Quantum Wave Functions: What's Actually Waving?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 25 янв 2025

Комментарии • 2,2 тыс.

  • @newperve
    @newperve 5 лет назад +586

    Taking the quantum brick road.
    "Do I turn right or left here?"
    "Yes."

    • @chinkeehaw9527
      @chinkeehaw9527 5 лет назад +20

      Michael Price
      This is a technically correct answer. The actual question that shows the weirdness of quantum mechanics is:
      "Did you turn left and right?"
      "Yes."

    • @donwald3436
      @donwald3436 5 лет назад +10

      Same answer if you ask a computer scientist.

    • @sphakamisozondi
      @sphakamisozondi 5 лет назад +10

      It depends, do you have a Heseinberg license? Lol.

    • @justmehere_
      @justmehere_ 5 лет назад +5

      wow never noticed that meme is a superposition but yes it is

    • @tiny_toilet
      @tiny_toilet 5 лет назад +1

      @@donwald3436 Computer scientist does both and tells you which one you did....unless there was a loop, and he blows his stack instead...unless Win95, in which case, BSOD.

  • @Lucky10279
    @Lucky10279 4 года назад +344

    A side note for those interested in the math: We don't use sine and cosine just because "they look wavy." We use them because there's a piece of mathematical machinery called the Fourier transform which let's us write _any_ periodic (aka wave) function as the sum of sine and cosine functions. It's incredibly convenient to be able to represent _any_ possible wave function in terms of just two relatively simple functions, so that's why we use them. 3blue1brown did a video explaining how the Fourier transform works for anyone who wants to know the details: ruclips.net/video/spUNpyF58BY/видео.html

    • @cedmelancon
      @cedmelancon 3 года назад +6

      Discrete Fourier transformations in signal processing has to be the hardest maths I’ve had to do in university. Typically I tend to be able to make a mental image of what I’m doing in maths and make my own way of understanding it, but my mind couldn’t make sense of these, I had to stupidly learn these by heart.

    • @ankitaaarya
      @ankitaaarya 3 года назад

      @@cedmelancon that totally sucks.
      what learning by heart means?

    • @rustycherkas8229
      @rustycherkas8229 3 года назад +8

      @@ankitaaarya
      "Learn by heart" is an English 'idiom' that means "rote learning"...
      It's like navigating in a city in a foreign country where you cannot read ("understand") street signs, but learn to get around "mechanically" from memory.
      That's your fish feed for the day. (A reference to another English idiom that begins: "Give a man a fish; you feed him for...")
      The "fishing lesson for your lifetime" gift is to point out to you that you are connected to the World Wide Web, and can search out answers to questions like this for yourself...
      Happy fishing!! :-)

    • @timseguine2
      @timseguine2 3 года назад +8

      A side-side note for those who are really interested: Sine and cosine may be particularly nice functions with this property, but there are an infinite number of alternative bases that can look arbitrarily weird which all have an analog to the fourier transform.
      Picking sine and cosine is exactly analogous to the choice of basis in finite dimensional vector spaces, that is to say entirely arbitrary and without consequences. So to be perfectly correct, we use sine and cosine entirely because we like sine and cosine. For some people that might be because "they look wavy".

    • @NotAGoodUsername360
      @NotAGoodUsername360 3 года назад +4

      It can also be explained by the fact that all waves can be simplified into an infinite series of right triangles, in the same way a line is an infinite series of points, hence the sudden appearance of trigonometry.

  • @teefkay2
    @teefkay2 5 лет назад +878

    _“The events are probabilistic. The probabilities are deterministic.“_

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +181

      Oh, I like that! Where is that from?

    • @teefkay2
      @teefkay2 5 лет назад +155

      The Science Asylum My old QM professor from college. 1974.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +318

      I'm stealing it.

    • @Ortorin
      @Ortorin 5 лет назад +81

      In more lay-terms: What happens to a quantum particle is completely up to probability; it might be here or there, it might be going this fast or this slow. That probability is set in stone, which means we can tell what the probability is if we measure.
      We can always tell what a quantum particle might be doing, we can never predict what it will actually do. (Kinda like a crazy relative. You know what they CAN do, you never know what they WILL do.)

    • @StanleyKowalski.
      @StanleyKowalski. 5 лет назад +9

      probability of a event of a wave to occur at sea surface is 1, but to know exactly when and where is deterministic. not sure of that example fits the above statement

  • @sanchezzz69420
    @sanchezzz69420 5 лет назад +69

    your skills on teaching are the most outstanding qualities a person can have.

