I have a much simpler and shorter explanation for the Uncertainty Principle: Imagine a car moving along a road. If you want to see the exact place where the car is, you must pause time (because it's always moving). You pause time, and you mark its place. While you paused (imagine it like a photo), you CAN'T know its speed. It's a picture. If you want to find out the speed, you must unpause and measure it. But if you unpause, it's impossible to know the exact position of the car because it's changing... EDIT: Because many people cannot understand that if you put a speed-o-meter in a car you still measure the velocity in an interval and not in a point, imagine it like a video that you pause it and unpause it. You cannot interact with the car to put a speed-o-meter of some sort, because if you do, this is not the same example. EDIT2 (Years later): Some people are getting confused by the term velocity. A stationary object has 0 velocity in relation to its surroundings. A video shows a moving object that therefore has velocity. A photograph shows a stationary object.
Do you want it more simple? Ok here it is: Try to figure out the speed of a car only by looking at a photo that was taken while the car was moving. Impossible. Now try to tell someone where exactly is the car, while it is moving... Impossible.
Heisenberg and Schroedinger are in a car that gets stopped by the police. Policeman."Do you know you were doing 75mph?" Heisenberg. "Oh great, now we're lost!" Cop is not happy, checks the boot/trunk of the car. Cop. "There is a dead cat in here!" Schroedinger. "Well, there is NOW!"
Simplify the explanation, you lose the finer details... Elaborate the details, the explanation becomes too complicated... This is Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Exactly. The matrix is like man pointing to the sky and saying “look big ball fire bring life” and never creating a single damn thing with that knowledge.
@SoHaNuR_ Yeah but the bronze age wasn't that fun, was it? And the parent comment you're replying to is talking about advancement, not whether humans can live without it or not.
One of my favorite jokes from Futurama *Prof. Farnsworth is at a horse race* The announcer declares, "And the winner is number 3, in a quantum finish!" The Professor angrily shouts -- "No fair you changed the outcome by measuring it!"
I've heard someone describe it as, "We know the past, we know the future, but time is always moving, and the present is just the nearest past that we can grasp."
When they can't show you something, in actuality, they make an animation, just like all the super-train hucksters and water-witch hucksters and solar-freaking-highway hucksters. They've got this notion, but nothing really concrete to back it up.
dude its simple the heisenberg uncertainity principal says "You can't measure the accurate position and momentum of an moving particle or wave simultaneously".
In my college, sir explained this with the help of a ceiling fan. He told us to look at the fans blade when he switched on/off the fan. Particle nature : when it is switched off Wave nature : when it is switched on
Okey that's a simple example, thanks, now i got it. When its stop we certainly know where its place, but when its swinging, it become uncertain, because we never know how many position of the blade of fan exactly where.
Thomas Martin Tell police officer your accurate position, according to Heisenberg's principle, if you know the accurate position, you don't know the accurate velocity and since the speeding ticket is based on velocity, you can never be charged ;)
Thomas Martin he he,yup! Try telling the officer that ypir wavelength is high enough! Try telling them ypir position in terms of probability, more there n less here!
Let's say you try taking a photograph of a moving car. Say it takes your camera a tenth of a second to get the photo. What you will see is a (short) blur of the car. If you measure the length of the motion blur you can find out how fast the car was going. But you can't say where exactly the car is. The car was in all the places the blur is while you were taking the photo. Now suppose you take a perfect instantaneous picture. You know exactly where the car is. But can you even tell if it's moving at all? :D
I will admit, this example only serves for intuition. I was fortunate enough to study signal theory in undergrad and learn about the Fourier transform. Then years later, a video in sixtysymbols mentions that the Uncertainty Principle basically stems from one in the Fourier Transform (ask your local qualified physicist for details :P ) and my mind was blown to pieces.
Nice analogy! I finally get it I think, thank you. but on an unrelated topic, since I now know you're really smart, would you explain to me why am I wrong in thinking that an electromagnetic wave (and hence; everything) is a vibration (a parametric difference between locales) in the space-time fabric itself?
Another good idea, but there is nothing Quantum Mechanical about your example. What you write here is true classically as well as non-classically. The H.U.P. is a mathematical relation that "falls out" of the math used to model/describe the Quantum Mechanical world. No such thing can be said in the case of Newtonian (classical) mechanics.
@3:52 Just to double check that "bigger momentum uncertainty", actually means "bigger value of the momentum uncertainty". Meaning, the momentum becomes more defined, rather than becoming more "uncertain", and thus in fact, "less uncertain" = "more certain". After all, we are reducing the "position uncertainty" value, which means we would be increasing the "momentum uncertainty" value. Fantastic video! Thank you.
What a great explanation! I am a firm believer that no matter the complexity of an idea, it could be broken down into simple ideas or arithmetic operations. Don't ever let the complexity of a subject or a field overwhelm you. Keep learning.
S. E. It’s from the series Breaking Bad. The main character’s alias is Heisenberg. ‘You’re Goddamn right’ is one of the sentence he said in the series. You should watch it.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: Δх * Δр ≥ ħ/2 The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is correct, moreover, it is fundamental. If the uncertainty principle is incorrect, then all quantum mechanics is incorrect. Heisenberg's justified the ncertainty principle in order to save quantum mechanics. He understood that if it is possible to measure with every accuracy both the coordinate and momentum of a microparticle, then quantum mechanics will collapse, and therefore further justification was already a technical issue. It is the uncertainty principle that prohibits microparticles in quantum mechanics from having a trajectory. If the coordinates of the electron are measured at definite time intervals Δt, then their results do not lie on some smooth curve. On the contrary, the more accurately the measurements are made, the more "jumpy", chaotic the results will be. A smooth trajectory can only be obtained if the measurement accuracy is small, for example, the trajectory of an electron in a Wilson chamber (the width of the trajectory is enormous compared to the microworld, so the accuracy is small). Heisenberg's formulated the uncertainty principle thus: if you are studying a body and you are able to determine the x-component of a pulse with an uncertainty Δp, then you can not simultaneously determine the coordinate x of the body with an accuracy greater than Δx = h / Δp. Here is a more general formulation of the principle of uncertainty: it is impossible to arrange in any way an instrument that determines which of the two mutually exclusive events has occurred, without the interference pattern being destroyed. It should be immediately said that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle inevitably follows from the particle-wave nature of microparticles (there is a corpuscular-wave dualism is the principle of uncertainty, there is no corpuscle-wave dualism - there is no uncertainty principle, and in principle quantum mechanics, too). Therefore, there is an exact quantitative analogy between the Heisenberg uncertainty relation and the properties of waves. Consider a time-varying signal, for example, a sound wave. It is pointless to talk about the frequency spectrum of the signal at any point in time. To accurately determine the frequency, it is necessary to observe the signal for some time, thus losing the accuracy of time determination. In other words, sound can not simultaneously have the exact value of its fixation time, as it has a very short pulse, and the exact frequency value, as it is for a continuous (and, in principle, infinitely long) pure tone (pure sine wave). The time position and frequency of the wave are mathematically completely analogous to the coordinate and (quantum-mechanical) momentum of the particle. We also need to clearly understand that the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle practically prohibits predicting behavior (in the classical sense, since Newton was able to predict the position of the planets), for example, an electron in the future. This means that if the electron is in a state described by the most complete way possible in quantum mechanics, then its behavior at the following moments is fundamentally ambiguous. Therefore, quantum mechanics can not make strict predictions (in the classical sense). The task of quantum mechanics consists only in determining the probability of obtaining a particular result in the measurement, and this is fundamental. That is why the uncertainty principle has such a fundamental meaning (there is no uncertainty principle - there is no quantum mechanics). But this does not mean that we do not know any "laws or variables that are hidden from us", etc. No. It's just the reality. This is analogous to how a particle can exhibit corpuscular and wave properties - just this is reality and nothing more. And even if we know the "hidden parameters" (compare, understand why the wave properties and corpuscular ones are manifested), this reality will not change, and the uncertainty principle will also work, but we will understand it more fully. It must be added that not all physical quantities in quantum mechanics are measurable simultaneously, that is, they can have simultaneously definite values. If physical quantities can simultaneously have definite values, then in quantum mechanics they say that their operators commute. The sets of such physical quantities (complete sets) that have simultaneously defined values are remarkable in that no other physical quantity (not being their function) can have a definite value in this state. The fully described states (for example, the description of the electron state) in quantum mechanics arise as a result of the simultaneous measurement of a complete set of physical quantities. By results of such measurement it is possible to determine the probability of the results of subsequent measurements, regardless of what happened with the electron before the first measurement. If physical quantities can not simultaneously have definite values, then their operators do not commute. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle establishes the limit of the accuracy of the simultaneous determination of a pair of physical quantities that are not described by commuting operators (for example, coordinates and momentum, current and voltage, electric and magnetic fields). Let's add a little history. A. Einstein assumed that there are hidden variables in quantum mechanics that underlie the observed probabilities. He did not like the principle of uncertainty, and his discussions with N. Bohr and W. Heisenberg greatly influenced quantum mechanics and science as a whole. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (N. Bohr and followers), the uncertainty principle is adopted at the elementary level, and it is in this interpretation that it is believed that this can not be predicted at all by any method. And it was this interpretation that Einstein questioned when he wrote to Max Born: "God does not play dice." To which Niels Bohr, answered: "Einstein, do not tell to God what to do." Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was erroneous. His reasoning was based on the fact that all the already known probability distributions were the result of deterministic events. The distribution of the tossed coin or rolling bone can be described by the probability distribution (50% eagle, 50% tails). But this does not mean that their physical movements are unpredictable. Conventional mechanics can calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the forces acting on it are known, and the eagles / tails will still be randomly distributed (with random initial forces). But it is unlikely that this experience can be extended to quantum mechanics. The position of Bohr and Einstein must be viewed as views from different angles of view on one phenomenon (problem), and in the end it may turn out that they are right together. This can be demonstrated by lottery. Despite the fact that theoretically the results of the lottery can be predicted uniquely by the laws of classical mechanics, knowing all the initial conditions (it is necessary only to determine all the forces and perturbations, and to make the necessary calculations), in practice the lottery results are always probabilistic, and only in theory they can be predicted (try win the jackpot :). Even in this simplest case, we will be "inaccessible" to all the initial data for calculations. It is logical to assume that the quantum system will be incomparably more complicated than the lottery, and therefore, if we master the "true" laws of the quantum world, the probabilistic picture will remain, since the microworld is such in essence. Moreover, if you think about it, then our world is also probabilistic. It is deterministic only in theory, and practically, in everyday life, we can only predict, for example, tomorrow (or a second, or a year, or 10 years) with a certain probability (who can guarantee the event of tomorrow with 100% probability?). And what is interesting is that only after having lived it (by making a measurement), we can say what probability was realized. Quantum mechanics in action :). More see by link: www.quora.com/Is-Heisenbergs-principle-of-uncertainty-wrong/answer/Volodymyr-Bezverkhniy?share=b4884212 Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond: REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5.pdf 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1.pdf 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2.pdf 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2.pdf 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2.pdf 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2.pdf 6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5.pdf 7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory. vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf 8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS. vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1.pdf Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych Свернуть ОТВЕТИТЬ
That was so cool! Although it’s hard to think of the myriad of properties a material can have, with a name like the Uncertainty Principle. It sounds more like a restriction, on surface level, of being able to know either one or the other, the momentum of an object, or the position. But as you dive deeper, you begin to appreciate and embrace the Uncertainty, which is, at quantum level, not much different from the uncertainties you and I face every day. Fantastic video, btw!
Simply put: you can’t measure the exact position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time because while you r measuring it, the act of measuring would already have changed the position or velocity of said subatomic particle, rendering it impossible to know its original position or velocity. Why the subatomic particle behaves as such is because it exists in state of probability rather certainty.
That's not what it means, the uncertainty principal has nothing to do with measurement. It's an intrinsic character for particles. It actually can explain a lot of stuff like why we can't reach 0 Kelvin or why absolut vacuum doesn't exist.
It's a very common mistake for people to make, even physics students doing their masters degree would do it. And honestly it's quite weird to think about it, but weirdness and quantum physics are not foreign to each others.
@@faisalajin491 Agreed, sir. I think the way HUP is introduced as some magical, enigmatic fact of the mystical superscience of Quantum Mechanics... is wrong and beats around the bush all while hiding the true nature of the HUP which you correctly mentioned. HUP is an intrinsic, unavoidable easy to prove and powerful fact of nature. The uncertaininty principle not only holds between x and p but many other pairs of observables. One particular case I think gets brushed of is that for a free particle, not only do x and p follow HUP, but also x and E, because for a free particle Hamiltonian is function solely of linear momentum p (1D case for simplicity) and because commutator of x and p is non-zero (which is the root cause of HUP), in this case the commutator of x and E is also non-zero which causes HUP to be applicable of position and energy also! HUP is beautiful.
Most awesome explanation ever recieved about heisenberg uncertainty principle because everybody who taught me misleaded me into believing this as a limit of practical precision but i always felt something wrong in that. Now it is crystal clear and i am very satisfied and happy about it. Thanks sir !
@@mxdhu can you define a wave its position which is not limited due any external boundaries ( like a tidal wave in ocean with no shores )? To do it you have to make the wave unwave by producing a distructive interefere with another wave of different wavelength . By keep making of destructive patters (in a particular way)at most places infinitely you will left with a wave like pattern at a position in the space but the wave like pattern will not have the intensity as the orginal wave(because of interference)so, by keep making of destructive patterns in such a way that onle one portion of wave is left alike wave but its wavelength will not be related to the original wave. We have to go through all this process as it has been proved that electrons behave like both wave and matter ( which has a defined postion ).
WOW! This totally blew my mind! I never realized that the uncertainty principal was related to wave particle duality in any way. This FINALLY makes sense. Thank you!
Tbh it could be possible to manufacture meth in an RV but a blue meth IS 100% impossible. So it's not possible for any person to be a blue meth king, named Heisenberg.
No, it isn't. A good explanation would be a really lengthy one (I mean hours long) that *actually* covers the topic. This video is dumbed down to the point it only gives people a tiny hint about the subject.
@@bluepeacemaker I agree that it only gives people a tiny hint about the subject, but I would argue that that is the point of the TED-Ed videos anyway. This video serves as a little introduction to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle using the concepts of wave-particle duality and Fourier transforms - although not covering absolutely everything, definitely fulfils its purpose of shedding some light on the subject. Maybe you have more experience on quantum physics, and so find this video oversimplified. For a meagre high school student like me though, I feel that it definitely serves its purpose ;)
This is well done. Thanks for explaining this properly rather than just giving the Heisenberg uncertainty principle formula and saying that is how it works.
