A masterpiece in explaining and posing the same doubts I myself have

I think you make a key point here. Detectors of quantum particles are essentially extremely high gain amplifiers. And when we make a measurement, what we're actually perceiving is not the quantum particle but the macroscopic effect it had on the detector. Of course something is lost in translation!

@decreasing_entropy3003

Жыл бұрын

That's a really intuitive argument. This loss can be worked upon. I will think about it when I reach graduate school.

@RenX3133

Жыл бұрын

One can never percieve or interact with the "actual" quantum particle, whether with our bodies or with instruments

@awillingham

Жыл бұрын

@@RenX3133 that’s not true afaik though. You can influence the wave function of a particle without collapsing it. That’s how quantum computers work.

@TheNebulon

Жыл бұрын

This is what I've been trying to say for a while, If we build a really high powered detector, it'll find what it's looking for and only what it's looking for, thus missing the actuality of what's there, and also disrupting what's actually there

@theosib

Жыл бұрын

@@TheNebulon That is another issue, although one that physicists are keenly aware of. The detector will only detect the kind of thing you designed it for.

Your channel is the most under-appreciated thing on KZread.

I really enjoyed this practical, hands-on guide on renovation, plumbing, electrical wiring and tiling. Really down to earth and well-presented even for the layman. Oh, and I also enjoyed that little bit about space-goblins. Introducing a little folklore and folktales enriches us and supports the message rather than diminishing it. Well done.

I have no idea how I ended up here but this video is a work of art.

Great, now I 'know' even less about Quantum Physics than I did previously! Thanks for destructively interfering with my brain! 🤣

@HuygensOptics

Жыл бұрын

Well, if it's any reassurance: the more we know, the less we can be certain of.

@_general_error

Жыл бұрын

That's the path to understanding Quantum Physiscs, just keep getting more and more confused by it! As Feynman said: "Whoever thinks understands quantum mechanics, dpesn't understand quantum mechanics"

@GoughCustom

Жыл бұрын

@@HuygensOptics It's a very interesting phenomena that a deeper understanding often leads to more questions! I think very few of us ever reach a level of knowledge about a subject where we truly have no more questions left... Thanks for helping me understand how little I truly 'know' about how the universe works 😂

@alpers.2123

Жыл бұрын

Now I feel like quantum is a really sophisticated lie

What helped me a lot when dealing with quantum weirdness during studying was to realize that "Is an electron a wave or a particle?" is the wrong question. It's often explained as they are both and what we observe depends on the circumstances. I found it to make much more sense when we say quantum objects are NEITHER. They are something completely different that has a set of properties that we attribute to waves and a set of properties we attribute to particles. Our brains always want to draw similarities to our macroscopic world. But this is a recipe for disaster with everything quantum. Same when it comes to spin

@ypey1

Жыл бұрын

Obviously it is equivalent to say they are both or neither

@FunkyDexter

Жыл бұрын

Let's see... Particles are governed by a wave equation... They diffract and interfere in the double slit... Are subject to the uncertainty principle, which is typical of wave phenomena and Fourier analysis... Have quantized properties around limiting potentials, like in atoms with spherical harmonics, again just like waves on a string... And are also subject to various types of anomalous scatterings, like Compton scattering, which are easily interpreted as wave-like exchanges of energy... BUT we detect them (measure) them as points. THAT is all the evidence for particle like behaviour. It seems particle physicists never played with a lens to burn ants when they were young. The fact that the lens focuses radiation in a single point does not mean the whole radiation is made of particles.

@morskoyzmey

Жыл бұрын

@@FunkyDexter if you watch some videos about silicon droplets, including double slit experiment remake, you might look at particles at some new angle.

@FunkyDexter

Жыл бұрын

@@morskoyzmey i know the silicon droplets very well. And I can tell you they are not proof of a particle like nature of photons and electrons. There is a deep, fundamental difference between the behaviour of light and our MEASUREMENT of that behaviour, which is what QM is all about. For one, the droplet system does not accurately represents which-way experiments, like when you measure which slit the photon went through in the DS experiment. What It does is offer a classical model of quantization on a 2D surface, but even that quantization is subject to a lot of constraints, like the need for an external force to bounce the droplet and the necessity of a closed, thin surface of liquid to represent potentials. Needless to say, these constraints don't translate very well to a model of the microscopic world, furthermore they don't actually tell us anything about the true nature of fundamental particles; if the photons and electrons are like a bouncing drops, what is that drop made of? What is it bouncing off of? It's very similar when quantization of electrons is presented as modes on vibrating guitar strings: yes, the string has limiting conditions which mimic potentials, and yes, it is represented mathematically as waves and harmonics (you can even represent photon spin and circular polarization!); all that does NOT imply the electron is a string wrapped around the nucleus, but only that the system can be described by similar mathematics. If you have seen the latest video in this channel, you should also know that the photoelectric effect, which is the whole historical reason we talk about quanta as particles, is completely understandable in terms of wave behaviour, because what IS quantized are not particles or waves but energy exchanges. I also suggest you look at his optical Fourier transform video, which makes you think whether the act of measurement itself is simply some kind of Fourier transform.