  • @compphysgeek
    @compphysgeek 5 лет назад +27

    this is what I like about these videos. Even if you don't learn anything profoundly new sometimes, when you see a good animation changing from one aspect to another, two previously separate things get connected and it clicks. A new level of understanding!

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +6

      Static diagrams just aren’t enough sometimes.

  • @txorimorea3869
    @txorimorea3869 5 лет назад +495

    Descartes is at fault here, he was the one who coined "imaginary numbers" as a derogatory term. Gauss knew better and named them lateral numbers.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +205

      Yeah, I mean, technically speaking, all numbers are imaginary... but these are the names they have now. We're stuck.

    • @Bodyknock
      @Bodyknock 5 лет назад +130

      Which goes to show, people who haven't taken a class about them and think complex numbers are a hoax are putting Descartes before the course.
      ... I'll show myself out....

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 5 лет назад +14

      How "real" are real numbers, anyway?

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 5 лет назад +6

      Descartes also had that pesky duality problem. Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia asked him some good questions about it.

    • @channelnamechannel
      @channelnamechannel 5 лет назад +7

      @@ScienceAsylum natural numbers are real. the others... i'd say not...

  • @digitalduck
    @digitalduck 5 лет назад +443

    Skinny rectangles = Calculus by stealth. Nice job Nick :)

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 5 лет назад +21

      Archimedes was pulling that trick thousands of years ago.

    • @william41017
      @william41017 5 лет назад +18

      I read that this is an old concept, known as infinitesimals, mathematicians just didn't like it very much because it wasn't very rigorous.

    • @anarchistsspit4483
      @anarchistsspit4483 4 года назад +2

      Skinny rectangle infinitecimals are beginners beliefs. Calculas outgrown a lot from this now a days.

    • @gordonlawrence1448
      @gordonlawrence1448 4 года назад +1

      You have to do the "skinny boxes" method for mathematical models if you are using a spreadsheet EG calculating the voltage on an analogue integrator.

    • @BC-hu6yq
      @BC-hu6yq 3 года назад +2

      @@gordonlawrence1448 if I understand correctly, having to approximate any kind of integral out of discrete bits is gonna resemble a riemann sum like that.

  • @tom_something
    @tom_something 5 лет назад +278

    This is the most intuitive explanation I've seen so far for laypersons like me. I've seen so many videos say, basically, "You get the probability by squaring the wave function." OK, so what exactly _is_ the wave function? "It's a probability thing." Which doesn't feel very helpful.

    • @tom_something
      @tom_something 5 лет назад +5

      @Fuert Neigt He's got a ton of really amazing videos. Don't forget to subscribe!

    • @Blox117
      @Blox117 5 лет назад +1

      @Fuert Neigt _anything_ you say? hmm...

    • @l1mbo69
      @l1mbo69 4 года назад +3

      How was his answer any different? He did expand on it more but his final answer was of course the same, that it's a probability thing

    • @xiaoxiao-kg5np
      @xiaoxiao-kg5np 3 года назад

      Tom, You should know there is more to this story. Intelligent people have long ago figured out that Quantum theory is all BS. Same with everything that the so called "genius" Einstein said. All total BS. Keep that in the back of your mind when things seem weird, this is the reason.

    • @tom_something
      @tom_something 3 года назад +6

      @@xiaoxiao-kg5np classical (pre-Einsten and pre-Quantum) models do not explain observed phenomena. Is there a different model you can offer, or is this just filed under "who knows?"

  • @txikitofandango
    @txikitofandango Год назад +20

    Not only did this help me understand quantum mechanics better, it helped me understand probability and statistics better, or gave me ideas for how to convey it to others. There's a lot of power in the term "skinny rectangles" especially for helping students transition from discrete probability distributions to continuous ones.

    • @louisrobitaille5810
      @louisrobitaille5810 Год назад

      Those skinny rectangles are one of the most basic concept in calculus 👀. Adding them all up is how integrals work 😁.

  • @FedericoGalatolo
    @FedericoGalatolo 5 лет назад +61

    This is the best explanation of quantum wave functions that I ever seen. I've seen a lot of videos from a lot of RUclipsrs and this is the only one that is actually understandable by non physicians. Great work!

    • @neoness1268
      @neoness1268 2 года назад +1

      totally agree with you

    • @88feji
      @88feji 2 года назад +6

      You mean "physicists" ... (physicians are medical practitioners) ..

