Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
there is no suck thing as a particle. even atoms are not "particles". Particle is pseudo. Pseudo like "force". Are smoke rings particles? According to stpd scientists logic, yes. But reality - FKNO.
@@hyperduality2838 "Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers." One can also model them with only real numbers. "Photons or pure energy" Which one is it? Or do you want to claim that photons are the same as "pure energy"? Why? "probability waves are dual" Why? "All life is built from proteins." Not only, it also consists of a _lot_ of other stuff.
A hundred times yes to a video about matrix mechanics. The usual quasi-historical presentation of Planck-Einstein relation -> Bohr model -> de Broglie relation -> Schrödinger equation is fairly intuitive and easy to understand mathematically, but I find it also obscures a lot of the inner workings of QM and has some pedagogical pitfalls (like making it easy to confuse fields and wave functions). I was also pleasantly surprised by Jordan's comment about the additivity of entropy. Too often do we neglect to mention how involved statistical mechanics was (and is) in fundamental physics.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual. Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@jkzero yay, I'm excited because you provide great insight into historical point of view! The standard presentation mentions 'Heisenberg picture' and he is known for the uncertainty principle the most, forgetting the impact that matrix mechanics had historically. It was *the* method for a few years, and he got the Nobel prize for it alone - before Schrödinger
I am starting to see why Einstein is considered a Legend in physics community. Brownian motion, Light Quantization and Photo Electric effect, and now the wave particle duality etc all explained with such solid physics reasoning and logic that even people who dont agree with him, cannot ignore. Any one of these topics would be enough to give this man a Nobel prize, but all of them combined, and coming up with this totally out of world idea of special and General Relativity explaining the time dilation and Curving of space time ?? Like this man has done enough contribution of physics that would take many of us life times to even come close. No wonder he is a the Mascot of Genius.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
I am glad you get the idea. I like to say that Einstein is highly underrated, sure he is the stereotype of genius but when you learn about his contribution, beyond relativity, you start realizing that the guy was the real deal. Also, the usual portrait of a "quantum hater" as shown in popular books is totally wrong, the guy was pro-quantum when Niels Bohr was still an undergraduate student playing football.
I love your videos. The combination of history, technical details, and elaboration are so engaging and enjoyable. Thank you very much for making these.
In my opinion, this by far the best theoretical video on the subject I've seen so far. I've even watched it multiple times! The actual math is going at an extremely high speed, which is I guess okay, because otherwise this would be a very long video. I think though that on a detail level it will be difficult to follow along for many viewers. But I very much appreciate the general overview that it also contains: how the fluctuations in energy in a confined system holding electromagnetic radiation can be described as a combination of wave and quantized properties, whose relative importance is dependent on the frequencies contained in that system. In a way that aligns quite well with my own view that a photon is merely a quantized interaction between radiation and matter (or vice versa). If you think about how energy fluctuations can come about in a system , it's only because of energy interaction / exchange with the external system. Depending on the nature of the interaction and wavelength, the interaction will bring out the wave- or quantum nature of radiation. The reason that I personally consider the photon to be an interaction is that it allows me to easily make sense of interference and diffraction experiments with light. Anyway, your videos are top notch, so please keep making them!
8:58 That is so gorgeous. The main feature that determines how quantum objects behave is their wavelength. Low wavelength, high frequency objects behave like particles, so high energy photons such as gamma rays participate in processes such as Compton scattering which is basically an elastic collision between billiard balls. Whereas large wavelength, low frequency objects behave like waves because we can measure their wavelike properties more easily (since obviously their wavelength is larger). This corresponds to things such as electrons in energy eigenstates of the atom, or low energy infrared photon absorbance causing molecules to oscillate with the wave. That the low frequency and high frequency fluctuations are given exactly by the number of wave modes and quanta respectfully is an *exact* illustration of this duality. As always, your videos are as informative as they are entertaining. Keep it up!
if you watch his fine structure constant video, he says that within an electron orbit, there are sub orbits. So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit, then, some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter.
"True, nobody accepted his idea, but his physical reasoning and calculations were flawless" How to impress the scientific community through sheer balls
That is how you defend an idea: provide solid physical and mathematical foundations so nobody can ignore it, then drop the mic and move on to develop a new theory of gravitation (General Relativity).
@@jkzero it used to be like that. Today you need approval of the community to even try posting on arxiv, or be part of an institution to even be considered for peer-review in a journal. I'm don't wish to defend unsound reasoning without solid mathematical ground that plagues the work of many outside spammers. Just saying 'pure quality of reason' is no longer enough because it won't even get noticed
2 very pretty equations today. What is the meaning of the first one- variance of energy = partial derivative of average energy wrt beta. Is that not a form of entropy?
Woah, that's an interesting analogy on wave-particle duality of life. I've always assumed before that it's both a wave and a particle, but somewhere I learned that it's not a wave, it's not a particle, but it's also not both. That cellphone analogy makes it a bit easier to digest now.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
Amazing video! I can't believe how beautifully you've tied everything together. Even those little side mentions of Bose's new method and Uncertainty principle hiding in plain sight, I wanted you to go deeper into! So fascinating
Excellent video, as always! I'm really excited for the next videos on the De Broglie postulates and other developments in the history of Quantum Mechanics
Absolutely wonderful video! Thanks for going further into the history and math of the light wave-particle duality! The De Broglie teaser surely sounds nice!
Oh yeah, people celebrated his papers on Brownian motion and special relativity, but ignored him completely on his paper of light quanta (the one incorrectly called "photoelectric-effect paper"). If you watch my video about Compton effect (ruclips.net/video/Ap9os356CZA/видео.html), which completely confirmed Einstein's hypothesis on light quanta, you can see several instances in which people like Planck celebrated and supported Einstein although they considered his light-quanta to be nonsense. Even Bohr during his Nobel lecture in 1922 insisted that light quanta were not a real thing.
The fact that 1/M and 1/N are added instead of multiplied indicates their relationship. Two sides of a square are multiplied to get the area, but two squared sides are added to get the square of the hypotenuse. So the question is what does the hypotenuse of 1/M + 1/N represent? Figure that out and you figure out how the object is producing both. My hypothesis is: the field itself or time. Or to put it another way: √(1/M + 1/N). This simplifies to √(N+M/M•N), which is √(/) = Eᵥ (Volume of Energy). Since E simplifies to bare time³, then Eᵥ = 𝘵³, which is to say, the velocity of time, generating a 3×3 temporal matrix field. At its center is a particle, and its boundary produces the wave. As the wave (boundary) expands, its mass increases. This effect increases when the field interacts with other fields. So while the wave does no work, the field works to give mass and the density of the field causes repulsion. The field is not a background, but a mathematical bubble relative to other similar fields.
