Do Quantum Wavefunctions Actually Collapse?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- We are still uncertain about what a wavefunction actually is but recent measurements are starting to make this picture clearer. This problem has been around since the beginning of quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and many more famous physicists have struggled with this problem but no one has come up with a definitive answer.
In this video, I discuss some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics and how these new measurements change some of our theories.
There are many great videos about interpretations, check out references [6] and [7] if you want to know more.
- References -
[1] www.quantamagazine.org/physic...
[2] www.nature.com/articles/s4156...
[3] journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...
Quantum Interpretations
[4] iep.utm.edu/int-qm/
[5] www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
Other TH-cam videos
[6] Domain of science, quantum interpretations: • The Interpretations of...
[7] PBS Space Time, Pilot wave interpretation (not covered): • Pilot Wave Theory and ...
[8] Science Discussed, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics • 2022 Physics Nobel Pri...
- Social -
You can hit me up on some of my socials or check out my research.
Twitter: / broadwayphysics
Discord: / discord
Publications: scholar.google.com.au/citatio...
- Equipment -
If you are interested in some of the equipment that I use to make these videos you can find the information below.
Camera: amzn.to/3VSpxfY
Audio: amzn.to/3Mgv3pw and amzn.to/3LXF7CH and amzn.to/3HXfTmE
Lighting: amzn.to/41qYKbS and amzn.to/3O5Vekp
Teleprompter: amzn.to/3puDrZI
0:00 - Intro
0:46 - What is a wave function?
3:32 - Quantum interpretations
5:45 - Many Worlds
7:29 - The interpretation in question
8:55 - Measuring a quantum interpretation
#quantum #science #physics #quantumphysics #einstein - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Quite interesting piece! Thanks!
Einstein ''spooky action at a distance'' was not about the collapse of the wave function but rather by the instantaneous 'communication' between two entangled particle separated by a great distance where one of them has been measured (one of its quantum parameter like spin). Merci beaucoup.
The two ideas are interlinked.
Einstein was the first to (correctly) identify quantum entanglement (even before Schrodinger did) as the TRULY unique element of quantum mechanics and the bespoke quality that separated it from classical mechanics.
The wave function "collapsing" is the same thing as making a measurement. And when you make a measurement, say the polarization of an photon here and a photon on the other side of the universe, once you measure the polarization of one particle you INSTANTLY know the polarization of the other particle.
The "collapse" of the wave function suggests, although not categorically, faster-than-light signaling between entangled particles. Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind have been working on an idea vaguely called ER = EPR. The idea being that Einstein-Rosen Bridges (aka wormholes) are the link between entangled particles (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Correlations).
The physics community, partly thanks to a terrible paper written by Jon Von Neumann, believed Einstein was barking up the wrong tree and the whole deal was much ado about nothing. It was virtually ignored for decades until John Bell, the great Irish experimentalist (who should've gotten a Nobel Prize post-humously even though they don't give those out to dead scientists) did his first experiments testing it (in contravention of older physicists who told him not to waste his time on "foundations of quantum mechanics questions").
And then AFTER Bell, the physics community ignored Einstein's work on entanglement UNTIL the quantum information theory program began in earnest in the 1970s and later. Only NOW are run-of-the-mill physicists FINALLY addressing foundational questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, stuff that they should have been doing for DECADES.
ER = EPR?
We shall see!
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Yes WF collapse is related to spooky action at a distance, but you and the narrator are both wrong that this describes Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". The vast majority of all WF collapse is not with entangled quanta, therefore it most often does NOT show or describe or suggest this spooky action at a distance. So it is incorrect to say WF collapse represents Einstein's spooky concerns in the EPR paper.
Great video! I watch a lot of physics videos and I like the way you condense the concepts.
Glad you liked it! I try my best to condense the concepts so it is not overly technical but still gives a good overview. Not an easy task to be honest.
It's so bizarre to me how every video on quantum mechanics dismisses nonlocal hidden variables while treating things like a grand multiverse as more serious. Even John Bell who, you know, invented Bell's theorem was a strong advocate and contributor to nonlocal hidden variable theories.
Oh yeah, and don't even get me started on quantum entanglement what a load of nonsense. Faster than light communication. Pfft.
@@SuperUAPit’s not faster, it doesn’t have any information transfer whatsoever so idk what you even mean by “faster”?
Very good! Thank you. Imagine tachyon telescopes and gluon microscopes, two hypothetical tools to help merge GR and QM into one theory. Such tools might unveil the correct interpretation of QM.
Finally somebody who cites their references! Subbed!
It is surprisingly rare. I am glad you appreciate it.
"References! We don't need no stinkin' references!"
