Heisenberg's equation is correct but his interpretation was wrong. Classical physicist have always used statistics when making measurements without saying the system is not deterministic. You should correctly state that Heisenberg says atom systems exist within an indeterminate state until measured. Heisenberg says the system is doing everything statistically possible until it is measured. Measurement makes reality? Please. That's attaching probability to foolishness.
@BinaryStars100 This video isn't about the proper metaphysical interpretation of the uncertainty relation, it just describes that relation. It does so accurately. It also points out that many people were initially skeptical of this relation and tried to find counterexamples, which is also true.
It sounds like you don't think H's personal metaphysical views make sense. That's fine, but I think this video was right not to address that point.
@DoctorFastest Well that's like saying General Relativity is right but we don't have to say anything about the interpretation Einstein attached to the equations. Almost everything in the video can be explained using classical statistics. The discussion about light as a wave and particle is not classical statistics but quantum statistics. H's QS puts measurement at the heart of reality. Einstein,'The moon exist even if I'm not looking at it".
@BinaryStars100 Well, I agree with part of this and don't understand part of it. I agree that he starts out with a classical analogy, describing the proton as a wave. Then for higher energies, he switches to a different classical analogy, describing it as a particle. Obviously, neither of these is completely right at any energy; he's just using a simplified metaphor which is easy to grasp and gives the general flavor. Really you need to talk about the interaction between the wavefunctions.
@DoctorFastest I agree with your statement. People often use metaphoric descriptions of GR space-time but there is no 3-D description for four-dimensions. I show how wave functions interaction is related to binary star motion. Every Quantum Structure has a Classical Analogy but the reverse is not true. Quantum Structures are a subset of Classical Continuous Structures. I proved there is no quantum theory of Gravity.
@BinaryStars100 That was the part I agree with. The part I don't understand is your point about metaphysics. Why can't we put that aside and talk about the theory? The point is to predict what happens. If you're more interested in discussions of the nature of reality, there are other fields for that. ;)
@DoctorFastest Physics was originally called "Natural Philosophy". Everyone begins a research with a philosophy; empirical test prove or disprove the philosophy. String Theory's philosophy as science and conjecture as mathematics. I believe the Clay Mathematics Institutes model should be used for mathematical physics. You get the funds when you get the answer. Theoretical physics is about ideas not equipment. I would not do that for experimental research.
@BinaryStars100 However, regarding your argument: That a system is in an indeterminate state until measured does not nec. mean that measurement makes reality. Rather, the system could be in a superposition prior to measurement, and a definite state after.
Perhaps you prefer to say that the system is in a definite state before measurement, but we just don't know what state. But this leaves you unable to explain interference phenomena; that is, it leaves you with an incorrect classical theory.
@DoctorFastest Classical physics is incorrect only because space is like 3-D graph paper. Real space has form and structure as Einstein discovered. Einstein was never able to integrate his discovery with electromagnetism. I did it and isolated the structure in the motion of several binary stars, including DI Herculis. My discovery is peer-reviewed published and conference presented. Wave functions are real structures with statistical interference forms.
@BinaryStars100 Oh and also, there are more problems with classical physics than its treatment of space, as I'm sure you're aware!
Interference phenomena are an example. These are dealt with by introducing the ideas of quantum mechanics - i.e. superposition and probability amplitudes. You seem to prefer to think of these things as real rather than merely as tools for calculation. That's reasonable enough, but doesn't make the theory classical.
@BinaryStars100 If you've found a quantum theory of gravity, I'll look forward to reading about it! ;) Of course, it will have to reduce to classical GR in the macroscopic limit. In light of that, I don't see how you could find support for your theory in the motion of stars.
@DoctorFastest I cannot post the link to my research hear because they will call it spam. Goto: Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Achieve, Volume 4, April - Article 5. It was also present at Sofia Technical University Bulgaria. Neutron stars have an electromagnetic and gravitational field which are strong enough to effect
their motion. Mathematical solutions require reduction, mechanical solutions require structural analogs. Every Quantum Structure has a Classical Analog.