Dr, I simply love your videos. With the addition of mathematics, it me realise how these scientists arrived to their discoveries and conclusions, even though the math is beyond my scope. However, your narration when u present the equations and how u manipulate them to arrive to the result, makes it Simpler for a person like me to follow along. Thank you for hard work you put in, making these high quality, well researched complex topics for us.
incredibly unsubtle hint that QFT might be a topic later... very awesome thank u for these videos they are genuinely works of art, I like how u don't shy away from the math it feels less like you've plucked ideas out of thin air and makes them feel more like the rigorous ideas based in what was known at the time
I like to present ideas and developments that at less known but always providing the sources to the originals so anybody can go and check by themselves, there is no need to believe me, the math is there, which is the best way to support wild claims
Following you the whole series. Excellent videos, as well as aspiring, I have always wanted to see the matrix mechanics in QM but haven't come by; it would be great if you could make a video on it. And can you tell me where you are finding these original papers?
An intro to the first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon. All of Einstein's papers can be found in the link below; however, I don't include the translations in my videos because they are copyrighted einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/
Excellent video! This channel is the best. It explains thing without dumbing it down. I love the historical references, and how you explain how these things developed and how the interactions between the scientist were at the time. I would love a video on matrix mechanics too. Also: I read that something called SeaStar algebra represents a potentially deeper and more fundamental approach to quantum mechanics than the Hilbert space formalism. Do you know anything about this, and perhaps also how it can solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics?
An intro to the first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon. I am not sure about SeaStar, maybe you mean C*-algebras, which is a set of mathematical conditions used for some types of Hilbert spaces, very relevant in quantum mechanics. There are also objects called c-numbers used by Dirac in the early days of quantum mechanics.
@@jkzero Seems like I misunderstood. I knew about the C* algebra, but I was under the impression SeaStar was something more than C*, but probably just because I did not investigate what I heard on a physics podcast enough. Thanks!
The best educational channel I have ever seen ❤❤❤❤ thanks for the big effort in making these wonderful videos ❤ hope the series will continue tell the last black hole evapotets❤❤
Still haven't finished the video yet but it is interesting to see that it's denoted as . I am taking a (rather) introductory course on Statistics right now and we use E bar for denoting the expected value in the moment. That said, our E is expected value and not energy so it might be different. Still, Einstein did denote it as E bar in 4:25, so.
I think the bar is most commonly used by mathematicians; physicists used it until modern quantum mechanics appeared (mid-1920s) because the bar over a symbol can lead to misunderstandings when it is used for complex conjugation or spinor notation. The notation avoids that problem and it directly matches its use when Dirac notation gets introduced later.
I am with you here, love the fact that Jordan just added this at the end of the paper as extra material but it completely started a new field and a new way of doing fundamental physics
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
I just realized that I have been answering the question wrong. “Is light a particle or a wave?” I’d usually answer yes. Now I am understanding it’s neither but it’s a quantum object that exhibits properties of both. 20:03 The de Broglie teaser demands I keep coming back!!!
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
I love the way that most fundamental physics is explained through an historical perspective on the derivation of matters and equations... Including the historical discussions and motivations.. It's very useful to understand where all this quantum physics come from. Today I just had a huge surprise to see that again a quantum concept comes from statistical mechanics...and I was thrilled to see how the seed to QFT appears already in a 1925 book by Jordan et al. Wonderful. Wooah!!!
The problem with the historical path to quantum physics is that it's false. They guessed the final result correctly, but most of the concepts that were used along the way are 100% false, so you are basically learning all the wrong lessons and none of the correct ones. The idea that quantum mechanics comes from statistical mechanics is certainly false. Quantum mechanics is a non-commutative solution of Kolmogorov's axioms, but it is NOT a slightly different version of statistical mechanics. The latter requires contact between thermal baths, while quantum mechanics requires complete isolation.
Thank you Doc for your vids, I binge watched all of them after last Tuesday and they have been very helpful to my sanity. Seeing this one come up on my recommendations was joyous.
Hmmm wouldn't the energy fluctuation formula show the distinction between wave and particle nature of light since M and N are accounted for separately? How far can the values of M and N be from each other?
Your content could be a really good basis for a semester-long elective for non-physics, technical majors with an interest in physics and history. Call it Classical to Quantum: The History and Development of Modern Physics, with the lectures being akin to your videos showing the historical context for each development, the course work being working through the mathematics to arrive at the results, and a final project of choosing and writing a paper/video demonstration of the development of some result in their major field. I think it could offer a unique way to develop scientific communication skills. I would've jumped at it as a young engineering student 😁 The majority of educational resources I've interacted with (articles, lecture series, videos, etc) seem to be written for either an expert in that field or a layman without a scientific background. Neither is bad, but they both require a lot of additional reading to understand fully (either for context in the former or more detail in the latter). Your videos fall perfectly in the middle, a splendid balance of history and mathematics, where I rarely feel other texts are a prerequisite for a full understanding of the topic presented. Apologies for the long comment. Keep up the great work! I always look forward to your videos
I appreciate the long comment. You got me, what you see as video episodes here are my dream course to teach. I am sure that many STEM students would love to have such an introduction to modern physics filling the gap between superficial presentations and systematic courses on the relevant topics. I even think that this should be mandatory for physics students. I was one many years ago but I was never taught most of the stories that I have presented here. Many physics students and professional physicists have written to me because they had no idea about many of the stories and calculations presented here. So yes, thanks for the encouragement, it is one of my goals turn my notes into a course and/or a book one day.
3:33 How did Einstein come up with the idea to determine this derivative (the change of the average energy by the change of β (1/kT))? What was his physical motivation for this?
There is no physical motivation, it is a standard trick in statistical mechanics, in which there is a function called the "partition function" that can be used to generate many thermodynamical quantities by taking derivatives. Using this approach, taking the derivative of the average energy in reality is hiding a derivative of the partition function. In other words, after you take any introductory course on statistical mechanics and this is almost a natural to do.
Another fantastic video. Einstein was and will always be the real deal. The gigaChad of physics. No fear to propose new ideas, all backed by absolute solid theoretical background.
I like to say that Einstein is highly underrated, sure he is the stereotype of genius but when you learn about his contribution, beyond relativity, you start realizing that the guy was the real deal.
"Just like spectrum is separated by alpha (1/137)" What is that supposed to mean? "could wave and particle also be separated by an exponential of Alpha" Here it is even _more_ unclear what that is supposed to mean.
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 if you watch his video, he says that within an electron orbit, there are sub orbits. So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit, then, some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter.
if you watch his video, he says that within an electron orbit, there are sub orbits. So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit, then, some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter.
@@MrPandyaketan I watched the video. He said nothing like that at all! He does not even mention the word "orbit"! And the video is about photons, not about electrons! "So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit" Again: What is that supposed to mean? Where did you get that from? "some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter" Again: What is that supposed to mean?
I loved the iPhone analogy. In a similar fashion, the measurement procedure forces the quantum system to give you a result that you know how to interpret, but this measurement only gives us one aspect of the true nature of a quantum system.
Jorge, you're so close to figuring this out. A photon is not a particle, it's a quantity of energy transmission over a period of time. It's not a wave either, but rather a pulse of energy transmission in a wave-like pattern. Like water being sprayed from a sprinkler. You wouldn't think of a pulse of water as a discrete object. A pulse that repeats itself is also not a series of objects but rather a fluctuating continuous stream.