    • @kylecesar6347
      @kylecesar6347 2 года назад +5

      @@88feji no, only doctors understand wave functions

    • @Zeus-rk5yy
      @Zeus-rk5yy Год назад +1

      @@kylecesar6347 😂😂

  • @anhi399
    @anhi399 5 лет назад +102

    Underrated moment in this video was when Nick made sense of why we use sine and cosine: they make shapes that look like waves. Like, you need something to look wavy? Here, use this. Doesn't matter what that wavy thing is, but this will get you a pretty good picture of it on your graph, bud. Thanks.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +20

      You're welcome :-)

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 5 лет назад +10

      Fourier to the rescue!

    • @rzezzy1
      @rzezzy1 5 лет назад +16

      Yeah, that's basically it. A more calculus-based perspective on this (which is the math we use to calculate these wave functions in quantum mechanics) is that a sine or cosine wave is "proportional to its own second derivative." Basically, they are curviest at their own peaks, in a very precise way.

    • @erdemmemisyazici3950
      @erdemmemisyazici3950 3 года назад

      This was a great explanation. It's all gradience, until it isn't.

    • @ronsnow402
      @ronsnow402 3 года назад

      @@ScienceAsylum A probability distribution is just another way of saying "We don't know what happens on a smaller scale". We have to be humble & say "I don't know what the constituents of this wave is, or if any", & continue doing science. I wish you would have added this in your video, physicist need to be more honest about the data to avoid confusion... sometimes "I don't know" is the right answer.

  • @Hoodoo93
    @Hoodoo93 5 лет назад +125

    Waaait, what? Yesterday i was searching something on this topic and meanwhile i was thinking "man, i really hope the science asylum will release a video on this". Nice

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +31

      Glad I could deliver :-)

    • @Secret_Moon
      @Secret_Moon 5 лет назад

      @@ScienceAsylum can you do a video explaining how the waves of two (or more) separate particles can interact with each other? I understand the nature of the quantum wave, but how can the waves from different particles interact to create the interference pattern, especially when they are separated by time like in the double slits experiment?

    • @NovaWarrior77
      @NovaWarrior77 4 года назад

      You're his clone you, just don't know it.

  • @SagarKumar-xn1uf
    @SagarKumar-xn1uf 5 лет назад +35

    I clicked on the video for science and stayed for ..........
    SCIENCE!!!!!
    Your explanation is amazing !!!

  • @rzezzy1
    @rzezzy1 5 лет назад +11

    This might be the best layperson-accessible video on quantum mechanics I've ever seen

  • @wavenature3180
    @wavenature3180 5 лет назад +2

    Excellent explanation of what professors try to teach to students.
    A few interesting things to contemplate:
    Calling i "imaginary" causes confusion.
    A real vector times i simply rotates the real vector by 90 degrees.
    A real vector times e^ib simply rotates the real vector by b degrees.
    A wave function in the x direction = Re^ib where b = kx+wt
    This is a wave of amplitude R
    wavelength = 2(pi)/k
    wave frequency = w/2(pi)
    wave velocity = wavelength * wave frequency = (2(pi)/k)(w/2(pi)) = w/k
    momentum = h/wavelength = hk/2(pi) where h = Planck's constant
    It's not easy to wrap our minds around all these rotations.

  • @Shivamunplugged1995
    @Shivamunplugged1995 5 лет назад +39

    for me , this is your best video..... quantum mechanics looked simple in this

  • @Sonu-ye5ux
    @Sonu-ye5ux 4 года назад +3

    Oh my god .... It's probability of being helpful is really high.....
    Helped me with deeper understandings...

  • @zoraamv1367
    @zoraamv1367 4 года назад +3

    I love the fact that he literally said that he hate Quantum mechanics but still trying throughout the lecture to maintain interest on topic. that's the motivation I need to pursue my study 😅😅😅

  • @gabriellepadley3015
    @gabriellepadley3015 3 года назад +1

    Thank you for reinforcing that this is a mathematical function and not a physical property. No one has put it in those words and that is the concept I have struggled to grasp

  • @raghav9o9
    @raghav9o9 5 лет назад +2

    My god you are the best explainer among RUclips 😌😌

  • @cirnothe5181
    @cirnothe5181 5 лет назад +104

    damn, that boxxy reference brought ME down to memory lane.

  • @gauravjoshi9685
    @gauravjoshi9685 5 лет назад +29

    As Richard Feynman said, "The prize is in the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discover"... Ya this video gives that required kick....