@DKOILive

10 ай бұрын

​@@FunkyDexterBlack body radiation, photoelectric effect, atoms emission and absorption spectra, etc. Being a particle is not about being a ball of something, it is about being discrete.

One thing I learned during my physics degree is, that with those advanced theoretical physics models like QFT, it is very problematic to assign them visual or classical analogous concepts because what those theories are is a purely mathematical description of mathematical objects existing in a purely (and VERY well-defined) mathematical space. All left to do is to search for predictions that resemble natural or lab-measured phenomenons... While I too more than once had my doubts if those theories are applicable or even "real" at all, you also have to appreciate the fact that you simply cannot understand QFT based on simplifying visual content like this video. They also often make much more sense if they are derived in a well-defined mathematical context, though through the necessary high abstraction to do this, you get lost in maths really fast and loose the context of reality.. All in all, very interesting video again, though I for myself do conclude that I do not understand QFT well enough to be able to judge on such "apparent" contradictions. So while I do very much like the presentation style and humour of the video, it does not - at least for me - transport the intended message quite as well as your recent optics videos.... but that might as well be a problem of me or the topic and not the video ^^

@HuygensOptics

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your feedback. As hopefully is clear from the video description this video is not about giving serious explanations, but just about stimulating imagination and creative thinking. Fortunately, I do make serious videos as well :-).

@LuisAldamiz

Жыл бұрын

Maths are logic, not reality. The map is not the real world either. This video is correct in that the wave must be only a collective phenomenon, whatever the exact explanation is: the duality wave-dot of particles must be wrong. Particles are dots (even Feynman said that), so the question is how is the wave formed? And the answer is not in the particle (dot) but in the collectivity of them, be it emergent phenomenon, pilot wave or whatever. Also, as you seem to know the maths so well, care to explain how does a photon carry the information to both repel and attract at the same time without carrying any charge: what makes a repelling photon different from an attracting one? Yes, I already know they are "virtual", I could not care less, I need that bit of explanation to keep adhering to quantum mechanics as science, because science is not (only or even mostly) about maths, it's about explaining reality.

@DFPercush

Жыл бұрын

@@LuisAldamiz I think + or - relates to a complex conjugate in the wave function, a+bi vs. a-bi. Maybe that translates to the sign of the spin of the photon, although I'm not confident about that. I'm just trying to remember another video I saw where it explained the math behind electric charge. Wish I had bookmarked it. :/ But electric charge is the result of a U(1) symmetry, so maybe looking that up will help. There's also a (different) interesting video about EM radiation here, although it doesn't focus on individual photons but more the field as a whole: kzread.info/dash/bejne/p46iusqLl93adco.html

@LuisAldamiz

Жыл бұрын

@@DFPercush - TY for the try but I'm still scratching my head.

@LuisAldamiz

Жыл бұрын

@@DFPercush - To put it in another way: take the Feyman diagram (whih, as they say are "equations in disguise") for electron-electron repulsion and electron-proton attraction: they are identical in what regards to the operational part of the equation: the photon. Yet the other involved particles can't know anything about each other except via that identical photon. We could even make jokes about a quark, a quark and another quark go to a bar and meet an electron... I don't see anything in the issue of magnetism being relevant, this is about electric charge specifically. It's the anions who somehow "call" the electrons from the cations and establish a (very much photonic) electric current, how?

Your videos are the closest I ever feel like I get to understanding quantum mechanics. Love it!

Bell's experiment rules out local realism so as comfortable as pilot waves are for our intuition and visualization, the Copenhagen interpretation is bae and we kind of just have to accept that you can't detect anything without putting something in its way and causing the collapse of the wave function.

@HuygensOptics

Жыл бұрын

Bell's Theorem doesn't prove quantum mechanics. If the results of the experiments show one thing it is how difficult it is to make an experiment actually prove anything.