~ "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
Great Channel....please consider doing an in-depth presentation on the Quantum Void. Most physics channels do an extremely superficial job in explaining this critical field in physics. Best wishes
Glad you enjoy the videos. I will point your suggestion on my potential videos list.
what's a Quantum Void?
I took this to mean vacuum fluctuations.
It all comes back to the Uncertainty Principle. Lowest energy states and so on. Oh - and quantum field theory is just that. Its a theory. It might be wrong.
@@Eztoez uncertainty or indeterminism?
Thank you so much! Now I have a much clearer view of quantum intepretations
You're very welcome!
Wave functions are really bizarre. Great video. Thanks 🙏
My pleasure!
Best presentation and explanation of the quantum world I have seen. Thank you.
Wow, thank you!
@@ScienceDiscussed Pilot Wave theory would become the preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics if both instantaneous fields are a reality, and if the true form of Relativity is Galilean Relativity, which states time and space are absolute. I present both theoretical and experimental proof of this, verified by many independent researchers over the past 20 years. William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023 th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
I find it frustrating that I as a non-physicist have actually thought about all of this myself. It is frustrating because I feel it could have had something to contribute with if I only had the right education and knew higher math.
If a wave was just about probability and not an actual wave, there would be no interference pattern in the double slit experiment, because the particle would not have been able to interact with itself.
I like your theory
There are many of us in your camp; I suspect that's why these vids are popular
I wish I had the math/science skills to demonstrate a material/consciousness interface in DNA at the level of Planck length tetrahedra
Sadly I'm old and brain damaged now but take comfort in the new generations of physicists and scientists
When the wave function collapses, I believe symmetry and gravity are defined and dispersed localy and non localy through entanglement. Just a thought.❤ the video!
No,It's A physical object because when you're not looking and you run the double slit experiment the wave function appears and leaves ACTUAL PHYSICAL MARKINGS on the photographic film at the back of the double slit experiment.
Difficulty with CSL and similar ideas is a tendency to predict effects at the ensemble level which are not observed.
(... are you using Star Trek: Discovery's theme song as your background music?)
7:10 wait a minute: is there any idea for an experiment which could falsify this theory? Could you give some references? I would love to see some serious proposition of such test
From what is currently known, only "physical / objective collapse" models are testable ( like GRW or CSL , see 7:30 ).
No experiment could test Many Worlds against the other unmodified interpretations of QM.
The fundamental fields are wavy. A particle is the result of the field. The particle may disappear but the field doesnt.
A wave function is a function, as is a Legendre function or a quadratic function. It is a solution of the Schroedinger Equation, for example. It describes the state of a system of particles. Does it collapse? That depends on how you use the verb "to collapse". I don't use it that way. Rather, I might say that a system goes from a state described by one wave function to a system described by another wave function. States of a system can change in QM as in classical physics if they interact with other systems. Why is that a problem?
The wave function does not describe a single system. It describes an ensemble. That is how it is defined and you can easily derive the wave function from Kolmogorov's axioms for ensembles of independent experiments.
Is there any direct experimental evidence of single particle at two places/states at the same time or wavefunction collapse is used to cover-up lack of direct experimental evidence.
There is no evidence of any particles at all. We have plenty of evidence of absolutely nobody listening in high school when the science teacher explains that quanta are small amounts of energy. ;-)
I wish physicists would stop talking about "measurements" or "look at" but rather use a phrases like "interact with " or even "touching". The latter being better at describing that there's no such thing at observation without interaction that that small scale.
What's even worse is when they talk about how a wave will collapse when "observed", which leads to all kind of crazy ideas about how the mind is interacting with particles.
@@Langkowski Physicists who understand quantum mechanics never talk about collapse. You won't even find that concept in properly written textbooks.
@@schmetterling4477 Well, it is used all the time on the net, and simply means that all possible outcomes are reduced to just one.
The "function" adopts a measured value, that is all. Functions exist-- as mental objects, not physical states in themselves. I mean if you analyze a wave function, it just means you identify its parts. It is proper metaphysics, metalanguage, mathematics; not reality.
The assumptions made by physics are that the boundary of integration, the possible states of a measured value range over infinity, not the boundary of the molecule, whatever that is. Is there a 100% probability that my measurement exists somewhere in the entirety of phenomena? Of course. That's the only analytic assumption though.
The rest of it means, that if we assume wave features are "particle-like", then we know quite definitely that these particles cannot be predicted as particle+like in behaviour, only abstractly on the cosmological level.
In other words, it's a scam, a sham; there is no system in existence that does not have a wave-functional description of its internal states. What collapses is our ability to say a damned thing about it except that we can blow up our enemies with it! Monkey science is always about ballistic trajectories and the probability of hitting the target squarely on the noggin.
thanks for this.
