At the age of 11, I got a book from the library about Albert Einstein. The book gave the background - how scientists in the 19th century believed space was filled with an Aether to explain waves in a vacuum. And then, the Theory of General Relativity, on how gravity bends space. And it was asserted by Einstein that this did away with the Aether. And even at that age I wondered; why does it dispense with the Aether? Gravity bending space surely means space is made of *something* . And you know... I have never done away with that niggling thought, still present 33 years later in my mind!
** Yes, in GR, if SPACETIME is curving, then something must curve. If space is filled with this curving SPACETIME, then Special Relativity fails. SR requires space to be empty, otherwise a single object can always tell its motion relative to the curving SPACETIME that fills space. This is the basic idea of Lorentz/Poincare relativity, i.e. AT REST within the "still aether" or moving relative to the "still aether" that fills space. So, it is a similar argument with the electromagnetic wave medium of "aether." If light is wave (via double slit interference experiment), then something must be waving! If something fills space to allow electromagnetic waves, then Special Relativity dies again... since a single object can always tell its motion relative to the aether that fills space. Einstein SR requires that you can only tell your own motion relative to another OBJECT in empty space. And then, SR says you can claim to be AT REST but so can the other object...?!? what? So who is moving in Einstein's fantasy world?
- E = hf is not a "1-second wave equation" - it's not limited to 1 second, nor does it describe a wave. It just says "the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, and the constant of proportionality is h". You seem to think it's related to 1 second because the unit of f is "per 1 second". The reason this doesn't matter is that the unit of h is "joules per (per 1 second)", so the "per 1 second"s cancel out. You could just as well replace h with the equivalent in "joules per (per 10 seconds)" or "joules per (per 0.1 seconds)" or any other duration, and replace f with the equivalent frequency over the new duration, and you get the same result; it does not rely on 1 second in particular. - You ask when it is that light turns into a medium for waves to propagate through. Why are you so dissatisfied with describing the thing that oscillates using pure mathematics? How would an ether be any better? You could, if you wanted to, say the ether is real and its behavior is described by the theory of quantum electrodynamics, but then it's not clear what point there is in asserting there's an ether. That's why we just use the math. - The interference pattern in your experiment is not due to individual photons interfering with themselves in superpositions. Because the source is a coherent beam (different concept of "coherent" than quantum coherence), it's just this beam interfering with itself classically.
Hey dickweed, what is your question? Didn't I ask for you not to comment about what you think you know? I don't care about your brainwashed, re-parroted ideas. Would you like to ask a question so you can learn something? Should I answer this silly, emotional question? **
I would like to start off this comment by saying that this video sounds a lot like "cult talk" to me. For a champion of logic, your arguments mostly boil down to "this doesn't exist" or "this is wrong" without further explanation of why you say that, just like cultist leaders insist that birds aren't real and the moon is a hologram. I praise, however, your iniciative to think, and incite others to think, critically about such important topics. Quantum Mechanics is very precise in its math and its observations; what is needed now (I believe) is to understand its interpretation, and all efforts are appreciated (including this one). We must, even so, thread lightly and talk very precisely about what we mean. First, your "photon debunking". The reality of photons, historically, comes from the ultraviolet catastrophe and everything surrounding the photoelectric effect. So, let's look at the problems, and see if the photon solution is suitable. The problem was that according to our best models at the time, the light emitted from a blackbody should have its intensity blow up to infinity as its frequency increased. We knew experimentaly that this was not the case. For high frequencies, there was something limiting its intensity, in a bell-shape-like fashion. We did not know what it was. It was then that Max Planck, in a fit of despair, thought of locating a hypothetical harmonic oscilator, something alike to a spring of some sort, to every point of the blackbody. Because these harmonic oscilators could only vibrate in certain whole multiples of a certain frequency, which he called h, they were a suitable mechanism to mathematically limit the intensity of emitted light. He was expecting h to disappear; a quirk of the math. However, when he was finished, it remained. So what is the justification for this h? Are there little metaphysical springs attached to every point of matter? We didn't know. Enter the Bohr model of the atom and the photoelectric effect. Why did intensity play no role in kicking off the electrons of the metal? Einstein's solution was that, even though there were no little springs in the metal, light itself played the role of plancks springs. It could only have a set of energies. And if the energies did not match the energy difference from an energy level to another, the electron would stay in place. It is now here we must thread lightly. You see, Einstein imagined that light was composed of localized wave-packets of definite energy E=hf. And this was what he called a photon, a "particle" of light that took place in the interaction between light and electron. Thing is, this mental picture is a bit inaccurate. Particles in quantum mechanics are very fuzzy; they are not spatialy perfectly defined. They are not elipsoids, or spheres. The particle doesn't "start" or "end" at a certain position. Particle simply refers to the quantized vibration at play in the interaction. So your argument for the absurdness of the photon concept falls somewhat short. The photon is not a perfectly defined region of space which encloses "energy", like energy was some mystical substance, it is rather the vibration itself, and the energy we coloqually say it possesses is the energy associated with that vibration. Assigning then size to the photon becomes meaningless, like for every quantum particle. What size does a wave have? Now, to your claim that superposition is not real. The idea of superposition comes, mathematically, from Schrodinger's equation, which is just a statement of conservation energy. As you may know, this differential equation is linear, which means that any sum of solutions scaled by some constants is also a solution to the equation. The problem resides in the fact that nearly every wavefunction ( a solution to Schrodinger's eq) can be written as a weighted sum of solutions (or even worse, for some, a continuous infinte sum of solutions). And these solutions describe the state of the particle... so how to interpret these individual solutions that also solve schrodingers equation? Well, one way is to face them as equally real, and say the particle is in a "superposition" of states, it is in all of them at the same time (at least in the Copenhagen interpretation). This concept is, however, not very satisfactory. How are they real? Why do we only measure one perfectly defined state? These are questions quantum mechanics does NOT answer. Which is why it is of my opinion that what quantum mechanics needs the most right now is people thinking about its implications. Having said all this, however, the fact remains that this linearity of the schrodinger's equation has some expression in reality, like in the double slit experiment, which can be performed with all kinds of particles, even atoms and molecules!! Wether this is a result of "particles being in various places at the same time" we do not know. But this phenomenon is VERY real. We have been studying it for several decades now. Finally, to your demonstration of the double slit experiment and the definition of measurement. The way that common (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics explains this is that the particle is in a superposition of positions and momenta, which results in a wavelike interference pattern. When we measure it however, the particle stops behaving this way and yields in turn a projectile-like pattern. This however is not the particle "knowing it was measured". I agree with you that that is ridiculous. What is happening is we're measuring (and by that interfering with) the particle. This causes it's position wavefunction to become momentarly very localized, which is why the results are different. The measurement here is an exchange of momentum by the photons of the measurement device and the particle in question. Particles are not passive agressive in reality, they're just weird waves. Furthermore we must define well measurement. In quantum mechanics, measurement is a very specific action, and I am not particularly versed in this, but what I do know is that it is a kind of interaction (so, the exchange of some property), that extracts information from the system. For example, in the double slit experiment the exchange in momentum between the particle and light extracts the information of its position, so it is a measurement. But not all interactions are measurements. Which brings me to your demonstration of the double slit using light. Between the diffractor and the wall there's a TON of air particles moving around, with an average kinetic energy in the order of -21 joules. You really think that if there is superposition in this environment, you heating the air up a few degrees would break the superposition...? I don't think I have to point out why that is dumb. To end, a few notes. This comment is not a defense of quantum mechanics. Qm has many problems, such as the measurement problem and everything around superposition and its formalism in general. This is an attempt at clarification of concepts you have wrongly utilized, and a critique of your arguments. Also, I agree that wave particle duality is not a very accurate idea to describe the behaviour itself. As Richard Feynman himself put it, wave particle duality is not the statement that particles are particles and waves at the same time, but rather something that we use to avoid inventing a new term for them, "wavicles", as he comicly sugested in his book QED: The strange theory of matter and light. Particles are not little billiard balls and they are not waves on the surface of the water. They are much weirder, and fantastical, than our classical pictures.
** So if you said this statement to the CREATOR of that math equation...he would laugh at you. "State of the particle"? That's Max Born's idea to save the Copenhagen/Bohr crazy theory of jumping electrons and the miraculous orbit of "stationary state."
** Look at what you are assuming here..."particles." Define a particle? Is it a theoretical "math-point." Is it a real piece of matter with a radius? What is the physical reality of this "particle" think you are talking about?
** No it doesn't. The photon of E=hf was made up by Einstein so he had some way of describing light with RAYS and no ether medium in his silly Special Relativity paper. He just re-used Max Planck's math in an incorrect way. The photoelectric effect show resonance at certain frequencies with certain metal, which is what Millikan described in his paper...how are projectile particles going to resonate? Silly...
** If you were to look at my channel, before assuming that I am some kind of a stupid idiot, you will see I have a 1 hour video on this topic...It's called the Quantum Flaw. Do you really think I don't understand the "mainstream" story and just came up with these videos on a whim?
Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 is NOT representative of the theory of quantum mechanics (by "theory of quantum mechanics", I mean the non-relativistic theory of QM, it's postulates, which contain the Schrödinger equation). Basically what Einstein did in that paper is to take Planck's idea of quantizing the energy of the photon (which Planck did - at the time it was barely anything more than a mathematical trick - to explain the Blackbody spectrum) and apply it to explain the photoelectric effect. ALL that Einstein is saying in that paper is that the energy of light comes in discrete "packets" or quanta, and this energy is proportional to the frequency of the wave, summarized in the equation E = hf. It does NOT talk about any sort of internal structure of the photon, whether it consists of waves or is a point particle or anything else. What you are doing is taking the classical picture of a photon (i.e. an electromagnetic wave) and pointing out the inconsistencies that happen when you apply E = hf to that picture; of course there will be inconsistencies! because the model you have taken for the photon is a classical one. Let me expand on what I mean: First, explaining the photoelectric effect essentially boils down to explaining this baffling experimental result: when I shine red light on potassium, no matter how intense my light source is, I never see electrons get knocked out of the potassium sample, but even a very weak beam of green light can cause electrons to get knocked out of the sample (which I will see as current flowing on the ammeter if I set up the photoelectric effect experiment). What's going on? This effect cannot be explained by the classical picture i.e. Maxwell's theory of Electromagnetism, because - classically - an EM wave should be able to continuously impart energy to the potassium-bound electron, cycle by cycle, and if the beam is turned on for long enough, the electron should acquire enough energy to escape the potassium's (or whatever metal we are talking about) potential well - which would imply that the red light should be able to knock electrons out of potassium, and a more intense beam should make more electrons come out - but we simply do not observe such a behaviour in reality. Einstein's explanation, however, is consistent with experiment; for example, if light comes in these discrete quanta whose energy is proportional to their frequency (note - when we say "frequency" in the context of QM, it is often indistinguishable from the notion of energy; there is usually no oscillation involved at all; the concept of frequency is QM is divorced from the classical concepts of periodically oscillating things, so if something in QM has a frequency, doesn't mean that there is any oscillation going on), then shining an even higher frequency of light isn't going to make the electrons get knocked out faster (the interaction between a light quanta - or more popularly known as a "wavepacket" - and an electron happens practically instantaneously) or have more electrons get released per unit time; it's only going to increase the kinetic energy of the knocked out electrons - and this is exactly what we see in experiment. Now that we have established what the photoelectric effect is an what Einstein's explanation is actually saying, here are your misconceptions about all this that is causing you to come to the conclusion that QM is wrong: 1. One of your arguments is: a single cycle of the photon wave contains h energy, so a 3 hertz photon imparts 3 cycles worth of energy in one second to what it is interacting with. This is clearly taking the classical picture of a photon and trying to fit in the E = hf equation into it, which is definitely going to lead to inconsistencies. The classical picture of an EM have and the E = hf are NOT talking about the same model of the photon, so applying an equation of one to a model of another is wrong. 2. Your argument about the length of the photon: again, the same problem of applying the quantum E = hf equation to the classical EM wave picture. 3. Your argument on why the electron-photon interaction should not be instantaneous: You're again taking the classical picture here, of the EM wave imparting energy to the photon, cycle-by cycle. If, hypothetically, in the photoelectric effect, red light COULD knock out electrons from potassium the same way green light does, and if green light were to do it faster than red light, then sure, you would have been right and the classical picture of the photon as an EM wave would have been correct too; but this is not what we observe in reality, and we need theories that are consistent with experimental results, so we can rely on them to build things that work. I have seen this sort of misconception many times while interacting with my peers; hell, i've had misconceptions like these while I was learning quantum mechanics for the first time; but as you learn more about it (preferably through university courses) and have discussions with your instructor on these things, you'll be left with a clearer and clearer picture of what these theories are actually saying, and what they are not.
** No, I'm not. I'm saying there is NO photon particle that moves through empty space. To back that statement up, one example is looking at the e=hf math equation that Einstein used in his photoelectric paper to describe the photon, and it is wrong. ** I have an entire video on the channel that describes all the dumb shit you typed. You should go watch it, instead typing to me all of your brainwashed parroting. ** Lol, like there is some kind of radically new science that you need to invoke. That is just mainstream brainwashing...Copenhagen lies. ** AH HA! Brainwashed! You've got a long road ahead of you... it not easy for most people to leave a cult.
@@itsbsWell, I took the time to watch that video on the photoelectric effect; and nowhere in the video do you mention or address that the most notable aspect of the photoelectric effect is that there is a frequency threshold for the light being shined on the metal, after which electrons start to leave the metal - THAT's the part classical EM theory can't explain. You know what? Let's say that I AM brainwashed, and QM and Einstein's theory of relativity is all B.S. If so, why don't YOU offer a theory that explains the photoelectric effect? Just explain why - to repeat what I wrote above - if I shine red light on potassium, no matter how intense my light source is, I never see electrons get knocked out of the potassium sample, but even a very weak beam of green light can cause electrons to get knocked out of the sample. And make sure your theory matches all the experimental results on the effect, because that's the whole point of making up the theory. That's a real phenomena that's going to happen the same way independent of whether all Physicists on the planet are making up testable theories or running a cult. Bonus points you can also quantitatively explain the lines in the absorption/emission spectrum of Hydrogen while you're at it i.e. predict the precise frequencies of the Lyman, Balmer etc lines using your theory. Good luck! All this "dumb shit" is mainstream only because it matches things happening in reality, and when you build stuff using them, it works.
** That's not correct. The theories prior to Einstein was wave resonance in the atom is causing the Photoelectric effect. When Millikan did the experiment, he mentions that copious amounts of the effect occurred at specific frequencies, which is not correlated to increasing intensity of the input light source. *>* Have you ever read ANYTHING from Erwin Schrodinger? Heck, he even has a paper on the Compton Effect using wave theory... ** No, you build stuff and give credit to wrong pseudoscience. That's what the brainwashers do...you are stuck.
@@lepidoptera9337 wouldn't that be an application not a discovery? It just seems we've been stuck. Going in circles, with no increase in understanding. We can describe more, we can apply it to all kinds of technology, but we still don't understand any of it. I don't know what I'm talking about. Like 99% of people on the internet. But I am willing to admit it. I just have questions and observations. It seems like science, in many ways, is stuck. And there's gotta be a reason for it.
@@josiaphus It's an application that requires a complete understanding of atomic physics. Are you stuck? Obviously. But that's your personal crisis. ;-)
Wrong: 1- Quantum mechanics have given us many predictions, some of the most ACCURATE perditions in fact 2- The regular computer you are using is based on quantum mechanics, as the whole semiconductor theory underlining electronics. In fact electronics makes no sense without QM. In fact here are some technologies we have based on QM and explainable only through QM: -LEDs -Solar Cells -Lasers -X-ray machines and MRI machines -Electron microsopes -Atomic clocks and much more! 3- Just because we have no reliable quantum computer YET it does not mean quantum computing does not work. Just because something is hard to achieve it does not mean the underlying theory is wrong. Quantum theory started in the 1920... yet we are still reaping the benefits. Sometimes it takes decades to go from a theory to a realized reliable technology. 4- You clearly do NOT understand the math and QM. Yes, yes, I know Feynman said "no one understands it", but what it meant is that it simply cannot be understood in terms of classical intuitions. If you do not understand the math you do not understand QM. 5- YES people CAN give you a definition of a photon. A photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field. 6- Your photon example is COMPLETELY WRONG. The Energy of a photon depends on the intrinsic frequency of the wave, but you do not have to "stretch the photon for one second" E= hf simply means that the energy of the photon depends on it's frequency, not that it's energy is "divided into bits inside the wave". Now you do not understand this because you do not understand classical wave mechanics (eg. the energy of a guitar string) and even less QM. 7- The photoelectric effect proves that light (and electron energies) are quantized 8- The "two slit interference pattern" proves the wave-particle duality (WPD) 9- WPD really just means that under certain conditions a particle behaves like "classical particle" and sometimes like a "classical wave", but this is fully explained by both superposition and the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction 10 - Quoting Einstein won't help you. He was wrong about several things when it came to QM. Also you are quoting a paper from 1905!! That's basically before even QM started and lots of things were not understood yet. Of course Einstein is not going to give you answers in a paper written then before the whole QM was developed 11- Your interference pattern critique is wrong. You are using the oversimplified version given by some youtube video and comparing it to a real experiment. Actual QM predicts EXACTLY what we observe in interference patterns (btw these also depend on the side and distance of the slits) Basically you are misrepresenting the whole experiment and lying. The only BS here is this video
** Wrong - you don't know what Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is. Correct? No clue, right? ** Wrong. It is based on capacitance, inductance, resistance...basic electronic concepts. You've just been brainwashed by modern pseudoscience. Again, go figure out what Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is... ** Haha... keep believing in the pseudoscience of QUANTUM STATE in a superposition and it's lame brother Quantum Entanglement. They need BELIEVERS to keep the pseudoscience going... ** You clearly do not understand what Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is... ** Well, you completely misunderstood that part and that doesn't surprise me... ** You are easily fooled and convinced of "proof" because you are a fool. That's all. ** Duh, dumbass... have you ever heard of the "early Quantum Theory"? That's your boy Einstein reusing Max Planck's math... ** No, you are completely brainwashed with pseudoscience and member of the pseudoscience cult. You are ignorant of your own ignorance because you THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING! Hahah... I doubt you'll ever get out of the pseudoscience cult, because you seem to know your pseudoscience teachings pretty well!
@Joe Washington ** Correct -- and it is better to say QUANTUM MECHANICAL computers will never happen, which are based on the ideas of Quantum States in a superposition and Quantum Entanglement. These are false concepts and pseudoscience. We will, however, have analog based computing devices that will help improve computation. These will be classical WAVE based computers with very small components (in general, layman jargon, the word QUANTUM might still be associated with it...but it isn't the current Quantum Mechanical computer idea). Finally, we will probably learn how to combine both the analog and digital ideas into simultaneous computation/processing devices.
@Joe Washington ** Not in a physical sense, because wave superposition is the constructive/destructive interference you see in the double slit experiment. It is a real tangible scientific result. How you decide to compute with the measurable properties of waves would be the real breakthrough and a very good computer science problem to tackle. It's hard to predict what capabilities we might figure out here. BUT remember, the Quantum Mechanical computers were original sold as this: NATURE COMPUTES ALL POSSIBLE STATES ALL AT ONCE and then will collapse into a probable result. This is complete bullshit (Quantum parallelism) and based on the magical idea of "nature computing" all probable pathways to find the path of least resistance/time/etc within this magical "Quantum realm" of more bullshit. They have since backed away from that idea and now can't figure out what to do...but continue to sell the idea of the "quantum state superposition" ... they are really just generating random numbers (random actions/results). Scott Aaronson does talk about the "interference computation" idea but still sticks with the Quantum Mechanics bullshit, instead of admitting it is really just classical waves/oscillations that we are working with, i.e. classical analog computer utilizing measurable classical wave/oscillation phenomenon.
For physicists, this is great fun. Of course, it is utter nonsense. Quantum physics is absolutely true, but this video is so full of adorable misunderstandings that I, as a quantum physicist had a great laugh. I just hope that nobody takes this seriously.
@@itsbs many have already exposed you in other threads, the only thing stopping you from realising is your Jupiter-sized ineptitude that keeps going back to the same misunderstandings and dogmas and refuses to learn. You sir know everything, congratulations.
@@marcossidoruk8033 ** Yeah, I'm exposed IF YOU TAKE THEIR SIDE. Good one! My replies to their "exposing me" are generally decent rebuttals, no? Or is this just a one sided argument and not debatable? ...something like academic, science-Dogma? I refuse to learn the Dogma or you refuse to debate my points?
@@itsbs No they are not, all you do is arguments from ignorance, the others have tried to kindly make you understand but again, your incompetence on this topic seems to be so huge that you can't even possibly realize. And let me clarify, what makes you incompetent is the fact that you believe you know everything, that you can understand physics without studying seriously.
finally someone that shares my view, I felt the last things you said at the last 40 seconds of the video, it indeed always felt to me like a "forget everything you know, just believe on this weird thing because we professional scientists say so"
Addressing your slide on E = hf - frequency is the measure of oscillations per second. When we say some arbitrary object or apparatus is 3 hertz, we're stating that if a second were to come to occur then 3 cycles would happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean the second fully pass. Here's an analogy - if I ran at a speed of 15 miles per hour, that doesn't mean I ran 15 miles. I can only run at such a speed for a few seconds. Claiming the photon would be 300 million meters long is a misrepresentation of what E = hf is actually saying.
** Correct, but what is the energy of a 3Hz "photon"? It takes 3 "h" values, which would be 3 oscillations, which would be 1 full second of time. Do the same for a Red photon of 480 trilllion oscillations -- it must have that energy to be Red. ** No, it is not. It is illustrating that Einstein's E=hf claim that a single "750 nanometer" of energy is Red photon is wrong.
@@itsbs "...but what is the energy of a 3Hz "photon"? IIt takes 3 "h" values, which would be 3 oscillations, which would be 1 full second of time." A 3Hz photon doesn't contain three waves!! It is a /frequency/, not a number of waves!! If I walk at 3 mph, that doesn't mean I am stretched out over 3 miles. What you are demonstrating, and very eloquently, is the old adage: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Indeed it is!
@@Brian.001 ** E=hf If you plug in 3 for f, then you get 3*h or... h + h + h = Energy f = frequency in Hertz which is cycles per second. 3 Hz is 3 cycles per second. Each cycle within that 1 second interval gets an "h" energy.
@@itsbs No. I'm talking about your flat out wrong description of the theory of quantum mechanics. You make serious and extreme mis-characterizations of quantum mechanics at the very beginning of your video. It's almost like you are making a straw man, claiming it to be quantum mechanics, then tearing down the straw man in order to claim victory over QM. But what you say is quantum mechanics is not quantum mechanics. I gave you the benefit of doubt by just calling you ignorant. Perhaps your not ignorant. Maybe you're just stubborn... Do you believe in flat earth?
@@roberttownsend7064 ** You can see I say "over simplified." If you are going to explain it to a beginner, you have to start somewhere. Besides, why go deep into Quantum Mechanics at the beginning when it just wrong anyway? *
@@itsbs "You can see I say "over simplified."... " You can SAY "over simplified" all you want. I say that you INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED. "No, the claim is starting with the double-slit experiment, when Quantum Mechanics start to fantasize about light particles, single light particles, and Quantum State in a superposition. It gets ridiculous fast and I referenced PAUL DIRAC's OWN WORDS!!! I didn't make up that book!!" 1. Just saying "fantasize" and "it's ridiculous" does nothing to discredit the the results of those experiments, it only makes you look more ignorant. It also discredits your approach as a scientist. 2. Citing an authority is not the same as making a logical argument or presenting an alternate hypothesis. Citing an authority means exactly jack shit. As far as actual science is concerned, citing an authority simply calls into question your integrity as a scientist. "Hah! It is funny. What do you think I THINK OF YOU!?!? Oh Devout follower of Max Born's Rule!!" 1. I do not believe that you actually think. Period. I believe that you live to demonstrate your own ignorance. You are a shining beacon of ignorance that FSM as placed on this earth to warn others of potential folly. 2. As for Born's Rule, I am an actual scientist, so I already naturally question everything. You are the fool who thinks science is about following rules and devising experiments that prove your ideas correct. I am the scientist who understands that science is about questioning everything while trying to prove MYSELF wrong. I object to your idiocy because you prove nothing. You provide nothing. You misrepresent. You lie by omission and by misrepresentation. At no point did you ever actually address any of the findings in the field of Quantum Mechanics in the last century, just as you have not actually addressed any of my charges. You simply throw word salad nonsense, mud, and misdirection into an important field of investigation. Without at least proposing an alternative SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS, you are nothing more than the kind of fool that holds humanity back.
@@roberttownsend7064 ** Well, you would be absolutely wrong. Quantum Physics is the interaction between the electron and light. That's all you really need to know, because that gets us to Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics, which is really all that is needed. Quantum Mechanics is an INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTAION of Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics!
There are no particles, only waves - Correct. There is no duality, because there are no particles - Correct. Physics defines a photon as indivisible - Correct. Physics has no mathematical formula for a single photon - Correct. Double-slit: Since the photon is indivisible (by definition) is cannot and does not "split" into quantum-states or otherwise. Fire single-photons, one at a time, into double-slit and the identical interference pattern eventually results. Therefore, photons are not and cannot be "interfering with themselves." (more...) Physics has made several errors regarding the question of indivisibility (amplitude which is directly related to charge quantization, which we will leave aside for the moment) and frequency. Let us assume the shortest possible wave at a given center frequency is a single-cycle? (Single-cycle is not a valid solution of the wave equation, but let's play along for understanding's sake?). Can one divide the wave into the up-cycle and the down-cycle? No, of course not. Half-cycles do not propagate. Photons are therefore indivisible by chopping waves into shorter and shorter lengths. Continuing the single-cycle approximation, the photon is therefore a wave, not a particle? And waves fill space; they are not infinitely small. So when a single-photon *wave* impinges a double-slit, the wave strikes both slits? The photon is a wave with spatial dimension of a wavelength and the slit is roughly a wavelength separation (if slits aren't separated by approximately the size of the wavelength, the diffraction pattern will not be demonstrated)? That's why the single-photon has to strike both slits, because they both have similar physical size. As the photon passes through both slits, part of the wave goes through one slit, while the rest goes through the other. This is another error the physicist makes. He points and says, "look, the photon has been divided, because part of the energy goes through one slit and part through the other slit!" What he fails to see is that the photon remains connected and never truly splits. In fact, running an E/M simulation proves the Electric and Magnetic fields wrap around the slits and continue to take up (even more) physical space through both slits and for a time, on both sides of the plate. Because the wave size is significant, compared to the slits. Why the difficulty understanding? Because, students were taught particles and duality. Of course the reader now knows, there are no particles and no duality. Hopefully, the reader now sees that the double-slit experiment proves exactly the opposite of what they've been told? Double-slit disproves particles and reaffirms waves. A similar analysis of the photoelectric effect proves the same thing. Quantization occurs due to the spherical wave equation holding the electron. No particle solution is possible. Only the wave-equation explains the experiment. Again, the opposite of what physicists are taught.
Once Huygens and Newton - they disagreed - exchanged comments and opinions on the corpuscular and wave theory of light in an exchange of letters. Huygens held that light could not be molecular in nature because no collisions, collisions of molecules, or other phenomena indicating the existence of physical particles in the stream were observed in the crossed streams of light, while waves, in his opinion, had no problem doing so. Newton, on the other hand, argued that only a fool could assume the wavelike nature of light, knowing that the wave propagated throughout the medium and could not produce a current, as is the case, for example, with an ordinary flashlight. But if the oscillating field - a kind of physical space - has perturbations, i.e. waves propagating in this field, it is difficult to reconcile this with the corpuscular nature of the photon. It is interesting that Couder drops can even explain a phenomenon like "tunnelling". It seems to me that no contemporary theory clearly and satisfactorily explains the answers to these critical doubts of the two scientists. Assuming the existence of a particle of light, it is also difficult to explain the absence of a recoil acting on the sources of light - the laser placed on the surface without friction will not vibrate - while the oscillator of disturbances, the waves, by nature have no recoil. When light passes from one medium to another, it may slow down or accelerate, etc. etc. - Do physical particles behave the same way? ... Huygens waves, if they have no problems with it. The assumption that light has a particle-wave character, as it is now officially proclaimed, is not a classical example of the creation of quasi-beings, i.e. beings that are physically unreal - is it possible to connect a corpuscle (physical being) with a disturbance of a medium that is not a physical being in its ontological essence, but only a physical phenomenon? For me the crossing of physical beings and phenomena into a new material physical quality is shamanism, alchemy and metaphysics.