@sethlawson8544

Жыл бұрын

@huygens optics I agree, in fact experiments can only disprove things. The fact that Bell experiments rule out local realism means we have to pick between interpretations that have nonlocal hidden variables like pilot wave theory and those that have no hidden variables and accept nonrealism. My point was that the latter is more popular. "Copenhagen interpretation" may have been a dated term for me to use. Scary to think there's an infinite number of theories that can address every bit of data if we accept an absurd and untestable premise. Because if any of them are true, we'll never know 🥲

@firstaidsack

Жыл бұрын

The Everettian Interpretation (a.k.a. Many Worlds) is local and compatible with Bell's experiment, though.

@IDoNotLikeHandlesOnYT

Жыл бұрын

@@sethlawson8544 Don't they keep thinking of new loopholes and having to do new experiments to rule them out? Though they've all had the same result… so far.

What a wonderful story! Walked me thru quantum mechanics whilst keeping me guessing, thinking, engaged. Physics still needs solving, to do that we have to keep doubting our understandings.

What a wonderful video. There is a fantastic flow to your writing. I ask myself questions like these all the time. As a non-expert, these kinds of speculations are especially fun! I don't have to be right or justify anything to anyone, I can just ponder whatever is most interesting to think about. Recently I tend to like Wolfram's graph model. Not because I think it's right, but because it's so utterly abstract that it kicks me out of the rut formed by my common intuitions and preconceptions, and helps me think a little more freely about possibilities that I would otherwise reject as "absurd". Like that 10^114 value, is that absurd? Why? Physics can be doing anything at all. Consider the sum-over-histories behaviour described by Feynman.... from a computational point of view it is absolutely absurd, but physics doesn't care about that perception. Maybe that implies, if we are in a simulation, that the substrate is much more interesting than the universe it is simulating. Just think how tiny the universe we could simulate would be, even if we converted the solar system or entire galaxy into computronium. And oh look it's 3am and I didn't even finish wiring that light switch...

I can absolutely identify with "having to do myself". Nice bathroom btw.

What a lovely video to find in my recommended really well put together and explained and shone new light on an understanding of quantum mechanics for me thank you

In my DIY plumbing jobs, I discovered plumbers must be perspicacious people. I suppose if it is a career, through training and experience it becomes automatic, but again, I am always humbled and impressed with the forethought needed to get plumbing jobs done right. Leonard Susskind worked as a plumber when pipes where made of Pb, so he likely suffers from high Pb exposure, yet he is the father of string theory.

@sean_vikoren

Жыл бұрын

Re String Theory: That explains so much. Now I can blame Lead for the lost generation of Physicists.

@leonlee8524

Жыл бұрын

@@sean_vikoren lolol

@philipm3173

Жыл бұрын

@@sean_vikoren lmaoooo

I've been enjoying the videos you produce and this one is particularly thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time to make these. Looking forward to everything you may put out in the future

Your videos push the outer boundaries of my understanding and I love every second of it. Great job on the bathroom too!

I have not formally studied physics but have always been interested. Somehow your video "clicked" with me and I seem to get your point. It almost seems we lay awake of the same things at night, only you have the scientific knowledge to actually explain your thoughts. When I tell people the field of quantum physics intrigues me, and they ask me "what is quantum physics?" I just say: "We can't even try to describe something bigger than us with languages and sciences we humans developed ourselves"

5:15 absolute gold, I love the practical effect with the almost invisible thread! XD

This video has some chapters that made me nod so hard, my neck hurts. Measurement, Probability and the transition from quantum to macro. I never had looked at it this way. There goes the night. Still: thank you😊

One thing ive learned from my classes in quantum physics. Its a field that knows its operating hypothesis must be wrong. That it must be the wrong theory that somethings missing. There's so many ways to answer the possible, to address what must be missing but only so many ways to test them, and so it's described as it's observed, until something better, closer, is shown to be more accurate Yet there are those who don't pay attention in class and insist that theoretical quantum physics are bunk science, while failing to understand they've only learned the theoretical quantum physics

@TheBoshy

Жыл бұрын

I mean it technically is bunk science. It's a discipline that knows something within it's discipline is not lining up with reality. Of course this applies to almost all disciplines. In a way all science is bunk science. As nobody who studies anything says that the their discipline has the whole thing figured out. So necessarily we are going forth everyday with assumptions that we know, are wrong.

@GoblinMode3004

Жыл бұрын

Science is an unending march towards a greater understanding without ever truly reaching it.

