Hey! Parth,you are one of my favourite people on the RUclips now I got an interest on Quantum physics,probably 3 years ago and now I will soon enter college And I still love my physics as ever,I have an ambition to change the world with my physics knowledge And be the Einstein of early 21st century,seems cool right... Anyways I want to hear a topic by you! Because I love your explanations,thus I request you to explain one of my favourite topic Which is String theory (TOEs AND GUTs) with Quantum gravity Also mention the hypothetical probability of tensor too Thanks a lot man!.
What about discussing what I commented separately: doesn't seem like the wave facet of the particle only exists when it is many particles, when it is plural?, i.e. doesn't seem like a collective phenomenon and not the individual nature of the particle as such, which always manifests (AFAIK) as "dot"? Else: when does an individual particle manifests as wave at all?
Insightful!!! Much awaiting for an intuitive explanation behind the phase component of a wave function and how to explain aharonov-bohm effect using the same
Why can a gravitational lens create multiple pictures of the same object? How and why it is different from optical lens? Why it doesnt have a single focal point? Could you please make a video kn it. It would be so helpful for me to understand gravity, space time and more facts. Please try to make a video on it.
This is brilliant. I have heard so many other experts try to explain this concept. But this version really spoke to me. Thank you clearing this up for me in such a clear way. You are the best!
I have watched dozens of videos on this topic from very renowned channels, but this made the most sense to me with the "WHY" of the wave function. This and the video by science asylum are great, else feel incomplete.
Hi Parth, thank you for these videos. Can you create a playlist on solid state physics, electronic materials. While there are many videos on quantum physics and particle physics on youtube, solid-state physics related videos are rare.
Thank you for explaining the motivation for the wave function in comparison to the probability density. I was confused as to why we bothered with the wave function when the probability density seemed like the more "important" function.
The wave function doesn't represent any probability on its own. We always need to apply the Born rule. In case of a spatial distribution (in a spatial representation) the projection operator is simply a trivial unity operator. There is no physical equivalent for that, to begin with.
It seems to me that a wave function says something about the way a particle exists in space(time). What happens if we assume that spacetime is somehow made of wave functions?
@@alext5497 the wave function seems to be a mathematical description of something that exists virtually or as a virtual boson. The physics community has no answer to: where are the physics constants stored. I am suggesting that something can exist by virtue of being a carrier of the physics constants. I am further suggesting that whatever it is, the mathematical wave function describes it.
Just because the Copenhagen interpretation is more popular doesn’t mean that it’s correct. Maybe Everett was correct and wave functions don’t collapse. They branch into many worlds.
Hi! Thanks for your wonderful videos. Have you read about some criticism of the Copenhagen intepretation of QM? I'd like to recommend to you a fantastic book that explains some of the problems of notions such as the wave function telling us the probability of 'finding' something (which involves an observer that finds something), and proposes the alternative of the wave function informing us about the probability of a particle being present after the decoherence of the extended and blurry state in which the quantum object is. The book is called "Scientific Philosophy", and it's written by the astrophysicist and philosopher, Gustavo Romero. The main argument for his position comes from the fact that nowhere in the theory from where the formulation of the wave function comes we can find a reference to observers or measurements; such references are added ad hoc from outside the theory, and Romero suggests that they are the product of a) not having an axiomatized QM theory, and b) having theoretical physicist with poor training and knowledge of philosophical issues, from where the notions of the importance of measurements and observers come from, ideas that are too close to idealism, which tend to give to the human mind an important role in the determination properties and states of the external world. Hope this may be useful to you. Kind regards!
I don't think there are many physicists who believe that the Copenhagen interpretation implies any kind of special status for the human mind. Such ideas tend to come from non-physicists who misunderstand the physics.
@@gcewing I'm not so sure about what you say. My view is that: a) Most physicist that adhere to the CI also (and inadvertedly) adhere to an idealist position, placing onto the mind come relevant, or even necessary, role in the determination of quantum properties. And such adherence is suggested by the language used to speak about things such as how to interpret the information given by the wave function, among other examples. b) There are important physicist that explicitly think that mind has a fundamental role in the universe. One such scholar is John Wheeler.
