Even if pilot wave theory is incorrect, it's an amazingly intuitive metaphor for what quantum physics does. It's like the stretched sheet metaphor of curved space time, and I appreciate that.

@tonupharry

Жыл бұрын

When he says "some stuff" surely thats timespace . Why would time space not have ripples of carrier waves ?🤔 It is more logical than the alternatives

@jdspugh

Жыл бұрын

I reckon it's unjustly shelved because it reintroduces the controversial ether

@greatmeatball2978

Жыл бұрын

Never liked the stretched sheet metaphor though. Explaining gravity by using gravity...

@erawanpencil

11 ай бұрын

I think it's a little too strong for Matt to say Pilot is just "wrong." All of the interpretations of QM have some kernel of truth that will likely become apparent in the future. It's like we've been given four or five tantalizing perspectives of some deeper truth that hopefully will make sense once the interpretations are unified.

@Liam-ke2hv

7 ай бұрын

@@erawanpencil I think you are right, it will start to make sense the more perspectives we can gather, and then unify.

Reconcile particle-wave duality with deterministic reality with this one weird trick! Orthodox quantum physicists HATE this!

@elijahgardi7501

5 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂 click bait

@kimberleybarrass6531

5 жыл бұрын

Best comment award!!! :)

@harraldschmitt9113

5 жыл бұрын

HaloInverse 🤣

@jimc.goodfellas226

5 жыл бұрын

"I See What You Did There"

@xiupsilon876

5 жыл бұрын

Try to make it relativistic and quantized, and you'll see why it's a horrible theory. Occam's razor tells any reasonable person that the most simple theory with the least assumptions is likely better - and for QM that would be the informational and many-worlds interpretations of the canonical equations. It's already solved, why insist on making things more difficult just so you can get something you can picture in your head, but not really. Complete idiocy. de Broglie was smart enough to realize that almost 100 years ago.

There's a lot less thinky pain with pilot wave than any of the other theories. It's like a nice brain massage. I like it.

@joeylawrence594

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha yes

@Andronicus2007

9 ай бұрын

Thinky pain, yeah, relatable! 😅

Bohm’s treatment of particles was also radical. Using that oil glycerin drop analogy (he acknowledged as analogy) particles emerge in sequence like movie frames not necessarily as the identical explicate form but constrained by what could emerge at that moment by the implicate wave conditions.

This channel HAS to be the best thing that happened to science on youtube.

@ScienceAsylum

7 жыл бұрын

Ciroluiro , I agree. Huge fan over here.

@thulyblu5486

7 жыл бұрын

Also I'd like to point out that the old host was really awesome... his awesomeness was of such an extent that he even could find a successor that was just as awesome (not an easy thing to do) :D

@TheJaredtheJaredlong

7 жыл бұрын

Thulyblu Sometimes I feel nostalgic for the previous hosts constant shouting.

@stambo1983

7 жыл бұрын

I agree, although being Australian I am slightly biased toward the current host.

@SimPitTech

7 жыл бұрын

+1 agree

I am a 13 year old kid from London and I just wanted to say how much this channel has inspired me to have a career in science.

@canyadigit6274

5 жыл бұрын

Sam N-S I’m a 13 year old as well, and I find this channel fascinating.

@aryamanmishra154

5 жыл бұрын

lets see how much u all become physicists , real physicists like dirac

@alangarland8571

5 жыл бұрын

Go for it guys!

@donnacabot3550

5 жыл бұрын

Good for you little skipper just be careful on the net, yeah. Cheers.

@upsydaysy3042

5 жыл бұрын

And one day one of you young guys will complete the pilot wave theory reconciling it with relativity, and at the Nobel ceremony you will thank mr O'Dowdd for inspiring you to undertake physics studies... Go for it boys!!!

The more of these episodes I watch, the more I understand of subsequent episodes. Its a snowball of awesomeness.

You guys are the best explanation of science without serious oversimplification. Thank you! Quick note - around 5:25 you highlight the faces of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, and Pauli rather than Heisenberg.

@jonathanj8303

2 ай бұрын

You may be onto something, or maybe not.

You see. The way you just pointed out pros and cons and gave each issue its proper importance, admitting the limitations of each argument, is amazing. We certainly need more of that in the world.

@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646

6 жыл бұрын

Agreed Lucas, it's only logical.

@dimosthenisvallis3555

6 жыл бұрын

Well said

@MikeshBedwarf

5 жыл бұрын

We need a solution. It exists.look out for my book, 5 month or so. on Kindle.

@VUnhac

5 жыл бұрын

No we blame the mexicans :))

@theprogramshow8816

5 жыл бұрын

Just like the theories themselves. Quantum erase this if it doesn't mesh well.

>Heres all the reasons why de broglie bhome theory makes sense >"Wow, I've never thought about it like that! That does make sense." >By the way de broglie brome theory is certainly wrong Why must you do this to me PBS?

@clockworkphysicist

7 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Coffin True, and while science is the closest thing we have to fact, the whole point of science is that while we can be sure that something is 99.99999% correct or incorrect, you always have to put *probably in there.

@barbersurgeonsguild

7 жыл бұрын

This is an excellent point you make, Transylvanian. It seems like PWT is an excuse to explain QFT in a way to preserve the familiar. Science is about questioning the familiar to further understand the unfamiliar, not make excuses to accept a perceived truths. Without any proof of PWT's non-local hidden variables it's a philosophical-mental game without mathematical significance or consequence.

@morgengabe1

7 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Coffin, It's not that it doesn't it's that it hasn't and we've only just begun to understand gravitational waves so lets not get ahead of ourselves.

@ALEXGIBSONCMG

7 жыл бұрын

transylvanian they are non local to the wave system because they are inherent to the particles. the wave bounces the particles, the particles impart their kinetic signature back into the wave, simple as cake, gravity is king.

@bozo5632

7 жыл бұрын

All theories are certainly wrong.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a pilotwave, No escape from reality - Bohmian Rhapsody This is a remarkably good presentation. The history is very important in all this stuff. Glad you folks have covered the history quite well. I like the Bohmian mechanics as an explanation. Less hoo hah! We don't need no stinkin' hoo hah.

@MrPatspp

5 жыл бұрын

This theory of a conscious being breaking the waves when observing is the one I like it the most but it would have to explain consciousness' origin to be complete but we all know that no theory has come to a good idea with arguments yet and not even close. We all must stay tuned xD

@astrophonix

5 жыл бұрын

In what way is god a logical or coherent idea? Or even a rational one?

@bxdanny

5 жыл бұрын

@O P This video was about quantum mechanics, not Christian theology. While brief, passing references to God are not out of place, the kind of detailed analysis of Christian scriptures you have presented certainly are.