Охтеров Егор I really used to think that measuring devices were the cause of uncertainty. I knew it can't be that way .it had to be some thing else..this video cleared that.
which is not exactly true, but just one competing interpretation of quantum physics, which is the most popular, but acknowledged to be incomplete, thus possibly wrong. The pilot-wave interpretation, also incomplete, but less popular, keeps the heisenberg uncertainty, which has been proven to be correct, and attributes it to the observation process, which by nature, implies interaction with the observed object. According to this theory, particles are particles, waves are waves, and particles are piloted by waves, thus everything is still completely deterministic if you know the function wave and a particle's position, but if you try to measure them, you'll modify bot of them and you won't even know it, so you'll reach to wrong results.
Actually the measuring devices change the momentum and the position of the particle but the simply act of measuring it, so, yes, they change its uncertainty.
Uncertainty does indee come from the particle itself, but that 'uncertainty' is only really a problem when you try to measure either position or momentum.
1:25 Best explanation I've found. I guess I could say "We cannot determine where a wave starts and ends, because it seems to be everywhere". 1:35 On the other hand confused me very much. Anyhow, this sounds a lot like a wave is not "something", but rather a *concept*, humans built to describe things (like a "wood" for example). In this matter, it sounds, that this "concept" is counterproductive for further thinking/investigation/research....
My favorite interpretation is that objects (including photons) literally don't have position and momentum at the same time. Everything moves as a wave, but arrives as a particle. The level of observer necessary to collapse the wave into a particle is anything; when one object "hits" any other object, the wave becomes a particle.
This is the absolute best explaination I’ve ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you didnt get it then forget taking up a career in Physics!
Saul Cifuentes Jazz Well, I'm the center of the universe, so you are one of many interesting people in my orbit. When I pay you attention, you begin to exist at a point in time.
so many websites just say "you can't know momentum if you know position" but not _why._ I finally get it now, thanks. I'm just trying to understand quantum mechanics a little because it's interesting... I'm curious to see how far I get by reading up on it until I get stuck -- like I did with this -- and continuing until I understand it all, or can't understand a certain aspect
Thank you!! I have watched many videos, had gone to all the lectures of my uni ( the number one uni in the country lol) and only understood this now! Much blessings and love on your way!
There is actually a mistake on this video, at 0:14 "It (the uncertainty principle) says that you can never simultaneous know the exact position and the exact speed of an object at the same time. " Not really. If you read on wikipedia, the definition is a bit different: "[...] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle [...] such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously." What you cannot know is the position and the momentum. Not position and speed. The difference is that momentum is the product of the mass by the velocity. But velocity is not the same as speed, velocity has a direction, while speed is just the modulus of the vector of velocity. In theory, you cannot actually know the position and the speed OR the position and the direction... What I mean is: I know it's wrong, but I just don't know quite well the right way to fix it.
+Dhiego Bersan So It is not always the best source to rely on. Imagine I could have edited an article on things I do not actually have a clue about and then you used it. Of course I do not say every page on Wikipedia is wrong, though there are wrong ones for sure and you have to be aware of it.
John Wayne Distrusting wikipedia because people can edit it wrong is like not going out side because someone can rob you. I mean, you could go and edit it as well as you could rob anyone, but I expect people to be reasonable. If you're a robber you'll probably go to jail soon, and if put wrong info in wikipedia they'll ban your IP, after correcting the info of course. It's not very worth it to rob like it's not very worth it to edit wikipedia with bad intentions. Sure it will happen, but most of the time it doesn't. Plus, I could use other sources and there is no guarantee that they'll be more correct than wikipedia since ANY information MIGHT be wrong. The difference is that if a website info is wrong, only the owner can change it, but if wikipedia is wrong, anyone can fix, so in my opinion it's even more reliable than most websites, except for those well known scientific websites.
Also, if you want more than just a mere opinion, you can read about the reliability of information on wikipedia on wikipedia ;D en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
I didn't say we should distrust wikipedia. I just pointed out why certain people might be skeptical about wikipedia. Disinformation can happen not only deliberately but because of people who deem themselves to know stuff when they don't. You may heard about Dynamic IP. In this case wikipedia is helpless. Unless wrongly edited articles are vulgar or abrasive, they can't do anything to those people misleading others apart rediting those wrong articles, but it takes time. This is wonderful that you compared wikipedia to going out at night. Both are amazing, but you have to be careful.
im studying about this currently...n this is video is so helpful...the animation is really easy to understand n interpret, the vocabulary used n the explanation.. everything is so easy to understand n learn... thankyou so much 💜💜
to elaborate further on the point i just made. An object CAN'T be a particle and a wave at the same time. It means that not only we have uncertainty measuring both position and momentum at the same time, but actually, when we measure an object's position, then this object doesn't have any momentum at this particular time. same goes the other way around. when we are measuring an object's momentum, then this object doesn't have a position at this particular time. and that's because a particle and a wave or a position and a momentum doesn't meet/exist at the same time..
that´s just one piece of a piece of a piece of a piece ........etc.......... that could some day, change your life. But for that you still have to continue on that way.
You know if humans wouldn't have discovered Quantum mechanics then the device you are holding while reading this comment won't exist. All the technology that you see around yourself works on the principal of qm. Without it we will be back in 19th century.
in short : everything has particle and wave nature both. but in the case of particle, momentum can’t be found and in case of wave, exact position can’t be found. thus the uncertainty principle : everything in this universe has no exact position or momentum
If I’d ever met Heisenberg, I’d ask him just a simple question: why didn’t he ever state the principle in one single sentence: between two ends of extreme in every spectrum, there is a point with maximum efficiency. Between too close and too far away, between too fast and too slow, between too small and too large. Wouldn’t this make Werner Heisenberg the biggest genius of humankind? Indeed, uncertainty theory manifests in every aspect of man’s intellect.
@@golddropper2747 let’s put it in a context: if you hold your phone/tablet too close to your eyes, you can see the letters but not the whole text. If you look at this text from far away, you can see the whole text but can’t read. Therefore, there is a range of distance that you can read this text, and a point, which is the best for your eyes to read without stress.
Perhaps it is a bit rushed to call him the ‘greatest’ genius of all time, but his absence from the current world’s subconscious, which is still filled with Einstein, is strange. He should be brought forward for purposes of study and evaluation much more emphatically, and without reference to the oppressive politics of the time
@@riazhassan6570 Einstein possibly smelled the magnitude of Heisenberg before anyone else and to maintain his insecure popularity race, he did anything he could to undermine or distract Heisenberg.
This explanation didn't make much sense, especially starting from 2 - 2:30 first, why are we stacking waves on each other and what does this have to do with particles? second, let me get this straight: by adding waves upon each other, we keep getting smaller regions of non-interference and thus increasing the certainty of position, while there is a lot of waves stacked upon each other and we don't accurately know the momentum. that doesn't make much sense.
No. Sounds like by adding waves upon each other, we keep getting smaller regions of non-interference, and thus increase the certainty of MOMENTUM (remember that knowing wave-length is essential in knowing velocity) but since we can only do that using waves, we can't know the specific location of this expression as a particle.
The other day I searched for "Heisenberg picture", and google returned me literal photographs of Bryan Cranston. I have now learnt my lesson to append "in quantum mechanics" whenever there is "Heisenberg" in the search phrase from now on.
Things don't behave like a particle and a wave at the same time. It's far more subtle than that, nobody has the slightest idea on how this works. It's like describing a liquid, while being only familiar with gases and solids. The liquid isn't solid and a gas at the same time, it's not one of them depending on the situation, and it's not really neither of the two. It's just different. Quantum physics share the same logic, but on a level that's out of our grasp.
well light is both a particle and a wave at the same time, the only way to make light be just a particle is quite hard, right now it has only been possible to be done once (that i know) and it was very recently, but in normal cases light has both properties of particles and waves.