    • @jcf20010
      @jcf20010 5 лет назад +3

      He also said...
      If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.
      - Richard P. Feynman

    • @ADogNamedElmo
      @ADogNamedElmo 5 лет назад

      @@jcf20010 stupid quote

    • @jcf20010
      @jcf20010 5 лет назад

      @Jerry Perry I under stand it. The quote works on different levels. Kind of like this one:
      "You can observe a lot by just watching."
      -- Yogi Berra

  • @Thorhian
    @Thorhian 5 лет назад +12

    This madman is teaching about the basic idea of integration without letting the people watching the video know (which is probably good since you are trying to explain quantum wave functions in a simple way at the same time). Also, I finally noticed that 3Blue1Brown plushie on your shelf, nice!

    • @nibblrrr7124
      @nibblrrr7124 5 лет назад +1

      [bernhard riemann, stroking his beard in begrudging acknowledgement like a kung-fu master]

    • @billusandda5845
      @billusandda5845 3 года назад

      @@nibblrrr7124 lol

  • @sun71717
    @sun71717 5 лет назад +3

    Really this channel is so underrated! It deserved more subscribers. Let's make it popular!

  • @rickcarroll
    @rickcarroll 4 года назад +4

    That was a great description of the QWF. The graphs really clicked the issue into my mind. I love the humour and general presentation of the video. Keep up the excellent work, videos like this should be compulsory in all physics courses. Cheers

  • @phatgus6895
    @phatgus6895 2 года назад +3

    You're a lsegend for that one fam.
    You answered all my questions.
    Thanks brodaaa 🤜🤛

  • @riddhibora973
    @riddhibora973 4 года назад +1

    There is very less Probability that someone do not like your video.
    Its not so Complex task to subscribe and share your videos.
    Its time to get Real and start understanding the physics from this channel.

  • @001firebrand
    @001firebrand 3 года назад +43

    Max Born is one of the unsung heroes in science, 'cause his interpretation in 1926 of wave function as a probability function was groundbreaking at that times!

    • @Geokinkladze
      @Geokinkladze 2 года назад

      Surely his greatest contribution is Olivia Newton John.

    • @softwarerevolutions
      @softwarerevolutions 2 года назад +1

      he did get a nobel prize for that. there is no unsung here. if you want to know about an unsung hero then look for S.N Bose.

    • @bobespirit2112
      @bobespirit2112 Год назад

      Wait - Max Born or Max Bohr? Oh, it’s Neils Bohr…oops

    • @bobespirit2112
      @bobespirit2112 Год назад

      @@GeokinkladzeWait..what? I don’t get the connection…?

    • @bobespirit2112
      @bobespirit2112 Год назад

      I looked it up - she’s his granddaughter from his daughter Irene. Well, I’ll be damned - definitely his most important contribution to humanity!!! 😂

  • @thetntsheep4075
    @thetntsheep4075 5 лет назад +7

    Maybe it's because I've learned complex nos before unlike many things you talk about, but you explained this topic extremely well.
    In my opinion, this is one of your best videos yet! I love your, hmmm, "energetic" style 😂

  • @amatore6
    @amatore6 4 года назад +8

    I think I've watched about every video on the wave function. This is the first or at least best I've found in showing how it actually works-what is actually does. I know how F=MA works, and I knew the wave function is the quantum analog of the F=MA, but I could not understand how the wave function predicted the future state. I did not until now understand about the different inputs for each property. I would like to more about what those inputs actually are so I can understand how it operates better. But this video advanced my non-math physics learning quite a bit. Thank you.

    • @fulanotu6611
      @fulanotu6611 Год назад

      The imputs are displacement, time and frequency

  • @IshaaqNewton
    @IshaaqNewton 5 лет назад +5

    Very happy to see you after a long time explaining Quantum wave function. Your explanation is absolutely amazing.

  • @armazme
    @armazme 2 года назад

    Thanks!

  • @discospider4120
    @discospider4120 2 года назад

    Sir I must say this has been simultaneously the most intuitive and concrete explanation of this subject I've found so far and the most agitating delivery of the concept. The quantum brick road joke made me want to rip my hair out each time it came up.
    Overall 10/10

  • @TheJaredtheJaredlong
    @TheJaredtheJaredlong 5 лет назад +9

    This man just casually explained the entirety of high school level maths in a single 11 minute video.

  • @Quantum789
    @Quantum789 5 лет назад +27

    Mind totally blown this is what everyone means when they say it's the square of the wave function that gives any meaning to a quantum state

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +10

      Exactly.

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 5 лет назад +1

      Isn't the square of the amplitude of a mechanical wave (or even EM wave) its energy?
      Is there an energy - probability equivalence?
      I remember Noether said energy and time have a symmetry, etc. But I don't remember the details.
      These quantum probabilities aren't just from functions of time (?)
      .. anyway, just rambling. Good observation.