@@srelos8875 - Starting with your conclusion first (since most of the rest was addressed in my original-post), the assumption is incorrect. The assumption is that this world and this universe are the "real" side of the looking-glass - it is not. Our world and our universe are comprised solely of waves. There isn't a single particle in our universe, only waves. Therefore it is we, who are the ghostly spirits. Second, Huygen's collisions are the result of exclusionary states resulting from Schrodinger's wave equation, while superposition holds for Maxwell's wave equation. (more...) Matter can't occupy the same space at the same time. In other words, all matter are waves and each wave bounces off other waves. Alternately, E/M-waves (e.g. light, photons, RF, etc.) simply pass through each other and their field-strengths add while they share the same space and time.
@@tomnoyb8301 This is also a mistake in thinking. I was just referring to the context of the discussion of quantum mechanics and the wave-particle worldview on which that mechanics is built. In fact, there is something bigger than Newton's determinism or an abstract reality described by a formalism - torsion fields (Kozyrev, Sipov) that represent the flow of time. They cannot exist without spin, they are everywhere and nowhere, because they are neither wave nor particle, but information. But this is not at all the subject of this discussion. Post scriptum. Look at it. Particles (whatever they are) generate their own vibrational fields which interact with the matter around them. These fields were predicted by de'Broglie as the pilot wave associated with each particle ruclips.net/video/WIyTZDHuarQ/видео.html
@@srelos8875 - Experiments purportedly "proving" particle nature, in fact, prove the opposite. Knocking electrons out of atoms is entirely determined by what? The Schrodinger wave-equation. Nothing to do with a particle model - everything to do with waves. Still don't believe it? Show one experiment where Schrodinger's wave-equation is violated? There are plenty where the billiard-ball model fails, but none where the wave model fails. Yes, particle model may simplify calculation in certain instances, but however more complicated to calculate, wave equation always holds true. That's not "duality," my friend. One is a simplified model for convenience, while the other is absolute, always holds true and never fails.
You cannot make a sinosoidal wave making E=h*f, that's absurd, E=h*f is not even a equation wave. A sinosoidal wave equation is something like y=A*sin(x) or A*cos(x) for example, not E=h*f. First of all h is a constant and f is a variable that changes its value linearly, so if you plot E em function of f it will be a straight in the graphic and not a sinosoidal wave.
** OK, so Frequency in E=hf... does it represent the number of "electromagnetic waves" per second? If you put one of the "h constants" inside of each electromagnetic WAVE, then what is the Energy stand for? Oh, yeah, Energy of WAVES... So I guess it is a WAVE ENERGY equation. Or better yet, WAVE POWER equation. That was easy...
@@itsbs h is a Plank constant, just it, nothing to do with electromagnetic wave. If you see what a wave equation really is, it will be sure that i wouldn't hear this bullshit.
@@wergserium7515 ** Well, if you don't understand that Frequency in that equation is derived from (1 second's worth of space at the speed of light) / (wavelength), then you can learn a lot from my videos. Why don't you spend time looking through the videos on my site, instead of wasting time typing up comments?
In the quantum world, even a straight line becomes meaningless. Because every particle of that line is not known in which time and place they are. Especially when you observe that line and its particles, the situation becomes worse! And this is really very logical. Thank you for your time and sharing your knowledge 🙏
@@CeruleanMuun There is also Dissident Science. He has excellent video where a scientist holding 30 patents on GPS states that the clocks don't correct for time dilation.
“I do not want to know your thoughts about my content. ... Remember, I do not care what you think you know!” Actively dissuading scrutiny is almost certainly how you got into this mess in the first place. Know thy limitations.
It's satisfying to find a rare video of somebody debunking quantum mechanics. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness! And how it led to so much quantum woo, and ridiculous quantum consciousness quackery. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. They just couldn't figure it out, so they had to resort to magic. And a light wave that somehow knows it's being observed, in which case it collapses into a particle... Oh boy! 🤦🙄 All they had to do was to question the original assumption made by Young... Instead, they sunk deep into the rabbit hole. If we actually concentrated on the exact physical mechanism for light emission, we might eventually understand the problems with "waves" or "particles". Why are you all insisting on waves? You are seeing a fringe pattern and immediately implying wave interference. Why? Light waves have never been observed, ever. So why waves? What mechanism could possibly produce waves of light? Legit question. Why do you think they believe waves collapse into particles? Have you ever thought about that? Seriously. What can explain the "particles" supposedly hitting the detector? How would you explain them with waves anyway? The fringe pattern is not a wave interference pattern, but a simple REFLECTION pattern from rays coming off at different angles from a curved surface (a perfectly sharp 90° corner does not exist). That is why the main light beam is fanning out into multiple independent rays never interfering with each other. Block a few rays, and the adjacent rays will not be affected the slightest, nor will the overall pseudo-inteference pattern on screen, as opposed to what should happen with waves. I have used a cloud chamber, and a smoke machine, to verify the exact path light takes after going through the slits. The single-slit experiment done in a ripple tank with water shows a single set of waves with no interference whatsoever. Oddly, the same experiment done with light produces a fringe pattern. Why? The idea of light being a wave should've been destroyed right there. Unfortunately, to save the wave dogma, Huygens had to invent his ludicrous Huygens Principle as an ad hoc mathemagical solution, forcing a wave interference where it did not exist. Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. What was interpreted as particles, are individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. It's time to abandon this debate between wave and particle. Light is none of them. But unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, no matter the empirical evidence I bring forward, no matter how ridiculous quantum mechanics is, they are just too far gone down the rabbit hole. It's like talking to Christian fundamentalists. 😔
THANK YOU for this video! finally someone that addresses the obvious: what is a photon? how can a wave propagate without a medium? I'd add what is a "charge"? and many more questions that one has to take as axioms. your explanation of the contradictions is very well made. looking forward to watch more of your videos! well done
Great video!!! Considering the Double Slit experiment. Anytime light is "constricted" (light bulb on in a room - and lets say some light goes out through a small hole in the wall) the light begins to "expand" instantly and exponentially as it leaves the hole in the wall - wider and wider as it "travels". This is why the double split experiment displays the result it does. As the beams (photons) travel through the "slit" - they expand on the exit side and the positive and negative interference occurs. Lasers are intentionally manufactured to minimize the expansion of light. However, the edges of the "slit" are still going to cause "turbulence / blockage" in the laser beam and the expansion and interference is the result.
@@codetech5598 Can you define the measurement? What specific amount of energy do you measure? Think of it as a basic specification to engineer a single photon detector. What do I measure and what are the conditions that I measure it?
@@itsbs I do not subscribe to QM or use the word "photon" myself. The things called "photons" or "electrons" are not actually particles that exist, but artifacts of the measurement technique. The measurement techniques are described by the experiments which are said to show the existence of those "particles". "a basic specification to engineer a single photon detector" This is a property of the atom of the element (example, iron) which is used in the detector. The atom itself is a natural substance, not engineered by man.
@@codetech5598 The smallest measurement of light involves one absorption and emission event. A cesium 133 atom can absorb and emit EM energy ~9 billion times PER SECOND. Each absorption and emission event is "worth" the same amount of "energy", the Quantum of Energy which is numerically equal to Planck's constant, but with units Joules per cycle. Hope this helps.
A photon has no defined position unless it interacts with some other particle. Other particles are essentially the same. The double slit experiment can be performed both with electrons and with material molecules, and in all cases an interference pattern will appear. It has even been performed with entire molecules composed of a few carbon atoms and interference has also appeared. We agree that an electron is a particle. I hope you agree with current science on this. Buy a device that can generate single electrons and do a double slit experiment, but send them one at a time. The wall must be made of a material that will record the impact of the electron. Even in this case, exactly the same interference pattern will appear as in the experiment with laser. Each particle travels as a probability density function, without a well-defined position. After reaching the wall, interactions must occur - the electron or photon must transfer its energy, and that is why it materializes in one precisely defined place while the probability of occurrence at a given point is given by the probability density function. Your claims contradict real world experiments. If light had only a wave character, then the double slit experiment could not be performed with particles like electrons and atoms - but it can be done. It also cannot be explained by the fact that an electron is also a wave, because electrons can simply be sent one at a time and then materialize at only one point. Here is a video, that double slit experiment can be performed with single electrons: ruclips.net/video/ZqS8Jjkk1HI/видео.html
** No, the dissectible capacitor experiment shows that that the Electron Particle Theory is wrong. Anyone can do this experiment themselves. I have a video showing it. ** This is scientific proof of waves. We just "believe in particles" with no scientific proof. ** No. I don't agree. It is "pseudoscience" because these "single particles" are not defined and the emitters and detectors do not have the specifications. You just believe they are single particle devices. ** Before you buy one, you should find the exact definition of a "single particle" and then make sure the hardware specs match EXACTLY the specification. ** Again, you just believe in the pseudoscience of "single electron." Do the dissectible capacitor experiment. Figure out what the RADIUS of this electron, single particle is. See if the emitter/detector hardware can get down to that DIAMETER of a "SINGLE PARTICLE" resolution. Do some work and just don't believe what videos are telling you (including mine).
@@itsbs Thank you for answer, I will look at that experiment and try to think about it. Just for info, which physics theories do you consider true and which pseudoscience? I understand you don't believe in quantum mechanics, special and general relativity. So which theories do you consider to be the best interpretation of the universe so far?
@@itsbs I just finished watching the lecture "8.02x - Lect 14 - Biot-Savart, div B = 0, High-voltage Power Lines, Leyden Jar revisited" and I don't understand what you think is wrong with his explanation. I also watched your videos and videos you mentioned. Electrons can't move through dielectric material, but they can stick to one side surface. The electric charge is thus stored in the dielectric and not in the metal plates.
So I'm not an expert, but my understanding of quantum physics and quantum field theory is that the real objects are not the particles, but the fields. "What is a single photon?" And elementary excitation of the quantized EM field. "Do you really think a photon can be 1s long?" At the speed of light, there isn't really any concepts of space and time, and again, the real object isn't the photon itself but the EM field. If you keep considering the world as something that should fit your intuitive description of reality, for sure QM is tough to swallow. The key is to understand that the objects described by that theory escape our intuition and have no equivalent in the classical world. There are no reason the universe should be simple to understand, or complicated, it is what it is, we can just try to understand. But if we think that what we know is relevant to understand what we don't know, we're lost...
** Sure, QFT is a bit more evolved, but based on false ideas of modern pseudoscience. The "field" is just a mathematical construct, like the "coordinate system" reference frame of Einstein. The real question, what is the field made of? Math? ** So does that Photon make the "field" wave or is it a "particle" in space? ** We are not at the speed of light and the equation E=hf is not in the "reference frame of light." If it is the EM field, what is the field made of? Math? ** If you fall for arguments like no cause and effect and "probability" wave indetermism, wave-particle opposites... well then you can be fooled by anything. You've left science and gone into mysticism. ** You've been lied to. Do you realize that the Schrodinger Equation is a classical wave equation? It's only the Quantum Mechanics founders that tell you to think of it differently (so it can fit their own theory). That's like a religion. *
Where is your peer reviewed paper ? Haven't you published yet ? I mean this changes "debunks" one of the foundations of modern physics. You should be headline material.
@@rwo5402 ** Hah, me being defensive, and yeah, your "reasonable question." Anyway, if you want to understand something and think that "peer review" or "headlines" is where the truth is, then no, that is not what this site is about. Relying on other people to tell you the "truth" is a complete fallacy and you must put in the time to create your own understanding. That is why I break down the most important parts into basic logic and show you the source material, so you can do your own thinking. That is actually quite a bit to offer...
@@itsbs But how is that different to relying on "your" truth other than your assertion that "your" truth is the "real" truth and everyone else's truth is not the truth. Without independent validation of your logic (never mind that even by applying consistent logic to a problem results in a valid or true conclusion) I am non the wiser.
@@rwo5402 ** I am sourcing the original content from Dirac, Einstein, Born, Schrodinger, Planck, etc. I point out what I think is the important points and teaching what I think about it. After that, you can do what ever you want...like read the paper yourself and study the topic. I'm not asking anyone to believe in "my truth." That's obvious because I am not hiding my sources, like Einstein did. If you want independent validation, then do your best to understand it and go have conversations with other people about it. If you don't learn it, then you can't have a dialog...you'll just be listening "to the expert" again and following. You must do work, if you want to clear out the bullshit! If you don't do work, then you'll be a puppet. It is that simple.
Delta x \cdot \Delta p \cdot \Delta X \cdot \Delta P = C Your work is appreciated, I have grave doubts in the theory and I found your video insightful.
Thanks for uploading a new video. When you want to understand the equation E=hf better, you could start with electricity. We express the power sometimes with Wh, and when you want to calculate how much you have to pay for the use of your light bulb, you have to multiply the watts per hour your light bulb uses, times the amount of money you have to pay for each Wh. Don't make the same mistake as Fractal Women, by thinking that the 'second' plays any significant role in the equation, just like one mile has no role in "the bus travels with 40 miles per hour" You can drain a battery in 900 short pulses, or in one long experiment. The total amount of energy in a new battery stays the same. - What you do is making a video about your objections against the physics that is taught at schools and universities in the 21st century. But summarising your personal objections isn't the same as debunking something.
If I use a radar gun and within 10 milliseconds, I clock you moving at 60 miles per hour. How long will it take you to go 60 miles from that point (assuming constant speed)?
@@_John_Sean_Walker Then you need to change per hour to 1/2 hour...and TIME becomes a variable instead of a constant (as defined by the time unit HOUR). e.g. you divide the 1 hour in half via the TIME variable.
Also, if you believe that E=hf defines a single Photon, then it would seem like a *VERY* significant point that Nature creates Photon Energy in the exact number of wavelengths in a 1 second timeframe. That would make the 1 second timeframe an extraordinary feature of natural science. Why does Nature create Photon Energy based on the exact number of wavelengths in 1 second? How does it actually DO this? Is it just the way the universe works...based on the human-defined, time-tracking method of a 1 second interval?
@@itsbs There is no 1 second time interval. You can do an experiment for five minutes, or do the same experiment for one hour. But you express the power in units per second. When you measure at a larger distance, you will find a smaller power in units per seconds. It is independant of the time your experiment lasts. One could say that 'h' is just a mathematical constant to calculate the energy when you know the frequency, or find the frequency when you know the energy.
you prove a theory wrong, by showing that its prediction doesn't match observed experiements, science is not religion, and a few slides with pictures and text is not very convincing
@@itsbs I wish they would explain more details of the actual experiments in youtube, there's too much made up visualizations that leave out huge parts of things that are actually interfering, and it's quite hard to make out what's actually being observed and where the theories start nowadays
@@fihalhohi5353 ** You can start with the double slit wave interference experiment. There is no "wave function collapse" and no particles interfering with each other. There is no such thing as "which way photon detector." It's pretty easy. Just keep watching the videos here, if you want to learn. Don't believe my opinions or conclusions...go read the material I link in the description or show in the video. Make up your own mind about the data.
@@itsbs yea the double slit experiment makes no sense in 99% of all videos. the 2 straight lines are made up. all visualizations show eyes or a camera "looking from the outside", but if they would actually show the setup... it's a bunch of prisms and mirrors right in the path of the particles, and the observation is not seen on the actual screen (this stays always same), but the result of some electric "coincidence circuit" that even needs the data from the actual screen as input to even work in the first place, and with some statistics involved too. nobody would raise an eyebrow if such an apparatus could turn something wavey into a blob output.
Whooooeeee. First I thought you "get it". A theory is only as valid as it is able to make valid predictions. Then you go off on science and religion and I'm left with the thought that your really don't get it........Hummmmmm.
"particles" aren't real, per se, not at this scale. You are thinking of electrons and photons as analogous to ball-bearings, which they are not. These concepts are not easily understood by people who have not studied this, its barely understandable to people who have, and therefore documentaries which are designed to try to bring this to a general audience, have to cut corners to make it more understandable. There is no "particle of light" in the sense that it is a physical object, there is only the wave function. This wave has particle-like properties in the sense that its energy comes in discrete packets rather than continuously, as in the case of the classical definition of a wave. It's the same for the electron. Wave-particle duality does not mean that photons are literally waves and particles (in the classical sense) simultaneously, but that it is an entirely separate object that has particle and wave-like properties.
** It is not ME thinking them of ball bearings, the "charged sphere" of ponderable matter is clear in the electron theorists...you probably have never read any of that. The point is... a particle cannot be a wave amplitude/perturbation of a medium, so what is it then? If space is EMPTY, via Einstein 1905 SR, then DEFINE THE PARTICLE! Many times it is called POINT PARTICLE! That is spherical, is it not? ** It is because the concepts are NON-sense, pseudoscience and just hidden behind the false idea of "complexity", which is really just a GRANDE misunderstanding. ** Haha, Max Born's idea of space filled with a MATH FUNCTION! Lol... wow. You know there is something called SCHRODINGER's WAVE MECHANICS that uses the same wave function, but doesn't claim "there is only the wave function"? You've probably never read any of it... *
@@itsbs I agree, quantum mechanics is very nonsensical, but the universe doesn't have to make sense to us. There is absolutely no consensus on what the implications of quantum mechanics are on a fundamental level. These questions of "what is a particle?" and "what is the wave function?" are completely valid questions and I am by no means saying that there are definitive answers to these, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, QM is the most successful theory ever devised, in that every concevable prediction it has made has been proven experimentally. As someone who clearly wishes to know the truth of the universe, I would encourage you to study a little more in depth these concepts and then form an opinion. As a response to some of your points: -I admit that my conceptualisation of the electron as purely the wave-function is pretty much just my personal taste, but it is just as valid as considering the electron as a zero-dimensional point-like particle. The point is, it doesn't really matter what you think the electron IS, but whether the way that you describe it predicts outcomes that are verifiable. The wave-function describes both wave-like and particle-like nature, as when the electron behaves classically, the wave-function collapses and gives definitive results (position and momentum) just like classical mechanics. We characterise this wave function as a "wave of probability", but what it actually is, we don't really know. Now, De Broglie's pilot wave theory postulated that the wave-function was a wave of some fundamental physical quantity, and the photon or electron was buffeted by that wave, like a boat on the water, which implied that the photons and electrons actually ARE particles, not waves at all, and their apparent wave like behaviour is due to something else. However, this is a "hidden-variable" theory, which have been shown to be inconsistent with the measurable behaviour of physical systems by multiple Bell tests. -Electromagnetic waves do not require a medium, as they are not mechanical waves. What is "waving" is the electromagnetic field, a vector field that is infinite in range. Photons are the bosons (force carrying particles) that are excitations of this field (real photons are the long-range propagation of the oscillations of the field, EM waves, while virtual photons are short-range that mediate the electromagnetic force, such as two electrons repelling each other). This field is a fundamental physical quantity; the EM field is not "made of" anything, it just exists in and of itself. -The scientific method is literally the whole reason QM is so successful. People have tried to disprove it for decades and have failed to do so. It is not "woo" if the results of experiments prove something, even against what we previously held to be true. Thats how we advance. -SR conceptualises space as EMPTY because at that time, that was what physicists believed, and it worked for most things. But quantum field theory now shows that space isn't empty, its filled with these fundamental quantum fields that fluctuate and give us the particles we interact with. As a final point about this, Einstein is famous for not fully understanding quantum mechanics (even though he ironically helped create it) as he couldn't let go of the idea that the universe had to be deterministic. Einstein is not perfect, he got many things wrong, just because he said something doesn't mean it's true. We don't have all the answers, and a lot of work needs to be done still in understanding QM, but just because there are not answers to every question yet, doesn't mean it's wrong. Surely an intelligent person such as yourself wouldn't make such a leap in logic. I have actually got a physics degree btw, so I somewhat know what I'm talking about. I am by no means an expert in this field however (I'm doing a PhD in astrophysics not quantum physics), so I would recommend you read "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths, it's an excellent guide.
@@itsbs it's not about me or what I think. I have never implied that you should "believe me", I'm encouraging you to actually read about it properly, rather than make a video about how quantum mechanics is wrong when you clearly only have a surface level understanding of it. Unless of course you are so convinced you're right you couldn't possibly learn anything from others. That sounds very cult-like to me.
** "f" frequency is 1/T. T is per second, because that is the definition of the physical unit Hertz... cycles per second. If you want a deep dive understanding, then you can watch the "Quantum Flaw" video on the channel.
@@itsbs Frequency is only measured in Hertz because we need SOME value of time in order to give its inverse, and we use what we historically developed as a conveniently short period. But the 1s. value is arbitrary. Therefore Des Troya is quite right to question the need for an electron to be a certain length to encapsulate all three of its cycles. Tides still exist even when you only watch the beach for a second and don't notice the direction of flow, because it's over a longer period.
@@lettersquash ** That's not the point. Einstein's Photon energy is based on 1 second's worth of waves. The photon energy of a RED photon requires 480 trillion waves of "h" energy, which is what passes 1 second. Einstein's "photon" energy is silly pseudoscience.
@@itsbs Hmm, who do I believe, Albert Einstein, or random guy on the Internet talking physics word-salad? Here's a reasonable test: have you submitted any papers to physics journals? My crystal ball says no.
Wave particle duality is ridiculous for one reason; a "wave" is not a thing, it is a way to describe the motion of a thing. Photons cannot be both a wave and a particle, but it can be a particle that moves in a wave-like motion. Same for electrons. And it doesn't matter anyway since particle physics is just theoreticians theorizing, or making shit up if you want to get technical, about things you can't see, touch, taste, or smell, then getting their friends to design "experiments" according to the theoreticians' specifications, carry out the experiments, then the theoreticians claim vindication of the stuff they just made up and rule the experiments to be successful. How do we know they are correct? They tell us they are based on the experiments they conducted, which were designed to validate the guessing of the people who created the experiments and interpreted the results they now tell the unwitting public are scientific fact. Pretend science is the best science.
If you think in terms of computing units or let's just say atoms and disturbance then the wave-particle duality makes sense. However, that duality is an illusion. It is all about that change in the medium by disturbing it. Why can we disturb things in the first place? What exactly causes it?
Regarding Quantum Computers - They don't compute anything, they just try to simulate the theoretical wave collapse and try to find a use for that. Efficient wave collapse calculations should be useful for some algorithms. The whole QC field is built on trying to generalize these wave collapse calculations into a general computing machine. Software QC is pointless until hardware actually works. Hardware research into QC is a weird endeavor into finding material structures that behave like impossible mathematics when supplied with a voltage - which obviously doesn't work. None of this means superposition or wave collapse are real world phenomena, and even if they were, it could not be used to calculate anything since the 'result' would be 'erased' when measured. Everything in the media regarding QC is misunderstood marketing material, misquoted papers and misinformed individuals talking out of their ass.
** When you realize that the whole wave collapse idea was just made up to save the "particle" ideas of Copenhagen theory, it might even make you more skeptical. The "probability wave collapse" is not science.
@@itsbs "its all in the frequency of the vibrations mannnnnn"... particles aren't spheres... there toroidal waves.... nothing is perfect in nature, no perfect squares, triangles or circles (most planets are obtuse).... so why would a particle be a perfect sphere???
"E = hf" is not a second's worth of energy. It is just the photons energy, and actually precisely defines that a photon is a particle, namely something that has a well-defined energy. Frequency has unit per second because its the inverse of the period, or speed of light / wave length. It will have the same energy after every second.
Brilliant video - I love it! The thing I don't understand is why this hasn't got more views. This makes a lot more sense than the videos about quantum physics that get hundreds of thousands of views. One of my anti-quantum videos managed to get over 100k views, but my other attempts have failed to attract big audiences. I'll be watching your other videos soon you can be sure of that. Keep up the good work & let's hope that common sense will win in the end.
** It is neat to have lot of views, but the key I am hoping for is quality viewers. Can they take the information, learn from it, and move forward with the ability to better question illogic? RUclips is definitely a promoter of "entertainment" versus education, but that's not to be taken as a complaint.
Deep state controls science ...there artifacts in Arizona to prove a Roman prince visited in the year 800 ....so the European royalty knew about the new world but did not have tax collectors in place yet so they built an imaginary fence called flat world theory. All the large education grants went to the schools that taught flat world theory .if the common man understands the entire planet is run by waves .....if the common man understands his health is controlled by waves ...and if common man understands he can create his own wave controlling system then common men would be healing the masses and turning water into wine ....now we can't have the common man in control of mass and gravity at the same time ...there would be no need for government banks army's hospitals factory s ....the whole economic system would collapse and peaceful men would live in peace and harmony with each other and the planet . Can't have that now can we ?
I'm not a scientist but I think something is defined as a paradox just because we don't understand it and that doesn't mean they don't exist (with exceptions of course, like idk... your girlfriend) Black holes "The next sentence is the true. The last sentence is a lie" Immortal jellyfish (not actually immortal it can just heal infinitely through a never ending cycle but can still be killed if the nerve center is destroyed(yes I see the irony)) Graphene (can literally be made with scotch tape and a anything made out of carbon) Time crystals (yes seriously, they can't be used to time travel and the only real ones don't appear naturally and are microscopic plus they you can't really contain them because they (somehow) can move before you touch them (something to do with the time paradox) Bose Einstein condensate (the 5th state of matter not found naturally anywhere in the universe) Real life lightsaber (uses laminar flow to make smooth stream of plasma) Also I think if these guys were actually stoners they'd be talking about how to shift into another reality through something completely stupid and just straight up saying these particles know you are looking at them My idea is that this idea is almost true under the conditions that everything has come from somewhere because these same people have said things don't exist without other things And the fact that these people put the time and effort into making something possible that the laws of physics originality didn't allow (like a frickin' sponge that's only liquid and somehow a frickin' sponge)
Thanks for this presentation. It demonstrates the presenter’ difficulty in understanding physics & math. An electron/photon/proton/neutron, and other such particles are defined using the ‘wave’ model as these equations best define these ‘individual’ particles. Presenter please consider taking higher level physics courses and discussing your videos with them prior to publishing them on the web.
** Viewer why would you skip to a higher level when the low level stuff is illogical and based on pseudoscience like "the Born Rule" or Einstein's "empty space" (that somehow still waves). ** Your comment demonstrates how you have not put your own critical thought into what you have learned. You just blindly follow the high level teaching without doing your own thinking. ** OK, here is an EASY one for you: When waves collide with each other, they will pass through each other. When particles collide, they bounce off of each other. Now, how can these "particles" like an electron, pass through each other and bounce off each other at the same time? That is the logic of a "particle" being described by a "wave" model mathematics. Good luck with that...
@@itsbs Bruh particles do pass through eachother, they interact while they do of course, and that interaction is described by their wave function, the original comment is rigth, you should at least try to understand QM.
@@marcossidoruk8033 ** Ok, so "interact" means exactly what? Bounce off each other during the particle collision? You just say a popular words like "interact" and think you have it all figured out... Also, define a particle...what is the radius of a particle so I can have an understand of its configuration in 3D space?
If you want to understand why quantum physics is wrong, look at quantum electrodynamics. Unfortunately, most people aren't familiar with the math and accept the official gibberish. They can't even test it, so the only plausibility comes via QM from people who reject certain mathematical properties for the sake of equation convenience. If quantum electrodynamics is bad, then quantum mechanics itself is a mistake and so is relativity. In another of Dirac's books, Directions in Physics (1978), he writes the following in the chapter on electrodynamics: "...Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: “Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory, and we do not have to worry about it any more.” I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called “good theory” does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small-not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it! One can put the calculations of the Lamb shift and of the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron into a sensible form by introducing a cutoff, by taking the upper integration limit in our integrals to be not infinite but some finite value. The interaction between the electron and the electromagnetic field is then cutoff for frequencies beyond a certain limit (Vmax). It is reasonable to take this cutoff frequency to correspond to an energy, say, somewhere around a thousand million volts. Owing to the appearance of the logarithmic function in (~log v, while v tending to infinity), the corresponding expression Integral dv/v ~ logvmax with the cutoff will not give appreciably different results. One still gets effectively the same Lamb shifts and the same anomalous magnetic moment when one works with this cutoff, to the first order of accuracy. One then has a theory where the infinities are gone, a theory that is sensible mathematically.An unfortunate result is that, of course, the relativistic invariance of the theory is spoiled. For, if you have any cutoff at all, thus saying that v must not exceed a certain value, you are bringing in a non relativistic condition and spoiling the relativistic invariance of the theory. One can thus make quantum electrodynamics into a sensible mathematical theory, but only at the expense of spoiling its relativistic invariance. I think, however, that that is a lesser evil than departing from standard rules of mathematics and neglecting infinite quantities. I disagree with most physicists at the present time just on this point. I cannot tolerate departing from the standard rules of mathematics. course, the proper inference from this work is that the basic equations are not right. There must be some drastic change introduced into them so that no infinities occur in the theory at all and so that we can carry out the solution of the equations sensibly, according to ordinary rules and without being bothered by difficulties. This requirement will neces sitate some really drastic changes: simple changes will not do, just because the Heisenberg equations of motion in the present theory are all so satisfactory. I feel that the change required will be just about as drastic as the passage from the Bohr orbit theory to the quantum mechanics."
