Not directly related to the subject - 2 scientists walk into a bar. The first one asks for a glass of h 2 oh. He drinks it, and walks out. The second one asks for a glass of h 2 oh too. He drinks it and drops dead.
As atoms display wave-like behavior, quantum mechanics extends its influence into molecules, especially those integral to life processes. Quantum mechanics entails tunneling, superposition, and entanglement within biological systems; these phenomena are evident in the absorption of light by chlorophyll, electron transport within enzymes, the operation of olfactory receptors, and the mechanisms governing photosensitive vision.
Exactly. This gets even more insane, since human vision is based on receptor theory which means that vision is entirely derived from the complex interactions of different field energies in different tissue regions. Receptors are essentially the mechanism that creates these frequencies
1. Quantum Mechanics is not a force, action or intelligence that would provide any influence. It is the STUDY of the Quantum (smallest) elements of mater and how and why they interact they way they do. What are the MECHANICS that makes an electron bond with a nucleus of protons and neutrons, that is the question of Quantum Mechanics. 2. Saying "especially those..." All particles regardless of whether they are integral to life processes or not still follow the same rules of physics. Saying something like "especially..." implies that mater acts differently when used in life processes, when it simply cannot. 3. Tunneling is simply the state where atoms are forced so tightly together that their electrons interpose with each other without bonding or exchanging electrons as Molecules do. Imagine a single Atom of Hydrogen, the electron is so far from the nucleus that if we scaled it up so the electron is the size of a tennis ball, the Nucleus would be about the size of a basketball, and the distance between them is equivalent as the orbit of Jupiter from the Sun. In the presence of extreme gravity, it is possible that the electron from one atom is forced to orbit within the orbit of another atom, THAT is QUANTUM Tunneling. It generally only happens in the hearts of stars and black holes where gravity overcomes the forces that prevent electrons from NORMALLY intersecting with each other. It cannot happen NATURALLY at OUR level of gravity and mater density. 4. Since all "MATER" is in fact also a wave, when the waves of a photon interact with any other wave, either they will repel each other, because they are not in phase but try to occupy the same location, they will pass each other because they effectively do not interact at all, or they will combine into a Different Wave, these different waves can have their electrons increased in energy, which then travels to our brain and is INTERPRETED by our brain to mean that photons of light have been detected. But, the electrons that were formed by repeated photons of light combining in the receptors that do not trigger unless at least 9 photons strike at the same time. Molecules trapped by our tissues, are exposed to light, nine photons hit a single receptor at the same time, FORMING an electron, you could think of it as the kinetic energy of the light being converted to electrical energy, but the fact that everything is simply different waveforms in lower or higher states. Two matching waves will combine into a single STRONGER waveform. If they are not in sync, they will rebound, and this is how we get reflected light. The same is true with olfactory sensors, when enough of a particular molecule is detected, our minds interpret it as a particular smell, but the fact is we are simply absorbing the molecules of the material that we are smelling. When you smell rust, it is because the iron molecules are pairing up with oxygen molecules and being released from the surface of the iron. The iron molecule (two iron atoms) is being converted to iron oxide which is a physical process of the particles converting to something else because the electrons from the oxygen are close enough to the electrons from the iron, and both are easily exchanged, so they pair up into a new molecule, so two oxygen atoms, in a single oxygen molecule, come close enough to a single iron molecule, two iron atoms, and the electrons from the oxygen and iron are easily exchanged, not tunneling, but actually sharing a single electron with two different nuclei of mater, one oxygen and one iron. The Oxygen MOLECULE no longer exists, and the iron molecule no longer exists, but two molecules of iron-oxide now exist. One may stay connected to the other iron molecules nearby, again by exchanging electrons, or it may be set free by the process, letting a single molecule of rust reach your nose, and you can smell the rust. But, the molecule of rust is simply stabilized waveform, so when the waves SYNC they form bigger waves, making electrons carry more energy (for a short period) until the energy is transferred to something else. Using words like superposition and entanglement without understanding either word does not impress those who know how to use both words properly. And they occur in all states, whether part of a biological system or not. QUANTUM is dealing with individual ATOMS. And, now we understand that even the electron, neutron and proton are all made up of quarks of various types, again, tinier waveforms forming sub-atomic particles. Sub-Atomic particles are those waveform groups which combine into a stable configuration, which cannot of themselves be separated from the group without all three converting to energy that is then absorbed into other particles creating heat, the rising of the energy state of the electrons of singular atoms. Since entropy causes all closed systems to stabilize at the shared energy state, when looking at only two molecules of iron and oxygen, we can see that the iron oxide is a more stable state than either the oxygen or the iron alone, though both are stable themselves in isolation. This is of course a VERY SIMPLE description of what happens. Imagine an Oxygen Molecule, two atoms of Oxygen, but so close that their 8 electrons are doing a figure 8 around the two nuclei. So, 16 electrons, figure 8 around two atoms, but because they are the exact same element, the electrons find the figure 8 state to be more stable than a single circular field around the nuclei. It takes less energy to do the figure 8 in close proximity than to maintain two circles. Iron has 26 electrons (when stable) all elements can have more than the normal number of electrons, raising the energy state of the molecule, because electrons are not paired to a single nucleus, they can be shared, the iron and the oxygen when close enough to each other, will SHARE electrons. Adding electrons to the mix can alter the speed and even the structure of the final results. Too many electrons, and they must be shed, as HEAT or ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE where a massive number of electrons are released all at once in a cascading event. That is where some element in massive amounts have obtained extra electrons, but as you can imagine, because the extra electrons are not stable forms of the atoms. If there is only room for 12 electrons in the shell of an element, and it naturally has 8, and you add electrons to enhance the energy state of the atoms, you get them all to 12, but if you try to add one more, you overload the element, which wants to be stable, and not only is the 13th electron not absorbed by the atom, the extra four are released as well, causing the next atom over to have too many electrons, so it releases it's four extra, etc. etc. etc. Again, this is very simplified. Controlling the cascading effect is how we build batteries, capacitors and all electronics.
The, "Hello, wonderful person," at the beginning of and the smile and wave at the end of all your videos always cause me to smile. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to all this physics stuff but even I understand that producing an image of atoms turning into quantum waves is a significant deal. I hope those behind such a great feat get the appropriate amount of recognition and such.
Cats are indeed quantum waves! You can clearly witness it when they are sneaking up on you: Look at the cat and it will freeze its current position (determined) -> Particle. You hide behind the door and after 2 seconds you look again. The cat is in particle state again, but the position changed, but in between it behaves like a wave function. This timelapse continues until the paw's wave function collapes in your face.
@@markiv2942 Sure it must be! An entire cat fits into the smalles boxes which should not be physically possible. Further more: you will never observe a cat doing it as it won't do it as long it is being observed :D But as soon as you look away, it tunnels into the box mystically.
@@marcozec5019 The atoms were "fixed" into place. If they didnt turn into waves in between snapshots they would remain on the same place. But this experiment therir position was shown to be fuzzy and wavelike instead. In specific it matched Shrodinger's wavy equations. So you got a point like thing behaving like fuzzy thing that moves when it shouldnt and that movement is described accurately by the guy who said "maths shows those point like things become fuzzy and wavy under these particular circustances". So yeah, we dont see the waviness but when the experimental results meets the theorical prediction you can safely assume that it was indeed wavy.
This is amazing. Imaging actual atoms as they vibrate. So this makes me think of the roll or importance of frequency in matter. It feels like we are missing something really big that will change everything when we figure it out.
Yeah, I'm also waiting for this. But to get there we need to listen to Einstein wjo wanted to try to understand Quantum Physics beyond just mathematics. Bohr's "shit up and calculate" has given us immense knowledge, but to really understand things, I think we also need to ask more practical questions about the nature of quantum physics.