    • @missingno9
      @missingno9 5 лет назад +4

      @@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself You're right that the square of the amplitude is the energy, but that only applies for physical waves.
      Wave functions are basically mathematical constructs used to describe probabilities, not actual physical properties like displacement or field strength.

  • @dackid2831
    @dackid2831 5 лет назад +5

    Quantum Mechanics has always seemed to be really strange... but you make it sound much simpler than I made it out to be. Thank you for showing the connections between probabilities, complex numbers, and integration to understand how those functions work. Awesome job! Although Quantum Mechanics will almost certainly still be a challenge, you made it seem less terrifying. So thank you for that.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +1

      You're welcome 😊 Glad I could help

    • @Lucky10279
      @Lucky10279 2 года назад +2

      The _math_ of QM isn't actually that hard to understand -- it's all just calculus, linear algebra, linear differential equations, and basic probability theory. And, while those can certainly be challenging when you're first learning them, it's all standard math that's covered in a typical undergrad math or physics degree and is nothing specific to QM in particular. The truly challenging part is distinguishing between and relating the math, the experimental results, and the various interpretations. It's figuring out what, _if anything,_ the math actually tells out about individual particles that's so hard.

  • @ArifRezaPro
    @ArifRezaPro 5 лет назад +1

    I forcefully convinced myself that I understood the video. Thanks for your super awesome explanation. Nobody does it better than you.

  • @macronencer
    @macronencer 5 лет назад +2

    I've said this before, but the thing I really love about your videos is that I always learn at least one new thing! This time, it was that the square involved in the Born rule is a *complex* square. I've seen many people write about the Born rule informally in comments here and there, but not ONE person has ever made that clear. Thank you!

  • @pritishjain674
    @pritishjain674 5 лет назад +55

    Shit has started to become real on this channel , you are getting sponsors . Finally!!

  • @BangMaster96
    @BangMaster96 5 лет назад +3

    This was by far one of the best explanation of the wave function i have ever seen.

  • @nama5257
    @nama5257 4 года назад +3

    When you say at the end “Until then, it’s ok to be little crazy” I really feel very reassured. 😆

  • @AndySpicer
    @AndySpicer 5 лет назад +1

    I have to say, I watch a lot of physics videos on RUclips. Yours are great but the thing I like the most about them is that somehow you manage to figure out exactly the question I have, title the video as i would, and cover exactly what I needed to know to feel like I got my answer. Well done! At least for me, which may mean nobody else gets any of it. Hmmm. Well, I luv ya, so you have that!

  • @hannahboyd9367
    @hannahboyd9367 3 года назад +1

    You are a life saver. Keep making these and adding the humor. Saved me from tears over chemistry

  • @PestOnYT
    @PestOnYT 5 лет назад +118

    Android Robot kicking the "i" - LOL !

  • @rc5989
    @rc5989 5 лет назад +5

    Great video as always. Measurables go in, probability comes out, with Hizenberg limitations on certainty. No need for observers, or consciousness, or any woo whatsoever.

    • @lopezjraul
      @lopezjraul 2 года назад

      The understanding of the behavior of the quantum particle as a probability without any understanding of where it comes from is derived from the quantum wave function. This is true and no need for any speculation to assert that. However, where does the quantum particle arise from? Or perhaps another question would be what is the nature of the quantum particle? Not what is the behavior of the quantum particle but what is it actually made up of? We called a wave but what does that mean as being defined in terms of its make up. Not advocating for woo here but it still doesn’t answer some important questions.

    • @rc5989
      @rc5989 2 года назад

      @@lopezjraul My opinion is that a quantum particle is best understood as a discrete deposit of energy into a quantum field. This is pretty far down the philosophy of science rabbit hole, but the only remaining undefined term is ‘energy’ and that is both basic, yet does not have a formal definition. If we accept ‘energy’ then the definition is also acceptable. All my opinions.

  • @calebmason2290
    @calebmason2290 5 лет назад +7

    Can you use some details from this video to explain the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

  • @rkn8109
    @rkn8109 5 лет назад +1

    This is the greatest quantum video ever explored in youtube video or any platform. You just hit it. Thank u thank you so much Nick.

  • @RichardWilkin
    @RichardWilkin Год назад +1

    3:32 “[A quantum wave function] shows dependence between two measurements, that has some kind of back-and-forth pattern, and is about tiny particles.” A good definition makes something understandable to the intended audience. Thanks Nick.