Oh, it works just fine. It's a modern day crystal ball with witches surrounding it asking it to tell them the future, and it answers back(not necessarily truthfully).
if you take this viewpoint, you solve the wave -particle- duality arguments and more importantly this makes the apparent momentum that light has on impact which wouldn't make any sense if light was massless. The neutrino was originally said to be massless and is now believed instead to have an incredibly tiny mass.
Light is simply a result of computation. What we call atoms seems to be nothing else but computing units and they process "information". It is simply about input and output. If we were able to investigate further and break this simulation into pieces, we could stumble upon more information in regard to mass - I mean what exactly is mass? It is also a result of computation. Nothing can exist without computation. Everything has to be processed by units or else there will be nothing. So what exactly causes this computation?
Light doesnt have mass because its a WAVE. And waves dont have any mass. Einstein's equation of a photon (E=hv=hc/lambda) clearly describes a wave and not a particle. Because it has no mass, like a wave, but it has frequency (v), and wave lenght (lamda) again like a wave. Einsteins photon "particle" is therefore clearly a wave, and I cant imagine why would anyone call it a particle. And that is not even his equation, it is Max Planks. Einstein just "borrowed" it. And probably called it a particle to give the impression that he made "a new discovery" about light. Which kind of worked because he won the nobel prize.
Not even a minute and it is completely wrong quantum mechanics is so much more than that and the photon and electron are not the only ones that are needed all particles are needed to properly understand it i’m 12 and I know this is completely wrong come on man it is not just about Atoms it’s about the interaction between atoms the interaction between particles how particles work and what they are and the Four forces they are all needed in order to properly explain our world not just one especially not in quantum mechanics and is meant to describe the universe on the smallest scale Possible it is the interaction between things that make up our beautiful world and what They are
** Hey Luca... I am impressed with your willingness to understand the sciences at an early age... my only message to you, is to keep thinking! Keep learning... use your OWN thought and learn from a lot of sources. You will get it!!
** Also, you might want to check out the link to the paper that is in the pinned comment. It may give you a different perspective on "Quantum Mechanics."
I hope when you get older you discover pretty much everything can be explained by electricity. Think of it’s importance in not only our technology today but science as a whole.
Yes !!! You are one of mine, I never accepted Quantum Mechanics, I just used common sense though, but you explain it so good !! and YES, light only goes at the known light speed in the mediums known : Ether, metal , air, etc. but what if there was a faster medium in space? that would DEBUNK Einstein's Childish theories totally.
** Before Einstein's 1905 fantasy physics papers, the photoelectric effect was theorized as a wave resonance phenomenon. Robert Millikin's 1916 work in photoelectric experiments called "A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's h" describes resonance occurring. You can search for "it takes place especially copiously when the impressed frequency coincides with a "natural frequency" within the paper to see his mention of this resonance phenomenon of the photoelectric effect. Resonance is a classical wave phenonmenon and not a particle phenomenon. Quantum-ists play both sides of the fence and claim light can be a wave and/or a particle, which are two opposite answers for a single thing. That is completely illogical, which is the basis of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics was stolen from Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is the real science and Quantum Mechanics is the fantasy physics of brainwashed people.
Unfortunately, this explainer video poorly understands the thing it is trying to debunk and gets many details (and several concepts) wrong. Firstly, E=hf is NOT a wave equation. Yes, I can clearly see that one of the terms is frequency, but that's not what a wave equation is. The graph which draws out a 3Hz wave, and then assigns an 'h' to each cycle is just silly. The energy ISN'T in each cycle, any more than the energy of an oscillating pendulum is in each cycle, or the speed of a car is in each rotation of the wheel. Yes, the photoelectric effect does demonstrate the particle nature of light - high-energy photons dislodge electrons, low-energy photons do not. That E=hf equation tells us that there's a certain frequency of light whose particles have enough energy to free the electron. No it does NOT take 1 second for a photon to build up its energy - it's instantaneous. The sentence "If light is produced in discrete chunks, when does it turn into a medium for waves to propagate through?" makes no sense at all. Light is NEVER a medium. It (like all fundamental particles) has properties of both a wave and a particle (but never a medium). Einstein doesn't undermine the wave theory of light by taking away the medium, this is another thing you're not getting right. Yes the double-slit experiment is a fascinating one, and you were initially explaining it well - the photon's wave function (not its wave equation, and certainly not E=hf) passes through both slits causing an interference pattern on the screen. Let's both forget the heat gun (that's not what physicists mean by noise in this context). Measurement of which slit the photon is travelling through, forces it to become a particle at that moment and display particle properties, just as landing on the screen forces it to show wavelike properties. It is capable of either nature up to the moment you make a measurement or observation. The language about the photon 'knowing' you've made a measurement is clearly metaphorical. Yes, the world of quantum mechanics is weird and counter-intuitive. We have nothing like it in our macroscopic experience. But the interesting thing is, that the mathematics of quantum mechanics predicts the statistical outcome of experiments pretty much perfectly - which is the most important attribute of any theory. The fact that it defies our intuition (what Feynmann was referring to) is secondary. If you can come up with a better theory that enjoys the same predictive success as quantum theory (an extremely tall order given its spectacular success) AND which makes intuitive sense from a classical standpoint, then there's probably a Nobel prize waiting. But scientists became convinced that wasn't possible maybe 80 or 90 years ago, so I don't think your chances are high, sorry.
** Hey, Kevin is back for more! It's great when "smart" people what to tell me that I am wrong. *>* Whatever YOUR theory might be, doesn't matter. It is a physical representation of the symbols e=hf ... Frequency, being that of an Electromagnetic wave, since we are talking about light.
** Like most "particle physicists", there is ONLY one way in which you think about the situation...particle collisions. If light is a "wave" too (as particle physicist say), then apply a wave solution to the photoelectric effect. If you can't, then there are other people that have done this. But, you believe in light particles and electron particles bouncing off each other like billiard balls...good luck with that. E=hf ... So if the frequency is somehow INSTANTANEOUS to get that INSTANTANEOUS photon energy, then how does nature know to build energy balls of light that are exactly 1 second's worth of waves or 300 million meters of space? Frequency is equal to (300,000,000 meters in one second) / (wavelength) .. somehow nature knows how to build INSTANT energy balls of lights that are based on 1 second's worth of time or 300,000,000 meters of space? This is what you believe, really?
** Light is never a medium? Right there, many people should begin to see the fallacy of today's "smart" people and they believe in "waves" that have no medium or nothing to disturb and propagate though. That is not science...waves of what? You are stuck in a belief system of "imaginary" waves through empty space or something like that. ** Oh, I'm not getting it right? Hah. This is exactly what Poincare was talking about in 1904 (if you watch my videos). As long as there is an "ether" concept, you'll always be relative to the "ether." Sorry, but you have only learned from academic dogma. Keep watching my videos and you'll learn more. If Einstein took away the idea of the "ether" so there would be no absolute space as a reference frame, and he created the silly idea of "empty space" that plagues people like yourself. How can waves work in "empty space"? What is waving? These are simple, common sense questions that show the mainstream pseudoscience that you believe in. Keep learning...
*>* Noise, heat? Absolutely it does. Why do you think the Quantum Computer people are using expensive refrigerators to keep getting lower temperatures. It is not just for superconductivity! It is HEAT, electromagnetic noise. You just don't understand how such a simple example shows a huge paradox in what Quantum Mechanic physicist are saying about Quantum Computers. How can "photon light quantum particles" maintain a superposition so easily, but other "quantum particles" decohere fast, causing Quantum Computer Qubits to fail, and require HUGE amounts of error correcting qubits? Do you have an answer that simple paradox I described with the heat gun?
Don't waste your time listening to this, it is spam There is no photon with a frequency of 3 Hz. 08:50 The frequency of the visible light photon is in the range of terahertz.
@@itsbs I would not watch your video if I am not willing to understand your point. Unfortunately, you are wasting people's time and you know what, nobody will ever know what is your intentions, so should use the right examples and make yourself clear from the beginning.
I watched the first couple of minutes and saw that he either docent know what he is talking about or he is trolling. Judging from the name of the channel. He's trolling.
@@itsbs The time stays the same, meaning an extremely small fraction of the second in planck time, but the frequency can go to infinite, hence even with planck time you can have photons of very high energy.
@@heksogen4788 ** I'm not talking about the way you fantasize about how a photon light particle works... I'm talking about the MATH equation used to give the energy of the false idea of photon particles. Cycles PER SECOND means 1 second's worth of wavelengths MULTIPLIED by h to give you the energy of a "instantaneous photon." ^ That's obviously a bad equation for this idea of instantaneous photon energy.
Wolfgang Smith - Physics is wrong (bryan callen podcast) physics itself runs through Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.... the whole field is uncertain lol
The problem is that our culture defines reality as that which is the consensus position of the physics community at that time. Apparently the only requirement is how well the theory predicts reality. If physicists feel no responsibility to be coherent and somewhat emotionally retarded scoff at the philosophy of things, this is a problem. When there is such a thing as a Quantum approach to international relations in political science, these predictive technologies are just that, matter. Fortunately we can leave everything to AI soon to do the technical work. Or perhaps whatever is behind the tictac may explain to us what's what.
It's very easy to predict. All you have to do is find a pattern, such as the inverse square law. That's not science, just pattern-finding. The scientific method involves theorizing, which quantum mechanics does not do.
** I have a video on the channel called "Quantum Flaw" and it goes into the detail. The short answer lies in Planck's unit analysis error during the 1901 Blackbody radiation experiment and then Einstein reusing the same equation in 1905 for a different purpose (Light Quantum Energy).
So you think you are making a brilliant point by noticing that knowledge and tech builds on itself? Wheel was invented long ago and what does a mars rover use to move about.... wheels! Oh my gosh! The rover is low tech, possibly even stoneage tech! We are not advancing! Oh no! Try using your brain instead of regurgitating things you have read that sound clever.
@@cecilbrisley5185 You don't get it. It is point source tech that matters. All magnets, lasers, LEDs, are point source tech. All hovering craft that can speed up in a moment to incredible velocities are also point source. All computers and other "BRILLIANT TECH" (not really) are just the most dumbass configuration and allocation of these tech, strictly aimed to amaze people and make them feel special. It is not special, it is the same shit, it's just s bit more complicated so you can "enjoy" the latest and greatest
Just wait when you find out how so many of these experiments are thought experiments and no actual experiments where anything was measured was done. haha
Great explanation considering the amount of misinformation about quantum physics that abounds out there. Too often, any questioning of quantum physics ends with accusations that the questioner is "Too f*cking stupid to bother talking to anymore." But at least those who question are at least admitting what they don't know - which is far safer ground to work from.
Thank you so much for this. I just retired but way back when, after going to school for business and accounting and getting my own business up and running, I became obsessed with quantum mechanics. This lasted for approx 5 years when I began to realize that certain things did not pan out in the theories. To me it's kind of like the average modern person just accepts what they are told same as the peasants of the middle ages who could not read the Latin nevertheless bought into what the clergy told them. Don't get me wrong, I still love science and I am a person of faith. I see no conflict between the two. I just want honesty from both.
** This is a lie they tell you due to Einstein's pseudoscience. If you except the pseudoscience of Einstein Special Relativity, then you must think this way, because SR does not use a light medium. It uses a projectile particle through empty space. In his 1907, you can read what his pseudoscience about electro-magnetic waves: einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/267 _Only the conception of a luminiferous ether as_ _the carrier of the electric and magnetic forces_ _does not fit into the theory described here; for_ _electromagnetic forces appear here not as_ _states of some substance, but ..._ *rather as independently existing things that are* *similar to ponderable matter and share with it* *the feature of inertia.* Einstein is making up this pseudoscience to fit his incorrect theory of SR, instead of worrying about what nature is actually doing. Now, modern pseudoscience believes that electromagnetic waves are some type of self-propagating ponderable matter projecting through empty space. Yeah, so your antenna is shooting out little balls of self-propagating ponderable matter into empty space, and then catching self-propagating ponderable matter to receive the signals. Good going Einstein!!
just stay with your thoughts and invest your time in real science, this guy doesnt even know how to compute equations he wants to debunk in python with his computer science master lmao... xD
** Oops.. the "RESPECTFULLY" went STRAIGHT OUT the window, didn't it! You could learn a lot here, but you don't have to. Choosing to learn through mistakes and deception is a completely valid means...
P.s. What'd be the medium excited to create light, then? Knowing air is the medium that, when excited, creates phenomena our ear can interpret as sounds
** This seems like good thinking, in terms of the overall topic. I have a video on the channel that discusses exactly the topic of Quantum Entanglement and it is a very specific mathematical case that was brought forth in the EPR paper. It is just a math proof that the wave function collapse idea of the Max Born Rule is bunk and contradicts the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Einstein's liked the EPR math proof, because it helped get the Max Born Rule's instantaneous wave collapse idea (which means faster than the speed of light action), off the table since it goes against Special Relativity.
@@itsbs I hope you're working on something practical with this knowledge: youtube videos can only get a few bucks till you actually question narratives (and, then, get you deplatformed). "Practical" as in, for instance, offering some sort of machinery to companies.
I think the "frequency" of light is more like the frequency of bullets from a machine gun. instead of a number of bullets per minute or second, the frequency of light is the number of photons per second, or per other smaller unit of time. So, all photons are identical and weather they are radio, microwave, infrared, visible, uv, xray or gamma, is determined by the number of photons per unit of time. a second seems to be just the unit of time scientists went with, so it might not be necessary to have a full second of photons to have a certain "color" of light or to have any particular effect, like the photoelectric effect.
Incorrect. I have an entire video on the e=hf subject if you want to dig into it. It is called "the quantum flaw." You'll see where the origin of that equation came from and the unit analysis mistake made... as well as, Einstein's improper reuse of the e=hf equation for his incorrect "photon" idea.
Scott, are your "machine gun" photons traveling as waves, or particles, or both simultaneously? LMAO. The fact that you have absolutely no idea how a wave works, that is, what frequency/cycles are, with crest, trough, zero point, means you should just give up while you can. I mean, without that basis how could you understand this video when he talks about the phase issues of photons in the double slot experiment. The guy who made this video knows a good amount for real, and I know so because I learned the same as him through "common sense". I suggest anyone wanting to get involved in any science utilizing waves to first learn the study of sound/audio. Just is so.
@@babalonsfinest6054 I know what they are. it is you who can't conceptualize another model. I am saying that light is not a wave. it is a particle and the frequency ascribed to light is actually the number of photons per unit of time instead of some supposed number of "waves" of something in light itself. but for that matter, what makes any of you even think light has a frequency? what exactly is being measured in light that gives you this "frequency" number? This idea seems to be left over from the early ideas of light comparing it to sound and supposed light was a wave moving through a so called "aether" but this aether idea seems to have been abandoned and was replaced with a particle model of light by Einstein a while ago. And don't give me that whole double-split interference pattern nonsense. I've replicated the experiment myself and the effect seems similar to light glare.
there's another way of looking at it but it demands the concept of particles that are "sub quanta", the spacing of which with relation to each other dictates the "frequency", a classical "photon" or "quanta" requires recombination of a certain number of the sub particles at surface to be "seen" as photon of light, so you need the correct amount to arrive in the right sequence in an certain amount of time to register as a photon. When you do the maths of the slit experiments this way taking into account the edges of the slits as being the refractive surfaces you get perfect results for the slit experiments and you don't have to fudge it like they do for the waves explanation. In terms of sound to understand a word we need to receive a whole bunch of individual sounds all modulated correctly and ordered so to arrive at the right time respective of each other to recognise the word. Its the same deal with the "sub" particles of light to register as a "photon." I'm on the fence as far as waves are concerned due to knowing they fudge the explanations. The maths they do that make it work rely on the waves being drawn as an arc that starts from the centre of the slit to the centre of the other slit. Waves don't work like that, they will draw it the right way on a black board tot he students the way water would wave through a gap but that's not how their mathematical model of it is done, they hide the fact the mathematical model doesn't make any sense in physical terms. If someone could sort that out I'd be "Waves" but currently I'm with you on particles.
For it is difficult for people to think independently, being dependent on paradigms and dogmas all their lives. The brain simply cannot accept any truths other than those given by the mainstream. This is the typical scientific ignorance and narrow-mindedness with which modern physics has treated us for over 100 years. The illusion of perception.
** LIGHT is not something I can define for you, but the "speed of light" is the transverse wave of the magnetic aether field (Maxwell), like the constant speed of a boat wake in the water medium. If you keep going with electricity theory, then you'll get into the idea of "electric field induction", i.e. Steinmetz theory, which is a composite of dielectric and magnetic field lines. The rate at which we "see" light is an "induction rate" based on the dielectric and magnetic constants of the medium being perturbed. This second definition requires some study and contemplation. The easiest way to think of "light" is the water analogy and it acts like a fluid to us.
It is very hard to disagree with a theory that gives such good results. And it is even more difficult to contradict all physicists who are so intoxicated by the results of quantum mechanics. I think you are on a good way. With Newtonian mathematics (differential calculus) we will not understand the micro world. We will have to invent something new here. But this is very hard work.
** The problem is that QM "hijacked" another theory. The reason it gets good results is because it is really performing SCHRODINGER'S WAVE MECHANICS. The problem is... no one knows what Schrodinger's wave mechanics is all about, since everyone believes in the false ideas of QM, and that "it gets good results so it must be correct." ** Nothing new is needed to be invented. That is the EXACT problem with Quantum Mechanics being a "SPECIAL" physics. It's bullshit. All you have to do is understand what Schrodinger said was necessary for properly evaluating atomic physics. Then ask yourself, what do we actual "detect" in all of these atomic experiments that supposedly support the ideas of *undetectable* "probability wave" and "Quantum State Superposition" of the QM pseudoscience cult?
Probability waves aren't a theory. A theory in physics must posit unobserved physical mechanisms by which the observed phenomena could have arisen. Quantum mechanics has zero theory. It merely extrapolates data patterns. The ether would be a physical mechanism, something that actually waves, rather than the non-physical notion that math somehow waves, but QM ditches the ether.
If you come home one day and find your TV remote full of small indentations, you may wonder if the dog chewed it up. *That* is a theory. If you simply notice the indentations get more numerous every night when you come home, and you predict they will get even more numerous tomorrow night, that is NOT a theory, just an extrapolation of an observed trend. If your guess is right, you cannot say that your physics *theory* has been confirmed, because you had no physics theory; you only saw a trend and assumed it would continue. That may count as a "theory" in everyday talk, but not for the purposes of physics. In physics, when you *theorize* you propose an *unobserved* physical mechanism by which the observed data could have come about. That didn't happen. You have no testable theory, just a trend. If you add in the idea that your dog has been chewing the remote up little by little while you're away, you now have a theory. If you take your dog to work with you and it stops, or you test the remote for canine saliva, or compare the indentations with the size and arrangement of your dogs teeth, you are testing your theory and can make progress toward controlling the outcome, unlike with mere trend extrapolation.
@@itsbs So basically all those scientists working in the field of quantum physics, who spent their entire lives on it, are either lying or don't have a high enough IQ like yours to comprehend QM is flawed. Sure, I'll buy that.
@@TensorWave ** I am not selling anything, so you don't have to buy it. It is just a matter of your OWN IGNORANCE that matters. Who cares if the rest of the world believes in pseudoscience? All you need to do is become WAY less ignorant about Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics (like start with reading one of his papers). Then, you need to understand how Quantum Mechanics re-used Schrodinger's Wave Equation... this is Max Born's rule. He is just applying the idea of "undefinable" particles and attempting to apply it to waves!! You fell for it... haha! How can the math of waves allow waves to pass through each other, but particles don't pass through each other (i.e. they bounce/collide)? Come on, such simple logic! But, when you throw away your logic and believe in "unintuitive", then you are gullible.
I'm not sure that E=hf actually is a wave equation. A wave equation is any multivariate second order partial differential equation wherein the second partial derivative with respect to one coordinate is proportional to the sum of the second partial derivatives with respect to all other coordinates. E=hf seems to be a far more specific physical law than that. I'm also not sure I understand why you say that the energy in that equation is only accumulated after or over the duration of one second... Even in your own illustration with the graphing calculator this falls apart... If we were to accumulate an energy of h*3Hz over a second we'd get the integral of hf dt from t0 to t0+1s which yields an energy of h*3. Seeing as h has the dimension of an action or angular momentum, so does h*3, and thus the result of that calculation doesn't even have the unit of an amount of energy. So clearly something is grossly wrong with the assumption that this equation holds with or only with some finite duration energy collection process like that... I wonder as well what your opinion is on variants of the double slit experiment where the laser's intensity has been set so low that a noticeable amount of time passes between photon emissions. For instance, there is a 2016 work called "Video recording true single-photon double-slit interference" in American Journal of Physics 84, pages 671-677 by Reuben Aspden and Miles Padgett I'm sure you must have heard of during your researching this topic. It shows both individual impacts on the screen characteristic of particles, but because no wave function collapse was triggered anywhere before said screen, as the impact locations are mapped over time, the interference pattern expected only of waves is observed. One might find it weird, but seeing as this is an actual experiment, an actual probing into what nature does when one lets her do, I wonder just how exactly one would go about arguing that this is wrong. Certainly quantum theory still might be wrong and I'm sure on some of its finer details it is far from complete, but it would seem that at least on a basic level enough to understand and describe double slit experiments and the like, both its postulates and predictions are consistently matched by experiments... So at least on some basic level, perhaps, it can be useful for our purposes of understanding nature, no?
*>* Simple -- Hertz is cycles PER SECOND. The frequency referred to are Electromagnetic WAVES. If you can figure out how to get all of those wavelengths (or wave periods) INSTANTLY... I'd love to have that technology! Please link me a 1 GHz Frequency CPU that switches 1 billion times PER INSTANT! Please!! ** Yes, you don't understand the error in Max Planck's 1901 paper that give "h" the incorrect units that you just described.
@@itsbs Electromagnetic waves are not a frequency. They can have a frequency, as can any waves or any other periodic phenomenon, really. But that doesn't mean it takes a second to capture the wave's energy.. I mean, what if you had a motor that was rotating at, say, 3000 rpm. Would you need to wait for a minute to collect 3000 of some energy units out of that? Or do we need to convert it to Hertz first, because nature made that the "correct" unit of frequency? And if we do collect our 50 units of energy out of one second of doing some energy-harvesting thing to our motor, what happens to the motor? For that matter, what happens to a 3Hz light wave we collect a second's worth of energy out of, does it have less energy now? But if the energy it has is E=hf and it only had h*3Hz and we collected all of it, does it now have no energy, i.e. h*0Hz? Where did all the other wavefronts go? Wave solutions to the Maxwell equations don't have a cutoff after some number of oscillations, do they? As for the unit of Planck's constant... Well, if I don't understand that error, then so be it, though you could have made some attempt at pointing out where it is, exactly, and what it should be. As I review the paper in question, for the life of me I cannot spot it. But I shall grant in advance of your elaboration that there be indeed an error like that. I think the consequences reach far beyond just the Planck-Einstein relation if there is. For instance, in classical thermodynamics (just to pick an area of physics you have not explicitly stated you reject) phase space volume is normalized against Planck's constant. The partition function, to pick an example, is a dimensionless quantity - and yes, it has to be, otherwise one couldn't take its natural logarithm - but yet it is computed by integrating a dimensionless quantity over all of phase space, which would yield the units of some power of the product of momentum and position, were it not for a denominator compensating for that by the same power of Planck's constant (and if need be an integer to account for over-counting identical configurations). Therefore then, in order for any fundamental microscopic theory of heat to begin to work, Planck's constant needs to have the units of momentum*position, exactly the same units as angular momentum and mechanical action. We could of course just blindly use the same number everywhere and then pick our units arbitrarily in each equation as needed, but seeing as our units are a matter of choice and the natural constants are what rescales between them in accordance with how nature actually behaves, I would propose that this is a rather risky solution to what is for now a very vaguely explained problem the vast majority of engineers and scientists have somehow gotten away with completely ignoring for the entire duration of mankind's post-industrial technological advancement...
@@gisteron ** EXACTLY, which is why the e=hf MATH IS STUUUUPID. The frequency in Hertz is 1 second long. Obviously, Einstein's 1 second photon math is dumber than a box of shit. *>* I did... I have a video. ** Hahhah... *>* Oh boy, not the "tech advancement" argument...again, and again, and again...
@@itsbs to highlight the issue with tech advancement is that we generally advance technology and philosophy long before experiments, models, and mechanisms can be made for them. Don't fix what isn't broken is the platitude at fault here. For some fun paradoxes about light, the Heaviside Equations (so-called Maxwell Equations) are based on the permittance of the medium, but this devolves into a divide by zero issue when we try to talk about the speed of light in a vacuum. How can we argue the speed of light in a setting that is not physically possible? Especially when the speed of light, the constant `c`, is non-constant by its definition? This gets even stranger when the propagation of light is dependent on frequency, and the electrical and optical character of the medium. I don't see a technological remedy for a fundamental lack of understanding of what light, energy, and especially electricity, is.
@@Dan-gs3kg also I had the idea about light the other day that what they teach us about so called "light speed" is even more bs than I thought. so they tell you that on the moving train and from a stand still the light speed did not change. Okay. In theory we are travelling "through space" billions of kmph fast. so in theory then, the light sould be much slower in one direction, because why would it get the momentum of the earth when it is "emitted"?
The way you respond to criticism in the comments- insults, name-calling- is a huge turn-off; it harms your credibility... People are generally more receptive to ideas delivered gently. Why do you respond in this way?
** Because I really don't give a flying fucking rats ass what people think about me. This information is provided for YOU, not me, and it speaks for itself -- it doesn't need a cheerleader. It is basic logic and references. I generally have no problem interacting with someone that shows gratitude and courtesy, i.e. questioning or ask clarifying questions. When someone is disrespectful and asserting their "knowledge," then why should I care at that point? Do you realize I wake up each morning with disrespectful attacks that I must defend, otherwise they cause doubt for those that are seeking answers! It is a negative degradation of my work. So, if you want to be disrespectful and waste my time, then fuck off. If you need questions answered or have a challenging comment in respectful way, then I have no problems spending some time with you.
@@itsbs very well said, I get the same attacks, I was called stupid more than 10 times in 2 days, they don't deserve any respect if they don't respect us
Real Numbers 1^2 + 1^2 = 2(1^2) Complex Numbers i := sqr(-1) p = 1+ i p* = 1 - i pp* = 1^2 + i(1) - i(1) - i^2 pp* = 1^2 + 1 2(1^2) = 1^2 + 1^2 i.e., (1 1^2) "A barber in a village shaves all those and only those that don't shave themeselves. Does the barber shave himself?" - Bertrand Russell (Ans. A barber cannot both shave and not shave himself - at the same time, or as a general rule whichever.) (1 1^2)
In the set of all sets ,is there a set that does not belong to itself?And does that set belong to itself? The barber paradox has been debunked by 3rd.graders.
@@pietropipparolo4329 The set is irrelevant. The issue is whether a group operation (self-multiplication of unity) can operate on itself and not on itself, 1^2 1
"Dear internet, The physical principle that my computer requires for its operation does not exist, therefore I cannot upload this video explaining why I cannot upload this video. Yours, Scientific illiterate. Dude, go do some research on Leo Esaki, 1973 Nobel laureate in physics, whose discovery is the reason you can share your abject ignorance of physics with the world at large, predicated on a demonstrable physical process that your video insists does not exist. In other words, the existence of your video on RUclips proves that superposition is real. Learn some physics. ETA: Worth noting that you're confusing frequency terms. One term is nu (v) for linear frequency in space, while the other is Hertz (Hz), for linear frequency in time, often referred as period (T). The frequency you insist is time dependent is in fact nu, linear frequency in space (because QM is always rooted in time-independent notation unless otherwise specified), hence the generalised de Broglie wave relations, in which E=hv, hence the linear frequency tells us the energy by the simple expedient of diving by Planck's constant.
** You are just too dumb to understand basic magnetism and capacitance then. If you think computers work via electron balls that quantumly tunnel their way through "insulators", then you are just a simple, pseudoscience fool....gullible. ** Dude, go do some research on my site and realize that you are a gullible, pseudoscienist... or better yet, just leave and stay dumb. I don't care at all. ** Superposition of what? Are you not even smart enough to elaborate? PROOF of Quantum State Superposition -- please link me the detector that experimentally proves the Quantum State in a superposition! You are a believer in electrons balls spinning in a superposition that creates magnetic NORTH/SOUTH both pointing in the same direction at the same time! Wow... fool!