Adds a whole new meaning to the phrase, "I see your point, but I don't know where you're going with it."
clever
Nice
Also
"I see where you're going
But I don't see where/what is the point"
@@vsaratha4508 -- And suddenly I understand NASA reentries.
@@anvisup it is you're
I have a much simpler and shorter explanation for the Uncertainty Principle:
Imagine a car moving along a road. If you want to see the exact place where the car is, you must pause time (because it's always moving). You pause time, and you mark its place. While you paused (imagine it like a photo), you CAN'T know its speed. It's a picture. If you want to find out the speed, you must unpause and measure it. But if you unpause, it's impossible to know the exact position of the car because it's changing...
EDIT: Because many people cannot understand that if you put a speed-o-meter in a car you still measure the velocity in an interval and not in a point, imagine it like a video that you pause it and unpause it. You cannot interact with the car to put a speed-o-meter of some sort, because if you do, this is not the same example.
EDIT2 (Years later): Some people are getting confused by the term velocity. A stationary object has 0 velocity in relation to its surroundings. A video shows a moving object that therefore has velocity. A photograph shows a stationary object.
This is much simpler
Do you want it more simple? Ok here it is:
Try to figure out the speed of a car only by looking at a photo that was taken while the car was moving. Impossible.
Now try to tell someone where exactly is the car, while it is moving... Impossible.
Manolis Grifoman thanks
+Manolis Grifoman (Demented Composer) WOW this is a great explination
Thank you :)
Me to my brain: "Got it?"
My brain: "Never ever dare to show me this again."
lol
😂
😂😂😂
Thankyou for this comment. Never seeing this video again.
lol
Heisenberg and Schroedinger are in a car that gets stopped by the police.
Policeman."Do you know you were doing 75mph?"
Heisenberg. "Oh great, now we're lost!"
Cop is not happy, checks the boot/trunk of the car.
Cop. "There is a dead cat in here!"
Schroedinger. "Well, there is NOW!"
This explains every thing.
This is my new favorite science joke
@@snakery18 Thanks, it has been mine for several years! My previous favourite was;
"Where do you get mercury from?
Hg wells!"
Damn. 🤣👌
I have no uncertainty regarding your sense of humor! 😄
"The only thing we are absolutely certain about is that nothing is certain."
-Werner Heisenberg
Isnt speed of light certain??
@@marcus.the.younger certainly
@@olbradley
But i thought only the direction can be bent...
I doubt if Heisenberg REALLY said this, but if he did, it's a plagiarism of Socrates motto: "I only know one thing, that I know nothing".
@@XwpisONOMA not really the same thing...close but not the same thing...
When I'm feeling smart I come here to watch videos and get rid of that nonsense feeling.
Haha lol 😂
Patrick,
that's great man.
Are you my clone or what?
lol😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
😂
"Say my name"
"Uncertainty Principle"
"You're Goddamn right."
Im the one who knocks.
Uncertainly.
"Say my name"
"Uncertainty Principle"
"Probably, but i don't know for sure"
Than maybe your best course, would be to...tread uncertainty
I was hoping there would be a Breaking Bad comment here hahaha that shows a masterpiece
@@DunkYTP no doubt, only few shows got better with each season it was one of them
They named it the Uncertainty Principle because no one knew what Heisenberg was talking about.
Zackamoca true and still no one understand it either😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Even Einstein couldn't understand that..
so tru !!!
No man he explained very well as compared to in our class
You never know when it's Walter White and when Heisenberg kicks in. That's the real Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
True
Have you seen the cat lately ?
fax
Simplify the explanation, you lose the finer details... Elaborate the details, the explanation becomes too complicated...
This is Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Exactly. The matrix is like man pointing to the sky and saying “look big ball fire bring life” and never creating a single damn thing with that knowledge.
Yeah, wow
More evidence that’s our reality is just an engine running on a computer with limited computational power. :(
Who are you so wise in the ways of science
Uncertainty Uncertainty Principle
Say my principle!
I don't know it
SAY IT!
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
You're God Damn Right!
***** get off my territory
***** I'm the one who knocks !!!
+Munchies romero Shouldn't you say, "I'm not sure!"? xD
+Munchies romero "Well shit."
+Munchies romero we on the same wavelength
This is the moment Werner became Heisenberg...
I cried when the wave said 'it's wavin' time!' and wave'd all over the particle
Weeeeerrrrrneeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrr Zzzziiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeggggleeeerrrrrrrrrrrr
cop: how fast you were going on this road
me: let me tell you a story.....
If I were a cop, I would rather shoot first then talk...
@@ganeshprasad9851 youre officialy an american
@@dusty6299 this is pure Florida man.
@@bruhtm108
@@ganeshprasad9851 that's brutal and very brutal at the same time.
I came here to learn. After watching the video, the only thing i've learned is im dumb.
or maybe they are
ScrewDrvr
i'm*
position and momentum or position and speed?
I'm
Hats off to scientists, who have to deal with all this complex stuff, So that humanity can advance .
Yeh I mean I think they love their job but still we gotta thank them
@SoHaNuR_ Yeah but the bronze age wasn't that fun, was it? And the parent comment you're replying to is talking about advancement, not whether humans can live without it or not.
One of my favorite jokes from Futurama
*Prof. Farnsworth is at a horse race*
The announcer declares, "And the winner is number 3, in a quantum finish!"
The Professor angrily shouts -- "No fair you changed the outcome by measuring it!"
8bitpineapple ruclips.net/video/t5MohK5FHEY/видео.html
hahaha
V-Rex I'm sure they were referencing both but wow I get it* now 10 years later lol this comment section made my day
Former CBS crime drama "Numbers" brought me here!
Oliver Sacco Thank you
I'm uncertain of my understanding of the uncertainty principle
so you doubt your certainty about uncertainty
Rahul Disari I am certain that you are doubting his "certainty" about his understanding of the uncertainty principle
No one is certain about quantum physics either.
@@yiumyoumsan6997 true!
@@yiumyoumsan6997 So true
I've heard someone describe it as,
"We know the past, we know the future, but time is always moving, and the present is just the nearest past that we can grasp."
A cop stops Heisenberg for speeding and asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?". He replies "No, but I know where I am".
actually he stops him for having a broken windshield
@@akayysworld “hellfire RAINED DOWN ON MY HOUSE”
That is the moment walt became Eyesinberg
He was once asked by a tourist sir where am I right now and Heisenberg said " no but you do walk really swiftly boy"
That went from 0 to 100 really quickly.
how quickly? where?
Lololol
Superposition
That’s over 9000
In India, fourteen to fifteen year old kids have to learn that
I took quantum chemistry in college. Long story short: I had to seduce my professor.
And?
I don't get it
Lmao
@@aianonymousinfo3216 that very uncertain
LOL
*cop pulls over heisenberg* Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?! Heisenberg: No, but I know where I was! Hahahahahaha
The police spent 4 years in quantum physics get degree then finally understand the joke.
Shadow Amigo
And 120k
@@lagroad depends on the country
@@xXDESTINYMBXx on the government* A country doesn't decide anything
TED-ED, you guys have great animation with great narration, but, I can't understand anything 😂
When they can't show you something, in actuality, they make an animation, just like all the super-train hucksters and water-witch hucksters and solar-freaking-highway hucksters. They've got this notion, but nothing really concrete to back it up.
