Wave Function - Sixty Symbols
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- If you think you understand this video, you probably don't. Another adventure into the world of quantum mechanics with three professors of physics and astronomy.
With Professor Mike Merrifield
Another explanation from Professor Moriarty can be found at • Wave Function (Extra F...
More videos at www.sixtysymbols.com/ 
Наука
I see that Schrödinger was busy doing double-slit experiments of his own.
You sly dog, you. :P
nimim. Marko Mikkilä In a corporal superposition state, it's difficult to know which slit was entered when. Theories speculate that it behaved like a wave and went into both slits, making milky fringe patterns past both holes.
Jeff Hanes other thing is until you measured which slit was entered it could have been both. The difference is that if there was interference it was not from what entered the slits but the slit materials itself interfered with each other.
That sounds interesting. I have to think about it... hard.:)
Jeff Hanes hope the poor cat was spared!
wait a physicist having a wife AND a girl friend and they live harmoniously together?
Smart people do indeed, win...
They calculated the high efficiency and couldn't resist the optimal strategy.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself The simps at Oxford were def low energy/QFT calculators. They def defined simp'n.
Re-watching this classic - wow, ten years old now.
Schrodinger was "invited" to leave :D :D
English people are too polite...
And prudish. Imagine what his scientific collaborations could have produced if his open relationship were left private
it's just a way of putting it, don't worry it wasn't an invitation, It was an 'offer' he couldn't refuse
Its not being polite, its using your language as your own and understanding it.
@@jtorr2997 "prudish" yes, science should be bereft of morality. What could POSSIBLY go wrong in that situation??
@Lucious
Yeah, right?
Modern society (to be more accurate, "constantly growing part of society") has the audacity to say that polygamy "isn't bad". Well, it's "kinda" wrong, even more when someone is already married.
Same people say that it's only wrong because of the arbitrary rules we created which we as humanity should abandon, "set ourselves free" and admit that we all want that pesky "attached strings" to perish and indulge in that sweet sweet freedom.
Weeeell, if that would be the case, marriage wouldn't even "be a thing", which is more ancient than I care to really knos.
I don't know about all other folks, but it tells me something - if something came to be on it's own and stood the test of time maybe, _just maybe_ , its something majority of people (as in "healthy individuals") really want?
...for f*cks sake, it's one of things that differentiates us from animals...
(or "less advanced animals" if you are one of those)
The answer is simple tell the election to stop interfering with itself or it will go blind
arthur granopoulos election?
Xvfsvdßxxxxxxßcffrrffrfdffffrrrffffrrrfgreefggreeerrrrfrrer errrrrrreerdeeer4eewddefrr treeeegvcffcçxddddddddddddtfredffr
Ffedfdegfrfr
Frrffffr
Rffv
arthur granopoulos yeah i know right?
"invited to leave"
Such a nice way to get kicked out
The most pimp scientist was asked to leave. What a trend they started till today: Simp Parade.
i am a high school student and i can relate to that last statement. I used to hate hard work, but now with my introduction to science i want the un-intuitive stuff, the complicated stuff which challenges my mind and at the same time helps me understand the world around me. its amazing.
The only thing that makes sqrt(-1) seem like it is not something that cannot exist is purely definition. the imaginary operator is simply a quarter rotation counterclockwise: rotate to switch from one axis to another that is orthogonal.The real world clearly recognizes rotation, it is our abstraction of numbers as defining of a single dimension that gives rise to the absurdity of sqrt(-1) seeming like something impossible.
I rather like to think of the square root of -1 as just a number that reacts differently to being added or multiplied. the same way a minus number does.
This is undoubtedly the best explanation I have encountered on the subject.
I am hopelessly addicted to these videos. Great stuff!
the Monet analogy was a good comparison
I would really love to see one of Professor Mike Merrifield's actual lectures. The man is amazing.
