I love that these videos explain the full historical context behind famous equations like the one for the de Broglie wavelength and don't skip details like so many others do. It makes the topic come so much more alive.
Thanks, I am glad you like this aspect, which I think distinguish my content from other out there. My target audience is physics enthusiasts that don't shy away from some math and people with scientific background who might value some historical details.
I am a theorist and I see way too much praise for the theorists that came up with great ideas but little about the experimentalists who discovered anomalous results as well as came up with equally brilliant experiments that confirmed theoretical ideas. Plus the experiments from early 1900s are a beauty of scientific ingenuity and simplicity.
I am glad you liked it. I was also introduced to de Broglie's wavelength in a waving hand way (pun intended) and always found it unsatisfactory. Also "derivations" using the Schrödinger equation count as cheating to me because Schrödinger found his famous equation thanks in part to de Broglie's formula. This is why I created this video only using the original de Broglie's papers as a source.
Dr. Diaz I love the fact that you provide fundamental derivations of the famous equations and the rationale behind the properties that the physicists took into consideration to come up with their formulae
I am glad that so many people like this. As a physics student I never read any of these original papers, now I am having a blast reading them and finding that they can be explained. Whether or not the ideas are correct does not matter much to me, I want to understand how things were understood in the mid 1920s when quantum mechanics took shape. This is something that textbooks and university courses simply skip.
Amazed that De Broglie was able to derive Bohr’s quantization rule from his ideas/postulates ! And frustrated that what I learn in my studies was an overly simplified version of the true (and really interesting) story. Thank you so much to make us discover it ! Great video again
De Broglie's derivation of Bohr's quantization rule is coming in Part 2. It is so simple but also so natural that de Broglie considered this the result that should get everyone's attention. he was right, nobody could ignore a derivation of such an arbitrary rule from a simple idea that could at same time explain the wave-particle duality. I am with you, I was never told about these stories in university. I simply had to accept the results with no proof or at least physical motivation, which was always quite frustrating. I am filling now a lot of gaps in my education by reading the original papers.
According to my hypothesis, once derived from a single initial Fundamental Particle, the entire Universe would remain in some sense a single material body. This would explain the "spooky action at a distance", quantum entanglement. It would also explain the existence of the various fields (electromagnetic, gravitational, space-time, Higgs, etc.), since the "vacuum" would be nothing but the portion of the smallest density of the initial material. Background radiation would prove this. "Dark matter" would correspond to the initial matter diluted in the form of gravitational waves. "Dark energy" would correspond to the observable effect of Retroexpansivity, which is illusoryly perceived as expansion. The differences in measurements, the "Hubble tension", are due to the asymmetry and heterogeneity of the Cosmos, where different and gigantic gravitational centers counterbalancing dark energy/Retroexpansivity, impose a varied distancing in this constantly unfolding Universe. According to the Retro Expansion Theory, with there being a constant conversion of matter into gravitational energy (consequently generating space), there would be a time present throughout the Universe, a minimum unit of time in which existing matter would be converted and multiplied into new particles. In this minimum unit of time, the phenomenon that I call "Correction" would occur, in which a universal quantum balance of all particles would instantly occur. It would be the minimum instant in which any phenomenon or physical law could be applied and corrected.
The mighty algorithm, some creators decide to play the algorithm, I just don't have the time and energy to do that and just produce content that I genuinely find interesting. As a friend like to say, I am making the videos that I wish I could watch.
How this marketing works on youtube is beyond me. Dr Diaz' videos should be required study for universities. I wish I had these videos when I was studying in college.
Its always satisfying for me personally when i get to see the full explanation and derivation without any mistakes that become widespread to the point everyone thinks it works in a way when in reality it doesn't. That really bothers me when i cant understand something or find the truth behind the way it works. Your channel is wonderful, looking forward to part 2!!
I love how you dive into the details of the historical arguments for these ideas. I can already anticipate so much in the next video... but only because I teach physics. I honestly suspect, for those who were discovering all this for the first time in the early 20th century, the excitement of *not* knowing where all this was going was far greater.
What I love about this particular episode: In physics never just play around with equations and terms. The context and interpretation of the equations is much more important.
This was so good! I actually already encountered the contradiction at 6:51 in school myself. I learned about the "bad derivation" at 1:56 from my teacher/textbook and found them conceptually unconvincing. I played around with the equations and found the inconsistency at 6:51. I never came back to solve this issue for me, despite getting a Master's degree in theoretical physics. It's just that when you learn quantum mechanics from the ground up (axioms, solving the Schrödinger equation for specific problems etc.), you kind of forget about these historic, phenomenological approaches to the early stages of quantum mechanics, like the Bohr atomic model, deBrogli waves or Planck's radiation law. You still learn about these, but you would rather derive them in terms of the now finished theory, like solving the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom, solving it for a free particle, or doing statistical mechanics on an ideal photon gas. So to me it's really interesting to see how deBrogli derived his formula without having access to the full theory, and how to understand his derivation/why it worked today in the context of the full theory. Hope you contextualise deBrogli's work in the end of this series how it fits together with, say, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics so I can attach this knowledge to the connected tree of accepted physics knowledge I have!
I am totally with you. When I was a physics student I learned the solutions to the problems of the time but I remember that the lack of context and details was quite unsatisfactory. Now that I have time, I decided to dig deeper, read parts of the original papers, and I decided to share the details and found that the stories get even more fascinating.
Absolutely love these videos dude. Just incredible work. I love that you really go through the historical context, and walk through the original motivation. This was just a bunch of stuff I had no idea about, and you explained it super clearly. And it's so fascinating to learn about how relativity influenced DeBroglie. The sanitized way we talk about these developments now is kind of sad 😢
I am glad you like the style and format, I was somehow expecting the details of this story to be less known. I learned about this years after I went to university and felt annoyed that no professor nor textbook had anything to say about this great story.
You are of rare people who truly explained how De Broglie came up with his formula through the guiding wave principle. Other people's explain in different ways but not the authentic way. The pilot wave were deeply criticized which unfortunately let De Broglie to abandon it. Later Bohme devolved the same idea through Bohemian mechanic unknowingly of De Broglie's work. But it was also deeply criticized even by Einstein and Hiezinberg. Two scientists came to the same great idea which makes scenes of the no scene is not just coincidence. In my modest opinion this is one of the greatest theories which were ignored. I hope you shed more light on it in your great videos. One more thing. Please mention the relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction are for Lorentez not Einstein. Einstein only used those formulas in explaining the relativity. Doing that will maintain deserved respect for every scientist as per his exact contribution to science.
The distinction between mass as partial inertia and total inertia involving c is crucial in differentiating reflection and refraction: Refraction depends only on the wave’s momentum and partial inertia p=mv, making λ=h/p sufficient. Reflection requires total inertia, which combines mass with the universal constraint c, ensuring the necessary resistance for redirection. When consdiering the refraction index you can consdier energy density u_e = m/Vc^2 where n = sqrt(e_r m_r) -> n ~srt (m/V c^2) Yes this gets into the total vacuume but, consider time dialation, curved space caused by mass, n = γ = sqrt(1+ 8piG/c^4 u) where n ∝ γ ∝ sqrt(u)
This was useful, he deserve more reference for his ideas. He was on the right track. It is not that objects have a wave associated with them, rather, there are no static objects. For example, an atom is the result of a set of processes, every atom is like that. Human beings result from a set of processes working in harmony. Everything is like that. We only have to accept that the pattern continues below the atom, all the way to the beginning. This is the thinking fund in A Short Treatise on the space time continum by Piankh.
Finally, Dr. Jorge S. Diaz thank you for doing justice with quantum mechanics. Nowadays, people tend to forget how an idea comes to life (in context of quantum mechanics). Thanks
These are the little but significant parts of the history of quantum mechanics that really matter if one wants to understand where the Schrödinger equation and the postulates about observables and differential operators come from.
@@jkzero yes in my high school i used that to remember that formula for using moving particle like (alpha) by then further changing p with under root of 2mK.E. seriously using wrong way to get the right marks Good ol Days
Your video is excellent as always. I'm not sure if this is worthwhile feedback but I feel like some new people might be dissuaded from clicking on it by the AI generated thumbnail (the generative models are really bad at grid-like patterns, they always blur the lines together). For someone not familiar with your content it might give off the incorrect initial impression of low effort.
I really appreciate the feedback, constructive feedback is always appreciated. I didn't think about your point, I simply could not find a reasonable and satisfying image to represent de Broglie's idea.
@@jkzero Looks good! I generally find AI generated images distracting in videos like yours. So much so that if we're talking about images in videos, I would rather look at text and formulas than AI generated imagery. That's just my opinion, of course. Thanks for the content! I've spent much time studying quantum theory and I find your historical deep dives really interesting. Especially given how much myths there are surrounding quantum theory. Great work!