@@itsbs "You are just too dumb to understand basic magnetism and capacitance then. If you think computers work via electron balls that quantumly tunnel their way through "insulators", then you are just a simple, pseudoscience fool....gullible." Except that I don't think that, not least because electrons aren't balls. Perhaps you've heard of this thing known as wave-particle duality, which tells us that the electron isn't a ball, and nor is it a wave, it's an electron? It's not like other things that simple comparisons work, which is why people struggle so hard to understand it, despite the fact that all it's counter-intuitiveness is entirely rooted in the mistake you're making now, in treating them as chunky things. Electrons aren't chunky. In all but a tiny range of very specific circumstances, every aspect of their behaviour is better modelled by waves. In only this one situation, when we interact with it in some means that allows us to extract position or 'which-path' information do they exhibit the sort of behaviour we associate with chunks, and even then, it's only an associated behaviour, not a property, in exactly the same way the wave-like aspects of its behaviour are only a behaviour and not a property. Calling me a fool, especially when failing to recapitulate my position so spectacularly, isn't going to win you any headway. What Esaki actually demonstrated was that, as the PN junction is thinned, current decreased inversely with voltage, indicating negative resistance. "Dude, go do some research on my site and realize that you are a gullible, pseudoscienist... or better yet, just leave and stay dumb. I don't care at all." Why would I research on your site? What will that achieve when I've trivially demonstrated that I understand the subject matter considerably better than you do? I've already found the source of all your failures of understanding in both relativity and QM. What possible motivation could I have to further diminish my cognitive capacity by subjecting myself to more of it? If you want to devolve into just name-calling, I can do that too, though you won't be at all happy with the outcome because, although I clearly know more about physics than you do, playground insults are my field of expertise and I'm significantly more accomplished at them. It will not go well for you. "Superposition of what? Are you not even smart enough to elaborate?" Fascinating. So what you're saying is that the thing you insist isn't real and which you introduced into the conversation via your scientifically-illiterate witterings has been used undefined by you and now you want me to come and impose a definition on it for you after the fact, is that it? No matter, it's simple enough. Superposition isn't even only a quantum phenomenon, it's a general principle applicable to everything that can be modelled in terms of waves, and indeed superposition was around before quantum mechanics. Any combination of solutions to a linear equation is also a solution, in exactly the same way that any valid combination of solutions to a probability calculation is also a valid solution. These are core principles of straightforward linear algebra and probability. When we apply this to 'particles' we find that, when we measure the angular momentum about a given axis, all it's angular momentum will always be found about this axis. When we repeat the measurement, it persists. When we subsequently measure it about another axis, it no longer persists, and we may find that its angular momentum about the original axis when we measure it after the second axis measurement can have changed direction. In other words, stacking different measurements leads to the breaking of persistence, and we find that the valid solutions for its angular momentum about the single axis are a combination of solutions for all the states that correspond to that measurement. In other words, when we measure its angular momentum about the x axis, it's in a superposition of all states corresponding to angular momentum about the other axes. FYI, this isn't only applicable to particles and small things. Quantum superposition has been measured in very large objects, including one instance of a 20 kilo mirror in a sophisticated version of Foucault's Pendulum experiment at MIT. "PROOF of Quantum State Superposition -- please link me the detector that experimentally proves the Quantum State in a superposition!" Sure. Go look at the Davies and Germer experiment, or the Hitachi single-electron double slit experiment, or any number of experiments that demonstrate wave-particle duality and/or superposition. Alternatively go outside and look up. See that big yellow shiny thing in the sky? That's your detector for superposition and quantum tunnelling. What's that, you say? The sun is a quantum detector? The sun is quantum tunnelling and superposition writ large. You may no be aware of this, but the gravity of the sun isn't actually enough to initiate fusion on its own. There's a barrier to overcome, the Coulomb barrier, that prevents nucleons from getting too close to each other under normal circumstances. Because of this barrier, fusion in stars should actually be impossible, because nucleons couldn't usually approach each other closely enough to bond under the strong nuclear force which, while incredibly strong, only operates in the Angstrom range. Because of superposition and tunnelling, this barrier can be overcome and stars can fuse. Your existence is a manifestation of superposition and quantum tunnelling. "You are a believer in electrons balls spinning in a superposition that creates magnetic NORTH/SOUTH both pointing in the same direction at the same time! Wow... fool!" Except I'm not a believer in anything, I study the science, which clearly makes one of us. If you think this puerile incredulity at somebody more knowledgeable than you is making you look good, you're even more of an anencephalic addlepate than your output suggests, which is a pretty spectacular achievement in its own right. I'd direct you to my site, which is this material aimed exactly at people like you, but I also know you're much too far gone to help, so I'll just continue to gainsay you with what the science really says as opposed to your palsied attempts at recapitulating it. Edited to add: I meant to add that all experimental violations of Bell's Inequality are also crystal clear demonstrations of superposition, but you the logic is subtle. I'd be surprised if you could even understand Bell's Inequality, which is a trivial bit of nothing but simple first order linear logic and integers. Dude, you're out of your depth here by fathoms.
@@tonymurphy2624 ** But you are... you've spewed your academic rambling all over my channel in the past 24 hours. You've been fooled by academic science an their pseudoscience. You are a fool, because you've been fooled and you preach your foolishness!
@@itsbs Your critics are unconscious religious zealots who follow the secular faith called "Science". These minds ignore a logical application of the scientific method at all costs. They seek to only save appearances as they have been Pavlovian-conditioned to. Their superstitious belief system simply replaced angels in the heavens with mathematical equations. Magic holds their imagined and impossible Universe together.
I was being rude - I apologize. The equation in the photoelectric effect paper is normalized. It does not specify a photon of a tremendous length. The equation just means that the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency. From what I undrstand, QM has many issues - but mostly they seem to stem from physicists' inability to interpret the meaning behind the equations.
@@davidchung1697 08:50 I realy don't understand why he (video presenter) is assuming that we think photon is one second long! And by the way, the frequency of a photon of blue light is 750 terahertz. I guess that audiences just believe what they wish to be true regardless of whether it makes sense or not!
@@davidchung1697 ** I realize that, but what is the physical reality of this equation? If you are using e=hf as an idea of instantaneous energy with Frequency in Hertz, then can you find me a 1 Ghz CPU that can instantly switch 1 billion times instantly (or per cycle)? If Photon are created instant (or per cycle), then how do atoms understand the idea of (300,000,000 meters of space in 1 second) / (wavelength)? A Red Photon needs ~400 trillion waves to get the proper energy to be RED...how in the world do atoms know to work their photon energy magic on the basis of 300,000,000 meters of space in one second?
Electricity is current and requires a medium to propagate. From Ohms law you get I = V / R. Vacume has basically infinite resistance, so you do not see lightening bolts in space. However voltage is a result of differences in electric charge. Electric charge creates a field that travels through the medium of space. When you start putting electronic components very close together and increase the frequency of voltage changes you get undesirable effects that form one of the most significant challenges in high speed digital design for circuit boards and integrated circuits. This is because while most of electrical engineering can be understood in terms of current and electricity moving in a circuit, in high speed digital design you have to consider things like impedance and crosstalk. Understanding electric fields does not require quantum mechanics and is captured by Maxwell’s equations.
Quantum computing isn't real. In fact, Yoda says that quantum mechanics isn't real. and I quote, from the Jedi Master, Yoda. "Do or do not, there is no third state of probability."
Is the reason that light has apparent momentum due to the medium it is propagating through being disturbed? Does the momentum actually come from the movement of the medium due to the light wave?
** I don't have the exact answer, but this line of thinking is how I think about it. ** There is something that must connect all matter to the electromagnetic medium, but science started to lose that concept after the "electron ball" electricity and 1905 Einstein Special Relativity's "empty space." Getting back to the idea that electromagnetism being the cause of matter through some type of "condensation" like process of various densities would most likely lead us toward the answer.
What if we looked at the "Speed" of light as a rate of induction of a longitudinal wave through a medium? Viewing light as a longitudinal wave propagating through a medium with a "rate of induction" instead of a "speed" introduces a conceptual shift from traditional electromagnetic wave theory. Normally, light is treated as a transverse wave in free space, where its momentum is derived from its electromagnetic properties. However, for this discussion, we will adapt the perspective to fit the longitudinal wave model and the idea of "rate of induction." In a typical longitudinal wave, such as sound in air, the momentum is associated with the motion of particles of the medium back and forth along the direction of wave propagation. This motion results in an exchange of kinetic and potential energy. Assuming Light as a Longitudinal Wave in a Medium: Modulation of the Medium: If light modulates the medium like a longitudinal wave, it would mean that the medium's particles are oscillating along the direction of light's propagation due to electromagnetic induction. The medium itself, through these oscillations, would contribute to the propagation of light. Momentum Calculation: In this framework, the momentum p of the light could be calculated by considering the modulation (oscillation) it induces in the medium. This would involve: The induced energy density in the medium, The rate at which this energy is transferred through the medium, The effective mass of the medium involved in this transfer, which is a function of the medium's electromagnetic properties (permittivity and permeability). Rate of Induction as "Speed": The rate of induction could then be seen as analogous to the wave's speed in this context, influencing the rate at which momentum is transferred through the medium. This could be formulated as: p = medium density × volume rate of energy transfer × rate of induction Energy and Momentum Transfer: The momentum of the light in this view would not solely be a function of its electromagnetic properties (like wavelength and frequency), but also how effectively it induces energy transfer in the medium, akin to pressure waves in a fluid. From this point of view, the momentum of light would be a composite effect of the induced electromagnetic interactions within the medium and how these interactions translate to energy and momentum propagation.
** It is sad to know how many people have been completely fooled by Max Born's pseudoscience and take attention away from the real science of Schrodinger.
@@boomblast2786 ** Literally, you don't have a clue. You just BELIEVE it is because of "quantum mechanics" because that is what you have been told. That device uses BASIC electrical engineering, like the forces of dielectric polarization and magnetism... but you would have NO idea what that means, because you are just a BELIEVER! You don't understand.
@@boomblast2786 ** Mate, your dumbass is on my RUclips channel that is ATTEMPTING to explain things to improve your understanding. I'm actually DOING WORK! You are just too stupid of a human to recognize it. All you can do it emote your ignorance. ** I don't want your dumb ass to even know who I am... You are the filth of the earth that just tries to cut down people but have ABSOLUTELY no game of their own. You are absolute fcking sludge! I don't want you to benefit from my work. I want to you stay dumb and let life beat the living fck out of you... Please wear a Go Pro, so we can be entertained by your mistakes and learn from them!
Quantumists need to go back to the drawing board on how a detector measures a particle. First... explain how you can claim you shot a single particle out of a continuous beam. It is like someone claiming a star is a particle because they detected it in the sky. It just becomes non sensical. Our senses cannot observe it. So we replace observation with math equations that have yielded no new major inventions.
** I'm sorry you believe in QM. There is no way to scientifically, experimentally test the existence of a "probability wave" or a "quantum state in superposition." But yet, you still believe? Is it because you are gullible enough to think that the world is "illogical." When you give up your logic, then you are giving away your ability to think.
@@itsbs I am an actual physicist. Irrespective of how you feel about the mechanism, the results are correct. Come up with a better theory (that predicts correct experimental results) and you’ll be a Nobel laureate. Why does reality have to bend to what makes sense to you? Why would particles need to be fundamentally billiard balls? Because you feel so? If you consider that it is more natural for particles to be distributed in space, QM comes out more naturally. Why can sound be waves, but not electrons? Or better yet, light! Nature is described by simple rules, not what makes sense to you, and those simple rules have surprising and confusing consequences, especially if you don’t know the basics of calculus or linear algebra. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s science. Sorry it’s not simple enough for you, but it is beautiful.
@@williamtuxbury1315 ** This is the problem with "actual physicists." They think they are so smart about the subject, but yet they have never read ANY of Schrodinger's Work and they have NEVER READ MAX BORN's paper for the BORN RULE. It's insanity!! ** So this is the conclusion you get from my video? It has to make SENSE TO ME? It's all about me? This is the problem with "actual physicists" ... they have given up their logic to believe in "unintuitive"-ness. They have completely forgotten the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and fell for heroism and "feeling smart and special"! The only attacks are that people are "too dumb to understand." How do you test for a "probability wave"? Do you have a "probability wave" detector? How do you test for a "quantum state in a superposition"? Can you link me a QSS detector so I can try it myself? How do you think we actually "detect" where the "electron" will be?" What is the mechanism?
@@williamtuxbury1315 ** Define a particle! What is it's radius in 3D space? Please tell me... ** What is a particle-collision then? Does that mean these particles just pass through each other like waves in a medium? ** Haha, yeah, simple beliefs in un-intuitive ideas that cannot be tested. NICE SCIENCE DUDE! Stay smart!! Do math!! ** Math beauty over experimental proof... nice science!!
@@itsbs Okay. I never expected to change you. Stay ignorant. I don’t have time to explain expectation values or quantum dynamics to you. I have real science to do.
I read that to explain the black body problem of classical physics. "Max Planck found a radical solution by making the hypothesis that the quantity of energy that light can exchange with matter is not continuous, as previously expressed by classical physics, but discrete. Planck postulated, in fact, that the energy of the light, emitted by the black body cavity, distributes only with multiple integers, according to this relation: 𝐸 = 𝑛 ∙ ℎ ∙𝜈 where n=0,1,2,3…, h is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the radiation." So each photon is a discrete packet of energy. We can't have half a photon or half a photon with half a packet of energy. Hence, the absurdity of a photon is stretched from here to the moon!😂
@@philoso377 ** Yes, I see what you are saying now. I now read it as "thought-experiment" ... using your imagination is not equal to a physical experiment, as required in the scientific method.
@15:57 there's the issue I have, the far left of the 3B slit card, the impediment is hair thin compared to the two "slits", it's basically one slit not a double slit at all - and in the maths solution the base of the curves start in the middle of those slits whereas with real waves the base of the curves would start at the edges and the middle of the curves would result from the middle of the slits, the professors draw that way but don't tell anyone the maths fails when its done that way because the interference patterns is different from what is observed. If you search for images none of the diagrams show it exactly correct, the ones that are using the maths NEVER show the waves at the slits, they start some distance away because if they drew it all it would expose the BS.
** Who cares? It is wave interference pattern regardless if it is 1, 2, 3, 4 slits. There is no evidence in this experiment that shows light acting as a particle. *
hmm guys this guy cant take an argument and he deletes comments that makes sense so that people who read the chat feel like he made a point while the other guy didn't.
@@schrodingerliebert4882 *>* I assure you this is 100% incorrect and it shows your absolute ignorance. In fact, it probably tells us a little bit about how smart you are and why you are a supporter of obvious pseudoscience.
@@itsbs the amplification process does not change the frequency. It is a process where 1 photon and an excited atom becomes 2 photons and a de-excited atom. Energy is conserved but the light energy increases.
You have no clue what you're on about... Physicists use the terms particle and wave because they're trying to describe this tiny light thing in terms of existing human words....do you think that English would just happen to have a word that describes lights characteristics as a quantum level? ....clue: it doesn't, so they use two words ,Wave and Particle
So first off, all math is imaginary or arbitrary constructs based on what ever we as a world define as a base unit. Take 1 foot as an example, one foot is 12inch (an agreed upon average of the size over an adult mans foot). I say all this to illustrate that when you "debunk" quantum mechanics by repeatedly asking something along the lines of "but how can we define formulas using 1 second as a unit? Do particles magically know how long a second is or does the world neatly arrange itself based on systems arbitrarily designed by humans?" Your using a straw man fallacy to argue against QM when in truth, the orgin or basis of the unit used to describe a formula has no bearing on what the formula may prove.
On a more ridiculous scale, you could debunk the existence of wood by asking me how long it is then when I say its a 2×4 thats 12inches long, you ask what an inch is and "does a tree just magically arrange itself to line up with an inch" no, you could define its length in inches, fractions of a mile, or toyota corolla lengths, but the proportions to its relations will remain the same.
** OK, so if Frequency is not based on 1 seconds' worth of waves, then is it instant? If a single photon energy is e=hf, then frequency must be PER INSTANT? Or is Hertz defined as PER SECOND? Yes, we designed it and Einstein defined a Photon using math defined as 1 second units... Why? The photon obviously doesn't take 1 second's worth of waves before it is created, but the physical reality of the math says it... What you are imagining about a single photon and what the physical reality of math says are TWO DIFFERENT things.
@@michaelkinsel1231 ** What? You are creating the 2x4...trees are not naturally a 2x4. Your analogy just sucks. If an atom NATURALLY creates a "light particle" through "spontaneous emission" using the idea of "so-called instant frequency", then how does the atom know to work on 1 seconds worth of waves at the speed of light... or how does the atom know to work on 300,000,000 meters of space DIVIDED BY the wavelength?
Respectfully, I do not agree. Einstein did not eliminate of the notion of an ether, he replaced it with notions of 'curved space time' as a medium for electromagnetism and gravitation, a hypothesis that is being worked on to this day. You can find quotes where Einstein says he accepts the notion of an ether. He also did not provide the means to further describe what 'space time' may actually consist of, beyond agreeing with some of the mathematical descriptions of relativity that were derived by Einstein and other physicists. Your frequency chart interpretation is so far off, I do not mean to be cruel, but light frequencies are measured in mega and giga hertz and beyond, and the length of the waves are measured in Angstrom units, which are given in 10 to the minus 10 meters, so no way would a photon correspond to the 'one second' parameters your chart shows. Red light wavelength for example ranges from 620 - 720 nano meters. The double slit experiment just shows how the somewhat coherent light source interacts with the slit obstruction depending on wavelength, size of the slits, actual location of the preponderance of the pulse energy of the light when it interacts with the slit, which is probalitistic for most (quasi) coherent sources of light. No huge mystery there, but the photon aspect of the wave acts in part like a particle and in part like a wave depending on what and how it is interacting with other quantum matter and energy and averaged results accumulate into the interference pattern seen. The interference pattern is not a continuous distribution, so that shows the quantum nature of light.
** Man, I haven't been getting much of that over that past few months. ** You kind of jump the gun, when going straight to curved spacetime. Special Relativity can ONLY exist without the ether. Realize that Lorentz/Poincare has the same Lorentz transform math and the same "Principle of Relativity". So what is the difference between Lorentz/Poincare and Einstein? Well, Einstein removed the ether which allowed him to remove ABSOLUTE SPACE and ABSOLUTE TIME. IN other words, the idea of a preferred reference frame of Lorentz/Poincare's ETHER is gone. So, with Einstein your time and space is ONLY RELATIVE to another object. You can see this community post for more information: ruclips.net/user/postUgkxFoVZzp24h1qwIlnXc1y1fzX1OCC_Jiu8 I have a whole playlist on exactly why Einstein's SR is complete pseudoscience.
** This is because Einstein will give you any answer you want to hear. He is a politician. The reason he talked about the ether in 1920 is because he was trying to get a job with Lorentz. Lorentz's theory is ether, so Einstein started talking about ether and then denying at the same time, because if he accepted the ether, then universal RELATIVE SPACE AND TIME goes away. He didn't want to throw away his theory of projectile particle light through empty space, i.e. Special Relativity.
** You must misunderstand me. THERE IS NO PHOTON. Einstein reused Planck's formula which is based on Hertz and is 1 second long. Obviously, photon energy can not be 1 second long. The physical reality of e=hf is absurd for a particle of light... but it works just fine in Planck's backbody experiment that was based on 1 seconds worth of blackbody radiation data.
** No... wave-particle duality is more falseness spread by Einstein for his Special Relativity theory, so he could sneak in a projectile particle of light through empty space. That was the only way he could get rid of the ether and claim RELATIVE SPACE/TIME in the universe. From point A to point B, light acts like a wave and only a wave. There is absolutely no projectile particle light behavior. In absorption and emission, sure... chunks, pulses, packets of various wave amplitudes -- but light is still acting like a wave traveling through space in every experiment.
** I have a video on Quantum Computers and it will help you understand why they will never work. You don't have hope or believe me. You can learn for yourself.
** I am ready to discuss, but it seems you are not reliable or at least not willing to discuss the errors and mis-statements of every kind that you proclaim.
3 года назад+2
Humor for smart people. Not me, what am I doing here
** Nah, this stuff isn't that difficult, but you just have to have an interest in the subject. People TRY to overcomplicate Quantum Physics to make it seem way more complicated than it really is...especially by using math.
That's a very good point. There was never been constructed a device for emitting single photons. So every Gedankenexperiment is wrong about this. What about electrons. I believe, that the geometry of the slit and his electromagnetic properties has a big influence. We can just take a small stick, and "bend" the photons around
** Same problem as with photons. There is no definition of what a single electron is, except the idea of the elementary charge. OK, what is the radius of an electron? If that is defined, then let's discuss the physical size of each element on the electron gun emitter and detection sensors.
People would believe you if you publish your research. Einstein did it going against the establishment. You have no reason not to be able to replicate that after all you are (supposedly) well versed with the flaws of established theory. All the best. This video is childish. It says so much about your inaptitude of actually conducting research. Asking questions is not research. Do the real research and let the world see. It is always the people who don't possess any formal education that shout the loudest against the formal education. You better prove yourself or shut up. I hope you are mature enough to understand this. I want to read your published paper. Until that happens, do not expect people to take you seriously. Period.
** That's a dumb statement. How much have you published? Besides, I'm not asking to be believed. I don't what believers following me. I am trying to help people think on their own. ** No he didn't. You don't know anything about Einstein. You just BELIEVED someone's story along the way. ** What? I don't have a theory. You are not even smart enough to recognize that. I am trying to help people see whose theory is actually SCIENTIFIC, and in this case it is Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. You've probably never heard of it or read anything by Schrodinger. Gee, I wonder why? *
@@itsbs Coming from an illiterate who calls E = hf as "wave equation"... yeah. You are one masterpiece of a clown. From what I can gather, you seem to put Erwin Schrödinger on a pedestal which is the first mistake. You cannot just claim "Schrödinger said so, so it must be correct!". This is not logic, it's confirmation bias. Also, exactly which papers of Schrödinger do you refer? And which other papers on QM do they contradict? Please mention so other people (certainly me, now) can verify your claims ourselves.
"Education" are you talking about the 12+ years kids spend locked into a room listening to lifeless dumass teachers tell them opinions and brainwashing them?
E=hf says that the energy transported by the wave comes in discrete chunks. This is literally all that this formula says. The energy carried by each chunk is proportional to the frequency f of the wave. It doesn´t say at what rate photons are being created, nor does it say that a photon is zillions of kilometers long.
** So the frequency of your CPU of say 1Ghz can switch on/off 1 billions times instantly? The physical reality of that math equation is not a magical transformation of frequency into a instant phenomenon. If you learn the Blackbody radiation derivation, you'll see that the "h" value was derived from WATTS of Blackbody radiation data. The ONLY "discrete chunk" in that equation is "h" ... not Electromagnetic Cycles Per Second of the Frequency of light. Just apply physical reality to the math... that's all. Einstein's photon of e=hf does not exist.
@@itsbs _“So the frequency of your CPU of say 1Ghz can switch on/off 1 billion times instantly? The physical reality of that math equation is not a magical transformation of frequency into a instant phenomenon.”_ E=hf doesn’t say that frequency somehow turns into an instant phenomenon. The frequency in that equation just quantifies how many times the wave oscillates in a given time period. And the energy carried by each chunk proportional to that frequency. That’s all. It doesn’t say how long it takes to produce a photon and it doesn’t say anything about their shape, as you try to argue in your video.
@XT 5TX ** Which is 1 second via Hertz (PER SECOND). 1 second worth of electro-magnetic wave oscillations. ** "Photons" are created instantly (or near instant), and this is the equation being used to plug the "photon energy" into the "photon." Something is wrong here then. ** Apply physical reality to the equation e=hf and it doesn't make logical sense (as written above). Go learn how e=hf was created in the first place (Blackbody Radiation experiment) and you can then see the flaw. Einstein reused this same equation from that experiment to apply to his own "light particle."
![Baby Kia - GLOVES & DRACS (BLACK AF1s) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajm8LeB0qQk/mqdefault.jpg)
At the age of 11, I got a book from the library about Albert Einstein. The book gave the background - how scientists in the 19th century believed space was filled with an Aether to explain waves in a vacuum. And then, the Theory of General Relativity, on how gravity bends space. And it was asserted by Einstein that this did away with the Aether. And even at that age I wondered; why does it dispense with the Aether? Gravity bending space surely means space is made of *something* . And you know... I have never done away with that niggling thought, still present 33 years later in my mind!
**
Yes, in GR, if SPACETIME is curving, then something must curve. If space is filled with this curving SPACETIME, then Special Relativity fails. SR requires space to be empty, otherwise a single object can always tell its motion relative to the curving SPACETIME that fills space. This is the basic idea of Lorentz/Poincare relativity, i.e. AT REST within the "still aether" or moving relative to the "still aether" that fills space.
So, it is a similar argument with the electromagnetic wave medium of "aether." If light is wave (via double slit interference experiment), then something must be waving! If something fills space to allow electromagnetic waves, then Special Relativity dies again... since a single object can always tell its motion relative to the aether that fills space.
Einstein SR requires that you can only tell your own motion relative to another OBJECT in empty space. And then, SR says you can claim to be AT REST but so can the other object...?!? what? So who is moving in Einstein's fantasy world?
- E = hf is not a "1-second wave equation" - it's not limited to 1 second, nor does it describe a wave. It just says "the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, and the constant of proportionality is h". You seem to think it's related to 1 second because the unit of f is "per 1 second". The reason this doesn't matter is that the unit of h is "joules per (per 1 second)", so the "per 1 second"s cancel out. You could just as well replace h with the equivalent in "joules per (per 10 seconds)" or "joules per (per 0.1 seconds)" or any other duration, and replace f with the equivalent frequency over the new duration, and you get the same result; it does not rely on 1 second in particular.
- You ask when it is that light turns into a medium for waves to propagate through. Why are you so dissatisfied with describing the thing that oscillates using pure mathematics? How would an ether be any better? You could, if you wanted to, say the ether is real and its behavior is described by the theory of quantum electrodynamics, but then it's not clear what point there is in asserting there's an ether. That's why we just use the math.
- The interference pattern in your experiment is not due to individual photons interfering with themselves in superpositions. Because the source is a coherent beam (different concept of "coherent" than quantum coherence), it's just this beam interfering with itself classically.
Hey dickweed, what is your question? Didn't I ask for you not to comment about what you think you know? I don't care about your brainwashed, re-parroted ideas.
Would you like to ask a question so you can learn something?
Should I answer this silly, emotional question?
**
How does your explanation account for what Ortho just pointed out about your interpretation of the photon definition?
I would like to start off this comment by saying that this video sounds a lot like "cult talk" to me. For a champion of logic, your arguments mostly boil down to "this doesn't exist" or "this is wrong" without further explanation of why you say that, just like cultist leaders insist that birds aren't real and the moon is a hologram. I praise, however, your iniciative to think, and incite others to think, critically about such important topics. Quantum Mechanics is very precise in its math and its observations; what is needed now (I believe) is to understand its interpretation, and all efforts are appreciated (including this one). We must, even so, thread lightly and talk very precisely about what we mean.
First, your "photon debunking". The reality of photons, historically, comes from the ultraviolet catastrophe and everything surrounding the photoelectric effect. So, let's look at the problems, and see if the photon solution is suitable. The problem was that according to our best models at the time, the light emitted from a blackbody should have its intensity blow up to infinity as its frequency increased. We knew experimentaly that this was not the case. For high frequencies, there was something limiting its intensity, in a bell-shape-like fashion. We did not know what it was. It was then that Max Planck, in a fit of despair, thought of locating a hypothetical harmonic oscilator, something alike to a spring of some sort, to every point of the blackbody. Because these harmonic oscilators could only vibrate in certain whole multiples of a certain frequency, which he called h, they were a suitable mechanism to mathematically limit the intensity of emitted light. He was expecting h to disappear; a quirk of the math. However, when he was finished, it remained. So what is the justification for this h? Are there little metaphysical springs attached to every point of matter? We didn't know. Enter the Bohr model of the atom and the photoelectric effect. Why did intensity play no role in kicking off the electrons of the metal? Einstein's solution was that, even though there were no little springs in the metal, light itself played the role of plancks springs. It could only have a set of energies. And if the energies did not match the energy difference from an energy level to another, the electron would stay in place. It is now here we must thread lightly. You see, Einstein imagined that light was composed of localized wave-packets of definite energy E=hf. And this was what he called a photon, a "particle" of light that took place in the interaction between light and electron. Thing is, this mental picture is a bit inaccurate. Particles in quantum mechanics are very fuzzy; they are not spatialy perfectly defined. They are not elipsoids, or spheres. The particle doesn't "start" or "end" at a certain position. Particle simply refers to the quantized vibration at play in the interaction. So your argument for the absurdness of the photon concept falls somewhat short. The photon is not a perfectly defined region of space which encloses "energy", like energy was some mystical substance, it is rather the vibration itself, and the energy we coloqually say it possesses is the energy associated with that vibration. Assigning then size to the photon becomes meaningless, like for every quantum particle. What size does a wave have?
