What's the probability that the Stern-Gerlach-Versuch is just one possibility - and that not only discrete but also a fuzzy result can be the outcome if the "resolution" of the experimental setup gets changed (finer or more coarse)? What's the probability that both outcomes - discrete and fuzzy - are the whole truth?
Schrodinger believed wave functions were real not just some mathematical abstract structure for statistical analysis of events. In fact, most classical physicist do not believe the interpretation presented in this video. Physics is not scale dependent, quantum physicist have failed to apply their interpretation to large scale structures because it is wrong. I can prove it.
@PainSurgeon DeBroglie's formula implies that large scale objects have a wavelength that is so small it cannot be measured, so it cannot be confirmed. Wavefunctions, Debroglie's wavelength and space-time are the same phenomena. I know this because, I successfully isolated the most general form of a wave function within the motion of binary stars. It's in an open access peer-reviewed publication and was presented at the Sofia Technical University. I know what wave functions are.
@ryanspaceevans DeBroglie's formula implies that large scale objects have a wavelength that is so small it cannot be measured, so it cannot be confirmed. Wavefunctions, Debroglie's wavelength and space-time are the same phenomena. I know this because, I successfully isolated the most general form of a wave function within the motion of binary stars. It's in an open access peer-reviewed publication and was presented at the Sofia Technical University. I know what wave functions are.
this is fantastic. This is the first thing I have ever, EVER seen on the internet or TV that gives this sort of accessible, understandable discussion of QM without any real dumbing down, and with none of the usual hocus-pocus/mystical talk. Just concise, honest and listenable. Great stuff.
Thanks for all your vids 60symbols they're v enjoyable. I am interested in reading more about experiments people have done to describe atomic matter - I'm familiar from school with Young double slit and Rutherford gold foil but after that are experiments done in p accelerators or does anyone know any nice nifty ones they could refer me to in chemistry or physics to determine electron orbital shapes or other electron properties like 'spin'!
@CloudNineHunter with regards to electron spin, look up the stern-gerlach experiment, as for determining electron orbital shape I'd hazard a guess that it's done by electron or photon scattering experiments.
time and space loose their precision, they blur. thus tending towards waves. it's outside the experience man has evolved to decode from space/time/order. the wave/probability function seems odd that an electron may be on either side of a nucleus but not in the middle. this could be because it ceases being an electron where it's velocity approaches light speed. alistair crowley, eat my socks
is easy to understand the concept of a wave function but is hard to understand the reasons why it acts this way and what exactly causes a wave function to collapse... the wave function is defiantly one of my favorite areas of physics and probably the one i have studied the most. :D
"If you think you understand this video, you probably don't"
I hate this quote, I absolutley hate this quote because it's nonsense, we can understand these things, they are just very abstract and amazing and confusing but understandable.
@CrazyPerson03832 You can not fully understand the wave function. You can understand how it affects the wave nature of particles and subsequently the quantum theory behind it but you can not understand the full meaning of the wave function. Modern physics uses the wave function as a placeholder in quantum physics for something abstract as that is the core of quantum physics.
The original quote was: "If a student started studying the quantum physics for his first in life, and his head don't ache and go dizzy, that means he didn't understood anything"
Very true Phillip,...many times I have seen things explained in ways that overcomplicate very simple concepts. Sometimes we have to suspend our disbelief of simplicity in order for things to make sense. Not familiar with Smolin, but after a quick read of the Wiki page, I see he's right up my alley, will definitely put him on my reading list for today.
Do you think information only exists in an uncorrupted state outside the human mind ?
It is only when we discover a solution to a problem, do we realise how simple it was, close to our grasp, yet out of our reach, due only to our inability to view things in a different light. It is an inherent human trait to complicate simple solutions. I am a fan of Feynman myself ( How can you not be ? ) ,but surely all the unorthodox thinkers have not used up all the unorthodox thoughts ? Somebody will find a simple way to explain things in the future,.. at least we can say it's probable ;)
@1isaacmusic I agree entirely. I think that all of the pseudoscientific "mystical" interpretations of QM, the confusion re. the role of consciousness in collapsing the wavefunction, "spooky action at a distance", and the debates as to the role of information all arise because we are not looking at QM in the correct way. Determining the "correct way" is, however, going to take a revolutionary "paradigm shift" in our understanding of physics.
@1isaacmusic Hi there. I'll admit that I'm fairly dense but I don't think that Feynman, who said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", falls into the same category.
The essence of quantum mechanics lies in complex probability amplitudes. If you can explain just why so many "dense" physicists still cannot adequately explain so many key aspects of QM, you'll be on your way to Sweden to collect a prize...
@Moriarty2112 No offense meant Phillip, it was a weak attempt at humor on my part . So easy for things to get lost in translation online. I am an avid fan of the videos from Sixty Symbols, believe me. If I had teachers with the enthusiasm you guys do ,I never would have dropped out in the 9th grade all those years ago. As far as QED/QM, I am left to ponder things with the mind of a simpleton :) . I watch a fair amount of lectures from different universities,Idk..everybody teaches it differently.
@1isaacmusic Ah, sorry. Interpreted your comment rather too literally! Apologies.
Thanks for the very kind words about 60Symbols. And when it comes to QM, I agree with what Lee Smolin suggests in "The Trouble with Physics" - physicists need to get back to pondering the tricky philosophical aspects of QM and leave behind the "Shut up and calculate" attitude.
"MInd of a simpleton"? When it comes to QM, I think most of us are in that category!
awesome video! Great to see a discussion proper about quantum mechincs that clearly and lucidly explains the concepts without all the spiritualistic, metaphysical nonsense. The Correspondance Principle by Niels Bohr was just this idea that at a certain scale, quantum mechanics agrees with classical mechanics and the laws of the macroscopic scale. It's only the sheer difference in scales that make it seem as though two seperate realities exist. Subscription warrented!
This video makes me feel better... we're learning quantum mechanics right now and no matter how much i pay attention or read the text book and try to understand it, i just cant! at least im not the only one...