Very good essay, narration, and graphics, and thank you above all for pronouncing the man's name correctly ("duh broy"), unlike so many others who call him "dee Broh-glee". It's little details like this, along with your content, that just got me to subscribe. Thank you. 👍
Glad you enjoyed it and welcome to the channel. In case you haven't, make sure to check the the full series on quantum physics ruclips.net/p/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH
3Blue1Brown have a video about the Uncertainty Principle where in the last 3rd of the video he beautifully portrait the De Broglie intuition that led to the equation you mention here... if you haven't seen it yet, I hardly recommend you to see it. Maybe a combined interaction between channels for the next video ;)
Excellent video Dr. Jorge, muchas gracias, I also love the way that you pronounce the name of de Broglie as de Broy, nobody ever does that, kudos to you my friend!
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. I do what I can with the pronunciation of names, I try my best. I know I will screw up when I get to talk about Karl Schwazschild.
Wow! I have never thought much about this and just accepted it. It is good to see how it is constructed. Just out of curiosity, are you the same Jorge Diaz who has worked on the DUNE at the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility? I'm a Brazilian Chemist that is finishing my master degree and i will start the bacharel on physics after, because i`m convincd that chemistry its just applied physics hahaha. But i love the two sciences. Please don't stop your to publish your videos, i love it. I read many books of Physics 4 course, like Resnick Quantum Physics, wich just introduce the theme, but i had never seen that demonstration.
I am the same J.S. Diaz of the DUNE collaboration. I joined when I was in grad school and once in a while I still actively participate reviewing or contributing to the BSM sections. What is your connection to DUNE?
Thank you one more time for your generous support of the channel, that coffee keeps me awake while I research, write, produce, and edit this content. Writing a book about this is a long-term dream, yes, definitely.
I have asked a question to GPT : Q) "I know that light has no mass, but according to this summary, it is considered a 'material with mass.' What do you think about that?" GPT Answer) You're right, light is indeed understood to have no mass. The part where de Broglie refers to light as a "material particle with mass" reflects his unique approach when developing his early ideas. The key point here is that de Broglie was conceptualizing light as a particle with a very small mass, which was part of his attempt to extend existing physical theories. He tried to apply the wave-particle duality of light to matter, and in doing so, imagined light as a "massive particle." However, this idea was later modified in modern physics, and today, we understand light as being composed of massless particles called photons. At the time, de Broglie was trying to combine relativity and quantum theory, and in that process, he treated light’s properties in a way similar to material particles. But the concept of "massive light" in his theory is not accepted in modern physics. Therefore, de Broglie's early theory was an ambitious attempt to push beyond the limits of contemporary physics, and it has since been refined and developed further. // interesting..!! :)
I love the video! I look forward to the next one! I do have one teeny tiny peeve: Just that de Broglie assumed that light particles had inifinitely small masses, not just tiny masses. Not a huge deal, but I think the implications of "infinitely small" versus "tiny" can be different. Again, a great video!
"The Matter/Space/Time Triad" -McClure (The physicality of the Fabric of Space) "The Sympathetic/Dissonant Frequency Effect" -McClure (5th force Quantum Gravity) or Quantum (Matter building block "Common resonant Frequency") A Secondary Resonance, and a repulsion of Space Against Matter "Dark Energy" (oil in Water) and "5th force Quantum Gravity" - fighting against the guidance of Special Relativity "The Ocillating Phase, Boson Wave/Particle Tunneling Effect" -McClure (the cymatic allignment/"sympathy" of both matter's "resonant" frequent and particle's "wave frequency") 5th dimensional (as well) 7th,11th fractile/internal dimensional, tachyon particle/closed beam tunneling (no longer a broken planck/fractured particle - THROUGH it's waveform npt bound by time pr light speed -or- "The Closed-Circuit, Tensive, Void-Energy Effect" -McClure (Loop Lasso Theorem) Particles not longer segmented but in their natural form as Closed Circuit Tachyon Loops like ribbons THROUGH the Singularity (Closed-Time Circuits) in a toros shaped universe - similar to elrctromagnetic eave-looping through the center of the Earth (loops not seperated by plank/time segment (or wave argerithm/frequencies or "tunneling" through the center of waves) no "governor" of speed regulatikn "surfing the wavelength" bit finding a cynatic allignment or tunnel through the middle of the wave 7th/11th dimensional (fractile 5th dimensional tunnelling "The Higgs Condensate, Thermodynamic, Matter-Reanimation Dynamic" -McClure (How abd why matter changes the shape of the "physical" shape of space (why there is Special relativity)
5:00 "Frequency is defined as one diveded by the time interval between two cycles" What is the interval of the two cycles for a single moving electron or for matter in general?
Was the name "phase wave" put forth because the problematic superluminal speed also arises in the distinction between group velocity and *phase* velocity?
Very interesting video, de Broglie relations looks simple at first glance but that correspond to a lot of conceptual difficulties,1000 thanks to outline them. 👍 I also discovered lately that he tried to make a link between the Relativity dynamic and thermodynamic long before Erik Verlinde or Hawking actual work with article like " Remarque sur la formule de Boltzman relative aux systèmes périodiques" Compte rendu de l'Acad des sciences 1948 ... BTW I dug out some few notes of mine about the way we can derive the Newton law from de Broglie Relations... I have seen nothing about that in de Broglie 's work but I am curious if any...
It’s worth noting that Einstein obtained his time dilation formula from Lorentz, who initially had a mechanistic interpretation for it, rather than a relativistic one.
This video is awesome. What's the motivation for forcing the phase equivalence at 8:38 ? Edit: Oh, wait that's for the next vid, got it... staying tuned
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. There is a priori no clear motivation for setting the equal-phase condition. Physically, de Broglie only refers to "resonance conditions" but many aspects of his assumptions are guesses that lead to neat results.
Thank you for this video. A photon may have rest mass if and only if it is within a warp bubble. In this case, a photon can propagate at the speed of light and can still have non-zero rest mass. Such a theory, however, prohibits the naive approach of the photon as an elementary particle as we know it.
De Broglie: It is really bad, but de Broglie's paper is wrong in two ways: 1) De Broglie uses the wrong equation for the dilation. Because the proper time in the system after the transformation depends not only on the velocity v, so the Lorentz factor, but also on the position and the speed of the clock measurement in the other system: t'= gamma * (t - v*x/c^2) Using this equation for the frequency in the transformed system, there is no conflict between the internal frequency of the particle and the frequency measured in the external system - which also represents the energy of the particle as E = h * ny. 2) So de Broglie's equation lambda = h/p is true for photons, but not for massive particles. Imagine the following: An electron flies towards a double slit at, say, 1/10 c. It will cause an interference pattern on a screen behind the slit. Now put the observer in the frame of the electron. In this frame, the electron is at rest with p = 0. So lambda is infinite according to de Broglie. This infinite lambda cannot cause an interference pattern. But there is still the pattern mentioned above, and the observer can see it. This is unfortunate, but all can be dealt with correctly by a particle model that is slightly modified in comparison to the de Broglie model.
According to de Broglie, every particles behaves also as a wave. That was his detection for which he received the Nobel price. This was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961. And the fact that there is a co-moving observer does not change the existence of an interference pattern.
Every particle behaves also as a wave. That was the detection of de Broglie for which he received the Nobel price. It was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961. So the electron causes an interference pattern at a double slit. And the fact of a comoving observer does not change this fact.
@@bernard8ulrich Every particle behaves also as a wave. That was the detection of de Broglie for which he received the Nobel price. It was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961. So the electron causes an interference pattern at a double slit. And the fact of a comoving observer does not change this fact.
@@bernard8ulrich Every particle behaves also as a wave. That was the detection of de Broglie for which he received the Nobel price. It was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961. So the electron causes an interference pattern at a double slit. And the fact of a comoving observer does not change this fact.
1:56 What is the issue with the second derivation? Is it E = pc? Should you take here the relativistic energy momentum relationship? E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (p^2)*(c^2)
Pilot wave theory is neat in that you can demonstrate a macroscopic version of it with a two slit experiment with some floating pollen and vibrating the water. I think it was veritasium or someone like that who did it. Was pretty cool seeing it.
True, the macroscopic version is quite fascinating. I doubt this reflects the microscopic reality but it is a very interesting manifestation of de Broglie's theory.
This is correct, E=mc² is the total energy of a massive particle at rest; therefore, applying this to a moving particle is conceptually wrong. There is also another problem with this "derivation" in the last step.
Interesting. It is never taught how de Broglie came up with this, but just the formula as if just postulated it. I guess because the original formulism is not how we understand physics today, they don't delve much into it. The only thing I recall from undergrad was that de Broglie was a French Aristocrat for who physics was more a or less a serious hobby. Thanks for enlightening the world.
