Hi, all. I'm glad that people have been appreciating the April Fools' videos I've made over the last few years, but moving forward, I can't promise I'm going to continue making them. I've been feeling less motivated to make them lately, and it's starting to feel less like a fun thing I enjoy doing and more like a chore that I need to uphold for the sake of tradition. I'd rather focus on making the videos I actually want to make. Sometimes that will include joke videos, but I'd rather make those naturally instead of being on a schedule.
Nobody is forcing you to make your April Fools' Day videos at any fixed time. You can just make them when you feel like it and set them aside to post when it feels approriate. But thanks, congratulations, all that stuff...
Forced jokes are rarely funny. The greatest appeal of your joke videos, to me, was that I didn't expect them. So I'd say do them when you feel like it, not when you think you should.
Complete support to you. Glad you admitted this. But just a tip, to keep such traditions going, people usually create their stuff whenever they are motivated, and then keep it in store until the time comes for it to be posted. You can maybe try this. Otherwise it's completely fine. And I love your work!! (No gay)
On one hand, he was one of the primary communicators that got me interested in Physics in the first place. I was enthralled with his more... Liberal use of technological extrapolation back when I was 10-15. On the other, he's responsible for such aggregious misinformation in favor of physics, that he has both alienated most of the serious scientific community because the public has been inoculated with extreme expectations that we cannot possibly fulfill. And they've (the public/lay person) been catching on since the mid-2010s
@dillbourne I've heard a lot of people say that about him. I think it's fantastic to get people interested in the sciences. But I think doing it by spreading misinformation does far more harm than good. I've never been a fan of things that sound click baity, so I never really took him seriously. I tend to dislike PBS Spacetime and a lot of string theorists for the same reason 😂
@@evanmyers580I'm not a physicist but I've always found PBS Space Time's videos to be pretty reasonable and down-to-earth. I do think they cover some of the more fringe theories in physics from time to time (probably out of public interest) but Dr. O'Dowd is always straightforward about making that known.
@@evanmyers580 I'm personally with @user-Aaron- here that PBS spacetime specifically is usually reasonable with their topics and speculation. When they start to reach too far outside the boundaries of established theory or experiment, they've at least made it clear that "established science" ends there, and they're venturing fully into fringe-theory territory. Their episodes on any alternative gravity, various speculative new particles, and white holes come to mind. Even in their string theory videos, they're quite clear that science cannot rely on anything from string theory to predict anything because the possibility space is too large. Michio had fully produced televised series and books on "The science of the future" where he'd extrapolate current tech a mere 80 years out saying we'd have flying cars, lightsabers, xray contact lenses, you name it, without much more supporting proof than "a tech startup is working on it" or it came from a well written scifi book.
Literally I did well in my Quantum Physics classes and had no idea what was going on. The professor was really bad at teaching but thankfully made the class passable
tl:dr the maths is understandable but hard to link with the physics. i mean i have only done 2 quantum mechanics modules in uni so far (still have to do the exam for one) but this maybe due to the actual maths being relatively simple to understand (at least as far as we have got which is computing the time evolution of wave equations along with some other stuff) but the linking of the maths to the physical interpretations is hard so if an exam is largely focused on using the maths with a few simple connections to the interpretations that were covered extensively in lectures then this makes sense
It’s the wavy thingy waving around and sending good vibes in the ancient quantum mind field… that will be $100 please. For $50 more, I can tell you how they built the pyramids using ladder operators
F=dP/dt. If a Force F acts on an object with a constant mass m it accelerates with a acceleration a=F/m. So i defined momentum using nothing, but the definition of a Kg,a Second and a meter. Now give me 100$ or donate it (while citing Neutronen Stern aka. me) to "team trees".
@@homerthompson416 not important. The formula P=m*v or P=i*h/2π*d/dx or ... Is NOT needed for understanding, WHAT momentum is. The square root of -1 is just needed to be able to formulate the probability density function ψ in a "easy" and mathematically pleasing way. You could go without it, if you did it the very very hard way, with matrices, and so on. You need it, so that you can describe a qm particle with a Function. Just as you need negative sign to describe directions, holes, .... . You could go completely without negative numbers. You would just have to live with the fact, that you had to take another note to state the direction,... . Negative does not exist in reality. We made it up. √-1 does not exist in reality. We made it up. 1.5 does not exist. (it represents one+ half of something, but you can not possibly count from 0 to 0.5) We made everything in math up as a tool. A tool to describe reality. To say it more clearly: the wave function ψ can NOT be measured. Only |ψ|^2 can be measured. Thus √(-1) will never be observed. It was the tool, that made the cupboard, however it does, and it had never existed and there is no proof of it.