@richardaversa7128

Жыл бұрын

@Humanist Writing Would you mind providing a reason why the QM hypotheses must be wrong?

@GoblinMode3004

Жыл бұрын

@@richardaversa7128 QM is based on assumptions- theories that are proved either correct or incorrect through experiment that we can use as rules. In this way it it is impossible to concretely say that what we understand about QM is the whole truth because there could always be something new that we have to fit into the puzzle somehow. The discrepancy between GR and QM, the issue of defining a measurement for the purposes of QM, and the interpretation of the math of QM are all still open topics in the field, in this way our understanding of the theory (and thus hypothesis) must be incorrect, we simply don't understand how yet. Also important to note is that QM is a model (The Standard Model), or simply a set of rules that help in solving a particular problem, and that other versions of the Standard Model exist to solve other theoretical problems such as String Theory and Supersymmetry. Science is a never-ending battle against your own notions and biases, as soon as you start taking things as immutable fact you've lost, there will always be more to understand.

@richardaversa7128

Жыл бұрын

@@GoblinMode3004 Thanks, but you didn't answer the question. Traditional QM is based on a handful of specific axioms. Which do you find fault with? EDIT: I see now you're not the @Humanist Writing, who claimed that QM's assumptions are "wrong". My point is that is a misunderstanding of how scientific assumptions work.

This is my second watch. The way you shed light on "mesaurement" is really interesting. I felt like this is the first time I understood it to some extent.

Thank you for putting the time in making these videos, you have a very pleasent way of explaning things

Wow. Really love how you break things down using "easy" language and use of every day macro phenomena. Great work!

I really enjoyed the video. Tiles are in perfect color, and aligned so well. Cement lines between tiles give great contrast, conserving the clean and neat overall feeling of the bathroom. I almost couldn't believe it's not done by a professional expert.

I could listen to you explaining things for hours... well done work, greatly appreciated!

you'd be a great asset on the xkcd forums...

Insightful and valuable for young scientists, that must now take it forward !

I have “fixed” a couple of bathrooms, but from now with your inspiration the task has changed. Thank you!

It warms my heart to hear you use the term religion in the context of quantum mechanics comprehension. Many of the experiments supposedly demonstrating wave/ particle duality involve lasers attenuated to a degree that we "know" that we are dealing with individual quanta by virtue of applying E=hf. So since the interference pattern is invariant as the laser power is decreased, somehow this is evidence of wave/ particle duality. This strikes me as a classic begging the question fallacy - since E

Pilot wave theory, which was presented in the Veritasium video you mentioned, has been the most interesting explanation for interference that I have come across. Even if its not correct, thinking about quantum fields as a particle traveling along a wave helps visualize the concept in a more classical way.

Thankyou for your skill of entertainment and the depth of your pondering. Will be wishing for no product failure where difficult replace in your remodeling.

It appears that your bathroom is in fact a quantum system, considering how classically localized "shower thoughts" are able tunnel into your bedroom 😉. Great video, lots of food for thought!

@HuygensOptics

Жыл бұрын

My bathroom is a classic for sure ;-)

@gcewing

Жыл бұрын

The difficult part is preventing water from tunneling out of the pipes.

Thanks for your clear interesting reasoning! The best theory on this I have seen is that of an old Phd that opened a Laser and Special optics company (more than 200 pp) and, when old, wrote a wonerful book in physics (certainly not everywhere right but able to explain many things) Of course the theory is "heretic" but valuable imo and in part support some of your reasoning also on "quasi vortex" particles. The book is: onlyspacetime (just click it) Is not the Spacetime of SR but zpe with his fancy energy that has no effect on our material world ( he says that these powerful wavelets have no angular momenum !?) but support the omnidirectional propagation of photons (wave-ph) that become particle-ph when interacting with matter of our reality. This process is, like entanglement, almost instantaneus. He says that M&M demonstrated the impossibility to measure a relative speed to the Maxwell Ether not its inexistance (assumed by Einstein, mathematically, to develop SR)

This video is a masterpiece, thanks for taking the time to make it!

I have been working on setting up an experiment to test injection of energy into a mirror material for laser focusing, to overcome the deformities that come from making the mirrors and their material makeup by expanding their electron field potential thus smudging up the flaws making them smaller if not gone at all and getting an electron field over material that is conformal for nearly perfect reflection potential.

Thank you for giving expression so eloquently to all my doubts about how quantum phenomena are explained and described. I wish I knew more or understood more.

Sir, I am in awe of your intellect and the skill you have communicating your thought process!