You are right, the de Broglie was a wealthy and distinguished family in France. Both Maurice and Louis de Broglie took physics very seriously, far from just a hobby. Maurice turned his mansion in Paris into a lab where he delighted his little brother with physics demonstrations. He was also one of the note takers during the first Solvay Conference in 1911. I mentioned some of this in an early video teasing where things were heading ruclips.net/video/xINR4MoqYVc/видео.html
@@jkzero Maybe hobby is wrong word, but they could support themselves and do whatever they wanted. I got impression they funded themselves. Most people in Physics have to find and do work that pays to support themselves and the pressure of having results that it comes with. Nice to live and do work you like . The brothers did not take the easy path.
I see, yeah, I get your point now. Yes, they could have continued with the easy way but decided to get into hard physics. Maurice was very close to beat Millikan with his photoelectric-effect experiments and Compton with his X-ray scattering studies. Maurice de Broglie was so recognized and well regarding within the physics community that it is fun to read letters in which Einstein refers Louis as "the other de Broglie"
would you mind eventually creating a document with a guide (as in referencing rhe articles) to study the theoretical and experimental ideas in quantum mechanics in more or less chronological order with pontifications on what one should pay attention in the papers?
So the intrinsic oscillatory property is sort of irrelevant? I was expecting something "satisfying" like the intrinsic periodic motion somehow looking like the phase wave from a moving frame because of relativity and not being different, independent "things". Anyway, your work is phenomenal and I always look forward for more!
sorry if this part was underwhelming, I decided to focus only on the basic idea and derive the famous wavelength formula instead of having a single video with too many new ideas together. I hope that what comes next is more exciting.
Thanks for this video, but it raises some questions. For example, at 9:35 I see that the wavelength is the ratio of a fictitious V over the fictitious frequency so the wavelength is a fictitious wave 'ones? but at the same time it is the wavelength corresponding to the real speed of the particles. This seems strange to me.
1:53 although I'm no expert, the derivation seems to have mixed up rest mass and moving mass. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to know what the correct answer should be for this
I understand that de Broglie was not erring by equating photon energy with the relativistic particle energy. I'm not sure why he needs to assume a small photon mass to do that since the relativistic expression is only indeterminate and not infinite for a zero mass photon.
"The Sympathetic/Dissonant Frequency Effect" -McClure The intrinsic frequency of all Quantum Matter building blocks BEYOND matter's "Resonant" Frequency of molecular shape/weight/or mass 5th force Quantum Gravity that is in opposition to Einstien's admittedly incomplete Theory of Special Relativity (in concert with S.R.) that is itself 'Dark Energy" (Void Energy) as in my; "Closed-Circuit, Tensive Void-Energy Effect" -McClure and "corrolating to "The Matter/Space/Triad" -McClure that describes the "physical" field of Space/Time as an entity with undetectable mass. As these theorems describe in this video, my theorems as well come to the same theoretical conclusions. Eibstirn was not able to unify Classic Particle Physics with Quantum Mechanics because he gave up on the convept that the void of space was ibdeed "physical" and energy that could not only be mrasured but weighed with the terms of quantum 5th force gravity. The fifth force described in both this video and resonant throughout all my quantum postulates as a required feature of soace itsrlf being a "physical fabric" with traits that we will eventually learn measure as features beyond traditional gravitational effects on recognizable mass. We will link this nrw 5th force with planck time and time distortion as individual energy packs percirved as "distance" ny the human consciousness and the reason for our "relative" observations of time due to location "Physical Time" "The Matter/Space/Time Triad" -McClure (Combining matter with the perception of time and tied to Planck "relative" consistancy based on an ingrained and learned packet of energy percieved as distance and when warped or stretched - that longer planck (based on red shift or time dialation) lenthens a single planck of time (pixilation) but still percieved as the same tine/distance as it is judged by the consistant packet of energy (Relative Perception) BEYOND the effrvts of Special Relativity's warping od PATH of time.
Enjoyed this, but: (10:16) "un-noticed by the Physics community, nobody read it" does not well describe Louis de Broglié's paper in the Comptes Rendus. Everyone in Europe read it and discussed it; but only in America was there funding to try high-vacuum experiments to test de Broglié's ideas. Fortunately Davisson was thereby prompted to complete the Davisson-Germer experiments. Compare for example Gehrenbeck's article in "Physics Today" of January 1978, page 37; de Broglié's paper (and others) "were the subject of lively discussions at the Oxford meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science". Davisson was shocked that his initial Davisson-Germer experiments (electrons diffracting off a platinum target, in 1923) were taken as evidence of de Broglié wave behaviour by Max Born and Blackett, among others: "Imagine his surprise, then, when he heard a lecture by Born in which his own ... curves of 1923 were cited as confirmatory evidence for de Broglié's electron waves!" So on returning to the USA, he and Germer began the final push which led on 7th January 1927 to electron diffraction peaks being observed off a single nickel crystal.
This is very close to what I have mentioned as a remark to a number of different video's. Unfortunately I am not up to doing the math. I have come to my conclusion from starting with Einstein's "Light Clock" and then trying to lay it down. That is trying to find out how it would work if it was pulsating in the line of movement. I found that it works fine provided length contraction is taken into consideration. It would work in any direction provided a portion of length contraction according to the clocks angle is taken into consideration. Knowing that electricity has a similar propagation speed as light I then wondered if every particle had an internal electric oscillation. If that is the case that oscillation would also slow down if at all moved from absolute zero speed. This in my mind explains the longer life of the Muon when it travels fast. Also from my knowledge of electricity I am familiar with standing waves. I know that it is wave energy standing still. Thinking about the simplest form of energy I can think of then that is an EME (light being a part of that). Also thinking about the formula E = hf then I have an amount of energy basically standing still where the standing wave is. Then putting that together with E = mc^2 there must also be a mass where there is an energy. Putting all this together I would agree with Louis de Broglie that EME must have a tiny mass. This would also explain I believe why light bends from gravity and why atomic clocks go slower in higher gravity.
Bending of light by gravitational fields and gravitational time dilation does not require massive light, these two effects are classical in nature and can be easily derived from Einstein's general relativity. Assuming that massive light is needed for gravitational light bending is a mistake rooted on Newtonian mechanics, which is an incomplete description of gravity.
@@jkzero I am not smart or learned enough to argue with you about the last bit and I can see that you are convinced. I do however believe that Newtonian mechanics is still used quite a lot and is not that far out. Considering that I do believe my explanations could work. I postulate that time keeping is in each and every little particle or what you will call it. Until I am convinced that I am wrong I will keep on believing it but I admit that I have been wrong before and I have changed my mind before. I will keep on watching your videos.
Addition: I know well that e = mc^2 is not the full formula. It is missing the momentum part which is supposed to counter for no mass. Now I have also found that the normal formula for time dilation can also be described as Time dilated is equal to TIME(rest) * SIN(COS-1(v/c)) this tells that if v = c then time will stand still. There will be no time counting as there will be no oscillation. Now a light beam coming from some where does not arrive instantly so time in space does not stand still for anything that travelled at the speed of light. It is just that no time is felt for the traveling. If you defined mass as being some thing with an oscillation then of cause light has no mass. The thing is just do we really know what mass is? I would dare to define it as mass as EME oscillating in some form like a standing wave and I believe that is much like Louis de Broglie did.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 "Time dilated is equal to TIME(rest) * SIN(COS-1(v/c))" Yes, one can write it in this way. But what's the point of that? "this tells that if v = c then time will stand still" Yes, but you also get that from the usual formula, with sin. "If you defined mass as being some thing with an oscillation then of cause light has no mass." Huh? For us, the observer, light _has_ oscillation. Only if you talk about what the light particles _themselves_ experience (which does not actually make sense), there is no oscillation. "The thing is just do we really know what mass is?" Essentially, a form of energy. "I would dare to define it as mass as EME oscillating in some form like a standing wave" What does EME mean?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 The reason for the formula is that I am trying to work out what the formula is if the light clock is in an angle to the travel direction other than 90 degrees. A part lo length contraction has to be inserted as well. At 0 degree it is the actual length contraction. It will not matter for any traveling person as if he wants to measure the two way speed of light by sending a light beam to a mirror at a known distance away he will always get the right answer in his time as the distance will automatically have altered it self. I don't know how and why length contraction occur. Time dilation I can explain with that it takes longer for the internal oscillation when the mass is moved. What I meant with :"If you defined mass as being some thing with an oscillation then of cause light has no mass." was perhaps not very clear. I meant with internal oscillation. Light or any other EME (Electro Magnetic Emission) does not have an internal oscillation. It is an ongoing wave. A radio wave which is an EME as well is emitted over some time (if it was 1Hz it would be 1 second) and the wave front does not come back (unless reflected by something). The whole thing about Louis de Broglie idea is that there are internal waves or oscillations I believe. I am sorry using EME (Electro Magnetic Emission) without specifying what it is.
