actually showing the math of the tennis ball, finally made it "click" ; hence once again thank you good sir!
Maybe our understanding of logic isn’t complete
wow
I always thought logic is created not understood. Like mathematics it is man-made to make sense of the world.
Well, it kinda depends. If you are talking about mathematics, then yes, it is created by us to understand the world better. But that doesn't mean that we made up logic. Logic itself is kust a fancy word to imply some sort of pattern. And patterns can be created by anything. That's why i think our understanding of logic still misses some parts.
@@Djake3tooth mathematics isn't created lol. Its being discovered...
@@Tzimiskes3506 well, yes (I guess, it's still being discussed right?), but we created our own system to write and talk about mathematics...
Uncertainty of 2020 seems to be high😅. This too shall pass🙃.
Your videos are simply the best. Period.
Great video!
@Howlin000 agreed
@Bhavesh sinha So What it will be great
@@arjunsinha4015 Yes they always are so statistically speaking this one will be too!
I am a new student, and require multiple sources of information on the same subject. Every professor has a different view in there presentations on the same subject which is very nice because I get a better understanding of the same said subject. Arvin is great but there are some that I find difficult to understand. I need, because of my hearing a louder person to relay the information. Plus it is fun to explore the different perspectives in doing so.
You lost me when you said that reality is not even logical.
By logical I mean things behave at the quantum level that does not fit with our macro scale logic - for example, things like entanglement, measurement changing the outcome of events, or particles not having a precisely defined position.
@@ArvinAsh I was watching with my wife and I told her how I interpreted what you were saying is that it isn't intuitive to the human mind.
@@ArvinAsh
Logical is poor choice of words. Its not intuitive, its not reasonable from a human scale. Its logical based on experimental evidence and the math we use to predict the results of future experiments.
It is VERY logical, but logic is not reasonable to the unprepared minds. Which is why we get crankery on physics discussions. Logic based on false premises results in false conclusions.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 Point well taken.
Your excitement before the intro gave me goosebumps. Thanks anyway.
I was really waiting for this video ...Thanks a lot Sir .....
Thank you for another awesome video Arvin.
I appreciate the math correlation, especially explaining Delta x and p. Thanks for value added breakdown!
I think it makes sense to be a determinist for practical purposes in our day to day lives.
While calling the IRS today waiting to get a number, I thought about the uncertainty principal. The caller (me) was just like a photon. Until the moment I was able to talk to someone, there's no telling I would get the number or not or what number I could get. This to me also implied that we are living in a matrix because only when I was registered in the system, then I could be certain of something as the matrix governs the final registration.
Well, that's an analogy I have not heard before!
@Arvin Ash thanks for being polite on my non scientific analogy. 😅 I was just very frustrated with the IRS.
@@univegastrida9113 I feel your pain my friend, especially this time of year.
The way you explain makes it very easy to understand
Thanks Arvin for another brilliant exposition!
So much uncertainty in this video. This must be the feature.
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Freewill (choice) is dual to tyranny (determinism, no choice).
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (predictability, syntropy)
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Ethico theology is dual to physico theology -- Immanuel Kant.
Freewill or the lack of determinism implies ethics, morals and choices, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas.
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
Mind duality is dual to matter duality.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Teleology = the categorical imperative!
Transcendental logic is dual to the transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant.
A completely deterministic universe implies that I am not responsible for my actions hence the need for a moral and ethical code -- freewill, randomness and entropy --> syntropy!
Thank you Arvin. I learnt so much more from your videos than my school. :D
Arvin Ash, listening to you, is akin to listen to the almighty. Thank you!
Hooked by the quality of your content. Your videos are incredible!
Determinism in QM is knowing the position of a submicroscopic particle at any time, regardless of whether it is being measured or not. If you want determinism in QM, you must learn about the Bohm interpretation, because the standard or Copenhagen interpretation is both mystical and nondeterministic, because that's the way it looked like to Bohr and his friends in the 1920s. Bohn didn't come along until 1952, and validation didn't come along until Bell in the 1960s. Of course, determinism has nothing to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is that in a single measurement there is a reciprocal relationship between the precision of measuring position and that of measuring velocity. The reason is the same as between time and frequency in Fourier analysis: it is a limitation of measurement, not of anything in quantum mechanics.
As always, impressive explanation. Could we argue that because the uncertainty is so small, the world could be 99.999...% deterministic, as long as quantum phenomena are not resulting in strong consequences? Such as in the Schrödinger’s cat or possibly conciseness
Determinism in the context of the video is about uncertainty at quantum scales. It does not necessarily follow that this can be extrapolated to determinism in our lives for making decisions or actions.
Another great video. Thanks. As a test engineer, my impression of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that the uncertainty exists due to our current level of technology. Currently, we are not able to accurately measure position and velocity(at the same time) of things like electrons. If our civilization survives long enough, I think we will be able to do this someday. I'm guessing that it will be a method that does not use light.
Well, if you can show that, a Nobel prize is waiting for you because it would turn physics upside down. All current theory indicates that it is not a measurement issue, it is the way reality works.
I would like to believe you, as many people in the microprocessor business would then be able to make smaller transistors. But according to the math, it's something we can't avoid. When you get to the scale where the uncertainty principle is given you issues then you observe quantum tunneling. If the uncertainty principle wasn't real, tunneling wouldn't be real either :)
From at more theoretical point of you, you would destroy most of particle physics if the uncertainty principle is not real.
@@ArvinAsh I love the work your doing. Thanks for the reply.
Free will is like holding cards in your hand and you're trying to win. Whatever winning is to you. Maybe it's pleasure, maybe it's fortune, maybe it's survival.
This stuff is so interesting, I really feel like refreshing my math and physics and take it to the next level to understand more about this.
Unbelievably good content.
High quality
Good pacing
Complex and very interesting topics presented simply
Engaging
Not afraid to show and dive into the math
I feel wrong to be watching these for free lol
Absolutely wonderful lecture
Philosphyically, I have been inclined towards determinism in a naive sense. That is to say, I believe that all is predetermined (including “free will” of course), but have accepted that observations themselves very much affect predictability. I never appreciated, however, how the quantum world so affected the macro (the world of a non-zero chance of walking through a wall) world. Truly, this really gives me a newfound appreciation for mathematics.
For people who're fans of hidden variable when thinking about the double slit experiement, think about the 3 polarized 45 degreese lense experiment. The hidden variable doesn't really work there, or at least it's much harder to map it to that experiment than the double slit one.