@@harrymills2770 what are you on about
dude its simple the heisenberg uncertainity principal says "You can't measure the accurate position and momentum of an moving particle or wave simultaneously".
In my college, sir explained this with the help of a ceiling fan. He told us to look at the fans blade when he switched on/off the fan.
Particle nature : when it is switched off
Wave nature : when it is switched on
Okey that's a simple example, thanks, now i got it. When its stop we certainly know where its place, but when its swinging, it become uncertain, because we never know how many position of the blade of fan exactly where.
and you *believed* that obvious nonsense?
plainly there is no limit whatsoever to the credulity of men (human beings)
@@H__J__9902 yes.
@@vhawk1951kl sorry, but you are incoherent. what do you mean? the theory or the example.
How can I use this to defend my speeding ticket?
Thomas Martin Tell police officer your accurate position, according to Heisenberg's principle, if you know the accurate position, you don't know the accurate velocity and since the speeding ticket is based on velocity, you can never be charged ;)
Thomas Martin he he,yup! Try telling the officer that ypir wavelength is high enough!
Try telling them ypir position in terms of probability, more there n less here!
saber kolm And while the officer is confused, RUN.
ask the officer the specific time and place he caught you speeding then explain this principle. Boom
Yeahh xplain this to him..nd thn end up in jail... wohoo!
Makes more sense why Breaking Bad used the name. The uncertainty of where Walt was in terms of his mindset, morality and motives.
And the uncertainty in the momentum of Walt.
Wow bro this is a very underrated comment!
This comment is on point.
Bruh
You're goddamn right!
1:13 that transition was amazing
What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
I'm not sure.
JP and hence negative by negative is a positive, i feel like you are good to go.
I am not certain**
Ha! I was going to write exactly the same thing, but thought I’d better check, somebody is sure to have written it already.
r/whoooosh
Dammit! I just wrote that!
So much for my wit.
Now, if I can just find that damn cat.
Let's say you try taking a photograph of a moving car. Say it takes your camera a tenth of a second to get the photo. What you will see is a (short) blur of the car. If you measure the length of the motion blur you can find out how fast the car was going. But you can't say where exactly the car is. The car was in all the places the blur is while you were taking the photo. Now suppose you take a perfect instantaneous picture. You know exactly where the car is. But can you even tell if it's moving at all? :D
I will admit, this example only serves for intuition. I was fortunate enough to study signal theory in undergrad and learn about the Fourier transform. Then years later, a video in sixtysymbols mentions that the Uncertainty Principle basically stems from one in the Fourier Transform (ask your local qualified physicist for details :P ) and my mind was blown to pieces.
Nice analogy! I finally get it I think, thank you.
but on an unrelated topic, since I now know you're really smart, would you explain to me why am I wrong in thinking that an electromagnetic wave (and hence; everything) is a vibration (a parametric difference between locales) in the space-time fabric itself?
Hero
aslam khan Missing the point there: You can get a perfect still photo. But if you did, you wouldn't be able to deduce if it's moving or not.
Another good idea, but there is nothing Quantum Mechanical about your example. What you write here is true classically as well as non-classically. The H.U.P. is a mathematical relation that "falls out" of the math used to model/describe the Quantum Mechanical world. No such thing can be said in the case of Newtonian (classical) mechanics.
@3:52 Just to double check that "bigger momentum uncertainty", actually means "bigger value of the momentum uncertainty". Meaning, the momentum becomes more defined, rather than becoming more "uncertain", and thus in fact, "less uncertain" = "more certain". After all, we are reducing the "position uncertainty" value, which means we would be increasing the "momentum uncertainty" value. Fantastic video! Thank you.
Who are you? And why do you sound so knowledged??
What a great explanation! I am a firm believer that no matter the complexity of an idea, it could be broken down into simple ideas or arithmetic operations.
Don't ever let the complexity of a subject or a field overwhelm you. Keep learning.
after learn all these physics for hours straight this was exactly what i needed.
When you think you understand, you actually don't understand
same here.. midterms in 3 days
@@amiiimeee
Heisenberg's principle: "I am the one who knocks".
T-Bag VEVO You are goddamn right.
How is your hand, T-Bag?
Can someone explain that to me please?
@@thepolarsavage716 bro watch breaking bad web series
S. E. It’s from the series Breaking Bad. The main character’s alias is Heisenberg. ‘You’re Goddamn right’ is one of the sentence he said in the series. You should watch it.
Electron: exists
Human: saw it
Electron : Well now I don't want to be an electron
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: Δх * Δр ≥ ħ/2
The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is correct, moreover, it is fundamental. If the uncertainty principle is incorrect, then all quantum mechanics is incorrect. Heisenberg's justified the ncertainty principle in order to save quantum mechanics. He understood that if it is possible to measure with every accuracy both the coordinate and momentum of a microparticle, then quantum mechanics will collapse, and therefore further justification was already a technical issue. It is the uncertainty principle that prohibits microparticles in quantum mechanics from having a trajectory. If the coordinates of the electron are measured at definite time intervals Δt, then their results do not lie on some smooth curve. On the contrary, the more accurately the measurements are made, the more "jumpy", chaotic the results will be. A smooth trajectory can only be obtained if the measurement accuracy is small, for example, the trajectory of an electron in a Wilson chamber (the width of the trajectory is enormous compared to the microworld, so the accuracy is small).
Heisenberg's formulated the uncertainty principle thus:
if you are studying a body and you are able to determine the x-component of a pulse with an uncertainty Δp, then you can not simultaneously determine the coordinate x of the body with an accuracy greater than Δx = h / Δp.
Here is a more general formulation of the principle of uncertainty: it is impossible to arrange in any way an instrument that determines which of the two mutually exclusive events has occurred, without the interference pattern being destroyed.
It should be immediately said that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle inevitably follows from the particle-wave nature of microparticles (there is a corpuscular-wave dualism is the principle of uncertainty, there is no corpuscle-wave dualism - there is no uncertainty principle, and in principle quantum mechanics, too). Therefore, there is an exact quantitative analogy between the Heisenberg uncertainty relation and the properties of waves.
Consider a time-varying signal, for example, a sound wave. It is pointless to talk about the frequency spectrum of the signal at any point in time. To accurately determine the frequency, it is necessary to observe the signal for some time, thus losing the accuracy of time determination. In other words, sound can not simultaneously have the exact value of its fixation time, as it has a very short pulse, and the exact frequency value, as it is for a continuous (and, in principle, infinitely long) pure tone (pure sine wave). The time position and frequency of the wave are mathematically completely analogous to the coordinate and (quantum-mechanical) momentum of the particle.
We also need to clearly understand that the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle practically prohibits predicting behavior (in the classical sense, since Newton was able to predict the position of the planets), for example, an electron in the future. This means that if the electron is in a state described by the most complete way possible in quantum mechanics, then its behavior at the following moments is fundamentally ambiguous. Therefore, quantum mechanics can not make strict predictions (in the classical sense). The task of quantum mechanics consists only in determining the probability of obtaining a particular result in the measurement, and this is fundamental. That is why the uncertainty principle has such a fundamental meaning (there is no uncertainty principle - there is no quantum mechanics). But this does not mean that we do not know any "laws or variables that are hidden from us", etc. No. It's just the reality. This is analogous to how a particle can exhibit corpuscular and wave properties - just this is reality and nothing more. And even if we know the "hidden parameters" (compare, understand why the wave properties and corpuscular ones are manifested), this reality will not change, and the uncertainty principle will also work, but we will understand it more fully.