Thank you for this video. Somehow I never heard of this derivation, and now I really want to sit and profoundly think about what this means. Thank you again for showing me something Idid not know about. And of course, as always, you do this with an incredible video and explanation
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
@@NemosRUclips Quackery = nonsense. All messages are dual. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information. "Mathematics is the language of nature" -- Galileo. If mathematics is a language then it is dual -- nature is dual. Messages, languages, codes are dual -- photons or pure energy. Cells, neurons, observers are sending messages to each other all the time via photons. Locality (classical) is dual to non locality (quantum) -- quantum entanglement or quantum messages. Photons or light are message carriers -- probability waves. Atoms are talking to each other all the time -- temperature or hot is dual to cold. Duality creates reality. Sense is dual to nonsense -- you are using duality to claim that duality does not exist.
Btw, on Einstein's assertion that light itself is quantized into photons (instead of quantization being a mathematical trick), I've seen sources that present the idea that instead of light being composed of flying photon "dots" while in travel, photons are actually _events_ occurring at the detector. The quantization ultimately manifests when *light and matter interact* . Notable sources are videos from the channel Huygens Optics: ruclips.net/video/NVqT2Gbrvxs/видео.htmlfeature=shared ruclips.net/video/5V8VCFkAd0A/видео.htmlfeature=shared ruclips.net/video/gijtzP8iVzs/видео.htmlfeature=shared ruclips.net/video/SDtAh9IwG-I/видео.htmlfeature=shared Any thoughts on this?
Nobody who understands physics thinks of photons as flying through space. We teach in high school that a photon is a small amount of energy. It's not a thing. It doesn't move. It's simply the amount of energy that transfers from the electromagnetic field into e.g. a metal plate in the photoelectric effect. That does not mean that quantization is a matter interaction effect, either. Matter is caused by the same quantum field as the free electromagnetic field. The quantization is an inherent property of that field.
Your videos are really high quality and the content is fantastic! I have some thoughts on the topic. Long post. Feel free to skip! TLDR; Do you think of wave particle duality in the same way when you think of the early history of physics and when you think of QFT? (Edit: You answer this partially towards the end of the video.) In modern physics the current best understanding that is verified is based on quantum field theory. In quantum field theory there are the solutions of various equations that represent the fields and their couplings. For example the Maxwell-field or the Dirac field or the Higgs field. Those equations without couplings between them can be described as wave equations. The bosons are second order and the fermions kind of are as well even though it’s not manifest in the standard form. In quantum field theory there is then also a superposition of Fock-space states. The interpretation in quantum field theory as far as I can tell is roughly that for states that can be constructed using only a sequence of creation operators (and not a super position of many sequences), those states would be said to have a well defined number of ”particles”. That’s essentially what I take ”particles” to be referring to. But each creation operator comes multiplied by a wave mode solution. (This is all before considering field couplings and the reasoning mostly make sense when the coupling is weak etc.) But. When using language like this, ”particles” really don’t have much to do with point-particles as referred to in classical physics. There is the aspect that it’s something that you can count. Sure. But they don’t have an order or distinguishability. Just a number. More like the dimensionality of a space. Or a subspace. Which kind of is what they are in a more precise way. All the notion about being localized or spread out are properties that belong to the spacial shape of the modes. Particular superpositions might have a localized profile. And there is some change of basis of the whole state that would bring that out. But still. When I hear talk about the historical development of QM, the word wave-particle duality is often mentioned. I just don’t get the feeling that people have the same intuitions about those words that would make sense from a modern QFT-perspective. I’m not it that matters that much. I just find that I had to undo a lot of intuitions when I got to QFT, that I had gotten from how all the words were used historically and in textbooks about introductory QM. Maybe there are parts that I’m still getting wrong here. There are probably other ways to cache out the meanings of the words. Some of which make sense but are mutually incompatible. Some of which don’t make sense. For such reasons, I find that sometimes reading the history of the field can accidentally act to confuse people more than if they had looked carefully at QFT and tried to give parts of the equations relevant names. Doing that would probably be a bad introduction to physics on its own. But still. From a modern perspective I think we should say that these early papers were brilliant and got the right answers and are worth studying. But even if understood correctly, they kind of give the right answers for partially the wrong reasons. And that’s fine. I’m just not sure the reasoning actually corresponds to a picture of the world that makes sense. I don’t know what early physicists meant by ”wave particle duality”. I kind of know something those words can refer to in QFT. I think. Partially. What are your thoughts on this? (I like your discussion towards the end.)
What they meant by it was that they were confused. That confusion lifted in 1932, latest. Whoever mentions the concept after that doesn't understand physics.
WOW, Einstein is so underrated. Yes, he is the personification of Genius, but many (including myself) think that that is because of the Relativity but he has done so much more than relativity. I admired him before, now I think he was an alien, he has made so many contributions to Physics that he deserved 10 Nobels, not 1.
Wien deserves more credit, I did what I could in my video about the blackbody radiation and what Planck actually did ruclips.net/video/gXeAp_lyj9s/видео.html
Interesting that you mention this work, I had originally included the first hints to the 1916-1917 papers on radiation by Einstein but then I had to remove this part because it took the story in a tangent. But yes, I will make sure to come back to this work in the near future.
I didn't quite understand why it would be more particle like at high frequencies (or low wavelengths) and wave like at low frequencies? Isn't the electromagnetic spectrum continuous and therefore all any frequency is lower or higher relative to any reference point? Or is it all in reference to the planck length? Can someone explain?
@@jkzeroThanks for sharing but can you share how does someone not get blred and tired or frustrated and fed up with thekong calculations like the one you linked at 7:52 or with math in general ? Thanks and hope to hear from you.
I disagree with the analogy at the end of the video. When describing the light wave-particle duality theory, we are dealing with unknown unknowns and abstracted away from the reality by layers of calculations with some foundational assumptions. In the case of the gameboy and Walkman, we can clearly define the terms and its is not at all surprising that one device could have both functionality.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
So does this mean quantum objects like photons and electrons are neither a wave nor a particle but a new entity call a wave packet that has a dual characteristics?
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
More than a wave packet, the more correct term is "fields;" photons and electrons are excitations of the corresponding photon field and electron field.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
Sonwhere is the math that shows N is not just a counting of wavemodes related to emissions from the material of the cavity, aka how many quantas worth of wave energy is in there? I don't see a duality just an accountant counting energy.
Another duality, of “at least 2”, shows up with lossless sampling: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem Now imagine breaking that barrier.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
@@hyperduality2838 Oh hello, it's you again. You responded to one of my comments in the past. I guess that makes this a dual response. LOL How's the personality?
@@Naomi_Boyd All messages are dual. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information. "Mathematics is the language of nature" -- Galileo. If mathematics is a language then it is dual -- nature is dual. Messages, languages, codes are dual -- photons or pure energy. Cells, neurons, observers are sending messages to each other all the time via photons. Locality (classical) is dual to non locality (quantum) -- quantum entanglement or quantum messages. Photons or light are message carriers -- probability waves. Atoms are talking to each other all the time -- temperature or hot is dual to cold. Duality creates reality.
