"The thing that is waving...is a wave of probability...." WOW. I don't know why these specific words helped this finally click for me but they did. I've been quite lost and bewildered about the whole wave/particle issue for decades now. Thank you!
Hi Paul, can you explain how even molecules as large as 100 atoms still act as a wave in double slit? What would be the limit of matter where adding one more atom to the molecule would result in it stop behaving like an wave but as a particle?
An objects 'wavelength' is inversely proportional to its momentum, the smaller the wavelength the narrower the slit needs to be cause interference. Adding more mass makes designing the experiment increasingly difficult. Its not as if the quantum nature disappears as you add mass, it just gets harder to detect.
5:30 Is that the reason why in the real photos of the atoms they look like gray grainy structure, because the electrons are like clouds or spheres surrounding the nucleus? On the other hand, the pictures in the chemistry and the physics textbooks present the nucleus and the electrons like the Sun and the planets. Still, the teachers told us that this is a simplified version of the things.
Our notion of solid things with boundaries is because of our experience with the electromagnetic force and inertia. A mass is determined to have a location by its center of mass and electromagnetism repels other masses, hence the ability to "bounce" things off them instead of them passing through each other. Why did we think electrons were like this. It seems way more natural to think of them as the source of "solidity" but not for themselves to actually be solid things. After all solidity is just an impression we get. Why cant it be a Newtonian fluid in the sense that in certain conditions it acts more like a "fluid".
If we can observe it it is a vortex at the center of a single energy packet within a waveform that in the way its used here is the peak and the trough from 2 packets of energy that have a rotational value? as an electron passes near another 'anything observable' that isn't at its same frequency (another electron) it creates waves of its frequency? interference like on a reef seeing individual waves break in any direction as an irregular surface disrupts a surface wave passing over head? waves under water can break on the edge of a rock up or down or in whatever direction the complex geometry and pressure gradients created from it can come up with.
What are we talking about when we say something is a wave or a particle? Are we talking about shape, motion, wtf? In the case of water, waves can propagate through it, but it doesn't really make sense to say water is a wave. When we say something is a particle, are we referring to its shape? Is a particle something spherical in shape? What about size? If we have a bunch of particles together through which a wave propagates, is the particle then a wave? Or is the wave a particle. The whole wave/particle thing seems nothing more than a language game resulting from ill defined terms and ambiguity.
true, the language is weak, but the math is still strong. You can represent the particle with the math of waves very precisely. I agree that does not Make the particle a wave, but it does help you describe its nature as wave-like or particle-like regardless of what it objectively is in reality.
I think if that experiment would be replaced with a canon sand( not laser canon) would happen the same thing. It means : the experiment doesn't show anything because sand is particle, that( same thing ) would happen with all things as : sugar grain,salt grain, sand grain etc...( the photon doesn t interfere with itself but crashes with border of slit part (ricocheted the lips/_borders of the slit )
I find that most of the weirdness simply disappears with one thing... it's not that photons or matter for that matter is a wave or a particle. No. Whatever it is, to put it bluntly, it is something whose behaviour we can describe using one, two or both sets of equations. The only thing "wrong" in the question of "is matter a wave or a particle" is the word is. Like Clinton once said, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The really fun thing with the double split experiment is when you slow down the emission of particles and no matter how slow (how individually each particle is fired) ... you still end up with the pattern even if there's basically no other particle to interfere with.
I saw an explanation of quantum teleportation in tadpoles on the curiosity channel where they explained there is not enough time for a tadpole to use what it's got in six weeks to grow frog legs so the enzymes actually break down the tadpole using quantum teleportation to save time.
How small shud we consider bcoz is it possible that some hypothetical person who is of the size of the sun myt view us as wavy???pls answer my questions love ur videos
Love your videos dr Paul! :) I've always wondered if the equations describe the behavior of the particle from the perspective of the observer or how they behave objectively?
How do we define a quantum of energy for any wave field? For example for sound waves, or a mathematical wave equation? I mean other than experiments, and the current defined particles.
The natural first (Occam’s) assumption to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle and also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from gluons to solar systems are in orbit with something pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space in our expanding universe, is that they (all particles) might be orbiting something, no? And since we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, it seems this would be the first assumption by the physics community at some point, no? If it’s the case, it would explain the double slit, uncertainty, and wave particle duality in general and the amplitude of waves would be the orbit diameter of the particle and the wavelength would be its orbit rotation speed relative to travel speed. Surely this idea has been considered and proven not possible, right? Could someone please point me to the specific experiments, calculations, theories, etc that have disproved this possibility? Thx
Don't take Occam's razor for granted, it's not really a fundamental law of nature, the way the (say) laws of thermodynamics are. It's more of a guideline or a preferred state if you will, but not something to derive fundamental conclusions from. As for the second and third paragraph, in science (as in law) is usually preferred to provide the evidence for the positive statements, hence the burden of proof generally falls to the side making the claim. There are exceptions though.