Marvellously fun to watch. I love the enthusiasm with which everything is presented. Also, as a professor (of a very different subject...), I was very happy to hear the closing line: that what students want [well, the good ones, at least...] is not something easy, but something *hard*. Amen to that.
so basically, everything behaves as a wave function, but on our scale it's negligible because the wave is teeny tiny compared to the object. It takes getting down to an electron size where the wave is larger than the particle and then these interesting things happen!
Wow that actually helped me understand a bit more. Thanks /)
Well, on the macroscopic scale, it is a combination of narrow wave functions and far too large masses for the wave function to spread out very much which keeps things classical.
woah
Wave function is a mathmatical object. It doesn't exist in reality, outside of paper.
But because we can say nothing about a particle before it's measured, there is no reason not to make it a mathematical model rather than physical. Saying "particles behave like wave function" is saying "particle doesn't exist".
It is encountering a foreign object that collapses the wave at small scales. The wave function can grow to immense sizes if the particle/photon does not encounter another object to make it collapse. A photon can cross the galaxy and pass around a large planet or star on both sides (due to warping because of gravity) and interfere with itself before being detected by a telescope here on earth.
i love this series! They explain things in a way that can be understood as well as making it interesting by sharing their excitement for science :)
I love these videos, so interesting. They make you listen and think!
You, good Sir, are a legend. And the fact that it's been nine months since you posted that joke only adds to the fun.
I just loved the impressionist painting analogy to quantum mechanics!!! Simple and beautiful! Like the laws of Physics.
I dont think the laws in quantum physics are simple (but can be beautiful), more like bizarre
Experts taking time to talk to me. Thank you for producing this.
9 years later this is still a decent introductory video on the subject.
This is one of the best channels on RUclips.
I must say that the electron diffraction experiment we did in college was the most staggering thing I've ever seen. It was like staring at the naked universe and realizing it to be far more strange than I had ever imagined.
Imagine all the years of studying and teaching, to be given an office smaller than a painting :(
I’ve always wondered, for the double slit experiment, if you had entangled particles, would you be able to collapse the wave function by observing the particle it was entangled with?
From what I understood in quantum mechanics (I studied engineering) is that as soon as you try to observe a particle, the wave function of that particle is modified by the wave function of everything used to observe it (measuring instruments, recording devices). It is impossible to observe something without disrupting it's wave function.
Yes, that is a popular and completely false understanding. For one thing, there are no particles. Quanta are amounts of energy that systems exchange with each other. Energy is a property, not a thing, hence it does not have to behave like a thing and it doesn't. Observation is irreversible energy exchange and quanta are only created by irreversible processes. Without them not even quanta exist in quantum mechanics.
Very true Phillip,...many times I have seen things explained in ways that overcomplicate very simple concepts. Sometimes we have to suspend our disbelief of simplicity in order for things to make sense. Not familiar with Smolin, but after a quick read of the Wiki page, I see he's right up my alley, will definitely put him on my reading list for today.
Do you think information only exists in an uncorrupted state outside the human mind ?
When I took modern physics it was indeed really interesting, and fun to go to lecture and to listen to my professor tell me this amazing story of the quantum world.
I cant wait to move forward with physics it is fun but hard to work out,
Great videos as usual. Keep it up!
The first few lines in this video were sampled in a song I downloaded years ago. What a trip.
awesome video! Great to see a discussion proper about quantum mechincs that clearly and lucidly explains the concepts without all the spiritualistic, metaphysical nonsense. The Correspondance Principle by Niels Bohr was just this idea that at a certain scale, quantum mechanics agrees with classical mechanics and the laws of the macroscopic scale. It's only the sheer difference in scales that make it seem as though two seperate realities exist. Subscription warrented!
Yeah I still have trouble with this. I took Physical Chemistry and had to deal with the schrodinger equation a LOT. I get the math...sorta (eigenfunctions, and eigenvalues still confuse me on occasion).
But the wave function always messes with my mind.
That picture of Erwin Schrodinger is just awesome. I don't understand a word about the physics they're describing, but this video makes me think that Erwin would be a blast to hang around with. Also, I can't wait until I get to use the phrase "invited to leave".