  • @p.j.h2401
    @p.j.h2401 5 лет назад +8

    Ur really best sir 💯
    No one explained me quantum mechanics that deep and well

  • @XEinstein
    @XEinstein 5 лет назад +17

    I really love how you animated the electron as trying to be at every position at the same time, but still keeping it as a particle. That is the best visual representation of a wave particle duality I ever saw.

  • @outside8312
    @outside8312 5 лет назад +118

    Quantum mechanics hurts my brain in a fun trippy way

    • @AdamAlbilya1
      @AdamAlbilya1 5 лет назад +10

      Quantum mechanics entangles my brain a PARTICULarly fun way.

    • @tuck295q
      @tuck295q 5 лет назад +2

      My head feels wavy 😖

  • @juzelujo2169
    @juzelujo2169 5 лет назад +2

    Thanks man....i understood well... My prof lectured this but i didn't get a concept ...but now...am good...Asante sana

  • @king.aazworld
    @king.aazworld 3 года назад +1

    Amazing.
    how a 10 min video can explain more than phd quantum mechanics professers who took 7 years. keep going :D

  • @JustaReadingguy
    @JustaReadingguy 5 лет назад +231

    "i" really get your joke.

    • @daves2520
      @daves2520 5 лет назад +4

      Good one.

    • @mikey20is
      @mikey20is 5 лет назад +1

      justa actually, that's about the only thing I did get. I watch his great vids for humility with a snippet of once and a while " ah ha "

    • @mito._
      @mito._ 5 лет назад +1

      underrated!

    • @tiny_toilet
      @tiny_toilet 5 лет назад +6

      i^2 don't.

    • @davidwuhrer6704
      @davidwuhrer6704 4 года назад +1

      @@tiny_toilet Jay does, but he's an electrical engineer.

  • @SaberTooth2251
    @SaberTooth2251 5 лет назад +20

    One comment i would make is to show an example of a textbook picture of the cos and the isin and relate to the actual rotating wave function.
    Other than that, this is one of the best explanations I've encountered as to what the wave function "means"

  • @johnm.6975
    @johnm.6975 5 лет назад +12

    Made my day to see a new upload from the asylum

  • @vijayanand8077
    @vijayanand8077 4 года назад +1

    One of the best and beautiful explanations about quantum mechanics on the title: quantum wave function.
    Nice boss👍

  • @ishakawade9100
    @ishakawade9100 2 года назад +1

    thank u so much for taking care of my curiosities so well, have just fallen in love with this channel

  • @pratyushbhattarai5632
    @pratyushbhattarai5632 5 лет назад +7

    Not the first one, but I'm certain I'll love it. Love from Nepal!!

  • @pkraja8723
    @pkraja8723 5 лет назад +3

    I've been watching your videos for about 2 years and yeah I have really learnt a lot
    And till now I've been ''crazy'' so far🤪🤪🤪🤪
    👍👍👍👍👍for ur channel
    Okay
    I still do have the following questions;
    1. Where the heck does the energy come from in the process of nuclear fission and fusion???????😰😰 Mass defect or nuclear binding energy????
    2. Nothing....
    that's all
    3..........''let's all be craz😜😜🤪🤪🤯🤯🤯

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад

      Yes, the energy released during fission and fusion is nuclear binding energy... sort of. Technically, nuclear binding energy is negative (a loss). A bond is loss of energy that traps particles together. Here are a few videos explaining that if you haven't seen them:
      Nuclear Fusion Explained: ruclips.net/video/LKUPAk5049M/видео.html
      What EXACTLY is a Bond? ruclips.net/video/mFKCW_D2oE4/видео.html
      Bonds Do NOT Have Energy! ruclips.net/video/g39nwNm0Xfw/видео.html

  • @dtrimm1
    @dtrimm1 5 лет назад +4

    Awesome work yet again Nick - thank you!

  • @123Sumrandomguy
    @123Sumrandomguy 4 года назад +1

    Wow I took inorganic chemistry and never understood anything about wave functions until watching this video. Now everything makes sense, thank you

  • @YogiMcCaw
    @YogiMcCaw 4 месяца назад +1

    The spoonfuls of humour definitely make the medicine go down easier! Love your unique approach to the material. 👏👏

  • @philochristos
    @philochristos 5 лет назад +19

    So THAT's why I had to learn calculus!