Now, to your claim that superposition is not real. The idea of superposition comes, mathematically, from Schrodinger's equation, which is just a statement of conservation energy. As you may know, this differential equation is linear, which means that any sum of solutions scaled by some constants is also a solution to the equation. The problem resides in the fact that nearly every wavefunction ( a solution to Schrodinger's eq) can be written as a weighted sum of solutions (or even worse, for some, a continuous infinte sum of solutions). And these solutions describe the state of the particle... so how to interpret these individual solutions that also solve schrodingers equation? Well, one way is to face them as equally real, and say the particle is in a "superposition" of states, it is in all of them at the same time (at least in the Copenhagen interpretation). This concept is, however, not very satisfactory. How are they real? Why do we only measure one perfectly defined state? These are questions quantum mechanics does NOT answer. Which is why it is of my opinion that what quantum mechanics needs the most right now is people thinking about its implications. Having said all this, however, the fact remains that this linearity of the schrodinger's equation has some expression in reality, like in the double slit experiment, which can be performed with all kinds of particles, even atoms and molecules!! Wether this is a result of "particles being in various places at the same time" we do not know. But this phenomenon is VERY real. We have been studying it for several decades now.
Finally, to your demonstration of the double slit experiment and the definition of measurement. The way that common (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics explains this is that the particle is in a superposition of positions and momenta, which results in a wavelike interference pattern. When we measure it however, the particle stops behaving this way and yields in turn a projectile-like pattern. This however is not the particle "knowing it was measured". I agree with you that that is ridiculous. What is happening is we're measuring (and by that interfering with) the particle. This causes it's position wavefunction to become momentarly very localized, which is why the results are different. The measurement here is an exchange of momentum by the photons of the measurement device and the particle in question. Particles are not passive agressive in reality, they're just weird waves. Furthermore we must define well measurement. In quantum mechanics, measurement is a very specific action, and I am not particularly versed in this, but what I do know is that it is a kind of interaction (so, the exchange of some property), that extracts information from the system. For example, in the double slit experiment the exchange in momentum between the particle and light extracts the information of its position, so it is a measurement. But not all interactions are measurements. Which brings me to your demonstration of the double slit using light. Between the diffractor and the wall there's a TON of air particles moving around, with an average kinetic energy in the order of -21 joules. You really think that if there is superposition in this environment, you heating the air up a few degrees would break the superposition...? I don't think I have to point out why that is dumb.
To end, a few notes. This comment is not a defense of quantum mechanics. Qm has many problems, such as the measurement problem and everything around superposition and its formalism in general. This is an attempt at clarification of concepts you have wrongly utilized, and a critique of your arguments. Also, I agree that wave particle duality is not a very accurate idea to describe the behaviour itself. As Richard Feynman himself put it, wave particle duality is not the statement that particles are particles and waves at the same time, but rather something that we use to avoid inventing a new term for them, "wavicles", as he comicly sugested in his book QED: The strange theory of matter and light. Particles are not little billiard balls and they are not waves on the surface of the water. They are much weirder, and fantastical, than our classical pictures.
*
**
So if you said this statement to the CREATOR of that math equation...he would laugh at you. "State of the particle"? That's Max Born's idea to save the Copenhagen/Bohr crazy theory of jumping electrons and the miraculous orbit of "stationary state."
**
Look at what you are assuming here..."particles." Define a particle? Is it a theoretical "math-point." Is it a real piece of matter with a radius? What is the physical reality of this "particle" think you are talking about?
**
No it doesn't. The photon of E=hf was made up by Einstein so he had some way of describing light with RAYS and no ether medium in his silly Special Relativity paper. He just re-used Max Planck's math in an incorrect way. The photoelectric effect show resonance at certain frequencies with certain metal, which is what Millikan described in his paper...how are projectile particles going to resonate? Silly...
**
If you were to look at my channel, before assuming that I am some kind of a stupid idiot, you will see I have a 1 hour video on this topic...It's called the Quantum Flaw. Do you really think I don't understand the "mainstream" story and just came up with these videos on a whim?
Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 is NOT representative of the theory of quantum mechanics (by "theory of quantum mechanics", I mean the non-relativistic theory of QM, it's postulates, which contain the Schrödinger equation). Basically what Einstein did in that paper is to take Planck's idea of quantizing the energy of the photon (which Planck did - at the time it was barely anything more than a mathematical trick - to explain the Blackbody spectrum) and apply it to explain the photoelectric effect.
ALL that Einstein is saying in that paper is that the energy of light comes in discrete "packets" or quanta, and this energy is proportional to the frequency of the wave, summarized in the equation E = hf. It does NOT talk about any sort of internal structure of the photon, whether it consists of waves or is a point particle or anything else. What you are doing is taking the classical picture of a photon (i.e. an electromagnetic wave) and pointing out the inconsistencies that happen when you apply E = hf to that picture; of course there will be inconsistencies! because the model you have taken for the photon is a classical one.
Let me expand on what I mean:
First, explaining the photoelectric effect essentially boils down to explaining this baffling experimental result: when I shine red light on potassium, no matter how intense my light source is, I never see electrons get knocked out of the potassium sample, but even a very weak beam of green light can cause electrons to get knocked out of the sample (which I will see as current flowing on the ammeter if I set up the photoelectric effect experiment). What's going on?
This effect cannot be explained by the classical picture i.e. Maxwell's theory of Electromagnetism, because - classically - an EM wave should be able to continuously impart energy to the potassium-bound electron, cycle by cycle, and if the beam is turned on for long enough, the electron should acquire enough energy to escape the potassium's (or whatever metal we are talking about) potential well - which would imply that the red light should be able to knock electrons out of potassium, and a more intense beam should make more electrons come out - but we simply do not observe such a behaviour in reality.
Einstein's explanation, however, is consistent with experiment; for example, if light comes in these discrete quanta whose energy is proportional to their frequency (note - when we say "frequency" in the context of QM, it is often indistinguishable from the notion of energy; there is usually no oscillation involved at all; the concept of frequency is QM is divorced from the classical concepts of periodically oscillating things, so if something in QM has a frequency, doesn't mean that there is any oscillation going on), then shining an even higher frequency of light isn't going to make the electrons get knocked out faster (the interaction between a light quanta - or more popularly known as a "wavepacket" - and an electron happens practically instantaneously) or have more electrons get released per unit time; it's only going to increase the kinetic energy of the knocked out electrons - and this is exactly what we see in experiment.
Now that we have established what the photoelectric effect is an what Einstein's explanation is actually saying, here are your misconceptions about all this that is causing you to come to the conclusion that QM is wrong:
1. One of your arguments is: a single cycle of the photon wave contains h energy, so a 3 hertz photon imparts 3 cycles worth of energy in one second to what it is interacting with. This is clearly taking the classical picture of a photon and trying to fit in the E = hf equation into it, which is definitely going to lead to inconsistencies. The classical picture of an EM have and the E = hf are NOT talking about the same model of the photon, so applying an equation of one to a model of another is wrong.
2. Your argument about the length of the photon: again, the same problem of applying the quantum E = hf equation to the classical EM wave picture.
3. Your argument on why the electron-photon interaction should not be instantaneous: You're again taking the classical picture here, of the EM wave imparting energy to the photon, cycle-by cycle. If, hypothetically, in the photoelectric effect, red light COULD knock out electrons from potassium the same way green light does, and if green light were to do it faster than red light, then sure, you would have been right and the classical picture of the photon as an EM wave would have been correct too; but this is not what we observe in reality, and we need theories that are consistent with experimental results, so we can rely on them to build things that work.
I have seen this sort of misconception many times while interacting with my peers; hell, i've had misconceptions like these while I was learning quantum mechanics for the first time; but as you learn more about it (preferably through university courses) and have discussions with your instructor on these things, you'll be left with a clearer and clearer picture of what these theories are actually saying, and what they are not.
**
No, I'm not. I'm saying there is NO photon particle that moves through empty space. To back that statement up, one example is looking at the e=hf math equation that Einstein used in his photoelectric paper to describe the photon, and it is wrong.
**
I have an entire video on the channel that describes all the dumb shit you typed. You should go watch it, instead typing to me all of your brainwashed parroting.
**
Lol, like there is some kind of radically new science that you need to invoke. That is just mainstream brainwashing...Copenhagen lies.
**
AH HA! Brainwashed! You've got a long road ahead of you... it not easy for most people to leave a cult.
@@itsbsWell, I took the time to watch that video on the photoelectric effect; and nowhere in the video do you mention or address that the most notable aspect of the photoelectric effect is that there is a frequency threshold for the light being shined on the metal, after which electrons start to leave the metal - THAT's the part classical EM theory can't explain.
You know what? Let's say that I AM brainwashed, and QM and Einstein's theory of relativity is all B.S.
If so, why don't YOU offer a theory that explains the photoelectric effect? Just explain why - to repeat what I wrote above - if I shine red light on potassium, no matter how intense my light source is, I never see electrons get knocked out of the potassium sample, but even a very weak beam of green light can cause electrons to get knocked out of the sample. And make sure your theory matches all the experimental results on the effect, because that's the whole point of making up the theory. That's a real phenomena that's going to happen the same way independent of whether all Physicists on the planet are making up testable theories or running a cult.
Bonus points you can also quantitatively explain the lines in the absorption/emission spectrum of Hydrogen while you're at it i.e. predict the precise frequencies of the Lyman, Balmer etc lines using your theory. Good luck!
All this "dumb shit" is mainstream only because it matches things happening in reality, and when you build stuff using them, it works.
**
That's not correct. The theories prior to Einstein was wave resonance in the atom is causing the Photoelectric effect. When Millikan did the experiment, he mentions that copious amounts of the effect occurred at specific frequencies, which is not correlated to increasing intensity of the input light source.
*>*
Have you ever read ANYTHING from Erwin Schrodinger? Heck, he even has a paper on the Compton Effect using wave theory...
**
No, you build stuff and give credit to wrong pseudoscience. That's what the brainwashers do...you are stuck.
@@kaustavprasad3440all I ever saw about a measuring was sphere packing. 78018018.. used for chemistry. I don’t think the number related to light
There’s definitely some reason why we’ve failed to make any significant progress in physics since accepting this theory as correct…..
The GPS system is not progress? Hmm... let me give you some attention, then. You are clearly looking for it. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 wouldn't that be an application not a discovery? It just seems we've been stuck. Going in circles, with no increase in understanding. We can describe more, we can apply it to all kinds of technology, but we still don't understand any of it. I don't know what I'm talking about. Like 99% of people on the internet. But I am willing to admit it. I just have questions and observations. It seems like science, in many ways, is stuck. And there's gotta be a reason for it.
@@josiaphus It's an application that requires a complete understanding of atomic physics. Are you stuck? Obviously. But that's your personal crisis. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 k
@@opalescentmica Like the intellectually lazy folks they are? Absolutely. ;-)
Wrong:
1- Quantum mechanics have given us many predictions, some of the most ACCURATE perditions in fact
2- The regular computer you are using is based on quantum mechanics, as the whole semiconductor theory underlining electronics. In fact electronics makes no sense without QM. In fact here are some technologies we have based on QM and explainable only through QM:
-LEDs
-Solar Cells
-Lasers
-X-ray machines and MRI machines
-Electron microsopes
-Atomic clocks
and much more!
3- Just because we have no reliable quantum computer YET it does not mean quantum computing does not work. Just because something is hard to achieve it does not mean the underlying theory is wrong.
Quantum theory started in the 1920... yet we are still reaping the benefits. Sometimes it takes decades to go from a theory to a realized reliable technology.
4- You clearly do NOT understand the math and QM. Yes, yes, I know Feynman said "no one understands it", but what it meant is that it simply cannot be understood in terms of classical intuitions.
If you do not understand the math you do not understand QM.
5- YES people CAN give you a definition of a photon. A photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field.
6- Your photon example is COMPLETELY WRONG. The Energy of a photon depends on the intrinsic frequency of the wave, but you do not have to "stretch the photon for one second"
E= hf simply means that the energy of the photon depends on it's frequency, not that it's energy is "divided into bits inside the wave".
Now you do not understand this because you do not understand classical wave mechanics (eg. the energy of a guitar string) and even less QM.
7- The photoelectric effect proves that light (and electron energies) are quantized
8- The "two slit interference pattern" proves the wave-particle duality (WPD)
9- WPD really just means that under certain conditions a particle behaves like "classical particle" and sometimes like a "classical wave", but this is fully explained by both superposition and the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction
10 - Quoting Einstein won't help you. He was wrong about several things when it came to QM. Also you are quoting a paper from 1905!! That's basically before even QM started and lots of things were not understood yet. Of course Einstein is not going to give you answers in a paper written then before the whole QM was developed
11- Your interference pattern critique is wrong. You are using the oversimplified version given by some youtube video and comparing it to a real experiment. Actual QM predicts EXACTLY what we observe in interference patterns (btw these also depend on the side and distance of the slits)
Basically you are misrepresenting the whole experiment and lying.
The only BS here is this video
**
Wrong - you don't know what Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is. Correct? No clue, right?
**
Wrong. It is based on capacitance, inductance, resistance...basic electronic concepts. You've just been brainwashed by modern pseudoscience. Again, go figure out what Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is...
**
Haha... keep believing in the pseudoscience of QUANTUM STATE in a superposition and it's lame brother Quantum Entanglement. They need BELIEVERS to keep the pseudoscience going...
**
You clearly do not understand what Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is...
**
Well, you completely misunderstood that part and that doesn't surprise me...
**
You are easily fooled and convinced of "proof" because you are a fool. That's all.
**
Duh, dumbass... have you ever heard of the "early Quantum Theory"? That's your boy Einstein reusing Max Planck's math...
**
No, you are completely brainwashed with pseudoscience and member of the pseudoscience cult. You are ignorant of your own ignorance because you THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING! Hahah... I doubt you'll ever get out of the pseudoscience cult, because you seem to know your pseudoscience teachings pretty well!
@Joe Washington **
Correct -- and it is better to say QUANTUM MECHANICAL computers will never happen, which are based on the ideas of Quantum States in a superposition and Quantum Entanglement. These are false concepts and pseudoscience.
We will, however, have analog based computing devices that will help improve computation. These will be classical WAVE based computers with very small components (in general, layman jargon, the word QUANTUM might still be associated with it...but it isn't the current Quantum Mechanical computer idea).
Finally, we will probably learn how to combine both the analog and digital ideas into simultaneous computation/processing devices.
@Joe Washington **
Not in a physical sense, because wave superposition is the constructive/destructive interference you see in the double slit experiment. It is a real tangible scientific result. How you decide to compute with the measurable properties of waves would be the real breakthrough and a very good computer science problem to tackle. It's hard to predict what capabilities we might figure out here.
BUT remember, the Quantum Mechanical computers were original sold as this: NATURE COMPUTES ALL POSSIBLE STATES ALL AT ONCE and then will collapse into a probable result. This is complete bullshit (Quantum parallelism) and based on the magical idea of "nature computing" all probable pathways to find the path of least resistance/time/etc within this magical "Quantum realm" of more bullshit. They have since backed away from that idea and now can't figure out what to do...but continue to sell the idea of the "quantum state superposition" ... they are really just generating random numbers (random actions/results).
Scott Aaronson does talk about the "interference computation" idea but still sticks with the Quantum Mechanics bullshit, instead of admitting it is really just classical waves/oscillations that we are working with, i.e. classical analog computer utilizing measurable classical wave/oscillation phenomenon.
For physicists, this is great fun. Of course, it is utter nonsense. Quantum physics is absolutely true, but this video is so full of adorable misunderstandings that I, as a quantum physicist had a great laugh.
I just hope that nobody takes this seriously.
**
It should be easy for you to explain the "adorable" misunderstanding. Give 1 or 2 a try and help me out. Utter nonsense should be easy to expose.
@@itsbs many have already exposed you in other threads, the only thing stopping you from realising is your Jupiter-sized ineptitude that keeps going back to the same misunderstandings and dogmas and refuses to learn.
You sir know everything, congratulations.
@@marcossidoruk8033 **
Yeah, I'm exposed IF YOU TAKE THEIR SIDE. Good one! My replies to their "exposing me" are generally decent rebuttals, no? Or is this just a one sided argument and not debatable? ...something like academic, science-Dogma? I refuse to learn the Dogma or you refuse to debate my points?
@@itsbs No they are not, all you do is arguments from ignorance, the others have tried to kindly make you understand but again, your incompetence on this topic seems to be so huge that you can't even possibly realize.
And let me clarify, what makes you incompetent is the fact that you believe you know everything, that you can understand physics without studying seriously.
@@marcossidoruk8033 *
finally someone that shares my view, I felt the last things you said at the last 40 seconds of the video, it indeed always felt to me like a "forget everything you know, just believe on this weird thing because we professional scientists say so"
Right 😂
When we look at ourselves we see separate particles. When we're not looking we appear as a wave, a crime wave.
Addressing your slide on E = hf - frequency is the measure of oscillations per second. When we say some arbitrary object or apparatus is 3 hertz, we're stating that if a second were to come to occur then 3 cycles would happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean the second fully pass.
Here's an analogy - if I ran at a speed of 15 miles per hour, that doesn't mean I ran 15 miles. I can only run at such a speed for a few seconds.
Claiming the photon would be 300 million meters long is a misrepresentation of what E = hf is actually saying.
**
Correct, but what is the energy of a 3Hz "photon"?
It takes 3 "h" values, which would be 3 oscillations, which would be 1 full second of time.
Do the same for a Red photon of 480 trilllion oscillations -- it must have that energy to be Red.
**
No, it is not. It is illustrating that Einstein's E=hf claim that a single "750 nanometer" of energy is Red photon is wrong.
@@itsbs "...but what is the energy of a 3Hz "photon"? IIt takes 3 "h" values, which would be 3 oscillations, which would be 1 full second of time."
A 3Hz photon doesn't contain three waves!! It is a /frequency/, not a number of waves!! If I walk at 3 mph, that doesn't mean I am stretched out over 3 miles.
What you are demonstrating, and very eloquently, is the old adage: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Indeed it is!
@@Brian.001 *
@@itsbs "3 h's because of the cycles within 1 second." Who said a photon = one second of waves? You are talking gibberish.
@@Brian.001 **
E=hf
If you plug in 3 for f, then you get 3*h or...
h + h + h = Energy
f = frequency in Hertz which is cycles per second.
3 Hz is 3 cycles per second.
Each cycle within that 1 second interval gets an "h" energy.
All you have done is to make a nice long list of things that YOU don't understand about quantum mechanics.
*
@@itsbs No. I'm talking about your flat out wrong description of the theory of quantum mechanics. You make serious and extreme mis-characterizations of quantum mechanics at the very beginning of your video. It's almost like you are making a straw man, claiming it to be quantum mechanics, then tearing down the straw man in order to claim victory over QM. But what you say is quantum mechanics is not quantum mechanics. I gave you the benefit of doubt by just calling you ignorant. Perhaps your not ignorant. Maybe you're just stubborn... Do you believe in flat earth?
@@roberttownsend7064 **
You can see I say "over simplified." If you are going to explain it to a beginner, you have to start somewhere. Besides, why go deep into Quantum Mechanics at the beginning when it just wrong anyway?
*
@@itsbs
"You can see I say "over simplified."... "
You can SAY "over simplified" all you want. I say that you INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED.
"No, the claim is starting with the double-slit experiment, when Quantum Mechanics start to fantasize about light particles, single light particles, and Quantum State in a superposition. It gets ridiculous fast and I referenced PAUL DIRAC's OWN WORDS!!! I didn't make up that book!!"
1. Just saying "fantasize" and "it's ridiculous" does nothing to discredit the the results of those experiments, it only makes you look more ignorant. It also discredits your approach as a scientist.
2. Citing an authority is not the same as making a logical argument or presenting an alternate hypothesis. Citing an authority means exactly jack shit. As far as actual science is concerned, citing an authority simply calls into question your integrity as a scientist.
"Hah! It is funny. What do you think I THINK OF YOU!?!? Oh Devout follower of Max Born's Rule!!"
1. I do not believe that you actually think. Period. I believe that you live to demonstrate your own ignorance. You are a shining beacon of ignorance that FSM as placed on this earth to warn others of potential folly.
2. As for Born's Rule, I am an actual scientist, so I already naturally question everything. You are the fool who thinks science is about following rules and devising experiments that prove your ideas correct. I am the scientist who understands that science is about questioning everything while trying to prove MYSELF wrong.
I object to your idiocy because you prove nothing. You provide nothing. You misrepresent. You lie by omission and by misrepresentation.
At no point did you ever actually address any of the findings in the field of Quantum Mechanics in the last century, just as you have not actually addressed any of my charges. You simply throw word salad nonsense, mud, and misdirection into an important field of investigation.
Without at least proposing an alternative SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS, you are nothing more than the kind of fool that holds humanity back.
@@roberttownsend7064 **
Well, you would be absolutely wrong. Quantum Physics is the interaction between the electron and light. That's all you really need to know, because that gets us to Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics, which is really all that is needed. Quantum Mechanics is an INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTAION of Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics!
There are no particles, only waves - Correct. There is no duality, because there are no particles - Correct. Physics defines a photon as indivisible - Correct. Physics has no mathematical formula for a single photon - Correct. Double-slit: Since the photon is indivisible (by definition) is cannot and does not "split" into quantum-states or otherwise. Fire single-photons, one at a time, into double-slit and the identical interference pattern eventually results. Therefore, photons are not and cannot be "interfering with themselves." (more...)
Physics has made several errors regarding the question of indivisibility (amplitude which is directly related to charge quantization, which we will leave aside for the moment) and frequency. Let us assume the shortest possible wave at a given center frequency is a single-cycle? (Single-cycle is not a valid solution of the wave equation, but let's play along for understanding's sake?). Can one divide the wave into the up-cycle and the down-cycle? No, of course not. Half-cycles do not propagate. Photons are therefore indivisible by chopping waves into shorter and shorter lengths.
Continuing the single-cycle approximation, the photon is therefore a wave, not a particle? And waves fill space; they are not infinitely small. So when a single-photon *wave* impinges a double-slit, the wave strikes both slits? The photon is a wave with spatial dimension of a wavelength and the slit is roughly a wavelength separation (if slits aren't separated by approximately the size of the wavelength, the diffraction pattern will not be demonstrated)? That's why the single-photon has to strike both slits, because they both have similar physical size.
As the photon passes through both slits, part of the wave goes through one slit, while the rest goes through the other. This is another error the physicist makes. He points and says, "look, the photon has been divided, because part of the energy goes through one slit and part through the other slit!" What he fails to see is that the photon remains connected and never truly splits. In fact, running an E/M simulation proves the Electric and Magnetic fields wrap around the slits and continue to take up (even more) physical space through both slits and for a time, on both sides of the plate. Because the wave size is significant, compared to the slits.
Why the difficulty understanding? Because, students were taught particles and duality. Of course the reader now knows, there are no particles and no duality.
Hopefully, the reader now sees that the double-slit experiment proves exactly the opposite of what they've been told? Double-slit disproves particles and reaffirms waves. A similar analysis of the photoelectric effect proves the same thing. Quantization occurs due to the spherical wave equation holding the electron. No particle solution is possible. Only the wave-equation explains the experiment. Again, the opposite of what physicists are taught.
Good stuff!
Once Huygens and Newton - they disagreed - exchanged comments and opinions on the corpuscular and wave theory of light in an exchange of letters. Huygens held that light could not be molecular in nature because no collisions, collisions of molecules, or other phenomena indicating the existence of physical particles in the stream were observed in the crossed streams of light, while waves, in his opinion, had no problem doing so.
Newton, on the other hand, argued that only a fool could assume the wavelike nature of light, knowing that the wave propagated throughout the medium and could not produce a current, as is the case, for example, with an ordinary flashlight.
But if the oscillating field - a kind of physical space - has perturbations, i.e. waves propagating in this field, it is difficult to reconcile this with the corpuscular nature of the photon. It is interesting that Couder drops can even explain a phenomenon like "tunnelling".
It seems to me that no contemporary theory clearly and satisfactorily explains the answers to these critical doubts of the two scientists. Assuming the existence of a particle of light, it is also difficult to explain the absence of a recoil acting on the sources of light - the laser placed on the surface without friction will not vibrate - while the oscillator of disturbances, the waves, by nature have no recoil. When light passes from one medium to another, it may slow down or accelerate, etc. etc. - Do physical particles behave the same way? ... Huygens waves, if they have no problems with it.
The assumption that light has a particle-wave character, as it is now officially proclaimed, is not a classical example of the creation of quasi-beings, i.e. beings that are physically unreal - is it possible to connect a corpuscle (physical being) with a disturbance of a medium that is not a physical being in its ontological essence, but only a physical phenomenon? For me the crossing of physical beings and phenomena into a new material physical quality is shamanism, alchemy and metaphysics.
@@srelos8875 - Starting with your conclusion first (since most of the rest was addressed in my original-post), the assumption is incorrect. The assumption is that this world and this universe are the "real" side of the looking-glass - it is not. Our world and our universe are comprised solely of waves. There isn't a single particle in our universe, only waves. Therefore it is we, who are the ghostly spirits. Second, Huygen's collisions are the result of exclusionary states resulting from Schrodinger's wave equation, while superposition holds for Maxwell's wave equation. (more...)
Matter can't occupy the same space at the same time. In other words, all matter are waves and each wave bounces off other waves. Alternately, E/M-waves (e.g. light, photons, RF, etc.) simply pass through each other and their field-strengths add while they share the same space and time.
@@tomnoyb8301 This is also a mistake in thinking. I was just referring to the context of the discussion of quantum mechanics and the wave-particle worldview on which that mechanics is built. In fact, there is something bigger than Newton's determinism or an abstract reality described by a formalism - torsion fields (Kozyrev, Sipov) that represent the flow of time. They cannot exist without spin, they are everywhere and nowhere, because they are neither wave nor particle, but information. But this is not at all the subject of this discussion.
Post scriptum. Look at it. Particles (whatever they are) generate their own vibrational fields which interact with the matter around them. These fields were predicted by de'Broglie as the pilot wave associated with each particle
ruclips.net/video/WIyTZDHuarQ/видео.html
@@srelos8875 - Experiments purportedly "proving" particle nature, in fact, prove the opposite. Knocking electrons out of atoms is entirely determined by what? The Schrodinger wave-equation. Nothing to do with a particle model - everything to do with waves. Still don't believe it? Show one experiment where Schrodinger's wave-equation is violated? There are plenty where the billiard-ball model fails, but none where the wave model fails. Yes, particle model may simplify calculation in certain instances, but however more complicated to calculate, wave equation always holds true.
That's not "duality," my friend. One is a simplified model for convenience, while the other is absolute, always holds true and never fails.
You cannot make a sinosoidal wave making E=h*f, that's absurd, E=h*f is not even a equation wave. A sinosoidal wave equation is something like y=A*sin(x) or A*cos(x) for example, not E=h*f. First of all h is a constant and f is a variable that changes its value linearly, so if you plot E em function of f it will be a
straight in the graphic and not a sinosoidal wave.
**
OK, so Frequency in E=hf... does it represent the number of "electromagnetic waves" per second? If you put one of the "h constants" inside of each electromagnetic WAVE, then what is the Energy stand for? Oh, yeah, Energy of WAVES... So I guess it is a WAVE ENERGY equation. Or better yet, WAVE POWER equation. That was easy...
@@itsbs number of "eletromagnetic waves" per second? No, that makes do not even make sense, this E=hf just represent energy of a single photon.
@@itsbs h is a Plank constant, just it, nothing to do with electromagnetic wave. If you see what a wave equation really is, it will be sure that i wouldn't hear this bullshit.
@@wergserium7515 **
Well, if you don't understand that Frequency in that equation is derived from (1 second's worth of space at the speed of light) / (wavelength), then you can learn a lot from my videos. Why don't you spend time looking through the videos on my site, instead of wasting time typing up comments?
@@wergserium7515 *
In the quantum world, even a straight line becomes meaningless. Because every particle of that line is not known in which time and place they are. Especially when you observe that line and its particles, the situation becomes worse! And this is really very logical.
Thank you for your time and sharing your knowledge 🙏
Im so glad this channel exists. I only know of two others that cover things like this.
Please mention them
@@lMINERl Jean de Climont anglais and Theoria Apophasis
@@CeruleanMuun There is also Dissident Science. He has excellent video where a scientist holding 30 patents on GPS states that the clocks don't correct for time dilation.