Since I don't know the math, just from a layman point of view, when you make the experiment using one single particle, would you get the particle smeared over the back plate after if past the slits? Based on the explanations I watched it seems like each individual particle hits one specific position on the back plate. It is only after many more particles pass through the slits the interference pattern reveals itself. So as long there is only one particle used in the experiment its particle quality is maintained. But the position in which it lands seems to be afected by some property that behaves like a wave. It's like an airplane that tries to land but the path of landing depends of the interference of the medium it flies through (or maybe some intrinsinc quality of the plane can't let you control the exact position of landing) so every airport would end up having landing strips on all possible positions this plane could land on coming from a specific direction. But there are more planes coming from the same directions so you would end up with skid makrs on all the landing strips not that each plane would get smeared out over all possible panding strips. Isn't it what it actually happens or am I missing something?
Having no formal k pledge except for your wonderful videos, is a way to understand this sort of like computer code. The ones/zeros aren't really real, they're representations that then get interpreted as a physical "thing"
They travel in/like waves and don't mean anything until they are looked at for meaning and they can and do "interfere" with themselves - or is my way no naive way of looking at the quantum world? Thanks to all the great people in this channel!
Thank you for this very useful info. It works on my computer where other methods haven't.
I can't wait to learn this next year!
About what professor Merrifield said at the end: There is nothing like figuring out something you've struggled with wrapping your mind around, even though the process of trying to figure it out can be so stressful and frustrating you cant to cry at times. The "Eureka!" moment at the end is worth it all.
The Monet analogy is a very good way of putting it. I'd certainly put it that way.
Hear, hear!
i wanna know which uni teaches relativity and quantum mechanics in first year?
i have never come across a video or a demonstration which definitely show the deviation of wave nature of electrons, due to mere observation. If you cold make a video about the experiment involving this deviation it would be so good,
I was watching a video from a chemistry professor informing his audience of the new mapping of some carbon molecules. The picture was fuzzy but a basic image was present.
Its always hard to explain why those images are always fuzzy but since we're using analogies I like the Nation vs People one. It's easy to figure what a nation will do but harder to know what the states of that nation will do, then cities, then individual people. The more you divide the fuzzier things get.
The Monet painting is the best analogy to QM I’ve ever heard.
Yeah, glad you noticed also.
I hope various agencies and peoples inside and outside the physics field see this phemenom.
During my journey, I've got not many trace of such people or even possibilities of them.
To understand waves one has to dump macroscopic reality.
Waves are not more or less than they are.
They make particles.Particle is crest... The effect of a bigger wave.
A small question for Pr.Moriarty from Jacques in France :
We both play electric guitar...
except that I only use tube amps ! ...
So why do the electrons in my 6L6 or EL34 tubes behaves so nicely ? or , put in another way, why electrons in tube amps don't go quantic ?
Thanks for those wonderful videos and guitar playing !!!!!
jacques
First year?(9:22 my reaction) I understand that most students come to university calculus ready but do they also come to school physics ready? This wave function does require a little understanding of differential equations. My university required that I take a general course in mechanics(calculus integrated) and a general course in electricity and magnetism(calculus integrated) before I took a course in modern physics. Are the students here getting exposure to those courses in the form of AP high school classes?
+Lance Lovecraft im currently first year (not there but anyway) we study physics really basically at A-Level and first year builds on this only slightly. Next year we will cover modern physics in a more detailed sense. But we too have done mechanics and Electrical engeneering and Calculus predominantly this year. sets out the ground work you know.
In the UK it sadly very much depends on the quality of the teaching at the school where students do their A levels (UK age 16-18). There is a lot of variability in what level of material students are taught. Some schools do S levels which are essentially first year university material taught in the last two years of school (sometimes during lunch or after school), and other times a lot of university level teaching is part of the normal classes, just because the teacher is capable of that and enjoys teaching it.