Pilot Wave theory is the best interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and predicts that Relativity is wrong! In this theory, particles are always real and have real positions and momentums, which transmit energy at speed less than c, and are guided by a Pilot Wave which transmits the information superluminally. The proof is that EM theory and quantum theory both predict the speed of light is not constant as once thought, and in fact it is instantaneous in the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, starting at about 1 wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c, even at astronomical distances from the source. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. As mentioned, this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Thank you for this wonderful deep dive. Please forgive a dumb question, I'm just a physics fanboy: (maybe part 2 will clarify the answer, or at least why the question is ... well, off-target if not dumb). If an electron encounters a double slit setup, it seems that the "fictitious" pilot wave is responsible for creating the interference guiding the electron to its destination, so is the pilot wave traveling to the screen faster than c?
In de Broglie's theory, both the electron and its guiding wave move across the experiment. The electron goes through one slit, the guiding wave goes through both and forms an interference pattern on the other side. Once the electron is on the other side, the waves guide the electron to a region of high amplitude.
1:46 both of these formulas are just analogies where you replace c with v or p with mv across contexts that don't have these relations also the first energy relation doesn't make any sense for light or any moving particle, and the second ONLY makes sense for light
Thanks! I am glad you liked the video and welcome to the channel. In case you haven't, make sure to check the rest of the series on quantum physics ruclips.net/p/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH
Are matter waves a physical wave like an electromagnetic wave? Are electron clouds and matter waves the same thing? Is the electron cloud a physical cloud like the normal cloud we know?
if by "electron clouds" you refer to the modern visualization of an atom, no, de Broglie waves are not directly observable, only their effects guiding particles. In the case of electrons in an atomic nucleus, the waves proposed by de Broglie make the electron go in orbits that satisfy the Bohr quantization rules, I will show this in part 2.
Go far enough with this video series and you might be able to write an alternative QM textbook presenting the science along with the historical context
you are guessing right, part of the video is becoming a primer on waves; however, (despite what many people neglect it) a good understanding of waves is crucial for wave mechanics
@ OK! having studied ocean acoustics I am familiar with the phenomenon in waveguides whereby acoustic modes can have phase velocities ω/k exceeding the speed of sound (in water) but the speed of energy transport in the mode travels at the group velocity dω/dk. Am I warm?
You are all set. Note that I in this video I calculated the phase velocity, and you are probably not surprised that the phase wave "moves faster than light." Several viewers have asked about this "odd feature" so I will dedicate a few minute to make sure that everyone is on board with basic wave knowledge. We still need to calculate the group velocity.
@@jkzero Every serious textbook on quantum mechanics should start with the general wave theory and Fourier analysis. After all, the electron diffraction is about wave interference and intensity; the uncertainty principle is an inequality in Fourier analysis; the time-independent Schrödinger equation is a Helmholtz equation; the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is combination of uncertainty principle and statistical classical mechanics.
If circular waves in water are agitated enough a drop of water may pop up from the centre of the waves, analogous to an atom being formed out of agitated waves of quantum fields.
Fantastic channel! Congratulations! Since every particle is some matter and every wave is some motion, there should be also a matter-motion duality, right? De Broglie’s concept of wave-particle duality seems to also have fascinatig metaphysical consequences! More about this on „metafizyka wspolczesna youtube”. English subtitles available.
@@jkzero bro I am a physics student.I wish you to be my teacher . There are many popular science channels but a few like yours which explain academic physics (including complex mathematical derivations) deeply along with history .Your videos can enlighten many students in academics.
thanks, I appreciate the feedback and I am glad you find the content of value. I am happy to have many physics students and teachers as viewers and I have been notified that some teachers are showing my videos in their classrooms, this is very fulfilling. One of the reason that I started this channel was that I miss teaching.
A great video. I covered the same ground in my "Road to Quantum Reality" (Real Wave Quantum Mechanics) series part 7 recently. I wonder if you are aware that de Broglie's "Harmony of the Phases" postulate can be carried a great deal further. It can lead to a theory of a distributed electron in which Angular Momentum is not intrinsic but can be calculated from first principles, as explained in my videos. I would be very interested in your comments on this.
Presenting the pilot wave interpretation as fact despite no consensus on the topic. I like the confidence. I also agree, despite the lack of consensus.
I am only presenting de Broglie's work but not really pushing for this way of understanding quantum mechanics; although I am not sure if there is really a consensus regarding the so-called "interpretations" of quantum mechanics. And to be totally honest, I feel oddly comfortable with some aspects of pilot-wave theory, while at the same time part of my brain says "No."
@jkzero No matter which interpretation you choose, you have to abandon some fundamental assumption. The reason I prefer the pilot wave interpretation is because it avoids abandoning determinism, and if the objective of science is to say "given A, find B", then preserving a relationship where A implies B is crucial to getting the best solution. In any case, you did a great job of presenting the facts. I look forward to part 2.
This is a question that de Broglie was unable to answer, he was grilled with this question at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927. Maybe this is why he looks so serious in the photo (beginning of the video).
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 because it was nonsense. Ik why too. Anyone saying quantum is a fool. Or photon and electron. Einstein's stolen fairytale stories are a wash.
I recall an interview of one of my childhood heroes (Leon Lederman) in which he talks about the counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics and ends with "Nature doesn't give a damn about our intuition" and I found that approach very comforting.
Leon Lederman was a director of Fermilab and famous within the general public for his pop-sci book "The God Particle" so he used to appear a lot on documentaries about quantum mechanics on the Discovery Channel when I was a kid (when Discovery Channel was about science). He missed the Nobel Prize two important discoveries in particle physics but finally got it in 1988. I had the pleasure to meet him when I started university and again 10 years later at Fermilab during my doctorate.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love that these videos explain the full historical context behind famous equations like the one for the de Broglie wavelength and don't skip details like so many others do. It makes the topic come so much more alive.
Thanks, I am glad you like this aspect, which I think distinguish my content from other out there. My target audience is physics enthusiasts that don't shy away from some math and people with scientific background who might value some historical details.
@@jkzero That exactly describes me. As an experimentalist the historical context is invaluable.
I am a theorist and I see way too much praise for the theorists that came up with great ideas but little about the experimentalists who discovered anomalous results as well as came up with equally brilliant experiments that confirmed theoretical ideas. Plus the experiments from early 1900s are a beauty of scientific ingenuity and simplicity.
Finally ! A video on the real work of de Broglie not the watered down version found in textbooks.
I am glad you liked it. I was also introduced to de Broglie's wavelength in a waving hand way (pun intended) and always found it unsatisfactory. Also "derivations" using the Schrödinger equation count as cheating to me because Schrödinger found his famous equation thanks in part to de Broglie's formula. This is why I created this video only using the original de Broglie's papers as a source.
Dr. Diaz I love the fact that you provide fundamental derivations of the famous equations and the rationale behind the properties that the physicists took into consideration to come up with their formulae
I am glad that so many people like this. As a physics student I never read any of these original papers, now I am having a blast reading them and finding that they can be explained. Whether or not the ideas are correct does not matter much to me, I want to understand how things were understood in the mid 1920s when quantum mechanics took shape. This is something that textbooks and university courses simply skip.
Easily the best physics videos in all youtube. Keep it up with the incredible work!!
Glad you like them!
Amazed that De Broglie was able to derive Bohr’s quantization rule from his ideas/postulates !
And frustrated that what I learn in my studies was an overly simplified version of the true (and really interesting) story. Thank you so much to make us discover it ! Great video again
De Broglie's derivation of Bohr's quantization rule is coming in Part 2. It is so simple but also so natural that de Broglie considered this the result that should get everyone's attention. he was right, nobody could ignore a derivation of such an arbitrary rule from a simple idea that could at same time explain the wave-particle duality.
I am with you, I was never told about these stories in university. I simply had to accept the results with no proof or at least physical motivation, which was always quite frustrating. I am filling now a lot of gaps in my education by reading the original papers.
According to my hypothesis, once derived from a single initial Fundamental Particle, the entire Universe would remain in some sense a single material body. This would explain the "spooky action at a distance", quantum entanglement. It would also explain the existence of the various fields (electromagnetic, gravitational, space-time, Higgs, etc.), since the "vacuum" would be nothing but the portion of the smallest density of the initial material. Background radiation would prove this.
"Dark matter" would correspond to the initial matter diluted in the form of gravitational waves. "Dark energy" would correspond to the observable effect of Retroexpansivity, which is illusoryly perceived as expansion. The differences in measurements, the "Hubble tension", are due to the asymmetry and heterogeneity of the Cosmos, where different and gigantic gravitational centers counterbalancing dark energy/Retroexpansivity, impose a varied distancing in this constantly unfolding Universe.
According to the Retro Expansion Theory, with there being a constant conversion of matter into gravitational energy (consequently generating space), there would be a time present throughout the Universe, a minimum unit of time in which existing matter would be converted and multiplied into new particles. In this minimum unit of time, the phenomenon that I call "Correction" would occur, in which a universal quantum balance of all particles would instantly occur. It would be the minimum instant in which any phenomenon or physical law could be applied and corrected.