It must be added that not all physical quantities in quantum mechanics are measurable simultaneously, that is, they can have simultaneously definite values. If physical quantities can simultaneously have definite values, then in quantum mechanics they say that their operators commute. The sets of such physical quantities (complete sets) that have simultaneously defined values are remarkable in that no other physical quantity (not being their function) can have a definite value in this state. The fully described states (for example, the description of the electron state) in quantum mechanics arise as a result of the simultaneous measurement of a complete set of physical quantities. By results of such measurement it is possible to determine the probability of the results of subsequent measurements, regardless of what happened with the electron before the first measurement.
If physical quantities can not simultaneously have definite values, then their operators do not commute. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle establishes the limit of the accuracy of the simultaneous determination of a pair of physical quantities that are not described by commuting operators (for example, coordinates and momentum, current and voltage, electric and magnetic fields).
Let's add a little history. A. Einstein assumed that there are hidden variables in quantum mechanics that underlie the observed probabilities. He did not like the principle of uncertainty, and his discussions with N. Bohr and W. Heisenberg greatly influenced quantum mechanics and science as a whole.
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (N. Bohr and followers), the uncertainty principle is adopted at the elementary level, and it is in this interpretation that it is believed that this can not be predicted at all by any method. And it was this interpretation that Einstein questioned when he wrote to Max Born: "God does not play dice." To which Niels Bohr, answered: "Einstein, do not tell to God what to do." Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was erroneous. His reasoning was based on the fact that all the already known probability distributions were the result of deterministic events. The distribution of the tossed coin or rolling bone can be described by the probability distribution (50% eagle, 50% tails). But this does not mean that their physical movements are unpredictable. Conventional mechanics can calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the forces acting on it are known, and the eagles / tails will still be randomly distributed (with random initial forces). But it is unlikely that this experience can be extended to quantum mechanics.
The position of Bohr and Einstein must be viewed as views from different angles of view on one phenomenon (problem), and in the end it may turn out that they are right together. This can be demonstrated by lottery. Despite the fact that theoretically the results of the lottery can be predicted uniquely by the laws of classical mechanics, knowing all the initial conditions (it is necessary only to determine all the forces and perturbations, and to make the necessary calculations), in practice the lottery results are always probabilistic, and only in theory they can be predicted (try win the jackpot :). Even in this simplest case, we will be "inaccessible" to all the initial data for calculations. It is logical to assume that the quantum system will be incomparably more complicated than the lottery, and therefore, if we master the "true" laws of the quantum world, the probabilistic picture will remain, since the microworld is such in essence. Moreover, if you think about it, then our world is also probabilistic. It is deterministic only in theory, and practically, in everyday life, we can only predict, for example, tomorrow (or a second, or a year, or 10 years) with a certain probability (who can guarantee the event of tomorrow with 100% probability?). And what is interesting is that only after having lived it (by making a measurement), we can say what probability was realized. Quantum mechanics in action :).
More see by link: www.quora.com/Is-Heisenbergs-principle-of-uncertainty-wrong/answer/Volodymyr-Bezverkhniy?share=b4884212
Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond:
REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.).
vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5.pdf
1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond.
vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1.pdf
2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence.
vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2.pdf
3. A short analysis of chemical bonds.
vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2.pdf
4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond.
vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2.pdf
5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments.
vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2.pdf
6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5.pdf
7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory.
vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf
8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS.
vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1.pdf
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Свернуть
ОТВЕТИТЬ
Volodymyr Bezverkhniy
Holy flutternuggets. Nice work with that explination.
As Salieri said to Mozart, TOO MANY NOTES!
ok
Your explanation and discussion of this difficult problem in physics is the best - clearest, also well organized - of all those I've read.
Saved
The Tuco "confused anger" principal is when you watch a science video and get angry because youre lost 30 seconds in to the video.
Are they punkin' me?
It's not your fault. He makes numerous unjustified leaps of what you might as well call faith.
That was so cool! Although it’s hard to think of the myriad of properties a material can have, with a name like the Uncertainty Principle. It sounds more like a restriction, on surface level, of being able to know either one or the other, the momentum of an object, or the position. But as you dive deeper, you begin to appreciate and embrace the Uncertainty, which is, at quantum level, not much different from the uncertainties you and I face every day.
Fantastic video, btw!
Mate you give an aspirin a headache....
+MrHan Thanks for summing up the concept in 7 words.. ;)
+MrHan watch kurzgesagt's videos, you won't get a headache, they are better at this.
MrHan your thumbnail reminds me of something... argh... can you tell me what that was related to?
Its the cover for
***** Oohhh!! Thnx
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not knowing who knocks the door..
Yet, action is always the same...thats why relatively is more of an important theory than uncertainty. ..
@@moderngladiators300 its a breaking bad joke. "I'm not in danger, I am the danger...I am the one who knocks."
And he knocks good
@@moderngladiators300 😂
As long as it isn’t the secret police...
Simply put: you can’t measure the exact position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time because while you r measuring it, the act of measuring would already have changed the position or velocity of said subatomic particle, rendering it impossible to know its original position or velocity. Why the subatomic particle behaves as such is because it exists in state of probability rather certainty.
That's not what it means, the uncertainty principal has nothing to do with measurement. It's an intrinsic character for particles. It actually can explain a lot of stuff like why we can't reach 0 Kelvin or why absolut vacuum doesn't exist.
Faisal Ajin Maybe you r right. But that was how I remember from my second year Quantum Mechanics class. 😂
It's a very common mistake for people to make, even physics students doing their masters degree would do it. And honestly it's quite weird to think about it, but weirdness and quantum physics are not foreign to each others.
There’s a certain probability that I agree with your position on this.
@@faisalajin491 Agreed, sir. I think the way HUP is introduced as some magical, enigmatic fact of the mystical superscience of Quantum Mechanics... is wrong and beats around the bush all while hiding the true nature of the HUP which you correctly mentioned.
HUP is an intrinsic, unavoidable easy to prove and powerful fact of nature.
The uncertaininty principle not only holds between x and p but many other pairs of observables. One particular case I think gets brushed of is that for a free particle, not only do x and p follow HUP, but also x and E, because for a free particle Hamiltonian is function solely of linear momentum p (1D case for simplicity) and because commutator of x and p is non-zero (which is the root cause of HUP), in this case the commutator of x and E is also non-zero which causes HUP to be applicable of position and energy also!
HUP is beautiful.
Most awesome explanation ever recieved about heisenberg uncertainty principle because everybody who taught me misleaded me into believing this as a limit of practical precision but i always felt something wrong in that. Now it is crystal clear and i am very satisfied and happy about it. Thanks sir !
wait can you clarify more on that?
@@mxdhu can you define a wave its position which is not limited due any external boundaries ( like a tidal wave in ocean with no shores )? To do it you have to make the wave unwave by producing a distructive interefere with another wave of different wavelength . By keep making of destructive patters (in a particular way)at most places infinitely you will left with a wave like pattern at a position in the space but the wave like pattern will not have the intensity as the orginal wave(because of interference)so, by keep making of destructive patterns in such a way that onle one portion of wave is left alike wave but its wavelength will not be related to the original wave. We have to go through all this process as it has been proved that electrons behave like both wave and matter ( which has a defined postion ).
WOW! This totally blew my mind! I never realized that the uncertainty principal was related to wave particle duality in any way. This FINALLY makes sense. Thank you!
This is the moment that Walt became Heisenberg.
I wondered if I was the only one to pick up on that.
But in particle or wave? “I am the danger... I am the one who knocks!” (With a boatload of momentum, or is it velocity?) Let’s ask Walter Heisenberg.