  • @thedeemon
    @thedeemon 5 лет назад +6

    I love that *transform* sequence! I imagine inserting such clip into our software at work... ;)
    The whole vid is great too, of course.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +3

      It's a nod to the Adam West Batman transition 😊

  • @CliffJumpingProd
    @CliffJumpingProd 4 года назад +6

    wow just found this channel today, goldmine! Its been hard being stupid but interested in what smart people are interested in, i've seen a few of your videos now and been able to follow everything, gotta say thats a first after many years of youtube, well done man! (And you're funny, 5:47) They say you dont really understand something until you can explain it easily, so you must *really* understand what you're talking about! unlike most other youtubers!

  • @ZombyLP
    @ZombyLP 2 года назад +1

    Thanks that was one of the most comprehensive explanations I have heard.

  • @anthonybillings4077
    @anthonybillings4077 Год назад +1

    Yes, it did help somewhat. The graphics make it more comprehensible. The humor helps too. The man has a talent for lucidity, reaching those who do not have a math or physics background, but who are interested in applying quantum ideas to other studies. Thanks!

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  Год назад

      You're welcome. Glad it helped. I'll take a "somewhat." This is tough material.

  • @akusakuzan
    @akusakuzan 4 года назад +3

    "bouncing squirrels arent the only waves in nature"
    i learned something today

  • @lakshaygupta9061
    @lakshaygupta9061 5 лет назад +4

    Hey, just wanted to let you know that this is fucking brilliant and one of the most "intuitive" descriptions on the topic I've ever seen

  • @hedgiehogUK
    @hedgiehogUK 5 лет назад +5

    Nick: "did this help you understand quantum mechanics a little better?"
    Me: LOL... like I come here for understanding 🤣

  • @anarchistsspit4483
    @anarchistsspit4483 4 года назад

    Like they say "as above;so below". likewise if you cant see or understand whats going on around us the inability of ours naturally tends to lie down and put use ourselves engulfed in imagination. Exactly like what donquixote do perse. And hearing your explanation about probabilistic quantum wave function is the product of one donquixote's imagination into quantum world???
    you are really pretty good in explain this. Hats off dear!

  • @Lucky10279
    @Lucky10279 5 лет назад +1

    2:11 It's amazing how many students don't know what a function actually is. I've had lots of precalc students come to the tutoring center at my school for help with "finding the domain" problems. The first thing I always ask them is "What is a function?" Many have no idea how to define it. This is how I explain it: a function is mapping between 2 sets of objects - usually numbers but they could technically be anything. So if we have have 2 sets, the function just tells you how to get from the first set, the inputs, to the second set, the outputs. I really wish I had your animation to show them though. I may just have to show them that part of this video.

  • @otakuribo
    @otakuribo 5 лет назад +6

    *_The Born Rule_*
    starring Matt Damon as - no wait, wrong Bourne

  • @jitteryjet7525
    @jitteryjet7525 5 лет назад +5

    No actual squirrels were harmed in this episode :-)

  • @user-iu1xg6jv6e
    @user-iu1xg6jv6e 5 лет назад +6

    7:55
    "Just give up"
    But we all know that you won't.

  • @AnnDi
    @AnnDi 5 лет назад +1

    Dude, your videos are AWESOME! Keep it up man! Greetings from Bulgaria.

  • @exhilex
    @exhilex 3 года назад +2

    I absolutely love you man, may you live a long life. You make science exponentially easier! Thank you so very much

  • @TheJarJarKinks
    @TheJarJarKinks 5 лет назад +4

    Before watching, gonna go with probability as my answer to the title question. Let's see if uni has taught me anything worthwhile...
    Edit: Got confirmation within the first minute. Guess I should keep paying tuition.

  • @IloveRumania
    @IloveRumania 2 года назад +4

    9:42 Absolutely!

  • @BuFFoTheArtClown
    @BuFFoTheArtClown 6 месяцев назад +3

    So you never actually answer your question about what's waving.

  • @jasonlough6640
    @jasonlough6640 3 года назад

    Look at that smile @6:12. This is a dude that loves his job. No ego, no self entitlement, none of that bad stuff we so often see in engineers / programmers / "super smart" people. This dude is an example to us all. Hes freaking happy to share what he enjoys, thats all.

  • @probabilitycodingisfunis1
    @probabilitycodingisfunis1 4 года назад +1

    It's one of the best videos I have ever seen..makes understanding things way simpler..thanks!

