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.
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.
@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 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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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
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.
@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!"
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Literally every video about quantum anything is 90% talking about how wacky and counter-intuitive it is. Stop that. You're contributing to the problem. All you need to do is tell people everything that is wrong about classical physics and how things really are. Break down all of the old stuff and build the new from the ground up. Particle-wave duality? Stop holding on to old concepts. Particles are emergent phenomena at best. It's just that the classical idea of a wave doesn't fully describe what a wave is as it exists in "quantum-reality" (which is a misnomer because there is only one reality, but this should get the point across). Stop thinking of particles are little spheres or physical things. They're just virtual representations of a very specific set of waves, the same way whatever you see on your screen reading this comment is just a representation of a very specific set of 1s and 0s. Another ironic analogy would be to compare classical physics to electrical signals from an analog source* and quantum physics (regardless of which specific variant you choose to believe in - I prefer quantum field theory, as you can imagine) to a wave generated from a digital signal. The latter we all know that if we zoom in enough, it is built in little steps dictated by the resolution of the signal. So too do quantum waves, by definition. *The irony here being that any analog signal is also quantized because it exists in "quantum-reality". Likewise, there is no such thing as energy either. There are just very specific types of wave fields that adhere to very strict rules so specific that even at a macro scale these rules still create order in what could easily be confused for chaos, and give rise to virtual phenomena as complex as humanity and the universe it thinks it lives in. The sooner we (RUclips content creators, physicists, etc) stop talking about how complicated and weird "quantum reality" is, the sooner it stops being so. Do humanity a favor and cut out the noise.
While I understand your point, it is undeniable that QM is counter-intuitive to everyday experience. To what degree one harps on this is largely determined by the audience to which one is speaking. On a slightly separate note, let's remember that QM is a MODEL of the universe, and a wildly successful one at that. It, like all other models we've had up until now, will undoubtedly be modified and tweaked as our understanding continues to grow. In all likelihood, the mysteries of dark energy, dark matter, and the incompatibility between General Relativity and QM are huge red flags that we're somehow missing something big. Who knows what? But either way, once these mysteries are unravelled, I expect that these two incredibly powerful theories stand to be slightly modified at best, and heavily modified at worst, so they can simultaneously describe the extremes of the universe that we live in. I say this to remind everyone of the fact that although these models accurately describe the universe around us to incredible levels of precision, they are in fact models. They are not the universe itself.
I agree totally. In this video they said that photons are individual particles that go through both slits at the same time. That's a very confusing an inaccurate picture of what's really happening. Just think of them as waves, and they become particles when they're measured (absorbed). Voila! It's no longer counter-intuitive.
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!
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.
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?
The observer effect being considered “weird” is really perplexing to me. You’ve introduced one loud voice up close in a room full of noise. Why is it so surprising that you now you can make out words? Any observation is an interaction so why would all of the previous equilibrium’s seemingly stochastic noise not be cut through? Without including the observation apparatus in the calculations, how are you even able to believe you are calculating a system when the scales are that small? Equations do not explain, they describe. The interpretations are so absolutely illogical that it’s absurd and Schrödinger himself told everyone that. This is a statistical model of a chaotic system being treated as objective reality instead of viewed as the crude tool that it is. Hamiltonian mechanics requires a smooth Lagrangian and well defined position. We have a quantized system with the impossibility of precise position ruled out by Heisenberg. Where does the notion even come from that you could ever expect a well defined solution? This isn’t to take anything away from the standard model in terms of its results, I just do not understand how the interpretations given here have scientific merit when so many assumptions are ignored in the process of “accepting quantum weirdness”.
It would make more sense to think of the wave function Ψ as a probability function of a future event. Therefore the physics of QM represents the continuum of time as a physical process. The electron is the most spherical object in the universe so this can form the low entropy for the increase in entropy that we have in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Quantum uncertainty is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
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.
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!
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,
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,
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,
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 ?
Quantum mechanical effects NEVER go away. Not in this universe. Instead, we should take care to say, "Classical physics only works under special conditions." Otherwise, we're going to keep seeing loads of confused students.
Yes, but in the same way infinitesimally small changes of a derivative disappear as limits are taken, the effects of quantum mechanics become negligible as you enter the macroworld.