4:43 - "… the wave function doesn't have to be real all the time - it can also be imaginary." This apt comment raises an interesting question: Can our math models, even ones as simple and incredibly useful as complex amplitudes, distort our understanding of reality as seen in experiments? For example, the distinction between real and imaginary quantum amplitudes arises solely from the structure and labeling of the complex plane. Aharonov-Bohm and other experiments demonstrate that only the _phase difference_ between two points has any meaning. In that sense, quantum amplitudes are more like pistons on a crankshaft since, unlike complex numbers, crankshafts similarly make no distinction between "real" and "imaginary" angles and phase differences. But Terry, this must be nothing more than a nitpick that makes no real difference? Try this: Take a vast room designed for problem-solving and run a line of masking tape down the middle. Tell everyone with a problem to solve to choose whichever side has resources that look more promising for their problem. While this efficiency-oriented strategy sounds innocuous enough, from that moment forward, solutions that involve _crossing_ the tape become implicitly forbidden and, in time, forgotten even as options. Similarly, thinking that the amplitudes of Schrödinger wave functions _are_ complex numbers locks out the idea that both the amplitudes might be anything other than abstract numbers, unrelated to any other phenomena in physics. That's unfortunate since, in this case, the real and imaginary labels are nothing more than a bit of math noise introduced by the "programming language" of complex numbers. They belong to humans and human cognitive styles, not physics. And _yes,_ everything I just said about complex numbers introducing non-physical noise also applies to the U(1) or unitary symmetry group. The physical systems that implement unitary group behaviors are neither matrices nor sets of unit-length complex numbers, and thinking they are is never a good idea. Matrices and complex numbers are nothing more than human models of the less noisy natural versions that show no more signs of real and imaginary axis distinctions than do crankshafts. So, a question: If the physical phenomena modeled by amplitudes and U(1) are _simpler_ than the very models we use to "abstract" them, is it possible folks might also be missing some absurdly simple connection between phase and other natural phenomena, simply by focusing too much and too confidently on the tape across the floor? Only time will tell. *Bonus: The Inverse Aharonov-Bohm Effect* Since this video also mentions Parth's earlier video on the Aharonov-Bohm effect, I can't resist mentioning a related example of how subtle boundaries can block problem-solving. There are two ways to represent a magnetic field: By using field lines, which is the version most folks know; or by using an entirely different set of directed lines that looks more like an abstract version of the quite real electron flow paths used to create magnetic fields. These more abstract lines extend well beyond the bounds of the actual field-generating electron flows and are called the "vector potential" of the magnetic field. The name reflects that, as with gravitational potential, these lines represent the potential energy of the magnetic field. The Aharonov-Bohm effect relies on a simple point: Relevant energy potentials _alter_ the phases of quantum wave functions. Thus, in principle, if you pass electrons through the nominally invisible and undetectable "vector potential" representation of a magnetic field, you should see changes in their behaviors if you can use the vector potential to create phase differences between them (sound familiar?). The simplest versions divert electrons to one side by creating measurable interference in their wave functions. For half a century, folks have focused on the side of the room in which classical solenoids create phase changes in electrons that then measurably divert electrons to one side. But what about the other side of the room? As Newton once noted, nature is fond of action-reaction. The Inverse Aharonov-Bohm effect thus is nothing more than this: If a solenoid can create a vector potential field that diverts electrons to one side, then the diversion of electrons should at the same time impart an equal and opposite transverse momentum into the solenoid, and do so by way of the "invisible" vector potential. I've not researched this idea of an Inverse Aharonov-Bohm idea yet, but if it's out there, it's not anywhere near the top of the literature, or I would have seen it already. ---------- Terry Bollinger SA BY 4.0 2022-06-22.22:30 EDT Wed sarxiv.org/apa.2022-06-22.2230.pdf Related: sarxiv.org/apa.2022-06-22.1331.pdf
Hello Terry Bollinger. I read your comment with interest, as I too have issues with the wave function, and have just posted a comment. If you are saying that the wave function is a mathematical inevtion to disguise the fact that phyisicists cant explain something. If so, I agree with you. I have been working on a radical hypothesis for an alternative to the standard model, which I believe is fundamentally flawed, at the fundamental level of the composition of the atom. The wave function has been applied to the electron, to try to explain something that is impossible. The standard model's description of the atom is where the nucleus is surrounded by an electron cloude, and the wave function predicts where the probable location of the elecron may be. So everyone just accepts that that is true, however, if you ditch the mathermatics, you realize they are trying to prove something that is impossible. How can it be possible for a single electron, as in the hydrogen atom, form a cloud filling a volume over 100 million times it's own volume. If the electron is wizzing around this volume at speed changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does the energy come from to intiate and maintain momentum? If the electron does move in this way, every time trajectory is changed, energy would be expended and dissipated as heat. Every atom would be dissipating heat, therefore allmatter would be radiating heat, which plainly it is not. This proves the standard mode is fundamentally flawed. If you are at all interested, I can give mos examples where the standard model is wrong, and logical solutions. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 You are using the old model of the electron. The electron does not whizz around the nucleus, and it's position and momentum is not even defined until a measurement is made