Pretty sure no cats were actually harmed by Shrodinger. Just googled it and it seems the question on whether he owned a cat is still debated. Some say he owned a cat named "Milton", while others claim that is just a story. He never actually harmed any cats as his "experiment" was only ever a thought experiment as far as I can tell.
I checked my box, no cat. I think that in the nanosecond before I checked my box, the cat went to your box. Check yours and I will let you know if the cat is now in mine.
Excellent video! Very exciting content. You're really talented when it comes to taking sophisticated concepts and translating them for us smooth brains.
I have a passion for physics and to think that if wasn't for my physics teacher my smooth brain wouldn't be filled with all this amazing stuff is scary
I have to say I’m extremely happy I found this channel searching for something related to if there was drag or any force stopping an object from reaching light speed. Have been a fan ever since, I think I enjoy this channel more after seeing some of the recent discoveries in space makes my imagination of some aspects more plausible.
The wave function collapse doesn't stop the partickes from being waves and turn them into particles in the classical sense. Classical particles have both a definite place and a definite momentum; when I localize a quantum particle, I briefly have something with a definite place but with no definite momentum whatsoever.
So, what happens if you measure the momentum of a particle that's held in place, while simultaneously snapping a picture? Would they appear even more fuzzy, as their location becomes a cloud of probable locations?
@@WarhavenSC if you hold it in place you define its position to an extent (with an uncertainty DeltaX), then the momentum becomes undefined to some extent (DeltaP). There is a limit in quantum mechanics for knowing where a particle is and what its momentum is. DeltaX x DeltaP > h/2pi. h = Planck's constant = 6.626×10−34 J⋅Hz−1
@@FredPlanatia The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, correct? But, if you're holding it in place, then it doesn't have any momentum, right? Or is a particle's momentum not the same thing as classic Newtonian momentum?
@@WarhavenSCthat's an excellent thing to point out, id say that limits how well you can 'hold it in place,' however on the flip side perhaps if you hold it too well you become uncertain of whether the particle will be there or not, i.e. the particle may begin tunneling, and the one you measure might not be the one that was there at the start.
The term "holy shit" arose when a turd passed by St Thomas a-Becket was rescued from his chamber pot after his murder, dried in the sun and put on display as a holy relic at Canterbury Cathedral. It remained there until the reign of Queen Victoria, who decided t was too gross to be on public display and had it stored in the Cathedral archives where privileged guests could see it if they asked. That is still the case today. It is probably worth thousands of pounds, as it is well authenticated, whereas most holy relics are forgeries.
Question… when you say “atom is a wave function” do you mean that the electrons move around in a wave function, or do you mean that the protons and neutrons are also moving around just like electrons? And how can you tell whether you’re looking at an electron, or a neutron, or a proton, or do they all jumble together in these fluctuating wave clusters? To apply whatever the answers would be here, would an oxygen wave cluster look different from a carbon wave cluster? And would a molecule of CO2 wave clusters look at all like the oxygen and the carbon did before they bonded? Why or why not?
A wave particle is stable until a photon hits it, (ie, we "see") Once that happens the wave collapses and we see it as a particle. However the photon hitting it imparts some energy into the wave which the wave can use to "rebuild" it's stability and then it can continue it's journey as a wave.
Are you seriously suggesting that no photons 'hit' the wave packet (there's no such thing as a "wave particle") until we are looking at it? That is clearly not logical. That would mean there is no light in the universe until we open our eyes and create the whole universe by looking......
Puts a new emphasis on 'peek-a-boo' which starts off with me hiding & wavering & then turning into a particular person when I am seen. Just like the cat in the box I can't say I feel any different. But I was blown away by Anton's wave-particle graphic.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, they are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.
You cannot unify gravitation with electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions because gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature and the other interactions are not
@@roberttarquinio1288 physics has always shown that the apparently unconnected and distant phenomenon are connected through some deeper pattern to which we are oblivious at first, such as what op is describing which is an interesting perspective
Except that when looking out into the universe we are NOT seeing the past - photons experience no time because they travel at speed C, which means that a photon which left a distant galaxy 10 billion years ago has passed through no time when we observe it here on Earth now. We are seeing the photon's 'now', not its past. Light rays (waves) take actual time to propagate across that distance, but we see photons, not light waves, and they left the source 'now' and arrive 'now'. We see the 'now' that existed when the photon left its source. In that sense the past is not 'made of particles' or if it is, then those particles that we see (photons) are not from the past.
Have loved your program for a long time. It is one of the best for popular physics, astronomy, and science in general. How can you put out so much interesting content? I'm glad you do. The particle/wave image blew my mind. Great t-shirt 👍
This adds to the distillation we find over large spans of time, that we simply don't get to study in our bedroom laboratory at home. I used a word in a comment the other day, but I'm not going to use it here, as it seems to attract the mentality of "fringe" or "anti" thought which breaks with creative innovation. It is this same effect that can exist in small quantity in our own solar systems development over time, thus proving much more complex forms of chemistry in our own backyard. Thanks Anton, you rock!!! I love the more chemistry/physics side of your publications. This does apply to the cosmos also, while teaching us right here at home. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I dont know if I ever commented on a video of yours Anton, but I gotta say I love ya! you have such an expansive range of scientific interests, and make such well produced and extremely informative videos. I really appreciate all the hard work you put into your channel and always look forward to your next vid! thank you very much Anton!!!
Every time I hear about the double slit experiment. I always wonder how they know reflection off from the edge of the slit isn't happening. Because I have never heard them state it can't happen. We also don't really know the reflective capacity of the quantum wave state in relation to the slit either. In laymen theory, wave form would increase the photons area of interaction making it easier to interact with the edge of the material even if it was the most thin opaque material we can fabricate. That material would still be many thousands the size of a single photon.
@@geneticjen9312 Isn't the point that the two waves interfere with each other making a pattern only 2 waves can produce? The electron passes through BOTH slits as a wave, continues on as two waves and forms the interference pattern on the wall as waves collide after passing through the slits.
the photon behaves as though it's interacting with everything, including itself, like a wave would, but it can only have one effect, since it's a single quantum. it's not that the photon is hitting a larger area, it's that the photon kind of only really exists probabilistically as an effect on the observer.
So am i correct that this is essentially a histogram of each particle ? Seems like taking many, many snapshots just reveals an approximation of the probability distribution function, no ?
This is sort of the trick of Quantum. Since we can't observe Quantum phenomena without altering what it's doing, or potentially completely erasing what it was doing, we instead model the particle as a probability field. It's somewhere in this probability field, with decreasing chance as you get away from the center of this field. You have to look for the particle in the field until you find it by colliding something with it, thus telling you where the particle actually was. The probability field in that moment becomes a certainty. Soon after that, however, the probability field will grow again from uncertainty if you do not look at the particle again. A histogram is just a fancy way of saying probability field. It's a histogram who's sum is exactly 1! What the experiment is utilizing, is that the atom itself doesn't get affected by light hitting it as much as a quantum particle would. Thus, you can take pictures of it, somewhat. Nevertheless, the atom is comprised of quantum particles, so it is a quantum packet, as they call it in the video. It has some aspects of quantum behavior. When the machine clamps the atoms into place, this restricts the movement of the quantum particles and so their probability fields drastically shrink and become small and bright, if you envision it as a heat map. So, that causes the atom to look less fuzzy. Hence, the images they're showing in the paper are heat maps, basically. Once you let go of the atom, it regains its original blurry nature gradually, as the uncertainties of the quantum particles within them cause a blurrier probability field.
@@thehaloofthesun7174 Reminds me of particle accelerator experiments we did at LBL. You cant measure directly so you instead watch millions of collisions and study the “histogram” (scattering/transmission angles and energies). You get very good at autocorrelation and statistical methods to tease out “truth.” Fun.