I like how you tell about having technical and also physical doubts you in your everyday life, also during the night - I thought I am the only having it. You makes me feel more calm now and I am also certain more guys have the same. Allways nice to hear such a reflections from someone elese. Big thumb up to your content.

Fantastic overview. Highly recommended for anyone wrestling with an intuitive picture of quantum effects.

These videos are some of my favorites of all time. Wonderful.

This is why I love KZread. Thank you for this amazing video, Professor.

That was a delightful video to watch, thank you so much. I can feel my brain frothing with new questions about it all

I'm a not scientist nor a physicist, I have a basic school physics education from 55 years ago, which never covered atomic physics as it was called then. However, over the years, I have always been intrigued by the weirdness of the double slit results and the conclusion that followed from them, which formed the foundational explanation of the behaviour of light and quantum particles as understood now as quantum mechanics. I have watched many videos on just this topic and formulated my own hypotheses which can explain all the results very simply, including; the measurement observer problem, particle/wave duality, all without any weirdness, like waves and particles transmuting in to each other depending on if they are being observed or not. I always find your videos very interesting, mainly because your practical experimental observations and conclusions are very close to my own opion. Further I have used your video explanation of quantum behviour to test my hypotheses and found that I can explain all your results perfectly simply, using my hypotheses without any weirdness. Because you are a physicist, I would love to discuss this hypotheses with you and for you to try your best to break it. I don't think my hypotheses changes the maths around QM, however it could give physicist a new way to look at things and like all good hypotheses, it makes predictions about things we do not yet know, which people like yourself can do the experiments to confirm if the hypotheses to be true or not. Sorry for rambling on so long, thank you for your videos, very enjoyable!

This is interesting! Never thought about that while building bathroom, but hey, idea's everywhere! Thanks for the video! 👍

Absolutely fantastic! I love that you venture out into the abstract when tackling questions and thoughts. I have similar thoughts about particles and waves with hopes to do my own tests. I never considered how they could exist as somewhat separated entities of the same field though.

I really enjoyed the droll, sort of minimum-energy sense of joy in this discussion.

I love your intuition. It’s based on holding onto certain fundamentals and following where it leads … and comparing it to where the current reigning paradigm becomes a dubious extrapolation (and likely to be usurped someday).

What a fascinating video! If I were your next door neighbor, you’d never get rid of me! But, I would have helped you with your bathroom project. 😊 No doubt about it. 10^^114 joules per cubic meter is an incredibly vast amount of energy and certainly a good reason to question QFT. A good scientist question’s everything. But, 10^^114 J/m^3 just might turn out to be the correct value. Time and again throughout history, science has taught us that we were thinking too small.

Everytime I watch one of your videos I learn something incredible. Thanks for that!

The meester of bathroom physics and philosophy !! Thanks sir !!

A well done video, wondered where you were going with this at beginning but it all came together well.

This channel deserves many more subscribers and views!!

nice video, thank you very much! The same "dual quantum" behavior of electrons also applies to photons, of course... What is most disconcerting is that it can also be applied to "Majorana neutins"! These "Phantom-particles" have a special behavior as they can pass from neutrino M[^+] to antineutrino M[^-] because they exist on the boundary of the "intermediate quantum vacuum" between matter and antimatter so they can disappear and oscillate also ... in the anti-Universe ... as Majorana himself did (or is doing) even now ... ... as the ion plasma UAPs have always done (not the obsolete old discoidal metallic UFOs of the little grays); [The most advanced ORBS, are not interceptable by radar from Pentagon-US Navy ships], or even the pairs of ionic orbs that create the most beautiful crop circles on your planet ... These more evolved ones disappear and then re-materialize in one or more ORBS when they re-enter our universe of matter ... PS: sorry for messing up your local minds

This video is so well done. Thank you!

Many thanks for this awesome presentation. I always hope to understand things and like the particle- wave (droplet-liquid example) concept. I had a Swiss colleague who always exclaimed in the low level Tritium lab: "Why not try the simplest first?". I also thought about Huygens and Newton. A shame they could not see your Video.

'The true cause of probability.' - That's a strong statement. Bold.

I love how the window in the bathroom is open in the oddly coloured shots at 5:20 after you've closed it

Thank you so much for making this video! I have been thinking very similarly but do not have the eloquence or time to express it like this.

I was hoping you'd post soon. Am not disappointed! I have also had similar thoughts about QP, and the measurement problem. Physicists appear to assume that the math IS the physics, when we can only really test its predictions. That oil wave demo is very interesting. I hadn't seen it before. I wonder if there is a similar macroscopic demonstration of entanglement.