It has to do with the quantum system the photon is interacting with. In The metal, there are discrete energy levels deriving from the structure of the material, therefore to extract an electron I need to give it at least the amount of energy that separates it from the potential of the vacuum of the other side of the metal/vacuum interface. This quantity is a constant dependent on the properties of the metal and is known as its "work function". A free electron is different, it can take on any energy level, so when a photon interacts with it the energy can be distributed between the two in a continuum of states. However, they also need to obey momentum conservation, which is why the electrons taking part in compton scattering are not actually free, but bound to nuclei with which they can exchange the excess momentum needed to obey energy and momentum conservation at the same time. The electron can still be thought as approximately free because the energy of the incoming photon is high, so that the discrete gap bounding it to the nucleus is negligible compared to it. So it actually all depends on the energy of the incoming photon: if it is very high compared to the electron's binding energy, then you can have Compton scattering, if it isn't, you won't
@@raffaeledivora9517 That was a beautiful explanation. Thank you very much for that. So if I understand correctly, the photon is not an indivisible packet of energy, and the actual "quantumness" is exclusively a property of the electron who's ability to absorb light energy and convert it into kinetic energy is dependent on its state. Well, that just makes everything make sense. Thank you again.
It is always like a great video. I am curious to know why your videos come such a long time because if you make one video per month it is going to take several years to reach current theories. I truly appreciate your efforts and passion for making videos but just curious to know if somehow can increase the frequency of videos while keeping the same quality and real scientific event with a storytelling style.
Thanks, this channel is a one-person show and since I have a day-job, every video gets researched, written, scripted, recorded, produced, and edited in my free time. I could easily push to make two videos per month but the quality would be highly affected. I would not feel comfortable and satisfied with low-quality videos for the sake of quantity.
@ Thank you very much for your reply I can understand now how the videos are uploaded so thank you very much for your all efforts to bring us the most interesting, motivating and alive our curiosity. I truly appreciate the time and effort you are making for these videos. So many curious people like me are always eagerly waiting for your new videos. We always support you in any case, I request you to please continue making these kinds of quality videos regularly.
It is very confusing calling a massless quantity for a particle independently which other properties it exhibits as the masses are so central and to be honest, not explained at all until today. Light quanta is a good name for photons.
Mass is effective mass. It's just an effective dispersion relation, not a fundamental quantity. There is ontologically no difference between massive and massless field quanta. They are all combinations of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. The only difference is the relationship between energy and momentum.
I tend to think of light in terms of impulse and resonance. The wave nature is an artifact of the mathematics. Particle nature is a prior in the mathematics and is an error. The question is what is continuity in physics AND this goes back to Zeno and is still unresolved.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual. Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology. Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual. All life is built from proteins. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
@@hyperduality2838 You still don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to talk about duality, learn to think carefully and with precision first.
@@drdca8263 All messages are dual. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information. "Mathematics is the language of nature" -- Galileo. If mathematics is a language then it is dual -- nature is dual. Messages, languages, codes are dual -- photons or pure energy. Cells, neurons, observers are sending messages to each other all the time via photons. Locality (classical) is dual to non locality (quantum) -- quantum entanglement or quantum messages. Photons or light are message carriers -- probability waves. Atoms are talking to each other all the time -- temperature or hot is dual to cold. Duality creates reality. Sense is dual to nonsense -- you are using duality to claim that duality does not exist.
From an educational perspective matrix mechanics is actually a far better approach than the Schroedinger equation because you can still see what is happening. By the time you go down the Schroedinger rabbit hole quantum mechanics becomes somewhat opaque. It doesn't become wrong, linear operators are the correct extension of matrices for continuous variables, but they don't have indices and so it's not so obvious what they stand for and how the theory actually connects to measured quantities.
The video title is a misnomer: studying the statistical distribution of emissions by electrons tells you something about ELECTRONS. I don't understand why some people bend over backwards to claim "quantization of light ", while observing electron dynamics.
I have received comments about my pronunciation of "Statistical Mechanics" sounding like "Sadistical Mechanics," which I do not intend to fix because it is accurate :D
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/JKzero/ and get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Why tho? We have AI now.
there is no suck thing as a particle. even atoms are not "particles". Particle is pseudo. Pseudo like "force". Are smoke rings particles? According to stpd scientists logic, yes. But reality - FKNO.
@@hyperduality2838 "Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers."
One can also model them with only real numbers.
"Photons or pure energy"
Which one is it? Or do you want to claim that photons are the same as "pure energy"? Why?
"probability waves are dual"
Why?
"All life is built from proteins."
Not only, it also consists of a _lot_ of other stuff.
@@ChadKovacwhy what though sorry?
A hundred times yes to a video about matrix mechanics. The usual quasi-historical presentation of Planck-Einstein relation -> Bohr model -> de Broglie relation -> Schrödinger equation is fairly intuitive and easy to understand mathematically, but I find it also obscures a lot of the inner workings of QM and has some pedagogical pitfalls (like making it easy to confuse fields and wave functions). I was also pleasantly surprised by Jordan's comment about the additivity of entropy. Too often do we neglect to mention how involved statistical mechanics was (and is) in fundamental physics.
50 years ago I was taught the wave equation but not matrix mechanics. I’d love to learn about that.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
+1 yes to matrix mechanics !
An intro to first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon.
@@jkzero yay, I'm excited because you provide great insight into historical point of view!
The standard presentation mentions 'Heisenberg picture' and he is known for the uncertainty principle the most, forgetting the impact that matrix mechanics had historically. It was *the* method for a few years, and he got the Nobel prize for it alone - before Schrödinger
I am starting to see why Einstein is considered a Legend in physics community. Brownian motion, Light Quantization and Photo Electric effect, and now the wave particle duality etc all explained with such solid physics reasoning and logic that even people who dont agree with him, cannot ignore. Any one of these topics would be enough to give this man a Nobel prize, but all of them combined, and coming up with this totally out of world idea of special and General Relativity explaining the time dilation and Curving of space time ??
Like this man has done enough contribution of physics that would take many of us life times to even come close. No wonder he is a the Mascot of Genius.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
I am glad you get the idea. I like to say that Einstein is highly underrated, sure he is the stereotype of genius but when you learn about his contribution, beyond relativity, you start realizing that the guy was the real deal. Also, the usual portrait of a "quantum hater" as shown in popular books is totally wrong, the guy was pro-quantum when Niels Bohr was still an undergraduate student playing football.
I love your videos. The combination of history, technical details, and elaboration are so engaging and enjoyable. Thank you very much for making these.
Thank you very much!
In my opinion, this by far the best theoretical video on the subject I've seen so far. I've even watched it multiple times! The actual math is going at an extremely high speed, which is I guess okay, because otherwise this would be a very long video. I think though that on a detail level it will be difficult to follow along for many viewers. But I very much appreciate the general overview that it also contains: how the fluctuations in energy in a confined system holding electromagnetic radiation can be described as a combination of wave and quantized properties, whose relative importance is dependent on the frequencies contained in that system. In a way that aligns quite well with my own view that a photon is merely a quantized interaction between radiation and matter (or vice versa). If you think about how energy fluctuations can come about in a system , it's only because of energy interaction / exchange with the external system. Depending on the nature of the interaction and wavelength, the interaction will bring out the wave- or quantum nature of radiation. The reason that I personally consider the photon to be an interaction is that it allows me to easily make sense of interference and diffraction experiments with light. Anyway, your videos are top notch, so please keep making them!