I still can't understand why you only have 40K subs
your animation, explanation, and narrative are amazing! Thank you for creating such a great series
The mighty algorithm, some creators decide to play the algorithm, I just don't have the time and energy to do that and just produce content that I genuinely find interesting. As a friend like to say, I am making the videos that I wish I could watch.
How this marketing works on youtube is beyond me. Dr Diaz' videos should be required study for universities. I wish I had these videos when I was studying in college.
Some just buy views and traffic. It's world of deception 🙂 But who cares ...
Its always satisfying for me personally when i get to see the full explanation and derivation without any mistakes that become widespread to the point everyone thinks it works in a way when in reality it doesn't. That really bothers me when i cant understand something or find the truth behind the way it works. Your channel is wonderful, looking forward to part 2!!
I love how you dive into the details of the historical arguments for these ideas. I can already anticipate so much in the next video... but only because I teach physics. I honestly suspect, for those who were discovering all this for the first time in the early 20th century, the excitement of *not* knowing where all this was going was far greater.
What I love about this particular episode: In physics never just play around with equations and terms. The context and interpretation of the equations is much more important.
This was so good! I actually already encountered the contradiction at 6:51 in school myself. I learned about the "bad derivation" at 1:56 from my teacher/textbook and found them conceptually unconvincing. I played around with the equations and found the inconsistency at 6:51. I never came back to solve this issue for me, despite getting a Master's degree in theoretical physics. It's just that when you learn quantum mechanics from the ground up (axioms, solving the Schrödinger equation for specific problems etc.), you kind of forget about these historic, phenomenological approaches to the early stages of quantum mechanics, like the Bohr atomic model, deBrogli waves or Planck's radiation law. You still learn about these, but you would rather derive them in terms of the now finished theory, like solving the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom, solving it for a free particle, or doing statistical mechanics on an ideal photon gas. So to me it's really interesting to see how deBrogli derived his formula without having access to the full theory, and how to understand his derivation/why it worked today in the context of the full theory. Hope you contextualise deBrogli's work in the end of this series how it fits together with, say, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics so I can attach this knowledge to the connected tree of accepted physics knowledge I have!
I am totally with you. When I was a physics student I learned the solutions to the problems of the time but I remember that the lack of context and details was quite unsatisfactory. Now that I have time, I decided to dig deeper, read parts of the original papers, and I decided to share the details and found that the stories get even more fascinating.
This is going to be a great series, keep up the excellent work!
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your generous support.
Absolutely love these videos dude. Just incredible work. I love that you really go through the historical context, and walk through the original motivation. This was just a bunch of stuff I had no idea about, and you explained it super clearly. And it's so fascinating to learn about how relativity influenced DeBroglie. The sanitized way we talk about these developments now is kind of sad 😢
I am glad you like the style and format, I was somehow expecting the details of this story to be less known. I learned about this years after I went to university and felt annoyed that no professor nor textbook had anything to say about this great story.
You are of rare people who truly explained how De Broglie came up with his formula through the guiding wave principle. Other people's explain in different ways but not the authentic way. The pilot wave were deeply criticized which unfortunately let De Broglie to abandon it. Later Bohme devolved the same idea through Bohemian mechanic unknowingly of De Broglie's work. But it was also deeply criticized even by Einstein and Hiezinberg. Two scientists came to the same great idea which makes scenes of the no scene is not just coincidence. In my modest opinion this is one of the greatest theories which were ignored. I hope you shed more light on it in your great videos.
One more thing. Please mention the relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction are for Lorentez not Einstein. Einstein only used those formulas in explaining the relativity. Doing that will maintain deserved respect for every scientist as per his exact contribution to science.
The distinction between mass as partial inertia and total inertia involving c is crucial in differentiating reflection and refraction:
Refraction depends only on the wave’s momentum and partial inertia p=mv, making λ=h/p sufficient.
Reflection requires total inertia, which combines mass with the universal constraint c, ensuring the necessary resistance for redirection.
When consdiering the refraction index you can consdier energy density u_e = m/Vc^2 where n = sqrt(e_r m_r) -> n ~srt (m/V c^2)
Yes this gets into the total vacuume but, consider time dialation, curved space caused by mass, n = γ = sqrt(1+ 8piG/c^4 u) where n ∝ γ ∝ sqrt(u)
Thanks for this !! These results are really radical and add to the suspense of QM. You got me holding onto my chair. Can't wait for part 2.
This was useful, he deserve more reference for his ideas. He was on the right track. It is not that objects have a wave associated with them, rather, there are no static objects.
For example, an atom is the result of a set of processes, every atom is like that. Human beings result from a set of processes working in harmony. Everything is like that. We only have to accept that the pattern continues below the atom, all the way to the beginning. This is the thinking fund in A Short Treatise on the space time continum by Piankh.
Havent even seen it yet, but as a huge Pilot-Wave fanboy, I have to like immediately 😄
Finally, Dr. Jorge S. Diaz thank you for doing justice with quantum mechanics. Nowadays, people tend to forget how an idea comes to life (in context of quantum mechanics).
Thanks
These are the little but significant parts of the history of quantum mechanics that really matter if one wants to understand where the Schrödinger equation and the postulates about observables and differential operators come from.
I like that you mentioned the Einstein de proglie meme❤ keep going on❤ such great content ❤
despite its incorrectness, I am very proud of the Einstein-de Broglie meme
@@jkzero yes in my high school i used that to remember that formula for using moving particle like (alpha) by then further changing p with under root of 2mK.E. seriously using wrong way to get the right marks Good ol Days
Can’t wait for part 2!
Your video is excellent as always. I'm not sure if this is worthwhile feedback but I feel like some new people might be dissuaded from clicking on it by the AI generated thumbnail (the generative models are really bad at grid-like patterns, they always blur the lines together). For someone not familiar with your content it might give off the incorrect initial impression of low effort.
I really appreciate the feedback, constructive feedback is always appreciated. I didn't think about your point, I simply could not find a reasonable and satisfying image to represent de Broglie's idea.
I second that
thank you both for the constructive feedback, several others have pointed out the same issue. I have now changed it.
@@jkzero Looks good!
I generally find AI generated images distracting in videos like yours. So much so that if we're talking about images in videos, I would rather look at text and formulas than AI generated imagery.
That's just my opinion, of course.
Thanks for the content! I've spent much time studying quantum theory and I find your historical deep dives really interesting. Especially given how much myths there are surrounding quantum theory. Great work!
Very good essay, narration, and graphics, and thank you above all for pronouncing the man's name correctly ("duh broy"), unlike so many others who call him "dee Broh-glee". It's little details like this, along with your content, that just got me to subscribe. Thank you. 👍
Glad you enjoyed it and welcome to the channel. In case you haven't, make sure to check the the full series on quantum physics ruclips.net/p/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH
incredible video. the historical context makes it so interesting!
3Blue1Brown have a video about the Uncertainty Principle where in the last 3rd of the video he beautifully portrait the De Broglie intuition that led to the equation you mention here... if you haven't seen it yet, I hardly recommend you to see it. Maybe a combined interaction between channels for the next video ;)
I have probably seen this but I do not recall the mention of de Broglie, I should check it out. Thanks for pointing this out.
I love this channel
Excellent video Dr. Jorge, muchas gracias, I also love the way that you pronounce the name of de Broglie as de Broy, nobody ever does that, kudos to you my friend!
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. I do what I can with the pronunciation of names, I try my best. I know I will screw up when I get to talk about Karl Schwazschild.
One word superb! Man you rekindle our interests in QM boundless!!
Wow! I have never thought much about this and just accepted it. It is good to see how it is constructed. Just out of curiosity, are you the same Jorge Diaz who has worked on the DUNE at the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility? I'm a Brazilian Chemist that is finishing my master degree and i will start the bacharel on physics after, because i`m convincd that chemistry its just applied physics hahaha. But i love the two sciences. Please don't stop your to publish your videos, i love it. I read many books of Physics 4 course, like Resnick Quantum Physics, wich just introduce the theme, but i had never seen that demonstration.
> convincd that chemistry its just applied physics hahaha
Meanwhile mathematicians just say physics is applied mathematics.
I am the same J.S. Diaz of the DUNE collaboration. I joined when I was in grad school and once in a while I still actively participate reviewing or contributing to the BSM sections. What is your connection to DUNE?
❤❤ keep going on
glad to see the channel growing. have you ever given any thought to a intro to quantum mechanics book?. more coffee incoming :)
Thank you one more time for your generous support of the channel, that coffee keeps me awake while I research, write, produce, and edit this content. Writing a book about this is a long-term dream, yes, definitely.
Very nice, looking forward to the next parts
Thank you for interesting series
I have asked a question to GPT : Q) "I know that light has no mass, but according to this summary, it is considered a 'material with mass.' What do you think about that?"
GPT Answer) You're right, light is indeed understood to have no mass. The part where de Broglie refers to light as a "material particle with mass" reflects his unique approach when developing his early ideas. The key point here is that de Broglie was conceptualizing light as a particle with a very small mass, which was part of his attempt to extend existing physical theories.