That's good thinking and science history has gone through this idea. You're theory could explain some quantum effects but not all of them. Check out hidden variables and the bell inequality. It becomes increasingly difficult to explain results with local physical representations.
Imagine - just for the fun of it - space consisted of tiny intelligent spacecubes. By shooting particles through space, you would change the software of those spacecubes. This “spatial facilitation” then would cause the wave pattern of particles. Why do you professionals constantly ignore space? Isn`t it time to rethink space, more than 100 years after Albert?
@@extropian314 True, but...1. I have seen a lot of space but not a single purple dragon, yet (Okay, I have never been to the center of our earth.). 2. Particles in the double slit experiment travel through space and not through purple dragons (as far as I know). 3. The name of this youtube series is: "Ask a Spaceman" and not "Ask a Purpledragonman."
I hate when people say "when you look at them" about quantum probability position. People come to me and say "see? if people dissapear there is no quantum behaviours, whole world have to be part of great mind bla bla bla" Can we use other terms which better describe wave collapse instead of "looking at it"? ;( Unless I'm the only one wrong here, and it is really related to the "mind looking at it" any and all educational videos simply work against me when I try to explain that it have totally nothing to do with the looking part ;( but rather some form of interaction in which sensing interaction is simply subcategory... Or am I actually wrong?
I just felt a great sadness with the thought that when mankind becomes extinct in the very near future, all of the great knowledge that people such as yourself have discovered and communicated will have been for nothing. Such a waste of what could have been a spectacular future!
"The thing that is waving...is a wave of probability...." WOW. I don't know why these specific words helped this finally click for me but they did. I've been quite lost and bewildered about the whole wave/particle issue for decades now. Thank you!
Tried interfering through a door once......didn't end well! Seams my wave function collapsed a bit earlier then anticipated (by me)!
@tinylilmatt ROFL! =))
"My mind is not getting over that matter" short circuit 2
Becouse u observed yourself. It not gonna happen like this.
@@LyubomirIko =))
Hi Paul, can you explain how even molecules as large as 100 atoms still act as a wave in double slit? What would be the limit of matter where adding one more atom to the molecule would result in it stop behaving like an wave but as a particle?
Good question. I would like to know the answer to that too.
An objects 'wavelength' is inversely proportional to its momentum, the smaller the wavelength the narrower the slit needs to be cause interference. Adding more mass makes designing the experiment increasingly difficult. Its not as if the quantum nature disappears as you add mass, it just gets harder to detect.
Mic is good again this week :)
5:30 Is that the reason why in the real photos of the atoms they look like gray grainy structure, because the electrons are like clouds or spheres surrounding the nucleus? On the other hand, the pictures in the chemistry and the physics textbooks present the nucleus and the electrons like the Sun and the planets. Still, the teachers told us that this is a simplified version of the things.
The answer would be yes.
Our notion of solid things with boundaries is because of our experience with the electromagnetic force and inertia. A mass is determined to have a location by its center of mass and electromagnetism repels other masses, hence the ability to "bounce" things off them instead of them passing through each other. Why did we think electrons were like this. It seems way more natural to think of them as the source of "solidity" but not for themselves to actually be solid things. After all solidity is just an impression we get. Why cant it be a Newtonian fluid in the sense that in certain conditions it acts more like a "fluid".
If we can observe it it is a vortex at the center of a single energy packet within a waveform that in the way its used here is the peak and the trough from 2 packets of energy that have a rotational value? as an electron passes near another 'anything observable' that isn't at its same frequency (another electron) it creates waves of its frequency? interference like on a reef seeing individual waves break in any direction as an irregular surface disrupts a surface wave passing over head? waves under water can break on the edge of a rock up or down or in whatever direction the complex geometry and pressure gradients created from it can come up with.
What are we talking about when we say something is a wave or a particle?
Are we talking about shape, motion, wtf?
In the case of water, waves can propagate through it, but it doesn't really make sense to say water is a wave. When we say something is a particle, are we referring to its shape? Is a particle something spherical in shape? What about size?
If we have a bunch of particles together through which a wave propagates, is the particle then a wave? Or is the wave a particle.
The whole wave/particle thing seems nothing more than a language game resulting from ill defined terms and ambiguity.
true, the language is weak, but the math is still strong. You can represent the particle with the math of waves very precisely. I agree that does not Make the particle a wave, but it does help you describe its nature as wave-like or particle-like regardless of what it objectively is in reality.
I think if that experiment would be replaced with a canon sand( not laser canon) would happen the same thing. It means : the experiment doesn't show anything because sand is particle, that( same thing ) would happen with all things as : sugar grain,salt grain, sand grain etc...( the photon doesn t interfere with itself but crashes with border of slit part (ricocheted the lips/_borders of the slit )
I find that most of the weirdness simply disappears with one thing... it's not that photons or matter for that matter is a wave or a particle. No. Whatever it is, to put it bluntly, it is something whose behaviour we can describe using one, two or both sets of equations. The only thing "wrong" in the question of "is matter a wave or a particle" is the word is. Like Clinton once said, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
The really fun thing with the double split experiment is when you slow down the emission of particles and no matter how slow (how individually each particle is fired) ... you still end up with the pattern even if there's basically no other particle to interfere with.