8:58 That is so gorgeous. The main feature that determines how quantum objects behave is their wavelength. Low wavelength, high frequency objects behave like particles, so high energy photons such as gamma rays participate in processes such as Compton scattering which is basically an elastic collision between billiard balls.
Whereas large wavelength, low frequency objects behave like waves because we can measure their wavelike properties more easily (since obviously their wavelength is larger). This corresponds to things such as electrons in energy eigenstates of the atom, or low energy infrared photon absorbance causing molecules to oscillate with the wave.
That the low frequency and high frequency fluctuations are given exactly by the number of wave modes and quanta respectfully is an *exact* illustration of this duality.
As always, your videos are as informative as they are entertaining. Keep it up!
Dr. Diaz, the math and your smartphone analogy make the wave particle duality of light simple in a way my professors never did. Outstanding.
Thanks, I came up with this silly analogy long ago and I wasn't sure if I should include it, so I am glad that you found it useful
It's amzing that general result is exact sum of particle and wave limits
This result is such a beauty
if you watch his fine structure constant video, he says that within an electron orbit, there are sub orbits. So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit, then, some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter.
"True, nobody accepted his idea, but his physical reasoning and calculations were flawless"
How to impress the scientific community through sheer balls
That is how you defend an idea: provide solid physical and mathematical foundations so nobody can ignore it, then drop the mic and move on to develop a new theory of gravitation (General Relativity).
@@jkzero it used to be like that. Today you need approval of the community to even try posting on arxiv, or be part of an institution to even be considered for peer-review in a journal.
I'm don't wish to defend unsound reasoning without solid mathematical ground that plagues the work of many outside spammers. Just saying 'pure quality of reason' is no longer enough because it won't even get noticed
one of the best video series on youtube. I eagerly await each new episode
Excellent, thanks for watching. I am having a blast presenting all this content that it is usually left out in QM lectures and textbooks
2 very pretty equations today. What is the meaning of the first one- variance of energy = partial derivative of average energy wrt beta. Is that not a form of entropy?
Thanks so much for your continuous support.
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your generous support.
That the relative energy fluctuation works out to 1/M+1/N is kind of cool.
I find that result quite awesome
Woah, that's an interesting analogy on wave-particle duality of life. I've always assumed before that it's both a wave and a particle, but somewhere I learned that it's not a wave, it's not a particle, but it's also not both. That cellphone analogy makes it a bit easier to digest now.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
I came up with this silly analogy long ago and I wasn't sure if I should include it, so I am glad that you found it useful
Fascinating video. I had never heard about Einstein's calculation of the energy fluctuations, super clear exposition of this
I am pretty sure that even many physicists don't know about this
Amazing video! I can't believe how beautifully you've tied everything together. Even those little side mentions of Bose's new method and Uncertainty principle hiding in plain sight, I wanted you to go deeper into! So fascinating
Thanks, I am glad when people appreciate also the little details that I like to include
Excellent video, as always! I'm really excited for the next videos on the De Broglie postulates and other developments in the history of Quantum Mechanics
An intro to first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon.
Absolutely wonderful video! Thanks for going further into the history and math of the light wave-particle duality! The De Broglie teaser surely sounds nice!
I think we are now ready for de Broglie's theory
I did not know that Einsteins works of 1905 were not recognized for a long time. Intresting!
Thank you for the video.
Oh yeah, people celebrated his papers on Brownian motion and special relativity, but ignored him completely on his paper of light quanta (the one incorrectly called "photoelectric-effect paper"). If you watch my video about Compton effect (ruclips.net/video/Ap9os356CZA/видео.html), which completely confirmed Einstein's hypothesis on light quanta, you can see several instances in which people like Planck celebrated and supported Einstein although they considered his light-quanta to be nonsense. Even Bohr during his Nobel lecture in 1922 insisted that light quanta were not a real thing.
The fact that 1/M and 1/N are added instead of multiplied indicates their relationship. Two sides of a square are multiplied to get the area, but two squared sides are added to get the square of the hypotenuse.
So the question is what does the hypotenuse of 1/M + 1/N represent? Figure that out and you figure out how the object is producing both.
My hypothesis is: the field itself or time. Or to put it another way: √(1/M + 1/N). This simplifies to √(N+M/M•N), which is √(/) = Eᵥ (Volume of Energy).
Since E simplifies to bare time³, then Eᵥ = 𝘵³, which is to say, the velocity of time, generating a 3×3 temporal matrix field. At its center is a particle, and its boundary produces the wave.
As the wave (boundary) expands, its mass increases. This effect increases when the field interacts with other fields. So while the wave does no work, the field works to give mass and the density of the field causes repulsion.
The field is not a background, but a mathematical bubble relative to other similar fields.
Dr, I simply love your videos. With the addition of mathematics, it me realise how these scientists arrived to their discoveries and conclusions, even though the math is beyond my scope. However, your narration when u present the equations and how u manipulate them to arrive to the result, makes it Simpler for a person like me to follow along. Thank you for hard work you put in, making these high quality, well researched complex topics for us.
Very nice video, and I think you make the central point about duality very well.
Thanks, glad you liked it
Love the videos. They're always an instant must watch once I get the notification. Keep up the great work
Awesome, thank you!
incredibly unsubtle hint that QFT might be a topic later... very awesome thank u for these videos they are genuinely works of art, I like how u don't shy away from the math it feels less like you've plucked ideas out of thin air and makes them feel more like the rigorous ideas based in what was known at the time
I like to present ideas and developments that at less known but always providing the sources to the originals so anybody can go and check by themselves, there is no need to believe me, the math is there, which is the best way to support wild claims
Absolutely goated video please keep making them i am a physics student and love these videos
Great job on a really challenging topic!
Following you the whole series. Excellent videos, as well as aspiring, I have always wanted to see the matrix mechanics in QM but haven't come by; it would be great if you could make a video on it. And can you tell me where you are finding these original papers?
An intro to the first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon. All of Einstein's papers can be found in the link below; however, I don't include the translations in my videos because they are copyrighted einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/
Wonderfulf, please continue! Can't wait to hear about De Briglie and Heisenberg
An intro to the first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon.
Clearest presentation of the duality of C in recent time. Very enjoyable.
Great Video! The mix of physics (& Math) with History offers a level of clarity seldom seen. Keep it up!
Excellent video! This channel is the best. It explains thing without dumbing it down. I love the historical references, and how you explain how these things developed and how the interactions between the scientist were at the time.
I would love a video on matrix mechanics too.
Also: I read that something called SeaStar algebra represents a potentially deeper and more fundamental approach to quantum mechanics than the Hilbert space formalism. Do you know anything about this, and perhaps also how it can solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics?
An intro to the first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon.
I am not sure about SeaStar, maybe you mean C*-algebras, which is a set of mathematical conditions used for some types of Hilbert spaces, very relevant in quantum mechanics. There are also objects called c-numbers used by Dirac in the early days of quantum mechanics.