This was 91.96 % pure
You god damn right
It was 99.1% pure
Heisenberg made a lot of good science. Too bad he threw it all away when he started cooking meth.
No - no - It was Vinny Heisenberg who cooked the meth - Werner was always trying to determine whether he was uncertain about his uncertainty.
Nobody can unlike this comment 😆
LMAO
hey he cooked some good meth though
Lol
I wanted to learn how to manufacture methamphetamine in a RV, but this is also cool for me.
Haha Mr.White
Yeah mr. White , yeah science
@@elmerburger8030 Iam not in danger IAM THE DANGER, iam the one who knocks.🕶️🎩
Tbh it could be possible to manufacture meth in an RV but a blue meth IS 100% impossible. So it's not possible for any person to be a blue meth king, named Heisenberg.
Breaking Bad 👏
Now, say my principle's name.
I guess you meant principal. :/
Red Sniper no he doesn't
It's Heisenberg
Halley's Meteor You're godamn right.
Halley's Meteor I thought it was Schrödinger, oh well..
This is a much better (yet still a bit hard to follow) explanation of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle than the ones that I've read before.
Finally! I understood this amazing topic after soo many years!!
This is one of the best explanations I've found on RUclips.
Great job Ted-Ed!
No, it isn't. A good explanation would be a really lengthy one (I mean hours long) that *actually* covers the topic. This video is dumbed down to the point it only gives people a tiny hint about the subject.
@@bluepeacemaker I agree that it only gives people a tiny hint about the subject, but I would argue that that is the point of the TED-Ed videos anyway. This video serves as a little introduction to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle using the concepts of wave-particle duality and Fourier transforms - although not covering absolutely everything, definitely fulfils its purpose of shedding some light on the subject. Maybe you have more experience on quantum physics, and so find this video oversimplified. For a meagre high school student like me though, I feel that it definitely serves its purpose ;)
This is the moment Werner became Heisenberg, Bravo Ted-Ed
This is well done. Thanks for explaining this properly rather than just giving the Heisenberg uncertainty principle formula and saying that is how it works.
Well, one thing is certain: this explanation went over my head. ;)
I was taught that principle when I was in senior high school. It still amazes me. Thanks
U explaind it 1000 times better than how's its explained to us in 11th class in india. Well done!!
I must appreciate the crystal clear voice 👍👍👍
The only thing I got from that video is that uncertainty doesn't come from the measuring devices, but from the particle itself.
That is easilly the most important result of the uncertainty principle
Охтеров Егор I really used to think that measuring devices were the cause of uncertainty. I knew it can't be that way .it had to be some thing else..this video cleared that.
which is not exactly true, but just one competing interpretation of quantum physics, which is the most popular, but acknowledged to be incomplete, thus possibly wrong. The pilot-wave interpretation, also incomplete, but less popular, keeps the heisenberg uncertainty, which has been proven to be correct, and attributes it to the observation process, which by nature, implies interaction with the observed object. According to this theory, particles are particles, waves are waves, and particles are piloted by waves, thus everything is still completely deterministic if you know the function wave and a particle's position, but if you try to measure them, you'll modify bot of them and you won't even know it, so you'll reach to wrong results.
Actually the measuring devices change the momentum and the position of the particle but the simply act of measuring it, so, yes, they change its uncertainty.
Uncertainty does indee come from the particle itself, but that 'uncertainty' is only really a problem when you try to measure either position or momentum.
every time I have a test I always watch this video again and again..... It's helps me in clearing my concepts
When you begin to understand, I will tell my advanced race that humans are capable of learning. We were uncertain.
UNCERTAIN you say?
Steve Jackson You are quick for a human. Maybe your race CAN be domesticated. I hope your species likes being walked on leashes. (*-*)
Amazing video! its difficult to explain that concept but in my opinion you made a great video for that :)
Mom : "what are you watching?"
Me : "the Heisenberg uncertainty principle."
Mom : "so what is it?"
Me : "......"
LOL,Good one......
. I will never tell anyone that i ever studied hygenber's principle.
.
YEAH MR. WHITE, YEAH SCIENCE!
ese
One of the best explanation for the uncertainty rule of Heisenberg out there .Means alot.❤✌
@Uncle Nik then don't man it's just fine 🤷🏻♀️
@Uncle Nik yeah my mistake 🥱
@Uncle Nik well am not a doctor 🤷🏻♀️ and I really don't mind to be true
very simply explained-thank you!
This is too abstract
Very well presented, even for us non-scientist types. Thanks.
+Greg Scott Actually, no. But someone here told a much more simple explanation, and its ok now
sguitas Understood, squitas. I should have said... "I find it well presented, even though I am not a scientist."
But this is in 11th grade high school.
@@saurabhshukla1126 would you mind telling me what high school you go to?
@@giovannip8600 In India we learn it in high school.
1:25 Best explanation I've found. I guess I could say "We cannot determine where a wave starts and ends, because it seems to be everywhere".
1:35 On the other hand confused me very much.
Anyhow, this sounds a lot like a wave is not "something", but rather a *concept*, humans built to describe things (like a "wood" for example). In this matter, it sounds, that this "concept" is counterproductive for further thinking/investigation/research....
Friend: hey particle where you going, where can we meet up.
Particle. Hehe can’t tell you both 😉
My favorite interpretation is that objects (including photons) literally don't have position and momentum at the same time. Everything moves as a wave, but arrives as a particle. The level of observer necessary to collapse the wave into a particle is anything; when one object "hits" any other object, the wave becomes a particle.
This is the absolute best explaination I’ve ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you didnt get it then forget taking up a career in Physics!
I think i get but then again.......
It's Uncertain...
Marco Pohl I got it, one cannot know the speed and location of an object simultaneously
You are fast, but I don't know where you are.
Locutus D'Borg Where am i exactly?
Where is here?
Saul Cifuentes Jazz Well, I'm the center of the universe, so you are one of many interesting people in my orbit. When I pay you attention, you begin to exist at a point in time.
I thought we were going to learn about making meth
..edit; wow a 1000 likes i am very humbled thanks i am glad you enjoyed the joke
Same
*FBI* open up!
i love the reference
Befote cooking meth he cooked math
😂
so many websites just say "you can't know momentum if you know position" but not _why._ I finally get it now, thanks.
I'm just trying to understand quantum mechanics a little because it's interesting... I'm curious to see how far I get by reading up on it until I get stuck -- like I did with this -- and continuing until I understand it all, or can't understand a certain aspect
Came here solely for Breaking Bad references.
Bitch....
Mr.White
+Dennis Sandoval yeah science
Did you find any references?
Heisenberg LMAO
You guys always impress me ..... How do you simply those complicated stuffs, they are super cool.
very true
Thank you!!
I have watched many videos, had gone to all the lectures of my uni ( the number one uni in the country lol) and only understood this now!
Much blessings and love on your way!
This was so helpful, I didn’t know momenthum and position were related to wave and particle nature. Thanks a lot!!
There is actually a mistake on this video, at 0:14
"It (the uncertainty principle) says that you can never simultaneous know the exact position and the exact speed of an object at the same time. "
Not really. If you read on wikipedia, the definition is a bit different:
"[...] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle [...] such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously."
What you cannot know is the position and the momentum. Not position and speed.
The difference is that momentum is the product of the mass by the velocity. But velocity is not the same as speed, velocity has a direction, while speed is just the modulus of the vector of velocity. In theory, you cannot actually know the position and the speed OR the position and the direction...