No such thing as a photon or an electron. We should start there.
“I do not want to know your thoughts about my content. ... Remember, I do not care what you think you know!”
Actively dissuading scrutiny is almost certainly how you got into this mess in the first place. Know thy limitations.
*>*
Haha... Nice.
@@itsbs
People have a serious case of ego.
academia supports conformity above all else... the biggest dissuaders of scrutiny indoctrinate students with disinformation and disillusions.
You don't have to wait 1 second to measure a photon 😂 LMAOOOOOO
*
It's satisfying to find a rare video of somebody debunking quantum mechanics. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness! And how it led to so much quantum woo, and ridiculous quantum consciousness quackery. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. They just couldn't figure it out, so they had to resort to magic. And a light wave that somehow knows it's being observed, in which case it collapses into a particle... Oh boy! 🤦🙄 All they had to do was to question the original assumption made by Young... Instead, they sunk deep into the rabbit hole.
If we actually concentrated on the exact physical mechanism for light emission, we might eventually understand the problems with "waves" or "particles".
Why are you all insisting on waves? You are seeing a fringe pattern and immediately implying wave interference. Why? Light waves have never been observed, ever. So why waves? What mechanism could possibly produce waves of light? Legit question.
Why do you think they believe waves collapse into particles? Have you ever thought about that? Seriously. What can explain the "particles" supposedly hitting the detector? How would you explain them with waves anyway?
The fringe pattern is not a wave interference pattern, but a simple REFLECTION pattern from rays coming off at different angles from a curved surface (a perfectly sharp 90° corner does not exist). That is why the main light beam is fanning out into multiple independent rays never interfering with each other. Block a few rays, and the adjacent rays will not be affected the slightest, nor will the overall pseudo-inteference pattern on screen, as opposed to what should happen with waves. I have used a cloud chamber, and a smoke machine, to verify the exact path light takes after going through the slits. The single-slit experiment done in a ripple tank with water shows a single set of waves with no interference whatsoever. Oddly, the same experiment done with light produces a fringe pattern. Why? The idea of light being a wave should've been destroyed right there. Unfortunately, to save the wave dogma, Huygens had to invent his ludicrous Huygens Principle as an ad hoc mathemagical solution, forcing a wave interference where it did not exist.
Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. What was interpreted as particles, are individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. It's time to abandon this debate between wave and particle. Light is none of them.
But unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, no matter the empirical evidence I bring forward, no matter how ridiculous quantum mechanics is, they are just too far gone down the rabbit hole. It's like talking to Christian fundamentalists. 😔
Lasers are literal proof of quantum mechanics. An application of quantum physics
@@earthchan3358 absolutely not. 🙄
THANK YOU for this video! finally someone that addresses the obvious: what is a photon? how can a wave propagate without a medium? I'd add what is a "charge"? and many more questions that one has to take as axioms.
your explanation of the contradictions is very well made. looking forward to watch more of your videos! well done
Great video!!!
Considering the Double Slit experiment. Anytime light is "constricted" (light bulb on in a room - and lets say some light goes out through a small hole in the wall) the light begins to "expand" instantly and exponentially as it leaves the hole in the wall - wider and wider as it "travels". This is why the double split experiment displays the result it does. As the beams (photons) travel through the "slit" - they expand on the exit side and the positive and negative interference occurs.
Lasers are intentionally manufactured to minimize the expansion of light. However, the edges of the "slit" are still going to cause "turbulence / blockage" in the laser beam and the expansion and interference is the result.
I like it... Do you have a definition for a Photon?
@@itsbs A "photon" is a measurement of light under specific conditions. In other words, it is not a physical entity, but a measurement technique.
@@codetech5598 Can you define the measurement? What specific amount of energy do you measure? Think of it as a basic specification to engineer a single photon detector. What do I measure and what are the conditions that I measure it?
@@itsbs I do not subscribe to QM or use the word "photon" myself.
The things called "photons" or "electrons" are not actually particles that exist, but artifacts of the measurement technique. The measurement techniques are described by the experiments which are said to show the existence of those "particles".
"a basic specification to engineer a single photon detector" This is a property of the atom of the element (example, iron) which is used in the detector. The atom itself is a natural substance, not engineered by man.
@@codetech5598 The smallest measurement of light involves one absorption and emission event. A cesium 133 atom can absorb and emit EM energy ~9 billion times PER SECOND. Each absorption and emission event is "worth" the same amount of "energy", the Quantum of Energy which is numerically equal to Planck's constant, but with units Joules per cycle. Hope this helps.
The more i study the quantum physics the more i counfuse... May be in future we understand it.😢
A photon has no defined position unless it interacts with some other particle. Other particles are essentially the same. The double slit experiment can be performed both with electrons and with material molecules, and in all cases an interference pattern will appear. It has even been performed with entire molecules composed of a few carbon atoms and interference has also appeared. We agree that an electron is a particle.
I hope you agree with current science on this. Buy a device that can generate single electrons and do a double slit experiment, but send them one at a time. The wall must be made of a material that will record the impact of the electron. Even in this case, exactly the same interference pattern will appear as in the experiment with laser. Each particle travels as a probability density function, without a well-defined position. After reaching the wall, interactions must occur - the electron or photon must transfer its energy, and that is why it materializes in one precisely defined place while the probability of occurrence at a given point is given by the probability density function. Your claims contradict real world experiments.
If light had only a wave character, then the double slit experiment could not be performed with particles like electrons and atoms - but it can be done. It also cannot be explained by the fact that an electron is also a wave, because electrons can simply be sent one at a time and then materialize at only one point. Here is a video, that double slit experiment can be performed with single electrons: ruclips.net/video/ZqS8Jjkk1HI/видео.html
**
No, the dissectible capacitor experiment shows that that the Electron Particle Theory is wrong. Anyone can do this experiment themselves. I have a video showing it.
**
This is scientific proof of waves. We just "believe in particles" with no scientific proof.
**
No. I don't agree. It is "pseudoscience" because these "single particles" are not defined and the emitters and detectors do not have the specifications. You just believe they are single particle devices.
**
Before you buy one, you should find the exact definition of a "single particle" and then make sure the hardware specs match EXACTLY the specification.
**
Again, you just believe in the pseudoscience of "single electron." Do the dissectible capacitor experiment. Figure out what the RADIUS of this electron, single particle is. See if the emitter/detector hardware can get down to that DIAMETER of a "SINGLE PARTICLE" resolution.
Do some work and just don't believe what videos are telling you (including mine).
@@itsbs Thank you for answer, I will look at that experiment and try to think about it. Just for info, which physics theories do you consider true and which pseudoscience? I understand you don't believe in quantum mechanics, special and general relativity. So which theories do you consider to be the best interpretation of the universe so far?
@@andrejtech *
@@itsbs
I just finished watching the lecture "8.02x - Lect 14 - Biot-Savart, div B = 0, High-voltage Power Lines, Leyden Jar revisited" and I don't understand what you think is wrong with his explanation. I also watched your videos and videos you mentioned. Electrons can't move through dielectric material, but they can stick to one side surface. The electric charge is thus stored in the dielectric and not in the metal plates.
@@andrejtech *
So I'm not an expert, but my understanding of quantum physics and quantum field theory is that the real objects are not the particles, but the fields. "What is a single photon?" And elementary excitation of the quantized EM field.
"Do you really think a photon can be 1s long?" At the speed of light, there isn't really any concepts of space and time, and again, the real object isn't the photon itself but the EM field.
If you keep considering the world as something that should fit your intuitive description of reality, for sure QM is tough to swallow. The key is to understand that the objects described by that theory escape our intuition and have no equivalent in the classical world.
There are no reason the universe should be simple to understand, or complicated, it is what it is, we can just try to understand. But if we think that what we know is relevant to understand what we don't know, we're lost...
**
Sure, QFT is a bit more evolved, but based on false ideas of modern pseudoscience. The "field" is just a mathematical construct, like the "coordinate system" reference frame of Einstein. The real question, what is the field made of? Math?
**
So does that Photon make the "field" wave or is it a "particle" in space?
**
We are not at the speed of light and the equation E=hf is not in the "reference frame of light."
If it is the EM field, what is the field made of? Math?
**
If you fall for arguments like no cause and effect and "probability" wave indetermism, wave-particle opposites... well then you can be fooled by anything. You've left science and gone into mysticism.
**
You've been lied to. Do you realize that the Schrodinger Equation is a classical wave equation? It's only the Quantum Mechanics founders that tell you to think of it differently (so it can fit their own theory). That's like a religion.
*
Where is your peer reviewed paper ? Haven't you published yet ? I mean this changes "debunks" one of the foundations of modern physics. You should be headline material.
*
@@itsbs You make a big claim and I think asked a reasonable/obvious question but all you have to offer is being defensive.
@@rwo5402 **
Hah, me being defensive, and yeah, your "reasonable question." Anyway, if you want to understand something and think that "peer review" or "headlines" is where the truth is, then no, that is not what this site is about. Relying on other people to tell you the "truth" is a complete fallacy and you must put in the time to create your own understanding. That is why I break down the most important parts into basic logic and show you the source material, so you can do your own thinking. That is actually quite a bit to offer...
@@itsbs But how is that different to relying on "your" truth other than your assertion that "your" truth is the "real" truth and everyone else's truth is not the truth. Without independent validation of your logic (never mind that even by applying consistent logic to a problem results in a valid or true conclusion) I am non the wiser.
@@rwo5402 **
I am sourcing the original content from Dirac, Einstein, Born, Schrodinger, Planck, etc. I point out what I think is the important points and teaching what I think about it. After that, you can do what ever you want...like read the paper yourself and study the topic. I'm not asking anyone to believe in "my truth." That's obvious because I am not hiding my sources, like Einstein did. If you want independent validation, then do your best to understand it and go have conversations with other people about it. If you don't learn it, then you can't have a dialog...you'll just be listening "to the expert" again and following. You must do work, if you want to clear out the bullshit! If you don't do work, then you'll be a puppet. It is that simple.
Delta x \cdot \Delta p \cdot \Delta X \cdot \Delta P = C Your work is appreciated, I have grave doubts in the theory and I found your video insightful.
Thanks for uploading a new video.
When you want to understand the equation E=hf better, you could start with electricity.
We express the power sometimes with Wh, and when you want to calculate how much you have to pay for the use of your light bulb, you have to multiply the watts per hour your light bulb uses, times the amount of money you have to pay for each Wh.
Don't make the same mistake as Fractal Women, by thinking that the 'second' plays any significant role in the equation, just like one mile has no role in "the bus travels with 40 miles per hour"
You can drain a battery in 900 short pulses, or in one long experiment.
The total amount of energy in a new battery stays the same.
-
What you do is making a video about your objections against the physics that is taught at schools and universities in the 21st century.
But summarising your personal objections isn't the same as debunking something.
If I use a radar gun and within 10 milliseconds, I clock you moving at 60 miles per hour. How long will it take you to go 60 miles from that point (assuming constant speed)?
@@itsbs But what if I stop at my home after 30 miles?
@@_John_Sean_Walker Then you need to change per hour to 1/2 hour...and TIME becomes a variable instead of a constant (as defined by the time unit HOUR). e.g. you divide the 1 hour in half via the TIME variable.
Also, if you believe that E=hf defines a single Photon, then it would seem like a *VERY* significant point that Nature creates Photon Energy in the exact number of wavelengths in a 1 second timeframe. That would make the 1 second timeframe an extraordinary feature of natural science. Why does Nature create Photon Energy based on the exact number of wavelengths in 1 second? How does it actually DO this? Is it just the way the universe works...based on the human-defined, time-tracking method of a 1 second interval?
@@itsbs
There is no 1 second time interval.
You can do an experiment for five minutes, or do the same experiment for one hour.
But you express the power in units per second.
When you measure at a larger distance, you will find a smaller power in units per seconds.
It is independant of the time your experiment lasts.
One could say that 'h' is just a mathematical constant to calculate the energy when you know the frequency, or find the frequency when you know the energy.
My head hurts I have heard a person that said environment change the atoms in your body I’m losing hair at the back of my head
you prove a theory wrong, by showing that its prediction doesn't match observed experiements, science is not religion, and a few slides with pictures and text is not very convincing
*
@@itsbs I wish they would explain more details of the actual experiments in youtube, there's too much made up visualizations that leave out huge parts of things that are actually interfering, and it's quite hard to make out what's actually being observed and where the theories start nowadays
@@fihalhohi5353 **
You can start with the double slit wave interference experiment. There is no "wave function collapse" and no particles interfering with each other. There is no such thing as "which way photon detector."
It's pretty easy. Just keep watching the videos here, if you want to learn. Don't believe my opinions or conclusions...go read the material I link in the description or show in the video. Make up your own mind about the data.
@@itsbs yea the double slit experiment makes no sense in 99% of all videos. the 2 straight lines are made up. all visualizations show eyes or a camera "looking from the outside", but if they would actually show the setup... it's a bunch of prisms and mirrors right in the path of the particles, and the observation is not seen on the actual screen (this stays always same), but the result of some electric "coincidence circuit" that even needs the data from the actual screen as input to even work in the first place, and with some statistics involved too.
nobody would raise an eyebrow if such an apparatus could turn something wavey into a blob output.
Whooooeeee. First I thought you "get it". A theory is only as valid as it is able to make valid predictions. Then you go off on science and religion and I'm left with the thought that your really don't get it........Hummmmmm.
"particles" aren't real, per se, not at this scale. You are thinking of electrons and photons as analogous to ball-bearings, which they are not. These concepts are not easily understood by people who have not studied this, its barely understandable to people who have, and therefore documentaries which are designed to try to bring this to a general audience, have to cut corners to make it more understandable. There is no "particle of light" in the sense that it is a physical object, there is only the wave function. This wave has particle-like properties in the sense that its energy comes in discrete packets rather than continuously, as in the case of the classical definition of a wave. It's the same for the electron. Wave-particle duality does not mean that photons are literally waves and particles (in the classical sense) simultaneously, but that it is an entirely separate object that has particle and wave-like properties.
**
It is not ME thinking them of ball bearings, the "charged sphere" of ponderable matter is clear in the electron theorists...you probably have never read any of that.
The point is... a particle cannot be a wave amplitude/perturbation of a medium, so what is it then? If space is EMPTY, via Einstein 1905 SR, then DEFINE THE PARTICLE! Many times it is called POINT PARTICLE! That is spherical, is it not?
**
It is because the concepts are NON-sense, pseudoscience and just hidden behind the false idea of "complexity", which is really just a GRANDE misunderstanding.
**
Haha, Max Born's idea of space filled with a MATH FUNCTION! Lol... wow. You know there is something called SCHRODINGER's WAVE MECHANICS that uses the same wave function, but doesn't claim "there is only the wave function"? You've probably never read any of it...
*
@@itsbs I agree, quantum mechanics is very nonsensical, but the universe doesn't have to make sense to us. There is absolutely no consensus on what the implications of quantum mechanics are on a fundamental level. These questions of "what is a particle?" and "what is the wave function?" are completely valid questions and I am by no means saying that there are definitive answers to these, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, QM is the most successful theory ever devised, in that every concevable prediction it has made has been proven experimentally. As someone who clearly wishes to know the truth of the universe, I would encourage you to study a little more in depth these concepts and then form an opinion.
As a response to some of your points:
-I admit that my conceptualisation of the electron as purely the wave-function is pretty much just my personal taste, but it is just as valid as considering the electron as a zero-dimensional point-like particle. The point is, it doesn't really matter what you think the electron IS, but whether the way that you describe it predicts outcomes that are verifiable. The wave-function describes both wave-like and particle-like nature, as when the electron behaves classically, the wave-function collapses and gives definitive results (position and momentum) just like classical mechanics. We characterise this wave function as a "wave of probability", but what it actually is, we don't really know. Now, De Broglie's pilot wave theory postulated that the wave-function was a wave of some fundamental physical quantity, and the photon or electron was buffeted by that wave, like a boat on the water, which implied that the photons and electrons actually ARE particles, not waves at all, and their apparent wave like behaviour is due to something else. However, this is a "hidden-variable" theory, which have been shown to be inconsistent with the measurable behaviour of physical systems by multiple Bell tests.
-Electromagnetic waves do not require a medium, as they are not mechanical waves. What is "waving" is the electromagnetic field, a vector field that is infinite in range. Photons are the bosons (force carrying particles) that are excitations of this field (real photons are the long-range propagation of the oscillations of the field, EM waves, while virtual photons are short-range that mediate the electromagnetic force, such as two electrons repelling each other). This field is a fundamental physical quantity; the EM field is not "made of" anything, it just exists in and of itself.
-The scientific method is literally the whole reason QM is so successful. People have tried to disprove it for decades and have failed to do so. It is not "woo" if the results of experiments prove something, even against what we previously held to be true. Thats how we advance.
-SR conceptualises space as EMPTY because at that time, that was what physicists believed, and it worked for most things. But quantum field theory now shows that space isn't empty, its filled with these fundamental quantum fields that fluctuate and give us the particles we interact with.
As a final point about this, Einstein is famous for not fully understanding quantum mechanics (even though he ironically helped create it) as he couldn't let go of the idea that the universe had to be deterministic. Einstein is not perfect, he got many things wrong, just because he said something doesn't mean it's true.
We don't have all the answers, and a lot of work needs to be done still in understanding QM, but just because there are not answers to every question yet, doesn't mean it's wrong. Surely an intelligent person such as yourself wouldn't make such a leap in logic. I have actually got a physics degree btw, so I somewhat know what I'm talking about. I am by no means an expert in this field however (I'm doing a PhD in astrophysics not quantum physics), so I would recommend you read "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths, it's an excellent guide.
@@aaronadams5885 *
@@itsbs it's not about me or what I think. I have never implied that you should "believe me", I'm encouraging you to actually read about it properly, rather than make a video about how quantum mechanics is wrong when you clearly only have a surface level understanding of it. Unless of course you are so convinced you're right you couldn't possibly learn anything from others. That sounds very cult-like to me.
@@aaronadams5885 *
This guy's comment guidelines shows he's got his ears plugged. So tell me why I should care about anything you say?
**
Don't care about anything I say... I definitely don't care about anything you say. Go away...don't watch the videos.
Really don't understand why we should stretch a photon to 1 second
*
I see no reason that the photon would need to be "one second long" to have hf energy. Energy is not a measure of distance or volume.
**
"f" frequency is 1/T. T is per second, because that is the definition of the physical unit Hertz... cycles per second. If you want a deep dive understanding, then you can watch the "Quantum Flaw" video on the channel.
The second refers to 1.hertz or frequency of the wave per unit time. ItS elementary old chap.
@@itsbs Frequency is only measured in Hertz because we need SOME value of time in order to give its inverse, and we use what we historically developed as a conveniently short period. But the 1s. value is arbitrary. Therefore Des Troya is quite right to question the need for an electron to be a certain length to encapsulate all three of its cycles. Tides still exist even when you only watch the beach for a second and don't notice the direction of flow, because it's over a longer period.
@@lettersquash **
That's not the point. Einstein's Photon energy is based on 1 second's worth of waves. The photon energy of a RED photon requires 480 trillion waves of "h" energy, which is what passes 1 second. Einstein's "photon" energy is silly pseudoscience.
@@itsbs Hmm, who do I believe, Albert Einstein, or random guy on the Internet talking physics word-salad? Here's a reasonable test: have you submitted any papers to physics journals? My crystal ball says no.
Wave particle duality is ridiculous for one reason; a "wave" is not a thing, it is a way to describe the motion of a thing. Photons cannot be both a wave and a particle, but it can be a particle that moves in a wave-like motion. Same for electrons. And it doesn't matter anyway since particle physics is just theoreticians theorizing, or making shit up if you want to get technical, about things you can't see, touch, taste, or smell, then getting their friends to design "experiments" according to the theoreticians' specifications, carry out the experiments, then the theoreticians claim vindication of the stuff they just made up and rule the experiments to be successful. How do we know they are correct? They tell us they are based on the experiments they conducted, which were designed to validate the guessing of the people who created the experiments and interpreted the results they now tell the unwitting public are scientific fact. Pretend science is the best science.
If you think in terms of computing units or let's just say atoms and disturbance then the wave-particle duality makes sense. However, that duality is an illusion. It is all about that change in the medium by disturbing it.
Why can we disturb things in the first place? What exactly causes it?
Regarding Quantum Computers - They don't compute anything, they just try to simulate the theoretical wave collapse and try to find a use for that.
Efficient wave collapse calculations should be useful for some algorithms. The whole QC field is built on trying to generalize these wave collapse calculations into a general computing machine.
Software QC is pointless until hardware actually works. Hardware research into QC is a weird endeavor into finding material structures that behave like impossible mathematics when supplied with a voltage - which obviously doesn't work.
None of this means superposition or wave collapse are real world phenomena, and even if they were, it could not be used to calculate anything since the 'result' would be 'erased' when measured. Everything in the media regarding QC is misunderstood marketing material, misquoted papers and misinformed individuals talking out of their ass.
**
When you realize that the whole wave collapse idea was just made up to save the "particle" ideas of Copenhagen theory, it might even make you more skeptical. The "probability wave collapse" is not science.
@@itsbs "its all in the frequency of the vibrations mannnnnn"... particles aren't spheres... there toroidal waves.... nothing is perfect in nature, no perfect squares, triangles or circles (most planets are obtuse).... so why would a particle be a perfect sphere???
"E = hf" is not a second's worth of energy. It is just the photons energy, and actually precisely defines that a photon is a particle, namely something that has a well-defined energy. Frequency has unit per second because its the inverse of the period, or speed of light / wave length. It will have the same energy after every second.
*
Brilliant video - I love it! The thing I don't understand is why this hasn't got more views. This makes a lot more sense than the videos about quantum physics that get hundreds of thousands of views. One of my anti-quantum videos managed to get over 100k views, but my other attempts have failed to attract big audiences. I'll be watching your other videos soon you can be sure of that. Keep up the good work & let's hope that common sense will win in the end.
**
It is neat to have lot of views, but the key I am hoping for is quality viewers. Can they take the information, learn from it, and move forward with the ability to better question illogic? RUclips is definitely a promoter of "entertainment" versus education, but that's not to be taken as a complaint.
@Lit for the Lord **
No problem. Thanks.
Deep state controls science ...there artifacts in Arizona to prove a Roman prince visited in the year 800 ....so the European royalty knew about the new world but did not have tax collectors in place yet so they built an imaginary fence called flat world theory. All the large education grants went to the schools that taught flat world theory .if the common man understands the entire planet is run by waves .....if the common man understands his health is controlled by waves ...and if common man understands he can create his own wave controlling system then common men would be healing the masses and turning water into wine ....now we can't have the common man in control of mass and gravity at the same time ...there would be no need for government banks army's hospitals factory s ....the whole economic system would collapse and peaceful men would live in peace and harmony with each other and the planet .
Can't have that now can we ?
I'm not a scientist but I think something is defined as a paradox just because we don't understand it and that doesn't mean they don't exist (with exceptions of course, like idk... your girlfriend)
Black holes
"The next sentence is the true. The last sentence is a lie"
Immortal jellyfish (not actually immortal it can just heal infinitely through a never ending cycle but can still be killed if the nerve center is destroyed(yes I see the irony))
Graphene (can literally be made with scotch tape and a anything made out of carbon)
Time crystals (yes seriously, they can't be used to time travel and the only real ones don't appear naturally and are microscopic plus they you can't really contain them because they (somehow) can move before you touch them (something to do with the time paradox)
Bose Einstein condensate (the 5th state of matter not found naturally anywhere in the universe)
Real life lightsaber (uses laminar flow to make smooth stream of plasma)
Also I think if these guys were actually stoners they'd be talking about how to shift into another reality through something completely stupid and just straight up saying these particles know you are looking at them
My idea is that this idea is almost true under the conditions that everything has come from somewhere because these same people have said things don't exist without other things
And the fact that these people put the time and effort into making something possible that the laws of physics originality didn't allow (like a frickin' sponge that's only liquid and somehow a frickin' sponge)
Thanks for this presentation. It demonstrates the presenter’ difficulty in understanding physics & math.
An electron/photon/proton/neutron, and other such particles are defined using the ‘wave’ model as these equations best define these ‘individual’ particles.
Presenter please consider taking higher level physics courses and discussing your videos with them prior to publishing them on the web.
**
Viewer why would you skip to a higher level when the low level stuff is illogical and based on pseudoscience like "the Born Rule" or Einstein's "empty space" (that somehow still waves).
**
Your comment demonstrates how you have not put your own critical thought into what you have learned. You just blindly follow the high level teaching without doing your own thinking.
**
OK, here is an EASY one for you: When waves collide with each other, they will pass through each other. When particles collide, they bounce off of each other. Now, how can these "particles" like an electron, pass through each other and bounce off each other at the same time? That is the logic of a "particle" being described by a "wave" model mathematics. Good luck with that...
@@itsbs hey bro, don't argue with a fool, he will never understand, it is written. : )
@@THX-1138 *
@@itsbs Bruh particles do pass through eachother, they interact while they do of course, and that interaction is described by their wave function, the original comment is rigth, you should at least try to understand QM.
@@marcossidoruk8033 **
Ok, so "interact" means exactly what? Bounce off each other during the particle collision? You just say a popular words like "interact" and think you have it all figured out... Also, define a particle...what is the radius of a particle so I can have an understand of its configuration in 3D space?
If you want to understand why quantum physics is wrong, look at quantum electrodynamics. Unfortunately, most people aren't familiar with the math and accept the official gibberish. They can't even test it, so the only plausibility comes via QM from people who reject certain mathematical properties for the sake of equation convenience. If quantum electrodynamics is bad, then quantum mechanics itself is a mistake and so is relativity.
In another of Dirac's books, Directions in Physics (1978), he writes the following in the chapter on electrodynamics:
"...Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say:
“Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory, and we do not have to worry about it any more.” I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called “good theory” does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small-not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it! One can put the calculations of the Lamb shift and of the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron into a sensible form by introducing a cutoff, by taking the upper integration limit in our integrals to be not infinite but some finite value. The interaction between the electron and the electromagnetic field is then cutoff for frequencies beyond a certain
limit (Vmax). It is reasonable to take this cutoff frequency to correspond to an energy, say, somewhere around a thousand million volts. Owing to the appearance of the logarithmic function in (~log v, while v tending to infinity), the corresponding expression
Integral dv/v ~ logvmax
with the cutoff will not give appreciably different results. One still gets effectively the same Lamb shifts and the same anomalous magnetic moment when one works with this cutoff, to the first order of accuracy. One then has a theory where the infinities are gone, a theory that is sensible mathematically.An unfortunate result is that, of course, the relativistic invariance of the theory is spoiled. For, if you have any cutoff at all, thus saying that v must not exceed a certain value, you are bringing in a non relativistic condition and spoiling the relativistic invariance of the theory. One can thus make quantum electrodynamics into a sensible mathematical theory, but only at the expense of spoiling its relativistic invariance. I think, however, that that is a lesser evil than departing from standard rules of mathematics and neglecting infinite quantities.
I disagree with most physicists at the present time just on this point.
I cannot tolerate departing from the standard rules of mathematics. course, the proper inference from this work is that the basic equations are not right. There must be some drastic change introduced into them so that no infinities occur in the theory at all and so that we can carry out the solution of the equations sensibly, according to ordinary rules and without being bothered by difficulties. This requirement will neces sitate some really drastic changes: simple changes will not do, just because the Heisenberg equations of motion in the present theory are all so satisfactory. I feel that the change required will be just about as drastic as the passage from the Bohr orbit theory to the quantum mechanics."
The whole double slit experiment is the biggest prank in physics. How can you measure a photon/lightwave without interacting with it?
Oh, it works just fine. It's a modern day crystal ball with witches surrounding it asking it to tell them the future, and it answers back(not necessarily truthfully).
if you take this viewpoint, you solve the wave -particle- duality arguments and more importantly this makes the apparent momentum that light has on impact which wouldn't make any sense if light was massless. The neutrino was originally said to be massless and is now believed instead to have an incredibly tiny mass.
Light is simply a result of computation. What we call atoms seems to be nothing else but computing units and they process "information".
It is simply about input and output.
If we were able to investigate further and break this simulation into pieces, we could stumble upon more information in regard to mass - I mean what exactly is mass? It is also a result of computation. Nothing can exist without computation. Everything has to be processed by units or else there will be nothing. So what exactly causes this computation?
Light doesnt have mass because its a WAVE. And waves dont have any mass.
Einstein's equation of a photon (E=hv=hc/lambda) clearly describes a wave and not a particle. Because it has no mass, like a wave, but it has frequency (v), and wave lenght (lamda) again like a wave. Einsteins photon "particle" is therefore clearly a wave, and I cant imagine why would anyone call it a particle.