@@hOREP245 Thank you for your reply. What you say is exactly true, this is my point!. The latest accepted view according to the standard model, is that the electron as described, is a solid particle, forming a cloud, throughout the area of the atom, between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, how? All the standard model explains, is that the electron is somewhere within this area, and all the fancy mathematics show a pobability of the most likely areas it may be found. It claims that it is a solid particle with a charge equal and opposite that of the proton, how? when it is 2,000 times the mass of the proton. I will pose just a few questions for anybody to answer, which led me to contend that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, and to compose an alternative hypothesis to challenge it. The quastions are as follows and can they be answered logically, using the standard model? a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' I contend that the standard model of the atom is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron? b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum? c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong. d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery? e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative. F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space? Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation. I would be most interested and grateful for your comments. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
I think Parth was just speaking a bit loosely there, and only meant to say that the amplitudes are complex numbers. I don't think he meant to imply that there were preferred "real" and "imaginary" directions in quantum amplitudes, and indeed there aren't.
@@gcewing Many thanks ' Greg ' for your reply. My point exactly, any wave in quantum physics / mechanics is only cojecture derived from mathematics, because they can't be measured, and in this statement I am only talking about within the atom. No one has a clue how the electron behaves in the area between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom Personally, I don't believe that the electron ( as described in the atandard model ) does move around as described for these reasons amongst others. The last one is not about the electron, but is of interest anyway. I have posed these questions in some of the comments I have posted on these videos, but as of yet, nobody has answered any of them, they are as follows. a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' I contend that the standard model of the atom is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron? b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum? c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong. d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery? e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative. F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space? Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation. I have been compiling an hypothesis for a radical alternative to the standard mode of the atom. I contend that the electron, as described in the standard model, is not a solid elementary particle, but a cluster of incredibaly small negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons '. These particles fill every available empty space within the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe in a cloud. This cloud, is what provides a medium in which all electromagnetic radiation, and gravitational waves can travel through space. This ' Harveytron Cloud ' is the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of reulsion created by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '. This force of repulsion is what is causing the universe to expand (if it is ) and is also one constituent of gravity, which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion. I further hypothesisze that there are corresponding positively charged monopole particles called ' Dannytrons '. In combination, these two particles make up all of the nuclei in the universe. I contend that these are the only two elementary particle that make up all of matter. Every other particle is a composite of these two. I would be most grateful for your comments on the above. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Every day I'm under the growing impression that the wave nature of particles is *only a collective phenomenon* , while the "particle" (dot) is the real individual nature of the particles as such. This doesn't seem sufficiently emphasized in quantum mechanics and yet it is clear, implied but not openly stated, when you address the matter as in this excellent video. Why the collective nature of the wave function is not stated (except maybe in the pilot wave interpretation)? Why to insist that the wave-particle we theorize (but only observe in great numbers, never individually) is the same as the dot-particle we do observe individually?
You are correct that it is a collective phenomenon. A particle is always measured as a particle (.ie a small dot on a screen). It is only when you have enumerated detections of particles that you see something that resembles a wave.
@@FermionPhysics That's not entirely true. If you measure the *position* of the particle, you will find it at some point. But if you measure the *momentum* of the particle, you will find out its wavelength -- which is something that only a wave can have, and a wave is not localised at a point. You really can't say that the particle aspect is any more fundamental or important than the wave aspect.
I understand the concept well enough, I think. However, what is the measurement? In what ways are `Measurements made`? I imagine the photo-sensor in the `Double Slit` experiment is a form of measurement, on contact with the sensor the wave function collapses and the photon/electron leaves it`s trace, what is happening to the wave function when it collapses? I realise there is a certain amount of abtract-ness at play here, but am I understanding this correctly.....explain it to me like I`m five.
I think you get into all sorts of difficulties if you try to think of wave function collapse as a physical event. The way I see things, it's just a mathematical device that we use when we want to treat part of a system quantum-mechanically and the rest classically. What really happens when a measurement is made is that the system being measured becomes entangled with the measuring device. This is the many-worlds view, which I'm becoming convinced that, fantastic as it seems, is the only one that makes logical sense.