Thank you Anton. As always your information has blown my mind. I love it! Your explanations are well done for we laymen and scientists alike. I guess since scientists are observers, we’re all a scientist. 😀. I can’t imagine how much time you spend editing these. I appreciate you adding visuals to further my understanding as I picture everything.
We physicists *never* call it "Schrödingers wave equation", it's just "Schrödingers equation" --- while it does predict waves depending on the specifics of what it's describing, it's not always waves that are solutions to it, though you can always get oscillatory solutions from it --- oscillatory meaning the solutions are periodic in time, but waves are also periodic in space, and not all solutions are periodic in space. Also, it seems "de Broglie" is pronounced "de-broy" (rhyming with "boy"), at least that's what it says on the Wikipedia page. It appears the family name is of Italian origin, and in the few centuries since the family emigrated to France, the pronunciation was simplified. Oh, and if I recall correctly, all of my professors (when I was a student) pronounced "Germer", as a German word, meaning the "G" is a hard "G", as in "gift", not as in "giraffe", but to be honest I am not really sure how he pronounced his own name, but the son of Clinton Davisson (Richard or "Dick" Davisson, whom I knew at the University of Washington, among other professors and lecturers) also pronounced it the way I'm stating.
It is regrettable that Schroedinger's papers do not include a derivation of his equation. The original editor should have insisted that he include his derivation.
Of all the proposed interpretations, the David Deutsch's "Many Worlds" is one that scares me the most. I do distrust it a lot because the scientist in me protests what it implies (the whole "non sunt multiplicanda entia..." thing notwithstanding). I also feel that such an explanation would be "too elegant" for the "sticks, piece of duct tape and bubblegum" Universe we find ourselves in, one that appears to be non-reducible to one single model or formula, no matter how complex. And yet I also cannot settle for the Copenhagen Interpretation fully because my intuition screams that something important is missing from it entirely, and that "just following the math" is an approach that is just so wrong on a number of levels. I know that this is way beyond my limited intelligence to hope to solve, and still, whenever I have free time - I often return to the old "Wave Function Collapse" because just thinking about it both within and outside mathematics seems to generate other, unrelated, but nonetheless interesting ideas in the more "down to Earth" realm.
@@brunolepri8177 Suffers from some similar issues to MW, (Occam's Razor, + empty branches, etc.) although I do like where Dewdney and Horton have taken it. Wouldn't necessarily call it "superior" though.
@support_people_not_evil A change of perspective may change this for you. I'm not sure what "mere existence" entails for you specifically, but as far as the kinds of questions like "Why is there Everything rather than Nothing?" or "how impossibly improbable is life?" (which I believe to be more a form of Survivor Bias than anything else), the "Infinity" which may end up being a useful mathematical abstraction (like zero) without an actual referent, or finite-ness of the Universe (which I just don't even see as particularly weird in the first place), - that kind of stuff is a lot less weird than seems at first glance. For example: If you spend around 1/10th of average human lifetime studying Cognitive/Behavioral sciences, and as result end up having a good idea of a large number of ways in which the human brain evolved to be a superior self-deception generator, and exactly how it evolved to be so self-deceptive - mere existence may just end up seeming a little less weird than before, Sagan's "We are the Universe looking at itself" will seem like an impossibly naïve idea, poorly reflective of reality, and Deutsch's approach to "Many Worlds" as described in "Fabric of Reality" or "The Beginning of Infinity" will definitely seem weirder than mere existence.
When you photograph a wave, it is a continous observation, if you photograph a particle it is a single observable. A wave function on the other hand is simply a mathematical description of the probability of a particle being in a location, you can theoretically restrict the location of the particle, but at quantum scales, particles can essentially go as far as they want as long as it is less than c and the uncertain location, but at these scales c is basically infinite.
Unfortunately neither can be photographed, only isolated and identified, and that data sent to an image generator. Unless we find a particle smaller than a photon that we can visualize, we can never "see" these particles.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic But that’s about as close as you can get, and works the same way, so I’m not complaining. Any wavelength short enough to image an atom is also short enough to destroy the atom, same with molecules, and anything smaller than a small virus. Electron microscopes should give you some idea.
@@Auroral_Anomaly I mean yeah fair enough. I just think people reading should be aware of that and not misled. You know as well as I do some anti science nutter will use that language against the experiment. 🤷
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic I can’t stand the number of conspiracy theorists/dumb people on Anton’s channel.💀 If you are dumb or uneducated come here to learn, not post a dumb comment.🤦♂️
We can move information faster than light in this way, by sending the data on this scale and not observing it. Then observe the data at the intended destination sooner than matter could arrive by light
Note that you can do the same procedure also with classical random walk (Bownian motion) and obtain very similar pictures, coming from a Gaussian with linearly increasing standard deviation. The quantum behavior is not obvious from a single photograph, but they did measure the same way on lattices of different sizes, and the rate of increase of the standard deviation matched the quantum-mechanics-based prediction. That makes it unlikely to be a non-quantum effect. Other than that, it is similar to earlier confirmations of Quantum Zeno Effect.
I get the feeling that the way atoms are observed is analogous to way biological cells were first investigated after being dyed and prepared for glass slides. Biologists then had the problem of figuring out what was going on from observations of cells which were mutilated by the preparation process. IMHO, when we find a way of observing atoms without confining them, it will be realised that their real anatomy will be totally different from what we believe now. The idea that quantum state changes in a particular way only when it is observed, reinforces my opinion that we are presently observing a deformed entity.
A lot of this can be verbal trickery. There is no changing state when you look at the atom, that's just one interpretation of Quantum. The truth is we will never be able to observe quantum phenomena without some kind of "confining them". This is because you literally cannot interact with the particle without changing it, which is no different from "confining". It's so small, that it's sort of like trying to catch dust; the very movement of your arm moves the air and thus moves the dust away from you, essentially altering what the dust was doing and even completely erasing its current action. Quantum particles are so small that the typical notion of cause and effect breaks down; hence why they're called "quantum". Because of that, we measure Quantum processes with probability fields. The particle is somewhere "here" in this region, and it can be anywhere there, with decreasing chance from the center. Hence, why it behaves like a wave - the very existence of the particles alters the forces around them like droplets would alter the surface of water, creating ripples. In fact, Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs can demonstrate many Quantum phenomena using Fluid Dynamics, such as by using just superheated oil with drops of water bouncing on top of them. The waves of the droplets guide the droplets themselves, depending on how they interfere with each other. Imagine if you would, that we started thinking of the world purely in probability fields. You can probably imagine a heat map of where you physically are on any given day of the week. The warmer the region, the more likely you are to be there at the current moment. It's not until I actually try to find you that I know where you really are. Once I find you, the heat map shrinks to a red hot spot of certainty. As soon as I am not looking at you anymore, that heat map starts growing again and fading, becoming wilder and wilder over time until it looks like it did before I found you. This is sort of what the research in the video is showing. The holding of a particle in place is like me finding you and tackling you to the ground in the middle of whatever you were doing. The difference of course, is that when you "find" a Quantum particle, you typically erase what it was doing. It would be like me blindly tackling you to the ground when I find you, and then trying to figure out what you were doing before that - I can't really know except by the context. So, the atom, whose components are behaving in a Quantum way when they are not being observed, starts to look fuzzy as its particles suffer the effects of uncertainty while you look at it. When you "find" the atom by locking it into place, you restrict the particles to more certain locations, so the atom become less fuzzy looking, visually.
@@farrier2708 ... You do realize I'm agreeing with you? We don't really know which Quantum Interpretation is correct. Thus, this image from the is just telling us things that we all already agree on. That they have definite positions when observed, and more definite positions when more observations are done.
