Why are all Electrons the same?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Electrons are everywhere and there are many of them. Luckily, 'cause they are super important! Without electrons we would not have molecules or chemistry, or possibly even worse: without electrons there would be no electricity! It is therefore good that there are this many electrons and that they all work the same.
At the same time, isn't that a bit weird? That all electrons are identical to eachother? Exactly the same? No differences whatsoever? In this video we dive into this mystery and answer the question: why are all electrons the same?
Subscribe to Fundamentally Explained to not miss a single video!
#ParticlePhysics #Electrons #QuantumMechanics #QuantumFieldTheory
Thanks to all my sweet colleagues, friends and family who helped me with this episode ^^
---------
Twitter (channel)
/ fundamentallye
Twitter (personal)
/ bob_stienen
Facebook
/ fundamentallyexplained
For people confused about how "measurement" or "observation" changing an electron (because I was), It was told to me that a measurement is a physical action that interacts with the electron, such as a detector shooting another particle at the electron, it is not just looking at it, the electron is being externally interacted with.
But the electron interact with the air along the way, but still is a wave.
@@dannykusuma2431 yea, and electron probably interacts with many other material in its surroundings
I’m not sure but I’m not really sure this is why… I got it explained as, the change of information you get from a system interacts with the rest of information in the system
I wish more people knew this, because this is exactly right. It’s not magic, it’s just smacking one wave with another, which of course is going to cause interference. Also, this phenomenon of wave-particle duality only appears (prominently) when there is little ambient interference. This is why quantum computers must be cooled to near absolute zero to work properly.
Anti-superdeterminists be like 'nope, it just happens, it's magic'
*Addendum*: if all electrons are the same, what about their wave frequencies and shapes?
I wonder how, I wonder why this video has suddenly started to blow up, but thanks everyone for watching! Over the past few days a lot of comments have pointed out a very specific problem with this video and I would like to clear that up. The issue is this: I say that all electrons are the same, but also that they are waves in a field. Waves can have different shapes, so why should they still be identical? Waves in a pool can have different wavelengths, so what about that?
Those comments are absolutely correct! Particle waves can have different shapes, different frequencies, etc. For example the energy of a particle dictates which frequency its wave has. This is also the case for the photon as you may know, which is the particle that forms light. Shorter wavelengths (= higher frequencies) have higher energy. The same is true for any other particle.
So, why is it still fair to say that all electrons are, nevertheless, the same? Well... it boils down to a difference in particle *properties* and particle *state*. You are freely able to change the state of any particle, but you can't do that for its properties. You can change the energy of a photon, but not the fact that it has no charge, for example. Same for electrons: all electrons are negatively charged, all have the same mass, and all have a spin of 1/2, but they can have different energies and different spin states (up or down). The state of the particle influences the shape of the wave, but the shape of the wave has in no way, shape or form influence on the fundamental properties of the particle. This is why I used the factory comparison at 01:38.
However, I am fully aware that I did not add this explanation to the video (which -- in hindsight -- I definitely should have) and that I made this issue only worse by drawing all localised waves the same (see for example 08:49). They aren't necessarily, so I do entirely understand that this caused some of you to raise their eyebrows. Sorry for the confusion, but I hope this clears things up a bit ^^.
I don't really get it. You are basically saying "all electrons are identical, except for their energy and spin". In my view, that makes them different! It is basically saying "they are undistinguishable because they share some properties, and the properties they don't share are conveniently ignored or stepped aside". So I will conveniently call the shared properties "fundamental" (just because I am saying so, not because they are more important than any others").
In my view, that method of thinking is like saying...
"Ok, all squares are identical. Sure, they can vary in size and color, but they also share the fact that they all have 4 corners and 4 orthogonal sides of the same length. I will call "having 4 corners and 4 orthogonal sides" the fundamental properties of the square, while color and size are not (just because I say so). Hence, I have proved that all squares are identical and indistinguishable from each other."
What is the difference between my reasoning for squares and your reasoning for electrons? Why is spin or energy or phase or whatever other property conveniently ignored? That's what I want to know.
Thanks for the addendum . I am one of the ones that was going to jump in on just that point , a very important point . An entire video on just that might be beneficial to you ?