@@gcewing Thanks for the response. You`re absolutely right, it`s easy to fall into the trap of trying to visualise what is essentially a mathematical abstract.
which books are you using for provide us this Quantum stuff....... I mean I also try out some quantum books but still Your explanation has a next level Feeling 😌😌😌😌
Classical particles don't exist and using that language is confusing. A quantum is better characterized as a nonlocal wave that exhibits particle-like attributes via its unity as a thing and the way in which it "collapses" when it interacts. A quantum is an energy-momentum-charge density of some field, its minimal unit (but not necessarily so as entanglements allow them as systems to grow), and as such is synonymous with its wavefunction. This "psi-ontic" interpretation of the wavefunction holds that it is no mere mathematical abstraction but actually overlaps with a physically real field configuration. So... "What a Quantum Wave Function REALLY Represents" is, prior to collapse, just that, a physically real field configuration.
Wave functions are important since they describe probabilities of measuring some interesting things about a system (like energy and velocity). The schrodinger equation is a wave equation, which is why the wave function looks like a wave.
The indeterminacy of subatomic particles demonstrates a serious chink in the armor of macroscopic cosmological theories. An inability to account for such behavior calls into question many of their cherished tenets, particularly Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the only remotely convincing evidence for which is the anomalous rotational behavior of galaxies. If it can be demonstrated that this is based on a misunderstanding of how gravity effects quantum phenomena, then the whole house of cards of current cosmological consensus will come crashing down. This is precisely why very little research in quantum physics is performed these days; it represents an existential threat to the employment of astrophysicists who have become little more than witch doctors.
@Alliance , namaskaram, due to this wave functions, you are able to comment and also you are able to use the mobile, also you are a wave, that is the energy.
How about videos on the need for kids to learn linear algebra before they really do anything in quantum. I've only watched a few of your videos and don't know everything you have already done. Perturbation theory is also cool for the math behind it and infinite sequences (which again is math that isn't taught good anymore). I would have been such a better student if I had a better core in linear algebra and infinite sequences. For more theoretical stuff - Imaginary frequency and imaginary time. We use imaginary "spacial" coorindates to allow for solutions to problems, however, its much more rare to have anyone talk about extra dimensions of time and frequency (or perhaps they're just too boring and useless).
Hello Path G, well explained, but there is a proble with the wave function. This is the main problem with quantum mechanics today, and why QM is at odds with the proven laws of classical physics. I do not meen to be derogatory or offensive when I say this, but in reality, the ' Wave function ', is just a physicists way of diguising the fact thay they do not have a clue where a particle is at any point in time or space. The wave function in QM is used to try to expain the absurdity of the standard model's description of the composition of the atom, where a single electron, as in a hydrogen atom, can form a cloud to fill every area between the nucleus, and the outer boundary of the atom, by whizzing around this area at speed changing trajectory many thousands of times a second. When you consider, the volume of this area is over 100 million times that of the electron, you have to ask how? This is just one example where manipulated mathematical equations are used to try to prove the standard model, which I contend if flawed at the fundamental level. If you tale this example, just consider this. If the electron is whizzing around the nucleaus as described, where does it get the energy from the initiate and maintain it's momentum? Then, if it is moving in this way, every time it changes momentum, energy would be expended to achieve this change in direction. From this, expended energy produces heat, therefore every atom would be emitting heat, so all matter woud be emitting heat, which plainly it is not. This proves the electron can't be moving as described in the standard model, but must be at rest unless exited by an external force. This proves the standard model wrong at the fundamental level.
Hi friends, thanks for watching as always! Please let me know what other topics to cover in future videos :)
Hey! Parth,you are one of my favourite people on the RUclips now
I got an interest on Quantum physics,probably 3 years ago and now I will soon enter college
And I still love my physics as ever,I have an ambition to change the world with my physics knowledge
And be the Einstein of early 21st century,seems cool right...
Anyways I want to hear a topic by you!
Because I love your explanations,thus I request you to explain one of my favourite topic
Which is String theory (TOEs AND GUTs) with Quantum gravity
Also mention the hypothetical probability of tensor too
Thanks a lot man!.
What about discussing what I commented separately: doesn't seem like the wave facet of the particle only exists when it is many particles, when it is plural?, i.e. doesn't seem like a collective phenomenon and not the individual nature of the particle as such, which always manifests (AFAIK) as "dot"?
Else: when does an individual particle manifests as wave at all?