@@farrier2708 On second thought, if the "never" you replied with is in regards to observing the quantum phenomena without confining it... Maaaaybe. From a scaling perspective, if you found small enough particles that they wouldn't affect larger particles much during collision, it may become a classical system again, if you believe in Bohm's interpretation of Quantum. The thing is, how would you interact with those super-small particles to figure out what happened? The issue is that even looking at these particles affects them. I feel like you would still need some way to confine the particles after collision and see where they ended up.
The universe simply makes more sense when you do a frequency analysis, rather than a position/momentum analysis. I can't shake the feeling that everything in the universe has always been calculated just by the summation of oscillations of a field (what is a field? a thing that oscillates). We're lucky to be able to observe its properties at all. The universe lives in the Laplace transform, not the integral we see. I doubt Fourier even knew what he was detecting
Thanks for presenting this stuff to us laymen, Anton. Super interesting, even if I can't do the math. 'Keeps me having a sense of wonder, which I enjoy.
Interestingly the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment was originally dreamt up to highlight flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Despite this it has become part of the foundations of quantum mechanics
Mind blowing. I am nowhere near drunk enough to understand this (pretty much the only way to really understand quantum things). I'll watch the video again later 🤣😂
What kind of equipment did they use to get this image, I'd love to learn more about it, that is really impressive. A lot of people have probably overlooked the complexity of getting an image like this from a technological standpoint. The equipment that took this photo not only needed to be able to operate as an electron microscope, it also needed to be able to effectively photograph radio waves at the same minute scale.
It's been astonishing to see how awareness of the strange effects at the atomic level have crept into human consciousness over the decades, passing through all the stages of disbelief, ridicule, confusion, woo (spiritual/cosmic energy speculations, parallel universes...) and - slowly slowly - clarity. Now a first image showing that it might be true - particles wave goodbye, and waves particle goodbye.
I saw this paper yesterday and was hoping you would do a video on this super cool image! I wonder if you have seen the paper that recently came out that seems to have made a wigner crystal out of experimenting with multilayered graphene
Makes me think of measurement precision, the problem being that the tiniest probes that can be devised are themselves spatially and temporally limited in a sense and of course interact with what is being measured.
Yes. There is a famous double slit demonstration where a beam of individual photos appear to be particles but when "observed" appear to be waves. It's deceptive. There are two way to observe: actively firing a stream of electrons at the photons and passively by not firing a stream of electrons. But they *never* disclose this. Of course firing electrons at a beam of photons will effect it. Photons have a "affinity" for electrons.
6:48 maybe it'd be more accurate to say "imaging them, then restoring their quantum state". The paper is available on arxiv, i found fig. 3c a nice confirmation and visualisation of the uncertaincy principle: The narrower the potential trapping the atom, the larger the impulse uncertaincy, and the faster the packet expands when released.
If I've understood this video correctly, surely it blows a big hole through the Copenhagen interpretation - if it's possible to observe (i.e. photograph) the quantum wave in a number of states of change before/after it manifests as a particle in a particular position (and then composite the photos into this final "timelapse" picture, as you called it) , then the "collapse" isn't a collapse at all but merely one stage in a linear sequence of phase states? Isn't this video saying that each individual photo which makes up this 'timelapse' is a photo of the wave packet in a stage building up to collapse (or after?) - and thus collapse isn't instantaneous? And doesn't it also totally refute the old mantra of "collapse is caused by the act of observing" ? If we can take several pictures of the wave packet prior to collapse, in different positions, then clearly the act of observing is not the cause of 'collapse' - if it was, the first picture would collapse the wave packet immediately? Or am I missing something Anton?
A neutrino walks into a saloon, and the bartender asks what he'd like to drink.
"Oh nothing, I'm just passin' thru."
Thanks for that 😂
Oh I see what you did there, very clever because Neutrinos have no legs.
@@nizzurtmontalgizzert6462 ah, because the Neutino would have to walk home..now i get it.☮💜
@@Amused_Comfort_Inc😂😊
Not directly related to the subject -
2 scientists walk into a bar. The first one asks for a glass of h 2 oh. He drinks it, and walks out.
The second one asks for a glass of h 2 oh too. He drinks it and drops dead.
As atoms display wave-like behavior, quantum mechanics extends its influence into molecules, especially those integral to life processes. Quantum mechanics entails tunneling, superposition, and entanglement within biological systems; these phenomena are evident in the absorption of light by chlorophyll, electron transport within enzymes, the operation of olfactory receptors, and the mechanisms governing photosensitive vision.
Exactly. This gets even more insane, since human vision is based on receptor theory which means that vision is entirely derived from the complex interactions of different field energies in different tissue regions. Receptors are essentially the mechanism that creates these frequencies
@@jacobmcguire106Did you just make that up like when they talk about science on star trek?
@@jacobmcguire106you do realize that receptors don't create frequencies right?
@@jyjjy7 hahaha, 24k Gold comment right there 😁
1. Quantum Mechanics is not a force, action or intelligence that would provide any influence. It is the STUDY of the Quantum (smallest) elements of mater and how and why they interact they way they do. What are the MECHANICS that makes an electron bond with a nucleus of protons and neutrons, that is the question of Quantum Mechanics.
2. Saying "especially those..." All particles regardless of whether they are integral to life processes or not still follow the same rules of physics. Saying something like "especially..." implies that mater acts differently when used in life processes, when it simply cannot.
3. Tunneling is simply the state where atoms are forced so tightly together that their electrons interpose with each other without bonding or exchanging electrons as Molecules do. Imagine a single Atom of Hydrogen, the electron is so far from the nucleus that if we scaled it up so the electron is the size of a tennis ball, the Nucleus would be about the size of a basketball, and the distance between them is equivalent as the orbit of Jupiter from the Sun.
In the presence of extreme gravity, it is possible that the electron from one atom is forced to orbit within the orbit of another atom, THAT is QUANTUM Tunneling. It generally only happens in the hearts of stars and black holes where gravity overcomes the forces that prevent electrons from NORMALLY intersecting with each other. It cannot happen NATURALLY at OUR level of gravity and mater density.
4. Since all "MATER" is in fact also a wave, when the waves of a photon interact with any other wave, either they will repel each other, because they are not in phase but try to occupy the same location, they will pass each other because they effectively do not interact at all, or they will combine into a Different Wave, these different waves can have their electrons increased in energy, which then travels to our brain and is INTERPRETED by our brain to mean that photons of light have been detected. But, the electrons that were formed by repeated photons of light combining in the receptors that do not trigger unless at least 9 photons strike at the same time. Molecules trapped by our tissues, are exposed to light, nine photons hit a single receptor at the same time, FORMING an electron, you could think of it as the kinetic energy of the light being converted to electrical energy, but the fact that everything is simply different waveforms in lower or higher states. Two matching waves will combine into a single STRONGER waveform. If they are not in sync, they will rebound, and this is how we get reflected light. The same is true with olfactory sensors, when enough of a particular molecule is detected, our minds interpret it as a particular smell, but the fact is we are simply absorbing the molecules of the material that we are smelling. When you smell rust, it is because the iron molecules are pairing up with oxygen molecules and being released from the surface of the iron. The iron molecule (two iron atoms) is being converted to iron oxide which is a physical process of the particles converting to something else because the electrons from the oxygen are close enough to the electrons from the iron, and both are easily exchanged, so they pair up into a new molecule, so two oxygen atoms, in a single oxygen molecule, come close enough to a single iron molecule, two iron atoms, and the electrons from the oxygen and iron are easily exchanged, not tunneling, but actually sharing a single electron with two different nuclei of mater, one oxygen and one iron. The Oxygen MOLECULE no longer exists, and the iron molecule no longer exists, but two molecules of iron-oxide now exist. One may stay connected to the other iron molecules nearby, again by exchanging electrons, or it may be set free by the process, letting a single molecule of rust reach your nose, and you can smell the rust. But, the molecule of rust is simply stabilized waveform, so when the waves SYNC they form bigger waves, making electrons carry more energy (for a short period) until the energy is transferred to something else.