Imagine you have a factory that makes cars. It is absolutely perfect, the cars it produces are identical up to the very last atom and can not absolutely not be distinguished from each other. In effect, this means that you could swap two of those cars and nobody would be the wiser. Of course, you could take one car for a ride and drive up the highway. At that moment you could say: "HA! See?! The cars are not identical; this one is going at 120 km/h while yours is still standing still at the parking lot!". Or you could even go one step further and say something similar in the parking lot already: "yeah, but they are not the same car, are they? This care is standing over here, but that car is over there." Both statements are true, but they are true in the sense that it is just the cars' states differs. You could, again, just swap the cars and nobody would be able to tell you did so. Of course, you'd need to swap their states then as well (having a stationary car at a highway is not advisable), but that is something you can do.
The state of the car (it's speed, position, rotation, etc) are not fundamental properties of the car. In the same way: you can freely change the spin and energy of a particle, but these changes will never affect the fact that the fundamental properties of these particles. You CAN exchange two electrons and swap their states, and nobody would know you did so.
The question I posed was "why are all electrons identical" and I agree that a question like "why are all fundamental properties of all electrons the same" would conceptually be more correct.
Your comparison with squares is correct, if you could freely change the size and colour of squares. In that case the size and colour would be the square's state, while the number and size of its angles are the fundamental property. I think, however, that it is worthwhile to notice that the properties of squares that you mention (number of corners and the size of their angles) can be changed freely. True, it is not a square anymore if you do so, but you could do so and get a different shape. For particles we know this is not the case. There simply exists no particle that is like an electron, but with a LITTLE BIT less mass. Like, you will never encounter an electron with 99% the mass of all other electrons.
The relevance of the question why electrons are the same is therefore exactly that: why is nature so picky in the fundamental properties of particles? Why is there no variance there? Perfect factories don't exist, but nature apparently does not care about that and makes perfectly identical particles all the time.
Does this answer your question :-)?
Electrons are not waves, as they are not particles. We, the people of the Science, describe some experiments using wave math tools, and others using particles states in some field. We do not know "what" electron, or anything other, is. In a dark room one person receives a punch in the face. He can describe a lot of things, he can show bruises, b ut can tell absolutely nothing about the fist... Why is everyone trying to wrongly explain subjects that can be learnt correctly from a book, is beyond my comprehension.
@@FundamentallyExplained The very reason Quantum mechanics was invented is because we cannot see what goes on at the level of an electron , thus we have to create a model that best fits what we CAN observe and use that as our blurred eyesight . There might be a lot of things different between any two electrons .It's even possible that if you could have just one electron It might not even be like an electron as we know it .
John Wheller postulated that there is only one electron in the entire universe. He discussed this with Feynman over a phone call. Feynman interpreted that further to say that positrons are actually electrons (or the single electron) moving backwards in time. Yoichiro Nambu applied that to the annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairs and stated that there is no annihilation, but that it's just a change in direction of time.
The fact that I randomly read this a few years ago is the only reason I could kind of understand the movie 'Tenet'
I had not heard of this before. One electron zipping back and forth in time, and the entire universe "now" is basically a snapshot of that particle interfering with itself and heading in different directions. I like that. Kind of gives a new, fun definition to "recycling." :)
Idk man ive heard that as well and it really gives off "does a tree falling in the woods with nobody around make a sound" and "is water wet" kind of vibes
They all sound like cool thought experiments at first but breakdown when held up to scrutiny. What we know fundamentally about reality just couldnt work if one electron was zipping through time
Water is wet. A falling tree always makes a sound. And there are more than 1 electron in the universe
These three questions baffle me more than any other as i have no idea how anyone can logically argue the opposite answers. All arguments for just sound like mental gymnastics and self aggrandizing to make oneself seem "deeper" than their peers.
Sometimes the simplest solution really is the correct one folks. Water is wet. Falling trees make a sound. There is one electron *field* NOT 1 electron
@@jdrmanmusiqking Sound is the interaction of a pressure wave with a transducer - like an ear drum. If there's no ear (or microphone), then there is no sound. Just pressure.
@@xnadave Pure stupidity. Thats just a mental self jerk to make dumb people sound smart. Sound is just energy passing through a medium whether it be air, walls, water whateva. Sound is the thing that hits your eardrums but HEARING is the result of sound hitting your drums.