Both informative and thought provoking, with a wonderful through-line of storytelling. You have a gift! If someone were to ask me how to describe quantum fields and effects, I have a simple answer: I don't know, and I suspect nobody truly knows. But perhaps one day we will.

Absolute masterpiece. I personally have never believed in "dark matter" or "dark energy". They strike me as the luminiferous æther of the modern day... But I'm also a layperson who doesn't understand mathematical notation, shouts at the sun, and performs ritual sacrifice to please my cat (who is obviously God), so what do I know?

@tychoides

Жыл бұрын

As an astronomer, I don't believe in dark matter or dark energy, but the best models of the universe only make sense if there is such things in the mix. Despite what science news says they are not confirmed independently, that why they are so puzzling. Or they are there (there are candidates), or we don't have the right theory to make sense of observations. Any case is interesting.

What a beautiful and unique kind of video!

So fun and illuminating! Many thanks - yet again.

Thank you, for yet another amazing video. Would love to hear more of your thoughts about pilot waves!

I see you would prefer the Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory interpretation of QM. A comforting picture, but a pair of wave-equations does look a bit ugly mathematically( in my opinion). Also it does not get rid of vacuum energy, as something needs to keep the particles jittery. My personal view is don`t think about it, the Lagrangians of QFT represents over idealized situations. And stuff like discrepancy in vacuum energy, is a probably a result of emergent properties of multiparticle systems(i.e. not scale invariant). But someone needs to make some fancy new mathematical tools before it makes sense. Also nice job on the bathroom! Most high-level bathroom-build on youtube!

No one on KZread has me anticipating a new video as much as you do.

This is such a cool video I’m watching it again. I’ve discovered strong magnetic fields entering my apartment and I want to understand how one can use the science of magnetism and math to figure out what they are and estimate where they are located. Your explanations are always so good that I walk away understanding many new important principles.

We actually can measure an electron's position and momentum to arbitrary precision, because the uncertainty principle explicitly only applies to standard deviations. You cannot apply it to a single 'particle' and have it make any sense. And this is the only way QM would even be verifiable, as a theory making predictions must be able to confirm its predictions via repeated measurement (otherwise, you cannot even verify if the prediction was accurate or valid). It goes like this: Prepare 100 quantum states such that each state is the same. Now measure each quantum state's position and momentum. You'll get definitive values for both. The uncertainty principle tells us that if we prepare our 100 quantum states such that we want a tight position measurement (tightly clustered around the position expectation value), then we will get that at the expense of our momentum measurements being dispersed or spread out around their expectation value. But each position and momentum measurement is arbitrarily precise; that is the key point. QM doesn't work otherwise. The uncertainty principle does NOT mean that if we measure position to high precision, then our momentum measurement of that quantum particle is now blown up or practically undetermined. No! We can measure both position and momentum to arbitrary precision! If this weren't so, then QM wouldn't be a testable theory, because we then wouldn't be able to confirm any measurements to verify the theory. For example, if we measured an electron to be at a precise location in space, then, by the faulty logic of misapply the uncertainty principle, the electron would now have a massive momentum in some random direction, and so it will not be in the measured position; thus, any repeated measurements of its position would fail, meaning the theory can never verify any of its predictions. In fact, we see the exact opposite; if we keep measuring an electron's position, we collapse the wave function to that position, and repeated measurements always show the electron at its measured location. Thus, if one does repeated measurements, since the collapsed wavefunction is now super localized, one can literally hold an electron in its measured location _indefinitely._ The expectation value of the momentum, in this case, will obviously be very close to *ZERO.* Hence, we can know an electron's position and momentum to arbitrary precision.... because the uncertainty principle only applies to *_standard deviations._* If it didn't, then by the faulty logic of applying it to a single particle (electron), then measuring an electron's position would collapse the wavefunction tightly to that localized position in space, and this would mean its momentum would literally blow up to 'near infinity,' thus meaning any subsequent measurements on this electron's position would yield no value, as the electron would be _long gone._ But this goes against the simple fact that since its wavefunction has collapsed to a super tight position, then a subsequent repeated measurement should yield near 100% (99.99999%) odds of the electron still being in that position. Does this make sense? Nearly all quantum mechanic textbooks I own go over this and clear up this massive misunderstanding people make, although I have seen a few 'low level' textbooks make this mistake, and also make the far more egregious mistake in claiming that the uncertainty principle is due to measurement requiring shooting a high frequency photon at the particle, thus disturbing it..... this error is the most egregious ------------ TL;DR ------------- Uncertainty principle cannot be applied to a single quantum particle; it only applies to *_standard deviations._*

Wederom een geweldige video! Prachtig uitgelegd.