And that is not even his equation, it is Max Planks. Einstein just "borrowed" it. And probably called it a particle to give the impression that he made "a new discovery" about light. Which kind of worked because he won the nobel prize.
wave of what? what waves?
Not even a minute and it is completely wrong quantum mechanics is so much more than that and the photon and electron are not the only ones that are needed all particles are needed to properly understand it i’m 12 and I know this is completely wrong come on man it is not just about Atoms it’s about the interaction between atoms the interaction between particles how particles work and what they are and the Four forces they are all needed in order to properly explain our world not just one especially not in quantum mechanics and is meant to describe the universe on the smallest scale Possible it is the interaction between things that make up our beautiful world and what They are
**
Hey Luca... I am impressed with your willingness to understand the sciences at an early age... my only message to you, is to keep thinking! Keep learning... use your OWN thought and learn from a lot of sources. You will get it!!
**
...and don't forget this statement! ...No matter what the math says!
**
Also, you might want to check out the link to the paper that is in the pinned comment. It may give you a different perspective on "Quantum Mechanics."
I hope when you get older you discover pretty much everything can be explained by electricity. Think of it’s importance in not only our technology today but science as a whole.
Yes !!! You are one of mine, I never accepted Quantum Mechanics, I just used common sense though, but you explain it so good !! and YES, light only goes at the known light speed in the mediums known : Ether, metal , air, etc. but what if there was a faster medium in space? that would DEBUNK Einstein's Childish theories totally.
Quantum Mechanics is a tool but it is not a theory.
How do we then explain the photo electric effect if light is only a wave phenomenon?
**
Before Einstein's 1905 fantasy physics papers, the photoelectric effect was theorized as a wave resonance phenomenon. Robert Millikin's 1916 work in photoelectric experiments called "A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's h" describes resonance occurring. You can search for "it takes place especially copiously when the impressed frequency coincides with a "natural frequency" within the paper to see his mention of this resonance phenomenon of the photoelectric effect. Resonance is a classical wave phenonmenon and not a particle phenomenon.
Quantum-ists play both sides of the fence and claim light can be a wave and/or a particle, which are two opposite answers for a single thing. That is completely illogical, which is the basis of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics was stolen from Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics is the real science and Quantum Mechanics is the fantasy physics of brainwashed people.
Unfortunately, this explainer video poorly understands the thing it is trying to debunk and gets many details (and several concepts) wrong.
Firstly, E=hf is NOT a wave equation. Yes, I can clearly see that one of the terms is frequency, but that's not what a wave equation is. The graph which draws out a 3Hz wave, and then assigns an 'h' to each cycle is just silly. The energy ISN'T in each cycle, any more than the energy of an oscillating pendulum is in each cycle, or the speed of a car is in each rotation of the wheel.
Yes, the photoelectric effect does demonstrate the particle nature of light - high-energy photons dislodge electrons, low-energy photons do not. That E=hf equation tells us that there's a certain frequency of light whose particles have enough energy to free the electron. No it does NOT take 1 second for a photon to build up its energy - it's instantaneous.
The sentence "If light is produced in discrete chunks, when does it turn into a medium for waves to propagate through?" makes no sense at all. Light is NEVER a medium. It (like all fundamental particles) has properties of both a wave and a particle (but never a medium). Einstein doesn't undermine the wave theory of light by taking away the medium, this is another thing you're not getting right.
Yes the double-slit experiment is a fascinating one, and you were initially explaining it well - the photon's wave function (not its wave equation, and certainly not E=hf) passes through both slits causing an interference pattern on the screen. Let's both forget the heat gun (that's not what physicists mean by noise in this context).
Measurement of which slit the photon is travelling through, forces it to become a particle at that moment and display particle properties, just as landing on the screen forces it to show wavelike properties. It is capable of either nature up to the moment you make a measurement or observation. The language about the photon 'knowing' you've made a measurement is clearly metaphorical.
Yes, the world of quantum mechanics is weird and counter-intuitive. We have nothing like it in our macroscopic experience. But the interesting thing is, that the mathematics of quantum mechanics predicts the statistical outcome of experiments pretty much perfectly - which is the most important attribute of any theory. The fact that it defies our intuition (what Feynmann was referring to) is secondary.
If you can come up with a better theory that enjoys the same predictive success as quantum theory (an extremely tall order given its spectacular success) AND which makes intuitive sense from a classical standpoint, then there's probably a Nobel prize waiting. But scientists became convinced that wasn't possible maybe 80 or 90 years ago, so I don't think your chances are high, sorry.
**
Hey, Kevin is back for more! It's great when "smart" people what to tell me that I am wrong.
*>*
Whatever YOUR theory might be, doesn't matter. It is a physical representation of the symbols e=hf ... Frequency, being that of an Electromagnetic wave, since we are talking about light.
**
Like most "particle physicists", there is ONLY one way in which you think about the situation...particle collisions. If light is a "wave" too (as particle physicist say), then apply a wave solution to the photoelectric effect. If you can't, then there are other people that have done this. But, you believe in light particles and electron particles bouncing off each other like billiard balls...good luck with that.
E=hf ... So if the frequency is somehow INSTANTANEOUS to get that INSTANTANEOUS photon energy, then how does nature know to build energy balls of light that are exactly 1 second's worth of waves or 300 million meters of space? Frequency is equal to (300,000,000 meters in one second) / (wavelength) .. somehow nature knows how to build INSTANT energy balls of lights that are based on 1 second's worth of time or 300,000,000 meters of space? This is what you believe, really?
**
Light is never a medium? Right there, many people should begin to see the fallacy of today's "smart" people and they believe in "waves" that have no medium or nothing to disturb and propagate though. That is not science...waves of what? You are stuck in a belief system of "imaginary" waves through empty space or something like that.
**
Oh, I'm not getting it right? Hah. This is exactly what Poincare was talking about in 1904 (if you watch my videos). As long as there is an "ether" concept, you'll always be relative to the "ether." Sorry, but you have only learned from academic dogma. Keep watching my videos and you'll learn more. If Einstein took away the idea of the "ether" so there would be no absolute space as a reference frame, and he created the silly idea of "empty space" that plagues people like yourself. How can waves work in "empty space"? What is waving? These are simple, common sense questions that show the mainstream pseudoscience that you believe in. Keep learning...
*>*
Noise, heat? Absolutely it does. Why do you think the Quantum Computer people are using expensive refrigerators to keep getting lower temperatures. It is not just for superconductivity! It is HEAT, electromagnetic noise. You just don't understand how such a simple example shows a huge paradox in what Quantum Mechanic physicist are saying about Quantum Computers. How can "photon light quantum particles" maintain a superposition so easily, but other "quantum particles" decohere fast, causing Quantum Computer Qubits to fail, and require HUGE amounts of error correcting qubits? Do you have an answer that simple paradox I described with the heat gun?
*
Don't waste your time listening to this, it is spam
There is no photon with a frequency of 3 Hz.
08:50 The frequency of the visible light photon is in the range of terahertz.
*
*
@@itsbs I would not watch your video if I am not willing to understand your point. Unfortunately, you are wasting people's time and you know what, nobody will ever know what is your intentions, so should use the right examples and make yourself clear from the beginning.
@@p4a-draft354 *
I watched the first couple of minutes and saw that he either docent know what he is talking about or he is trolling. Judging from the name of the channel. He's trolling.
*
@@itsbs Yep. Pretty much. In this case at least. If your not trolling, then I guess that the alternative is true.
@@badatpseudoscience **
Well, I suppose you'll stay on your path, and thanks for stopping by...
@@itsbs So, just for shits and greens I watched more of the video. And yep, you haven't got a clew.
@@badatpseudoscience *
If you removed all the air from my room, there would be two reasons I couldn't hear any sound...
Yes, but just a teaching analogy about how silly it is to think of waves without a medium to propagate through.
Im suffocating here :')
Your name is very fitting 😂😂😂😂💀💀💀🤣🤣🤣
hahahahahahaha dude hahahahah your name hahaha is hahahaha also haha very hahahahaha funnyeeehh aahahahahaha
Why one second? Don't photons materialize as particle just for the planck time?
*
Hertz is just a unit, just like newton is kg*m/s, doesn't mean you need one meter, one second or one kilogram...@@itsbs
@@heksogen4788 **
The unit is what makes physics math tangible and describes nature. Otherwise, it is just numbers.
@@itsbs The time stays the same, meaning an extremely small fraction of the second in planck time, but the frequency can go to infinite, hence even with planck time you can have photons of very high energy.
@@heksogen4788 **
I'm not talking about the way you fantasize about how a photon light particle works... I'm talking about the MATH equation used to give the energy of the false idea of photon particles.
Cycles PER SECOND means 1 second's worth of wavelengths MULTIPLIED by h to give you the energy of a "instantaneous photon."
^ That's obviously a bad equation for this idea of instantaneous photon energy.
Wolfgang Smith - Physics is wrong (bryan callen podcast)
physics itself runs through Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.... the whole field is uncertain lol
The problem is that our culture defines reality as that which is the consensus position of the physics community at that time. Apparently the only requirement is how well the theory predicts reality. If physicists feel no responsibility to be coherent and somewhat emotionally retarded scoff at the philosophy of things, this is a problem. When there is such a thing as a Quantum approach to international relations in political science, these predictive technologies are just that, matter. Fortunately we can leave everything to AI soon to do the technical work. Or perhaps whatever is behind the tictac may explain to us what's what.
It's very easy to predict. All you have to do is find a pattern, such as the inverse square law. That's not science, just pattern-finding. The scientific method involves theorizing, which quantum mechanics does not do.
One second ?
Why?
**
I have a video on the channel called "Quantum Flaw" and it goes into the detail. The short answer lies in Planck's unit analysis error during the 1901 Blackbody radiation experiment and then Einstein reusing the same equation in 1905 for a different purpose (Light Quantum Energy).
Science that is used in making new technology is mostly science that existed before 1915.
So you think you are making a brilliant point by noticing that knowledge and tech builds on itself? Wheel was invented long ago and what does a mars rover use to move about.... wheels! Oh my gosh! The rover is low tech, possibly even stoneage tech! We are not advancing! Oh no! Try using your brain instead of regurgitating things you have read that sound clever.
QM is applied in Tunnel diode, Nanotech works on QM
@@cecilbrisley5185 You don't get it. It is point source tech that matters. All magnets, lasers, LEDs, are point source tech. All hovering craft that can speed up in a moment to incredible velocities are also point source.
All computers and other "BRILLIANT TECH" (not really) are just the most dumbass configuration and allocation of these tech, strictly aimed to amaze people and make them feel special. It is not special, it is the same shit, it's just s bit more complicated so you can "enjoy" the latest and greatest
Electrons doesn't exist
Just wait when you find out how so many of these experiments are thought experiments and no actual experiments where anything was measured was done. haha
Haha I thought you wrote "elections"
Great explanation considering the amount of misinformation about quantum physics that abounds out there. Too often, any questioning of quantum physics ends with accusations that the questioner is "Too f*cking stupid to bother talking to anymore." But at least those who question are at least admitting what they don't know - which is far safer ground to work from.
Thank you so much for this. I just retired but way back when, after going to school for business and accounting and getting my own business up and running, I became obsessed with quantum mechanics. This lasted for approx 5 years when I began to realize that certain things did not pan out in the theories. To me it's kind of like the average modern person just accepts what they are told same as the peasants of the middle ages who could not read the Latin nevertheless bought into what the clergy told them. Don't get me wrong, I still love science and I am a person of faith. I see no conflict between the two. I just want honesty from both.
*
Doesnt electromagnetic radiation supply its own restorative force? I thought Light doesn’t need a medium to travel through
**
This is a lie they tell you due to Einstein's pseudoscience. If you except the pseudoscience of Einstein Special Relativity, then you must think this way, because SR does not use a light medium. It uses a projectile particle through empty space. In his 1907, you can read what his pseudoscience about electro-magnetic waves:
einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/267
_Only the conception of a luminiferous ether as_ _the carrier of the electric and magnetic forces_ _does not fit into the theory described here; for_ _electromagnetic forces appear here not as_ _states of some substance, but ..._
*rather as independently existing things that are* *similar to ponderable matter and share with it* *the feature of inertia.*
Einstein is making up this pseudoscience to fit his incorrect theory of SR, instead of worrying about what nature is actually doing. Now, modern pseudoscience believes that electromagnetic waves are some type of self-propagating ponderable matter projecting through empty space.
Yeah, so your antenna is shooting out little balls of self-propagating ponderable matter into empty space, and then catching self-propagating ponderable matter to receive the signals. Good going Einstein!!
just stay with your thoughts and invest your time in real science, this guy doesnt even know how to compute equations he wants to debunk in python with his computer science master lmao... xD
@@morchel332 **
Yeah, you seem really qualified to judge other people's intelligence. Just look a that sentence!
Start with some humility and get a science education before you put up videos attempting to debunk principles of science you do not fully understand.
**
Oops.. the "RESPECTFULLY" went STRAIGHT OUT the window, didn't it!
You could learn a lot here, but you don't have to. Choosing to learn through mistakes and deception is a completely valid means...
what if "quantum entanglement" is just measuring 2 different places (e.g. 90° and 120°) of a single expanding wavefront?
so, it's not that "particles are mysteriously connected": it'd be that it's just 2 places of a single wave
P.s. What'd be the medium excited to create light, then? Knowing air is the medium that, when excited, creates phenomena our ear can interpret as sounds
**
This seems like good thinking, in terms of the overall topic. I have a video on the channel that discusses exactly the topic of Quantum Entanglement and it is a very specific mathematical case that was brought forth in the EPR paper. It is just a math proof that the wave function collapse idea of the Max Born Rule is bunk and contradicts the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Einstein's liked the EPR math proof, because it helped get the Max Born Rule's instantaneous wave collapse idea (which means faster than the speed of light action), off the table since it goes against Special Relativity.
@@itsbs I hope you're working on something practical with this knowledge: youtube videos can only get a few bucks till you actually question narratives (and, then, get you deplatformed). "Practical" as in, for instance, offering some sort of machinery to companies.
@@decespugliatorenucleare3780 *
It would help your presentation if you didn't immediately confuse energy and power.
*
I think the "frequency" of light is more like the frequency of bullets from a machine gun. instead of a number of bullets per minute or second, the frequency of light is the number of photons per second, or per other smaller unit of time. So, all photons are identical and weather they are radio, microwave, infrared, visible, uv, xray or gamma, is determined by the number of photons per unit of time. a second seems to be just the unit of time scientists went with, so it might not be necessary to have a full second of photons to have a certain "color" of light or to have any particular effect, like the photoelectric effect.
Incorrect. I have an entire video on the e=hf subject if you want to dig into it. It is called "the quantum flaw." You'll see where the origin of that equation came from and the unit analysis mistake made... as well as, Einstein's improper reuse of the e=hf equation for his incorrect "photon" idea.
Scott, are your "machine gun" photons traveling as waves, or particles, or both simultaneously? LMAO. The fact that you have absolutely no idea how a wave works, that is, what frequency/cycles are, with crest, trough, zero point, means you should just give up while you can. I mean, without that basis how could you understand this video when he talks about the phase issues of photons in the double slot experiment. The guy who made this video knows a good amount for real, and I know so because I learned the same as him through "common sense". I suggest anyone wanting to get involved in any science utilizing waves to first learn the study of sound/audio. Just is so.
@@babalonsfinest6054 I know what they are. it is you who can't conceptualize another model. I am saying that light is not a wave. it is a particle and the frequency ascribed to light is actually the number of photons per unit of time instead of some supposed number of "waves" of something in light itself. but for that matter, what makes any of you even think light has a frequency? what exactly is being measured in light that gives you this "frequency" number? This idea seems to be left over from the early ideas of light comparing it to sound and supposed light was a wave moving through a so called "aether" but this aether idea seems to have been abandoned and was replaced with a particle model of light by Einstein a while ago. And don't give me that whole double-split interference pattern nonsense. I've replicated the experiment myself and the effect seems similar to light glare.
there's another way of looking at it but it demands the concept of particles that are "sub quanta", the spacing of which with relation to each other dictates the "frequency", a classical "photon" or "quanta" requires recombination of a certain number of the sub particles at surface to be "seen" as photon of light, so you need the correct amount to arrive in the right sequence in an certain amount of time to register as a photon. When you do the maths of the slit experiments this way taking into account the edges of the slits as being the refractive surfaces you get perfect results for the slit experiments and you don't have to fudge it like they do for the waves explanation.
In terms of sound to understand a word we need to receive a whole bunch of individual sounds all modulated correctly and ordered so to arrive at the right time respective of each other to recognise the word. Its the same deal with the "sub" particles of light to register as a "photon."
I'm on the fence as far as waves are concerned due to knowing they fudge the explanations. The maths they do that make it work rely on the waves being drawn as an arc that starts from the centre of the slit to the centre of the other slit. Waves don't work like that, they will draw it the right way on a black board tot he students the way water would wave through a gap but that's not how their mathematical model of it is done, they hide the fact the mathematical model doesn't make any sense in physical terms. If someone could sort that out I'd be "Waves" but currently I'm with you on particles.
I don't know why there is so much negative comments here on your video I thought limitations of Quantum mechanics and Relativity was main stream
For it is difficult for people to think independently, being dependent on paradigms and dogmas all their lives. The brain simply cannot accept any truths other than those given by the mainstream. This is the typical scientific ignorance and narrow-mindedness with which modern physics has treated us for over 100 years. The illusion of perception.
If light isnt a photon then what would you say the real definition of light is?
**
LIGHT is not something I can define for you, but the "speed of light" is the transverse wave of the magnetic aether field (Maxwell), like the constant speed of a boat wake in the water medium.
If you keep going with electricity theory, then you'll get into the idea of "electric field induction", i.e. Steinmetz theory, which is a composite of dielectric and magnetic field lines. The rate at which we "see" light is an "induction rate" based on the dielectric and magnetic constants of the medium being perturbed. This second definition requires some study and contemplation.
The easiest way to think of "light" is the water analogy and it acts like a fluid to us.
@@palmface42 **
You mean admitting you don't know is now "coy"? Are you an idiot?
Pure potential. Without it there's nothing. That's why it's worshiped.
Horribly uninformed video.
**
Thanks for the put down. What did you find as the most uninformed part?
@@itsbs You will never get a good answer to this question.
It is very hard to disagree with a theory that gives such good results. And it is even more difficult to contradict all physicists who are so intoxicated by the results of quantum mechanics.
I think you are on a good way.
With Newtonian mathematics (differential calculus) we will not understand the micro world. We will have to invent something new here. But this is very hard work.
**
The problem is that QM "hijacked" another theory. The reason it gets good results is because it is really performing SCHRODINGER'S WAVE MECHANICS. The problem is... no one knows what Schrodinger's wave mechanics is all about, since everyone believes in the false ideas of QM, and that "it gets good results so it must be correct."
**
Nothing new is needed to be invented. That is the EXACT problem with Quantum Mechanics being a "SPECIAL" physics. It's bullshit. All you have to do is understand what Schrodinger said was necessary for properly evaluating atomic physics.
Then ask yourself, what do we actual "detect" in all of these atomic experiments that supposedly support the ideas of *undetectable* "probability wave" and "Quantum State Superposition" of the QM pseudoscience cult?
Probability waves aren't a theory. A theory in physics must posit unobserved physical mechanisms by which the observed phenomena could have arisen. Quantum mechanics has zero theory. It merely extrapolates data patterns.
The ether would be a physical mechanism, something that actually waves, rather than the non-physical notion that math somehow waves, but QM ditches the ether.
If you come home one day and find your TV remote full of small indentations, you may wonder if the dog chewed it up. *That* is a theory.
If you simply notice the indentations get more numerous every night when you come home, and you predict they will get even more numerous tomorrow night, that is NOT a theory, just an extrapolation of an observed trend.
If your guess is right, you cannot say that your physics *theory* has been confirmed, because you had no physics theory; you only saw a trend and assumed it would continue. That may count as a "theory" in everyday talk, but not for the purposes of physics.
In physics, when you *theorize* you propose an *unobserved* physical mechanism by which the observed data could have come about. That didn't happen. You have no testable theory, just a trend.
If you add in the idea that your dog has been chewing the remote up little by little while you're away, you now have a theory. If you take your dog to work with you and it stops, or you test the remote for canine saliva, or compare the indentations with the size and arrangement of your dogs teeth, you are testing your theory and can make progress toward controlling the outcome, unlike with mere trend extrapolation.
I like how you pretend to know what you're talking about 👎🏻😂😂
*
@@itsbs The whole video is basically "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong". Seriously, it's unintuitive to you doesn't mean it's wrong.
@@TensorWave *
@@itsbs So basically all those scientists working in the field of quantum physics, who spent their entire lives on it, are either lying or don't have a high enough IQ like yours to comprehend QM is flawed. Sure, I'll buy that.
@@TensorWave **
I am not selling anything, so you don't have to buy it. It is just a matter of your OWN IGNORANCE that matters. Who cares if the rest of the world believes in pseudoscience?
All you need to do is become WAY less ignorant about Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics (like start with reading one of his papers). Then, you need to understand how Quantum Mechanics re-used Schrodinger's Wave Equation... this is Max Born's rule. He is just applying the idea of "undefinable" particles and attempting to apply it to waves!! You fell for it... haha!
How can the math of waves allow waves to pass through each other, but particles don't pass through each other (i.e. they bounce/collide)? Come on, such simple logic! But, when you throw away your logic and believe in "unintuitive", then you are gullible.
I'm not sure that E=hf actually is a wave equation. A wave equation is any multivariate second order partial differential equation wherein the second partial derivative with respect to one coordinate is proportional to the sum of the second partial derivatives with respect to all other coordinates. E=hf seems to be a far more specific physical law than that. I'm also not sure I understand why you say that the energy in that equation is only accumulated after or over the duration of one second... Even in your own illustration with the graphing calculator this falls apart... If we were to accumulate an energy of h*3Hz over a second we'd get the integral of hf dt from t0 to t0+1s which yields an energy of h*3. Seeing as h has the dimension of an action or angular momentum, so does h*3, and thus the result of that calculation doesn't even have the unit of an amount of energy. So clearly something is grossly wrong with the assumption that this equation holds with or only with some finite duration energy collection process like that...
I wonder as well what your opinion is on variants of the double slit experiment where the laser's intensity has been set so low that a noticeable amount of time passes between photon emissions. For instance, there is a 2016 work called "Video recording true single-photon double-slit interference" in American Journal of Physics 84, pages 671-677 by Reuben Aspden and Miles Padgett I'm sure you must have heard of during your researching this topic. It shows both individual impacts on the screen characteristic of particles, but because no wave function collapse was triggered anywhere before said screen, as the impact locations are mapped over time, the interference pattern expected only of waves is observed. One might find it weird, but seeing as this is an actual experiment, an actual probing into what nature does when one lets her do, I wonder just how exactly one would go about arguing that this is wrong. Certainly quantum theory still might be wrong and I'm sure on some of its finer details it is far from complete, but it would seem that at least on a basic level enough to understand and describe double slit experiments and the like, both its postulates and predictions are consistently matched by experiments... So at least on some basic level, perhaps, it can be useful for our purposes of understanding nature, no?
*>*
Simple -- Hertz is cycles PER SECOND. The frequency referred to are Electromagnetic WAVES. If you can figure out how to get all of those wavelengths (or wave periods) INSTANTLY... I'd love to have that technology!
Please link me a 1 GHz Frequency CPU that switches 1 billion times PER INSTANT! Please!!
**
Yes, you don't understand the error in Max Planck's 1901 paper that give "h" the incorrect units that you just described.
@@itsbs Electromagnetic waves are not a frequency. They can have a frequency, as can any waves or any other periodic phenomenon, really. But that doesn't mean it takes a second to capture the wave's energy.. I mean, what if you had a motor that was rotating at, say, 3000 rpm. Would you need to wait for a minute to collect 3000 of some energy units out of that? Or do we need to convert it to Hertz first, because nature made that the "correct" unit of frequency? And if we do collect our 50 units of energy out of one second of doing some energy-harvesting thing to our motor, what happens to the motor? For that matter, what happens to a 3Hz light wave we collect a second's worth of energy out of, does it have less energy now? But if the energy it has is E=hf and it only had h*3Hz and we collected all of it, does it now have no energy, i.e. h*0Hz? Where did all the other wavefronts go? Wave solutions to the Maxwell equations don't have a cutoff after some number of oscillations, do they?
As for the unit of Planck's constant... Well, if I don't understand that error, then so be it, though you could have made some attempt at pointing out where it is, exactly, and what it should be. As I review the paper in question, for the life of me I cannot spot it. But I shall grant in advance of your elaboration that there be indeed an error like that. I think the consequences reach far beyond just the Planck-Einstein relation if there is. For instance, in classical thermodynamics (just to pick an area of physics you have not explicitly stated you reject) phase space volume is normalized against Planck's constant. The partition function, to pick an example, is a dimensionless quantity - and yes, it has to be, otherwise one couldn't take its natural logarithm - but yet it is computed by integrating a dimensionless quantity over all of phase space, which would yield the units of some power of the product of momentum and position, were it not for a denominator compensating for that by the same power of Planck's constant (and if need be an integer to account for over-counting identical configurations). Therefore then, in order for any fundamental microscopic theory of heat to begin to work, Planck's constant needs to have the units of momentum*position, exactly the same units as angular momentum and mechanical action. We could of course just blindly use the same number everywhere and then pick our units arbitrarily in each equation as needed, but seeing as our units are a matter of choice and the natural constants are what rescales between them in accordance with how nature actually behaves, I would propose that this is a rather risky solution to what is for now a very vaguely explained problem the vast majority of engineers and scientists have somehow gotten away with completely ignoring for the entire duration of mankind's post-industrial technological advancement...
@@gisteron **
EXACTLY, which is why the e=hf MATH IS STUUUUPID. The frequency in Hertz is 1 second long. Obviously, Einstein's 1 second photon math is dumber than a box of shit.
*>*
I did... I have a video.
**
Hahhah...
*>*
Oh boy, not the "tech advancement" argument...again, and again, and again...
@@itsbs to highlight the issue with tech advancement is that we generally advance technology and philosophy long before experiments, models, and mechanisms can be made for them. Don't fix what isn't broken is the platitude at fault here.
For some fun paradoxes about light, the Heaviside Equations (so-called Maxwell Equations) are based on the permittance of the medium, but this devolves into a divide by zero issue when we try to talk about the speed of light in a vacuum. How can we argue the speed of light in a setting that is not physically possible? Especially when the speed of light, the constant `c`, is non-constant by its definition? This gets even stranger when the propagation of light is dependent on frequency, and the electrical and optical character of the medium.
I don't see a technological remedy for a fundamental lack of understanding of what light, energy, and especially electricity, is.
@@Dan-gs3kg also I had the idea about light the other day that what they teach us about so called "light speed" is even more bs than I thought. so they tell you that on the moving train and from a stand still the light speed did not change. Okay. In theory we are travelling "through space" billions of kmph fast. so in theory then, the light sould be much slower in one direction, because why would it get the momentum of the earth when it is "emitted"?
The way you respond to criticism in the comments- insults, name-calling- is a huge turn-off; it harms your credibility... People are generally more receptive to ideas delivered gently. Why do you respond in this way?
**
Because I really don't give a flying fucking rats ass what people think about me. This information is provided for YOU, not me, and it speaks for itself -- it doesn't need a cheerleader. It is basic logic and references.
I generally have no problem interacting with someone that shows gratitude and courtesy, i.e. questioning or ask clarifying questions.
When someone is disrespectful and asserting their "knowledge," then why should I care at that point? Do you realize I wake up each morning with disrespectful attacks that I must defend, otherwise they cause doubt for those that are seeking answers! It is a negative degradation of my work.
So, if you want to be disrespectful and waste my time, then fuck off. If you need questions answered or have a challenging comment in respectful way, then I have no problems spending some time with you.
Because dumb people who don't even understand standard physics are making fun of him without even putting a point. They deserve to be insulted
@@itsbs based and fu ck normeis
@@itsbs very well said, I get the same attacks, I was called stupid more than 10 times in 2 days, they don't deserve any respect if they don't respect us
@@itsbs bro is mad abt ones and zeros that went ona trip thru the information super highway XD
Real Numbers
1^2 + 1^2 = 2(1^2)
Complex Numbers
i := sqr(-1)
p = 1+ i
p* = 1 - i
pp* = 1^2 + i(1) - i(1) - i^2
pp* = 1^2 + 1 2(1^2) = 1^2 + 1^2
i.e., (1 1^2)
"A barber in a village shaves all those and only those that don't shave themeselves. Does the barber shave himself?" - Bertrand Russell
(Ans. A barber cannot both shave and not shave himself - at the same time, or as a general rule whichever.)