In the meantime, i will maintain that the world could be flat or it could be round, and once science actually sails around it, or takes a good photo of it that shows it, i will prefer that " I dont't know" to the " i am going to use what i do know to perceive that we do".
we have sailed around the world, and we even have a photo, so for that i can confirm. for this we have not gotten down that far, and are assuming based on testable behaviours.
the best thing we finnaly get out of the end here, is an Admission that "we dont really know" for sure yet. The more we were able to actuall visualise, the less something was an obscure idea that doesnt fit into logic.
Once we have neered the levels of visualisation and comprehention of things, the logic of it drops in, and suddenly that which was confusion, and had TWO possibles, was defined as only one.
So here is to quantum discovery, may we someday KNOW!
i believe that, because the electrons are in all places at once, and have energy levels, i believe that since the electron particles are moving so fast, that they make actual "leyers" that wrap the nuclease. and since electrons go in both and none and one of the "slit things", the "wraping" process only applies if it is "part" of the atom. i also think electrons should have 2 names.... "the airborn electron" and the "confined electron"
Just one little question. At which point does something start behaving under Quantum mechanics? There must be a size of particle where it no longer behaves as a macro molecule and starts obeying the strange laws of the quantum world. Its smaller than a gain of sand, but bigger than and electron....etc
@madmaxxp1 we don't actually know, but some scientists think that reality is like a consensual dream. To make it extremely short, something in the fact that there may be multiple observers makes it mandatory that only ONE reality may be observed as it couldn't be shared otherwise by "obeservers".
Pardon my half assed english didn't help in giving a clear answer.
@kristijanadrian The impossibility of any true understand kind of comes from the somewhat dogmatic declaration of indeterminism of the whole theory. The probabilistic thing is essentially established empirically, and accepted, but the reason for it is not very clear. SO what is there even to understand about it?
@kristijanadrian It's not an "idiotism", they explained the concept. If you don't observe the electron and shoot them one by one, it still emerges as an interference pattern. What's your explanation for the interference pattern?
That picture of Erwin Schrodinger is just awesome. I don't understand a word about the physics they're describing, but this video makes me think that Erwin would be a blast to hang around with. Also, I can't wait until I get to use the phrase "invited to leave".
@jacquespedals Probably because there are so damn many of them. When you have a billion electrons the probabilities of a single one of them being here or there gets rather diluted and insignificant. All the quantum effects are "averaged out", so to say.
As someone who has been a physics junkie for a long, long time, listening to the Feynman lectures, reading many science books, these videos are absolute nuts to me. I'm very grateful.
Good video. I recently finished a short course in quantum mechanics for my chemistry degree. I'm not sure I ever want to see a hamiltonian again! Although it does make for an impressive party trick!
@pikuorguk "How does the system 'know' it's been measured" that, good sir, is the question physicists are still struggling with! It is generally accepted among physicists that quatum mechanics works, but no one is really sure why! There are many different interpretations, all of which (to my limited knowledge) carry quite a bit of metaphysical baggage, like the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation.
basically, illogical things can happen if you don't measure them or observe them directly. it's like the universe is stealing cookies from the cookie jar when nobody's looking or something.
The guy with the rectangle glasses is cute and made me loose my concentration. Sexy scientist guy, hot story about a threesome... I'm tryin to learn here!!
I think a 'wave-function' or 'wave-packet' is a much more accurate description for photons and electrons, than 'particle'. The idea that we think of them as particles is what causes some of the absurdity.
Photons and electrons are more of a wave-collapse event. I think... not sure about the latter.
@VCat2006 Time is compressible... Love is the 3D 'waveform', or rendering of that which is compressible. For the Human, they must learn to love, and function that love with intelligence. I have this code for you, but it cannot be expressed in type, words or equation. The math equation does come the closest.
Cubic time? I do not have any information on Cubic Time. I am not a scholar.
Slow connection so watching this is taking ages. I've always wonder how the "observation" of the wave function collapses it. I mean how are they measuring? Are they firing photons at the electron, or measuring the electric field of the electron? Why isn't the wave function of the electron collapsed by air molecules? Or is it in a vacuum?
'Man' has imprisoned himself into the world of expectations, laws, rights and wrongs, predictability expectations, categorisings, pidgeon holing, black and white, falsness and unbelievables.
The reality is, 'man' has to remove himself from self approvals and, enter the world of the open mind. Herein we are able to accept that perhaps the behaviour of the subatomic world does not meet our evolved expectations and laws. Maybe something can appear from nothing for example.
Ahh is it sad that I was very excited at C60 being mentioned in this? Being a Boltonian I'm very proud of our nobel prize winning chemist Harold Kroto, part of the team involved with C60!
GREAT!! Thanks for this video collection. I love internet for this kind of stuff and also I appreciate the people who post this kind of knowledge for the benefit of human kind understanding. Many thanks to all those who do it. THANX, THANX, THANX
@DonCorleoneQ8 It's because you are just understanding what great scientists still don't understand about. Yeah you understand their intepretation of what they know, certainly they can't tell you what they don't understand are.
I hated learning about wave functions. Specially real & imaginary numbers. Your right ... I still don't really understand it now. Has to be done when learning about sound I guess.
There was a Minister of Education, called Shirley Williams, and we academics were in dispute with her. Underneath "Fair play Shirl" was written the phrase "Don't CON the DONS." The placard was carried at a protest by Prof Fred Sheard, and he gave it me on his retirement. Boy were we radical then!
I was watching a video from a chemistry professor informing his audience of the new mapping of some carbon molecules. The picture was fuzzy but a basic image was present.
Its always hard to explain why those images are always fuzzy but since we're using analogies I like the Nation vs People one. It's easy to figure what a nation will do but harder to know what the states of that nation will do, then cities, then individual people. The more you divide the fuzzier things get.
I never really got this "observation collapses the wave function". Are the not abundantly enough other natural influences on these particles that are more significant?
Also, I rationalized the wave / particle dualism as the best workaround for the limitations of observation. I. e., waves are "but" the best abstractions physics has, while particles are "more real".
Could any actual physicist please comment?
[I know this is very crude language at best, sorry. But I hope it conveys my thoughts.]
The problem with quantum theory is explaining the details without maths is like trying to explain economics without the concept of money.