Insightful!!!
Much awaiting for an intuitive explanation behind the phase component of a wave function and how to explain aharonov-bohm effect using the same
Could you please make a video on a spin quantum number specially on its value i.e. why it is +1/2 or -1/2
Why can a gravitational lens create multiple pictures of the same object? How and why it is different from optical lens? Why it doesnt have a single focal point?
Could you please make a video kn it. It would be so helpful for me to understand gravity, space time and more facts. Please try to make a video on it.
This is brilliant. I have heard so many other experts try to explain this concept. But this version really spoke to me. Thank you clearing this up for me in such a clear way. You are the best!
Nicely illustrated, which has tremendous power in simplifying complex phenomenon
amazing!! you have a wonderful ability in simplifying topics, thank you
The special theory of relativity series is incomplete Bro🤨🤨
Yes it is, I'm waiting
Real
Thank you. Excellent video, keep them coming!
Great video! I'm having to redo this stuff due to lack of funding so this was a nice refresher. Thanks!
I have watched dozens of videos on this topic from very renowned channels, but this made the most sense to me with the "WHY" of the wave function. This and the video by science asylum are great, else feel incomplete.
Im baffled by the lack of views for i think this deserves more - such a succint explanation
Very great video parth!
Good video! Thank you. When is it important to know a particle’s exact location? A video on this topic would be great.
Hi Parth, thank you for these videos. Can you create a playlist on solid state physics, electronic materials. While there are many videos on quantum physics and particle physics on youtube, solid-state physics related videos are rare.
Agreed.
Thank you for explaining the motivation for the wave function in comparison to the probability density. I was confused as to why we bothered with the wave function when the probability density seemed like the more "important" function.
Again a very concise and enjoyable video! Keep it up! :)
Nice style. Keep on.
Great explanation… also your hair is on point 😂
He is like those who make these rules and equation 😂
4:46 Wrong probability density graph for hydrogen. Isn't it a Gauss curve?
The wave function doesn't represent any probability on its own. We always need to apply the Born rule. In case of a spatial distribution (in a spatial representation) the projection operator is simply a trivial unity operator. There is no physical equivalent for that, to begin with.
How about probability of particle being found in a point?
It seems to me that a wave function says something about the way a particle exists in space(time). What happens if we assume that spacetime is somehow made of wave functions?
A wave func, any function is a representation of something described with math. The wave itself isn't a physical thing.
@@alext5497 the wave function seems to be a mathematical description of something that exists virtually or as a virtual boson.
The physics community has no answer to: where are the physics constants stored. I am suggesting that something can exist by virtue of being a carrier of the physics constants. I am further suggesting that whatever it is, the mathematical wave function describes it.
@@wulphstein they already tested this and it failed, but you're welcome to try again.
Just because the Copenhagen interpretation is more popular doesn’t mean that it’s correct. Maybe Everett was correct and wave functions don’t collapse. They branch into many worlds.
Hi! Thanks for your wonderful videos.
Have you read about some criticism of the Copenhagen intepretation of QM?
I'd like to recommend to you a fantastic book that explains some of the problems of notions such as the wave function telling us the probability of 'finding' something (which involves an observer that finds something), and proposes the alternative of the wave function informing us about the probability of a particle being present after the decoherence of the extended and blurry state in which the quantum object is.
The book is called "Scientific Philosophy", and it's written by the astrophysicist and philosopher, Gustavo Romero.
The main argument for his position comes from the fact that nowhere in the theory from where the formulation of the wave function comes we can find a reference to observers or measurements; such references are added ad hoc from outside the theory, and Romero suggests that they are the product of a) not having an axiomatized QM theory, and b) having theoretical physicist with poor training and knowledge of philosophical issues, from where the notions of the importance of measurements and observers come from, ideas that are too close to idealism, which tend to give to the human mind an important role in the determination properties and states of the external world.
Hope this may be useful to you.
Kind regards!
I don't think there are many physicists who believe that the Copenhagen interpretation implies any kind of special status for the human mind. Such ideas tend to come from non-physicists who misunderstand the physics.
@@gcewing I'm not so sure about what you say.
My view is that:
a) Most physicist that adhere to the CI also (and inadvertedly) adhere to an idealist position, placing onto the mind come relevant, or even necessary, role in the determination of quantum properties. And such adherence is suggested by the language used to speak about things such as how to interpret the information given by the wave function, among other examples.
b) There are important physicist that explicitly think that mind has a fundamental role in the universe. One such scholar is John Wheeler.