Much like what is said in this video about students wanting to take on the hard stuff... you can teach quantum mechanics to 16-18 year olds if the teacher is capable of it, students want to learn the hard stuff, the stuff that is rote is never engaging. Of course students are not going to be able to do all the calculations that years of university physics will teach them, but they can still grasp the fundamentals.
Honestly the real issue is that universities have to spend the first year going over what should have been taught in the years before, just because some students won't have been exposed to it. Which just holds back the entire year of students overall. Academia.
Lance Lovecraft In spain we go to university with electroagnetism, mechanics, and some exact solutions of the simplest differential equations and matrix algebra. Not mani dif. equations, thats a problem
It's been a long time since I studied this stuff. All I really remember about quantum mechanics is that you can't separate the observer from what he is observing. At that level the experiment effects the result. What physicists really want to know is what the universe is doing when they aren't looking.
I like the Monet analogy.....which is like a picture on a TV screen. Up close it's many pixels, but further back it's full on image. Cool stuff guys.
A video on the professors' thoughts on the Gryzinski's free fall model and similar possible interpretations whose averages can explain the Schrödinger probabilities, pretty pleeeeeeaaaaaaaseeee?
great analogy between the wave function and pointilistic art.
@Sixty Symbols so I got quite a weird result from preforming a rudimentary double slit my self. the thing is as a adjust the distance from the source to the slit it disappears, which led me to think well if I can make it disappear then let me try this with a single slit. lo and behold I found that I can produce the same interference pattern with a single slit by adjusting the slit to be closer to the source.
One Universe of QM-Time->one wave-package Multiverse, stratified, dendritic distribution => Exclusion Principle, so in the Double Slit experiment, one energy emission source, (emulating the Prime Singularity connection), and the cause-effect of the one totality wave-package is selecting the branches of possibilities and resulting spectral distribution probabilities.
The universal equivalent to the Observable Universe is the "slit-node" Multiverse distribution of the Neutron frequency band electron-positron EM spectrum, generally. (Complete with quantum cause-effect and "perspective vanishing point", timing and spacing multiphase-state/interference emission/s).
Many years ago, I did some work which provides a classical wave explanation to the photoelectric effect. ie I believ I have succeeded in reconcling the effect with the wave theory of light. If I find this, I will either publicise the details here or let you have a look. If I am correct, this will be quite siginificant. I'm going thoru a busy period (house move), but do feel free to contact me after xmas, as I do intend to find this work and hope to have it available for you by around then.
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Good video. I recently finished a short course in quantum mechanics for my chemistry degree. I'm not sure I ever want to see a hamiltonian again! Although it does make for an impressive party trick!
How can we certain there is only one electron emitted at one time? Would u show us the equipment?
And what kind of equipment to detect the electron?
I keep hearing double slit experiment in the web but have never seen one.
So in a way, particles behave like waves in certain shapes, and the "particle position" that we observe when looking for it is actually just the top of the wave at that specific time.
So within the pattern, the top of the wave at any certain point frozen in TIME is the "particle"-part.
If we then include TIME, but don't focus on where the TOP is, we see the full wave.
Electrons are then, wavetops moving within a set boundary shape over time - shape being altered by the energy provided.
(A wave changing shape based on how much you stirr it? Doesn't sound too alien.)
The conclusion would then be that we need to include TIME in our visual interpretation in order to perceive them in their full image.
Maybe the particles are moving/oscillating/spinning so unbelievably fast that they appear to be at multiple places at the same time. Maybe it is just because we cannot track the current position of a particle faster than it moves which creates the illusion that the particle is simultaneously anywhere (along the wave-like path the particle is traveling following)
Fun Fact: "Doing one electron at a time" was Schrödinger's least preferred experiment.
Was that picture of the molecule shaped like a dodecahedron? That was amazing to see.
The key is the Harmonic Series. Waves generate harmonic overtones. The reason an electron can exist in multiple locations is because it’s harmonics are being excited distances away from the fundamental. Trying to observe it will introduce interference interruptions.