  • @parkey5
    @parkey5 5 лет назад +5

    I love how you use squirrels 🐿 ❤

  • @julianagil2427
    @julianagil2427 5 лет назад +8

    If quantum mechanics makes a physicist's head hurt imagine what it does to us poor civilians 😢

    • @arthurmee
      @arthurmee 5 лет назад +1

      Civilians? Doesn't that imply that scientists are part of the military? ;)

    • @joaquinel
      @joaquinel 5 лет назад +4

      @@arthurmee Mmm... Pedestrian? You know, metaphors...

    • @joaquinel
      @joaquinel 5 лет назад +3

      Calm down... Everything is going to be Ok !!

    • @arthurmee
      @arthurmee 5 лет назад +2

      @@joaquinel yes indeed. I like the figurative. And the winking emoticon at the end of my statement. I like using them because they convey the tone in which the text was delivered. Mmm symbols

    • @joaquinel
      @joaquinel 5 лет назад +1

      @@arthurmee winking... On purpose? I thought it was just a blink, now the comment makes sense!
      I already got that, I should have used one too. Love to play.
      Specially after a brainhurting video.
      It gets worse after PBS space time.

  • @Bigfoot_With_Internet_Access
    @Bigfoot_With_Internet_Access 5 лет назад +5

    Everybody gangsta till the quantum waves start waving

  • @anthonydavidson6139
    @anthonydavidson6139 5 лет назад +1

    Hey, this doesn’t have to do with this episode, but it’s just a thought I had and you’re probably the most knowledgeable person I know that actually responds...
    Question: could it be possible that the reason we have not found antimatter is because it’s all inside black holes and that’s what they are made of? Maybe all the equal parts of antimatter we are supposed to have are all clumped up?

    • @narfwhals7843
      @narfwhals7843 5 лет назад +1

      This guy scishows

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +1

      While that's _possible,_ it's not very likely. The universe-wide annihilation would have finished long before any black holes formed.

    • @anthonydavidson6139
      @anthonydavidson6139 5 лет назад +2

      Narf Whals you’re right I do! But figured I would ask over here because he actually responds to my questions like above! :):)

  • @lidarman2
    @lidarman2 5 лет назад +1

    Nick, You mean you are not just going through the science experiments books and do another video that 50 other youtubers are doing over and over? I do love your fresh view on things. Keep it up. You have insights that are worthy.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  5 лет назад +1

      If I'm not adding something new to the community, what's the point?

  • @michaelstefanosky2413
    @michaelstefanosky2413 4 года назад +4

    A function of probability. Why did it take him a sentence to explain something that other people take 4 essays to say?

  • @nunyabisnass1141
    @nunyabisnass1141 5 лет назад +8

    "This is not abput the double slit expeiment."
    Thank you.

  • @adamrspears1981
    @adamrspears1981 5 лет назад +3

    "i" equals the square root of negative one.

  • @jlpsinde
    @jlpsinde 5 лет назад +1

    Nick you're getting better and better. Just loved your video. Best explanation I've seen since learned this in 1993!

  • @chrismcgarry3160
    @chrismcgarry3160 3 года назад +1

    Using the Hydrogen Atom example for position & motion really shows how fundamental the Wave Function is!
    I never thought of it like that! Well done!
    5:39 That "Complex Joke" reminder XD And then going all the way to a "Flashback Cam" : That's some Nerdy joke delivery! Bravo!

  • @Traf063
    @Traf063 5 лет назад +3

    Dat Boxxy reference in 2019

  • @victorselve8349
    @victorselve8349 5 лет назад +3

    Everything you though you knew about reality.
    That's what waving.
    Goodbye.

  • @thecomprehensionhub4612
    @thecomprehensionhub4612 4 года назад +2

    1:23 #TeamAndroid

  • @TheNavalAviator
    @TheNavalAviator Год назад +1

    Great job making this difficult topic accessible without leaving the important parts out!

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  Год назад +1

      I put more thought into quantum videos than I do normal videos because it's already so counter-intuitive. Thanks for noticing.

  • @BotaliaX
    @BotaliaX Год назад +1

    I just love your thought process and sense of humor, makes learning so much more engaging and fun! Although I got lost at complex square so going to research more about that, if you can do a video on how quantum wave function relates to quantum entanglement I will love to know more!

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  Год назад

      Quantum Entanglement: ruclips.net/video/hiyKxhETXd8/видео.html 🤓

  • @kartikmessner2868
    @kartikmessner2868 4 года назад +1

    i work on air crafts and one day i found the hangar empty.i asked the senior engineer where the plane was and he said it was complex.we then spiralled into an argument.

  • @lordicemaniac
    @lordicemaniac 4 года назад +1

    that square of wave function was ground breaking realization for me, thanks, exactly what i needed