Using words like superposition and entanglement without understanding either word does not impress those who know how to use both words properly. And they occur in all states, whether part of a biological system or not. QUANTUM is dealing with individual ATOMS. And, now we understand that even the electron, neutron and proton are all made up of quarks of various types, again, tinier waveforms forming sub-atomic particles. Sub-Atomic particles are those waveform groups which combine into a stable configuration, which cannot of themselves be separated from the group without all three converting to energy that is then absorbed into other particles creating heat, the rising of the energy state of the electrons of singular atoms. Since entropy causes all closed systems to stabilize at the shared energy state, when looking at only two molecules of iron and oxygen, we can see that the iron oxide is a more stable state than either the oxygen or the iron alone, though both are stable themselves in isolation. This is of course a VERY SIMPLE description of what happens.
Imagine an Oxygen Molecule, two atoms of Oxygen, but so close that their 8 electrons are doing a figure 8 around the two nuclei. So, 16 electrons, figure 8 around two atoms, but because they are the exact same element, the electrons find the figure 8 state to be more stable than a single circular field around the nuclei. It takes less energy to do the figure 8 in close proximity than to maintain two circles. Iron has 26 electrons (when stable) all elements can have more than the normal number of electrons, raising the energy state of the molecule, because electrons are not paired to a single nucleus, they can be shared, the iron and the oxygen when close enough to each other, will SHARE electrons. Adding electrons to the mix can alter the speed and even the structure of the final results. Too many electrons, and they must be shed, as HEAT or ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE where a massive number of electrons are released all at once in a cascading event. That is where some element in massive amounts have obtained extra electrons, but as you can imagine, because the extra electrons are not stable forms of the atoms. If there is only room for 12 electrons in the shell of an element, and it naturally has 8, and you add electrons to enhance the energy state of the atoms, you get them all to 12, but if you try to add one more, you overload the element, which wants to be stable, and not only is the 13th electron not absorbed by the atom, the extra four are released as well, causing the next atom over to have too many electrons, so it releases it's four extra, etc. etc. etc. Again, this is very simplified. Controlling the cascading effect is how we build batteries, capacitors and all electronics.
The, "Hello, wonderful person," at the beginning of and the smile and wave at the end of all your videos always cause me to smile.
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to all this physics stuff but even I understand that producing an image of atoms turning into quantum waves is a significant deal. I hope those behind such a great feat get the appropriate amount of recognition and such.
The famous wonderful person/wave duality
Yeah, I imagine they might win a Nobel prize for that, because that's a pretty significant breakthrough for quantum physics.
Same here. It's a nice bit of brightness that doesn't feel forced.
Your confession that you are ignorant means you are at risk of becoming a MAGA. Be careful, please.
Anton is a fantastic human being. You are in good hands 🙂
Cats are indeed quantum waves! You can clearly witness it when they are sneaking up on you: Look at the cat and it will freeze its current position (determined) -> Particle.
You hide behind the door and after 2 seconds you look again. The cat is in particle state again, but the position changed, but in between it behaves like a wave function.
This timelapse continues until the paw's wave function collapes in your face.
I know this from experience!
Cats also effortlessly pass through doors when you're not looking. And they have a singularity in their stomachs.
No, entire cat isn't a quantum wave in it's own.
@@markiv2942 Sure it must be! An entire cat fits into the smalles boxes which should not be physically possible. Further more: you will never observe a cat doing it as it won't do it as long it is being observed :D
But as soon as you look away, it tunnels into the box mystically.
cats are in a path-encoded superposition because they are so fuzzy their position is indeterminate :3
I saw this happen to an entire crowd at a baseball game
Damn you.
Take my like and go.
Atoms love Baseball!
@@retrohollandia
Great minds and all that...
My point exactly.. how does this means atoms turn into waves? I don't follow..
@@marcozec5019 The atoms were "fixed" into place. If they didnt turn into waves in between snapshots they would remain on the same place. But this experiment therir position was shown to be fuzzy and wavelike instead. In specific it matched Shrodinger's wavy equations.
So you got a point like thing behaving like fuzzy thing that moves when it shouldnt and that movement is described accurately by the guy who said "maths shows those point like things become fuzzy and wavy under these particular circustances". So yeah, we dont see the waviness but when the experimental results meets the theorical prediction you can safely assume that it was indeed wavy.
This is amazing. Imaging actual atoms as they vibrate. So this makes me think of the roll or importance of frequency in matter. It feels like we are missing something really big that will change everything when we figure it out.
Yeah, I'm also waiting for this. But to get there we need to listen to Einstein wjo wanted to try to understand Quantum Physics beyond just mathematics. Bohr's "shit up and calculate" has given us immense knowledge, but to really understand things, I think we also need to ask more practical questions about the nature of quantum physics.
This is so duh and obvious. Are all physicists devoid of common sense?
the brown frequency is real?
@@DannyJoh
But maybe “Shit up and calculate” has ossified orthodoxy into “handcuffs”.
@@NewsKnight This is one frequency I DO NOT WANT TO EVER EXPERIENCE.
The cat is alive with no uncertainty. Anton is too wonderful to observe a cat getting hurt without rescuing it.
I agree, looked full of beans to me as well
Anton's cat is either happily awake or comfortably sleeping. That is the uncertainty. This is verified by the Schrodinger equation.
Pretty sure no cats were actually harmed by Shrodinger. Just googled it and it seems the question on whether he owned a cat is still debated. Some say he owned a cat named "Milton", while others claim that is just a story. He never actually harmed any cats as his "experiment" was only ever a thought experiment as far as I can tell.
Yes but what if he doesn't observe
@@bartbroek9695 The cat will be content even if Anton doesn't look. That we know for sure.
Fun fact: Schrödinger’s real life cat was named Milton.
Better cat-namer than Lovecraft, then.
Milton,my visiting cat
You said I could have my radio at a reasonable volume while I was collating…
Fun fact: My grandfather’s Doberman said Milton tasted like chicken
My mum was born in a town called Milton
If you have a box.. chances are 100% there is a cat inside..
That's because when I open a box, I collapse it the heck outa here. No offense, I like animals... I just don't want one.
Only if it's David Deutsch's cat, I'm afraid. 🤔😏 Mine, - I have to go through dozens of them to finally find it.
Interestingly, even big cats like tigers are fond of boxes as long as they are big enough
😂
I checked my box, no cat. I think that in the nanosecond before I checked my box, the cat went to your box. Check yours and I will let you know if the cat is now in mine.
Thank you Anton. I've been following you from day 1
Schrödinger's T shirt, can be worn and not worn at the same time.
But you won't know until you observe it...
Is that similar to Schrodinger's Fart? Where you don't know if it's a solid, liquid, or a gas until you let it out?
It'll be cool if they can make a tshirt that goes transparent sometimes...
@@ConnoisseurOfExistence Have you never seen a wet T-shirt competition?
@@ConnoisseurOfExistence that's silly it is either there or not there, transparent is irrelivant
Which begs the question about Schrodinger’s titties ha ha ha ha
this is mind boggling anton
thanks for the information and i hope to hear future updates
You are always talking about interesting things. And you explain things very well. Keep it up
This is groundbreaking, thanks for the update!
Excellent video! Very exciting content. You're really talented when it comes to taking sophisticated concepts and translating them for us smooth brains.
I have a passion for physics and to think that if wasn't for my physics teacher my smooth brain wouldn't be filled with all this amazing stuff is scary
I have to say I’m extremely happy I found this channel searching for something related to if there was drag or any force stopping an object from reaching light speed. Have been a fan ever since, I think I enjoy this channel more after seeing some of the recent discoveries in space makes my imagination of some aspects more plausible.
Anton's awesome. You will be returning to this channel for years.
Lol... I was gonna name one of my cats Schrodinger but my son decided on Jellybean...