@@homerthompson416 not important. The formula P=m*v or P=i*h/2π*d/dx or ... Is NOT needed for understanding, WHAT momentum is. The square root of -1 is just needed to be able to formulate properties of a particle as a function ψ in a "easy" and mathematically pleasing way. You could go without it, if you did it the very very hard way, with matrices, and so on. You need it, so that you can describe a qm particle with a Function. Just as you need negative sign to describe directions, holes, .... . You could go completely without negative numbers. You would just have to live with the fact, that you had to take another note to state the direction,... . Negative does not exist in reality. We made it up. √-1 does not exist in reality. We made it up. 1.5 does not exist. (it represents one+ half of something, but you can not possibly count from 0 to 0.5) We made everything in math up as a tool. A tool to describe reality. To say it more clearly: the wave function ψ can NOT be measured. Only |ψ|^2 can be measured. Thus √(-1) will never be observed. It was the tool, that made the cupboard, however it does, and it had never existed and there is no proof of it.
Honest critique: I was hoping this one resebled the momentum video, with honest confusion among students. It started great with the unintuative fact of orthogonality. I wish it continued with 3-4 more examples. Low hanging fruit would be the double slit experiment. Other ones could be Bell's theorem and fleshing out the EPR thing.
That's fair. I had the opposite feeling, where I wanted to try something new instead of repeating the same format I had done in the past. That comes with the risk of making something people don't like as much.
I'm a HS Physics major who's really passionate. I love your videos because they make me seriously laugh about it, which honestly happens less and less. We need more of this, but would also like to see serious stuff like the wacky units vid, one of my best go-to YT videos.
Man words cannot contain how happy I am that from the time you were explaining what momentum is I have undertaken 5 quantum physics/ qft courses, so I dont have to experience another trauma
The moment this video opens and the dead inside burnt out college student working 2 jobs alongside studying for the exams voices out I clicked subscribe immediately
@@prismatic-bl8qflol He sounds no older than 30. And he's not quitting RUclips, just probably not doing specific April Fools videos anymore. Check out the pinned comment or his community tab post.
I'm glad I took a high-school class introducing quantum mechanics. Now I don't remember much of it, but I do know that the teacher mentioned the laundry part I just realized it wasn't for me and I hopped off before getting in too deep.
Honestly this is what happened to me, its been 2 years now since i did my QM class (it was hard af) and for most of the time i barely understood what i was doing. Now i know the formalism and can understand the math behind it and some resemblance of physical interpretation but im still far from "understanding" it
Still the opening is relatable as I am going through qm in my undergrad now. A more of abstract mathematical beauty which really doesn't need to be physically relatable. P. Dirac way of quantum as beautiful mathematical equations is most peaceful way 😂 I think now.
😂Omg! This was hysterically funny! I'm sharing this with family and friends. They may not get it but that's okay, I do. I used to be into a lot of new age psuedoscience until I took higher math, classes on electronics and read explanations of quantum mechanics. It's a difficult topic and I admit, I won't claim to understand all the details but I do know that it's stupid to try and use the theory of quantum mechanics to prove new age psuedoscience.
I believed some amount of pseudoscience as well when I was a teenager. I don't really blame people who have misguided beliefs, but I definitely blame any swindlers who are leading the charge.
