Quantum Mechanics (Chapter 3 of 6)

[Kurtlane]

If particles can appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing, doesn't that violate the law of concervation of mass/energy?

Even if for a brief instance, but it's still a violation.

[gredangeo]

Erwin Schrödinger, that bastard, he was going 15mph faster than the speed of light and wasn't sorry for it. :)

[65051088]

Thanks to this I'm gonna ace my final !!!!!!

[evilash1996]

What's up Mrs.Kretzer's class!

[Russell218]

This is the best Heisenberg + wave-particle duality explanation I've come across yet, and I've been studying the subject for over a year! Thank you!!

[lovosazul]

Cool;]

[TechnologyGod]

I have to challenge Heisenberg, if you know the exact mass of a fighter jet equipped with a GPS then the more accurately you know the position of the object, the more accurately know the momentum as a function speed*mass. Speed being determined by distance traveled in a given amount of time, all of which are dependent on knowing the exact position of an object. If what he said was true then there would be no way to calculate momentum.

[johnster123]

@TechnologyGod But u are trying to calculate an instananeous rate of change. Heisenberg's uncertainty says that it is impossible to know too much of each information (How fast it is going and Exactly where it is, because if you know exactly where it is, you are saying you know where it is at an instant, but at an instant, it is difficult to determine speed because what is your "distance" in speed=distance/time? You are correct. the GPS will know where the jet would be, but the exact speed?

[johnster123]

@TechnologyGod if a number can be read off as the "Exact speed" ...it will never be 100% accurate, never..and up till today, no one has been able to create some sort of test/experiment to prove this wrong..if someone was able to however, prove that it is possible to know the EXACT SPEED at an instant, it will be huge...trust me....you will be seeing it on the news for weeks lol

[TechnologyGod]

So thats why my freakin car keys go missing and then reappear in the most unusual places every morning. On a more serious note does that mean that elements can be predicted to exist using this wave function?

[FMMAROTO]

What is the music?

[emailsucksass7354]

Is anyone else having nightmares because of these 3d human character models in space?

[Zinnfandel]

omg those characters are freaky and the animation is horrid. Good thing the sciency parts are quite a bit better.

[Dactacomplex]

Q: what is it that is waving when a particle is described as a wave?

A: existence is waving

.. omg!! mind orgasm!! o_O!

[wtfBananaDNA]

FINALLY an imaginable description of particle-wave-duality, i'm very pleased =)

[cnidoblast]

@wtfBananaDNA yeah this is brilliant. I think in pictures too and when images are provided it speeds up the learning process 1000 fold for me.

[kaderoder]

Split a piece of wood, there I am.

[kaderoder]

Split a piece of wood, there i am.

[zumosmorph]

Ouch.  My brain hurts.

[magichristo]

Wait, shouldn't virtual particles be traveling really really amazingly fast instead of appearing and reappearing? Because that just sounds silly, how can something completely disappear and then reappear in a different place?

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

Is it possible that virtual particles could be related to the LNH hypothesis?

[cassiopeiaproject]

@TheReasonWhyGuy Probably not.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@cassiopeiaproject Perhaps, but to ignore possibility, is to potentially ignore truth.

[theshadow170y]

a fraction of matter can not existin more then one places at the same time...it defies common sense and has no phisical logic. The location of an object is unique by it's definition. A body in 2 places in the same time would mean that there are TWO bodies. That defies the principle that tell us that no matter can be lost or created. There is no such thing as 2 instances of an object. It is just their sick imagination.

[TheMathKing]

@theshadow170y Are you just trying to troll us for fun, or are you that ignorant? lol

[theshadow170y]

@TheMathKing I am the ignorant? ok, continue to belive that a particle can be in more then two places at the same time and the entire bullshit of quantum phisics. Hey, it's just my oppinion. Einstein could not accept it too...I do not tell you to belive me, belive what you want and what you are told like a good student. Cya

[TheMathKing]

@theshadow170y Explain electron diffraction then. I've actually seen an electron interfere with it's self and appear at exactly as the probability distributions predict in quantum mechanics. The reason why you can't build a CPU smaller than the ones your computer uses is because the electron likes to warp in and out of the places we need it to be.There is a reason why people who understand this stuff end up being paid 60K minimum, companies need them to build products that use this stuff.