He tried to apply the wave-particle duality of light to matter, and in doing so, imagined light as a "massive particle." However, this idea was later modified in modern physics, and today, we understand light as being composed of massless particles called photons.
At the time, de Broglie was trying to combine relativity and quantum theory, and in that process, he treated light’s properties in a way similar to material particles. But the concept of "massive light" in his theory is not accepted in modern physics.
Therefore, de Broglie's early theory was an ambitious attempt to push beyond the limits of contemporary physics, and it has since been refined and developed further. //
interesting..!! :)
Excellent presentation. Thank you,
Ive rung the bell and hopefully i get notified when part 2 comes out
Thanks, those little actions really help the channel.
I love the video! I look forward to the next one! I do have one teeny tiny peeve: Just that de Broglie assumed that light particles had inifinitely small masses, not just tiny masses. Not a huge deal, but I think the implications of "infinitely small" versus "tiny" can be different. Again, a great video!
"The Matter/Space/Time Triad"
-McClure (The physicality of the Fabric of Space)
"The Sympathetic/Dissonant Frequency Effect" -McClure (5th force Quantum Gravity) or Quantum (Matter building block "Common resonant Frequency") A Secondary Resonance, and a repulsion of Space Against Matter "Dark Energy" (oil in Water) and "5th force Quantum Gravity" - fighting against the guidance of Special Relativity
"The Ocillating Phase, Boson Wave/Particle Tunneling Effect" -McClure
(the cymatic allignment/"sympathy" of both matter's "resonant" frequent and particle's "wave frequency") 5th dimensional (as well) 7th,11th fractile/internal dimensional, tachyon particle/closed beam tunneling (no longer a broken planck/fractured particle - THROUGH it's waveform npt bound by time pr light speed
-or-
"The Closed-Circuit, Tensive, Void-Energy Effect" -McClure (Loop Lasso Theorem)
Particles not longer segmented but in their natural form as Closed Circuit Tachyon Loops like ribbons THROUGH the Singularity (Closed-Time Circuits) in a toros shaped universe - similar to elrctromagnetic eave-looping through the center of the Earth (loops not seperated by plank/time segment (or wave argerithm/frequencies or "tunneling" through the center of waves) no "governor" of speed regulatikn "surfing the wavelength" bit finding a cynatic allignment or tunnel through the middle of the wave 7th/11th dimensional (fractile 5th dimensional tunnelling
"The Higgs Condensate, Thermodynamic, Matter-Reanimation Dynamic" -McClure
(How abd why matter changes the shape of the "physical" shape of space (why there is Special relativity)
Looking forward to part 2!
coming soon
5:00 "Frequency is defined as one diveded by the time interval between two cycles" What is the interval of the two cycles for a single moving electron or for matter in general?
de Broglie was describing a single particle
@@jkzero What is the beginning and the end of a cycle of a single particle? Its physical start and end?
Was the name "phase wave" put forth because the problematic superluminal speed also arises in the distinction between group velocity and *phase* velocity?
Very interesting video, de Broglie relations looks simple at first glance but that correspond to a lot of conceptual difficulties,1000 thanks to outline them. 👍
I also discovered lately that he tried to make a link between the Relativity dynamic and thermodynamic long before Erik Verlinde or Hawking actual work with article like " Remarque sur la formule de Boltzman relative aux systèmes périodiques" Compte rendu de l'Acad des sciences 1948 ...
BTW I dug out some few notes of mine about the way we can derive the Newton law from de Broglie Relations... I have seen nothing about that in de Broglie 's work but I am curious if any...
It’s worth noting that Einstein obtained his time dilation formula from Lorentz, who initially had a mechanistic interpretation for it, rather than a relativistic one.
This video is awesome. What's the motivation for forcing the phase equivalence at 8:38 ?
Edit: Oh, wait that's for the next vid, got it... staying tuned
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. There is a priori no clear motivation for setting the equal-phase condition. Physically, de Broglie only refers to "resonance conditions" but many aspects of his assumptions are guesses that lead to neat results.
Thank you for this video. A photon may have rest mass if and only if it is within a warp bubble. In this case, a photon can propagate at the speed of light and can still have non-zero rest mass. Such a theory, however, prohibits the naive approach of the photon as an elementary particle as we know it.
Need part 2 ASAP!!!
I am working on it right now
Can’t wait for the next one!
the best teachers in the world are on youtube, not the universities. You should definitely publish a textbook eventually
De Broglie:
It is really bad, but de Broglie's paper is wrong in two ways:
1) De Broglie uses the wrong equation for the dilation. Because the proper time in the system after the transformation depends not only on the velocity v, so the Lorentz factor, but also on the position and the speed of the clock measurement in the other system:
t'= gamma * (t - v*x/c^2)
Using this equation for the frequency in the transformed system, there is no conflict between the internal frequency of the particle and the frequency measured in the external system - which also represents the energy of the particle as E = h * ny.
2) So de Broglie's equation lambda = h/p is true for photons, but not for massive particles. Imagine the following:
An electron flies towards a double slit at, say, 1/10 c. It will cause an interference pattern on a screen behind the slit. Now put the observer in the frame of the electron. In this frame, the electron is at rest with p = 0. So lambda is infinite according to de Broglie. This infinite lambda cannot cause an interference pattern. But there is still the pattern mentioned above, and the observer can see it.
This is unfortunate, but all can be dealt with correctly by a particle model that is slightly modified in comparison to the de Broglie model.
For your 2.) observer in the frame of the electron:-> electron behaves as a particle, no wave, no wavelength, no interference there
According to de Broglie, every particles behaves also as a wave. That was his detection for which he received the Nobel price. This was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961.
And the fact that there is a co-moving observer does not change the existence of an interference pattern.
Every particle behaves also as a wave. That was the detection of de Broglie for which he received the Nobel price. It was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961.
So the electron causes an interference pattern at a double slit. And the fact of a comoving observer does not change this fact.
@@bernard8ulrich Every particle behaves also as a wave. That was the detection of de Broglie for which he received the Nobel price. It was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961.
So the electron causes an interference pattern at a double slit. And the fact of a comoving observer does not change this fact.
@@bernard8ulrich Every particle behaves also as a wave. That was the detection of de Broglie for which he received the Nobel price. It was experimentally proven by Claus Jönsson in 1961.
So the electron causes an interference pattern at a double slit. And the fact of a comoving observer does not change this fact.
The opening picture:
Fifth Conference, 1927. 1st row : Langmuir, Planck, Madame Curie, Lorentz, Einstein, Langevin, Guye, Wilson, Richardson. 2nd row : Debye, Knudsen, W. L. Bragg, Kramers, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie, Born, Bohr. 3rd row : Piccard, Henriot, Ehrenfest, Herzen, de Donder, Schrödinger, Verschaffelt, Pauli, Heisenberg, Fowler, Brillouin.
Wow - what an excellent video Sir. Thank you!!!
Please bring the second part soon.
working on it
1:56 What is the issue with the second derivation? Is it E = pc?
Should you take here the relativistic energy momentum relationship? E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (p^2)*(c^2)
E = pc assumes that the particle is massless as the starting point, replacing later p=mv is nonsense.
Pilot wave theory is neat in that you can demonstrate a macroscopic version of it with a two slit experiment with some floating pollen and vibrating the water. I think it was veritasium or someone like that who did it. Was pretty cool seeing it.
True, the macroscopic version is quite fascinating. I doubt this reflects the microscopic reality but it is a very interesting manifestation of de Broglie's theory.
Louis Raymond, Duke deBroglie
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
2:00 is the mistake that E=mc^2 is for rest energy of a particle (v=0)? This would be just the trivial answer for a stationary particle
This is correct, E=mc² is the total energy of a massive particle at rest; therefore, applying this to a moving particle is conceptually wrong. There is also another problem with this "derivation" in the last step.
@@jkzerois it missing a relativistic correction factor? (taking the relativistic momentum)
the big issue is replacing c by v, this is terribly wrong because it implies that the rest energy is E=mcv (instead of E=mc²), which makes no sense
@@jkzeroHow exactly does it change as the particle starts moving?
Would it be "E = mc² + (1/2)mv²", or "E = mc²/√(1- β²)", or something else?
E = mc²/√(1- β²) is the exact form; E = mc² + (1/2)mv² is only the first terms on the Taylor series
Interesting. It is never taught how de Broglie came up with this, but just the formula as if just postulated it. I guess because the original formulism is not how we understand physics today, they don't delve much into it. The only thing I recall from undergrad was that de Broglie was a French Aristocrat for who physics was more a or less a serious hobby. Thanks for enlightening the world.