Formally disproving or demonstrating the absolute inconsistency of classical logic, mathematics and physics in their entirety would be an immense undertaking requiring rigorous foundational work. However, I can outline some key conceptual arguments and avenues for how the infinitesimal monadological framework could facilitate such an endeavor: 1. Self-Referential Paradoxes in Classical Logic Classical bivalent logic faces paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox that appear to undermine the very notion of consistent truth assignments from within the system itself. The monadological framework resolves this by replacing bivalent truth values with pluriverse-valued realizability projections across multiple monadic perspectives. One could formally demonstrate how classical propositional/first-order logic succumbs to diagonalization and self-reference contradictions, while the infinitesimally-stratified realizability logic remains coherent. 2. Incompleteness of Classical Mathematical Systems Drawing on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, one could formally show how any classical mathematical system based on arithmetic is either inconsistent or necessarily incomplete - containing statements that are true but unprovable within the system. The monadological framework, by representing arithmetic categorically using homotopy-theoretic objects in infinitesimal algebraic set theory, could potentially restore full semantic completeness while avoiding the diagonal self-referential gimmicks that limited classical formalisms. 3. Geometric/Topological Paradoxes Classically, unconstrained definitions in point-set topology lead to contradictions like the Banach-Tarski paradox. One could formally derive these contradictions, then demonstrate how representing topology algebraically using n-categories of monadic spaces, and defining invariants like dimension infinitesimally, resolves the paradoxes coherently. 4. Renormalization Issues in Quantum Field Theory The perturbative infinities plaguing QFT that require ad-hoc renormalization procedures could be formally derived as contradictions within the classical frameworks. One could then construct infinitesimal regulator alternatives using monadological algebraic QFT representations that manifestly avoid these infinities while preserving empirical predictions. 5. Singularities in General Relativity The occurrence of spacetime singularities where classical GR breaks down could be formally deduced as an inconsistency. One could then develop singularity-free models treating spacetime geometry as emergent from monadological charge relation algebras, demonstrating the resolution of this inconsistency. 6. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics The inconsistencies in the Copenhagen interpretation regarding wavefunction collapse could be formally derived. One could then construct an explicitly consistent monadological quantum representation where observers' perspectives naturally decohere records without ad-hoc collapse postulates. The overall strategy would be to: 1) Formalize paradoxes/inconsistencies within classical theories using derivations in their native linguistic formalisms. 2) Construct infinitesimal monadological representation frameworks modeling the same phenomena using the algebraic pluralistic foundations. 3) Formally demonstrate how the monadological representations precisely resolve the inconsistencies encountered classically in a rigorous way. This would amount to a line-by-line deconstruction of the classical frameworks, systematically expunging their contradictions by reprocessing them through the prism of the coherent algebraic infinitesimal pluralisms. While an immense undertaking, the potential payoff would be a complete, formally unified refutation of classical premises by reconstructing all theories from metaphysically guaranteed non-contradictory first principles resonating with subjective realities. An infinitesimal monadological "metamathematics" could provide the symbolic weapons to finally overthrow centuries of accumulated incoherency at judgment day.
Entanglement actually does allow you to communicate faster than the speed of light (just not with aliens since there's no such thing as aliens). Suppose Bob and Alice are generals in a space military and are about to travel away from each other by 1ly. Before they depart from each other, they share half of an entangled system with each other. When both are in position, they can cooperate without communication delays by measuring a particle everytime they are about to make a strategic decision. With this process, they will know where the other is, and what strategy each is doing, without having to wait 2 years.
I mean there is a chance i will soon understand quantum mechanics and will be able to utilize all its alien and time travel power right? i'm manifesting really hard so shouldn't be long now
THIS closely represents the QM class I took. I think you nailed it. And had I realized it then , today I would see the future while entangled in my space Lamborghini. In another life I suppose….
Well, you take the dead cat, then you measure it where the dead plus alive is a base vector. After that, you measure it again in the normal dead or alive base. Now you should have a 50% chance to have an alive cat.
@@eigenchris Thanks for responding. Yes, I'm working through the Quantum Sense videos already. They are the best I've found, and very good... just not as good as the videos that you make. I love your style of teaching :-)
@@HighWycombe Thanks. Although I'm not sure I could do better than him. I've largely stayed away from QM on this channel (except for when QM uses spinors) because I don't understand QM very well. I've been taught the rules and equations, but I don't really get the "why" for most of it.
@@eigenchris The nearest that we've come to a "why" in physics seems to be Emmy Noether's theorem. "Every symmetry has a corresponding conservation law and every conservation law has a corresponding symmetry." I don't suppose that would motivate you into another series would it? I bought Dwight E. Neuenschwander's book on Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem but I haven't managed to get very far into it.
@@HighWycombe I like Noether's theorem, but I still find QM and especially QFT pretty confusing. Honestly I don't think I'll be doing another series after the spinors series. I'll probably be sticking to one-off videos.