Good thing quantum states also applies to jellybeans!
We did, its been a rollercoaster, but 14 years later she's still as cute as ever.
Well you have to get a divorce and get rid of your son now ): there is no other way
Maybe it is in a state, in which it is Schrodinger and Jellybean at the same time?
The cat's name was both Schrodinger and Jellybean until you asked your son.
dear wonderful Anton, I don't always click your videos but when I do, I'm always amazed
Thankyou Anton you are a wonderful person! Science is amazing when we have channeler like your soul around, much love from Oz!
The wave function collapse doesn't stop the partickes from being waves and turn them into particles in the classical sense. Classical particles have both a definite place and a definite momentum; when I localize a quantum particle, I briefly have something with a definite place but with no definite momentum whatsoever.
So, what happens if you measure the momentum of a particle that's held in place, while simultaneously snapping a picture? Would they appear even more fuzzy, as their location becomes a cloud of probable locations?
@@WarhavenSC if you hold it in place you define its position to an extent (with an uncertainty DeltaX), then the momentum becomes undefined to some extent (DeltaP). There is a limit in quantum mechanics for knowing where a particle is and what its momentum is. DeltaX x DeltaP > h/2pi.
h = Planck's constant = 6.626×10−34 J⋅Hz−1
@@FredPlanatia The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, correct? But, if you're holding it in place, then it doesn't have any momentum, right? Or is a particle's momentum not the same thing as classic Newtonian momentum?
@@WarhavenSCthat's an excellent thing to point out, id say that limits how well you can 'hold it in place,' however on the flip side perhaps if you hold it too well you become uncertain of whether the particle will be there or not, i.e. the particle may begin tunneling, and the one you measure might not be the one that was there at the start.
There is NO end to how much you see the closer you get !!!!
Wow! Holy shit! We are living through the most amazing and fast-changing era in physics, I never expected when I was at university in the 1980s
The term "holy shit" arose when a turd passed by St Thomas a-Becket was rescued from his chamber pot after his murder, dried in the sun and put on display as a holy relic at Canterbury Cathedral. It remained there until the reign of Queen Victoria, who decided t was too gross to be on public display and had it stored in the Cathedral archives where privileged guests could see it if they asked. That is still the case today. It is probably worth thousands of pounds, as it is well authenticated, whereas most holy relics are forgeries.
That ended a long time, now we are in fuck around era again.
Question… when you say “atom is a wave function” do you mean that the electrons move around in a wave function, or do you mean that the protons and neutrons are also moving around just like electrons? And how can you tell whether you’re looking at an electron, or a neutron, or a proton, or do they all jumble together in these fluctuating wave clusters?
To apply whatever the answers would be here, would an oxygen wave cluster look different from a carbon wave cluster? And would a molecule of CO2 wave clusters look at all like the oxygen and the carbon did before they bonded? Why or why not?
Lol, no response, classy.
A wave particle is stable until a photon hits it, (ie, we "see") Once that happens the wave collapses and we see it as a particle. However the photon hitting it imparts some energy into the wave which the wave can use to "rebuild" it's stability and then it can continue it's journey as a wave.
Are you seriously suggesting that no photons 'hit' the wave packet (there's no such thing as a "wave particle") until we are looking at it? That is clearly not logical. That would mean there is no light in the universe until we open our eyes and create the whole universe by looking......
Love you Anton, thank you for keeping us up with all the new science news. Hope you are doing well and not overworking yourself.
So that tree DIDN'T make a noise
Ah bingo lol
There is no tree
Unless an animal/insect Heard it
Only if all creatures in the area lacked ears.
Was there even a tree?
Wow. Three great vids in a row. Happy to have you back, Anton. Content so much better than other YT click- bait vids.
Thank you Anton I subscribe to you for a reason
Puts a new emphasis on 'peek-a-boo' which starts off with me hiding & wavering & then turning into a particular person when I am seen. Just like the cat in the box I can't say I feel any different. But I was blown away by Anton's wave-particle graphic.
There is a typo at 1:30 in the Schrödinger equation, (the last "ket" misses the vertical bar)
Yeah I was thinking the same thing 🤔 Nope I wasn’t 🤦♂️
Great work Anton.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, they are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.
You cannot unify gravitation with electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions because gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature and the other interactions are not
yeah bud, we know
@@roberttarquinio1288 physics has always shown that the apparently unconnected and distant phenomenon are connected through some deeper pattern to which we are oblivious at first, such as what op is describing which is an interesting perspective
Except that when looking out into the universe we are NOT seeing the past - photons experience no time because they travel at speed C, which means that a photon which left a distant galaxy 10 billion years ago has passed through no time when we observe it here on Earth now. We are seeing the photon's 'now', not its past. Light rays (waves) take actual time to propagate across that distance, but we see photons, not light waves, and they left the source 'now' and arrive 'now'. We see the 'now' that existed when the photon left its source. In that sense the past is not 'made of particles' or if it is, then those particles that we see (photons) are not from the past.
@@philweight3480 true. But I’m not talking about the photons point of view. This is from a humans perspective.
Have loved your program for a long time. It is one of the best for popular physics, astronomy, and science in general. How can you put out so much interesting content? I'm glad you do.
The particle/wave image blew my mind. Great t-shirt 👍
This adds to the distillation we find over large spans of time, that we simply don't get to study in our bedroom laboratory at home. I used a word in a comment the other day, but I'm not going to use it here, as it seems to attract the mentality of "fringe" or "anti" thought which breaks with creative innovation. It is this same effect that can exist in small quantity in our own solar systems development over time, thus proving much more complex forms of chemistry in our own backyard. Thanks Anton, you rock!!! I love the more chemistry/physics side of your publications. This does apply to the cosmos also, while teaching us right here at home. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
This is awesome! Thanks Anton and crew for sharing this! Also, please make the shirt!!!
Очень интересное видео, спасибо что радуете контентом без рекламы ❤
Thanks Anton, great segment, enjoyed it.
I dont know if I ever commented on a video of yours Anton, but I gotta say I love ya! you have such an expansive range of scientific interests, and make such well produced and extremely informative videos. I really appreciate all the hard work you put into your channel and always look forward to your next vid! thank you very much Anton!!!
Every time I hear about the double slit experiment. I always wonder how they know reflection off from the edge of the slit isn't happening. Because I have never heard them state it can't happen. We also don't really know the reflective capacity of the quantum wave state in relation to the slit either. In laymen theory, wave form would increase the photons area of interaction making it easier to interact with the edge of the material even if it was the most thin opaque material we can fabricate. That material would still be many thousands the size of a single photon.
That literally is what's happening. That's the point. Waves interact with the edges and refract
@@geneticjen9312 Isn't the point that the two waves interfere with each other making a pattern only 2 waves can produce? The electron passes through BOTH slits as a wave, continues on as two waves and forms the interference pattern on the wall as waves collide after passing through the slits.
the photon behaves as though it's interacting with everything, including itself, like a wave would, but it can only have one effect, since it's a single quantum. it's not that the photon is hitting a larger area, it's that the photon kind of only really exists probabilistically as an effect on the observer.
The channel that reminds me science is moving forward! Thanks for your amazing content!
So am i correct that this is essentially a histogram of each particle ?
Seems like taking many, many snapshots just reveals an approximation of the probability distribution function, no ?
This is sort of the trick of Quantum. Since we can't observe Quantum phenomena without altering what it's doing, or potentially completely erasing what it was doing, we instead model the particle as a probability field. It's somewhere in this probability field, with decreasing chance as you get away from the center of this field. You have to look for the particle in the field until you find it by colliding something with it, thus telling you where the particle actually was. The probability field in that moment becomes a certainty. Soon after that, however, the probability field will grow again from uncertainty if you do not look at the particle again. A histogram is just a fancy way of saying probability field. It's a histogram who's sum is exactly 1!