@@jkzero Seems like I misunderstood. I knew about the C* algebra, but I was under the impression SeaStar was something more than C*, but probably just because I did not investigate what I heard on a physics podcast enough.
Thanks!
The best educational channel I have ever seen ❤❤❤❤ thanks for the big effort in making these wonderful videos ❤ hope the series will continue tell the last black hole evapotets❤❤
Love your videos. Thank you for making them.
this series is the best!! i’ve been so excited every time a new one comes out.
i can’t wait to follow the whole series and take notes along the way to really feel the equations
Thanks, I am glad you find the content of interest
Still haven't finished the video yet but it is interesting to see that it's denoted as . I am taking a (rather) introductory course on Statistics right now and we use E bar for denoting the expected value in the moment. That said, our E is expected value and not energy so it might be different. Still, Einstein did denote it as E bar in 4:25, so.
I think the bar is most commonly used by mathematicians; physicists used it until modern quantum mechanics appeared (mid-1920s) because the bar over a symbol can lead to misunderstandings when it is used for complex conjugation or spinor notation. The notation avoids that problem and it directly matches its use when Dirac notation gets introduced later.
10:58 1/M + 1/N very satisfying!!
beautiful, isn't?
The fact that the matrix mechanics paper casually invented some of modern quantum mechanics just to get additive entropy sounds so insane
I am with you here, love the fact that Jordan just added this at the end of the paper as extra material but it completely started a new field and a new way of doing fundamental physics
Notes are very good and well explained 👍👍
Thanks for the checking the notes
I’d like to see some numerical examples to fully appreciate the role of wave modes vs. photons in different circumstances.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
Thank you so much for these videos, they are incredible!!!
I just realized that I have been answering the question wrong. “Is light a particle or a wave?” I’d usually answer yes.
Now I am understanding it’s neither but it’s a quantum object that exhibits properties of both. 20:03
The de Broglie teaser demands I keep coming back!!!
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
I am glad that the video can be eye opening. de Broglie coming soon.
I love the way that most fundamental physics is explained through an historical perspective on the derivation of matters and equations... Including the historical discussions and motivations.. It's very useful to understand where all this quantum physics come from. Today I just had a huge surprise to see that again a quantum concept comes from statistical mechanics...and I was thrilled to see how the seed to QFT appears already in a 1925 book by Jordan et al. Wonderful. Wooah!!!
Glad you liked it! Yeah, I find it fascinating that the last part of a paper casually starts a new way of doing physics, I had to share that detail.
The problem with the historical path to quantum physics is that it's false. They guessed the final result correctly, but most of the concepts that were used along the way are 100% false, so you are basically learning all the wrong lessons and none of the correct ones. The idea that quantum mechanics comes from statistical mechanics is certainly false. Quantum mechanics is a non-commutative solution of Kolmogorov's axioms, but it is NOT a slightly different version of statistical mechanics. The latter requires contact between thermal baths, while quantum mechanics requires complete isolation.
Here! It! Is! The video I've been waiting for, for so long! Thank you! I'm going to make some coffee and enjoy this.
Hope you enjoyed it
My mind is blown once again!
You are welcome :)
Well worth the wait. Another incredible video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you Doc for your vids, I binge watched all of them after last Tuesday and they have been very helpful to my sanity. Seeing this one come up on my recommendations was joyous.
Thanks for watching, great timing
Hmmm wouldn't the energy fluctuation formula show the distinction between wave and particle nature of light since M and N are accounted for separately?
How far can the values of M and N be from each other?
Are the number of wavemodes and the number of quanta even independent from each other?
Your content could be a really good basis for a semester-long elective for non-physics, technical majors with an interest in physics and history. Call it Classical to Quantum: The History and Development of Modern Physics, with the lectures being akin to your videos showing the historical context for each development, the course work being working through the mathematics to arrive at the results, and a final project of choosing and writing a paper/video demonstration of the development of some result in their major field. I think it could offer a unique way to develop scientific communication skills. I would've jumped at it as a young engineering student 😁
The majority of educational resources I've interacted with (articles, lecture series, videos, etc) seem to be written for either an expert in that field or a layman without a scientific background. Neither is bad, but they both require a lot of additional reading to understand fully (either for context in the former or more detail in the latter). Your videos fall perfectly in the middle, a splendid balance of history and mathematics, where I rarely feel other texts are a prerequisite for a full understanding of the topic presented.
Apologies for the long comment. Keep up the great work! I always look forward to your videos
I appreciate the long comment. You got me, what you see as video episodes here are my dream course to teach. I am sure that many STEM students would love to have such an introduction to modern physics filling the gap between superficial presentations and systematic courses on the relevant topics. I even think that this should be mandatory for physics students. I was one many years ago but I was never taught most of the stories that I have presented here. Many physics students and professional physicists have written to me because they had no idea about many of the stories and calculations presented here. So yes, thanks for the encouragement, it is one of my goals turn my notes into a course and/or a book one day.
3:33 How did Einstein come up with the idea to determine this derivative (the change of the average energy by the change of β (1/kT))? What was his physical motivation for this?
There is no physical motivation, it is a standard trick in statistical mechanics, in which there is a function called the "partition function" that can be used to generate many thermodynamical quantities by taking derivatives. Using this approach, taking the derivative of the average energy in reality is hiding a derivative of the partition function. In other words, after you take any introductory course on statistical mechanics and this is almost a natural to do.
Ladies and gentlemen the wait is over 🔥
Another fantastic video. Einstein was and will always be the real deal. The gigaChad of physics.
No fear to propose new ideas, all backed by absolute solid theoretical background.
I like to say that Einstein is highly underrated, sure he is the stereotype of genius but when you learn about his contribution, beyond relativity, you start realizing that the guy was the real deal.
Just like spectrum is separated by alpha (1/137), could wave and particle also be separated by an exponential of Alpha? (Fine structure of atom video)
"Just like spectrum is separated by alpha (1/137)"
What is that supposed to mean?
"could wave and particle also be separated by an exponential of Alpha"
Here it is even _more_ unclear what that is supposed to mean.
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 if you watch his video, he says that within an electron orbit, there are sub orbits. So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit, then, some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter.
if you watch his video, he says that within an electron orbit, there are sub orbits. So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit, then, some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter.
@@MrPandyaketan I watched the video. He said nothing like that at all! He does not even mention the word "orbit"! And the video is about photons, not about electrons!
"So if 1/137 applies to waves and electron orbit"
Again: What is that supposed to mean? Where did you get that from?
"some exponential correlation also applies to waves and matter"
Again: What is that supposed to mean?
Thank you so much for the deep study combined with the historical context.
I loved the iPhone analogy. In a similar fashion, the measurement procedure forces the quantum system to give you a result that you know how to interpret, but this measurement only gives us one aspect of the true nature of a quantum system.
Thanks, I came up with this silly analogy long ago and I wasn't sure if I should include it, so I am glad that you found it useful
Jorge, you're so close to figuring this out. A photon is not a particle, it's a quantity of energy transmission over a period of time. It's not a wave either, but rather a pulse of energy transmission in a wave-like pattern. Like water being sprayed from a sprinkler. You wouldn't think of a pulse of water as a discrete object. A pulse that repeats itself is also not a series of objects but rather a fluctuating continuous stream.