[TheMathKing]

@theshadow170y Ignorance is a very harmful thing to have. Those who are good at eliminating ignorance, are those who rise to power in this world. Remember that. The more facts you know, the more useful you become. The less facts (or the more falsehoods you know), the more of a disadvantage you're at. Learn or work minimum wage for the rest of your life!!

[TheMathKing]

@theshadow170y Common sense is defined by what humans can see on earth. Humans can't see electrons, nor can they see black holes (at least up close). Common sense is irrelevant in this case.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@TheMathKing "Common sense is defined by what humans can see on earth"

Also to what is wired into our brain, which seriously limits common sense.

Since all that would be wired, would be stuff which was useful for survival, or non-detrimental for survival.

[Hornet85]

Someone help me here. I always thought that in the probabilistic interpretation (or was it Copenhagen interpretation?) it says that the probabilistic wave merely reflects the probability of where we may find a particular electron. Meaning there is an electron, we just cannot describe its location precisely because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, so the best we can come up with is a probabilistic wave.

[Hornet85]

@Hornet85 My question is, is this what that said interpretation mean, that electrons are actually appearing and disappearing according to the probabilistic wave? Or is this another entirely different interpretation of quantum mechanics? Thanks

[lildon112]

"The particle is jumping into and out of existence.." WHOOAAAAAA mind fuck! But this is some mind blowing and eye opening stuff. Thats coming from a biologist trying to learn some physical chemistry.

[joseftran]

No such thing as virtual particles. Matter is waves and electrons is waves. That is why when you zoom in on a wave then you see such a small section of the wave that it's a straight line. Zoom out and you see a wave or "the" matter again. Simple.

[symmetry08]

everything starts with collision of a simple fine ( miniscule ) matter. If you could think that way everything becomes clear after very long and long meditation about nature of existance. There is no matter as we understand, only waves that we percieve as matter.

[Nomoreidsleft]

If we were not here to measure and observe the universe, would it exist? Does anything exist until we interact with it?

[bigcityjunkie]

argh creepy dolls!

jeeves take them away!

[AloofPeregrine]

@bigcityjunkie I cannot give the videos a thumbs up because of those avatars, but the videos also do not deserve a thumbs down because of the content. Talk about feeling like the proverbial Schrodinger's cat, assuming I "get" any of this at all. I have thumbs up and thumbs down at the same time.

[bigcityjunkie]

@AloofPeregrine agreed, the content is great. but those avatars freeeeeeak me out!

[RvNYC]

What is it then that is where the particles used to be? Does a virtual particle take its place instantly. Or can it be said that a "hole" in existance is left.

Since all fields are quantized and all particles are quantized, is reality only this froth with the other whatever percentage being...well non-real? What percentage (by volume) the universe is actual stuff?

[Squashsplatt]

So electrons can exist at many places at the same time within the orbit around the nucleus? and can teletransport? O.o how is that possible?

[cassiopeiaproject]

@Squashsplatt Yep -- Pretty cool, huh ?! The "how" is in the wave function... check out our QED video.

[theshadow170y]

@cassiopeiaproject quantum phisics somehow takes imposible and inimaginable facts and by math it forces you to belive they have a meaning in phisics. Quantum Mechanics is pure theory, and it is not proven.

[juanarruti]

@cassiopeiaproject so if H is stable it would have one electron and one proton. So if that electron can exist at many places at one time, it would have to split up its energy to equal the wavelength of the orbital its in?

[AmyS77]

@Squashsplatt

Electron waveparticles don't 'teletransport' per se, they simply travel through a dimension that we aren't able to perceive directly, and which is difficult for us (humans) to understand as more than a theoretical construct.

[TheMathKing]

@Squashsplatt When you study wave equations, you can relate them to the probability of certain events happening. The wave eq. contains all possible information about the phenomon, and when you do specific things to the wave function, you can extract the probability of position, energy, mass, etc. Sometimes the probability is 100%, sometimes it's 0%, for some measurements. When you look at the probabilities closely, you see that there is a chance that a particle can exist in more than one place.