Maybe the only way to observe it is to use a monitoring device that is in harmonic resonance with the given electron.
Could the wave function represent the Arrow of Time for an individual reference frame?
Based on just two postulates:
1 The quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon.
2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
It's likely Bohmian mechanics and Pilot Wave Theory... The underlying base field lattice is warped by the particle / EM stream wave cutting through, compressing it... Wave activity could well increase as the particle nears the barrier. Detector waves nullify the pilot waves and/or probably act as a straightening wave guide,
As brief as I can, yes the pattern disappears when you make a measurement as to which slit the particle went through. The "measurement" can be more easily considered "an event". So there is no need for anyone/anything to "observe" the particle, just that the particle interacts with anything at all. For example when the particle hits the wall - that is "an event", as the particle has to interact with the wall, making a measurement, or "collapsing" the wave function. I hope that makes some sense.
"wave sign IS a cool symbol, looks like a pitchfork," awesome quote lol
The less understandable the quantum physical concept, the better it describes our universe.
Eventually, when we understand nothing quantum physical, we will completely understand our universe.
Does anyone know what is "Fair play Shirl!" in the background at 8:30 ? And what is written beneath ?
Why do you do this Physics!!
My head hurts now.
Now, what if you measure if the electron has gone through either slit ? Would that still collapse the wavefunction ? The information of the exact slit/location has not been extracted.
hey is wave particle duality a fundamental duality, or is it just us being misled by classifying the two phenomenon in two categories, waves and particles?
@gobaskof : Indeed - and I believe a good explanation of most economic principles should be done without money, because not all economies use money!!!! I note the current definition of economics on wiki doesn't use money!
This is an ongoing friendly debate between myself and Prof Moriarty! :)
In this context I think of maths as a "language", so maybe a better analogy would be that "explaining quantum physics without maths is like trying to convey the genius of Shakespeare without English!"
I like Everett's interpretation of QM. Although instead of thinking about universes 'splitting off', I prefer to think that each particle is just one aspect of the same higher dimensional object spread across the 'multiverse', and the particles properties like spin and location are just aspects of it as presented in the 3 dimensions we experience. Maybe then the probability wave is just our description of this object as it exists whole in a higher dimension.
Difficult to think about :)
can you guys upload 720p or 1080p resolution video?
Does changing the width of the sits and the distance between the sits tell you anything useful about the electrons?
Interesting...
It says that it produced interference patterns which reflected the nodal structure....
Isn't that like saying that the pattern seen in the double slit experiment of the horizontal row of vertical lines is a photograph of the electrons passing thru the slits?
I'll look into the book, thanks!
The more and more I learn about all this stuff in quantum physics, the more and more I begin to think of particles as points of information instead of them being physical objects.
Slow connection so watching this is taking ages. I've always wonder how the "observation" of the wave function collapses it. I mean how are they measuring? Are they firing photons at the electron, or measuring the electric field of the electron? Why isn't the wave function of the electron collapsed by air molecules? Or is it in a vacuum?
Ok, so I finally accepted that I will not gain any intuitive insight into the quantum world. However, I get the feeling that our intuitive understanding of a wave is less of a simplification than our understanding of particles in the quantum world. I hear a lot of "it is quite like a wave in water" and a lot of "it is NOT like a solid ball".
What I would want to know is:
1. Are there ever any real "solid balls" in the quantum world, and
2. Is it perhaps weird that we observe quantum like phenomena, like waves, in the macroscopic world, rather than the other way around? We take waves for granted macroscopically, but what is a wave really?
I'm a bachelor level engineer, so I know of different waves, photons, in air, in liquids and in solids etc., but why do we have waves in the first place? What is the "something" that unites all the different kinds of waves there is? Or is the fact that we have macroscopic waves maybe at its heart equally as unintuitive and weird as anything else?
In the beginning I expected him to say "it is wednesday, my dudes".
Do photons, of any wavelength, have mass? Even if it's something as small as 1x10^-41.