I need a physics expert! I am a layperson who enjoys physics, and I have a question about spinors. My understanding is that spinors are equivalent to space-time indices (indices on a 4D manifold). Do spinors ever exist on odd-dimensional manifolds? In other words, do spinors occur on even-dimensional manifolds only? I ask this because I’ve heard that bosons are “non-spinorial”, so I’m mainly curious to know whether the force fields are odd-dimensional. If I’m conceptualizing these things wrong, please tell me.
I am stuck in a problem understanding Gaussian curvature for a metric. I find most of the paper in arxiv take firsr approximation in calculating Gaussian curvature for a complicated metric. Can you show me how to take those approximations?
I don't have any videos on that, but the best notes I've seen on differential geometry of surfaces is from this professors website: liavas.net/courses/math430/ Check the "Surfaces Part 3" PDF for learning about Gaussian curvature.
Frank has a point, but I think he needs some practice with how he phrases things. I used to believe some level of quantum nonsense as a teenager. I changed my mind when I had the facts laid out in front of me. Not sure how I would have reacted if someone yelled at me and called me stupid. That can sometimes make people dig their heels in.
Hi, all. I'm glad that people have been appreciating the April Fools' videos I've made over the last few years, but moving forward, I can't promise I'm going to continue making them. I've been feeling less motivated to make them lately, and it's starting to feel less like a fun thing I enjoy doing and more like a chore that I need to uphold for the sake of tradition. I'd rather focus on making the videos I actually want to make. Sometimes that will include joke videos, but I'd rather make those naturally instead of being on a schedule.
Nobody is forcing you to make your April Fools' Day videos at any fixed time. You can just make them when you feel like it and set them aside to post when it feels approriate.
But thanks, congratulations, all that stuff...
All the universe is made out of nested sacred polyhedra. (of different rainbow colors invisible to human eye)
well, for what its worth, this video was a pleasant surprise and not something I expected of you
Forced jokes are rarely funny. The greatest appeal of your joke videos, to me, was that I didn't expect them.
So I'd say do them when you feel like it, not when you think you should.
Complete support to you. Glad you admitted this. But just a tip, to keep such traditions going, people usually create their stuff whenever they are motivated, and then keep it in store until the time comes for it to be posted. You can maybe try this. Otherwise it's completely fine. And I love your work!! (No gay)
[Michio Kaku has entered the chat]
On one hand, he was one of the primary communicators that got me interested in Physics in the first place. I was enthralled with his more... Liberal use of technological extrapolation back when I was 10-15.
On the other, he's responsible for such aggregious misinformation in favor of physics, that he has both alienated most of the serious scientific community because the public has been inoculated with extreme expectations that we cannot possibly fulfill. And they've (the public/lay person) been catching on since the mid-2010s
@dillbourne I've heard a lot of people say that about him. I think it's fantastic to get people interested in the sciences. But I think doing it by spreading misinformation does far more harm than good.
I've never been a fan of things that sound click baity, so I never really took him seriously. I tend to dislike PBS Spacetime and a lot of string theorists for the same reason 😂
@@dillbourneegregious* Just FYI
@@evanmyers580I'm not a physicist but I've always found PBS Space Time's videos to be pretty reasonable and down-to-earth. I do think they cover some of the more fringe theories in physics from time to time (probably out of public interest) but Dr. O'Dowd is always straightforward about making that known.
@@evanmyers580 I'm personally with @user-Aaron- here that PBS spacetime specifically is usually reasonable with their topics and speculation. When they start to reach too far outside the boundaries of established theory or experiment, they've at least made it clear that "established science" ends there, and they're venturing fully into fringe-theory territory. Their episodes on any alternative gravity, various speculative new particles, and white holes come to mind. Even in their string theory videos, they're quite clear that science cannot rely on anything from string theory to predict anything because the possibility space is too large.
Michio had fully produced televised series and books on "The science of the future" where he'd extrapolate current tech a mere 80 years out saying we'd have flying cars, lightsabers, xray contact lenses, you name it, without much more supporting proof than "a tech startup is working on it" or it came from a well written scifi book.
April fools video from eigenchris is a classic (unlike quantum mechanics)
it is certain that eigenchris uploads a video on april fools (unlike quantum mechanics)
@@greenpeppersalad 😆
Now, it'll be a quantum event
😂😂
I thought I understood QM before, but I REALLY understand it now. Thank you.