[jaxxcorbin]

@Squashsplatt i am not an expert just a funny reply. Maybe they are not confined to the timespace fabric.

[RvNYC]

I've never heard anyone describe what a particle actually is. I know a proton is one. So is a Quark. But what is the structure of a quark. Is it simply a point in space where the strong, weak, electric, and color charges meet?

[Spandex08]

How is it possible something to appear and disappear.

A question - is it possible in a vacuum energy or matter to be created?

According to what i have understood from what u are saying in this video that it is possible energy to exist in vacuum, then how is it possible - needs more explaining.

[Baleur]

Very very good visualisations. It is very rare for documentaries or such, to have properly GOOD visualisations of the microcosmos. But this makes it seem easy, soft "glows" to express the uncertainty of exactly where the object in question is :)

[aimike3]

Woah...Schroedinger (if that is how his name is spelled) is pretty beast...

[XANDERXXZ]

fucking scary animation.

[ween69]

what about when you dream ,is what you see in your dreams made of particles?

[IcedPhoenix666]

Does the appeareance and dissapearance of subatomic particles imply that we are talking about another dimension?

[matatan69]

The existence of the electron itself is what propagates as a wave, at this tiny level particles jump in and out of existence and can leap from diemension to dimension. These are dimensions that our senses can't detect.

[cassiopeiaproject]

Additional dimensions are not required for the behavior described, but the possibility is certainly interesting.

[UncannyRicardo]

@cassiopeiaproject

So can I say that virtual particles come from "nothing"?

I've heard some physists say they dont come outta nothing because the Quantum Vacuum has some type of energy or something. While others freely just say that they come outta nothing. But ultimately I think it comes to interpretation.

My question is that, woud you allow me to get away with saying that virtual particles come outta "nothing"?

[cassiopeiaproject]

No harm in that. But perhaps for your own visualization, you might want to think they come out of quantum energy fluctuations.

[UncannyRicardo]

@cassiopeiaproject

Yea but isen't the word "quantum energy fluctions" just a fancy way of saying they come from nothing? Cause I hear some people say that virtual particles might end the debate about wether SOMETHING can come from NOTHING.

If I wanted to say that 0 = virtual particles, would physist allow me? Sure he might want to word it differently, but would my statement still be valid?

[cassiopeiaproject]

Sure. But Quantum Mechanics wont let anything be exactly zero for long. So not only can something come from nothing, but something can go to nothing as well. The time average of these fluctuations is what we measure as the conserved energy of the system.

[oliverthered]

@UncannyRicardo Space != Nothing.

Random comes from nothing however.

[pragmatec1]

@UncannyRicardo very well put, clear and concise! and to your question, no

" 0 = virtual particles", would not be considered valid:)

[lmhjs1000]

@cassiopeiaproject Would it be accurate to say that we exist in a universe where absolutely nothing can not exist. To put it another way, even a complete vacuum is inescapable from virtual particles under any cirumstance?

[cassiopeiaproject]

@lmhjs1000 The concept of "absolute nothing" is an interesting philosophical idea. But, philosophy aside, you are correct, our best scientific theories of today do not allow any corner of space-time within our universe to be "empty" for very long.

[WinduChi6]

@IcedPhoenix666

Yes, I suspect it does mean another dimension, but I will assume some will argue it will reappear in another 3 D universe & the electron from a 3 D another universe will appear in our universe, for conservation.

Because a particle is describe by 3-D coordinates, so if it disappear it will have to occupy another spacetime that has at least 3 Dimensions to be define as a particle if not, it will be something else entirely.

[Krisman19]

So these sub-atomic particles don't come from the nothingness of the universe, but rather apear in the nothingness of the universe. So because we can't measure the velocity and location at the same time, we can only assume where the particles are going to be, in our understanding of where they can be... But what if some of these particles were interdimensional like a graviton. They could mislead our understanding to believe that existence could come into exist from the nothingness...0+0=0 Right?

[sidewaysfcs0718]

but "nothing" is a flawed concept .. isnt the space-time fabric a better term for this "nothing"

[Krisman19]

if your refering to the term for this fabric, one can consider it with in the Aether... For Aether is the medium in which everything resides.

[cassiopeiaproject]

Right.