While Schrödinger was in Berlin at the time he came to Oxford, he actually returned to his home town Vienna in 1936 and only left for Rome in 1938.
I am really really looking forward to my Physics degree now!
"He was invited to leave." What a wonderful bit of diplomacy!
Actually I've often wondered if at absolute zero all molecular movement stops does atomic (electron) movement stop as well
and even deeper what are electrons,neutrons and protons made of?
@MrOldprof thank you.
@02:40 you can see the drinking bird right above prof Moriarty's head, on the top shelf behind him.
Can complex wave-function be interpreted just as 2 quantities similar (but not the same) as electro and magnetic field?
Electromagnetic can be directly manipulated, it is the wave function of photon? Or they are different but coincide?
Can we write electromagnetic (Maxwell's) equation in complex form?
Brady, any chance of this happening? Professor Moriarty has some online.
Loved this video!
Maybe the particle pushed ahead other particles on its way, some of them then go through the other slit which then creates the illusion as if the same particle is going through both slits.
9:55 ,his brain said: "Error encountered" and he was like "Loading.., found right explanation". I really liked it :)
@headphones222
yes, [x,p]=-ih/2pi
that means x and p are matrices, not a variables.
and when it comes to matrices, you have 2 things
eigenvalues( number) and eigenstate ( Matrix)
with every matrix you have a number of eigenvalues depending on the matrix size.
so, for 2x2 matrix you have 2 eigenvalues.
let's say matrix - X is 2x2 , then you have two values for the particle's position.
how can you tell which one is the right answer? you don't
you just find the probability.
Can somebody explain to me what quantum docoherence really is? What I understood from it, was that decoherence is caused by a system and its environment interacting and thereby collapsing all the wave functions so that all the superpositions disappear and we get a classical mechanic kind of result. Or am I wrong about this ?
I have been studying and trying to wrap my head around this for awhile now, and still have more problems/questions than answers/understanding. When you say that you cannot measure or observe, isn't that not quite correct? Heisenberg's tenet was that no attempt to make a simultaneous measuremnet of a particle's location and it's destination is not possible due to the fact that the act of observing (viewing via photons) interacts with & changes the outcome (direction of particle)?
Further to my previous response, I believe I understand that Copenhagen gathering accepted this interpretation. However, I am not entirely convinced that the wave function has nothing to do with waves. It is about making a mathematical consideration of the motion (wrt time and space) of the centre of charge of the electron under the influence of the electric fields within the atom. It does involve the assumption that there must be a wave like motion.
If I understand the wave function correctly, the interference happens within the probability wave of the same particle. My question is: Can the probability waves of 2 different particles also interfere with eachother?
If you have two electrons, you don't have two different electrons, you just have two electrons and no way of telling them apart.
So there is no way their waves can't not interfere.
But why make things more complicated than they have to be?
I also was wondering if you might be able to shed some light on the Bohr/Einstein debate of a complete vs. incomplete quantum theory and the resulting EPR thought experiment that Einstein used to explane his "spooky action at a distance". Later, a Dr. John Bell worked out a way to actually do the experiment, supposedly proving Bohr, NOT Einstein correct? Could you explain these results more clearly in layman's terms so we can better grasp the said experiment and its outcome?
So Mr. Philip Moriarty, if we talk about an electro magnetic wave, what actually is waving? For example in a water wave, we KNOW the water is moving, but in an electromagnetic wave, what is actually waving? Same question related to electron waves. In the end I assumed that in an electron wave, it is the probability of the electron existing itself that is 'waving'. So please answer this strange question. Thanks a lot :)
Could my unconscious mind be in infinite regress? More infinities between 0 and 1 than whole numbers and farther you move out from zero the less infinities you have
Seems the smaller computer chips become the more information can be stored within it?
Could these length contracted time-dilated singularities multiplied to infinity and ejected out from the active cores of galaxies be simulating rest and balance now through violent motion be eXpanding the ripples interpreted as atoms and particles?
these guys explain things effectively