What the experiment is utilizing, is that the atom itself doesn't get affected by light hitting it as much as a quantum particle would. Thus, you can take pictures of it, somewhat. Nevertheless, the atom is comprised of quantum particles, so it is a quantum packet, as they call it in the video. It has some aspects of quantum behavior. When the machine clamps the atoms into place, this restricts the movement of the quantum particles and so their probability fields drastically shrink and become small and bright, if you envision it as a heat map. So, that causes the atom to look less fuzzy. Hence, the images they're showing in the paper are heat maps, basically. Once you let go of the atom, it regains its original blurry nature gradually, as the uncertainties of the quantum particles within them cause a blurrier probability field.
@@thehaloofthesun7174 Reminds me of particle accelerator experiments we did at LBL. You cant measure directly so you instead watch millions of collisions and study the “histogram” (scattering/transmission angles and energies). You get very good at autocorrelation and statistical methods to tease out “truth.” Fun.
Thank you Anton. As always your information has blown my mind. I love it! Your explanations are well done for we laymen and scientists alike. I guess since scientists are observers, we’re all a scientist. 😀. I can’t imagine how much time you spend editing these. I appreciate you adding visuals to further my understanding as I picture everything.
Schrodinger's cat: being both well fed and hungry at the same time
Certainly applies to all the cats I've had!
Schrödinger’ cat: wanted to go inside and outside at the same time 🐈🚪
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😊😁
We physicists *never* call it "Schrödingers wave equation", it's just "Schrödingers equation" --- while it does predict waves depending on the specifics of what it's describing, it's not always waves that are solutions to it, though you can always get oscillatory solutions from it --- oscillatory meaning the solutions are periodic in time, but waves are also periodic in space, and not all solutions are periodic in space.
Also, it seems "de Broglie" is pronounced "de-broy" (rhyming with "boy"), at least that's what it says on the Wikipedia page. It appears the family name is of Italian origin, and in the few centuries since the family emigrated to France, the pronunciation was simplified.
Oh, and if I recall correctly, all of my professors (when I was a student) pronounced "Germer", as a German word, meaning the "G" is a hard "G", as in "gift", not as in "giraffe", but to be honest I am not really sure how he pronounced his own name, but the son of Clinton Davisson (Richard or "Dick" Davisson, whom I knew at the University of Washington, among other professors and lecturers) also pronounced it the way I'm stating.
Gift in German translates to poison 🙌.
@@justsayen2024 😄
Okay
It is regrettable that Schroedinger's papers do not include a derivation of his equation. The original editor should have insisted that he include his derivation.
@skwalka6372 can you explain to me what this means a little more? Does it mean how he arrived at his solution?
Thank you Anton for the amazing work and your wonderful smile
I’m over here yelling Bose-Einstein condensate
Thank you for all your hard work!
Schrodinger's Cake: When you want to have your cake and eat it too 🎂 🤪
So Awesome!
Of all the proposed interpretations, the David Deutsch's "Many Worlds" is one that scares me the most. I do distrust it a lot because the scientist in me protests what it implies (the whole "non sunt multiplicanda entia..." thing notwithstanding). I also feel that such an explanation would be "too elegant" for the "sticks, piece of duct tape and bubblegum" Universe we find ourselves in, one that appears to be non-reducible to one single model or formula, no matter how complex. And yet I also cannot settle for the Copenhagen Interpretation fully because my intuition screams that something important is missing from it entirely, and that "just following the math" is an approach that is just so wrong on a number of levels. I know that this is way beyond my limited intelligence to hope to solve, and still, whenever I have free time - I often return to the old "Wave Function Collapse" because just thinking about it both within and outside mathematics seems to generate other, unrelated, but nonetheless interesting ideas in the more "down to Earth" realm.
Bohmian mechanics is superior to both
@@brunolepri8177 Suffers from some similar issues to MW, (Occam's Razor, + empty branches, etc.) although I do like where Dewdney and Horton have taken it. Wouldn't necessarily call it "superior" though.
Math maybe is inaccurate, maybe fractal geometry or new mathematics may help.
Why does the Many Worlds interpretation scare you?
@support_people_not_evil A change of perspective may change this for you. I'm not sure what "mere existence" entails for you specifically, but as far as the kinds of questions like "Why is there Everything rather than Nothing?" or "how impossibly improbable is life?" (which I believe to be more a form of Survivor Bias than anything else), the "Infinity" which may end up being a useful mathematical abstraction (like zero) without an actual referent, or finite-ness of the Universe (which I just don't even see as particularly weird in the first place), - that kind of stuff is a lot less weird than seems at first glance. For example: If you spend around 1/10th of average human lifetime studying Cognitive/Behavioral sciences, and as result end up having a good idea of a large number of ways in which the human brain evolved to be a superior self-deception generator, and exactly how it evolved to be so self-deceptive - mere existence may just end up seeming a little less weird than before, Sagan's "We are the Universe looking at itself" will seem like an impossibly naïve idea, poorly reflective of reality, and Deutsch's approach to "Many Worlds" as described in "Fabric of Reality" or "The Beginning of Infinity" will definitely seem weirder than mere existence.
Great video! Nice to see something out of the ordinary!
When you photograph a wave, it is a continous observation, if you photograph a particle it is a single observable.
A wave function on the other hand is simply a mathematical description of the probability of a particle being in a location, you can theoretically restrict the location of the particle, but at quantum scales, particles can essentially go as far as they want as long as it is less than c and the uncertain location, but at these scales c is basically infinite.
Unfortunately neither can be photographed, only isolated and identified, and that data sent to an image generator. Unless we find a particle smaller than a photon that we can visualize, we can never "see" these particles.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic But that’s about as close as you can get, and works the same way, so I’m not complaining. Any wavelength short enough to image an atom is also short enough to destroy the atom, same with molecules, and anything smaller than a small virus. Electron microscopes should give you some idea.
@@Auroral_Anomaly I mean yeah fair enough. I just think people reading should be aware of that and not misled. You know as well as I do some anti science nutter will use that language against the experiment. 🤷
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic I can’t stand the number of conspiracy theorists/dumb people on Anton’s channel.💀 If you are dumb or uneducated come here to learn, not post a dumb comment.🤦♂️
We can move information faster than light in this way, by sending the data on this scale and not observing it. Then observe the data at the intended destination sooner than matter could arrive by light
Cheers, all!
Note that you can do the same procedure also with classical random walk (Bownian motion) and obtain very similar pictures, coming from a Gaussian with linearly increasing standard deviation. The quantum behavior is not obvious from a single photograph, but they did measure the same way on lattices of different sizes, and the rate of increase of the standard deviation matched the quantum-mechanics-based prediction. That makes it unlikely to be a non-quantum effect.
Other than that, it is similar to earlier confirmations of Quantum Zeno Effect.
I get the feeling that the way atoms are observed is analogous to way biological cells were first investigated after being dyed and prepared for glass slides.
Biologists then had the problem of figuring out what was going on from observations of cells which were mutilated by the preparation process.
IMHO, when we find a way of observing atoms without confining them, it will be realised that their real anatomy will be totally different from what we believe now.
The idea that quantum state changes in a particular way only when it is observed, reinforces my opinion that we are presently observing a deformed entity.
A lot of this can be verbal trickery. There is no changing state when you look at the atom, that's just one interpretation of Quantum. The truth is we will never be able to observe quantum phenomena without some kind of "confining them". This is because you literally cannot interact with the particle without changing it, which is no different from "confining". It's so small, that it's sort of like trying to catch dust; the very movement of your arm moves the air and thus moves the dust away from you, essentially altering what the dust was doing and even completely erasing its current action. Quantum particles are so small that the typical notion of cause and effect breaks down; hence why they're called "quantum". Because of that, we measure Quantum processes with probability fields. The particle is somewhere "here" in this region, and it can be anywhere there, with decreasing chance from the center. Hence, why it behaves like a wave - the very existence of the particles alters the forces around them like droplets would alter the surface of water, creating ripples. In fact, Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs can demonstrate many Quantum phenomena using Fluid Dynamics, such as by using just superheated oil with drops of water bouncing on top of them. The waves of the droplets guide the droplets themselves, depending on how they interfere with each other.