Yes, and every time I ride my bike, my clock runs a tiny bit slower than yours when you're sitting at your computer. But the effects are so small that they don't matter. By way of analogy, the high number of particles involved in a macroscopic system reduce the quantum effects so that the average is effectively all we see.
Spaceline guides/light bends around stars and wire in center of dual-slit. It's the spacelines that diffract around the wire, then the photons follow. Photons don't split, just -+-+ around the wire.
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 :)
@ryanspaceevans DeBroglie's formula implies that large scale objects have a wavelength that is so small it cannot be measured, so it cannot be confirmed. Wavefunctions, Debroglie's wavelength and space-time are the same phenomena. I know this because, I successfully isolated the most general form of a wave function within the motion of binary stars. It's in an open access peer-reviewed publication and was presented at the Sofia Technical University. I know what wave functions are.
Actually I'm agnostic towards whether numbers exist or not. Depends on how you define "to exist" IMHO, so it's pointless to argue. What I would argue, however, is that it is very hard to define "to exist" in a way that includes real numbers but excludes complex numbers. It's just that real numbers are useful to describe things we can directly observe while complex numbers are only useful to describe things we can't see with our own eyes. But that's like saying atoms are not real.
its fairly easy to understand. as something gets smaller or faster it becomes harder to know its speed and location. think of a small bullet.the faster it is going the harder it is to know where it is. when a particle is this small this becomes much more apparent. so apparent that it is no longer affected by newtonian physics.
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.
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).
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?
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.
@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.
Schrödinger was an Austrian physicist. Austria was also the country he left in 1938 after the "Anschluss" because of his political views. (At least he wasn't persecuted because of his religious beliefs; because he hadn't any). Fortunately he came back after the war, because he was one of the few Nobel-prize-winners we have here ;-)
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?
Yes "The One inward light of Mind is positive input resonances or subconscious seems to gain validity enfolding information within a ref-frame of time if repeated through natural selection. Collective unconscious or world belief patterns becoming rigid and domineering within time like fingers and snow. Whilst the two opposed lights of normal mind forms an potential infinity of possiblities like finger prints and snow flakes and if repeted becomes rigid and domineering with time over distance."
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.
Interesting 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!
I would like to see a RUclipsry or YouTubation on gravity and magnetism that attempts to explain exactly what they are, and not in generalized terms or as simply being "effects" of various physical laws. For example, what are magnetic field lines actually "made of"; what is the force itself? For example, is magnetism the effect of some wave-like near-instantaneous boson exchange between atoms? What exactly comprises gravitational fields? Einstein's space-time depressions offer some explanation; however, the proposed existence of gravitons, and now the discovery of gravitational waves, would seem to put gravity in the category of EM, and quantum mechanics. So, what exactly is gravitational force? What exactly is magnetic force?
I loved your sense of curiosity. From what I know, photons are the bosons that help to exchange information from an electromagnetic entity to another one. That's why we describe visible light, and other frequencies of photons, as a Electromagnetic Wave. If you follow Maxwell's differential equations they seem familiar, analogous lets say, to the description of a wave in which the photon travels while growing and shortening its magetic field and its electric field.
And from what I know field lines are ways of representing a vector field showing, or helping to predict, the direction of electric particles if they are left in the field. Is more like a mathematical construct that let us make predictions. I think is sinilar to the wave function for particle physics, just with more intuitive results, perhaps we are more used to the weirdness of this macroscopical world.
My guess from the rude and immature tone of your response is you're probably still in high school. My question was somewhat rhetorical, in that our best understanding of these forces can yet only be represented mathematically; this has been sufficient enough to work with them, but not to completely understand them. The question was meant to stimulate critical thinking about these forces in a more thoughtful and insightful way, other than simply turning to Google. Here's a piece of free advice: If you have nothing to contribute to a question or comment but to be rude, the more appropriate response would be not to respond at all. Otherwise, you appear to be just another angry child.
You can head off the newage consciousness-mongers who think they "create their own reality" because of the observer effect by reminding them that it's the *instrument* which collapses the wave function of a single particle going through a particular slit, not the mind of the experimenter! There is nothing quite as annoying as someone who thinks they know things by intuition alone without doing any of the work; my urge to slap them silly is hard to control sometimes.