You are right, the de Broglie was a wealthy and distinguished family in France. Both Maurice and Louis de Broglie took physics very seriously, far from just a hobby. Maurice turned his mansion in Paris into a lab where he delighted his little brother with physics demonstrations. He was also one of the note takers during the first Solvay Conference in 1911. I mentioned some of this in an early video teasing where things were heading ruclips.net/video/xINR4MoqYVc/видео.html
@@jkzero Maybe hobby is wrong word, but they could support themselves and do whatever they wanted. I got impression they funded themselves. Most people in Physics have to find and do work that pays to support themselves and the pressure of having results that it comes with. Nice to live and do work you like . The brothers did not take the easy path.
I see, yeah, I get your point now. Yes, they could have continued with the easy way but decided to get into hard physics. Maurice was very close to beat Millikan with his photoelectric-effect experiments and Compton with his X-ray scattering studies. Maurice de Broglie was so recognized and well regarding within the physics community that it is fun to read letters in which Einstein refers Louis as "the other de Broglie"
In high school final test in India we have to write that funny proof as the derivation for the dirmula
Greetings to India
would you mind eventually creating a document with a guide (as in referencing rhe articles) to study the theoretical and experimental ideas in quantum mechanics in more or less chronological order with pontifications on what one should pay attention in the papers?
Oh yes, as a I write my notes I am collecting all the valuable information that I plan to condense into a single document at some point
So the intrinsic oscillatory property is sort of irrelevant? I was expecting something "satisfying" like the intrinsic periodic motion somehow looking like the phase wave from a moving frame because of relativity and not being different, independent "things".
Anyway, your work is phenomenal and I always look forward for more!
sorry if this part was underwhelming, I decided to focus only on the basic idea and derive the famous wavelength formula instead of having a single video with too many new ideas together. I hope that what comes next is more exciting.
Thanks for this video, but it raises some questions. For example, at 9:35 I see that the wavelength is the ratio of a fictitious V over the fictitious frequency so the wavelength is a fictitious wave 'ones? but at the same time it is the wavelength corresponding to the real speed of the particles. This seems strange to me.
1:53 although I'm no expert, the derivation seems to have mixed up rest mass and moving mass. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to know what the correct answer should be for this
You are correct; assuming a massless particle just to use a formula for massive particles later is mathematically consistent but physically incorrect.
I understand that de Broglie was not erring by equating photon energy with the relativistic particle energy. I'm not sure why he needs to assume a small photon mass to do that since the relativistic expression is only indeterminate and not infinite for a zero mass photon.
even water has "wave" /"particle" duality.
in Sea water acts like waves
tap water acts like "particles" when water falls in form of "droplets"
"The Sympathetic/Dissonant Frequency Effect" -McClure
The intrinsic frequency of all Quantum Matter building blocks BEYOND matter's "Resonant" Frequency of molecular shape/weight/or mass
5th force Quantum Gravity that is in opposition to Einstien's admittedly incomplete Theory of Special Relativity (in concert with S.R.) that is itself 'Dark Energy" (Void Energy) as in my;
"Closed-Circuit, Tensive Void-Energy Effect" -McClure
and "corrolating to "The Matter/Space/Triad" -McClure that describes the "physical" field of Space/Time as an entity with undetectable mass.
As these theorems describe in this video, my theorems as well come to the same theoretical conclusions. Eibstirn was not able to unify Classic Particle Physics with Quantum Mechanics because he gave up on the convept that the void of space was ibdeed "physical" and energy that could not only be mrasured but weighed with the terms of quantum 5th force gravity.
The fifth force described in both this video and resonant throughout all my quantum postulates as a required feature of soace itsrlf being a "physical fabric" with traits that we will eventually learn measure as features beyond traditional gravitational effects on recognizable mass.
We will link this nrw 5th force with planck time and time distortion as individual energy packs percirved as "distance" ny the human consciousness and the reason for our "relative" observations of time due to location
"Physical Time"
"The Matter/Space/Time Triad" -McClure
(Combining matter with the perception of time and tied to Planck "relative" consistancy based on an ingrained and learned packet of energy percieved as distance and when warped or stretched - that longer planck (based on red shift or time dialation) lenthens a single planck of time (pixilation) but still percieved as the same tine/distance as it is judged by the consistant packet of energy (Relative Perception) BEYOND the effrvts of Special Relativity's warping od PATH of time.
Enjoyed this, but: (10:16) "un-noticed by the Physics community, nobody read it" does not well describe Louis de Broglié's paper in the Comptes Rendus. Everyone in Europe read it and discussed it; but only in America was there funding to try high-vacuum experiments to test de Broglié's ideas. Fortunately Davisson was thereby prompted to complete the Davisson-Germer experiments.
Compare for example Gehrenbeck's article in "Physics Today" of January 1978, page 37; de Broglié's paper (and others) "were the subject of lively discussions at the Oxford meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science".
Davisson was shocked that his initial Davisson-Germer experiments (electrons diffracting off a platinum target, in 1923) were taken as evidence of de Broglié wave behaviour by Max Born and Blackett, among others: "Imagine his surprise, then, when he heard a lecture by Born in which his own ... curves of 1923 were cited as confirmatory evidence for de Broglié's electron waves!"
So on returning to the USA, he and Germer began the final push which led on 7th January 1927 to electron diffraction peaks being observed off a single nickel crystal.
This is very close to what I have mentioned as a remark to a number of different video's. Unfortunately I am not up to doing the math. I have come to my conclusion from starting with Einstein's "Light Clock" and then trying to lay it down. That is trying to find out how it would work if it was pulsating in the line of movement. I found that it works fine provided length contraction is taken into consideration. It would work in any direction provided a portion of length contraction according to the clocks angle is taken into consideration.
Knowing that electricity has a similar propagation speed as light I then wondered if every particle had an internal electric oscillation. If that is the case that oscillation would also slow down if at all moved from absolute zero speed. This in my mind explains the longer life of the Muon when it travels fast.
Also from my knowledge of electricity I am familiar with standing waves. I know that it is wave energy standing still.
Thinking about the simplest form of energy I can think of then that is an EME (light being a part of that). Also thinking about the formula E = hf then I have an amount of energy basically standing still where the standing wave is. Then putting that together with E = mc^2 there must also be a mass where there is an energy.
Putting all this together I would agree with Louis de Broglie that EME must have a tiny mass. This would also explain I believe why light bends from gravity and why atomic clocks go slower in higher gravity.
Bending of light by gravitational fields and gravitational time dilation does not require massive light, these two effects are classical in nature and can be easily derived from Einstein's general relativity. Assuming that massive light is needed for gravitational light bending is a mistake rooted on Newtonian mechanics, which is an incomplete description of gravity.
@@jkzero I am not smart or learned enough to argue with you about the last bit and I can see that you are convinced. I do however believe that Newtonian mechanics is still used quite a lot and is not that far out. Considering that I do believe my explanations could work.
I postulate that time keeping is in each and every little particle or what you will call it. Until I am convinced that I am wrong I will keep on believing it but I admit that I have been wrong before and I have changed my mind before. I will keep on watching your videos.
Addition: I know well that e = mc^2 is not the full formula. It is missing the momentum part which is supposed to counter for no mass.
Now I have also found that the normal formula for time dilation can also be described as
Time dilated is equal to TIME(rest) * SIN(COS-1(v/c)) this tells that if v = c then time will stand still. There will be no time counting as there will be no oscillation.
Now a light beam coming from some where does not arrive instantly so time in space does not stand still for anything that travelled at the speed of light. It is just that no time is felt for the traveling.
If you defined mass as being some thing with an oscillation then of cause light has no mass. The thing is just do we really know what mass is? I would dare to define it as mass as EME oscillating in some form like a standing wave and I believe that is much like Louis de Broglie did.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 "Time dilated is equal to TIME(rest) * SIN(COS-1(v/c))"
Yes, one can write it in this way. But what's the point of that?
"this tells that if v = c then time will stand still"
Yes, but you also get that from the usual formula, with sin.
"If you defined mass as being some thing with an oscillation then of cause light has no mass."
Huh? For us, the observer, light _has_ oscillation. Only if you talk about what the light particles _themselves_ experience (which does not actually make sense), there is no oscillation.
"The thing is just do we really know what mass is?"
Essentially, a form of energy.
"I would dare to define it as mass as EME oscillating in some form like a standing wave"
What does EME mean?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 The reason for the formula is that I am trying to work out what the formula is if the light clock is in an angle to the travel direction other than 90 degrees. A part lo length contraction has to be inserted as well. At 0 degree it is the actual length contraction. It will not matter for any traveling person as if he wants to measure the two way speed of light by sending a light beam to a mirror at a known distance away he will always get the right answer in his time as the distance will automatically have altered it self.
I don't know how and why length contraction occur. Time dilation I can explain with that it takes longer for the internal oscillation when the mass is moved.
What I meant with :"If you defined mass as being some thing with an oscillation then of cause light has no mass." was perhaps not very clear. I meant with internal oscillation. Light or any other EME (Electro Magnetic Emission) does not have an internal oscillation. It is an ongoing wave. A radio wave which is an EME as well is emitted over some time (if it was 1Hz it would be 1 second) and the wave front does not come back (unless reflected by something). The whole thing about Louis de Broglie idea is that there are internal waves or oscillations I believe.