Fantastic video! You did a really great job exploring these concepts. I have had a similar theory for a while now. However, in my theory, the particle and wave that it rides are not necessarily separate entities but perhaps just different planes of interaction of the same thing as you visualized toward the beginning of the video. I believe that that movement of waves inside a particle self generate attractive forces that hold the particle together, much like quarks chasing each other around. These waves hold each other in a potential “bowl”. Additionally, these waves radiate outward and interact with each other, causing other potential wells that either effectively pull a particle inwards like a tractor beam (sonic levitation) or push away depending on the wave interactions of the other particle in question. The wave interactions of all of these systems expand outward and cause other forces. In this view, all of the fundamental forces are built off the same waves, but appear and behave different on different scales. For example, the weak force of gravity could be caused by the instability of atoms themselves, causing an imbalance in the wave fronts, causing only larger attractive wave potentials radiating outwards. I would like to see the gravitational constant measured with masses of different temperatures to see the effect on strength. Also, perhaps dark matter/energy are the forces generated by the sum of wavefronts of entire galaxies, I am unsure. These are only starting points for those who know much more about this topic to explore. I am interested in knowing what you think of this.

As always, made my day to see another Huygens Optics vid!

Congratulation, such a good job of bathroom renovation!

I find your questions discussions very thought provoking and I really enjoy your voice - it calms me a lot. Thanks :) About the question, I don't know much about quantum mechanics at all, but I thought that the wave function represented an "average" of all possible wave functions in the future, and doing a measurement represented "choosing" one certain future scenario - so maybe the average wave function of all possible waves for a time in the future wouldn't change if we measured some time in the future.

Another great video, thank you! I only wish you published more frequently

Brilliantly explained

10/10 for content, 20/10 for effort. 👍

I really liked the three dimensional particle-wave illustration

This video was so wonderfully made!

@schmetterling4477

9 ай бұрын

Yes, also completely wrong. That's normal on KZread, though. Almost everything you see about physics on KZread is total nonsense. ;-)

Jeroen, I could listen to you teach optics and wave mechanics for a long time before I got bored.

Amazing pedagogical skill! The overall story, the editing & subtle humor are all top notch. The internet is the equivalent of a nuclear detonation for information (for good & bad), just imagine what is the impact of a channel like this in catalyzing the ideas & interest of young minds. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"-tomorrow’s conjuring of magic will have its roots in stuff like this, in the dissemination of information, careful explanation & equally important, transmission of passion. I wish I could’ve benefited as a kid from teachers with this level of eloquence, clarity, consideration for/ & insight into the minds in the audience.

Loved this!

Such a well crafted video

I was thinking that was a video to show how to remodel a bathroom and I got pretty excited. But the actual video was good too.

Love this Man, you can learn such amount of knowledge from him, plus get a laugh sometimes.

I think you are really on to something here. The fact that quantum field theory had not reconciled gravity, the most intuitive of all physical phenomena, in a century is enough for me. Any object which exhibits high energy would exhibit statistical wave like functions. If you repeatedly attached TNT to a baseball and measured it's landing position in an enclosed space, it would inevitably reach some pattern. And if that baseball also had attraction to tennis balls, you would most definitely be able to describe their behavior with a probability function. I also like your analogy with the bubble rings. My personal visualization as of late has been rotating liquids, bound together by some force-imagine ferromagnetic liquid on a turntable. Anyways, I really appreciate your clarity of thought and your keen communication. It's refreshing to hear some real creativity in physics, especially in such a poetic format!