Without the observer, it will still behave like a wave function. Stack 3 polarized lenses so the one in the middle is 90 degrees out of sync with the two outside lenses. What happens? When you remove a filter so you can observe what happens at a smaller level, you get even weirder things. It isn't that we determine where things are or what they are doing, but it is more like we are detecting that they are, and so when we look at the results it fixes the information in relation to when we looked. It basically means you will never see what it is, because every time you look closer it changes. We know a whole lot about nothing, it seems.
I partially blame the physicists and 'science-communicators' for this. Lots of talk of 'observing' things is thrown around without much qualification as to who or _what_ is actually doing the 'observing' and what that really means.
@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.
I'm with you on the above. It can be added to the theory though that in the same way the only part of a computer game that is actualized is the bit on the screen and the game 'world' is only fully created as you move around and look at it, the universe is fuzzy and indeterminate until 'looked at'. (the collapse of the wave function). (NB I'm not saying I believe this).
A) that is not doing the oft touted 'complete' 2 slit experiment which demonstrates the observer interference by watching which hole. b) Those slides are not us, watching them do / set up the experiment. c) The term is I think, from memory, the 'which way' 2 slit experiment - ok - but it often just described by many as the 2 slit exp.
I think, the problem with explaining such a concept is not because it's super super hard (even though it somewhat is) but the fact that when the physicists explain these concepts they start thinking too hard and stary away from the basic idea. The fact that the schrodinger wave function describes the probability of a particle being here or there (as mentioned in the video). That's it. You don't need to say how difficult quantum mechanics is to explain that. If am wrong, please correct me.
No, because to measure it we need to bounce another particle off of it, which is what collapses the function due to the uncertain nature of the particle we are using to measure it with, so you can't know everything about either particle. And trying to measure the measuring partical is a case of repeating the first part of this comment, ad infinitum
I know this is a late reply but here me out please. Funny thing with that quote is that when someone asked Einstein to explain Relativity without maths (essentially explaining it to his grandmother), he couldn't do it. Funny thing about quotes. You always have to remember the text following the quote.
water is made of molecules of H2O. and waves do move through it. perhaps the wave function is a transfer of energy instead of a single atom there for it's not he particle that moves but the energy through the 5th dimension of the electromagnetic field bouncing the energy from particle to particle. The dimension that the electromagnetic field lives in moves in waves and when the particle popping back to existence from the dimension only when it is forced to interact with another particle.
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 :)
It's like dropping a neutron in the fabric of space, depending on the properties of that space, i.e. heat, or speed of the neutron through space, variables of this nature, then the electron will appear at different points of the neutron, and will never appear at certain parts... My hypothesis is that the electron converts into radiation or something of this kind where the electron will never appear within it's radius. It's hard to explain, but in my mind this makes sense haha
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)
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.
I think a 'wave-function' or 'wave-packet' is a much more accurate description for photons and electrons, than 'particle'. The idea that we think of them as particles is what causes some of the absurdity. Photons and electrons are more of a wave-collapse event. I think... not sure about the latter.
Interesting video! This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This can be based on just two postulates 1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time 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 within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
I wonder why Bohmian mechanics hasn't been exposed to as many people as quantum mechanics at the university level. Probably because most of these professors were only ever taught the quantum mechanical theory and can't or won't consider other possible theories.
When i did my bachelor's, my prof did mention hidden variables and the pilot wave. But since Bohmian mechanics is the same as the Copenhagen ot Everett mechanics in terms of results, it differs only in the metaphysics of it - so this discussion belongs in a philosophy of science course rather than in a physics course.
The wave does not exist, it is only the probability distribution of the particle. These are the fundamentals of probability and statistics, one should learn more in those areas before jumping in quantum mechanics. The distribution of a random variable (electronic, or any recorded event) is only a representation of the possible values that it can take, it is used to know some properties like the mean and variance. The universe we live in is not probabilistic, it is deterministic. Wave functions are a useful mathematical tool to describe the general behaviour of the fundamental particles. The electron does not collapse from a wave to a particle; it always was and is a particle.