I always wondered about standing waves in our bodies and electron jumping.
I saw an explanation of quantum teleportation in tadpoles on the curiosity channel where they explained there is not enough time for a tadpole to use what it's got in six weeks to grow frog legs so the enzymes actually break down the tadpole using quantum teleportation to save time.
Thank you so much I understand this a bit better now
How small shud we consider bcoz is it possible that some hypothetical person who is of the size of the sun myt view us as wavy???pls answer my questions love ur videos
Love your videos dr Paul! :) I've always wondered if the equations describe the behavior of the particle from the perspective of the observer or how they behave objectively?
Awesome as usual, thanks Paul
Everything, light and matter is travelling threw gravity, surely that's the answer. I mean we discovered gravity waves.
How do we define a quantum of energy for any wave field? For example for sound waves, or a mathematical wave equation? I mean other than experiments, and the current defined particles.
Great video, thanks !
Yes
Did anyone ever try a double shape other than slit experiment?
So it will be either Warticle or Pave?
Both!
The natural first (Occam’s) assumption to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle and also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from gluons to solar systems are in orbit with something pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space in our expanding universe, is that they (all particles) might be orbiting something, no?
And since we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, it seems this would be the first assumption by the physics community at some point, no? If it’s the case, it would explain the double slit, uncertainty, and wave particle duality in general and the amplitude of waves would be the orbit diameter of the particle and the wavelength would be its orbit rotation speed relative to travel speed. Surely this idea has been considered and proven not possible, right?
Could someone please point me to the specific experiments, calculations, theories, etc that have disproved this possibility? Thx
Don't take Occam's razor for granted, it's not really a fundamental law of nature, the way the (say) laws of thermodynamics are. It's more of a guideline or a preferred state if you will, but not something to derive fundamental conclusions from.
As for the second and third paragraph, in science (as in law) is usually preferred to provide the evidence for the positive statements, hence the burden of proof generally falls to the side making the claim. There are exceptions though.
That's good thinking and science history has gone through this idea. You're theory could explain some quantum effects but not all of them. Check out hidden variables and the bell inequality. It becomes increasingly difficult to explain results with local physical representations.
@@kadmilossomnium eh, my comment isn't about quantum mechanics specifically, but rather a general comment on rationalism and the scientific method.
Imagine - just for the fun of it - space consisted of tiny intelligent spacecubes. By shooting particles through space, you would change the software of those spacecubes. This “spatial facilitation” then would cause the wave pattern of particles.
Why do you professionals constantly ignore space? Isn`t it time to rethink space, more than 100 years after Albert?
We could also hypothesize that purple dragons living at the center of the Earth are causing it, and this would also be consistent with observations.
@@extropian314 True, but...1. I have seen a lot of space but not a single purple dragon, yet (Okay, I have never been to the center of our earth.). 2. Particles in the double slit experiment travel through space and not through purple dragons (as far as I know). 3. The name of this youtube series is: "Ask a Spaceman" and not "Ask a Purpledragonman."
I hate when people say "when you look at them" about quantum probability position. People come to me and say "see? if people dissapear there is no quantum behaviours, whole world have to be part of great mind bla bla bla"
Can we use other terms which better describe wave collapse instead of "looking at it"? ;(
Unless I'm the only one wrong here, and it is really related to the "mind looking at it" any and all educational videos simply work against me when I try to explain that it have totally nothing to do with the looking part ;( but rather some form of interaction in which sensing interaction is simply subcategory... Or am I actually wrong?
Who gave the thumbs down, are they trying to prove that likes are scattered to?
I just felt a great sadness with the thought that when mankind becomes extinct in the very near future, all of the great knowledge that people such as yourself have discovered and communicated will have been for nothing.
Such a waste of what could have been a spectacular future!
Hopefully, and I think very probably, there'll be much happier, more intelligent things in our place.
I invite you to live in the present rather than speaking about the future in the past tense.
I might need to light up a joint before watching these videos. Wtf. There is a very thin line between theoretical science and harry potter
It's all magic until you go to Copenhagen.
My car keys have a wave function until I go looking for them.
I think you should be allowed to prefix a word with "French" and then just say it how it's spelled.
We could keep french people close to us and ask them.
Particles go in
Waves come out
You can't explain that
*_is_* matter or is it rather our concept of interacting combinations of prooerties?
You are a particle surfer.
It is a joke
Nice vid. Something's wrong with the audio, same as last week's vid. Sounds like you're speaking into a tin can.
not a problem for me. i got tin ears