So absolutely well done. Kudos!
Another excellent lecture! Thank you so much!
Thank you for this video. Somehow I never heard of this derivation, and now I really want to sit and profoundly think about what this means. Thank you again for showing me something Idid not know about. And of course, as always, you do this with an incredible video and explanation
What it means is that somebody doesn't understand physics.
This is excellent! Looking forward to the next video.
Thanks, I am glad you liked the video.
Wow! I never appreciated this mathematical demonstration of light’s duality! Yes, do a matrix mechanics video!
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
@ keep your quackery to yourself okay?
@@NemosRUclips Quackery = nonsense.
All messages are dual.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information.
"Mathematics is the language of nature" -- Galileo.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual -- nature is dual.
Messages, languages, codes are dual -- photons or pure energy.
Cells, neurons, observers are sending messages to each other all the time via photons.
Locality (classical) is dual to non locality (quantum) -- quantum entanglement or quantum messages.
Photons or light are message carriers -- probability waves.
Atoms are talking to each other all the time -- temperature or hot is dual to cold.
Duality creates reality.
Sense is dual to nonsense -- you are using duality to claim that duality does not exist.
@@hyperduality2838 you don’t know how to take a hint, do you?
@@hyperduality2838 can I suggest that you at least look into eastern philosophy and the concept of non-duality?
Your videos made me want to study math and physics again.
Thankyou so much for your video and all your work. If it can't be absorbed it bounces back?
Thank you for this ❤
Btw, on Einstein's assertion that light itself is quantized into photons (instead of quantization being a mathematical trick), I've seen sources that present the idea that instead of light being composed of flying photon "dots" while in travel, photons are actually _events_ occurring at the detector. The quantization ultimately manifests when *light and matter interact* . Notable sources are videos from the channel Huygens Optics:
ruclips.net/video/NVqT2Gbrvxs/видео.htmlfeature=shared
ruclips.net/video/5V8VCFkAd0A/видео.htmlfeature=shared
ruclips.net/video/gijtzP8iVzs/видео.htmlfeature=shared
ruclips.net/video/SDtAh9IwG-I/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Any thoughts on this?
Nobody who understands physics thinks of photons as flying through space. We teach in high school that a photon is a small amount of energy. It's not a thing. It doesn't move. It's simply the amount of energy that transfers from the electromagnetic field into e.g. a metal plate in the photoelectric effect. That does not mean that quantization is a matter interaction effect, either. Matter is caused by the same quantum field as the free electromagnetic field. The quantization is an inherent property of that field.
Please, show us the matrix mechanics!
An intro to the first breakthrough by Heisenberg and the follow-up matrix mechanics will come soon.
Your videos are really high quality and the content is fantastic!
I have some thoughts on the topic. Long post. Feel free to skip!
TLDR; Do you think of wave particle duality in the same way when you think of the early history of physics and when you think of QFT?
(Edit: You answer this partially towards the end of the video.)
In modern physics the current best understanding that is verified is based on quantum field theory.
In quantum field theory there are the solutions of various equations that represent the fields and their couplings.
For example the Maxwell-field or the Dirac field or the Higgs field.
Those equations without couplings between them can be described as wave equations.
The bosons are second order and the fermions kind of are as well even though it’s not manifest in the standard form.
In quantum field theory there is then also a superposition of Fock-space states.
The interpretation in quantum field theory as far as I can tell is roughly that for states that can be constructed using only a sequence of creation operators (and not a super position of many sequences), those states would be said to have a well defined number of ”particles”.
That’s essentially what I take ”particles” to be referring to.
But each creation operator comes multiplied by a wave mode solution.
(This is all before considering field couplings and the reasoning mostly make sense when the coupling is weak etc.)
But.
When using language like this, ”particles” really don’t have much to do with point-particles as referred to in classical physics.
There is the aspect that it’s something that you can count. Sure. But they don’t have an order or distinguishability. Just a number. More like the dimensionality of a space. Or a subspace. Which kind of is what they are in a more precise way.
All the notion about being localized or spread out are properties that belong to the spacial shape of the modes.
Particular superpositions might have a localized profile. And there is some change of basis of the whole state that would bring that out. But still.
When I hear talk about the historical development of QM, the word wave-particle duality is often mentioned.
I just don’t get the feeling that people have the same intuitions about those words that would make sense from a modern QFT-perspective.
I’m not it that matters that much.
I just find that I had to undo a lot of intuitions when I got to QFT, that I had gotten from how all the words were used historically and in textbooks about introductory QM.
Maybe there are parts that I’m still getting wrong here.
There are probably other ways to cache out the meanings of the words.
Some of which make sense but are mutually incompatible. Some of which don’t make sense.
For such reasons, I find that sometimes reading the history of the field can accidentally act to confuse people more than if they had looked carefully at QFT and tried to give parts of the equations relevant names.
Doing that would probably be a bad introduction to physics on its own. But still.
From a modern perspective I think we should say that these early papers were brilliant and got the right answers and are worth studying. But even if understood correctly, they kind of give the right answers for partially the wrong reasons.
And that’s fine.
I’m just not sure the reasoning actually corresponds to a picture of the world that makes sense.
I don’t know what early physicists meant by ”wave particle duality”.
I kind of know something those words can refer to in QFT. I think. Partially.
What are your thoughts on this?
(I like your discussion towards the end.)
What they meant by it was that they were confused. That confusion lifted in 1932, latest. Whoever mentions the concept after that doesn't understand physics.
WOW, Einstein is so underrated. Yes, he is the personification of Genius, but many (including myself) think that that is because of the Relativity but he has done so much more than relativity. I admired him before, now I think he was an alien, he has made so many contributions to Physics that he deserved 10 Nobels, not 1.
Great video. I appreciate your efforts❤
Thank you for mentioning Wien's Law. Everyone always breezes over his (imo) more closely-fitting model
Wien deserves more credit, I did what I could in my video about the blackbody radiation and what Planck actually did ruclips.net/video/gXeAp_lyj9s/видео.html
I'm petitioning for a video on how Einstein predicted stimulated emission (lasers). :)
Interesting that you mention this work, I had originally included the first hints to the 1916-1917 papers on radiation by Einstein but then I had to remove this part because it took the story in a tangent. But yes, I will make sure to come back to this work in the near future.
@@jkzero Awesome! Can't wait for it, and other great episodes :)
Delivered, as PROMISED!!!
Thank you, Doctor!!!
18:14 Please do it. It needs the attention.
One book missing in your math book recommendations: Div Grad Curl and All That by H.M. Schey.
I didn't quite understand why it would be more particle like at high frequencies (or low wavelengths) and wave like at low frequencies? Isn't the electromagnetic spectrum continuous and therefore all any frequency is lower or higher relative to any reference point? Or is it all in reference to the planck length? Can someone explain?
It’s hard to imagine a radio wave with photons!
You are amazing Professor 😍
Thanks, I appreciate that. One of the reason that I started this channel is that I miss teaching.
What a fucking cliffhanger!
de Broglie coming soon, I think we are ready for this
@@jkzeroThanks for sharing but can you share how does someone not get blred and tired or frustrated and fed up with thekong calculations like the one you linked at 7:52 or with math in general ? Thanks and hope to hear from you.
I disagree with the analogy at the end of the video. When describing the light wave-particle duality theory, we are dealing with unknown unknowns and abstracted away from the reality by layers of calculations with some foundational assumptions.
In the case of the gameboy and Walkman, we can clearly define the terms and its is not at all surprising that one device could have both functionality.
The "+" sign in Einstein's formula is very important: it can be the starting point of the Complementary Principle by N. Bohr in 1927.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
Exactly!
So does this mean quantum objects like photons and electrons are neither a wave nor a particle but a new entity call a wave packet that has a dual characteristics?
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
More than a wave packet, the more correct term is "fields;" photons and electrons are excitations of the corresponding photon field and electron field.
Can you share video code?
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
sure, I can post my ugly code on GitHub
Sonwhere is the math that shows N is not just a counting of wavemodes related to emissions from the material of the cavity, aka how many quantas worth of wave energy is in there? I don't see a duality just an accountant counting energy.
Another duality, of “at least 2”, shows up with lossless sampling: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Now imagine breaking that barrier.
@2:11 "a course in sadistics"?
So how is the energy of the photon indivisible in the photoelectric effect but divisible in Compton scattering?
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
@@hyperduality2838 Oh hello, it's you again. You responded to one of my comments in the past. I guess that makes this a dual response. LOL
How's the personality?
@@Naomi_Boyd All messages are dual.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information.
"Mathematics is the language of nature" -- Galileo.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual -- nature is dual.
Messages, languages, codes are dual -- photons or pure energy.
Cells, neurons, observers are sending messages to each other all the time via photons.
Locality (classical) is dual to non locality (quantum) -- quantum entanglement or quantum messages.
Photons or light are message carriers -- probability waves.
Atoms are talking to each other all the time -- temperature or hot is dual to cold.
Duality creates reality.
It has to do with the quantum system the photon is interacting with. In The metal, there are discrete energy levels deriving from the structure of the material, therefore to extract an electron I need to give it at least the amount of energy that separates it from the potential of the vacuum of the other side of the metal/vacuum interface. This quantity is a constant dependent on the properties of the metal and is known as its "work function".
A free electron is different, it can take on any energy level, so when a photon interacts with it the energy can be distributed between the two in a continuum of states. However, they also need to obey momentum conservation, which is why the electrons taking part in compton scattering are not actually free, but bound to nuclei with which they can exchange the excess momentum needed to obey energy and momentum conservation at the same time. The electron can still be thought as approximately free because the energy of the incoming photon is high, so that the discrete gap bounding it to the nucleus is negligible compared to it. So it actually all depends on the energy of the incoming photon: if it is very high compared to the electron's binding energy, then you can have Compton scattering, if it isn't, you won't
@@raffaeledivora9517 That was a beautiful explanation. Thank you very much for that. So if I understand correctly, the photon is not an indivisible packet of energy, and the actual "quantumness" is exclusively a property of the electron who's ability to absorb light energy and convert it into kinetic energy is dependent on its state. Well, that just makes everything make sense. Thank you again.
It's a long journey but I can't wait to the Schrodinger equation Andy quantum field theory QFT❤
It is always like a great video. I am curious to know why your videos come such a long time because if you make one video per month it is going to take several years to reach current theories. I truly appreciate your efforts and passion for making videos but just curious to know if somehow can increase the frequency of videos while keeping the same quality and real scientific event with a storytelling style.
Thanks, this channel is a one-person show and since I have a day-job, every video gets researched, written, scripted, recorded, produced, and edited in my free time. I could easily push to make two videos per month but the quality would be highly affected. I would not feel comfortable and satisfied with low-quality videos for the sake of quantity.
@ Thank you very much for your reply I can understand now how the videos are uploaded so thank you very much for your all efforts to bring us the most interesting, motivating and alive our curiosity. I truly appreciate the time and effort you are making for these videos. So many curious people like me are always eagerly waiting for your new videos. We always support you in any case, I request you to please continue making these kinds of quality videos regularly.
You inspired me
It is very confusing calling a massless quantity for a particle independently which other properties it exhibits as the masses are so central and to be honest, not explained at all until today. Light quanta is a good name for photons.
Mass is effective mass. It's just an effective dispersion relation, not a fundamental quantity. There is ontologically no difference between massive and massless field quanta. They are all combinations of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. The only difference is the relationship between energy and momentum.
I feel like there is a better way to express complex concepts without using bulky and confusing equations.
Yes to a matrix mechanics video.
it is in the pipeline
I tend to think of light in terms of impulse and resonance. The wave nature is an artifact of the mathematics. Particle nature is a prior in the mathematics and is an error. The question is what is continuity in physics AND this goes back to Zeno and is still unresolved.
I don’t think there’s any real issue with continuity.
Calculus works.
Photons or light is modelled with complex numbers.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Photons or pure energy is dual -- probability waves are dual.
Structure (syntax) is dual to function (semantics) -- proteins in biology.
Protein shape or structure determines their function or behaviour (purpose) -- protein folding is dual.
All life is built from proteins.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
@@hyperduality2838 You still don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you want to talk about duality, learn to think carefully and with precision first.
@@drdca8263 All messages are dual.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information.
"Mathematics is the language of nature" -- Galileo.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual -- nature is dual.
Messages, languages, codes are dual -- photons or pure energy.
Cells, neurons, observers are sending messages to each other all the time via photons.
Locality (classical) is dual to non locality (quantum) -- quantum entanglement or quantum messages.
Photons or light are message carriers -- probability waves.
Atoms are talking to each other all the time -- temperature or hot is dual to cold.
Duality creates reality.
Sense is dual to nonsense -- you are using duality to claim that duality does not exist.
can you prove it mathematically?
"Hej, what's new?"
"c over lambda"
Yes please. Tell us the story about matrix mechanics and why it was apparently not an entirely satisfactory approach.
This will come soon.
From an educational perspective matrix mechanics is actually a far better approach than the Schroedinger equation because you can still see what is happening. By the time you go down the Schroedinger rabbit hole quantum mechanics becomes somewhat opaque. It doesn't become wrong, linear operators are the correct extension of matrices for continuous variables, but they don't have indices and so it's not so obvious what they stand for and how the theory actually connects to measured quantities.
How do I get fully free access to Brilliant? I am unable to pay the money. Is there any equivalent of Brillant?
using the link in the description you get access to Brilliant free for 30 days
vamos 🎉
The video title is a misnomer: studying the statistical distribution of emissions by electrons tells you something about ELECTRONS. I don't understand why some people bend over backwards to claim "quantization of light ", while observing electron dynamics.
Like.
Thanks for watching
To the concluding question posed at the end of this video, Yes, just look at an Electron Microscope
Statistical mechanics + Quantum mechanics = Sadistical mechanics 😄
I have received comments about my pronunciation of "Statistical Mechanics" sounding like "Sadistical Mechanics," which I do not intend to fix because it is accurate :D