4:43 - "… the wave function doesn't have to be real all the time - it can also be imaginary." This apt comment raises an interesting question: Can our math models, even ones as simple and incredibly useful as complex amplitudes, distort our understanding of reality as seen in experiments? For example, the distinction between real and imaginary quantum amplitudes arises solely from the structure and labeling of the complex plane. Aharonov-Bohm and other experiments demonstrate that only the _phase difference_ between two points has any meaning. In that sense, quantum amplitudes are more like pistons on a crankshaft since, unlike complex numbers, crankshafts similarly make no distinction between "real" and "imaginary" angles and phase differences.
But Terry, this must be nothing more than a nitpick that makes no real difference?
Try this: Take a vast room designed for problem-solving and run a line of masking tape down the middle. Tell everyone with a problem to solve to choose whichever side has resources that look more promising for their problem. While this efficiency-oriented strategy sounds innocuous enough, from that moment forward, solutions that involve _crossing_ the tape become implicitly forbidden and, in time, forgotten even as options. Similarly, thinking that the amplitudes of Schrödinger wave functions _are_ complex numbers locks out the idea that both the amplitudes might be anything other than abstract numbers, unrelated to any other phenomena in physics.
That's unfortunate since, in this case, the real and imaginary labels are nothing more than a bit of math noise introduced by the "programming language" of complex numbers. They belong to humans and human cognitive styles, not physics.
And _yes,_ everything I just said about complex numbers introducing non-physical noise also applies to the U(1) or unitary symmetry group. The physical systems that implement unitary group behaviors are neither matrices nor sets of unit-length complex numbers, and thinking they are is never a good idea. Matrices and complex numbers are nothing more than human models of the less noisy natural versions that show no more signs of real and imaginary axis distinctions than do crankshafts.
So, a question: If the physical phenomena modeled by amplitudes and U(1) are _simpler_ than the very models we use to "abstract" them, is it possible folks might also be missing some absurdly simple connection between phase and other natural phenomena, simply by focusing too much and too confidently on the tape across the floor? Only time will tell.
*Bonus: The Inverse Aharonov-Bohm Effect*
Since this video also mentions Parth's earlier video on the Aharonov-Bohm effect, I can't resist mentioning a related example of how subtle boundaries can block problem-solving.
There are two ways to represent a magnetic field: By using field lines, which is the version most folks know; or by using an entirely different set of directed lines that looks more like an abstract version of the quite real electron flow paths used to create magnetic fields. These more abstract lines extend well beyond the bounds of the actual field-generating electron flows and are called the "vector potential" of the magnetic field. The name reflects that, as with gravitational potential, these lines represent the potential energy of the magnetic field.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect relies on a simple point: Relevant energy potentials _alter_ the phases of quantum wave functions. Thus, in principle, if you pass electrons through the nominally invisible and undetectable "vector potential" representation of a magnetic field, you should see changes in their behaviors if you can use the vector potential to create phase differences between them (sound familiar?). The simplest versions divert electrons to one side by creating measurable interference in their wave functions.
For half a century, folks have focused on the side of the room in which classical solenoids create phase changes in electrons that then measurably divert electrons to one side.
But what about the other side of the room?
As Newton once noted, nature is fond of action-reaction. The Inverse Aharonov-Bohm effect thus is nothing more than this: If a solenoid can create a vector potential field that diverts electrons to one side, then the diversion of electrons should at the same time impart an equal and opposite transverse momentum into the solenoid, and do so by way of the "invisible" vector potential.
I've not researched this idea of an Inverse Aharonov-Bohm idea yet, but if it's out there, it's not anywhere near the top of the literature, or I would have seen it already.
----------
Terry Bollinger SA BY 4.0
2022-06-22.22:30 EDT Wed
sarxiv.org/apa.2022-06-22.2230.pdf
Related: sarxiv.org/apa.2022-06-22.1331.pdf
Hello Terry Bollinger. I read your comment with interest, as I too have issues with the wave function, and have just posted a comment.
If you are saying that the wave function is a mathematical inevtion to disguise the fact that phyisicists cant explain something. If so, I agree with you.
I have been working on a radical hypothesis for an alternative to the standard model, which I believe is fundamentally flawed, at the fundamental level of the composition of the atom.
The wave function has been applied to the electron, to try to explain something that is impossible. The standard model's description of the atom is where the nucleus is surrounded by an electron cloude, and the wave function predicts where the probable location of the elecron may be. So everyone just accepts that that is true, however, if you ditch the mathermatics, you realize they are trying to prove something that is impossible.