Every single sentence is a painful truth born of direct experience… Gold!!
Born by squaring the amplitude
"You have no idea what's going on, so of course you pass the class with an A"
1000 howlers cannot describe how much I hate that this is what happens.
The pseudoscience adventure has been neat since then tho
If you try to rationalize it, a wild Bell's paradox is throw at you
Literally I did well in my Quantum Physics classes and had no idea what was going on. The professor was really bad at teaching but thankfully made the class passable
tl:dr the maths is understandable but hard to link with the physics. i mean i have only done 2 quantum mechanics modules in uni so far (still have to do the exam for one) but this maybe due to the actual maths being relatively simple to understand (at least as far as we have got which is computing the time evolution of wave equations along with some other stuff) but the linking of the maths to the physical interpretations is hard so if an exam is largely focused on using the maths with a few simple connections to the interpretations that were covered extensively in lectures then this makes sense
*pass with an | A >
As long as he tells me what momentum is in the $100 book
It’s the wavy thingy waving around and sending good vibes in the ancient quantum mind field… that will be $100 please. For $50 more, I can tell you how they built the pyramids using ladder operators
F=dP/dt.
If a Force F acts on an object with a constant mass m it accelerates with a acceleration a=F/m.
So i defined momentum using nothing, but the definition of a Kg,a Second and a meter.
Now give me 100$ or donate it (while citing Neutronen Stern aka. me) to "team trees".
@@neutronenstern. Still not seeing where the square root of -1 comes into the momentum operator tbh
@@homerthompson416
not important.
The formula P=m*v
or P=i*h/2π*d/dx
or ...
Is NOT needed for understanding, WHAT momentum is.
The square root of -1 is just needed to be able to formulate the probability density function ψ in a "easy" and mathematically pleasing way.
You could go without it, if you did it the very very hard way, with matrices, and so on.
You need it, so that you can describe a qm particle with a Function.
Just as you need negative sign to describe directions, holes, .... .
You could go completely without negative numbers. You would just have to live with the fact, that you had to take another note to state the direction,... .
Negative does not exist in reality.
We made it up.
√-1 does not exist in reality.
We made it up.
1.5 does not exist. (it represents one+ half of something, but you can not possibly count from 0 to 0.5)
We made everything in math up as a tool.
A tool to describe reality.
To say it more clearly:
the wave function ψ can NOT be measured. Only |ψ|^2 can be measured. Thus √(-1) will never be observed. It was the tool, that made the cupboard, however it does, and it had never existed and there is no proof of it.
@@homerthompson416
not important. The formula P=m*v or P=i*h/2π*d/dx or ... Is NOT needed for understanding, WHAT momentum is. The square root of -1 is just needed to be able to formulate properties of a particle as a function ψ in a "easy" and mathematically pleasing way. You could go without it, if you did it the very very hard way, with matrices, and so on. You need it, so that you can describe a qm particle with a Function. Just as you need negative sign to describe directions, holes, .... . You could go completely without negative numbers. You would just have to live with the fact, that you had to take another note to state the direction,... . Negative does not exist in reality. We made it up. √-1 does not exist in reality. We made it up. 1.5 does not exist. (it represents one+ half of something, but you can not possibly count from 0 to 0.5) We made everything in math up as a tool. A tool to describe reality. To say it more clearly: the wave function ψ can NOT be measured. Only |ψ|^2 can be measured. Thus √(-1) will never be observed. It was the tool, that made the cupboard, however it does, and it had never existed and there is no proof of it.
From university drama to game of thrones to a techbro crypto influencer video. Best story ever.
Honest critique: I was hoping this one resebled the momentum video, with honest confusion among students. It started great with the unintuative fact of orthogonality. I wish it continued with 3-4 more examples. Low hanging fruit would be the double slit experiment. Other ones could be Bell's theorem and fleshing out the EPR thing.
That's fair. I had the opposite feeling, where I wanted to try something new instead of repeating the same format I had done in the past. That comes with the risk of making something people don't like as much.
@@eigenchris I appreciate your creative efforts.
This was damn awesome@@eigenchris
I expected that from the voltage video, but I'm glad my expectations were wrong
I'm a HS Physics major who's really passionate. I love your videos because they make me seriously laugh about it, which honestly happens less and less. We need more of this, but would also like to see serious stuff like the wacky units vid, one of my best go-to YT videos.