Whether you hear sound our not it still exists. Animals wouldnt have evolved to hear sound if it wasnt a thing already omnipresent in reality. All living things AND non living interact with sound. A tree is literally alive dude its a freakin forest there are living things everywhere. Microbes interact with sound
People really out here conflating sound with hearing smh. Sound produces HEAT that can be measured. Sound has literally been encoded on light dude. Sound EXISTS outside of human existence and to think otherwise is pure stupidity and arrogance.
Speaking of which, why doesn't anyone ask, "If someone turns on a light and there is no one around to see it, is the light on?"
Same nonsense. SIGHT is when where RECEIVE light. HEARING is when we RECEIVE sound. Can we please stop the nonsense
During the writing of this episode I came across a website with an interactive simulation of the double slit experiment. In the initial version of the script this website was covered, but it did not survive the rewriting process. I still think it is a nice simulation though, so I wanted to drop the link down here:
phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/wave-interference/latest/wave-interference_en.html
For the double slit experiment, choose "Slits" as operation mode. Then:
- click the button on the right with a bullet-like object on it (which selects the "laser" mode)
- select the "screen" checkbox
- from the dropdown select "two slits"
and then click the green button on the left to start the experiment. The "slit width" and "slit separation" sliders on the bottom control the slits and thereby the pattern that you'll see on the screen.
What an explanation....... fantabulous...Just loved it 😍
But at the same time I'm sorry to see your subscribers , this channel definitely deserves more than a million .....Just saw your first video and I have subscribed.....
Keep making videos and keep "explaining Fundamentally"😊
I'm 42 years old with a comp sci degree and this is the first time I've finally understood why the double slit experiment proves that quantum particles act as both a wave and a particle.
THANK YOU!
You don't know WHY. You just know that they DO. Nobody knows why.
@@josephjames4326 This is true. Really true. Thank you for rare correct comment!
No experiment proves anything. Proofs exists only in Mathematics. In Science in general, and in Physics in particular there is only verification. Why? Because only in Math everything is 100% exact, while in Physics everything is governed by measurement errors, hence approximative.
@@josephjames4326 Read carefully. My statement did not say I know why quantum particles act as both a wave and a particle. Comprehension is important.
@@florincoter1988 See above. My conclusion has nothing to do with measurement nor mathematics. It was arrived at through logical inference, something that is pretty fundamental to computer science.
Great animations, it’s always amazing to find new channels with good content. Then binge watch. Thank you.
No one ever explained this topic to me like this. You're amazing!
You deserve lot more subscribers and views! Keep it up! 👏🏼
I love finding good channels when they're still small. It's great to watch them take off
Thank you for making me understand what the existence of "fields" for each 'particle' of the Standard Model meant.
for a long time being a non-physicist and common man , trying to ponder on particles and field. This video is a perfect treat for my curiosity. Thanks man. I like your humbleness when minimizing the audio sound during the end, when speaking about your hard work. Lots of things to learn from you..
Ccpca!!]!pa!!!!!!!!!!!a!!!!!!!!pa!!!a!aaaaAcaAaaaaA!aaaca!"!a"!ca!!ca!a"aa!aac!"!aa"!"aca!acaa!!"!!aa!Ca!ACa!ca!"!ACacaaaa!aaaAAAAAaca!a!a"aacaA!A!caaaCaaCAa!aaacaaaaaaAAAAAACAAaa!aa"aa"a!caaAaaaacaaa!!!a!acaAaAaaa!aC!aa!aaaCaaaA""aaaAcaa!a"aaaAaaaaaaaacaAacaACAaaaAA"AA!ca!aa a acaaa!AAAaaCaaaaaa!!!aaca!"a!Caa!aa!a!"aa!aca!acaaaa!ca!acAC!ca!"A!C!A"AA"!!"aa!"!AC!"acaca!aAaacaa!aca!aa!"A"aCA!"!ca!"a!"!"!ac"a!a"a"aaac"aa"!"avaaaaaacaaAacaaaaaa!aaacaaa!aaAaaacaAAaAAaaACaaaa!aAaaaaaaaaaAcaaaaaacaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacaaAAaacaaaCaaaaaaCa!aaaaaAcaaaaaaAaacaaAaaaaCaaaaA!Aaaacaaa!a"aAcaaaaCAAA A aAaca!aAaAaacaAaaAa a aacaaAaAcaaaaaaaaaC!aa!Ca!a"aaa!aacaaaaaaaaCaa!!AAca!!aa!ca!aaA!ca!a!!AaCacaaaaAaa!"AAACAAacaa!aaaaaaaCaAacaaaaaaaCaca!acaAAacaaaacaaaa!ca!!caa!aA"aCA!Aa!a!aCAAAaacaa!!caaaAaaA!Acaaa A aaCA!AACA P! "!"aca!a"!!!aa!aa!aa!aaga
I think this is one of the best double-slit experiment explanation video I've seen so far. Like you said, everyone else is confusing me with the "electron changing into a particle suddenly upon measurement". Seeing it as always being a wave, but that can change form (be it a very large and intricate one, or a very localized one) makes so much more sense to me.