How can it be possible for a single electron, as in the hydrogen atom, form a cloud filling a volume over 100 million times it's own volume.
If the electron is wizzing around this volume at speed changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does the energy come from to intiate and maintain momentum?
If the electron does move in this way, every time trajectory is changed, energy would be expended and dissipated as heat. Every atom would be dissipating heat, therefore allmatter would be radiating heat, which plainly it is not.
This proves the standard mode is fundamentally flawed. If you are at all interested, I can give mos examples where the standard model is wrong, and logical solutions. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 You are using the old model of the electron. The electron does not whizz around the nucleus, and it's position and momentum is not even defined until a measurement is made
@@hOREP245 Thank you for your reply. What you say is exactly true, this is my point!. The latest accepted view according to the standard model, is that the electron as described, is a solid particle, forming a cloud, throughout the area of the atom, between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, how? All the standard model explains, is that the electron is somewhere within this area, and all the fancy mathematics show a pobability of the most likely areas it may be found. It claims that it is a solid particle with a charge equal and opposite that of the proton, how? when it is 2,000 times the mass of the proton. I will pose just a few questions for anybody to answer, which led me to contend that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, and to compose an alternative hypothesis to challenge it. The quastions are as follows and can they be answered logically, using the standard model?
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' I contend that the standard model of the atom is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong.
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative.
F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space?
Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation.
I would be most interested and grateful for your comments. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
I think Parth was just speaking a bit loosely there, and only meant to say that the amplitudes are complex numbers. I don't think he meant to imply that there were preferred "real" and "imaginary" directions in quantum amplitudes, and indeed there aren't.
@@gcewing Many thanks ' Greg ' for your reply. My point exactly, any wave in quantum physics / mechanics is only cojecture derived from mathematics, because they can't be measured, and in this statement I am only talking about within the atom.
No one has a clue how the electron behaves in the area between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom Personally, I don't believe that the electron ( as described in the atandard model ) does move around as described for these reasons amongst others. The last one is not about the electron, but is of interest anyway.
I have posed these questions in some of the comments I have posted on these videos, but as of yet, nobody has answered any of them, they are as follows.
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' I contend that the standard model of the atom is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong.
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative.
F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space?
Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation.
I have been compiling an hypothesis for a radical alternative to the standard mode of the atom. I contend that the electron, as described in the standard model, is not a solid elementary particle, but a cluster of incredibaly small negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons '. These particles fill every available empty space within the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe in a cloud. This cloud, is what provides a medium in which all electromagnetic radiation, and gravitational waves can travel through space.
This ' Harveytron Cloud ' is the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of reulsion created by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '.
This force of repulsion is what is causing the universe to expand (if it is ) and is also one constituent of gravity, which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion.
I further hypothesisze that there are corresponding positively charged monopole particles called ' Dannytrons '. In combination, these two particles make up all of the nuclei in the universe. I contend that these are the only two elementary particle that make up all of matter. Every other particle is a composite of these two.
I would be most grateful for your comments on the above. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
and this is alll assuming the coppenhagen convention to be correct? i mean what if its incorrect.
Every day I'm under the growing impression that the wave nature of particles is *only a collective phenomenon* , while the "particle" (dot) is the real individual nature of the particles as such. This doesn't seem sufficiently emphasized in quantum mechanics and yet it is clear, implied but not openly stated, when you address the matter as in this excellent video. Why the collective nature of the wave function is not stated (except maybe in the pilot wave interpretation)? Why to insist that the wave-particle we theorize (but only observe in great numbers, never individually) is the same as the dot-particle we do observe individually?
You are correct that it is a collective phenomenon. A particle is always measured as a particle (.ie a small dot on a screen). It is only when you have enumerated detections of particles that you see something that resembles a wave.
@@FermionPhysics That's not entirely true. If you measure the *position* of the particle, you will find it at some point. But if you measure the *momentum* of the particle, you will find out its wavelength -- which is something that only a wave can have, and a wave is not localised at a point. You really can't say that the particle aspect is any more fundamental or important than the wave aspect.
I understand the concept well enough, I think. However, what is the measurement? In what ways are `Measurements made`? I imagine the photo-sensor in the `Double Slit` experiment is a form of measurement, on contact with the sensor the wave function collapses and the photon/electron leaves it`s trace, what is happening to the wave function when it collapses? I realise there is a certain amount of abtract-ness at play here, but am I understanding this correctly.....explain it to me like I`m five.