For the case of the electron and the slit: To measure which slit it goes through we have to interact with it, e.g. shine a light on it. But to be able to know which slit it went through we need light with very small waves, and therefore a high energy. Some of this energy will be given to the electron, moving it to the "wrong" place in the diffraction pattern.
@gobaskof : Indeed - and I believe a good explanation of most economic principles should be done without money, because not all economies use money!!!! I note the current definition of economics on wiki doesn't use money!
This is an ongoing friendly debate between myself and Prof Moriarty! :)
In this context I think of maths as a "language", so maybe a better analogy would be that "explaining quantum physics without maths is like trying to convey the genius of Shakespeare without English!"
@sixtysymbols: Touche', Brady! Very good point. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't (or that we can't) put across concepts in quantum mechanics without maths but, my, is it difficult!
There has been a strong culture of "shut up and calculate" - i.e. do the math and don't worry too much about the thorny philosophical issues - for quite some decades in quantum physics. Lee Smolin, in his (rather controversial) book "The Trouble with Physics" argues that we need to get beyond this. (..contd)
...contd. Trying to formulate quantum mechanical concepts in "everyday language", rather than by writing down mathematical expressions, makes one realise just how much we really don't understand about QM!
Philip
P.S. Does anyone know how I can get an acute (or grave) accent into a YouTube comment?!
This is what I love about Sixty Symbols - that we can prompt debate of this type!
@sixtysymbols except that falls apart. the math is a made-up way of quantify what we are looking at physically. atoms are not floating formulas and functions. math is just our best tool to measure it with. as far as the wave function .... well for something that falls apart when it shouldn't means it's wrong and we are looking at it the wrong way. sure it may be right sometimes or even most of the time but then again Ptolemy was wrong too
wave function is a set of solution from the equation of schrodinger equation. It is a quantitative representation in terms of probability in the finding electron.. Chemist used shape orbitals as a pictorial representation for the probability of the position of electron. Therefore, there are 2 ways to represent the electrons probability. Quantitatively (wave function from the schrodinger equation) and Geometric (picture) representation using Shape orbitals.
Students like to do either the easy stuff, or the interesting stuff. When you get to hard stuff that is not interresting, the focus start to go away :P
At 0 kelvin, the atom has no kinetic energy at the atomic level. The electron still "moves" if you want, if it too stood still, it would fall into the nuclei because of the attraction between the proton in the electron.
Electrons, nuetrons and protons are made of quarks. Today, they are considered the most basic elementary particles.
sorry just to point out, electrons are leptons, to this point no more fundamental structure to an electron is known. Quarks make up hadrons, e.g. the protons and the neutrons.
Also at absolute zero a quantum mechanical system still has a zero-point energy, which is an interesting topic, and it leads to the idea that even in 'empty space' there can still be vast amounts of energy, if only for very small periods of time.
"The Theroy of Elementary Waves" By Lewis E. Little. I used to drink the Kool-Aid at the String Theory compound but "TEW" seems a better explanation of the world than String Theory. just my 2 cents.
The metaphor of the pointilist paintings is great.
Also, watching this video gave me an idea for an SF story. An alien race that intuitively understands quantum mechanics (because they are really tiny) but can't grasp "classical" physics.
Schrödinger was an Austrian physicist. Austria was also the country he left in 1938 after the "Anschluss" because of his political views. (At least he wasn't persecuted because of his religious beliefs; because he hadn't any). Fortunately he came back after the war, because he was one of the few Nobel-prize-winners we have here ;-)
You are right that he was Austrian not German as implied in the video. Also he went to Oxford in 1933, not 1938 ---I'm not a very good historian.---and was spirited out of Nazi-occupied Europe in 1941. But he spend a 15 years in Ireland before returning to Austria.
At 5:35 the professor explains the theory that 1 electron could interfere with itself.
One idea behind this obeservation is that the electron interferes with one of his quantum states in a parallel universe. So this would prove the multiverse theory. Could someone tell me something more about this?
I must say that the electron diffraction experiment we did in college was the most staggering thing I've ever seen. It was like staring at the naked universe and realizing it to be far more strange than I had ever imagined.
its measurable only if it can be measured some particles can be clear across the universe at the same time. what is strange is that the twin particles can affect each other,so particles in your body could be,lets say in some sun a billion trillion light years from where you are and affecting you on an atomic level.
No, because to measure it we need to bounce another particle off of it, which is what collapses the function due to the uncertain nature of the particle we are using to measure it with, so you can't know everything about either particle.
And trying to measure the measuring partical is a case of repeating the first part of this comment, ad infinitum
We can't know its exact position or momentum due to the uncertainty principle, which states that the product of the uncertainity in the position and momentum of a particle must be greater than planck's constant over 2pi.
If we knew the exact position of a particle, this would violate the uncertainty principle and therefore we will never be able to measure the exact position (or momentum) of a particle.
the students that like to do the easy stuff are the ones that don't like the field too much.. i'm a student of computer engineering and i love to program, so when the teachers give us something really hard to program, i get really into it and can't stop thinking about it until i finish =D
Stop wasting time talking about how quantum mechanics is so hard to understand and try explaining some of it.
Expreshion 4 days ago
What's the probability that the Stern-Gerlach-Versuch is just one possibility - and that not only discrete but also a fuzzy result can be the outcome if the "resolution" of the experimental setup gets changed (finer or more coarse)? What's the probability that both outcomes - discrete and fuzzy - are the whole truth?
partonace 1 week ago
is the collapse of the wave function evidence that our universe is a simulation being generated by another, higher-level universe?
Superabound2 1 week ago
Schrodinger believed wave functions were real not just some mathematical abstract structure for statistical analysis of events. In fact, most classical physicist do not believe the interpretation presented in this video. Physics is not scale dependent, quantum physicist have failed to apply their interpretation to large scale structures because it is wrong. I can prove it.
BinaryStars100 3 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 what about the de Broglie formula?
PainSurgeon 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PainSurgeon DeBroglie's formula implies that large scale objects have a wavelength that is so small it cannot be measured, so it cannot be confirmed. Wavefunctions, Debroglie's wavelength and space-time are the same phenomena. I know this because, I successfully isolated the most general form of a wave function within the motion of binary stars. It's in an open access peer-reviewed publication and was presented at the Sofia Technical University. I know what wave functions are.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
i love this series! They explain things in a way that can be understood as well as making it interesting by sharing their excitement for science :)
ryanspaceevans 1 month ago in playlist Sixty Symbols
@ryanspaceevans DeBroglie's formula implies that large scale objects have a wavelength that is so small it cannot be measured, so it cannot be confirmed. Wavefunctions, Debroglie's wavelength and space-time are the same phenomena. I know this because, I successfully isolated the most general form of a wave function within the motion of binary stars. It's in an open access peer-reviewed publication and was presented at the Sofia Technical University. I know what wave functions are.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100
I believe you meant to direct your reply to PainSurgeon
ryanspaceevans 2 weeks ago
@ryanspaceevans You're right. Sorry
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
This is undoubtedly the best explanation I have encountered on the subject.
I am hopelessly addicted to these videos. Great stuff!
cculb1 1 month ago
this is fantastic. This is the first thing I have ever, EVER seen on the internet or TV that gives this sort of accessible, understandable discussion of QM without any real dumbing down, and with none of the usual hocus-pocus/mystical talk. Just concise, honest and listenable. Great stuff.
jimmyshitbags 2 months ago
--The FORM of the wave function itself is the brane when mapped continuously.
TurboLoveTrain 3 months ago
Thanks for all your vids 60symbols they're v enjoyable. I am interested in reading more about experiments people have done to describe atomic matter - I'm familiar from school with Young double slit and Rutherford gold foil but after that are experiments done in p accelerators or does anyone know any nice nifty ones they could refer me to in chemistry or physics to determine electron orbital shapes or other electron properties like 'spin'!
CloudNineHunter 4 months ago
@CloudNineHunter with regards to electron spin, look up the stern-gerlach experiment, as for determining electron orbital shape I'd hazard a guess that it's done by electron or photon scattering experiments.
jimmyshitbags 2 months ago
man! they are keen to teach!!!!
Streety101101 4 months ago
shame that scientists were judgemental of polygami
nybotheveg 4 months ago
I guess particles are kind of like Schrodinger. They like doing two things at once. ZING
Rbedwards94 4 months ago 58
I don't want to get into wave function debates. But this is amazing.
watch?v=MWgUE54KGwI
At 7 minutes, we find a *single* vibrating silicone droplet, guided through the double slits by it's own wave.
And it behaves exactly as wave-particles in any double-slit experiment.
A genuine macro-wave-particle.
PDB254 5 months ago
So ... does that mean the Wave function is more of Math? But does it include patterns like what waves do? omg i'm confused :(
MsKatkat11 5 months ago
"invited to leave"
Such a nice way to get kicked out
vampiracy 5 months ago
time and space loose their precision, they blur. thus tending towards waves. it's outside the experience man has evolved to decode from space/time/order. the wave/probability function seems odd that an electron may be on either side of a nucleus but not in the middle. this could be because it ceases being an electron where it's velocity approaches light speed. alistair crowley, eat my socks
wblakesx 5 months ago
This was really interesting! :D
kfk4life 5 months ago
eh?
AlexMcshred6505plus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I find this hard to interfere with myself to
elirox100 6 months ago
I find this hard to with myself to
elirox100 6 months ago
is easy to understand the concept of a wave function but is hard to understand the reasons why it acts this way and what exactly causes a wave function to collapse... the wave function is defiantly one of my favorite areas of physics and probably the one i have studied the most. :D
Ajscosmos 7 months ago
I just loved the impressionist painting analogy to quantum mechanics!!! Simple and beautiful! Like the laws of Physics.
rafaelkoki 7 months ago
"If you think you understand this video, you probably don't"
I hate this quote, I absolutley hate this quote because it's nonsense, we can understand these things, they are just very abstract and amazing and confusing but understandable.
CrazyPerson03832 8 months ago
@CrazyPerson03832 read his response to the other comment
kevinh2206 7 months ago
@CrazyPerson03832 You can not fully understand the wave function. You can understand how it affects the wave nature of particles and subsequently the quantum theory behind it but you can not understand the full meaning of the wave function. Modern physics uses the wave function as a placeholder in quantum physics for something abstract as that is the core of quantum physics.
Aviatorsmith 4 months ago
He was 'invited' to leave. Nice.
zurechtweiser 8 months ago
first id like to say, the first guy looks like walter white from breaking bad
secondly, i really like this video, it help me guide my way through why wavefunctions are like this
KHgoalkeeper21 8 months ago
The original quote was: "If a student started studying the quantum physics for his first in life, and his head don't ache and go dizzy, that means he didn't understood anything"
JaysanJanabel 8 months ago
I like the Monet analogy.....which is like a picture on a TV screen. Up close it's many pixels, but further back it's full on image. Cool stuff guys.
2000everett4 9 months ago
Very true Phillip,...many times I have seen things explained in ways that overcomplicate very simple concepts. Sometimes we have to suspend our disbelief of simplicity in order for things to make sense. Not familiar with Smolin, but after a quick read of the Wiki page, I see he's right up my alley, will definitely put him on my reading list for today.
Do you think information only exists in an uncorrupted state outside the human mind ?
1isaacmusic 9 months ago
It is only when we discover a solution to a problem, do we realise how simple it was, close to our grasp, yet out of our reach, due only to our inability to view things in a different light. It is an inherent human trait to complicate simple solutions. I am a fan of Feynman myself ( How can you not be ? ) ,but surely all the unorthodox thinkers have not used up all the unorthodox thoughts ? Somebody will find a simple way to explain things in the future,.. at least we can say it's probable ;)
1isaacmusic 9 months ago
@1isaacmusic I agree entirely. I think that all of the pseudoscientific "mystical" interpretations of QM, the confusion re. the role of consciousness in collapsing the wavefunction, "spooky action at a distance", and the debates as to the role of information all arise because we are not looking at QM in the correct way. Determining the "correct way" is, however, going to take a revolutionary "paradigm shift" in our understanding of physics.
Best wishes,
Philip
Moriarty2112 9 months ago
I don't think it's difficult to grasp. You have to be pretty dense to not get probability distributions.
1isaacmusic 9 months ago
@1isaacmusic Hi there. I'll admit that I'm fairly dense but I don't think that Feynman, who said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", falls into the same category.
The essence of quantum mechanics lies in complex probability amplitudes. If you can explain just why so many "dense" physicists still cannot adequately explain so many key aspects of QM, you'll be on your way to Sweden to collect a prize...
All the best,
Philip (speaking at start of video)
Moriarty2112 9 months ago
@Moriarty2112 No offense meant Phillip, it was a weak attempt at humor on my part . So easy for things to get lost in translation online. I am an avid fan of the videos from Sixty Symbols, believe me. If I had teachers with the enthusiasm you guys do ,I never would have dropped out in the 9th grade all those years ago. As far as QED/QM, I am left to ponder things with the mind of a simpleton :) . I watch a fair amount of lectures from different universities,Idk..everybody teaches it differently.
1isaacmusic 9 months ago
@1isaacmusic Ah, sorry. Interpreted your comment rather too literally! Apologies.
Thanks for the very kind words about 60Symbols. And when it comes to QM, I agree with what Lee Smolin suggests in "The Trouble with Physics" - physicists need to get back to pondering the tricky philosophical aspects of QM and leave behind the "Shut up and calculate" attitude.
"MInd of a simpleton"? When it comes to QM, I think most of us are in that category!
All the very best,
Philip
Moriarty2112 9 months ago
awesome video! Great to see a discussion proper about quantum mechincs that clearly and lucidly explains the concepts without all the spiritualistic, metaphysical nonsense. The Correspondance Principle by Niels Bohr was just this idea that at a certain scale, quantum mechanics agrees with classical mechanics and the laws of the macroscopic scale. It's only the sheer difference in scales that make it seem as though two seperate realities exist. Subscription warrented!
Wittgensteinism 9 months ago
This video makes me feel better... we're learning quantum mechanics right now and no matter how much i pay attention or read the text book and try to understand it, i just cant! at least im not the only one...
this1ssteve 9 months ago
The wave function collapse is the 'worst' part
AVJRoutledge 9 months ago
Haven't watched this video in about three months. It's fresh, it's new, it's exciting. I love quantum mechanics. :-D
heyandy889 10 months ago
love the video description. Also I'm guessing this has been asked but how often do people comment on your name Professor Moriarty?
arife06 10 months ago
I can't wait to learn this next year!
PianoKwanMan 10 months ago
How can we certain there is only one electron emitted at one time? Would u show us the equipment?
And what kind of equipment to detect the electron?
I keep hearing double slit experiment in the web but have never seen one.
AndyKong51 11 months ago
The problem is that the billiard ball particle does NOT EXIST! It's a "Mental Model" that's why.
sypha0x 11 months ago
its much easier to believe in spiritual existence and that spirit makes all this reality stuff up.
Or is this reality stuff that is probability here at part of the time in paterns that imagines we here?.
captkirkconnell 1 year ago
In the meantime, i will maintain that the world could be flat or it could be round, and once science actually sails around it, or takes a good photo of it that shows it, i will prefer that " I dont't know" to the " i am going to use what i do know to perceive that we do".
we have sailed around the world, and we even have a photo, so for that i can confirm. for this we have not gotten down that far, and are assuming based on testable behaviours.
psycogeek 1 year ago
These videos are all fantastic.
the best thing we finnaly get out of the end here, is an Admission that "we dont really know" for sure yet. The more we were able to actuall visualise, the less something was an obscure idea that doesnt fit into logic.
Once we have neered the levels of visualisation and comprehention of things, the logic of it drops in, and suddenly that which was confusion, and had TWO possibles, was defined as only one.
So here is to quantum discovery, may we someday KNOW!
psycogeek 1 year ago
Sounds to me like Schrodinger did the first "double slit" experiment ;) I-Thankyou
smeghead666 1 year ago 64
@smeghead666 Personal foul; five yard penalty; still first down.
dzsquared1 6 months ago
i believe that, because the electrons are in all places at once, and have energy levels, i believe that since the electron particles are moving so fast, that they make actual "leyers" that wrap the nuclease. and since electrons go in both and none and one of the "slit things", the "wraping" process only applies if it is "part" of the atom. i also think electrons should have 2 names.... "the airborn electron" and the "confined electron"
matthewthenerd 1 year ago
Isn't 'invited to leave' a bit of an oxymoron? :D
MarkArandjus 1 year ago
I am really really looking forward to my Physics degree now!
theguycalledchris 1 year ago
I would say that we live in a mid-scale world with medium sized objects, instead of the profesor said at 7:12
JuancitoxTw 1 year ago
I love these videos, so brilliant.
Just one little question. At which point does something start behaving under Quantum mechanics? There must be a size of particle where it no longer behaves as a macro molecule and starts obeying the strange laws of the quantum world. Its smaller than a gain of sand, but bigger than and electron....etc
clodester 1 year ago
Thank you so much for these videos! These are pure gold!
enkeksinickia 1 year ago
How does observation collapse the wave function?
madmaxxp1 1 year ago
@madmaxxp1 we don't actually know, but some scientists think that reality is like a consensual dream. To make it extremely short, something in the fact that there may be multiple observers makes it mandatory that only ONE reality may be observed as it couldn't be shared otherwise by "obeservers".
Pardon my half assed english didn't help in giving a clear answer.
Acrimonator 1 year ago
so why is that not overunity?
johny260 1 year ago
Great videos as usual. Keep it up!
proff327 1 year ago
@kristijanadrian The impossibility of any true understand kind of comes from the somewhat dogmatic declaration of indeterminism of the whole theory. The probabilistic thing is essentially established empirically, and accepted, but the reason for it is not very clear. SO what is there even to understand about it?
ArcaneInquisitor 1 year ago
@kristijanadrian It's not an "idiotism", they explained the concept. If you don't observe the electron and shoot them one by one, it still emerges as an interference pattern. What's your explanation for the interference pattern?
badblueman 1 year ago
Comment removed
LearningtoBreathe 1 year ago
Especially for Australia??? Swing belongs to the two Ws
MeitMT109 1 year ago
That picture of Erwin Schrodinger is just awesome. I don't understand a word about the physics they're describing, but this video makes me think that Erwin would be a blast to hang around with. Also, I can't wait until I get to use the phrase "invited to leave".
cepson 1 year ago
A small question for Pr.Moriarty from Jacques in France : We both play electric guitar...
except that I only use tube amps ! ...
So why do the electrons in my 6L6 or EL34 tubes behaves so nicely ? or , put in another way, why electrons in tube amps don't go quantic ?
Thanks for those wonderful videos and guitar playing !!!!!
jacques
jacquespedals 1 year ago
@jacquespedals Probably because there are so damn many of them. When you have a billion electrons the probabilities of a single one of them being here or there gets rather diluted and insignificant. All the quantum effects are "averaged out", so to say.
ArcaneInquisitor 1 year ago
Ok, i really don't understand the wave function. but i think i can "imagine" the understanding of it. i'm probably wrong.
KaskaMatej 1 year ago
As someone who has been a physics junkie for a long, long time, listening to the Feynman lectures, reading many science books, these videos are absolute nuts to me. I'm very grateful.
RareSpibs 1 year ago
Good video. I recently finished a short course in quantum mechanics for my chemistry degree. I'm not sure I ever want to see a hamiltonian again! Although it does make for an impressive party trick!
Sep3lio 1 year ago
wat?
jewfishie2 1 year ago
4:13 - How does the system "know" it has been measured?
pikuorguk 1 year ago
@pikuorguk "How does the system 'know' it's been measured" that, good sir, is the question physicists are still struggling with! It is generally accepted among physicists that quatum mechanics works, but no one is really sure why! There are many different interpretations, all of which (to my limited knowledge) carry quite a bit of metaphysical baggage, like the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation.
wendighoul 1 year ago
basically, illogical things can happen if you don't measure them or observe them directly. it's like the universe is stealing cookies from the cookie jar when nobody's looking or something.
slash5754 1 year ago
The guy with the rectangle glasses is cute and made me loose my concentration. Sexy scientist guy, hot story about a threesome... I'm tryin to learn here!!
20Estevenson 1 year ago
Where's his cat, (it it still alive or not), or do I have the wrong person?
Films4You 1 year ago
@Films4You quite possibly both alive and dead! (at least until you look for him :P)
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul or for that matter the poor cat could be dead and dead...
There must be two cats,,, how and we say that this is not true.
Or maybe the cat is just very poorly, just kidding.
Films4You 1 year ago
Fascinating... study a little quantum physics..
Peta51 1 year ago
I think a 'wave-function' or 'wave-packet' is a much more accurate description for photons and electrons, than 'particle'. The idea that we think of them as particles is what causes some of the absurdity.
Photons and electrons are more of a wave-collapse event. I think... not sure about the latter.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
I think that
deltax=0
deltap=0
things in nature have positions
they are defined
it just an human weakness
bibiba222 1 year ago
look! the water drinking bird in the back 2:45
AuraRisen 1 year ago
Comment removed
blacespace 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you serious? The wave function is simple.
Geometries exist between movements. These are the 'currents'.
Currents in my science of Wavenetics is the equation of Relationship.
There are two equations here:
1. Truth 0+1+2 = 3
2. Everything Else 0+1+2 = x
So simple, now the 'brainiacs' will question it's wisdom. Eventually you will see it is refined.
Anyway, this leads to immortality. Yes, I am claiming I have the answer to immortality and that you can be immortal if you meet me. Challenge it.
S
SLUMDOOLA 1 year ago
@SLUMDOOLA Does that work in cubic time?
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Time is compressible... Love is the 3D 'waveform', or rendering of that which is compressible. For the Human, they must learn to love, and function that love with intelligence. I have this code for you, but it cannot be expressed in type, words or equation. The math equation does come the closest.
Cubic time? I do not have any information on Cubic Time. I am not a scholar.
MY VIDEOS CONTAIN TRUTH FOR THE FEW.
-SLUM
SLUMDOOLA 1 year ago
Slow connection so watching this is taking ages. I've always wonder how the "observation" of the wave function collapses it. I mean how are they measuring? Are they firing photons at the electron, or measuring the electric field of the electron? Why isn't the wave function of the electron collapsed by air molecules? Or is it in a vacuum?
8DX 1 year ago
'Man' has imprisoned himself into the world of expectations, laws, rights and wrongs, predictability expectations, categorisings, pidgeon holing, black and white, falsness and unbelievables.
The reality is, 'man' has to remove himself from self approvals and, enter the world of the open mind. Herein we are able to accept that perhaps the behaviour of the subatomic world does not meet our evolved expectations and laws. Maybe something can appear from nothing for example.
Learning curve goes on
Topdoginuk 2 years ago
Ahh is it sad that I was very excited at C60 being mentioned in this? Being a Boltonian I'm very proud of our nobel prize winning chemist Harold Kroto, part of the team involved with C60!
Ashlemacq 2 years ago
GREAT!! Thanks for this video collection. I love internet for this kind of stuff and also I appreciate the people who post this kind of knowledge for the benefit of human kind understanding. Many thanks to all those who do it. THANX, THANX, THANX
Multiversalismo 2 years ago 46
@Multiversalismo: You're welcome!
sixtysymbols 2 years ago 6
"If you think you understand this video, you probably don't"
why?
if you study it, you'll understand it.
and it is understandable !!!
DonCorleoneQ8 2 years ago
@DonCorleoneQ8: It's a joke and playing on the words of a famous quote!
sixtysymbols 2 years ago 28
Ah-ha. Feynman :) If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
chantellesasha 1 year ago
@sixtysymbols
Ahhh.... Feinmann, the world is that little less rational without him.
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@sixtysymbols so you can understand this video with out not understanding it?
alexanderhulse 1 year ago
@DonCorleoneQ8 yea you will understand that you will never understand it.
vrshowdown 1 year ago
Doesant quantum theory, say that the exact location of a quantum behaving particle is not known, only a probability.
headphones222 1 year ago
@headphones222
yes, [x,p]=-ih/2pi
that means x and p are matrices, not a variables.
and when it comes to matrices, you have 2 things
eigenvalues( number) and eigenstate ( Matrix)
with every matrix you have a number of eigenvalues depending on the matrix size.
so, for 2x2 matrix you have 2 eigenvalues.
let's say matrix - X is 2x2 , then you have two values for the particle's position.
how can you tell which one is the right answer? you don't
you just find the probability.