How come no one has managed to get a picture of a proton? Would it be possible to view a proton by using a gamma ray microscope? We won't know its exact position but at least we will see what it looks like.
I've heard this description of the uncertainty principle a lot, and it is the usual way it is introduced to us, but I really hate it!!! It seems to suggest that the particle does have a definite position and momentum, but our efforts to measure them have to leave one with uncertainty.
In fact, we should think of the particle as /not having/ a certain position and momentum, and it doesn't matter that this method doesn't work (although it is another reason for us to be unable to measure both).
@jamma246 I agree with you but the two ways of explaining it are linked, they're not completely unrelated. The reason that a photon with a shorter wavelength has a higher momentum is because of the more fundamental principle you just mentioned I think, and so it is what stops this experiment from working.
BRADY! Thank you so much for SixtySymbols and all the videos you make, along with your other science channels. In any of your videos have you guys addressed the double slit experiment/wave-particle duality?
Something that gets abstracted away by this nice analogy is that, according to quantum mechanics, the particle does not even have a definite position. It's not that the particle is in a definite position and we cannot measure it, but rather that it does not have a constraint on its position until we try to measure the position!
This guy often chooses words that make his sentences incorrect. I'm not being picky; it's in almost every clip he's in.
At 2:47 he says "I won't be able to measure this position to an accuracy of +/- that amount." Yet he actually means he 'will only' - the opposite of what he said.
When describing concepts it's essential that your word-choice accurately reflects those concepts, or you risk imparting two conflicting messages. Clarity is paramount, and he misses the boat on that one too often.
but if u look at the proton then it gets pushed away by photon, but if we dont look at proton then it doesn't? thats just weird, i think i don't understand
@GrandeMestre we'd love to have subtitles and many of our @periodicvideos films have been professionally subtitled with a grant we received... however there is no-one to do Sixty Symbols... you realise all the videos and website, etc are just done by one person who only works a few hours a week on this?
@sixtysymbols Hi there! Thank you so much for replying, I didn't expected it so fast. Well, I love the Sixty Symbols' videos and they really add a lot of knowledge. But sometimes it's quite difficult to understand what they are saying (specially because it's technical english) and, to be honest, the english accent doesn't make it any easier ;-)
I do appreciate your effort, I really do - didn't know it is just 1 person doing it, I tought it was a team.
@sixtysymbols (continuing) Well, I could help you with the subtitle thing... My problem is understanding what they say. If, somehow, you could send me a txt with the sentences in the video, I could manage to transform it into subtitles. I could make a downloable file or I could mix it with the video and send it back to you.
It's just an idea, anyway. If you think I can help, just let me know. Thanks again!
@sixtysymbols What about if you send two photons exactly oppisite each other at the exact same time with the exact same energy, then detect those photons, will it still move?
@sixtysymbols I'd be willing to do subtitles for you, I spend enough time watching the videos as is! thought Im not sure what it takes to subtitle a youtube video
@sixtysymbols doesn't YouTube have some automatic transcription functionality somewhere? I believe they use the same thing on the Google Voice voicemail to SMS transcriptions.
This is a nice introduction to uncertainty but it does leave the impression that it is just a measurement problem.
The real mind bender is that the proton doesn't behave as if it really has a unique position and momentum and we are just unable to measure them both at once. It behaves as if it is uncertain of it own position and momentum and adjusts its own behaviour depending on how we ourselves measure them.
the real magic of the Uncertainty Principal is seen in quantum tunneling where a particle tunnels through a barrier it isn't allowed to by classical physics. and the same thing holds true for billiard balls giving them non zero probability to pass through a barrier like table or something.
As soon as you accurately measure the location of a single proton is vanishes from view as it is cast off into oblivion. As soon as you can accurately measure the location (or rather ascertain the true value) of the entire universe, it changes position as your view of reality skews closer to the truth. Just as we can not define with certainty the position of a single proton, we can not define the nature of our universe while we are a part of it.