I think you get into all sorts of difficulties if you try to think of wave function collapse as a physical event. The way I see things, it's just a mathematical device that we use when we want to treat part of a system quantum-mechanically and the rest classically. What really happens when a measurement is made is that the system being measured becomes entangled with the measuring device. This is the many-worlds view, which I'm becoming convinced that, fantastic as it seems, is the only one that makes logical sense.
@@gcewing Thanks for the response. You`re absolutely right, it`s easy to fall into the trap of trying to visualise what is essentially a mathematical abstract.
which books are you using for provide us this Quantum stuff.......
I mean I also try out some quantum books but still Your explanation has a next level Feeling 😌😌😌😌
He's gotten his degree lol
Love from india 🥰🥰
Classical particles don't exist and using that language is confusing. A quantum is better characterized as a nonlocal wave that exhibits particle-like attributes via its unity as a thing and the way in which it "collapses" when it interacts. A quantum is an energy-momentum-charge density of some field, its minimal unit (but not necessarily so as entanglements allow them as systems to grow), and as such is synonymous with its wavefunction. This "psi-ontic" interpretation of the wavefunction holds that it is no mere mathematical abstraction but actually overlaps with a physically real field configuration. So... "What a Quantum Wave Function REALLY Represents" is, prior to collapse, just that, a physically real field configuration.
Why are waves and wave functions important to us??
Wave functions are important since they describe probabilities of measuring some interesting things about a system (like energy and velocity). The schrodinger equation is a wave equation, which is why the wave function looks like a wave.
The indeterminacy of subatomic particles demonstrates a serious chink in the armor of macroscopic cosmological theories. An inability to account for such behavior calls into question many of their cherished tenets, particularly Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the only remotely convincing evidence for which is the anomalous rotational behavior of galaxies. If it can be demonstrated that this is based on a misunderstanding of how gravity effects quantum phenomena, then the whole house of cards of current cosmological consensus will come crashing down. This is precisely why very little research in quantum physics is performed these days; it represents an existential threat to the employment of astrophysicists who have become little more than witch doctors.
@Alliance , namaskaram, due to this wave functions, you are able to comment and also you are able to use the mobile, also you are a wave, that is the energy.
Thanks for helping me understand the importance of wwves and wave functions
How about videos on the need for kids to learn linear algebra before they really do anything in quantum. I've only watched a few of your videos and don't know everything you have already done. Perturbation theory is also cool for the math behind it and infinite sequences (which again is math that isn't taught good anymore). I would have been such a better student if I had a better core in linear algebra and infinite sequences. For more theoretical stuff - Imaginary frequency and imaginary time. We use imaginary "spacial" coorindates to allow for solutions to problems, however, its much more rare to have anyone talk about extra dimensions of time and frequency (or perhaps they're just too boring and useless).
Hello Path G, well explained, but there is a proble with the wave function.
This is the main problem with quantum mechanics today, and why QM is at odds with the proven laws of classical physics. I do not meen to be derogatory or offensive when I say this, but in reality, the ' Wave function ', is just a physicists way of diguising the fact thay they do not have a clue where a particle is at any point in time or space.
The wave function in QM is used to try to expain the absurdity of the standard model's description of the composition of the atom, where a single electron, as in a hydrogen atom, can form a cloud to fill every area between the nucleus, and the outer boundary of the atom, by whizzing around this area at speed changing trajectory many thousands of times a second. When you consider, the volume of this area is over 100 million times that of the electron, you have to ask how?
This is just one example where manipulated mathematical equations are used to try to prove the standard model, which I contend if flawed at the fundamental level. If you tale this example, just consider this. If the electron is whizzing around the nucleaus as described, where does it get the energy from the initiate and maintain it's momentum? Then, if it is moving in this way, every time it changes momentum, energy would be expended to achieve this change in direction. From this, expended energy produces heat, therefore every atom would be emitting heat, so all matter woud be emitting heat, which plainly it is not.
This proves the electron can't be moving as described in the standard model, but must be at rest unless exited by an external force.
This proves the standard model wrong at the fundamental level.
I see 1 view on the view count, 6 likes, 3 comments.
Perhaps the view is only counted after the completion of the video. I've liked the video about a minute in.
first like
first
ur second
You're such a genius why don't u have a girlfriend.
Purchase corrective eyewear.🤣🤣