[Zee96969696]

can somebody answer my question? exactly how confusing is this quantum mechanics stuff?

[v1taly1988]

This computer simulation is soo good, at our lectures no-one really explained what things mean in quantum mechanics , we just dived straight into awful maths (e.g. that particles usually only exist where wave crests appear, and other things). thanks

[poopoop121212]

They way the characters act and move reminds me of Thunderbirds o_o.

[dOUBLEDDOULBE]

jeeves is JACOB!!!

[joelito101]

at 3:00, the particles exist and disappear, then where the wave is the strongest is where it becomes 'visible'. and where it is less visible, its wave @ 0.

If we could phase shift 'matter' what would happen to it, visibly?

[cassiopeiaproject]

Probably nothing unless the matter is in some special state to begin with.

[ogirv101]

Where in the hell is Max Planck in this? Also has anyone noticed that the majority of the founders of quantom mechanics were christian, while in this time era scientists were mainly anti-christian?

[cassiopeiaproject]

At about 4:10 into QM-Chapter-1b, Planck is given due credit for his terrific contributions to QM.

[ogirv101]

thanks.

[goffnett]

Christians had a head start in Quantum Mechanics.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Sir Isaac Newton was a believer, and Albert Einstein was without question a Creationist. Thomas Paine spoke on this issue. Google "Thomas Paine on "The Study of God" Delivered in Paris"

[johnstall5350]

lol thats a good one

[666GOREGRINDER666]

"a bunch of gobley gloop"

[kasuskasus]

"Jeeves, take it away!"

[cassiopeiaproject]

When a classical field -- like a simple electric field -- is quantized, virtual particles emerge as the quanta of that field. So every time an electric force is observed, that is empirical evidence for the existence of virtual particles.

Real particles "disappearing and reappearing elsewhere" is the best we can do to describe behavior like tunneling and dual-slit interference.

As to "where" they are "in between" -- they are everywhere that they can be simultaneously.

[Saskachewan]

Quantum tunneling could be described simplier, without any magical mumbo-jumbo, using plain old classical wave physics. The wave, when approaches the potential barrier, stops its oscillations and starts to decay exponentially [it's called "evanescent waves"]. Its phase is sustained. But if the potential barrier is short, the wave could reappear on the other side and start its oscillations from the same point, but lower in amplitude. It's the same as partial reflection in classical physics.

[jesseakers]

so where is the electron at between disappearing and reappering, where is the emprical evidence for saying things like "they go into and out of existence, from the nothingness of space"...

[RossPK81]

Take it away Jeeves!

[Saskachewan]

How something point-like and jumping here and there could behave like a wave? Is it sensible? :| How can a probability, a pure abstract concept, interfere really and guide intangible "particles" to their places? Is it reasonable to conclude there is any "particle" at all only form the fact that it makes a little spot on the screen? Waves can do that too.

[fani5000]

You should check out Dr. Quantum on youtube, it might explain to you how science itself grew from pure abstract.

[Saskachewan]

I know Dr Quantum clips very well and I'm currently studying quantum theory, and I'm horrified by the amount of bullshit which arose in it over decades. Especially if Schroedinger, Einstein etc. were very close to the real answer: there are NO point particles. Only waves. And they're not PROBABILITY waves, as Bohr's pals argued [Copenhagen Doctrine], but REAL matter waves made of pure space [as Clifford proposed decades before them]. If you know Milo Wolff theory, all paradoxes of QM disappear.

[fani5000]

I am actually now gradually accepting the electron as a wave. It's just kinda hard to let it go because it's been engraved into my mind that it's a particle from the first time I was taught about it (I'm talking freshmen science in high school).

Why isn't it taught that it's a wave when kids are first introduced to the atom?

There must be a debate among top scientists about fundamentals of the electron.

[Saskachewan]

How can a particle be in many places simultaneously?! It's pure fantasy! :P

Why do we need that "particle" concept at all if Schroedinger's wave can describe all its behaviour? The wave is all we need. See dr Milo Wolff's Wave Structure of Matter theory and prof. Carver Mead's new quantum electrodynamics based purely on waves. It can explain everything without spooky concepts of particles leaping here and there and being in many places at the same time ;P