(1 1^2)
In the set of all sets ,is there a set that does not belong to itself?And does that set belong to itself? The barber paradox has been debunked by 3rd.graders.
Try again Chuck.
@@pietropipparolo4329 The set is irrelevant. The issue is whether a group operation (self-multiplication of unity) can operate on itself and not on itself, 1^2 1
"Dear internet,
The physical principle that my computer requires for its operation does not exist, therefore I cannot upload this video explaining why I cannot upload this video.
Yours,
Scientific illiterate.
Dude, go do some research on Leo Esaki, 1973 Nobel laureate in physics, whose discovery is the reason you can share your abject ignorance of physics with the world at large, predicated on a demonstrable physical process that your video insists does not exist.
In other words, the existence of your video on RUclips proves that superposition is real. Learn some physics.
ETA: Worth noting that you're confusing frequency terms. One term is nu (v) for linear frequency in space, while the other is Hertz (Hz), for linear frequency in time, often referred as period (T). The frequency you insist is time dependent is in fact nu, linear frequency in space (because QM is always rooted in time-independent notation unless otherwise specified), hence the generalised de Broglie wave relations, in which E=hv, hence the linear frequency tells us the energy by the simple expedient of diving by Planck's constant.
**
You are just too dumb to understand basic magnetism and capacitance then. If you think computers work via electron balls that quantumly tunnel their way through "insulators", then you are just a simple, pseudoscience fool....gullible.
**
Dude, go do some research on my site and realize that you are a gullible, pseudoscienist... or better yet, just leave and stay dumb. I don't care at all.
**
Superposition of what? Are you not even smart enough to elaborate?
PROOF of Quantum State Superposition -- please link me the detector that experimentally proves the Quantum State in a superposition! You are a believer in electrons balls spinning in a superposition that creates magnetic NORTH/SOUTH both pointing in the same direction at the same time!
Wow... fool!
@@itsbs "You are just too dumb to understand basic magnetism and capacitance then. If you think computers work via electron balls that quantumly tunnel their way through "insulators", then you are just a simple, pseudoscience fool....gullible."
Except that I don't think that, not least because electrons aren't balls. Perhaps you've heard of this thing known as wave-particle duality, which tells us that the electron isn't a ball, and nor is it a wave, it's an electron? It's not like other things that simple comparisons work, which is why people struggle so hard to understand it, despite the fact that all it's counter-intuitiveness is entirely rooted in the mistake you're making now, in treating them as chunky things. Electrons aren't chunky. In all but a tiny range of very specific circumstances, every aspect of their behaviour is better modelled by waves. In only this one situation, when we interact with it in some means that allows us to extract position or 'which-path' information do they exhibit the sort of behaviour we associate with chunks, and even then, it's only an associated behaviour, not a property, in exactly the same way the wave-like aspects of its behaviour are only a behaviour and not a property. Calling me a fool, especially when failing to recapitulate my position so spectacularly, isn't going to win you any headway.
What Esaki actually demonstrated was that, as the PN junction is thinned, current decreased inversely with voltage, indicating negative resistance.
"Dude, go do some research on my site and realize that you are a gullible, pseudoscienist... or better yet, just leave and stay dumb. I don't care at all."
Why would I research on your site? What will that achieve when I've trivially demonstrated that I understand the subject matter considerably better than you do? I've already found the source of all your failures of understanding in both relativity and QM. What possible motivation could I have to further diminish my cognitive capacity by subjecting myself to more of it?
If you want to devolve into just name-calling, I can do that too, though you won't be at all happy with the outcome because, although I clearly know more about physics than you do, playground insults are my field of expertise and I'm significantly more accomplished at them. It will not go well for you.
"Superposition of what? Are you not even smart enough to elaborate?"
Fascinating. So what you're saying is that the thing you insist isn't real and which you introduced into the conversation via your scientifically-illiterate witterings has been used undefined by you and now you want me to come and impose a definition on it for you after the fact, is that it?
No matter, it's simple enough. Superposition isn't even only a quantum phenomenon, it's a general principle applicable to everything that can be modelled in terms of waves, and indeed superposition was around before quantum mechanics. Any combination of solutions to a linear equation is also a solution, in exactly the same way that any valid combination of solutions to a probability calculation is also a valid solution. These are core principles of straightforward linear algebra and probability. When we apply this to 'particles' we find that, when we measure the angular momentum about a given axis, all it's angular momentum will always be found about this axis. When we repeat the measurement, it persists. When we subsequently measure it about another axis, it no longer persists, and we may find that its angular momentum about the original axis when we measure it after the second axis measurement can have changed direction. In other words, stacking different measurements leads to the breaking of persistence, and we find that the valid solutions for its angular momentum about the single axis are a combination of solutions for all the states that correspond to that measurement. In other words, when we measure its angular momentum about the x axis, it's in a superposition of all states corresponding to angular momentum about the other axes.
FYI, this isn't only applicable to particles and small things. Quantum superposition has been measured in very large objects, including one instance of a 20 kilo mirror in a sophisticated version of Foucault's Pendulum experiment at MIT.
"PROOF of Quantum State Superposition -- please link me the detector that experimentally proves the Quantum State in a superposition!"
Sure. Go look at the Davies and Germer experiment, or the Hitachi single-electron double slit experiment, or any number of experiments that demonstrate wave-particle duality and/or superposition. Alternatively go outside and look up. See that big yellow shiny thing in the sky? That's your detector for superposition and quantum tunnelling. What's that, you say? The sun is a quantum detector? The sun is quantum tunnelling and superposition writ large. You may no be aware of this, but the gravity of the sun isn't actually enough to initiate fusion on its own. There's a barrier to overcome, the Coulomb barrier, that prevents nucleons from getting too close to each other under normal circumstances. Because of this barrier, fusion in stars should actually be impossible, because nucleons couldn't usually approach each other closely enough to bond under the strong nuclear force which, while incredibly strong, only operates in the Angstrom range. Because of superposition and tunnelling, this barrier can be overcome and stars can fuse. Your existence is a manifestation of superposition and quantum tunnelling.
"You are a believer in electrons balls spinning in a superposition that creates magnetic NORTH/SOUTH both pointing in the same direction at the same time!
Wow... fool!"
Except I'm not a believer in anything, I study the science, which clearly makes one of us. If you think this puerile incredulity at somebody more knowledgeable than you is making you look good, you're even more of an anencephalic addlepate than your output suggests, which is a pretty spectacular achievement in its own right.
I'd direct you to my site, which is this material aimed exactly at people like you, but I also know you're much too far gone to help, so I'll just continue to gainsay you with what the science really says as opposed to your palsied attempts at recapitulating it.
Edited to add: I meant to add that all experimental violations of Bell's Inequality are also crystal clear demonstrations of superposition, but you the logic is subtle. I'd be surprised if you could even understand Bell's Inequality, which is a trivial bit of nothing but simple first order linear logic and integers. Dude, you're out of your depth here by fathoms.
@@tonymurphy2624 *
@@tonymurphy2624 **
But you are... you've spewed your academic rambling all over my channel in the past 24 hours.
You've been fooled by academic science an their pseudoscience. You are a fool, because you've been fooled and you preach your foolishness!
@@tonymurphy2624 *
When are you claiming your Nobel prize? If your right, prove it, not just assert something
**
When are you going to wake yourself up and realize that you are gullible and believe in a bunch of scientific heroes?
@@itsbs Your critics are unconscious religious zealots who follow the secular faith called "Science". These minds ignore a logical application of the scientific method at all costs. They seek to only save appearances as they have been Pavlovian-conditioned to. Their superstitious belief system simply replaced angels in the heavens with mathematical equations. Magic holds their imagined and impossible Universe together.
The arguments in the video against QM are akin to those of Flat Earthers.
**
Please specify an argument that is like the Flat Earthers...
I was being rude - I apologize. The equation in the photoelectric effect paper is normalized. It does not specify a photon of a tremendous length. The equation just means that the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency.
From what I undrstand, QM has many issues - but mostly they seem to stem from physicists' inability to interpret the meaning behind the equations.
@@davidchung1697 08:50 I realy don't understand why he (video presenter) is assuming that we think photon is one second long!
And by the way, the frequency of a photon of blue light is 750 terahertz.
I guess that audiences just believe what they wish to be true regardless of whether it makes sense or not!
@@davidchung1697 **
I realize that, but what is the physical reality of this equation? If you are using e=hf as an idea of instantaneous energy with Frequency in Hertz, then can you find me a 1 Ghz CPU that can instantly switch 1 billion times instantly (or per cycle)? If Photon are created instant (or per cycle), then how do atoms understand the idea of (300,000,000 meters of space in 1 second) / (wavelength)? A Red Photon needs ~400 trillion waves to get the proper energy to be RED...how in the world do atoms know to work their photon energy magic on the basis of 300,000,000 meters of space in one second?
@@davidchung1697 *
Electricity is current and requires a medium to propagate. From Ohms law you get I = V / R. Vacume has basically infinite resistance, so you do not see lightening bolts in space. However voltage is a result of differences in electric charge. Electric charge creates a field that travels through the medium of space. When you start putting electronic components very close together and increase the frequency of voltage changes you get undesirable effects that form one of the most significant challenges in high speed digital design for circuit boards and integrated circuits. This is because while most of electrical engineering can be understood in terms of current and electricity moving in a circuit, in high speed digital design you have to consider things like impedance and crosstalk. Understanding electric fields does not require quantum mechanics and is captured by Maxwell’s equations.
Quantum computing isn't real. In fact, Yoda says that quantum mechanics isn't real. and I quote, from the Jedi Master, Yoda. "Do or do not, there is no third state of probability."
Is the reason that light has apparent momentum due to the medium it is propagating through being disturbed? Does the momentum actually come from the movement of the medium due to the light wave?
**
I don't have the exact answer, but this line of thinking is how I think about it.
**
There is something that must connect all matter to the electromagnetic medium, but science started to lose that concept after the "electron ball" electricity and 1905 Einstein Special Relativity's "empty space." Getting back to the idea that electromagnetism being the cause of matter through some type of "condensation" like process of various densities would most likely lead us toward the answer.
What if we looked at the "Speed" of light as a rate of induction of a longitudinal wave through a medium? Viewing light as a longitudinal wave propagating through a medium with a "rate of induction" instead of a "speed" introduces a conceptual shift from traditional electromagnetic wave theory. Normally, light is treated as a transverse wave in free space, where its momentum is derived from its electromagnetic properties. However, for this discussion, we will adapt the perspective to fit the longitudinal wave model and the idea of "rate of induction."
In a typical longitudinal wave, such as sound in air, the momentum is associated with the motion of particles of the medium back and forth along the direction of wave propagation. This motion results in an exchange of kinetic and potential energy.
Assuming Light as a Longitudinal Wave in a Medium:
Modulation of the Medium: If light modulates the medium like a longitudinal wave, it would mean that the medium's particles are oscillating along the direction of light's propagation due to electromagnetic induction. The medium itself, through these oscillations, would contribute to the propagation of light.
Momentum Calculation: In this framework, the momentum p of the light could be calculated by considering the modulation (oscillation) it induces in the medium. This would involve:
The induced energy density in the medium,
The rate at which this energy is transferred through the medium,
The effective mass of the medium involved in this transfer, which is a function of the medium's electromagnetic properties (permittivity and permeability).
Rate of Induction as "Speed": The rate of induction could then be seen as analogous to the wave's speed in this context, influencing the rate at which momentum is transferred through the medium. This could be formulated as:
p = medium density × volume rate of energy transfer × rate of induction
Energy and Momentum Transfer: The momentum of the light in this view would not solely be a function of its electromagnetic properties (like wavelength and frequency), but also how effectively it induces energy transfer in the medium, akin to pressure waves in a fluid.
From this point of view, the momentum of light would be a composite effect of the induced electromagnetic interactions within the medium and how these interactions translate to energy and momentum propagation.
@@polygon2744 The light from stars etc are spherical waves so the "rate of expansion" rather than the "speed of light" would be more applicable.
Impossible try not to laugh challenge
**
It is sad to know how many people have been completely fooled by Max Born's pseudoscience and take attention away from the real science of Schrodinger.
@@itsbs you are sad to know
@@boomblast2786 **
Literally, you don't have a clue. You just BELIEVE it is because of "quantum mechanics" because that is what you have been told. That device uses BASIC electrical engineering, like the forces of dielectric polarization and magnetism... but you would have NO idea what that means, because you are just a BELIEVER! You don't understand.
@@boomblast2786 **
Oh boy, I guess I should have used the term "insulator" polarization... or just "plastic" for someone like you.
@@boomblast2786 **
Mate, your dumbass is on my RUclips channel that is ATTEMPTING to explain things to improve your understanding. I'm actually DOING WORK! You are just too stupid of a human to recognize it. All you can do it emote your ignorance.
**
I don't want your dumb ass to even know who I am... You are the filth of the earth that just tries to cut down people but have ABSOLUTELY no game of their own. You are absolute fcking sludge!
I don't want you to benefit from my work. I want to you stay dumb and let life beat the living fck out of you... Please wear a Go Pro, so we can be entertained by your mistakes and learn from them!
Quantumists need to go back to the drawing board on how a detector measures a particle. First... explain how you can claim you shot a single particle out of a continuous beam. It is like someone claiming a star is a particle because they detected it in the sky. It just becomes non sensical. Our senses cannot observe it. So we replace observation with math equations that have yielded no new major inventions.
This video is bad philosophy. Not even close to scientific. I’m sorry you can’t grasp at QM.
**
I'm sorry you believe in QM. There is no way to scientifically, experimentally test the existence of a "probability wave" or a "quantum state in superposition." But yet, you still believe? Is it because you are gullible enough to think that the world is "illogical." When you give up your logic, then you are giving away your ability to think.
@@itsbs I am an actual physicist. Irrespective of how you feel about the mechanism, the results are correct. Come up with a better theory (that predicts correct experimental results) and you’ll be a Nobel laureate.
Why does reality have to bend to what makes sense to you? Why would particles need to be fundamentally billiard balls? Because you feel so? If you consider that it is more natural for particles to be distributed in space, QM comes out more naturally.
Why can sound be waves, but not electrons? Or better yet, light!
Nature is described by simple rules, not what makes sense to you, and those simple rules have surprising and confusing consequences, especially if you don’t know the basics of calculus or linear algebra.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s science. Sorry it’s not simple enough for you, but it is beautiful.
@@williamtuxbury1315 **
This is the problem with "actual physicists." They think they are so smart about the subject, but yet they have never read ANY of Schrodinger's Work and they have NEVER READ MAX BORN's paper for the BORN RULE.
It's insanity!!
**
So this is the conclusion you get from my video? It has to make SENSE TO ME? It's all about me?
This is the problem with "actual physicists" ... they have given up their logic to believe in "unintuitive"-ness. They have completely forgotten the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and fell for heroism and "feeling smart and special"! The only attacks are that people are "too dumb to understand."
How do you test for a "probability wave"? Do you have a "probability wave" detector?
How do you test for a "quantum state in a superposition"? Can you link me a QSS detector so I can try it myself?
How do you think we actually "detect" where the "electron" will be?" What is the mechanism?
@@williamtuxbury1315 **
Define a particle! What is it's radius in 3D space? Please tell me...
**
What is a particle-collision then? Does that mean these particles just pass through each other like waves in a medium?
**
Haha, yeah, simple beliefs in un-intuitive ideas that cannot be tested. NICE SCIENCE DUDE! Stay smart!! Do math!!
**
Math beauty over experimental proof... nice science!!
@@itsbs Okay. I never expected to change you. Stay ignorant. I don’t have time to explain expectation values or quantum dynamics to you. I have real science to do.
I read that to explain the black body problem of classical physics.
"Max Planck found a radical solution by making the hypothesis that the quantity of energy that light can exchange with matter is not continuous, as previously expressed by classical physics, but discrete. Planck postulated, in fact, that the energy of the light, emitted by the black body cavity, distributes only with multiple integers, according to this relation:
𝐸 = 𝑛 ∙ ℎ ∙𝜈
where n=0,1,2,3…, h is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the radiation."
So each photon is a discrete packet of energy. We can't have half a photon or half a photon with half a packet of energy. Hence, the absurdity of a photon is stretched from here to the moon!😂
*
Nice video and presentation.
How can we believe someone who only do mind experiment all day long and never get his feet wet in the laboratory?
**
Who are you referring to, i.e. "believe who"?
You know who is the celebrity famous of his physics mind experiment.
@@philoso377 **
Yes, I see what you are saying now. I now read it as "thought-experiment" ... using your imagination is not equal to a physical experiment, as required in the scientific method.
@@philoso377 Who Einstein? Say his name it is not blasphemy to point out error in accepted science even though its defenders act like it is.
google dave vs hal 9001.
@15:57 there's the issue I have, the far left of the 3B slit card, the impediment is hair thin compared to the two "slits", it's basically one slit not a double slit at all - and in the maths solution the base of the curves start in the middle of those slits whereas with real waves the base of the curves would start at the edges and the middle of the curves would result from the middle of the slits, the professors draw that way but don't tell anyone the maths fails when its done that way because the interference patterns is different from what is observed. If you search for images none of the diagrams show it exactly correct, the ones that are using the maths NEVER show the waves at the slits, they start some distance away because if they drew it all it would expose the BS.
**
Who cares? It is wave interference pattern regardless if it is 1, 2, 3, 4 slits.
There is no evidence in this experiment that shows light acting as a particle.
*
hmm guys this guy cant take an argument and he deletes comments that makes sense so that people who read the chat feel like he made a point while the other guy didn't.
*
@@itsbs how do i know? I know because you deleted comments of mine from other comment sections. It's as simple as that you fraud.
@@schrodingerliebert4882 *>*
I assure you this is 100% incorrect and it shows your absolute ignorance. In fact, it probably tells us a little bit about how smart you are and why you are a supporter of obvious pseudoscience.
@@itsbs k. nice excuse and nice way to escape. great!
@@schrodingerliebert4882 **
Escape? I'm still here. Re-post your intelligent replies, let's debate.
What you got?
So it's just a giant metaphysical mirage as I had suspected.
*
Decoherence isn't caused by actual noise numb-nuts it's field interference
**
What the fuck do you think HEAT is? A Noise field?
@@itsbs heat is kinetic energry
@@word2281 **
So you have never heard of INFRARED before?
@@itsbs electromagnetic radiation shorter than microwaves but longer than our visual spectrum of light
@@word2281 **
So is that an electromagnetic "field" that can cause "interference"?
If Einstein's theory of photons is false,
then there are no lasers.
Well, are there any lasers?
*
@@itsbs laser = light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation - i.e., stimulated emission pf photons.
@@danielstump3204 *>*
Ok, so if a Red Photon is 1.88EV, then what is the Red Photon's AMPLIFIED simulated emission value after being lased?
@@danielstump3204 light can be best described by frequency , phase , wavelenght , pulse. All of these are waves properties , not particles
@@itsbs the amplification process does not change the frequency. It is a process where 1 photon and an excited atom becomes 2 photons and a de-excited atom. Energy is conserved but the light energy increases.
You have no clue what you're on about... Physicists use the terms particle and wave because they're trying to describe this tiny light thing in terms of existing human words....do you think that English would just happen to have a word that describes lights characteristics as a quantum level? ....clue: it doesn't, so they use two words ,Wave and Particle
*>*
Yes, sure, it is just a problem of wording... good one!
**
Yes. Schrodinger called it "a wave."
*
Wave is not a thing, it is an action
So first off, all math is imaginary or arbitrary constructs based on what ever we as a world define as a base unit. Take 1 foot as an example, one foot is 12inch (an agreed upon average of the size over an adult mans foot). I say all this to illustrate that when you "debunk" quantum mechanics by repeatedly asking something along the lines of "but how can we define formulas using 1 second as a unit? Do particles magically know how long a second is or does the world neatly arrange itself based on systems arbitrarily designed by humans?" Your using a straw man fallacy to argue against QM when in truth, the orgin or basis of the unit used to describe a formula has no bearing on what the formula may prove.
On a more ridiculous scale, you could debunk the existence of wood by asking me how long it is then when I say its a 2×4 thats 12inches long, you ask what an inch is and "does a tree just magically arrange itself to line up with an inch" no, you could define its length in inches, fractions of a mile, or toyota corolla lengths, but the proportions to its relations will remain the same.
**
OK, so if Frequency is not based on 1 seconds' worth of waves, then is it instant? If a single photon energy is e=hf, then frequency must be PER INSTANT? Or is Hertz defined as PER SECOND? Yes, we designed it and Einstein defined a Photon using math defined as 1 second units... Why? The photon obviously doesn't take 1 second's worth of waves before it is created, but the physical reality of the math says it... What you are imagining about a single photon and what the physical reality of math says are TWO DIFFERENT things.
@@michaelkinsel1231 **
What? You are creating the 2x4...trees are not naturally a 2x4. Your analogy just sucks. If an atom NATURALLY creates a "light particle" through "spontaneous emission" using the idea of "so-called instant frequency", then how does the atom know to work on 1 seconds worth of waves at the speed of light... or how does the atom know to work on 300,000,000 meters of space DIVIDED BY the wavelength?
Respectfully, I do not agree. Einstein did not eliminate of the notion of an ether, he replaced it with notions of 'curved space time' as a medium for electromagnetism and gravitation, a hypothesis that is being worked on to this day. You can find quotes where Einstein says he accepts the notion of an ether. He also did not provide the means to further describe what 'space time' may actually consist of, beyond agreeing with some of the mathematical descriptions of relativity that were derived by Einstein and other physicists. Your frequency chart interpretation is so far off, I do not mean to be cruel, but light frequencies are measured in mega and giga hertz and beyond, and the length of the waves are measured in Angstrom units, which are given in 10 to the minus 10 meters, so no way would a photon correspond to the 'one second' parameters your chart shows. Red light wavelength for example ranges from 620 - 720 nano meters. The double slit experiment just shows how the somewhat coherent light source interacts with the slit obstruction depending on wavelength, size of the slits, actual location of the preponderance of the pulse energy of the light when it interacts with the slit, which is probalitistic for most (quasi) coherent sources of light. No huge mystery there, but the photon aspect of the wave acts in part like a particle and in part like a wave depending on what and how it is interacting with other quantum matter and energy and averaged results accumulate into the interference pattern seen. The interference pattern is not a continuous distribution, so that shows the quantum nature of light.
**
Man, I haven't been getting much of that over that past few months.
**
You kind of jump the gun, when going straight to curved spacetime.
Special Relativity can ONLY exist without the ether. Realize that Lorentz/Poincare has the same Lorentz transform math and the same "Principle of Relativity". So what is the difference between Lorentz/Poincare and Einstein?
Well, Einstein removed the ether which allowed him to remove ABSOLUTE SPACE and ABSOLUTE TIME. IN other words, the idea of a preferred reference frame of Lorentz/Poincare's ETHER is gone. So, with Einstein your time and space is ONLY RELATIVE to another object.
You can see this community post for more information:
ruclips.net/user/postUgkxFoVZzp24h1qwIlnXc1y1fzX1OCC_Jiu8
I have a whole playlist on exactly why Einstein's SR is complete pseudoscience.
**
This is because Einstein will give you any answer you want to hear. He is a politician. The reason he talked about the ether in 1920 is because he was trying to get a job with Lorentz. Lorentz's theory is ether, so Einstein started talking about ether and then denying at the same time, because if he accepted the ether, then universal RELATIVE SPACE AND TIME goes away. He didn't want to throw away his theory of projectile particle light through empty space, i.e. Special Relativity.
**
You must misunderstand me. THERE IS NO PHOTON. Einstein reused Planck's formula which is based on Hertz and is 1 second long. Obviously, photon energy can not be 1 second long. The physical reality of e=hf is absurd for a particle of light... but it works just fine in Planck's backbody experiment that was based on 1 seconds worth of blackbody radiation data.
**
No... wave-particle duality is more falseness spread by Einstein for his Special Relativity theory, so he could sneak in a projectile particle of light through empty space. That was the only way he could get rid of the ether and claim RELATIVE SPACE/TIME in the universe.
From point A to point B, light acts like a wave and only a wave. There is absolutely no projectile particle light behavior. In absorption and emission, sure... chunks, pulses, packets of various wave amplitudes -- but light is still acting like a wave traveling through space in every experiment.
**
This I don't understand. If there is an interference pattern, then wave diffraction is occurring. Particles can't cause that.
I really hope quantum computers will not work according to you
**
I have a video on Quantum Computers and it will help you understand why they will never work. You don't have hope or believe me. You can learn for yourself.
This talk is jampacked with errors and mis-statements of every kind. Completely unreliable.
**
OK, at least pick one specific error... let's discuss.
**
I am ready to discuss, but it seems you are not reliable or at least not willing to discuss the errors and mis-statements of every kind that you proclaim.
Humor for smart people. Not me, what am I doing here
**
Nah, this stuff isn't that difficult, but you just have to have an interest in the subject. People TRY to overcomplicate Quantum Physics to make it seem way more complicated than it really is...especially by using math.
This is excellent. I look forward to Part II.
Me too.
@@_John_Sean_Walker me 3
That's a very good point. There was never been constructed a device for emitting single photons. So every Gedankenexperiment is wrong about this. What about electrons. I believe, that the geometry of the slit and his electromagnetic properties has a big influence. We can just take a small stick, and "bend" the photons around
**
Same problem as with photons. There is no definition of what a single electron is, except the idea of the elementary charge. OK, what is the radius of an electron? If that is defined, then let's discuss the physical size of each element on the electron gun emitter and detection sensors.
People would believe you if you publish your research. Einstein did it going against the establishment. You have no reason not to be able to replicate that after all you are (supposedly) well versed with the flaws of established theory. All the best.
This video is childish. It says so much about your inaptitude of actually conducting research. Asking questions is not research. Do the real research and let the world see. It is always the people who don't possess any formal education that shout the loudest against the formal education.
You better prove yourself or shut up. I hope you are mature enough to understand this. I want to read your published paper. Until that happens, do not expect people to take you seriously. Period.
**
That's a dumb statement. How much have you published? Besides, I'm not asking to be believed. I don't what believers following me. I am trying to help people think on their own.
**
No he didn't. You don't know anything about Einstein. You just BELIEVED someone's story along the way.
**
What? I don't have a theory. You are not even smart enough to recognize that. I am trying to help people see whose theory is actually SCIENTIFIC, and in this case it is Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. You've probably never heard of it or read anything by Schrodinger. Gee, I wonder why?
*
@@itsbs Coming from an illiterate who calls E = hf as "wave equation"... yeah. You are one masterpiece of a clown.
From what I can gather, you seem to put Erwin Schrödinger on a pedestal which is the first mistake. You cannot just claim "Schrödinger said so, so it must be correct!". This is not logic, it's confirmation bias.
Also, exactly which papers of Schrödinger do you refer? And which other papers on QM do they contradict? Please mention so other people (certainly me, now) can verify your claims ourselves.
"Education" are you talking about the 12+ years kids spend locked into a room listening to lifeless dumass teachers tell them opinions and brainwashing them?
E=hf says that the energy transported by the wave comes in discrete chunks. This is literally all that this formula says. The energy carried by each chunk is proportional to the frequency f of the wave. It doesn´t say at what rate photons are being created, nor does it say that a photon is zillions of kilometers long.
**
So the frequency of your CPU of say 1Ghz can switch on/off 1 billions times instantly? The physical reality of that math equation is not a magical transformation of frequency into a instant phenomenon. If you learn the Blackbody radiation derivation, you'll see that the "h" value was derived from WATTS of Blackbody radiation data. The ONLY "discrete chunk" in that equation is "h" ... not Electromagnetic Cycles Per Second of the Frequency of light.
Just apply physical reality to the math... that's all. Einstein's photon of e=hf does not exist.
@@itsbs _“So the frequency of your CPU of say 1Ghz can switch on/off 1 billion times instantly? The physical reality of that math equation is not a magical transformation of frequency into a instant phenomenon.”_
E=hf doesn’t say that frequency somehow turns into an instant phenomenon. The frequency in that equation just quantifies how many times the wave oscillates in a given time period. And the energy carried by each chunk proportional to that frequency. That’s all. It doesn’t say how long it takes to produce a photon and it doesn’t say anything about their shape, as you try to argue in your video.
@XT 5TX **
Which is 1 second via Hertz (PER SECOND). 1 second worth of electro-magnetic wave oscillations.
**
"Photons" are created instantly (or near instant), and this is the equation being used to plug the "photon energy" into the "photon." Something is wrong here then.
**
Apply physical reality to the equation e=hf and it doesn't make logical sense (as written above).
Go learn how e=hf was created in the first place (Blackbody Radiation experiment) and you can then see the flaw. Einstein reused this same equation from that experiment to apply to his own "light particle."