I am sorry using EME (Electro Magnetic Emission) without specifying what it is.
Pilot Wave theory is the best interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and predicts that Relativity is wrong! In this theory, particles are always real and have real positions and momentums, which transmit energy at speed less than c, and are guided by a Pilot Wave which transmits the information superluminally. The proof is that EM theory and quantum theory both predict the speed of light is not constant as once thought, and in fact it is instantaneous in the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, starting at about 1 wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c, even at astronomical distances from the source. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
As mentioned, this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Thankyou excellent video
Glad you enjoyed it
Thank you for this wonderful deep dive.
Please forgive a dumb question, I'm just a physics fanboy:
(maybe part 2 will clarify the answer, or at least why the question is ... well, off-target if not dumb).
If an electron encounters a double slit setup, it seems that the "fictitious" pilot wave is responsible for creating the interference guiding the electron to its destination, so is the pilot wave traveling to the screen faster than c?
In de Broglie's theory, both the electron and its guiding wave move across the experiment. The electron goes through one slit, the guiding wave goes through both and forms an interference pattern on the other side. Once the electron is on the other side, the waves guide the electron to a region of high amplitude.
@@jkzero Thanks, I got that. Does the guiding wave travel to the screen faster than c? Or did I totally confuse myself with vV=c^2?
OK, the next video addresses this question. Thank you!
very cool video!
Thanks for the visit
1:46 both of these formulas are just analogies where you replace c with v or p with mv across contexts that don't have these relations
also the first energy relation doesn't make any sense for light or any moving particle, and the second ONLY makes sense for light
You are right; the big issue with replacing c by v, is that this makes the rest energy E=mcv, which makes no sense.
You earned my subscription
Thanks! I am glad you liked the video and welcome to the channel. In case you haven't, make sure to check the rest of the series on quantum physics ruclips.net/p/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH
An optimistic note for students: If you make at least two mistakes in a derivation, the odds are high that you'll get the right answer.
i love your vids!
Are matter waves a physical wave like an electromagnetic wave? Are electron clouds and matter waves the same thing? Is the electron cloud a physical cloud like the normal cloud we know?
de Broglie was asked this question at the Solvay Conference in 1927, he did not know.
@jkzero So, is the electron cloud a physical structure like the cloud and fog we know?
if by "electron clouds" you refer to the modern visualization of an atom, no, de Broglie waves are not directly observable, only their effects guiding particles. In the case of electrons in an atomic nucleus, the waves proposed by de Broglie make the electron go in orbits that satisfy the Bohr quantization rules, I will show this in part 2.
wow i always thought de Broglie just copied Einsteins formula. Thank you for enlighting me. Great Video.
This is the impression that many textbooks give, sadly making de Broglie's contribution sort of "meh"
So V=c^2/v, can be tested in delayed double slit experiment?
the phase wave cannot be directly observed, only its effect on guiding the particle
Go far enough with this video series and you might be able to write an alternative QM textbook presenting the science along with the historical context
I feel like we will see phase velocity and group velocity if waves will play a significant role in part 2.
you are guessing right, part of the video is becoming a primer on waves; however, (despite what many people neglect it) a good understanding of waves is crucial for wave mechanics
@ OK! having studied ocean acoustics I am familiar with the phenomenon in waveguides whereby acoustic modes can have phase velocities ω/k exceeding the speed of sound (in water) but the speed of energy transport in the mode travels at the group velocity dω/dk. Am I warm?
You are all set. Note that I in this video I calculated the phase velocity, and you are probably not surprised that the phase wave "moves faster than light." Several viewers have asked about this "odd feature" so I will dedicate a few minute to make sure that everyone is on board with basic wave knowledge. We still need to calculate the group velocity.
@@jkzero philosophically, it makes sense that a guiding wave would run ahead of a particle
@@jkzero Every serious textbook on quantum mechanics should start with the general wave theory and Fourier analysis. After all, the electron diffraction is about wave interference and intensity; the uncertainty principle is an inequality in Fourier analysis; the time-independent Schrödinger equation is a Helmholtz equation; the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is combination of uncertainty principle and statistical classical mechanics.
If circular waves in water are agitated enough a drop of water may pop up from the centre of the waves, analogous to an atom being formed out of agitated waves of quantum fields.
Imagine introducing himself
"Louis de Broglie, physicist prince"
Fantastic channel! Congratulations!
Since every particle is some matter and every wave is some motion, there should be also a matter-motion duality, right? De Broglie’s concept of wave-particle duality seems to also have fascinatig metaphysical consequences! More about this on „metafizyka wspolczesna youtube”. English subtitles available.
imagine you want to go for pilot wave in your masters and try to find a professor for your paper
Please explain normal and anomalous zeeman effect and it's quantum mechanical explanation in a video.
I cannot guarantee to be able to fulfill all the requests but I always open to collecting suggestions, thanks.
@@jkzero bro I am a physics student.I wish you to be my teacher . There are many popular science channels but a few like yours which explain academic physics (including complex mathematical derivations) deeply along with history .Your videos can enlighten many students in academics.
thanks, I appreciate the feedback and I am glad you find the content of value. I am happy to have many physics students and teachers as viewers and I have been notified that some teachers are showing my videos in their classrooms, this is very fulfilling. One of the reason that I started this channel was that I miss teaching.
Used his equation in general chemistry
probable to derive the basics of atomic orbitals, I will talk about this in Part 2
Its a wavicle. Or a partiave.
A great video. I covered the same ground in my "Road to Quantum Reality" (Real Wave Quantum Mechanics) series part 7 recently. I wonder if you are aware that de Broglie's "Harmony of the Phases" postulate can be carried a great deal further. It can lead to a theory of a distributed electron in which Angular Momentum is not intrinsic but can be calculated from first principles, as explained in my videos. I would be very interested in your comments on this.
Presenting the pilot wave interpretation as fact despite no consensus on the topic. I like the confidence. I also agree, despite the lack of consensus.
I am only presenting de Broglie's work but not really pushing for this way of understanding quantum mechanics; although I am not sure if there is really a consensus regarding the so-called "interpretations" of quantum mechanics. And to be totally honest, I feel oddly comfortable with some aspects of pilot-wave theory, while at the same time part of my brain says "No."
@jkzero No matter which interpretation you choose, you have to abandon some fundamental assumption. The reason I prefer the pilot wave interpretation is because it avoids abandoning determinism, and if the objective of science is to say "given A, find B", then preserving a relationship where A implies B is crucial to getting the best solution.
In any case, you did a great job of presenting the facts. I look forward to part 2.
Yeah, it's almost as if someone would present QFT that way 🤣
@@jkzero Then lemme do the pushing for ya: Pilot wave is a *physical* theory. QFT is not. (And QCD even less so)
awesome
Spamming my college group chats with this video!!
Thanks for supporting the channel by sharing the content.
Top! Top!
Wave of what 🤔
This is a question that de Broglie was unable to answer, he was grilled with this question at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927. Maybe this is why he looks so serious in the photo (beginning of the video).
@@jkzero 🤔 interesting a few call it the Æther. Seems we can't avoid its perfect explanation of everything. Nikola Tesla seems to have figured it out🤷
@@EnergyTRE Nikola Tesla never did do any relevant work on quantum theory, what are you talking about?
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 because it was nonsense. Ik why too. Anyone saying quantum is a fool. Or photon and electron. Einstein's stolen fairytale stories are a wash.
I very much doubt that anyone could tell me what de Broglie's main achievements are. _o)
Wave theory came from hydrodynamics?
could you clarify what you mean by "wave theory" here?
This sounds like I / Q what happens if you FFT this? What domain do you enter at that point?
What exactly sounds like I/Q, and what exactly do you want to FFT here?
Can you change the thumbnail? The AI image sends the wrong message, and detracts from what is an otherwise great lecture.
thanks for the constructive feedback, several others have pointed out the same issue. I have now changed it.
useless as an introduction... stuck in formulae without explaining the basic qualities...
Copenhagen feels so wrong. But i guess q.m. doesn't give a crap about my feelings.
I recall an interview of one of my childhood heroes (Leon Lederman) in which he talks about the counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics and ends with "Nature doesn't give a damn about our intuition" and I found that approach very comforting.
@jkzero sweet, I'm not the only one who feels like that. I'll google him. Thanks for the info!
Leon Lederman was a director of Fermilab and famous within the general public for his pop-sci book "The God Particle" so he used to appear a lot on documentaries about quantum mechanics on the Discovery Channel when I was a kid (when Discovery Channel was about science). He missed the Nobel Prize two important discoveries in particle physics but finally got it in 1988. I had the pleasure to meet him when I started university and again 10 years later at Fermilab during my doctorate.
@jkzero I've got a lot of reading to do! :)