These are the right questions to be asking, as all action seems to unfold from circular action and “spiral on a cone” type action, like musical scales as spiral and harmonic action. The quantum thing is really interference at different subatomic scales, almost like a fractal pattern, and at those scales generating an event that preserves the dynamics into the classical scale, would require a higher insight on coherence across scales, or something akin to this at least. I love.your clear explanations of the paradoxes and what blind spots in assumptions are likely behind them, this is real science, asking which assumptions might be misleading us. The more I learn about physics and the world and its various natural and human systems, the more I realize how everything ties back to harmonics, amplification, and dampening, based on circular or spiral action. It’s like the saying how all roads lead to Rome. All change comes back to circles and spirals or and manifolds of such action layered coherently within different scales in a kind of fractal or holographic form. It is also noteworthy how a magnitude of a higher, usually hidden form, projects it’s generated change down into lower magnitudes, the line of inquiry starting from Gauss’s complex domain and ending with Riemann and Einstein. The most profound mathematical discovery for me so far, beyond complex numbers and e, was that whenever a model contains infinite singularities, the escape stunt to return to linearity and the finite, is to discover the higher generating action, which is projecting them down into our lower dimensional observation plane, and render them finite by remapping the action containing the singularities, onto its inverted action, which makes the singularities finite again in their new “re-stretched” home. Kind of like stretching the paper or remapping the image onto other shapes which have the effect of undoing the knot, for lack of a precise language (I’m not a math person but I find it full of profound insights that tickle my brain cells when I finally figure out what the hell they are really talking about, lol) It’s similar to how exponential curves appear as straight lines, when one remaps them onto logarithmically-scaled vertical coordinates. (The vertical scale is compressed down in proportion to the exponential curve going off the top of the page otherwise) The infinity becomes finite in effect.

Awesome like always ! i love so much your channel ! TYVM

I don't know enough to even pretend to challenge the accepted values for vacuum energy but I can speak a bit about observation/measurement because I once asked some very similar questions to a professor of mine and their answer always stuck with me so this is my best attempt to paraphrase their response. An observation is any action which causes the wave function to collapse, so in a sense asking why an observation would cause wave function collapse isn't a valid question. If the wave function collapses then the interaction was by definition an observation. It's like asking why vehicles collide so often at car accidents. The question doesn't make any sense because vehicles colliding is what makes it a car accident. Actions which don't collapse the wave function can always be represented as transformations from one coordinate system to another. If you imagine the quantum state an an unknown vector then no combination of rotations, reflections, or translations will ever give you any information about what the original vector was. What all of those operators have in common is the ability to be represented as a change in coordinate systems. You could fold the vector from its infinite possible directions into a narrow beam or move it a million miles away it still wouldn't give you any information about its original angle or magnitude. It is interactions which cannot be modeled in that way that cause the wave function to collapse and we call those interactions observations because it is also only through those kinds of interactions that the quantum state can be observed.

Love this! You're amazing! - Instant follow!

Thank you for this great lecture, I aspire to be as curious and inquisitive as you when I get there..

Yes, pilot wave theory seemed so intuitively right when I first heard of it.

Thank you, very thought provoking. Now I feel the urge to renovate my bathroom too 😅

Wild thoughts man. Always interesting.

Jeroen, another fantastic video. Like most, I hesitate to offer an 'ignorant' opinion in the face of inscrutable maths and jargon. I massively appreciate your perspective and initiative in discussing your issues with a model that requires such unbelievable energy from the void. I think such 'naive' opinions are valuable - challenging dogma is where innovation begins. As an aside, how often are you confused with the SVI/Huygens deconvolution software? It's how I discovered this wonderful place :)

@HuygensOptics

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I'm almost never confused with the company that produces the Huygens software, I guess we both are in completely different niches. By coincidence we are both in Hilversum but I've never visited them or even know where they are located.

I have basically always thought that mass is just coherent wave patterns since studying the double slit experiment at school. Something like the cellular automata fliers I played with coding at around the same time. As I didn’t go on to do advanced physics beyond what I needed for electronics I have never really had this assumption challenged.

1:41 I always feel like it's the other way around. Energy is a form of space. And then everything is made out of the same thing; space. And that's why everything can exist on space.

Truly wonderful video. I personally really enjoyed it.

What a wonderful video! Highly enjoyable 🤗 And welcome to the Pilot-Wave-Club 😉

I appreciate the jabs at quantum field theory. It really represents my own frustrations with the claims of the theory. It feels like scientists have too easily accepted the wild claims of it, just brushing it off as quantum weirdness because scientists in the past made the decision that quantum physics is counter intuitive and we shouldn't try to make sense of it. In doing this we've pushed all skepticism of the model aside because it seems to be able to predict things. Personally I don't see how quantum fields are any different than the last time we made up an all encompassing aether to explain how light travels without a medium. A field for each particle? Did we discover that each particle had a field? No, the model for what we see just works that way. That's not to say that the math doesn't work, which it does, but the circles upon circles in the earth centric model of the universe worked as well. Until we were able to find discrepancies. To me we're just in the stage of trying to find discrepancies in a made up model that seems to work.

@coreC..

11 ай бұрын

reminds me of that topic: the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics..