Added: 3 years ago
From: nageljr
Views: 35,964
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (60)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Hmm. I think there is a slightly misleading statement in the song. Wave-particle duality is not related to the wavefunction, which is a complete, probabilistc mathematical description of a system. De Broglie waves and particles actually (co-)exist, but the particle can be forced to become either depending on how we observe it.

  • This is almost my new favorite song

  • Why is Carl Sagan singing in the chorus? He's a cosmologist as far as I know and has no connection to QM. It might be because he's a popular science figure.

  • You are awesome!

  • 0:21 to 0:27 should be reconsidered, the conservation of probability is not given in this schema O.O ok let´s stop being cocky, great song :D *****

  • Why isn't Einstein among those singing the chorus?

  • Quantum music theory. It's all about the sound wave function

  • Brilliant.

  • epic: nothings complicated about that.

  • wooooorrrddd...search: mathematical proof of a creative intelligence

  • Freaking awesome!

  • SIMPLER THAN RELATIVITY?! I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @tombombadil10000

    Haha! Most of QM requires a good understanding of partial differential equations and linear algebra. Relativity requires tensors. So really, its a question of which upper-level mathematics you're more comfortable with. For me, it was the former. Some people probably think the latter is easier. Although special relativity is certainly the winner since it only needs algebra.

  • @nageljr I'm a big fan of QM. I also found it easier than Relativity for the beauty of PDEs.

  • @nageljr I totally agree with you. I have never gotten comfortable with tensors.

  • @nageljr i dont understand the half you say but i agree xD

  • @nageljr The math complexity is probably similar, but the concept of a curved space-time is far simpler than physical states represented by elements of a Hilbert space and observables by self-adjoint operators... not to mention the paradoxes of every interpretation fo QM I have heard of (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds...)

  • @tombombadil10000 I like to think that QFT is bigger too! quantum has absorbed Special relativity and people have been trying to include general relativity as well. But you don't have too many relativists doing quantum theory.

  • its not only about maths, qm hat so much more content and application, you simply can't learn it all.

  • shoulda played the chiodos song instead, althoug it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics =s

  • This was fantastic ! "Position and momentum is just a Fourier pair", so simple when heard in the song :-)

  • Beatbox is too loud - can't make lyrics out!!!

    Other than that, THANK YOU for posting the lyrics and for writing this very good song!

  • "WTF!?!?!" at 0:22 is simply EPIC

  • this is bullshit. of you point a laser pointer to a needel edge you still see outcome from a slit experiment, but this time without the slit. ho can Q-physics explain that?

  • @maydayfire So what your saying is that under completely different conditions, because the outcome is similar, quantum mechanics must be wrong? What does a needlepoint have to do with the slit experiment?

  • I cannot believe that this video has only 10.5k views!

  • oh so awesome!!!!!!!!

  • This is so totally cool - one of the best things I ever heard - Excellent and bravo - yay for Quantum mechanics

  • Yeah,;)I love waves;)

  • I just LOVED the chorus! lol

  • test quantum mechanics, run into a wall

  • my sis is smart [may be smarter than me] - but she says science can't be fun... i'll show her this vid and prove her wrong...

  • rofl! love it dude.

  • Quantum Win 1

  • Comment removed

  • Epicness :D

  • Awesome, great job! I like particle against potential barrier and WTF, hah LOL amazing...

  • omg! this is awesome!

  • Are the lyrics posted somewhere?

  • Read the video description.

  • It's good, but the music dominates the singing

  • Nice video, but what does diffraction of *light* by a slit have to do with quantum mechanics (being quite a nice home-makeable proof for wave nature of light though)?

  • Great question.

    The demonstration is assuming you already believe that light consists of photons, and is not really a continuous wave. The thing we really wanted to show is that a stream of discrete photons distributed in a sinc-squared pattern (the little red-dot animation) produces a nearly identical pattern to the one you see with the laser interference. So really, I guess we should call it a "correspondence" demo, but whatever. It still looks cool, right? :)

  • @nageljr In addition, I do not think there is a satisfactory classical theory on diffraction.

  • @nageljr I just wanted to criticize the former. but i'm glad it's already straight. love that stuff man.

  • if light is made of particles, as was once "proven", classically it shouldn't interfere or diffract. Since is does, is must also be a "wave" - hence the wave-particle duality.

  • lol

  • hahahahaha!

    kudos!

  • ahahaha funny :)

  • cool :-)

  • Awesome! Python-esque too!

  • very good, I also look your fdtd calculation. perfect. may I ask what software did you use for simulation. now I am using rsoft for some calculation.

  • Brilliant! What a magnum opus! Kudos. How do you apply this to real life situations?

  • Nearly every modern technology owes its existence to quantum mechanics. Computers, CDs, DVDs, solar cells, MRI scanners, spectroscopy, pharmaceuticals, fiber optics, lasers, Teflon, LEDs, digital cameras, everything. They all would fail to function if quantum theory were not true and correct.

  • That's no good argument:

    Compare: All 18e century equipment has been made according to the newtonian mechanics is Newton always right then?No, Newton can't describe the quantumphenomena or the mechanics at very high speeds

    It's just that we haven't found a flaw in the quantumtheorie. But a lack of experimental prove that a theory is not true, does NOT prove that the theory is right!

    (probably it is right though)

    Cheers!

  • James... I had no idea.  You the man. Funny stuff.

  • fkin great!! XD

  • awesome!!!!

    thx

  • gooooooooood!

  • Thanks! We're glad you enjoyed it.

  • yeah, first comment

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more