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
Some years ago, the proton would have been considered elementary because no underlying structure to the proton had been uncovered. As particle smashers became more advanced, scientists kept on finding their experiments created other particles that were just as 'elementary' as protons and they began to suspect that protons, neutrons and these other particles they were discovering where made up of even smaller particles in different combinations. They named these particles quarks.
@PennyDorkis These days, it's the quarks, leptons, and force carrying bosons that are considered elementary. Protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks each and are classed as baryons. The electron still is elementary though, as it is one of the leptons.
@PennyDorkis Thanks Penny, what had confused me was I thought they were saying that neutrons were elementary particles, but protons were not. I have a basic familiarity with quark theory, I wonder if we will find a "particle" that makes up quarks one day.
@wendighoul A proton (in my youth) was an elementary particle, along with an electron and a neutron---and a neutrino. Now we believe that a proton is made of three quarks, which are believed to be elementary particles. In previous times atoms and molecules were thought to be elementary.
In the video I imagined that I was in 1927 when Heisenberg stated the uncertainty principle, and used the idea of a microscope to explain its consequences. In this world protons were elementary particles.
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
the proton may be called a particle but it acts more like a plasma wave. don't think of sub Atomic or Nuclear particles as little round balls because they aren't.
Yay I can learn university science instead of crappy repeated secondary/high school science! Also, the teacher isnt crap and there are no screaming kids!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guy is inaccurate in a lot of information. The first thing, a proton is not an elementary particle. Second, he claimed that light is strange in that it is a particle and a wave, everything is a particle AND a wave. It's simply that the larger an object is, the smaller it's wave is. the higher frequency a wave is, the more it acts like a particle.
I simply stated this so people who were just learning about the uncertainty principle would have accurate information. Why do I get a -10 simply for stating fact?
I'm not saying this is my personal opinion of you, but people will generally assume you are a prick for trying to discount all of the university profs and such that created, edited and watched this video. That's probably why.
Heisenberg got pulled over by a traffic cop. The cop asked him, "do you know how fast you were going?" and Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am!"
I rate this 4/5 just because he said a proton is an elementary particle.
@Envergure I literally LOLed when I read that, at work! My coworkers asked what was so funny, so I told them, and just got blank looks. Being brilliant is a curse sometimes :P
@Envergure There is one version with Schrödinger in the car too. After the police investigates the car, he finds a dead cat in the trunk and then asks, "Do you know that you have a dead cat in your trunk?" where Schrödinger replies "Well now we do.".
It isn't a practical matter of wavelengths of light bumping the proton and moving it a little. The proton *really doesn't* have a stable position, even if you didn't measure it.
That's how you can explain explain tunneling. It didn't jump out because you bonked it with a photon and it hopped over the wall. It jumped *through* the wall because its *inherent* uncertainty gave it a certain probability that it was actually on the other side.
Well what makes it impossible for the particle to move through the wall. I think the phenomena of quantum mechanics only appear so weird and strange because we don't 'really' understand the underlying mechanism.
It's like watching cars from a satellite and thinking they are just solid objects and you cannot figure out how they suddenly might change direction at an intersection. You say it has a certain probability to do so, but you don't know about the human behind the steering wheel.
Makes sense to me, as things get smaller they have less mass, therefor less energy is required to move it. So something as benign as shining a light on something can effect it this way.
Many symbols represent many different things. In a high school physics course, you often don't associate more then change with delta. Physicists like to re-use symbols quite a lot, actually. And delta has 4 or 5 uses in the scientific field.
It does, but there are not enough symbols in the world to describe each and every situation. This is why they correspond to like situations. Example: delta is change and uncertainty in different situations. These both acknowledge some type of actual unknown. A change is something that is uncertain, we are uncertain at what change is happening. Do you get what I am explaining?
I love that the thumbnail for this video is the professor scratching his head. Seem like a perfect picture for the subject.
WilliamBoivin 4 days ago
very interesting video thanks
distractionxx 1 month ago
Very enjoyable thank you
staranjela 1 month ago
good work here
osclarkos 1 month ago
Heisenberg's equation is correct but his interpretation was wrong. Classical physicist have always used statistics when making measurements without saying the system is not deterministic. You should correctly state that Heisenberg says atom systems exist within an indeterminate state until measured. Heisenberg says the system is doing everything statistically possible until it is measured. Measurement makes reality? Please. That's attaching probability to foolishness.
BinaryStars100 1 month ago
@BinaryStars100 This video isn't about the proper metaphysical interpretation of the uncertainty relation, it just describes that relation. It does so accurately. It also points out that many people were initially skeptical of this relation and tried to find counterexamples, which is also true.
It sounds like you don't think H's personal metaphysical views make sense. That's fine, but I think this video was right not to address that point.
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@DoctorFastest Well that's like saying General Relativity is right but we don't have to say anything about the interpretation Einstein attached to the equations. Almost everything in the video can be explained using classical statistics. The discussion about light as a wave and particle is not classical statistics but quantum statistics. H's QS puts measurement at the heart of reality. Einstein,'The moon exist even if I'm not looking at it".
BinaryStars100 3 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 Well, I agree with part of this and don't understand part of it. I agree that he starts out with a classical analogy, describing the proton as a wave. Then for higher energies, he switches to a different classical analogy, describing it as a particle. Obviously, neither of these is completely right at any energy; he's just using a simplified metaphor which is easy to grasp and gives the general flavor. Really you need to talk about the interaction between the wavefunctions.
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@DoctorFastest I agree with your statement. People often use metaphoric descriptions of GR space-time but there is no 3-D description for four-dimensions. I show how wave functions interaction is related to binary star motion. Every Quantum Structure has a Classical Analogy but the reverse is not true. Quantum Structures are a subset of Classical Continuous Structures. I proved there is no quantum theory of Gravity.
BinaryStars100 3 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 That was the part I agree with. The part I don't understand is your point about metaphysics. Why can't we put that aside and talk about the theory? The point is to predict what happens. If you're more interested in discussions of the nature of reality, there are other fields for that. ;)
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@DoctorFastest Physics was originally called "Natural Philosophy". Everyone begins a research with a philosophy; empirical test prove or disprove the philosophy. String Theory's philosophy as science and conjecture as mathematics. I believe the Clay Mathematics Institutes model should be used for mathematical physics. You get the funds when you get the answer. Theoretical physics is about ideas not equipment. I would not do that for experimental research.
BinaryStars100 3 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 However, regarding your argument: That a system is in an indeterminate state until measured does not nec. mean that measurement makes reality. Rather, the system could be in a superposition prior to measurement, and a definite state after.
Perhaps you prefer to say that the system is in a definite state before measurement, but we just don't know what state. But this leaves you unable to explain interference phenomena; that is, it leaves you with an incorrect classical theory.
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@DoctorFastest Classical physics is incorrect only because space is like 3-D graph paper. Real space has form and structure as Einstein discovered. Einstein was never able to integrate his discovery with electromagnetism. I did it and isolated the structure in the motion of several binary stars, including DI Herculis. My discovery is peer-reviewed published and conference presented. Wave functions are real structures with statistical interference forms.
BinaryStars100 3 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 Oh and also, there are more problems with classical physics than its treatment of space, as I'm sure you're aware!
Interference phenomena are an example. These are dealt with by introducing the ideas of quantum mechanics - i.e. superposition and probability amplitudes. You seem to prefer to think of these things as real rather than merely as tools for calculation. That's reasonable enough, but doesn't make the theory classical.
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 If you've found a quantum theory of gravity, I'll look forward to reading about it! ;) Of course, it will have to reduce to classical GR in the macroscopic limit. In light of that, I don't see how you could find support for your theory in the motion of stars.
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@DoctorFastest I cannot post the link to my research hear because they will call it spam. Goto: Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Achieve, Volume 4, April - Article 5. It was also present at Sofia Technical University Bulgaria. Neutron stars have an electromagnetic and gravitational field which are strong enough to effect
their motion. Mathematical solutions require reduction, mechanical solutions require structural analogs. Every Quantum Structure has a Classical Analog.
BinaryStars100 3 weeks ago
How come no one has managed to get a picture of a proton? Would it be possible to view a proton by using a gamma ray microscope? We won't know its exact position but at least we will see what it looks like.
HotRock2010 2 months ago
lol Heisenberg breaking bad ;D
skghtbyn 2 months ago
The thumbnail fits the title perfectly :)
Daxster1995 3 months ago
I've heard this description of the uncertainty principle a lot, and it is the usual way it is introduced to us, but I really hate it!!! It seems to suggest that the particle does have a definite position and momentum, but our efforts to measure them have to leave one with uncertainty.
In fact, we should think of the particle as /not having/ a certain position and momentum, and it doesn't matter that this method doesn't work (although it is another reason for us to be unable to measure both).
jamma246 5 months ago
@jamma246 I agree with you but the two ways of explaining it are linked, they're not completely unrelated. The reason that a photon with a shorter wavelength has a higher momentum is because of the more fundamental principle you just mentioned I think, and so it is what stops this experiment from working.
wowsa0 1 month ago
Elementary as in simple.
The starting level school in the unites states is called Elementary school. Because elementary means simple or basic..
MistahhMorales 6 months ago
Im the 28,000th viewer....
abdulfattahahmad89 6 months ago
He made a mistake haha, a proton isn't an elementary particle.
Ichvyenichalster 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ichvyenichalster "He made a mistake haha, a proton isn't an elementary particle. "
Really? So.. elements aren't made of protons? Elements cannot be determined by the number of protons in their atoms? Interesting.
There is a difference between "elementary" and "fundamental."
mdiem 6 months ago
@Ichvyenichalster Ha. Got him.
:)
I think you know what he meant though - quark binding is strong enough that a proton's wavefunction is relatively unaffected.
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
God they make it so easy to understand
sirrington 8 months ago
I love that that the thumbnail for the Uncertainty video is the professor scratching his head.
Sully800 8 months ago 4
BRADY! Thank you so much for SixtySymbols and all the videos you make, along with your other science channels. In any of your videos have you guys addressed the double slit experiment/wave-particle duality?
AlexIsSmalll 8 months ago
the distribution of steel balls looked just like a bell curve in statistics!
manx1324 9 months ago
@manx1324
Not a coincidence. ;-)
mdiem 6 months ago
I like how the youtube picture for this video is the professor scratching his head like he's confused. Priceless haha
BrunkN06 9 months ago
Great video! Thank you very much for all your efforts on all your videos. You guys make physics interesting. Makes me want to go back to school!!!
sachiperez 9 months ago
now you,ve done it you violated copy right, if your going to plat plinko you,ve got to give the price is right credit. love rocky
rocky315w 9 months ago
Can we have a video on Higgs Boson Particle?
kgypt 10 months ago
Something that gets abstracted away by this nice analogy is that, according to quantum mechanics, the particle does not even have a definite position. It's not that the particle is in a definite position and we cannot measure it, but rather that it does not have a constraint on its position until we try to measure the position!
jimmayl1 11 months ago
This guy often chooses words that make his sentences incorrect. I'm not being picky; it's in almost every clip he's in.
At 2:47 he says "I won't be able to measure this position to an accuracy of +/- that amount." Yet he actually means he 'will only' - the opposite of what he said.
When describing concepts it's essential that your word-choice accurately reflects those concepts, or you risk imparting two conflicting messages. Clarity is paramount, and he misses the boat on that one too often.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
but if u look at the proton then it gets pushed away by photon, but if we dont look at proton then it doesn't? thats just weird, i think i don't understand
Zee96969696 1 year ago
Comment removed
constantine8 1 year ago
@constantine8 u clearly haven't heard of double slit experiment, search it dude, u're missing out if u haven't seen it yet
Zee96969696 1 year ago
Sixty Symbols people, put subtitles on your videos, please!!! This would help A LOT people who can't perfectly understand english. Thanks!!!
GrandeMestre 1 year ago 14
@GrandeMestre we'd love to have subtitles and many of our @periodicvideos films have been professionally subtitled with a grant we received... however there is no-one to do Sixty Symbols... you realise all the videos and website, etc are just done by one person who only works a few hours a week on this?
sixtysymbols 1 year ago 25
@sixtysymbols Hi there! Thank you so much for replying, I didn't expected it so fast. Well, I love the Sixty Symbols' videos and they really add a lot of knowledge. But sometimes it's quite difficult to understand what they are saying (specially because it's technical english) and, to be honest, the english accent doesn't make it any easier ;-)
I do appreciate your effort, I really do - didn't know it is just 1 person doing it, I tought it was a team.
GrandeMestre 1 year ago
@sixtysymbols (continuing) Well, I could help you with the subtitle thing... My problem is understanding what they say. If, somehow, you could send me a txt with the sentences in the video, I could manage to transform it into subtitles. I could make a downloable file or I could mix it with the video and send it back to you.
It's just an idea, anyway. If you think I can help, just let me know. Thanks again!
GrandeMestre 1 year ago
@sixtysymbols What about if you send two photons exactly oppisite each other at the exact same time with the exact same energy, then detect those photons, will it still move?
constantine8 1 year ago
@sixtysymbols I'd be willing to do subtitles for you, I spend enough time watching the videos as is! thought Im not sure what it takes to subtitle a youtube video
ksimmonsASU1 11 months ago
@sixtysymbols doesn't YouTube have some automatic transcription functionality somewhere? I believe they use the same thing on the Google Voice voicemail to SMS transcriptions.
ghelyar 9 months ago
@sixtysymbols So, is there anything we can do to help?
Lyrelia 9 months ago
@sixtysymbols So, is there anything we can do to help?
Lyrelia 9 months ago
@sixtysymbols So, is there anything we can do to help?
Lyrelia 9 months ago
@Lyrelia Ugh, sorry about that. I don't know why this resent twice.
Lyrelia 9 months ago
@sixtysymbols why isn't there more people? you are doing a fantastic job, you should at least get another person to help you.
HaileISela 1 month ago
This is a nice introduction to uncertainty but it does leave the impression that it is just a measurement problem.
The real mind bender is that the proton doesn't behave as if it really has a unique position and momentum and we are just unable to measure them both at once. It behaves as if it is uncertain of it own position and momentum and adjusts its own behaviour depending on how we ourselves measure them.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
one day someone will make sence of this, but it is probably complicated and boring
Zee96969696 1 year ago
the real magic of the Uncertainty Principal is seen in quantum tunneling where a particle tunnels through a barrier it isn't allowed to by classical physics. and the same thing holds true for billiard balls giving them non zero probability to pass through a barrier like table or something.
muzammilali007 1 year ago
As soon as you accurately measure the location of a single proton is vanishes from view as it is cast off into oblivion. As soon as you can accurately measure the location (or rather ascertain the true value) of the entire universe, it changes position as your view of reality skews closer to the truth. Just as we can not define with certainty the position of a single proton, we can not define the nature of our universe while we are a part of it.
zenzetra 1 year ago
Give the prof a break...he probably meant to say subatomic particle.
cuntylishus 1 year ago
better than my physics professor's explanation
desidude006 1 year ago
I love the preview picture for this video. He's all like "huh?" scratching his head.
Kowzorz 1 year ago
A proton is not elementary.
MrMacSunshine 1 year ago
a proton is not an elementary particle
stevendurr 1 year ago
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul
Some years ago, the proton would have been considered elementary because no underlying structure to the proton had been uncovered. As particle smashers became more advanced, scientists kept on finding their experiments created other particles that were just as 'elementary' as protons and they began to suspect that protons, neutrons and these other particles they were discovering where made up of even smaller particles in different combinations. They named these particles quarks.
PennyDorkis 1 year ago 2
@PennyDorkis These days, it's the quarks, leptons, and force carrying bosons that are considered elementary. Protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks each and are classed as baryons. The electron still is elementary though, as it is one of the leptons.
PennyDorkis 1 year ago
@PennyDorkis Thanks Penny, what had confused me was I thought they were saying that neutrons were elementary particles, but protons were not. I have a basic familiarity with quark theory, I wonder if we will find a "particle" that makes up quarks one day.
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul A proton (in my youth) was an elementary particle, along with an electron and a neutron---and a neutrino. Now we believe that a proton is made of three quarks, which are believed to be elementary particles. In previous times atoms and molecules were thought to be elementary.
In the video I imagined that I was in 1927 when Heisenberg stated the uncertainty principle, and used the idea of a microscope to explain its consequences. In this world protons were elementary particles.
MrOldprof 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
wendighoul 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
wendighoul 1 year ago
I have seen several comments saying a proton is not an elementary particle, I thought it was. How is a proton classified and why isn't it considered an elementary particle?
wendighoul 1 year ago
So there's certainty in the position of the particle. The uncertainty lies in the fact that we can't measure it.
It's the Indian, not the paddle.
motorolaflex 1 year ago
Wonderful explanation of the uncertainty principle!!
bluebychoice 2 years ago 3
I have a little question. Sorry if it sounds dumb but, I was wondering, at 3:30 he says "As wavelenght gets small, momentum gets bigger"
Since p = m * v
it means either the m or the v is getting bigger.
From what I know, velocity of a photon doesn't get bigger, does that mean the mass of the photon is changing?
Think is slightly confusing me, could anyone point me in the right direction.
Ph0Xy 2 years ago
For relativistic particles (particles going close to the speed of light), the momentum is:
p = h/(w)
where 'h' is plancks constant and 'w' is the wavelength
ben3580 2 years ago 4
@Ph0Xy he may be refering to the de brogli wavelength, which is calculated as h/(mv), where h is plank's constant and mv is the momentum
manumenzella04 2 years ago
the proton may be called a particle but it acts more like a plasma wave. don't think of sub Atomic or Nuclear particles as little round balls because they aren't.
onthecuttingedge2005 2 years ago
BEST explanation of this concept I have ever seen. Nice work.
Lavabug 2 years ago
Yay I can learn university science instead of crappy repeated secondary/high school science! Also, the teacher isnt crap and there are no screaming kids!
G3org3Master 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is inaccurate in a lot of information. The first thing, a proton is not an elementary particle. Second, he claimed that light is strange in that it is a particle and a wave, everything is a particle AND a wave. It's simply that the larger an object is, the smaller it's wave is. the higher frequency a wave is, the more it acts like a particle.
candlehawk 2 years ago
You should spam his YouTube account, teach him a lesson for having the audacity to say something which you know cannot possibly be true!
grungzer 2 years ago
I simply stated this so people who were just learning about the uncertainty principle would have accurate information. Why do I get a -10 simply for stating fact?
candlehawk 2 years ago
I'm not saying this is my personal opinion of you, but people will generally assume you are a prick for trying to discount all of the university profs and such that created, edited and watched this video. That's probably why.
grungzer 2 years ago
The best explanation of the Uncertainty principle.Thank you for all the great videos you make!
elouv 2 years ago
Heisenberg got pulled over by a traffic cop. The cop asked him, "do you know how fast you were going?" and Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am!"
I rate this 4/5 just because he said a proton is an elementary particle.
Envergure 2 years ago 60
@Envergure I literally LOLed when I read that, at work! My coworkers asked what was so funny, so I told them, and just got blank looks. Being brilliant is a curse sometimes :P
wendighoul 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Envergure "I rate this 4/5 just because he said a proton is an elementary particle."
A proton is not an elementary particle? Elements do not contain protons? Really?
Seems both you and Ichvyenichalster are confused about what "elementary" means.
mdiem 6 months ago
@Envergure There is one version with Schrödinger in the car too. After the police investigates the car, he finds a dead cat in the trunk and then asks, "Do you know that you have a dead cat in your trunk?" where Schrödinger replies "Well now we do.".
TheSteady0 4 months ago
@Envergure yes i am with you because its a subatomic particle, but it's okay just forget it.
EducationLover 4 months ago
they have such cool toys at university!!
cookiecamp 2 years ago 2
At last I understand!
kalyan238 2 years ago
It isn't a practical matter of wavelengths of light bumping the proton and moving it a little. The proton *really doesn't* have a stable position, even if you didn't measure it.
That's how you can explain explain tunneling. It didn't jump out because you bonked it with a photon and it hopped over the wall. It jumped *through* the wall because its *inherent* uncertainty gave it a certain probability that it was actually on the other side.
desiredusername 2 years ago 5
Well what makes it impossible for the particle to move through the wall. I think the phenomena of quantum mechanics only appear so weird and strange because we don't 'really' understand the underlying mechanism.
It's like watching cars from a satellite and thinking they are just solid objects and you cannot figure out how they suddenly might change direction at an intersection. You say it has a certain probability to do so, but you don't know about the human behind the steering wheel.
Jokker88 2 years ago 5
Wish I had *had* this very well done explanation back in my school days - great video, one of the BEST!
cc6809 2 years ago
Great explanation. Thanks for the video!
GamblerJustice 2 years ago 6
I feel like such a nerd.
Im having awful flashbacks to High School.
I love this channel.
CapitanDelRoca 2 years ago 3
yh this channel is really good
cookiecamp 2 years ago
That was the best, most concise explanation of the uncertainty principle I've ever heard.
Barnekkid 2 years ago 45
I second that!
harshm2u 2 years ago 3
@Barnekkid Yes, I agree with this statement.
It takes a clever person to simplify a complex subject to me, well done
Films4You 5 months ago
need...more...input... :-)
insAneTunA 2 years ago
Input input input!
*waving robotic arms around*
tumest 2 years ago 2
that helps one part of something i have been wondering.
When they say that you can't measure BOTH the position and velocity (or was it direction).
I get the part where they can measure the position. but how bout velocity? because the act of measuring it changes both of those values.
bedmasmath 2 years ago
Awesome vids folks. Like the Heisenberg stuff ,. I have a vid demenstrating the principal with a laser. Check it out and rate if you all like! (:
archaedemos 2 years ago
really enjoyed it
BIGGGY305 2 years ago
Makes sense to me, as things get smaller they have less mass, therefor less energy is required to move it. So something as benign as shining a light on something can effect it this way.
nerdygerdy 2 years ago
Great video. I thought delta was change tho
prodigy00073 2 years ago
I agree with prodigy00073, i thought that Delta represented a change.
sethrexx 2 years ago
Many symbols represent many different things. In a high school physics course, you often don't associate more then change with delta. Physicists like to re-use symbols quite a lot, actually. And delta has 4 or 5 uses in the scientific field.
anon4everr 2 years ago
It does, but there are not enough symbols in the world to describe each and every situation. This is why they correspond to like situations. Example: delta is change and uncertainty in different situations. These both acknowledge some type of actual unknown. A change is something that is uncertain, we are uncertain at what change is happening. Do you get what I am explaining?
SMFApples 2 years ago
yea, it makes sense. Delta is a good choice for uncertainty now that i think about what you've said.
sethrexx 2 years ago
Great explanation.
nige503 2 years ago
I remember from freshmen physics WHAT the uncertainty principle is, I couldn't remember for the life of me WHY it is. Good video.
Chipsonfire 2 years ago
5th to comment , or am I ?
techguy33 2 years ago
but seriously, great video.
techguy33 2 years ago
Nice explanation, thank you.
docsquee 2 years ago 3
this is really interesting
JMcDonnell91 2 years ago
Awesome video! As always! :)
Sixtehn 2 years ago 2
Nope
Kyleidge 2 years ago
can you really be sure you're ever first?
sixtysymbols 2 years ago 36
it's... uncertain!
Personmang 2 years ago 6
If you had variables that were hidden, could we see them? In theory, of course.
kite973 2 years ago