Imagine if you would, that we started thinking of the world purely in probability fields. You can probably imagine a heat map of where you physically are on any given day of the week. The warmer the region, the more likely you are to be there at the current moment. It's not until I actually try to find you that I know where you really are. Once I find you, the heat map shrinks to a red hot spot of certainty. As soon as I am not looking at you anymore, that heat map starts growing again and fading, becoming wilder and wilder over time until it looks like it did before I found you. This is sort of what the research in the video is showing. The holding of a particle in place is like me finding you and tackling you to the ground in the middle of whatever you were doing. The difference of course, is that when you "find" a Quantum particle, you typically erase what it was doing. It would be like me blindly tackling you to the ground when I find you, and then trying to figure out what you were doing before that - I can't really know except by the context. So, the atom, whose components are behaving in a Quantum way when they are not being observed, starts to look fuzzy as its particles suffer the effects of uncertainty while you look at it. When you "find" the atom by locking it into place, you restrict the particles to more certain locations, so the atom become less fuzzy looking, visually.
@@thehaloofthesun7174 Never say Never".
The future will prove you wrong.
@@farrier2708 ... You do realize I'm agreeing with you? We don't really know which Quantum Interpretation is correct. Thus, this image from the is just telling us things that we all already agree on. That they have definite positions when observed, and more definite positions when more observations are done.
@@farrier2708 On second thought, if the "never" you replied with is in regards to observing the quantum phenomena without confining it... Maaaaybe. From a scaling perspective, if you found small enough particles that they wouldn't affect larger particles much during collision, it may become a classical system again, if you believe in Bohm's interpretation of Quantum. The thing is, how would you interact with those super-small particles to figure out what happened? The issue is that even looking at these particles affects them. I feel like you would still need some way to confine the particles after collision and see where they ended up.
The universe simply makes more sense when you do a frequency analysis, rather than a position/momentum analysis. I can't shake the feeling that everything in the universe has always been calculated just by the summation of oscillations of a field (what is a field? a thing that oscillates). We're lucky to be able to observe its properties at all. The universe lives in the Laplace transform, not the integral we see. I doubt Fourier even knew what he was detecting
A tree in a forest is both standing and fallen until the particle interaction is observed.
... and we were worried about hearing it.
Hearing the noise is an observation. Therefore, if you hear a noise the tree has fallen into one of many possible quantum states. QED.
@@svennoren9047 So you've confirmed the nature of an 'observation'? Quick, ring the Nobel committee, I think you'll be up for a prize for that.
just wow...the partice duality image is incredible!!!!
So atoms look like tiny little radishes. I knew it.
It’s Minecraft all the way down.
But somehow a lot more blue than expected.
It depends on the atom. Electrons in larger atoms tend to live primarily in orbitals that give them more pyramidal shapes.
Dude, your content is amazing
Mix this with Attosecond snapshots & we're cooking 🍳 😋
Anton, your content is incredible thank you so much
So at absolute Zero the universe exists as a wave function. Heck of a mind thought contemplation. ;-}
Thanks for presenting this stuff to us laymen, Anton. Super interesting, even if I can't do the math. 'Keeps me having a sense of wonder, which I enjoy.
Interestingly the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment was originally dreamt up to highlight flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Despite this it has become part of the foundations of quantum mechanics
It's only foundational in the popular imagination and high school science texts. Physicists know how Schroedinger meant it.
Hello wonderful Anton 😊
Mind blowing. I am nowhere near drunk enough to understand this (pretty much the only way to really understand quantum things). I'll watch the video again later 🤣😂
What kind of equipment did they use to get this image, I'd love to learn more about it, that is really impressive. A lot of people have probably overlooked the complexity of getting an image like this from a technological standpoint. The equipment that took this photo not only needed to be able to operate as an electron microscope, it also needed to be able to effectively photograph radio waves at the same minute scale.
it's like Shiva is sleeping and we are decoding the matrix until he wakes up
How do you always find the newest, coolest science news? I love your show!
It's been astonishing to see how awareness of the strange effects at the atomic level have crept into human consciousness over the decades, passing through all the stages of disbelief, ridicule, confusion, woo (spiritual/cosmic energy speculations, parallel universes...) and - slowly slowly - clarity.
Now a first image showing that it might be true - particles wave goodbye, and waves particle goodbye.
I'm ready to be done with the "woo" stage as it's extremely... not wonderful.
You got the thumbs up in the first 5 seconds. Purrfect intro
Very cool! Thanks, as always, for a great video.
Thanks for the video Anton
Hey Anton been a suscriber for years luv ya channel keep up the good work 👏
Great presentation, beautiful pictures, thanks 👍😊
Thank you. At last I get it. I needed this to put the ideas in place 🙏
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing!
The fact that the detected range or a lithium atom's placement in space is measured close to a whole 1 micrometer is mind boggling! This is huge!
1:43 i was trying to use words to show that form, it’s like a zipper with a spiral and that’s the sharing pattern
Hello brilliant Anton!
Excellent video, as always.
I saw this paper yesterday and was hoping you would do a video on this super cool image! I wonder if you have seen the paper that recently came out that seems to have made a wigner crystal out of experimenting with multilayered graphene
thank you for this wonderful video.
Makes me think of measurement precision, the problem being that the tiniest probes that can be devised are themselves spatially and temporally limited in a sense and of course interact with what is being measured.
Yes. There is a famous double slit demonstration where a beam of individual photos appear to be particles but when "observed" appear to be waves. It's deceptive. There are two way to observe: actively firing a stream of electrons at the photons and passively by not firing a stream of electrons. But they *never* disclose this. Of course firing electrons at a beam of photons will effect it. Photons have a "affinity" for electrons.
Hello Wonderful Particle.
Thank you Anton, great topic....
A measurement is like a snap shot of a frame of/in space-time ?
Amazing!
Thank you Anton 👍
6:48 maybe it'd be more accurate to say "imaging them, then restoring their quantum state".
The paper is available on arxiv, i found fig. 3c a nice confirmation and visualisation of the uncertaincy principle: The narrower the potential trapping the atom, the larger the impulse uncertaincy, and the faster the packet expands when released.
If I've understood this video correctly, surely it blows a big hole through the Copenhagen interpretation - if it's possible to observe (i.e. photograph) the quantum wave in a number of states of change before/after it manifests as a particle in a particular position (and then composite the photos into this final "timelapse" picture, as you called it) , then the "collapse" isn't a collapse at all but merely one stage in a linear sequence of phase states? Isn't this video saying that each individual photo which makes up this 'timelapse' is a photo of the wave packet in a stage building up to collapse (or after?) - and thus collapse isn't instantaneous? And doesn't it also totally refute the old mantra of "collapse is caused by the act of observing" ? If we can take several pictures of the wave packet prior to collapse, in different positions, then clearly the act of observing is not the cause of 'collapse' - if it was, the first picture would collapse the wave packet immediately?
Or am I missing something Anton?
Check out unveiling the field invisible forces shaping out universe it does a really good job
Thank you Anton!
Fantastic Anton. Thanks!
It's like mapping a wavicle's geometry by seeing different areas/points/angles of its topology lit up
This stuff bends my mind right around itself.
Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm talks about this concept in great detail :)
The Wonderful Person Anton Petrov takes the time to explain this amazing development to me.
Just like trying to describe the end of the universe, (distance) this may be something we never understand despite how many equations we throw at it.