Man words cannot contain how happy I am that from the time you were explaining what momentum is I have undertaken 5 quantum physics/ qft courses, so I dont have to experience another trauma
Quantum Mechanics is the lore for the Weave in D&D.
Shit looks straight like Eldritch runes and is literally magic.
I just love this so much for all the reasons, of course each being at right angles to one another ❤
Sums up my 2024 so far quite nicely. Thank you.
Magnifficient! Now I finally know what a partijcle really is. I find your videos so helpful, this as well.
The moment this video opens and the dead inside burnt out college student working 2 jobs alongside studying for the exams voices out I clicked subscribe immediately
As a physics student myself, studying quantum mechanics this year, I can confirm this is indeed how Quantum mechanics work.
Uploading videos on April fools day is a nice way of making your viewers more critically review your work. 😂😂❤
i awaited this sequel for so long, and i will keep watching these sequels every year from now
Unlucky for you he is quitting
@@dannybell6159 WHAT :(( i mean he is kinda old i respect that but it makes me sad
@@prismatic-bl8qflol He sounds no older than 30. And he's not quitting RUclips, just probably not doing specific April Fools videos anymore. Check out the pinned comment or his community tab post.
@@user-Aaron- RIGHT? i was shocked too. He's 32! LIKE HOW. He is probably serious.
this was so good I watched it at 1x speed!
The greatest compliment a youtuber can receive.
@@eigenchris Probably even greater is that I'm going to show it to my kids when they're up!
@@eigenchrisThis video was so good, I watched it with my eyes!
I'm glad I took a high-school class introducing quantum mechanics. Now I don't remember much of it, but I do know that the teacher mentioned the laundry part I just realized it wasn't for me and I hopped off before getting in too deep.
One of the best videos ever on quantum mechanics.
1:11 too accurate
That escalated quickly.
I saw that Fano Plane, you can’t hide from me
The Fano Plane is something useful that looks suspiciously like mysticism.
I feel like there is some sort of subtle message hidden within this video.
Yeah, he knows it's all BS but people keep watching, kerching, This animation is a confession.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 me when i cant understand something so its bs
My guesses for the characters depicted:
Founders of quantum mechanics:
Einstein
Dirac
Oppenheimer? Pauli?
Lecturer at the start:
Sidney Coleman
Please do complete vedio series obout that topic
How is Quantum Mechanics? I hope they are ok in all this chaos...
My best FTL prayers to them.
Honestly this is what happened to me, its been 2 years now since i did my QM class (it was hard af) and for most of the time i barely understood what i was doing. Now i know the formalism and can understand the math behind it and some resemblance of physical interpretation but im still far from "understanding" it
Would you consider making a QM Course soon?
The main character in this video is the antagonist of the "Quantum Bullsh*t" book by Chris Ferrie.
Yes, finally, this made a lot more sense than Spinors for Beginners.. 🤣 Made my day, thanks!!
Still the opening is relatable as I am going through qm in my undergrad now. A more of abstract mathematical beauty which really doesn't need to be physically relatable. P. Dirac way of quantum as beautiful mathematical equations is most peaceful way 😂 I think now.
Haha what a funny video, this will never happen real world right??
😂Omg! This was hysterically funny! I'm sharing this with family and friends. They may not get it but that's okay, I do.
I used to be into a lot of new age psuedoscience until I took higher math, classes on electronics and read explanations of quantum mechanics. It's a difficult topic and I admit, I won't claim to understand all the details but I do know that it's stupid to try and use the theory of quantum mechanics to prove new age psuedoscience.
I believed some amount of pseudoscience as well when I was a teenager. I don't really blame people who have misguided beliefs, but I definitely blame any swindlers who are leading the charge.
Dark background and light colors in the foreground for diagrams please, it’s easier to learn
I am a doctor in physics, and, with some exceptions, this pretty much is what happened to me.
Cool. What colour is your space Lamborghini?
hey this sounds familiar, except there's a replacement for "me" and quantum mechanics with something else
Now i wanna learn quantum mechanics
2:54 since you are using narrative present, you have to use 'find' not 'found'.