The weirdest double slit experiment that I have heard of is the so called "Delayed-choice quantum eraser" experiment. I can't say I understand it, but it seems to indicate that the particle-like, or wave-like behavior in the experiment can be affected backwards in time by detecting which path the particle takes AFTER it the interference pattern is measured.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This is based on just one equation (E= ˠ M˳C²) ∞ the Lorentz contraction of space and time is between the energy and mass. The greater the energy the greater the contraction of space and the slower time will run. Mass will increase relative to this and each ref-frame can be seen as a vortex in space formed by the rate that time flows. The brackets represent the boundary condition of the ref-frame within infinity!
With electrical potential representing our own future potential within our own reference frame as the future unfolds photon by photon! A process we see and feel as the flow of time!
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.
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.
This is undoubtedly the best explanation I have encountered on the subject.
I am hopelessly addicted to these videos. Great stuff!
"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.
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 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.
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?
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 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
the Monet analogy was a good comparison
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.
9 years later this is still a decent introductory video on the subject.
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.
these guys explain things effectively
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!
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 :)
Imagine all the years of studying and teaching, to be given an office smaller than a painting :(
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
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.
@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!"
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Literally every video about quantum anything is 90% talking about how wacky and counter-intuitive it is. Stop that. You're contributing to the problem.
All you need to do is tell people everything that is wrong about classical physics and how things really are. Break down all of the old stuff and build the new from the ground up.
Particle-wave duality? Stop holding on to old concepts. Particles are emergent phenomena at best. It's just that the classical idea of a wave doesn't fully describe what a wave is as it exists in "quantum-reality" (which is a misnomer because there is only one reality, but this should get the point across). Stop thinking of particles are little spheres or physical things. They're just virtual representations of a very specific set of waves, the same way whatever you see on your screen reading this comment is just a representation of a very specific set of 1s and 0s.
Another ironic analogy would be to compare classical physics to electrical signals from an analog source* and quantum physics (regardless of which specific variant you choose to believe in - I prefer quantum field theory, as you can imagine) to a wave generated from a digital signal. The latter we all know that if we zoom in enough, it is built in little steps dictated by the resolution of the signal. So too do quantum waves, by definition. *The irony here being that any analog signal is also quantized because it exists in "quantum-reality".
Likewise, there is no such thing as energy either. There are just very specific types of wave fields that adhere to very strict rules so specific that even at a macro scale these rules still create order in what could easily be confused for chaos, and give rise to virtual phenomena as complex as humanity and the universe it thinks it lives in.
The sooner we (RUclips content creators, physicists, etc) stop talking about how complicated and weird "quantum reality" is, the sooner it stops being so. Do humanity a favor and cut out the noise.
I could not agree more and I could not have said it as well.
While I understand your point, it is undeniable that QM is counter-intuitive to everyday experience. To what degree one harps on this is largely determined by the audience to which one is speaking. On a slightly separate note, let's remember that QM is a MODEL of the universe, and a wildly successful one at that. It, like all other models we've had up until now, will undoubtedly be modified and tweaked as our understanding continues to grow. In all likelihood, the mysteries of dark energy, dark matter, and the incompatibility between General Relativity and QM are huge red flags that we're somehow missing something big. Who knows what? But either way, once these mysteries are unravelled, I expect that these two incredibly powerful theories stand to be slightly modified at best, and heavily modified at worst, so they can simultaneously describe the extremes of the universe that we live in. I say this to remind everyone of the fact that although these models accurately describe the universe around us to incredible levels of precision, they are in fact models. They are not the universe itself.
"... they are in fact models. They are not the universe itself." That is exactly true, and it sums it up perfectly. Thank you.
I agree totally. In this video they said that photons are individual particles that go through both slits at the same time. That's a very confusing an inaccurate picture of what's really happening. Just think of them as waves, and they become particles when they're measured (absorbed). Voila! It's no longer counter-intuitive.
I agree
Fun Fact: "Doing one electron at a time" was Schrödinger's least preferred experiment.
i wanna know which uni teaches relativity and quantum mechanics in first year?
Professor Moriarty is such a rad dude
I love these videos, so interesting. They make you listen and think!
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!