You are amazing!
Dealing with the comments.
I try and do my best.
The wave doesn't collapse, it shifts to another timeline/point in time.
I would argue that the wave function doesn't collapse, it expands at the speed of light. That allows it to recapitulate the geometry of spacetime. Expansion of the wavefunction is similar to how water ripples expand at the speed of a wave in water.
The observer creats reality,so "things"have to chage its shape to make sense for the observer and its natural laws!
Wouldn't EM wave from localization violate energy conservation?
Not if it comes from the internal gravitational energy of the spread-out wave function.
What exactly are these "measurements" (or "observations") consist of ? What is the actual action ?
Nobody knows for sure. Superficially, they're some kind of interactions between the things being detected and the electrons and/or nuclei of the atoms in the detectors.
would appreciate if you do not add the background music. I am trying to listen and understand what you are saying and it gets in the way.
Sorry that the music was too loud.
Funny I was so focused on what he was saying that I didn't notice any music in the background, sounds like you need to train your ears more.
First step to understanding a wave function is to completely disregard that atom graphic at 0:01 (everyone knows electrons don't orbit, but also nucleons don't jiggle...it's a stationary state...and protons and neutrons don't have an identity, even the lowly deuteron is (pn - np)).
Wouldn’t entangling particles count as a measurement or interaction?
A better description I have heard for the many worlds theory is to see it as just assuming the wave function is real and does not collapse. The higher dimensionality was already in the equations. Just keep the imaginary solutions instead of flush it out.
Can they make multiple cosmic microwave background images? Is there anything that could alter red shift? (Say tons of gas cloud's? Cosmic filaments? Black holes, galaxies, the type of Light the star is giving off?) So how would you find a "reliable measuring system from super nova's? It seems variable?"
*I don't think we fully understand Gravity Yet. ~i know that's random, i just thought of our current state of physics. If u look up "what is Gravity" right now, you get all sorts of science videos explaining that gravity is not a force, & they talk about time dilation. ~i think there is more we have yet to understand & perceive about Gravity. Sorta like something we've all seen a million times, but finally someone finds a new way to look at it and notices things most people have overlooked. *I in no way am saying this because I think I have the answers. No. This is just a gut feeling that I hope people way smarter than me discover. I got this guy feeling after observing the state physics has been in for a long time now. Something is telling me we have to look back on things and see if there is anything we may have overlooked? It happens all the times in discoveries and progression. There's Nothing embarrassing or to be ashamed of. It's natural. It's a part of growth and inventions.
My gut tells me that gravity is greatly intertwined with electrodynamics, density, and all the factors that make up many things in our Cosmo's. Just that gravity is this unique property of our universe in multiple scales. Small form, mid form, mega form. Think of large Filaments throughout the Cosmo's/multiple galaxies/black holes/nebula's that span many light-years across • then • Stars/planets/ asteroid's/solar systems/orbits/atmosphere's/magnetosphere/cosmic bubble around our solar system/then all the effects on our planet that gravity plays a role in. •Lastly• the small factors of matter/static charges that cause things to start sticking to each other/ particles/magnetism/density/temperature/velocity/pressure (probably many more things I'm leaving out but hopefully u get the point, these factors all play such a crucial role in our Cosmo's and I really think we have further to learn about it.) *But that's just my personal opinion
A probability wave is an abstraction and can't collapse. A matter wave is in a state of becoming and can "collapse" into a state of being. Or reflect, I prefer to say, to the observer.
The probability wave leaves actual physical markings on the photographic plate at the back of the double slit experimen.
@@Sharperthanu1
That proves DeBroglie was right and Born was wrong. Einstein favored DeBroglie's matter wave and Schrodinger went with the probability wave. He said he wished he'd never got involved with the whole quantum mechanics which led to the Copenhagen interpretstion and solipsism. This is my opinion. It's been decades since I studied all this. At 78yrs I don't have time to go into it much again. Curses on it all.
NO. Firstly, I feel that the proper question is "Do quantum wavefunctions even exist in nature?" or are they just a mathematical apparatus explaining a field we probably already know exists? Secondly, Bell's Theorem only states that if hidden-variables exist, they are non-local in nature (QT is a non-local theory anyways so to me, it's somewhat uninteresting). I would argue that the wave function is a mathematical "placeholder" for an asymmetry in nature, perhaps caused by a field, that is not yet understood **looks wantonly at gravity👀**. I think the Higgs field would be a quick and dirty example of how you could mathematize a concept before discovering it but as usual, the non-local effect is puzzling (though I think natures speed limit needs to be re-examined).
Either way, "interpretations" that create more un-observed phenomena than they resolve is problematic.
Wave functions were always mathematical abstracts by definition. There isn't much of a question here. At most there is an educational gap in the population.
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️
It's facinating how so many properties with-in Nature use: ~{"Differences"}~
That "factor" seems to be a key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temp, different densities, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnetism north/south poles, different velocity/angular momentum, different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. Different layers between different regions such as: (Land/water/air/edge of the atmosphere/space/ the different regions in space with different particle density/background radiation, creating bubbles/membrane layers/cloud regions, nebula's/Galaxy's/Galaxy clusters/ Cosmic filaments/less dense regions of space compared to dense regions of space.) All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low pressure and temperature 🌡️differences create winds. In water- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally in our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, a magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere.
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️
The natural world around us is just utterly facinating to me.
Yes they do actually collapse, but it is a collective phenomenon and the computer simulation of it requires an exponential-time algorithm.
The simplest example is the interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. This can lead to a radical increase in specific entropy and I would suggest adding tachyonic Brownian motion to get the destruction of unitarity that we will require. Unfortunately the simulation will need to run in dozens of dimensions of configuration space so my suggestion is a moot point. What we are up against is simply a numbers game. There are no issues with our ability to imagine what is happening.
Actually the interaction between a molecule of hydrogen and a molecule of fluorine is a slightly simpler example, but with tri-iodide we have trifluoride to compare with.
Yes, that was nonsense. ;-)
Why is this ever changing story, always presented as the ultimate truth (“we discovered”, “we realised”, “XXX won the Nobel prize for proving”, etc.), reminds me to a person who keeps changing his life story a bit as undeniable facts are coming up but he never make a substantial change because that would undermine his entire credibility?
It's easier at this level to show water going down the kitchen sink. There are small waves, a whirling, and the dip into the tube.
Later, add some physics. 😊
I didn't think of using that. An interesting idea.
Great video!
1:55 to 2:01 looks like an expanding ripple. A ripple is a wave that expands at velocity v in some medium. If we put the Michelson-Morley experiment on hold for a moment, and consider that wave functions deal with mediums, then we could say the ripple expands at the speed of light, and the medium is the wave function itself. In the two slit experiment, there are what look like interference patterns of ripples. What stops us from defining a wave function as a physical "thing" that is a "medium" with physics constants as its properties?
At 2:35 to 2:45, you talk about a wavefunction the size of the galaxy. Why can't we define a wave function as a ripple that can expand indefinitely? Such that, it could have been expanding for 50k years until it is the diameter of the galaxy.
Instead of a ripple, why don't we define a wave function as a sphere that expands from a point into a sphere of radius r = ct. Let its surface area be all of the properties of a virtual photon (which now includes surface area). If a photon has energy, then the surface of our sphere has energy E = hf that is localized somwhere on the surface of the sphere. What we think of as a photon as a wave traveling at the speed of light is really the localized energy on the surface of the sphere as the sphere expands away from its center point (which is a good definition of an inertial frame).
When two or more of these expanding spheres overlap, they create other virtual particles of the Standard model, all very casually. When the surfaces of two wave functions meet, however briefly, they create the term (PSI*)(PSI) which is part of the definition of the expectation value for position or momentum . All of this should be as casual and simple as water ripples overlapping as they expand.
These expanding spheres are constantly being generated. If the surface area is a virtual photon, then the surface area has an electromagnetic field that could easily interact with electrical potential energies from electrons, quarks, gluon, protons, atoms, anything made of molecules, plasmas and other kinds of fields. The wave function is a solution to the partial differential equation known as the Schrodinger equation. These expanding spheres are the physical "thing" that interacts with charges.
Let us presume that the Casimir effect (which is a verified experiment) is the result of virtual photons bumping into particles. Dark energy is the expansion of the universe. If somehow these expanding spheres carry a small amount of momentum, if they hit a charge (atom or particles with mass), then the sphere might become absorbed by the particle system. By becoming absorbed into the particle system, they are temporarily trapped by it. Charges always interact with each other which is a good enough definition of a measurement (the interaction of charges and fields). Instead of wave functions collapsing, these trapped spheres continue to expand at the speed of light. All particles of mass are continually bombarded by these expanding spheres (which carry a small amount of momentum which is a tiny fraction of dark energy). When you have a massive object, like a human sitting in a chair, in the down direction, there is a whole planet that has obstructed the expansion of these expanding spheres. But in the direction "up", there is all open space and a constant barrage of expanding spheres that are expanding into the human sitting in the chair. Basically, space is expanding and pushing you down because these expanding spheres do that. We notice that space pushes particles because the Casimir effect is the observation that virtual photons push against metal plates (and other massive objects). We also said that the surface area of these expanding spheres are virtual photons.
I am saying that,
1. Virtual photons are the infrastructure of photons (without the energy E = hf).
2. The surface area of an expanding sphere is a virtual photon.
3. These expanding spheres really do exist and we see their effects as virtual photons, the Casimir effect, and wave functions.
4. The Casimir effect is actually the cause of gravity.
5. Maybe we should call these expanding spheres "gravitons" because they are the ultimate cause of gravity, via the Casimir effect. Or we could say that the pushing effect of these gravitons can be blocked by matter, which is what we observe as gravity.
Sorry it's long and complicated. But a quantum gravity theory comes from this interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The expanding spheres is the Huygens principle. Each point in the expanding wavefront generates its own wavefront, and so on, and in the end they interfere with each other constructively or destructively such that the particle emerges.
@@trucid2 Yes yes yes! But I'm saying that those waves, those expanding spheres, are themselves the building blocks of spacetime. While in contrast, a water wave is still made of point particles called H20 molecules, the expanding waves or ripples of spacetime are the foundational building blocks of both spacetime and wave functions. Technically, when two expanding spheres move past each other, they recapitulate spacetime geometry. A quantum entanglement is the effect of having one of these expanding spheres between two entangled particles. The entanglement itself is this "sphere".
I know that what I'm saying is weird! But it's the only thing that makes sense enough to explain QM, SR, GR, expansion of spacetime, dark energy, virtual/real photons, and the quantum fields of the Standard Model.
@@wulphstein Those are some interesting ideas. I like your explanation of gravity and its connection to the Casmir effect. Still have to think about how particles like electrons and protons emerge. Wouldn't surprise me if particles are just trapped photons that orbit each other the same way an electron orbits a proton in a stable way.
QM classicalized in 2020: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
Could the electron "flying" creates a "pressure path" of vitrtual particles in vacumm like gas on cilinder?
Is simulation a valid scientific possibility for quantum theory interpretation? Or is it for sure just junk science? If valid as a theory, do physicists ever think in terms of "reverse engineering" our reality with simulation as source? Thanks for your videos...they are great!
Simulation is an expression of intellectual laziness. ;-)
Roger Penrose also says we have a Quantum soul
so given the 100% consistency of observation triggered collapse, AND given we know the collapse is NOT triggered by the act of measurement; Dr Aspect's delayed choice quantum eraser, but rather the information available TO the observer of the path, Everett's Many World is soundly refuted, for at all times, the interference should happen over time, whether there is a detection or not. Given the natural state of subatomic particles is in a state vector, a superposition, there should be nothing to see, anywhere, everything, from the origination of the Universe till now should probabilistically occupy every space in the universe. But it doesn't.
The element being described at the 8 minute mark is the idea that all points are local to each other... which is very probably true, and that is the description of a VR, time/space only applies to elements within the VR, and not to the VR generator. To the VR generator, all points are equidistant, and the observed is only realized when an observation is taken, regardless of the intermediate time or space separation. Histories are created upon observation; backward in time causation as demonstrated by Dr Aspect's work, including the moon, stars, galaxies, and molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and their countless constituents... no matter how large or small the scale, the universe will create a history, commensurate with our environment, to fill the gap.
Pretty sure, this is how it is.
Any bias towards an interpretation? :) Great video!
I have also followed the Coppenhagen interpretation but I think this is just because it was what I was taught. In doing the research for this video I learnt a lot about different interpretations that I had no idea about, including a couple that I don't talk about. So now I am unsure where I sit. I guess I am still in the Coppenhagen camp but feel it is maybe incomplete. What about yourself?
@@ScienceDiscussed interesting! I see where you are coming from, it's not exactly necessary to do research for most areas to take time to think about this.
I'm more or less in no camp this days. At one point Copenhagen, then I really like pilot wave theory, then the ensemble interpretation.
I'm now in the firm "we don't know but it's an interesting question to probe" camp.
haha yeah then we feel pretty similar.
@@JonathonRiddell I think that the "we don't know but it's an interesting question to probe" camp is currently the only sensible camp to be in, IMHO.
@@ahothabeth I would definately agree, but there are lots of folks who are more involved in these questions than I am, who would disagree.
Telepathy I.S. Information System - 010 Gravitational Propulsion System -- GPS.
obviously whats going on, is we are trying to understand the infinity of our consciousness which is infinity.. thats my belief, which is great... it means there is no death or end
1) schrødingers function us not a wavefunction, 2) if you participate in a lottery with 100 lottery tickets, the chance of winning is 1/100. So say someone win the lottery ( not you) then the chance of winning is zero. The probability function is collapse. Nothing strange. The schrødinger function is a probability function and when you measure something it collapse
The probability distribution of your lottery never collapses. It's always 1/100 per ticket. For the same reason the wave function also never collapses. This is just a misunderstanding of both quantities (which are mathematically intimately related, by the way).
I have a question
What would happen to a wave function if a detector was setup, the detector’s output was sent to a tv, and the tv was broken? Would the wave function still collapse even though while the detector is powered on, nothing can be measured bc the tv is broken?
Yes it would still collaspe. The quantum object doesn't care if you actually obtain information from it. It only cares that it has interacted with something.
@@ScienceDiscussed thanks! So a follow up question… does the wave collapse if using a broken but powered detector? Does anything electric collapse the wave function?
@@buttonsdah5335 any interaction can collapse it. The existence of a physical object can be enough. There is a lot of nuance about the particulars of different systems but in general yes it would collapse.
@@ScienceDiscussed thanks again. So is it true to say that “observing” a particle isn’t necessarily what makes it collapse, just that there may be interference causing the collapse?
@@buttonsdah5335 Not quite. It is observing the particle that makes it collapse. It just doesn't mean we have to be the observer. Anything can be.
Getting real spooky
If a wavefunction collapses, that is a dynamical system. It begs the question of exactly _how_ the wavefunction changes during the collapse, and as far as I know, nobody has presented any such model.
That's the measurement problem of quantum mechanics and why quantum mechanics is incomplete. The wavefunction evolves in a linear way but the application of the Born rule, the collapse of the wavefunction, is something outside of that. It's a nonlinear process that can't be modeled by quantum mechanics.
It's the way the theory is used that caused confusion. The Schrodinger's Equation says nothing about the seemingly discontinuous collapse upon observation because often problems are theoretically formulated in closed systems. If you actually include a measuring device in the Hamiltonian in your problem, then there is no abrupt collapse, but instead a rapid decoherence as information leaks out into the environment which looks experimentally like a 'collapse'. The idea is that the wave function never collapses and is unitary across the universe. This also tells you that Schrodinger's Cat decoheres very quickly into a definite state.
@@fruityoverlord9937 What exactly do you mean by "quickly"? The speed of light? Faster? Slower?
@@trucid2 If it can't be modelled, then it's outside of science. You can't have it both ways.
@@MelindaGreen Re-read what I wrote. I never said it can't be modeled. You're grasping at straws by attributing to me something I didn't say.
Sabine Hossenfelder says we should scrap many world's interpretation.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
Bill Clinton put it best when he said: 'It depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.'
I'm a fan of super-determinism. We are simply traveling through a universe that has been born, lived and died and we are simply viewing a slice of that universe unfold as time unfolds. Of course, this removes all concepts of free will (something I don't like), but ...
With respect, so what? Is there any particular reason why any rational person should care what you happen a fan of, when that is obviously no guide to whether it is actually true or not?
Great video.
Many Worlds is just too ridiculous and contrived and still problematic.
It may be a long time before a testable theory emerges and technology can perform the test. I'll place my bets on both Bell and Einstein and against Many Worlds, Retrocausality, or Copenhagen.
We know so little until we understand the question posed by the title, and the measurement problem and the implications Bell's inequality.
I wonder if conservation laws might play an outsized role in some way, just in that they might behave globally and non locally.
I figured this out the other day. Been trying to tell a few of my favorite scientists Don Lincoln and Dr Becky Smethurst lol few others. The collapse of the wave function is simple. If there are infinite universes then upon observation the particle is observed simultaniously in multiple universes at once and all measurements are simultaneously known avoiding breaking causality.
Except there's only one wave function. All those different outcomes of measurements are just mathematical components. They have no physical existence individually, so Many Worlds is just a mathematical fantasy.
@@RagingGeekazoid but in multiple universes there is multiple wave funcrions in multiple universes. Im really drunk right now! Lmao
@@justincosby2258 I'll let you sleep it off. 😄
No. Stop mistaking the map for the territory.
A Bernardo kasturp fan I see.👍
I think our entire universe must be quantum in nature. Maybe a block of some type of four dimensional matter in a state perpetual super position. Or maybe the universe is just one big probability wave. Im starting to that probability holds the key to the answers we seek. Maybe the only reason anything ever happens is because it can happen.
Some scientists ask why we exist. I sometimes think that we HAVE to exist. If we didn't, we wouldn't be asking the question.
the universe is probablistic, but because of the number of calculations involved, it appears deterministic on a large scale.
This is basically the many-worlds interpretation.
No
Many Worlds is the only interpretation that answers the Fine Tuning Principle, by stating that all possible universes exist!
But is this required for a good interpretation of quantum mechanics?
@@ScienceDiscussed My theory is, all possible universes than can exist do exist. To put it more formally, a universe would consist of a describable set of rules and a describable initial condition. This seems the most in tune with Many Worlds...although it's necessarily true that our universe has One Quantum World or Many Quantum Worlds within it. As a matter of fact, there could be some universes with One World and some with Many Worlds. Technically, we can't know which one were in.
@@ScienceDiscussed And neither theory explains which variable decides the randomness - either random collapse of Copenhagen or the random world we end up in within Many Worlds. Supposedly the "random variable" was disproven, but I've never seen a convincing argument.
@@paulthomas963 If your theory is God, you need a theory of what created God, why a good God would allow evil to exist, why a loving God would require blood sacrifices, why a loving God would send anyone to Hell for all of eternity, etc. However, my theory that all describable universes that can exist do exist would actually explain both the God-druven and Big Bang-driven universes. Christians and scientists could finally have a theory they all agree on!
Spelling - *continuous *spontaneous
Maybe conceptualize on my quantum guitar string theory as a model for the two universe effect when measuring a wave function. When your finger presses on the string, you now have two strings. Quantum entanglement is nothing but a dynamic standing wave in between the two entangled particles. I discovered this by playing with standing waves in the bathtub lol
nice information, but the dudes expression
Noob - where's your patreon? 😁
Haha I hadn't bothered setting one up. I worried that I didn't have much to give on top of the videos for people to subscribe to patreon.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Collapse
Wave fn.
Not consciousness.
There is no action at a distance that violates causality when you coordinate your two hands simultaneously in gesturing here because of the "hidden variable" of your mind that is casually connected to both space separated hands.
danmiller • Your mind coordinating your two hands is not a theoretical "action at a distance" ( which is non-existent ).
It is a concrete and simple REAL causal process.
I don't have an advanced education in science, although it does interest me. Anyway, in my life, when I have a problem, and no matter what I do, I can not solve it. I start over again, looking at the problem. I wouldn't continue to debate the resolutions, that just don't seem to resolve the problem. Maybe we are missing something. Science is political, unfortunately. It could be a career ender to challenge Einstein or Hawkins. That is apart of the human equation.
Prove it..
Leonardo da Vinci said "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions "Plato shared with us wisdom he learnt from Egypt, wisdom that was a death sentence in Greece, Rome (Christianity)..Pythagoras, Socrates and later Hypatia of Alexandria. Plato in his dialogue "The Republic "tells the parable of "The Cave "Plato starts by telling us of prisoners being held in a underground den, let us examine this den via the geometry of Bernhard Riemann and Felix Klein..Klein bottle..3rd and 4th dimensions. Plato tells us that the prisoners are bound up unable to move their heads, let us examine this bondage via the psychology of Erich Fromm..socialisation of consciousness..aware-unaware. Plato tells us that the prisoners mistake shadows for substance, let us examine this mistake via the philosophy of Thales, Hume and Kant..synthetic a priori judgement..not thing in itself. Plato tells us that one of the prisoners is released, let us examine this release via the wisdom of T Lobsang Rampa..stilling the mind and conscious astral travel..leaving the cave/body. Plato tells us that the prisoners will reject this release, let us examine this rejection via the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome..Plato quotes Homer..forgive them for they know not what they say. Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. Mathew 23 13 31.
All these video keep on presenting a single photon scenario and a measurement but they never tell how how they actually get a single photon and how they actually measure it.
There is many different types of single photon sources, quantum dots are one that is quite popular at the moment. Likewise, there are many ways to detect photons, I am not sure what exact detectors are typical but one open is superconducting nanowires, which switch from superconducting to metallic when they absorb a photon.
There is only one wave function. It is not plural.
Hello from Kazakhstan. We can save a lot of money on experimental physics. I am hope for your help.
Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The gravitational field controls the frequency and speed of light in a vacuum.
This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part
No, that's not how it works, either.
@@schmetterling4477 Рулетка для Вселенной, чёрных дыр и гравитационные волны; определяются через опыт Майкельсона Морли 1881 - 2023 г завершенный на 50%. Вторые 50% опыта возможно выполнить с помощью некруглых катушек с оптическим волокном в 6000 м. Гибрид устройства с габаритами 25 см, возможно применить в автотранспорте, при движении прямолинейно измерять скорость 20, 25, 30 м/сек.
Исходя из прямого 💯% опыта Майкельсона Морли возможно доказать постулаты:
Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Постулат 2. Гравитационные поля регулируют частоту и скоростью света в вакууме.
Мне нужна помощь в совместном реализации изобретения. Вы ведите переговоры с специалистами по производству оптоволоконных гироскопов. Техническая консультация по ГИБРИД - гироскопу и оплата стоимости тестового устройства с меня.
It seems as though you're a highly skilled English language speaker, yet the title for this video is grammatically incorrect ('actually'). Also, your microphone is upside down. The sound quality would be better if you pointed it towards your face.
Thanks for picking up the typo. I should update late at night. The microphone doesn't point up, the face that is pointing to the screen is the recording region.
During transitions between stationary states located at different energy levels the electron -which is in fact a material wave- moves occupying a continuum of intermediate ephemeral states while radiating or absorbing -as the case may be- a photon. This is what physically happens. But is not what quantum mechanics proposes.
On the definitely correct side, Schrödinger discovered the self adjoint energy operator H. This is a mathematical object whose eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are physically meaningful. The success of H has given undeserved validity to other -rather fallacious- components of Quantism.
When Quantism postulates the Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE) as the quantum law of movement for wave functions a most unfortunate and disgraceful mistake is committed.
The STDE is totally useless to explain the actual behavior of physical electrons. The failure of the STDE made necessary the introduction of special “quantum axioms”, namely:
1.- preference for eigenstates; and
2.- sudden, causeless jumps having an intrinsically random nature; followed by
3.- the uncertainty principle; topped by
4.- the probabilistic interpretation of wave functions.
Each of these postulates is a fallacy of the type known as “red herring”. Taken together they constitute the most successful red herring system of fallacies since the Middle Ages.
With the postulates the trajectories of the STDE are contradicted and artificial problems like the “collapse of the wave function” arise.
Since the trajectories of the STDE are energy conservative, the postulated “quantum jumps” -which imply a change of electron energy- create a theoretical contradiction. Physical transitions between stationary states do happen and should be obtainable from an appropriate time dependent equation. The STDE is a failure that has to be excised from Physics and thrown away.
Happily, physical electrons do not care about human theoretical errors. They keep momentarily stopping at stationary states and then performing their deterministic, continuous transitions, while radiating and absorbing photons, as always done.
To rescue Physics from its quantum maladies the correct law of movement has to be postulated. Then the four listed axioms become unnecessary.
The correct law of movement for bound physical electrons is a Hamiltonian, non-linear, quadratic, deterministic time dependent equation (DTDE).
The DTDE simultaneously establishes the correct law of movement for both the bound electron and the bound photon.
To deterministically describe photon absorption/emission the non-linear system should be further enlarged to include interactions with free photons.
Physics should soon regain for the world of particles the deterministic and continuous schemes that intelligently approximate the manner in which the physical universe behaves.
Daniel Crespin
The more I think about it, the more I come to realize just what it is we're trying to do when measuring a quantum system. All particles are an epiphenomenon, like waves on a pond, but they are *not* probability waves. There are no particles. It's all a kind of soup--everything affects everything else in the universe. There are deep connections between the observer and the observed, such that the boundaries between the observer and the observed, the experimenter and the experiment, are blurred. When a measurement apparatus tries to measure a quantum system, it also measures itself!
It's like an M.C. Escher painting where the artist draws himself. Why should the result not be strange and bizzare?
That is the fallacy of appealing to your own incredulity/ignorance.
you will never ever ever know
I will say this: Quantum physics is a grab-asstic mess. You're demonstrating it this video just as I'd see in other TH-cam Pop-Science influencers. For example: 5:22
Bell Test rules out local hidden variable (LHVs) but there is still a possibility that there are "some" LHVs - but that is for another discussion later??? Why?
After all, the Nobel Prize hander-outers said "We like this Bell Test stuff!!!"
Quantum mechanics follows trivially from Kolmogorov's axioms and relativity. That you and the maker of this video don't know that doesn't make quantum mechanics a mess. It simply makes both of you uneducated. ;-)
bro exlpained all the fap in 10 mins
Quantum mechanics whahahahah 🧐🙃🙉
I wonder if the quantum wave collapses and makes a cavitation bubble... That produces the power of the electron.
A physical measurement will not interrupt the unitary time evolution of a wavefunction and, therefore, cannot cause it to "collapse". The wavefunction only collapses when we become aware of the measurement.
quantum mechanics is non-relativistic, so infinite speeds are fine. Wrong, but fine.
Interpretation??? What??? Interpretation is mist likely philosophy not exactly the science. Thus it is probably not quit the true.
The Copenhagen Interpretation tells you exactly what is happening in quantum mechanics. There is nothing left to imagination there and it's all testable in the lab. The problem is simply that most people (some theoretical physicists included!) have never seen an actual quantum experiment, so they can't make the (more or less obvious) connections between the symbols and reality.
Those pecs are a bit too distracting...
6:30 is the most homophobic thing I've seen today!
Another really terrible quantum physics video
im sorry but theres no way you didnt see it in post production my guy