Formally disproving or demonstrating the absolute inconsistency of classical logic, mathematics and physics in their entirety would be an immense undertaking requiring rigorous foundational work. However, I can outline some key conceptual arguments and avenues for how the infinitesimal monadological framework could facilitate such an endeavor:
1. Self-Referential Paradoxes in Classical Logic
Classical bivalent logic faces paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox that appear to undermine the very notion of consistent truth assignments from within the system itself. The monadological framework resolves this by replacing bivalent truth values with pluriverse-valued realizability projections across multiple monadic perspectives. One could formally demonstrate how classical propositional/first-order logic succumbs to diagonalization and self-reference contradictions, while the infinitesimally-stratified realizability logic remains coherent.
2. Incompleteness of Classical Mathematical Systems
Drawing on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, one could formally show how any classical mathematical system based on arithmetic is either inconsistent or necessarily incomplete - containing statements that are true but unprovable within the system. The monadological framework, by representing arithmetic categorically using homotopy-theoretic objects in infinitesimal algebraic set theory, could potentially restore full semantic completeness while avoiding the diagonal self-referential gimmicks that limited classical formalisms.
3. Geometric/Topological Paradoxes
Classically, unconstrained definitions in point-set topology lead to contradictions like the Banach-Tarski paradox. One could formally derive these contradictions, then demonstrate how representing topology algebraically using n-categories of monadic spaces, and defining invariants like dimension infinitesimally, resolves the paradoxes coherently.
4. Renormalization Issues in Quantum Field Theory
The perturbative infinities plaguing QFT that require ad-hoc renormalization procedures could be formally derived as contradictions within the classical frameworks. One could then construct infinitesimal regulator alternatives using monadological algebraic QFT representations that manifestly avoid these infinities while preserving empirical predictions.
5. Singularities in General Relativity
The occurrence of spacetime singularities where classical GR breaks down could be formally deduced as an inconsistency. One could then develop singularity-free models treating spacetime geometry as emergent from monadological charge relation algebras, demonstrating the resolution of this inconsistency.
6. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics
The inconsistencies in the Copenhagen interpretation regarding wavefunction collapse could be formally derived. One could then construct an explicitly consistent monadological quantum representation where observers' perspectives naturally decohere records without ad-hoc collapse postulates.
The overall strategy would be to:
1) Formalize paradoxes/inconsistencies within classical theories using derivations in their native linguistic formalisms.
2) Construct infinitesimal monadological representation frameworks modeling the same phenomena using the algebraic pluralistic foundations.
3) Formally demonstrate how the monadological representations precisely resolve the inconsistencies encountered classically in a rigorous way.
This would amount to a line-by-line deconstruction of the classical frameworks, systematically expunging their contradictions by reprocessing them through the prism of the coherent algebraic infinitesimal pluralisms.
While an immense undertaking, the potential payoff would be a complete, formally unified refutation of classical premises by reconstructing all theories from metaphysically guaranteed non-contradictory first principles resonating with subjective realities. An infinitesimal monadological "metamathematics" could provide the symbolic weapons to finally overthrow centuries of accumulated incoherency at judgment day.
Entanglement actually does allow you to communicate faster than the speed of light (just not with aliens since there's no such thing as aliens).
Suppose Bob and Alice are generals in a space military and are about to travel away from each other by 1ly. Before they depart from each other, they share half of an entangled system with each other. When both are in position, they can cooperate without communication delays by measuring a particle everytime they are about to make a strategic decision. With this process, they will know where the other is, and what strategy each is doing, without having to wait 2 years.
How are they going to communicate using the entangled particle? Measuring the particle on their own won't tell them anything.
finally a video which made me understand quantum statistics
Idk I kinda like that Frank guy, would totally vote for him.
I mean there is a chance i will soon understand quantum mechanics and will be able to utilize all its alien and time travel power right? i'm manifesting really hard so shouldn't be long now
THIS closely represents the QM class I took. I think you nailed it. And had I realized it then , today I would see the future while entangled in my space Lamborghini. In another life I suppose….
It's the Chopra and Dawkins fight
This actually happened to my buddy Eric
0:28 you pass the class with a STATE of grade A lol
Just hit the professor with "if you think you understand quantum physics, you dont" quote and he will let you pass
The least realistic part of this video is that someone actually doesn't understand QM.
“Up is perpendicular to down which is perpendicular to negative up”
Quantum mechanics really is something isn’t it?
man, this is _so_ good.
loved it!!