"wave sign IS a cool symbol, looks like a pitchfork," awesome quote lol
The Monet analogy is a very good way of putting it. I'd certainly put it that way.
Hear, hear!
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.
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?
The observer effect being considered “weird” is really perplexing to me. You’ve introduced one loud voice up close in a room full of noise. Why is it so surprising that you now you can make out words? Any observation is an interaction so why would all of the previous equilibrium’s seemingly stochastic noise not be cut through?
Without including the observation apparatus in the calculations, how are you even able to believe you are calculating a system when the scales are that small?
Equations do not explain, they describe. The interpretations are so absolutely illogical that it’s absurd and Schrödinger himself told everyone that. This is a statistical model of a chaotic system being treated as objective reality instead of viewed as the crude tool that it is. Hamiltonian mechanics requires a smooth Lagrangian and well defined position. We have a quantized system with the impossibility of precise position ruled out by Heisenberg. Where does the notion even come from that you could ever expect a well defined solution?
This isn’t to take anything away from the standard model in terms of its results, I just do not understand how the interpretations given here have scientific merit when so many assumptions are ignored in the process of “accepting quantum weirdness”.
It would make more sense to think of the wave function Ψ as a probability function of a future event. Therefore the physics of QM represents the continuum of time as a physical process. The electron is the most spherical object in the universe so this can form the low entropy for the increase in entropy that we have in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Quantum uncertainty is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
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.
"If you get to an answer in the end that says: "that can't be right" you probably have got it right"
that pretty much sums up all my exams!
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!
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,
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,
Why do you do this Physics!!
My head hurts now.
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.
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,
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 ?
"He was invited to leave." What a wonderful bit of diplomacy!
Quantum mechanical effects NEVER go away. Not in this universe. Instead, we should take care to say, "Classical physics only works under special conditions." Otherwise, we're going to keep seeing loads of confused students.
They are vulgarizing quantum mechanic on RUclips, don't ever forget this fact.
Yes, but in the same way infinitesimally small changes of a derivative disappear as limits are taken, the effects of quantum mechanics become negligible as you enter the macroworld.
Yes, and every time I ride my bike, my clock runs a tiny bit slower than yours when you're sitting at your computer. But the effects are so small that they don't matter. By way of analogy, the high number of particles involved in a macroscopic system reduce the quantum effects so that the average is effectively all we see.
Its a superpostion of old school and new school. Completely normal.
That's why one of the professors tried to be careful to avoid saying that the macroscopic world was the "real" or "realistic" world.
Spaceline guides/light bends around stars and wire in center of dual-slit. It's the spacelines that diffract around the wire, then the photons follow. Photons don't split, just -+-+ around the wire.
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 :)
@ryanspaceevans DeBroglie's formula implies that large scale objects have a wavelength that is so small it cannot be measured, so it cannot be confirmed. Wavefunctions, Debroglie's wavelength and space-time are the same phenomena. I know this because, I successfully isolated the most general form of a wave function within the motion of binary stars. It's in an open access peer-reviewed publication and was presented at the Sofia Technical University. I know what wave functions are.
Actually I'm agnostic towards whether numbers exist or not. Depends on how you define "to exist" IMHO, so it's pointless to argue. What I would argue, however, is that it is very hard to define "to exist" in a way that includes real numbers but excludes complex numbers. It's just that real numbers are useful to describe things we can directly observe while complex numbers are only useful to describe things we can't see with our own eyes. But that's like saying atoms are not real.
its fairly easy to understand. as something gets smaller or faster it becomes harder to know its speed and location. think of a small bullet.the faster it is going the harder it is to know where it is. when a particle is this small this becomes much more apparent. so apparent that it is no longer affected by newtonian physics.
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.
In the beginning I expected him to say "it is wednesday, my dudes".
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).
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?
The first few lines in this video were sampled in a song I downloaded years ago. What a trip.
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.
@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.
Schrödinger was an Austrian physicist. Austria was also the country he left in 1938 after the "Anschluss" because of his political views. (At least he wasn't persecuted because of his religious beliefs; because he hadn't any). Fortunately he came back after the war, because he was one of the few Nobel-prize-winners we have here ;-)
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?