DonCorleoneQ8 1 year ago
@DonCorleoneQ8 It's because you are just understanding what great scientists still don't understand about. Yeah you understand their intepretation of what they know, certainly they can't tell you what they don't understand are.
otivaeey 1 year ago
The description this video holds is somewhat offensive. As it says "If you think you understand this video, you probably don't"
Anyways. I understand this completely, as I study this stuff much.
cowgoesmoo2 2 years ago
I enjoyed that, thanks.
defjam99b 2 years ago
Its the stuff that makes them go "uhh" lol
bodinian 2 years ago
The painting analogy at the end was good.
chodaboy51500 2 years ago
I totally understood it!!! ;D
afhdfh 2 years ago
I hated learning about wave functions. Specially real & imaginary numbers. Your right ... I still don't really understand it now. Has to be done when learning about sound I guess.
J05hyyy 2 years ago
the question of humanity... :D
nice video!
clarkcolt45 2 years ago
Does anyone know what is "Fair play Shirl!" in the background at 8:30 ? And what is written beneath ?
kuzlovsky12 2 years ago
@kuzlovsky12
There was a Minister of Education, called Shirley Williams, and we academics were in dispute with her. Underneath "Fair play Shirl" was written the phrase "Don't CON the DONS." The placard was carried at a protest by Prof Fred Sheard, and he gave it me on his retirement. Boy were we radical then!
MrOldprof 1 year ago
@MrOldprof thank you.
kuzlovsky12 1 year ago
I was watching a video from a chemistry professor informing his audience of the new mapping of some carbon molecules. The picture was fuzzy but a basic image was present.
Its always hard to explain why those images are always fuzzy but since we're using analogies I like the Nation vs People one. It's easy to figure what a nation will do but harder to know what the states of that nation will do, then cities, then individual people. The more you divide the fuzzier things get.
525047 2 years ago
Comment removed
PosVibeMerc 2 years ago
awsome
jordanmjk0 2 years ago
I never really got this "observation collapses the wave function". Are the not abundantly enough other natural influences on these particles that are more significant?
Also, I rationalized the wave / particle dualism as the best workaround for the limitations of observation. I. e., waves are "but" the best abstractions physics has, while particles are "more real".
Could any actual physicist please comment?
[I know this is very crude language at best, sorry. But I hope it conveys my thoughts.]
Miscskies 2 years ago
The problem with quantum theory is explaining the details without maths is like trying to explain economics without the concept of money.
For the case of the electron and the slit: To measure which slit it goes through we have to interact with it, e.g. shine a light on it. But to be able to know which slit it went through we need light with very small waves, and therefore a high energy. Some of this energy will be given to the electron, moving it to the "wrong" place in the diffraction pattern.
gobaskof 2 years ago
"The problem with quantum theory is explaining the details without maths is like trying to explain economics without the concept of money".
That's a really neat statement of the problem, Julian - inspired! I may well quote you in some of my undergraduate lectures in the future...
Philip
Moriarty2112 2 years ago
@gobaskof : Indeed - and I believe a good explanation of most economic principles should be done without money, because not all economies use money!!!! I note the current definition of economics on wiki doesn't use money!
This is an ongoing friendly debate between myself and Prof Moriarty! :)
In this context I think of maths as a "language", so maybe a better analogy would be that "explaining quantum physics without maths is like trying to convey the genius of Shakespeare without English!"
sixtysymbols 2 years ago
@sixtysymbols: Touche', Brady! Very good point. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't (or that we can't) put across concepts in quantum mechanics without maths but, my, is it difficult!
There has been a strong culture of "shut up and calculate" - i.e. do the math and don't worry too much about the thorny philosophical issues - for quite some decades in quantum physics. Lee Smolin, in his (rather controversial) book "The Trouble with Physics" argues that we need to get beyond this. (..contd)
Moriarty2112 2 years ago
...contd. Trying to formulate quantum mechanical concepts in "everyday language", rather than by writing down mathematical expressions, makes one realise just how much we really don't understand about QM!
Philip
P.S. Does anyone know how I can get an acute (or grave) accent into a YouTube comment?!
This is what I love about Sixty Symbols - that we can prompt debate of this type!
Moriarty2112 2 years ago
ctrl + alt + e = é
same for other vowels, (assuming that outputs)
For grave the standard ctrl + ' then the letter fails in YouTube.
However
à = alt+0224
è = alt+0232
ì = alt+0236
ò = alt+0242
ù = alt+0249
(must be done with number pad)
gobaskof 2 years ago 2
@gobaskof: Thanks Julian. OK, let's give it a go (and write it as I originally intended):
"@sixtysymbols: Touché, Brady."
Fantastic.
(So embarrassed I didn't know that. Thanks for helping an increasingly computer-illiterate physicist!).
Philip
Moriarty2112 2 years ago
Thank you for this very useful info. It works on my computer where other methods haven't.
Topdoginuk 2 years ago
@sixtysymbols except that falls apart. the math is a made-up way of quantify what we are looking at physically. atoms are not floating formulas and functions. math is just our best tool to measure it with. as far as the wave function .... well for something that falls apart when it shouldn't means it's wrong and we are looking at it the wrong way. sure it may be right sometimes or even most of the time but then again Ptolemy was wrong too
smawshot 1 year ago
wave function is a set of solution from the equation of schrodinger equation. It is a quantitative representation in terms of probability in the finding electron.. Chemist used shape orbitals as a pictorial representation for the probability of the position of electron. Therefore, there are 2 ways to represent the electrons probability. Quantitatively (wave function from the schrodinger equation) and Geometric (picture) representation using Shape orbitals.
anthonychemistry 2 years ago
5:56
i laughed out loud
so great
pin3appel 2 years ago
"wave sign IS a cool symbol, looks like a pitchfork," awesome quote lol
DeadByNature 2 years ago
Students like to do either the easy stuff, or the interesting stuff. When you get to hard stuff that is not interresting, the focus start to go away :P
gulllars 2 years ago
SWE is one of the most awesome concepts EVER...
ibrahim1088 2 years ago
I guess that's why they chose to use that symbol for the Y in "Sixty Symbols" lol
Very interesting stuff
phayz9 2 years ago
Actually I've often wondered if at absolute zero all molecular movement stops does atomic (electron) movement stop as well
and even deeper what are electrons,neutrons and protons made of?
phayz9 2 years ago
At 0 kelvin, the atom has no kinetic energy at the atomic level. The electron still "moves" if you want, if it too stood still, it would fall into the nuclei because of the attraction between the proton in the electron.