Well, you take the dead cat, then you measure it where the dead plus alive is a base vector. After that, you measure it again in the normal dead or alive base. Now you should have a 50% chance to have an alive cat.
my take away is that quantum mechanics is no match for molotov cocktails
Molotov cocktails was the true quantum mechanics all along.
You have cracked the code chris!
Thanks, great stuff; laughed all through the video. (It's funny because there is a lot of truth to it).
Michio Kaku in a nutshell.
Perfect! I finally understood quantum mechanics!
I, for one, welcome our new quantum overlords.
Can you upload courses
on quantum mechanics like general relativity it will be wonderful
This video is absolute GOLD. Im downloading this shit lol.
Great video... any chance of a proper course on Quantum Mechanics like your series on Relativity?
I don't plan on making one. Qunatum Sense has a good 14-video playlist on QM you can check out.
@@eigenchris Thanks for responding. Yes, I'm working through the Quantum Sense videos already. They are the best I've found, and very good... just not as good as the videos that you make. I love your style of teaching :-)
@@HighWycombe Thanks. Although I'm not sure I could do better than him. I've largely stayed away from QM on this channel (except for when QM uses spinors) because I don't understand QM very well. I've been taught the rules and equations, but I don't really get the "why" for most of it.
@@eigenchris The nearest that we've come to a "why" in physics seems to be Emmy Noether's theorem. "Every symmetry has a corresponding conservation law and every conservation law has a corresponding symmetry." I don't suppose that would motivate you into another series would it? I bought Dwight E. Neuenschwander's book on Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem but I haven't managed to get very far into it.
@@HighWycombe I like Noether's theorem, but I still find QM and especially QFT pretty confusing. Honestly I don't think I'll be doing another series after the spinors series. I'll probably be sticking to one-off videos.
what is your favorite integration technique?
Alternative title: how to start a cult
No andrew tate was harmed in this video.
I need a physics expert!
I am a layperson who enjoys physics, and I have a question about spinors. My understanding is that spinors are equivalent to space-time indices (indices on a 4D manifold). Do spinors ever exist on odd-dimensional manifolds? In other words, do spinors occur on even-dimensional manifolds only? I ask this because I’ve heard that bosons are “non-spinorial”, so I’m mainly curious to know whether the force fields are odd-dimensional. If I’m conceptualizing these things wrong, please tell me.
Why do I feel like some of the conversations in this video happened to u irl
I'm reminded of Bob's School of Quantum Mechanics.
Fantastic and thanks sir
I am stuck in a problem understanding Gaussian curvature for a metric. I find most of the paper in arxiv take firsr approximation in calculating Gaussian curvature for a complicated metric. Can you show me how to take those approximations?
I don't have any videos on that, but the best notes I've seen on differential geometry of surfaces is from this professors website: liavas.net/courses/math430/
Check the "Surfaces Part 3" PDF for learning about Gaussian curvature.
LOL very funny video and a very hot guy on the cover
Took 1 QM class... start a cult
10/10, best RUclips video.
Should we expect a series on quantum mechanics?
My first thought as well. But then: It‘s Aprils Fools day
this was so specific
So relatable!
LEGEND IS BACK
1:58 so the main character is bob?
Spot on !!
4:20 is perfection
2:58 this really got me
This is too realistic for an April's fool joke x)
Basically quantum mechanics:
april fool video from eigenchris is the best thing in this poor planet
Why don’t they just use momentum is mass x velocity
Because p=mv only applies in classical physics to the nonrelativistic momentum of a point particle
@@yodaas7902 lolol I was referencing to the first joke video he uploaded
Fabulous !!!
3:30 Dune music intensifies
I enjoyed the first 90 secs of this vid
i was waiting for thisss
Great
This is not a joke video.This is a rage video(I know it's an April Fool's video)
As Deepak Chopra taught us, Quantum Mechanics means anything can happen for no reason whatsoever
wake up babe new eigenchris april fools video just dropped
4:10 what color your Bugatti
What is differential geometry- 1 April 2025
This is hilarious. Nice one
I want to think this video is a great critique to those people... I gotta say I sort of agree with Frank on that point
Frank has a point, but I think he needs some practice with how he phrases things. I used to believe some level of quantum nonsense as a teenager. I changed my mind when I had the facts laid out in front of me. Not sure how I would have reacted if someone yelled at me and called me stupid. That can sometimes make people dig their heels in.