I think I can safely say that I understand how the double-slit experiment works now, thanks to this video. Thank you for making it! You're funny and entertaining, while still being able to convey your point properly.
Brilliant! This is a another wonderful physics video with nice humour (I'm still laughing at the closing scene 😂)
Did I make this video specifically to make that joke? No.
Do I regret making that joke? Hell no xD
Figure k the
This video is not scientific, and is something you slow an elementary aged student when you want them to believe that we know more than we actually do.
How are smart people fooled by this stuff???
This is the first time someone’s explanation has been satisfactory to me. Thank you for pulling off the impossible!
Fantastic video Fundamentally Explained! I rarely find a video that substantially improves my understanding of physics, but this did! I've been interested in the "Measurement Problem" and this offers the best explanation, and the part about each fundamental particle having its own field is a real insight I haven't come across elsewhere. The lack of complex math (I'm a bit of a math phobic) but rather keeping to other means of explanation makes it very accessible. Looking forward to seeing more of your very helpful stuff and thanks.
Physics is one of my special interests (deep, at times obsessive passions)
Also this video is great, i have never heard of fields described as a pool before but they really should be, this video was actually pretty intuitive and though I've heard similar all before, i think it finally cemented the concept of the wave-particle duality (that it's an illusion and is just the wave being localized afterwards). Great video ! ^-^
So... what got you interested in particles :-)? For me it was my high school teacher. I quite vividly remember a class in which EM radiation in the context of cell phones was covered. The idea that particles are everywhere, and that though they are invisible make up everything in the world was one of the most mind-blowing things I've ever heard (up until that point that is :P). It stuck, to the point that I am now doing a PhD in particle physics O:-).
wait... youtube algorithm good for once? 🤨
i mean, subscribe me in! the artwork style and the silly jokes is my cup of tea
What got me into particle physics was the notion that superposition could be interpreted as evidence for the existence of parallel universes. Although I no longer believe that to be the case, my interest in particle physics remains strong.
My mere existence
Your mom.
But for real, it's the RUclips algorithm and I love your sense of humour! XD
Am now subscribed :3
REALLY good video. Thanks.
Love those drawings of the different particles just before the 10-minute mark.
Thank you! This actually helped me A LOT. and I’ve been watching these type of videos for over a year now.
Good explanation! What really blows my mind is that an interference pattern will show up even if the electrons are fired one at a time, say one per second. Is each electron interfering with future electrons? No. Feynman said we therefore have to accept that each electron has both a wave-like nature and must also be considered as an individual particle.
question: how do you 'fire' an electron if they're so small??? never seen an electron gun for sale anywhere lol
@@secretjazz93 you just need a simple cathode tube for example. 😀
"Shouldn't you be able to identify the electron that robbed you, sir?" "Sure. It's the one that collapsed." :D Great video - glad I found your channel.
This is absolutely amazing! Please continue making videos to inspire young viewers towards the field of physics. Possibly the best channel I have come across for particle physics . 😀
Very nice! I hope you continue working on this channel!
Another explanation is that the wave function simply represents the state of our current knowledge of the position and momentum of the electron. When a measurement of the position and/or the momentum of the electron is made, our knowledge of the state of the electron is modified correspondingly. The wave function (representing our new current knowledge of the state of the electron) is perforce altered. This alteration is sometimes referred to as the “collapse of the wave function”.
In this interpretation, it is not that something tangible and ponderable has “collapsed” but simply that our knowledge of the state of the electron has been altered. When the state of our knowledge changes, the function encoding that knowledge, the wave function, changes instantly upon completion of the measurement. The wave function may go from being widely extended over space to being highly localized.