Yes "The One inward light of Mind is positive input resonances or subconscious seems to gain validity enfolding information within a ref-frame of time if repeated through natural selection. Collective unconscious or world belief patterns becoming rigid and domineering within time like fingers and snow.
Whilst the two opposed lights of normal mind forms an potential infinity of possiblities like finger prints and snow flakes and if repeted becomes rigid and domineering with time over distance."
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.
Interesting 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!
@Multiversalismo: You're welcome!
The Monet painting is the best analogy to QM I’ve ever heard.
I would like to see a RUclipsry or YouTubation on gravity and magnetism that attempts to explain exactly what they are, and not in generalized terms or as simply being "effects" of various physical laws. For example, what are magnetic field lines actually "made of"; what is the force itself? For example, is magnetism the effect of some wave-like near-instantaneous boson exchange between atoms?
What exactly comprises gravitational fields? Einstein's space-time depressions offer some explanation; however, the proposed existence of gravitons, and now the discovery of gravitational waves, would seem to put gravity in the category of EM, and quantum mechanics.
So, what exactly is gravitational force? What exactly is magnetic force?
I loved your sense of curiosity.
From what I know, photons are the bosons that help to exchange information from an electromagnetic entity to another one. That's why we describe visible light, and other frequencies of photons, as a Electromagnetic Wave. If you follow Maxwell's differential equations they seem familiar, analogous lets say, to the description of a wave in which the photon travels while growing and shortening its magetic field and its electric field.
And from what I know field lines are ways of representing a vector field showing, or helping to predict, the direction of electric particles if they are left in the field.
Is more like a mathematical construct that let us make predictions. I think is sinilar to the wave function for particle physics, just with more intuitive results, perhaps we are more used to the weirdness of this macroscopical world.
Your response would be condescending if it were not so obviously intellectually lazy. Perhaps my question is over your head.
My guess from the rude and immature tone of your response is you're probably still in high school.
My question was somewhat rhetorical, in that our best understanding of these forces can yet only be represented mathematically; this has been sufficient enough to work with them, but not to completely understand them. The question was meant to stimulate critical thinking about these forces in a more thoughtful and insightful way, other than simply turning to Google.
Here's a piece of free advice: If you have nothing to contribute to a question or comment but to be rude, the more appropriate response would be not to respond at all. Otherwise, you appear to be just another angry child.
@partonace i wasnt saying i was completely right. i was just giving a more simple explanation to people who didn't understand.
You can head off the newage consciousness-mongers who think they "create their own reality" because of the observer effect by reminding them that it's the *instrument* which collapses the wave function of a single particle going through a particular slit, not the mind of the experimenter!
There is nothing quite as annoying as someone who thinks they know things by intuition alone without doing any of the work; my urge to slap them silly is hard to control sometimes.
what do you mean by instrument?
Without the observer, it will still behave like a wave function. Stack 3 polarized lenses so the one in the middle is 90 degrees out of sync with the two outside lenses. What happens? When you remove a filter so you can observe what happens at a smaller level, you get even weirder things. It isn't that we determine where things are or what they are doing, but it is more like we are detecting that they are, and so when we look at the results it fixes the information in relation to when we looked.
It basically means you will never see what it is, because every time you look closer it changes. We know a whole lot about nothing, it seems.
One of them would reply that an unobserved instrument would become part of the wave function, not collapse it.
It doesn't have to be an instrument. Any lump of coal or pint of ale or ordinary particle is "an observer."
I partially blame the physicists and 'science-communicators' for this. Lots of talk of 'observing' things is thrown around without much qualification as to who or _what_ is actually doing the 'observing' and what that really means.
@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.
9:55 ,his brain said: "Error encountered" and he was like "Loading.., found right explanation". I really liked it :)
I'm with you on the above. It can be added to the theory though that in the same way the only part of a computer game that is actualized is the bit on the screen and the game 'world' is only fully created as you move around and look at it, the universe is fuzzy and indeterminate until 'looked at'. (the collapse of the wave function). (NB I'm not saying I believe this).
I am really really looking forward to my Physics degree now!
How come you guys have never done the two slit experiment ? Can you really show the experiment as well as talking about it ?