@adinashenry5474

5 жыл бұрын

Open your eyes Look into the vat and see I'm just a drop of oil no escape from the wave I ride riding high riding low

@Wigalot

4 жыл бұрын

@O P tl;dr

I've come back to this video and the Veritasium video multiple times now. Pilot wave theory seems to tug at my mind far more than any of the other interpretations. I am not really clear why using the Dirac equation instead of Schrodinger's, would not lead to a relativistic version of BM. I would love to revisit this topic at some point. I am sure you would be able to help me more clearly understand the issues that arise when trying to make BM relativistic. I found this quote from John Bell regarding BM quite interesting: “This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”

@Eli-yu1by

Жыл бұрын

I think it was ignored because on some level, we want to *prove* that the universe is *not* deterministic; that our fates are not absolutely sealed from the very moment of our conception. It gives us some illusion of “choice” or “free will.” However, I am a firm believer that the winning interpretation of quantum mechanics will be deterministic. I don’t care that my entire life is set in stone. It still *feels* to me like I’m making choices and acting of my own volition, which is what ultimately matters, relative to each person.

@dawnwatching6382

Жыл бұрын

@@Eli-yu1by I like that as well. It just doesn't feel like it is deterministic, even if it actually is on a universal level. We've lived our whole lives just fine already, maybe it doesn't matter. I'm still holding my judgement though. Also, If I recall correctly I don't think that the probabilistic theories necessarily prove free will anyway.

@thomascuriel7611

Жыл бұрын

There's researchers working in relativistic BM as Roderich Tumulka & Detlef Dürr.

@6TDOW66

Жыл бұрын

​@@Eli-yu1by Even if the universe weren't deterministic, you still wouldn't be making choices since you do not control the randomness. Even when you put physics aside and analyze us as a black box from the perspective of signals and systems... Who/what is making choices? The nature of the machine (which may or may not include some uncontrollable randomness) in combination with accrued information. When you look at choices as such, it's obvious that any choice that is not the best choice is the wrong choice so there really is no choice after all. If you make all the wrong choices, you will die and so will your effect on reality except in the sense of your "sacrifice" thanks to which others will see which paths are not to be taken. Through countless lives, good choices get filtered and so the ensuing civilization will be built only of good choices and the harrowing examples of the fallen. It doesn't matter how many times we make all the wrong choices since only good choices survive the filter. Whichever path of reasoning is taken, 'I' seems to be an illusion. Maybe the best thing is to accept that we're "just" complex apparatuses doing calculations, reject the notion of self, selflessly (ehehehe) focus the apparatus outward and make calculations that correlate highly with "the best", let "your" body dance its place in the symphony of creation to see this egg that is our universe come to fruition. If you sacrifice "self", you will gain the world. This symphonious knowable unknown beckoning for your soul? You have met God.

@4GibMe

Жыл бұрын

As much as I like the Standard Model and Copenhagen. I too find myself being Tugged back to this Theory. I believe in the Scientific Method, and do my best to keep my personal values aside. I do hope that some of these questions will be answered before the end of my life time.

I think the great discovery of the oil-experiment is, that the droplet is actually a part of the liquid that the wave is in. An oil-droplet jumping in and out of existence in a vibrating oil-field is a lot more intuitive and easy to grasp than matter jumping in and out of existence in classic QT. So basically all that separates a particle from the universe, is a wave giving it enough energy to separate from the underlying ocean, at least for a short time.

@konradswart4069

5 жыл бұрын

What a nice metaphor!

@db112nl

5 жыл бұрын

mind = blown

@davidwuhrer6704

5 жыл бұрын

The droplet in the oil experiment is not part of the liquid. It is separate at all times, and just bounces off the surface.

@baraapudding

5 жыл бұрын

@@davidwuhrer6704 yes but the droplet is made from the same stuff as the liquid

@davidwuhrer6704

5 жыл бұрын

@@baraapudding It still isn't jumping in and out of existence.

4:11 Gotta love these Ultra HD formulas.

@eurabe1

7 жыл бұрын

It'd be nice if they upped the resolution :P

@descai10

7 жыл бұрын

didn't notice, i'm literally watching in 144p

@yamansanghavi

7 жыл бұрын

The background music at 10:35 is awesome. Can somebody tell me where can i find it ?

@OrangeC7

6 жыл бұрын

I thought I was watching in 144p until I turned it up to 1080 xd

"This is why science is so important!" His Quote is just another Reason why this is one of, if not the, greatest science show ever!!! Thanks for that, I just love you guys.

Excellent. I find the open-mindedness of this presentation most refreshing - the thoughtful considerations of a philosopher / scientist rather than the pitch of a salesman.

@sweebos

Жыл бұрын

Agreed 🙂

"BTW: This is why science is so important." Classic.

@JonathanDaniel1986

7 жыл бұрын

BECAUSE SCIENCE!

@yamansanghavi

7 жыл бұрын

The background music at 10:35 is awesome. Can somebody tell me where can i find it ?

@CrowClouds

6 жыл бұрын

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, though. Humans interfere and science ends up no more pure than politics

To the editor: latex formulas can easily be exported to SVG, which (simply put) allows for unpixelled images. Fantastic job otherwise :D

@renu3463

3 жыл бұрын

Seems like you often work with Adobe pager

@bigaschwing2296

2 жыл бұрын

This isn’t a condom commercial!!

Regarding relativity in dBB -- may I suggest reading of "On the description of subsystems in relativistic hypersurface Bohmian mechanics" by Detlef Dürr and Matthias Lienert? Thanks.

@alexanderabrashev1366

3 жыл бұрын

you may

Finally ... for years I've heard Copenhagen and Many-World interpretations, and they just didn't feel right. Until I saw the Verisatum video mentioned, and then this video today. This Pilot Wave theory just sounds "right" while the other interpretations just feel like "we don't know so 'probability' must be reality." And it could turn out that a century or so later, once we have the remaining missing pieces, Einstein will turn out to be right!

@mojkanal9519

4 жыл бұрын

Same here. Copenhagen with its mythical observer who make "wave function" to "colapse" is so lame.

@Jehannum2000

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately "feeling right" doesn't mean anything in science. Music maybe; science no. I agree with you about Copenhagen and Many Worlds - however, it's more than just a feeling.

@Jehannum2000

4 жыл бұрын

@Ψ Well of course. But it doesn't mean the subconscious is infallible. Are you always right in your hunches?

@Raydensheraj

4 жыл бұрын

Nature does not care about our feelings. I absolutely favour the many worlds just because it would fit for nature to run things in the most ridiculous way possible...bending spacetime, Horizontal Gene transfer, mitochondria, Hot Jupiter's, extremophiles, hubble constant...its always the most ridiculous ideas that end up being the contenders for what we consider true.

@bender0428

4 жыл бұрын

Copenhagen and many worlds are cop outs. Pilot waves are a theory I’d be willing to devote a lifetime to proving over the previous 2 lmao.

You guys deserves a TV show, 2 hours of space time, it would be much better than 24 hours of "Ancients astronauts" haha

0:00 is where I usually start getting confused with these videos

@dalgeubam

7 жыл бұрын

argentina?

@frtard

7 жыл бұрын

FINLAND

I love this theory! I had a hard time accepting some aspects of the Copenhagen theory and so I made my own theory and it turns out my fuzzy idea had been thought out and made into an actual theory. It feels so good knowing others out there came to similar conclusions :D

@aarongoodwin4845

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention the mental gymnastics you put yourself through! The brain is a muscle!

@axle.student

Жыл бұрын

I did something similar a while back, actually it was a few things.. I wasn't anywhere near the mathematical representations, but it's cool when you realize someone else has gone down the rabbit hole too lol

@simonvive8025

10 ай бұрын

Pareciera que esta simple teoria de onda piloto a alguien no le conviene porque no se habla de ella y escla mas realista

True or not, this is certainly the most intuitive of the interpretations.

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Except for the facts that it is useless and that nobody uses it. :-)

@ricomajestic

23 күн бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 That's irrelevant!

@schmetterling4477

23 күн бұрын

@@ricomajestic It's telling that not even the supporters are using it. What do you find intuitive about a ghost field, anyway? Are you into the occult? ;-)

Meanwhile, strange matter has an excellent application in cosmic horror stories. Just one particle of it hits the Earth, and the whole planet begins to transform, swallowing rocks, houses, plants and animals alike into a uniform mass… It's the new scariest thing in physics!

@Xeridanus

7 жыл бұрын

That would be similar to a combination of Ice IX and Grey Goo.

@codesslinger

7 жыл бұрын

is strange matter something real or just theoretical like exotic matter? would be cool to see tho.

@garethdean6382

7 жыл бұрын

Theoretical, but solidly so.

@garethdean6382

7 жыл бұрын

No my friend, I think you'll find the scariest thing is vacuum decay, an unseen and unseeable destruction spreading across space itself at light speed, all it consumes is not only destroyed in a blaze of energy but the very laws of physics holding it together are altered on a fundamental level.

@badlydrawnturtle8484

7 жыл бұрын

Gareth Dean …Well, thanks for that. And I was just about to go to bed, too.

This is probably my favorite episode, first because I am really rooting for Pilot Wave Theory to restore sanity to the universe, and second for the explanation of why Wolverine shouldn't trade the adamantium in his skeleton for neutronium.

@Projectmusick

4 жыл бұрын

E^4=P^4c^10 P is matter.

@fish963

4 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Sterling The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Just because something is comfortable doesn't mean it's correct

@hiker919

4 жыл бұрын

@@Projectmusick E squared and P squared. P= momentum. From Einstein's relating energy and relativistic mass.

@cheshirecat111

4 жыл бұрын

A report from the field: it is on its way. Well, the first bit.

@DeepSpaceNinja

3 жыл бұрын

@@fish963 It's true that the universe has no obligation to make sense. But there is enough evidence to assume that there is logical cause/effect and laws that can't be broken.

I've wanted to be a physicist ever since I was old enough to want, I've recently chosen to study Economics and Mathematics as a joint subject, Despite my love for mathematics, pilot wave theory is so irresistibly intuitive it makes me wish I choose otherwise.

@shivanshusiyanwal296

3 жыл бұрын

You can still work on it in part time and I don't think that regretting about you career over 1 theory is wise. There are certain aspects of quantum mechanics which may not be explained by Pilot wave.

@thomascuriel7611

Жыл бұрын

@@shivanshusiyanwal296 what aspects can't be explained by Pilot-Wave? It has desmontratred PWT is equal in results with Copenhagen.

@thomascuriel7611

Жыл бұрын

Bohmian Mechanics isn't intuitive.

@virgodem

Жыл бұрын

@@thomascuriel7611There isn’t yet a relativistic aspect of pilot wave theory.

@ejtattersall156

Жыл бұрын

There are reasons why it was rejected which are not focused on in this video

“by the way this is why science is so important”. That’s beautiful man. I had to subscribe after that one.

How come you are in space and don't suffocate ?

@blackoak4978

7 жыл бұрын

deadal nix magic ;)

@burbanpoison2494

7 жыл бұрын

Ken Oakleaf it's not magic, it's just quantum peculiarities. ($¶Π~X [D-2.16^N]) = ¥/2Q) see? I proved it with math.

@ddmagee57

7 жыл бұрын

Max: prove to me you just made a proof!

@XxBobTheGlitcherxX

7 жыл бұрын

You would not explode.

@garethdean6382

7 жыл бұрын

No you'd suffocate. Suffocation or Asphyxia is being deprived of oxygen, which you are in space. This causes you to fall unconscious quite quickly. You don't explode any more than boiling vegetables makes them explode, the water in your body will try to boil away but that takes time. It'll rupture your lungs and mucous membranes but by the time it starts to do serious damage your brain has already died. You end up nicely freeze-dried.

I love that pilot wave theory has a macroscopic analogue, it makes it so easy to understand. Although it is still a bit difficult for me to understand how quantum eraser works in pilot wave function. Does the measurement of one particle create a fluctuation in the wave that affect the other entangled particle? I also don't have any philosophical problems with determinism mainly because you can argue that in both deterministic and indeterministic quantum theories free will can be just an illusion. Randomness does not equal free will.

@bozo5632

7 жыл бұрын

Determinism and free will are not necessarily related. As you say, you can have either determinism or non-determinism without free will. I think there are problems right from the start with the idea itself of free will - what is it? It's not well defined. More importantly, "we" agents and actors are not well defined. I can't imagine any universe with the kind of free will that most people instinctively believe in. I suspect the problem has more to do with our understanding of "self" and of "will" than any mysteries of quantum reality. Our sense of self is a specialized adaptation, and not our actual self. We aren't what we think we are. I think the quandary of free will would go away if we knew ourselves better. Fwiw, I think we can decide and do either one thing or the other, or something else. It's not preordained, not random. But it's not quite what people call free will, either. Or, maybe more accurately, it is free will, but we aren't quite what we call persons.

@cadr003

7 жыл бұрын

GODsaveTHEcat Because of non locality, it might be just the wave that is changed, but pretty much the entirety due to hidden variables.

@A_few_words

7 жыл бұрын

If you are correct in thinking that perception is illusory then everything else you said is meaningless: Just a description of an illusion. Seems like a wishfull thinking to me. Except this bit: "(...) you can find all of the modern scientific knowledge in the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Vedic texts" - plain bollocks.

@NicolasLezcanopy

7 жыл бұрын

Perception is subjective but reality is objective, so it's an illusory perception only, existence is as real as we can get even if it's holographic, fractal and cyclic in nature, with probably only two basic states as in a binary system, I'm just guessing, it's wishful thinking indeed until someone proofs it with science. Don't forget Mandelbrot was laughed at until his perception turned out to be really useful because it was right, maybe that's the same reason why Einstein is so famous and few people know about Minkowski or why Kepler and Galileo are so admired but nobody remembers Tyco Brahe. About ancient knowledge, I've studied many cultures and languages, religions, lots of history, anthropology and archeology and everything points to civilisations that had knowledge that we are just beginning to rediscover now, such as the heliocentric model, the outer planets in the solar system, amazing knowledge of proportion, pi, phi, geometrics, astronomy, precession of Earth's axis and so on. Just to give an example of how little we really know about our past, we think homo sapiens has been around for at least 200.000 or so and we barely know anything about cultures and civilisations from 20.000 years backs, so less than 10% of human history is "kinda" known, the rest is just wishful thinking and genetic memory :D and don't forget the fact that the observable energy that science deals with is just a small fraction of the whole we call Universe.

@A_few_words

7 жыл бұрын

N1CO VJ Can you please point out some source materials that show that ancient civilisations (which ones?) knew about outer planets, or indeed had an idea of what planet is.

One thing I like about this alternative pilot wave theory is that while classical quantum mechanics hasn't been able to reconcile gravity after more than a century, perhaps pilot wave theory will reconcile gravity and relativity together at once (if / when the physics community can give pilot wave theory development the time and attention it deserves).

@pamir8232

2 жыл бұрын

Weeeell about that, bell's theorem completely rules out these kinds of quantum theories with realism and hidden variables.

@tomasusan

2 жыл бұрын

@@pamir8232 Hasn't Bell's Theorem been refuted?

@Ghostshadows306

2 жыл бұрын

@@pamir8232 John Bell was a huge fan of this very theory. Boem’s Theory.

@creo4033

2 жыл бұрын

@@pamir8232 Bells theorem rules out LOCAL hidden variables, not global such as in pilot wave theory.

@frankdimeglio8216

2 жыл бұрын

@@pamir8232 THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, SIMPLE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE SUN AND what is THE EARTH/ground are E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. CAREFULLY consider what is THE EYE.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma. Carefully consider what is THE EYE.) Objects (AND what is the FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Again, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. SO, carefully consider what are the ORANGE SUN AND the fully illuminated and setting MOON ! Both are the size of THE EYE. Think LAVA !!! The Moon is ALSO BLUE on balance. Therefore, E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE !! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! Carefully consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground !!! Great !!! E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!!! By Frank DiMeglio

It's so fun to watch physicists argue with each other about things that none of them understand while I understand completely what's really going on.

@Cheka__

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 I'm not lonely. I have my Lord of the Rings action figures to keep me company. What's going on is very scientifically complicated. I don't want to bore you with all the technical jargon.

@Cheka__

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 Am not. I also have my stuffed animal collection and about a hundred Transformers.

@Cheka__

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 I told you that I'm not lonely. I have children's toys to keep me company. Not everyone can be as cool as me.

@Cheka__

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 I appreciate that. But do you think someone who's surrounded by Star Wars figurines needs attention? I think not.

@Cheka__

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 It's not as good as the attention that I get from my toys, but it's pretty good. If you need any tips on how to be cool I'd be happy to help. I know that most people don't possess the gift of smoothness that I enjoy.

Can the pilot wave theory describe the quantum eraser described in a previous episode?

@bernardobl

7 жыл бұрын

O have the same question

@PiercingSight

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. If you consider the idea that beamsplitters don't actually act probabilistically but instead act as filters where a property that determines how the particle follows the pilot wave also determines whether it gets reflected or goes through, then it works really well with no back-in-time information transfer required.

@NuclearCraftMod

7 жыл бұрын

It's a self-consistent quantum theory, so probably yes.

@xxGLhrMxx

7 жыл бұрын

Yes but it requires non locality. Many worlds, for example, doesn't require that, as it can just claim that the two branches were always there to begin with

@PiercingSight

7 жыл бұрын

Guilherme C. - No it doesn't. There are hypothetical theories that can explain it completely deterministically. See my above comment for one of them.

This IS why science is so important!

@acllhes

7 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂 this

@ForzaDerpGuy

7 жыл бұрын

15:27

@ForzaDerpGuy

7 жыл бұрын

***** I think it was a joke...

@EchoFifePapa

7 жыл бұрын

Science fiction oftentimes serves as a fairly accurate precursor to scientific advancement in reality. At the beginning of the last century many, respected and well-established physicists and scientists balked at the idea of putting men on the moon.

I'm so glad I found PBS Space Time, Veritasium and Tech Ingredients... I just can't express the joy of watching stuff like this! keep 'em comming!!!

love how gently he broke my heart at the end

I would like to commend everyone involved in making these videos, they are top notch! Thank you for sharing the knowledge.

At 5:23, when the picture of the Solvay Conference is shown with some physicists names along with their faces, Werner Heisenberg's name is wrongly attributed to Wolfgang Pauli's face!!! Heinsenberg was so pissed off about this that his only comment was: "Say my name...".

I have a question.. if the pilot wave theory is correct, then wouldn't the results of double slit experiments ALWAYS produce interference patterns independently of whether we observe it or not?

@JPReid81

5 жыл бұрын

This was my thinking exactly! I really want someone to answer this... Or at least give the modern explanation.

@adolfojasso796

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe, if pilot wave is correct, when you measure the posotion maybe the thing that colapses completely ia the wave and so a new wave is created with no interfernce with itself, making the results that we get if we measure the particle

@henrycgs

5 жыл бұрын

Well we don't quite understand how wavefunction collapses work. All we know is that it's related to observing, and that by observing we must interact with the system. So perhaps by observing a particle going through a slit in the pilot wave theory, we might just be interacting with it in such a way that it stops interacting with itself and therefore no longer makes an interference pattern

This makes so much sense. Can you talk about how other dimensions can be consistent or inconsistent with pilot wave theory

Can you PLEASE make a video on string theory/m-theory??!!

@NuclearCraftMod

7 жыл бұрын

Unless Matt is a string theorist myself, that may be tricky. I was literally talking to a string theorist yesterday morning (Andre Lukas) and he said that even he struggles to explain it :P

@SkyAce200

7 жыл бұрын

I suggest a String Theory vs Loop Quantum Gravity Theory

@MidnightVisions

7 жыл бұрын

Its hard because both theories fell apart in the math department.

Notification squad incoming

@AveryMcChessney

7 жыл бұрын

Here's another notification for 'ya!

@burbanpoison2494

7 жыл бұрын

Avery McChessney replied to your comment

@qaedtgh2091

7 жыл бұрын

All caught up!

@prathamsrivastava7111

7 жыл бұрын

Brace110 Morty what are you doing watching a science show Morty!!!!!

this is the most fantastic and informative channel online, thank you Matt,

Did not know about Pilot Wave Theory at school in the 70s, but it is simple. It does work with General Relativity.

How does the pilot wave theory explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments?

@garethdean6382

7 жыл бұрын

Easily. Being nonlocal and deterministic the particles aren't taking multiple paths at once, the results are predetermined as soon as you start the experiment. Measurement doesn't change anything or send some sort of signal, the entire wavefunction simply alters all at once.

@jeremyyarbro8749

7 жыл бұрын

It doesn't. If "everything is predetermined" from the emission source, then D0 results would not correlate with D1-D4 results at a rate greater than chance.

@muskyelondragon

7 жыл бұрын

I have thought about the quantum eraser a lot. I doesn't "make sense" to me. It's just the way it is.

@mycount64

7 жыл бұрын

+Musky Elon personally i find with some of the physics like the quantum eraser you are looking as something where you need to understand the equations in order to make sense of the results. i am a layman when it comes to the equations. i have certainly forgotten more differential equation knowledge than i have retained since university. so, even though the interference and noninterference results make sense the numerical results don't.

@rikkathemejo

7 жыл бұрын

+Gareth Dean "Everything is predetermined as soon as you start the experiment"? I don't think so. I understood that when a measurement is made on an entangled particle the other is simply instantaneously affected through the non-local wave, but that outcome is not "predicted" by the wave at the start of the experiment.

I watched that Veritasium video hoping you'd cover the topic. I'm feeling quite pleased right now.

Any interpretation that isn't the many worlds interpretation is fine by me. Also not abandoning physical realism is great.

@vampyricon7026

4 жыл бұрын

MWI doesn't abandon physical realism. Copenhagen does. MWI simply says the wavefunction is what is real.

@Starkl3t

4 жыл бұрын

Vampyricon MWI is the most fantastical and ridiculous interpretation of QM ever

@vampyricon7026

4 жыл бұрын

@@Starkl3t No. It is simply quantum mechanics. Only someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics or MWI will claim that. The universe is described by a state vector evolving in time. MWI simply says that is true. Everything else adds extra structure onto the theory that violates causality, reversibility, and information conservation, without which you cannot even do quantum mechanics. Other "interpretations" on top of quantum mechanics are logically incoherent. If MWI is merely "fantastical and ridiculous", I would take it any day

@MrCmon113

9 ай бұрын

@@Starkl3t It's the most straightforward. Copenhagen is literally nonsense. And spontaneous collapse is really reaching hard to avoid many worlds. Relational explanations are just many worlds coupled with solipsism.

Thanks for this video. For example non linear equations are deterministic but might lead to chaotic behaviour, practically solved with probabilistic tools. This theory is very interesting

I LOVE THIS INTERPRETATION SO MUCH! It fits really well in my deterministic view of the universe!

@garethdean6382

7 жыл бұрын

I just KNEW you were going to say that!

@Kolja1987

7 жыл бұрын

Oh, you just HAD to write that, didn't you?

Hold up a sec, lemme just go dust off the 20 years-old high school physics textbook that is hidden somewhere in my garage and I'll get right around to cracking this whole pilot wave thingy.

@5:28 the Solvay Conference -> the zooming in on "Heisenberg" is not on Heisenberg, that fellow is Wolfgang Pauli. Heisenberg is the one on his left (we see on the right of Pauli).

the respect between these channels is amazing

For some reason I ended up in an argument with quantum woo fanatics. The fervor with which they defend their bullshit is astounding. It's like you insult them personally when you tell them "no, focusing your mind really hard does not affect the result of the double slit experiment". They would probably interpret this video as evidence that even the most out there interpretation of quantum physics is reasonable to believe in. Especially those with really few scientists supporting them.

@garielmartir9876

7 жыл бұрын

Jim Groth I do believe in most "woo" interpretations of qm, however, that has nothing to do with having mental powers or focusing on whatever the hell they believe.

@karthiknaicker8216

7 жыл бұрын

Jim Groth They would probably be discussing the same thing about how you defend the "wrong version" of the theory with so much passion. Everybody feels their version is the right one. I believe that beyond a limit, there is no point in trying to convince others of something. If they don't want to believe it, there is no amount of proof or data you can present to them which would convince them.

@garethdean6382

7 жыл бұрын

In a way you ARE insulting them personally. A lot of them believe their own basic goodness and focus can alter reality. Denying that is like telling a lot of them that what they've achieved in life just happened without any input from them. It attacks the foundations of their beliefs.

@iamjimgroth

7 жыл бұрын

Karthik Naicker The important difference is me having the science on my side...

@iamjimgroth

7 жыл бұрын

Gareth Dean Maybe so, but religious thinking that replaces reason must be fought.

I'm surprised he didn't talk about the supposed EM drive being worked on by NASA. Isn't there a theory about the EM drive being possible if Pilot Wave theory is true?

@tonywells7512

7 жыл бұрын

Those guys seem very biased with their experimental interpretations and are desperate to hand wave something to explain what they hope to be true.

@pbsspacetime

7 жыл бұрын

No, there isn't such a theory. In the recent paper on the EM drive there was a section trying to explain it in terms of pilot wave theory. In terms of progress through the scientific process, the notion of a working EM drive being explained by or proving pilot wave theory is as close to the bottom as you can get. i.e. It's one guy's idea.

@GlassTopRX7

7 жыл бұрын

The prevailing suggestion seems to be that some of the photo are escaping containment chamber. The article I read gave some high level ways they might test for it.

@burtosis

7 жыл бұрын

The theory put forth describes how Unruh radiation pressure accounts for the thrust. Arxiv paper here: arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449 Leaking the microwaves themselves is not sufficient to explain the thrust, but the measurements are tricky as the thrust is small and the power levels relatively high. The most interesting thing about this experiment is how much can be learned from its investigation.

Dude. I understood about ten percent of this and I'm blown away. This episode is rad!

I have to say that I've been thinking about bell's theorem and quatnum field theory since I was a kid and always was slowly constructing my vision of how the universe worked but my vision was never so fully validated until you explained how bell's theorem helped bring back bohmian mechanics. This pilot wave theory seems so intuitive that it must be true. I wonder if there is some way to track how the scientific community may slowly switch over to this interpretation of quantum mechanics.

@achdetoni5008

3 жыл бұрын

🤦‍♂️

@DanielL143

Жыл бұрын

I agree but forget about converting theoretical physicists because they mistake mathematical modelling for a description of physical reality. We are not data in a computer simulation. This is not the Matrix. Someone needs to remind them of this in math class. Cheers.

@thomascuriel7611

Жыл бұрын

@@DanielL143 the majority of theoretical physicists are pitagorean - they doesn't know it.

@thomascuriel7611

Жыл бұрын

Copenhagen and Many-worlds are promoted by big universities as Oxford, Caltech & MIT. The defensers of Bohmian Mechanics are in Rutgers university, New York university and Universität der Tübingen -Small Universities.

4:19 your wave function equation needs more jpeg

Small error at 4 55: you don't need to know particle positions *and* velocities at every point, because the equation that guides the little particle is first order. So knowing the positions is sufficient, and then the velocity is determined by the equation.

@vacuumdiagrams652

7 жыл бұрын

By the way, this is the reason why Bohmian mechanics is *not* actually right. It disagrees with quantum mechanics and with experiment! The reason is that, if knowing the position of the particle specifies where it will be forever, particle trajectories can *never cross*. But we know that, for instance, a particle could go through the right slit and end up on the left side of the screen. For more details, see Chen and Kleinert (2016). There are other problems with Bohmian mechanics as well, such as the fact that it does not (and in principle it cannot) incorporate relativity, or the clunkiness with which it handles simple concepts such as spin. But the fact that it's _wrong_ should suffice to remove it from consideration as a possible underlying theory for quantum mechanics. Copenhagen is the preferred interpretation for a reason. :) It is agnostic as to whatever's happening underneath. All attempts to remove this "agnosticism" and put quantum mechanics in a "realist" framework, be it pilot wave theory or the many worlds interpretation, have failed.

@Mp57navy

7 жыл бұрын

You have forgotten Heisenberg there. If you know the exact position, the velocity cannot be determined, nor will the equation give you useful information about it.

@somethingirreversib

7 жыл бұрын

Im not a quantum physicist, but let me ask some questions: How does copenhagen interpretation handle quantum entaglement other than a spooky action? I guess more mathemathics should be applied and less phylosophies would be desired. We dont know anything about the underlying structure of the particle system in pilot wave aspects, yet alone to state that these particles can never cross, what if they can?! Bohmian mechanics is not complete as newtonian was and that doesnt mean anything. There is actually nothing Im aware off that doesnt allow Bohmian mechanics to work.

@vacuumdiagrams652

7 жыл бұрын

Mp57navy This would be true in the standard quantum interpretation, but in pilot wave theory particles have definite positions and velocities at all times. However, the velocities can be determined from the positions and the guiding equation so they're not independent quantities as they are in classical physics.

@vacuumdiagrams652

7 жыл бұрын

***** The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't interpret that. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation should be called the "agnostic" interpretation, because it doesn't care what underlying dynamics may be causing the weirdness. It's a recipe for computing the results of experiments, and that's that. It doesn't imply spooky action for this reason: all you can say is that you observed a correlation, but as we know, correlation does not equal causality. "We dont know anything about the underlying structure of the particle system in pilot wave aspects, yet alone to state that these particles can never cross, what if they can?! " It's conceivable that a pilot wave-like interpretation could be constructed where they can. But in Bohm's version of the theory, they can't. "There is actually nothing Im aware off that doesnt allow Bohmian mechanics to work." There are actually several known examples of falsified experimental predictions of Bohmian mechanics, such as the failure to predict the correct intensity ratio between the central peak and adjacent ones in the two slit experiment. Inconsistency with the third law of thermodynamics is another.

To test this, maybe you could have a cloud chamber in the double slit experiment, once the electrons pass through the slit, you can check and see if it has a trajectory or if it has particle-wave duality. Or it might ruin the interference patterns.

Totally agree. I suggest a connection that you might want to cover in a sequel video : quantum chaos. It's fascinating to realize that in fact it is totally classical and deterministic (chaos of distributions/waves). IMO, this is showing the way. If you add those close parallels existing between relativistic fermionic systems and stochastic reaction diffusion systems... Could you list those physicists you have in mind who are supporting the "Bohmian" interpretation ? It's clear that the idea of point-like particles will have to be dropped. Many thanks, discovering your channel. Great work!

I find all theories that give particles a reality fishy; I think "particles" are just emergent properties of interactions of excited fields, but what do I know...

@socore3197

7 жыл бұрын

Better said: what does anyone 'know'? *The only thing we know is we know nothing.*

@PlasmaHH

7 жыл бұрын

Socore Alaite I wasn't sure if anyone else exists, so...

@alberthoffman5623

7 жыл бұрын

I think particles are just temporary measurements of wave probability. They are not real, but create a comprehensible "defined" concept of being separate from any ongoing continuum. In reality we know everything is connected, there are no real separations since everything has a cause and event, thus making isolated entities or particles with absolute identity non-existent. Maybe if space would be completely discrete at the most fundamental level, you could call those values absolute entities, but since theories say those fundamental properties get forced into a state or "the wave function collapses" they are always entangled with an observer and therefor share linked definition with the observer and cannot be absolute on their own. My conclusion, particles are just concepts created in the mind but don't exist in reality. Reality is just one big probability wave, defining itself by using observers that arise from itself to give itself a relativistic identity and exists for that only reason. I hope you guys can follow me :D

@andershusmo5235

7 жыл бұрын

I believe that's a view that you and I share, Dennis. A lot of the strange things about reality and the universe make a bunch more sense when looked at from the perspective of quantum field theory. Viewing a particle as the property of an excitation in a corresponding field causes things like the double slit experiment and matter being a form of energy to appear perfectly simple and logical.

@alberthoffman5623

7 жыл бұрын

What do you guys think of non-duality? Science in general is always in the pursuit of finding the best suiting model by comparing measurements/concepts/properties of absolutes, but if the fundamental nature of reality is unity throughout the universe, then non-duality would be the best description. It would be the total embodiment of everything in itself without separation of itself, otherwise it wouldn't be all at the highest level?

Pilot wave theory is inconsistent with relativity because its non local behavior states that all of the wave function knows changes in the state of the particle at the same time. But, there is no 'same time' in relativity. How you would define 'same time' as an observer depends on your reference frame.

@user-cw9lf3gl6x

7 жыл бұрын

Johan 't Hart Because speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Even information.

@sparkindustry1

7 жыл бұрын

Quantum entanglement is instantaneous (faster than the speed of light).

@EpicDeception

7 жыл бұрын

+EndYxz _ If you point a giant laser at the moon and cross the moon let's say vertically. The beam on the moon surface will be moving ftl.

@GlassTopRX7

7 жыл бұрын

But no usible information is communicated faster than the speed of causality so no violation.

@user-cw9lf3gl6x

7 жыл бұрын

sparkindustry1 That's why quantum entanglement still baffles scientists

This theory of Quantum Mechanics is the one I buy the most. I think history will show all particles, whether photons, molecules, sand, H2O, etc, all have nothing but classical wave properties.

Thankyou so much , your diction helps me in order I speak spanish, It is invaluable, the topic and the explanation

I'd like to hear more about de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory without 'preserving the bias of classical particles' as mentioned at the end. I've seen other theories (hotly contested) that don't have a particle at all, everything is just waves, and only interaction with the measuring device makes it appear like there is a particle.

The pilot wave theory is the most sensical thing we've heard out of quantum mechanics in a long time.

@cgsrtkzsytriul

7 жыл бұрын

The Artificial Society it's not as sensical as it seems at first glance, there are aspects that are just as troubling as the others. You have to assume a universal wave function that has instantaneous action at a distance.

@PatchyE

7 жыл бұрын

+Andy B It seems much more sensical than any other interpretation to me. Also non-locality is unavoidable in any interpretation. EPR is a fact. Quantum physics is inherently non-local and Copenhagen interpretation was only hiding the non-locality and making it not so obvious. But it is no less troubling in this regard.

@francescop1

7 жыл бұрын

The Artificial Society I agree. on a side note, does anyone know if there is any connection between the ripples in space-time detected as gravitational waves and the pilot waves guiding the particles described in pilot wave theory? Is this even a valid hypothesis?

@Mernom

7 жыл бұрын

Those are most likely diffrent things. Gravitational waves are waves in the fabric of space time caused by super massive objects moving at high speed and other similiar phenomena, like a boat causes wave in the water it moves in. Pilot waves are most likely not actual entities that interact with space time, otherwise we would see SOMETHING there.

@francescop1

7 жыл бұрын

Marik Zilberman I'm afraid my knowledge of astrophysics and quantum mechanics is not sufficient to evaluate the ignorance of my observation. Intuitively, I would imagine you are right, but it would be great if it was plausible and an area of active study. after all, the pilot wave theory has only recently regained some traction, and gravitational waves were experimentally confirmed equally recently. I did some googling and I couldn't find anything. Hoping Matt could enlighten us, or point to the ignorance of the observation!

I love the background music. Could you provide a tracklist please? :)

Awesome presentation! Thank you.

I'm thinking that quantum mechanics is just weird enough that all of these theories are at least partially true. Reminds me of the fable about the 7 blind men and the elephant where the 7 blind men try to describe an elephant by touching various parts of one.

@deefitz6131

5 жыл бұрын

@friend request I think I'm safe in saying... there is nothing (Mr. Captain?) obvious about quantum theory...

@Intervallful

5 жыл бұрын

Search for M-theory

@omkarchavan5940

5 жыл бұрын

This fable applies ot every case in science (or at least physics). We can never know what there actually is. Hence, saying 'This is how it works!' is wrong, rather we should just say 'This perspective gives results which are matching with experiment.' and should never talk about its working.

@shawnbaskette

4 жыл бұрын

That sounds really unsafe.

As a physicist, I can tell you that the Debroglie - Bohm interpretation is not popular because it requires you to do extra work. lol. But seriously , having an invisible, predictive equation may not give you much power if you have to carry along the equations, and then, in the end, you just get what you would have gotten Copenhagen. The DB theory needs to make predictions that the other model's don't so we can test them and if there's a benefit to switching we can do that.

@mojoneko8303

7 жыл бұрын

So your saying that physicists don't want to go down the Debroglie-Bohm path because it involves to much math? I thought they lived for that stuff.

@david203

7 жыл бұрын

Geff, In physics, math is good to the extent that it explains the real world. But real world math also tends to be elegant. Elegance means that a little explains a lot. Physicists look for elegance.

@TurnerRentz

7 жыл бұрын

David Spector Right. Bohm has done great work in implicate order and he and Ilya Prigogine are great physicists....Imo the theory has potential . I think maybe looking at Lisi type approaches, Geometry and a 16 vector basis might be where this approach bears fruit...thorny problem that the standard model seems almost scattered and like...what...250 basis particles....? Any work to make the standard model more tractable and powerful will be welcome. Until then, to get anyone to carry an extra equation....tricky. ;)

@mojoneko8303

7 жыл бұрын

Hello Mr. Spector thanks for the reply. I've always been fascinated with this subject even though I struggle to grasp the concepts involved. I'm not a mathematician or physicist, I hit a wall with high school calculus but I have always wondered if scientists were going to be able to come up with a single simple "elegant" equation that will explain the quantum world, the way Einstein did with relativity. It just seems too convoluted for that, to me quantum mechanics makes relativity seem almost "Newtonian" . It almost takes on a theological connotation, looking for a simple, elegant, "god" equation that explains the universe. I wish you luck in your endeavor, I would love to see you succeed even though I doubt I will comprehend any of it. I used to tease my son that the reason he stuck with chemistry in high school and college and avoided biology was because the biology just muddied up his beloved chemistry. Some how that seems relevant to me. :)

@mojoneko8303

7 жыл бұрын

Hello Mr. Rentz thanks for the reply. I'm just a layman though I've always been fascinated by this stuff. Are you implying their could be as many as 250 quantum particles? I lost count on how many their are in the current standard model. Wow seems like it would be pretty hard to come up with a simple equation to deal with that. Would be like herding snakes with math.

One should realize that especially the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't try to explain the observed phenomena. It just names them using quite vage definitions (wave function, collapse, measurement etc.) and tells you that it is not possible to look for a deeper reality. Not sure why people would prefer that.

@makamatin9257

4 жыл бұрын

BUT.. they watch the particle where it will go, and somehow, acted as particles again and not as waves. it seems that by the act of watching them, makes the particle decide how it will act - as a particle or as a wave.

I'll admit first I did not read through all of the comments on this video (so if I'm saying something someone already did, I apologize) and this may not get any replies because the video is an older one, but this actually makes perfect sense in a number of ways. The pilot wave created by a moving quantum particle propagates through the fabric of space-time as a gravitational wave in the same way that a gravitational wave created by any object with mass moving through the fabric does or like an EM wave propagates, both traveling at the speed of light. The pilot g-wave reaches the double slit and creates the interference paths described by the equations presented in the video and the particle than follows the curvature in the fabric of space-time created by the pilot g-wave. One simply has to accept (which I think would be reasonable) that there is a fabric of space-time and we move through it. The existence of this fabric of space time as a medium through which g-waves created by quantum particles can propagate has already been observed by black holes orbiting a common center of mass. I believe it can be seen also on a general relativity scale in the grandest sense if you look at how a rotating galaxy creates a whirlpool effect on the objects within its curvature, creating the illusion of additional mass creating a gravitational field which we have called 'dark matter'. It is not some mysterious matter that we can't see, it is just the fabric of space-time creating the whirlpool effect much the same as if you were to throw a bunch of marbles onto a towel and rotate the towel. It really seems simple.

Here's my stupid question : is there an interpretation of the measurement problem in the double slit experiment in pilot wave theory? As in, what's the equivalent to Copenhagen's "collapse of the wave function"? If the pilot wave is considered a physical entity, why does measurement/decoherence suppress the interference pattern?

@FallenStarFeatures

5 жыл бұрын

According to Bohmian Mechanics, each time a measurement is made, the wave function of the measuring device becomes entangled with the wave function of the measured particle. That mutual entanglement is what Copenhagen refers to as the "collapse" of the measured particle's wave function. (But note how Copenhagen excludes the measuring device, thus creating its notorious self-inflicted "measurement problem".) The Pilot Wave is NOT a "physical entity" manifested in 4D spacetime, it propagates non-locally in complex-valued Configuration Space (the domain where the quantum wave function is defined). If it manifested in 4D spacetime, the Pilot Wave would become a local phenomenon subject to relativistic propagation effects, contradicting the non-local nature of Bohmian Mechanics.

@sciencoking

5 жыл бұрын

So it's an abandonment of the concept of physical matter vs nonlocality.. :(

how does the pilot wave function explain the results of the quantum eraser? how come knowing the trajectory of the particle, without interfering with its guiding wave changes the result of the experiment?

@oreo2123

7 жыл бұрын

joseaca yeah, this was my thought too...I'm interested to know if anyone can explain this!

@illumiNOTme326

7 жыл бұрын

oreo2123 - same here

@fritt_wastaken

7 жыл бұрын

If the pilot wave exist, we don't know what it is and all the properties it has. Perhaps it has something to do with its non-locality that was mentioned in the video

@fcopibe

7 жыл бұрын

same here joseaca ! But some explanation should exist since it's supposed to be a coherent and complete interpretation of QM..

@TS-jm7jm

7 жыл бұрын

fcopibe it was never stated to be complete, dont rely on impressions

I find this theory so intriguing and interesting, and to me it seems as if this aligns somewhat with string theory, as perhaps the wave are created by the vibrating strings? I don’t have much of the nitty gritty details on string theory (although I likely will in the future), but I do know that it has a distance to go both experimentally and theoretically before it has the chance of being reality, just as pilot wave theory does, but I just feel like it would be so beautiful to see these two currently incomplete theories come together to form a beautiful description of the universe.

Physics is like a endless hole of complexity, I don't think we'll ever understand it much however the advances that we have made have really made much of our modern world possible. I love physics and all of science really, this channel is better than watching any NOVA documentary.

At first I thought it said bohemian mechanics.

@danielvitous5530

6 жыл бұрын

Robert Smith, me too :) but I am from Bohemia, so patriotism blindness/deafness in my case, I guess

@michaelmelgaard1

6 жыл бұрын

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

@mahditr5023

6 жыл бұрын

Michael Melgaard both

@kindlin

5 жыл бұрын

Easy come Easy go

@fx4d

5 жыл бұрын

No, that theory was put forward by Galileo on three separate occasions, and then later, by Figaro.

my confusion on this was deterministic before I got here.

@GJ-dj4jx

5 жыл бұрын

Underrated coment lol

@janinerodriguez672

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@alexanderabrashev1366

3 жыл бұрын

xDDDDDD

@astronichols1900

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, quantum mechanics does allow this

The shout out to my boy Dr. Derek at Veritasium at 10:09, love it!

Thank You! This is absolutely brilliant.

Quick question: In which books I can find concepts like these? Every one I see only deals with the usual most know concepts...

@pbsspacetime

7 жыл бұрын

There's an excellent reading list on this site dedicated to Bohmian mechanics: www.bohmian-mechanics.net/readings_books.html

@WilliamPauley

7 жыл бұрын

Appreciate the link! :)

@Quantiad

7 жыл бұрын

J.J Jameson In my opinion, that question could have been much quicker.

@systempatcher

7 жыл бұрын

J.J Jameson Books on differential equations and complex variables. If you want to understand concepts you need to understand math.

PBS Spacetime > Anything else on youtube

@Adityarm.08

6 жыл бұрын

3blue1brown, PBS infinite series, Mathologer, Matojelic, Veritasium? And it's not even counting how much more great stuff could be on this place that I certainly haven't heard of.

@nustada

6 жыл бұрын

Wrong, Kittens > PBS Spacetime.

@georgeabreu6392

5 жыл бұрын

Aditya Mishra They would be a challenge.

@rayhoodoo847

5 жыл бұрын

nustada is that supposed to be a joke?

@jaydienparks5658

5 жыл бұрын

@@rayhoodoo847 it's true

Arguments showing the drawbacks and flaws in the pilot wave theory, while at the same time comparing it to the Copenhagen model are what was missing in the Veritasium's video on the pilot wave theory. Although, I loved his video he did not state the problems that come with the theory and it was for that reason a bit misleading. Your video perfectly fills those missing parts, but also vice versa as Veritasium actually shows the oil bubbles and the pilot wave theory on the macro scale. Thanks to both of you! :)

The best channel about science in youtube

How does quantum tunneling work in the context of Pilot Wave theory? According to the theory, a particle has a definite location at all times. How does it get past the potential barrier?

@nikolayrayanov2895

6 жыл бұрын

It just jumps "over" the wall because it's too thin (or low).

@DavidEvans_dle

5 жыл бұрын

Jumps over? As in passing thru? Lets say for an electron passing thru a silicon junction, would not successive passing "thru" cause an observable structure failure?

@shrimpflea

4 жыл бұрын

@@nikolayrayanov2895 Ha Ha..that is funny!

@mortezarezaei9066

4 жыл бұрын

In Bohmian mechanics there is a new extra nonlocal potential energy named "quantum potential" that is the reason of quantum tunneling and other quantum effect.

@Videot99

4 жыл бұрын

@@mortezarezaei9066 Just curious -- does this "quantum potential" have the same probabilistic outcome as is measured in practical quantum tunneling devices? The current interpretation seems to explain the phenomenon well.

I tend to think that we do live in a deterministic universe when all the layers are stripped away. So I have no problem accepting this as an incomplete theory. Either way it doesn't change our perceived reality. One thing that does confuses me is people have a hard time with this theory which requires a little extra math when something like String theory requires heaps of unknowns and extra math. We have an unprecedented amount of people working on String Theory and it's derivatives today and it's just getting more complex.

@Jadinandrews

7 жыл бұрын

GlassTopRX7 it's a shame pwt doesn't explain gravity or relativity at all. I guess if it did, then it would raise more eyebrows.

@nexaentertainment2764

7 жыл бұрын

I don't believe the universe is truly deterministic. However, if it is, that will be great fuel for all those shitty pop-sci news sites that write the weekly "Life is a computer simulation!!!!" clickbait. 6

Thanks for covering this :)

This channel makes me so happy!

It sounds like we're trying to measure the salt content of the ocean by counting the waves that hit the beach

finally a quantum theory I don't hate.

PERFORMER: Your upper body movements are well-orchestrated to the point of genius. Amazingly consistent, hypnotic. Your acting is not upstaged by your accent. DARN good mode of learning. A+ Please mention your name somehow in each stream: we want to be proud of you! Doesn't have to be self-indulgent, no, just a blip perhaps. Whatever! : )

@CraigMCox

Жыл бұрын

His name is in the video description, boomer

hey, man, love the vids. thanks, keep it up

"Niels", please, not "Neils" ;) otherwise - fascinating. What a fantastic channel!

9:47 - Nice to verbal cite Veritasium, but a link it the description would of been nice. :)

wow I can't believe that I actually comprehended and remembered this show and spend stuck in my head though I don't remember ever watching it what is the theory that makes the most sense to me

Once you see the droplet experiments, it hard to believe the similarity with quantum movements is just coincidence. The explanation is so much more intuitive. In fact years ago, not know about Broglie-Bohm, or the droplet experiments, or much about physics, I wondered as to if the double split experiment could simply be explained by a wave riding particle. And when you see how in the droplet experiment, particles essentially follow a feedback loop with their own waves, the whole idea makes even more sense. Finally, given that this video claimed only that Pilot Wave theory is incomplete, but not entirely ruled out, make Pilot Wave theory more intriguing.

I’m loving pilot wave theory! Makes more sense to me than Copenhagen or Many Worlds, I love doing away with the hoo-hah!

@thomascuriel7611

Жыл бұрын

Of course PWT make sense much more than Copenhagen or many-worlds, no one which is consistent unlike PWT

The theoretical physics of Wolverine is why I got into science

@jedaaa

7 жыл бұрын

how far did it take you? was he the subject of your thesis ? :)

@IceCreamMan945

7 жыл бұрын

still an undergrad studying maths and chemistry but hope to do a masters and PhD in theoretical physics

@gusdupree9076

7 жыл бұрын

jedaaa gotcha ,bitch

*I can't stop watching this channel.*

Thank you for your honesty.