Electrons, nuetrons and protons are made of quarks. Today, they are considered the most basic elementary particles.
WalkViking 2 years ago
Neutrons are made of quarks (2 down quarks, 1 up quark).
Protons are made of quarks (2 up quarks, 1 down quark).
Electrons are elementary particles and are not made of quarks.
gobaskof 2 years ago
sorry just to point out, electrons are leptons, to this point no more fundamental structure to an electron is known. Quarks make up hadrons, e.g. the protons and the neutrons.
Also at absolute zero a quantum mechanical system still has a zero-point energy, which is an interesting topic, and it leads to the idea that even in 'empty space' there can still be vast amounts of energy, if only for very small periods of time.
maniachris 2 years ago
What do you mean, vast amo---- nevermind. I thought you were talking about zero-point energy there.
cowgoesmoo2 2 years ago
lol i didn't know schrodinger was such a playa
BYMYSYD 2 years ago 23
@BYMYSYD
Anddddd his wife let him do it...lucky bum
MeitMT109 1 year ago
@BYMYSYD A joke my friend put into his power point about SChroedinger
"Hey ladies, what's the probability of finding my particle in your box?"
Grundalizer 1 year ago
@BYMYSYD Einstein was a player too.
twg20101 1 year ago
"The Theroy of Elementary Waves" By Lewis E. Little. I used to drink the Kool-Aid at the String Theory compound but "TEW" seems a better explanation of the world than String Theory. just my 2 cents.
Nuedad 2 years ago
To quote the late great Richard Feynman " If you think you understand Quatum Theory, you don't understand quantum theory"
grnlfe01 2 years ago
The metaphor of the pointilist paintings is great.
Also, watching this video gave me an idea for an SF story. An alien race that intuitively understands quantum mechanics (because they are really tiny) but can't grasp "classical" physics.
desiredusername 2 years ago
Schrödinger was an Austrian physicist. Austria was also the country he left in 1938 after the "Anschluss" because of his political views. (At least he wasn't persecuted because of his religious beliefs; because he hadn't any). Fortunately he came back after the war, because he was one of the few Nobel-prize-winners we have here ;-)
superdau 2 years ago
You are right that he was Austrian not German as implied in the video. Also he went to Oxford in 1933, not 1938 ---I'm not a very good historian.---and was spirited out of Nazi-occupied Europe in 1941. But he spend a 15 years in Ireland before returning to Austria.
MrOldprof 2 years ago
At 5:35 the professor explains the theory that 1 electron could interfere with itself.
One idea behind this obeservation is that the electron interferes with one of his quantum states in a parallel universe. So this would prove the multiverse theory. Could someone tell me something more about this?
MasterVos007 2 years ago 2
love love love quantums!
RixeDNB 2 years ago
I must say that the electron diffraction experiment we did in college was the most staggering thing I've ever seen. It was like staring at the naked universe and realizing it to be far more strange than I had ever imagined.
zageiger 2 years ago 7
im reading a book about wave functions and quantum mechanics right now, in fact!
MagikGir 2 years ago
XD Yay, Berlin in the 30s!
afhdfh 2 years ago
is it possible we dont know where a particle is because our technology isnt that good yet?
4jonah 2 years ago
No, its because it can be in two places at once.
Osirus1156 2 years ago
what is the distance between these two places? is it a measurable distance?
4jonah 2 years ago
its measurable only if it can be measured some particles can be clear across the universe at the same time. what is strange is that the twin particles can affect each other,so particles in your body could be,lets say in some sun a billion trillion light years from where you are and affecting you on an atomic level.
YogiToad 2 years ago
no our technology is good enough already
YogiToad 2 years ago
No, because to measure it we need to bounce another particle off of it, which is what collapses the function due to the uncertain nature of the particle we are using to measure it with, so you can't know everything about either particle.
And trying to measure the measuring partical is a case of repeating the first part of this comment, ad infinitum
AlterGX 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
MagikGir 2 years ago
We can't know its exact position or momentum due to the uncertainty principle, which states that the product of the uncertainity in the position and momentum of a particle must be greater than planck's constant over 2pi.
If we knew the exact position of a particle, this would violate the uncertainty principle and therefore we will never be able to measure the exact position (or momentum) of a particle.
maniachris 2 years ago
Is light Waves or Particles? =S
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 2 years ago
both
chillz27 2 years ago
wave/particle duality
google it
chillz27 2 years ago
she be both...narrrrr....
YogiToad 2 years ago
hehe, the gigilo scientist
nice video
cool70200 2 years ago
By the way, the symbol is the Greek letter called "Psi". They left that out of the discussion.
PeterCorless 2 years ago 3
I really enjoyed the video...
Honk if you passed pchem!
chemgirl11 2 years ago
Great vid again!
But I wonder what is this "Fair play Shirt" thing on the left behind the professor at 8:00 ? :D
Myx4o 2 years ago
nine minute video, AWESOME!
goldliquid 2 years ago
Oh my poor head.
DeoMachina 2 years ago 2
Very nice video!
starkshift 2 years ago
the students that like to do the easy stuff are the ones that don't like the field too much.. i'm a student of computer engineering and i love to program, so when the teachers give us something really hard to program, i get really into it and can't stop thinking about it until i finish =D
ricardjorg 2 years ago 4
you sound a bit like me, lol.
thejumperkin 2 years ago
i like turtles
chillz27 2 years ago
chillz27: rotfl
ricardjorg 2 years ago