What I mean is: I know it's wrong, but I just don't know quite well the right way to fix it.
***** Soooooooooooooooooooo?
+Dhiego Bersan So It is not always the best source to rely on. Imagine I could have edited an article on things I do not actually have a clue about and then you used it. Of course I do not say every page on Wikipedia is wrong, though there are wrong ones for sure and you have to be aware of it.
John Wayne Distrusting wikipedia because people can edit it wrong is like not going out side because someone can rob you. I mean, you could go and edit it as well as you could rob anyone, but I expect people to be reasonable. If you're a robber you'll probably go to jail soon, and if put wrong info in wikipedia they'll ban your IP, after correcting the info of course.
It's not very worth it to rob like it's not very worth it to edit wikipedia with bad intentions. Sure it will happen, but most of the time it doesn't. Plus, I could use other sources and there is no guarantee that they'll be more correct than wikipedia since ANY information MIGHT be wrong. The difference is that if a website info is wrong, only the owner can change it, but if wikipedia is wrong, anyone can fix, so in my opinion it's even more reliable than most websites, except for those well known scientific websites.
Also, if you want more than just a mere opinion, you can read about the reliability of information on wikipedia on wikipedia ;D
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
I didn't say we should distrust wikipedia. I just pointed out why certain people might be skeptical about wikipedia. Disinformation can happen not only deliberately but because of people who deem themselves to know stuff when they don't.
You may heard about Dynamic IP. In this case wikipedia is helpless. Unless wrongly edited articles are vulgar or abrasive, they can't do anything to those people misleading others apart rediting those wrong articles, but it takes time. This is wonderful that you compared wikipedia to going out at night. Both are amazing, but you have to be careful.
"Who came up with the uncertainty principle?"
-"Heisenberg"
"You're god-damn right"
Haha!!
😂😂😂
"It a quantum finish!"
"NO FAIR! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
Watched
Still know nothing
+Michael Jeckson Aint you Jon Snow by an accident ?
+Michael Jeckson its ok as long as your a good singer
+John Wayne How did Jon Snow come in here?
Unexpectedly.
Michael Jeckson *U CANT SAY IT OR KNO IT BCUZ HESENBER RINCIPLE U STUPID FF*
I didn't learn anything from this TedEd. Please someone needs to see to this. Thanks.
I clicked because I thought this was insight into the life and dealings of Walter White. Not totally disappointed.
I came looking for *Walter White* I found *Quantum Physics*
“I am the danger!” - Heisenberg
im studying about this currently...n this is video is so helpful...the animation is really easy to understand n interpret, the vocabulary used n the explanation.. everything is so easy to understand n learn... thankyou so much 💜💜
TED ED always amaze us with great animation and precise explanation!
"Say my name."
"I'm not sure."
"You're goddamn right."
double
to elaborate further on the point i just made. An object CAN'T be a particle and a wave at the same time. It means that not only we have uncertainty measuring both position and momentum at the same time, but actually, when we measure an object's position, then this object doesn't have any momentum at this particular time. same goes the other way around. when we are measuring an object's momentum, then this object doesn't have a position at this particular time. and that's because a particle and a wave or a position and a momentum doesn't meet/exist at the same time..
i learned about this alot, but dont really know how it changes my life
Basically we are all waves.
that´s just one piece of a piece of a piece of a piece ........etc.......... that could some day, change your life. But for that you still have to continue on that way.
Keep learning.
Measure yourself. It changes everything.
You know if humans wouldn't have discovered Quantum mechanics then the device you are holding while reading this comment won't exist. All the technology that you see around yourself works on the principal of qm. Without it we will be back in 19th century.
Suddenly it makes a whole lot of sense, cheers! :)
3 thank you's are in order
1. Google for recommending this
2. Chad Orzel for making this, just brilliant!
3. Dethneko, best comment ever.
in short :
everything has particle and wave nature both.
but in the case of particle, momentum can’t be found and in case of wave, exact position can’t be found.
thus the uncertainty principle : everything in this universe has no exact position or momentum
If I’d ever met Heisenberg, I’d ask him just a simple question: why didn’t he ever state the principle in one single sentence: between two ends of extreme in every spectrum, there is a point with maximum efficiency. Between too close and too far away, between too fast and too slow, between too small and too large. Wouldn’t this make Werner Heisenberg the biggest genius of humankind? Indeed, uncertainty theory manifests in every aspect of man’s intellect.
Heisenberg: tf you talking about? We need to cook.
@@golddropper2747 let’s put it in a context: if you hold your phone/tablet too close to your eyes, you can see the letters but not the whole text. If you look at this text from far away, you can see the whole text but can’t read. Therefore, there is a range of distance that you can read this text, and a point, which is the best for your eyes to read without stress.
@@mathxp r/woooosh
Perhaps it is a bit rushed to call him the ‘greatest’ genius of all time, but his absence from the current world’s subconscious, which is still filled with Einstein, is strange. He should be brought forward for purposes of study and evaluation much more emphatically, and without reference to the oppressive politics of the time
@@riazhassan6570 Einstein possibly smelled the magnitude of Heisenberg before anyone else and to maintain his insecure popularity race, he did
anything he could to undermine or distract Heisenberg.
Great explanation; This is what can happen with a combination of an artist and a teacher..
This explanation didn't make much sense, especially starting from 2 - 2:30
first, why are we stacking waves on each other and what does this have to do with particles?
second, let me get this straight: by adding waves upon each other, we keep getting smaller regions of non-interference and thus increasing the certainty of position, while there is a lot of waves stacked upon each other and we don't accurately know the momentum. that doesn't make much sense.
No. Sounds like by adding waves upon each other, we keep getting smaller regions of non-interference, and thus increase the certainty of MOMENTUM (remember that knowing wave-length is essential in knowing velocity) but since we can only do that using waves, we can't know the specific location of this expression as a particle.
Look up the Fourier Series and the Fourier Transform, that's where the "adding waves on top of each other" comes from.
Cabothedog14 Will do. Thank you :)
Adds ammunition to the saying "Those who claim to understand quantum theory don't understand quantum theory". It's a strange world.
That's nothing. Wait 'til they hit you with critical race theory! It's the closest a non-Catholic will ever get to Parochial School.
Basically quantum theory is small things doing random stuff
Great now I can help tutor my peers in chemistry and physics class!
I had to watch this video so many times to understand it...
Heisenberg, you know, he's the one who knocks
Lol
The other day I searched for "Heisenberg picture", and google returned me literal photographs of Bryan Cranston. I have now learnt my lesson to append "in quantum mechanics" whenever there is "Heisenberg" in the search phrase from now on.
this is a great and understanding explanation.
Things don't behave like a particle and a wave at the same time. It's far more subtle than that, nobody has the slightest idea on how this works. It's like describing a liquid, while being only familiar with gases and solids. The liquid isn't solid and a gas at the same time, it's not one of them depending on the situation, and it's not really neither of the two. It's just different. Quantum physics share the same logic, but on a level that's out of our grasp.
well light is both a particle and a wave at the same time, the only way to make light be just a particle is quite hard, right now it has only been possible to be done once (that i know) and it was very recently, but in normal cases light has both properties of particles and waves.
I've never heard the Heisenberg uncertainty principle mentioned outside of physics and philosophy, certainly not in ''pop culture''.
Watch the AMC show Breaking Bad, it's what every single person outside of physics and philosophy in this comment section is referencing
Great explanation! Although it requires careful watching and thinking about the formulas in the background.
"Jesse, where's my TED Talk?"