It is sometimes argued that this implies that every point within the original spread out wave function must have communicated instantly, violating the limiting speed of light, with every other point in the wave function. Specifically, so that all points that are not to manifest as the now localized electron position can “know” that they must not themselves also manifest as the position of the electron. This explanation assures that the electron never manifests in two or more locations simultaneously upon the “collapse” of the wave function initiated by measurement.
However, interpreting the wave function simply as encoding our current knowledge of the position and momentum of the electron fully and satisfactorily accounts for the instantaneous “collapse” of the wave function upon a measurement, completely circumventing the need to consider information as having been transmitted faster than the speed of light across the entire wave function.
Even classically, if an object is initially known only to be somewhere within a 1 mile interval, knowledge of where the object is located is spread out over the entire 1 mile interval. However, immediately upon locating the object within the 1 mile interval, knowledge of the location of the object “collapses” instantaneously from being spread out over the 1 mile interval to being specific to perhaps within a few inches. No superluminal information whatsoever has been communicated over the 1 mile interval.
In this interpretation, the key difference between classical physics and quantum mechanics (QM), which is at the very heart of the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics, is that, in QM, knowledge of the state of a physical system, as encoded by the wave function, is capable of interfering with itself. It is this interference with itself that explains the pattern of parallel bands in the double slit experiment, and that makes QM so counterintuitive. Classically, of course, knowledge does not interfere with itself.
As to the question of why all electrons are absolutely identical, the idea that this arises from the characteristics of a putative “field” simply kicks the can down the road. In my opinion, electrons (as well as other fundamental particles) are all precisely identical because they are likely the quantized states of an as yet unknown physical system or phenomenon. Consequently, QM, as we currently know it, appears not to be a complete theory. The fact of the precise identities of the fundamental particles is screaming at us that we have yet more fundamental physics to uncover.
There was a hypothesis proposed by Professor John Wheeler from the graduate college at Princeton in 1940 known as the One-Electron Universe, trying to explain why all electrons are the same (I think the idea of "fields" came soon later in time). Wheeler told this to Feynman during a phone call, while Feynman (and Wheeler too) didn't take the whole hypothesis seriously, he did take the idea of an electron traveling back in time to become a positron, and thus this hypothesis, although debunked, proved crucial for Feynman's later work.
The One-Electron Universe claims that every single electron in the entire Universe is actually the same exact electron, the same exact entity. An electron traces a "world-line" through time. On a diagram with time as the vertical axis, and space as the horizontal one, a particle moving through space would trace a world-line that always goes upwards but can move horizontally. This electron travels through time, back and forth, tracing a world-line that zigzags along the vertical axis of time. Since its word-line would appear like a zigzag on a diagram, if you trace a line which denotes a single instant, the world-line crosses it multiple times meaning that the electron existed multiple times in the same instant. Repeat those "crossings" many many many times and you end up with the existence of all electrons in the Universe, which are actually the same one.
Again, this hypothesis is pretty much debunked, an both Wheeler and Feynman ended up not taking it too seriously, however it's such a cool f*cking idea, that every single electron in the Universe is actually the same entity.
Yeah, I really like that story too 😃 It is on my list of "videos to produce next" and I think it will be the next one I will be working on after the current one is finished next Monday (I hope) 😄
The idea of fields goes back to the 17th century with Newton's gravity.
This channel is great and very berry underrated! What got me interested in particles was...I don't know, everyone kept telling me they were fundamental? Also, thank you for providing us with ta conclusion to the sketch
I've been trying to grok the double slit experiment for a decade. This video has done the best job of explaining it to me yet. Thanks.
Loved that intro!
Hope you loved the outro as well ;-)
@@FundamentallyExplained I did! 🤠
While I appreciate raising the question, but I do not think it explains the answer as stated below:
1 - Why waves should be the same? Similar to water, there can be different types/lengths/energy/frequency of waves. Why it is not the case with the electron field?
2 - While the water wave is the result of moving the water molecules up and down / left and right, what is the thing that is moved up and down by an electron wave? If the answer is the value of field intensity, then we have not answered the question of what is the field itself in the first place.
Thanks
My same thoughts!
Agree! He just push explanation behind electron field. Explained unknown with another unknown thing (concept). Or everybody is supposed to know what is electron field?
Thanks for the great questions!
1 - Yeah... yeah that was something that I overlooked in my explanation. I have written a long-form answer to your question (see the new comment I pinned a couple of minutes ago), let me answer it also shortly here.
You are absolutely right that electron waves can have different shapes and wavelengths. This shape does, however, not affect the fundamental properties of the electron. Yes, one electron can have a higher energy than another, but you will never be able to tell if I would switched their energies and switched their locations. Their mass, electric charge, spin etc. etc are all the same. When I say "all electrons are the same" what I *meant* was that all their fundamental properties are the same, not that they are all in the same state (i.e. all have the same wave shape). I could have definitely made this clearer, but I hope this clears it up a bit!
2 - You are correct that I did not answer this question in the video, if only for the fact that the question "what IS an electron" a different question is than the one I asked ("why are they the same?"). As discussed above, I should have been clearer and maybe named it "why do all electrons have the same charge" or something along those lines, but hey... you live and you learn ^^'.
That being said: I do think that there is an interesting discussion to be had about your second question, so let me put in my two cents.
The best description we currently have is that fields indeed are their own thing. A wave in a field is therefore indeed a local excitation in its intensities. At least, that is how we describe things mathematically. You could, rightly, wonder whether a correct mathematical description is also a description of reality. In other words: does physics make predictive models or does it really describe what nature *is*? This is a deeply philosophical question, to which there is no final answer.
I agree that the video did not answer the question what the field is. I did that on purpose. Not that I don't want to tell you, but simply because we don't know. Based on the ontological line of thinking above you could even wonder if the field exists at all! Maybe it is just mathematics that provides us with good predictions about electron behaviour and that's it. We simply don't know.
@@FundamentallyExplained Much appreciated you answer.
@@FundamentallyExplained as we're all constitued with electrons and elementary particuls, are we all the same deeply and our only difference is a matter of energy in each field ? (Don't know what to think about that)
Excellent Excellent Excellent. After listening to hundreds of other videos, this is the only one that has helped me further understand the concept of wave particle duality. I have subscribed to your channel and look forward to listening to your other videos.
Love it . Very nice explained and I am happy to see the next videos . Thx for that .
I don't think one can conclude an electron is a wave from its unobserved double-slit experiment result. One can, at best, state the electronic under these conditions behaves like waves behave.
Yes, they are not actual waves. They always show up as particles
If it behaves like a wave, isn't it a wave? What else could be required for a wave to be a wave? 😅
That's.. yeah 😅
Why cant theybe particles that act ss waves, like photons?
The so called "measurement problem" is resolved when we understand that what we call a measurement is in fact an interaction.
But why? There are no measurement particles that mediate a measurement field. What causes the particle to change behavior when observed? It’s a deeper problem than just that. Is observation the same as measurement to begin with? It’s not as simple as an interaction, or at least said interaction is completely unknown to physics, the only two explanations being that there is simply a coin flip in the universe (copenhagen interpretation) or that a particle exists in multiple realities before it is observed when it is forced to branch off into a new set of multiverses.
@@silencewench7284 the "Measurement particles" or "measurement field" are usually photons that carry and transfer momentum.
"Multiple universes" is a weak explanation and "Coin flips" invokes a simplistic statistical model.
A more classical view would consider the superposition of wavetrains of "particles".
@@kokopelli314 but photons interact with electrons all the time don’t they? My knowledge is thin about Quantum Electrodynamics but measurement is a wider concept, I think, than just interactions with photons. What about interacting with massive matter, such as a wall. I believe they used a type of material that became luminous when in contact with electrons during the double slit experiment to display the wave behavior of the electron field. That is interaction with matter, not with photons I think. So how does measurement occur then. Even if the measurement problem is caused by photons, I haven’t heard any explanations as to how the photons force the electrons to display the properties of a particle. I suppose you could say it is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but said principle simply outlines the existence of this behavior and not why it exists. As for the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics I agree that the Everett Interpretation is very weak. However I do not think the Copenhagen interpretation is as much an explanation for quantum mechanics as an attitude for it. As far as I know, probability is not thought to be real but a consequence of humans being able to observe every detail of reality. This is contrasted by quantum mechanics. In which raw probability exists according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Because of this I feel that perhaps the Copenhagen Interpretation is simply there to encourage less philosophical inquiry into quantum mechanics by scientists and leave the philosophers to that job. Scientists should “shut up and caculate” under this attitude.
@@silencewench7284 as to the "Why" there is uncertainty around position and momentum, keep in mind that what we sometimes call particles are in fact wave phenomenon in what can be described as a tensor field. Every point has a potential vector with an indeterminate value, until some interaction with another wave produces new field values observed at the recording instrument.
So every measurement can be broken down to a target "particle", production of a measuring "particle" usually a photon, the interaction between those particles, and the interaction between the modified measurement particle and the measuring equipment itself.
Feynman diagrams capture these processes very clearly.
An excellent video, thank you for taking the time.
You've been around for four years? RUclips needs to get with it and start bumping your videos! Maybe they just started doing that and that's why I finally saw you. Subscribed!
Not only does "the electronic choose what it's going to be," the quantum eraser experiment result tells us that the election or photon has the ability to change during its travel depending on whether or not it will have been observed.
BS! "photon" does not "travel"; it only ..oscillates up and down in an electromagnetic field! More (any) wave does not travel; it only transports energy and momentum (for electromagnet field; an "electron" is a term for the wave packet and not a material point )
There still needs to be another level of explanation - why aren't there bigger and smaller electrons since they are waves in a field? Why can't that field support waves of different amplitudes and frequencies?
Because any change in size of the wave would produce another type of particle.
@@kitstamat9356 Each of the fundamental particles has its own field, about 15 different sorts of fields, each of them quantized into packages of energy such as electrons, photons, quarks, neutrinos, gluons, and Higgs bosons. So a larger wave in any one of these fields does not change its manifested particle.
@@Helmutandmoshe Yes, that's what some experts in quantum physics often say, but I'm skeptical about it. I'm looking from philosophical point of view. If the multiplicity of particles is just emergent phenomena of something ontologically prior to it, then I'm expecting that the multiplicity will be reduced to less number of elements. But if each kind of particle has its own field, nothing is reduced. So for me it's more convincing that there is only one field and that different particles correspond to its unique wavelength in the field. This field is what is mythopoetically called "primordial waters" or "cosmic ocean".
Such an explanation! You deserve way more viewers...
Great video! I find it interesting that for every explanation of the double slit experiment where we say 'measuring' an electron's position' we never talk about how we're doing that. Does it not feel like that should be just as important as the overall experiment and worth mentioning? Keep up the great work, and thanks once again 👍
Loved the illustrations, great video.
This was a great video and had me smiling warmly the whole way through, xD. Also memories of highschool physics heh. Keep it up dude.
this is my favorite explanation of this concept I have ever found!
Absolutely beautiful content!! Thanks dude!
i have never heard a better explanation of the wave-particle duality. what a fantastic piece of work. thank you.
Your graphics are adorable! I really like the one of the sling-shot propelling an electron through the double-slits!
THE ANIMATIONS WERE SO GOOD thank you for making this!
Nawh ☺ thanks
Great Video!! Frankly, I never really asked this question beyond the first time talking with people about particles.
If they were different, then we would assume we are not looking at a fundamental thing. It would be an assembly of sorts. More than one fundamental thing glumped together somehow.
Not only that, but we need them to be the same. Atoms need to always perform to spec, or we can't count on material properties and all sorts of stuff being consistent. Differences here may actually mean things like us wouldn't be able to exist.
For me, it was learning about sounds, waves that helped the most. It's all sine waves man! Adding them together gets us all the sounds. The sine is a given sound in simplest, most pure, most basic form. Anything else that varies is actually more than one sound all added together.
Lovely illustrations! I love them🥰
Ok Ngl I wasn't quite "getting" the robbery joke... Until I stuck around to the end. WELL worth it. And very well explained, definitely subscribing! I feel that you have increased my understanding of a fairly incomprehensible thing, and that's pretty cool!
excellent and fun video
the quality of ur video deserves more view and subscribers
Very clear to understand Thanks
I watch the video and assumed you would have like 1 millions subscribers but you got only 10K. you deserve more bro. That is million subscriber content.
thank you so much for this video! thank you so much for such an elegant and simple and straightforward explanation for what our current understandings of quantum mechanics seems to be! at least as far as I am able to understand LOL
Very nicely explained thanks.