A) that is not doing the oft touted 'complete' 2 slit experiment which demonstrates the observer interference by watching which hole.
b) Those slides are not us, watching them do / set up the experiment.
c) The term is I think, from memory, the 'which way' 2 slit experiment - ok - but it often just described by many as the 2 slit exp.
They've even done it in the video lol...
I think, the problem with explaining such a concept is not because it's super super hard (even though it somewhat is) but the fact that when the physicists explain these concepts they start thinking too hard and stary away from the basic idea. The fact that the schrodinger wave function describes the probability of a particle being here or there (as mentioned in the video). That's it. You don't need to say how difficult quantum mechanics is to explain that. If am wrong, please correct me.
No, because to measure it we need to bounce another particle off of it, which is what collapses the function due to the uncertain nature of the particle we are using to measure it with, so you can't know everything about either particle.
And trying to measure the measuring partical is a case of repeating the first part of this comment, ad infinitum
I know this is a late reply but here me out please.
Funny thing with that quote is that when someone asked Einstein to explain Relativity without maths (essentially explaining it to his grandmother), he couldn't do it.
Funny thing about quotes. You always have to remember the text following the quote.
great analogy between the wave function and pointilistic art.
water is made of molecules of H2O. and waves do move through it. perhaps the wave function is a transfer of energy instead of a single atom there for it's not he particle that moves but the energy through the 5th dimension of the electromagnetic field bouncing the energy from particle to particle. The dimension that the electromagnetic field lives in moves in waves and when the particle popping back to existence from the dimension only when it is forced to interact with another particle.
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 :)
It's like dropping a neutron in the fabric of space, depending on the properties of that space, i.e. heat, or speed of the neutron through space, variables of this nature, then the electron will appear at different points of the neutron, and will never appear at certain parts... My hypothesis is that the electron converts into radiation or something of this kind where the electron will never appear within it's radius. It's hard to explain, but in my mind this makes sense haha
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)
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.
I think a 'wave-function' or 'wave-packet' is a much more accurate description for photons and electrons, than 'particle'. The idea that we think of them as particles is what causes some of the absurdity.
Photons and electrons are more of a wave-collapse event. I think... not sure about the latter.
Interesting video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This can be based on just two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time 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 within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
I wonder why Bohmian mechanics hasn't been exposed to as many people as quantum mechanics at the university level. Probably because most of these professors were only ever taught the quantum mechanical theory and can't or won't consider other possible theories.
When i did my bachelor's, my prof did mention hidden variables and the pilot wave.
But since Bohmian mechanics is the same as the Copenhagen ot Everett mechanics in terms of results, it differs only in the metaphysics of it - so this discussion belongs in a philosophy of science course rather than in a physics course.
tuzobarca equivalence principle.
The wave does not exist, it is only the probability distribution of the particle. These are the fundamentals of probability and statistics, one should learn more in those areas before jumping in quantum mechanics. The distribution of a random variable (electronic, or any recorded event) is only a representation of the possible values that it can take, it is used to know some properties like the mean and variance.
The universe we live in is not probabilistic, it is deterministic. Wave functions are a useful mathematical tool to describe the general behaviour of the fundamental particles. The electron does not collapse from a wave to a particle; it always was and is a particle.
The weirdest double slit experiment that I have heard of is the so called "Delayed-choice quantum eraser" experiment. I can't say I understand it, but it seems to indicate that the particle-like, or wave-like behavior in the experiment can be affected backwards in time by detecting which path the particle takes AFTER it the interference pattern is measured.
The double slit is not even a quantum experiment. That's just a frequent misunderstanding.
@@schmetterling4477
There’s a particle of truth there.
@@EtzEchad That was actually funny. :-)
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This is based on just one equation (E= ˠ M˳C²) ∞ the Lorentz contraction of space and time is between the energy and mass. The greater the energy the greater the contraction of space and the slower time will run. Mass will increase relative to this and each ref-frame can be seen as a vortex in space formed by the rate that time flows. The brackets represent the boundary condition of the ref-frame within infinity!
With electrical potential representing our own future potential within our own reference frame as the future unfolds photon by photon!
A process we see and feel as the flow of time!
Thank you for this very useful info. It works on my computer where other methods haven't.
--The FORM of the wave function itself is the brane when mapped continuously.