Amazing explaination
really cool channel! love the style
Amazing explication , I had never asked that question but it was very interesting thx :)
Absolutly excellent, thank you ...I studied electro technical Engineering 30 years ago and never understood this wave particle dualism but with such great videos at that time I would have understood this crazy double slit experiment
best video i have seen on this issue
this is the cutest explanation ever 😍 after this no scientist can be mad at electrons unexpected behavior anymore
brilliant explanation. thank you
Wonderful explaination
Best video since Cosmos s01e01. (80’s). THANKS!
This dude definitely needs to blow up.
This was amazing.
A great explanation. What got me interested was my study of non-duality (Advaita) and and the scientific explanation of Adviata Vedanta. Thank you, it makes total sense.
I love Hinduism. It is so liberating and makes so much more sense to me than religion (any of the ones I've come across).
Amazing video!
Amazing video, thsnk you!!
It’s great to see someone explaining something in a simple manner instead of assuming I have a PhD in physics 👍
I bet if you are assumed you have a PhD in physics, then the summary itself is a sufficient explaination.
Best Explanation about wave particle duality period
👏👏👏
First time I understood this topic. Thanks for explaining ELI5
Excellent explanation.
Brilliant 💛 Thank you so much!
Thanks for a great video!
Excellent video! I didn't know electrons (and the other "particles") are now considered 100% waves. It makes much sense. Thank you!
Now... For the next video I'd like your take on the fields themselves: Are we back to the idea of an all-encompassing "ether"? Can we detect the field separately from the waves in it? How can all these different fields co-exist? etc... Looking forward to it! (just subscribed)
One; I've watched enough physics videos over the past 2 years that I'm not surprised that this came up as a recommendation. I'm going to go watch the rest of your videos. Two, what got me interested in all of it was that late one night I wondered why plants weren't black instead of green--to absorb all of the light possible for photosynthesis. An hour later, I knew that green absorbed the "best" because of quantum biology (which wasn't even something that existed when I was younger.) So, I figured I'd start learning more about quantum mechanics.
I love your videos cuz they give out qualitative knowledge basically without any math even tho thats not what physics is but I cant help it but be obsessed
These videos make me feel warm inside
Very interesting. Tha ks for this good video.
this was beautiful 💖
loved this video!
your standard model was soo cute and explanation was top notch keep going
Great video, thanks :)
Early history channel, nat geo, and NOVA made me interested in particles. Ill never forget the time I learned about space deformation while in middle school. I did not have the language to express how I felt. I had watched a doc that talked about how Hubble had dinner with his partner and they basked in the knowledge that they were the only humans to understand the size of the universe as the total size was previously thought to be the size of the galaxy. What a beautiful and truly unique human experience.
Enjoyed your video
Subbed before 2k! 👍
You explained what electrons are in a great way without any fancy 3D modeling and instead you drew every slide. I admire that.
I just had a thought that led me to question: Aren't then every other particle (gluons, muons, quarks, etc, indistinguishable from each other as well since they inhabit their own field as well with their own rules?
You are absolutely right :-D!
I’m a new subscriber. I watched this video & subscribed
Good explanation..😍😍
Nice explanation
this explains DSE much better than many other videos.
Best Explanation yet
I enjoyed the little faces on the waves . Somehow helps me learn way better
But, please do keep making videos like this. This is exactly what the rest of us need to enjoy education in between everything else in life that requires our attention.
Awesome video, new subscriber here!
Thnx for sharing! Ik heb wat geleerd!😉
Nice video, thank you for the explanation, I'm curious: how does a wave have weight ?
The short answer is that you can think of the mass of a wave as an energy investment to make a wave in the first place, on top of the energy associated with its velocity (kinetic energy) and any form of potential energy. The more mathematical answer requires a bit more explanation, e.g. about the Higgs mechanism, than would be conscionable for a youtube comment, but enough for an entire video... All I am saying is: stay tuned for the next video :D (or the one after that, I have not decided yet on the order in which the videos will be published)!
I have a questionion when we are talking about a wave function, that means that the wave that is created by a field in this case the electron ( wave- particle) follows that wave function in other words the wave is following a wave function in his field?
Or is it that the wave produced or created in that field in this case once again tje electron is already the wave function, i mean the wave created (electron) is the wave function propagated in the electron field?
Really brilliantly done 🙂 quick question. A pool wave is because of interactions between the air and water, or I guess the airfield and the water field. Is there something similar for say the electron field and whatever it is it's rubbing up against?
Lovely video.